Tyler Robinson Case | Will the Judge Allow Cameras and Livestreaming #tylerrobinson

Ajouté : 2026-05-09

[00:07:04]Shop the new arrivals by Ashley Lux and bring home the luxurious feel of plush.

[00:07:09]Boulay and velvet, then sink into the cloud-like comfort of memory foam. The bonus, these sectionals can move to fit any layout, anytime. Shop the new Ashley Lux collection.

[00:07:57]Shop the new arrivals by Ashley Lux and bring home the luxurious feel of plush boulay and velvet. Then sink into the cloudlike comfort of memory foam. The bonus, these sectionals can move to fit any layout anytime. Shop the new Ashley Lux collection.

[00:08:21]Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Court is now in session. Court is now in session.

[00:08:26]Calling case number 2571 versus Tyler James Robinson. Tyler James Robinson. Please enter your appearances.

[00:08:37]Please enter your appearances.

[00:08:39]>> Ryan McBride, Chad Graner. McBride, Jack Grander, Jeff Ray, Chris Ballard, Davis, Chris Ballard for the state, Lauren Hunt for the state.

[00:08:48]>> Afternoon, >> good afternoon for Mr. Robinson.

[00:08:58]>> Jeff Hunt and Jeff Hunt and the news and Mr. Robinson, are you with us? Mr. Robinson, are you with us?

[00:09:14]Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Is session court is now in session this afternoon.

[00:09:26]All right.

[00:09:28]Before the court issues it rulings for an update on the status update on the status discovery to this date.

[00:09:36]>> Yes, your honor. Um we continue to receive and provide discovery and provide discovery. Um the uh the materials that were brought up the last file DNA file transferred I think the defense is making their way through those we provided much of those in digital format >> through an online sharing process. Uh that wasn't workable. So we provided a a jump drive with materials from the ATF.

[00:10:11]>> We consistently hit the 100% mark where we provided everything that we have received and uh material continues to come in. So we continue to provide that.

[00:10:23]That's the status of discovery. FBI is still um responding to the special discovery request. I expect to have that response within the next couple of weeks. They asked for um some time when I uh spoke to them uh about 3 weeks ago.

[00:10:39]So, we expect to have that response quickly as well.

[00:10:44]>> Thank you. Uh defense, did you want the benefit of the record?

[00:10:50]>> Special discovery matters that Mr. McBride was just referring to were the DNA files from the FBI. I just want to make sure we clarif clarify that for your honor. And also, I think we just received 1,600 files either today or yesterday. I believe today.

[00:11:08]And that's all.

[00:11:10]Thank you.

[00:11:13]All right. Prior to the court's rulings on the two issues before today, the court acknowledges the quality of the briefing and the professionalism and civility during the presentation of evidence and during the oral arguments.

[00:11:27]and the tort has taken the necessary time to consider the evidence before it and balancing the constitutional rights of Mr. Robinson and Miss Kirk. These rulings take into consider consideration these important constitutional rights. I will begin with the ruling and order on defendants's motion to vacate or continue preliminary hearing pending discovery and to permit constitutionally adequate time for preparation.

[00:12:00]and I will be reading from my order and we'll be uploading uh the written orders uh very soon after this hearing concludes for the state's request during December December 11th 2025 hearing. The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for May 18th and 19th and 21st and uh 2026, but noted that the date was not set in stone and could be moved if needed. Defendant now seeks to continue the scheduled preliminary hearing via his motion to vacate or continue preliminary hearing pending discovery for the following reasons. The court determines that a continuence is both reasonable and necessary to safeguard defendants procedural rights while ensuring the orderly and fair administration of these proceedings with due consideration for the interests of the victim representative, the parties and the public. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the pro prosecution to present evidence from which the court may find probable cause to believe the crimes charged have been committed and the defendant committed it. And I'm going to omit the citations, but that will be in the written ruling.

[00:13:21]A preliminary hearing serves essential purpose of fariting out groundless and improvident prosecutions early in the process. Indeed, the preliminary hearing is a fundamental procedural right guaranteed by article 1, section 13 of the Utah Constitution.

