4 ms·

I don't begrudge them their annoyance (or click-through harvesting) but there is a straightforward legal process for objecting to and quashing a subpoena. Seems

I don't begrudge them their annoyance (or click-through harvesting) but there is a straightforward legal process for objecting to and quashing a subpoena. Seems like it might apply here, at least in part: https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Third-Party-Subpoenas-10-15-2020 https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Thir... Also RE some speculation in this thread, it seems very unlikely to me that Meta's legal team was looking to get some free market research, but it is interesting to consider.

thesausageking 4y ago
If you never been through discovery, it can seem that way, but nothing is straightforward or cheap about responding to a subpoena in a high profile case with a $500B company. Samsung, Nintendo, and the other parties listed likely will spent $1-2m on these subpoenas. It likely involves thousands and thousands of messages and documents. A lot of back and forth with lawyers ("Each of these 12 employees exported everything with the word 'roadmap' in their email? what about Sandy's personal phone; I see a reference to an SMS elsewhere"), IP council to redact things, and then prep and support for the deposition. SimulaVR is a tiny startup. It very well could kill them.
- micimize 4y ago
  yeesh – one would hope that would fall under "undue burden or expense" but yeah I guess you never know how this kinda thing plays out until you've been through the ringer (like everything). Thinking again, I can't believe I included the descriptor "straightforward"