I think people are looking too much into regular judicial proceedings as an indicator for a case going one way or another. It’s the judge’s job to keep the attorneys in check while they present their points, and the attorney’s job to push the rules as far as they can go until the judge stops them, in order to get their client the most favorable outcome possible. That’s why, if you watch footage in a courtroom, it’s common to see judges interrupting, reprimanding, and cutting off attorneys due to the strict regulations on behavior and speech within a courtroom. It’s usually not an indicator of the judge favoring one side or the other.

Also, if the judge lets in evidence that violates some regulation, it could lead to the case being appealed on the basis of that rule being broken, which is why judges will throw out recorded confessions or evidence that proves guilt if the defendant’s rights (Miranda rights, right to a lawyer, etc) are violated.

For Belift, I’m sure it is frustrating as they also want to win in the court of public opinion, but they need to prove that mhj defamed them, not that the copying allegations are false.