I don't think the Court has the Mid County Bank Records, nor that they were ever filed in the lawsuit case. They were at most discovery materials.
For those who don't know. In review.
The Mid County Bank records are all the personal bank records (dating back to 1998) which Pickle and Joy had requested of Danny Shelton in the lawsuit during discovery. DS naturally wanted a protection order first before handing over what was needed and relevant, so that only the relevant documents which needed to be disclosed to the Pickle/Joy team were, and so that they would only be used by them in the lawsuit as needed for their case and defense, and not published nor diseminated as was/is their habit. During these negotiations and such, DS and 3ABN also asked that Pickle and Joy's discovery requests be fine tuned and specific rather than a request for everything and all, (ie a fishing expedition to find something or anything to back up what they were already accused of saying and claiming in the the lawsuit filed against them) and also to prevent them from publishing all, and using all to violate DS and 3ABN's privacy rights, and continue slandering DS and 3abn in their attempts to embarass and shame them. So, the Judge/court ordered Pickle and Joy to redo their discovery requests and also although denying Pickle and Joy's motions for sanctions and production of documents, cautioned 3abn that they needed to make their filed claims more specific to enable that, and ordered both parties to not issue further subpoenas without court approval.
What had happened was, that rather than waiting on the discovery issues and arguments to be resolved in the lawsuit and receiving the documents necessary to their case for free from the plaintiffs, Pickle and Joy had went and filed a bunch of 3rd party subpoenas here and there to try and get what they wanted from the Plaintiffs apart from their case in Massachusetts, and from third parties rather than the plaintiffs. In the case of the bank records Pickle and Joy ended up unnecessarily having to pay for the labor and costs for the research and copying etc, but those records were never disclosed to them, instead they were labeled confidential and delivered under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman, and the entire case was transferred to him in the Massachusetts court, per the pending protection order there, according to the ruling of the Judge in the Minnesota court who had heard and weighed all the arguments from both parties in his court.
In addition:
1.) Pickle and Joy argued that DS had no standing to object to their subpoena for his bank records and that his arguments and motions should be stricken from the record, and the Minnesota court denied their motion, and continued to consider Shelton's case and arguments, and quoted them till the end and final judgment where it transferred the case to the Massachusetts Court. So, it makes no sense that Pickle argues in his recent appeal filing that the Judge agreed with him that Shelton had no standing to object although it is easily understood why he in his filing only quotes himself (5 times) about what he claims and thought the Judge was saying, rather than quoting what the Judge actually said, or understanding that that Judge continued to consider Shelton's arguments and POV even after Pickles reinterpreted tale.
and 2.) When Pickle and Joy objected to the Minnesota court ruling and asked that the bank documents be delivered and disclosed directly to them, rather than to Magistrate Judge Hillman, claiming that his protection order had made the Minnesota Judges ruling moot, that Judge said "NO" and for the second time told them:the following: (Note the bold text, plz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING CASE NO. 08-MC-7 (RHK/AJB)
NETWORK, INC., AN ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION, AND DANNY LEE SHELTON,
INDIVIDUALLY,
PLAINTIFFS, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION1
V.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY AND
ROBERT PICKLE,
DEFENDANTS.
This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on June 2, 2008, Defendant Robert Pickle filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 28, 2008, Order [Docket No. 29]. In that Order, the Court ordered the production of records subpoenaed by the Defendants from MidCountry Bank, N.A. (“MidCountry”). Said production was to be made under seal to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusets to accommodate the pending protective order Magistrate Judge Hillman was to
issue. The protective order was issued on April 17, 2008. Mr. Pickle claims that this
confidentiality order “renders obsolete the provision of this Court’s Order to produce the subpoenaed documents under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman.” See Mem. 1 [Docket No. 30]. Mr. Pickle also asked the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts in a status conference on May 7, 2008, to allow the subpoenaed documents to be produced directly to him, to which Judge Saylor referred Mr. Pickle back to this Court for such relief. For these reasons,
Mr. Pickle requests that this Court amend its order to allow the subpoenaed records of MidCountry Bank to be produced directly to the office of Mr. Pickle, while in accordance with Magistrate Judge Hillman’s confidentiality order.
Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton responded in opposition to Defendants’ request on June 18,2008 [Docket No. 34]. Mr. Shelton argues that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied as an improper motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 3. In particular, Mr.Shelton asserts that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied for failure to obtain “express permission of the Court” by means of a letter to the Court of no more than two pages as required by Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 4. Furthermore, upon reaching the merits of Mr. Pickle’s motion, Mr.Shelton contends that Magistrate Judge Hillman’s issuance of a protective order is not a “compelling circumstance” justifying reconsideration of this Court’s previous Order. Id. at 5.
Based upon the record, memoranda, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Pickle’s Request for Reconsideration is DENIED. Mr. Pickle has failed to show compelling circumstances to overturn the Court’s previous Order. Moreover, this Court specifically stated that the March 28, 2008, Order did not preclude the parties from seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman as to the disclosure of the documents produced pursuant to the
MidCountry Bank subpoena. See Order 2-3 [Docket No. 28]. Therefore, the Court directs Mr. Pickle to seek relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman concerning the production of documents by MidCountry Bank subject to the subpoena served in this district.
Dated: July 1, 2008
s/ Arthur J. Boylan
Arthur J. Boylan
United States Magistrate Judge
Neither Pickle, nor Joy ever sought relief or filed any motion to get the documents disclosed or released to them. So, they were never filed nor admitted into the case nor record... ( many of the discovery materials or possible ones weren't entered and aren't part of the record.)SO, in the motion to dismiss conference/hearing dated over a year ago when Pickle claimed he had paid for the bank records and were his property, and if they were returned it would make him have to do it all over again, the Judge clarified that he ( Pickle) had never filed any counterclaims, and that there was thus no pending case, and told him he could file a motion for necessary costs but said he was promising nothing, nor did he order they be given to Pickle as Hillman's "Confidentiality and Protection Order" already said :
"The subject discovery materials will be used for no other purpose than this litigation.”and the litigation was over.... What Judge Saylor did say in administrating that order after Pickle interrupted him was:
" Let me -- let me just finish. And any records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents." of course that was only the Mid county bank records... and almost 6 wks later a receipt for the return of those documents from Hillman to DS was signed for by his Attorney's office in compliance with that order, and Pickle even included that receipt as an exhibit in his latest filing claiming it makes those possible discovery records part of the Lawsuit case and filed there, but of course it doesn't.... They are gone, and were returned as ordered and Pickle and Joy have no right to them.
Pickle and Joy apparently don't get it and thus their "waaaah!" and their futile arguments. I am pretty sure the courts will enlighten them.... with some help from 3abn and attys, as they wait to file their appeal and ask it be put in "abeyance", but I will post any updates here regardless of what the Courts say and decide.
Anyway...) anyone wanting to review those things can go here to do so: http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index. ... 6.html#new