Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

[LuNaS]

Not necessarily, the impact is fairly minimal and primes the appellate court on what to see. This can save them time figuring out your point, ensure they understand it immediately, and makes it easier for them to cite to when they are reviewing it. For a net effect of maybe 3-5 words per cause of action you can significantly improve the readability and expectations for the appellate judges.

lets take an example:
"The trial court's refusal to consider Appelent's Second Amended petition is reversible error". 13 words
Compared to
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied controlling law when it rejected the 2AP" 15 words, 17 if you make it Second Amended Petition. You could also probably make this shorter with
"The trial court abused its discretion and misapplied law with the second amended petition rejection" 14 words, one more than what was in the document.

Now, that is not to say all her... recommendations are good. Where as this one adds at most 50 words, some of the others on here would just be absolutely asinine.

The thing is thought, we don't know if the court rejected the second amended petition, we go back to Chupp having made errors that actually affect everyone involved, and make things murky.

Because this is not just we not being sure of the 2AP being rejected or not, Lemon made a motion to strike it from the record and Chupp didn't strike it... So nobody can be sure if it was rejected or not.

In this case the vague language of that point is kind of necessary and changing it might have negative consequences, like I said before this case should not be as entertaining as it is it should also not be as big a clussterfuck as it is, but it is and this is just one of the examples.

 

[I'm not a Robot]

There's a discussion going on about the redactions in the unsworn declarations in the second amended petition.

https://archive.ph/MBm6n

Nick responded to this and then got dunked on by Mike Dunford and that other guy who said that what Nick linked to only applied to children.

https://archive.ph/9IaCm

https://archive.ph/nPJBs

I'm not a laywer, but this Rule 21c lists examples of sensitive data, which includes the name of a minor. It doesn't say that it only applies to minors.

 

[AnOminous]

There's a discussion going on about the reactions in the unsworn declarations in the second amended petition.

De minimis non curat lex bitches.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Ver archivo adjunto 1155371

Spoiler: The Rest

Ver archivo adjunto 1155374Ver archivo adjunto 1155376Ver archivo adjunto 1155377Ver archivo adjunto 1155378Ver archivo adjunto 1155379
Ver archivo adjunto 1155383Ver archivo adjunto 1155388Ver archivo adjunto 1155390Ver archivo adjunto 1155391Ver archivo adjunto 1155392Ver archivo adjunto 1155393

http://archive.li/wip/QVS8c

Everything this stupid bitch says can be countered with the phrases "de novo" and "word limits".

 

[Fox Fucker]

De minimis non curat lex bitches.

It's kind of weird how when ISWV talked about the perjury charges, LawTwitter was like "lol no one goes to jail for perjury", but then at the assumption that a privacy law might have been breached they go WAIT A MINUTE THAT'S ILLEGAL THE COA SHOULD THROW THIS OUT

 

[HTTP Error 404]

They are so, so, SO damned desperate to keep that Slatosch affidavit out by any insane troll logic necessary.

 

[Laundui_or_douchette?]

They are so, so, SO damned desperate to keep that Slatosch affidavit out by any insane troll logic necessary.

It still blows my mind it wasn’t in the first lot of paperwork. But I have a feeling that maybe Slatosch was resistant to it.

 

[FreeHugsCheap]

I'm not a laywer, but this Rule 21c lists examples of sensitive data, which includes the name of a minor. It doesn't say that it only applies to minors.

Ver archivo adjunto 1155727

It's almost as if, and try to follow because this is a crazy leap of logic, that is a LIST OF POSSIBLE THINGS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL which INCLUDES the name of minors.

Unless Dumbford and co. want to explain which minors have drivers licenses and tax id numbers.

Jesus Christ these people are the lowest rungs on the retard ladder.

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Holy fuck this cunt is stupid.

She STILL doesn't know this is not an abuse of discretion review! How much bullshit is this idiot going to spew without even knowing the applicable standard of review?

This isn't an Oregon versus Texas thing, this is a not having the foggiest fucking clue what you're talking about thing.

