As one of the lead attorneys on the case, while it would certainly be entertaining if they didn't, I do hope for my client's sake that the district quickly realizes its mistake and changes the policy :)
"(a) two or more lawyers whose activities constitute the practice of law, and who share its profits,expenses, and liabilities;"
Yep. Nonprofit but yep.
"(c) a division, department, office, or group within a business entity, which includes more than one lawyer who performs legal services for the business entity;"
What makes you say EFF isn't a law firm? We (I'm an EFF lawyer) certainly are. We're not your average firm to be sure, and we're not ONLY a law firm, but from a legal ethics perspective we're a nonprofit law firm and represent clients as such.
Three points. When I say no evidence, I mean it. Chevron has put NO evidence on the record here as to most of the email addresses at issue and no competent evidence as to any. Chevron's burden was to introduce those facts for each ad every address. They declined to do so. Chevron certainly said that the non-parties participated but sayin' don't make it so without evidence.
The First Amendment protections only drop off once a prima facia case of criminal wrongdoing BY THE SPEAKER is made. Kaplan relies on Chevron having made a prima fascia case of wrongdoing by Donziger to waive the First Amendment protections of the non-parties. That's just plain wrong.
Finally, the time to add defendants passed before the subpoenas issued, so that's not their motivation in seeking discovery. Trial is set for Oct 15. The opening brief in the appeal is due Oct 31, which means that even if they eventually prevail, they won't get the data until mid-2014. And yet Chevron refuses to back down from these subpoenas. That should suggest Chevron's motivation here has nothing to do with the RICO case.
You don't understand who the non-parties are... they haven't been alleged to be involved with anything. That's why they're non-parties. Chevron has said that they're involved, but no causes of action are alleged against them, nor does Chevron need to prove any of (what you're calling) "allegations" against them to prove its case against Donziger.
Two points. First, Chevron has made absolutely no showing that these people were involved (directly or indirectly). There is no evidence to support Kaplan's statement. But more important, relevance, while the usual standard for discovery, is not the operative standard here. Read Dendrite. In order for Chevron to get what they ask for, they need to prove that it's necessary for a core claim or defense, "highly" relevant, and unavailable from other sources. Chevron has specifically declined to do so.
That it "may" help Chevron prove the allegations would make the requested information relevant, but isn't enough to meet the heightened first amendment standard here.
Once again, yes this is a RICO case, but the targets are not the people alleged to have participated. They're third parties against whom Chevron has alleged nothing. The NY anti-SLAPP law doesn't apply for the same reason... these folks ARE NOT defendants.
Nope, the folks targeted are not parties to the litigation, hence the unusual nature of the subpoenas. Chevron has refused to make any showing about why it needs the data or how it's relevant.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nate Cardozo.
Re: "Let's hope the school district recognizes its mistake..."
As one of the lead attorneys on the case, while it would certainly be entertaining if they didn't, I do hope for my client's sake that the district quickly realizes its mistake and changes the policy :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UPL
It absolutely applies to us.
"(a) two or more lawyers whose activities constitute the practice of law, and who share its profits,expenses, and liabilities;"
Yep. Nonprofit but yep.
"(c) a division, department, office, or group within a business entity, which includes more than one lawyer who performs legal services for the business entity;"
Yep. 501(c)(3)s are business entities.
Re: Re: Re: UPL
What makes you say EFF isn't a law firm? We (I'm an EFF lawyer) certainly are. We're not your average firm to be sure, and we're not ONLY a law firm, but from a legal ethics perspective we're a nonprofit law firm and represent clients as such.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Sure That This Ranks as an Outrage
Three points. When I say no evidence, I mean it. Chevron has put NO evidence on the record here as to most of the email addresses at issue and no competent evidence as to any. Chevron's burden was to introduce those facts for each ad every address. They declined to do so. Chevron certainly said that the non-parties participated but sayin' don't make it so without evidence.
The First Amendment protections only drop off once a prima facia case of criminal wrongdoing BY THE SPEAKER is made. Kaplan relies on Chevron having made a prima fascia case of wrongdoing by Donziger to waive the First Amendment protections of the non-parties. That's just plain wrong.
Finally, the time to add defendants passed before the subpoenas issued, so that's not their motivation in seeking discovery. Trial is set for Oct 15. The opening brief in the appeal is due Oct 31, which means that even if they eventually prevail, they won't get the data until mid-2014. And yet Chevron refuses to back down from these subpoenas. That should suggest Chevron's motivation here has nothing to do with the RICO case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Sure That This Ranks as an Outrage
You don't understand who the non-parties are... they haven't been alleged to be involved with anything. That's why they're non-parties. Chevron has said that they're involved, but no causes of action are alleged against them, nor does Chevron need to prove any of (what you're calling) "allegations" against them to prove its case against Donziger.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Sure That This Ranks as an Outrage
Two points. First, Chevron has made absolutely no showing that these people were involved (directly or indirectly). There is no evidence to support Kaplan's statement. But more important, relevance, while the usual standard for discovery, is not the operative standard here. Read Dendrite. In order for Chevron to get what they ask for, they need to prove that it's necessary for a core claim or defense, "highly" relevant, and unavailable from other sources. Chevron has specifically declined to do so.
That it "may" help Chevron prove the allegations would make the requested information relevant, but isn't enough to meet the heightened first amendment standard here.
Re: Re: Not Sure That This Ranks as an Outrage
Once again, yes this is a RICO case, but the targets are not the people alleged to have participated. They're third parties against whom Chevron has alleged nothing. The NY anti-SLAPP law doesn't apply for the same reason... these folks ARE NOT defendants.
Re: Not Sure That This Ranks as an Outrage
Nope, the folks targeted are not parties to the litigation, hence the unusual nature of the subpoenas. Chevron has refused to make any showing about why it needs the data or how it's relevant.