CryTek v CIG/RSI

[Penny579]

So it is not a draw,

it was a resounding defeat in legal terms for CIG, their comedy of a motion was thrown right out the window.  it was really smart as this defeat is of no consequence for CIG, the motion was not even relevant and gave them the very thing they are applying for defer discovery until after the motion to dismiss. 

While a legal victory for crytek its a battle they did not want to fight, they got nothing out winning a fight of no consequence but a bill for legal fees, starting discovery has now been delayed and the scope of discovery now risks being reduced if elements of the MtD pass muster,  really this changes nothing for them.

The backers keep up there losing streak, stumping the bill for three motions and a day in court.

Lawyers are winning because they are getting a protracted legal battle, with bulk fees.
 
I'm surprised they have not tried to monetise yet.  I mean id totally subscribe to watch episodes of "Around the Law" with CIG. 

[Bubba]

These tactics are all part of frustrating your opposition. And it's all perfectly legal. Until the judge gets pissed for wasting the court's time, while backing up the court dockets as a result.

Of course, you can't just keep making motions with nugatory arguments like with the PO on the basis of bare legality. At some point, the court is going to prove that you can be both sharp and dull. So, they got their six-week delay, at the cost of a part of the court's finite goodwill.

[dsmart]

it was really smart as this defeat is of no consequence for CIG, the motion was not even relevant and gave them the very thing they are applying for defer discovery until after the motion to dismiss. 

It did no such thing. The judge's ruling had no basis on the MtD. And there is no reason to believe that the MtD is going to be ruled on before they get the scheduling order.

And CIG doesn't get to just stop the clock and wait for the MtD before cooperating with and completing a scheduling conference as the precursor to discovery. They will get sanctioned. If they could do that, they would have, and not have to waste time and money on a PO in the first place.

So they now have to do the scheduling conference, and get a scheduling order. If by that time the MtD ruling hasn't come down, they have to do discovery or face sanctions by the judge.

OSC (who is a lawyer working in FINCEN) has an excellent post about this, and has a lot more detail.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8d5yzb/cigs_motion_for_protective_order_status_denied/dxop661/

[dsmart]

Of course, you can't just keep making motions with nugatory arguments like with the PO on the basis of bare legality. At some point, the court is going to prove that you can be both sharp and dull. So, they got their six-week delay, at the cost of a part of the court's finite goodwill.

That, and they spent legal bills on a non-issue. All they gained was a 6 week delay of the inevitable.

[Kyrt]

And CIG doesn't get to just stop the clock and wait for the MtD before cooperating with and completing a scheduling conference as the precursor to discovery. They will get sanctioned. If they could do that, they would have, and not have to waste time and money on a PO in the first place.

So they now have to do the scheduling conference

A conference that is now taking place 6 weeks or more after it would have of they hadn't filed for the order.

and get a scheduling order. If by that time the MtD ruling hasn't come down, they have to do discovery or face sanctions by the judge.

There still seems to be no reason why CIG cannot again refile for a PO once scheduling order is complete. They might annoy the judge but is there anything legal actually stopping such a refiling and another 6-8 weeks of delay?

OSC (who is a lawyer working in FINCEN) has an excellent post about this, and has a lot more detail.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/8d5yzb/cigs_motion_for_protective_order_status_denied/dxop661/

Which essentially states what I have been saying.

If CIG are seeking...for whatever reason...a simple delay, they won and can refile for the PO later on and gain another 4-8 weeks of delay.

[Motto]

No, they can only file if there has been no verdict on the MtD. I'd like to see them try though, pissing of the judge will really help them 

[Kyrt]

No, they can only file if there has been no verdict on the MtD. I'd like to see them try though, pissing of the judge will really help them 

If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.
If the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot.
If the MtD fails, even in part, then they can still file something which will delay discovery, though whether or not this be be a simple refiling of the PO or one of the other options available to them, depends on a number of factors such as the ruling.

And so far, they don't seem afraid of burning the judges goodwill. They seem mote afraid of discovery, which makes me really curious as to what CryTek will find when and if if goes ahead. I suspect CIG will suddenly discover such information should be sealed, however.

[Motto]

If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.

Yes, that's what I said

If the MtD succeeds

LOL. It won't. Period.

After the MtD has been denied, they can try other stalling tactics. But not a PO.

[dsmart]

Which essentially states what I have been saying.

Yes, but context matters.

You (previous page):

If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.

Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.

