492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________

[Gunnar Larson]

INTRODUCTION

March 24, 2022

158 Highlights:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=drivesdk

1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her
cohorts
orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an
affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants
maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican
opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign
sovereignty.
The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence,
deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data
sources - are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events
of Watergate pale in comparison.

2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other
political
stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust.
They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald
J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple
Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would
be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media
frenzy.

3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level
officials at the
Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who
attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.1 To
start, the Clinton Campaign and the DNC enlisted the assistance of their
shared counsel, Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep Democrat ties, in the
hopes of obscuring their actions under the veil of attorney-client
privilege. Perkins Coie was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find—or
fabricate—proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia.

To do so, Perkins Coie launched parallel operations: on one front, Perkins
Coie partner Marc Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition
research’ claiming
to reveal illicit ties between the Trump Campaign and Russian operatives;
on a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann headed a
campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’
connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-owned
bank.

4. Marc Elias, in his mission to obtain derogatory anti-Trump ‘opposition
research,’ commissioned Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, and its
co-founders, Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and directed them to dredge
up evidence—actual or otherwise—of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Fritsch and Simpson, in turn, enlisted the assistance of Orbis Ltd. and its
owner, Christopher Steele, to produce a series of reports purporting to
contain proof of the
supposed collusion. Of course, the now fully debunked collection of
reports, known as the “Steele Dossier,” was riddled with misstatements,
misrepresentations and, most of all, flat out lies. In truth, the Steele
Dossier was largely based upon information provided to Steele by his
primary
sub-source, Igor Danchenko, who was subsequently indicted for falsifying
his claims. Even more damning, Danchenko had close ties to senior Clinton
Campaign official, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., who knowingly provided
false information to Danchenko, who relayed it to Steele, who
reported it in the Steele Dossier and eagerly fed the deceptions to both
the media and the FBI. This duplicitous arrangement existed for a singular
self-serving purpose – to discredit Donald J. Trump
and his campaign.

5. At the same time, Michael Sussmann, in his hunt for damaging intel
against the
Trump Campaign, turned to Neustar, Inc., an information technology company,
and one of its top executives, Rodney Joffe, a fervent anti-Trumper who had
recently been promised a high-ranking position with the Clinton
Administration, to exploit their access to non-public data in search of a
secret “back channel” connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank. When it
was discovered that no such channel existed, the Defendants resorted to
truly subversive measures – hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private
apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House. This
ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading “inference” and
submitted to law enforcement in an effort to falsely implicate Donald J.
Trump and his campaign.2 All of these acts
were carried out in coordination with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, at
the behest of certain Democratic “VIPs.”3

6. While their multi-pronged attack was underway, the Defendants seized on
the
opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown
media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on a
“mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia
link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly
promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake
Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to
proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through
press releases, social media, and other public statements.

7. The fallout from the Defendants’ actions was not limited to the public
denigration
of Trump and his campaign. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)—relying on the Defendants’ fraudulent evidence—commenced a
large-scale investigation and expended precious time, resources and
taxpayer dollars looking into the spurious allegation that the Trump
Campaign
had colluded with the Russian Government to interfere in the 2016
presidential election. The effects of this unfounded investigation were
prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton
loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice and the
FBI
– James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith,
and Bruce Ohr. These government officials were willing to abuse their
positions of public trust to advance the baseless probe to new levels,
including obtaining an extrajudicial FISA warrant and instigating the
commencement of an oversight investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller. As a result, Donald J. Trump and his campaign were forced to
expend tens of millions of dollars in legal
fees to defend against these contrived and unwarranted proceedings. Justice
would ultimately prevail – following a two-year investigation, Special
Counsel Mueller went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his campaign with
his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia.

8. The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and
gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a
DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date,
he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others,
for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As
outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the
Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the
inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on
recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s
investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are
forthcoming.

9. In short, the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a
malicious
conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about
Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life,
his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of
Hillary Clinton. When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump
was elected, the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting
their focus to undermining his presidential administration. Worse still,
the Defendants continue to spread their vicious lies to this day as they
unabashedly publicize their thoroughly debunked falsehoods in an
effort to ensure that he will never be elected again. The deception,
malice, and treachery
perpetrated by the Defendants has caused significant harm to the American
people, and to the Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, and they must be held
accountable for their heinous acts.

