UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
|THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED|
| ||Civil Action No. 01-72987|
| ||Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff|
|WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF,
||Magistrate Judge Komives
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF OPPOSING
(REVISED) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
In two of its filings, Plaintiff has leveled a serious and potentially damaging allegation
against Defendants. The allegation is blatantly false.
In "Plaintiff's Brief in Reply to Defendants' Response to Show Cause" (November 6, 2001) and
again in "Plaintiff's Brief Opposing (Revised) Motion for Change of Venue" (November 29, 2001),
Plaintiff accused Defendants of willfully ignoring the Court's instructions. For example, in the
latter filing, Plaintiff states:
"Defendants have filed multiple briefs in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause,
exceeding the Court ordered limit of ten pages."
This allegation is totally without basis in fact. The docket shows that Defendants submitted a
"RESPONSE... to order to show cause" on November 11, 2001 (docket item number 19). This response,
including attached brief, was seven pages long. Other than this response, no other document has been
filed by Defendants in reply to the Court's Order to Show Cause, a clear fact which can be easily
verified by even a cursory inspection of the docket.
Plaintiff's false allegation surfaced most recently in a brief opposing a venue change, even
though the topic of Defendants' response to the Court's Order to Show Cause was totally irrelevant
to the subject of its brief. Plaintiff seems to be hoping that its false allegation may gain some
credence by repetition, and is thus intent on repeating it in as many documents as possible, whether
or not it has even the slightest bearing on the issue at hand.
Defendants, acting pro se, acknowledge that they have encountered difficulties in
attempting to adhere to complex procedures with which they are unfamiliar. However, at no time
have Defendants failed to comply with any orders or instructions from the Court, neither
intentionally nor even accidentally. For Plaintiff to state otherwise can only be seen as a
desperate attempt by Plaintiff to prejudice the Court against Defendants.
Defendants assume that the Court has already recognized the spuriousness of Plaintiff's
allegation. However, given the importance that Defendants attach to the Court's confidence that
Defendants are complying with the letter and spirit of each and every order and other dictate of the
Court, Defendants felt compelled to ensure that Plaintiff's malicious allegation did not remain
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
Defendants (pro se)
Dated: December 4, 2001