Ellen Pao owes Kleiner Perkins $276,000 for lawsuit costs: judge

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-kleiner-lawsuit-idUSKBN0OX2WY20150617

by kanamekun • 11 years ago

92 91 11 years ago

"Pao, who has said she would appeal, has offered to drop her case for $2.7 million, Kleiner Perkins said in a court filing earlier this month."

tomlongson• 11 years ago

Kleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.

nimos• 11 years ago

They offered her $1M not to go to trial. I believe they offered to not go after her for legal fees if she agreed to not appeal.

PythonicAlpha4• 11 years ago

What do you want to say?

Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.

And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)

Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.

albertop• 11 years ago

righteousness == $2.7M ?

rnovak2• 11 years ago

I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?

WalterGR6• 11 years ago

    Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?

Perhaps her primary concern isn't a cash payout.

obstinate14• 11 years ago

This logic would basically forbid any lawsuit, no matter how meritorious. Leaving aside what you think her odds are, this isn't how it works. You have to balance the odds of each outcome, not just the absolute best and worst cases.

ctrlfrk• 11 years ago

It has been pointed out that $2.7 Million is exactly the amount that her husband owes in unpaid legal bills: http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...

jrockway• 11 years ago

Reddit is a "microblogging company"?

raldi2• 11 years ago

Great reporting by the bicycle-repair shop known as Reuters.

comex• 11 years ago

I thought they were an Australian-themed maker of networking equipment that forwards data between different networks.

Andrenid• 11 years ago

Not to mention there's a typo:

because she is woman.

If you're going to credit an editor at the bottom, they should probably learn to edit something so simple that Word would've picked it up automatically.

macspoofing• 11 years ago

It's as good as any description.

raldi2• 11 years ago

How about "online community", "news aggregator", "link-discussion forum"...

headShrinker• 11 years ago

It's as good as literally "any description"; science forum, racist feedback command center, gay hookup site, blog response community, 10th largest website in the solar system, click-bait blog-spam sales site, blue trombone weekly meetup organization, micro blogging community...

It's actually by definition a link aggregate website.

minimaxir• 11 years ago

If the cost of work is $229k, and the reward is $276k, then why is there a $47k difference? Making the defendants whole?

phkahler• 11 years ago

Why is there any award at all? I keep hearing that defending a case can bankrupt a person or company that doesn't have deep pockets even if they are successful. Why do these guys get reimbursed?

michaelhoffman2• 11 years ago

They only get reimbursed for some costs. In this case, chiefly witness fees. They probably paid hundreds of thousands in fees to lawyers which are not reimbursed.

pixel2• 11 years ago

The $229k was simply the Jude's guess at the cost. The firm stated it was 865k.

pixel2• 11 years ago

Why does she have to pay the legal fees incurred by the defendants because she tried to extort money? Is that what you're asking? She has to pay because she lost, and they weren't doing anything wrong.

dctoedt2• 11 years ago

Why do these guys [Kleiner Perkins] get reimbursed?

From the Reuters report, it appears that Kleiner made an offer of judgment under section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, [1] which provides in part:

(c) (1) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer.

In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.

</blockquote>

(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added)

"Costs," incidentally, means costs of court such as filing fees, court reporter charges, etc. [2] In this case, by statute (quoted above) the term also include expert witness fees. "Costs" usually does not include attorneys' fees.

[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&gr...

[2] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=382

michaelhoffman2• 11 years ago

There are other expenses besides the ones allocated at $229,000.

mberning• 11 years ago

This will surely be flagged just like all the other less than favorable posts about her and her tenure at Reddit.

arca_vorago• 11 years ago

I highly suggest reading this before forming an opinion on the matter. Keep in mind who wrote it as well.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...

twir• 11 years ago

Very interesting - thanks for sharing. Is there a corresponding brief by the plaintiff? I'd like to see both sides of the story.

atorralb• 11 years ago

One thing is for sure, Ellen Pao is not liked in Reddit.

cjensen• 11 years ago

Because of the ban on groups which actively harass others? Or is there another reason?

obstinate14• 11 years ago

Well, she's a woman, which alone is enough to catch a lot of heat on Reddit.

