Richard Meyer v. Mark Waid (2018)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Waid Livestream - What will happen?

  • Talks about the lawsuit.

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Further incriminates himself.

    Votes: 18 48.6%

  • Defames YaBoi again.

    Votes: 5 13.5%

  • Doesn't talk about the lawsuit nor CG.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Host disagrees with Waid on something, chimpout insues.

    Votes: 7 18.9%

  • Normal interview. (no drama)

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneHandClapping said:
My only regret is that there's no way this can top the 11-21 Vic hearing.
Click to expand...

Unless Zaid is there and starts an "ORANGE MAN MAD" COMIC MAN BAD speech while Waid cries himself shirtless.

UPDATE:
There's something on PACER right now:
MvW 49 on PACER.PNG

If one of you Law Kiwis can retrieve it (@AnOminous or @RodgerDodger), we'd all be grateful.
 
Last edited:
SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court issues the following scheduling order.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties shall file all amended or supplemental pleadings and shall join additional parties on or before March 6, 2020.

2. All parties asserting claims for relief shall file and serve on all other parties their designation of potential witnesses, testifying experts, and proposed exhibits, and shall serve on all other parties, but not file, the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) on or before May 15, 2020. Parties resisting claims for relief shall file and serve on all other parties their designations of potential witnesses, testifying experts, and proposed exhibits, and shall serve on all other parties, but not file, the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) on or before June 15, 2020. All designations of rebuttal experts shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days of receipt of the report of the opposing expert, and the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) for such rebuttal experts, to the extent not already served, shall be served, but not filed, on all other parties not later than 14 days of receipt of the report of the opposing expert.

3. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before January 10, 2020, and each opposing party shall respond, in writing, on or before January 24,2020. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing attorney's fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial.

4. A report on alternative dispute resolution in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 shall be filed on or before February 14, 2020.

5. Any objection to the reliability of an expert's proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, not later than 14 days of receipt ofthe written report of the expert's proposed testimony or not later than 14 days of the expert's deposition, if a deposition is taken, whichever is later. The failure to strictly comply with this paragraph will be deemed a waiver of any objection that could have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

6. The parties shall complete discovery on or before August 28, 2020. Counsel may, by agreement, continue discovery beyond the deadline, but there will be no intervention by the Court except in extraordinary circumstances, and no trial setting will be vacated because of information obtained in post-deadline discovery.

7. All dispositive motions shall be filed and served on all other parties on or before September 28, 2020 and shall be limited to 20 pages. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for the reply before ruling on the motion.

The parties shall not complete the following paragraph 8. It will be completed by the Court at the initial pretrial conference to be scheduled by the Court.

8. This case is set for final pretrial conference, in chambers, on the day of 26th day of March 2021, at 11:00 AM and for jury trial in the month of April 2021. The final pretrial conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties. The parties should consult Local Rule CV- 16(e) regarding matters to be filed in advance of the final pretrial conference.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

Last edited:
mindlessobserver said:
We finally have a trial date. Yeesh that took forever.
Click to expand...
That's the legal system. People complained about Maddox's failsuit taking a long time, but in fact it was amazingly fast by the standards of the legal system. Calibrate expectations accordingly.
 
The trial is scheduled for Q2 2021 but discovery is due later this year. What kind of juicy bits can we hope for? They've already had depositions for Waid and Meyer IIRC, and we've already seen the texts between the publisher and Mark "Please say I didn't bully you!" Waid.
 
7proxy said:
The trial is scheduled for Q2 2021 but discovery is due later this year. What kind of juicy bits can we hope for? They've already had depositions for Waid and Meyer IIRC, and we've already seen the texts between the publisher and Mark "Please say I didn't bully you!" Waid.
Click to expand...

Messages from Waid to other comic artists about this? Or execs at Marvel or DC?
Please say he was stupid enough to discuss this with big wigs at the Big Two. :optimistic:
 
5t3n0g0ph3r said:
Messages from Waid to other comic artists about this? Or execs at Marvel or DC?
Please say he was stupid enough to discuss this with big wigs at the Big Two. :optimistic:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think he'd have a reason to talk to them about it, though lord knows the man loves to talk, so I suppose it's possible.
 
talk talk talk said:
Here it is.

