The Plaintiff requested a stay pending resolution of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
--Download Plaintiff's Request for a Stay.
--Download Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Request for a Stay.
The District Court extended deadlines but did not grant an indefinite stay.
[ view entry ] ( 25 views )
On November 19, the National Air Traffic Controllers' Association removed Gilding v. Carr et al. to federal district court. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court on November 24.
--Download Plaintiff's Request to Remand.
--Download Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Remand.
This motion is awaiting a ruling from the Arizona District Court.
[ view entry ] ( 49 views )
On November 10, the Court conducted a teleconference to determine whether a Discovery Master should be appointed to arbitrate the discovery process. Plaintiff John Gilding agreed that a Master would be beneficial, but counsel for the defendants (Marks, Carr, Palmer, Johnston and NATCA PHX) objected.
The Court ordered that a Master be appointed and that the parties attempt to reach an agreement on an individual to arbitrate the discovery issues.
--Download 11/10/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 16 views )
On November 7, Paul Cox printed a retraction on his website, The FAA Follies. The retraction reads:
From May 2007 to August 2008, The Follies published several articles about an FAA manager in Phoenix named John Gilding and a former FAA controller named Linda Petersen. No one from the Follies has ever met or interviewed Mr. Gilding, nor did the writers of the Follies blog have any firsthand knowledge of the events and acts that have been attributed to Mr. Gilding regarding Ms. Petersen.
Mr. Gilding has informed The Follies that some of the statements published in these articles are untrue, and that some of the statements made in the comments section by Follies readers are similarly untrue. Mr. Gilding has also informed us that he had little or no interaction with Ms. Petersen for a period of over three years prior to her unfortunate death.
Evidence has recently been provided to the Follies that illustrates that Ms. Petersen had an altercation with her boyfriend the night before her suicide. During this altercation she was chraged with criminal damage by the police department. Evidence has also been provided that Ms. Petersen had a prior history of such behavior, including threatening and attempting suicide due to relationship issues, while residing in Colorado. This prior behavior occurred many years before her transfer to the Phoenix Tower.
We wish to express our sincere apologies to Mr. Gilding for publishing unconfirmed and partial information pertaining to the Linda Petersen matter.
Accordingly, we specifically retract any and all statements published on The Follies that could be read to suggest that Mr. Gilding caused Ms. Petersen’s suicide. Moreover, we have deleted every article published to date on The Follies that mentions Mr. Gilding.
[ view entry ] ( 40 views )
On November 5, Plaintiff John Gilding asked the Court to issue a subpoena to Wikipedia and various internet service providers in order to obtain the identities of various anonymous Wikipedia users.
--Download Motion for a Judge Issued Subpoena Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551.
On November 10, the Court ordered that an arbitrator be appointed to resolve this and other discovery disputes.
--Download 11/10/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 24 views )
On September 30, Plaintiff John Gilding filed two Motions to Compel. These motions are directed toward securing electronic data from Defendant Carr's computers, compelling Defendant Carr's responses to Non-Uniform Interrogatories, and compelling Defendant Carr to produce certain documents. Mr. Gilding filed his replies in support of the Motions to Compel on October 31.
--Download Motion to Compel Discovery.
--Download the Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel Discovery.
--Download Motion to Compel Production of Computer Data.
--Download the Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel Production of Computer Data.
On November 10, the Court ordered that an arbitrator be appointed to resolve this and other discovery disputes.
--Download 11/10/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 13 views )
On October 22, Defendant John Carr filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ"). In it, he alleges that he is entitled to summary judgment because (1) the blogs are true, and (2) the blogs contain only Carr's personal opinions. Plaintiff John Gilding filed his responses the following day.
--Download Plaintiff's Response to Carr's MSJ Based on Truth.
--Download Plaintiff's Response to Carr's MSJ Based on Opinion.
The Court denied Defendant Carr's Motion. Download 11/6/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 58 views )
In late September, Plaintiff John Gilding asked Defendants John Carr, Bob Marks and Jerry Johnston to voluntarily agree not to disclose Mr. Gilding's medical records outside the scope of the litigation. Each Defendant refused. As a result, Mr. Gilding moved for a protective order on October 10 in order to prevent the Defendants from using his medical records for any purpose not directly associated with the lawsuit.
