U.S. District Judge Michael Brown for Northern Georgia in Atlanta erred in failing to provide any reasoning for his denial of plaintiff-appellant Mark Walters’ motion for court costs and attorneys’ fees when he remanded his defamation case against OpenAI to state court, said Walters’ opening brief Friday (docket 23-13843) in his 11th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court appeal of the judge’s denial (see 2311170027). Walters has said he incurred “significantly increased costs” as a result of OpenAI’s questionable removal of his case to federal court. A nationally syndicated talk show host, Walters alleges OpenAI’s ChatGPT service defamed him to a reporter (see 2307240031). The facts of the case “are not germane to the appeal, because the appeal is not based on a decision on the merits,” said Walters’ opening brief. The standard of review for denial of costs and fees “is abuse of discretion,” it said. The district court failed to provide an explanation or analysis with its denial of costs and fees, which leaves the 11th Circuit “with no means of reviewing whether the district court abused its discretion,” it said. The 11th Circuit “has no alternative but to vacate the denial of costs and fees and remand to the district court to enter a new order granting or denying the motion for costs and fees, with an explanation of such decision,” it said. When a district court fails to provide an explanation for a denial of a motion for fees, it’s impossible for a reviewing court “to discern the correctness of the district court’s judgment and the case must be remanded for an explanation,” it said. OpenAI might argue in response that the 11th Circuit “is as qualified as the district court to rule on the merits of the motion for costs and fees,” it said. But the 11th Circuit “has rejected such suggestions,” it said, citing the 2007 decision in Danley v. Allen.

Arkansas believes that discovery will show the methods NetChoice claims its members use to protect children from social media harms are “ineffective,” said Attorney General Tim Griffin’s (R) supplemental brief Friday (docket 5:23-cv-05105). The filing at the U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville came in support of Griffin's Nov. 30 motion to deny NetChoice’s Nov. 28 motion for summary judgment against SB-396, the state’s age-verification Social Media Safety Act, or at least delay consideration until discovery is complete (see 2312010039). Discovery also will show that NetChoice’s members “know their policies are ineffective, and that the only effective way to combat child exploitation is to require that platforms presenting the greatest risk age verify,” said Griffin’s brief. Once the state can demonstrate through discovery that SB-396's age verification regime “is the only effective way to combat child exploitation,” the state can then demonstrate that SB-396 “is narrowly tailored,” it said. In its Aug. 31 order granting NetChoice’s request for a preliminary injunction to block Griffin’s enforcement of SB-396 (see 2309010024), the court “relied in part on NetChoice’s assertions that it its members took steps on their own platforms to protect minors through parental tools and filters,” said Griffin’s brief. The court held that the presence of such tools and filters meant that SB-396 was overly broad and not narrowly tailored to meet the government’s interest in protecting minors, it said. NetChoice makes many of those factual assertions in its statement of undisputed facts (SUF) that it then uses to make its case as to why SB-396 is unconstitutional, “specifically why it is not narrowly tailored,” it said. The state contests many of those factual assertions “and requires discovery in order to properly respond to them,” it said. The state “has specific issues” with the factual statements made in NetChoice’s SUF, “and the declarations that are cited within,” it said. The state has cited “numerous outside sources throughout this case, both through experts and the public domain, that NetChoice’s assertions are not true,” it said. Therefore, the state needs the discovery process “to probe these disputed factual assertions by NetChoice,” demonstrating that SB-396 is narrowly tailored, it said.

Texas-based Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, as subrogee of AT&T Services, sued Whitehorse Freight for damage to a computer server it transported in early May from Mesa, Arizona, to an AT&T facility in Allen, Texas, alleged Indemnity's complaint Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-04585) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. Under a carriage agreement, Whitehorse agreed to safely carry and deliver the server to the location in Allen, but its “negligence” resulted in damage to the server when it was being removed from the truck, said the complaint. The server wasn’t delivered to the destination in the “same good order and condition as received,” making Whitehorse “liable as an interstate carrier for monetary damages related to their dropping the Computer Server during discharge,” it said. AT&T filed a timely claim for damages, but the claims haven’t been paid, the complaint said. The monetary loss incurred to AT&T due to the damaged server is $288,560.27. The plaintiff seeks the amount of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and legal costs, it said.

Amazon wants U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York in Manhattan to deny the Nov. 20 motion of its former third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co. for reconsideration of her Nov. 7 denial of its petition to vacate an arbitrator’s award in Amazon’s favor (see 2311210023), said Amazon’s memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in opposition. Zongheng sought recovery of $508,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized, and the arbitrator let Amazon keep, when it deactivated the seller’s online store for allegedly manipulating customer product reviews. New evidence that came to Zongheng's attention in early November showing arbitrator Carol Heckman's “evident partiality and misconduct” warrants vacatur of the arbitration award and the remand of the case to the American Arbitration Association “for arbitration proceedings before an impartial decision maker,” said Zongheng's motion for reconsideration. But Zongheng uses its motion “to develop an argument” that Heckman, a retired U.S. magistrate judge, was biased in favor of Amazon, an argument it alleged in its petition commencing its action but omitted from its motion to vacate, said Amazon’s memorandum. Zongheng’s so-called “newly discovered” evidence of arbitrator wrongdoing “consists of publicly available district court filings from a case that concluded in 2022, long before Zongheng initiated this action” to vacate the Jan. 23 arbitration award, it said. Zongheng fails to meet the standard for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(2) because the public court filings it cites could have been found by due diligence before it filed its motion to vacate and thus isn’t “truly newly discovered,” said Amazon. Even if the court were to consider the evidence, Zongheng can’t demonstrate that Heckman’s conduct was improper, “let alone establish any basis to vacate” the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, it said. Zongheng contends its newly discovered evidence shows that Heckman had ruled in Amazon’s favor “in a separate, completely unrelated arbitration proceeding,” it said. “In Zongheng’s world, a judge would have to recuse herself from every new case involving a party that had been before the same Court in the past, since that would evidently constitute partiality,” said Amazon. Because Zongheng already had “a full and fair opportunity to litigate this case,” and because it points to no evidence that couldn’t previously have been presented sufficient to require the court to reconsider its “well-reasoned decision,” its motion for reconsideration should be denied, it said.

