IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND SOCIAL BETTERMENT PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL e/o Linowes and Blocher LLP 7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 * Plaintiff, v FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND, Serve: Jaa H, Gardner County Executive Winchester Hall 12F, Chureh Street Frederick, MD 21701 AND FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Serve: Jan H. Gardner ‘County Executive Winchester Hall 12 B, Chureh Street Frederick, MD 21701 AND FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATION Serve: fan H, Gardner County Executive ‘Winchester Hall 128, Church Street Frederick, MD-21701 i AND Case No. faset (OCG aati! CFAtivil Fld 1,08 AlFtlee Case: 0.08 OF-ter Feo: 518. Het 55,00 TAL TSE Receiet SAREHQGBLNGB Cashiers MH COFRER? BARING OsFREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING AND PERMITTING DIVISION Serve: Jan H, Gardner County Executive Winchester Hall 12 E. Church Street Frederick, MD 21701 Defendants. ee COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND/REQUEST POR EXPEDITED REVIEW Plaintiff, Social Betterment Properties Internstional, files this Complaint against the Defendants, Frederick County, Macyland, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review, the Frederick County Planning and Permitting Division, aud the Frederick County Zoning Administration, and states: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action seeking; expedited review under the Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA"}, Md. Code Ainn., General Provisions (“GP”) §§ 4-101 ef seq., for injunctive and declaratory relief to {compel the production of records willfully and wrongfully withheld ftom the Pht, Social Betterment Properties International (Social Betterment”), by Frederick Goons, Maryland (the “County"), the County Department of Planning and Development Review (“DPDR”), the County Planning and Permitting Division (“Planning end Peuiting”), and the County Zoning Administration (“Zoning Administration”, collectively with the County, DPDR, and Planning and Permitting, “Defendants”).2. Social Betterment seeks to compel the production of records on matters of vital public concem, Namely, Social Betterment seeks documents and communications relating in any way to the Frederick County Council's (the “Couneil”) proposed Bill 16- 02 — Special Exception Uses in Connection with Historie Structures and Sites (the “BiII”), ‘The Bill proposes to amend Chapter 1-19.8.600 of the Frederick County Code (the “Historie Use Section”) to eliminate “group home use" as an allowed use, subject to special exception approval ftom the Fréderick County Board of Appeats (the “Board of Appeals"), once @ property is listed gn the Frederick County Historie Register (the “Historic Register”), The Bill is targeted at a single entity, Social Betterment, and 9 single proposed use, group homes, because of improper and illegal bias against Social Betierment and the Nareonon drug treatment program based on their affiliation with the Church of Scientology. 3, The Council introduced ile Bill in direct response to Social Betterment’s efforts to place real property located at 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, near Thu:mnont, Maryland (Trout Rua”) on the Historie Register, Placement of Trout Run on the Historie Register js a crucial step to enable Social Betterment to operate a drug and rehabilitation program called Narconon at Trout Run. 4, On June 2, 2015, the Council denied Trout Run’s application for placement on the Historie Register, Social Bette:ment filed an appeal of the Council's Gecision denying Trout Run's application on July 1, 2015. ‘The Court beld a bearing on Social Betterment’s appeal on January 4, 2016, 5. On June 2, 2015, the same day that the Council denied Trout Run's application, the Council also voted to request that the County Executive issue an 3executive order placing a moratorium on future applications for placement of properties on the Historic Register. Two days later, on June 4, 2015, the Council sent a letter to the County Executive requesting the moratorium. On June 9, 2015, the County Bxecutive signed Executive Order No, 02-2015 instituting « moratorium on future applications for placement of properties on the Historic Register. 6. The Bill was introduced on January 12, 2016, following substantial public ‘comment focused on Social Betterment’s and Trout Run's relationships with Narconon and the Church of Scientology. 7, The Bill proposes to amend the Historie Use Section to eliminate group home use at properties listed on the Historic Register, This amendment would prevent Social Betterment from operating a drug rehabilitation program at Trout Run. 8 Social Betterment requested records under the MPIA (the “MPIA Requests”) from Defendants regarding the Bill and Sociat Betterment’s efforts to place ‘Trout Run on the Historie Register. Specifically, Social Betterment seeks copies of all communications by and between the Zoning Administration, the DPDR, and Planning and Permitting, and any other person or entity, including other County employees and agencies regarding the proposed Bill,’ Social Betlerment seeks all drafts and final versions of the proposed Bill, notes and memorandum regarding the proposed Bill, and any other documentation demonstrating the intent behind the proposed Bill. In addition, Social Betterment seeks any and all: communications and documents that discuss, address, or otherwise relate in any way fo Trout Run, Socfal Retterment’s efforts to place Trout Run on the Historie Register, gad Trout Run’s ability to operate a drag and rehabilitation program as a permitted ‘group home” under the current version of the 4Historie Use Section 9. On February 16, 2016, Defendants produced some records in response to Social Betterment’s MPIA Requests. However, Defendants’ production is woefully deficient in several regards. First, Defendants produced 27 e-mails without their attachments with no explanation as to why the attachments were not produced. 