Huon v. Breaking Media et al

Filing 86

REPLY by Plaintiff Meanith Huon to memorandum in opposition to motion 85 , motion for leave to file excess pages,,, motion for extension of time to file response/reply,,, motion for relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 80 (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
)
)
)
)
)
)

REPLY BRIEF IN UPPORT OF AMENDED 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 Irin Carmon, Gabby Darbyshire, Nick Denton, Gawker Media,
Jezebel.com (the “Jezebel Defendants”) argue that Defendants relied on the briefing
schedule but the Jezebel Defendants do not argue that they are prejudiced.

2.

The Jezebel Defendants are not prejudiced because the defamatory post regarding
Mr. Huon continues to be re-published even though the Above The Law Defendants
and the Belleville News-Democrat have removed their postings.

3.

The Jezebel Defendants do not have standing to oppose Mr. Huon’s request to file
in excess of 15 pages to the Above The Law Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, when
the Above The Law Defendants have not filed a memorandum opposing Mr. Huon’s
request. Furthermore, the 33 pages Mr. Huon is requesting is approximately the
same number of pages filed by the Jezebel Defendants, not counting their 55 pages of

exhibits.
4.

Mr. Huon has offered a very good reason for an extension of time for 8 additional
business days. He was given until November 30, 2011 to respond to an 82 page
memorandum with exhibits and a 192 page motion with exhibit. These memorandum
contained a table of contents and citations to numerous case law—essentially like an
appellate brief. Defendants also attached a chart with columns and rows of
abbreviations and defamatory statements in lieu of writing a cogent argument. Mr.
Huon endeavored to stay within the page limitation but went over. In lieu of asking
for more time to reduce his brief, he asked to file the 33 page response to the Above
the Law Defendants’ Memorandum and 8 additional business days to respond to the
Jezebel Defendants’ Memorandum. The Above the Law Defendants’ Exhibit B was
ordered removed by the Court and ordered to be re-filed. The Defendants did not
immediately re-filed and left the impression Defendants were abandoning the exhibit.
The Above the Law Defendants re-filed Exhibit B (173 pages) 7 days before Mr.
Huon’s response brief was due.

5.

Mr. Huon is not asking that the Jezebel Defendants reply during the week of
Christmas or New Year’s. He has no objections to the amount of time the Jezebel
Defendants need to reply.

6.

The Jezebel Defendants attempt to create a false impression with their arguments.
Mr. Huon’s Second Amended Complaint was initiated by Mr. Huon, after he
voluntarily dismissed certain defendants. Mr. Huon’s First Amended Complaint was
initiated by Mr. Huon by adding the Jezebel Defendants. The original complaint was
filed to avoid missing the statute of limitations as to the Above the Law Defendants.

7.

The Jezebel Defendants do not identify the half a dozen motions. Is it the motion
to redact the trial transcript to protect the privacy of third parties? Is it the motion to
bring to the Court’s attention that the transcript was not removed by the Clerk after
the order was entered? Is it the motion to correct typographical errors? The only
party filing memorandums and motions without merit are the Jezebel Defendants,
who seem to believe that by opposing every request for an extension will bring
Defendants closer to winning the case.

8.

What does the prayer for damages have to do with a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion? This
is not a summary judgment motion. This is not a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The parties have not had a 26(f) conference. The defamatory post remains
on the Internet prejudicing Mr. Huon each day it remains there. How does
preventing someone 8 additional business days to respond to the merits of a motion
result in a quick resolution—as opposed to an unfair resolution. It would only lead
to an appeal and result in piecemeal litigation.

9.

The Jezebel Defendants continually refer to the prayer of damages as a basis for
treating this litigation any different than another. It should not be. The parties are at
the pleading stage. If the Jezebel Defendants do not want to be sued for defaming
someone, the Defendants should not be cyberbullying and defaming individuals
online. If the Defendants had adopted and followed a code of ethics for journalists
and reporters, Defendants would not have been sued. Mr. Huon did not named
Forbes.com as a defendant.

10.

Mr. Huon asked for 8 additional business days or by December 12, 2011. Mr.
Huon was acquitted on May 6, 2010, after facing potentially 20+ years in prison for

false and meritless charges. After almost 2 years of waiting to get his life back, Mr.
Huon is acquitted, only to find himself falsely being accused a serial rapist with the
headline from the Jezebel.com blog “Acquitted Rapist”. Googling Mr. Huon results
in the Jezebel.com story as one of the top results.

After being acquitted, with very

little time to get his life back and his cash flow going, Mr. Huon finds himself
defending false charges against the Jezebel.com Defendants to clear his name againl.
He had hardly began getting life back, before finding himself a target of
cyberbullying and defamation on the world wide web.
11.

This is not a screenplay or a proposal for a film or pilot on “L.A. Law.” This is
real life where cyberbullying and defaming someone has real consequences.

12.

Mr. Huon asks for 8 additional business days, or until December 12, 2011, to
respond on the merits.
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 12, 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 December 2, 2011:

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED 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