Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 198

MOTION by Defendants Breaking Media, Breaking Media, Inc., Breaking Media, LLC, Irin Carmon, Gabby Darbyshire, Nick Denton, Gawker Media, David Lat, John Lerner, David Minkin, Elie Mystal to strike response in opposition to motion, 195 , response in opposition to motion,, 194 - Joint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Mandell, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS – EASTERN DIVISION
MEANITH HUON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BREAKING MEDIA, INC., GAWKER MEDIA LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 11-cv-03054
)
) District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.
)
) Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert
)

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE BRIEFS IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
The ATL Defendants1 and Gawker Defendants2 (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully
request that the Court strike Plaintiff Meanith Huon’s responses to their respective Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 194, 195.) In support of their motion
to strike, Defendants state as follows:
1.

On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed his nine-count Fourth Amended Complaint

against Defendants. (Dkt. No. 162.) The Fourth Amended Complaint spans sixty-eight pages,
contains 273 numbered allegations, including at least fifty-five alleged actionable statements,
and twenty-one exhibits. It is the latest in a series of five complaints filed against Defendants
over a nearly two-year period, collectively totaling over 400 pages and seeking in excess of one
hundred million dollars in damages. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, 12-19, 22-25, 156.) This suit is part of
Plaintiff's larger campaign against a number of state agencies and private institutions in relation

1

The ATL Defendants are Defendants Breaking Media, Inc. f/k/a Breaking Media, LLC, David
Lat, Elie Mystal, John Lerner, and David Minkin.
2
The Gawker Defendants are Defendants Gawker Media a/k/a Gawker.com, Nick Denton, Irin
Carmon, and Gaby Darbyshire.

to the prosecution of sexual assault charges against him. See Huon v. Mudge, Case no. 3:12-cv166 (S.D. Ill.).
2.

On January 7, 2013, Defendants separately filed motions to dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 174, 178.) Due to the length of the Fourth
Amended Complaint, Defendants each moved for leave to file briefs that were three pages in
excess of the 15-page limit. (Dkt. Nos. 176, 179.) The ATL Defendants also attached an 11page chart to their response that summarized all of the statements that Plaintiff claims are
actionable and the basis for the dismissal of each. (Dkt. No. 190.)
3.

On January 10, 2013, the Court granted Defendants permission to file their

oversized briefs. (Dkt. No. 187.) At that time, Plaintiff, who has a history of lengthy and
rambling pleadings, specifically requested additional pages for his response because he would
need a great deal of space to respond to Defendants’ briefs. (Court Tr., Jan. 10, 2013, at pp. 8-10
(attached as Ex. A).)
4.

After due consideration the Court gave him Plaintiff a choice. Plaintiff could file

either one consolidated response not to exceed fifty pages or two separate responses not to
exceed thirty pages each. (Dkt. No. 187.) Defendants could also file reply briefs not to exceed
twenty pages each. (Id.)
5.

On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed separate responses opposing Defendants’

motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 194, 195.) Even though the Court allotted Plaintiff twice the
page length provided in the Local Rules, Plaintiff filed a thirty-seven response to the ATL
Defendants’ motion and a thirty-six page response to the Gawker Defendants’ motion—without
leave of court and in abrogation of the Court’s order. These briefs—which collectively contain
seventy-three pages—are wildly in excess of the pages allotted to Plaintiff.

2

5.

Had he followed the provisions of the Local Rule 7.1 and actually moved for

permission to add thirteen additional pages to the thirty supplemental pages he had already been
granted, Plaintiff would have been unable to demonstrate a legitimate reason for more space.
Even though he had over two months to craft succinct, comprehensible responses, the briefs he
filed contain mostly rambling, questionably coherent language.
6.

Moreover, this case is nearly two years old and the parties are not yet at issue.

Plaintiff is now on his fifth attempt to plead viable claims. His violation of the Court’s January
10, 2013 order exemplifies his general disregard of the Court’s orders and rules during the course
of this case. For example, after this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for
failure to plead complete diversity of citizenship—and providing clear guidance on how to fix
the deficient pleadings (Dkt. No. 151)—Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint was dismissed
once again for failing to plead complete diversity of citizenship. (Dkt. No. 157.)
7.

Defendants are seeking a speedy conclusion to this matter and do not move to

strike Plaintiff’s responses lightly. Plaintiff has continuously demonstrated, however, that he
ignores the rules at his convenience while demanding formalism elsewhere and files excessively
long pleadings and court documents. Consequently, Defendants believe it is both necessary and
appropriate to move to strike Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court strike Plaintiff Meanith
Huon’s Responses to the Above the Law Defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and the
Gawker Defendants’ FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and grant such further relief as is just.

3

Dated: March 18, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

BREAKING MEDIA, INC. f/k/a
BREAKING MEDIA, LLC, DAVID
LAT, ELIE MYSTAL, JOHN LERNER,
and DAVID MINKIN

GAWKER MEDIA a/k/a GAWKER.COM,
NICK DENTON, IRIN CARMON, and
GABY DARBYSHIRE

By: /s/ Steven P. Mandell

By:

Steven P. Mandell (ARDC #6183729)
Steven L. Baron (ARDC #6200868)
Elizabeth A.F. Morris (ARDC #6297239)
MANDELL MENKES LLC
1 N. Franklin, Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

David Feige (admitted pro hac vice)
Oren S. Giskan
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON
& STEWART LLP
11 Broadway, Suite 2150
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ David Feige

Daniel Francis Lynch
Amy J. Hansen
Amanda Szuch Mlinarcik
LYNCH & STERN LLP
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document has been served on March 18, 2013 via the Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of
record who have consented to electronic service.
Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail and regular mail.

/s/ Steven P. Mandell

l