10, Second, Defendants produced 62 documents with partially blank or completely blank pages. There was no indication as to why the pages are blank. i 11, Third, Defendants withheld 59 documents under the auspices of various privileges and exceptions. Defendants invoked three privileges and exceptions to support their refusal to produce the documents: the executive privilege, the deliberative process privilege, and the inter-agency or inta-agency record exception, These interrelated privileges and exceptions apply only under narrow circumstances not applicable to these MPTA Requests. 12, On Febnuary 24, 2016, Social Betterment sent the Coumy a letter explaining the deficiencies and sought full and complete production of documents no later than Mazch 7, 2016, ‘The County failed to respond to the letter. 13, The County should reasonably anticipate that Social Betterment may fle a Jawsuit in either this Comt or in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland because of the County's improper, illegel, and discriminatory treatment of Social Betterment, Indeed, Social Betoiment and the County already litigated before this Court, as Social Betterment appealed the Counell’s denial of Trout Run’s placement on the Historie Register. See Opinion of the Honorable William R. Nicklas, Js, G1 he Matter of Soctal Betterment Properties International, Case No. 10-C-15-001859 (Ma. sCir, Ct. Jan. 13, 2016). 14. Accordingly, Defendants failed to fulfill their obligations under the MPIA to provide responsive records, Rather, Defendants used the MPIA as a shield to protect the County from liability for discriminating against Social Betterment on the basis of religious affiliation and its intent to assist sabled individuals by operating a drug and rehabilitation program at Trout Run, PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15, Plaintiff, Sociai Betterment Properties International, is a non-profit organization that owns the veal property, Trout Run, in Frederick County, Social Betterment is affiliated with the Church of Scientology International (“CSI”), a non-profit, religious orgenization recognized by the United Ststes Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt under LR.C. § 501(6)@). CST is the mother church of the Seientatogy religion, a recognized religious belief system in the United States. | 16. Frederick County, Maryland, is @ political subdivision’ of Maryland. GP §§ 4.1010, GXDO. | 17. The Frederick County Department of Planing ‘and Development Review is @ unit or instrumentality of Frederick County, Maryland GP§ 4-101G(D0). 18. The Frederick County Planning and Permitting Division is @ unit or instramentality of Frederick County, Maryland. GP § A101GxN0. 19. The Frederick County Zoning Administration is « wnit or instrumentality of Frederick County, Maryland. OP §4-1010)(0)0). 20, This Court has jurisdiction parsuant to GP § 4-362(2)(1). |, 21. Venue is proper pursuant to GP § 4-362(a}(3). 6FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Social Betterment's Efforts to Place Trout Run on the Historie Register, 22, Proseeding under the cufront Historic Use Section end Chapter 1-23-6 of the County Code (the “Historic Onlinance”), on July 8, 2013, Social Betterment submitted an application to the Board of Appeals requesting a special exception for the iy conversion of an existing historic site info a group iiome for an alcohol and drug abuse treatment facility at Trout Run. | 23. In eonjunetion with its spectal exception pplication, on August S, 2013, Social Betterment siomited its nominstion to the Frederick County Historie Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) for a determination of Trout Run’s: eligibility for placement on the Historic Register. : 24, On August 19, 2013, the Commission made an initial determination of cligibility, finding that Trout Rum was eligible for placement on the Historie Register. 25, On October 1, 2013, the Board of Appeals tinimeusly granted Social Betterment’s special exception application. | 26, On December 3, 2014, the Commission unanimously voted,to recommend ‘Trout Run’s placement on the Historic Register to the Council. : 27. On February 16, 2015, the Division of Cm Developorent for the County's Department of Planning and Down Rpview (the! “Community Development Division”) submited a staff report auppotiing rou Rus’ placement on the Historic Register and requesting a pablic hearing, | i 28. ‘The Couneil held two public hearings on te ‘Run’s placement: April 7, 2015 and April 21, 2015. |29. Inadvance of the fist hearing, a small group began attacking the proposed use of Trout Run as a drug and rehabilitation center and Socjal Betterment’s affiliation with the Church of Scientology. : 30, Thereafter, the April 7, 2015 and April ai, 2015 public. hearings were dominated not by the merits of Trout Run’s case for plademet on the Historie Register, but by testimony about its proposed use as a drug, ceaitsog facility (o be operated by Narconon and its relationship with the Church of Scientology. | 31. Specifically, the following comments were ian fa) “J's Scientology. .. I don’t knoyy whét you all know about that, but that is a cult.” (Testimony of A. Landi) at the April 7, 2015, hearing). (6) “Ihave documentation hese . . . where Nerconon, who promoted this particular Trout Run facility, was being promoted as funded by the Intemational Association of Scientologists)" (Testimony of K. MeBride at the April 7, 2015, hearing), | i | (©) _ “I have my own thoughts abott Narconon, and not good,” (Testimony of K. Mellon ai April 2£, 2015! heating). 