The routine mechanics of civil litigation have been steadily moving along in the past few weeks. Nothing new in the bankruptcy case has occurred since our last report. The next bankruptcy hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2009 in which Psystar's Motion to Dismiss its bankruptcy case will be considered. I remind the reader that despite the fact that the case is not yet officially dismissed, Psystar declared that it had been in a promotional email to its customers. Since I am fairly certain that Apple has not yet invented time machine technology for Psystar to misappropriate, that statement remains a tad premature.
The last activity we reported in the California case was the news that Psystar requested leave for substitution of counsel. Their proposed new lead law firm is none other than Camara & Sibley, LLP of Houston, Texas; the firm that represented Jammie Thomas against the RIAA in which Ms. Thomas not only lost, the RIAA was awarded even more monetary damages than sought. I am not so certain that such a recent track record should recommend itself to Psystar who's less than forthright activities and thus far shaky legal position are not exactly pristine. Ms. Thomas' loss was due to a combination of many factors and cannot be placed solely, if at all, at the feet of the skill of her attorneys (and I agree with Groklaw that the damages are unconscionable). Case decisions involve many complex relations that cannot be reduced so easily, and it appears that the jury followed the law as written—law which is highly hated by many and arguably unduly oppressive. That being said, however, if I were Psystar, I would be concerned that perhaps their new firm cannot rehabilitate their blackened case and image; fair or not. Jammie was a sympathetic defendant; Psystar is not.
Previously, I had been curious and speculated as to why Psystar might have retained a Texas law firm. One theory, which I stated as absolutely pure speculation, now appears extremely unlikely. The Texas location of the new firm appears to be entirely coincidental to the notorious reputation of one Texas court District. Camara & Sibley positions itself as a flat fee/contingency fee firm that allows their clients to limit their legal fee exposure and "make intelligent decisions about whether and when to settle or compromise." For Psystar, who "may" (they aren't talking) be planning on stiffing their prior counsel, that would be an attractive benefit (the cost part—I am not convinced of the intelligent part considering that their CEO answered "I don't know" over eighty times to basic financial questions during his 30(b)(6) deposition). The firm's home page boasts this image:
I called their offices to confirm that the yellow dots represented active matters rather than local offices. The caption of "active matters nationwide" appeared after my phone call. Their representative did tell me that the website was under active construction and not yet complete. As you can see, there is a South Florida connection which may be how they became involved with Psystar. I performed a Florida Southern District check and could not find either named partner as being listed as counsel on any case, active or otherwise. I also performed searches in the state court system dockets for Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Broward counties without success. As the firm's page does not list associate attorneys it is possible that there is an associate involved in an active case or that there is a specialty docket that I did not search as I made the assumption that the most likely case involvement would be in the civil state court or civil federal court system for the South Florida area.
Recent Case Activity
July 23, 2009: The parties filed an agreed Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference due to the fact they are they busily conducting discovery, and Psystar's recently retained counsel needs time to get up to speed so that the conference can meaningfully proceed. On July 24, 2009 the Court agreed to postpone the settlement conference until October 6, 2009 (see page three of previous link). This date change does not affect the trial date or any other deadlines.
July 27, 2009: The Court granted Kiwi Camara's Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Psystar. Wikipedia provides a good definition of "pro hac vice" for those unfamiliar with the term:
Pro hac vice, Latin for "for this occasion" or "for this event," (literally, "for this turn") is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.
Lastly, the transcript of the January 22, 2009 hearing regarding Psystar's copyright misuse counter-claim is now publicly available. World of Apple had purchased a copy right after the hearing and reported on it here.
In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.