Harry Potter Lexicon Trial

Description: RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Time Warner Cable Inc. as Corporate Parent. Document filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.(jpo) (Entered: November 2, 2007)
Date Filed: October 31, 2007
Justia URL: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/2/
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. This is not legal advice or analysis. This is not a true-and-correct representation of anything related to the case. This is provided for entertainment purposes only. Not responsible for typos, html errors, ommissions, or misinterpretations. Read at your own risk. Hail Eris.
Layman's description: Of no interest to anyone who's not a lawyer. When the LOL translation of the trial is written, this doc will say "WE HAZ A CORPRAYSHUN." Says Warner Bros. is a real-and-legit corporation registered in the US yadda yadda.

( Don't bother clicking; this is entirely the most boring document in the whole trial. )

Description: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant, RDR Books shall show cause as to why enjoining Defendant ( yadda yadda ) It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant will produce documents responsive to the requests for production attached to ( long lists of legal details )
Date Filed: November 2, 2007
Justia URL: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/3/
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Fan resource, not a legal one.

Layman's description: Judge demands RDR/SVA say why they shouldn't be stopped from publication. Or maybe stops them from publication, pending an actual trial ruling. Anyway, this is the court saying "make a defense, or at least the start of one, or the ruling goes against you."

---

( Actual document )

Description: MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 3 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,. Document filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., J. K. Rowling. (Cendali, Dale) (Entered: November 5, 2007)
Date Filed: November 5, 2007
Justia URL: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/4/
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. This is not legal advice or analysis.
Layman's description: "Please, Mr. Judge, make them not publish that nasty book until the trial is over, 'cos it's likely we're gonna win, and if we win and they publish it, we're hurtin' lots and lots, and if they win (which they won't) they haven't lost much at all."

---

( This was 15 pages in PDF, so it's really long. I've removed page references in the table of contents. )

Justia URL: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. This is not legal advice or analysis. This is fannish musings about a Harry Potter-related trial. If I've mangled the descriptions of some docs, I welcome correction; if you got into legal trouble following my descriptions, then you need to have your head examined.

I've looked over the filings, and have a rough breakdown of what they are. There are 79 documents numbering 1-86 (some numbers are skipped).

Quick rundown:
1: Initial complaint by WB/JKR: They be stealin' mah copyrites.
2: Boring legal statment that WB exists.
3: Judge's order to RDR/SVA/Etc. demanding they, umm, participate in the trial.
4: Memo of Law--WB/JKR legalese demanding immediate action to avoid losing much $$ if they win.
5-8: Various statements in support of #3.
9: Judge's order demanding RDR stop publication while trial is sorted out.
10-12, 16-21: Legalese saying who's a lawyer and address forms and when & how discovery will or won't happen.
22-41: Various WB/JKR docs in support of the initial complaint & stop-publication injunction.
42: Amended Complaint. Haven't read it yet; says about the same thing with possibly updated language in spots.
43-45: Legalese about who's gonna lawyer for whom.
46: Opposition to Injunction: RDR's reply and why they think the Lexicon is legit & legal.
47-52: Statements supporting RDR/SVA.
53: Boring legal statement; see #2.
55-59, 61-63: Supplemental statements supporting WB/JKR.
60: Memo of law on WB/JKR's side.
64-66: Evidence declaration and scheduling docs.
67: RDR/etc Answer to Amended Complaint (Haven't read this one yet either.)
68-75: More schedules & announcements of lawyerdom.
76: Pretrial memo, RDR
77: Pretrial memo, JKR/WB
78-81: More legalese announcements and requests for time and such.
82: Def. Motion in Limine--RDR wants to exclude 900 pages of analysis, including presumably the "pie chart of fail."
83: Pltf Opp to Motion--WB/JKR insists that the 900 pages are just summations of previous materials, and necessary to their case.
84: Judge arranges to look at exhibits. Or something like that.
85-86: More lawyerese about lawyers involved in the case.

( Contemplating how much energy to put into this )