Anonymous wrote:The short version of "Larson's not doing as well as that PP thinks" is that Larson had her two fundamental claims (intentional interference with two contracts) dismissed even after the court found that they were not well plead and read the contracts into the pleading to do her lawyer a favor.

Dorland's dismissed claims were IIED which anyone who's been to law school knows is not a winner and a claim against her lawyer for sending letters for an improper legal purpose, where the lawyer's only argument was that the letters were shielded by privilege and the court disagreed.

So if there should be celebration about dismissals (and that would be premature because other claims still stand and some can be replead) it would happen on Dorland's side, because the claims they got dismissed were vital to Larson's lawsuit. But celebrating something like that or using it as a bellwether of the case is not something I'd expect to see from a lawyer.

Much more telling of "how it's going" is that Larson has been adamantly opposed to settlement discussions and now is pushing for the same.

The bolded is spot on and I agree.

The problem is that Larson will likely insist on a confidentiality and no disparagement clause, but Dorland -- who now has some marketability -- may want to write a book about her experience. If I were Dorland I'd think long and hard about any settlement that prevented me from telling my story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, Celeste.

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

Truth is better than these people’s fiction!

Celeste is literally delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

Larson's lawyer seems terrible in that he doesn't appear to have bothered to go through any of the materials Larson submitted to produce in discovery, did not adequately protect Larson from, apparently, committing perjury in attesting that she did not copy the letter (here, too, though, I am not positive this was perjury -- Larson said she never had a copy of the letter i.e. she did not print out a copy, and says she took notes on it. She could have just taken ALOT of notes, word for word, and never actually printed a copy of the letter, in which case her affidavit might not strictly be perjury but ymmv), he has done stupid things for posturing, etc., -- but on the merits of the case in the dismissal motions, GIVEN WHAT THE LAW IS which is not a mechanism to distribute true justice to both parties but a mechanism to mete out money and punishment as the laws define -- to me he doesn't appear to be doing badly.

YOUR ALL CAPS USAGE IS DEEPLY OBNOXIOUS. Know your audience, which includes people with a similar or identical legal background. POINT ME TO THE CLAIM WHERE SOMEONE SCREAMED THAT AN ANSWER AND/OR DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN A CIVIL SUIT WERE AN EFFICIENT WAY TO OBTAIN A GREATER FORM OF JUSTICE. THANKS.

Sorry, I guess my legal mind is far inferior to yours, but I don't understand the point you are making about Answers and discovery. You seem to be saying that no one on your side is claiming that Answers and discovery are an efficient way to obtain true justice? Okay.

I'm just saying that most people in this thread are deeply offended by the treatment of Dorland and want her to receive real justice -- Larson shouldn't be permitted to use the story any further, for example (I still can't believe people are arguing this), and they are talking about what was done to her re her Grub Street resignation as though it is a part of the lawsuit she might be compensated for (though it is not). People are arguing for real justice (I want it too) but that has little to do with what is in the actual lawsuit. What is in the actual lawsuit are copyright infringement claims, not plagiarism claims, and interference with business relationship/etc. claims. I have only read one "take" on the strength of Dorland's copyright claim and that didn't come out well for Dorland. So while all of this discovery is eye opening and does demonstrate that Lawson's attorney is sh!t at discovery, please explain to me how Dorland is going to recover significant money in this lawsuit when she can't get significant damages for copyright infringement because she filed her claim second? Am I living in an alternate universe?

The short version of "Larson's not doing as well as that PP thinks" is that Larson had her two fundamental claims (intentional interference with two contracts) dismissed even after the court found that they were not well plead and read the contracts into the pleading to do her lawyer a favor.

Dorland's dismissed claims were IIED which anyone who's been to law school knows is not a winner and a claim against her lawyer for sending letters for an improper legal purpose, where the lawyer's only argument was that the letters were shielded by privilege and the court disagreed.

So if there should be celebration about dismissals (and that would be premature because other claims still stand and some can be replead) it would happen on Dorland's side, because the claims they got dismissed were vital to Larson's lawsuit. But celebrating something like that or using it as a bellwether of the case is not something I'd expect to see from a lawyer.

Much more telling of "how it's going" is that Larson has been adamantly opposed to settlement discussions and now is pushing for the same.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of willful insanity at 19:28. Guys like the plagiarism was like removed what timeline performative white women are everywhere.

Exactly. And do we know who was on the One Ciry, One Story selection board? Was it someone affiliated with GRub street or chunky monkeys?

Another interesting wrinkle about the description of Plympton, company where Larson published Dorland’s letter almost verbatim:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDorianCramer/status/1450233798503936003

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

Larson's lawyer seems terrible in that he doesn't appear to have bothered to go through any of the materials Larson submitted to produce in discovery, did not adequately protect Larson from, apparently, committing perjury in attesting that she did not copy the letter (here, too, though, I am not positive this was perjury -- Larson said she never had a copy of the letter i.e. she did not print out a copy, and says she took notes on it. She could have just taken ALOT of notes, word for word, and never actually printed a copy of the letter, in which case her affidavit might not strictly be perjury but ymmv), he has done stupid things for posturing, etc., -- but on the merits of the case in the dismissal motions, GIVEN WHAT THE LAW IS which is not a mechanism to distribute true justice to both parties but a mechanism to mete out money and punishment as the laws define -- to me he doesn't appear to be doing badly.

YOUR ALL CAPS USAGE IS DEEPLY OBNOXIOUS. Know your audience, which includes people with a similar or identical legal background. POINT ME TO THE CLAIM WHERE SOMEONE SCREAMED THAT AN ANSWER AND/OR DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN A CIVIL SUIT WERE AN EFFICIENT WAY TO OBTAIN A GREATER FORM OF JUSTICE. THANKS.

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

Larson's lawyer seems terrible in that he doesn't appear to have bothered to go through any of the materials Larson submitted to produce in discovery, did not adequately protect Larson from, apparently, committing perjury in attesting that she did not copy the letter (here, too, though, I am not positive this was perjury -- Larson said she never had a copy of the letter i.e. she did not print out a copy, and says she took notes on it. She could have just taken ALOT of notes, word for word, and never actually printed a copy of the letter, in which case her affidavit might not strictly be perjury but ymmv), he has done stupid things for posturing, etc., -- but on the merits of the case in the dismissal motions, GIVEN WHAT THE LAW IS which is not a mechanism to distribute true justice to both parties but a mechanism to mete out money and punishment as the laws define -- to me he doesn't appear to be doing badly.

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

I also disagree with that PP. I do not think she is doing well.

I wish I could see the filing against Dorland's lawyer. What crazy lawyer would even file such a case? What are the grounds? I have to imagine the judge thinks it is nuts; they don't tolerate those kind of shenanigans well.

It seems to me also be be a kind of harassment that Larson is doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, Celeste.

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

Truth is better than these people’s fiction!

Kidneygate is doing God’s work lol

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

+1 seems like neither lawyer is doing great. I have won several lawsuits like this one. They always start out asking for a lot. We were advised to ask for $3M in a similar case that we won. We didn’t get $3M. We settled for less.

11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

I think there is a “fruit of the poison tree” issue with the letter and the story. The central issue of the story revolves around the plagiarized letter. So any version of the story at this point is tainted by this. If Larson had left the letter out she would be free and clear. But she didn’t.

This thread in Twitter is really interesting and raises the possibility that Larson is withholding discovery. I wonder what else is out there that is even worse than what has already been produced.