Thread by @dsmart

*BREAKING*. Crytek filed a notice in the Star Citizen case.

Basically, as expected, CIG are refusing to comply with Rule 26(f) discovery procedures. The standard stall tactic.

docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discov…

My analysis will be up in a bit; once I've chopped it up into 280 char parts

{thread}

Before I even go into this, let me mention that the whole point of a Rule 26(f) conference, is to setup a plan for discovery.

law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rul…

Regardless of whether or not the judge rules on the MtD, the Rule 26(f) plan is part of the process.

We all know that the judge is going to either toss the entire MtD filed by CIG, or she will grant parts of it.

I personally don't see the latter happening at all.

That Crytek opted to start the discovery ball rolling ahead of the judge's MtD ruling, shows that they are confident that she will toss it in part or in whole.

So what remains to be seen is if whatever survives, is entirely favorable to Crytek.

This Crytek filing is also a sort of complaint/notice to the court that CIG are not only being abusive to the process, but are also stonewalling the process by raising the same ludicrous points they did in the previous filings - and indeed the MtD itself.

Stalling and stonewalling tactics during discovery, are classic. It's one way of not only delaying the process, while racking up legal bills for the opposition, but also a way to frustrate the opposition.

This filing also outlines the on-going unprofessional conduct by CIG (we still believe - strongly - that Ortwin is responsible for this) in their filing. And Crytek attorneys have taken the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the court in this filing.

To see how stalling tactics work, look no further than CIG's stance in which they are claiming to not fulling understand why they are being sued. This despite the fact that they filed a DETAILED response to the lawsuit.

I know, it's a head scratcher.

This next part is as hilarious in its exposition, as it is in its affront.

Because, you know, executing contracts in good faith is meaningless if you don't intend to abide by them. And when you get sued, you can always claim ignorance while attributing it to malice.

While everyone was waiting for the judge to rule on the MtD, Crytek, confident that their lawsuit would go forward, continued with case guidance as per FRCP.

CIG objected - thus causing another month-long delay.

I have written extensively in my Star Citizen blogs that ANY lawsuit in this project, will boil down to one single thing: follow the money.

So it's not surprising that Crytek made it a clear point in their discovery request.

When you are filing a lawsuit with causes of action points like breach of contract, copyright infringement etc, the whole DAMN POINT is to find out how much the defendants gained by those practices, in a bid to disgorge them of said gains as per the alleged conduct.

So financial accounting of profits, revenue, expenditure etc, are all par for the course, and open season.

So the CIG response should come as no surprise.

They will try to delay turning over financials to ANY third-party, for as long as legally possible.

Here's the thing.

In its first series of ToS, they pledged to provide to backers financials for the project if they failed to deliver by the stated date.

In June 2016, they REMOVED that promise from the game's ToS.

imgur.com/a/Ov1Tt

I have been keeping track of all the ToS changes since this project started. And each revision is worse than the previous one, as they seek to not only reduce liability and accountability, but also to continue screwing backers with willful intent.

dereksmart.com/forums/topic/s…

The fact that they are questioning the relevance of things like financials, corporate structure etc, should come as no surprise because those are the shady things that CIG would rather not see enter the public domain.

For the avoidance of doubt, and show why this is relevant to the case and indeed to Crytek's claims, there are now - get this - a total of 18 companies associated with the Star Citizen project. Yes. 18.

dereksmart.org/forums/reply/3…

It's not enough that they are working on a joint confidentiality stipulation, but apparently CIG doesn't even want the Crytek attorneys to get their hands on certain information.

Gee, I wonder why that is.

Over the years, I have spent money on legal bills in my quest for accountability from CIG. Once again, we will be filing Amicus curiae with the court, explaining, among other things, the relevance of certain info being made public for benefit of backers who funded Star Citizen.

There is another huge Red flag in the Crytek filing.

That being, CIG requested that Crytek also list a settlement demand.

Ponder: If CIG were confident in their case, why would they ask for this?

In a Rule 26 procedure no less. Because, you know, that's totally how that works.

Granted, most cases settled before going to trial. But almost always, breach of contract or copyright cases, do not settle ahead of trial. I checked.

CIG is basically saying "Yeah, OK - we know you want money. Give us a number already".

Crytek rebuffed it. And rightfully so.

Aside from it being premature, it's akin to to the plaintiffs thinking they stand a chance of getting $100 at trial, but decide to take $1 now.

Make no mistake, damage awards are HUGE in cases like this. Especially given the strength of the Crytek claims.

Crytek's lawyers know this. They also know how much money has been raised - regardless of the potential for the project to fail.

So they would rather go through discovery, figure out the financials and other things - THEN - determine if a settlement is worth doing.

The 1st mistake that CIG did, right from the start, was allowing a case like this to even be filed. I've said this from the start.

The 2nd mistake was their hostile wording in filings, in which they were basically playing to their toxic backer base with "sick owns" on Crytek.

The nail on the coffin? Actually there are 2 nails.

1) They ended up in front of judge Gee

threadreaderapp.com/thread/9616290…

2) If there is a settlement, they will end up in front of Judge Munn.

They're so fucked, that I'm totally out of lols!

After looking at the judge's calendar and coming up with some dates, Crytek proposed a July 2019 trial date.

CIG don't appear to care either way.

Regardless, we've got another 16+ months of consistent lols to look forward to.

Now we wait and see if judge Gee is going to offer guidance on the Rule 26 shenanigans by CIG before or after she rules on the MtD.

Network Bind Culling probably won't have been implemented by then.

Follow my Crytek v CIG analysis:

dereksmart.com/forum/index.ph…

{END}

unroll