In light of the layoffs, "It feels like crocodile tears to be complaining about a handful of employees who have left to go to Netflix." "To suggest there's some pillaging going on here is a bit overwrought," she said.
Fox alleged that Netflix had interfered with its contracts with Tara Flynn and Marcos Waltenberg, both of whom left Fox before their contracts had expired. Fox sued Netflix in 2016, after two employees left to join the streaming giant. Netflix also charged that Fox was selectively enforcing its contracts, and that other employees were allowed to leave for other employers without consequence. Netflix countered that Fox's contracts are unlawful because they force employees to stay against their will.
In a tentative ruling on Wednesday, Judge Marc Gross sided with Fox on the major question in the litigation, finding that Netflix's arguments against Fox's practices don't stand up. The case has been closely watched, as it could affect whether any employer can hold its employees to a fixed-term agreement.
Daniel Petrocelli, who represented Fox, argued that Netflix has been "audacious" in its disregard for Fox's contracts, and said that since the case was filed, another 15 Fox employees have left for Netflix.
"Employees are being poached as we speak," he said.
That issue will left up for a jury to decide. The case is scheduled to go to trial in January. Gross held, however, that Fox had failed to show that it was damaged by Netflix's actions.
“The undisputed facts show Netflix intentionally interfered with Fox’s contracts with Waltenberg and Flynn," Gross wrote. "In doing so, Netflix arguably sought to further its own economic interest at Fox’s expense and such conduct is not justified."
Gross allowed Netflix to amend its cross-complaint to make additional arguments that Fox's contracts ought to be invalidated.
Karen Johnson-McKewan, arguing for Netflix, noted that Fox has engaged in substantial layoffs since the merger with Disney this spring.
A judge on Wednesday handed a major win to Fox in its long-running poaching suit against its rival Netflix.
Johnson-McKewan and Petrocelli declined to comment outside court.” />

that was later changed and updated. Later, Leon stopped Shapiro as he became agitated as Petrocelli pressed him on his use of a figure from consulting firm Altman Vilandrie & Co.
Petrocelli also challenged Shapiro on why he used data from June, 2016, to calculate customer lifetime value, another input used in Shapiro's model, rather than more updated numbers from 2017, which show less of an impact  of the merger.
"Apparently I am suffering the consequences of being conservative," he said, again emphasizing that he made a point of offering a range of potential impacts.
"It reminded me of a quote form Albert Einstein: 'Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler,'" he said.
Shapiro acknowledged that under such new data, pay-TV subscribers would see an estimated 13 cents per month increase, from an earlier projection of a 27 cents per month increase.
The emotion on display reflected the dispute between Shapiro and the economic expert retained by the companies, Professor Dennis Carlton of the University of Chicago.
District Judge Richard Leon. At one point, Daniel Petrocelli, the lead attorney for AT&T-Time Warner, and Carl Shapiro, professor at University of California at Berkeley, talked over one another until they were stopped by U.S.
Those numbers were used in Shapiro's calculations that the merger would ultimately end up costing pay-TV consumers. The figures were used in estimating how many subscribers would be lost in a protracted dispute in which Time Warner content is pulled from a distributor during a carriage dispute.
"I have my views. I apologize," Shapiro said to the judge at one point.
He said that AT&T-Time Warner and its experts were fixated on the lower end of those numbers, minimizing the potential impact of the transaction. Shapiro argued that in his methodology, he provided a range of potential impacts of the merger.
Shapiro suggested that AT&T waited until the last minute to provide the numbers, and did not know enough about the new figures to use them.
Leon said that he would schedule closing arguments then.” /> He may be called again on Thursday, when the witness list will have been completed.
Carlton had attacked Shapiro's use of the model, characterizing it as complicated.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's chief economic expert sparred with AT&T-Time Warner's lead attorney at the antitrust trial on Tuesday in a number of tense exchanges over the method for estimating the consumer impact of the proposed merger.
He also countered attacks on his economic projections of the merger, arguing that it used a standard model that was "theoretically sound" and used by the FCC in studying the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger. That was approved in 2011.