Friday, July 12, 2013

MUCHNICK SETTLES LAWSUIT--MUST REMOVE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS FROM BLOG

As speculated in the previous blog, Defendant Irvin Muchnick has settled a lawsuit which accused him of defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and several other counts.

As a condition of the settlement Muchnick was forced to remove several inflammatory and accusatory stories concerning the plaintiff.

Below is the consent order that was published on the Court's website Friday, July 12.  My only question is, why did he settle if he believes what he wrote is true?  Why didn't he show some balls and fight the accusations.  As reiterated in the previous post, there was little chance of the plaintiffs recovering any money from failed writer Muchnick.  By forcing him to remove the blogs, they are in essence receiving an admission of wrongdoing.

And what an amazing coincidence that news of the settlement of his defamation suit was buried on his blog and NOT ONE MENTION ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT.  Funny how everything else in his miserable life is put out on tweets, which are then linked to his blog.  Funny, indeed.



CONSENT ORDER
 
Minor Plaintiff, John Doe, through his parents, James and Jane Doe (collectively referred


to as “Plaintiff”), and his counsel, Anne T. McKenna and Andrew C. White, filed the abovecaptioned


lawsuit against Defendants, Irvin Muchnick and Concussion, Inc. (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants as a result of blog and Internet posts made by

Defendants concerning an alleged incident during a North Baltimore Aquatic Club practice that

was held at Meadowbrook Swim Club in Baltimore City, Maryland, in February 2012

(hereinafter referred to as “the alleged February 2012 NBAC incident”).

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following claims against Defendants: defamation,

invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive fraud, and violation

of 47 U.S.C.A. § 231; simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff also moved for a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On May 13, 2013, Judge Richard

Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and on May 14, 2013, Judge Bennett entered an Order

which, by agreement of the parties, has remained in effect until today’s date. Subsequent to the

May 13, 2013 hearing, Defendants retained counsel, Mark I. Bailen and Laurie A. Babinski, and

the law firm of BakerHostetler.

By agreement of the parties and the Court, a hearing date of June 25, 2013 was set on

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Prior to that hearing, however, the parties agreed

to resolve this matter pursuant to entry of this Consent Order and the terms contained herein.


Accordingly, the following IS HEREBY ORDERED, this ____ day of July 2013:


1. This Order and all its terms shall apply to Irvin Muchnick, Tim Joyce and any


other individual associated with Concussioninc.net or any individual working on behalf of or at


the direction of Irvin Muchnick; and for purposes of this Order, the terms “Defendants” shall

encompass all such persons;

2. Defendants shall not publish in any format, whether written, spoken, or posted

online, the following:

a) Any and all references to the real name of the minor Plaintiff, John Doe, in

any correlation whatsoever with the alleged February 2012 NBAC

incident that underlies the allegations in the above-captioned case;

b) Any and all references that discuss the details of any investigation by any

Maryland government agencies or Maryland police departments of the

alleged February 2012 NBAC incident, though references to the fact that

the alleged February 2012 NBAC incident was reported to any Maryland

government agencies or Maryland police departments and the disposition

thereof are permissible;

c) any and all references to which information or records relating to the

Minor Plaintiff John Doe may be in the possession of any Maryland

government agencies or Maryland police departments involved in

investigating the alleged February 2012 NBAC incident;

d) Any and all references that would identify by real name the minor, John

Doe, as Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter;

e) Any discussions of the alleged February 2012 NBAC incident that refer to

the matter as a “sexual assault” or otherwise state that:

Any criminal activity occurred;

Plaintiff’s conduct or any other minor’s conduct was in any way



criminal;

Plaintiff’s conduct was in any way tortious;



3. In no way does this Order restrict or preclude Defendants from publishing any


other matters in connection with NBAC, USA Swimming, or other such matters that do not


pertain to the alleged February 2012 NBAC incident, or that do pertain to the alleged February


2012 NBAC incident but otherwise comply with the terms of this Consent Order;

4. Within ten (10) days of entry of this Consent Order, Plaintiff shall file a Voluntary

Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice. This filing shall in no way preclude Plaintiff’s rights




to refile this matter or bring an additional cause of action in the event Plaintiff believes that the

terms of this Order are being or have been violated;



5. The parties agree that Defendants are permitted to publish the following


statements regarding the above-captioned matter:


Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants as a result of blog and Internet posts

made by Defendants concerning an alleged incident during North Baltimore Aquatic

Club practice that was held at Meadowbrook Swim Club in Baltimore City, Maryland, in

February 2012.

Plaintiff sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,

and filed a complaint asserting the following claims against Defendants: defamation,

invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive fraud, and

violation of 47 U.S.C.A. § 231.

On May 13, 2013, Judge Richard Bennett of the U.S. District Court for Maryland heard

oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; with the Court’s

permission Defendant Muchnick appeared pro se via teleconference. During the course



of that hearing, Defendant Muchnick argued that the blog posts were speech protected by


the First Amendment, but agreed to remove any and all references to the names of minors


involved in the alleged February 2012 incident and all references suggesting that he had

access to information or records in the possession of Maryland government agencies that

were involved in investigating the alleged incident pending hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion

for Preliminary Injunction.

On May 14, 2013, Judge Bennett entered an Order wherein he denied in part Plaintiff’s

Request for a Temporary Restraining Order but specifically reserved all matters raised in

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for the full hearing on the Plaintiff’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Order further ordered the removal of the

references described above as Defendant Muchnick had agreed pending the hearing on

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Subsequent to May 13, 2013, hearing,

Defendants retained counsel, Mark I. Bailen and Laurie A. Babinski, and the law firm of

BakerHostetler.

By agreement of the parties and the Court, a June 25, 2013 hearing date was set on

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. By agreement of the parties and with the

Court’s consent, the preliminary injunction hearing was continued while the parties

attempted to reach settlement of Plaintiff’s claims. Prior to a preliminary injunction

hearing being held, the parties mutually agreed to resolve this matter by entry of a

Consent Order.

6. Defendants are permitted to post unsealed public records of the above-captioned

proceedings and Orders of this Court, provided they do so in a manner consistent with the terms

of this Consent Order. However, Defendants may not post misrepresentative excerpts of the

pleadings in this case. If Defendants publish excerpts, such publication should be accompanied
by a link to the entire document.

7. Defendants will remove all publications, including Internet posts and social media platforms, and all content that are inconsistent with the terms of this Order.
 


     In our humble opinion, this will not be the last time Muchnick lands in court.

No comments:

Post a Comment