Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9194659" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I went back and looked that the Motion to Enforce (Doc. #58).This clarified a few things-The relief request (and granted) from the Bankruptcy Court was just this- the ability to go back and ask this Court to enforce its prior protective order. So for those following, this was not a general ability to re-open the underlying litigation during the pendency of the bankruptcy. The actual motion seems well-founded. Both because of the timing (harassment started right after stay entered, abated after opposing counsel was notified, and then kicked back up) and because of the substance.The requested sanctions are light ($10k + atty's fees), but there is a saying- feed a pig, slaughter a hog. By going in like this, it is more likely that the Court will view it favorably ... as opposed to "going in hot" and demanding outrageous sanctions to start. In addition, I have a strong feeling that the attorney's fees associated with "bringing these violations to the Court's attention" will be decently high, given that it's not just the motion, but also the time and research to get those facts.</blockquote>