[00:13:40]The decision to continue a preliminary hearing rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.

[00:13:47]Generally, a continuence is considered reasonable when there is a showing of good cause and the request is made for legitimate reasons.

[00:13:58]The court notes that the May preliminary hearing dates, which allotted some five months between the scheduling of the prelim and the hearing itself, was set as a goalpost for the parties and to preserve time on the court's calendar.

[00:14:13]This is defendant's first request for a continuence and given the volume of discovery, the request is neither unexpected or unreasonable.

[00:14:25]At the time the present motion was filed, the digital electronic discovery had reached 12 terabytes.

[00:14:33]Defense council estimated they would need at least approximately 60 days to conduct initial review and possibly hundreds of hours to conduct a comprehensive review.

[00:14:44]Substantial discovery continued to be produced as of March of this year. The court recognizes that additional delays uh additional delay imposes real burdens on the parties, the victim representative and the public's interest in the timely administration of justice.

[00:15:05]A defendant's constitutional right to effect effective assistance of council is no less important at the preliminary hearing than it is at any other stage.

[00:15:16]Providing defense council sufficient time to review the extensive discovery is necessary to ensure effective representation and under the circumstances presented here establishes good cause for a continuence.

[00:15:31]The scope of a preliminary hearing, however, is admittedly narrow and utilizes the lower evidentiary bar of probable cause as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:15:43]Furthermore, the court must view all the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution for purposes of making the requisite bindover decision.

[00:15:58]The preliminary hearing is not the time to weigh cred weigh credible but conflicting evidence. Accordingly, any feature requests for additional delay to obtain further expert analysis, such as DNA testing must be supported by a particularized showing that the requested analysis is reasonably necessary to the fair resolution of issues, particularly where the existing evidence is sufficient for the limited probable cause determination at issue.

[00:16:31]The court is also mindful of the impact a delayed trial or delayed hearing may have on the victim representatives constitutional rights.

[00:16:43]to to mitigate this impact under Utah code section 77-38-7 sub3 directs the court to consider the interests of the victim of a crime to a speedy resolution of the charges under the same standards that governs a defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court remains committed to the victim representatives interest and the speedy disposition of this case just as it is committed to protecting defendants constitutional rights and maintaining the fair and impartial administration of justice. The court also concludes that the revised hearing dates reasonably balance defense council's need to review the presently disclosed discovery with the victim's representatives in the public's interest in the timely progression of the proceedings.

[00:17:37]Therefore, the court grants defendants motion and reschedules the preliminary hearing for July 6th, July 7th, the afternoon of July 8th, July 9th, and July 10th, 2026 in order to protect the defendant's constitutional rights while minimizing unnecessary delay and preserving the fair, prompt, and impartial administration of justice. This is the order of the court. Council, that concludes the first ruling of this court.

[00:18:11]Court now turns to the second issue before it. Ruling an order on defendants motion to exclude still photographers, TV cameras, and microphones from the courtroom and standing order on electronic media coverage requests.

[00:18:31]One moment. I need a little bit of water before I start reading the next one.

[00:18:38]Thank you.

[00:18:41]The court before the court is defendant's motion to exclude still photographers, TV cameras, and microphones from the courtroom.

[00:18:49]Defendant seeks an order categorically prohibiting any electronic media coverage during the pendency of this case. Because defendant has not shown that a categorical ban on electronic media coverage for all proceedings in this case is allowed by Utah law.

[00:19:06]Defendant's motion is respectfully denied. At defendants request, the court held an evidentiary hearing where Dr. Brian Edelman, a trial consultant, and Dr. Christine Ruva, a cognitive psychologist, testified in support of defendants's motion. Dr. Edelman conducted a survey of 200 people in Utah County and prepared a report with his assessment of the local community's consumption of media coverage of this case. His base findings reveal that 99% of the community members recognize the case and that 64% believe defendant is guilty based off what they have heard, read, or seen in the media.

