I caught a few stretches today, and watched the entire video I posted yesterday, which was mostly opening arguments. Not much new from Flo, they're simply taking a hardline on the validity and rigid interpretation of the NDA. Karen read out a lot of emails and tweets from Willie, who isn't the best defendant inasmuch as he tends to say the precise things Flo is trying to prove (paraphrasing, but "of course I'm going to compete with Flo..."). Rokfin's attorney even said something to the effect that Willie talks more than he should (but that it was on-brand so perfectly fine).
Rokfin's argument is that Rokfin is a wholly different business creature than Flo, which is true in some senses and perhaps too cute by half in others. Structurally, Rokfin is merely a content-neutral platform like Patreon and Substack, a series of templates for content providers to burrow into and make things. Unlike Flo, Rokfin doesn't create content, its users do. But quite unlike Patreon and Substack, Flo is alleging that Rokfin wooed Willie away from Flo and now Willie is creating precisely the same content he created while at Flo. So I imagine the judge is somewhat hesitant to fully buy into Rokfin's argument that they're categorically distinct from Flo in a technical sense (judges have a rough time with technology, on the whole) and consequently can't, by definition, be competing with Flo, because they clearly are, in a myriad of ways.
A lot is being made about Flo's views about who they view as competition. The purpose of this is to force Flo to acknowledge that it perceives itself as competing with everyone; and if Flo is competing with everyone, the argument that their NDAs are enforceable becomes increasingly less convincing.
I heard evidence cited today that Flo was only able to come up with one cancellation that could reasonably be attributed to Willie leaving for Rokfin. Flo has spent a million dollars on legal fees over what looks like $150 in provable damages.
Evidence was also presented that Rokfin subscriptions doubled when Willie showed up. Good for Willie.
But clearly this is about something else, and Willie's defense is doing a great job of underscoring that in a few ways. First, Nomad was let go by Flo, went to Patreon, promptly wrote about wrestling, and Flo never attempted to enforce an NDA. Spey tweeted support for Nomad with respect to a particular argument. Chief Creative Officer Ray Machuca acknowledged that he never disciplined Spey, which helps Willie's defense because it furthers the idea that Flo is maintaining an arbitrary NDA enforcement policy with ex-employees. Machuca said that he'd have a discussion with Spey. Brutocao: "Will you fire him?" (lol). And then lawyer Scott Brutaocao flipped the question brilliantly--What's actually the problem with Spey acknowledging other wrestling journalists outside of Flo? And Machuca was genuinely stumped. Overall, Machuca comes off as a confused dolt and could barely hide his disinterest in being questioned.
To the judge's credit, Livingston is all over this case and doesn't let nonsense go unchecked. She's paying attention and I think that's bad for Flo. That said, IMO this case should've been chucked already on the basis that enforcement of this NDA violates public policy. I'm not familiar with every aspect of this case, so take my words with a grain of salt.
