Contempt of Court?
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:09 am America/Denver
Pickle and Joy have already tried once, since the lawsuit was dismissed and the court ordered confidential documents to be returned, to file the remnant documents under seal.
They have been called on their mis-characterization of the contents and reminded they were ordered to return the documents by the plaintiff's attorneys, and had their motion denied by the court.
Now in their latest filings they ask the Court to reconsider and change it's previous decision, and in addition to that they are attempting to do the exact same thing again. They have filed yet another "Motion to file under seal" concerning other documents which have been labeled "confidential", and which the court also told them to return. They are again contradicting the very "under seal" premise they ask for by again identifying the contents to the public with their mis-characterizations and mis labelling.
I don't know what their problem or major dysfunction is, as I can't comprehend their thinking. Nor can I understand why "the lawsuit is dismissed" is so hard for them to comprehend or accept, but I do think that the document just filed in opposition to their motion is right on as far as their shenanigans go.
Here's a select quote:
They have been called on their mis-characterization of the contents and reminded they were ordered to return the documents by the plaintiff's attorneys, and had their motion denied by the court.
Now in their latest filings they ask the Court to reconsider and change it's previous decision, and in addition to that they are attempting to do the exact same thing again. They have filed yet another "Motion to file under seal" concerning other documents which have been labeled "confidential", and which the court also told them to return. They are again contradicting the very "under seal" premise they ask for by again identifying the contents to the public with their mis-characterizations and mis labelling.
I don't know what their problem or major dysfunction is, as I can't comprehend their thinking. Nor can I understand why "the lawsuit is dismissed" is so hard for them to comprehend or accept, but I do think that the document just filed in opposition to their motion is right on as far as their shenanigans go.
Here's a select quote:
The red font, bold text and underlining above was added by me. There is much more to this memo than just my quote here. You can read the entire document for yourself here, along with the Motion Pickle and Joy filed: http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9 ... t=10#p18691. Defendants Were Ordered to Return These Documents.
At the threshold, Defendants are not even supposed to have these documents anymore. This Court expressly ordered that Defendants return all discovery materials stamped as confidential. At the status conference on October 30, 2008, which by consent of the parties was converted into a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal, this Court stated:
"I will order that the materials produced in discovery that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be returned, as set forth in that order." (Doc. 141, p. 12).
The electronic clerk’s notes echoed this order: “Court orders all confidential documents returned.” Defendants never sought a stay of this order. The Court’s order was consistent with the Protective Order itself, which had provided that material produced under it “Shall be used for no other purpose than this litigation.” (Doc.60, pp. 1-2). The matter had been briefed and argued by both sides and the Court issued its order from the bench.
But now, more than six months after the Court’s order,the Defendants have not returned any of the confidential documents and instead seek leave to file them in connection with yet another abusive and pointless motion. While resisting the temptation to publish the documents themselves, Defendants describe the confidential documents in pleadings available to the public, for example referring to perfectly proper royalty payments to Shelton from Remnant publications for the sale of books he authored as “kickbacks and/or royalties.” (See Doc. # 158 at pp. 2-3 – Plaintiffs Memo in Opposition to Defendants Motion to File Under Seal and record citations therein). This is somewhat akin to describing a banking transaction as “a robbery and/or withdrawal.”
Plaintiffs are continuing to incur litigation costs directly related to Defendants’ failure to return these documents, as ordered by this Court. Enough is enough. The Court should order Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for flouting its order to return the confidential documents, and for describing them publicly.