:

<l

ORIGINAL
ases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-31 . Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION

JOHN P. BLUMBERG, ESQ. (SBN 70200) SINDEE M. SMOLOWITZ, ESQ. (SBN 123237)
444 W. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 1500 LONG BEACH, CA 908 02

TELEPHONE: TELECOPIER:
METZGER

(562) (562)

437-0403 432-0107

'

FILED untfofLsS

LAW GROUP

NOV 04 2013
ESQ. ESQ. (SBN 116020) (SBN 2513 64)
800

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

RAPHAEL METZGER, KATHRYN SALDANA,

401 E.

John A. ClaiExecutive Oficer/Cleris

OCEAN BLVD.,

SUITE

LONG BEACH, TELEPHONE: TELECOPIER:

CA 90802-4966 (562) 437-4499 (562) 436-1561

9
10
11 12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ."

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO

13
14 15

FOR THE

COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES

CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO,

LAURA A. DIECKMAN,

aka

CASE

NO.

BC411018

16
Plaintiffs, 17
vs.

Assigned to the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian, Dept. 41

PLAINTIFF'S
STATEMENT

STATUS

CONFERENCE

18
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

DATE:
TIME: DEPT:

November 12,
8:30 41 a.m.

2013

19 20

INTERNATIONAL,

a corporate

entity, AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

21 22

23
24

25

26
27

28

PLAINTIFF'S

STATUS

CONFERENCE

STATEMENT

M
0) a in

F:\vWCases\9527\CASEMGMTA2013-10-31 . Status Conference Statement-rev.wpd

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

o u

. ID w
k x en K

I,S
V H

2 3
4

Plaintiff hereby submits the following Status Conference Statement in advance of the
hearing scheduled in this matter on November 12, 2013.

- N

N U

N fv

(0 (0
in -

* u u y > 211 J

oto J

5 6 7 8

PLAINTIFF,S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE S 17200 CLAIM

The Court previously ordered that Plaintiffs Business & Professions Code 17200 would be tried separately as a bench trial before a jury trial on plaintiffs other claims. Concurrently with the filing of this Status Conference Statement, plaintiff is filing a dismissal
of her Business & Professions Code 17200 claim, such that there is no need for a separate
bench trial of this claim.

9
10
Z CO 10 ,, 2 r U1
o o <0

11 12

< t (VI
lii O </> 0
U
.

CC

K 3 O

0 N O (K _.

0. - O K Q

u! UJ *2 5 UJ K

13 14
15

SEVERANCE OF THE TRIAL

y 2 < o 3 t-

t -J
O UJ

'

I ID
~

Q -j 1 <

S < o Z0 < i 1 r " * J DL

'
' ,

<
a:

# o u
w

On January 13, 2012, this Court granted defendants' motion to bifurcate and ordered

16
17

that prior to a jury trial, the Court would conduct a bench trial regarding the issue of equitable
estoppel. Since that time, the Court denied defendants Joint Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the issue of equitable estoppel, and has reviewed in detail the types of evidence and
issues that must be considered with respect to equitable estoppel in this case.
,

. < 13 . u z : - , O -I
*

18 19
20
21
O (ft
2 u

Since plaintiffs entire background and experience in the Church of Scientology is

3S *S x - J
"

22 23

relevant to equitable estoppel, plaintiff proposes that the Court conduct a single trial in this
case, wherein the Court will decide the issue of equitable estoppel and a jury will decide all other issues. Plaintiffs counsel believes that this is the most efficient and economical way for

>

O j- < Z

H O 2 u u Z
n
-

t S,:X
_

S ig,
-

i 2 O
"

24 25

< 5..0
< *- > 2 f 2 2 <
'- UJ tJ- :
.

Z S "V
UJ 2 .a t O o U

all parties and Court to conduct a trial of this case, because the overlap of witnesses and
evidence for purposes of equitable estoppel and Plaintiffs liability claims is substantial.
// //
1
_ _

u > z <
u u -

5 < \
2 o U

26
27 28

u - i5 !iJ

p k,,a
U H 3-< < a: W .u

i 0 0 0
. .

I- i O jQ

PLAINTIFF'S

STATUS

CONFERENCE

STATEMENT

F:\w ases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-31 - Status Conference Statement-rev.wpd

1
2

Plaintiffs counsel estimates that a trial on just the issue of equitable estoppel will take

3 to 4 weeks to complete, and that the evidence presented will span more than 25 years in time.

Additionally, most of the evidence that is relevant to equitable estoppel is also relevant to

4
5

plaintiffs liability claims and the same witnesses and evidence will be used to prove both
equitable estoppel and plaintiffs liability claims. It does not make sense for plaintiff to call
witnesses to testify to the same things twice (once to the court and once to the jury). It also is

6
7

not practical for plaintiff to have to testify twice about her extensive history in the Church of

Scientology, particularly as these subjects are deeply and painfully emotional for Plaintiff.
Indeed, Plaintiff will present the following evidence regarding both the issues of equitable estoppel and her liability claims, and the time that it will take to present this evidence is
substantial and overlapping:

9 10
11
12

13 14
15

Issue

Equitable Estoppel
Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness A: 1-2 hours for direct Witness B: 1-2 hours for direct

Liability Case
Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness A: 1-2 hours for direct

Plaintiffs General

Background in Scientology. (Exhibit "A" - Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Nos. 3-8)

16
17

Witness B: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness C: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 3-4 hours for direct
Witness A: 1-2 hours for direct

18 19

Witness C: 1-2 hours for direct

Plaintiffs Controlled Plaintiff: 3-4 hours for direct

20
21

Communications with Family. (Exhibit "A" - Nos. 9-40)

22 23 24 25

Witness A: 1-2 hours for direct Witness C: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness C: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct
Witness E: 1-2 hours for direct Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct

Life History Questionnaires

and Information Collection.

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct

Witness E: 1-2 hours for direct Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct

26
27 28

(Exhibit"A"-Nos. 41-43)

2
PLAINTIFF'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

F:\WPcases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-31 - Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

1 2

Witness J: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness E: 1-2 hours for direct

3 4 5

The schedule in the Sea Org.

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct

Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct

(Exhibit "A" - Nos. 44-47)

6
7

Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct

Plaintiff: 1-2 hours for direct Witness K: V2 hour to 1 hour for direct Plaintiff: 1-2 hours for direct

Plaintiffs compensation.

Plaintiff: 1-2 hours for direct Witness K: Vi hour to 1 hour for direct Plaintiff: 1-2 hours for direct
Witness K: V2 to 1 hour for direct

8
9 10
11

(Exhibit "A" - No. 48)

Plaintiffs schooling.

(Exhibit "A" - Nos. 49-52)

Witness K: V* to 1 hour for direct

Plaintiff: 4-5 hours for direct Witness E: 1- 2 hours for direct
Witness F: 1-2 hours for direct

12 13 14
15

Plaintiffs ability to leave the Sea Org.

Plaintiff: 4-5 hours for direct Witness E: 1- 2 hours for direct

Witness F: 1-2 hours for direct Witness G: 1-2 hours for direct Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct

(Exhibit "A" - Nos. 53-68)

16
17

Witness G: 1-2 hours for direct Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct Witness J: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct
Witness E: 1-2 hours for direct Witness J: 1A to 1 hour for direct

18
19 20
21

Witness I: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness J: 1-2 hours for direct Forced abortions.
Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness E: 1-2 hours for direct Witness J: 1A to 1 hour for direct

22
23

(Exhibit "A"-Nos. 69-71)

24

25 26 27 28

Witness L: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness L: 1-2 hours for direct

3
PLAINTIFF'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT

F:W Kases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-31 - Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

Rehabilitation Project Force. (Exhibit "A" - Nos. 72-79)

Plaintiff: 3-4 hours for direct

Plaintiff: 3-4 hours for direct

3
4
5

Witness G: 1-2 hours for direct Witness L: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness G: 1-2 hours for direct

Witness L: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness D: iA to 1 hour for direct Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct
Witness G: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct

6
7

Plaintiffs Departure from the Sea Organization and Documents Presented Upon Leaving. (Exhibit "A" - Nos. 80-97)

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct

Witness D: 1A to 1 hour for direct

8 9 10 11 12

Witness H: 1-2 hours for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct
Witness G: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Witness H: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct

Fears Over Filing a Lawsuit.

(Exhibit"A"-Nos. 98-116)

13 14
15 16 17 18 19

Witness H: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Witness K: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness G: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct
Witness H: ]A hour to 1 hour for direct

Witness K: XA hour to 1 hour for direct

Fears Over Filing a Lawsuit.

(Exhibit "A"-Nos. 98-116)

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness G: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct
Witness H: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Witness K: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct

20
21

Witness K: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness B: 1-2 hours for direct Witness C: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Witness D: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct
Witness M: 6-8 hours for direct

22
23

Events Leading Up to the Filing of Plaintiff s Lawsuit.

(Exhibit "A"-Nos. 117-134)

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for direct Witness B: 1-2 hours for direct

24 25 26
27

Witness C: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct Witness D: 1A hour to 1 hour for direct

28

The Psychological Impact of Plaintiffs Experiences. (Exhibit "A" - Nos. 135-137)

Witness M: 6-8 hours for direct

4

PLAINTIFF'S

STATUS

CONFERENCE

STATEMENT

FA :K

fase s\9527\C AS EM GMTV2013-10-31 . Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

Plaintiffs counsel recognizes that there are Constitutional issues in this case, and that

there may be some evidence that the Court will hear with respect to the issue of equitable

3
4 5 6 7

estoppel that the Court will not admit for purposes of plaintiffs underlying causes of action.
However, the Court can still conduct a single trial by simply excusing the jury when it is necessary for the Court to hear evidence that it decides should not be heard by the jury. This

would be much more efficient than trying the case in two separate phases in which much of the
same evidence would have to be presented twice.

9
10
11

TRIAL SCHEDULING

Plaintiff proposes a trial date in January 2015.

12 13 14 15

Additionally, given the Constitutional and complex issues in this case, plaintiff anticipates that there will be a significant number of motions in limine to be filed. Therefore,

plaintiff proposes that the Court set hearing dates for the motions in limine approximately 3
months prior to the trial date, that the Court schedule the hearings on the motions in limine to occur over the course of 3-5 days, and that the Court set a briefing schedule for the motions in
c

16
17

18 19

limine.

DATED: November 4, 2013

20
21

METZGER LAW GROUP

A Professional Law Corporation

22
23 24

RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ.

KATHRYN SALDANA, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO

25 26 27 28 5
PLAINTIFF'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT