Bragg v. Linden Lab Update – Trial Date Set, Court to Hold Disputed Funds, Joint Report Filed
August 9th, 2007 by Benjamin Duranske
The Court in the Bragg case recently issued two Orders. One is available as a .pdf here, and the other is linked here (though the second link is broken as of posting). It appears by the title of the second Order (“Scheduling Order – Trial Pool December 17, 2007″) that a trial date has been assigned the week of December 17, 2007. Experience has taught me that these dates are rarely set in stone, and given where they are in the discovery process right now, this seems somewhat earlier than I would have expected, but it’s certainly possible that it will happen then.
The other Order consolidates Bragg’s motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits, and grants Linden Lab’s motion asking the Court hold $5,902.80 that Linden Lab says was in Bragg’s account when he was banned.
The parties also filed a second, joint FRCP 26(f) statement on July 20 (signed by both of them, this time). It appears to replace the one that Defendants filed on their own after negotiations broke down.
I only spotted two differences between the reports, noted below.
- This sentence was added to the “Preservation of Potentially Discoverable Material” section:
Defendants stated that while there was a general business practice of preservation of material, there may have been changes to the websites at issue. Electronic material (e.g. chat logs) are not maintained in perpetuity.
- The section entitled “Any Other Orders That Should Be Entered” (regarding how the parties plan to treat confidential information) has been overhauled. It now reads:
Defendants proposed that the parties enter into a stipulation and order governing confidentiality to protect the privacy of personal information of individuals (including third-party Second Life users) and confidential business, financial, or trade secret information that may be subject to disclosure or discovery. Defendants are not requesting a blanket confidentiality agreement
Plaintiff indicated his willingness to consider a confidentiality agreement to cover specific trade secrets and believes that any such information should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Plaintiff opposes a blanket confidentiality agreement and states that the scope of any proposed confidentiality agreement was unclear to Plaintiff. No such proposed confidentiality agreement has ever been provided to Plaintiff. Plaintiff indicated his willingness to consider a confidentiality agreement to cover specific trade secrets and believes that any such information should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is Plaintiffs position that confidentiality is particularly inappropriate given that Defendants sought to obtain confidentiality through their arbitration clause, and that such clause was deemed unconscionable. Further, Defendants published portions of their Answer and Counterclaim on their website which Plaintiff believes are defamatory per se and, as such, any confidentiality of these proceedings would be inappropriate.
Related Posts on Virtually Blind
- Bragg v. Linden Lab Update – FRCP 26(f) Report and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and/or Amend: "I'm going to track this case somewhat more closely going forward as..." (7 comments)
- Hernandez v. IGE Class Action Litigation Update: Response to Motion to Dismiss Filed: "Last month, Hernandez v. IGE defendant IGE filed a motion (.pdf, via..." (5 comments)
- Hernandez v. IGE Settlement Watch – Parties Claim to Settle, Florida Court Declines to Seal Settlement Absent “Extraordinary Circumstances”: "World of Warcraft player Antonio Hernandez filed a motion claiming he..." (2 comments)
5 Responses to “Bragg v. Linden Lab Update – Trial Date Set, Court to Hold Disputed Funds, Joint Report Filed”
Leave a Reply
Notes on Comments: Your first comment must be manually approved, but after it is you'll be able to post freely with the same name and email. You can use some HTML (<a> <b> <i> <blockquote> etc.) but know that VB's spam blocker holds posts with five or more <a> links. VB supports gravatars. Got a gravatar? Use the associated email and it'll show with your comment. Need one? Set it up for free here.
Interesting. I wonder if third parties that may be publicly mentioned (media, etc) will have recourse if they consider that their privacy has been adversely affected?
It does seem odd to be able to allow chat logs without a convincing argument as to why other people’s privacy may be infringed upon. Further, how does the court know that chat logs were not manufactured or destroyed at the whim of the controlling entity – the defendant?
Interesting times. Darned Chinese curses.
I wish the first case of this magnitude didn’t have a plaintiff who at best admittedly skirted the land purchasing system, and at worst could be considered a fraudulent hacker. I don’t think this would have escalated had his first move been to sue Linden Lab, rather than trying to recover his funds over a few days. We’re all painfully aware that LL’s pretty bad with customer service (just see their BBB record), but I don’t think they’re malicious.
Wups, missed word: “had his first move NOT been to sue Linden Lab, and instead trying to recover” – sorry, its Friday. :)
.”… Further, how does the court know that chat logs were not manufactured or destroyed at the whim of the controlling entity – the defendant?”
simple : according to the Patriotic Act, all the electronic communications /logs are available to certain govt entities. Remember ? No matter how LL pretends the $L are or are not real currency, in the case of gambling the feds decided. My point is : given the fact that SL’s logs are already copied and stored elsewhere , LL cannot aford to mess around. And the court can very simple ask the govt : ” is this log accurate or not ? “.
Linden Labs is not a nation nor is it immune from legal action regardless of its terms of service statements. Linden Labs will be shut down by its actions and prosecuted by the Treasury Department of the United States. It is in violation banking and securities law as it creates currency without a banking license and manufactures securities within its alleged monetary exchange practices. These statements are self evident practices of Linden Labs. Linden Labs may also be in violation of the Patriot Act as it no method in place to deter money laundering from terrorists worldwide. In fact it is the perfect venue to transfer terrorist funds. As the FBI’s further investigation of Linden Labs widens fewer and fewer people will use Second Life. It becomes more and more of a novelty than a social network. Fewer commercial advertisers are using Second Life. Second Life while once a great idea is on its to it self imposed suicide.