Print

[ira01]

Your not a chess player or a strategist! If you were, you would know that some strategy is being deployed and gonna be used by someone  who is not licensed in CA.

Pro hac vice is common and uninteresting. 

[mothandrust]

Pro hac vice is common and uninteresting. 

To the layman, it sounds kinky.

[Capital_Finance_Group]

What does Motion for Summary Judgement Mean?

That asks the Court to make a determination that there are no material issues of disputed facts, and that as a result, there is nothing for a jury to decide -- that the side making the motion is entitled to a judgment.  

I would not get too excited. This is a fairly standard plantif motion. The defense will surely file their own motion against summary judgement.

Sorry your Wrong! it was filed by the defendants!
http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08482329

Then the defendant is asking that the case be dropped for lack of evidence to support the Plaintif position.

[havastat]

As I recall, the judge indicated in the opinion certifying the class that much of the case was likely to be susceptible to summary judgement. At the time, it appeared that there was agreement about the facts and the only question was what legal interpretation to give them, which would seem a classic summary judgement situation. But there may have been additional evidence uncovered (or alleged to have been withheld) during the discovery resulting in some of the matters previously thought undisputed now becoming disputable.

[Beerbud1]

As I recall, the judge indicated in the opinion certifying the class that much of the case was likely to be susceptible to summary judgement. At the time, it appeared that there was agreement about the facts and the only question was what legal interpretation to give them, which would seem a classic summary judgement situation. But there may have been additional evidence uncovered (or alleged to have been withheld) during the discovery resulting in some of the matters previously thought undisputed now becoming disputable.

But The defendants are stonewalling the discovery process according to the recent filing by the plaintiffs attorneys

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

There was a rather big load of new documents on the docket today.

http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08482329

[Xenon481]

There was a rather big load of new documents on the docket today.

http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08482329

What's with all the redacted parts in the class' response to Prosper's motion for summary judgement?

Otherwise, that is a fantastic response.

[Fred93]

Lotsa redactions.  Some of the redactions are entire "facts".  Seems strange.

Happy to see the lawyers are still under steam.  Somebody must be shovelin' the coals.

[ira01]

There is an outrageous amount of material redacted.  Moreover, much of it clearly seems to NOT be confidential -- for example, all of the exhibits to Plaintiff's counsel's declaration were lodged under seal, including excerpts from Prosper's own website, which are by very definition public (since Prosper made those pages visible to whomever wanted to view them).  California law has a very strong presumption that court documents and proceedings are PUBLIC.  It would sure be nice if a newspaper would get interested in this case and file a motion to provide the full, unredacted versions of the documents. 

[112233]

Defendent is not aware of any employees who posted statements on Prosper's website, on Prospers.org, or any other third-party website using an alias

They did and I doubt they fail to remember.

[xraider]

There is an outrageous amount of material redacted.  Moreover, much of it clearly seems to NOT be confidential -- for example, all of the exhibits to Plaintiff's counsel's declaration were lodged under seal, including excerpts from Prosper's own website, which are by very definition public (since Prosper made those pages visible to whomever wanted to view them).  California law has a very strong presumption that court documents and proceedings are PUBLIC.  It would sure be nice if a newspaper would get interested in this case and file a motion to provide the full, unredacted versions of the documents. 

I was thinking the same thing as I read it.  While some of this might be trade secret (hahaha) some appears to have been pulled from Prosper's website.

We can oppose the motion to file under seal......

Or, as potential class members, perhaps we can ask for an unredacted copy of the brief?

[xraider]

Defendent is not aware of any employees who posted statements on Prosper's website, on Prospers.org, or any other third-party website using an alias

They did and I doubt they fail to remember.

That's absurd.  Lying sacks. 

[xraider]

Interesting opposition.  Too bad the motion isn't available.

I'm glad that the opposition got the idea across that these are high risk loans with ineffective collections.

If it had been me opposing, though, I would have kept repeating that Prosper agrees these were securities per the consent decrees!

[havastat]

Just speculating, but I since a lot of the secrecy is coming from the plaintiffs lawyers (not the defendents) I'm wondering if some of this is jockeying for a settlement offer. Something like "settle with us now and we can keep all this quiet, but if you keep going we can get this stuff blabbed all over."

[Beerbud1]

Just speculating, but I since a lot of the secrecy is coming from the plaintiffs lawyers (not the defendents) I'm wondering if some of this is jockeying for a settlement offer. Something like "settle with us now and we can keep all this quiet, but if you keep going we can get this stuff blabbed all over."

Nope!