IN THE STATE COURT

OF FULTON COUNTY
GEORGIA
DEZSO BENEDEK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL F. ADAMS, and THE BOARD OF
REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF
GEORGIA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

13EV016714D
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS RESPOPNSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comes now Plaintiff Dezso Benedek, in response to Defendant

Michael Adams Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for
Testimony and the Production of Documents, and shows the Court as
follows:
Plaintiff filed the Notice of Deposition for Michael Adams on proper
authority, and properly subpoenaed him to produce any documents in his
possession before he changes jobs and leaves the state of Georgia for
alternate employment in California. OCGA 9-11-30(b)(2). Adams is already
a party to this action, and not affected by any question of additional parties
before the Court on remand. However, his deposition will have a bearing on
other claims and parties to be added in connection with the alleged evidence-

tampering scheme. His deposition is also pertinent to issues related to his

pending motion to dismiss. Adams deposition will have a bearing on the
very issues of sovereign immunity on which Defendants motion to dismiss
was based, for which the Attorney General has repeatedly demanded proof.
Plaintiff intends to provide extensive evidence illustrating the difference
between the Attorney Generals hypothetical breach of a private tort duty
governed by the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA) and the criminal RICO
predicate acts governed by the Georgia RICO Act that are actually alleged in
this case. OCGA 16-14-1 et seq. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if not allowed to
examine this witness, without further unnecessary delay, and prior to his
departure from the University of Georgia (UGA).
Therefore, the Court should deny Defendant Attorney Generals
motion to quash--which only compounds the prejudice Plaintiff has already
suffered from endless and unjustified delays in discovery. These delays
have been occasioned by the Attorney Generals prior baseless defenses and
this Courts dismissal order that evaded the governing procedural law.
Benedek v. Adams, __ Ga. App. ___ (A15A0088 6/24/15).

PREJUDICE FROM DELAY

Contrary to the Attorney Generals protests, there is no oppression of

Michael Adams involved in requiring him to produce any UGA documents
in his possessionthat are more likely to be beyond his access or control
after he leaves UGA for his new position at Pepperdine on August 1. As a
practical matter, now is the time to procure those documents, if ever.
The Attorney General has actually raised this issue concerning
documents in Defendants possession by repeatedly claiming that Plaintiff
has no evidence to support the allegations of criminal RICO predicate acts.
Defendants Supplemental Motion filed January 6, 2014, p. 12 (Plaintiff
has failed to present any evidence that Defendants engaged in any criminal
violations other than his own self-serving, conclusory allegations.) Georgia
Attorney General Sam Olens has opposed independent investigation of the
allegationsthat concern wrongdoing in the very Office by publicly
claiming there is no credible evidence to support the frivolous and
nonsensical allegations. In fact, extensive evidence documenting the
allegations has already been identified and authenticated, and placed in the
public record in the tenure revocation proceeding and the Fulton uperior
Court action, Benedek v. Olens. Thus there is nothing oppressive about
requiring Adams to produce these and any other relevant documents in his
possession.

Plaintiff is also entitled to pursue the knowingly false claims already

made by the Attorney General in this action in view of amendment for
additional RICO predicate acts. Plaintiff will be prejudiced in this regard if
not allowed to examine this witness on a timely basis.
Courts commonly recognize such delay as cause of prejudice against a
party seeking discovery. Singleton v. State, 732 SE2d 312, 318 (Ga. App.
2012) (prejudice from delay in discovery includes dimming memories and
loss of evidence).
In this case, we also face the concrete problem of loss of documents
which is already specifically an issue in this case. The Jilin Memo, which
contradicted the tenure revocation charge brought against Professor
Benedek, was concealed by Defendants.
In response to lawful Open Records requests, Defendants falsely
denied the existence of correspondence illegally sent out by Adams
administration officials in the name of UGA studentsstudents who had no
idea their identities had been misappropriated in order to create a false paper
trail to use against Professor Benedek. Once again, that illegally
manufactured false paper trail contradicted probative documents Defendants
attempted to conceal.

The UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement also contradicted the tenure

revocation charge brought against Professor Benedek. Defendants denied the
existence of that document under oathuntil it was recovered by Benedeks
counsel, bearing the signature of Michael Adams.
Given this proven track record of obfuscation and deceit, Plaintiffs
trepidation about allowing the deponent to clean out his old desk and move
to a new position across the country is entirely justified.
Delay compounds prior court errors
Prior errors and delayssuch as that occasioned by the courts May 2
dismissal order that was reversed by the Court of Appeals--have already
resulted in concrete prejudice to Plaintiff. The courts prior erroneous order
already resulted in evasion of service by Jane Gatewood, a proposed
Defendant who is a principal witness to the very scheme of evidence
tampering, influencing witnesses, and perjury for which Attorney General
claims sovereign immunity on behalf of himself and co-Defendants.
The deposition notice and subpoena were served on proper lawful
basis under OCGA 9-11-30(b)(2) and 9-11-45, which the Court should not
disturb. The delay in deposing the named individual defendant would
prejudice Plaintiff even more than the procedural irregularities that allowed
Gatewoods escape from Georgia.

This prejudice is compounded by the courts erroneous order failing to

properly address amendment as of right and motion to add parties. While the
court never decided the issue under the proper statute, as found by the Court
of Appeals, there are no meaningful grounds for denying addition of parties
in a case in which discovery has never commenced. OCGA 9-11-21 (parties
maybe added at any stage on such terms that are just). Due in large part to
this courts actions, this case has not progressed past square one over towand-a-half years after it was filed.
Sovereign immunity does not extend to Malibu
Contrary to the Attorney Generals claims, there is no sovereign
immunity grounds to oppose the deposition of Michael Adams itselfwhich
in no way interferes with Adams work for state of Georgia. Sovereign
immunity in Georgia does not protect employees of Pepperdine University
in Malibu, California.
Discovery related to question of dismissal for sovereign immunity
Moreover, Plaintiffs seek discovery for the purpose of penetrating the
sovereign immunity shield the Attorney General seeks to throw up. The
Attorney General has argued previously that Plaintiff has no evidence to
support his contentions. Attorney General Sam Olens has publicly opposed
independent investigation claiming no credible evidence.

Plaintiff is entitled to respond to these claims, to have the named

individual defendant review the voluminous documentation that does exist in
order to refute the Attorney Generals spurious defenses.
No pending motion to dismiss according to Court of Appeals
Last but not least, there is no extant motion to dismiss pending that
bars Plaintiffs discovery. As the Court of Appeals reversal and remand
order makes clear, there is no motion by Defendants that was filed after
March 24, 2014, and therefore no motion pending that addresses Plaintiffs
operative complaint. Benedek, Ga. App. At p.6 (remanded to consider
whether the claims asserted against the original defendants in the March 24,
2014 Second Amended Complaint are subject to dismissal on the merits).

Conclusion
There is nothing unreasonable or oppressive about requiring a party to bring
to a deposition any documents related to allegations in the complaint
which was filed well over a year ago. The Attorney General as much as
admits that by going back and forth between arguing that Adams is not
likely to have any responsive documents to claiming that the documents
could constitute a vast treasure trove. Again, many of the documents
implicating Defendant Adams in a criminal evidence tampering scheme have

already been identified, authenticated, and produced in the course of these

proceedings. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to any records and recollections of
the deponent before the deponent leaves his current position at UGA and
before another two-and-a-half years of stonewalling elapses.
As the deposition is noticed for July 23, and Plaintiff received this
objection on July 21, Plaintiff requests the Court to hold a hearing to decide
this matter on July 22, 2015, and to DENY Defendants Motion.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of July, 2015.

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.
/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys
___________________________
STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS
Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-7777 p
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 m

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE XXX(NOT FILED OR SERVED)XXX

(Exhibit only)
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that all Defendants in this action have
been served this Response via electronic mail and US mail, this 21st day of
July, 2015, as follows:
Samuel S. Olens
Dennis R. Dunn
Kathleen M. Pacious
Annette M. Cowart
Loretta L. Pinkston
Christopher A. McGraw
C. McLaurin Sitton
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.

/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys
___________________________
STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS
Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-7777 p
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 m