Jump to content
grappler6

Willie Trials

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, VakAttack said:

I will say this, a lot of civil attorneys don't litigate in trial as often as you presume, plus doing it this way has got to be awkward already.

The percentage of actual trials in civil litigation is remarkably low.  Maybe 2% of all civil filings (excluding cases such as evictions and small claims).

The percentage of arrogant and self-righteous pontificators in these cases is actually quite high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flo is fighting an impossible case here where the only point is to cost Rokfin $$$ in legal fees and scare their other employees from leaving and joining Rokfin. The way to judge the flo lawyer isn't whether she actually does a good job during the trial, it's the amount of paperwork/fees she has forced Rokfin to pay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Flo is fighting an impossible case here where the only point is to cost Rokfin $$$ in legal fees and scare their other employees from leaving and joining Rokfin. The way to judge the flo lawyer isn't whether she actually does a good job during the trial, it's the amount of paperwork/fees she has forced Rokfin to pay.  

My opinion Willie and Rokfin win and Flo has to pay all legal fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the lawyers - it seems like the lawyers (mostly Karen) are basically trying to get the witnesses to read documents, which often gets objected to with "the document speaks for itself."   I assume the judge (especially a badass one like Judge Livingston) has looked at all the evidence, what is the point of basically just getting witnesses to read things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Question for the lawyers - it seems like the lawyers (mostly Karen) are basically trying to get the witnesses to read documents, which often gets objected to with "the document speaks for itself."   I assume the judge (especially a badass one like Judge Livingston) has looked at all the evidence, what is the point of basically just getting witnesses to read things?

Mostly to get a witness to give an interpretation of a document. Sometimes the judge will allow that impression, if it is legally significant what a witness thinks of it (or thought of it at the time it was written), but often subjective understanding isn't relevant to the case and that's where you get valid "speaks for itself" objections. The last thing an attorney wants is a witness rambling on about the meaning of terms in a contract in a way that diverges from that side's theory of the case.

The biggest difference in subjective intent would be between a casually written email and contractual language. The subjective impressions of loose language are much more likely to be relevant than contractual terms because the negotiated terms of a contract will often have a legal meaning fixed by precedent or textualist analysis. As a hyper-leftist, I'll throw you this red meat: who "the big guy" is in the Bobulinski email may require testimony but "payment due 30 days after delivery" almost certainly does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ugarte said:

Mostly to get a witness to give an interpretation of a document. Sometimes the judge will allow that impression, if it is legally significant what a witness thinks of it (or thought of it at the time it was written), but often subjective understanding isn't relevant to the case and that's where you get valid "speaks for itself" objections. The last thing an attorney wants is a witness rambling on about the meaning of terms in a contract in a way that diverges from that side's theory of the case.

The biggest difference in subjective intent would be between a casually written email and contractual language. The subjective impressions of loose language are much more likely to be relevant than contractual terms because the negotiated terms of a contract will often have a legal meaning fixed by precedent or textualist analysis. As a hyper-leftist, I'll throw you this red meat: who "the big guy" is in the Bobulinski email may require testimony but "payment due 30 days after delivery" almost certainly does not.

Thanks for the explanation.   Have you watched any of the #WillieTrials?   Karen in particular seems to be asking dumb questions like "what date is this email from?" when it clearly shows it on the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Thanks for the explanation.   Have you watched any of the #WillieTrials?   Karen in particular seems to be asking dumb questions like "what date is this email from?" when it clearly shows it on the screen.

I haven't been. I've watched some of the recap videos and read some of the early papers. I may review the record and do a post-verdict recap video or something. 

You ask those questions either to set up a follow-up question or to create a record to quote in post-trial submissions or to demonstrate that a witness knew or should have known when certain information was read or available. There is "obvious" and there is "obvious and a part of the trial record" and lawyers have to ask a lot of questions with obvious answers to get them in the trial record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I watched the Stalemate guy's video about yesterday.  He has no idea what he's talking about.  Which he admits to, but still, it's hard to take seriously.

EDIT:  related to his commentary on the law and/or lawyers, I mean.

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VakAttack said:

Good luck with that.  You are not necessarily entitled to legal fees just because you defend yourself successfully against a lawsuit.

Indeed. In fact, the default in American courts makes it very hard to get legal fees except in cases deemed "frivolous" (a very high bar) or where fees are specifically called for by statute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jammen said:

But you did have to love the "mercy rule' comment.

