Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
UCSD and USC battle in court
Pricey legal fees, unforgettable
No puzzle as to why lawyers at the two schools agreed to bivouac during the ongoing Alzheimer’s research war
The costly legal battle between taxpayer-supported UCSD and private Los Angeles–based University of Southern California continues to slowly wind its way through federal court here, as lawyers for both sides run up more billable hours. UCSD launched the courthouse war last summer after the school’s Alzheimer’s disease research chief Paul Aisen abruptly quit to work for USC, asserting that the state-owned UCSD was jeopardizing his program by gouging on overhead fees.
After a few months in state court, where a judge friendly to UCSD ruled that USC would have to turn over custody of certain research data to the La Jolla university, the case was moved to downtown’s federal courthouse. There, a January “early neutral evaluation conference” between the parties resulted in an apparent victory for USC, which was allowed to retain control of the bulk of Aisen’s research data as the schools continued their legal wrangling.
Before the agreement, UCSD and USC had tangled over the computerized information, with UCSD lawyer Dan Sharp saying the other side had “refused to cooperate in the restoration of the [Alzheimer’s] Data and Systems, and refused to provide passwords or control of accounts housing the data.” Replied USC’s attorney John B. Quinn, “Speaking frankly, there is no one left at UCSD who is competent to run these programs. To deliver it over to their control without the court’s supervision is an invitation to disaster.”
Now comes word of more than a slight delay in implementing the putative settlement. “The parties have been working together in good faith since the signing of the…Stipulation and have made good progress,” the court’s Special Master David Garrett, who is supervising the legal combat over the data, wrote federal district judge Jill Burkhardt on February 12. “However, it does not appear that all steps…will be complete by February 15, which is a target date set forth in the stipulation.” Continued Garrett, “I do not believe there is a need for Court involvement at this time. We simply wanted to notify the Court that the parties will need additional time to finalize the steps set forth” in the agreement.
Here's something you might be interested in.
UCSD and USC battle in court
Pricey legal fees, unforgettable
UCSD and USC battle in court
Pricey legal fees, unforgettable
No puzzle as to why lawyers at the two schools agreed to bivouac during the ongoing Alzheimer’s research war
The costly legal battle between taxpayer-supported UCSD and private Los Angeles–based University of Southern California continues to slowly wind its way through federal court here, as lawyers for both sides run up more billable hours. UCSD launched the courthouse war last summer after the school’s Alzheimer’s disease research chief Paul Aisen abruptly quit to work for USC, asserting that the state-owned UCSD was jeopardizing his program by gouging on overhead fees.
After a few months in state court, where a judge friendly to UCSD ruled that USC would have to turn over custody of certain research data to the La Jolla university, the case was moved to downtown’s federal courthouse. There, a January “early neutral evaluation conference” between the parties resulted in an apparent victory for USC, which was allowed to retain control of the bulk of Aisen’s research data as the schools continued their legal wrangling.
Before the agreement, UCSD and USC had tangled over the computerized information, with UCSD lawyer Dan Sharp saying the other side had “refused to cooperate in the restoration of the [Alzheimer’s] Data and Systems, and refused to provide passwords or control of accounts housing the data.” Replied USC’s attorney John B. Quinn, “Speaking frankly, there is no one left at UCSD who is competent to run these programs. To deliver it over to their control without the court’s supervision is an invitation to disaster.”
Now comes word of more than a slight delay in implementing the putative settlement. “The parties have been working together in good faith since the signing of the…Stipulation and have made good progress,” the court’s Special Master David Garrett, who is supervising the legal combat over the data, wrote federal district judge Jill Burkhardt on February 12. “However, it does not appear that all steps…will be complete by February 15, which is a target date set forth in the stipulation.” Continued Garrett, “I do not believe there is a need for Court involvement at this time. We simply wanted to notify the Court that the parties will need additional time to finalize the steps set forth” in the agreement.
Comments