DanBlake• 11 years ago

I think its because of the censoring of stuff which is critical of her and her husband and less about the banning of fat hate subs - See: https://twitter.com/arrington/status/609065906900066304

It especially does not help the fact that her husband was at the helm of a massive scheme that defrauded untold amounts of public workers in regards to their pension

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher

http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...

Who you are friends with says alot about you. Who you are married to says much, much more.

Macha• 11 years ago

She was unpopular long before the bans though.

MichaelGG• 11 years ago

The summary I read basically had a few reasons. First that her lawsuit was rather manipulative, with things like refusing to cooperate with investigators after she reported misconduct. Or her classifying a voluntary relationship as coerced.

Additionally, folks on Reddit seem to believe that she coordinated with the previous CEO to take over the job so she'd have a CEO title going in to the lawsuit. Hence the sudden resignation of Yishan for no apparent reason.

There's other things, like refusing to negotiate salaries "because women do worse", which is really just an anti-employee action.

All this was before the banning of subreddits. I also don't find it credible that people dislike her because she's a woman. I don't know if the bits I read are true (they seem well presented, but many false things are), but if so, that's certainly enough reason regardless of gender.

hoopd2• 11 years ago

The argument is that the moderation policies are selectively enforced in order to shape the prevailing ideologies expressed on the website.

Reddit's response is that it isn't "safe" and they want to make it that way. If you've been labeled as somebody who makes the site "unsafe" your actions are assumed to be those of an aggressor and an oppressor. If you're somebody trying to make the site "safe" even when you cross the line you're viewed as an oppressed person fighting back.

It's an intentionally uneven playing field and the people it's slanted against aren't happy about it.

mcphage• 11 years ago

There are certainly parts of Reddit where she isn't liked, definitely. But there are parts of Reddit where they don't like anyone who doesn't let them behave like spoiled, obnoxious children, so I wouldn't consider that indicative of anything.

pushnpop2• 11 years ago

Chairwoman Pao owes every penny. She was not discriminated against because she is a woman, she was discriminated against because she is a terrible employee, venture capitalist, and person. She sued Kleiner because she wanted to pay off the debt her scumbag husband owes for fraud.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...

krschultz• 11 years ago

Go back to reddit. This comment is over the line. Your other comment in this discussion is even worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628

pushnpop2• 11 years ago

What line? Which part of the article are you responding to?

hoopd2• 11 years ago

I dislike Pao, the lawsuit, and the surrounding politics but I agree that this is unacceptable.

thaumaturgy• 11 years ago

HN has been prominently mentioned as an alternative to Reddit lately in a lot of the Pao-related threads ... I think we're going to be seeing a lot more Reddit behavior here, unfortunately.

_s2• 11 years ago

From the prosecution:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...

From the defence:

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...

--- Personal opinion below ----

Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher.

Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.

From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.

Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.

2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.

She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.

I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.

obstinate14• 11 years ago

It is disgusting that you think it's acceptable to tar someone with the alleged crimes of their spouse.

_s2• 11 years ago

Trustee report: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/1127fletche...

Token paragraph at the end of page 13:

"Based on the Trustee’s investigation, the answer to the question of why FILB had no meaningful assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing is principally that the Funds were victims of a fraud defined by the extensive use of wildly inflated valuations, the existence of fictitious assets under management (“AUM”) numbers, the improper payment of excessive fees, the misuse of investor money, and efforts wrongly to deny the Louisiana Pension Funds a key benefit of their investment agreement – mandatory redemption of their investment under certain circumstances. The Funds were also victims of an environment where self-interest all too often trumped fiduciary obligations."

tzs• 11 years ago

The long Vanity Fair article from 2013 on Pao and Fletcher that someone else linked to is actually really interesting, but the comments that included the link were inflammatory and derailed discussion, so I'm guessing many people who would have enjoyed the Vanity Fair article skipped it.

Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...

AMC or HBO or Netflix could make a pretty interesting TV show out of this.

Ellen Pao owes Kleiner Perkins $276,000 for lawsuit costs: judge

Related Stories