Ok Got it. But I have to say this, I thought in my reading of at least one of the documents the judge did order the return of the evidence documents. Now, I could be wrong. Also, since the documents were not ordered destroyed(on which I believe everyone can agree), what was there to keep B & G from returning the orginals(so to speak) and keeping copies? I mean was someone going to come and search their files?
Di, immediately after getting the case dismissed (< 90 minutes after the status conference ended), Simpson demanded that we surrender not just the originals but also all copies. I do not recall if he also demanded a sworn statement to that effect, but in his last threatening letter he did.
I do not think Simpson is just bumbling along not knowing what he is doing.
Here's from the dismissal order:
I will order that all materials produced in discovery that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be returned, as set forth in that order.
Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only be permitted if permitted under that order.
...
THE COURT: Well, it's -- it is transferable, unless it's subject to the confidentiality order. If it's subject to the confidentiality order, you have to return it, or do whatever the order says you're supposed to do with it; and, you know, you have gained presumably a certain amount of information. You're not required to erase it from your brain, and you can use it consistent with the terms of the order as -- as may be permitted by that order, but that's --
(Doc. 141 pp. 12, 14-15).
Now Di, isn't it pretty clear that Saylor was only ordering the return of documents if the confidentiality order so required? Do you have to have a law degree to see that?
Further, even if we returned the originals, isn't it clear that we can keep copies if the confidentiality order permits?
The confidentiality order consists of two parts: 6 pages laying out the terms of the order, and a 2-page exhibit, Exhibit A, that certain non-litigants must sign before receiving any confidential documents from a litigant. The only return requirement mentioned anywhere in that order is in Exhibit A, not in the 6 pages that apply to me.
And I think Simpson has understood this all along. I think this is why Atty. Charles Bappert tried to get me to sign Exhibit A when he sent me the Remnant documents. I think Simpson wanted to get us to be legally bound to return those documents.
But I didn't fall for it. I called Bappert and told him I didn't need to sign it, and he didn't argue with me at all about it.
Exhibit A is a way for the court to obtain jurisdiction of non-parties so that the court can enforce the confidentiality order upon a non-litigant. But the court already has jurisdiction over me.
In some respects one could say, "already had jurisdiction" instead of "already has." My understanding is that since the case was dismissed, the court has authority to enforce the existing order, or relieve the existing order's obligations under Rule 60. But the court does not have jurisdiction to alter the existing order to impose new obligations upon us under rule 60. In order for Simpson to legally get that order altered to force us to surrender all copies, he would have to file a new action against us.
Returning just the originals and keeping copies isn't good enough for Simpson. He doesn't want us to keep anything, even though Exhibit A permits non-litigants to retain the materials until 30 days after the end of all appeals. Understand? Simpson even wants us to surrender everything before the appeals are over!
I do not have any record of Simpson returning any documents either Gailon or I had designated confidential. Now why would that be if Simpson really believes all confidential documents must be returned?
And then there is the issue of who designated the Remnant documents as confidential. Remnant denied that they did. How can Danny or 3ABN have standing to designate documents pertaining to DLS Publishing, Inc. as confidential? DLS has never contacted us, not once. Jerrie Hayes explicitly told the magistrate in Minnesota that she was representing Danny, not DLS, and the magistrate didn't think Danny had standing to complain about our subpoenaing bank records pertaining to DLS.
The bottom line is that Judge Saylor said we could keep copies if the confidentiality order permits, the confidentiality order doesn't require litigants to return anything or to sign Exhibit A, and Simpson won't be satisfied if we keep any copies whatsoever.
Author
Topic: Petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc filed (Read 41372 times)
