I have dealt with the NYT over claimed copyright issues regarding its content. What I surmise as a result is:
The NYT Legal Dept. is focused on 1) Protecting the NYT brand and content, without any thought whatsoever to the big picture; and 2) justifying the legal department's own existence, which includes sending at-times meritless threat letters.
They also have shown a penchant for black/white thinking; refusal to negotiate or consider circumstances; and for making absolute threats of suit, but rarely actually pulling the trigger and suing.
IANALP but I understand that if the sole question is who owns the copyright in a work (rather than infringement issues), then that does not confer Federal jurisdiction. Pretty much everything else related to copyright is exclusively fed.
For many, many people, the incentive to create is not because of money, but because they can't not create.
This is the part that I think needs to be stressed to death. Most people who create do so because they have to; getting paid for it is a great perc when you can get it.
The idea of copyright as incentive to create is bullshit, and the people who say that are clearly not persons who feel the compulsion that creators do.
I'm so thrilled to have lived long enough that high quality video, animation, and recording studios can be had by us commoners with little overhead, and generate pro product. (When I started, a 2-oscillator 5-voice analog synth was $5k, in 70s bucks. Yikes!)
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.