S01.E14: Game Day

[chitowngirl]

Olympia hires an outside party to select jurors rather than using Shae, putting the case at risk.
 

Airdate March 6, 2025 on CBS

[AnimeMania]

[incandescent]

Turn out "she's my friend and I have a good feeling about her" isn't a great reason to take someone off the board! Though of course we're finding out it was Olympia in episode 14 of an 18-count season, so it's probably not actually Olympia.

[Chicago Redshirt]

Turns out I really want to watch the show "Itsie Bitsie."

[Irlandesa]

I needed this episode of TV tonight.  Everything else was frustrating me.

I LOVED Matty's evil Olympia fantas.  Skye P. Marshall was so good in it.

I also liked Matty's sister.  I thought she might have been in the original Matlock but I was thinking of a different actress.  One thing I don't love is that we're in episode 2 of Slammed! and it's not over yet.

[DanaK]

A lot of that went in unexpected ways, especially Matty’s sister

[andromeda331]

I'm out. Five minutes into the show I was already annoyed with Matty, Sarah, Billy and Shae. I hope it gets better for you guys. 

[Stats Queen]

This episode took care of my interest in further episodes.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

That was very careless of Maddie to pretend Alfie was going to use the company car to go home from school.  And to double down on it when asked by Olympia how he liked it. Now it's Chekhov's company car.

(I'm also not sure if it's really ok to charge such expenses to a company, tax-wise.)  Picking up an employee's sick grandkid is different than an employee being driven home because it's late at night.)

I have some issues with the named plaintiff in a class action suit taking an individual settlement, thus dooming the rest of the plaintiffs to nothing, because the suit is now over - as in, I don't think that's a permissible outcome.

https://www.insideclassactions.com/2022/02/17/practice-pointers-should-a-putative-class-action-be-settled-on-an-individual-basis/ :

Is an individual settlement even an option?  In some situations an individual settlement is simply not an option.  This will usually be true once a class has been certified.  In that situation, the named plaintiff and his counsel have obligations to the class that will usually preclude a resolution that benefits them only.  Any resolution of a certified class action lawsuit requires court approval, and one may expect a court to view with skepticism a proposed resolution that grants relief to the named plaintiff (and possibly also his counsel) but no one else.

 

[Morrigan2575]

I'm guessing there will be a find twist/reveal before the finale but, I'm actually not opposed to it being Olympia.  That being said, even if she did forge the signature I think it might have been for a good (to her) reason.  I was thinking protecting Julian, like with the Bunny Head.  

[Dowel Jones]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I thought she might have been in the original Matlock but I was thinking of a different actress.

It took me about ten minutes of listening to her speak before I realized that was Flight Attendant Elaine from the "Airplane" movies.

[EtheltoTillie]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm out. Five minutes into the show I was already annoyed with Matty, Sarah, Billy and Shae. I hope it gets better for you guys. 

Same. The last few weeks I’ve been watching g and turning it off mid episode. Reading the boards. Now I can’t follow what is going on with the drug plot and I don’t care. 

[Starchild]

Hagerty did a great job of presenting as the model for Mattie's fake folksy Matlock persona. I could see the behaviours Mattie copied from her sister.

[Irlandesa]

8 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I have some issues with the named plaintiff in a class action suit taking an individual settlement, thus dooming the rest of the plaintiffs to nothing, because the suit is now over - as in, I don't think that's a permissible outcome.

Same.  Except the way they presented it was as if this were an individual case but they talked about not having more plaintiffs.  If he's the only plaintiff, I don't see how this can be a class action suit unless Olympia was hoping one win would lead to a class action suit.

[marceline]

I got distracted while watching so I can't comment on the case. I like this show a lot. I really do. But the idea that they can access where Julian's key card was 14 years ago drives me insane. That's not how anything works.

I can suspend disbelief but this show wants me to dangle it out the window by its feet.

Julie Hagerty! It took me a minute but that voice is unmistakable. She and Kathy Bates played off each other perfectly.