____________________


BACKGROUND

September 8, 2022

190 Highlights:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=drivesdk

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the
Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious
conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious
information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of
destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential
Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 177, Am. Compl. ¶ 9). On this
general premise, Plaintiff brings a claim for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), predicated on the theft
of trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and wire fraud (Count I). He
additionally brings claims for: injurious falsehood (Count III); malicious
prosecution (Count V); violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(“CFAA”) (Count VII); theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets
Act of
2016 (“DTSA”) (Count VIII); and violations of the Stored Communications Act
(“SCA”) (Count IX). The Amended Complaint also contains counts for various
conspiracy charges and theories of agency and vicarious liability. (Counts
II, IV, VI, and X–XVI). Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527
paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to
summarize in a concise and cohesive manner.

It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to
distill it here.
The short version: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants “[a]cting in
concert . . . maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their
Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign
sovereignty.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants effectuated this
alleged conspiracy through two core efforts. “[O]n one front, Perkins Coie
partner Mark Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’
claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump
campaign and Russian operatives.” (Id. ¶ 3).

To that end, Defendant Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic
National Committee, and lawyers for the Campaign and the Committee
allegedly hired Defendant Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele Dossier. (Id.
¶ 4). “[O]n a separate
front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman headed a campaign to develop
misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail
servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-
owned bank.” (Id.). Clinton and her operatives allegedly hired Defendant
Rodney Joffe to exploit his access to Domain Name Systems (“DNS”) data, via
Defendant Neustar, to investigate and
ultimately manufacture a suspicious pattern of activity between
Trump-related servers and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin, Alfa
Bank. (Id. ¶ 3). As a result of this “fraudulent evidence,” the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) commenced “several large-scale
investigations,” which were “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a
small faction of
Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of
Justice”—Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page,
Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. (Id. ¶ 7).
And while this was ongoing, the Defendants allegedly “seized on the
opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown
media frenzy.” (Id. ¶ 6). As a result of this “multi-pronged attack,”
Plaintiff claims to have amassed $24 million in damages.1(Id. ¶ 527).

Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of
disconnected political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a
sweeping conspiracy among the many individuals Plaintiff believes to have
aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is
warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is,
foreclosed by the applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail
on the merits “in multiple independent respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view
it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising
tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit
as a lawsuit.” (Id.).

I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended
Complaint’s structural deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter
jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain
Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each
of the
substantive counts.

____________________

BACKGROUND

October 31, 2022

25 Highlights:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=drivesdk


PlaintifP’s pleadings and theories were obviously and fatally defective
from the very
inceptionof this action. Plaintiff's initial Complaint spanned 108 pages
and S08 paragraphs. DE 1 (March 24, 2022). It named 28 individual
defendants, as well as 10 John Does and 10 ABC Corporations. /d.
Less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved to
dismiss it with prejudice. DE 52 (Apr. 20,2022). Defendant Clinton’s motion
identified manyofthe fundamentalfactual deficiencies and legal flaws that
would ultimately lead this Court to dismiss the Amended
Complaint: namely, (1) that Plaintifs claims were untimely on their face,
DE 52 at 1-5; (2) that Plaintiff's own tweets confirmed his knowledge ofhis
supposed claimsno later than October 2017, DE 52 at 2-3; (3) that
Plaintiffs Complaint was replete with inadequate and conclusory
allegations, DE 52 at 6; (4) that Plaintiff failed to allege a RICO
enterprise, DE 52 at 7; (5) that
Plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of theft of trade secrets
based on DNS information, DE 52 at 8-9; (6) thatPlaintifffailedtoallege the
predicate act ofobstructionofjustice in part because
he identified no “official proceeding,” DE 52 at 9-10; (7) that Plaintiff
failed to allege a patter of racketeering activity, DE 52 at 11-12; (8)
that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege RICO standing because his
supposed injuries were almostentirely undescribed, DE 52.at 12-14; (9) that
Plaintiffs injurious falsehood claim was barred by the First Amendment, DE
52 at 15-17; (10) that Plaintiff failed to allege almost every necessary
clementof injurious falsehood under Florida law, DE 52 at
17-18; (11) that Plaintiff failed to allege a malicious prosecution claim
as to any official proceeding and, in particular, as to the properly
predicated Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DE 52 at 19-20; and (12) that
Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for “agency” because it is not an
independent cause of action under Florida law.

