(This is normal when compelling the production of documents from entities that are not named parties in a lawsuit.)
https://twitter.com/ellisgreg/status/1531625676377309184
ACLU's behavior is irrelevant
If you don't see "ACLU" as a named defendant in the case caption – in the lawsuit Johnny Depp filed, whose defendants he chose – then they're entitled by law to their discovery expenses
If you don't see "ACLU" as a named defendant in the case caption – in the lawsuit Johnny Depp filed, whose defendants he chose – then they're entitled by law to their discovery expenses
https://twitter.com/ellisgreg/status/1531799295912984577
Nah. These sorts of amounts are normal in civil litigation, and I suspect all the moreso for a New York-based third party
https://twitter.com/LincolnKupchak/status/1531799176924672001
It's statutory under New York law. See NY CPLR §3111 and §3122(d)
But even federally, cost-shifting happens all the time under FRCP 45 if the cost is more than insubstantial. You just can't lard it up with things outside reasonable costs of actual compliance
But even federally, cost-shifting happens all the time under FRCP 45 if the cost is more than insubstantial. You just can't lard it up with things outside reasonable costs of actual compliance
https://twitter.com/justinlawguy/status/1531800718427955201
Good talk 👍👍 
LMAO talking sh*t behind a block is hilarious
https://twitter.com/notjoshblackman/status/1531809078292406272
Trying to figure out if it's funnier that you blocked me before tweeting this nonsense, or that you felt compelled to crop out the rest of the tweet
Your dishonesty is illuminating
Your dishonesty is illuminating
https://twitter.com/ellisgreg/status/1531805613608652800
Not that I'm aware of, and trust me I'd know 😂
https://twitter.com/nicodemetrius/status/1531814028581867525
On the law, no; I don't think either of them can prove their respective cases (remember Heard filed a countersuit too)
But juries can reach unusual conclusions, and both sides will have post-verdict motions and appeals they'll file regardless
But juries can reach unusual conclusions, and both sides will have post-verdict motions and appeals they'll file regardless
https://twitter.com/bookemdano247/status/1531799872214401025
That sort of result is common, usually $1 verdicts for either side
https://twitter.com/MrQuindazzi/status/1531815380859162626
Absolutely. Which, again, *totally not unusual* in over-financed litigation
https://twitter.com/romeosidvicious/status/1531800829577072640
I don't learn they're disgraced VAs until after I point out their legal takes are dumber than a bucketful of bent nails
https://twitter.com/craign471/status/1531814340906692608
The only people who will win here are the lawyers, yes
https://twitter.com/tomlevenson/status/1531818789498769409
Many years back, I worked on a document-intensive multinational fraud case that ultimately settled for low 8 figures. Every lawyer in my firm at the time was putting in 8-hour days at $300/hr for weeks
https://twitter.com/romeosidvicious/status/1531818900844838917
They're not though. That's probably on the cheap side for multiple broadly-worded subpoenas in New York
https://twitter.com/louisemensch/status/1531821443289423873
The funny part is that several of the people insisting the amount is unreasonable are normally onboard with anti-SLAPP statutes because of how expensive litigation is
WTF DID YOU THINK THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT ON??
WTF DID YOU THINK THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT ON??
https://twitter.com/mjosephlc/status/1531828481910349825
Awww poor Walt still wants to be part of the conversation 🥺
https://twitter.com/andy4cubs/status/1531834820652847105
I #cant hear you #through #the hashtags
https://twitter.com/counsellrenae/status/1531831512395837440
What's in poor taste about expecting someone to reimburse your costs of providing a service to them?
Depp could have named ACLU as a defendant if he wanted to, yet he didn't. So ACLU gets to have their expenses reimbursed for complying with his subpoenas
Depp could have named ACLU as a defendant if he wanted to, yet he didn't. So ACLU gets to have their expenses reimbursed for complying with his subpoenas
https://twitter.com/ennalies/status/1531832620404703232
I didn't avoid your question at all, I asked you to explain what was in bad taste about it
If the ACLU ghostwriting an op-ed was such a big deal, Depp could have sued them. He didn't. It's weird that you think it's more of a big deal than he does.
