WATCHMEN RULING: Where Was Larry?

COMMENTS (4)

• I still look at this and wonder how in hell Warner Bros. legal Dept. cleared this production. Presumably they would have reviewed all the paper involved…

  Comment by Bill Cunningham — Thursday December 25, 2008 @ 7:01pm PST  Reply to this post

• Oh that’s very interesting. Sounds like the judge is just a wee bit ticked and just put a gag on Gordon. Sounds like Gordon was done talking in the deposition and now the Judge is done listening.

  Excellent.

  Comment by Deb — Friday December 26, 2008 @ 7:01am PST  Reply to this post

• Although this footnote seems juicy, it’s pretty plain and common statement of legal practice. Once a factual record has been closed and a decision issued based on that record, a court is highly reluctant to allow further evidence. Especially in a case like this, where a party had his chance to offer evidence into the record but declined, a judge is not disposed to allowing that same party to come back later and say, “Hey Judge, I have more evidence now that contradicts your decision!” Judge Feess was obviously not happy with the dubious attorney-client privilege argument but what he’s saying here is a routine legal principle. After the factual record is closed, it’s hard to reopen it.

  Comment by Peter Lee — Saturday December 27, 2008 @ 6:00pm PST  Reply to this post

• warners legal is so lame! they really suck! remember dukes of hazard? Maybe they should hire some real lawyers, like the ones at sony

  Comment by darrel — Tuesday December 30, 2008 @ 5:54pm PST  Reply to this post