--Download Plaintiff's Request for a Protective Order.
--Download Reply to Defendant Johnston in Support of the Motion.
On November 10, the Court ordered that an arbitrator be appointed to resolve this and other discovery disputes.
--Download 11/10/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 28 views )
On September 24, Defendant John Carr filed a Notice of Non-Parties at Fault. In it, Defendant Carr repeats the same allegations previously raised by Defendant Bob Marks, who has stated that Plaintiff's attorney Michael Pearson, Mr. Pearson's spouse, and the law firm of Curry, Pearson & Wooten PLC "may have caused or partially caused some of plaintiff's damages." Mr. Gilding filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on September 25.
--Download Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
--Download Reply in Support of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On October 22, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion. Download 10/22/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 41 views )
On September 16, Plaintiff John Gilding requested leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint adds two additional defendants and three additional causes of action.
The National Air Traffic Controllers' Association ("NATCA") is a national labor union that represents approximately 15,000 air traffic controllers nationwide. Steven Palmer is an air traffic controller, as well as the President of NATCA's Phoenix Tower Local Union.
Answers to Non-Uniform Interrogatories received from Defendant John Carr on August 25, 2008, directly implicate Steven Palmer in the torts committed against the Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant Carr published information on his blog on August 15, 2008, that directly implicates NATCA in the torts committed against Plaintiff.
Due to newly-discovered evidence obtained from Defendant Jerry Johnston, the Third Amended Complaint seeks to add a count of Invasion of Privacy against all defendants. The Complaint alleges that on or about March 25, 2003, Defendant Johnston, acting individually and as an agent of NATCA, wrongfully obtained confidential personnel files pertaining to Mr. Gilding. The file in question contains Mr. Gilding's full name, date of birth, social security number, date of retirement eligibility, and dates/locations of all duty assignments within the Federal Aviation Administration. The Third Amended Complaint further alleges that on or about May 1, 2003, and other unknown dates, Defendant Johnston transmitted information obtained from Mr. Gilding’s confidential personnel file to Defendant Marks, who subsequently then transmitted the data to Defendant Carr and other unknown third parties.
The Third Amended Complaint also seeks to add counts of Civil Conspiracy and Injurious Falsehood against all Defendants.
--Download Request for Leave to Amend the Complaint.
Defendants John Carr and Jerry Johnston filed separate objections, and Defendant Bob Marks joined in both objections.
--Download Reply to Defendant Carr in Support of the Request for Leave.
--Download Reply to Defendant Johnston in Support of the Request for Leave.
--Download Reply to Defendant Johnston; Exhibit A, Part I.
--Download Reply to Defendant Johnston; Exhibit A, Part II.
On October 22, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. Download 10/22/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 107 views )
On September 11, Defendant Bob Marks filed an Amended Notice of Non-Parties at Fault. In it, Defendant Marks reasserts that Plaintiff's attorney Michael Pearson, Mr. Pearson's spouse, and the law firm of Curry, Pearson & Wooten PLC "may have caused or partially caused some of plaintiff's damages." Mr. Gilding filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on September 16.
--Download Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Defendant Robert Marks filed a joint response on October 1.
--Download Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On October 22, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion. Download 10/22/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 47 views )
On July 8, Defendant Bob Marks filed a Notice of Non-Parties at Fault. In it, Defendant Marks asserts that Plaintiff's attorney Michael Pearson, Mr. Pearson's spouse, and the law firm of Curry, Pearson & Wooten PLC "may have caused or partially caused some of plaintiff's damages." Mr. Gilding filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 28.
--Download Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Defendant Robert Marks filed a joint response on October 1.
--Download Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On October 22, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion. Download 10/22/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 36 views )
On July 3, Defendants Marks and Carr filed Motions to Reconsider the denial of Defendant Marks' Motion to Disqualify. Defendant Bob Marks' Motion to Reconsider was denied on July 18. Download 07/18/08 Minute Entry. Defendant Carr's Motion to Reconsider was similarly denied. Download 08/04/08 Minute Entry.
