Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally: Difference between revisions

Line 45:

#Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>

#There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:

##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)

##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']

##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)

##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']

##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.

##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']

#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.

#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']

#Proven Industries filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case without prejudice. The copyright strikes against Trevor McNally have been lifted.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 #Trevor McNally's lawyers objected to Proven Industries's request for an emergency injunction against Trevor McNally and the request for an emergency injunction was denied.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-01 |title=Case 8:25-cv-01119-MSS-LSG Document 30: ORDER |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250625231154/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411/gov.uscourts.flmd.441411.30.0.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-25 |access-date=2025-09-01 |website=Court Listener}}</ref>
 #There were some blunders in the Proven Industries side of the legal case. These include:
-##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)
+##A witness said to be the Proven Industries lock expert not being able to explain to the judge if he was an employee of Proven Industries or another company and also admitting that he did learn how to shim the Latch Pin Lock after watching McNally's videos and practicing for a while. (This statement undermined the Proven Industries assertion that McNally had disassembled the lock and used trickery to make it appear that he had shimmed the lock. That assertion was the main thrust of their case against McNally.)<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
-##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)
+##When asked about their process for making sure their locks were not vulnerable, the answer from a Proven Industries witness was that nobody calling their customer services department had complained that one of their locks had been opened up by a shim attack. (The average consumer would probably not be able to recognise a lock that had been opened by a shim attack. This answer also made it appear like Proven Industries did not engage people with the sort of skills that Trevor McNally has to test their own products to destruction and may have done more damage to their own reputation than McNally's videos.)<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
-##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.
+##When asked, by the judge, about imported lock cylinders, a Proven Industries witness struggled to recall the details and had to estimate how many of their lock cylinders are imported from Europe and China.<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
-#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.
+#Proven Industries submitted witness statements and included personal information about their witnesses (including a witness who had expressed concern about being names) without asking for their documents to be submitted under seal. They later complained to the judge that their staff were being harassed and suggested this was somehow McNally's fault. And they made a request to the judge to retro-actively put all the documents in the court case under seal. McNally's lawyers objected to this, citing that Proven Industries had boasted on social media that they were going to use the court case to reveal McNally as a fraud and had therefore created public interest in the case, when they thought it would benefit them. Ian Runkle (a Canadian lawyer who had been creating YouTube videos about the case) also submitted an objection to all the documents in the legal case being sealed. Runkle's objection was stricken from the record by the judge.<sup>[''[[Consumer Rights Wiki:Verifiability|citation needed]]'']</sup>
 #Proven Industries filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case without prejudice. The copyright strikes against Trevor McNally have been lifted.