• About
• Latest Posts

Janet Gershen-Siegel

Jespah (Janet Gershen-Siegel) has been a fan of Star Trek since probably the first set of reruns of The Original Series. She has an eclectic background, including an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, a JD (she practiced insurance defense law for a few years in New York and is a lot happier since she retired from that in 1990), and a MS in Interactive Media, which is a real-live social media degree.

Along the way, she has about a decade and a half of data analysis work under her belt and currently works as a blog coordinator for a high-end wedding blog and also as a blogger for hire (topics include diverse subjects like ad retargeting but also the nursing job market), and has a shingle out to work on social media presence, with a focus on independent authors as she is also a published science fiction author. Plus, she has been a community manager for a large Q & A website since 2002, which is before that existed as a job title.

She was raised on Long Island so, when she is riled up, the accent gallops back out and she can sound like Fran Drescher with a law degree. She lives in Boston with her husband of over 20 years and more computers than they need.

She can always be bribed with pie.

Latest posts by Janet Gershen-Siegel (see all)

• Semantic Shenanigans Episode 16 – Wakanda Driving Privileges - May 13, 2018
• Semantic Shenanigans Episode 15 – Coldplay Justice - January 27, 2018
• Indie Writer Woes – Protect Yourselves! - November 17, 2017

Axanar Defense Objection to Plaintiffs Motion

I have the Axanar Defense Objection to Plaintiffs Motion. And I sincerely hope this is the last of the motion work for a while. Because I know I’m sick of it! Aren’t you?

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Partial SJ Motion

Axanar Defense Objection to Plaintiffs Motion, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Partial SJ Motion

Since this document was already analyzed, I won’t add to that (because God knows neither of us want to go over it again, do ya?).

Evidentiary Objections to JVC Declaration

Axanar Defense Objection to Plaintiffs Motion, Evidentiary Objections to JVC Declaration

So this document consists of an effort to attempt to discredit John Van Citters, CBS’s Vice President of Product, as an expert witness in this case. And if you feel a lot of these objections have been made due to technicalities, you would be right. While the court understandably does not wish to qualify any old person as an expert, courts will also (generally) give some pretty broad latitude in this area. After all, this is not a medical malpractice claim. Furthermore, defense has presented, among other persons, Jonathan Lane as an expert. Hence I suspect these objections will mainly fail.

What’s Up with the FASA Game?

In addition, one interesting part of this document concerns objections about the FASA game. Although not originally listed as one of the items defense was infringing upon, defense claims it’s off the table. However, plaintiffs reserved their rights to amend their interrogatory responses to include more such material if it should come to light. So, what will the court do? The court will probably (of course I have no crystal ball, and I have never appeared in front of this particular judge) allow for an amendment including the FASA game as yet another instance of infringement. Why? Because most courts don’t enjoy these sorts of gotcha games.

Hearsay, You Say?

Furthermore, defense claims a lot of Mr. Van Citters’s statement is hearsay. Well, of course it is.

So, ya shocked? You shouldn’t be. Because any out of court statement, used to prove the veracity thereof, is hearsay. In addition, this is probably an objection better suited to the trial itself (if this case gets that far, as it still might not). Hence, any hearsay objection may possibly be considered premature (and Van Citters’s statements, because they might see use to potentially impeach his testimony, probably fall under an exception, anyway).

Evidentiary Objections to Grossman Declaration

Axanar Defense Objection to Plaintiffs Motion, Evidentiary Objections to Grossman Declaration

Yet again, the objections mainly center around hearsay. And the document cites the Federal Rules of Evidence § 801. And in this instance, defense might have a point. Because despite how interesting the statements about defendant Peters using donor funds to purchase tires, etc. is, those statements are probably more properly made in opening statements.

What’s Next?

Oral arguments are scheduled for December 19, 2016. And then we should get a decision from Judge Klausner. And I suspect both motions will fail, by the way.

After that, we may see a short break (after all, the holidays are just about upon us) or we may see an interlocutory appeal. Since that will depend upon the judge’s decision, I can’t really comment on what might be more likely. In addition, we might see neither, and just get to either a settlement or slouch toward trial in January of 2017. Either way, please stay tuned and I will do my best to keep you informed. Furthermore, have you got questions? Then head on over to the Contact page and let me know, thanks!