Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during that hearing Parler's attorney:
- forgot the name of Parler's CEO
- stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology because he's not on social media
- admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to update his PACER account
This is because, if reports can be believed, Parler's own lawyers abandoned ship a few days ago.
I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the complaint (and serving them).
It's actually not uncommon to include unnamed defendants - however, in order to do so, and in order to reserve the ability, one needs to include in the list of defendants something like "And Does 1-10', or such (or request leave to amend the complaint). Given everything everything, I'd say it's pretty clear that this attorney took the case at the 11th hour. He is a patent and other IP issues attorney - which this case is not. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)ultant Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)