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, marceline said:

I got distracted while watching so I can't comment on the case. I like this show a lot. I really do. But the idea that they can access where Julian's key card was 14 years ago drives me insane. That's not how anything works.

I can suspend disbelief but this show wants me to dangle it out the window by its feet.

The whole timeline always confuses me, when was the Welbrexa coverup supposed to happen? I know Alphie found the reddit post 2 years ago which is when Matty went to NY to check it out, bumped into an angry Olympia, and started the plan to infiltrate. 

We also know that Olympia/Julian were having marital issues 2 years ago and her father was sick/dying 2 years ago which prompted her decision to start doing more pro bono cases.  I believe the Shae/Julian thing also happened around that time, since Julian said he slept with Shae when things were going badly but before they separated.

Was the cover up 12 or 14 years ago? 

[Nashville]

13 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Turns out I really want to watch the show "Itsie Bitsie."

I’ve been a Julie Hagerty fan since Airplane, so I might be interested too - so long as I can watch it on mute.

 

13 hours ago, incandescent said:

Turn out "she's my friend and I have a good feeling about her" isn't a great reason to take someone off the board! Though of course we're finding out it was Olympia in episode 14 of an 18-count season, so it's probably not actually Olympia.

TPTB are using the possibility of a Julian/Olympia security card swap as a key plot point, but I wonder: could the same potential attach to the possibility of a Julian/Shae card swap as well?  After all, the only concrete thing the security card swipe logs have revealed so far is that whoever had possession of Julian’s key card also paid a visit to the ladies room….

[possibilities]

10 minutes ago, Nashville said:

TPTB are using the possibility of a Julian/Olympia security card swap as a key plot point, but I wonder: could the same potential attach to the possibility of a Julian/Shae card swap as well?  After all, the only concrete thing the security card swipe logs have revealed so far is that whoever had possession of Julian’s key card also paid a visit to the ladies room….

This makes a lot of sense. They seemed to be trying to make us like Shae more this week by telling us she's a better jury consultant than the one Olympia hired, but you can be good at your job and also be corrupt, and one does not cancel the other.

WRT using the company car to drive Alfie home, maybe childcare is included in the employee benefit package? I agree it's Chekov's car, though. Just like Maddie using Julian's swipe card, her printing documents and leaving her fingerprints all over the machinery, and numerous other things.

Honestly, I've never watched a TV show that didn't stretch credulity, so they have to keep us hooked by other methods than the plausible, but I also was very bothered by the guy tanking the class action. Surely they have more than one example of a story to tell?! What class action relies on one witness? And how would one plaintiff get to determine and receive the entire settlement? Makes less than zero sense.

Then again, they are still saying "could have taken opioids off the market 10 years earlier" as though they aren't still on the market, so attention to details is not this show's strength.

I saw them leave the documents on the kitchen counter where Maddie's sister was cooking, so it was clear she was going to discover the sting operation. I'm curious about this friend of hers-- Carol something-- who keeps coming up. Is she Itsy Bitsy's lover?

[Nashville]

44 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I'm curious about this friend of hers-- Carol something-- who keeps coming up. Is she Itsy Bitsy's lover?

Cindy Shapiro; apparently a childhood friend of Bitsy’s, but Maddy co-opted Cindy as the basis for many of her “harmless little old lady” schtick’s homespun homilies.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Same.  Except the way they presented it was as if this were an individual case but they talked about not having more plaintiffs.  If he's the only plaintiff, I don't see how this can be a class action suit unless Olympia was hoping one win would lead to a class action suit.

I'm not going to rewatch, but I'm nearly positive this was a class action suit, with the football player as the named plaintiff, so if he drops out of the case, there is no named plaintiff, and the class action can't proceed.  Which is why I'm also nearly positive that he wouldn't be able to settle just for himself.  Once the class was certified, the judge would have to approve any settlement, and it would have to be beneficial to the entire class.  Then individual plaintiffs can choose to opt out of the greater settlement and continue to pursue the lawsuit on their own.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I saw them leave the documents on the kitchen counter where Maddie's sister was cooking, so it was clear she was going to discover the sting operation.

