Random House Says Trial and Experts are "Burdensome"
In the last line of page 1 and the first line of page 2 Random House's last line of page 1 of their April 22, 2005 filing, claims that a trial to settle these matters would be "burdensome."
Don't we have courts just for that reason? Don't we pay taxes to support a system for adjudicating these sorts of disputes?
Random House also states that the Court should deny me this opportunity to avoid the burden of "lay and 'expert' discovery and trial."
Now, I am REALLY confused. On just the previous page (middle of page 1) Random House argues for a "lay observer" and then less than 250 words later they think that is a burden?
Do they really mean they want to make sure that all the emails I got from "lay observers" don't get a fair hearing?
And what is burdensome about an expert -- somebody who actually KNOWS what they are talking about rather than the from-the-hip, trust-us-we-know-what's-best hearsay that comprises the Random House arguments?
Why don't they want any REAL evidence?