"The Clerk alerted the filers of four of the last filings they had fucked up. Richman's attorneys - lawyers from NY who filed docket # 9 and 15 - had filed a document signed by the people who posted it under someone else's PACER login. The Clerk reminded Richman's lawyers the person who actually signs into PACER to file something must have signed the document."
"The other error was potentially more serious. DOJ's two filings, 12 and 13, which were DOJ's identical bid to lift the restraining order on accessing Richman's data and opposing Richman's motion for a TRO, noticed a different error. Best as I can explain it, the guy who filed this stuff, John Bailey, is not on the filings at all. Not scintillating, perhaps."
"It turns out DOJ's failure to file anything on the docket was just another problem with the docket. After both DOJ and Richman filed their filings yesterday ( which I wrote about here) and after neither responded to Judge KK's order that if they want to discuss these files, they may need to do a filter protocol, Judge KK weighed in again."
Multiple procedural errors occurred in the Dan Richman docket during mid-day filings. The Clerk alerted filers that several recent submissions were improperly executed. Richman's New York attorneys filed a document under another person's PACER login, prompting a Clerk reminder that the individual who signs into PACER must be the signatory. DOJ's filings numbered 12 and 13 contained a separate flaw: the individual who purportedly filed them, John Bailey, did not appear on the filings. An earlier order required the Attorney General or designee to certify compliance by December 8, 2025, but DOJ initially failed to file that certification. After filings by both parties, neither responded to an order about using a filter protocol, prompting additional judicial intervention.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]