LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 205
0 members and 205 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2021, 06:43 PM   #4471
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 7,100
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Bezos Scores $218K Fees After 'Overstaffed' Legal Team's Win
By Craig Clough

Law360 (March 5, 2021, 11:01 PM EST) -- A California judge granted Jeff Bezos' request for attorney fees Friday after defeating a defamation suit by his girlfriend's brother over a phone hacking incident, but signed off on just $218,000 of the $1.68 million Bezos requested, finding his team was "overstaffed" with seven partners and 11 associates from two firms.

During a phone hearing, Superior Court Judge John P. Doyle told William A. Isaacson of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP that he did not question his integrity or that his efforts defending Amazon.com Inc. founder Bezos — the world's richest man — weren't reasonable, but that he would "be remiss" to grant the full request.

The judge said in a tentative ruling issued before the hearing that Bezos' team, which also included attorneys from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, was "overstaffed," with seven partners and 11 associates for a total of 2,077.7 billed hours on a case won on an anti-SLAPP motion. As outlined in the tentative ruling, the judge ultimately approved fees for two partners and three associates for a total of 280 hours while keeping hourly rates roughly where they were requested at $549 to $1,125 per hour.

"If my concept here violates some kind of legal standard that governs on fees motions, I will stand humbly corrected down the road," the judge told Isaacson. "But I think I'd be remiss to award you $1.7 million fees on [this] motion. I'd think I'd be remiss, and that has nothing to do with your integrity or skill level or good intentions. Nobody can lay a glove on you, Mr. Isaacson."

Michael Sanchez, the brother of Bezos' girlfriend, media personality Lauren Sanchez, told the judge in a motion that the fee request should be denied in full based on the excessive amount, but if any fees were awarded it should be around $86,000.

"We argued that the fees should be negated completely based on the sort of obscenity of the request," Thomas D. Warren of Warren Terzian LLP, who represents Michael Sanchez, told the judge.

Michael Sanchez's lawsuit, filed in January 2020, accused Bezos and his investigator Gavin de Becker of planting false information with media outlets painting Michael Sanchez as the source of sexually charged text exchanges between his sister and Bezos, contributing to Bezos' separation from his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott.

The lawsuit also alleged Bezos and de Becker "peddled rumors to reporters that Mr. Sanchez was involved in a conservative conspiracy with high-profile political operatives, including Roger Stone and Carter Page, and the Saudi government to take down Mr. Bezos."

Sanchez wanted the court to order Bezos and de Becker to issue statements correcting their alleged lies about him. He sought unspecified damages as well as attorney fees and costs.

After news of Bezos and Lauren Sanchez's affair broke in 2019, the Amazon.com Inc. founder lashed out at the National Enquirer, penning a February 2019 blog post in which he shared emails purportedly written by Dylan Howard and Jon Fine, the chief content officer and deputy general counsel, respectively, of the tabloid's publisher, American Media Inc.

Bezos claimed the messages showed "blackmail and extortion" in retaliation for his investigation into how the tabloid obtained the explicit photos and text messages he had exchanged with Lauren Sanchez. The allegations never materialized into legal action.

Judge Doyle in November granted Bezos' and de Becker's anti-SLAPP motion and threw Michael Sanchez's lawsuit out. Bezos and de Becker said they didn't finger Michael Sanchez, even though he was indeed the source of the messages.

Bezos and de Becker pointed out in their motion that Michael Sanchez was named as the source of the text exchanges by the National Enquirer, one of the tabloids that got the scoop.

California's anti-SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, statute stops lawsuits intended to censor or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal fight until they abandon their criticism.

During Friday's hearing, Warren noted that Bezos' team had three partners on the phone call with the judge while his firm staffed the entire case with one partner and one associate. He also questioned the costs outlined by Bezos' team, which were requested and approved at $36,019.26.

Warren said most of the costs were for photocopies and legal research.

"The last time I checked I wasn't charging my clients for photocopies anymore, since its 2021," Warren said.

Isaacson told the judge he thought he was making a legal error and that "what the court should be doing is looking at if what we have done is reasonable under these circumstances."

The judge interrupted him and said, "I think we're talking about two different types of reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong."

Sanchez is represented by Thomas D. Warren of Warren Terzian LLP.

Bezos and de Becker are represented by William A. Isaacson and Julia Tarver Mason Wood of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, and Edward H. Takashima of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

The case is Sanchez v. Bezos et al., case number 20STCV04212, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg. Editing by Michael Watanabe.
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:09 PM   #4472
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF View Post
Bezos Scores $218K Fees After 'Overstaffed' Legal Team's Win
By Craig Clough
As long as the lawyers got paid, it's ok if Bezos doesn't get it all back from the other side.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 03-08-2021, 07:44 PM   #4473
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF View Post
Warren said most of the costs were for photocopies and legal research.

