Earlier today, we reported that Interplay had filed to have the affidavit of Bethesda executive James Leder thrown out, as well as a claim that the court the case is in lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case. Bethesda has now responded with a filing of their own, which DAC has obtained. Here are some highlights:
First, all of the statements made in the Leder Affidavit are made upon Mr. Leder’s personal
knowledge, based on his experience as an executive of the company and having been directly involved
in the company’s efforts relating to the protection and promotion of the Fallout brand as well as in the
events leading up to the dispute in this lawsuit.
Second, Interplay has taken full advantage of the opportunity to test the basis of Mr. Leder’s
knowledge and statements contained in his affidavit in a deposition lasting over seven hours on
December 9, 2009. Mr. Leder will also be testifying as Bethesda’s only witness at the preliminary
injunction hearing and, in that capacity, Interplay will once again have the opportunity to cross examine
him and test the basis and depth of his personal knowledge. To the extent that Interplay suggests that
Mr. Leder’s affidavit is somehow the only evidence upon which Plaintiff must meet its burden of proof
for purposes of a decision on the preliminary injunction is flatly wrong.
Again, it's a court document so there's a lot of legal lingo. The general tone of Bethesda's filing, however, takes a more childish tone than Interplay's filings. This has been a trend in most of Bethesda's filings in this case, using less-than-formal phrasings like "flatly wrong," or this paragraph:
Despite having had the Affidavit of James L. Leder (“Leder Affidavit”) since November 25,
2009, Interplay has, for reasons it does not explain, waited until the afternoon immediately before the
preliminary injunction hearing in this case – in the middle of Mr. Leder’s deposition – to file its
Objections and Motion to Strike the Leder Affidavit.
This doesn't strike me as very professional, and reads more like a blog post than a legal document. But I'm not a lawyer, so who knows.