No. 017-229664-08,
District Court, Tarrant County , Texas (Fort
Worth
Essential reading:
Perry Mason
Moment Halts Moncrief $1.37 Billion Gazprom Suit
Additional reading:
Russian Gas
Co. Must Face Trade Secrets Suit: Texas
Moncrief
Pulls Plug Midway Through $1.36B Gazprom Trial [2015]
Technical reading:
Defendants
Second Motion for Sanctions
Issues to
discuss:
1)
What
was the origin of the conflict between Moncrief and Gazprom? What was the
controversy in this particular case? Was it a contract case or a tort
case? What country’s law governed the
relevant relations of the parties?
2)
Why
did the Texas
3)
What
kind of trade secrets did Moncrief allege to have been stolen? What evidence did Moncrief have on the existence
of the trade secrets?
4)
What
made Gazprom’s attorneys think the evidence was faked? What was their evidence of the forgery?
5)
Is
it common practice in US courts to introduce new evidence during cross examination
of a witness before a jury? Why did Moncrief’s attorneys object to that? Why did the judge overrule the objection?
6)
What
did Gazprom’s attorneys ask for? Explain
the meaning of the defendants’ motion for sanctions’ third section title (page
11: “Moncrief’s deception warrants death penalty sanctions”).
7)
What
was the outcome of the case? Did the
jury return a verdict? If not, why? Who has resolved the dispute and how?
No comments:
Post a Comment