I don't remember where he said that.  He so clearly is rooting for Rokfin it's hard to take his opinion seriously as unbiased, but he does a good job of putting on an entertaining program.

 

I've made no secret, I like Willie and CP, I go way back with them both on these message boards, though I would say I'm friendlier with CP (as far as that goes).  I don't want this for either of them.  I hope Willie gets to make the product and do what he wants, but I understand why Flo wants to enforce their contract, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ugarte said:

Indeed. In fact, the default in American courts makes it very hard to get legal fees except in cases deemed "frivolous" (a very high bar) or where fees are specifically called for by statute. 

Yup.  I think the biggest indictment I can see based on representations of what's happened earlier and what I viewed yesterday is Flo is letting this get too in the weeds, but that lawsuit itself is clearly not frivolous.  Non-competes are often litigated.

Flo's argument should be:  we had a contract, he is bound by it.  They seem to be going down all these labyrinthine pathways they don't need to.  Now the judge could still rule in that case that the non-compete was overbroad, but that's always possible.

Edited by VakAttack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, calot said:

My opinion Willie and Rokfin win and Flo has to pay all legal fees.

When Livingston works family court her decisions usually leave both sides distressed.  Willie Trials has many similarities to family court and Livingston is unhappy that the parties couldn't settle their dispute with mediation after she had strongly urged that they do so.  I think this will be a lose-lose for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Yup.  I think the biggest indictment I can see based on representations of what's happened earlier and what I viewed yesterday is Flo is letting this get too in the weeds, but that lawsuit itself is clearly not frivolous.  Non-competes are often litigated.

Flo's argument should be:  we had a contract, he is bound by it.  They seem to be going down all these labyrinthine pathways they don't need to.  Now the judge could still rule in that case that the non-compete was overbroad, but that's always possible.

What was Willie supposed to do for a year, not work on anything related to wrestling? It's ridiculous to expect that of an at will employee and I'd like to see an example of a journalist making <100K a year being held to that standard. According to flo, Willie could have taken a job at a newspaper and if he covered wrestling, he would be violating the noncompete. This case is going absolutely nowhere, and flo doing this to him despicable.  The reason Flo is going down all these avenues is because the entire purpose of this litigation is to generate legal fees for Rokfin so they stop poaching flo employees.  Every exhibit they introduce forces Rokfin to spend $$$ to prepare for it. Flo will consider this case a win as long as they don't have to pay for legal fees.  

 

 

 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ugarte said:

Indeed. In fact, the default in American courts makes it very hard to get legal fees except in cases deemed "frivolous" (a very high bar) or where fees are specifically called for by statute. 

I believe it was brought up that there is a claim that Flo has "dirty hands" or something which seemed to be related to the request for legal fees.

But I'd agree, my uneducated guess so far, is that Rokfin/Willie win, but probably won't get legal fees.    I think the key is the discussion around events vs. rankings/articles - I don't see how Judge Livingston would agree rankings/articles is really competing with Flo, and if it is the non-compete seems overly broad.   But events are where Flo's bread is really buttered.   Interestingly it does sound like Willie likely was trying to take events from Flo and likely was involved with courting NWLC, I just don't think they've been able to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Billyhoyle said:

What was Willie supposed to do for a year, not work on anything related to wrestling? It's ridiculous to expect that of an at will employee and I'd like to see an example of a journalist making <100K a year being held to that standard. According to flo, Willie could have taken a job at a newspaper and if he covered wrestling, he would be violating the noncompete. This case is going absolutely nowhere.  The reason Flo is going down all these avenues is because the entire purpose of this litigation is to generate legal fees for Rokfin so they stop poaching flo employees.  Every exhibit they introduce forces Rokfin to spend $$$ to prepare for it. Flo will consider this case a win as long as they don't have to pay for legal fees.  

 

 

 

I would have to see the actual non-compete to give a full opinion on this.  Based on what I saw yesterday, with them arguing about high school wrestling, he could have focused on college wrestling only for one season?  Honestly, like I said, I see both sides.  The pointo f non0competes is to protect the employer from the employee taking benefits earned at the employer and using them to hurt the employer.  Willie was a figure in the community, but nowhere near his current profile without Flo.  But he was also hugely beneficial to Flo, and I understand why people would also want Willie to be able to produce his content, as I am one of those people.  I like both Willie and CP, and I'm sad that they're friendship seems irretrievably broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VakAttack said:

I would have to see the actual non-compete to give a full opinion on this.  Based on what I saw yesterday, with them arguing about high school wrestling, he could have focused on college wrestling only for one season?  Honestly, like I said, I see both sides.  The pointo f non0competes is to protect the employer from the employee taking benefits earned at the employer and using them to hurt the employer.  Willie was a figure in the community, but nowhere near his current profile without Flo.  But he was also hugely beneficial to Flo, and I understand why people would also want Willie to be able to produce his content, as I am one of those people.  I like both Willie and CP, and I'm sad that they're friendship seems irretrievably broken.

