Nope,but people love to beat dead horses.

To get them to admit that:

the DNC reportedly argued that the organization's neutrality among Democratic campaigns during the primaries was merely a "political promise," and therefore it had no legal obligations to remain impartial throughout the process.

The DNC charter was revised after Chicago 1968

the Democratic nomination process was radically revised after the 1968 fiasco at the Chicago Convention in order to win back the droves of disgusted voters who’d abandoned the party, and a major component of that revision was giving the people a voice in the nominating process by instituting primaries and caucuses. Had they not done this, had they not promised the American people a fair and balanced democratic primary process, the Democrats risked losing party viability and being replaced by another party that was more appealing for voters to engage with. By admitting that they have been lying about taking this promise seriously, the DNC is admitting that its party probably should have perished sometime in the 1970s. They deceived the American people into letting them remain.

It's before the court.

A court finding that the Democratic Party apparatus had chosen Clinton as the nominee in a smoke-filled back room, staged an apparently impartial primary process all the while actively working against the Sanders campaign, violating its own rules, defrauding contributors, rigging elections from the outset while and laundering vast sums of money for Clinton theough the state parties could be useful.

For one thing, maybe millions of people could get the contributions back they were cheated out of. For another, the court can do more than make findings. Class action suits like this can, and do, change things

Yes, this needs ro be argued in court.