8 ms·

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Everyone seems to be conflating the California

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Everyone seems to be conflating the California AG requests with Amazons. I parsed more closely about what the ask here is, and its that Amazon is asking via separate motions for the same information given to the AG case which, due to how discovery works, they should already have, this to me reads as an attempt to press Molson legally and thus spend time and money on complying with these requests. They're also asking for additional information above what the CA AG office asked for or may have considered immaterial to their case. Its a fishing exercise to see if they can find anything to discredit Molson as a witness. Due to the wording in the thread, I found it confusing, but I read some of the posted pics of the asks, and its clear that Amazon is not only re-asking for what the CA AG office asked for, but also additional information. The wording makes it seem like only the AG office is asking for information. EDIT: Also, i see some folks think this is a situation where someone is being sued. Nowhere does it say Molson is being sued, Molson is essentially alleging that this is an overreach of discovery[0] via being "buried" by it. Molson has apparently confused a subpoena with a lawsuit however EDIT 2: I think Molson is conflating a few things (such as lawsuit vs subpoena) and I can't say I blame anyone, the legal system is complex and it can be really hard to remember these things under pressure. Its important to look at the posted documents more than anything, Molson was subpoenaed to provide discovery and I think Molson may have conflated that with a "lawsuit" EDIT 3: Given this is Twitter, he may have meant something like being served in a lawsuit or meant subpoena and not lawsuit without realizing and can't edit the tweets. I still think we can give Molson the benefit of the doubt here [0]: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-2023-010/ https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sec...