If the ACLU ghostwriting an op-ed was such a big deal, Depp could have sued them. He didn't. It's weird that you think it's more of a big deal than he does.
https://twitter.com/ennalies/status/1531840624936165376
I'd avoided it precisely b/c the people who tend to comment on it have zero interest in what the law actually is, and just want to go "nuh uh you're wrong" to people who've been litigating defamation cases professionally for far longer than they have
https://twitter.com/marthamatical/status/1531844347775287302
1️⃣ Probably
2️⃣ Because, as a default starting position, most people and most organizations say "no" to other people who demand they disclose information
2️⃣ Because, as a default starting position, most people and most organizations say "no" to other people who demand they disclose information
https://twitter.com/SaraKir72162857/status/1531846673902645250
It was 😬 not gonna say *how long* ago though b/c I'm self-conscious as it is lol
https://twitter.com/Girl_onthe_Left/status/1531850259260772352
I don't know what you're billing, but the answer is always yes
No matter how high I raised my rates, it turned out there were always worse lawyers charging more money
No matter how high I raised my rates, it turned out there were always worse lawyers charging more money
https://twitter.com/billybrew/status/1531852546989559808
Too many new people here, I was worried someone would actually believe I was getting paid $25-per-tweet with bulk rate bonuses for RTs and Likes 😂
https://twitter.com/jcderr/status/1531873003075674114
Because Depp's legal team issued the subpoenas
The party that issues the discovery demands ends up bearing the costs, not the judge
The party that issues the discovery demands ends up bearing the costs, not the judge
https://twitter.com/jackryan4da/status/1531960305701748736
That's a question for @AkivaMCohen or @j_remy_green, NY attorneys who both litigate extensively
https://twitter.com/snark_p_bear/status/1531989904166641665
If you're going to steal someone else's photo and tweet it pretending it's you, you should crop out the rest of the screen first
https://twitter.com/CounsellRenae/status/1532018169040482304
Blocked for impersonation and being a weirdo
No clue. It's all very strange, esp between the "LeT mE sEe YoU!" and the excessive hashtag use
https://twitter.com/dtm609/status/1532058806787575808
I'm fine with weirdos (you), and I'm fine with impersonators (most parody accounts)
It's the creepy combination of being an impersonator and a weirdo that has that extra "ick" factor 😉
It's the creepy combination of being an impersonator and a weirdo that has that extra "ick" factor 😉
https://twitter.com/AKBrews/status/1532064099210711042
The self-awareness in this tweet is 🤌
https://twitter.com/schuberttwitch/status/1532084300098719750
What #is it with #you people #and the incessant #hashtags? 🤦♂️
https://twitter.com/j0k3ricu/status/1532108777910063108
These statements sure seem mutually contradictory and incapable of defamatory meaning
Guess we'll see what happens on JNOV and on appeal
Guess we'll see what happens on JNOV and on appeal
https://twitter.com/sababausa/status/1532085697208897536
Typically yes. Plaintiff's claims are numbered then Defendant's claims are lettered, or vice versa
https://twitter.com/notfromhere/status/1532111626001711104
Would it get that far? Not familiar with Virginia's appellate system. I'd imagine the intermediate appellate court do that ruling then SCOVA ignore it
https://twitter.com/Eodyne1/status/1532110970054758400
You sound easily triggered. Seek therapy.
https://twitter.com/kingfr0man/status/1532110790949576710
Though that at least means they do more than our Supreme Court, @Eodyne1
The NCCOA is usually the last word for cases here
The NCCOA is usually the last word for cases here
But Screech told them I commented, you see
And he would never lie about something that easily disproved
And he would never lie about something that easily disproved
https://twitter.com/halberdrayne/status/1532114051840475139
Basically yes, but not really the jury's fault. Whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is typically a legal question for the judge, and the judge here just said ":shrug: let's have the jury decide"
It's also common for juries to do weird things, hence JNOV+appeals
It's also common for juries to do weird things, hence JNOV+appeals
https://twitter.com/isaac32767/status/1532115000793255936
("JNOV" == judgment notwithstanding the verdict, basically asking the judge to overturn the jury's ruling in a post-verdict hearing)
It's just an added layer of protection to guard against an unreasonable jury verdict. They're not granted often, but can be when "no reasonable jury could have reached" that particular verdict
On the criminal side, it's similar but called a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
On the criminal side, it's similar but called a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
https://twitter.com/Skhott/status/1532120798667890688
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm routing all these questions to @Eodyne1 now 😂
I'm routing all these questions to @Eodyne1 now 😂
https://twitter.com/melroseadam/status/1532120576629817346
You sound like a subject matter expert
https://twitter.com/corson_paula/status/1532122994444845062
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
