Opinion
00 C 282
January 23, 2003.
OPINION
Ameritech seeks an order preventing Theodore Roxford from pursuing a certain lawsuit in the Northern District of California. I entered such an order once before precluding a different suit before that federal court in California. Roxford says this new suit has no relationship to the case I disposed of and which is now on appeal. But that is not so. The newest case is based on the claim that involves most, if not all, the witnesses in the case here and charges each of them with lying in the depositions in this court's case. To this he adds the conduct of the attorneys for the defendant here. Oddly, the caption of his newest case only names SBC (the acquirer of Ameritech), but the remedy portion of the complaint asks for damages from all defendants. I assume for purposes of this motion that Roxford wants money from each of the people who, he claims, have lied about him and about the facts of this case.
I had previously entered an injunction, after hearing, which enjoined Roxford from harassing or communicating or attempting to communicate in any way with any potential witness in this case who is either a current or former employee of either Ameritech or BCE, Inc. It is difficult to see this newest suit as anything other than a violation of this injunction. Much of the new case includes the facts alleged in the case here. The complaint reeks of harassment because it is so patently baseless as a matter of law.
This is so because many of the statements about which Roxford identifies as defamatory are barred under California's one year limitations period. Calif. Code Civ. P. § 340. Many of the statements complained about were statements by lawyers in pleadings and legal actions directly related to the defense of this court's case, which are privileged under California law. If they were not, they would be privileged under Illinois law which would govern the conduct of the Illinois attorneys in dealing with the case in this court. The claim of tortious interference with prospective economic opportunities requires proof that defendant knew of the opportunity, and this cannot be proven if one accepts the facts alleged in the new complaint and Roxford's deposition in this court's case.
So I enter an order precluding Roxford from proceeding in any fashion with case C02-5962 in the Northern District of California. To protect against a third occurrence of this type, I order Theodore Roxford to provide to me and to attorneys for Ameritech copies of any lawsuit he intends to file which relate in any way to the transactions and occurrences which gave rise to the case Roxford v. Ameritech, 02C282 filed in this court. Such copies shall be provided 28 days prior to the intended date of filing. It is possible that Roxford may be able to bring some claims before some United States court. While that possibility is extremely small, I am willing to give Roxford a chance to show that it exists. But the overwhelming odds are that claims related to this court's case will be nothing more than his efforts to harass witnesses and lawyers which I find to have been his purpose in the two lawsuits he has already filed subsequent to his filing here.
I also order Roxford to show cause at 2:00 p.m. on February 20, 2003, as to why he should not be held in contempt of court for his filing of Roxford v. SBC in the Northern District of California. I order Theodore Roxford to present himself to this court on that day. If Theodore Roxford wishes to be heard on the rule to show cause or on reconsideration of the order I enter today prior to February 20th, the court will accommodate his wishes.