Prominent among their wares, CLE merchants tout winning your case anywhere but at trial. Winning by preclusion and exclusion are big sellers, as we see in Adrian D. Smith & Nancy Smith, et. al., Docket No. 13382-17, filed 3/7/25. Adrian and partners are transnational architects enmeshed in a brouhaha over Section 41 additional research credits for a trio castles (hi, Judge Holmes), one each in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi. For backstory, see my blogpost “Castles in the Sand,” 12/18/24*.

Adrian wants Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler to take judicial notice of a bunch laws (hi, Judge Holmes) from SA, UAE including Dubai, the UK, and the Berne Convention. IRS says they’re all irrelevant.

Judge Speedy Weiler will decide that. “…the question before the Court now, is whether we should take judicial notice of foreign law–not whether foreign law applies to the Contracts in question. The latter question will ultimately be decided by the Court, after trial. However, failing to take judicial notice now could hinder the Court in examining the legal issue of whether the foregoing foreign laws apply. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, and then allow the parties (after trial) to present their arguments on whether foreign law apply to the Contracts in these cases.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

There’s also a bunch motions (ditto) to preclude experts’ opinions and exhibits, all of which Judge Speedy Weiler denies without prejudice as premature. There are reasons why we have trials, among which is to see what this stuff is, how it proves anything, and how it stands up to cross-examination and countervailing evidence.

* https://taishofflaw.com/2024/12/18/castles-in-the-sand/