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 Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Motion
So I have the plaintiffs summary judgment motion in my hot little hands.
However, the motion is actually for what’s called partial summary judgment.
I have a ton of documents. And it will not do anyone any good for me to go through every single one of them. Because if I went through every single page, I would end up writing a good ten or so blog posts. And I would split them in order to keep from writing huge blog posts that would never see the light of day. Hence I’m just happy the hearing won’t happen until December 19, 2016. However, the matter could still settle before then. Yet either way, I paid a good $80 or so for all of these documents (no lie!) and so I will blog about them. In addition, I feel they interest you, the readers. Still, I will do my damndest to keep these blog posts short. Because, let’s face it, a lot of trees died for this.
And that means few images. However, you can click on whatever you like. Because I have paid for these documents and they are a matter of public record. And you, a member of the public, have the right to know.
A Word About Redactions
Furthermore, three of the documents were originally incorrectly redacted. Hence I am only going by redactions (and have created properly redacted versions thereof). Because there is plenty to go over without peeking under anyone’s skant. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ counsel already petitioned the court to re-redact the documents and correct their error (and their motion was granted, so the newly, correctly redacted documents are what’s officially in the record now). So as a professional courtesy to my fellow attorneys (I would do this for defense counsel as well, folks), I will not reveal what was under the redactions.
First of all, a number of the exhibits are under seal and so no one can see them who isn’t directly involved in this case. Furthermore, I am presenting most of these without comment simply because they speak for themselves. However, if you want any of the missing exhibits, feel free to hit me up on the Contact page and we will figure out some way to get them to you.
Exhibit C (Gossett Deposition)
And so I direct your attention to the line of inquiry spilling from page 4 to 5 in the Gossett deposition.
And now I direct you to page 8.
And while there are any number of interesting statements in the Gossett deposition, in the interests of brevity, let’s move on.