Filing a what?

Back to law school for Magee

Crime fraud element enters Rambus case

Poor old Mike needs to brush up on his US law it seems - according to David Browne at least:

The following is possibly the worst piece of legal writing I have ever seen. Even taking into account that you are neither a lawyer nor an American, it is still rather startling.

"Although Rambus immediately filed another deposition with the judge asking for a stay of these parts of the order, which he granted, this does not mean that such stay will be stayed forever. He's thinking about it and asking both parties to re-submit. The linen may, if the case goes to trial, may then be aired in public.

"The significance of the March 7th order means the judge must, on the 6th of March, have thought there was a case, on the face of it, to allow Infineon to drag the "crime fraud" element into the up and coming trial."

Naturally, Mike immediately apologised for this outrage. But that wasn't the end of the matter. Ed Stepans immediately weighed in with:

In your article regarding the Rambus trial in Virginia, you refer in two places to "depositions" filed with the Court. "Depositions" are not (generally) documents filed with a court. Rather, they are (generally) pre-trial takings of testimony under oath of witnesses. One cannot file a "deposition" for summary judgment (that's "judgment," with an "e"), one must file a MOTION for summary judgment. Similarly, one cannot file a "deposition" for a stay of a judge's order, one must file a MOTION for stay.

This correction has been circulated to the Vulture Central hacks. Anyone who makes a similar error in future will spend a day in the stocks. We hope this is satisfactory.