A brief post to report that nothing has happened in the case this week. Particularly, the Judge hasn’t made any rulings in the discovery request and IBM’s subsequent objection.
All indications are that the court dockets are packed. But also, when the company has not had a good reason to give for either doing something, or not doing something, there tends to be measures that delay as a response. The objections to discovery were just the latest in this tactic, which began in October 2008.
[Update 4/28/12: Talking a bit about their strategy, this is what seems to be: when a fact surfaces that shows the merits of one another points to my argument, the other side goes into freeze. This happened when it became clear that the Australian gang fully knew Japanese law in March 2008, (because I had evidence to show that my predecessor, Ms. Ishikawa, had her lawyers discussing it with them). Now, it's fairly clear that the head of IBM Japan's HR when I was there, Mr. Tsubota, now works in my country, in New York. Rather than face up to facts, the company likes to put significant time between those facts and whatever response they must give. This is why a thing can go on for 3 1/2 years, and still be at the preliminary stages. Inevitably, though, there should be summary judgment . . . ]