EA-3167 3y ago
If there isn't a lawsuit or a criminal case, how is there discovery?
- Satisfy4400 3y ago
  There's a civil lawsuit involving the State of California and Amazon. When you have a civil case, you can get discovery from third parties using subpoenas, which seems to be what's happening here.
- kbenson 3y ago
  I think the point being made is that the lawsuit or criminal case is not against him, even if he seems to be tangled up in a case to some degree.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Whats happening here is Molson a expert witness to a lawsuit filed against Amazon by the CA Attorney General Office. They've issued a subpoena for information (as is their right under the legal system) for additional discovery. A good chunk of it appears to be a repeat of the same discovery the state AG office is or has gathered, but they're also looking for anything related even tangentially to Molson's relationship with Amazon (emails, messages etc) as well. The allegation here would more closely be that Amazon is trying to abuse the discovery process by overreach. I'm willing to give Molson the benefit of the doubt in saying "lawsuit" when likely its subpoena. I imagine this is a stressful time for Molson and it can be hard to get the nuances of the legal system portrayed right. The docs he posted make it all much more clear
  - tiahura 3y ago
    As a lawyer, none of those requests are overreach. It would be malpractice to not make them.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      I'm not a lawyer and would never give legal advice. I'm not making judgement as to what is or isn't, simply am trying to clarify what he's getting at. I imagine to Molson this feels like Amazon is trying to bury them in discovery
      - pharrington 3y ago
        You're not clarifying. You're speculating.
        ipaddr 3y ago
        Now you are speculating. The poster could be the same person who made the tweets
    - kbenson 3y ago
      Part of the complaint being made by Molsen is that even after two days of deposition, he's being asked to return for more, for is critique in a blog post. Is that considered normal in a case like this? If it is normal, are there some protections to keep a witness from continuously being deposed to the point that it is abuse, or is that something that one side would take up with the judge?
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Not a lawyer. I imagine there's various forms of discovery and various ways it comes up. But one thing to note is that you can be victim of the pains of discovery as an innocent third party. "Hey random vendor, backed by the full force of the Court, you are compelled to spend time and money getting us x,y,z and/or lawyer time arguing about it."
  - abduhl 3y ago
    “The public has a right to every man’s evidence.” If a party tries to abuse the discovery process against a third party then the third party can move for sanctions, including costs.
    - Waterluvian 3y ago
      I don't follow. Aren't we saying the same thing? Yes, there's definitely remedies if things go too far. Good luck with those, though. But the point is that you don't have to be the plaintiff or the respondent to get tied up in an expensive, time-consuming process.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        I misread your post. I’ve deleted that sentence.
    - q1w2 3y ago
      Unfortunately judges want evidence submitted so unless it is an impossible request, they usually allow it.
abduhl 3y ago
Molson says right in one of his tweets that he’s been “served with a lawsuit.” As far as I can tell, he hasn’t. He’s been served with a subpoena. Amazon has a right to subpoena evidence from third parties, and they have a right to extend their requests for evidence beyond just what has already been given to the CA AG. They have the right to look for exculpatory evidence, even if it’s more than what’s already been given by Molson. “I don’t have those documents” is an acceptable response to a subpoena, so it’s not like he has to come up with stuff he doesn’t already have. Amazon or the CA AG already having the evidence isn’t a reason to stop them from asking Molson for it. Molson also has rights. The discovery process isn’t supposed to be used to overwhelm or harass third parties, so he should move to quash if he really is being overwhelmed. This is the reality of our system: if you’re a witness and you’ve got evidence relevant to a case then the parties (and the court) have the right to get it from you. This is especially true when someone is already involved as a witness for one side, as here. Unfortunately, being able to be roped into a lawsuit that you’re not a party to is not only possible but probable in the USA.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I agree, see my note about giving Molson some room here given I imagine the stresses of this ongoing situation Molson's involved in and likely doesn't have the legal vocabulary to back anything. Whats actually telling here is the motions Molson posted pictures of in the thread, that says everything that's actually happening here. I'm not going to fault someone under stress and likely has a limited understanding of the legal system for getting the wording wrong here, I imagine it feels like a lawsuit, but yes, its actually a subpoena. If hypothetically I was Molson I'd be rushing to hand this all over to the state AG and get resources from them for assistance, if at all possible.
  - rdl 3y ago
    It's also a tweet, so even if he wrote "lawsuit" and wanted to correct it to "subpoena" (or other legal request), would not be possible to do so. It's interesting later on in his thread where it's clear he's not a particular critic of Amazon overall, merely this specific policy; they're turning him into an enemy either intentionally or unintentionally.
