I'm not suggesting that (3)
overrules (2), but I screenshotted the whole section from
the current rules (December 2024) and (3) says "must." The plain language of the text is "must, after 14 days," not "If you want to, you must do so after 14 days."
If you must file a proposed order after 14 days then the part that says you don't need to respond is meaningless, because depending on the objection, your proposed order might end up looking like a long response/reply instead. And if the long form isn't allowed, you end up forfeiting your right to respond if you
obey (2).
Courts routinely disfavor readings that introduce surplusage be it in contracts, laws, or elsewhere.
Another problem is that I'm not even sure how (3) is supposed to work. Do you get
unlimited time to email a protective order, or merely have to do it by the end of 15th day? Again, this is very important, because if it's the latter then this once again steps on the feet of (2), and even makes itself superfluous to the extent that if that was the interpretation, (2) would just say "15 days" instead to any extent that the PO is supposed to be treated as a response.
However, my reading provides no conflict. Proposed orders are almost never necessary (bar things like regarding agreements between two parties), and this seems merely an opportunity to file one, but not mandated. Indeed, if your interpretation would have been correct, Barlow would likely have mentioned in his order that the defense failed to object. I've glanced over his order, and there appears to be no such mention.
Further, reading that clause the same way as other deadlines in the same ruleset (for example, "A response to a [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), 12(c), or 23(c)] motion must be filed within 28 days after service of the motion." - DUCivR 7-1 (A) (4) ) reveals a similar "must" when in truth it is an exercise of a right. You have a right to file a response to 12(b) motion to dismiss within 28 days and if you fail to do that, you lose your right to file
that specific response without a leave from the court. There is nothing to suggest that failing to respond to Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss removes your right to file a response to a later Rule 12 (c) motion. That is to say, if Mr. Hardin was
obligated to file a proposed order, he would only have waived his section 3 right
to that proposed order not a right granted under section 2.
The caselaw I cited do not seem to conflict with this reading (though I will concede that it might not be the definitive answer)
To be even more pedantic, the rules don't even say the District Judge has to order a response if he's leaning towards sustaining; just that he has to give the non-moving party opportunity to respond, and Hardin had ample opportunity. Hardin's complaint that "the Court never called for the views of the Defendants" is almost Greer-esque in that regard ("You didn't remind me of blah blah"). He could've responded and didn't; he should've emailed the proposed order after 14 days and didn't.
But a proposed order
is not a response, and that is my issue with you treating it like one. It can be used
in addition to a response.
For fuck's almighty sake yes. I'm terrified of the fact that he's already done it a few times possibly being cited as some sort of precedent. Fucking fuck.
Greer can't be given more leeway if there is proof he knew and disregarded the deadline, but there is a high chance that he could be given a leway by this court if he could pretend to have forgotten about it. It doesn't end up helping Greer either way
