A series of back-and-forth motions filed on Friday have added a certain amount of intrigue to a long-running litigation between former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and Hunter Biden. However, the hostility in
Because of the way the motions procedure happened, the specifics of the most recent legal argument must be kept under wraps.
Together with 26 exhibits, the presidential son’s attorneys filed an ex parte request under seal for an order granting sanctions against the defendant and/or an adverse inference instruction.
In an objection motion, the businessman’s lawyer swiftly retaliated against the request and the plaintiff’s strategy.
By submitting a motion ex parte, a litigant can swiftly bring a request or piece of information before a court without informing the other party or giving them the chance to object to what is being asked of them or shown to them.
To put it another way, ex-parte requests are usually seen as hostile.
By and through his counsel of record, defendant Patrick Byrne hereby opposes and objects to the plaintiff’s ex parte application. The defendant’s answer, which was initially filed under seal, also reads as follows. The plaintiff’s Ex Parte application lacks both legal and factual support.
The docket indicates that the motion refers to a stipulated protection order that was agreed upon by both parties in August as well as a denied request for an additional protective order that was filed by the defendant in early November, even though Biden’s team submitted the sanctions request under seal.
Although the court hearing’s minutes, which detail the discussion and decision-making process, are mostly redacted, the denied motion concerned travel linked to the deposition. However, it is evident from the record that Byrne sought to restrict his travel and requested the court’s approval for that endeavor.
Biden’s team now seems irritated with anything pertaining to the ripple effects of the denial of the deposition-travel request and/or the granted protective order. Therefore, they are requesting penalties and that the court draw a negative conclusion that Byrne may be subject to at trial.
Even though this request is still unclear, it almost seems to indicate that Biden thinks Byrne or his lawyer have broken a local court rule, an order, or something similar.
Byrne’s side dismisses the most recent argument as a case of brinkmanship, which is against the court’s rules.
According to the opposition motion, the plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is a violation of the court’s Civility and Professional Rule A4 because it is being used as a bad faith litigation tactic to harass the defendant and his counsel and to interfere with their efforts to meet the deadlines for the court’s pretrial order.
The document goes on to list a number of other regulations and directives that the ex parte request is said to have broken, and it claims that Biden’s actions amount to unjustified and unprofessional animosity toward the defendant.
Byrne’s motion continues: “The plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is also without merit because there is no emergency and the court cannot grant it without causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff.”
More coverage of law and crime: Hunter Biden is essentially calling him a right-wing nutjob, according to the former CEO of Overstock, in order to maintain the viability of his defamation action with an Iran theme.
Byrne’s lawyer filed a declaration earlier this week, alleging that Biden’s legal team provided the defense with around 543 pages of papers that were not previously made public, were not included in a list of proposed trial evidence, and were, according to deadlines, beyond the discovery cutoff.
In response, Biden’s lawyers stated Byrne’s lawyer was mistaken and protested excessively about the materials.
Biden alleges in the underlying action that Byrne defamed him twice, in an interview in June 2023 and again in October 2023.
Biden says Byrne made false claims that he and his family solicited bribes from the Islamic Republic of Iran in exchange for the Biden administration releasing billions of frozen Iranian funds and for adopting a pro-Iranian position during nuclear talks.
The matter is scheduled to go to trial on December 10.
Do you have a tip we ought to know?[email protected]
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!