[00:19:54]He examined press coverage of the hearings that have taken place since defendants's initial appearance in court and discovered that only about 25% of the viewers watched the live stream of the court hearings.

[00:20:08]A majority of the remaining viewers consume media commentary of the live stream recordings over social media and local television news sources. According to his research, the commentary from established news media does not provide a neutral summary of court proceedings.

[00:20:27]Rather, headlines and talking heads typically focus on outofc court statements made by attorneys and prominent members of the community and country. As a result, viewers are led to believe that the comments made out of court, such as the comments about unadmitted evidence are made during a court hearing and part of the criminal case. According to Dr. Edelman. This commentary primarily supports the prosecution's narrative and is used as entertainment, sensationalism, and commercial commercialization rather than to educate the public on what is occurring during the court proceedings.

[00:21:08]Dr. Edelman also expressed concerns that media coverage of the security measures used during the court proceedings combined with cameras in the courtroom will be added pressure on the potential jury pool and contribute to potential jurors reluctance to serve on a future jury. During cross-examination, Dr. Dr. Edelman testified that viewers who watch the live stream, usually on social media and streaming sites are inundated with commentary from other viewers spreading misinformation.

[00:21:41]Although the commentary is being made by the public is not generated by the live stream itself. In his view, the commentary would not exist without the live stream of court proceedings. Dr. Edelman's opinion is that continued media coverage electronic media coverage of court proceedings will will can't speak today will perpetuate prejuditial and misleading views of the defendant and the evidence and affect defendants right fair trial rights. Dr. Ruva testified that she specializes in the study of jury decisionmaking, specifically how pre-trial publicity affects memory and the deliberative process. Among other concepts, her study focus her studies focus on source primacy of pre-trial publicity, which indicates that if jurors are front-loaded with the extensive amount of negative pre-trial publicity toward a defendant, it is difficult to overcome their initial biases. Even if presented with positive publicity about the defendant or negative publicity about an alleged victim, Dr. Ruva examined the pre-trial publicity reference and defendants motion which she summarized as provoking moral outrage and predominantly anti-defendant full of dehumanizing language and accusations of guilt. Dr. Ruba explained that the jurors have a high amount of confidence that the information they use to reach a verdict is based on evidence that was presented at trial. However, research shows that jurors memories cannot distinguish between what was heard at trial and what was heard from pre-trial publicity.

[00:23:29]Jurors may even unconsciously distort evidence they heard they hear during trial to align it with slanted information they heard pre-trial. Because video and audio sources of pre-trial publicity result in more emotional responses, these sources are better remembered than other sources of information. Dr. Ruva's expert opinion is that live streaming of all proceedings can lead to deep-seated bias in juror deliberations.

[00:24:00]And while juror questionnaires can help eliminate jurors with the explicit biases, they are not effective at identifying implicit biases.

[00:24:10]Dr. Ruva concluded with her expert opinion that to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, this case is situated within a highly prejuditial pre-trial environment that presents a substantial risk to juror impartiality.

[00:24:26]Based upon this evidence in an evaluation of the factors listed in rule 4-41.01 of the Utah rules of judicial administration, defendant argues that exclusion of electronic media is necessary to ensure Mr. Robinson's right to due process, to a fair and impartial jury, to counsel, and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as required by the fourth, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, sections 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 of the Utah Constitution.

[00:25:11]Members of the media like members of the public have constitutional rights to access criminal proceedings.

[00:25:18]Again, the citations uh will be in the order that will be filed. I will not read them right now. However, like the public, the news media does not have a constitutional right to foot photograph or video record public hearings and trials. Once beyond the con confines of the courthouse, a news gathering agency may publicize within wide limits what its representatives have heard and seen in the courtroom. But the line is drawn at the courthouse door. Although electronic media coverage is not protected by the Constitution, neither does the Constitution ban electronic media simply because there is a danger that in some cases prejuditial broadcast accounts of pre-trial and trial events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced by extraneous matter.

