I can't imagine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
I'm mostly ignoring WW for the time being to wait for the shitstorm to settle down a bit and more reliable information to be available, but I have a question. Didn't Ty file a motion to compel for the discovery that Monica and Ron weren't turning over after their deadline, before the TCPA was filed? Did the judge ever actually rule on that? Because some of the bits on the hearing I looked at suggested that the judge was dinging Ty for not asking to do more discovery during the discovery stay. Which would be an extremely shitty thing to do if the judge couldn't even be assed to rule on the motion to compel discovery that Ty had pending before the discovery stay.
I think this kinda confused a lot of people, but it's fairly simple. Basically, the presumption in a TCPA filing is that you have the prima facie evidence before discovery. Obviously, if you get evidence from discovery before the TCPA is filed, you can use it, but it's neither required nor expected. In other words, it's totally legit to file a TCPA before the motion to compel discovery is resolved, since discovery is never required to file a TCPA.
The judge's criticism was that Ty appeared to be reliant on discovery that had not occurred to demonstrate his prima facie case for some of the claims; in other words, Ty made a claim that he couldn't sufficiently back up with evidence that he should have had prior to discovery. It's disputable as to whether that was actually true, but that was the position. I would assume the core component of Ty's argument, were there to be an appeal, will be that he did have the sufficient elements of a prima facie case for his claims.