Excerpt from a decision in GOLO v Higher Health Network Meh (Photo: Courtesy Photo)

Meh.

A “note to self” that was left in the initial version of a published decision issued by a San Diego federal judge is making the rounds on social media.

The decision, issued Feb. 5 by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel—and more than likely written by one of his clerks—says, “Meh I need a better rule statement than this” immediately after a not-particularly-well-worded citation.

A member of Curiel's staff who answered the phone in his chambers Wednesday morning said the judge had no comment on the matter.

But when reached Wednesday morning, the lawyers on either side of the underlying case say that the gaffe was quickly fixed on the docket with an amended order. Indeed, the copy of the order available on Pacer on Wednesday doesn't include the parenthetical commentary, but the initial version has been preserved by docket scrapers including Justia and Recap.

Still, the decision provided a teaching moment for the legal Twitterati:

[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]

[falcon-embed src="embed_2"]

In the underlying decision, Curiel dismissed a false advertising case that the maker of the GOLO weight loss system brought against backers of a website the company claims posted bogus negative reviews of its product in order to misdirect customers. The judge, however, gave GOLO leave to amend its complaint.

GOLO LLC's lead lawyer, M. Kelly Tillery at Pepper Hamilton, said in a phone interview that he is working on an amended complaint and that he intends to file it “if the matter doesn't resolve itself.”

As to the parenthetical in the initial order, Tillery said he attributes it to the quirks of modern legal practice. “The good news for the law clerk is it could have been worse,” Tillery said. “These things happen and they happen to law clerks in good courts.”

Paul J. Safier of Ballard Spahr, who represents the defendants in the case, said in an email that the whole episode was “no big deal.”

Said Safier: “I (candidly) didn't even notice it when I reviewed the decision. I was mostly just focused on the result, which was good.”