Wow that was interesting. I have noticed that the older and more knowledgeable I get, the less inclined I am to offer opinions based on that knowledge (because it might not be entirely right). But I didn't know that was a good thing.
This motion happens before the defendant even files an Answer, and is based on whether plaintiff stated enough plausible facts to support a claim. These are *alleged* facts. They still have to be proven.
Many judges don't want to pull the trigger on kicking an entire lawsuit based solely on what was said in the Complaint. And there is still a full litigation to get to. So it's really more of a "let's give plaintiffs the chance to make their case" kind of thing.
Personally: Seriously? If you're going to buy into Microsoft's deceptive Scroogled ad campaign, use their email then (and cut off all your gmail friends, like a recovering alky cuts off his drinking friends).
If plaintiffs even prevail in the matter and it goes to appeal, just wait 'till the amicus briefs from every processor of data start rolling in. This one I am not losing any sleep over.
And if you are one of the class plaintiffs, think about where that settlement money, if any, will go: 1) Lawyers; 2) Somewhere other than your pocket. (Hope you like lawyers, charities, and useless gift certificates.)
I remember the specific day that Twitter suddenly became useful to me...
April 4, 2010. We felt a bigass earthquake on our mesa in San Diego. That doesn't happen; no major fault line. Nothing about it anywhere online, radio, tv, nothing. It had to be far away, and big. Needed someone talking about it *now*
So I signed up w/ Twitter, and instantly found out it was felt all the way up in LA, and out to AZ, complete with shots of sloshing pools, etc., and got a feel for where the epicenter likely was (Mexicali/Calexico area). (And at the time, from the press, I thought of it as Ashton Kutcher's miniblog.)
Have used it for status of close brush fires as well (and of course, baseball info). Pretty friggin useful, indeed.
I don't know from Texas, but there are doctrines related to assumption of the risk often at play in these situations. Like, you can't sue for getting hit by a foul ball at the ballgame. Vets generally assume the risk of being bitten by a dog they are treating ... You know, sensible doctrines.
I would submit that a cop assumes the risk of being injured in responding to a 911 call re an "aggressive" drugged-up fellow.
So the implication is it may be a crime to teach a party how to beat a test that one cannot be forced to take in the first place and often cannot be used as evidence against someone who is accused of a crime? I'm dizzy from the circularity.
..."it is difficult for plaintiff's attorney to call to discuss confidential and privileged matters regarding this case."
Um, if you are talking to opposing counsel, the very last thing you should be talking about is confidential and privileged matters -- regarding your client at least. Especially with regard to discovery disputes, all communications with opposition should be made with the idea that they may end up as an exhibit.
I am starting to think that Techdirt's "wow dept" may need its own separate blog.
I am also starting to long for the days when the stories were about buffoonish censorious asshattery and desperate dying business models, rather that stories of US Govt. activities that directly affect me, and would make Stalin simultaneously blush and turn green with envy.