32. Additionally, the Council received ind the! record on Trout Run's i application written testimony equally dominated by Social Betierment’s and Trout Run's relationships with Narconon and the Church of Scientology: (@) “Then there's Scientology's role, which should not be discounted , + Please do not allow this nefarious organization to set up shop in our tbeautifal county.” (April 8, 2015, E-mail ‘tom Shannon Green to Council Member Fitzwater). | (b) _ “[TJhe Narconon ‘program is sotofion for it [sie] use of highly questionable, if not me Scientology methods to treat its inmates.” (April 18, 2015, E-mail fom Rick Hotties yuneil member Shreve). 33. On June 2, 2015, the Frederick Newest ub ished an article titled “Church of Scientology's Praetices Muddy Vote on Trout Run, Historie Designation” (the io g“Post Article”), A ttue and correct copy of the Post Article is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exbibit A. 34, The Post Article notes that “[olppostion to Narconon’s plan has mostly focused on the program's association with Scientology and ity performance record, The property belongs to Social Betterment Properties Infernal io the real estate arm of the Church of Scientology.” See fd i 35. On June 2, 2015, the Council voted ani pried [Trout Run's placement on. tho Historie Register without making any findings of fact a conclusions of law. See Opinion of the Honorable Willian R. Nicklas, Je., la the Matter of Social Betterment Properties International, Case No. 10- Cc 15-001859 (Md,Cir. oe Jan, 13, 2016). 36. Notably, Council Member Shreve commited a atthe Jae 2, 2015, Couneil session that Trout Run's “application, as been clouded because the record does reflect that there was testimony based on Nareonon and Scientology.” (Council Member | Shreve's comments at June 2, 2015, Council Meeting), 37, On July 1, 2015, Social Betterment filed ah administrative appeal with the Court seeking judicial review of the Council’s decision, {nitiating the case In the Matter of Social Beiterment Properties International, Case No. 10-C-15-001859, if 38. On January 13, 2016, the,Court entered an opinion and order, See Opinion 1 of the Honorable William R. Nicklas, Jp., Jn the Matter of Social Betterment Properties 1 International, Case No, 10-C-15-001859 (Md. Ci. Ct, Jan. 13,2016). 39. Specifically, Judge Nicklas found that “the County was required fo issue a final decision including findings of fact dnd eonctusions iw Pursuant to Md. Code, State Gove, § 10-221." See fd. However, “no such final decision was issued... [therefore, 9 | i ithis matter must be remanded to the Frederick County Council for issuance of a final decision including specific findings of fet and conclusions of law in denying Petitioner's application.” Jd. | al B. A Moratorium Was Implemented an Applications for Placement on the Historic Register, | ft 40. Social Betterment's spin to place me Run on the Historic Register was denied by the Council on Sune, 2, 2015, (Count ‘Member Shrove noted that tne “application, has been clouded because the recoil ads reflect thet there was festimony based on Nareonon and Scientology”). 41. That same day, the Council also voted to'ask the County Executive, Jan, H. Gardner, to issue a moratorium on future applications for placement of properties on the Historic Register, i 42, On dime 4, 2015, two days late, the Couneil dent a letter to the County Executive requesting a temporary moratorium on future applications for placement of properties on the Historic Register. | 43, On June 9, 2015, the Couinty Executive aratedthe Council's request and issued Executive Ouder No. 02-2015, which established @ (emporary moratorium on ric Register. future applications For placement of progerties on the His 44, County Executive, Jan I. Garner's husband, John Fl. Gartner, was a i ne member of a anti-Scientology group called “No Narconon at Trout Run” on Facebook, See Exhibit B, p. 2 (Screen Shot of Mentbership List for ‘No Narconon at Trout Run” as of April 29, 2015), attached hereto and iheorersted herein, | ' | 45. Mr. Gasdner and/or County Executive Gartincr posted their picture on the “No Norconon at Trout Run” Facebook page to support lefforts to thwart Social 10 oiBetterment from opening its Narconon facility. Ia. 46, On July 1, 2015, Social Betterment filed its appeal of the Council's decision to deny Trout Ren’s application fer placement on the Histozie Register. 47, The moratorium expired on December 7, 2015, C. The Council Introduces ne Bi : 48. On September 3, 2015,’ the Coumeil held a work shop to discuss the inclusion of group homes in the Historie Use Section. See Minutes from September 3, 2015, Couneil Work Shop (the “Wosk Shop Minutes”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. | 49. The Work Shop Minutes show that the Council considered rev Historic Use Section of the Historic Ordinance. See id. Social Betterment’s application. jons to the to include Trout Run on the Historic Register in order to operate a group home for drug, aud alcohol sshabilittion was a chief concer and precipitated the proposal of the Bill. See id; see aiso January 6, 2016, Planning and Permiting Staff Report (the “Statt Report”), attached hereto and incorporate herein as Exhibit, 50. On Janay 4, 2016, this Court held a hein on Social Betrerment’s appeal of the Council's denial of Trout Run's placement on the Historie Register 51. On January 6, 2016, Planning and Pecmitting submitted the Staff Report recommending the Council introduce the Bill. See Exhibit D. 52, In the Staff? Report, it is noted that the Hil is being introduced because i i “{eoncems were raised when a number of applications for listings of properties of the i i [Register] were received, including a controversial a sal for a group home use at See id. : she Trout Run property. i | "53. During the Council’s January 12, 2016, public meeting, the Bill was introduced. See Minutes for January 12, 206 Couneil Meeting, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E, 54. The Bill proposes to eliminate “group home use” from the permitted uses under the Zoning Use Section. A true and correct copy of the Bills attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F, 55, On February 1, 2016, Social Betterment submitted written testimony (“February 1 Letter”) stating its opposition to the Bill. See February 1, 2016, Letter from Jennifer L. Kneeland, Esq. on behalf of Social Betterment Properties International, to Couneil President Bud Otis and Members of the Frederick County Council, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G. 56, Social Betterment opposes the Bill for many reasons, including: (a) “[Uhe Bill singles out ‘group home use’ for elimination from the current Historic [Use Section} without any rational or identifiable reason related to promoting the general welfare of the County”; (6) the Rill “proposes to amend the Historie [Use Section] in order to keep a single entity, Social Betterment, from operating a drug rehabilitation program at Trout Run”; i (©) “the Bill. was introduced following substantial publie comment focused on Social Betterment’s relationships with Nareonon and the Church of Scientology”; (@) “the Bill. . disctiminat[es] against @ broad category of use employed by a wide variety of disability programs”; and {e) “[njumerous federal cases, including from this State, make clear- that such actions that have the effect of restricting provision of facilities and homes for the disabled, including those suffering from alcohol or drag, addiction, arc subject to strict scrutiny! under the Americans] With Disabilitics Act and the Federal Housing. Act” See id. 1257. In sum, Social Betterment opposes the Bill because it is specifically designed to prevent Social Betterment from operating a drug and rehabilitation center at Trout Run, 58, Social Betterment warmed the Council that passing the Bill would impermissibly discriminate against Social Betterment because of its religious affiliation swith the Church of Scientology and against disabled persons. Specifically, the Bill violates the United States Constitution, the Maryland sy Constitution, the Americans ‘With Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and other Federel and siete laws. See i 59. Social Betterment also waoned that the violation of the United States Constitution, the Maryland State Constitution, the ‘Amerieans With Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and other Federal and state laws would subject the County to liability, including injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. See id. D, Social Betterment Makes Requests (o Defendants Under the MPIA, I 60, On January 15, 2016, Social Betterment hand-delivered the MPIA. Requests to Defendants, the Zoning Administration, the DPDR, and Planning and Permitting, True and correct copies of the MPIA Requests are attached hereto and | 61. The MPIA Requests seek the following information: incorporated herein as Exhibits H, 1, and J. (@ _ All documents and communicatioss zelated in any way to Trout Run from January 1, 2015 to the present, other than documents produced as part of the record in Civil Action No. 10-C-15-001859; (b) All documents and communications by, among, or between any employee or agent of [the Zoning Administration/the DPDR/Planning and Permitting] and any person or entity relajing in any way to Trout Run, from January 1, 2015 to the present; (©) All documents and communications related in any way to an 3 | Iapplication for a special exception for Trqut Run, filed with the Board of Appeals; and | [ @ All documents and communications related in any way to the Bill, ‘See Exhibits H, 1, and J. 62. On February 1, 2016, Linda Thall, Senior true and correct copy of Ms. Thall's February 1, 2016, incorporated herein as Exhibit K. 63. Ms, Thall requested a deposit in the amou Assistant County Attorney for the County, e-mailed counsel for Social Betterment, regarding’ the MPIA Requests. A. e-mail is attached hereto and { of Three-Hundred Forty-Bight and 00/100 Dollars ($348.00). id, Ms. Thall also reyuested that Social Betterment provide a thumb drive if Social Betterment sought ¢ responses. lectronic copies of the MPIA 64, On February 2, 2016, counsel for Social Betterment remitted a check for the $348.00 requested by Ms. Thall and provided the requested thumb drive. 65. On February 11, 2016, Ms. Thall e-mailed counsel for Social Betterment stating, that the records requested by the MPIA Reques , including a list of withheld documents (the “Withheld Documents List”), had been ebpied onto the thumb drive and would be released upon payment of the remaining o sts associated with the MPIA Requests, A true and correct copy of Ms, Thall’s Februdry 11, 2016, e-mail is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit L, 66. The zemaining balance sought in the February 11, 2016, e-mail was Eight Hundred Seventy and 00/100 Dollars ($870.00). See id. 67. On February 16, 2016, the remaining balance was paid and the County produced its responses (the “County's Production”) and th “4 je Withheld Documents List, Intotal, Social Betterment paid One Thousand Two-Hundred Eighteen and 00/100 Dollars (81,218.00) for the document production, which is cece! 68. The County’s Production is deficient becat (@) 27 e-mails with attachments were| ‘were not produced; (b) 62 pages of the County's Produc} partially blank with no indication as purposefally blank; and at produced, but the attachments ion were either completely or to whether the pages were (©) _ the County withheld 59 documents claiming that they were privileged. 69. ‘The County’s claim of privilege is improper, among other reasons, because the Withheld Documents List fails to provid County’s claims. F enough detail to support the 70. For example, Defendants assert deliberative process and executive privileges and withheld a May 11, 2015, E-nail fom Couneil Member Keegan-Ayer to Ragen Chemey, Chief of Staff to the Council, and cop) Council. ng Bud Otis, President of the 71, Defendants’ description of the withheld ¢mail is “[rJecemmendation on site visit.” 