Frauditor Troll’s Discovery Dodge Fails; Judge Says NO to DMA Lawsuit Changes

Tuesday saw a new twist in the on-going legal battle between Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova and Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault when Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied an attempt by Hudon-Huneault to force a one-sided halt to the discovery process and stay any decisions by Judge DeMarchi until she rules on their newly filed Forum Non Conveniens and Security for Costs motions.

The drama started late week when Hudon-Huneault’s attorney, “Sinsational” Simon Lin, filed to dismiss the lawsuit and have it moved to a Canadian Court along with a motion for Cordova to put up a $135,619.75 bond to cover costs when the defendants prevailed in the case.

While no response by the plaintiff was immediately due, on Thursday, Lin filed again, with an administrative motion to stay the discovery process for the plaintiffs while allowing the discovery process for the defense to continue and to move forward the two new motions before the rest of the motions that are outstanding.

In his response to Thursday’s administrative motion Cordova’s attorney, That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., noted that the administrative motion was primarily based on the two new motions that he hadn’t had proper time to provide a reply. Instead, he would now be limited to the five pages allotted to the administrative motion’s response to make his response to the two previous motions.

He also noted that Hudon-Huneault had drawn out the discovery process and had been unable or unwilling to provide any information or copies of the roughly 1700 videos he had deleted from his Frauditor Troll channel when informed of the lawsuit last year. He also asked for a status conference to resolve the outstanding discovery issues.

DeMarchi ruled:

“On March 12, 2026, defendants Jonathan Huneault, Nneka Ohiri, and 14693663 Canada Inc. filed an administrative motion requesting that the Court (1) stay discovery and (2) defer ruling on plaintiff’s motion to strike and motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 61, 64), pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens (Dkt. No. 91). Dkt. No. 94. Plaintiff Christopher J. Cordova opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 98.

In the exercise of its discretion, the Court denies defendants’ motion. See, e.g., Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”). The Court has already resolved defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s operative complaint and set a case management schedule. Defendants’ proposed stay of discovery would not promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1

In his opposition to defendants’ administrative motion, Mr. Cordova states that he “cannot determine the appropriate procedural mechanism to bring [discovery issues] before the Court,” and requests a status conference. Dkt. No. 98 at 5. Discovery disputes must be resolved in accordance with section 4 of the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Parties who fail to comply with the Standing Order may be subject to sanctions.”

None of the parties involved in the lawsuit have issued statements on her ruling as of press time.

Hudon-Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit lost $10.00 in value on Wednesday due to conversion rate changes between CAD and USD.

Our own On-Going Expenses campaign won the day with $300.00 in new donations.

This is a breaking news story.