Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 80

MOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon for leave to file excess pages, MOTION by Plaintiff Meanith Huon for extension of time to file response/reply as to memorandum in support of motion 58 , memorandum in support of motion, 49 , order on motion to strike,,,,, order on motion to compel,,,,,,,,,, in court hearing,,,,, terminate hearings,,,,, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,,,, 74 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Huon's Response Brief to Above the Law Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Huon's Motion)(Huon, Meanith)

IIN 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
)
)
)
)
)
)

MOTION TO FILE A RESPONSE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 15 PAGES
TO ABOVE THE LAW’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO JEZEBEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, states as follows:
1.

Defendants, Breaking Media, LLC, Breaking Media, Breakingmedia.com, David
Lat, John Lerner, Abovethelaw.com, Elie Mystal, (“The Above the Law”
Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss and a 22-page Memorandum of Law with
Exhibits in Excess of 170 pages. The entire document is in excess of 192 pages. One
exhibit is a 6 page chart with multiple columns and rows that attempts to chart the
defamatory statements.

2.

Defendants Irin Carmon, Gabby Darbyshire, Nick Denton, Gawker Media,
Jezebel.com (the “Jezebel Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss and a 27 page
Memorandum of Law with 55 pages of exhibit. The entire document is 82 pages.
One exhibit is a chart with multiple columns and rows that attempts to chart the
defamatory statements.

3.

On October 12, 2011, the Court gave Mr. Huon until November 30, 2011 to
respond to both The Above the Law Defendants’ and the Jezebel Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss. The Court also struck the Above the Law Defendants’ truncated
trial transcript from May 4, 2010 and gave the Defendants leave to file a redacted
truncated trial transcript.

4.

The Above the Law Defendants waited until November 23, 2011—a week before
Mr. Huon’s Response Brief is due-- to file what the Defendants view as a redacted
truncated trial transcript.

5.

In their exhibits, the Above the Law Defendants include a chart that attempts to
chart the defamatory statements into categories, which creates an almost endless
permutation and combination of potential legal arguments that Mr. Huon has to
respond to. The chart is an improper attempt to circumvent the page limitation rules
and to have the Court decide issues of fact at the pleading stage.

6.

Defendants also misstate the law. Without even a discussion of the innocent
construction rule, the Defendants include the chart which violates the Illinois
Supreme Court’s holdings on the innocent construction rule that courts should not
strain to find unnatural but possibly innocent meanings of words where such
construction is clearly unreasonable and a defamatory meaning is more probable.

7.

The Above The Law Defendants also cite law that has been doubted or fail to cite
correct U.S. Supreme Court and Illinois Supreme Court law rejecting the distinction
between fact and opinions. Defendants cite a Seventh Circuit decision but fail to
point out the holding that factual questions on privilege should not be decided at the
pleading stage on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.

8.

The Above The Law Defendants spend considerable amount of time arguing that
the privilege applies to bloggers who did not report on an official proceeding but, as
the Defendants contend, reported on a news article. Defendants argue over the mere
obvious—that accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se.

9.

All of these above issues have made it considerably difficult for Mr. Huon to
meet the page limitation. Mr. Huon has endeavored but has been unable to meet the
page limitation.

10.

Mr. Huon has prepared and filed a 33 page Response Brief to the Above the Law
Defendants along with a 2 page exhibit—nowhere near 192+ pages of the Above the
Law Defendants.

11.

Mr. Huon needs an additional 8 business days to respond to the 82 page document
of the Jezebel Defendants, including exhibits—after analyzing the 192+ page
document of the Above the Law Defendants, including the redacted truncated trial
transcript that was just filed 7 days ago.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Meanith Huon, requests that this Honorable Court:

1.

Grant Plaintiff leave to file a Response brief in excess of 15 pages to the Above
The Law Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

2.

Grant him a short extension of time to December 5, 2011 to file his Response
Brief to the Jezebel Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

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]
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 November 30, 2011:

MOTION TO FILE A RESPONSE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 15 PAGES
TO ABOVE THE LAW’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO JEZEBEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS.

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