Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 102

OBJECTIONS by Meanith Huon to notice of motion 101 , MOTION by Defendants Abovethelaw.com, Breaking Media, Breakingmedia.com, David Lat, John Lerner, David Minkin, Elie Mystal for extension of time to file Reply Brief 100 (Huon, Meanith)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MEANITH HUON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ABOVETHELAW.COM,

et. al.
Defendants

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1: 11-cv-3054
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE THE LAW DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, states as follows:
1.

The Above the Law (“the ATL”) Defendants omit the complete text of the

Court’s order. On November 30, 2011, the Court ordered: “Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Strike
Exhibit B to Defendants' Memorandum [50] is granted to . . . The transcript shall be stricken
from the record under Rule 12(f) with leave to refile a redacted transcript.” (Docket 74).
2.

But Exhibit B, the173 page trial truncated transcript was not immediately re-filed

and the Defendants seemed to abandon Exhibit B.
3.

A week before Mr. Huon’s Response brief was due, Defendants re-filed the 173

page Exhibit B. Mr. Huon had to rewrite his arguments to address the offending transcript—in
addition to responding to Defendants’ 22 page brief and 6 page chart and other exhibits.
4.

Defendants also omit other orders that were modified by the December 5, 2011

order entered by the Court.
5.

On September 30, 2011, Mr. Huon filed a motion to present the Jezebel

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for hearing. In his prayer for relief, he asks for leave to file a

Response brief in excess of 15 pages to 27 pages to respond to the Jezebel Defendants’ 27 page
Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 59).
6.

Mr. Huon recalls the Magistrate Judge granting him this motion for leave to file a

27 page Response Brief to the Jezebel Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss but is unable to locate a
Docket Text Order. The Court had previously granted Mr. Huon leave to file a 22 page brief to
the ATL Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 56 and 74)
7.

On November 30, 2011, Mr. Huon filed his 33-page Response brief to the Above

the Law Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for leave to file 33 pages instead of 22
pages and for a one week extension to file his Response Brief to the Jezebel’s Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss.
8.

The reason for the Motion was because the Jezebel Defendants raised issues not

connected related to the litigation, falsely accusing him of having pending criminal charges and
of being a sex offender. Moreover, both Defendants spent pages arguing issues where the case
law was against them. For example, the ATL spent pages discussing the reporter’s privilege but
at the end of its Memorandum cited Cook v. Winfrey, which held that the District Court
committed reversible error by dismissing plaintiff’s defamation claim on a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6).” 141 F.3d 322, 330-31 (7th Cir. 1998).” The Jezebel Defendants argued
that the anti-SLAPP statute applied when there are no allegations that calling Mr. Huon a rapist
and a sex offender “further one’s right to participate in government”. Defendants do not bring
to the attention of the Court that a simple search of Westlaw would provide a result of cases by
other judges in the Northern District of Illinois that dismissal is not appropriate at this stage,
since Mr. Huon is entitled to discovery, Doctor's Data, Inc. v. Barrett, 2011 WL 5903508
(N.D.Ill.,2011), or that the Act does not apply. Trudeau v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., 2011 WL

3898041, N.D.Ill., September 06, 2011 (NO. 10 C 7193).
9.

As on other occasions, the Jezebel Defendants immediately objected to Mr.

Huon’s motion for a 1-week extension.
10.

On December 5, 2011, the Court entered the following order:
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a responsive brief of no more than 23 pages to the
Above The Law Defendants Motion to Dismiss on or before December 12, 2011 2.
As to all Memoranda relating to Above The Law Defendants Motion to Dismiss
heretofore filed or scheduled to be filed, all parties shall file on or before December
12, 2011, a summary of no more than 15 pages of their respective Memoranda and a
summary of no more than 15 pages of any exhibits to said Memoranda. (For further
details, see Order in separate docket entry). The motion hearing set for 12/6/11 is
stricken. Judicial staff mailed notice (gl, )

11.

Mr. Huon interpreted the order to mean that the Court had had enough of the lack

of civility between the parties and their attorneys and did not want the parties to continue filing
more pages of motion on a straightforward motion to dismiss at the pleading stage. He
interpreted the order to mean that the Court wanted any Memorandum relating to the Motions to
Dismiss to be filed by December 12, 2011 with a page limitation of 15 pages. After all, Mr.
Huon can file a motion to amend the complaint or seek to re-plead. Defendants didn’t have to
write War and Peace to get its point across.
12.

