- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
If magistrate Judge can't do a thing about disctric judge's fees, doesn't that mean Russ is already delinquent on paying those fees?
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
My notes from the hearing.
G is Greer. J is judge. H is Hardin
Hearing notes
Fees on motion to compel
Greer filed motion to set aside
Judge to Greer: rule 60b not appropriate
Rule 37a5 , award of fees denied
Hardin: G said he had a restraining order
But court denied the restraining order
H:
All that G sent after motion to compel was a denial request from a rando named Jim Jordan who requested records and was denied
J to G
I was under the impression that you provided those documents
G: Someone was listening in to the phone call between myself and Hardin. Who is Jim Jordan? I never said I had a restraining order on them. It was probably an error on my phone. That's the honest truth
J: G - help me understand how you would not have access to your own court records
G: after H and I had the conversation... Never had any other email about this document
J: you can go to court to get that doc. The fact that you haven't even tried is of concern to me. Why haven't you asked the court to produce this record?
G: H never asked me to get it
J: H filled a motion to compel
G: I forgot to reply
J: What you just said a moment ago that you were never notified.... That seems factually incorrect.
G: I didn't reply and I am sincerely sorry. It has no relevance to this case.
J: the problem is by not responding to the motion you've waived your right to object to the relevance. We're long gone from your ability to respond to this motion. I was under the impression that you've done that. You haven't seen if you can get a copy of this order. I'm ordering you too get a copy of this case file.
J: in going to reserve on fees for 21 days. Ecf 227
H: I want to make clear that I viciously disagree to what Greer proffered a moment ago. It's not just attorneys fees. If they are not produced well see rule 37b sanctions like case termination and sanctions.
J: let's take a look at rule 11 sanctions. For violating protective order. And for giving witnesses that had no relevance including Taylor who passed away. Is that accurate H?
H: G had not spoken to Taylor since 2021.
J: why did you make statement that Taylor was eager to testify if you hadn't talked to him in years?
G: you're right. I had no idea he was dead
H: in the context of the sanctions notions he did not respond. He's confessing he didn't do any due diligence. It's objectively a problem sanctions are appropriate.
J: what prejudice has it caused
H: g filled motion that the case needed to go to Utah so Steve Taylor could testify. We got back to Utah and g disclosed two witnesses which were not Mr Taylor . He then decided he had no witnesses after we got back to Utah. I filed motion because he was hiding Steve Taylor. G seemed to think he could avoid disclosing it since they had a falling out. Then Mr Greer said oh he's dead. He didn't look into it until I filed an adverse inference notion. We had no idea he was dead until he filed that obituary. This plaintiff just files things. I think that's worthy of sanctions
G: H will latch on to words I say. There is no great prejudice. There were rumors Josh was living abroad. H hasn't said if Josh is living in Florida or not. As for Steve Taylor I misspoke. I was unaware he was dead. My witnesses both said they would testify but then changed their minds. I look like a liar now. I provided text messages. They are just latching onto Steve Taylor.
J: take rule 11 motion under advisement
Next what do we do about it. H you focus on sanctions should be imposed. What should they be and why?
H: it's a tough question. At minimum fees related to Taylor. I don't think that unrings the bell. We're back in Utah where we probably shouldn't be. Case is on bad track because of g conduct. I think case should be terminated. He has no witnesses. The right thing is to terminate the case
G: I have been trying to use law enforcement to track this individual down. Moon had directed their conduct towards me when I was living in Utah. I'm pro se. I've messed things up. There's nothing that make this case unwinnable. There's something seriously wrong with moon be needs to be stopped.
J: we have to follow the law. When you make represent to the court but they have to be correct. When we make them recklessly we go through the process to discovery if those are true and spend money there lies the problem. Will take under advisement to see if rule 11b is violated.
Next is motion to stay discovery
No response was filled. My intention is to grant it until the court has chance to review motion to dismiss.
H: our position for a stay that should be granted. Nether if these two people russtard have been disclosed as having any discoverable information. Again in light of ecf201 . But we're not dissatisfied your honor.
G: the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't oppose that. One of them directly infringed by copyright. The other was conspiring to infringe. I was trying to figure out how to serve these people.
H: a moment ago Greer said he was overzealous in disclosing. But now he's confessing to a rule 26 violation. I'm saying he was required under rule 26a he's never disclosed these people have discoverable information. He never said moon had discoverable information. I think that's shows there's a violation. He's boxed himself into this situation. Copyright would have expired two or three years ago. Wildly inappropriate.
J: you need to address rule 26e. Does not require disclosure. The fact that moon has discovered information. The fact that Greer is not evidence of malfeasance. What am I missing
H: at the moment no. I will file another motion.
J: motion to stay is granted
Ecf251 - asking for a bonded stay
Judgment refers to final judgment in 62b not interlocutory discovery sanction order
G can ask judge to stay the payment but I can't do that myself since Barlow has already done that. Improper. G Motion is denied under 62b.
