Sandy Hook Families: Remington sent us 18,000 cartoons

[v0lcom13sn0w]

lmao

 

[AMT]

This is exactly it. It's very common for lawyers to seek as much information as possible during discovery in an effort to effectively go fishing simply hoping to find anything that might support their chances (not only on the merits of the claim but also in terms of characterization of the opposition). Specifically requesting copies of all communication is usually a stretch for a judge to approve in a subpoena, but it's a common ask.

In this case it sounds like the judge approved it and Remington gave the plaintiffs exactly what they requested, and the plaintiffs, not finding evidence of misdeed, are instead attacking the character of Remington for giving them exactly what they asked for and complying with a subpoena. The plaintiffs are essentially trying to attack Remington's credibility for sending memes to one another, because they didn't find actual evidence of actual wrongdoing or illegal activity to support the merits of their case. They are attacking Remington for following the law (complying with a subpoena) which sort of makes sense because the entire case is a witch-hunt that should have been summarily dismissed prior to this point anyway.

Exactly this! If they didn't had over "everything" the the attorney's would have something else to condemn Remington for.

You get a judge to issue a subpoena asking for everything...... You get everything! Whether you like it or not.

 

[RVTECH]

Does any of this 'spill over' to the new owners of Remington?

 

[Rkangel]

Exactly this! If they didn't had over "everything" the the attorney's would have something else to condemn Remington for.

You get a judge to issue a subpoena asking for everything...... You get everything! Whether you like it or not.

Yep, it sounds like a case of "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Or they ended up the victim of an epic self-troll, thinking Remington had nefarious plans, yet all they got was inner-office joke emails.

 

[223to45]

Does any of this 'spill over' to the new owners of Remington?

The way I understand it, is the bankruptcy judge withheld some of the money from the sell of everything to keep the insurance active.
So it should not, but then again this case shouldn't be in court either

 

[AK0perator47]

WTF is abusive marketing? That seems very vague. So if I don't like what someone else says or does and it's through their marketing department I can sue them?

Well, cool I can sue Amazon and Bezos for the throbbing male genitalia in their marketing ads!

Also, it's not gender neutral so that's a second lawsuit!

 

[WalkingTall]

Seems like a good way to piss off the judge and make the families seem even more sympathetic than they already do. This will backfire in court where it counts.

 

[gmerkt]

Is Remington even a viable company any more? Didn't they file another bankruptcy recently?

Does any of this 'spill over' to the new owners of Remington?

I wondered about this myself. When Remington Outdoor (holding company for Remington Arms) went bankrupt, their manufacturing assets were auctioned off. To other companies. The legacy Remington Outdoor apparently still exists, without any plant or manufacturing assets, as a firm in bankruptcy. So my take is, that when the assets of Remington Outdoor were auctioned off, the proceeds from that went into trust under the legacy company's bankruptcy. And this money, whatever is left, will be the source of funds to satisfy anything granted to the Sandy Hook survivors and other litigants.

The "new guys" such as RemArms (operating the old Ilion, NY facility) didn't assume any liability for old claims against Remington. Nor did Vista Outdoor, who bought the ammunition side of Remington Arms. We'll still see "Remington" on ammo boxes, without any connection to Sandy Hook liabilities. Or Marlin, etc.

There are a number of unresolved claims against Remington Outdoor. that are not related to Sandy Hook. Wrongful death and personal injury actions, many related to Model 700 defects. Sandy Hook claimants will likely have to share any remaining monies with these claims.

Some previous posters have said, "... then they should sue (etc, etc)." I was reading about this, there are two claims against the city. Basis for the suits, the school didn't supply a key to a substitute teacher so she could lock a classroom door. It looks like those two suits are worth at least $5.5 million each.

This lawsuit and its sort ought to worry many people and businesses. I doubt Remington's advertising for the Bushmaster was any more provocative than that used by other manufacturers of AR rifles. Meaning, if Remington Outdoor loses the case, the door is wider open for other suits of the same kind. How long will it be until hungry lawyers go after individuals who sell AR rifles? Or any kind of gun? I've had my own apprehensions about this for many years. For some time prior to Wash. I-594 (requiring all transfers to go through a dealer and a BGC), I wouldn't sell a handgun off paper. I figured I didn't have enough time left in my life to buy another house. The BGC gives some legal cover demonstrating that a seller (dealer or individual going through a dealer) didn't negligently and recklessly sell a gun that later led to tragedy. Just my take on it.