I think that coffin has been firmly nailed shut for some time now, and Gaiman is doing some combination of grabbing as much money as he can now that his earnings have been drastically reduced, and punishing one of the women he blames for destroying his career.
According to the website below, dated January 14, 2025, Gaiman is now worth $18 million (US):
I can envision legitimate and useful NDAs, like a company protecting their proprietary technology. But I think that the clear marker is the question “What’s the NDA about?”. If the NDA prevents you from also answering that question, it goes too far.
I can know that Bob the engineer for MegaCorp, Inc. is not allowed to talk about the design of their widget-making machine. Knowing that does not in any way reveal MegaCorp’s secrets. But if I know that Jane Nobody isn’t allowed to talk about her sexual interactions with Joe Bigname, then that in itself contains most of the content of the NDA.
To put it in legal terms, I think that, in order to be enforceable, the terms of a contract must be publicly-knowable.
Not that’s so clear. The NDA is about a possible future purchase or merger of the business. None of the parties want even that the company is actively in negotiations with anyone to be public knowledge until the announcement. Speculation that discussion is current with anyone may kibosh the deal. Everyone with the need to know signs the NDA. Legit use. (Real situation. Our company will at some point be in some equity deal of some sort. We don’t know what or when. But I do know that anyone saying they know is full of shit, by definition, because anyone who would know would have signed that NDA.
Exactly. At my first job (at a personal-care products company), we had a senior chemist whom we’d hired from a competitor. He was under an NDA for the first one or two years he was with us, and every once in a while, he’d have to give us a reply to a question which was along the lines of, “I’m not allowed to comment on that,” or “I can’t confirm or deny that.” It was always clear what he wasn’t allowed to give us details about.
“So, uh. were you in the Army?”
“No.”
“Um. The Navy? Air Force?”
“No.”
“Are you ex-CIA?”
“I cannot confirm or deny that.”
Similarly, there are development program where the mere existence of the program is secret (either trade secret or secret secret). I believe the term-of-art in the DoD world is unacknowledged.
One of the lawsuits has been dismissed because the case was filled in Wisconsin about something that happened in New Zealand. The judge said the suit needs to be filed in New Zealand.
That’s already being appealed.
Can a lawyer-type person explain the thinking behind why the case was filed in Wisconsin in the first place? My Law & Order legal “education” tells me that criminal charges are filed in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. Is that not standard practice in civil cases? What is the advantage to the plaintiff to filing in Wisconsin here?
In commercial insurance liability cases, claims can be filed where the injury happened, where the company being sued is domiciled or does business, or where the allegedly injured party lives. There was an important court ruling a few years ago that claims could only be filed in a place that had some relationship to the parties or the injury, which had some impact on asbestos claims, which were mostly filed in counties where it was easiest to win a judgement, whether or not that jurisdiction had any relationship to the claim. Jurisdiction shopping is common.
I assume that the rules are similar for personal liability cases.
Gaiman was domiciled there.
Yes, thank you, I read the article. My question is: why does that make it a better place for the plaintiff to file than the jurisdiction in which the (alleged) assault occurred? Presumably her lawyers are not idiots and they filed it there for some reason. The article lists many reasons, as stated by the judge, why she should have filed in NZ. Why didn’t she? I am assuming there is some good reason for it.
She’d already tried getting a criminal case in NZ so likely doesn’t trust their legal system, her lawyers are not in NZ so probably know US law better, and none of the people involved live in NZ any more, I think those are all factors.
Ah OK, thanks. I have not followed this very closely and was not aware of that.
I would be very confused if I was sitting on a jury for a case here in Arkansas for something that happened on the other side of the globe in New Zealand.
In addition to MrDibble’s points, my (imperfect) understanding based on just reading web chatter and a tiny bit of research like this paper (see from page 27 on), is that it is it harder to get awarded punitive damage in New Zealand vs. the United States generally. But much more importantly the amounts tend to be relatively quite low even when they are awarded. The expense of bringing suit may not be supportable in New Zealand - the court costs may just be prohibitively expensive compared to uncertain prospects of very limited recovery.
If it’s a civil liability case, you’d be guided by the laws in the state where the trial took place. So, not really that confusing. You’d hear evidence of what happened, just like you would fit a local case.
A civil case isn’t “the state vs,”, it’s just party A vs. party B.
A quote would play, and then the reporter Paul Curuana Galizia would interject something that was the complete opposite of what had just been said. Rachel Johnson would cut off an interviewee, and fail to ask obvious and important follow-up questions. They would follow unnecessary tangents, bring up general talking points that did not relate to the events, but seemed merely there to distract when any question of the accusation’s validity might emerge.
The background music played sombre and tragic strings, ever suggestive that something serious and disturbing lay around the corner. But somehow the actual moment of revelation always evaporated into vague innuendo, faux-deep rhetorical questions and pop psychology talking points. When the claimants did get around to talking about the actual evil acts themselves, it often seemed well… consensual. The hosts even admitted this in many cases - yet pushed onwards.
I couldn’t believe that anyone would take something like this seriously, and then I found out who Rachel Johnson was. Not even really a reporter, more like a pundit, and a right-wing transphobic one at that. A kind of female Tucker Carson. Well known for dim out of touch attitudes. The establishment, the sister of the former British PM Boris Johnson. What was she doing on an investigation like this? She was no supporter of #MeToo.… Even more concerning, one of the accusers was best friends with the lead reporter Rachel Johnson. A serious conflict of interest that was never disclosed in Master .
Who is the writer of that piece?