Ford pulls LR/Jag GLBT support due to American Family threat

[CoasterMatt]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.

Maybe you should try an occasional bran muffin

[€uroMeinke]

I think as ISM alludes to, that the benefit of threatened suit is the discovery process in itself. That a Ford AFA meeting took place is suspicious considering the timeing and the presumed outcome. It's something I suspect the shareholders would also like to know about.

[Alex]

Something I'm curious about (honestly, I have no idea how this works).

If you file a lawsuit, is the discovery process in which defendent would have to turn over records essentially automatic or does there have to be any kind of certification of merit by the court before it proceeds to that point?

I am in no way saying that is what should happen to such a lawsuit (whether I think something should be against the law has little to do with whether it is), just curious of the discovery process is a guaranteed outcome of filing or if there is some threshold of validity that must first be met?

[wendybeth]

Bless you, iSm. It's been difficult to articulate, mostly because I knew their actions stunk, and went beyond the pale of a regular boycott. Several times I was going to post that in some instances, boycotts have achieved great things when all else has failed, such as the transportation boycotts initiated by Rosa Park's arrest. (I didn't because I didn't feel like arguing that view and the one I am currently defending concurrently). What AFA is doing stinks to high hell, and it just didn't seem to me like it was either ethical or entirely legal. I never said that what Ford was doing was illegal- I said AFA and their ilk are doing should be illegal. Ford deserves nothing but scorn for caving in to these blackmailer's demands.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Something I'm curious about (honestly, I have no idea how this works).

If you file a lawsuit, is the discovery process in which defendent would have to turn over records essentially automatic or does there have to be any kind of certification of merit by the court before it proceeds to that point?

The key is relevence to the claim, but a Company can claim that the information is privilaged in some fashion. Usually the claim is that it is a trade secret and would give competitors an unfair business advantage if disclosed - but sometimes courts don't buy that. The better claim is attorney-client privilage, in which the defendants claim the meeting was a discussion with counsel.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, the privilege generally has to be attorney-client, or attorney work product. Trade secrets doesn't cut it. And any litigant has a right to such non-privileged discovery right from the get-go, without any by-your-leave from the court (though the court is almost always necessary to get at the really juicy stuff that one side does not want to disclose)

Alex is right that it would be helpful to any lawsuit if the AFA gained financially by interfering between Ford and The Advocate, but it's not stricly necessary.

Oh, and pulling their own funds from a bank is not any kind of interference with that bank. Different animal altogether.

[Alex]

I wasn't trying to suggest that they interefered with Wells Fargo by pulling their funds, but perhaps they interefered with unknown gay organizations by reaching an agreement with FNBO, particularly if FNBO now pulls their historical funding of YES-Omaha.

It seems to be the same deal as with Ford. "Stop spending money for the queers and you can have our business."


Thanks for the answer on discovery. What is the first step in the process when a judge has the opportunity to dismiss a civil lawsuit as without merit?

[innerSpaceman]

Just to catch up with Zlick's legal primer, the first opportunity that a party being sued has to have the case thrown out is when they must answer the lawsuit (within 20 days of being served, if the plaintiff makes the proverbial federal case out of it) with what's called - with a straight face no less - a Demurrer. It sounds as if the defendant is simply too shy to answer the charges, but it means that they want the court to notice that the plaintiff does not have a case.

Most demurrers do not succeed. If there are defects in the plaintiff's allegations of their initial complaint, they are usually given leave by the court to amend that complaint to fix such defects. Rarely is a case just thrown out, because it's very rare that attorneys file a complaint that is insufficient on its face to allege a cause or causes of action against the defendant.


The next chance the defendant has to have the case disposed of is to make a motion for a summary judgment, in which the actual merits of the case are considered and not merely the allegations. This, however, is almost always done by the plaintiff - believing they have a slam-dunk case - and very rarely by a defendant trying to prove there's no valid case against them.


If both of these things go south for the defendant, they can look forward to about a year and half of discovery battles, and depositions ... and a trial at the end of that almost two year process.






Then, the appeals begin. And big cases can usually see swift justice resolve the matter in about a decade.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ford met with gay rights organizations the other day.

Ford told the gay rights groups that the company is still gay-friendly and that their sponsorships of gay events and causes would continue at the same level, although the ad cutback announcement stands.

Source

It's good to hear that they would still sponsor gay events.

[innerSpaceman]

Glad to hear it about the event sponsorships, and I hope it proves true.

The advertising is, I believe, in the purview of Ford to decide. I think think The Advocate should sue over the dirty deal done against their economic interests.