- 1 –

Opposition to Supplement to Cross Motion for Fees

1:20-cv-00298-LY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI and LARRY 

KLAYMAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH 

SYSTEMS, LLC, ALEX E. JONES, DAVID 

JONES, and OWEN SHROYER,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00298-LY

Opposition to Supplement to Cross Motion for Fees

Mr. Klayman and Mr. Biswas have made a mockery of this docket. The Magistrate Judge 

filed his Report & Recommendation at ECF 108. We are now on ECF 164, and that number is 

artificially low, because this case originated in DDC. Now, in ECF 164, we have a “supplement”

to a cross-motion for fees, which was itself frivolous. Of course, it is not actually a supplement to 

the cross motion,1 but rather an extremely late2sur-reply3to Infowars Defendants’ motion for 

attorneys’ fees that tries to address the fatal defects in their Opposition that Plaintiffs noted in their 

Reply. The “supplement” is a mere recitation of arguments already made in their Opposition, or 

that they could have made in their Opposition. They do not identify any new factual or legal 

1 Plaintiffs’ cross motion, such as it is, consists of less than one page of text and provides no 

legal authority, whether statute, rule, or case law, to support it. (ECF 145 at 23-24.)

2 Plaintiffs filed their cross motion on August 2, 2021, and Infowars Defendants filed their 

response to it on August 6, 2021. (ECF 149 at 9.) Plaintiffs’ reply was due no later than 7 days 

thereafter, or August 13, 2021. See L.R. CV-7(E)(2). Instead of filing a reply, they filed their rogue 

“supplement” 69 days after their reply was due. 

3 As has become a pattern for Plaintiffs, their “supplement” contains no acknowledgment of 

how late it is, and they have not made any request for leave to file a document other than a reply. 

See L.R. CV-7(E)(1) (providing that “[a] party may file a reply in support of a motion. Absent 

leave of court, no further submissions on the motion are allowed”). The Court should strike 

Plaintiffs’ “supplement” without addressing its substance.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-DH Document 166 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 –

Opposition to Supplement to Cross Motion for Fees

1:20-cv-00298-LY

developments that justify filing a supplement months after they were to file a reply.

If there is a case in history where a litigant so spectacularly failed in his case, yet was 

entitled to attorneys' fees, then certainly Mr. Klayman or Mr. Biswas would have cited it. We have 

no citation for the proposition that a vexatious litigant who fails in every single aspect of his case, 

would then be entitled to fees. Mr. Klayman and Mr. Biswas instead resort to ad hominem attacks 

and bigoted implications. The counsel for Infowars Defendants declines to dignify any of this 

with a response, unless the Court would like one.

If the Court would like one, then the Court should grant Mr. Klayman and Mr. Biswas' 

request for a hearing. At that hearing, all of the undersigned attorneys will be present to respond 

to any claims the Court deems worthy of inquiry.

In the meantime, this Honorable Court could at any time put an end to this. The Defendants 

respectfully request that it do so.

Dated: October 22, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza (pro hac vice)

Jay M. Wolman (pro hac vice)

RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, NV 89117

Telephone: 702-420-2001

ecf@randazza.com

Bradley J. Reeves (TX Bar No. 24068266)

REEVES LAW, PLLC

702 Rio Grande Street, Suite 306

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: 512-827-2246

brad@brtx.law

Attorneys for Defendants

Infowars, LLC; Free Speech Systems, LLC; 

Alex E. Jones; and Owen Shroyer

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-DH Document 166 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 –

Opposition to Supplement to Cross Motion for Fees

1:20-cv-00298-LY

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00298-LY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above document was filed and served 

upon all parties of record on October 22, 2021 by CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system.

/s/ Marc J. Randazza

Marc J. Randazza

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY-DH Document 166 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 3