Russell Greer vs. Viatron Corporation, A-26-937678-C

DavidS877 said:
Worse, she's a paralegal.
View attachment 8908835
Based on the area and the weird name I was guessing Indian(feather not dot).
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know about the entire zoo, but at least the monkey enclosure's there, jesus aids fucking chrrrist.

Swole McPole said:
As soon as he explains his plights to the arbitrators, they'll be falling over themselves to punish that stalker Hardin and make all of Russell's dreams come true.
Click to expand...
Or they'll be falling over laughing.
 
Last edited:
Debbie Macomber said:
This joke scenario is exactly why I said there's a conceivable conflict of interest. I don't think he'd ever do this or that Null would want him to, but Hardin losing ViaTRON's case=Russ getting money for Hardin to take in Greer V Moon
Click to expand...
My friend, the sanctions against Greer in Green v Lolcow LLC aren't for Hardin directly. They are to make Lolcow LLC whole for Hardins billing for the actions taken by Greer that the judge awards sanctions for. Hardin is made whole by the IOLTA, and Lolcow LLC will be able to replenish some with the sanctions award. Whether Hardin has floated billing Lolcow LLC for the sanctions value or not is a billing detail purely.
 
Exegesis said:
Can somebody give me a TLDR of what happened
Click to expand...
RodgerDodger said:
They've opted for binding arbitration. We are all confused as to why Greer agreed to it.
Click to expand...
Which means Greer cannot play his game of 500 retarded motions, hallucinated evidence, made up witnesses and generally behaving like a retard but getting the benefit of the doubt 50 times by a well meaning judge.

They will have to put their evidence on the table, depose the relevant people or just have them testify in a hearing, and then one dude will weigh the evidence and decide what is "fair".

And Greer signed away the possibility to appeal the BINDING arbitration.

Either he shows up and drops evidence that convinces a neutral third party, or his chance for a payout is forever gone.
 
Gobermental Supervisor said:
Which means Greer cannot play his game of 500 retarded motions, hallucinated evidence, made up witnesses and generally behaving like a retard but getting the benefit of the doubt 50 times by a well meaning judge.
They will have to put their evidence on the table, depose the relevant people or just have them testify in a hearing, and then one dude will weigh the evidence and decide what is "fair".
Click to expand...
So this means that time travel is off the books? 🥴
 
I suspect Greer's motivation was almost entirely to avoid the public docket (and the potential for discovery). In that, he wins. Even if he gets smacked with thousands of dollars in arbitration fees, he's deprived us of entertainment.

Either that or he actually believes that he'll get his reward more quickly via this avenue because it will allow him to explain his plights instead of having it dragged out via stupid things like "procedures" and "rules" since Hardin stepped in.
 
Apteryx Owenii said:
I suspect Greer's motivation was almost entirely to avoid the public docket (and the potential for discovery). In that, he wins. Even if he gets smacked with thousands of dollars in arbitration fees, he's deprived us of entertainment.

Either that or he actually believes that he'll get his reward more quickly via this avenue because it will allow him to explain his plights instead of having it dragged out via stupid things like "procedures" and "rules" since Hardin stepped in.
Click to expand...
This is Greer. He thinks the Arbitration will have Viatroon hand him a big sack of money.
 
Sneed Force One said:
I dream of a discovery request for Greer's LLM prompt history.
Just as SmashJT found out, its not work-product doctrine protected.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in this case, Greer's efforts would be shielded. The current precedent for pro se plaintiffs using an LLM is that it is a protected work product. The precedent that it isn't a protected work product only applies if one is NOT pro se.
 
Prokhor Zakharov said:
Unfortunately, in this case, Greer's efforts would be shielded. The current precedent for pro se plaintiffs using an LLM is that it is a protected work product. The precedent that it isn't a protected work product only applies if one is NOT pro se.
Click to expand...
I think that is dumb, the free LLM use is nothing other than direct sharing of the input with a third party, and given that third party a license to use your logs for commercial purposes and training. Anyone could in theory just purchase all the data from the AI company directly.