J: in forma pauparis
Ecf258 asking for re screening. It seems to me this is only applicable if ifp status. G represents that he is capable of paying sanction so he should pay filling fees..
J do you have the ability to pay the filing fee
G yes. I don't see how ifp status has any relevant to copyright infringement
J it does have to do whether the court can hear the case. The filing fee has to be paid if you can afford it. I'm going to order you too pay the filing fee within 30 days or I'll dismiss this case. Are you able to maintain your support?
G yes
J pay within 30 days.
Stayed discovery until motion to dismiss is ruled upon. G is ordered to produce the restraining order application
G must pay filling fees or case is dismissed
Ecf228 is moot
G is Greer. J is judge. H is Hardin
Hearing notes
Fees on motion to compel
Greer filed motion to set aside
Judge to Greer: rule 60b not appropriate
Rule 37a5 , award of fees denied
Hardin: G said he had a restraining order
But court denied the restraining order
H:
All that G sent after motion to compel was a denial request from a rando named Jim Jordan who requested records and was denied
J to G
I was under the impression that you provided those documents
G: Someone was listening in to the phone call between myself and Hardin. Who is Jim Jordan? I never said I had a restraining order on them. It was probably an error on my phone. That's the honest truth
J: G - help me understand how you would not have access to your own court records
G: after H and I had the conversation... Never had any other email about this document
J: you can go to court to get that doc. The fact that you haven't even tried is of concern to me. Why haven't you asked the court to produce this record?
G: H never asked me to get it
J: H filled a motion to compel
G: I forgot to reply
J: What you just said a moment ago that you were never notified.... That seems factually incorrect.
G: I didn't reply and I am sincerely sorry. It has no relevance to this case.
J: the problem is by not responding to the motion you've waived your right to object to the relevance. We're long gone from your ability to respond to this motion. I was under the impression that you've done that. You haven't seen if you can get a copy of this order. I'm ordering you too get a copy of this case file.
J: in going to reserve on fees for 21 days. Ecf 227
H: I want to make clear that I viciously disagree to what Greer proffered a moment ago. It's not just attorneys fees. If they are not produced well see rule 37b sanctions like case termination and sanctions.
J: let's take a look at rule 11 sanctions. For violating protective order. And for giving witnesses that had no relevance including Taylor who passed away. Is that accurate H?
H: G had not spoken to Taylor since 2021.
J: why did you make statement that Taylor was eager to testify if you hadn't talked to him in years?
G: you're right. I had no idea he was dead
H: in the context of the sanctions notions he did not respond. He's confessing he didn't do any due diligence. It's objectively a problem sanctions are appropriate.
J: what prejudice has it caused
H: g filled motion that the case needed to go to Utah so Steve Taylor could testify. We got back to Utah and g disclosed two witnesses which were not Mr Taylor . He then decided he had no witnesses after we got back to Utah. I filed motion because he was hiding Steve Taylor. G seemed to think he could avoid disclosing it since they had a falling out. Then Mr Greer said oh he's dead. He didn't look into it until I filed an adverse inference notion. We had no idea he was dead until he filed that obituary. This plaintiff just files things. I think that's worthy of sanctions
G: H will latch on to words I say. There is no great prejudice. There were rumors Josh was living abroad. H hasn't said if Josh is living in Florida or not. As for Steve Taylor I misspoke. I was unaware he was dead. My witnesses both said they would testify but then changed their minds. I look like a liar now. I provided text messages. They are just latching onto Steve Taylor.
J: take rule 11 motion under advisement
Next what do we do about it. H you focus on sanctions should be imposed. What should they be and why?
H: it's a tough question. At minimum fees related to Taylor. I don't think that unrings the bell. We're back in Utah where we probably shouldn't be. Case is on bad track because of g conduct. I think case should be terminated. He has no witnesses. The right thing is to terminate the case
G: I have been trying to use law enforcement to track this individual down. Moon had directed their conduct towards me when I was living in Utah. I'm pro se. I've messed things up. There's nothing that make this case unwinnable. There's something seriously wrong with moon be needs to be stopped.
J: we have to follow the law. When you make represent to the court but they have to be correct. When we make them recklessly we go through the process to discovery if those are true and spend money there lies the problem. Will take under advisement to see if rule 11b is violated.
Next is motion to stay discovery
No response was filled. My intention is to grant it until the court has chance to review motion to dismiss.
H: our position for a stay that should be granted. Nether if these two people russtard have been disclosed as having any discoverable information. Again in light of ecf201 . But we're not dissatisfied your honor.
G: the reason I didn't respond is that I didn't oppose that. One of them directly infringed by copyright. The other was conspiring to infringe. I was trying to figure out how to serve these people.
H: a moment ago Greer said he was overzealous in disclosing. But now he's confessing to a rule 26 violation. I'm saying he was required under rule 26a he's never disclosed these people have discoverable information. He never said moon had discoverable information. I think that's shows there's a violation. He's boxed himself into this situation. Copyright would have expired two or three years ago. Wildly inappropriate.