Interpreted any other way, the December 5, 2011 wouldn’t make any sense that

the Court would order the parties to file a Summary and then allow Defendants leave to file a
Reply, after limiting Mr. Huon 27 page Response Brief to the Jezebel Defendants down to 15
pages.
13.

With less than a week to file a 23 page Response Brief and a 27 page Response

Brief, Mr. Huon called the Courtroom Deputy and asked for clarification as to what the Court
meant by “Summary”. Did the Court want Mr. Huon to file a 27 page Response Brief to the

Jezebel Motion to Dismiss, a 23 page Response Brief to the Above the Law Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss, and two 15-page Summaries?

Mr. Huon was advised that Mr. Huon and the

Jezebel Defendants were to file their respective Memorandum or Response Briefs by December
12, 2011 not to exceed 15 pages.
14.

In the remaining week, Mr. Huon endeavored to convert his 33 page Response

Brief to the Above the Law’s Motion to Dismiss into a 23 page Response Brief and to convert
his 27 page Response Brief to the Jezebel Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss into a 15 page
Response Brief.
15.

It would be patently unfair for the ATL Defendants to be given leave to file filed a

Motion to Dismiss and a 22-page Memorandum of Law with Exhibits in Excess of 170 pages,
leave to file a Summary, and now leave to have more time to file a Reply brief.
16.

Mr. Huon tried calling counsel for the ATL Defendants directly on at least two

days but it went to voice mail. The email attached to the ATL Defendants’ Motion for Extension
on the day it filed its motion is evidence of the kind of lack of response that Mr. Huon receives
when he makes an effort to resolve outstanding issues by reaching out with a meaningful
conference. Counsel for the ATL Defendants do not respond to Mr. Huon. Counsel for the
Jezebel Defendants called him a serial sex offender—with no basis in fact.
17.

The Jezebel Defendants and its attorneys’ ongoing objections to routine motions

for extensions created this misunderstanding or situation.
18.

Mr. Huon has never had any problems dealing with the attorneys for the Madison

County Defendants, Hinshaw and Culbertson and the City of Chicago Corporation Counsel, in
Huon v. Mudge, et. al. 11-cv-3050. Counsels in that case return calls and agree to extensions of
time.

19.

Defendants’ argument that the defamatory blog posts are innocent are undermined

by the treatment Mr. Huon has received in litigating this case where counsel for one Defendant
does not return his calls and counsel for a second Defendant calls him a serial offender with
pending criminal charges in a judicial pleading, with no factual basis. Mr. Huon does not receive
the same treatment by the Madison County Defendants or its attorneys, who would actually have
more knowledge of the official proceedings than bloggers.
20.

The inescapable conclusion is that the blog posts are defamatory. As evidence,

even the attorneys defending the Defendants perceive Mr. Huon as a sex offender who should
not be extended the courtesy of extensions of time or meaningful conferences to resolve
differences and where the Jezebel Defendants’ attorneys have engaged in personal attacks of Mr.
Huon in a Response brief.
21.

The ATL Defendants do not offer anything new in their Rely brief, after spending

more than 22 pages trying to apply the reporter’s privilege to bloggers who wrote about a news
article—not an official proceeding.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, requests that this Honorable Court:
1.

Deny the Above the Law Defendants’ Motion for Extension of time.

2.

Alternatively, Mr. Huon asks that the Court modify the entire briefing schedule to
allow Mr. Huon his original page limitation of 27 pages to amend his Response brief
to the Jezebel Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, time to file an Amended Response
with the 27 page limitation, and time to file his Summaries to both Defendants.

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Meanith Huon
Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon
ARDC No.: 6230996
PO Box 441
Chicago, IL 60690
312-405-2789
[e-mail]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MEANITH HUON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ABOVETHELAW.COM,

et. al.
Defendants

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1: 11-cv-3054
)
)
)
)
)
)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Under penalties of law, I attest the following documents or items have been or are being
electronically served on all counsel of record for all parties on December 18, 2011:
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE
THE ABOVE THE LAW DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Meanith Huon
Meanith Huon
PO Box 441
Chicago, Illinois 60690
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
IL ARDC. No.: 6230996