Karaoke Forums

If this is the appeal of the Panama City awards timerlea, all I remember SC got was the retail value of the SC product, that was like less than $5,000.00 apiece, right? How many months has James been working on this? I know he gets paid the big bucks, didn't he say 400.00 an hour? If that is the same suit didn't one of the defendants just walk and he didn't even have a lawyer? Have a blessed day.

The only reason the court found for that defendant is because he (a) destroyed the evidence when he found out he was sued, and (b) the judge said we didn't do enough to try to recover the destroyed evidence.

So, that one's on us.

But it's a mistake we won't make again.

Oh here we go again. Just how would you go about recovering destroyed evidence? If he formatted the drive it's gone forever. If he took a hammer to it and threw it in the landfill it's gone forever. Even if he just deleted SC material and then wiped the free space it is gone forever.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

That was our point--he admitted he had destroyed the evidence. The court said that we should have tried to recover it. We argued that wasn't possible, but the judge said we should have tried anyway, so the "adverse inference" we were relying on to make our case wasn't drawn.

We won't make that mistake again.

ALLEGEDLY destroyed would be more accurate, wouldn't it? If it were proven it was destroyed, wouldn't the court have reacted accordingly, wouldn't they? I do understand the same level of accurate verbage isn't required in a forum post, but speaking more accurately doesn't necessarily weaken one's position...

He admitted on the record that he had destroyed the evidence.

Doo, please read what is written. The Defendant ADMITTED TO DESTROYING EVIDENCE. Nothing alleged here.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

So since you DID NOT try, the court ruled in favor of the defendant?



So all you need to do in the future is only TRY to recover a defendants admitted destroyed evidence even if there is no evidence to recover?

_________________
-- Mark

Just so you understand, which is evidently important to you, I created my post before the clarification was made, and it didn't post until afterward, for some reason. Just wanted to inform you that your opinion of my ability to read was not requested. Now on to the response...

Given that the admission of destruction of SOMETHING occurred, and that the judge did not allow his "admission" to carry any weight, the corrected assessment might be that there was a destruction of alleged evidence. I cannot help but believe that if he admitted in court that he had destroyed copies of SC material on a hard drive, that the judge would have entertained that in the proceedings.

Before anyone says it, just ask Casey Anthony's bunch if splitting hairs makes any difference...

Judges at times do foolish things or interpret law wrong or whatever, which is why there are Appeal Courts.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

And vice versa...forgive me for contributing to a completely obvious conclusion...

and if the original judge decides he was remiss in not ordering legal fees to SC the amount of the judgement would increase tremendously

How likely is it that the judge would increase the judgement, since the appeals court ruled he was within his authority to authorize any amount he saw fit? Many judges don't take kindly to having the verdicts appealed and overturned, in the future I would think SC would steer clear of this judge and maybe judge Wright in California. Have a blessed day.

The point is he beat you no matter what kind of a spin you want to put on it James. He did it without a lawyer, these other venues paid the retail value of the stolen material because they fought back, and didn't ignore the court. Unlike the other 7 Florida venues who didn't fight back and ended up paying almost 10 times more apiece. I don't think you are going to get many more cheap victories, hosts and venues are going to start fighting back. The best way to fight back is to boycott your product totally. You have earned such treatment by your treatment of others. You are just one manu trying very hard to control an entire industry. One thing you should learn is a little humility. After all the dog wags the tail, the tail doesn't wag the dog. Have a legal day.

I thought I read that both sides had points asking for legal fees, both denied, both sent back for review. If I did read that properly, SC could possibly "win" the case, but end up coming out for a loss.

That's funny I though the name of the game was recovery? With no profit out of all of this, doesn't it make the whole legal process from a practical standpoint for SC plain bad business. Since the legal process is supposed to make the company money.