Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Glenn Hagele Receives Warning from Court to Halt Abusive Practices

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com

unread,
Oct 20, 2009, 10:39:48 AM10/20/09
to
06AS00839
GLENN HAGELE VS. BRENT HANSON
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order
Filed By: Myers, Michael E.

Defendant Brent Hanson�s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.

Defendant�s Request for Imposition of Sanctions is DENIED.

Hanson moves for a protective order that he is not required to respond
to plaintiffs Requests for Admissions, Sets. 5 and 6, on the grounds
that the number of requests are not warranted, are an undue burden and
expense, and are harassing. This action alleges one cause of action for
defamation and a 2nd for invasion of privacy, based on the publication
of one letter written by ACE Recovery relating to an unpaid debt of
$2,800 on the internet. The alleged invasion of privacy related to the
publication of plaintiff�s private information on the internet. Self
represented plaintiff�s first four sets of Requests for Admission
totaled 987 requests, to which defendant provided verified responses.

Plaintiff has now served two more sets of requests totaling an
additional 1,457 requests. The requests each seek to determine the truth
of facts, not to confirm the genuineness of documents. The Court finds
accusatory language and personal attacks contained in motion and
opposition papers to be distracting, distasteful and disrespectful. The
Court requests that all parties and counsel refrain from such in any
future filings.

Although in Jan. 2008, this Court denied a prior motion for a protective
order, the Court now finds that an additional 1,457 requests for
admission is excessive and unduly burdensome. The Court finds that the
motion was timely filed. C.C.P., sec. 2016.060.

The request for protective order is granted. Moving parties need not
respond to either the 5th or 6th sets of requests for admission.

The request for imposition of sanctions is denied, as in reliance on the
court�s prior denial of a protective order plaintiff in pro per may have
felt substantially justified in opposing. Plaintiff is now on notice
that in the future, abusive discovery requests will be sanctioned.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further
notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice.

______________________________________________________________________

For more information about Glenn Hagele, visit the following web sites:

www.lasikpimp.com
www.usaeyes-fraud.com
www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa
www.jackholladay.com
www.theglennhagelereport.com

0 new messages