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 Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ex Parte Relief
So the Axanar Defense Response came in quickly (the parties were under a strict deadline!). And as expected, the response drags on but defense had to do it right quick. So as always, we’ll go through it line by line. It’s huge – sorry! Furthermore, this post is the sequel to the plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an order and the David Grossman declaration and exhibits.
Axanar Defense Response
First of all, as always, we start with a good old cover page.
And then this page is another simple exhibit cover sheet.
So now we get to a new email chain; this one starts on October 10, 2016. Yet again, defense counsel mentions a privilege log.
And plaintiffs’ counsel (the emails are in reverse chronological order) mentions scheduling Terry McIntosh’s deposition. Because the specifics have been hashed over several times, I won’t repeat them here, as defense repeats what she said in her declaration.
So this is the second page of the Ranahan email, dated October 3.
And since we are back to the October 3, 2016 email, there is really no good reason to go in depth herein.
And just in case you had not read it three times before, we see the exact same September 20 Ranahan email, yet again. So seriously, folks, I’m as bored as I bet you are.
And yet again, this is a duplicate set of emails.
Finally, we end with more duplicate emails.
After these documents’ filings, the parties hurried up as the date for discovery closed on November 2, 2016 and there was a settlement conference on Halloween. Furthermore, a second settlement conference was scheduled for November 4 (on the telephone), and then another set for November 10 and then yet another scheduled for the 14th of November. The parties seemed to seesaw in terms of how close they would get to a settlement. And this included Peters claiming they were close and requesting donors ‘manage [their] expectations’ and then the next time claiming he would only agree to a settlement if allowed to make Axanar to his and his donors’ collective satisfaction. And as we often see, the judges (both Eick and Klausner) have pushed the parties to try to settle.
I have the rulings and minutes regarding settlement discussions, but they are rather sparse and not really worth the time to blog about them beyond this brief summary.
However, as promised, we will blog about this matter even if the case is settled or it goes to summary judgment.