72, The description is impermissibly vague communication, the site to be visited, or how such sub) claimed “deliberative process privilege” or “executive pi 73. The Bill was introduced following substan Social Betterment’s and Trout Run’s relationships wit Scientology. 15 is (© the circumstances of the ject matter would relate to the lege” claimed. fal public comment focused on Narconon and the Church of7A. The Work Shop Minutes and the Staff Report show that the Bill was introduced in direct response to Social Bettctment’s efforts to place Trout Run on the Historie Register. 75, As such, Social Betterment sent the MPL Ghe Council and other County employees’ motivations be 76. The County should reasonably anticipate t lawsuit in either this Court or the United States District C because of the County’s discriminatory treatment of Soci 77, The documents that Defendants imperm| inter-agency or intta-agency exception would likely be Requests to further investigate ind proposing the Bill. hat Social Betterment may file a yurt for the Distriet of Maryland Betterment, issibly claim as subject to the iscoverable in future litigation. As such, the Defendants? olaim of inter-agency or intra-agency exception also fails, 78, On February 24, 2016, eodsel for Soci letter, to Ms, Thell outlining the deficiencies and contes various privileges and exceptions (the “February 24 Lets ( Betterment hand-delivered a ing the County's invocation of 1”). A true and correct copy of the February 24 Letter is attached herefo atid incorporated herein as Exhibit M." 79, Social Bettexment, through counsel, reques ted that the County supplement its responses and produce the requested documents within ten (10) days from the date of the letter. See id. 80. To date, the County has not supplemen’ respond to the February 24 Letter. rd its Production and failed to # The February 24 Letter also enclosed two binders conisining the County's Produetion, which bad been numbered by counsel for Social Totierment to feiltats tho resolstion Since the binders are very large, Sects! Betermeat has not attached t them to Defendants and the Court upon request 16 of the County's deficient Production, jem to this Complaint, but can provideCOUNT Violations of the Maryland Public Information Act Incomplete Production — Missing Attachments (All Defendants) 81, Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 80 of thi herein, Complaint, as if fully set forth 82. Social Betterment made written application to the Defendants as required by GP § 4-202(a). 83. Defendants willfully and knowingly viol mails with attaclments, but failing to produce the attach ited the MPIA by producing e- nts without explanation, 84, ‘The documents sought by Sovial Betterment, but withheld by the Defendants, constitute public records within the meaniny 4-601. 85. Defendants violated Social Betterment’s of the MBIA, GP §§ 4-101 - Hight under GP § 4-103(a) “to have access to information about the affairs of governmebt and the official acts of public officials and employees.” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that a, Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b, Order, on an expedited basis pursuant to disclose the requested records and to make copies availa c. Provide for expeditious proceedings in this) 4, Award Plaintiff actual damages for the fe the County's Production, in the amount of One Thows 00/100 Dollars ($1,218.00), as provided by the MPTA, GP) "7 Ithis Court: P § 4-362(c)(1), Defendants to fe to Plaintiff at no cost; matter; 's paid to the County fo receive hd Two Hundred Bighteen and §4-362(€)(1);¢. Award Plaintiff statutory damages, as-provided by the MPIA, GP § 4- 362((1), Bs £ Award Plaintiff litigation ‘costs and rea action, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4-362(f); and jonable attomey’s fees in this g. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT2 ‘Violations of the Mar Ps Incomplete Production - Blank (AN Defendants) 86, Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorpo allegations contained in Paragraphs | through 83 of this herein, 87, Social Betterment nade written applicati by GP § 4-202(a). ion Act Pages rates herein by reference the Complaint, as if fully sot forth n to the Defendants as required 88, Defendants wilfully and knowingly violated the MPTA by producing partially or completely blank pages without any explanati 89, The documents sought by Social Bet Defendants, constitute public records within the meani 4-601, m-for why the pages ace blank, ferment, but withheld by the of the MPLA, GP §§ 4-101 ~ 90. Accordingly, Defendants violated Social Hetterment’s right under GP § 4- 103(a} “to have access to information about the affairs of of public officials and employees,” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 1B ‘government and the official acts this Court:b. Order, on an expedited basis pursuant to GP § 4-362(6)(1), Defendants to disclose the requested records and to make copies available to Plaintiff at no cost; ¢. Provide for expeditious proceedings in thi 4, Award Plaintiff actual damages for the fe the County’s Production, in the amount of One Thou 00/100 Dollars ($1,218.00), as provided by the MPIA, GI c. Award Plaintiff statutory damages, as pt 36241), Bs Award Plaintiff litigation costs and tea, action, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4-362(f); and & — Grant such other and further relief ‘appropriate, COUNT3 matter; es paid to the County to receive Ind Two Hendred Bighteen and §4-362(\(1); wvided by the MPIA, GP § 4- sonable attomey’s fees in this the Court deems just and Violations of the Maryland Public Information Act Lnproper Withholding of Documents (Executive Privilege) (All Defendants) 91. