The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
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.
Defendant is also ordered to submit to this court by August 9, 2023, an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury (1) attesting to any illness she had in December 2022, the time period of the illness, what medical help she sought for the illness, when she sought that help, and what medical help she actually received for the illness; (2) a description of the illness, noting the severity of the symptoms and the routine activities that the illness prevented; and (3) a list the dates and destinations of her travels from December 7, 2022, to December 29, 2022.
Defendant may also submit by August 9, 2023, any papers she wishes the court to consider that corroborate the claims made in her motion. Those papers must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to their truth and accuracy.
It may well be, of course, that the defendant's assertions about her health were quite accurate; but the order is a reminder that, often, the judge is paying close attention to such assertions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This made no sense to me, as setting aside a default that was recently entered (before entry of default judgment) is virtually pro forma,¹ and normally anything even resembling an excuse is accepted. A defendant normally wouldn't need to supply anything beyond her own word — not a doctor's note, let alone a very explicit one. (Indeed, for that reason, normally the plaintiff just consents to vacating the default.) The response was due on 12/28, and she filed her motion to set aside the default on 1/11. So why?
But if you read the pleadings, you'll see why the plaintiff opposed her request, and why the judge is skeptical:
Yeah, that'll do it.
¹ At least round these parts, but I wouldn't think that federal courts would be that different anywhere.
That having been said, I still doubt it's good lawyering for the plaintiff's lawyer to oppose the request to vacate, unless he is very very certain it won't be granted. What they have accomplished by their opposition is to delay by at least eight months this case, which is fine for a defendant but sucks for a plaintiff.
And if the plaintiff did set aside the default, then what? The defendant just keeps on stalling? At some point, patience ceases to be a virtue.
Then the judge gets the case moving, and by now (depending on how busy the judge's calendar has been) discovery can be mostly over already.