0311
Diamond Member
Mike Lindell’s management company is now on the hook for $4,508 in attorney’s fees to a two-time Donald Trump voter already awarded a $5 million judgment over the ill-fated 2020 election interference-focused “Prove Mike Wrong” challenge that the pillow mogul issued at a cyber symposium years ago.
lawandcrime.com
On Thursday in Minnesota federal court, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster didn’t give petitioner and software engineer Robert Zeidman all that he asked for in attorney’s fees, but nonetheless concluded that a fee award was warranted, as Lindell Management LLC was admittedly “delinquent” in its responses to document production requests Zeidman made in post-judgment discovery, requests that took at least 11 hours for the petitioner’s lawyers to work on.
“The Court held a hearing on the Motion on July 17, 2024 and largely ruled on the Motion from the bench. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that it had not provided any responses—at all—to Petitioner’s Interrogatories,” the magistrate recounted. “Though Respondent produced a handful documents in response to Petitioner’s Document Requests, it did not provide comprehensive responses to those requests and failed to produce any written responses or objections explaining why any documents were withheld.”
Mike Lindell company on hook for 'Prove Mike Wrong' winner's fees after 'delinquent' responses
Mike Lindell's management company is now on the hook for attorney's fees after a two-time Trump voter was awarded $5 million for the pillow mogul's ill-fated "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge."
lawandcrime.com
On Thursday in Minnesota federal court, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster didn’t give petitioner and software engineer Robert Zeidman all that he asked for in attorney’s fees, but nonetheless concluded that a fee award was warranted, as Lindell Management LLC was admittedly “delinquent” in its responses to document production requests Zeidman made in post-judgment discovery, requests that took at least 11 hours for the petitioner’s lawyers to work on.
“The Court held a hearing on the Motion on July 17, 2024 and largely ruled on the Motion from the bench. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that it had not provided any responses—at all—to Petitioner’s Interrogatories,” the magistrate recounted. “Though Respondent produced a handful documents in response to Petitioner’s Document Requests, it did not provide comprehensive responses to those requests and failed to produce any written responses or objections explaining why any documents were withheld.”