Sinclair wants the courts to compel MLB to provide evidence connected with the $1.5 billion fraud claims brought against it by Diamond Sports Group in the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court (docket 23-90116), according to a filing Tuesday (docket 1:23-mc-00468) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has testified that Sinclair Chairman David Smith “allegedly admitted to a plan to ‘milk’ Diamond"of assets, said the filing. “The veracity of Manfred’s testimony” is “a central point of dispute in this case,” Sinclair said in Tuesday’s filing. Sinclair is also seeking documents from MLB and several baseball teams “that bear directly on the question of Diamond’s solvency,” the filing said. “MLB should be compelled to respond to the subpoenas in full,” the filing said. Sinclair wants the New York court to transfer the case to the Texas bankruptcy proceeding. “Sinclair filed this motion in the Southern District of New York because that is the compliance court for purposes of the subpoena Sinclair served on MLB, calling for production in this District,” the filing said. The court should rule quickly because discovery in the fraud case is cut off after Jan. 26, the filing said. “If this motion to compel is not decided on an expedited timeline, there is a material risk it would not be decided in time for Sinclair to make use of any additional materials the Court compels MLB to produce.”

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss for the District of Columbia ordered the parties to appear for a scheduling conference Friday at 10 a.m. on Meta’s motion for an injunction blocking the FTC from modifying the agency's 2020 privacy consent order with new restrictions on Meta’s business activities (see 2311300039), said the judge’s minute order Monday (docket 1:23-cv-03562). In addition, Moss ordered the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order by Thursday. Meta’s Nov. 29 complaint asked the court to declare that “fundamental aspects” of the FTC’s structure violate the Constitution, and that those violations “render unlawful” the FTC’s proceeding against Meta.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for Southern New York in Manhattan rescheduled to April 15 from Jan. 29 the start of the five-day jury trial in the damages phase of the case against defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the robocall campaign designed to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the run-up to the 2020 election, according to a minute entry Friday (docket 1:20-cv-08668). Rakoff was reassigned to the case Nov. 28 (see 2311290024). Judge Victor Marrero granted summary judgment against Wohl and Burkman in a March 8 order (see 2303090003).

Plaintiff Greg Bostard, the former Comcast utility pole worker who’s suing Verizon for his years of exposure to Verizon's lead-sheathed telecom cables, proposes jointly with Verizon a Jan. 12 deadline for Bostard to file his first amended complaint, said their stipulation Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-08564) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. Jan. 12 is Bostard’s current deadline for filing his opposition to Verizon’s Nov. 13 motion to dismiss (see 2311140006). The parties propose a March 12 deadline for Verizon to file any motion to dismiss Bostard’s amended complaint, said the stipulation. Bostard’s response in opposition to the motion to dismiss would be due May 13, and Verizon’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss would be due June 4, it said. Bostard’s class action seeks Verizon's funding of his medical monitoring “to permit early detection of future lead-related conditions,” and “abatement” to remove and properly dispose of the lead-sheathed cables from the utility poles. The New Jersey resident says he scaled utility poles for Comcast for 29 years. All the while, he alleges, he was in direct and regular contact with Verizon’s lead-sheathed cables and ingested and inhaled lead from them. Verizon’s motion to dismiss asserts that despite Bostard’s “lengthy career,” he doesn’t allege that lead “has ever been detected in his body or that he has ever suffered any lead-related harm.” Bostard’s complaint also can’t account for why he waited decades “to file suit over a well-known occupational circumstance for which he was entitled to safety training from Comcast,” said Verizon.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court assigned case number 23-2241 to plaintiff Hanan Elatr Khashoggi’s appeal of the district court’s Oct. 26 dismissal of her complaint against NSO Group Technologies and Q Cyber Technologies for lack of personal jurisdiction (see 2311220024), said a docket notice Thursday. Khashoggi’s seven-count complaint alleged NSO and Q Cyber infiltrated her phones with spyware that the Saudi and United Arab Emirates governments used to track the movements of her husband, Saudi journalist and human rights activist Jamal Khashoggi, before his October 2018 murder at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta for Eastern California in Sacramento granted the stipulation of the Republican National Committee and Google setting a Jan. 9 deadline for the RNC to file its opposition to Google’s Nov. 16 motion to dismiss the RNC’s first amended complaint (see 2311200061), said the judge’s signed order Monday (docket 2:22-cv-01904). Google’s reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss is due Feb. 8, said the order. Jan. 18 oral argument on the motion is vacated and reset for March 14 at 1:30 p.m. PDT, it said. The RNC alleges that many of its emails to Gmail users were sent to the users’ spam folders to discriminate against the RNC based on its political affiliations and views. Google’s motion to dismiss asserts that the RNC’s claims are based “on nothing but speculation and unreasonable inferences.”