Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

[obsdj]

Mr. President, a court filing has hit the docket

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *inhale* EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

"monetary sanctions" gang rise up

I like that the judge is pretending to entertain the notion of plaintiff and defendant coming to agreement over those costs like two adult professionals

 

[UncleTusky]

View attachment 6858925

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *inhale* EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

ORDER ATTACHED BITCHES

From a quick skim:
1) HARDIN'S FEES FOR GREER'S DISCLOSURE DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WERE GRANTED IN FULL. Greer's excuses were all dismissed as meritless and Hardin has until 28 January 2025 to submit his expenses to Greer. The timetable from there goes 14 days to stipulate to award -> if (when) that breaks down Hardin has 14 days to file his request for fees with the court and Greer has 7 days to respond. Assuming these are all in calendar days and federal holidays do not 'pause' the clock this would correspond to an 11 February deadline for Hardin to file his request with the court and an 18 February deadline for Greer to respond.
2) A footnote on Page 5 (of 6, is Judge Bennett in on the joke?) addresses and dismisses the claim Hardin breached the protective order
3) Judge Bennett deferred any ruling on Greer's claim he has complied with Rule 26 because of last week's meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes
4) The order is silent on Hardin's request for further sanctions including case-ending sanctions.

 

[Turbulence]

This is the beginning of the end now, isn't it? Hardin will propose an amount, Greer will say it's too high, the court will order something and then no matter what the amount is, Greer won't pay. The case can't proceed if Greer doesn't pay, right?

 

[S.C.U.D.]

HARDIN'S FEES FOR DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS WERE GRANTED IN FULL

The head tightening begins again, new trauma lumps are forming as we speak. This is the hardship.

 

[DHugo]

"monetary sanctions" gang rise up

9.8% gang, doubters BTFO

 

[sallowhal]

we're so fucking back

 

[obsdj]

Based upon the court’s review of Mr. Greer’s response to the court’s order to show cause, and for the reasons explained below, the court orders Mr. Greer to pay Defendants’ reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, related to Mr. Greer’s failure to disclose or supplement as required by Rule 26(a) or Rule 26(e).

Truly a thing of beauty. He lays it all out, including Greer's fucktardery re: the SPO, and so politely.

The footnote at the end, though, makes me think he has not reviewed the last couple of days' worth of filings:

As to Mr. Greer’s position that he has fully complied with his obligations under Rule 26 and that further production would be unduly burdensome, the court makes no conclusion at this time as the parties represent they are conferring pursuant to DUCivR 37-1(a) regarding any further discovery dispute.

They're not still conferring, they already conferred (for twenty whole minutes!) and it resulted in another shit sandwich. But the judge might have seen them on the docket and decided he needs a cocktail or three before he dives into them.

 

[Warm Lasagna]

Oooooh, Hardin’s gonna bring the receipts. Let’s see them receipts, boi.

 

[Harvey Danger]

I like that the judge is pretending to entertain the notion of plaintiff and defendant coming to agreement over those costs like two adult professionals

I like (hate) that every order has to footnote the stupid Florida court bounceback, just to rub it in.

 

[Pee Cola]

ORDER ATTACHED BITCHES

From a quick skim:
1) HARDIN'S FEES FOR DISCLOSURE VIOLATIONS WERE GRANTED IN FULL. Greer's excuses were all dismissed as meritless and Hardin has until 28 January 2025 to submit his expenses to Greer. The timetable from there goes 14 days to stipulate to award -> if (when) that breaks down Hardin has 14 days to file his request for fees with the court and Greer has 7 days to respond.
2) A footnote on Page 5 (of 6, is Judge Bennett in on the joke?) addresses and dismisses the claim Hardin breached the protective order
3) Judge Bennett deferred any ruling on Greer's claim he has complied with Rule 26 because of last week's meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes

Whilst it's not exactly case-ending, and discovery costs are probably a fraction of Null's entire legal bill, it's a start. This assumes that it's possible for Hardin to collect from Russhole, and I can't see that process being easy.

tbh I'm shocked that the judge smacked Russhole so hard on the pee-pee, but I guess hand-waving such wilful and recalcitrant behavior that's disrespectful to both the Defendant and the Court would be beyond the pale.

I'm looking forward to Russhole's next Motion to Undo The Thing That Already Happened.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Yikes, he seems annoyed...

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

This is fantastic. You know he's going to plightsperg all over the place about being a poor homeless, barely employed retard who can't even pay $50 you honor!

Oh the trauma lumps are tight tonight. I love this for him.

 

[jerkstore]

this feels unreal. holy fuck.

 

[Warm Lasagna]

Whilst it's not exactly case-ending, and discovery costs presumably form a relatively small part of Null's entire legal bill, it's a start.

I can’t imagine they’ll be cheap, and when compared to Russ’ sunk cost of…. Nothing… it may dissuade him from pursuing the case further when he’s at risk of accruing more costs the judge will make him pay.

But then if he drops the case, I doubt that’ll look good on the question of whether or not Russ is a vexatious litigant.

 

[Thomas Talus]

"monetary sanctions" gang rise up

Where do we submit our claims for a percentage of the damages assessed against Greer?

 

[DHugo]

Does the cost award include the time wasted with the meet and confers that were ignored?

 

[Harvey Danger]

In his response to the court’s order to show cause, Mr. Greer asserts that the court should not order the payment of fees under Rule 37(c)(1)(A) because:

(1) the parties have now agreed that Mr. Greer will call no witnesses in this case, so the issue of Mr. Greer’s nondisclosure is moot;

(2) Mr. Greer’s original nondisclosure of witnesses was justified because the witnesses did not want to participate in this case;

(3) before the filing of Defendants’ motion, Mr. Greer had complied with Rule 26(1)(a)(ii) by providing Defendants with examples of emails Mr. Greer had received from Kiwi Farms users and stating that “[t]here are not any documents in [Mr. Greer’s] possession that would need to be provided . . . aside from just the many harassing messages and examples of copyright infringement done by the nefarious individuals on Kiwi Farms”; and, lastly,

(4) providing Defendants with “every single message he has received and every single evidence of infringement” would constitute an undue burden under Rule 26(b)(2)(B).

Well gosh, judge, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty fucking retarded, doesn't it?

 

[S.C.U.D.]

There's no way we end the day tomorrow without a fresh Greer filing screeching about this, right?

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Hardin had to do a lot of diary opening, sleuthing and waiting around to wrangle these "witnesses".

I suppose I'm about to find out how much that all costs.

Your filing about the true meaning of Christmas and now this has completely eradicated my post-holiday blues. Thank you for your service, Mr Hardin.

ETA: How does this affect the proposed financial audit of Hardin because my boy Rusty is itching to take a working girl out for a burgie?