CryTek v CIG/RSI

[Bubba]

You're right on everything, but one critical detail: the document was not written top-to-bottom.

In particular, the parts where CIG and Crytek disagree, Crytek and CIG both prepared statements, and Crytek then added to their statements paragraphs referring to and refuting CIG's statements infra (look it up). Any paragraph beginning with a reference to "Defendant's description infra" is written after the description to which it refers. And it is in that description that the defendant itself confessed it demanded that Crytek make a settlement offer.

So Crytek did not "leak" the information; CIG did, in a typically left-footed attempt to win the public's favor by portraying Crytek as a big, evil, jealous, financially troubled corporation that is trying to hoodwink a judge (e.g., "concealing the GLA").

Crytek didn't leak anything; CIG shot themselves in the foot, again, and that makes it hilarious. This is a small detail, but if you can't get the details right, someone might think you have an ax to grind with CIG.

As to whether CIG's insistence on a settlement is "off-base" for 26(f) conference, there's, from the link you posted, 26(f)(2)

In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case;

Obviously, this means that the discovery plan should pertain only to the parts of the lives and businesses of the parties that are covered by the claims and defenses (and not involve "fishing expeditions"), and that discovery should be timed for a quick resolution. But CIG are the same idiots who think that a definition moved by a single party in a recital will overrule the one used in the "definitions" section of the body of a contract, so they could claim some sort of relevance.

And that's where the Crytek statement comes in to shine: it underscores that the purpose of CIG was not to outline discovery in view of a quick settlement, but to kill any discovery discussion under the color of making demands for a settlement.

[dsmart]

Considering how unprofessional cig has been in the fillings, I still have to think Ortwin cannot be ignorant of the consequences. I have to think they are working on the worst possible outcome and that would be loss of mtd and then onto discovery. Are they just grandstanding while they continue to milk the backers and work on covering up the whole mess? Would it not be possible to for them to account for everything legal or not with expenses, expenditures, development? It seems to me that with all the companies and movement of money that is what they have been doing all along. Getting ready for the shutdown and having all loose ends accounted for concerning the backers money. As I see companies routinely get away with shafting the US Taxpayers by billions using much smaller own companies to purchase for example FCC licenses. Or am I giving CR/Ortwin to much credit they the are indeed working out all the details for the worst case scenario?

I certainly think that they are planning for the worst possible outcome. No way they are stupid enough to even consider that the judge would toss the MtD in its entirety.

[dsmart]

So Crytek did not "leak" the information; CIG did,

Crytek didn't leak anything; CIG shot themselves in the foot,

The "leak" itself came from the fact that Crytek opted to put it in their Rule 26(f) filing. They didn't need to - especially as they had already rejected it.

This happens in cases all the time, whereby one side "slips" in something in an attempt to either compromise or taint the case of the opposition - especially if it's something they want the jury to be aware of. That's why such arguments exist in court where a judge gets to rule what remains and what doesn't. e.g. a judge could tell the judge to "disregard" what the attorney just said; then ask the court steno to strike it from the record.

I don't believe that there is any way that CIG would have wanted for the public to know that they were the ones who initiated a settlement discussion. I also believe that Crytek knew this, so they slipped/leaked it in their filing for that same reason. And of course since it happened, there is no way that CIG could have objected to its removal in the Crytek filing.

And CIG are to blame for this, due to their unprofessional conduct in filings. This is why I said that Crytek are going to continue embarrassing CIG, while remaining professional. Which is where insisting that the financials come into PUBLIC discovery, will play a big part.

And that's where the Crytek statement comes in to shine: it underscores that the purpose of CIG was not to outline discovery in view of a quick settlement, but to kill any discovery discussion under the color of making demands for a settlement.

Yes, that's why I mentioned it. As long as they are in settlement talks, they have to notify the court via a filing. And that tends to put any/all other procedural actions - including discovery - on hold.

[StanTheMan]

It might be worth pointing out again that the majority of Shitizens dont have a clue what is going down here.

Shitizens seem to have no appreciation that even if this was just a largely baseless money grab from Crytek, as long as it remains a live case, it is going to go to trial or be settled by the parties.

CIG will (probably) lose either way.  Backers will need to pay up more and/or CRoberts etc are going to walk away from SC and blame the case etc.

Being in the grip a an Anvil Crucible's repair arms is nothing compared to where Skadden have CIG right now.

Most of these types of case dont get to a trial because the parties settle.

The process sets the Defendants and the Plaintiff off on a predetermined path to trial, specifically designed to encourage settlement,  whilst at the same time proceeding at some pace towards a trial.

By the time you get close to a trial date, the lawyers on both sides have earnt most of the fees they are going to earn which further increases the pressure to settle.

You can't escape Discovery and it is during the process of Discovery that either side gets a good look at the strength of the others case and gets to build their own position or climb down from it.

When shit comes to shove and the trial is imminent, it is the strength of the respective cases in law, not histrionics and other emotions and behaviours, that determine what each sides lawyers advise

As Derek has said, Skadden are going to be looking for a lot of $$ (which he suspects CIG don't have) and plenty is going to come out in Discovery.

