A good Labor Day Picnic, Ethon was saying, requires some well done barbecued liver. Indeed, and thus Rick Piltz brings word of the soon to retire Judge Natalia Combes Green cooking up some slivers of National Review On Line in denying their motion to reconsider (links to all the original documents at RR). Michael Mann is free to proceed. Climate Science Watch summarizes the carnage but misses the flaying of lawyers.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Mark Steyn and National Review, Inc.'s (the "NR Defendants") Motion for Reconsideration of July 19 2013 Order (the "Motion) and the Opposition there to. Upon consideration, the Motion is denied1The NR Defendants might wish to consider hiring a bunch of lawyers who actually practice in DC Superior Court. Judge Green goes on to offer a helping hand in a footnote.
"A motion for reconsideration, by that designation, is unknown to the Superior Court's Civil Rules. The term has been used loosely to describe two different kinds of motions . . . brought pursuant to" Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b).
1. The memorandum of points and authorities includes argument in support of the NR Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration as well as the Special Motion to DisPmiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to the District of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP Act and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to DC Super. Ct. R. 12(b)(6). The Court is unsure whether the NR Defendants intended to combine three motions. Nonetheless the Civil Rules do not permit parties to combine different motions. Accordingly, this Order only addresses the Motion for Reconsideration, specifically the NR Defendants' arguments that relate to material mistakes of fact and that the Court's did not specifically address Plaintiff's claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The case has (now) been transferred to Judge Weisberg presiding in Civil I. Thu the Court will forward to Judge Weisberg the entire Motion for his consideration of the part of the Motion that address the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP Act. The parties may want to consider refilling that motion separately on Judge Weisberg's calendar. The Court will provide Judge Weisberg with all of the exhibits previously provided to this Court.Eli speculates that the NR lawyers are a branch of the solicitors office that Lord Monckton consults