Me (previous page):

Her ruling doesn't give CIG **any** opportunity to file another PO. Now they have to do the scheduling conference; submit it to the judge for her scheduling order.

This is what OSC is saying:

At this moment in time, parties have to go back to where they were after the Feb discovery plan filing, complete that scheduling process, submit it to the court, then wait for the scheduling order. When that is issued, nothing is stopping CIG from re-filing the PO if the judge doesn't issue a ruling on the MtD by that time. They can do that because the judge didn't deny the PO because of the reasons they stated. She denied it because it was moot. And if they do re-file it, she will deny it because their reasons have no basis or precedence in law.

They created a 6 week delay and shot themselves in the foot if they were expecting the judge to rule on the PO in their favor, thus staying discovery until the MtD ruling - which may be months away (already been 3 months since they filed it). Instead, the ruling has now forced them to continue the discovery process which, as per Crytek's filing - they were already resisting (hence the PO). Even though they do not have to comply with discovery right now, they're now compelled to complete the scheduling which is going to automatically trigger discovery - regardless of the MtD ruling - once the judge reviews and gives the scheduling order.

[dsmart]

No, they can only file if there has been no verdict on the MtD. I'd like to see them try though, pissing of the judge will really help them 

Yeah, I too would like to see them try that again. I don't believe that they will. They already used up that card, regardless of the fact that the judge didn't even rule on their PO. Which is hilarious to me. She basically just ignored it. That's the thing with judges; they are familiar with all the tricks in the rule book.

Also, the judge doesn't have to issue a ruling on the scheduling order. It's just her reviewing it, and saying OK - go ahead, since you all have agreed. Just like the discovery plan. So once they complete the scheduling conference and notify the judge, we will see a scheduling order almost right away. And that signals discovery which Crytek can go back and ram down their throats again. And if the MtD hasn't been ruled on by the time, I'd like to see what they come up with next.

[dsmart]

If there is no decision on the MtD, they can refile.

They can try.

If the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot.

Wrong.  The MtD has no bearing on discovery unless the judge grants EVERYTHING in it; which is so unlikely, there is no point even arguing about it. Unless the judge grants everything, the case moves forward. Which means discovery.

If the MtD fails, even in part, then they can still file something which will delay discovery, though whether or not this be be a simple refiling of the PO or one of the other options available to them, depends on a number of factors such as the ruling.

That's not how that works.

They will have to continue with discovery once the scheduling order is in place. There is NOTHING they can file that will avoid or delay discovery any further. Other than objections to certain discovery requests (which they already did when they blew their load in the ineffective PO) - which will NOT halt discovery once there is a schedule order, as that would be in contempt of court.

As we've said, sure they can try with another PO, but it's doubtful that they will go for that a second time; after causing a 6 week delay the first time around.

And so far, they don't seem afraid of burning the judges goodwill.

I don't believe they care.

They seem mote afraid of discovery, which makes me really curious as to what CryTek will find when and if if goes ahead. I suspect CIG will suddenly discover such information should be sealed, however.

They have to be because all the lies they have been telling. And even if there is a single evidence of any of the Crytek allegations, they are 100% screwed. Unfortunately for them, the biggest thing they want to keep secret - the finances - is the primary key in Crytek's claims.

[StanTheMan]

Highlights the issue or novices, reading legal notices etc , intelligently applying English comprehension to it and thinking that this reflects legal practice because it makes sense to them.

IIRC parties cannot just delay discussing /producing a draft Scheduling Order for a judge to consider, then sign.   If they could it would allow one party to stop proceedings by simply refusing to discuss scheduling.

So the question is .. how long do CIG and Crytek have to come up with proposed Scheduling now that we have has this latest ruling ?  In UK IIRC you are told that you have to send in stuff by a specific date decided by the Judge in accordance with proceedings rules.

Do X by Date Y

If the other party doesn't cooperate - you file and say the didn't cooperate.. If you both file independently - someone pisses off the judge and the Judge rules on the matter.

[Kyrt]

They can try.

Certainly.

Just like they TRIED this time.

That got them a 6 week delay. If they refile, will their motion be fast tracked so it is ruled on in a couple of hours, or will it delay the entire process aga8n for 6 or 8 weeks?

The motion does not have to be successful or even prudent. If all CIG are looking for is a delay, then refiling the motion will get them that delay. The motion doesn't have to succeed to give CIG what it wants...so simply trying might be enough.

Wrong.  The MtD has no bearing on discovery unless the judge grants EVERYTHING in it; which is so unlikely, there is no point even arguing about it. Unless the judge grants everything, the case moves forward. Which means discovery.

