Quick update on Berenson v Biden

Massive motions to dismiss from the government, Pfizer, and Andy Slavitt are fast approaching, as the defendants desperately try to block discovery

The media is doing its best to ignore Berenson v Biden, my lawsuit trying to hold the White House and senior Pfizer officials accountable for their efforts to censor me in 2021.

You know who isn’t?

The Department of Justice.

Yesterday, the assistant United States attorneys representing President Biden and the other government defendants asked federal district Judge Jessica Clarke if they could file an extra-long brief to support their motion to dismiss, which is due next Tuesday.

The motion to dismiss is crucial, not just for the obvious reason that the lawsuit cannot move forward if Judge Clarke grants it but because we cannot easily serve discovery requests on the defendants until she rules on it. (Discovery in civil lawsuits essentially gives both sides a form of subpoena power, allowing each side to make the other to turn over internal documents and answer questions under oath. Defendants routinely try to block it until a case has moved past the motion to dismiss stage.)

It’s hardly an exaggeration to say the case really starts if and when we survive the motion to dismiss.

Under the federal rules governing civil suits, briefs are supposed to be no more than 30 pages. This time, though, the lawyers say they need extra space - up to 50 pages in all - to address “the various jurisdictional and constitutional issues that are implicated by Plaintiff’s action.” [emphasis added]

Yep, they’re acknowledging the constitutional issues at stake here.

—

(Maybe it should be called a medium?)

—

Looks like the White House is taking the suit seriously indeed (as it should, especially given what has happened in Missouri v Biden, where last month a judge in Louisiana chastised the government for its censorship efforts).

We will not oppose.

Very interested to see what they - and the other defendants - have to say next week.