[dsmart]

It might be worth pointing out again that the majority of Shitizens dont have a clue what is going down here.

*snip*

As Derek has said, Skadden are going to be looking for a lot of $$ (which he suspects CIG don't have) and plenty is going to come out in Discovery.

Some of them are smart enough to know what's going. But like the defense of politics, religion, race wars, FlatEarthers, gun control etc, once you take a position, most devout supporters of that position, will never - ever - admit to backing the wrong position. And with anonymity, they have no reason to do so. So that's what is going on in some of their heads. And it will continue to be so until the last minute - and even then, they will find a way to rationalize it all away. Recently, we've seen some of the most ridiculous statements since the latest filing. They range from someone claiming that I probably put Crytek up to the lawsuit, to me trying to inject myself into the lawsuit. Yes, they're that fucking stupid.

As to discovery, CIG can't get around it. And is no settlement or trial without going through that - and making things like email communications, financials etc available to Crytek - including depositions of all the key people involved in the project. And though people are now focused on the discovery part, usually the most embarrassing and revealing things come from depositions.

[N0mad]

I seem to remember someone here posting a clip of a senior CIG dev saying that the decision to transfer to Lumberyard had to go through the lawyers first - I might be mistaken.

If that's true, then presumably their legal advice at the time is going to be revealed in the discovery process?

Get your popcorn ready guys 

[StanTheMan]

usually the most embarrassing and revealing things come from depositions.

Aha ! 

Nasty for for CIG ..

Having read up on Wikipedia what "dispositions" are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)

Almost a pre trial instead of a pre sale !

I wasn't familiar with this as it is a different process than in the UK which is a lot easier on the parties up until trial.

I seem to remember someone here posting a clip of a senior CIG dev saying that the decision to transfer to Lumberyard had to go through the lawyers first - I might be mistaken.

If they did, then those lawyers almost certainly told them to get permission from Crytek because the issues are sufficiently complicated and the consequences of getting it wrong are significant.

[dsmart]

I seem to remember someone here posting a clip of a senior CIG dev saying that the decision to transfer to Lumberyard had to go through the lawyers first - I might be mistaken.

If that's true, then presumably their legal advice at the time is going to be revealed in the discovery process?

Get your popcorn ready guys 

That was me who reported. It's in one of my articles. If true, then that "legal" directive would have come from Ortwin. I am 100% certain that discussions about when and why the decision made, and by whom, will come up in discovery and/or depositions. It's critical to the case.

[dsmart]

Aha ! 

Nasty for for CIG ..

Having read up on Wikipedia what "dispositions" are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)

Almost a pre trial instead of a pre sale !

I wasn't familiar with this as it is a different process than in the UK which is a lot easier on the parties up until trial.

Many cases tend to end during or after discovery or depositions because that's when previously known things tend to come to light. And they tend to weaken or strengthen the merits of a case for either side.

There is a reason that CIG is now starting to not only resist discovery, but also trying to get Crytek to open settlement talks. They know what's coming - and that it's not going to be fun or good for them, regardless of the merits of Crytek's claims.

[StanTheMan]

Many cases tend to end during or after discovery or depositions because that's when previously known things tend to come to light. And they tend to weaken or strengthen the merits of a case for either side.

There is a reason that CIG is now starting to not only resist discovery, but also trying to get Crytek to open settlement talks. They know what's coming - and that it's not going to be fun or good for them, regardless of the merits of Crytek's claims.

Yes your arm chair lawyers think the law works according to movies they have seen, a notion of innocent until proven guilty with a large dollop of thinking the standard of proof is especially high in Civil cases.   

We are not trying to prove attempted murder here with no witnesses, CCTV or apparent motive.   

CIG havent just been stopped on the street at random and in the process of being fitted up by a bent Police Department and a red neck judge.

[dsmart]

Yes your arm chair lawyers think the law works according to movies they have seen, a notion of innocent until proven guilty with a large dollop of thinking the standard of proof is especially high in Civil cases.   

We are not trying to prove attempted murder here with no witnesses, CCTV or apparent motive.   

CIG havent just been stopped on the street at random and in the process of being fitted up by a bent Police Department and a red neck judge.

Well, over on Reddit, our Shitizen friends are even saying that Crytek discovery is akin to corporate espionage. So. 

[StanTheMan]

Well, over on Reddit, our Shitizen friends are even saying that Crytek discovery is akin to corporate espionage. So. 

You couldn't make it up !!!

 

[dsmart]

You couldn't make it up !!!

 

That's the thing. Some of this shit is so crazy, that we now have to keep producing evidence that we're not kidding. It's amazing how obtuse these chucklefucks are. Completely.

In that same thread, this nutcase (his Twitter feed is cringilitous) said that I probably put Crytek up to this lawsuit.

[dsmart]

MAR 5, 2018 - MY LATEST

We know that Crytek created the early tech demos. They said so. Curiously, CIG/RSI didn't make any moves to deny this in their court filings. Gee, I wonder why.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/970714392764518400.html

[dsmart]

OP updated