Defendant Marks filed an Amended Motion to Reconsider on July 29. It was denied. Download 07/30/08 Minute Entry. Defendant Carr filed a Renewed Motion to Reconsider on August 4 -- the same day that his original Motion to Reconsider was rejected by the Court. It too was denied. Download 08/05/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 281 views )
Defendant Marks sought leave to file an enlarged response to Plaintiff's Rule 11 Request for Sanctions on July 28. The Judge granted Defendants Request. In the enlarged response, Defendant Marks now asserts that the Plaintiff John Gilding's attorney had witnessed and/or participated in harassment against deceased air traffic controller Linda Petersen.
Mr. Gilding objected to the request to file an enlarged pleading. Download Objection to Defendant Marks' Request to File an Enlarged Response. In it, Mr. Gilding provided multiple affidavits from persons who swore under oath that Defendant Marks' allegations against Plaintiff's attorney are false.
[ view entry ] ( 63 views )
On July 8, Defendant Bob Marks filed a Notice of Non-Parties at Fault. In it, Defendant Marks asserts that Plaintiff's attorney Michael Pearson, Mr. Pearson's spouse, and the law firm of Curry, Pearson & Wooten PLC "may have caused or partially caused some of plaintiff's damages." Mr. Gilding responded with a Motion to Strike and Cross-Motion for Sanctions.
--Download Motion to Strike Marks' Notice.
--Download Reply in Support of Striking Marks' Notice.
The Motion to Strike was denied. Download 08/15/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 161 views )
On July 7, Mr. Gilding filed a Rule 11 Request for Sanctions against Defendant Bob Marks and his attorney, Alan Ariav of the firm of Renaud Cook Drury & Mesaros, PA. In the motion, Mr. Gilding accuses Defendant Marks and his legal counsel of filing multiple frivolous motions for improper purposes.
--Download Request for Sanctions.
--Download Reply in Support of Gilding's Request for Sanctions.
Defendant John Carr interjected a reply in opposition to the Request for Sanctions on July 9, and Defendant Marks requested leave to file an enlarged reply on July 23.
The request for sanctions was denied on July 29, with Judge Dunevant specifically reserving the right to assess sanctions "should the present trend continue." Download 07/29/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 104 views )
After Defendant Marks filed his Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion to Disqualify, Mr. Gilding responded with a Motion to Strike, and a follow-up Reply in Support of the Motion to Strike.
--Download Motion to Strike.
--Download Reply in Support of Gilding's Motion to Strike.
The Motion to Strike was denied on July 14, after Judge Dunevant found that Mr. Gilding had not been "prejudiced by the improper allegations" in the Motion to Disqualify. Download 07/14/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 43 views )
Defendant Bob Marks filed a Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Law Firm on May 21, 2008. In the motion, Defendant Marks asserts that Michael Pearson and the law firm of Curry, Pearson & Wooten should be disqualified from representing Mr. Gilding.
Mr. Gilding objected to this request. Download Response to Marks' Motion to Disqualify.
Defendant Marks' Motion to Disqualify was denied on June 26, after Judge Dunevant found that the motion was "without merit" and raised issues that "are not relevant or material to the allegations in this case." Download 06/26/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 80 views )
Defendant Bob Marks filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on May 1, 2008. Mr. Gilding responded two weeks later. Download Response to Marks' Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Marks’ motion was denied on June 4. Download 06/04/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 52 views )
Defendant John Carr filed three Motions for Summary Judgment on January 11, 2008. The motions argued that (1) Defendant Carr’s Blogs were true; (2) Defendant Carr’s Blogs expressed only his personal opinions; and (3) Defendant Carr’s Blogs were published without malice. Mr. Gilding filed his three separate responses in February:
-- Download Response to Defendant Carr’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Truth as an Absolute Defense.
-- Download Response to Defendant Carr’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Opinion.
-- Download Response to Defendant Carr’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Absence of Malice .
Judge Dunevant heard oral arguments on April 7. Defendant Carr’s various Motions for Summary Judgment were effectively denied after the Judge held that limited portions of them could be upheld on the technical ground of res judicata. Download 04/25/08 Minute Entry.
Defendant Carr filed a Motion to Reconsider the Judge’s ruling, which was also denied. Download 06/23/08 Minute Entry.
Defendant Bob Marks filed a motion to join Defendant Carr’s various Motions for Summary Judgment on May 1. The Judge denied this motion sua sponte after finding it to be moot. Download 05/05/08 Minute Entry.
[ view entry ] ( 49 views )
Calendar