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorpo} allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 90 of this herein. ates herein by reference the Complaint, as if fully set forth 92. Social Betterment made written application to the Defendants as required by GP § 4-202(8). 93. The documents sought by Social Bett Defendants, constitute public records within the meanin; 4-601. 94. Defendants willfully and knowingly viol io ferment, but withheld by the of the MPIA, GP §§ 4-101 = ted the MPIA by withholdingdocuments and improperly claiming that they are subject {o executive privilege, 98. Defendants willfully ond knowingly violated the MPIA by attempting to justify their claims of executive privilege with the Withhicld Documents List that fails to provide detail sufficient t0 explain the claimed executive privilege. 96, Defendants willfully and knowingly violated the MPIA by only providing conclusory and generalized allegations of executive privilege. 97. Defendants’ willful and knowing violation continued after Social Bettennent seat its letter dated February 24, 2016, to Defendants pointing out the errors. Defendants faited and refused to respond to the February 24 Letter in any manner whatsoever. 98. Accordingly, Defendants violated Social Betterment's right under GP § 4- 103(a) “to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that|this Court: a. Assume jutisdiction over this matter; b. Order, on an expedited basis pursuant to GP § 4-362(c\1), Defendants to isclose the requested records and to make copies available to Plaintiff at no cost; c. __ Provide for expeditions proceedings ia this matter; d, Award Plaintiff actual damages for the feds paid to the County to receive the County's Production, in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and 00/100 Dollars ($1,218.00), as provided by the MPIA, GF § 4-362(a)(1); c. Award Plaintiff statutory damages, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4- 362(0X(1), BY;£ Award Plaintiif litigation costs and rea} action, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4-362(f}; and & Grant such other and further relief ‘appropriate, COUNT 4 Violations of the Maryland Publie Jat Improper Withholding of Documents (Deliber (All Defendants) 99. Plaintiff repeats, realieges and incorpo allegations contained in Paragraphs | through 98 of this herein. mable attomey’s fees in this the Court deems just and formation Act ‘Process Privilege) lates herein by reference the Complaint, as if fully set forth 100. Social Betterment made written application to the Defendants as required by OP § 4-202(a). 101. The documents sought by Social Betterment, but withheld by the Defendants, constitute public records within the meaning of the MPIA, GP §§ 4-101 — 4-601, 102, Defendants willfully and knowingly vio documents and improperly claiming that they are st privilege. 103. Defendants willfully and knowingly viola justify their claim of deliberative process privilege with thal fails to provide detail sufficient to explain the claime: 104, Defendant willfully and knowingly violat conclusory and generalized allegations of deliberative prot 105. Defendants’ willful, and knowing viol at ed the MPIA. by withholding hbject to deliberative process red the MPIA by attempting 10 the Withheld Documents List deliberative process privilege. the MPIA by only providing ess privilege. tion continued after SoctelBetterment sent its letter dated February 24, 2016, to Defendants pointing out the errors. Defendants failed and refused to respond to the February 24 Letter in any manner whatsoever, 106, Accordingly, Defendants violated Social Hetterment’s right under GP § 4- 103(a) “to have access to information about the aftairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.” WHEREFORE, Piaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: a, Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b. Order, on an expedited basis pursuant to GP § 4-362(6)(1), Defendants to disclose the requested records and to make copies available to Plaintiff at no cost; ©. Provide for expeditious proceedings in this matter; Award Plaintisf actual damages for the fees paid to the County to receive the County’s Production, in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Righteen and 00/100 Dollars ($1,218.00), as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4-362(dX(1); ©. Award Plaintiff statutory damages, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4- 362(d)(1), G); f Award Plaintiff litigation costs and reasonable attomey’s fees in this retin, as provided by the MPIA, OP § 4:362(0; and Grant such other and further relief a} the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNTS Violations of the Maryland Public Information Ac Improper Withholding of Documents UnterIniracagency Revord Ic (All Defendants) 107, Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorpo: pies herein by reference the : 2allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 106 of thi herein. 108, Social Betterment made weitten applicati by GP § 4-202). Complaint, as if fully set forth to the Defendants as required 109. The documents sought by Social Betterment, but withheld by the Defendants, constitute public recorls within the meaning of the MPIA, GP §§ 4-101 — 4-601. 110, Defendants willfully and knowingly viol ted the MPIA by withholding documents and improperly claiming that they ate subject to the inter-agency or intra- agency record exception. | LIL. Defendants willfully and knowingly viola! juslify their claim of the inter-agency or intra-agency rec: fed the MPIA by attempting to yd exception with the Withheld Decuments List that fails to provide detail sufficient to explain the claimed inter-agency or intra-agency record exception. 