Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 114

RESPONSE by Gawker Media to MOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon to strike reply to response to motion 109 EXHIBIT A OF GAWKER'S REPLY BRIEF FOR DISCLOSING MR. HUON'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DATE OF BIRTH, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERMOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon to strike reply to response to motion 109 EXHIBIT A OF GAWKER'S REPLY BRIEF FOR DISCLOSING MR. HUON'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DATE OF BIRTH, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBERMOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon for sanctions 110 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Letter to Plaintiff, # 2 Exhibit B-Follow Up Letter to PLaintiff, # 3 Exhibit C--Additionally Redacted Exhibit)(Feige, David)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MEANITH HUON,
Plaintiff,
-againstGAWKER MEDIA a/k/a GAWKER.COM,
JEZEBEL.COM, NICK DENTON, IRIN
CARMON & GABY DARBYSHIRE
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
1:11-CV-3054 (MEA JTG)

GAWKER DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
Earlier this evening (approximately 6:00 PM (CST), December 29, 2011),
Counsel received a letter via e-mail complaining about Exhibit A of Defendants’ Reply,
which was filed several hours earlier. Mr. Huon indicated he believed that the
Attachment contained information that should have been redacted pursuant to Rule 5.2.1
Immediately upon receiving Plaintiff’s letter, Counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff and all
counsel, promising to “review the attachment promptly, and make all necessary
corrections.” (Attached hereto as Exhibit A). In that same letter, Counsel agreed that
should there be a problem he would “both correct it and consent to have the unredacted
attachment stricken.”
Within an hour of sending that first letter, Counsel followed up with a second
letter (Attached as Exhibit B) which said:
1

Counsel will leave aside for now the issue of whether as both an agency proceeding and
the official record of a state court proceeding the document would fall under the
exceptions of Rule 5.2 (b)(3) or (4).

Pursuant to your letter, I have just reviewed the attachment and noted that in the
corner of page 5 (of 9) there is information that arguably should have been
redacted. As I understand your sensitivity to this issue, and certainly have no
interest in publicizing your personal information I will endeavor to redact that
information now, and will promptly refile the additionally redacted copy. As there
is no dispute that this exhibit pertains to you, if there is any additional personal
information you would like us to redact, please let me know promptly and I will be
glad to do so. It goes without saying that we will consent to the motion to strike the
exhibit and will re-file the redacted version promptly.
Counsel indicated in the footnotes that while there was an open issue as to whether
the document would fall under the exceptions of Rule 5.2 (b)(3) or (4) (being both an
agency proceeding and the official record of a state court proceeding), in an abundance of
caution and in light of Plaintiff’s evident and understandable sensitivity, Counsel would
make the redactions as requested. Counsel further indicated that even though he did not
believe there to be any bar on driver’s license information, nor any prohibition on the
disclosure of addresses, assuming there is no dispute that the documents referred to
Plaintiff, given Plaintiff’s objections, would redact that information as well.
As indicated in the prompt letters to plaintiff, the Gawker Defendants do indeed
consent to strike Exhibit A, and are attaching herewith a further redacted copy (Exhibit
C) in its stead2. Beyond that, Plaintiff’s requests for relief should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,

2

Though Plaintiff uses the phrase “Defendant’s attach what appears to be the police
report from Case No. 11231631)” in his motion, Defendant’s are willing to make the
requested redactions on the understanding that Plaintiff cannot then claim that the court
documents and police reports do not relate to him.

Dated: New York, New York
GAWKER MEDIA A/K/A
GAWKER.COM, JEZEBEL.COM,
NICK DENTON, IRIN CARMON
& GABY DARBYSHIRE,
By: ____/S/ David Feige_________
One of their attorneys
David Feige
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON
& STEWART LLP
11 Broadway, Suite 2150
New York, NY 10004
T: 212.847-8315
F: 646.520.3235
[e-mail]
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 12/29/11.

Dated: New York, New York
December 29, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,
By: ____/S/ David Feige_________
David Feige

David Feige
Oren S. Giskan
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON
& STEWART LLP
11 Broadway, Suite 2150
New York, NY 10004
T: 212.847-8315
F: 646.520.3235
[e-mail]