3 ms·
"we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment" For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the
by plusminusplus 4y ago
"we cannot ignore the fact that litigation creates an inherently adverse environment"
For discussion, let's take MSG's statement in good faith, and assume the attorney was notified twice.
Are there legitimate reasons to do this other than a "pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG" as suggested?
- ezfe 4y agoI mean, I think it's standard operating procedure not to allow any interaction except through proper channels when there's litigation involved, and they can apply this here. I don't think barring someone from your property is a good punishment against someone who is trying to sue you, since that kinda implies they "dislike" you already and wouldn't want to engage with you
- azernik 4y agoAll that is well and good for a plaintiff. But their lawyer? Or any other lawyer who works at the same firm? Nah, this is bananas.
- eppp 4y agoSo if google is suing ticketmaster then ticketmaster banning google employees would be ok?
- azernik 4y agoDefinitely not okay, just pointing out the different kind of craziness at play here. (In that case it would be purely the holding employees with no connection to the specific actions responsible for what their employer does.)