The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Does vs. :D hold 26(f) Conference...
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:53 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/104/
Edit: :D's anticipated items of Discovery are LULZy... (p. 6) |
 |
Date: July 1st, 2009 1:54 PM Author: Curious emerald library sex offender I wish there was some way we could support :D.
Moral support, I guess. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:11 PM Author: Offensive queen of the night I would be PISSED if a judge let my computers be inspected. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133026) |
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:05 PM Author: Curious emerald library sex offender (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12132979) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:05 PM Author: Bateful center how did he get outted?? and how come pauliewalnuts is not sued?? how can they sue him when his comments were the most lenient out of those 20 anonymous people? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12132983) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:08 PM Author: tan corner cumskin ahwiab was more lenient (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133003) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:09 PM Author: bright adventurous point hunting ground PW settled, dood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133008) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:13 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath troof
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/90/
DAMN pw for robbing us of serious LULZ!!! |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:15 PM Author: Bateful center pauliewalnuts is still listed in there... yet his name is not revealed for some reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133061) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:17 PM Author: bright adventurous point hunting ground It was a condition of the settlement that his name not be revealed. Didn't anyone read that Conde Nast Portfolio article?
(Which, btw, reminds me: It was a condition of these settlements that people not be named, but Portfolio somehow had their real names and named them. Who leaked?) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:17 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath Outted by GTO
http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/IravaniComplaint.pdf |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:07 PM Author: Marvelous Sneaky Criminal Police Squad he's sweating his porn collection (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133000) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:13 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath And maybe he has some moar dick pics in there? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133045) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:10 PM Author: cream beady-eyed property indirect expression lol at p6 #2.2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133017) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:12 PM Author: Offensive queen of the night *bring forward the anonymous defendants*
|
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:12 PM Author: Carnelian space stain lol this thing is still going on? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133036) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:15 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath page 9:
"The parties request that the case be set for trial within 60 days after a ruling on any dispositive motions filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph, or if no such motion is filed, on or about February 1, 2010, as the court's schedule permits."
LOL |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:14 PM Author: Spectacular federal principal's office kitty the defendants' attorney really fucked up in letting plaintiffs' attorney draft the statement of undisputed facts. Those "undisputed facts" are extremely biased against :D (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133050) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:18 PM Author: Offensive queen of the night When are undisputed facts agreed upon? At the pre-trial conference?
Why did he lose the jurisdictional challenge ? |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:19 PM Author: bright adventurous point hunting ground iirc, the jurisdictional challenge failed b/c the court found that :D purposefully directed his conduct toward Connecticut (by purposefully directing it at the Does, then CT residents). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133100) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:21 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath page 3 has a helpful graf
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3:2007cv00909/78132/100/ |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:20 PM Author: Spectacular federal principal's office kitty Usually when you submit a Rule 26(f) statement the court makes you agree on as many undisputed facts as possible, to narrow the issues that will actually be tried. Thing is, :D is the defendant so it's in his best interest to make the plaintiffs prove their whole case. He agreed to a bunch of "undisputed facts" that aren't actually relevant to claims against him but put him in a bad light. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133105) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:23 PM Author: bright adventurous point hunting ground Would denying them have been in his best interest, though? Let's say he denied them, then there's discovery, and it's pretty much undisputable that he posted them after that. SJ motion time comes around, and if I'm :D's counsel, I'd be worried that the court might be pissed for my denying something later found to be beyond dispute. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133125) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:27 PM Author: Spectacular federal principal's office kitty Something can be undisputed without being relevant. Like in this case it was ":D posted in a thread in which other poster XX said [various defamatory stuff.]"
The fact that :D posted in a thread where someone else said something defamatory is completely meaningless to the case against him. What they're trying to do is subconsciously connect those statements with :D in the court's mind, even though he din't make them. To me that's a 401/403 objection.
Second-guessing the lawyer isn't helpful though. I haven't lived with this case, and there's certainly a lot of behind the scenes stuff I have no idea about. I'm just talking out of my ass. There very well could be good reasons that they admitted those facts. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:24 PM Author: Carnelian space stain I agree. D should have claimed he wasn't sure or doesn't remember if he wrote those things and isn't sure if he is the only person with his password, etc etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133132) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:15 PM Author: Spectacular federal principal's office kitty I wonder who in the hell is going to testify as an expert witnes on this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133062) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:18 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath Leiter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133080) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:18 PM Author: bright adventurous point hunting ground My guess is that :D goes for Eric Goldman.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/06/autoadmit_fiasc.htm |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:19 PM Author: tan corner cumskin the RepDef guy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133093) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:19 PM Author: underhanded stead dragon LOL at :D's counsel deposing every hiring partner in NYC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133094) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:24 PM Author: godawful diverse public bath Defendants "will seek the deposition of each of the defendants..."
Auto180 if any of the questions involve bra-size. |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:28 PM Author: Spectacular federal principal's office kitty It's not out of the question. The clear implication from :D's proposed discovery is that he's going to ask questions about the truth of each and every supposedly defamatory statement. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133155) |
|
Date: July 1st, 2009 2:25 PM Author: underhanded stead dragon SO, :D is going to do everything in his power to out everyone? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1031441&forum_id=2#12133136) |