California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdamD said:
Makes me wonder why any court system would allow this farce to continue, if they refuse to provide evidence AND witnesses.
Click to expand...
Because a court must allow parties to perform things, hence how you can stuff a court case around for many many years if you want to. I did it for 7 years, stuffing a person around... just to drag them out in court, and it worked, as he ended up so snowed down in legal costs that he finally stopped lying and came clean about what he did, thus my burden was diminished to equality, not just I was in the wrong according to him.

Long story short, the old adage... don't deal with family when it comes to money, in my case, don't buy and old run down house from a brother in law, when he was broke and losing everything, needed the money to keep afloat, for him to only then stab me in the back a year later (and his own sister) and try and take us to court over it.

Just because he did the wrong thing by us ethically, I dragged out a court case for 7 years, and he still got nothing except massive legal bills, which ended up breaking him again.

So its easy to do, and a court can't do much about it if you file the right things, need time to look at other things, etc... especially when most courts are already back logged, getting a date a year out, then needing more time to research some new evidence... scarily easy to do.
 
I believe that some evidence is being provided by Plaintiff at this time, or some other sensitive data, in support of the motion.
 
An interesting tidbit, Plaintiff's attorneys are also representing Internet Brands in another case. Wendy Giberti, Walsh are attorneys for IB. Whilst, Rosenblum is also named. These guys have been subpoenaed in Texas, with case in California as well, named: In the Matter of the Deposition Subpoenas Served on Internet Brands Inc's Attorneys and Chief Technology Officer.
Internet Brands, Inc.'s (“Internet Brands”) witnesses ignored deposition subpoenas issued from this Court and did not appear for their depositions, in the absence of any Court-ordered relief from the subpoenas. Internet Brands simply filed a Motion to Quash (on the day of the depositions) and then refused to appear.
Click to expand...
sound familiar?

Wait... he's the guy from Davesgarden.com :( It's a recurring theme within IB cases - they buy then sue the former owner(s) based on that they start a competing website.
 
Shamil said:
Those would not be under seal - things such as financial information, trade secrets etc, would be.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there is evidence of acts concerning minors that are contained within Plaintiff's discovery materials that they wish to be sealed...
 
Shamil said:
An interesting tidbit, Plaintiff's attorneys are also representing Internet Brands in another case. Wendy Giberti, Walsh are attorneys for IB. Whilst, Rosenblum is also named. These guys have been subpoenaed in Texas, with case in California as well, named: In the Matter of the Deposition Subpoenas Served on Internet Brands Inc's Attorneys and Chief Technology Officer. sound familiar?

Wait... he's the guy from Davesgarden.com :( It's a recurring theme within IB cases - they buy then sue the former owner(s) based on that they start a competing website.
Click to expand...
It's almost funny.
 
From here:

Order to Seal a Document
  • When documents are ordered to be placed under seal, the Clerk will officially file the document.
  • Unless a document is included within a category of documents considered sealed under a federal statute or rule, a document can only be sealed by an order of the court.
  • An agreement of the parties does not allow the Clerk to file a document under seal without a court order.
  • The Clerk of Court, or designee, is authorized to strike from the record a sealed document electronically filed in error
These secret documents could contain details about IB's trade secrets that they don't want disclosed to the general public, e.g. how they invented SEO for forums, when it came about, how it was stolen by the group here in conjunction with the several scandalous souls now named within the Eleventh Amended Complaint. Who knows, who really cares any more. Perhaps IB is now naming teenage interns and volunteers as additional defendants and IB wants to protect the identities of these youngsters so that they can enjoy a normal life once they do their time in a Federal Pound Me Prison. It's all just a charade designed to waste as many resources as is humanly and financially possible.

I'd be laughing my buns off if real people weren't seriously injured by these unwarranted actions.
 
Hmm, I thought teenagers were dealt with redactions and case names -oh well.

That said, it is most likely trade secrets.
 
Shamil said:
Hmm, I thought teenagers were dealt with redactions and case names -oh well.
That said, it is most likely trade secrets.
Click to expand...
I was completely joking about that part. I was going to say "page boy interns." Perhaps since they are using RICO, there might be a drug bust in the paperwork somewhere too so they are requesting the entire case be sealed pending review by the DEA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom