I will have more to add later, but my preliminary take on this is that the
Request for Reconsideration is ill-conceived. The documents now produced as
exhibits to Ryan's affidavit still do not provide any evidence of wrongdoing, nor any
inference of wrongdoing by UL in connection with a public contract, nor do the documents
demonstrate that Ryan was reporting any such wrongdoing, as required by the
"whistleblower" legislation.
The court gave Ryan a roadmap to putting his pleading in order and a strong warning about
the folly of pursuing his complaint in the absence of anything to support the requisite
elements of the torts he alleged. Once again, Ryan has failed to follow the roadmap and has
also failed to heed the strong warning he was given.
ADDITIONS:
In addition, (and with thanks to my American attorney friend, LossLeader, for his input)
there is nothing in Ryan's latest salvo that demonstrates any newly discovered evidence or
any intervening change in the law from the time of the decision to the time of Ryan's request
for reconsideration. The evidence that he is offering now was available long before he began
his ill-fated litigation, and was certainly available during the many months that he sparred
with the defendant in this case.
Ryan chose not to provide a sufficient factual basis for his complaint despite being subject to
a motion to dismiss for failing to properly state his claims. Having made that choice, and
having ignored the roadmap provided by the court to come into compliance with the very
low threshold required to sustain his complaint, it seems to me that the court is not likely to
be sympathetic to his request for reconsideration.
And again, the exhibits appended to Ryan's affidavit still do not allege any wrongdoing
against UL in connection with a public contract, nor do they amount to reporting any such
wrongdoing to NIST.
Thus, I do not think that Ryan's request for reconsideration will be successful.
As an aside, only Mr. Harrison (who is acting on a contingency/reduced fee basis for Ryan)
has put his name to this filing, once again. It appears that the other two lawyers have
bailed. I don't blame them.
One more thought: perhaps Ryan is taking this step only in order to get his ducks in a row for
an appeal later. If that is the case, I sure hope that he has a pocketful of cash that he is willing
to pay to his former employer, because he will need it. The court already warned him in this
regard and, so far, he has disregarded that warning. The next court to turf his complaint will
not be shy about ordering costs against him. (In Ontario, he would have been ordered to pay
costs already as a result of losing on UL's motion to dismiss.)