5 ms·
Per the (better) Reuters' article linked elsewhere[0] in the thread, she allowed discovery related to one person, and nixed it in twenty one other cases. This
by mattkrause 4y ago
Per the (better) Reuters' article linked elsewhere[0] in the thread, she allowed discovery related to one person, and nixed it in twenty one other cases.
This puts a rather different spin on things than the title implies.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-ma-musk-idUSL1N2ZR1NF https://www.reuters.com/article/twitter-ma-musk-idUSL1N2ZR1N...
- mansion7 4y agoWould that matter? Unless those 21 different people had 21 different numbers, wouldn't one be just as good as 21?
- mattkrause 4y agoObviously, nobody but the judge knows what she’s actually thinking. However, my naive guess is that she’d authorize a lot of discovery if the arguments for fraud were already convincing to her. At the opposite extreme, some very limited discovery might make sense even if she thought the argument was likely bogus, just to deal with this argument now rather than on appeal. I wouldn’t read a lot into this decision, but I also don’t think it sounds like a amazing win either.