On the left is an image of Hunter Biden from AP News (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite). On the right, Garrett Ziegler discusses Hunter Biden’s role on his YouTube channel (YouTube/Reporter.London).
Hunter Biden, immediately following a string of legal losses , might soon be responsible for covering another person's legal expenses.
Last month, an obscure entry appeared on a federal court docket where the judge handling a civil suit filed by Biden under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) decided to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.
Currently, the defendant in that case, Garrett Ziegler, who was previously an aide in the initial Trump administration, is seeking $93,000 for attorney costs.
In September 2023 Once, the ex-president’s offspring filed a lawsuit against Ziegler and his not-for-profit research company, ICU LLC, operating under the name Marco Polo.
The now-discarded legal case primarily revolves around the ongoing dispute regarding Biden’s laptop, which was abandoned at a Delaware repair store. Following this incident, the device ended up with law enforcement officials even as portions of its data were shared with opponents of the Democratic Party.
In this instance, the defendants faced accusations for "gaining unauthorized access to, interfering with, modifying, altering, duplicating, and destroying digital information that does not belong to them. They allegedly acquired these materials by hacking into the plaintiff's iPhone data and examining a copy of what they claimed was the plaintiff's 'laptop' computer hard drive."
In December 2023, Ziegler, who formerly served as a policy analyst for Trump’s trade advisor, Peter Navarro In the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, they pushed for Biden's lawsuit to be dismissed.
“The plaintiff initiated this legal action as an act of revenge against the defendants for releasing data, media content, and emails sourced from the well-known 'Biden Laptop,’” states the filing. “The proprietor of the store handed over the Biden Laptop to the FBI sometime around October 2019 upon uncovering concerning contents within it. Following this, various news organizations obtained copies of the emails and papers retrieved from the laptop, leading to widespread media coverage with claims suggesting possible foreign influence involving both Hunter Biden and President Biden.”
However, the removal had been anticipated for quite some time.
For more than a year, the ex-president's offspring has been pursuing the case.
In March 2024 , Biden charged Ziegler with making pertinent disclosures. A few days afterward, Ziegler moved To have the judge overseeing the case, who contributed to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, step down from presiding. In return, the younger Biden opposed the recusal bid – which ultimately failed . After that, Hunter Biden demanded Attorney fees from Ziegler – more than ill-fated motion to dismiss the case. Ziegler pushed back yet U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera sided with the plaintiff Over the "trivial" motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under California law.
Despite Golden State laws being irrelevant or unhelpful, Southern California’s climate apparently led to significant changes in fortune.
On March 5, Hunter Biden submitted an ex parte application. request to willingly close the case Against Ziegler "without oral argument" and without prejudice — indicating the possibility of refiling the case in the future.
According to the filing, 'The plaintiff lacks the means to keep pursuing this legal case.' The document explains that the plaintiff experienced a substantial reduction in earnings and carries considerable debts amounting to several million dollars. Furthermore, these financial constraints were intensified following the wildfires in Pacific Palisades during early January. These events rendered the plaintiff's rented home uninhabitable for an extensive duration, much like countless others affected by those circumstances. As such, the plaintiff finds it challenging both to secure another long-term residence and to maintain regular employment. Consequently, all efforts must be directed toward addressing the relocation needs, repairing damages from the fires, and covering daily household expenditures rather than continuing with this lawsuit.
On the contrary, the defendants contested the motion.
On March 13, Vera granted the motion – with prejudice.
The court notes that "the defendants assert they would face legal disadvantages were the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. They specifically state that since they had already submitted their summary judgment briefs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s deposition was about to take place, dismissing the case without prejudice could unfairly benefit the plaintiff. The court concurs."
The judge elaborates extensively on his rationale in the decree.
The court determines that granting the plaintiff's requested voluntary dismissal—with permission to re-file—would indeed result in legal harm to the defendants. Both sides have invested considerable effort into disputing the original motion to dismiss and handling the plaintiff's subsequent petition for attorneys' fees. Furthermore, the court observes that the defendants have drafted a summary judgment motion per the directives outlined in the court's standing order and shared it with the plaintiff's representatives. This action essentially outlines key defense strategies for the plaintiff, offering them a tactical edge since they haven’t needed to submit their counterarguments. If permitted to refashion this lawsuit at another time, the plaintiff might uncover fresh evidence, interview different witnesses, expand upon existing claims, thus securing advantageous positioning against the defensive maneuvers detailed within the defendant's filing. Such developments exceed mere inconveniences or added costs; rather, these pose genuine judicial disadvantages for the defendants when dealing with potential repeat lawsuits. Based on the current circumstances, the court deems insufficient proof indicating that the plaintiff demonstrated due diligence before seeking voluntary dismissal post-defendants’ submission of their summary judgment briefing.
Moreover, the Court takes into account that the Plaintiff is requesting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice just as their deposition, set for March 10, 2025, approaches. Granting this request could provide the Plaintiff extra time to get ready for the deposition after reviewing the new information provided by the Defendants' latest filings. Factors related to discovery should be considered appropriate reasons to conclude that there would be legal harm involved.
On March 27, Ziegler filed a motion seeking attorney's fees.
The 27-page filing Looking for these reimbursements clarifies that Ziegler’s request is fairly narrow.
The defendants are appropriately requesting fees and expenses solely for the part of the legal proceedings that could have been prevented if an earlier or more judicious dismissal was sought: preparing for depositions that didn’t occur, addressing the ex parte application, and crafting and submitting the motion for summary judgment, according to the filing. The document also states that due to the timelines outlined in the Scheduling Order, the defense attorneys needed to act swiftly and invest considerable effort into these activities.
According to Ziegler’s attorney, Hunter Biden had the chance to dodge additional fees or costs by dismissing the case in early 2025, which would have eliminated superfluous travel and legal expenditures—but he opted against this decision for reasons unknown.
The document continues to state that Hunter Biden's decision on how he filed his request to dismiss significantly increased Ziegler’s legal costs since "he did not do this through a noticed motion." Instead, "it was handled in such a way that forced Defendant’s attorneys to immediately halt all other tasks and address the filing within 24 hours; otherwise, they could have jeopardized crucial legal rights for their clients (such as avoiding a non-dispositive dismissal)."
Ziegler’s motion similarly criticizes Hunter Biden regarding the conclusion of events—particularly since the plaintiff has been widely reported as publicly denying that the data and computer central to this case belonged to him, which led to further accusations against the defendants.
Because the plaintiff obstructed and abruptly dismissed the case, defendants were denied the chance to present their stance during the post-discovery briefing," continues the motion for attorney's fees. "Following about 18 months of legal proceedings—and more critically—after defendants scheduled depositions for Mr. Biden and third-party witness P. Kevin Morris, as well as when Marco Polo filed its initial brief on a summary judgment motion, Mr. Biden unexpectedly requested an ex parte order to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice due to financial hardships worsened by the Palisades Fire.
Are you a fan of true crime? Subscribe to our newsletter, The Docket, to receive the newest tales from real life crimes directly in your mailbox.
The post 'The court cannot determine that the plaintiff demonstrated diligence': A former White House policy analyst for Trump requests legal costs from Hunter Biden following a judge's decision to dismiss the unsuccessful laptop lawsuit 'without prejudice.' first appeared on Law & Crime .