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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 14.5%
  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 12.1%
  • This Year

    Votes: 73 15.8%
  • Next Year

    Votes: 154 33.3%
  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 112 24.2%

  • Total voters
    462

Yea, I think he learned a new novel way to be sanctioned.


A person or entity who produces information,
documents, or other materials may designate them as CONFIDENTIAL when they in
good faith believe the information, documents, or materials contains trade secrets or
nonpublic proprietary confidential technical, scientific, financial, business, health, or
medical information, including confidential health information under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its enabling regulations.

the producing party bears the burden of proving that the designation is
proper. The producing party’s failure to engage in reasonable efforts to resolve the
dispute or respond to an appropriately filed motion may result in the designation as
requested by the receiving party.

Other districts explain it this way:

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown
to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily
encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on
other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions.

The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures
or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends
only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the
applicable legal principles.
 
I really hope the judge smacks him over "everything is confidential now" otherwise we won't get more of his retardation with Hardin. But knowing this fucking tard of a judge, he will probably gloss over it and Hardin will feel compelled to oblige just to be safe. Sad.
Can Greer lose the SPO if he keeps misusing it or would a judge just sanction him some other way?

Other districts explain it this way:
Think we posted at the same time, looks like just other sanctions if he keeps this new tactic up.
 
I like how schrodinger’s retard is still trying to maintain the fact that Hardin violated protection order after being told by 2 judges and a practicing lawyer he hasn’t, while also simultaneously wrongly applying the protection order in a way that shows he has now glanced at the rules for said protection order.

Even while learning something new, Greer shows he has learned nothing. Absolutely astounding.
 
Screenshot 2025-02-19 175415.png

Greer spat at Null's face. No good deed unpunished and all that
Screenshot 2025-02-19 175558.png
 

Attachments

Again demanding conditions on things you can't demand conditions on under the rules. More sanctions forthcoming, hopefully.
Court loves this retard too much. At this point I assume they will summary judgement in his favor after burning as much of nulls money and time as they can. In other words, acting as a pitbull for greer.

The actual legality and rules of that be damned. This court doesn't care.

Also remember that post I put a sha hash on a.l while back while discussing the debtors exam? Hardin just addressed it so I shall reveal what I said. I wasn't right entirely, but I was close. Turned out to be sanctions not cashed check.

***** Start of hashed text *****

Hardin wants to delay long enough Russel cashes the check and have the whole thing declared moot because the prior fee is paid and it's less than billable hours to respond.

7a210c018a0cb61a9fc49ffa775663dbf26d8ad320101b8b11213e4d36beb36d
 
I don't believe former is possible.
could they split the difference with a "you can use the SPO, but it has to be reviewed by the court"? I suppose they've never had to consider that, and the simplest is to let the retard SPO everything and require Null to petition each time it's crazypants.
 
I don't know why you'd offer an olive branch this far into the case.
That's simple - Hardin is playing to the court not to Greer. Showing that Greer can't even do the simplest damn thing in his favor is going to be noted, even if not officially.

Ironically, Hardin is doing his best to be an "unbiased third party" without compromising his requirement to represent Null and a Website.
 
could they split the difference with a "you can use the SPO, but it has to be reviewed by the court"? I suppose they've never had to consider that, and the simplest is to let the retard SPO everything and require Null to petition each time it's crazypants.

Well, I'm guessing Hardin could move for a modified SPO, given the plaintiff's bad faith antics -- back in the scheduling order there seems to be reference to custom protective orders:
1739981896369.png
 
Well, I'm guessing Hardin could move for a modified SPO, given the plaintiff's bad faith antics -- back in the scheduling order there seems to be reference to custom protective orders:
View attachment 7000374
It doesn't matter what protective order is issued if Greer ignores it.
 
Back