Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 109: Jason Goodman’s Motion for Protective Order

On May 7, 2019, Document 109 was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division in the Robert David Steele, et. al. vs. Jason Goodman, et. al. lawsuit.

Document 109  (29 pages)  Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay Discovery  rds doc 109 5 7 2019



2 thoughts on “Robert David Steele vs. Jason Goodman Document 109: Jason Goodman’s Motion for Protective Order

  1. Ironically, to wantonly accuse the plaintiff of bad faith, when all the evidence presented suggests otherwise, could be taken as prima facie evidence that the defendant is the party acting in bad faith. But that wouldn’t be the only example of how this defendant regularly projects his own failings onto the opposing party, it is one of his most consistent practices.

    There is no evidence presented by Mr. Goodman that Mr. Biss did not use his preferred “” address when he (separately) sent the three defendants notification of the planned conference call at 10:00 am on May 3 in his April 19 email message. Mr. Goodman claims he did not receive this message, but his only evidence is the email message from Mr. Wills, which I presume he received from Mr. Wills upon his request. It is perfectly understandable that Mr. Wills would receive the message addressed to him (only) at his email address, and it’s perfectly understandable that Mr. Goodman would receive his own message, addressed to him (only) at his preferred email address.

    The fact that Mr. Goodman had his Protonmail address CC’ed (copied) on all correspondence from Mr. Biss is of no importance if Mr. Biss addressed each defendant (or their attorney) with a separate email message, which given the other messages produced by Mr. Goodman, is highly likely. So the idea that Mr. Goodman never received notification of the conference call is not likely, but that could easily be confirmed by Mr. Biss.

    I do not know what Mr. Biss’ practice is, but given this is legal correspondence, it would not surprise me that a “read receipt” was attached to the email messages he sent, thus he would be able to confirm whether the recipient had received and opened the message. If such was done, Mr. Goodman’s claim can easily be disproven if the message was sent, received, and opened.

    Finally, I think it is more than obvious that this is primarily another delaying tactic by Mr. Goodman. I think it is highly disingenuous of him to claim that Mr. Biss could have been much more prompt with his request for a conference, then request from the judge a (indefinite) stay from responding to the request. This only confirms his own bad faith, but given his past actions, it’s what we’ve come to expect.

    • Following up on my original commentary, I would make the following observations:

      1. If the “Protonmail” address for Mr. Goodman was no longer used by him, why didn’t he immediately state that was the case when he was first contacted by Mr. Biss? Furthermore, why would he perpetuate the idea that it was still active by not deleting that address from the CC: line of email messages he sent in response to Mr. Biss? It is Mr. Goodman’s responsibility to notify Mr, Biss how he wishes to be contacted, it is not Mr. Biss’ responsibility and certainly not evidence of bad faith on Mr. Biss’ part.

      2. I find the correspondence shown in Exhibit E to be rather interesting. First, I see nothing to indicate any correspondence between Mr. Wills and Mr. Goodman on May 6. If Mr. Goodman claims it did occur then, where is the evidence confirming that date? He includes an email message addressed to Mr. Wills (only) on April 19 at 1:06 pm but nothing to show it was forwarded to Mr. Goodman on May 6.

      3. Also in Exhibit E, I find it interesting that the email message from Mr. Biss on April 19 at 10:27 am is addressed to Mr. Goodman, yet the message itself is directed to Terry Frank and Johan Conrad. I see no other example where Mr. Biss does not address the primary party he is communicating with in the “To:” category. But this may in fact be the case, given that the same message is shown in Exhibit B, but with a time stamp of 10:26 am, i.e. one minute earlier.

      Regardless, there is no doubt that Mr. Goodman was aware of the conference being scheduled for May 2 or May 3 since he was addressed as the primary email recipient in both versions of that message from Mr. Biss. Mr. Goodman had ample time to confirm the time of the call, anytime before May 2, presuming he was committed to being part of that conference call. The fact he claims no one confirmed it for him is rather weak on his part, especially if he knew his schedule had changed and he would no longer be available any day after May 1. In such case, it would be his responsibility to notify Mr. Biss of any change.

      Bottom line, I see nothing here that demonstrates any bad faith by Mr. Biss. If Mr. Goodman did any research to determine what a 26f conference is about, he would realize that it is a preliminary step to agreeing on how various information will be provided. Generally, it does “start the clock” on how the discovery process will be conducted, but given Mr. Goodman’s complaint about the extensive delay after Ms. Lutzke’s default, he’s really in no position to object to beginning that process now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.