Legal News

Court to Rajaratnam 11: No Blackberrys For You

By Ashby Jones

It’s the kind of motion we’d normally be inclined to scroll right over on PACER: a procedural motion that really has no bearing on the outcome of a case.

But this motion, made back in December by Akin Gump’s John Dowd, Raj Rajaratnam’s lawyer, caught our attention for a few reasons.

The motion, which was made public on Wednesday, reads:

We respectfully request that you allow each member of Mr. Rajaratnam’s defense team to bring one Personal Electronic Device into the courtroom.

The Court’s Standing Order regarding Electronic Devices and General Purposes Computing Devices generally prohibits the use of Personal Electronic Devices, such as a cellular telephones or Blackberry’s, in courtrooms without an Attorney Service pass. These passes, however, are only available to members of the bar of the Court who possess a New York State Unified Court System Attorney Secure Pass (“OCA Card”).

It would greatly aid Mr. Rajaratnam and his counsel at trial if the following individuals were allowed to bring with them the highlighted Personal Electronic Device into the courtroom . . .

The motion then lists 11 people, nine Akin Gump attorneys and two others.

The motion then indicates that the government had no objection to the request.

But federal judge Loretta Preska denied the order last month. In a notion legible on the motion, she wrote, simply: “Denied. The Standing Order provides for no variances for attorneys not in compliance.”

That’s it. A simple motion simply ruled upon. Still, it raises in our mind a whole bunch of imponderables. To wit:

• We know that deep-pocketed defendants like Rajaratnam will spare no cost when faced with the prospect of significant jail time. But eleven people in court? Nine lawyers? Really? When we asked a Rajaratnam spokesman for insight, he declined to comment.

• Next, why do nine lawyers in a courtroom all need Blackberrys? Isn’t it enough to check them during breaks?

• Putting aside the first two questions for a minute, why, when the government assents to the Blackberry request, does the court still put up such a fuss? Blackberrys can be operated discreetly and quietly — why such insistence on keeping them out?

Also recently revealed: The defense team requested permission to arrange for high-speed Internet access and remote, real-time transcripts that can be viewed by members of his team outside court. This request was granted by Judge Richard Holwell.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 03, 2011 (boomark / email).