Sonicview Attorney Letter to the FTA Community

[A_Z_A]

Sonicview Attorney Letter to the FTA Community

[beekermc]

Yeah but what about the UFC fight?!?

Jk thanks A_Z_A.

[pigbritches]

Lawyer speak is hot!

[Ladybbird]

Thanks AZA, on the ball as usual, this guy was also involved with a previous court action against Viewsat last year. That lawsuit went nowhere. LOL

C&P


09-23-2008 update

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC, a Colorado
Limited Liability Company, ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Texas
corporation, and NAGRASTAR L.L.C., a
Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
VIEWTECH, INC., a California corporation,
JUNG KWAK, an Individual and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))
Civil No. 07cv1273 W (AJB)
ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
On September 17, 2008, the Court convened a Settlement Conference in the above entitled
action. Appearing were Mark Hamer, Esq., Chad Hagan, Esq., JJ Gee and Rob Frankel, client
representatives on behalf of plaintiffs; David R. Clark, Esq., Manny Delacerra, Esq., Jung Kwak and
Rob Rhine, client representatives on behalf of defendants.
The Court and counsel followed up on the settlement process discussed at the Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference. There was also discussion about the preservation of evidence allegedly
supporting the plaintiff’s claims and defendant’s defenses. While counsel work on a formal permanent
preservation plan, the Court imposes the following interim plan:
1. Starting September 22, 2008, defendant will preserve the chip from all of the units
returned to defendant for repair or warranty work which are accompanied by a check in
the approximate amount of $50.00. Defendant will assign a tracking number to each of


Orders to be filed\07cv1273 order fsettle.917.wpd2 07cv1273
these chips and record the unit’s serial number and the date of receipt for later transmission
to plaintiffs. Defendant will also record the information associated with the
person(s) or other entity that has returned the unit for the subject work. The production
of that information will be dealt with by the Court at some future date;
2. By October 6, 2008, defendants will provide a report to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the
chips collected and plaintiff may proceed to purchase any or all of those at $23.00 per
unit for forensic testing; and
3. The Court and counsel will review of the progress of this interim plan, and counsel’s
efforts to come up with a permanent preservation plan, at a telephonic Case Management
Conference set for October 24, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel will initiate the
call.
In the interim, counsel have leave to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant’s representative
with regard to repair and warranty return protocols. No later than Monday, September 22, 2008,
plaintiff’s counsel will provide defendants with the Rule30(b)(6) deposition notice describing the
specific areas of inquiry involved. As this deposition is limited in scope and relates to the issue of
preservation of evidence, it is excluded from the limit of ten depositions aside under the Federal Rules.
Counsel are also required to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference and submit their joint discovery
plan by October 24, 2008. At the next conference, the Court will confirm a date for initial disclosures,
and set further dates and deadlines as appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 17, 2008

END C&P

Go Manny


.

[Ladybbird]

AND he is an inventor - working on FILES would you believe, he has a LEGAL Patent for it. I am going to make this thread a sticky.



.

[car5469]

Originally Posted by Ladybbird

Thanks AZA, on the ball as usual, this guy was also involved with a previous court action against Viewsat last year. That lawsuit went nowhere. LOL

C&P


09-23-2008 update

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC, a Colorado
Limited Liability Company, ECHOSTAR
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Texas
corporation, and NAGRASTAR L.L.C., a
Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
VIEWTECH, INC., a California corporation,
JUNG KWAK, an Individual and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))
Civil No. 07cv1273 W (AJB)
ORDER FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
On September 17, 2008, the Court convened a Settlement Conference in the above entitled
action. Appearing were Mark Hamer, Esq., Chad Hagan, Esq., JJ Gee and Rob Frankel, client
representatives on behalf of plaintiffs; David R. Clark, Esq., Manny Delacerra, Esq., Jung Kwak and
Rob Rhine, client representatives on behalf of defendants.
The Court and counsel followed up on the settlement process discussed at the Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference. There was also discussion about the preservation of evidence allegedly
supporting the plaintiff’s claims and defendant’s defenses. While counsel work on a formal permanent
preservation plan, the Court imposes the following interim plan:
1. Starting September 22, 2008, defendant will preserve the chip from all of the units
returned to defendant for repair or warranty work which are accompanied by a check in
the approximate amount of $50.00. Defendant will assign a tracking number to each of


Orders to be filed\07cv1273 order fsettle.917.wpd2 07cv1273
these chips and record the unit’s serial number and the date of receipt for later transmission
to plaintiffs. Defendant will also record the information associated with the
person(s) or other entity that has returned the unit for the subject work. The production
of that information will be dealt with by the Court at some future date;
2. By October 6, 2008, defendants will provide a report to plaintiff’s counsel regarding the
chips collected and plaintiff may proceed to purchase any or all of those at $23.00 per
unit for forensic testing; and
3. The Court and counsel will review of the progress of this interim plan, and counsel’s
efforts to come up with a permanent preservation plan, at a telephonic Case Management
Conference set for October 24, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel will initiate the
call.
In the interim, counsel have leave to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant’s representative
with regard to repair and warranty return protocols. No later than Monday, September 22, 2008,
plaintiff’s counsel will provide defendants with the Rule30(b)(6) deposition notice describing the
specific areas of inquiry involved. As this deposition is limited in scope and relates to the issue of
preservation of evidence, it is excluded from the limit of ten depositions aside under the Federal Rules.
Counsel are also required to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference and submit their joint discovery
plan by October 24, 2008. At the next conference, the Court will confirm a date for initial disclosures,
and set further dates and deadlines as appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 17, 2008

END C&P

Go Manny


.

Lady, can you give a little clarification on this. Does this mean that anytime someone sent in a Viewsat for work that the chip was replaced. The chip that had all the info on what the used had uploaded on to it? Or were these only a few Viewsats that had an extra something added to them?

Thanks

[Ladybbird]

Originally Posted by car5469

Lady, can you give a little clarification on this. Does this mean that anytime someone sent in a Viewsat for work that the chip was replaced. The chip that had all the info on what the used had uploaded on to it? Or were these only a few Viewsats that had an extra something added to them?

Thanks

Here is the original Thread I posted about this;

Warning to Viewsat owners

I wouldn't worry about it. It died a death like so many of the scaremongering reports.


.

[car5469]

Originally Posted by Ladybbird

Here is the original Thread I posted about this;

Warning to Viewsat owners

I wouldn't worry about it. It died a death like so many of the scaremongering reports.


.

Lady, how did it die a death? Was this a false report? I read your sticky thread and I do remember hearing something about this in the past. But what was the final outcome?

[Ladybbird]

Thats what I mean about died a death. There never is a result to all these "reports" Know what I mean? If there was a result the Media would certainly jump on it.


.