Yeah, when Maddie told Edwin to keep Bitsy out of her office lock her office door so Bitsy couldn't get in, I wanted to yell that she left the papers she printed on the kitchen counter in plain sight, along with her reading glasses (maybe that's her home pair.)  They also showed Maddie taking a photo of the document (not a scan), and then later show her strolling the halls with said document perfectly formatted for her phone, as if she had downloaded an app.

Remind me how Alfie would know which room had what function 14 years ago? The firm has old plans easily accessible on line?

At least a mention was made of Julian not noticing he's had the wrong card for a while.

 

Edited Friday at 08:26 PM by ItCouldBeWorse

[BMGepinniw]

31 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

when Maddie told Edwin to keep Bitsy out of her office

Didn't she emphatically tell him to lock the door?  Although she should have been doing that herself once Bitsy showed up anyway.  

[shapeshifter]

12 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

It took me about ten minutes of listening to her speak before I realized that was Flight Attendant Elaine from the "Airplane" movies.

5 hours ago, Starchild said:

Hagerty did a great job of presenting as the model for Mattie's fake folksy Matlock persona. I could see the behaviours Mattie copied from her sister.

4 hours ago, marceline said:

Julie Hagerty! It took me a minute but that voice is unmistakable. She and Kathy Bates played off each other perfectly.

This Vulture recap vulture.com/article/matlock-recap-episode-14-game-day.html
gives credit where credit is due to the character of Itsy as portrayed by Julie Hagerty. 
Too bad she wasn't in the show from the beginning.

 

 

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

TPTB are using the possibility of a Julian/Olympia security card swap as a key plot point, but I wonder: could the same potential attach to the possibility of a Julian/Shae card swap as well?  After all, the only concrete thing the security card swipe logs have revealed so far is that whoever had possession of Julian’s key card also paid a visit to the ladies room….

Ooohh. Right. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

51 minutes ago, BMGepinniw said:

Didn't she emphatically tell him to lock the door?  Although she should have been doing that herself once Bitsy showed up anyway.  

Yes she did.  But still left the printout on the kitchen counter, although I suppose Bitsy would have no way to interpret its significance.

Edited Friday at 08:27 PM by ItCouldBeWorse

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Same.  Except the way they presented it was as if this were an individual case but they talked about not having more plaintiffs.  If he's the only plaintiff, I don't see how this can be a class action suit unless Olympia was hoping one win would lead to a class action suit.

At one point, in this episode, they talked about there being 1,000 plaintiffs for this case. I am not familiar enough with class actions to know what would happen if the class representative/named plaintiff decides to settle. I would imagine, though, that there would be an opportunity to either designate a new class representative or representatives, or that the lawsuit could proceed with the remaining members of the class.

If this were not the case, one could gut any class-action lawsuit by negotiating a settlement with the class representative and getting them to settle for a lot for one individual but next to nothing for a class. (i.e., offer the representative $1 million for a lawsuit that might call for the class to receive $200 million).

I'm sure I'll circle back about various other problems with the Slamm'd case, but any lawyer that is supposed to be on the level of Olympia and Elijah should be able to turn around the video of Client as a high school student  as unimportant. 1. It was some other guy saying "let's get so drunk we don't remember tomorrow" not Client 2. The boasting doesn't necessarily mean that either the person who said it or Client actually meant it that way, any more than if Client said "We're going to kill the Spartans tomorrow" that it was part of a conspiracy to commit murder. 3. Even accepting it as fact that he as a dumb-ass-high school student agreed with the sentiment that he wanted to get black-out drunk one time, or even routinely, it doesn't mean that he wanted to get blackout drunk when he took the Slamm'd. 3. Even accepting that he wanted to get heavily intoxicated when he took the Slamm'd it doesn't change the fact that the product was deliberately packaged and marketed to make it a not-so-informed choice that drinking it could lead to blackouts as easily as it does. 

