A federal judge has awarded Hunter Biden nearly $18,000 in legal costs after a former Trump official posted a “frivolous” defense to Biden’s civil lawsuit against him.
Biden is suing former Trump policy analyst Garrett Ziegler for allegedly posting his laptop contents online. The lawsuit claims that Ziegler “illegally accessed, manipulated and damaged his [Hunter Biden’s] data without his authorization or consent.”
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, filed the suit on September 13, 2023, alleging a “federal claim of violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and two state claims for violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.”
Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, on June 10 in Wilmington, Delaware. Hunter Biden is suing a former Trump official for allegedly posting 128,000 of Biden’s emails online.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
It stems from Ziegler allegedly assuming the pseudonym “Marco Polo” in July 2021 to create “Report on the Biden Laptop” that was published online in October 2022 and described by Ziegler as “an online searchable database of 128,000 emails found on the Biden Laptop.”
The dossier included a private video of Biden allegedly in a sexual position with a woman while smoking crack, among other videos and photos.
Newsweek sought email comment from attorneys for Biden and Ziegler on Wednesday.
Ziegler tried to defend himself using California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation [SLAPP] law, which prevents rich and powerful people from bullying people into silence with aggressive lawsuits.
Judge Hernan Vera ruled on Monday that Ziegler’s argument was “totally devoid of merit” as California state law does not apply in federal court. He noted that anti-SLAAP laws are designed to protect people’s right to free speech.
“But a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion has consequences too. If a defendant’s attempt to mobilize the anti-SLAPP statute is found to be ‘frivolous’ or ‘solely intended to cause unnecessary delay,’ the court ‘shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion,’ he ruled, citing California law.
“Frivolous in the context of an anti-SLAPP motion means ‘totally and completely without merit’ such that ‘any reasonable attorney would agree such a motion is totally devoid of merit,'” he wrote, citing past case law.
Ziegler, who worked for former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, was allegedly given a flash drive containing Biden’s files by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani allegedly received the files from a Delaware computer shop owner after Biden left his water-damaged laptop for repair.
Vera wrote that the “black letter law is crystal clear that an anti-SLAPP motion cannot be used against a federal cause of action.”
“And where—as here—the result of an anti-SLAPP motion is obvious, and the argument made in its favor is pellucidly without merit, it is frivolous,” Vera ruled.
He awarded Hunter Biden nearly $18,000 for the legal expenses incurred while responding to the anti-SLAPP motion.
Ziegler had argued that he was not trying to be frivolous and that his anti-SLAPP defense was part of a larger motion filed in Vera’s court.
“Defendants attempt to minimize the importance of this argument by arguing that it was a ‘small’ part of the overall length of the motion. But frivolousness is not measured by word count. The fact remains that Defendants patently sought to use the anti-SLAPP procedures to dismiss a federal claim, and there was absolutely no legal basis to do so,” Vera wrote.
Ziegler had argued in court documents that Biden had the “goal of chilling Defendants’ free speech rights” for posting a “Biden Laptop Report” online in 2022 after allegedly receiving a hard drive from Giuliani.
Ziegler had also objected to paying the legal fees because Biden had not provided the court with a list of billable hours.
Vera also resisted that argument.
“Defendants argue that by failing to provide detailed time entries, Plaintiff failed to provide the necessary evidence to support its fee request. The Court disagrees. Again, detailed time records are not necessary and a declaration can suffice as evidence to support a motion for attorney’s fees. The Court has reviewed the hours billed and finds that the number of hours requested by Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable,” he wrote.
Hunter Biden is seeking a jury trial to determine damages and also an injunction preventing Ziegler from continuing to hold his private files.
