Jeremy Elman, of counsel at Allen & Overy, had a tough time during a recent hearing in front of federal District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Elman was representing Carl Zeiss Meditec in a hearing where the company sought a preliminary injunction for violations of trade secrets. However, Judge Gonzalez Rogers was unimpressed by how the briefing was presented and pointed out that it was not her job to assume what Elman wanted. Instead, it was her job to evaluate what he presented.
The judge was particularly perturbed by the lack of clarity in Elman’s filings. Elman pointed to various trade secrets arguments in different pleadings and the complaint. Still, the judge was irritated that the preliminary injunction motion had not laid out those allegations. She stated that it was not her job to scour the record in the case and that it was Elman’s responsibility to prove his case.
The judge described the lack of organization in the filings as a “huge waste of time.” She walked through the various alleged trade secrets she believed were listed in the motion, but Elman appeared confused. The judge was not amused by his response and told him it was not funny and a waste of time. She also pointed out that it was essential to clearly state the trade secret and not wait until the reply brief.
Elman argued that there could be three separate trade secrets depending on whether the software is encrypted or decrypted, or the judge could consider the software one trade secret. However, the judge told him he did not understand what she was saying.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed frustration with the overall organization of the case, stating that the docket was somewhat of a mess. She suggested that senior lawyers go back and review the docket, so they can understand how she needs to see it. In a technology-heavy case like this, courts are “trying to learn this stuff.” The judge took the arguments under submission and will issue a written opinion.
This case highlights the importance of having all ducks in a row when appearing in front of Judge Gonzalez Rogers. The judge was clear that it was not her job to assume what Elman wanted and that it was his responsibility to prove his case. She was also frustrated by the lack of clarity in the filings and urged lawyers to state their case from the outset clearly.
In conclusion, Judge Gonzalez Rogers was not pleased with the way the case was presented and made it clear that lawyers must clearly state their case in a well-organized manner. This is an excellent reminder to all lawyers to be clear, concise, and well-organized when presenting their cases to a judge.