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

The whole timeline always confuses me, when was the Welbrexa coverup supposed to happen? I know Alphie found the reddit post 2 years ago which is when Matty went to NY to check it out, bumped into an angry Olympia, and started the plan to infiltrate. 

We also know that Olympia/Julian were having marital issues 2 years ago and her father was sick/dying 2 years ago which prompted her decision to start doing more pro bono cases.  I believe the Shae/Julian thing also happened around that time, since Julian said he slept with Shae when things were going badly but before they separated.

Was the cover up 12 or 14 years ago? 

I'm tempted to do a rewatch of the show and try to put together a more definitive timeline,

The loose one from memory would be:

14+ years Before The Pilot (BTP): Wellbrexa has a civil case in which they were represented by Jacobson Moore, and at least one of Senior, Julian and Olympia allegedly hid discovery that would have revealed how addictive opioids were and could have gotten opioids off the market. 

About 13 years BTP: Ellie has Alfie. (I believe it has been stated that Alfie is 13). Prior to the birth, she had sworn to stay off drugs, but she was on them when she gave birth to Alfie. Alfie was born addicted to drugs and had six seizures while in the hospital.

About 12 years BTP: Mattie and Edwin sue for and receive full custody of Alfie, in part because Ellie was irresponsible and allowed Alfie at 18 months to burn himself on a stove. Ellie dies of an overdose.

About 2 years BTP: Mattie, Edwin and Alfie see the Reddit post accusing Wellbrexa of a coverup. The head to NY to contemplate trying to investigate Jacobson Moore's role in the coverup. Around the same time, Olympia and Julian are having professional and personal trouble. Olympia loses a big case and gets pissed off when she randomly bumps into Matty. Matty decides to go forward with her plot to investigate Jacobson Moore. 

[Nashville]

2 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I'm not going to rewatch, but I'm nearly positive this was a class action suit, with the football player as the named plaintiff, so if he drops out of the case, there is no named plaintiff, and the class action can't proceed.  Which is why I'm also nearly positive that he wouldn't be able to settle just for himself.  Once the class was certified, the judge would have to approve any settlement, and it would have to be beneficial to the entire class.  Then individual plaintiffs can choose to opt out of the greater settlement and continue to pursue the lawsuit on their own.

Exactly.  IANAL (as I have stated multiple times before) but I have been contacted about and/or involved in participating in several class action lawsuits (usually consumer-level stuff), and the initial contact letters are invariably the same - you receive a letter from the legal firm pursuing the lawsuit notifying you of:

1. The class action’s existence.
2. The parameters of the lawsuit and the affected class - what the suit is about, who’s affected by it, what constitutes membership in the affected class, etc.
3. Formal notification that you have been identified as qualifying for membership in the class.
4. Your rights as a class action member.

#4 is the salient point here, because all those letters I’ve received have invariably stipulated that I (as a qualified member of the affected class) have a choice:

• Proceed as a member of the class action; this means you are personally not out any legal fees, but you legally commit to accepting (a) whatever adjudication is reached in the lawsuit, and (b) the amount to which the lawsuit’s settlement algorithm says you are entitled.
• Separate from the class and pursue legal recourse of your own; now you’re on the hook to spend your own money hiring a different lawyer and pursuing your own course of legal action - but (a) your settlement amount is limited only by what (if anything) the jury awards you, and (b) your amount of the settlement is not split with anyone else.

In any case, my point (and I do have one) is this: if you agree to be a member of a class action suit, then you can’t get midstream and suddenly decide you can get a better settlement solo - you’re legally bound to follow through with the class action suit process from start to finish.

Edited Friday at 09:18 PM by Nashville
Expansion

[eel2178]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

WRT using the company car to drive Alfie home, maybe childcare is included in the employee benefit package?

I haven't lived in NYC since the mid-1980s, so I don't know what kind of public transit programs they have there anymore.

Here in Denver, if you sign up for an annual mass transit pass through your employer, you are guaranteed a free cab ride home for any type of emergency, including a sick kid. You just go to HR and ask for a cab voucher. The cab driver takes you to your kid's school and then home. You can make additional stops on the way if it's related to the emergency, such a side trip to the pharmacy to pick up meds.