JustSomeNobody 3y ago
> I parsed more closely about what the ask here is, and its that Amazon is asking via separate motions for the same information given to the AG case which, due to how discovery works, they should already have, this to me reads as an attempt to press Molson legally and thus spend time and money on complying with these requests. Can't his lawyer go to the judge and have this stopped?
- throwaway17_17 3y ago
  Note: I am not a lawyer in California and the is definitely not legal advice A lawyer for Molson could conceivably file a Motion to Quash the Subpoena, however, he has to argue from what are generally a small range of options to deny or limit the scope of the subpoena. The most common is that the request is unduly broad and thereby is burdensome. This would usually not result in granting the quash, but could secure tightening of the scope of the subpoena. I don't know enough to even guess at the likelihood of limiting the subpoena, but the general assumption in litigation is that at least some portion of a facially relevant subpoena will be granted.
  - dpifke 3y ago
    I followed up with OP on Twitter, and apparently he's pro se. https://twitter.com/dpifke/status/1663665211914481667 https://twitter.com/dpifke/status/1663665211914481667 Amazon filed to quash his deposition subpoena, but that was apparently because they felt that it was premature without more document production. But from the picture of the order he posted, it looks like the judge has already limited the overall scope.
- cudgy 3y ago
  A decent lawyer costs $400+ per hour. 1-2 hours for initial consult, 3-4 hours to prepare the motion and another 3-4 hours to appear before a judge. Other side delays for another hearing and add another 3-4 hours … could cost $5000+
  - letsdothisagain 3y ago
treprinum 3y ago
He should just respond in kind and use ChatGPT to generate terrabytes of discovery documents for Amazon lawyers to go through. Overreach for overreach.
- moneywoes 3y ago
  What’s the catch with this approach
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Jail for contempt tends to keep me on the straight and narrow but the again I’m trying to retain my license which may influence my thinking.
  - b112 3y ago
    They could ask the court to block the requests(I presume), if there is demonstrably an excess or errant type of requests, and the court(the judge) will remeber that.
  - lazide 3y ago
    When producing documents you're asserting they're actually real. So if ChatGPT generates a bunch of stuff that is incriminating, you'll have some 'splaining to do. And potentially contempt of court of the like.
    - treprinum 3y ago
      "Restate the following boring document in blandest possible ways, do it 1,000,000 times"
      - lazide 3y ago
        I wonder how many times it would take to have decent odds of producing a variant with ‘Amazon is innocent, it’s all a giant frame job I’m doing to them’ or similar in it.
ransackdev 3y ago
> NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Asking because I don't know - I see this a lot, but is it necessary? Surely we don't live in a time where a commenter on a news site is liable for their opinion, right?
- flangola7 3y ago
  Almost certainly not, but adding a one line disclaimer costs nothing and covers that one in a billion chance it turns into a headache.
- mikestew 3y ago
  IANAL (ya see what I did there?), but probably not necessary as a legal requirement. I always viewed it as “juuust in case that you think I’m a lawyer offering legal advice because I almost sound like I know what I’m talking about, I am neither a lawyer, nor do I know what I’m talking about” courtesy to the reader. I cannot imagine getting pulled into court because I recommended someone file in small claims court for $PROBLEM, and didn’t put “IANAL”.
  - m_0x 3y ago
    There's another a step above: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  No. Lawyers sometimes call out that they are not offering legal advice and/or that the reader is not to consider themselves the lawyer's client, out of what is, in most contexts (I'm pretty sure) excessive caution to prevent liability and stay within ethical bounds (but then, IANAL). But AFAIK (IANAL!) there's no remotely-realistic risk to someone who's not a lawyer, and has not represented themselves as a lawyer, posting opinions about the law in a context in which nobody with two brain cells to rub together might for some reason believe they're a lawyer without their saying so (i.e. this isn't LawyerNewsOnlyForLawyersAllOurUsersAreLawyers.com), without such a disclaimer. As far as I can tell, this is the result of people reading lawyers announcing that they are lawyers and posting such a disclaimer, and other posters specifying "I am not a lawyer" purely out of consideration for the reader, not out of legal obligation, and getting the two all mixed up together, while deciding that both are necessary (I'm quite sure one is not, and I'm pretty sure the other one isn't exactly necessary, either). Consider how many published pieces and TV news programs feature people who are and are not lawyers, providing opinions about the law, typically with none of these disclaimers. It's evidently not a problem. I think lawyers only bother to do it in forums because there's some remote chance that someone might be able to argue they were mislead by the conversational and two-sided nature of the medium into thinking the lawyer had taken them as a client or was offering advice in an official capacity (I'm skeptical such a case would get very far, in any event, though).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

