Re: The Stay Motion--sorry about the lack of paragraphs . . .
in response to
by
posted on
Oct 30, 2007 04:48PM
I had them in Word, pasted them in Agora--and lost them. Here is the message with paragraphs--easier to read.
-----
Hello allI admit I recently turned on Agora and discovered this new Pacer information, and have not had time yet to digest it all, but I wanted to add (hopefully) something to the discussion. We filed similar stay motions to halt an entire case for 30 or 45 days several times (assuming that is what the motion is indeed pertaining to). In our cases, we did so because we were preparing to pay to retain expensive experts, fly around the country to take final depositions, pay $100 an hour to paralegals and a lot more than that to lawyers to sift through mountains of documents to prepare for upcoming motions, trial, and so forth. But when our clients and the opposing side broke down certain barriers that made settlement much more likely or indeed nearly certain, and it was a matter of finalizing a few matters both sides deemed pro forma, why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours when they are no longer deemed necessary?Someone mentioned JW may have ruled on ACP already (or words to that effect). I recall sitting in chambers once, with a similar motion outstanding (not in the patent arena, I must stress). Trial was six weeks out. The judge turned to me and said, "Counsel, I must say I found your arguments very persuasive." With that, he turned and looked down his nose at the opposing counsel. The message was very clear. That, shall we say, made the burr under his saddle blanket start to feel more like a sharp nail. That said, I do not believe the ACP ruling in our case is all that important, one way or the other (IMHO).All of this MAY (and I stress MAY) be the logic behind this motion.