This is great!
"Hynix points out that this conclusion is not inconsistent with Judge Payne's ruling because it is the destruction of documents in anticipation of litigation that constitutes unclean hands and not whether relevant and material documents were actually destroyed. Although Hynix's argument has some merit, consideration of the relevance and materiality of any documents likely destroyed may be at least relevant to fashioning an equitable remedy for any unclean hands."
Looks like Whyte spells out crime and punishment.
Crime: the destruction of documents in anticipation of litigation
Punishment: consideration of the relevance and materiality of any documents likely destroyed may be at least relevant to fashioning an equitable remedy for any unclean hands
Hynix is arguing if Rambus is guilty of unclean hands, the case should be thrown out. Whyte is saying, not so fast, we need to look at the relevance of any documents likely destroyed. He wants to make sure the punishment (if Rambus is found guilty) fits the crime.
Given this 4/22/05 order by Whyte, I think Hynix could have done a better job in court. As far as relevance, Hynix stated several times in court it's not their job to prove the missing docs are relevant, but for Rambus to prove they are not. Rambus never touched the issue of relevance and as a result, it fell by the wayside.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