[00:26:16]Electronic media coverage provides a means to facilitate the public's right of access to court proceedings for those who cannot physically occupy the limited space available in a courtroom. Live streaming in particular allows as many people as are interested to observe the ju justice system at work and hold our branches of government accountable to the guarantees of due process.

[00:26:44]Defendant argues that the decision whether to allow electronic media coverage is governed by Shephard v.

[00:26:51]Maxwell which held that there is a reasonable likelihood that prejuditial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial that the the court must take remedial measures to abate any threat to the fairness of the proceedings.

[00:27:06]Defendant argues that because video recording and streaming of court proceedings creates a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing defendants's right to a fair and impartial jury, this court should ban courtrooms for the remainder of the case.

[00:27:22]Uh this this court should ban media in the courtrooms for the remainder of the case. Consistent with Shephard, the court has taken remedial measures to abate threats to the fairness of these proceedings. For example, the court has positioned the video camera to the back of the courtroom, which has minimized, if not entirely mitigated, the potential for media to capture conversations at con council's tables and documents on council's computer screens. The court has issued a rob re robust decorum order to manage the proceedings and a pre-trial publicity order to prevent statements from attorneys involved in the case from potentially prejudicing the jury pool. Rule 4-41.01 of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration governs the court's determination of whether to grant or restrict electronic media coverage.

[00:28:17]The rule allows a news reporter to file a written request for permission to photograph or video record public proceedings. The rule creates a presumption that the permission will be granted as long as the predominant purpose of the electronic media coverage request is journalism or dissemination of news to the public.

[00:28:40]Defendant argues there is no presumption of electronic media coverage because the predominant purpose of dissemination of the court hearings in this case is not for journalism or the dissemination of news. Rather, it is for entertainment, sensationalism and the promotion of commercial products.

[00:28:59]Defendant provided many examples of media outlets using footage of courtroom proceedings as background or as a springboard to discuss outofc court commentary by public figures opine on the relevance or existence of evidence that has not been admitted or presented in court and generally vilify the defendant. The state referenced social media posts that have used media coverage of the case to promote conspiracy theories and to denigrate Charlie Kirk and his family. No evidence was presented by either party, showing a media outlet using live media coverage to educate the public about the progress of the legal proceedings or the justice system as a whole.

[00:29:43]This court is not so cynical as to conclude that just because the parties did not present evidence of responsible journalism, none exists. Defendant did not interrogate the use of the live stream of prior court proceedings by the news reporters who filed the electronic media coverage requests under rule 4-41.01.

[00:30:07]Applying the plain language of the rule, it is the motives of these specific news reporters, the requesting reporters that the court must question, not the entire universe of media outlets and social media sites that have published information or misinformation about this case.

[00:30:28]Because under rule 4-41.01 01 sub 2A. The court must examine the motivations of specific news reporter who request to f to photograph or record the proceedings. Defendants request for a blanket finding by this court that there is no presumption of electronic media coverage is respectfully denied.

[00:30:52]The court must determine whether the presumption applies on a request by request basis depending on the predominant purpose of the requesting news reporter. Determining whether there is a presumption of media coverage is not the end of the analysis. The judge may prohibit or restrict electronic media coverage in those cases only if the judge finds that the reasons for doing so are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the presumption. The rule then lists nine factors, some or all of which the court must consider to determine whether to limit electronic media coverage of court proceedings. Defendant argues that because the rules use phrases uses the phrase in those cases, the court has authority to weigh the listed factors and find the presumption of electronic media coverage has been overcome for the pendency of a case.

[00:31:48]Regardless of the type of the proceeding held reading the rule as a whole, the court disagrees with the defendant's interpretation. The court interprets the phrase in those cases to mean the same thing as in those situations uh where there is a presumption of electronic media coverage. The court's interpretation is consistent with subsections 2C and 2D of the rule.

[00:32:19]Subsection 2C requires the court to make particularized findings denying or granting a particular request. And subsection 2D requires that those particularized findings to relate to the specific circumstances circumstances of the proceeding rather than reflect generalized views or preferences. Court proceedings vary in character and substance, ranging from scheduling conferences to oral arguments to evidentiary hearings and to the trial itself.

