3 ms·

I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. T

I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. The subpoena has to come from the court, and so I imagine it’s the court reviewing the documents, not Meta. I sure hope that’s how it works. I’d love for a lawyer to chime in, though.

jjulius 4y ago
IANAL, but I would imagine that at the very least, Meta's lawyers would need to be able to see the documentation so that they can adequately prepare their argument/defense.
cldellow 4y ago
? It is literally coming from Meta. That's what the subpoena and court filings that are screenshotted on that page show. Meta sought the subpoena, the court granted it, and now Simula has to testify at a deposition where the questions will be asked by Meta. And... it sort of has to work this way? It's not the job of the court to do Meta or FTC's advocacy for them.
- greensoap 4y ago
  Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-commission-v-meta-platforms-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-... Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.
  - Animats 4y ago
    > quash the subpoena Yes. Obviously they need a lawyer. But they should be able to get this quashed. At least narrowed and moved somewhere more convenient.

3 ms·

I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. T

by JeezusJuiceTPR 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago
IANAL, but I would imagine that at the very least, Meta's lawyers would need to be able to see the documentation so that they can adequately prepare their argument/defense.
cldellow 4y ago
? It is literally coming from Meta. That's what the subpoena and court filings that are screenshotted on that page show. Meta sought the subpoena, the court granted it, and now Simula has to testify at a deposition where the questions will be asked by Meta. And... it sort of has to work this way? It's not the job of the court to do Meta or FTC's advocacy for them.
- greensoap 4y ago
  Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-commission-v-meta-platforms-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-... Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.
  - Animats 4y ago
    > quash the subpoena Yes. Obviously they need a lawyer. But they should be able to get this quashed. At least narrowed and moved somewhere more convenient.