On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:59 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 2021, at 5:50 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:46 PM Falsifian via agora-business > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I file a motion to extend CFJ 3899. > >> > >> Here is my draft. Could anyone point me to precedent about what it > >> means for information to be "reasonably available"? My draft includes > >> my own reasoning, but if it's been covered previously I should use that > >> or at least mention it. That's the only reason I'm circulating this as > >> a draft instead of my judgement. > > > > I'm not aware of what the precedent says, but I'll toss in my own > > thoughts in case they're relevant. For contracts, I used the rather > > verbose phrase "either publicly or generally available" to describe > > two possibilities. Either the information is public (that is, in a > > public message) or it's just available to nearly everyone, like the > > time of day. It seems sensible to me to interpret "reasonably > > available" as covering more less the same cases, although the nuances > > may be different. Of course, if someone has actual precedent, that > > likely supersedes this. > > > > -Aris > > One thing I was concerned about is that G. would say something along the > lines of "it was reasonably available, I would have given them to you if > you just asked." The fact that Murphy did ask and G. didn't respond is a > pretty good indication that that's not the case. > > Gaelan For what it's worth, even if it had been available on request, I don't think that would have been enough under the circumstances. It didn't look like it was available on request, and so I wouldn't have thought to request it. If G. had said that e'd give it to anyone who asked, that might have been a different matter. > -Aris
