, 15 tweets, 4 min read
Right - let's see if I can livetweet this in a 5-minute break from reading yet another really long law review article. (Also, how do you find time to write a ~80 page article when you're an associate at Debevoise & Plimpton?)
This really isn't a complicated filing. To sum up: it's a letter to the court from Mr. Lemoine requesting an evidentiary hearing on the sanctions issue (and a couple of other things).
As is the case with the other letters sent to the court, this is served on all counsel via ECF and is therefore NOT an ex parte filing. (Got that, Nick? With me, Ty?)
Essentially, it looks to me like Lemoine is asking for a hearing in order to establish a record to justify whatever sanctions amount the court decides to impose (and/or to cross appeal on that issue if necessary).
I don't have time to check the refs, but based on context I'd guess that Rule 13 is the Texas equivalent of Fed R Civ P 11, which provides for sanctions for bad faith filings in federal court cases.
This confirms, I think, that this is about making sure there's a clear record.
Yes, this would seem to open up the possibility of some discovery, but I wouldn't get too excited about that just yet - even if approved, the scope of what would be allowed isn't entirely clear.

But a bit of nervousness in Minnesota might not be entirely uncalled-for.
This paragraph strikes me as a bit more unusual a request - but I really hope it's granted.
The last thing the universe needs right now is weeks of ISWV frenzy ripping through the billing records in this case. The next to last thing the universe needs right now is weeks of lawtwitter playing around with the billing records in this case.
I just hope Judge Chupp sees it that way, too.

Anyway, that's more or less it. I'm back into my reading now. No predictions on whether this is granted or not, but can't wait to see Ty's measured and reasoned response.
I've seen no evidence that Nick has the requisite skill level to have much of a chance in that battle.

Why not? I've gone through like 150 pages of law review articles so far today and my eyes are starting to glaze over. Might help to look at something unrelated.

OK. Not going to do detailed thoughts partly because my brain has melted and partly because it might be fun to let Ty read the cases for himself. But I think:
(1) Footnote 1 provides justification for large sanctions if there's an evidentiary hearing.
(2) Footnote 1 provides justification for large sanctions if there isn't an evidentiary hearing.
(3) The cases cited in Footnote 1 are not great for Vic. They're so not great for Vic that even the dissenting part of the concurring and dissenting opinion isn't great for Vic.
In short, and - to be honest - as usual, Lemoine is several moves ahead of Ty, who is sitting there holding a game piece and trying to remember how the little horsie moves.
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!