Tag Archives: Deirdre Saoirse Moen

A few not-so-brief thoughts (EC v DA)

23 Oct

So.

That happened.

And #notchilled basically exploded.

For any of my readers who are not aware, erotic romance/erotica publisher Ellora’s Cave filed a defamation suit against the blog Dear Author, and the blog’s founder and owner, Jane Litte aka Jen Frederick.

The basis for the lawsuit is the publication, back in September of 2014, of The Curious Case of Ellora’s Cave. If you have a few days to spare, there are a number of interesting posts written about the case in the intervening thirteen (ye gads!) months. You can find links to quite a few of those at the bottom of this post. (Please note that I have continued to add new links at the end, particularly to Courtney Milan’s and Deirdre Saoirse Moen’s posts explaining some of the legal stuff in layman terms.)

Continue reading

A couple of things on the EC v DA suit (the Ann Jacobs update)

22 Aug

Ellora's Cave sues Dear AuthorAfter a few months of quiet, shit is getting real (h/t to Courtney Milan).

Ellora’s Cave author Ann Jacobs has filed a motion to intervene as a third party in the defamation lawsuit against Dear Author. Ms Jacobs also filed a counterclaim to the suit.

Courtney Milan is hosting both documents (motion to intervene, counterclaim), and she also explains what this means, here. Deirdre Saoirse Moen discusses her own perspective here.

I call your attention to the discussion, in Ms Milan’s blog, of what this motion by Ms Jacobs can mean for all the many–oh so many!–Ellora’s Cave authors, and other subcontractors, who can make the argument that the publisher breached its contracts with them. The fact that a class action against Ellora’s Cave, that would benefit people who have been mistreated–late payments, incorrect royalty statements and checks, derogatory statements by Tina Engler/Jaid Black about the very people who made EC succeed, and more–is legally possible…
Continue reading

According to TiNut, you know who should live on…

19 Feb

Ellora's Cave sues Dear Authorthe respect of an anonymous twitter account (if not “fucking wishes”)?

For starters, all those greedy Ellora’s Cave authors and other contractors who want to be paid monies owed them, accurately and on time.

But also successful self-published authors, like Hugh Howey or Courtney Milan.

Yes, indeed, our little TiNut is very angry that Ms Milan can afford to write full time, because (drinking game! get ready!)

Continue reading

Guess who may be called in to testify? (EC v DA)

1 Feb

Ellora's Cave sues Dear Author(Update at the bottom)

This is not a post, but a by gleeful and snarky Hah! you are karma’s bitch, you dick! drive-by.

Courtney Milan has a new, brief post on the few developments in the EC v DA defamation case this past week, wherein she explains the differences between a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement (this came up here).

The one thing in there that makes me grin so hard my face hurts is this:

  • if it comes to pass that, after Ellora’s Cave and company present their discoveries *snort* any time this century would be good, and
  • if after Jane Litte and Dear Author ask for summary judgment,
  • if is denied (big if, though) then
  • the defendants get to call some witnesses

Who, do you think, would be first on that list? If you guessed “TiNut” on the very first try…well, it was an easy one, but you still get a cookie. And perhaps some popcorn.

Here is how the TiNut appears on that witness list:
Continue reading

Instead of a TiNut, how about an audit? (EC v DA…sorta)

29 Jan

Ellora's Cave sues Dear AuthorSome more paperwork, yay.

Remember the TRO? The judge denied it, not so much because the stupid was awesome as because Ellora’s Cave tacitly admitted the ship had sailed.

One would think that savvy litigants such as Tina Engler and company, would know that suing for defamation would immortalize the content they wanted to squash, and make sure is forevermore part of the public record.

Like those pesky tax liens…

Anyway.

We were talking about discovery earlier this week, and how interesting it would be for the court, and Jane, to have access to Ellora’s Cave’s financial records.

Continue reading

Discovery? This should be interesting (EC v DA)

25 Jan

Ellora's Cave sues Dear AuthorThere has been some movement in the vexatious defamation lawsuit Ellora’s Cave filed against Dear Author and Jane Litte back in late September. A new document, a report on a meeting of the parties to plan discovery, was filed with the court on January 22, 2015.

Hooray…or not?

Look at the dates here (hat tip to Deirdre Saoirse Moen, who is hosting this in her Dropbox)

Yes, folks, it’s been four months of the bullshit already, and we are going nowhere fast.

Ellora’s Cave has until July 15th 2015 to stall, drag their feet, and generally speaking, do nothing, before the court asks what the hold up is.

I wonder whether there are sanctions if the date comes around and plaintiffs have no discovery to show the court. And how many extensions (or whatever they are called in legalese) they can request before the court spanks them some more.

I’m hoping Courtney Milan will chime in to explain the legal differences between a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement, but in the meantime, Ms Deirdre has this, with definitions from Wikipedia and hypothetical examples.

Continue reading

Denied: remand motion, and other bits and bobs (EC v DA)

11 Jan

Ellora's Cave sues Dear AuthorThis is really not much of an update, since it was pretty obvious to everyone that the motion EC filed to remand the case back to state court was baseless. (Courtney Milan is graciously hosting the document, dated January 6th 2015, here.)

Judge Adams examined one of Ellora’s Cave five arguments in one paragraph, and summarily dismissed the other four in another. Call me ignorant, but it does seem that such summary dismissal would clearly indicate how little a federal judge thought of the soundness and validity of the whole thing.

I’m probably just showing my deep ignorance of all things legal, however, considering how brief the document is, it struck me that the time frame was noted repeatedly. Meaning, Judge Adams remarked twice that both parties agreed to a continuance of the TRO within four days of the original filing and two days of Dear Author/Jane Litte retaining counsel.

Continue reading