EA-3167 3y ago

If there isn't a lawsuit or a criminal case, how is there discovery?

Satisfy4400 3y ago
There's a civil lawsuit involving the State of California and Amazon. When you have a civil case, you can get discovery from third parties using subpoenas, which seems to be what's happening here.
kbenson 3y ago
I think the point being made is that the lawsuit or criminal case is not against him, even if he seems to be tangled up in a case to some degree.
no_wizard 3y ago
NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Whats happening here is Molson a expert witness to a lawsuit filed against Amazon by the CA Attorney General Office. They've issued a subpoena for information (as is their right under the legal system) for additional discovery. A good chunk of it appears to be a repeat of the same discovery the state AG office is or has gathered, but they're also looking for anything related even tangentially to Molson's relationship with Amazon (emails, messages etc) as well. The allegation here would more closely be that Amazon is trying to abuse the discovery process by overreach. I'm willing to give Molson the benefit of the doubt in saying "lawsuit" when likely its subpoena. I imagine this is a stressful time for Molson and it can be hard to get the nuances of the legal system portrayed right. The docs he posted make it all much more clear
- tiahura 3y ago
  As a lawyer, none of those requests are overreach. It would be malpractice to not make them.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    I'm not a lawyer and would never give legal advice. I'm not making judgement as to what is or isn't, simply am trying to clarify what he's getting at. I imagine to Molson this feels like Amazon is trying to bury them in discovery
    - pharrington 3y ago
      You're not clarifying. You're speculating.
      - ipaddr 3y ago
        Now you are speculating. The poster could be the same person who made the tweets
  - kbenson 3y ago
    Part of the complaint being made by Molsen is that even after two days of deposition, he's being asked to return for more, for is critique in a blog post. Is that considered normal in a case like this? If it is normal, are there some protections to keep a witness from continuously being deposed to the point that it is abuse, or is that something that one side would take up with the judge?
Waterluvian 3y ago
Not a lawyer. I imagine there's various forms of discovery and various ways it comes up. But one thing to note is that you can be victim of the pains of discovery as an innocent third party. "Hey random vendor, backed by the full force of the Court, you are compelled to spend time and money getting us x,y,z and/or lawyer time arguing about it."
- abduhl 3y ago
  “The public has a right to every man’s evidence.” If a party tries to abuse the discovery process against a third party then the third party can move for sanctions, including costs.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    I don't follow. Aren't we saying the same thing? Yes, there's definitely remedies if things go too far. Good luck with those, though. But the point is that you don't have to be the plaintiff or the respondent to get tied up in an expensive, time-consuming process.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      I misread your post. I’ve deleted that sentence.
  - q1w2 3y ago
    Unfortunately judges want evidence submitted so unless it is an impossible request, they usually allow it.

abduhl 3y ago

Molson says right in one of his tweets that he’s been “served with a lawsuit.” As far as I can tell, he hasn’t. He’s been served with a subpoena. Amazon has a right to subpoena evidence from third parties, and they have a right to extend their requests for evidence beyond just what has already been given to the CA AG. They have the right to look for exculpatory evidence, even if it’s more than what’s already been given by Molson. “I don’t have those documents” is an acceptable response to a subpoena, so it’s not like he has to come up with stuff he doesn’t already have. Amazon or the CA AG already having the evidence isn’t a reason to stop them from asking Molson for it. Molson also has rights. The discovery process isn’t supposed to be used to overwhelm or harass third parties, so he should move to quash if he really is being overwhelmed. This is the reality of our system: if you’re a witness and you’ve got evidence relevant to a case then the parties (and the court) have the right to get it from you. This is especially true when someone is already involved as a witness for one side, as here. Unfortunately, being able to be roped into a lawsuit that you’re not a party to is not only possible but probable in the USA.

no_wizard 3y ago
Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I agree, see my note about giving Molson some room here given I imagine the stresses of this ongoing situation Molson's involved in and likely doesn't have the legal vocabulary to back anything. Whats actually telling here is the motions Molson posted pictures of in the thread, that says everything that's actually happening here. I'm not going to fault someone under stress and likely has a limited understanding of the legal system for getting the wording wrong here, I imagine it feels like a lawsuit, but yes, its actually a subpoena. If hypothetically I was Molson I'd be rushing to hand this all over to the state AG and get resources from them for assistance, if at all possible.
- rdl 3y ago
  It's also a tweet, so even if he wrote "lawsuit" and wanted to correct it to "subpoena" (or other legal request), would not be possible to do so. It's interesting later on in his thread where it's clear he's not a particular critic of Amazon overall, merely this specific policy; they're turning him into an enemy either intentionally or unintentionally.

JustSomeNobody 3y ago

> I parsed more closely about what the ask here is, and its that Amazon is asking via separate motions for the same information given to the AG case which, due to how discovery works, they should already have, this to me reads as an attempt to press Molson legally and thus spend time and money on complying with these requests. Can't his lawyer go to the judge and have this stopped?