[00:32:53]The dangers of prejudice and the newsworthiness of the proceeding may vary considerably depending on its nature.

[00:33:02]Therefore, because the court must make a particularized finding about specific court proceedings that are the subject of a news reporter request, defendants's request for a categorical finding that the presumption of electronic media coverage has been overcome is respectfully denied. The court must make the appropriate findings on a request by request basis unless otherwise ordered by the court.

[00:33:28]Rule 4-41.013.

[00:33:31]013A requires news reporters to file an electronic media request at least one business day before the court proceeding. One business day is insufficient time for the parties to object to electronic media coverage or for the court to weigh the appropriate factors and issue a decision. Therefore, the court enters the following. This is the standing order on electronic media coverage. News reporters are required to file requests for electronic media coverage of court proceedings at least 14 days before the scheduled proceeding.

[00:34:06]The request must be consistent with all other provisions of rule 4-41.01.

[00:34:13]Any request that is filed later than 14 days before the proceeding may be similarly denied. All requests will be filed in the docket. If a party seeks to suspend or restrict electronic media coverage of a court proceeding, the party must file a motion under rule 4-41.01 no later than 10 days before the proceeding. The motion must address a particular circumstances of the proceeding and be no more than four pages in length. The opposing party may respond to the motion no later than 5 days before the proceeding. The response is limited to no more than four pages in length. Any reply must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. The reply is limited to three pages in length. No, no oral argument on the motion will be held. The court will issue an order before the proceeding and if the request is denied, issue particularized findings denying the request. The evidence presented at the April 17, 2026 hearing and all arguments already in the record are preserved.

[00:35:23]This is the order of the court. This concludes the reading of the second ruling of this court.

[00:35:31]All right, councel. Uh what I want to turn to next is addressing the outstanding motions as we are vacating the preliminary hearing which is set for I believe it's May 18th uh the week of May 18th that frees up time to address outstanding motions and the court wishes to make best use of the time as you were previously scheduled to be there. So, I I'll turn to the parties to hear from you in determining if uh the parties will be prepared to address the motions that are outstanding.

[00:36:08]Turning to a defense, your honor, I believe, are you talking about the ones that have been fully briefed at this point?

[00:36:21]>> That's correct. Or anticipated to be fully briefed before that week begins.

[00:36:26]>> Yes, your honor. we can be prepared to do that.

[00:36:29]>> All right. And to be clear, uh do you want to put on the record the the motions that you wish to address at that hearing just so all parties are on notice and and we know how we're proceeding.

[00:36:40]>> Give me just a minute, your pull them up. I know one of them is the motion for the order to show cause and compel discovery. I know that one is pending right now.

[00:36:50]One just one minute. Let me pull them up.

[00:37:06]Uh Kathy, while you're doing that, um your honor, I show three outstanding motions. Um the one is the motion for an order show cause a contempt. Um that is fully briefed. I believe that's ready to be argued.

[00:37:21]Um actually, I think that's a notice to submit without argument is how it's been submitted.

[00:37:26]The second >> the second is um uh motion to close the preliminary hearing and seal exhibits that was filed May 1st. We intend to use the full two weeks to respond. Um if the defense intends to reply, the reply will be, I believe, the 21st, which will be the day before the preliminary the current preliminary hearing dates end.

[00:37:52]So, I don't know if uh if they intend to wave that reply time and argue at that time or not. And then the final one is uh the recent motion the defense filed to use to find the use of hearsay at the preliminary hearing unconstitutional.

[00:38:08]We intend to use the full two weeks to respond to that. Um it also hasn't been served on the attorney general's office, so that one will not be ready by the time of uh our preliminary hearing dates. We're going to have to find another date for that.

[00:38:26]We've also objected to the motion to close the prelim and still exhibits because it's our objection is that it's not specific enough. We don't know which ex exhibits that is. Uh so that issue needs to be resolved to before it can actually from our view be argued and decided upon.

[00:38:46]>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mc McBride.

