Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 115

REPLY by Meanith Huon 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 , response to motion,, 114 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(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
)
)
)
)
)
)

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR DISCLOSING MR. HUON’S
DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DRIVER’S LICENSE NUMBER IN
VIOLATION OF FRCP 5.2
Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, states as follows:
1.

The tone of the Jezebel Defendants’ and its attorneys’ Response suggest that they
have not fully accepted responsibility for violating FRCP 5.2. First, Defendants and
its attorneys state they were made aware of the violation when they received a
“complaint” made by Mr. Huon in the early evening as if advising counsel he violated
FRCP 5.2 was an intrusion. Second, instead of accepting responsibility and agreeing
to remove the offending exhibit, Defendants and its attorneys make new demands
agreeing to remove the offending Exhibit on the condition “that Plaintiff cannot then
claim that the court documents and police reports do not relate to him.” Third,
Defendants and its attorneys continue to argue that perhaps a police report—which is
inadmissible evidence in a civil trial and a criminal trial—is somehow a record of a
state court. Fourth, Defendants and its attorneys continue to argue that a driver’s

license may not be covered under FRCP 5.2 when the Committee Notes to the Rule
states: “It may also be necessary to protect information not covered by the redaction
requirement—such as driver's license numbers and . . .”
2.

Within hours of Mr. Huon advising the Jezebel Defendants and its attorneys that
they violated FRCP 5.2, Defendants and its attorneys sent him a letter pursuant to
FRCP 11. This is not the tone of someone who accepts responsibility for violating
FRCP 5.2. It’s the tone of someone who continues to try to intimidate and bully Mr.
Huon for asserting his rights.

3.

The Jezebel Defendants and its attorneys miss the point. Defendants and its
attorneys describe Mr. Huon as a sex offender by bringing up charges that were
promptly dismissed as meritless and that is not connected to this litigation, without
explaining to the Court that the charges were promptly dismissed by the State’s
Attorney as meritless. You can’t track or treat someone as a registered sex offender
who has never been convicted of a crime. Defendants then attached the police report
without attaching the Court half sheet indicating that the charges have been
dismissed, to give the appearance that charges remain pending when they were
dismissed at the second court date.

Mr. Huon’s Second Amended Complaint

alleges, among other things, that Defendants, defamed him by painting him as sex
offender who needed to be tracked and invited readers to track him down. Ms.
Andrews’ copycat claim is the result of that. Defendants and its attorneys took the
time to redact the police report but disclosed Mr. Huon’s complete Social Security
number, date of birth, driver’s license number, address, telephone number.
4.

Defendants and its’ attorneys miss the point: all because someone has been

arrested does not give Defendants or its attorneys a license to personally attack that
individual on the Internet or in judicial proceedings in some sort of vigilante justice.
Mr. Huon cited a 7th Circuit decision on this point. Defendants and its attorneys
seem to think that because a person has been arrested, the arrest gives absolute
immunity to anyone who wishes to attack that individual. Not in a democracy.
5.

FRCP 5.2 clearly prohibits the release of private information. Counsel for
defendants certifies by checking a box that any private information has been redacted
before filing the document. Counsel for Defendants is an experienced litigator and
former prosecutor. Defendants have local counsel who can assist with local filing
issues.

6.

Defendants insincere explanation—if any explanation at all—is very similar to the
underlying defamation case when the Jezebel Defendants called Mr. Huon the
“Acquitted Rapist” and later, in an effort to cover up its misdeeds, the Jezebel
Defendants changed the headlines. The Jezebel Defendants seem to think that
changing the headlines later somehow makes the publication of a defamatory
statement less a publication. For the same reasons, counsel for Defendants seem to
think that agreeing to redact something he never should have disclosed—after it’s
been disclosed to the world—somehow makes the violation of the rule less a
violation. It does not.

7.

This isn’t a question of the Defendants and its attorneys not being familiar with
FRCP 5.2. The ECF system requires an attorney to certify that he has redacted the
personal information. Defendants and its attorneys have taken a keen interest in a
case that is not connected to this litigation. Clearly, counsel for Defendants’

reviewed the police report, which consists of 5 pages. Defendants and its attorneys
went through line by line redacting what it thought should be redacted. Except for
what FRCP 5.2 prohibits.
8.

Defendants and its attorneys sent its letters only after Mr. Huon filed his Motion
to Strike and for Sanctions and sent his correspondence—after Defendants and its
attorneys were caught violating the Rule.

9.

Moreover, that’s what this entire lawsuit is about: Defendants’ failure to check its
facts and read documents written at the 6th grade level. The Jezebel Defendants
didn’t check its facts. Neither it seems did its attorneys, since a telephone call to the
Clerk of Court would have revealed that the charges were promptly dismissed.
Defendants and its attorneys don’t take the time to read a 5 page police report before
publishing it the world via the Internet. These careless errors cause Mr. Huon to
continue to suffer potential damages.

10.

Mr. Huon requests that Defendants’ and its attorneys produce for him the
unredacted copy of Exhibit A.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, requests that this Honorable Court:

1.

Strike Exhibit “A” of the Jezebel Defendants’ Reply Brief and order the Clerk to
remove Exhibit “A”.

2.

Order the Jezebel Defendants to produce to Mr. Huon the complete unredacted
Exhibit “A”.

3.

Impose sanctions against the Jezebel Defendants and for other appropriate relief
as the Court deems fit.
Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Meanith Huon /s/
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:

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR DISCLOSING MR. HUON’S
DATE OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, DRIVER’S LICENSE NUMBER IN
VIOLATION OF FRCP 5.2

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