nealric wrote:He didn't articulate it artfully, but I think he articulated a clear position sufficient to provide a reasonable explanation for why Facebook was not prepared to settle. The company recognizes the grievous nature of the injuries, but does not believe those injuries are properly redressed by Facebook because the connection between Facebook and the injuries is too attenuated.
Where did he say anything about attentuation of damages or proximate cause or anything else? His answer was that this case was not the proper "vehicle." That's flat out incorrect and a misstatement of the rules. The associate said this:
Your Honor, I understand the concern
about the moral obligation here, and that this is a case that
the plaintiffs have stated a number of allegations about
international terrorism, including that of Hamas, are
unfortunate and concerning. Nonetheless, this case is not the
proper vehicle in order to address those concerns.
The judge realized that this kid doesn't respect the rules of the court, but just because he doesn't understand them. These conferences are specifically
the correct vehicles to address issues of resolution outside of trial. Obviously he was in over his head. The judge then explained why this is an appropriate "vehicle" and then said this:
You tell your folks back at Kirkland & Ellis that I
don't much like the idea that they think so little of this
court that they didn't send a partner here to talk about this
kind of a problem which implicates international terrorism and
the murder of innocent people in Israel and other places.
It's been a while since I read the rules, but isn't the judge correct here?
p.s. When a judge asks you a question, don't tell him you're not going to answer it because it's not the right place (unless it one of a few select motions in front of a jury).