In response, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend the
Complaint. DE 66 (Apr. 21, 2022). Defendant Clinton did not oppose
counsel's request for an extension of time in whichto amend. See, e.g., DE
102 (Apr. 27,2022). In the intervening period, other Defendants
joined Clinton's motion to dismiss and filed their own motions
alertingPlaintiff and his counsel to additional fatal defects in the
Complaint. See DE 124 (John Podesta), 139 (Peter Fritsch, Fusion GPS, Glenn
Simpson); 141 (DNC Services Corporation, Democratic National Committee,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz); 143 (Perkins Coie); 144 (Nellie Ohr); 145 (Robby
Mook): 146 (Michael
Sussmann); 147 (Mare Elias); 149 (HFACC); 157 (Rodney Joffe); 159 (Igor
Danchenko); 160 (Neustar, Inc.); 162 & 163 (Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr.);
165 (Jake Sullivan). With respect to each motion, Plaintiff's counsel
indicated that they planned to amend in response to the motions, and
Defendants did not oppose extensionsof time to allow them to do so. See DE
153 (May 17,2022). PlaintifP’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint
approximately two months after receiving Defendant Clinton’s motion to
dismiss and with the benefit of Defendants” additional motions in
the interim. DE 177 (June 21, 2022). “But despite this briefing, PlaintifPs
Amended Complaint failed to cureanyofthe deficiencies.”DE 267 at 63-64
(Sept. 8, 2022) (“0p.”). “Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of
largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal
sufficiency of his claims.” Op. at 64. The Amended Complaint is “193 pages
in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs,” and “contains 14 counts, names 31
defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and
10 *ABC Corporations’ identified as fictitious and
unknown entities.” Op. at 4.
____________________

BACKGROUND

November 10, 2022

66 Highlights:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=drivesdk

The Complaint. In March 2022, Charles Dolan was among 29 defendants
initially sued by Mr. Trump. (DE 1). He was identified as a former chairman
of the DNC, a senior official in the Clinton Campaign, and a close
associate of and advisor to Hillary Clinton. The Complaint alleged
that in April 2016, Mr. Dolan participated in discussions about the
creation of a “dossier” to smear Mr. Trump and disseminate false
accusations to the media (Compl. ¶ 79), and at the direction of
Ms. Clinton assisted in preparation of the dossier (Compl. ¶ 81). According
to the Complaint, an allegation contained within the dossier that Mr. Trump
engaged in salacious sexual activity in a
Moscow hotel was derived from Mr. Dolan. (Compl. ¶ 91). Mr. Dolan was sued
for RICO
conspiracy (Count II), conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood (Count IV),
and conspiracy to
commit malicious prosecution (Count VI).

The Warning Letter. On May 31, 2022, counsel for Mr. Dolan wrote the
attorneys for Mr. Trump. They warned:

1. That Mr. Dolan had no role in any conspiracy related to the Steele
dossier.

2. That Mr. Dolan was not a source for the allegations of sexual activity.

3. That Mr. Dolan had not been in contact with any defendant other than
Igor Danchenko,
and that Mr. Dolan’s contacts with Mr. Danchenko involved business
interests and help for a conference in Moscow.

4. That Mr. Dolan had never been chairman of the DNC.

5. That Ms. Clinton was on record through a spokesperson as stating she had
no recollection of Mr. Dolan.
(DE 268-1).

The letter requested that Mr. Dolan not be named as a defendant in any
forthcoming
Amended Complaint. The letter further warned that if he were to be named,
or if he was not dropped from the original Complaint, Rule 11 sanctions
would be sought.

The Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, as
had been expected. It ballooned to 193 pages, 819 paragraphs and 31
defendants. With respect to Mr. Dolan, the allegations remained essentially
the same. But in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Dolan was identified somewhat
more vaguely as the former chairman of a “national Democratic
political organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Elsewhere, he was described as
a “senior Clinton Campaign Official.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Moreover, and
somewhat inexplicably, Mr. Dolan was identified in the Amended Complaint as
a citizen and resident of New York, despite a declaration that Mr. Dolan
had provided to Plaintiff’s lawyers explaining that Mr. Dolan was a
resident of
Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20; DE 268-2).
The Sanctions Motion and Memorandum. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Dolan served on
Mr.
Trump’s lawyers a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. The motion
pointed out that the change in Mr. Dolan’s purported title from “former
chairman of the DNC” in the original Complaint to “former chairman of a
national Democratic political organization,” in the Amended Complaint did
not solve the problems identified in the warning letter because Mr. Dolan
had never
been the chairman of any such organization. The motion further explained
that Mr. Dolan’s role in the Clinton Campaign was limited to knocking on
doors as a volunteer. The motion also stated
that Mr. Dolan had never been a resident of New York, that Mr. Dolan had
told Plaintiff’s lawyers so, and that the allegations of the Amended
Complaint to that effect demonstrated a lack of diligence over something
easily checked.