[Nashville]

Nvm - post merge went awry

Edited Friday at 09:18 PM by Nashville

[MissLucas]

Ha! I kept waiting for Matty's sister to show up and boy did she not disappoint! I loved everything about her. And of course she's the blueprint for Matty's 'old lady' stunt, that was such an inspired bit of writing. The scenes between Bates and Hagerty were fantastic, starting with the look Matty gave her sister in the first scene in the kitchen after Bitsy made that remark about her not thinking Matty had ever been listening to her. 

(Also what's with the snobbery about your sister's name, Matty? Bitsy Tulloch would like to have a word.)

And I loved how Bitsy called Matty out on the damage her scheming will do to Alfie and others in the scene with them clashing. And then doubling down later on flat-out calling Matty's thirst for revenge an addiction. That was terrific. And as a younger sibling who had to pick up some of the slack left by my older siblings (luckily not quite to that degree) I loved Bitsy setting the record straight about Matty having 'dealt' with their mother's addiction and then rushing off. Matty also got called out by the mother of the Slammed victim and I loved that too. Sooner or later she will have to face her demons. This was my favorite episode for all those scenes.

I'm really not too bothered by the so-called big mystery because I enjoy this show for the internal journey Matty is on and that's the reason I keep on watching. Oh, and the 'Matlocks'/Kingstons fantastic kitchen!

Props to @ItCouldBeWorse for Chekhov's company car - that will come back.

Billy and Sarah had to make do with another ham-fisted subplot about addiction *sigh"

[Chicago Redshirt]

14 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Exactly.  IANAL (as I have stated multiple times before) but I have been contacted about and/or involved in participating in several class action lawsuits (usually consumer-level stuff), and the initial contact letters are invariably the same - you receive a letter from the legal firm pursuing the lawsuit notifying you of:

1. The class action’s existence.
2. The parameters of the lawsuit and the affected class - what the suit is about, who’s affected by it, what constitutes membership in the affected class, etc.
3. Formal notification that you have been identified as qualifying for membership in the class.
4. Your rights as a class action member.

#4 is the salient point here, because all those letters I’ve received have invariably stipulated that I (as a qualified member of the affected class) have a choice:

• Proceed as a member of the class action; this means you are personally not out any legal fees, but you legally commit to accepting (a) whatever adjudication is reached in the lawsuit, and (b) the amount to which the lawsuit’s settlement algorithm says you are entitled.
• Separate from the class and pursue legal recourse of your own; now you’re on the hook to spend your own money hiring a different lawyer and pursuing your own course of legal action - but (a) your settlement amount is limited only by what (if anything) the jury awards you, and (b) your amount of the settlement is not split with anyone else.

In any case, my point (and I do have one) is this: if you agree to be a member of a class action suit, then you can’t get midstream and suddenly decide you can get a better settlement solo - you’re legally bound to follow through with the class action suit process from start to finish.

There is a possibility/probability that someone who is set up as the named plaintiff would have different rights/responsibilities than someone who is being sought after to join a potential or certified class.

From the Googling I've done, it seems clear: IRL any settlement in a class-action case would have to be approved by a judge. On that basis alone, it seems like a judge would never allow a lead plaintiff to settle if it would somehow mean that the remainder of the class action could no longer go forward.

It also seems like a $100k settlement for a college football player who sustained injuries enough to place him in a wheelchair is crazy small.

It also seems like it would be hard to argue his injuries were emblematic of the typical injuries suffered by people who drink Slamm'd, so he was probably not the best class representative anyway.

[Nashville]

5 hours ago, marceline said:

I got distracted while watching so I can't comment on the case. I like this show a lot. I really do. But the idea that they can access where Julian's key card was 14 years ago drives me insane. That's not how anything works.

