King v. Whitmer CIVIL 20-13134 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021) Voter List and Other Voting Records, ” Subsection 1 - “Election Workers Fraudulently Added ‘Tens of Thousands' of New Ballots and New Voters in the Early Morning and Evening of November 4, ” ECF No. 6 at Pg ID 899-900 I 84 (quoting Carone Affidavit, ECF No. 6-5 at Pg ID 1306 I 8).) But nothing described by Carone connects the vans to any ballots; nothing connects the illusory ballots to President Biden; and nothing connects the illusory votes for President Biden to the 100, 000 ballots “coincidently” announced on the news as “discovered” in Michigan.57 Yet not a single member of Plaintiffs' legal team spoke with Carone to fill in these speculation-filled gaps before using her affidavit to support the allegation that tens of thousands of votes for President Biden were fraudulently added.58, 59 (See ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5426-28.) 57 And nothing in the affidavit enlightens its reader as to what is meant by “discovered.” 58 Without engaging in such an inquiry-much less a reasonable one-counsel's affirmative decision to label the 100, 000 ballots discussed on the news-or the illusory ballots theoretically removed from two vans-an “illegal vote dump” serves as a quintessential example of guesswork laced with bad faith. 59 Kleinhendler emphasized during the hearing that Carone “publicly testified . . . in Michigan about her findings.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5427.) It is nonsensensical to suggest that supporting a key factual allegation speculation with is nothing justified more than because that speculation was repeated publicly. It is also notable that, when the Court asked Plaintiffs' counsel whether an affiant's observation of a self-described “coincidence” serves as evidentiary support for the allegation that an “illegal vote dump” occurred, Plaintiffs' counsel appeared to say that it was okay in this case because Ramsland “relied on [the Carone Affidavit] for . . . his statistical analysis” and “an expert can rely on hearsay.” (Id. at Pg ID 5429.) But the problem with the Carone Affidavit does not concern hearsay-it concerns conjecture. And surely Plaintiffs' attorneys cannot fail to reasonably inquire into an affiant's speculative statements and thereafter escape their duty to “stop-and-think” before making factual allegations based on the statements, simply because their expert did the same. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment) (“The rule continues to require litigants to ‘stop-and-think' before initially making legal or factual contentions.”). Plaintiffs' counsel further emphasized that if Carone “[said] things that don't turn out to be entirely accurate, that can be discovered through the processes that this Court is very familiar with.” (ECF No. 157 at Pg ID 5429.) The Court assumes the attorneys were referring to the discovery process. But here's the snag: Plaintiffs are not entitled to rely on the discovery process to mine for evidence that never existed in the first instance. See Goldman v. Barrett, 825 Fed.Appx. 35, 38 (2d Cir. 2020) (explaining that a plaintiff “may not rely on discovery to manufacture a claim that lacks factual support in the first instance” but “may use discovery to bolster evidence”). And speculation, coincidence, and innuendo could never amount to evidence of an “illegal vote dump”-much less, anything else.60 60 The Supreme Court has made clear that where there are perfectly plausible alternative explanations for an event-here, for example, legally cast ballots simply being delivered and counted-a plaintiff's allegations are not to be accepted as true. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (explaining the “need at the pleading stage for allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” liability). And of course, the mere fact that the affiant and/or Plaintiffs' counsel opted to use seemingly 32