Anonymous wrote:Another for the DNR list: Whitney Scharer.

Scharer, who has locked her Twitter, Whitney Scharer, sold her debut novel for over one million dollars in an auction involving fourteen publishing houses, and it was been named most anticipated book of 2019 by Oprah.com, and various other sources.

Age of Light.

Ever heard of it?

Here she is mocking Dawn's kidney donation:

https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447625881208467457/photo/1

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson. (Hint: zero dollars.)

Why do you think this is about money? Larson filed suit against Dorland, and Dorland filed counterclaims. She's the defendant. The case is not some big money grab on DD's part.

I feel like the initial misinformation about this whole story pops up, zombified, every 10 pages on this thread.

+1

This is not about money. Now, Dorland doesn't have endless money, but I think she is probably just wanting to clear her name. She doesn't want cash. She wants her reputation back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson. (Hint: zero dollars.)

Why do you think this is about money? Larson filed suit against Dorland, and Dorland filed counterclaims. She's the defendant. The case is not some big money grab on DD's part.

I feel like the initial misinformation about this whole story pops up, zombified, every 10 pages on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson. (Hint: zero dollars.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

So creepy, right?!

No — people like me do NOT have group chats like this
Yes — emotional stunted at age 12, insecure, unprofessional, competitive “creative class” head cases absolutely have chats like this and have no idea that they are outliers.

I don't have group chats like that either and I would instinctively get the eff out of any friend group that talked like that about other people.

But it must be hard to get out of it if someone as powerful as Celeste Ng is the leader and she can usher you into the literary career you crave. You start seeing this almost like a vampire story, don't you? These regular people letting Ng drink their blood for the hope of eternal life/a nice advance.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)? The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well.

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from? Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.

What I mean is, I feel like people are sympathizing so much with Dorland and against the mean girl dynamic of the Chunky Monkeys that we have lost a little bit of perspective on what the law actually allows. I think what the law actually allows is pretty dangerous for Dorland (and why I keep wishing that someone who knows how would start a GoFundMe for her legal bills).

Anonymous wrote:

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?