Apple โต้กลับ OpenAI อ้างใช้ช่องโหว่กฎศาลยัดหลักฐานใหม่ในคดีความลับ

Rule 7-3(d)(1) permits a party to object to new evidence in a reply brief, but cautions that the filing “may not include further argument on the motion.” Defendants did not comply with this restriction and used their filing to relitigate the merits of Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
 
For example, Defendants dispute whether Dr. Runge has a “basis to offer any analysis, adequately responds to “contrary evidence,” and demonstrates that certain Apple information is not public. […] Such arguments are not objections to new evidence. […] (“[A]rgument regarding how certain of Plaintiff’s positions are unsupported by evidence or contradicted by other testimony” is “not an objection to evidence.”).

The most egregious overreach is a new declaration from Mr. Liu, comprising eight paragraphs of new testimony. Defendants rely on this new testimony to offer excuses for why Mr. Liu “wiped” (i.e., erased) all the data from his iMac before returning it to Apple, […] argue about the meaning of certain text messages with one of Apple’s suppliers, […] and try to explain away his use of one of Apple’s confidential computer files, […] Such testimony violates the prohibition against “further argument on the motion.” Together, the filing and the declaration run 9 pages, which also violates the limitation that the objections “may not exceed 5 pages of text.” […]

Defendants’ new arguments and evidence are more in the nature of a “sur-reply” rather than an objection. But, Defendants did not seek leave to file a sur-reply. Nonetheless, as Defendants have now adequately answered any “new” evidence from Apple’s Reply in its current filing, the Court should deny Defendants’ request to strike any of Apple’s Reply evidence, and should decide the Preliminary Injunction motion on a full record, including both the arguments and evidence in Apple’s Reply as well as the new arguments and evidence improperly submitted with Defendants’ filing.