I watched parts of the stream this morning and I agree that Nick was very diplomatic about it, although he did in fact point out some grammatical errors and formatting mistakes, such the constant apostrophe "S" next to the "Funimation" as well as the three out-of-place paragraphs arguing that Vic is not a public figure in an essay arguing that Vic is not a limited public figure. He also thinks that they should have mentioned that the anime articles were written for a limited audience and not a general one.
One part of that document that did interest me was when Nick was reading about "Lane v. Phares", in which the document drew a distinction between Vic's predicament to that of a famous, Oscar-winning UNT opera/voice professor who sued over the defamatory tweets from one of the students. Nick talks about how judges are more likely to go to an opera over a premiere of an anime feature film since they're middle-to-upper class and tend to be more elderly and that how that might have played a role in the "Lane" case since they'd rather go to live theaters over an anime convention. Also, Lane was more famous than Vic due to her accolades and influence while Vic is not known outside of anime and Star Trek communities.
I try not to be overly optimistic, but I think that was really a smart move on the part of the law firm to do this.
