The judge denied Brett Kimberlin's request to file a motion for sanctions against Twitchy and its counsel. The judge explained that allowing recursive motions for sanctions arising from earlier filed sanctions motions was not appropriate. While Kimberlin argued that Twitchy intended to present a false narrative, he did not allege that Twitchy's filings or the facts relied on were fabricated. The judge noted that Twitchy's existing motion for sanctions against Kimberlin was still pending, and Kimberlin had responded. Any improper conduct by Twitchy could be addressed after the substantive issues in the case were resolved.
The judge denied Brett Kimberlin's request to file a motion for sanctions against Twitchy and its counsel. The judge explained that allowing recursive motions for sanctions arising from earlier filed sanctions motions was not appropriate. While Kimberlin argued that Twitchy intended to present a false narrative, he did not allege that Twitchy's filings or the facts relied on were fabricated. The judge noted that Twitchy's existing motion for sanctions against Kimberlin was still pending, and Kimberlin had responded. Any improper conduct by Twitchy could be addressed after the substantive issues in the case were resolved.
The judge denied Brett Kimberlin's request to file a motion for sanctions against Twitchy and its counsel. The judge explained that allowing recursive motions for sanctions arising from earlier filed sanctions motions was not appropriate. While Kimberlin argued that Twitchy intended to present a false narrative, he did not allege that Twitchy's filings or the facts relied on were fabricated. The judge noted that Twitchy's existing motion for sanctions against Kimberlin was still pending, and Kimberlin had responded. Any improper conduct by Twitchy could be addressed after the substantive issues in the case were resolved.
The judge denied Brett Kimberlin's request to file a motion for sanctions against Twitchy and its counsel. The judge explained that allowing recursive motions for sanctions arising from earlier filed sanctions motions was not appropriate. While Kimberlin argued that Twitchy intended to present a false narrative, he did not allege that Twitchy's filings or the facts relied on were fabricated. The judge noted that Twitchy's existing motion for sanctions against Kimberlin was still pending, and Kimberlin had responded. Any improper conduct by Twitchy could be addressed after the substantive issues in the case were resolved.
CHAMBERS OF 6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE PAUL W. GRIMM GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (301) 344-0670 (301) 344-3910 FAX May 16, 2014 RE: Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club et al. PWG-13-3059
LETTER ORDER Dear Parties: This Letter Order addresses Plaintiff Brett Kimberlins request to file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 against Defendant Twitchy and its counsel (the Request), ECF No. 126. In essence, Kimberlin seeks to sanction Twitchy for statements made in support of Twitchys pending motion for sanctions against Kimberlin. It appears that Kimberlin contends that the Twitchys filings intended to present a false narrative to this Court, but he does not allege that the facts in Twitchys filings, or the state court transcript on which they purport to rely, were fabricated or false. See Request. Kimberlin also argues that Twitchy improperly provided copies of papers to other Defendants, who posted those materials on their blogs. Id. In my view, it is not appropriate at this time to allow the parties to file recursive motions for sanctions arising out of earlier filed motions for sanctions. Twitchys motion currently is pending before the Court, and Kimberlin has had the opportunity to respond to the claims therein. Should it become apparent that Twitchy has acted improperly in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there will be ample opportunity to explore that possibility after the substantive issues in this case are resolved on their merits. Until such time, Plaintiffs Request is DENIED without prejudice. Though informal, this is an Order of the Court and should be docketed as such. Sincerely,
/S/ Paul W. Grimm United States District J udge dsy Case 8:13-cv-03059-PWG Document 127 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 1