Mr. Dolan’s motion for sanctions went on to place the Trump lawyers on
notice of a critical failure in their claims, warning them that the
Danchenko Indictment referenced throughout the Amended Complaint not only
failed to support their allegations against Mr. Dolan but contradicted
them. That warning continues to be unheeded.

____________________

BACKGROUND

January 19, 2023

53 Highlights:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=drivesdk

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the
Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious
conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about
Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life,
his
political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of
Hillary Clinton.” (DE 1 ¶ 9).

The next day, Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel told Fox News’ Sean
Hannity:
You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . .
. and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are
going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is
going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of
all that.1 She then explained on Newsmax: What the real goal [of the suit]
is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing
to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies.
That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed
justice. They
continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not
make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.2
On April 20, 2022, less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary
Clinton moved for dismissal with prejudice. Her motion identified
substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws. Each of the other
Defendants followed suit, pointing to specific problems with the claims
against them. The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start.
They were identified by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump
persisted anyway.

Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,”
Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177).
The Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the defects. See DE 267, Order
of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added
eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to
salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. (DE 267 at 64). The Amended
Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs, and
contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 John Does described as
fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 ABC Corporations identified as
fictitious and unknown entities.

On July 14, 2022, the United States moved pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(i), to substitute itself as Defendant for James Comey,
Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. (DE 224). On
July 21, 2022, I granted the motion to substitute. (DE 234).

On September 8, 2022, I dismissed the case with prejudice as to all
Defendants except for the United States.

3 I issued a detailed and lengthy Order, which I incorporate by reference
here.
(DE 267). I found that fatal substantive defects which had been clearly
laid out in the first round of briefing, precluded the Plaintiff from
proceeding under any of the theories presented. I found that the Amended
Complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading, that its claims were
foreclosed by existing precedent, and its factual allegations were
undermined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it
purported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate issues
pertaining to sanctions.

Undeterred by my Order and two rounds of briefing by multiple defendants,
Ms. Habba
continued to advance Plaintiff’s claims. In a September 10, 2022, interview
with Sean Hannity, the host asked her “Why isn’t [Hillary Clinton] being
held accountable for what she did?” Ms. Habba’s response reiterated
misrepresentations on which this lawsuit was based:

Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks
who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he
was going to be impartial, and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing
order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by
indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we
get dismissed.
Not only do we get dismissed, he says that this is not the proper place for
recourse for Donald Trump. He has no legal ramifications.

Where what [sic] is the proper place for him? Because the FBI won’t help
when you can do anything, obstruct justice, blatantly lie to the FBI,
Sussmann’s out, he gets acquitted, where do you go?

That’s the concern for me, where do you get that -- that recourse?4 She
also indicated that, while Mr. Trump doubted the suit would succeed, she
nevertheless “fought” to pursue it: You know, I have to share with you a
story, Sean, that I have not
shared with anybody. The recourse that I have at this point is obviously to
appeal this to the 11th Circuit as Gregg said. But when
I brought this case and we were assigned you know, this judge and we went
through the recusal process, we lost five magistrates, including Reinhart
[sic] who’s dealing with the boxes as we know.
The former president looked at me and he told me, you know what Alina.
You’re not going to win. You can’t win, just get rid of it,
don’t do the case. And I said, no, we have to fight. It’s not right what
happened. And you know, he was right, and it’s a sad day for
me personally because I fought him on [it] and I should have listened, but
I don’t want to lose hope in our system. I don’t. So,
you know I’m deciding whether we’re going to appeal it.5 Defendants now
move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28
U.S.C. § 1927, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and/or this Court’s inherent
power. (DE 280 at 1).
In Part II, I find that a sanction under this Court’s inherent power is
appropriate. I do so by examining Plaintiff’s (and his lawyers’) conduct
throughout this litigation. In Part III, I look to Plaintiff’s conduct in
other cases. And in Part IV, I determine the reasonableness of Defendants’
attorneys’ fees and costs.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 33031 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20240421/20ace38d/attachment.txt>