14 DAY TRIAL // As Apple and some upset iPod owners were duking it out in court earlier this month, the likes of Bloomberg and AP decided that it would be an awesome idea to step in and make a few demands of their own.
Judge Gonzales Rogers actually had to review additional papers brought forth by a trio of news outlets that wanted to get their hands on the videotaped Steve Jobs deposition.
Jonathan Sherman, a partner at law firm Boies, Schiller, and Flexner, was quoted as saying, “The marginal value of seeing [Jobs] again, in his black turtleneck — this time very sick — is small. What they want is a dead man, and they want to show him to the rest of the world, because it's a judicial record.”
The Court agrees
Apple fans undoubtedly resonated with Sherman’s thinking, while at the same time itched with anticipation that they might actually get a chance to catch a glimpse of the visionary genius in an unseen posture. This week the Court denied the media outlets access to the tape, but not necessarily for the reasons cited by Jonathan Sherman.
The court papers state, “Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel, the Court hereby DENIES the Media Intervenors’ motion for access to the videotaped deposition of Steve Jobs by way of a copy and beyond that which has already been granted. As set forth below, the request is not authorized by current Ninth Circuit precedent and such an extension of existing law is not warranted or prudential.”
Basically, they don’t want to set a nasty precedent, and there’s not enough reason to test new waters.
The papers also show that the Court actually has a strong judicial presumption that favors public access to judicial records, including the right to copy those records, with the purpose of promoting the public’s understanding of the judicial process, and other things that are important to society.
However, in this case the Court decided that the content of the video deposition didn’t constitute a must-see recording for the public’s eyes.
Apple wins
Apple itself opposed the media intervenors’ request, which means that its decision has been respected and fulfilled by the court. The Mac maker also won the lawsuit in question, avoiding a fine that could reach $1 billion (€800,000,000).
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs said that they would appeal the Court’s decision to favor Apple in the case alleging antitrust violations. Apple will undoubtedly counter the attacks, if the Court finds that there’s legal basis for the case to be reopened.
