If he's going to pay to have his own attorney there anyway, I cannot see how it benefits himself in any way to have the W&S attorney speaking for him. The interests of Terry as someone not party to the case may conflict with the Axanar/Alec interests and this would let Axanar/Alec inject control over his actions in deposition.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
If he's going to pay to have his own attorney there anyway, I cannot see how it benefits himself in any way to have the W&S attorney speaking for him. The interests of Terry as someone not party to the case may conflict with the Axanar/Alec interests and this would let Axanar/Alec inject control over his actions in deposition.
I would hope that his attorney would strongly advise against it.
Wow - it really shows how utterly desperate W&S must be. If I were L&L; I would be raising a BIG objection to Erin Ranahan actually representing Terry at the deposition because it IS a CLEAR conflict of interest in that I'm sure she has a real stake at controlling what Terry actually says - and would be more looking out for Axanar and Alec Peter's interests, then in what might be best for Terry McIntosh - even if he's not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.
If the Judge finds out about this, I don't think he'll look to favorably on Ms. Ranahan wanting to do this. If Terry is going to have his own counsel there, I don't see what he thinks he'd gain - unless he'd really rather not testify about anything regarding his involvement with Axanar and Alec Peters to anyone if given a choice.
Dang. I'm impressed. That certainly brings the waved billables to a higher amount than I'd even 'imagined'. Impressing me further with how much (and go how far) Ms. Ranahan/W&S are willing to put into pulling off what she stated (a chance at setting legal precedent) and what I've always speculated is the firm's & her agenda of future high dollar cases coming from taking on this one little case. If I ever had something this firm/attorney considered beneficial to them (money, prestige, chance to impact existing precedent/law) and I wanted representation as either plaintiff or defendant... I'm currently thinking I'd be wanting them to represent me. Which I do strongly think is their agenda; a name in law annals bringing them future highly profitable high profile cases.
Dang. This should be interesting.
Last edited:
If Terry accepts representation from Ranahan, does that mean that he can't be called as a witness for plaintiffs? Trying to work out the reasoning for the pro bono offer.
Well who's to say what Terrys interests actually are? I know that just lately, for reasons that escape me, he's become something of a hero to some and it seems like everyone wants to be his friend but we've only got his word on how things are playing out with regards to this and his word previously was not a nice or trustworthy one at all.
Might that be a case of "controlling the narrative", that's at play here? Is that possible, Carlos? Also in conjunction with the other client, you can't name at the moment?
And as to what OtherGene said:
I still remember Terry saying he (paraphrasing here) would have been fine with Axanar and Alec, if he had received the amount of money he had asked for. I've never given into his heroism, just his own interest is what counts in the end. So he is not for sure a candidate for the plaintiff's side of things.
We will see. But my doubts about Terry still stand.
Agreed - I sure wasn't sorry to see Terry part ways with Alec, nor surprised when it happened because it was inevitable that Peters and his ilk would start eating their own once the lawsuit dragged on long enough. But Terry was consistently, rude, combative, evasive, and generally nasty in much of his interaction while with the Axanar production, and switching teams once he realized which way the wind was blowing doesn't absolve him of that nastiness nor does it suddenly win my trust.
This is an attempt to (a) treat him as a hostile, which means pretty much 100% leading questions and (b ) raising objections up the yin yang to pretty much everything. You raise objections and they are preserved for either trial or motion practice.
Truth is, after he states his name and address for the record, she's probably going to yell 'objection' at nearly everything he says, no matter who is representing him.
And yes, it's an attempt to control the narrative. And it is not in Terry M's best interests at all. If I were working for L & L I would be taking this to Klausner yesterday. McIntosh's interests do not necessarily align with Peters's, and McIntosh is not a former employee (he was a volunteer, as I recall). Even if he was paid at one point in time, former employees can have directly conflicting interests to their former employers. That happens all the time.
Truth is, the whole thing feels like a fact pattern out of this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Responsibility-Problems-Profession-Casebooks/dp/1454802979/
I'm relieved @wtriker1701 and @Karzak made their posts. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that way.
Did somebody say crash?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Did somebody say crash?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Crash or Cash?
Because waves cashing in on the firmament sounds about right.
This is pretty confusing. Suppose I am a victim of a car crash due to a malfunctioning brake, and I sue the car company and subpoena the independent company who made the brakes to ask if they had any interactions with the car company.
How could the car company be the attorney for the brake maker? It would clearly defeat my ability to get independent information directly from the brake maker.
I understand you described it as a conflict of interest and something L&L would object to and the judge quash, but how could such a maneuver even be permitted to start with? Are there no laws about interference with depositions?
Readers' cognitive dissonance brain waves crashing upon the holographic firmament.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram
I'm kinda baffled myself - the offer may have been made as a kind of "we're gonna cover everyone involved with Axa" blanket. I don't know. In your fact pattern, separate manufacturers are clearly separate, but when it comes to employers and former employees, it's a different story.
Still, TM is a former employee (or at least a former volunteer), but he owes Axa no loyalty whatsoever. When I did depositions regularly (and I often had corporate defendants), we did extend policy protection and, therefore, attorney representation to former employees all the time. And a lot of those former employees were lovely, loyal people. Every now and then, you'd get someone with an axe to grind. But this was years before the Internet. TM has been pretty public about his shifting loyalties or at least that he wouldn't be a guaranteed slam dunk supportive witness for the defense.
Plus W & S has bled enough money and pro bono hours on this one to last them a while. And now they're going to volunteer for more? I'm sorry, but regardless of what you feel about anyone, W & S is a business and they have got to bring in some cash (sorry, pun not intended). Ranahan is a partner which means she is expected to be a rainmaker. I know I've written this before.
There are only so many hours in a day. Shedding time on pro bono work, when you've most likely already gone way above and beyond what the firm requires and what the state requires (50 hours for California, per annum), means you are either neglecting your home life and/or health, or your financial obligations to the firm as a partner. Or you're padding the bills. I am not accusing Ms. Ranahan of the latter.
But at some point, something has got to give. They do not own a time machine.
So, where is this infinite time coming from? And for what? TM is far from being a guaranteed asset for them.
His interests differ. Period.
This is ... weird. And it makes my professional responsibility muscles itch.
Nope. I'm of the same mind on this.
- Status