Depending upon multiple factors - when the current security system was installed, its storage capacity, its data storage efficiency, the IT department’s system security protocols and procedures for that particular system, legally imposed requirements and/or restrictions on data retention / archival / retrieval, etc. - it’s entirely possible.  Two or three jobs ago one of my “other duties as assigned” was management of our building’s cardkey and video security systems (mainly because I was the only person who could figure out how the damn things worked). Storage limitations dictated any video footage not previously marked for retention be dumped after 30 days - video takes up a LOT of disk space, after all - but the card key system had records going back to 1994 (its original installation) despite at least three major equipment/system upgrades along the way.

[Chicago Redshirt]

Accepting as true the premise that the Jacobson Moore keycard system a) retained data for 14+ years on each user b) would allow someone to tell not just when someone swiped in/out at particular points but literally where they were at every moment of the day more like a GPS, there still IMO are a couple of fundamental problems with all this:

Problem 1: We do not know the point at which to start looking at the data to try and figure out the potential movement of documents/the culprit. We do not know the date on which the confidential documents in question (if they existed) were obtained or covered up, where they were obtained from, etc. We at best know that "Senior" signed off on some memo on for discussion's sake, let's say March 7, 2011. But we don't and can't know if that memo was ordering the destruction/burial of the documents, or had any relationship to the documents. But let's further say that the memo from Senior is as instrumental to the coverup as Matty seems to think it is. The culprit could easily have destroyed the documents first, then issued the memo to cover up after the fact, destroyed them the same day that they faked the memo, or faked the memo and then destroyed the documents later. We don't know if the document burial/destruction happened on March 6, 2011 or earlier, on March 7, 2011 or after March 7, 2011. In short, without knowing what day the destruction happened, knowing exactly where Julian (or anyone) was is useless.

Problem 2: Assuming we arbitrarily say March 7, 2011 was the date of the coverup, the notion that Julian's key card was in these places at these times says not much. A) As Matty's own theft establishes, the fact of Julian's key card being in various places at various times does not establish that Julian was himself in those places at those times. Somebody could have taken Julian's key card on accident or on purpose. B) Even assuming the records reflect Julian was himself where his key card says he was, that doesn't mean that he was the one who actually moved/shredded documents. He could have been a courier for either Senior, Olympia, Shae or anyone else, whether knowingly or unknowingly. (Hey, you're going to the document room. Can you drop this off for me?)

 

[Nashville]

36 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

From the Googling I've done, it seems clear: IRL any settlement in a class-action case would have to be approved by a judge. On that basis alone, it seems like a judge would never allow a lead plaintiff to settle if it would somehow mean that the remainder of the class action could no longer go forward.

And I was just writing a post to this effect. 😄

 

36 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It also seems like a $100k settlement for a college football player who sustained injuries enough to place him in a wheelchair is crazy small.

TOTAL agreement here: for the type of injury described - and assuming a moderately common progression of ambulance transport / admission through the ER / immediate transfer to surgical ward / post-op care in ICU - $100K probably wouldn’t cover the first 24 hours. 🙄

 

36 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It also seems like it would be hard to argue his injuries were emblematic of the typical injuries suffered by people who drink Slamm'd, so he was probably not the best class representative anyway.

Not arguing, but asking: which would the lawyers be more likely to go for as they look to select their class action face guy - the most typical case (closely matching that of the biggest number of plaintiffs), or the most egregious case (to get the biggest settlement)?

[Chicago Redshirt]

8 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Not arguing, but asking: which would the lawyers be more likely to go for as they look to select their class action face guy - the most typical case (closely matching that of the biggest number of plaintiffs), or the most egregious case (to get the biggest settlement)?

Again, keeping in mind that I don't do class-actions and relying mainly on common sense and some Googling,, it seems appropriate for the standard lawyer answer: "It depends.(tm)"

Sometimes, it seems like your named plaintiff will just happen to be the first person or couple of people who walk through the door.

Sometimes, your named plaintiff may be the most sympathetic/articulate.

Sometimes, your named plaintiff may be the most committed to the cause.

