Lawsuit: In Session mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

2.

Spoiler: Response

 

[Johnes]

INTERROGATORIES TO THE CO-DEFENDANT

@Johnes

1. Are the contents of applications publicly disclosed without consent of the concerned applicant even if the application was accepted?

1. The sdp dosent disclose anything, Plura was acting as a rouge agent.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, with Discovery ending in almost 48 hours, the Plaintiff would like gently remind the Court of the Motion to Compel in #81 as Your Honour hasn't indicated any ruling.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

 

[Johnes]

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

 

[Franciscus]

As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

 

[Johnes]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.