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.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #4
This response references geometric shapes, costumes, etc. I draw your attention to page 8, where plaintiffs talk about the Klingon symbol, which the defense had referred to as a three-pointed star:
There is a supporting Grossman Declaration and an exhibit (the other exhibits were filed under seal):
Most noteworthy in this exhibit another excerpt from the Gossett deposition), Mr. Gossett testified:
… this dream of his to do this short film for submission
to CBS as he described it to me was its role. Repeating
constantly his — how he was — had the favor of CBS and
in essence the sanction of CBS to do this.
This motion sought to preclude plaintiffs from
relying on evidence regarding items that are unoriginal, in the public domain, or from third parties.
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #5
Most noteworthy, on page 5, plaintiffs state:
Finally, the underlying basis for seeking to
exclude these witnesses is Peters’ claim that these witnesses do not like him. There
is no rule of law, and Defendants cite none, that the only witnesses who can testify
are those that like the Defendants.
Seriously, if anyone wants to see a lawsuit where the parties testifying don’t like each other, sit in on a divorce case some time.
This motion sought to preclude plaintiffs from “relying on evidence concerning personal drama, smear campaign, and other irrelevant communications, including witnesses Christian Gossett [and] Terry McIntosh.”
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #6
And this one comes with yet another Grossman Declaration.
The declaration is mainly redacted, sorry.
Furthermore, this motion sought to preclude plaintiffs from “referring to irrelevant superseded scripts.”
Response to Axanar Defense Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence #7
So this one is about the studio. Hence I suspect it will be granted; the renting of the Valencia space goes directly to profits and may go to intent as well. It also refers to (see Page 4):
Defendants’ gross revenue received from the infringing conduct amounts to
approximately $1.5 million. If the Court grants Defendants’ motion to exclude
evidence relating to Axanar’s expenditures, and thus eliminates Plaintiffs’ ability
challenge the appropriateness of any expenses, it should only do so subject to
Defendants’ stipulation that the entirety of the funds raised for the Axanar Works
constitute profits from infringing conduct. Further, Peters has been sued personally
as a direct and indirect infringer (and the Court has already determined that if the
jury finds substantial similarity of the Axanar Works with the Star Trek Works, that
Peters is personally liable as an infringer), so monies paid to him with respect to
Axanar constitute his “gross revenues” as an infringer, and are indispensable
evidence regarding Peters’ profit from Axanar.
This motion sought to preclude “introduction or mention of certain of defendants’ financial information and inaccurate reference to ‘profits’ defendants allegedly earned.”