I asked Michelle. Here is her response re Casey Wallner
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [FWD: Casey Wallner]
From: Michelle_Oldroyd@utd.uscourts.gov
Date: Tue, February 08, 2011 10:48 am
To: <lre@icw.com>
My read of the materials is that Casey's login/username is Cannonball, but
I do not know that it is relevant/necessary to delineate this. That is why
a specific name is not designated.
As for deciding how to count the messages/view their order/designate which
message warrants a question or not, that is just vague enough in the facts
to be a strategic choice that teams make. I recommend indicating how the
attorney comes to the conclusion before asking a witness (e.g. during
questioning, one might say, Here is the exhibit...Do you see it?...Do you
recognize it?...We need to discuss message three which is highlighted for
you as the third entry from the opening of the chatroom. Do you see
that?...)
From: <lre@icw.com>
To: Michelle_Oldroyd@utd.uscourts.gov
Date: 02/08/11 10:10 AM
Subject: [FWD: Casey Wallner]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Casey Wallner
From: Stephanie Hoggan <shoggan@millcreekeng.com>
Date: Tue, February 08, 2011 2:12 am
To: "lre@icw.com" <lre@icw.com>
Janet:
I don’t have everyone’s e-mail address, so I could not e-mail the whole
group with the following questions:
Can you tell us what Casey Wallner’s user name is?
Cris Robertson’s statement – paragraph 8. Reference to the day and time
that the second transmission was made – does that refer to October 14 the
5:11 and 5:12 entries from Shokwave?
Subject: Re: [FWD: Casey Wallner]
From: Michelle_Oldroyd@utd.uscourts.gov
Date: Tue, February 08, 2011 10:48 am
To: <lre@icw.com>
My read of the materials is that Casey's login/username is Cannonball, but
I do not know that it is relevant/necessary to delineate this. That is why
a specific name is not designated.
As for deciding how to count the messages/view their order/designate which
message warrants a question or not, that is just vague enough in the facts
to be a strategic choice that teams make. I recommend indicating how the
attorney comes to the conclusion before asking a witness (e.g. during
questioning, one might say, Here is the exhibit...Do you see it?...Do you
recognize it?...We need to discuss message three which is highlighted for
you as the third entry from the opening of the chatroom. Do you see
that?...)
From: <lre@icw.com>
To: Michelle_Oldroyd@utd.uscourts.gov
Date: 02/08/11 10:10 AM
Subject: [FWD: Casey Wallner]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Casey Wallner
From: Stephanie Hoggan <shoggan@millcreekeng.com>
Date: Tue, February 08, 2011 2:12 am
To: "lre@icw.com" <lre@icw.com>
Janet:
I don’t have everyone’s e-mail address, so I could not e-mail the whole
group with the following questions:
Can you tell us what Casey Wallner’s user name is?
Cris Robertson’s statement – paragraph 8. Reference to the day and time
that the second transmission was made – does that refer to October 14 the
5:11 and 5:12 entries from Shokwave?
