Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Reason
Reason
Eugene Volokh

The Judge Is Watching, and Sometimes He's Skeptical

I'd been following Ha v. Nguyen (E.D. Tex.) because it's a libel case, involving claims of false allegations of (among other things) "being a 'Communist'"; but here's an order from yesterday that's about broader matters, by Judge J. Campbell Barker:

On December 6, 2022, plaintiffs sued defendant for defamation. Defendant did not answer the complaint by the deadline established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). After the answer deadline passed, plaintiffs asked the clerk of court to enter defendant's default; the clerk did so shortly thereafter. Defendant now moves to set aside that entry of default.

Defendant alleges that there is good cause to set aside default. Defendant reports that she was unable to retain counsel and answer the complaint because, among other reasons, she was ill. To support that claim, she furnished to the court a doctor's note attesting to a serious COVID-related illness. That note, dated January 26, 2023—many weeks after defendant's deadline to respond to the complaint—speaks of defendant's being "very ill over this time period." But the note doesn't indicate any period.

Defendant is ordered to furnish to the court by August 9, 2023, a revised note signed by Kelsie Court, MD, identifying the period in which she was under Dr. Court's treatment for her COVID-19 related illness. At minimum, the note should state the exact date that treatment began and the date it ended. Defendant must furnish to Dr. Court this court order before the note is prepared.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.