This isn't even just not knowing the specific statute, either. Even a complete idiot could have figured out this is a summary disposition prior to trial based on the law. That's how anti-SLAPP usually is. So it would be akin to an FRCP 12(b)(6) ruling, which I'm pretty sure they have in the Ninth Circuit, or even an FRCP 56 summary judgment.

And the applicable standard would be de novo for either of those.

This is just stupidity from this senile, stupid woman.

If I knew anyone that was studying for their law degree, I would STRONGLY advise them to stay away from LawTwitter unless its to show them an example of what not to do with their degree.
Otherwise, we get more sycophants chasing after PopeHat.

 

[PrinceofAllCucks]

It's almost as if, and try to follow because this is a crazy leap of logic, that is a LIST OF POSSIBLE THINGS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL which INCLUDES the name of minors.

Unless Dumbford and co. want to explain which minors have drivers licenses and tax id numbers.

Jesus Christ these people are the lowest rungs on the exceptional individual ladder.

Wasn't this literally the rule they tried citing to implying Ty violated it and somehow broke the law by releasing the depositions? Wasn't this one of the things they were going to include in that omnibus complaint or whatever?

 

[7proxy]

They are so, so, SO damned desperate to keep that Slatosch affidavit out by any insane troll logic necessary.

They try to keep it out of their mind and out of the discussion, sure. No amount of tweeting, sperging and ronversating will remove it from the record though.

 

[Bender]

Wasn't this literally the rule they tried citing to implying Ty violated it and somehow broke the law by releasing the depositions? Wasn't this one of the things they were going to include in that omnibus complaint or whatever?

The depositions censored the names of various women (like the chick Vic cheated on his fiance with) exactly the same as they were in the publicly-accessible deposition transcripts because of the confidentiality agreement; I don't understand how they could say Ty violated anything.

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

The depositions censored the names of various women (like the chick Vic cheated on his fiance with) exactly the same as they were in the publicly-accessible deposition transcripts because of the confidentiality agreement; I don't understand how they could say Ty violated anything.

Like anon says, its cause it helps Vic.

 

[TherapyMan]

There's a discussion going on about the redactions in the unsworn declarations in the second amended petition.

Ver archivo adjunto 1155718
https://archive.ph/MBm6n

Nick responded to this and then got dunked on by Mike Dunford and that other guy who said that what Nick linked to only applied to children.

Ver archivo adjunto 1155696
https://archive.ph/9IaCm
Ver archivo adjunto 1155725
Ver archivo adjunto 1155699
https://archive.ph/nPJBs

I'm not a laywer, but this Rule 21c lists examples of sensitive data, which includes the name of a minor. It doesn't say that it only applies to minors.

Ver archivo adjunto 1155727

If I'm reading the commentary correctly (which is always a difficulty with these fuckers):

1. Dunford is saying that the redaction of Slatoch's (and others) DOB and home address is improper and the court requires a non-redacted version.
2. Nick counters by citing to Rule 21c(a)(3); Rule 21c(c), which indicates that the DOB and home address is sensitive data and therefore the data needed to be redacted (?)
3. Dunford responds by saying that Rule 21c(a)(3)'s DOB and home address redaction requirements only apply when the person in question is a minor. Slatosch's DOB and home address information, therefore, is not sensitive data and does not need to be redacted.
4. Dunford then wrongly follows up by claiming the "rule" doesn't apply to adults (Rule 21c(a)(1)-(2) clearly are for an adult's information), although I think what he meant is specifically is Rule 21(c)(a)(3), and he just failed to clarify.

From my perspective, it seems to me that that the statutory definition is a closed list (i.e. Rule 21c(a)(1)-(3) are the only documents considered "Sensitive Data" for the purposes of the statute, and there's no "catch-all" provision). From the structure of the statute, it is fairly apparent to me that "a home address, dob, and name" are only considered "Sensitive Data" when the person to whom the data belongs is or was a minor at the time of the suit. Consequently, the home address and date of birth of an adult are not considered "Sensitive Data" for the purposes of the statute and did not need to be redacted to be in compliance of the rule.