It seems to me that if you try to name someone as your lead plaintiff who is fundamentally different from the typical person you envision in your class, you would be shooting yourself in the foot. Because the defendant will then get to argue "This person suffered unusual injuries different from the rest, and therefore the attempt to create a class action is invalid, and therefore the respective plaintiffs should sue as individuals."

There was also a lot of yadda-yadda-yadda involved in the Lead Plaintiff's story. "I drank Slamm'd, blacked out, and know nothing about what happened next except I was told I jumped from a moving car."

I can't believe that among the thousand plaintiffs that Olympia has pulled together, there's not a story that tamps down the argument of the libertarian that these people chose to drink a drink that advertises itself as 5-shots-in-one and should bear the consequences.

Indeed, it should not take a lawyer who bills at $1200/hour to think that Rich!Mom is a great client (whether as part of a class action or not) for an anti-Slamm'd crusade. There is a direct line between her child's consumption of Slamm'd and her death, her child was blameless in the consumption of Slamm'd, her child is rich, beautiful and White, and Rich!Mom is hellbent for justice against Slamm'd.

Yes, I know that Rich!Mom complained about wanting to hold an individual liable rather than a faceless company. Yes, I know that this allowed for a showcase of Kathy Bates' acting.

But another thing: it doesn't make sense, except for drama purposes, for Rich!Mom to want to hold last week's client responsible for her daughter's death. Last week's client went to trial and the trial showed that it was other sorority sisters who got the Slamm'd without Last Week's Client's knowledge and put it in her daughter's drink without Last Week's Client's knowledge. Now maybe Rich!Mom didn't buy that defense. But someone should have pointed out to her that Last Week's Client was factually innocent and shouldn't be prosecuted. And also, no matter how big a deal Rich!Mom might be, didn't Prosecutor drop the case already against Last Week's Client? How is Prosecutor going to justify trying to bring a case against her when there's now testimony that the Sorority Sister picked up the Slamm'd with Last Week's Client's ID and when they can support that Last Week's Client was jogging when the Slamm'd was picked up and had no knowledge of Slamm'd being in the drink?

 

[Bastet]

7 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

didn't Prosecutor drop the case already against Last Week's Client?

Yes, he dropped the case against Zoey, the sorority sister Olympia was defending -- she's the one who handed the spiked drink to Violet and urged her to chug, but it came out at trial she didn't spike the drink, or even know it was spiked.  He did not, however, agree to Olympia's request at the end of last week's episode that he not charge Kennedy, the sorority sister who turned out to have done the spiking.  She is the one who, in this episode, was willing to testify in the class action (about her choosing Slamm'd because of its danger), but only with immunity from any criminal prosecution.  (I don't know if the ADA changed his mind in the second half of this episode, as I haven't finished it yet.)

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

any lawyer that is supposed to be on the level of Olympia and Elijah should be able to turn around the video of Client as a high school student  as unimportant.

Similar thoughts made me expect Julian (or Sr. or even Elijah) to have somehow got the case dropped.
And no, I have zero idea how that would legally (or extra-legally) happen.

[Chicago Redshirt]

12 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Similar thoughts made me expect Julian (or Sr. or even Elijah) to have somehow got the case dropped.
And no, I have zero idea how that would legally (or extra-legally) happen.

I have no love for Elijah and suspect him of being super-petty over Olympia's breaking up with him. I think of him as someone who seems on the surface a nice guy but he showed his true colors in that Texas Two-Step episode. And it's probable he was playing games with his supposed girlfriend and a text to Olympia about possibly getting back together.

But even I did not contemplate the now-intriguing possibility that he deliberately backstabbed Olympia into getting her to lose the case. As far as we know, Slamm'd only conveyed the settlement offer to him, and he claimed that he spent hours trying to convince Elijah not to take it.

Now in real world lawyering, it would be strange for Slamm'd to propose a settlement to just the lead plaintiff (because it likely would not get rid of the class action for reasons discussed above). Slamm'd would have to make that offer through defense counsel, which would mean that Olympia would know about it and presumably be in any discussions with the client about it. 

