A few days ago, Apple filed a motion with the court seeking to compel Psystar to hand over financial documents pertaining to revenues, profits, purchase receipts, and invoices. Psystar responded by saying that it wasn’t in possession of the documents sought by Apple, and that some of mentioned financial records didn’t even exist.
In a somewhat dubious series of claims, Psystar asserted that a) it lost pertinent documents in a move and b) it doesn’t keep basic financial records such as profit/loss statements because they’re a relatively new and small company. Not surprisingly, the court didn’t buy what in my opinion was blatant BS and granted Apple’s motion to compel.
Psystar has until May 18 to produce the following array of documents:
- All the underlying documents used to prepare the June 2008 profit and loss statement and balance sheet bates stamped PS010327-328, to the extent the documents have not been produced
- All the underlying documents used or being used to prepare the aggregated financial statement referenced in Psystar’s opposition letter brief
- All of the tabulations created by Jennifer Perez regarding the components needed to build Psystar’s products
- Documents bates stamped PS01383-2000
- Bank statements for all of Psystar’s accounts from Commerce Bank and TD Bank from April 2008 through September 2008. To the extent that said statements are not immediately in the possession of Psystar either in physical or electronic form, Psystar shall ask Commerce Bank and TD Bank for these statements on an every other day basis until Commerce Bank and TD Bank provide said statements
- A copy of all attachments to all previously produced emails and a copy of the corresponding email in hard copy or in electronic form
Apple had also complained that during his deposition, Psystar president Rudy Pedraza was curiously unable to recall even basic financial information about the company he’s in charge of running. Consequently, Apple requested that Psystar make available for deposition, at their own expense, an individual who could answer those questions.
In regards to the above request, the court again sided with Apple, and Psystar has until June 3, 2009 to provide a Psytar representative capable of speaking about and knowledgeable of Psystar’s financials.
All in all, Psystar was on the receiving end of a legal beatdown from the court. Well maybe that’s a bit extreme, but the bottom line is that the court simply isn’t buying into Psystar’s overtly half-ass attempts to skirt around Apple’s discovery requests.
I think that once Apple gets a hold of Psystar’s bank statements, things will get real interesting real quick (I’ve of course bought into the theory that some person or company is bankrolling Psystar’s operation).