 

[Legioneer]

If I'm reading the commentary correctly (which is always a difficulty with these fuckers):

1. Dunford is saying that the redaction of Slatoch's (and others) DOB and home address is improper and the court requires a non-redacted version.
2. Nick counters by citing to Rule 21c(a)(3); Rule 21c(c), which indicates that the DOB and home address is sensitive data and therefore the data needed to be redacted (?)
3. Dunford responds by saying that Rule 21c(a)(3)'s DOB and home address redaction requirements only apply when the person in question is a minor. Slatosch's DOB and home address information, therefore, is not sensitive data and does not need to be redacted.
4. Dunford then wrongly follows up by claiming the "rule" doesn't apply to adults (Rule 21c(a)(1)-(2) clearly are for an adult's information), although I think what he meant is specifically is Rule 21(c)(a)(3), and he just failed to clarify.

From my perspective, it seems to me that that the statutory definition is a closed list (i.e. Rule 21c(a)(1)-(3) are the only documents considered "Sensitive Data" for the purposes of the statute, and there's no "catch-all" provision). Consequently, the home address and date of birth of an adult are not considered "Sensitive Data" for the purposes of the statute and did not need to be redacted to be in compliance of the rule.

birth date (person of any age), home address (person of any age) and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed.

 

[AnOminous]

birth date (person of any age), home address (person of any age) and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed.

It's pretty embarrassing to fail at basic statutory construction this hard. Laypeople can do better. Just absolutely pathetic.

 

[I can't imagine]

birth date (person of any age), home address (person of any age) and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed.

It's exceptionally poorly worded, since it can easily be read as either "(a, b, and c) for which d is true" or "a, b, and (c for which d is true)". At least for ease of interpretation, it should either say either "Name (in the case of a minor), date of birth, and home address" or "If the named is a minor, then: name, date of birth, and home address".

That said, I have no idea on the court's interpretation of the statute, and I'm willing to guess Dumford doesn't either. Even beyond that, it seems pretty unlikely the appellate court is going to look at that and say, "Oops, sorry! Gotta throw this one out" based off of that specific element.

 

[TherapyMan]

It's pretty embarrassing to fail at basic statutory construction this hard. Laypeople can do better. Just absolutely pathetic.

I don't know. Seems to me to like the series-qualifier canon wins the day here. "And" in the statute creates a conjunctive list and "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 147 (2012) ("When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns of verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series."). The last antecedent canon is not an absolute feature of statutory construction, and I think it should be defeated here.

Just in general from working in the privacy sector, typically DOB and address information is not considered to be SPII, so that may be influencing my assumptions about the underlying language. I don't concede the issue, mind you, but I understand what you mean and how you've interpreted the statute, and I could be wrong.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

The court isn't going to care is the reality, Dunford thinking the court is going to devastate a case for basically no reason over something this minor, especially when both readings are valid readings, just shows how stupid he is.

Fucks sake, no wonder he doesn't practice.

 

[Gehenna]

I don't know. Seems to me to like the series-qualifier canon wins the day here. "And" in the statute creates a conjunctive list and "anyone who is a minor" is a postpositive modifier. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 147 (2012) ("When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns of verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series."). The last antecedent canon is not an absolute feature of statutory construction, and I think it should be defeated here.

Just in general from working in the privacy sector, typically DOB and address information is not considered to be SPII, so that may be influencing my assumptions about the underlying language. I don't concede the issue, mind you, but I understand what you mean and how you've interpreted the statute, and I could be wrong.

The problem is actually that and.

The sentence can be broken down in two ways.

[A birth date], [a home address], [and] [the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed].

This is the one you are focusing on, since and then becomes a qualifier to the prior two.
Then we have

[A birth date], [a home address], [and the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed].

If read this way, its separate.
You covered why to read it your way but the argument does cut both ways. Normally you'd expectit to be structured differently, such as:

[The birth date], [home address], [and name] [of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed.]

This shows that it is a single, continuous list. Instead, its A birth date, A home address. and then THE name... each of these would, grammatically, indicate seperate things and not be parts of a single continuous list.

The statute is badly written, and can be read in both ways equally easily. I have no idea which is appropriate.