It most likely is the sort of shortcutting TV does all the time where they just saved various scenes with the Slamm'd lawyer making the offer, Named Plaintiff and Olympia going back and forth with just a couple quick lines from Elijah expositing this. 

But what if Elijah is so pissed off about Olympia's breaking up that he wants her to lose? Or if he is thinking that if she loses the case, she loses the partner race and she will make good on her promise to leave the firm and that would open the door to them dating again? 

I don't think that the writers are going to make him that level of a villain and the simplest explanation (that he is just being a bearer of bad news rather than the causer of it) is usually correct.

I don't think Julian is cutthroat enough to try to arrange to backstab Olympia in this way. And Senior is, but he loves money and winning more. I can't see him tanking a case potentially worth (presumably) hundreds of millions to the class and tens of millions to his firm just to prevent Olympia from being partner over his son. Not when he can simply put his finger on the scale and prevent that from happening himself, and not when he might actually prefer Olympia both because of her skill and her personality.

BTW, I was reminded that in the real world, there was a beverage like Slamm'd that combined high amounts of alcohol and caffeine called Four Loko. It led to lawsuits, including one by 20 attorneys general. The maker of Four Loko settled that lawsuit with the attorneys general by agreeing to reformulate the drink so it didn't have caffeine, relabeling it so it was clearer how much alcohol was in it, maintaining marketing practices that did not target underaged consumers and paying $400k. There were lawsuits about Four Loko contributing to various other deaths, but it wasn't clear from my quick Googling how they were resolved. 

[jah1986]

14 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

But another thing: it doesn't make sense, except for drama purposes, for Rich!Mom to want to hold last week's client responsible for her daughter's death. Last week's client went to trial and the trial showed that it was other sorority sisters who got the Slamm'd without Last Week's Client's knowledge and put it in her daughter's drink without Last Week's Client's knowledge. Now maybe Rich!Mom didn't buy that defense. But someone should have pointed out to her that Last Week's Client was factually innocent and shouldn't be prosecuted. 

Last week's client was a different person. Mom wants to have the other sorority sister prosecuted. It's still silly but she is not going after the girl that was acquitted.

I really loved Bitsy laying into Matty, she needed to hear that because I've been yelling it for weeks. I don't know what Matty thinks is going to happen when this all comes out. So what if a newspaper picks it up? She's obviously not planning to continue working, so it's not like she needs a job. But all she's doing is 'maybe' costing someone their job for something they did years ago. She's not going after the real monster, which is Well Brexa. Show is so frustrating.

[marceline]

I need to see the floor plan to Matty's house and a map of the grounds. Bitsy's out their foraging in the garden that Matty seems to know nothing about. Also she said she was going to liberate some peppermint from a neighbor's yard which in this environment is a really easy way to get shot.

Perhaps all of this nonsense about the floor plan at Jacobsen Moore has broken me.

Edited 11 hours ago by marceline

[PokerDot]

I have not seen Julie Hagerty in 44 years and I'm stunned how she doesn't look 44 years older. 

I'm having a hard time keeping up my interest in Matty's quest for truth. I'm caring less and less.

[Dowel Jones]

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Now in real world lawyering, it would be strange for Slamm'd to propose a settlement to just the lead plaintiff (because it likely would not get rid of the class action for reasons discussed above).

The only thing I can think of (from a decidedly non-attorney point of view) is that Slamm'd is gambling on a less sympathetic lead plaintiff to replace the young, paralyzed kid who lost out on a scholarship.

[possibilities]

8 hours ago, jah1986 said:

But all she's doing is 'maybe' costing someone their job for something they did years ago. She's not going after the real monster, which is Well Brexa. 

Something illegal and unethical that they did years ago that led to many deaths and untold suffering. Wellbrexa is a monster but so is anyone who covered up for them in an illegal manner in order to win their case.

[MissLucas]

I'm just wondering if there's a possibility that the files did not disappear due to malfaisance but by something like clerical error? The narrative with all the different flashbacks and red herrings got so byzantine that I literally lost the plot.