Trending

Mike Missanelli vs. JAKIB Media: Who Wants to Look Through 19,000 Social Media Posts?

By Kevin Kinkead

Published: Jun 24th, 2025 · 12:01 PM EDT

---

The legal battle between Mike Missanelli and JAKIB Media’s Joe Krause continues into the summer with minor developments, but no resolution in sight. Missanelli says he’s owed more than $50,000 in unpaid compensation for the work he did on JAKIB’s Philadelphia Eagles YouTube show, while Krause says Missanelli did not sign his contract nor fulfill all of its requirements.

Earlier this month, the two sides appeared in front of Montco Judge Jeffrey Saltz for a hearing on depositions and sanctions, Missanelli’s attorney arguing that Krause violated the judge’s order to produce a set of documents that was to include a full copy of the contract, hyperlinks to JAKIB postgame shows and social media postings, and copies of the checks and direct deposits sent to to Missanelli. Saltz denied that motion, saying that Krause had sufficiently complied with the court order, while directing both sides to schedule depositions for June and July.

In layman’s terms, a win for Krause.

Crossing Broad requested the public notes from the hearing, which are rather dense, full of legalese, and somewhat repetitive. But at the heart of the issue is the examination of social media accounts and the responsibility of going through almost 20,000 posts on X:

KEVIN WRIGHT (Missanelli’s lawyer): As we pointed out in our motion at the outset of this case, Plaintiff — certainly Defendant requested additional time to research three different social media accounts as well as other materials and requested 90 days to do that before he could respond to the complaint. The Court granted that motion. And then after those 90 days, Defendant produced very little, if any, material and essentially referred us to the JAKIB Media X account and said go on the account yourself and you can find materials.

Now, there are apparently 19,000 posts on that account. And we were not given any information from his other two social media accounts to which he refers. Specifically what I’m talking about are his personal account and his Facebook posts.

And what we’re looking for, Judge, essentially, is this, one of the allegations is that my client failed to properly promote the post-game show and that as a result, I assume, the defendant contends lost some money on it. It is our understanding that Mr. Krause himself promoted the show on these three accounts. And that my client then retweeted them or republished them or liked them, whatever the terminology is. We need to see his posts on those three accounts so that he can then trace back to my client’s reposting of those promotions. That’s essentially the main issue as to this motion.

But what we want are any and all records, materials he’s going to use at the time of trial. And the reason I bring that up is on March 22nd he filed an answer to answer new matter and counterclaim to our complaint in which he alleged that he has suffered over $200,000 in damages as a result of the publication of this litigation on some other — Crossing Broad I believe is the name of it — and says he will produce those materials at the time of trial.

What I’m asking for right now is an order compelling him to produce any and all materials that we requested at the outset of this matter and were covered by the Court’s earlier order, specifically posts on those three social media accounts and any documents he intends to introduce at trial concerning this alleged counterclaim.

At this point in the hearing, there’s some dialogue between Wright and Judge Saltz about the responsibility of searching through all of these media posts. Saltz asks Wright why the burden on his client is any different from the burden on Krause, to go through these 19,000 social media posts on the @JAKIBSports Twitter account, essentially to determine how and when the postgame show was promoted, and whether or not Missanelli retweeted those from his personal accounts. That goes back to a stipulation in the contract in which Krause alleges that Missanelli’s failure to boost the show on social media is part of this alleged breach.

Krause then opens by saying that his email, Twitter, and Facebook accounts have nothing to do with the case. He tells the judge that Missanelli was responsible for the social media posts promoting the show. It gets a little more dense from here, with the judge referring to a motion for extension filed by Krause in August of 2024, asking for time to review 3,000+ minutes of video content, 161 days of social media postings on multiple accounts, and other documents in order to craft a proper response.

It seems like there’s then some confusion about whose social media was supposed to be searched:

THE COURT (Judge Saltz): And you’re saying that the obligation was to promote your YouTube show on his social media?

MR. KRAUSE: It was one of the main priorities in the contract. The program, Your Honor, is a digital show.

THE COURT: And you’re saying that on review of 161 days of three social media platforms maintained by the plaintiff that you found no references in —

MR. KRAUSE: I was unable to find anything during my review.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Wright, given that representation, what is Mr. Krause supposed to be producing?

MR. WRIGHT: He’s supposed to be producing, not just publications from my client concerning his program, but his own publications which my client subsequently liked or shared.

(more back and forth)

THE COURT: Here’s how I understand this situation, Mr. Wright. You have an order requiring the production of the social media.

MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Krause did not refer you to the plaintiff’s Facebook and Instagram accounts but did refer you to his X accounts and also referred you to Mr. Krause’s own or Jakib Media’s X account. You’re saying I shouldn’t have to sift through these accounts because Mr. Krause’s already done it and I’m entitled to the benefit of that review. And Mr. Krause comes back and says the only accounts I reviewed were the accounts of Mr. Missanelli and I found nothing relating to the YouTube program. So what is he supposed to produce…?

MR. WRIGHT: What we want is anything on his own accounts, No. 1, sifting through the 19,000 pages (sic – these are posts, not pages).

THE COURT: Of his own account?

MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Why is the burden of reviewing that account by you greater than the burden that would be imposed on Mr. Krause?

Missanelli’s lawyer goes on to say that the August extension was misrepresented, thinking that Krause would be reviewing his social media accounts in addition to Missanelli’s accounts. He claims again that Missanelli retweeted show promotion from the JAKIB account, which, in theory, could satisfy the requirements in the contract. Krause then argues that the review process is irrelevant to the breach of contract claim.

At this point, they go out in the hallway to schedule depositions, then the judge comes back with this:

“On the motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the April order on production of documents, I — the motion will be denied. I think that Mr. Krause has complied with the order based upon his representations to the Court.”

So what’s the takeaway here? It just shows how much of a cluster this litigation has become. We’re almost a full year in and depositions are just beginning. Settlement offers were reportedly rejected and various motions for sanctions and dismissals have been denied. What’s interesting to note is that Krause claims he’s suffered damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars due to Missanelli’s breaches, which constitute a combination of lost sponsorship revenue and reputational harm. He says he is entitled to restitution of a $25,000 partial payment to Missanelli, based on “compensatory and consequential damages for Plaintiff’s breaches and tortious interference, punitive damages, and interest.”

Krause is pro se in this case, or representing himself without a lawyer.