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

[DavidS877]

Blah blah blah zip, blah blah blah now single PDF with OCR.

Merry Christmas

 

[a hapless toad]

(c) Protective Orders.

(1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:​

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;​

​

(B) specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for the disclosure or discovery;​

​

(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;​

​

(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;​

​

(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;​

​

(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;​

​

(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and​

​

(H) requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the court directs.​

(2) Ordering Discovery. If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.

Not that it's relevant considering the above, but did Greer even ask for a protective order and if so did the court grant it?

 

[DavidS877]

Wyświetl załącznik 6769143

What a fantastic son/brother. He doesn't know where his father or brother live, and yet he's dragging them into this court case.

And he still missed the actual important part.... what are they supposed to testify about.

Not that it's relevant considering the above, but did Greer even ask for a protective order and if so did the court grant it?

Yes, a standard protective order was granted. I never did try and figure out what that meant though.


Typing stuff into Google is too hard for me.

So, yes, Greer needed to say "Please don't share these" It's on the first page.

https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Standard%20Protective%20Order%20.pdf

 

[geckogoy]

To whom it will concern: merry christmas.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

but did Greer even ask for a protective order and if so did the court grant it?

If only the past few motions and orders talked about it. Alas.

(the answer is "Yes", btw, there is a protective order)

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Unless I missed it, Greer did not specifically state in the email that he does not know the addresses of the two people, he only strongly insinuated it. So either he doesn't know the address of his only two witnesses (to be fair, something he's done before) who are also close family OR it's proof he's materially and willfully deficient in his disclosures. I wonder what he would answer if directly asked about which is the case, on the record- and if it would be believable.

Merry Christmas?

 

[a hapless toad]

If only the past few motions talk about it. Alas.

(the answer is "Yes", btw)

Thank you. There have been so many filings lately and they've all kind of melded into a nebulous mass in my brain.

 

[AnOminous]

I imagine post Christmas. Different court, but when I had to deal with a accident at this time of year here in UT, they shoved everything to January. That's just my experience

This is probably right. If we don't see something by 4:30 p.m. on Christmas Eve, we probably won't until 2025. I hope the judge has had enough of this bullshit that he doesn't want to see Russhole's rat face any time in 2025.

The only thing really saving his ass at this moment is he’s the plaintiff; a defendant ducking around like this would have already been Jones’d.

Actually it's worse. A pro se defendant could claim convincingly it isn't his fault he's been dragged into a case where he's way over his head and doesn't know how to comply.

This is a case this repeated vexatious litigant brought himself and has deliberately dragged on for years while incessantly playing the tard card. In short, it isn't his first rodeo.

Yeah, its definitely scorched earth and Hail Mary.

And sovcit level dumb and guaranteed not to work.

 

[FamicomGorby]

So, yes, Greer needed to say "Please don't share these" It's on the first page.

Interesting Greer was so obsessed with the info not being published and didn't think to put the word "CONFIDENTIAL" anywhere on his shitty disclosure. Probably some kind of 4D chess move.

 

[Harm]

So, yes, Greer needed to say "Please don't share these" It's on the first page.

Interesting Greer was so obsessed with the info not being published and didn't think to put the word "CONFIDENTIAL" anywhere on his shitty disclosure.

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

 

[Warm Lasagna]

If only the past few motions and orders talked about it. Alas.

(the answer is "Yes", btw, there is a protective order)

I imagine you get some sort of sexual thrill telling people to read the fucking motions.

Or when you need to whip out your calendar to remind someone of a conference date that was already posted.

 

[FamicomGorby]

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

I still don't know what the limit is with that. Greer basically does nothing right so anything we do making fun of him could be said to be indirectly helping him. Regardless, he's a fuckin retard and has a complete inability to learn. Really not that it matters since Greer already did it, and even if he had done it right it wouldn't have helped his case since Hardin would still have seen it to tell him it was shitty disclosure.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

Harden already said this in different words in a filing but I guess it's possible Greer doesn't read them closely enough to catch it. The way to do it was clearly laid out before that, as well.

I think the worry that Russ will learn something here about litigating, after all this time, may be a little overwrought unless someone writes a motion for him beforehand (which someone otherwise might do for fun, I guess, without thinking about it)

 

[DavidS877]

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

I'm not sure this particular one would be relevant to the case, it really would only have given us slightly less stuff to laugh at. He still would have fumbled the disclosures and Hardin would still have had to complain we just wouldn't be able to see exactly what was (not) disclosed.

 

[AnOminous]

Well, that's a bit late now, isn't it?

Seems to have worked out well enough. Interesting they had to learn about it from Hardin and not Russhole himself. How rude of him.

It does look like this is not going to result in them being deposed or having to appear as witnesses, though, although it's sort of enraging that this rat-faced gimp asshole is stressing his relatives out like this. What an ungrateful cocksucker.

So Greer thinks the defendant's lawyer should be a "neutral third party"?

He apparently doesn't even know what a lawyer IS.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

This may be me overestimating Greer's intellectual ability, but one might think that Greer might have purposely unidentified such information with a confidential tag to "bait" Mr. Hardin into disclaiming it, to then complain about this supposed breach of the protective order.

I think Greer is maliciously playing his hand as uninformed on legal proceedings.

 

[Harm]

This may be me overestimating Greer's intellectual ability, but one might think that Greer might have purposely unidentified such information with a confidential tag to "bait" Mr. Hardin into disclaiming it, to then complain about this supposed breach of the protective order.

I think Greer is maliciously playing his hand as uninformed on legal proceedings.

Great point here. Considering this is the same legal mind that gave us "I'm filing this legal notice 2 hours past the deadline just to send you two names and their phone numbers," this could very be within the realm of possibility.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Not trying to backseat moderate or anything gay, but I suspect this is the sort of thing Null is talking about when he says that we shouldn't be indirectly helping Greer out with these filings. It's infinitely funnier if Greer never figures this out and continues making the same easily avoidable bumbling retard mistakes over and over again.

Mr. Hardin explained this to him personally, and explained the procedure in his complaints to the court.

I imagine you get some sort of sexual thrill telling people to read the fucking motions.

Or when you need to whip out your calendar to remind someone of a conference date that was already posted.

Not so much on the dates, it's natural to forget them especially if they are not closeby. As to the former, I enjoy being snarky sometimes (as if it wasn't glaringly obvious).

 

[a hapless toad]

And he still missed the actual important part.... what are they supposed to testify about.


Yes, a standard protective order was granted. I never did try and figure out what that meant though.
Wyświetl załącznik 6769199

Typing stuff into Google is too hard for me.
Wyświetl załącznik 6769210
So, yes, Greer needed to say "Please don't share these" It's on the first page.

https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Standard%20Protective%20Order%20.pdf

But also Greer's info isn't any of these...

2. Definitions
(a) The term PROTECTED INFORMATION shall mean confidential or
proprietary technical, scientific, financial, business, health, or medical information
designated as such by the producing party.

(b) The term CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION – ATTORNEYS
EYES ONLY, shall mean PROTECTED INFORMATION that is so designated by the
producing party. The designation CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY may
be used only for the following types of past, current, or future PROTECTED
INFORMATION: (1) sensitive technical information, including current research,
development and manufacturing information and patent prosecution information, (2)
sensitive business information, including highly sensitive financial or marketing
information and the identity of suppliers, distributors and potential or actual customers, (3)
competitive technical information, including technical analyses or comparisons of
competitor’s products, (4) competitive business information, including non-public
financial or marketing analyses or comparisons of competitor’s products and strategic
product planning, or (5) any other PROTECTED INFORMATION the disclosure of which
to non-qualified people subject to this Standard Protective Order the producing party
reasonably and in good faith believes would likely cause harm.

 

[Treasure Champs]

Unless I missed it, Greer did not specifically state in the email that he does not know the addresses of the two people, he only strongly insinuated it. So either he doesn't know the address of his only two witnesses (to be fair, something he's done before) who are also close family OR it's proof he's materially and willfully deficient in his disclosures. I wonder what he would answer if directly asked about which is the case, on the record- and if it would be believable.

Merry Christmas?

He has insinuated it, but he's stretching credibility: asking the court to believe that these witnesses are fully knowledgeable about the case and willing to testify for him, and at the same time not close enough to him that he can pick up the phone and ask for their addresses. This is clearly retarded to any sensible person, hence we are falling back, yet again, on the "me too dumb, me pro se, me no know" defense that has worked so well for Greer so far.