112, Defendants willfully and knowingly violated the MPIA by ouly providing conclusory and generalized allegations of inter-agency or 113. The County should reasonably anticipate th Jawsuit in either this Court or the United States District C intraragency record exception. tt Social Betterment may file 2 unt for the District of Maryland because of the County’s discriminatory trestment of Social Betterment, 114. The documents that Defendants impermi inter-ageney or intra-agency exception would likely be sibly claim as subject to the liscoverabie in future litigation. As such, the Defendants? claim of inter-agency or intra-agency exception also fails. 115. Defendants’ willful and knowing violation continued after Social 23Betterment sent its letter dated February 24, 2016, to ope pointing out the errors. ‘ebr Defendants failed end refused to respond to the F whatsoever. ary 24 Letter in any manner 116, Accordingly, Defendants violated Social Retterment’s right under GP § 4- 103(a} “to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b, Onder, on an expedited basis pursuant to this Courts iP § 4-362(e)(1), Defendants to disclose the requested records and to make'copies available to Plaintiff at no cost; c Provide for expeditious proceedings in thi 4. Award Plaintiff actual damages for the fe the County's Production, in the amount of One Thousai 00/100 Dollars ($1,218.00), as provided by the MPIA, GF) matter, s paid to the County to receive nd Two Hundred Bighteen and §4-362(0)(1)5 c. Award Plaintiff statutory damages, as provided by the MPTA, GP § 4 362(d)()), Bs f Award Plaintiff litigation costs and reasonable ettomey’s fees in this action, as provided by the MPIA, GP § 4-362(1); and g Grant such other and finther relief a ‘appropriate. ' [signatures on the folowing 24 the Court deems just and age]*svLan Se271s0¥5/12461 0002 By: 2s ‘submitted, AND BLOCHER LLP L. Kneeland 301) 961.5205 (telephone) (301) 654.2801 (facsimile) kneeland@tinowes-law.com fargfite L. DeVoll (ae catérsan (telephone) G01} 654.2801 (Facsimite) mdevoll@linowes-law.com. 7200|Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attorheys jor Plaintiff, Social Bettelment Properties ImernationalChurch of Sit rates ey te on Toa Ruhr espana |S os] Gedchnenpiaco Obits Classifieds Jobs Businesses RealEstate Subscibe 37° Overcast Vote expected The Brederick News-Post Church of Scientology's! practices mudey vote on Trout Run historic | designation By Palti Borda Mullins prouliins@newspost.com Jun 2, 2018 Span edaisbnonsst conch siflogy-spicesanidy 0 on-r0 (ronnie 3987817 it2a6-S19f-ahd9-4609SeeOeh0fMamlf34/2016 3:5721 PM]‘Church of Seientology’«prnctices muddy vote on row Ron histori designation | Socal ipscs | Sedercknevspo.com ‘Staff photo by Bill Groen onaa Today, the fate of Narconon’s proposed drug rehabilitation center at Trout Run may be decided, but the controversy about the center's association with the Church of Scientology will nat be. “The County Council is set to vote on whether the 40-acre Trout Run campus in the forest of the Catoctin ‘Mountains is so historically significant that it should be ‘isted on the Frederick County Register of Historic Places, Its, Narconon could move forward wit is plan to open a substance abuse treatment center on the site. | ! Opposition fo Narconon’s plan has mostly focused on the program's association with Scientology ant performance record. The property belongs to Social Betterment Properties Intemational, the real estate arm of the Church of Scientology, but ownership and use are fot suppasod to factor into the council's decision to designate the property historic or act | | i If Narconon gets permission to open (the facility, it will be one of more than 100 Narconon centers in 15 countries. Marc Miler, formerly of Frederick, says Narconon programs have saved his life, and did not come between him and his Christianity. lutpetnv.Liedoicknowepest on cheatcientology-practicesmuddy-vole-on-rostrurfrtil, 93978 1720651 akd-46OaSeetebOK bil [ 4/2016 3:5721 PM]CChuich of Seiertolagy’s praties ruddy vote ox Trow en Mtoe designation | Social jsves | Rederiinewpun comm The Narconon program, which his parents found! for him i} 1999, was a gift from Jesus, Millor salt in a telephone interview from his current home in Kentucky, Hp compared Narcoron with “betterment” programs ‘such ag 12-step programs and Christian groups. | He said a lack of understanding may lead to apposition. i Yvonne Rodgers, Narconon's East U.S. executive recto, wrote in an email that the 40-year-old rehabilitation program has no specifg religious componen, aithough it “is based! on the writings, procedures, and techniques of L. Ron Hubbard. tt ‘Mr. Hubbard discovered the effects of drags on human beings and developed an effective means for freeing people from theif harmful effects, which he made available to i Scientology does not condone uss of prescription drugs sf psychiatry and psychology as a means of anyone who wished to benefit from {or behavioral therapy. | “Psychiatry and psychology in particular treat man as a ‘thing’ to be conditioned, not as a spiritual being who can yet find answers to life's problents and who can improve enormously,” according to the Scientology website. i Medical staff are on hand, and the ohne have atiation with hospitals that oan take patients who need to medically withdraw from such substances as heroin or alebhol, Rodgers sald. | : Miller said he knew Hubbard's ‘ndings underpinned Narednon, but Scientology was not referenced in materials he studied in the program. | : i i i ! “Narconon is grateful for the tomers support we havel received from the Church of Scientology and many Scientologists,” Rodgers wrote, “Narconon itself, however, isnot part ofthe church” | ! ‘The Church of Scientology s cssantial to the program, according to "Sclantology: Theology and Practice of A Contemporary Religion,’ rterence by Syivia Stanard, fopaty irector of the church's nationel affairs office, i Sylvia Stanard is the wife of John St4nard, national director for Social Betterment Programs and Policy. ' i “The principles that Scientologists lean that form the foundation of Scientology scripture can be adapted for ise in the areas of drug rehabilitation and education, and have become the “cardinal points of extensive secial benefit programs of churches or Scieritology and individual Scientologists,” according to the reference up tAnwoesredericlnewspot coa.ch-ofslenology-s-prctoes-muddy-vole-on-Keut-runfatisle_33578174-d2u6-Si9f ud. 460aSouDsbOChinl[SH¥2016 3:57:21 P24](Ghar of Scientology’ ries rnddy vol ou Tio Run store desipon | Soil ees | Redeikrepee.com work. “One of the most widely known of these social benefit programs is the residential drug rehabilitation ‘and public education program conduéted under the name ‘Narconon."