"The last time I checked I wasn't charging my clients for photocopies anymore, since its 2021," Warren said.
one of those cases where the lawyer who lost might get better buzz that the 15 that won.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 03-08-2021, 08:52 PM   #4474
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
She complained about people turning woke into a pejorative. As if that's wrong, that it shouldn't be stolen and turned against itself.

I responded by stating that she's missing an obvious reason for its being stolen (which is a critique of her). My criticism was that, to be woke is to weaponize expression. The woke have been some of the loudest voices for boycotting or firing, rather than engaging, speech they do not like.

When this occurs, one cannot complain when his opponents start using similarly extreme bad faith tactics, like stealing his buzzwords and turning them into insults.

I don't know how she misses this, or where she finds the temerity and lack of self awareness to scold people for using the term as an insult. She actually seems offended by it.

Welcome to the war, Liz. Nobody likes it, but if neither side is willing to drop their extreme responses to each other, expect it to escalate.

(One wonders if she'd be similarly dismayed at people crying for firings and boycotts.

Underdog Bias seems to permeate all these arguments. Those perceived to be on the short end of the power dynamic are allowed to engage in extreme responses, but those on the other end may not.)
I suppose that kinda follows from your myopic and tendentious characterization of what it means to be "woke."
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 03-09-2021, 11:17 AM   #4475
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I suppose that kinda follows from your myopic and tendentious characterization of what it means to be "woke."
Take it easy on sebby, he still thinks "centrist" is a term of praise.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:34 AM   #4476
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I suppose that kinda follows from your myopic and tendentious characterization of what it means to be "woke."
You don't see an outrageous lack of self-awareness in her arguing "How dare anyone turn 'woke' into an mocking term!" (That is what she's arguing.)

This is underdog privilege taken to a level of absurdity.

She's not alone, of course. There's definitely been a wink and nod from many media outlets over the past few years in the direction of allowing certain groups to get away with things others cannot. The laughable suggestion from many news sources that the Floyd protests and riots were: (1) excusable; and, (2) not Covid super-spreading events, while outdoor dining in TX and Trump rallies were super-spreader events was a new low in terms of the media putting its thumb on the scale and assuming it could flagrantly bullshit its audiences.

Over on the right, every fucking story for the past five years has been framed as one of downtrodden common folk up against nefarious "elites." Who are these evil elites exactly? Well, no one can define that. They're alleged to be college professors, reporters, pundits, and some politicians. Nevermind that professors are about as "elite" as the lady processing your license renewal at the DMV, and only .001% of reporters and pundits are powerful enough to, in Chomsky's terms, help "manufacture consent." Nevermind Fox News remains the most popular 24 hr. news channel. Nevermind all of that -- they're underdogs, dammit!

It'd be nice, refreshing, if someone started arguing from a position other than that of underdog. Instead of "I'm aggrieved," and "How dare you?," perhaps run with, "Well, I'm right and you're wrong, and it has nothing to do with power inequities..." It'd be a lot more productive if people from both sides stopped calling the other side an oppressor and started critiquing the other side as simply wrong on the merits. Objectively. This occurs in a number of places, of course. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to get nearly as many eyeballs as articles where the authors, opportunists that they are, frame things as the Rebels vs. the Empire.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:29 AM   #4477
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
The laughable suggestion from many news sources that the Floyd protests and riots were: (1) excusable; and, (2) not Covid super-spreading events, while outdoor dining in TX and Trump rallies were super-spreader events was a new low in terms of the media putting its thumb on the scale and assuming it could flagrantly bullshit its audiences.
Sebby you ignorant slut.

What media are you talking about?

I saw no shortage of criticism of property damage during the BLM protests. I think you may want to identify the "many sources" you are talking about. I mean, I know "some people say" means "Trump tweeted", but does "many sources said" translate to "Fox said someone said"? Even on the left of the Democratic party, do you think AOC or Bernie condoned violence at some point (neither did - each said protestors needed to be listened to, that criticism of them was overblown, and called for right wingers who did things like shot people at them to be prosecuted, but each explicitly disavowed violence and property destruction)? I assume all this didn't come from what people actual said, but instead from what some of your favorite Fox bros and blondes said they said. If you're looking for people condoning violence, think about the Republicans who glorified and raised money to support a person who murdered someone at a protest.

As to outdoor protests versus indoor stadium events, yeah, the indoor events proved much worse. Much, much worse. There was no comparison. You know all those folks complaining that limiting people on beaches was over cautious (there is a good case it was - the beaches didn't turn out to be the same kind of super spreader events as, say, indoor events at the White House)? Do they have a different view on an outdoor protest? Ask yourself why?

I know, it's popular in your set to bitch and moan about media. What a bore.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:25 AM   #4478
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,434
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
Sebby you ignorant slut.

