Goodman v. Sharp

Background

Jason Goodman, who was representing himself, filed a motion seeking clarification from Judge Valerie Caproni and an extension of time to file a required certification. The certification requirement came from an order issued in an earlier related proceeding, No. 20-CV-7269. That earlier order required Goodman to file a copy of the order in each lawsuit in which he or a company in which he was a majority shareholder was a party, and to certify under penalty of perjury that he had done so.

Goodman argued that complying with the order created a conflict because it would require him to report that he had violated a protective order. He contended that an email address covered by the protective order had already been made public before he used or disclosed it, so it was no longer confidential. He asked the court to reconsider or clarify the earlier order and to resolve what he described as a conflict involving the required certification.

Court’s ruling

The court stated that Goodman’s request for clarification of an order issued in another case was inappropriate in Goodman v. Sharp. It therefore disregarded those arguments. The court nevertheless accepted Goodman’s filing of the attached order from the earlier proceeding.

The court also clarified the meaning of the earlier order. Contrary to Goodman’s description, the order required him to notify courts that a court had found that he had violated a protective order. It did not require him to inform courts that he personally admitted violating the protective order. The court stated that any challenge to the earlier order had to be made in the original case.

The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy to Jason Goodman. The opinion does not separately state whether the requested extension of time was granted or denied. The ruling addressed the request for clarification and acceptance of the attached order; it did not decide the merits of the claims identified in the proposed amended complaint.