4 ms·

From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the docu

From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the documents and deposition requested? Does this open them to later legal action if they refuse? It seems like a strange thing for a corporation to be able to demand that other companies hand over stuff like this, no matter the circumstance.

pyb 4y ago
Nowhere does it say that they don't intend to comply.
georgewsinger 4y ago
Just to clarify: we're seeking legal counsel and intend to comply with the law. Many other larger companies have fought these subpoenas (Snap, etc) and, as far as we can tell, still had to hand over items.
- endominus 4y ago
  Apologies, I apparently read too much into your statement about difficulty of hiring a legal defense and your "hope [that] they leave us alone." Good luck and I hope this doesn't take the wind out of your sails too much.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  If that's true, it sounds like companies have been weaponizing the legal system to get access to proprietary information from their competitors. Surely that has got to be illegal somehow?
  - mekkkkkk 4y ago
    The court decides whether a subpoena should be upheld or not. If the judge has signed off on this one, then it's all legit. Failing to comply would be contempt of court.
    - Algent 4y ago
      I'll never understand how US court system basically allow you to randomly force anyone unrelated to a case into it and suffer the legal cost. It make it so easy to weaponize any case to your advantage.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Like many things in the world, it all only works because the vast majority of people aren't assholes. As it gets more and more weaponized the slow arm of the law will move to prevent it.
      - mekkkkkk 4y ago
        What if a ruling requires information held by someone else? Should the case just be dismissed because of lack of evidence? Having a functional justice system is probably worth some snags. The legal cost aspect is unfortunate. However, as others have mentioned, the court probably doesn't require the assembly of new documents, but rather submission of existing ones. So while there is a cost, it's not devastating. The interesting question is whether or not this specific subpoena has real merit, or if the court was played by Meta.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  I know it's not helpful at this point, but you really should have had a relationship with a lawyer already. But now is the next best time. This is just the first time you're running into issues. As you grow, you're almost guaranteed to hit more. You'd also be smart to have a lawyer available to review all of your intellectual property, terms of service, privacy policies, etc. I'm just a solo punter myself, but having my legal counsel already setup, knowing that I can call them at any time, rather than having to scramble to find someone in the moment a problem happens, gives me a lot of peace of mind. Given how you're positioned as an Open Source company, maybe the Electronic Frontier Foundation can help you find someone good.
  - kanetw 4y ago
    We already have standing legal counsel. George made it sound like we're just now seeking a lawyer, but we already reviewed our policies etc in the past.
- aliqot 4y ago
  Time to get well-versed in malicious compliance.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    A game in which a small startup can only choose among different bad endings
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    Malicious compliance is a good way to get thrown in contempt. Courts aren't stupid.
extropy 4y ago
The subpoena is issued by a judge for a pending case, you can either fight it by submitting an opposing motion or be held in contempt of court which in this case is pretty much a loss.
ajross 4y ago
A subpoena is a court order (and the service requirement constitutes legal proof that it was delivered). Refusal to comply is contempt, which can be punished as a crime. No, you don't get to ignore a subpoena. In this particular case it looks like they're just being asked to testify about their product in an unrelated case. They aren't being sued. Call your lawyer first and do what they say. Most likely you can arrange a deposition more convenient to your schedule and location.
- georgewsinger 4y ago
  Just want to clarify: we're not ignoring this subpoena and intend to comply with the law. We're in contact with a lawyer and are discussing our options with them.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Who pays for all the costs associated with this? Can you abuse the legal system to drive a company into bankruptcy by repeatedly subpoenaing them?
  - dugmartin 4y ago
    There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... but you can be labeled a "vexatious litigant" which causes you to be radioactive for representation (nobody wants to disbarred): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation (IANAL but I enjoy watching them on TV)
    - bombcar 4y ago
      From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.
  - ajross 4y ago
    People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!) A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.

pyb 4y ago

Nowhere does it say that they don't intend to comply.

georgewsinger 4y ago

Just to clarify: we're seeking legal counsel and intend to comply with the law. Many other larger companies have fought these subpoenas (Snap, etc) and, as far as we can tell, still had to hand over items.

endominus 4y ago
Apologies, I apparently read too much into your statement about difficulty of hiring a legal defense and your "hope [that] they leave us alone." Good luck and I hope this doesn't take the wind out of your sails too much.
TakeBlaster16 4y ago
If that's true, it sounds like companies have been weaponizing the legal system to get access to proprietary information from their competitors. Surely that has got to be illegal somehow?
- mekkkkkk 4y ago
  The court decides whether a subpoena should be upheld or not. If the judge has signed off on this one, then it's all legit. Failing to comply would be contempt of court.
  - Algent 4y ago
    I'll never understand how US court system basically allow you to randomly force anyone unrelated to a case into it and suffer the legal cost. It make it so easy to weaponize any case to your advantage.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Like many things in the world, it all only works because the vast majority of people aren't assholes. As it gets more and more weaponized the slow arm of the law will move to prevent it.
    - mekkkkkk 4y ago
      What if a ruling requires information held by someone else? Should the case just be dismissed because of lack of evidence? Having a functional justice system is probably worth some snags. The legal cost aspect is unfortunate. However, as others have mentioned, the court probably doesn't require the assembly of new documents, but rather submission of existing ones. So while there is a cost, it's not devastating. The interesting question is whether or not this specific subpoena has real merit, or if the court was played by Meta.
moron4hire 4y ago
I know it's not helpful at this point, but you really should have had a relationship with a lawyer already. But now is the next best time. This is just the first time you're running into issues. As you grow, you're almost guaranteed to hit more. You'd also be smart to have a lawyer available to review all of your intellectual property, terms of service, privacy policies, etc. I'm just a solo punter myself, but having my legal counsel already setup, knowing that I can call them at any time, rather than having to scramble to find someone in the moment a problem happens, gives me a lot of peace of mind. Given how you're positioned as an Open Source company, maybe the Electronic Frontier Foundation can help you find someone good.
- kanetw 4y ago
  We already have standing legal counsel. George made it sound like we're just now seeking a lawyer, but we already reviewed our policies etc in the past.
aliqot 4y ago
Time to get well-versed in malicious compliance.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  A game in which a small startup can only choose among different bad endings
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Malicious compliance is a good way to get thrown in contempt. Courts aren't stupid.

extropy 4y ago

The subpoena is issued by a judge for a pending case, you can either fight it by submitting an opposing motion or be held in contempt of court which in this case is pretty much a loss.

ajross 4y ago

A subpoena is a court order (and the service requirement constitutes legal proof that it was delivered). Refusal to comply is contempt, which can be punished as a crime. No, you don't get to ignore a subpoena. In this particular case it looks like they're just being asked to testify about their product in an unrelated case. They aren't being sued. Call your lawyer first and do what they say. Most likely you can arrange a deposition more convenient to your schedule and location.

georgewsinger 4y ago
Just want to clarify: we're not ignoring this subpoena and intend to comply with the law. We're in contact with a lawyer and are discussing our options with them.
bombcar 4y ago
Who pays for all the costs associated with this? Can you abuse the legal system to drive a company into bankruptcy by repeatedly subpoenaing them?
- dugmartin 4y ago
  There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... but you can be labeled a "vexatious litigant" which causes you to be radioactive for representation (nobody wants to disbarred): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation (IANAL but I enjoy watching them on TV)
  - bombcar 4y ago
    From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.
- ajross 4y ago
  People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!) A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.