5 ms·

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 a

by 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.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    > People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. The only way to misunderstand this is to not have read the linked page. HN is not immune from headline-only outrage. The first paragraph literally ends with: > ... in relation to the government's recent injunction against their acquisition of a VR fitness company.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Costs don't have anything to do with being sued or not. A subpoena to a person is relatively easy to respond to (unless you need a lawyer to help you negotiate the fifth amendment for reasons), but this will cost time and money, both things that we all know startups have in vast quantities. If the answer is not Meta pays, then why isn't it?
    - ajross 4y ago
      I told you: The recipient pays as part of their civic duty. If you want protection under the law for your own grievances, you need to be prepared to assist the court in the adjudication of the grievances of others. And the practical reason is that poor people have the right to petition courts for redress of grievances too. You're upset because Zuckerberg happens to be rich, so this seems unfair. But what if the startup had to sue someone and needed testimony from someone else to prove their case? You think they should have to pay just to get facts before the court?

by ajross 4y ago

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.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  > People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. The only way to misunderstand this is to not have read the linked page. HN is not immune from headline-only outrage. The first paragraph literally ends with: > ... in relation to the government's recent injunction against their acquisition of a VR fitness company.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Costs don't have anything to do with being sued or not. A subpoena to a person is relatively easy to respond to (unless you need a lawyer to help you negotiate the fifth amendment for reasons), but this will cost time and money, both things that we all know startups have in vast quantities. If the answer is not Meta pays, then why isn't it?
  - ajross 4y ago
    I told you: The recipient pays as part of their civic duty. If you want protection under the law for your own grievances, you need to be prepared to assist the court in the adjudication of the grievances of others. And the practical reason is that poor people have the right to petition courts for redress of grievances too. You're upset because Zuckerberg happens to be rich, so this seems unfair. But what if the startup had to sue someone and needed testimony from someone else to prove their case? You think they should have to pay just to get facts before the court?