Flowrestling does not have any right to the fact that Willie became a well known figure over the past decade. That is not proprietary. In court, flo has claimed that they consider anything that operates in any of the channels in which they have content to be a competitor.  So if Willie had worked covering marching bands, flo believes that would be in violation of the noncompete.  I don't doubt that legally Flowrestling isn't out of line to bring a claim to court-i'm not saying they will have to pay legal fees (i'm not a lawyer).  I'm just saying from a practical standpoint, there is no way their noncompete would ever be enforced the way they are claiming it should be.  With that said, I doubt flowrestling or their attorneys believe or hope that they can win this case-it's purpose is to generate legal fees for Rokfin.  Even if they lose this case, I wouldn't be surprised if they file something else against Willie/Rokfin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I believe it was brought up that there is a claim that Flo has "dirty hands" or something which seemed to be related to the request for legal fees.

"Unclean" is the typical term. That might be enough but it seems like a longshot. The claim seems plausible even if not ultimately successful and the evidence of bad faith would have to be really, really strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Billyhoyle said:

Flowrestling does not have any right to the fact that Willie became a well known figure over the past decade. That is not proprietary. In court, flo has claimed that they consider anything that operates in any of the channels in which they have content to be a competitor.  So if Willie had worked covering marching bands, flo believes that would be in violation of the noncompete.  I don't doubt that legally Flowrestling isn't out of line to bring a claim to court-i'm not saying they will have to pay legal fees (i'm not a lawyer).  I'm just saying from a practical standpoint, there is no way their noncompete would ever be enforced the way they are claiming it should be.  With that said, I doubt flowrestling or their attorneys believe or hope that they can win this case-it's purpose is to generate legal fees for Rokfin.  Even if they lose this case, I wouldn't be surprised if they file something else against Willie/Rokfin.  

Some lawyers operate on the theory of take the biggest swing and still end up short.  If you aim for X, and the judge splits the baby, you'll end up short.  So aim for Y, and when she splits it, you end up where you really wanted to be, at X.  If the non-compete is overbroad, I don't believe it's required that it be thrown out, she can construe it narrowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

What was Willie supposed to do for a year, not work on anything related to wrestling? It's ridiculous to expect that of an at will employee and I'd like to see an example of a journalist making <100K a year being held to that standard. According to flo, Willie could have taken a job at a newspaper and if he covered wrestling, he would be violating the noncompete. This case is going absolutely nowhere, and flo doing this to him despicable.  The reason Flo is going down all these avenues is because the entire purpose of this litigation is to generate legal fees for Rokfin so they stop poaching flo employees.  Every exhibit they introduce forces Rokfin to spend $$$ to prepare for it. Flo will consider this case a win as long as they don't have to pay for legal fees.  

 

 

 

Rokfin's lawyers earlier in the week had questioned the Flo reps that basically the whole internet was considered competition. They mentioned Netflix, ESPN, the NFL, NBA, even specifically universities that streamed their own sporting events. It was quite exhausting how many companies that Flo considered to be competition. The Rokfin/Willie lawyers were definitely laying the groundwork for an overreaching noncompete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Some lawyers operate on the theory of take the biggest swing and still end up short.  If you aim for X, and the judge splits the baby, you'll end up short.  So aim for Y, and when she splits it, you end up where you really wanted to be, at X.  If the non-compete is overbroad, I don't believe it's required that it be thrown out, she can construe it narrowly.

I'm sure you are correct from the legal standpoint.  It just seems clear to me that Flo doesn't actually believe they have a case against Willie.  They would aim big, but no way to the degree of claiming ownership of terms like "Big Board" and "Crystal ball rankings," right?  At a certain point, wouldn't these types of obvious overreaches undermine their credibility?  That's why I feel like this is about creating work for Rokfin's lawyers-they are including literally everything they can possibly think of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...