Peter Thiel vs Gawker

[LaCroix]

agree with yi

The law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.

at the end of the day, it's just another business that went bust from a lawsuit. nothing more, nothing less.

[garbon]

Yes the writer was feeling understandably emotional.

[Martinus]

First they came for gawker. What's next? Queerty? Perez Hilton? Breitbart? Infowars? Will this downward spiral never end?

[LaCroix]

Yes the writer was feeling understandably emotional.

well, there's being understandably emotional, and there's writing a bad article. look at the jab at the judge for refusing to play the tape in court (because of probably the rules of evidence). wouldn't that have helped gawker more than anything?

[Sheilbh]

First they came for gawker. What's next? Queerty? Perez Hilton? Breitbart? Infowars? Will this downward spiral never end?

Well quite

[The Minsky Moment]

Most of the story is whining and apologetics but at the end it gets at what I think is a significant issue.

There are 3 potentially problematic aspects of the civil legal system in the US:
1)  Very open ended discovery, causing cases to drag on for long and generate huge costs.
2)  Jackpot damages award driven in part by civil juries.
3)  It is very difficult to stay enforcement on a verdict pending appeal absent the ability to post security for the entire amount (and enforcement powers are very extensive).

All three issues were present here, but the combination of (2) and (3) is what killed the company.

the problems of (1) and (2) are widely known, not so much (3).  (3) becomes an issue because of (2) - awards can easily get past a party's ability to secure on a bond and thus the appeal right becomes ineffective - even if you appeal and win, the judgment creditor can destroy you in the interim.

Whatever people think about gawker (and personally i knew very little about it before this case) or its conduct against Bollea, as a purely legal matter this is a very close case.  It's concerning when a defendant with a meritorious appeal gets wiped out before it can prosecute that appeal. 

[Jacob]

Thiel is backing a start up based on funding law-suits: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiels-foundation-funds-a-start-up-to-bet-on-other-lawsuits

[Malthus]

Most of the story is whining and apologetics but at the end it gets at what I think is a significant issue.

There are 3 potentially problematic aspects of the civil legal system in the US:
1)  Very open ended discovery, causing cases to drag on for long and generate huge costs.
2)  Jackpot damages award driven in part by civil juries.
3)  It is very difficult to stay enforcement on a verdict pending appeal absent the ability to post security for the entire amount (and enforcement powers are very extensive).

All three issues were present here, but the combination of (2) and (3) is what killed the company.

the problems of (1) and (2) are widely known, not so much (3).  (3) becomes an issue because of (2) - awards can easily get past a party's ability to secure on a bond and thus the appeal right becomes ineffective - even if you appeal and win, the judgment creditor can destroy you in the interim.

Whatever people think about gawker (and personally i knew very little about it before this case) or its conduct against Bollea, as a purely legal matter this is a very close case.  It's concerning when a defendant with a meritorious appeal gets wiped out before it can prosecute that appeal.

Another problem not mentioned: in most states, no cost awards rules, which together with the potential for jury jackpots makes pursuing low-chance litigation more attractive than it arguably should be, as it lacks the significant disincentive costs awards provide.

[Martinus]

Interesting observations, Minsky. I wasn't aware of no. 3. In Poland it is very rare to get an immediate enforcement of a ruling pending an appeal - it is only the case in some special types of cases - like alimony claims - or if the plaintiff can show that he would be deprived of the benefit of his claim if the enforcement was delayed.

[DontSayBanana]

Interesting observations, Minsky. I wasn't aware of no. 3. In Poland it is very rare to get an immediate enforcement of a ruling pending an appeal - it is only the case in some special types of cases - like alimony claims - or if the plaintiff can show that he would be deprived of the benefit of his claim if the enforcement was delayed.

Most states use the FRCP as a model, especially in their civil parts/divisions, and FRCP 62:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_62

Rule 62. Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions for Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings. Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry. But unless the court orders otherwise, the following are not stayed after being entered, even if an appeal is taken:

(1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or a receivership; or

(2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for patent infringement.

(b) Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion. On appropriate terms for the opposing party's security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment—or any proceedings to enforce it—pending disposition of any of the following motions:

(1) under Rule 50, for judgment as a matter of law;

(2) under Rule 52(b), to amend the findings or for additional findings;

(3) under Rule 59, for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment; or

(4) under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.

(c) Injunction Pending an Appeal. While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights. If the judgment appealed from is rendered by a statutory three-judge district court, the order must be made either:

(1) by that court sitting in open session; or

(2) by the assent of all its judges, as evidenced by their signatures.

(d) Stay with Bond on Appeal. If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.

(e) Stay Without Bond on an Appeal by the United States, Its Officers, or Its Agencies. The court must not require a bond, obligation, or other security from the appellant when granting a stay on an appeal by the United States, its officers, or its agencies or on an appeal directed by a department of the federal government.

(f) Stay in Favor of a Judgment Debtor Under State Law. If a judgment is a lien on the judgment debtor's property under the law of the state where the court is located, the judgment debtor is entitled to the same stay of execution the state court would give.

(g) Appellate Court's Power Not Limited. This rule does not limit the power of the appellate court or one of its judges or justices:

(1) to stay proceedings—or suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction—while an appeal is pending; or

(2) to issue an order to preserve the status quo or the effectiveness of the judgment to be entered.

(h) Stay with Multiple Claims or Parties. A court may stay the enforcement of a final judgment entered under Rule 54(b) until it enters a later judgment or judgments, and may prescribe terms necessary to secure the benefit of the stayed judgment for the party in whose favor it was entered.

FRCP 60 outlines a list of qualifiers where there could be temporary or permanent relief from a judgment, but all require some form of affirmative, documented cause- Peter Thiel being an arrogant twat sadly would not be enough cause for relief due to opposition misconduct under FRCP 60(b)(3), for example.