[00:38:48]It's turning to Miss Netor. I do think we were waiting on their supplemental um exhibit and witness list which we have received. I don't know if they're still going to update it again, but that's one of the things we were waiting on before we identified which matters needed to be sealed in the preliminary hearing. So, I don't I know we could perhaps get together and and talk with the prosecution about whether they anticipate adding any additional exhibits and then we can probably specify which exhibits we think, but we had to leave it open because we didn't have their final exhibit list until within the last I think two days. Um, we would be prepared to argue the motion to show cause and the motion to close the preliminary hearing. Uh, I do believe we either have, and I would defer to Miss Visser, I believe we either have served the attorney general or we are just about to serve the attorney general, but I do anticipate that one might not be ready to argue uh by the week of the 18th. That one probably, I would agree, may need an additional an extra date, but it would need to be heard prior to the preliminary hearing because it deals with whether uh some of the 1102s can be presented at the preliminary hearing.

[00:40:11]>> All right. So, my understanding is it sounds like the parties will be ready or defendants motion and limited to close portions of the prelim. Is that correct?

[00:40:23]>> Yes, your honor. And we will uh we can supplement with specific exhibits now that we have their final exhibit list. I believe I I'll talk with the prosecution and our team, but I believe we can supplement that.

[00:40:39]>> All right, Chad Grunander, I'll just I'll add on to that. Um, if it is supplemented, Miss Nester, um, it would probably need to be done rather quickly as the preliminary hearing dates or the previous dates are a week from Monday.

[00:40:54]Um, and we would like the time to brief that and and be on appropriate notice.

[00:40:59]Um, I would imagine the the media would have similar concerns, but so so Judge Graph, I'm not entirely sure if we'll be prepared to argue that motion on the dates uh that are open for your honor, but we can work towards that.

[00:41:14]>> And may I add, your honor, this is Jeff Gray. Um, >> yes, Mr. >> Notice to the attorney general's office.

[00:41:21]Um, they may choose or may not choose to respond. They're not required. they're required the the particular notice and we'll be talking with them. If they're satisfied with our response, they may they may choose to stay out of this at this point, but we still need to consult with them.

[00:41:41]I also your honor just want to make clear we don't necessarily we we serve the attorney general out of an abundance of caution but we do think it since it involves a rule of procedure it may not really be required to serve the attorney general under the statute but we did it just out of an abundance of caution so I don't want to make it look like we're conceding that that notice is required um although we are doing it >> I see >> certainly our position is is that it is required ired.

[00:42:12]>> All right. Well, I I appreciate the parties sharing their views. Well, let's uh let's go ahead and tenatively address the motion to close the preliminary hearing and uh we'll address that. How does uh May 19th at 10:00 a.m. look for the parties?

[00:42:37]Your honor, we were the defense was planning on being available the whole week for the preliminary hearing. So, I feel fairly confident that my team is going to be available on that day.

[00:42:48]>> All right. To the state.

[00:42:51]>> Well, your honor.

[00:42:52]>> All right. We'll go ahead and start at 9:00 a.m. on that day. and and just uh to set the expectations.

[00:42:59]Um we'll we'll we'll plan on a 3-hour hearing. Uh so from 9 to 12 and uh so I would ask that um that you're fully prepared to go forward at 9:00 a.m. And uh to Miss Netor and your team, is it your request that Mr. Robinson be present uh physically in court?

[00:43:24]>> Yes, your honor. All right.

[00:43:28]All right. Your honor, this is Jeff Hunt. The media will want to be heard on that motion. I believe Mr. Jud is uh online and he he will be taking the lead on that. I'm not sure of his availability that day.

[00:43:44]>> All right, Mr. Judge.

[00:43:47]>> Hi, your honor. I am here. Um and yes, I'll make myself available that day. Um I did without taking any more of the court's time than is necessary wanted to talk about one small detail. I appreciate the court's ruling saying that >> under the new order being entered today a request to cover a hearing would be need to be submitted 14 days in advance.

[00:44:05]That would only create problems I think with the one we're talking about today.