J: you need to address rule 26e. Does not require disclosure. The fact that moon has discovered information. The fact that Greer is not evidence of malfeasance. What am I missing
H: at the moment no. I will file another motion.
J: motion to stay is granted
Ecf251 - asking for a bonded stay
Judgment refers to final judgment in 62b not interlocutory discovery sanction order
G can ask judge to stay the payment but I can't do that myself since Barlow has already done that. Improper. G Motion is denied under 62b.
J: in forma pauparis
Ecf258 asking for re screening. It seems to me this is only applicable if ifp status. G represents that he is capable of paying sanction so he should pay filling fees..
J do you have the ability to pay the filing fee
G yes. I don't see how ifp status has any relevant to copyright infringement
J it does have to do whether the court can hear the case. The filing fee has to be paid if you can afford it. I'm going to order you too pay the filing fee within 30 days or I'll dismiss this case. Are you able to maintain your support?
G yes
J pay within 30 days.
Stayed discovery until motion to dismiss is ruled upon. G is ordered to produce the restraining order application
G must pay filling fees or case is dismissed
Ecf228 is moot
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2022
I would've lost my shit if I were in that hearing. Good job to the Kiwis that kept it professional.
Russ you are an absolute sped LMFAO GOOD LUCK
Russ you are an absolute sped LMFAO GOOD LUCK
The Man With No Name
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
The judge wants the case to go away, but just does not want to dismiss the case outright - he really wants it to be done by the rules, doesn't want to consider the reality that Greer lacks an ability to prosecute.
But now the stakes are higher than ever and if Russ misses one deadline, it's over. Better posture to be in than previously but we're firmly back in Rigmarole Status
But now the stakes are higher than ever and if Russ misses one deadline, it's over. Better posture to be in than previously but we're firmly back in Rigmarole Status
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
Ted's Cabin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
I have a photographic memory and can mentally replay the court case word for word. Regrettably, I did not get in because someone named "Phil Burnell" took the last slot and then called me a homo
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Were the tards being disruptive at the beginning able to get their shit together or did the court punt them?
- Joined
- May 14, 2024
So there were two things that came up that involved niggling questions I had.
The both the judge and Hardin agreed that the magistrate can't challenge the district judge's order to reduce the sanctions to $1000. Why did the judge put discussing if that reduction was appropriate on the schedule if he already knows he can't do anything?
The only point Hardin didn't seem to do well with was that rusty didn't say who had discoverable information. Specifically Jersh even though he's the defendant in the case. On it's face I would think you wouldn't have to point that out because it's obvious but until now I wrote it off as "must happen in boiler plate stuff you never hear about but rusty is just such a fuckup it's a problem". But now the judge is saying it's obvious. So which is it lawfags?
The both the judge and Hardin agreed that the magistrate can't challenge the district judge's order to reduce the sanctions to $1000. Why did the judge put discussing if that reduction was appropriate on the schedule if he already knows he can't do anything?
The only point Hardin didn't seem to do well with was that rusty didn't say who had discoverable information. Specifically Jersh even though he's the defendant in the case. On it's face I would think you wouldn't have to point that out because it's obvious but until now I wrote it off as "must happen in boiler plate stuff you never hear about but rusty is just such a fuckup it's a problem". But now the judge is saying it's obvious. So which is it lawfags?
I thought this didn't exist and if so doesn't that mean it just completely joever?
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2025
I have to admit, the referential names were fun.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
That's what IFP is - an ability to open a case for free.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
It's probably a better option than lying to the court.
Yeah but all IFP status did was get him out of paying the filing fee to initiate the case.
- Joined
- May 8, 2022
can someone explain this in english
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2023
Want to say that I appreciate anyone who took quality, detailed notes, and I'm glad that others making short-form reaction posts had a good time.
No
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2020
Not At All A Lizard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2022
Overall it looked to me like the judge was at least considering dismissal very seriously at this point. No fireworks but I'd say there was progress.
I may also be influenced by bias but he sounded just a bit salty about Judge Barlow's intervention on the fees. Just from the way he referred to him.
I may also be influenced by bias but he sounded just a bit salty about Judge Barlow's intervention on the fees. Just from the way he referred to him.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2022
Russ labeled a bunch of emails plightsplaining as Attourney's Eyes only, we never got those emails because we only get stuff off of pacer and the like.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
Don't forget his prep time for the hearing. He had it all buttoned up heading in though was agile with new info, so he's spent a good amount of time on it before now.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Because he got what he wanted.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2025
It was kept to the chat which the Judge appeared unaware. There were two retards with mics on who was breathing into it rarely, but no one said a single word.
Weening was minimal or at least, not noticed.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
The hotmics eventually stopped, but it was impossible to know what caused it because you can only see so many participants at a time and there were 160+.