I really want to see that happen in a case, where a clever lawyer purchases the data of the opposition directly and then introduces it as evidence himself.
Unless Greer is using some LLM subscription that explicitly precludes the sharing of his data with third parties I do not think he has a legit argument that it should be protected.

I can see how a boomer judge might think that, but its wrong.
 
Gobermental Supervisor said:
I think that is dumb, the free LLM use is direct sharing of the input with a third party, and given that third party a license to use your logs for commercial purposes and training, you could in theory just purchase all the data from the AI company directly.

I really want to see that happen in a case, where a clever lawyer purchases the data of the opposition directly and then introduces it as evidence himself.
Unless Greer is using some LLM subscription that explicitly precludes the sharing of his data with third parties I do not think he has a legit argument that it should be protected.

I can see how a boomer judge might think that, but its wrong.
Click to expand...

The precedent is currently very thin, this area of law is still quite wide open, initial precedent may end up not holding.
 
Prokhor Zakharov said:
The precedent is currently very thin, this area of law is still quite wide open, initial precedent may end up not holding.
Click to expand...
I think the judge in the case in New York wrote a very good memorandum on the issue.

And regardless of what a judge thinks, you can still go to the AI company and directly purchase the data you want, since they have a license to use and resell it.

There cannot be privilege, due to pro se representation, attached to data a third party, who is not part of the lawsuit, has possession over.

I attached the memorandum below, and will stop shitting up the thread with AI Discovery.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Apteryx Owenii said:
I suspect Greer's motivation was almost entirely to avoid the public docket (and the potential for discovery). In that, he wins. Even if he gets smacked with thousands of dollars in arbitration fees, he's deprived us of entertainment.

Either that or he actually believes that he'll get his reward more quickly via this avenue because it will allow him to explain his plights instead of having it dragged out via stupid things like "procedures" and "rules" since Hardin stepped in.
Click to expand...
Hes going to be sorely mistaken. Arbitration exists for corporations to fuck people by removing due process and evidentiary requirements, streamlining the whole legal process in such a way that they can fuck their target quickly and cheaply.
 
Do we even get to know the day that arbitration takes place? If not how quick does it typically happen?
 
XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG said:
This is a crazy good move so far, I'm loving it
Click to expand...
mindlessobserver said:
Why would you accept binding arbitration for your extortionate lolsuit that has a fee shifting provision baked in if you lose?
Click to expand...
One constant in any case involving RG is that he always believes he will ultimately prevail. Here, he probably figures getting additional fees from ViaTron is icing on the cake.

RodgerDodger said:
Now Viatron may agree to pony up the fees under the assumption that arbitration is less random than the Federal Courts, and they feel they have a clean killshot that ends with Greer owing them.
Click to expand...
Based on what I saw , it looks like ViaTron is paying the fees with the option to charge RG proportionately for his portion should ViaTron prevail in the arbitration hearing.

AnOminous said:
There's a reason for that. Arbitration is almost always cheaper, ridiculously biased in your favor if you're a corporation, and you always win.
Click to expand...
Nick G said:
The notion that arbitrators rule in favor of corporations when compared to state and federal judges is something that sounds true and is widely believed, but I have personally not seen borne out in reality.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall years ago that Readers Digest did an article on what was then the new trend of Arbitration being used to resolve (relatively) minor legal disputes and the early track record suggesting Corporate America almost always prevailed as @AnOminous posted.

@Nick G 's experiences notwithstanding, public perception might still be businesses generally prevailing in arbitration unless there is strong evidence available to show the business shouldn't prevail in that specific case.

Count me among those surprised RG has agreed to arbitration, but I think it's playing into his misguided belief he has a case and the chance to receive a significant monetary award. I do like the clause referencing "the start of time," as an effort to Greer-proof the agreement. When someone such as RG wants to play word games, they deserve that kind of treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom