Rakofsky Update (A court order and a settlement) – Updated x5
This is an update on the Joseph Rakofsky defamation case in which I was sued along with many, many others, and for which I am now local counsel for 35 of the defendants (with Marc Randazza as pro hac vice defense).
Two bits of information today. First is an order from the court regarding a proposed Order to Show Cause for some type of relief. This was apparently brought by Mr. Rakofsky. This was not our submission, nor that of any other defendant that I know of. I have not seen the underlying papers, as such proposed orders are brought to the court without notice to adversaries. Copy here: Rakfosky Order-1.3.12 – OTSC. The order reads:
Decline to sign
Papers are incomprehensible
In the other bit of news, criminal defense lawyer Lori Palmieri of Florida has apparently settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms last July. Copy is here: Rakofsky-Palmieri-Settlement. Her original post on Mr. Rakofsky, for which she was sued, is gone, and her apology to Mr. Rakofsky is here.
Update, 1/12/12 – The papers that Justice Goodman deemed “incomprehensible” have now been procured, requesting a smorgasbord of relief: RakofskyOrderToShowCause. On a fast read, the following appears to be new:
The following have settled: Martha Sperry and Martha Sperry Daily, Advantage Advocates, Heslep & Associates.
Mr. Rakofsky seeks to add new defendants. One of them is Google, which he wants to add as a defendant because “because it has refused to preserve certain information in the absence of a formal Court order…” (pp. 8-9). Previously he had sought to add Yahoo! and Techdirt, among others, and they are in this request also. The prior attempt was rejected because a stay was in place.
Update #2, 1/13/12 - Mr. Rakofsky has moved in the Appellate Division for a partial lifting of the stay: Rakofsky AppDiv Motion
Update #4, 1/31/12 – Rakofsky’s Reply to other defense opposition to the motion in the Appellate Division to lift the stay for him only. No response to our papers (which were served 1/26/12, one day before they were due to be served): RakofskyReply. The opposing papers to which he refers are here: Teschner (Yampolsky) Opp and Weissman (Reuters) Opp
Update #5, 2/24/12: The emergency application to the Appellate Division has been denied.