Event JSON
{
"id": "9eca18e18bb5a73211d3ab6f17fd395c3773be7435c0daebe921c776be7cc16d",
"pubkey": "9eefd04d32ab5da8de12d7b83201578ea095a676acf3a692ec1b0b202ae4e16f",
"created_at": 1686311831,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"d0713b73b39bb6176f850dc0c220b1e758d43762410f848c4cb7a0e194fc6a79",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"b81aec0fc1bd6a95dfc56df7b42760004d3da570a949491723dce2b5dde5ab2c",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"21e360a8f4f9473cb978cb02bb221cc37a83a81c1ccff510c55860068bd9aaa3",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"mostr",
"https://mastodon.social/users/design_law/statuses/110514132187963784"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub16pcnkuannwmpwmu9phqvyg93uavdgdmzgy8cfrzvk7swr98udfus6s8j5n Yeah, that's my initial reaction, too. This application of FRCP 41 seems to be a big reason why the Schedule A model works (for plaintiffs). So the question, in my mind, is not \"what are judges doing now\" but \"is this a good thing?\"",
"sig": "ba842b2102368f1accce9624d4d59d759c1dc8277f162e8decb4dc25b661d3e2d3b27868cc9ae5f373d66e2760ba576d18e1bc57baff219ecc1d9867566d0e9d"
}