Motion to dismiss DENIED as to tortious interference
Motion to dismis GRANTED as to internet defamation
Motion to dismiss DENIED as to Houston Comic Con defamation
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Its also a slight fuck you to Weid. Also leaves open finding Discovery that shows Weid knowingly defamed Meyer in a way that would fall under Texas' jurisdiction.
 
talk talk talk said:
Here it is.

Motion to dismiss DENIED as to tortious interference
Motion to dismis GRANTED as to internet defamation
Click to expand...

Absolute fucking nonsense especially in light of the Houston defamation ruling considering it's absolutely part of the same pattern of conduct. Presumably by this logic if someone traveled around the country stopping at an airport in every one of the 50 states, defaming the same guy, you'd have to sue him separately in every single state.

Still there's time to challenge it considering the HEFTY time delay before trial with the scheduling order, and everything else, as expected, is going to trial. I can't believe we had to wait this long for such nonsense. Welcome to federal pound me in the ass court!
 
AnOminous said:
Absolute fucking nonsense especially in light of the Houston defamation ruling considering it's absolutely part of the same pattern of conduct. Presumably by this logic if someone traveled around the country stopping at an airport in every one of the 50 states, defaming the same guy, you'd have to sue him separately in every single state.

Still there's time to challenge it considering the HEFTY time delay before trial with the scheduling order, and everything else, as expected, is going to trial. I can't believe we had to wait this long for such nonsense. Welcome to federal pound me in the ass court!
Click to expand...
I don't think it is nonsense. The pleadings simply can't really connect the two. Weid's statements in Huston were not as bad as the ones online, and were debatebly not even truly connected. The Magistrate seems to have cut the metaphorical baby and added in the Huston charges (meaning Discovery can connect to Defamation) and which could then connect to a larger defamation cause.
I think the issue at heart here is connective tissue. There just isn't enough yet to connect the Huston defamation to the General defamation in the filings.
 
AnOminous said:
Absolute fucking nonsense especially in light of the Houston defamation ruling considering it's absolutely part of the same pattern of conduct. Presumably by this logic if someone traveled around the country stopping at an airport in every one of the 50 states, defaming the same guy, you'd have to sue him separately in every single state.

Still there's time to challenge it considering the HEFTY time delay before trial with the scheduling order, and everything else, as expected, is going to trial. I can't believe we had to wait this long for such nonsense. Welcome to federal pound me in the ass court!
Click to expand...
It was Waid's motions that were denied and granted, not Meyer's. I think you got the logic backwards.
 
Either way both causes of action go foreword. I would assume meyer can use the social media stuff to show pattern of behavior in support of the defamation in Houston
 
AprilRains said:
It was Waid's motions that were denied and granted, not Meyer's. I think you got the logic backwards.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. What else could we possibly be talking about but Waid's motions?
 
Now this document is just sort of a recommendation from another judge to Judge Yeakel about what he should do and why, right? These motions haven't actually been denied or granted yet until Yeakel gives the say so, right?
 
Least Concern said:
Now this document is just sort of a recommendation from another judge to Judge Yeakel about what he should do and why, right? These motions haven't actually been denied or granted yet until Yeakel gives the say so, right?
Click to expand...

Correct. Waid is almost certainly going to challenge all the denials, and Meyer is going to challenge the one grant. I would generally anticipate the judge is going to go with the recommendations of the magistrate without a good showing the magistrate is wrong, though, so I hope to see a strong argument from Meyer on why pendent jurisdiction clearly applies here.

This is assuming there isn't a trip to the Fifth Circuit. I believe Waid hinted that was coming as well. And I also anticipate a TCPA motion despite the Fifth Circuit saying there isn't such a thing in the Fifth Circuit.

Gehenna said:
There just isn't enough yet to connect the Huston defamation to the General defamation in the filings.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he clearly directed his actions toward Meyer in Texas to interfere with his contract, then suddenly became a completely agnostic evil twin when he went online and defamed him while announcing his intentions of interfering with the contract, defamed him while announcing he was actively interfering with the contract, then defamed him while announcing he had successfully interfered with the contract, and that this somehow was a completely different set of actions.
 
AnOminous said:
I'm not sure what you mean. What else could we possibly be talking about but Waid's motions?
Click to expand...
I'm not thinking very clearly and ask your indulgence. Why is it nonsensical for the Texas court to decide it doesn't have jurisdiction over internet defamation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom