I can see the thinking of Gibbs' counsel here.
1) If we don't object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn't reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but...)
3) We're doing our job (true... but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What's the worst that could happen?
This does have potential for abuse, but it also requires some hoop-jumping before one can serve via social media. And...
There's a hierarchy of service. 1) personal service -- usually you have to try three times before attempting 2) substituted service, in which you serve someone of apparent authority at the defendants' abode, etc. If that doesn't work, then we get to things like 3) service by publication. That's where you post notice in a paper nobody has ever heard of, including the defendant. So the defendant likely doesn't know he's been served.
Being served by publication, then defaulted for not knowing about it, is bad. So in that light, if the defendant is truly unaware that the papers are coming (which does happen), service by social media would seem a better option. Plaintiffs generally want the defendants to know they are being sued. Too many ways for a defendant to get out of it otherwise.
One would hope that the Courts would first ensure that the process server has exhausted a few sub-service attempts before jumping straight to the social media world. That's judicial latitude stuff, though, unless written into the statue.
So I get it -- both sides. Again, one of those things that could be a good thing, if it's done right; a nightmare if not.
Yo, G: It's true that if it were a wordpress.org driven, then WordPress wouldn't be hosting at all, but would be for wordpress.com.
Re the Excel issue: The subpoenaing party can specify the desired format for the production, but the producing party does not necessarily have to create documents in that format. They just have to produce in the format as kept in the ordinary course of business. (I hope that's tractor-feed printouts, but that's wishful thinking.)
My reaction to that was (again), um, guys... really?... Excel?
If this case was removed to Fed Court prior to the subpoena, then the Superior Court has no jurisdiction, and it was issued with that knowledge, and that's a big problem. If it was issued prior to removal, then it should have been withdrawn, as now there's no jurisdiction, and that's a big problem.
And ... it demands production 10 days from the date the subpoena issued, seven after service, although by statute,they need to give 20 days ...
"It shall command compliance . . . on a date that is no earlier than 20 days after the issuance, or 15 days after the service, of the deposition subpoena, whichever date is later." CA CCP §2020.410(c)
And why is the Complaint attached? Just to make a point? And what is the sudden urgency that the rules don't matter? Urg! Makes you wanna tear your hair out.
The only real option when there actually is no case is to refuse to file. The only thing a lawyer really has at all is their reputation. Here, they had enough of a "creative" (phrase used incredibly loosely) take on the law to at least avoid sanctions for frivolity. Can't have missed that sanction by much though.
And I too wonder if these folks just hung out a shingle straight out of law school. We blithely refer to that as "malpractice." There is nothing more dangerous than a fresh lawyer without any guidance, nor more frustrating to have as an opponent.
[The court] chose this number [$1,500] accounting for the additional "negative impact on Attorney Ovadia’s reputation and livelihood that will inevitably arise from her involvement in this situation."
$1,500 is a pittance sanction relatively speaking. So the discount for self-inflicted reputational harm just indicates the judge fully understood this story would end up all over the place -- that the attorney has effectively sanctioned herself. Har. Brilliant.
I went before Judge Moskowitz about a decade ago and I was very very impressed by him. Cool demeanor and calmly articulate, and more than just "Article III Judge" intimidating, but physically. He looked like he could kick your ass out in the real world.
Prenda will want to be circumspect about attempting any of its past acts of tossing around serious allegations against the court and opposing counsel, and should seriously consider whether to even file an amended Complaint...
... but failing at the outset to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits is a pretty good barometer of things to come. You can be they shot their wad on this motion, as it would be foolhardy not to. Oh, wait...