Aaron J. Walker, Esq. [redacted] Manassas, Virginia 20109 [redacted] [redacted] Tuesday, June 24, 2014 Honorable Judge George J. Hazel 6500 Cherrywood Lane Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Re: Brett Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. GJH-13-3059; Response to ECF 128 and 129
Dear Judge Hazel,
In response to the Plaintiff’s two letters filed as ECF 128 and 129, I respectfully ask this court to strike
and return to the Plaintiff the two letters, and alternatively, I respond to them on the merits in opposition. Under the Case Management Order of March 4, 2014 (ECF No. 97) and the Letter Order of February 21, 2014 (ECF No. 88), there is a specific procedure parties in this case are supposed to follow if they wish to file a motion. The Plaintiff has disregarded these orders in the past, and has chosen to do so again.
See, e.g. Order of March 5, 2014 (ECF No. 99) (noting that the “Plaintiff’s filing of a motion to disqualify counsel… has been stricken and returned as
improperly filed under my Letter Order of
February 21, 2014, ECF No. 88”).
Here, the Plaintiff has made the same exact error that he made previously: rather than asking permission to make filings, he simply made the filings. The Case Management Order (E
CF No. 97) provides “that
no other motion [besides an answer or a motion to dismiss] may be filed in this case without advance
permission of the Court.”
Page 2, § I.A.2. In this case, rather than styling it as a motion, the Plaintiff styled his breaches of procedure as letters, but in actuality they 1) moved (without permission) for additional time to serve defendants that over eight months into this case, he
hasn’t served (ECF No.
128), and 2) attempted to supplement (without permission) his variou
s oppositions to Defendants’
motions to dismiss with a brand new case (ECF No. 129). Turning briefly to the merits of each, in reference to the request for sixty days additional time, I hereby register my opposition to such an unwarranted delay. While I do not wish to rush this court into a decision on my pending motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) or my opposition to the motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 115),
this case should not be delayed any longer due the Plaintiff’s lack of diligence.
With respect to
the Plaintiff’s attempt to supplement his pleadings with a new citation,
United States v. Osinger
, No. 11-50338 (9
Cir. 2014), this case is inapposite. Osinger was convicted in essence of