What media are you talking about?
Probably those woke-aholics at CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/healt...rnd/index.html

And those fucking hippies at the Failing New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/h...ronavirus.html

Or those loons at NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/86654...onavirus-surge
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:28 AM   #4479
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,519
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
As long as the lawyers got paid, it's ok if Bezos doesn't get it all back from the other side.
He got a shit ton of my money in stock and my daily amazon purchases.

And . . . now I just realized I can pick shit out off the Amazon/whole foods web site and they deliver it free within two hours. I click around, look for some veggie vindaloo and wham, on the doorstep by the time I finished "Statement of Facts."
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
Icky Thump is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:14 PM   #4480
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post

The laughable suggestion from many news sources that the Floyd protests and riots were...(2) not Covid super-spreading events
They simply were not. Why do you keep insisting on this? They were outside.

As for "excusable", yeah, so bad of the media to think there might be a lot of totally reasonable anger among people of color over racism...

Quote:
It'd be nice, refreshing, if someone started arguing from a position other than that of underdog. Instead of "I'm aggrieved," and "How dare you?," perhaps run with,
Hi. I'm neither aggrieved nor offended, and almost none of my politics is about direct self-interest. We've spoken on all of these things before.

Quote:
"Well, I'm right and you're wrong, and it has nothing to do with power inequities..."
Most things involve power inequities. Why would you try to deny that?
Adder is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:25 PM   #4481
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,434
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
They simply were not. Why do you keep insisting on this? They were outside.
I don’t know if they were or they weren’t, but there is at least one study I ran across suggesting they were:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454741/
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:50 PM   #4482
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
You don't see an outrageous lack of self-awareness in her arguing "How dare anyone turn 'woke' into an mocking term!" (That is what she's arguing.)

This is underdog privilege taken to a level of absurdity.

She's not alone, of course. There's definitely been a wink and nod from many media outlets over the past few years in the direction of allowing certain groups to get away with things others cannot. The laughable suggestion from many news sources that the Floyd protests and riots were: (1) excusable; and, (2) not Covid super-spreading events, while outdoor dining in TX and Trump rallies were super-spreader events was a new low in terms of the media putting its thumb on the scale and assuming it could flagrantly bullshit its audiences.

Over on the right, every fucking story for the past five years has been framed as one of downtrodden common folk up against nefarious "elites." Who are these evil elites exactly? Well, no one can define that. They're alleged to be college professors, reporters, pundits, and some politicians. Nevermind that professors are about as "elite" as the lady processing your license renewal at the DMV, and only .001% of reporters and pundits are powerful enough to, in Chomsky's terms, help "manufacture consent." Nevermind Fox News remains the most popular 24 hr. news channel. Nevermind all of that -- they're underdogs, dammit!

It'd be nice, refreshing, if someone started arguing from a position other than that of underdog. Instead of "I'm aggrieved," and "How dare you?," perhaps run with, "Well, I'm right and you're wrong, and it has nothing to do with power inequities..." It'd be a lot more productive if people from both sides stopped calling the other side an oppressor and started critiquing the other side as simply wrong on the merits. Objectively. This occurs in a number of places, of course. But unfortunately it doesn't seem to get nearly as many eyeballs as articles where the authors, opportunists that they are, frame things as the Rebels vs. the Empire.
I actually read her piece, so trying to pretend that it's all "I'm aggrieved" and "How dare you?" won't work with me. That kind of nonsense will only work with people who already agree with you and want to get all aggrieved about the woke people telling them they can't say things. Save it for them. You don't seem to be able to hear people to your left on this issue -- you just pretend they are crazy and aggrieved to excuse the fact that you don't want to listen to or engage with them.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 03-10-2021 at 01:12 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 12:52 PM   #4483
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
I don’t know if they were or they weren’t, but there is at least one study I ran across suggesting they were:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454741/
Sturgis seems to have been a super-spreader event and it's mostly outside, so it would stand to reason that could have been true of the protests as well.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:04 PM   #4484
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
I don’t know if they were or they weren’t, but there is at least one study I ran across suggesting they were:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7454741/
I stayed away from them, as did my family in places like Portland, because I thought it was clear there was more risk there than staying at home. I also stayed away from beaches.

I understand the experience in Boston was that the police got it worst from those events because... they mostly didn't wear masks and tended to operate in cars and indoors as well as outdoors. And those guards they sent from prisons? May not have been a good idea, especially for the cops. My wife had the lovely experience while waiting in the car for me of having one of those unmarked militaryesque people come up to the car and cough at her.

But the idea that an outdoor event of masked people is going to compare to indoor events with many unmasked people... seems to ignore a lot of science.
__________________
A wee dram a day!

Last edited by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy; 03-10-2021 at 01:23 PM..
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:26 PM   #4485
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post

But the idea that an outdoor event of masked people is going to compare to indoor events with many unmasked people... .
Floyd protesters were mostly masked?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 AM.