Hunter Biden is edging closer to securing a default win in a defamation lawsuit against Overstock’s ex-CEO after a federal judge imposed financial penalties on Patrick Byrne. These sanctions are meant to cover the travel expenses of Biden’s legal team, requiring Byrne to submit a motion that could potentially conclude the case.

Attorney Bryan Sullivan informed Law&Crime that the sanctions order by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson acts as a compensation for the plaintiff’s legal representatives, who attended the trial set for late July, which was unexpectedly disrupted in “three-ring circus” style. This happened when Byrne dismissed his attorneys and failed in persuading the court to allow attorney Stefanie Lambert pro hac vice to represent him.

An August-end sanctions motion filed by Biden’s lawyers requested Wilson to make Byrne responsible for $34,969.20 in costs for accommodations, airfare, meals, and Uber rides rendered futile by the “bad faith conduct” that delayed the trial by several months.

Back in late July, Judge Wilson, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, opted against a default judgment immediately in Biden’s favor, choosing to reschedule the trial to Oct. 14, allowing Byrne time to secure new legal representation.

However, as reported by Law&Crime two weeks ago, Stefanie Lambert — a Michigan attorney accused of attempting to tamper with 2020 election voting machines and previously deemed unfit to represent Byrne in a Dominion Voting Systems case due to “relentless misconduct” — along with Peter Ticktin, one of the lawyers penalized in Donald Trump’s unsuccessful RICO case against Hillary Clinton, petitioned the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to mandate Wilson to approve their pro hac vice requests. On Sept. 25, a three-judge panel declined to halt the lawsuit, declaring that Lambert and Ticktin “have not shown a clear and indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.”

That means Byrne is still officially without counsel in the lawsuit — and at a time when Biden’s legal team has complained about violations of the court’s orders, requested a bench warrant to secure Byrne’s in-person presence in court so he can “defend (or confess) the case on the merits,” and signaled its intent to file a motion for a default judgment that would bring the lawsuit to an end.

Sullivan, noting that the bench warrant request has not been denied and is therefore still pending in Wilson’s court, told Law&Crime on Tuesday that the sanctions issued against Byrne were “solely for the costs incurred in connection with having the trial team attend the July 29, 2025 trial date that was continued due to Defendant’s misconduct.” The attorney further explained that the judge ordered Biden’s team to file a default judgment motion.

“As to the default judgment, the Court almost defaulted Defendant due to his misconduct at the July 29, 2025 trial date, but elected to grant Plaintiff additional discovery into Defendant’s net worth/financial condition,” Sullivan said in an email. “Since then the Defendant has ignored Court orders and failed to meaningfully engage in the proceedings so the Court ordered us to file a motion for default judgment. We will be filing that motion.”

Lambert and Ticktin had argued that Wilson’s refusal to allow Byrne his “counsel of choice” on the case amounted to “a severe violation of his constitutional rights” and “a textbook example of abuse of process” on Biden’s part, which they said supported a writ of mandamus. Following the denial of mandamus, the attorneys notified the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that they are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Biden’s bench warrant request looms:

On September 29, 2025, attorneys for Robert Hunter Biden appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking an ex parte bench warrant for the arrest of Patrick Byrne.

This is a civil case for defamation, brought by Plaintiff Robert Hunter Biden. In other words, as the Complainant, it was Biden’s burden and challenge to serve the Defendant with Notice and Service of Process in the first instance to begin the lawsuit. If Biden did not know how to serve Byrne, then this civil case would never have gotten started by service of process. The attempt to use contempt to force Byrne to bear Biden’s burden to serve him after Biden removed Byrne’s attorneys is abusive and conducted in bad faith.

Now, Biden’s attorneys want to have Byrne arrested to provide a telephone number and address for his lawyer, and Byrne’s plans for how Biden can sue him at trial, even though Biden’s attorneys caused the problem by asking for Byrne’s attorneys to be removed from the case.

Law&Crime sought comment from Lambert and Ticktin, but did not immediately receive a response.

Former President Joe Biden’s son first filed the defamation lawsuit in late 2023, claiming that Byrne defamed him when making false accusations about committing “despicable and treasonous crimes” involving bribery and Iran. Biden alleged that Byrne was “told that his allegations are false” and that a retraction demand was made, but the defendant “doubled down” in a subsequent post linking the plaintiff and his “purported crimes” to the “horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel.”