Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

This list excludes the defense's Request to Submit for Decision (ECF No. 409) and suggestion (not motion) that the Court to issue an injunction against parallel state court litigation (ECF No. 421) such as Greer's ex parte application for a restraining order against Hardin in the Nevada Justice Court.

My working theory is that the judges correctly see that Greer and Null are highly litigous. (Greer is also vexatious but that's another matter.) Knowing that, to the extent the judges even think about this case, I suspect they want to dispose of it with (i) minimal effort and (ii) in a way that it won't come back after another 10th Circuit appeal. While I would like them to simply dismiss on the many other grounds availible, the Court may require either a settlement or a dispositive trial. Therefore, I tend to think the Court will approve of motions that add financial pressure for the parties to settle, and deny motions that provide offramps from the death march to trial (a/k/a Null's trail of tears).

So, my guess is that the Court will deny or ignore Greer's many meritless motions. Maybe the Court grants ECF No. 346, despite its untimeliness, since dismissal is a potential sanction for Greer's discovery noncompliance. Even if the lawsuit is dismissed on those grounds, contra my working theory, I think the Court will want to cut off that potential argument in Russell's appeal.

Similarly, I think the Court will deny Hardin's motion to revoke Greer's ECF access. Under my theory, ECF access runs up Null's costs at the cost of minimal busywork for the clerks. As long as the Court can ignore Greer's meritless motions, I think they'll continue to allow access. This is one motion I would most like to see granted. Maybe the Court will think revoking access will pressure Greer to settle? But that just re-opens the issue of Greer's home address.

I'm not sure about the defense's other motions. On my theory, the Court will deny or ignore anything related to the allegation of IFP appllication fraud. They might deny or ignore the motion for sanctions from the improperly issued subpoenna, ECF No. 330, since the subpoenna was never served and denial will avoid infinity motions for reconsideration. Although, again, maybe they grant so as to drive up costs for both sides. The motion to complete the record, ECF No. 417, is hilarious and another one I'd most like to see granted. However, I'm not sure the Court wants to open the (novel?) legal issue of introducing the entire work subject to the instant copyright dispute into the public record via pacer and courtlistener.

Obviously, I would like the Court to dismiss with prejudice on every ground availible; award all possible sanctions, costs, and fees to Null; declare Russell a vexatious litigant in all federal courts; garnish his wages; and put him in prison until he provides the Nevada TRO application. I'm not holding my breath.

TL;DR there are 22 open motions (13 plaintiff and 9 defense) and over 200 filings this year. Current issues include the defense's motion to dismiss, motion to see Greer's sealed IFP application, motion for a preservation order; plaintiff's motions for a protective order; various motions for extension of time, various motions to strike (incl. striking witness disclosures), and various motions for sanctions (including disqualification of Hardin).​