throwaway17_17 3y ago
Note: I am not a lawyer in California and the is definitely not legal advice A lawyer for Molson could conceivably file a Motion to Quash the Subpoena, however, he has to argue from what are generally a small range of options to deny or limit the scope of the subpoena. The most common is that the request is unduly broad and thereby is burdensome. This would usually not result in granting the quash, but could secure tightening of the scope of the subpoena. I don't know enough to even guess at the likelihood of limiting the subpoena, but the general assumption in litigation is that at least some portion of a facially relevant subpoena will be granted.
- dpifke 3y ago
  I followed up with OP on Twitter, and apparently he's pro se. https://twitter.com/dpifke/status/1663665211914481667 https://twitter.com/dpifke/status/1663665211914481667 Amazon filed to quash his deposition subpoena, but that was apparently because they felt that it was premature without more document production. But from the picture of the order he posted, it looks like the judge has already limited the overall scope.
cudgy 3y ago
A decent lawyer costs $400+ per hour. 1-2 hours for initial consult, 3-4 hours to prepare the motion and another 3-4 hours to appear before a judge. Other side delays for another hearing and add another 3-4 hours … could cost $5000+
- letsdothisagain 3y ago

treprinum 3y ago

He should just respond in kind and use ChatGPT to generate terrabytes of discovery documents for Amazon lawyers to go through. Overreach for overreach.

moneywoes 3y ago
What’s the catch with this approach
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Jail for contempt tends to keep me on the straight and narrow but the again I’m trying to retain my license which may influence my thinking.
- b112 3y ago
  They could ask the court to block the requests(I presume), if there is demonstrably an excess or errant type of requests, and the court(the judge) will remeber that.
- lazide 3y ago
  When producing documents you're asserting they're actually real. So if ChatGPT generates a bunch of stuff that is incriminating, you'll have some 'splaining to do. And potentially contempt of court of the like.
  - treprinum 3y ago
    "Restate the following boring document in blandest possible ways, do it 1,000,000 times"
    - lazide 3y ago
      I wonder how many times it would take to have decent odds of producing a variant with ‘Amazon is innocent, it’s all a giant frame job I’m doing to them’ or similar in it.

ransackdev 3y ago

> NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. This is for informational and entertainment purposes only Asking because I don't know - I see this a lot, but is it necessary? Surely we don't live in a time where a commenter on a news site is liable for their opinion, right?

flangola7 3y ago
Almost certainly not, but adding a one line disclaimer costs nothing and covers that one in a billion chance it turns into a headache.
mikestew 3y ago
IANAL (ya see what I did there?), but probably not necessary as a legal requirement. I always viewed it as “juuust in case that you think I’m a lawyer offering legal advice because I almost sound like I know what I’m talking about, I am neither a lawyer, nor do I know what I’m talking about” courtesy to the reader. I cannot imagine getting pulled into court because I recommended someone file in small claims court for $PROBLEM, and didn’t put “IANAL”.
- m_0x 3y ago
  There's another a step above: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer.
yamtaddle 3y ago
No. Lawyers sometimes call out that they are not offering legal advice and/or that the reader is not to consider themselves the lawyer's client, out of what is, in most contexts (I'm pretty sure) excessive caution to prevent liability and stay within ethical bounds (but then, IANAL). But AFAIK (IANAL!) there's no remotely-realistic risk to someone who's not a lawyer, and has not represented themselves as a lawyer, posting opinions about the law in a context in which nobody with two brain cells to rub together might for some reason believe they're a lawyer without their saying so (i.e. this isn't LawyerNewsOnlyForLawyersAllOurUsersAreLawyers.com), without such a disclaimer. As far as I can tell, this is the result of people reading lawyers announcing that they are lawyers and posting such a disclaimer, and other posters specifying "I am not a lawyer" purely out of consideration for the reader, not out of legal obligation, and getting the two all mixed up together, while deciding that both are necessary (I'm quite sure one is not, and I'm pretty sure the other one isn't exactly necessary, either). Consider how many published pieces and TV news programs feature people who are and are not lawyers, providing opinions about the law, typically with none of these disclaimers. It's evidently not a problem. I think lawyers only bother to do it in forums because there's some remote chance that someone might be able to argue they were mislead by the conversational and two-sided nature of the medium into thinking the lawyer had taken them as a client or was offering advice in an official capacity (I'm skeptical such a case would get very far, in any event, though).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]