Well surely witnesses will be able to help with bridge that connection. Oh, wait.
Credit where credit's due, dropping "moot" in there was smart play, regardless of the facts. Mootness is catnip to judges even in regular cases, but in lolcow cases it's crack-a-rooski.
But if the judge manages to white-knuckle his way past that paragraph, I think he is going to be very much less than amused by the argument that "I disobeyed you because it was justified"
remember this post if the mercy is not taken in kind.
that's russ' acc
Kind of fitting. What's least likely to happen in a predictable world? That's what will happen.
You're going to deem that coherent? I can't agree with that.
It's true. I am entirely unhinged. I currently have no hinges on any of my doors, because I'm renovating.
His entire filing is a self-own. Day ending in y.
He means his own lawsuit is unfairly burdensome to him. Classic Russ.
You have to wonder why, in all the years this has been going on, he never got the OK from his "witnesses," knew they didn't want to be involved, didn't even tell them he still planned to call them, knew they have nothing to offer about the supposed infringement and only wanted them presumably for damages claims for claims no longer a part of the action, and yet still listed them. Imagine trying to control your own witness who doesn't want to be there, has no info as to the claims, and is as likely to say you're batshit and have always been dramatic and litigious as to say anything remotely relevant or useful.
Is a response required? It's not a motion from Greer or anything it's just him replying to the court. There's no timeline for a defendant's response in the order to Greer.
I think it depends on whether he already had something mostly drafted and just needs to fill in recent details. One typical sanction short of terminating sanctions is if something is subject to Rule 26 disclosure and you don't produce it, you can't introduce it later at trial. Russ has stated he has no intention of obeying his obligation to produce the legally required disclosures.
Maybe not directly but it's relevant to what if any sanctions should be applied as he has stated something absolutely deranged, that he has so much evidence he can't produce any of it at all as the rules require.
it somehow shows a mind to infringe somehow. what's the reasonable standard for making fun of an internet personality/public figure anyway?
At this point, I feel we could spin a wheel with alternating spaces for "case continues" and "case dismissed" and have just as much of a chance as correctly predicting what the judge will ultimately decide.
The old adage of Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake comes to mind and I'd think Hardin will say/file nothing unless there something egregious enough in this filing that requires him to address it.