[00:44:09]I wonder about a request to do that if the media were to submit that as soon as they could get their ducks in a row collectively. Would that be enough for the court in this case?

[00:44:17]>> Yes. And I recognized uh when uh when I issued well I was drafting the ruling that the one conflicting date would be this upcoming one. So uh I would request that the parties file um well to be fair until there's a request from the media to cover it that wouldn't even come into play. Theoretically, if they choose not to file that, that becomes moot. And so, uh, let for this hearing only, as soon as that's filed, please, uh, file anything that you wish to be considered as soon as possible to allow the other sides to reply. So, please don't wait till the day before. If it's filed uh I would say within 48 hours of the filing of the of media the request for electronic media coverage within 48 hours uh parties who wish to file uh please do so. Thank you Mr. Judge. I appreciate you addressing that. The court's obviously going to be flexible about that issue given the short turnaround.

[00:45:19]>> Thank you.

[00:45:19]>> Judge Michael Bird for Mr. Robinson. I raised one issue uh concerning the court's order on the on the procedure going forward. Is the court requiring that we be uh notified of the requests or do we have to get that from the docket given the short amount of time that we'll have to respond? I'm wondering if the court would consider ordering if it hasn't already done so that we be provided notice of any requests when it's filed.

[00:45:49]Well, would wouldn't you be receiving u Well, do you receive notice when the request is filed on the docket?

[00:45:56]>> Only when it's issued by the court, your honor. We don't receive notice of the requests.

[00:46:02]>> I see.

[00:46:05]Well, let's see here.

[00:46:11]That is a good question, Mr. Bert. I appreciate you asking that.

[00:46:17]Let me just take a look at what options we may have to address.

[00:46:32]Well, I on the onsets um we have the deadline I we have the given the deadline set by the court uh there's a there's a timeline in place and so I would ask the parties to be cognizant and take a look at the docket on the date when that deadline is approaching. Um so for now uh please refer to the docket if this becomes an issue. Please let the court know. Uh but I would ask the parties to be diligent as you have been in the past and when when you see that hit the docket uh if you wish to file you certainly can.

[00:47:17]>> Thank you.

[00:47:19]>> This is Miss Nester. I do have one more clarification. So, the order to the motion of the order to show cause, we can we not just argue that the same day that we argue just because of the travel and expense to the county. I'd like to try to do that at the same time. Um, we we did file a notice to submit, but we've not waved argument on that.

[00:47:47]Let's see here.

[00:47:49]Wanted to pull up that motion briefly.

[00:48:02]There's a few things on the docket, so it takes just a little bit to get there.

[00:48:06]>> No worries, I don't anticipate there would be any testimony at that. It would just be argument. So, we shouldn't need too much more extra time.

[00:48:33]All right. I see. One moment.

[00:49:00]So what you're saying is you're not requesting an evidentiary hearing.

[00:49:04]You're simply requesting oral argument.

[00:49:06]Is that my understanding?

[00:49:08]>> That's correct, your honor.

[00:49:16]Well, I I believe that the procedure is that uh if I rule on the motion and I grant it, we do need to take an evidentiary hearing because sanctions are being requested and so I would want to follow the procedure. Uh so it would it would necessitate an evidentiary hearing, not just oral argument.

[00:49:35]>> That would be my understanding would that would be later. So this this is just a hearing to determine um whether or not um to set the evidentiary hearing is my understanding.

[00:49:51]So >> yeah, right. So we wouldn't that would be on a later date.

[00:49:57]>> Okay. Well, we can address oral argument for that and uh and then the court will make its ruling and and take it from there.

[00:50:06]Obviously, I'm not weighing in in either direction. I want to consider uh everything that's before me, but we'll set the oral argument as well on that same 19th date and and address that issue as well.

[00:50:20]>> Thank you.

[00:50:21]>> Anything further from the parties?

[00:50:26]>> I don't think so.

[00:50:28]>> All right. Thank you to all parties for being here. Uh this concludes uh today's uh hearing and court is now in recess.

[00:50:38]>> Thank you.