To view the Filings:
R&R auctions just keep filing the same motion over and over, hoping for a better outcome in the same courtroom.
Prior to ALL of this, R&R had the chance to have a protective order, they declined, didn't feel it was necessary. 15 months after the video depositions are posted on Mr. Johnson's legal websites, all of a sudden R&R has issues, and start to file for protective orders. They are told, over and over, NO, you can't get one, and that it's Mr. Johnson's Constitutional right to have them on his websites.
This does not seem to stick with them, so they just keep filing saying give us a protective order.
in part: Even if the court were to consider the renewed motion, the court would reach the same result as before. As discussed at length in ruling on the prior motion, the First Amendment protects even allegedly defamatory material from prior restraint. The injury asserted by R&R is reputational and within the same nature and character of injury claimed in defamation cases in which prior restraint is precluded. The video depositions which had been posted for over a year before the original motion was brought are protected by the First Amendment and the court will not issue a prior restraint order as to those videos.
As to upcoming video depositions, the court has previously determined that First Amendment considerations do not heighten the ordinary burden of proof with respect to protective orders. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) After determining that R&R had not met its burden to restrict dissemination or use of all upcoming depositions, the court specifically stated that this disposition was without prejudice to further motions specific to particular depositions. The court left open the opportunity R&R (or a deponent) to make a fact specific showing as to a particular deposition. Consistent with this understanding, the court granted protective order motions as to Grad and Orlando. R&R’s motion here repeats its generic argument that Johnson misused the earlier videos. The court would still deny R&R’s generic motion without prejudice to motions specific to particular depositions, for which a full meet-and-confer process would be required and for which sanctions would be available against an unsuccessful moving or responding party.
For the alternative reasons stated above, the court will deny R&R’s renewed motion.
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
Now R&R is really upset that Michael Johnson has added Shill bidding to part of his lawsuit. This will be heard on August 12, 2016.
How can R&R have a leg to stand on, when they destroyed all of their shill bidding records when the Fed's closed in on Mastro's??? If you destroyed your own records, then you give up the right to answer questions on the matter. You destroyed evidence!
You have a signed document from Karen Burris that says John Reznikoff was a serial Shill bidder in the auctions, we all know from the list that was shown in the Mastro's case that Mr. Reznifoff was a big shiller in those auctions, so how do we not know if Johnson was not shilled in his R&R auctions?
Eaton destroyed records, so good luck trying to talk your way out of that one.
THEN you have this matter of a sealed protective order with Steve Grad and Joe Orlando of PSA/DNA, and somehow Roger Epperson, R&R's music authenticator, files sections of the transcript. Just how did that happen? You had to really fight, like 3 or 4 times into court to get it so those videos didn't get posted, and like fools you just hand it to Roger, who like the village idiot, throws you guys right under the bus, files parts of it, in his case against Johnson, thinking it will help him, when all it does is prove that you all share information and that Steve Grad did SIGN the paper, which Roger denied for 5 years, and proves that a sealed court document in California in that case means nothing. How do you think the Judge is going to rule going forward when she see's how you treated her ruling?
MOTION DENIED, SANCTIONS IMPOSED, SHILL BIDDING to be heard next week...