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)
- Indie Writer Woes – Protect Yourselves! - November 17, 2017
- Semantic Shenanigans Episode 12 – Nepotism - October 28, 2017
- Semantic Shenanigans Show #11 – It Goes Up to Eleven - September 30, 2017
Defense Application for Leave to File Document under Seal
We have the defense application for leave to file a document under seal (related to their motion for summary judgment). Because these documents are a matter of public record, and I have paid for them, I offer them to you freely. Furthermore, in case you have any questions, kindly go to the Contact page and send a note. I will do my best to answer you in a timely fashion.
Defense Application to File Document under Seal
First of all, this document mainly contains duplicates of other exhibits and documents. Hence I include copies of those older analyses.
Furthermore, the document concerns itself with previously issued, unredacted documents. Also known as: barn door open; horse in next county.
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Genuine Issues
In addition, these documents come from the Defense Reply Brief. Hence I will just repeat what I wrote there.
This side by side comparison of defense’s initial statements, then plaintiffs’ responses thereto, and then defense’s secondary responses, rehashes more old territory. And this includes the claim that plaintiffs’ don’t own a copyright in the “Star Trek universe”. Consider this: if plaintiffs had claimed a specific copyright in the “Star Trek universe”, defense would argue that was overly broad and sweeping.
Yes, welcome to Contradictions 101.
Additional arguments center around the FASA game and whether any profit was intended. Because we’ve covered this before, let’s move on.
In addition, this portion (split off because the court’s electronic filing system has limits) address the ‘fan film’ vs. ‘independent production’ dichotomy, claiming that statements of Axanar being more than a fan film only had to do with quality and nothing more.
Objections to Van Citters Declaration
Because this document comes from the Defense Reply Brief, I just repeat what I said therein.
In addition, defense’s objections to plaintiffs using Van Citters as an expert witness center around technicality objections and not much else.
Brian Li-A-Ping Declaration, Exhibit 3
Because this is the 50-page Christian Tregellis report already covered, I will refrain from repeating myself.
Furthermore, this filing includes the already-covered Alec Peters declaration, dated December 5, 2016.
We do have rulings on these applications.
- Defense Application for Leave to File Document under Seal, Order 1 of 2
- Defense Application for Leave to File Document under Seal, Order 2 of 2
- and the Defense Application for Leave to File Document under Seal – Daniel O’Rourke deposition excerpt (exhibit 2)
And what came out and interested me the most was a ruling in order #1 denying the request to file Exhibit MMM under seal. This exhibit shows up in the Gossett testimony and apparently consists of a document titled, “Casting Announcement/Breakdown: Star Trek Axanar.” Hence if we get it, I will provide it. However, we do have Exhibit 2 (which concerns the fan film guidelines) and I’ve attached it, supra).
Furthermore, we might see more documents before oral arguments on December 19, 2016. However, I doubt that. And I hope we don’t! I want to enjoy my holidays – don’t you? However, if more come in, I’ll get out a blog post on them. As for a decision, we may see Judge Klausner provide a short decision and then a longer written one after the first of the year. The trial is still scheduled for late in January of 2017. Furthermore, the case could still settle. So please stay tuned!