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 Motion Objections
The Axanar Motion Objections (to the various Motions in Limine by both parties) have arrived. Fortunately, even though there are a lot of documents, they mostly do not require a lot of analysis. Because we have all read these arguments already. Hence I will not comment much, unless it is something truly of interest. However, as always, if you do not understand something or want me to go over it again, please feel free to contact me and I will endeavor to answer you as quickly as I can.
We will start with defense.
Plaintiffs’ Axanar Motion Objections to the Defense’s Motions in Limine
First of all, these objections pair up with the defense’s motions in limine. Therefore, you might want to refer back and forth. Plaintiffs also moved to file a document under seal. Again, we have seen a lot of these before; it’s pretty standard so I won’t add it.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #1
First of all, this motion sought to preclude evidence concerning discovery violations. And this one seemed to favor defense, for they were correct that they were never sanctioned for defendant Peters and witness Burnett not producing certain documents.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #2
This motion has a pair of declarations, each with two attached exhibits. Note: any missing exhibits were filed under seal. I cannot retrieve them.
This exhibit consists of an email written by Christian Gossett regarding using the FASA book as a bible in writing Axanar.
And this exhibit consists of an excerpt from the Gossett deposition regarding the use of the FASA book.
This exhibit consists of an email chain regarding discovery, where Mr. Zavin states Ms. Ranahan tends to ‘weaponize’ meet and confers.
And this exhibit consists of the plaintiffs’ expert witness disclosure regarding John Van Citters.
This motion sought to preclude evidence not disclosed in a timely fashion under the court’s scheduling order. However, this motion made nearly the opposite argument as the one made for motion #1. Because in motion #1, their client didn’t produce documents at all. And in motion #2, they sought to exclude documents provided (according to defense) late. However, just as there were no sanctions referenced in motion #1, there were none in motion #2. Or to put it in laymen’s terms, this was an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, too.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #3
In this instance, the exhibits are identical to those relied upon for the plaintiffs’ objections to the defense’s motion in limine #2. Therefore, I will not upload them again.
So this motion sought to preclude introducing evidence about infringed works not identified in the first amended complaint. However, that’s not what the Axanar Amended Complaint said. Rather, on page 11, it stated:
The copied copyrighted Star Trek elements include, but are not limited to, those listed below:
However, I have no doubt that defense knew this meant the list was not to be considered all-inclusive.