In other words, if the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot. Arguing that the MtD is unlikely to succeed is not the same as being wrong.

That's not how that works.

They will have to continue with discovery once the scheduling order is in place. There is NOTHING they can file that will avoid or delay discovery any further.

You just posted a link to a source which states it is possible that CIG can refile the motion once the SO is in place because the judge didn't rule on the merits of CIGs case.

CIG will need to continue to move forward with discovery only when legally required to do so and while the judge may issue certain revommendations, a recommendation isn't a legal requirement.

Further, even when legally obligated to move forward, CIG only needs to progress to the point that a SO exists...at which point it van refile.

Other than objections to certain discovery requests (which they already did when they blew their load in the ineffective PO) - which will NOT halt discovery once there is a schedule order, as that would be in contempt of court.

The judge dismissed their motion because it was moot. Once a SO is in place, CIG can refile the exact same motion and request the judge rule on the merits of their motion and stave off discovery for as long as it takes for that ruling to be made.

As we've said, sure they can try with another PO, but it's doubtful that they will go for that a second time; after causing a 6 week delay the first time around.

That depends on what CIG want. If all they want is a delay, why would they not refile?

[dsmart]

IIRC parties cannot just delay discussing /producing a draft Scheduling Order for a judge to consider, then sign.   If they could it would allow one party to stop proceedings by simply refusing to discuss scheduling.

Precisely. And if they could even do that, there would be no need to spend time and money on a PO, when they can just ignore Crytek indefinitely until the MtD ruling comes.

So the question is .. how long do CIG and Crytek have to come up with proposed Scheduling now that we have has this latest ruling ?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16

(2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.

As CIG responded to the lawsuit on Jan 5th, she had until Apr 5th to issue it. That's the time period that both parties had to do the scheduling conference, leading to the scheduling order. This is why CIG filed the PO because they were resisting discovery, then got jammed up by fast approaching date. So they filed it on Mar 12th; ahead of the April 5th court deadline.

Now that they bought themselves 6 weeks delay, and the PO is denied, they have to complete the scheduling conference they were previously fighting (which led to the PO) with Crytek over. Which means that they now have to do file the agreed upon scheduling asap as it's past the Apr 5th deadline.

If the other party doesn't cooperate - you file and say the didn't cooperate.. If you both file independently - someone pisses off the judge and the Judge rules on the matter.

That's precisely where they were. And instead of waiting for Crytek to file a motion with the judge complaining about it, they filed a PO instead because they knew they were already hitting the deadline and that the minute they filed the scheduling (from the conference), they would get an order, thus forcing them into discovery.

[dsmart]

In other words, if the MtD succeeds, the issue is moot. Arguing that the MtD is unlikely to succeed is not the same as being wrong.

CIG were the ones who are trying to stay discovery, under the pretext that the MtD is likely to be ruled - in its entirety - in their favor. Yes, I know, it's hilarious. And they didn't make a legal argument for it - at all.

You just posted a link to a source which states it is possible that CIG can refile the motion once the SO is in place because the judge didn't rule on the merits of CIGs case.

Yeah, so? Nothing is stopping them from trying it again; even though there would be no [legal] merit to doing so - aside from the fact that it would fail because there is NO legal precedent that supports their PO motion.

CIG will need to continue to move forward with discovery only when legally required to do so and while the judge may issue certain revommendations, a recommendation isn't a legal requirement.

How is this new?

You are being annoying because you keep going round and round in circles, while not making ANY new arguments. We had a fellow around here who used to do that - a lot. His handle was Serendipity. Eventually we got tired, and banned him - and all his alts. Now I'm beginning to sense a pattern. We don't have time for that shit around here. Go to Reddit. This forum is clean, clear, and naked so that information (not circular and|strawman arguments clogging it up) is readily at hand. If you're not going to argue in good faith, just leave - or don't post. I know that sounds harsh, but come on, man. NONE of us here are lawyers, but some of us HAVE been involved in legal cases, so we have a good idea of hot it works. Also, attorneys could predict the future, there would be no cases lost|won.

The judge dismissed their motion because it was moot. Once a SO is in place, CIG can refile the exact same motion and request the judge rule on the merits of their motion and stave off discovery for as long as it takes for that ruling to be made.

As I've stated before, that opinion has no merit, nor basis in law. If such merit existed, many court cases will never got to discovery within the allotted (60-90 days) period. That you think there is some procedural merit to skirting Federal law, is just you being ignorant.