* Miller frst completed the program in 1999 in Oklahoma, and after his graduation, he had a contract for several years to be a carpenter for Narconon. Then, he moved to Kentucky and started his awn carpentry business. : The program required him to confront the aspects of his life that led him to use cocaine and other drugs and to admit the harm he had done to others and himself as an addict in Frederick for two decades, he sald, He relapsed a year ago in Kentucky because he had nol adequately addressed all the areas of his life he should have during his first time in the program, he said. Three out of four participants stay clean and sober Jong term, Rodgers said. Miller said his second time in the program, he spent five months in rehab in Louisiana, working part time at Narconon and paying $12,000 for thé program. “Through the education and experience I have received through Narconon and from the grace and the forgiveness from God, | am able to help myself and others,” Miller wrote in a fetter. Scientology techniques and principles used in Narconon “address causes and effects of drug addiction and help participants become contributing members of society,” according to the reference work. “These program compenents include helping participants learn how to communicate, cope with the pressures of life and regain higher standards of self-esteem and honesty.” ‘The Church of Scientology has no set dogma conceming God. Scientology does nol ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Salvation’ In Scientology “has to do with making man ‘safe’ or ‘whole’ in his present life,” according to “Scientology: Theology and Practice of a Contemporary Religion.” Miller, the Stanards and Rodgers said program participants do not have to become Scientologists as they compiete the detoxification and behavior therapy. Miller said he was able to attend church on Sundays, and Rodgers sald the center would make arrangements with Frederick area churches so parlicipants could attend services. Previously, Frederick County Gouncliman Billy Shreve said he was ready to vote on the property's historic designation and did not consider Narconon or Scientology, ° bipnwweflederiknewspos. conv. ch-oFsciatolngy’s-practcesrmmdly-voe-on-lrut-anfarticie 338781 Td-d2a-S19Ee4e-AOnSecOcbOC htnl(9/V/2016.:57-21 PM]Church oF Scientology’ pnts muy vote on Tau Raum store designation | Social issues Redeicneep com “It doesn't matter whet religion it is, someone's against I,” Shreve said in a telephone interview. His view {s that there were no data to refute the expert testimony in favor of the historic designation that would allow the treatment center to open. “You have lo belleve the experts or be sued,” Shreve said. Follow Patti Borda Mutins on Twitior: QFNP_Patti uouoo If You Go What: County Council decision on historical designation for Trout Run property When: 4:30 p.m. today Where: Winchester Hall, 12 &. Church St, Frederick ipsam dieesieknewepost.cont.| ><] >e] CON! DA The following items were considered on the consent agenda: « #3T-16-136 — Align FY 2016 Capital Grant to Accept Proceeds from Vehicle Sales - Nancy Norris, Transit Services Division © #BT-16-137 - FY 2016 Matching Fund Grant Award - Tom Owens, Fire and Rescue Services Division Page 1 of 6Einal Copy COUNTY COUNCIL OF FREDERICK COUNTY MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Council Member Keegan-Ayer moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Mombor Donald seconded the motion that passed 6-0-1 with Counc! Member Shreve abstained. Absont ‘Council Members: Abstain’ Nay Present > oe] >| ef ve] a District 7 = Donald ict = Chmelk Diatrict 3 - Keegan-Ayer District Filzwater District 5 -Dolauter ‘Relarge -Ots ‘Aelarge - Shreve zi x Presiding Officer - Otis x Business Items: Proposed Designation of Captain Samuel Cock Farmstead, 7704 Dance Hall Frederick, to the Frederick County Register of Historic Places (#GR18-03) (Public Hearing held 1/5/2016) ~ Council President Bud Otis Council Member Keegan-Ayer moved fo approve placing of the Capiain Samus! Cock Farmstead on the Frederick County Register of Historical Places. Council Member Chmelik seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Absent? Council Members. ‘Absiaini Nay Prosent Distriot 1 - Donald ‘Distlet 2 Chie District 3 - Keegan-Aver Diswiet 4 Fitzweter ct 5 = Delauter ‘Atlarge = Ole ‘Atlarge = Shreve Prosiding Officer - Oi x ef og 2 x}>4 Several Council Members explained their reasons for the affirmative votes to approve the historic designation for the property. Page 2 of 6Final Gopy COUNTY COUNCIL OF FREDERICK COUNTY MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, January 12, 2016 First Reading Calendar: Introduction of a Bill to Amend Special Exception Uses in Connection with Historic Structures and Sites - Council Member Jessica Fitzwator (Sponsor) and Council Momber Jerry Donald (Co-sponsor) Council Member Fitzwater introduced the proposed bill regarding special exception uses in connection with historic structures and sites. Council Member Otis advised the public that proposed bill would be scheduled for a public hearing at a later date. Intro ll to Allow Medicai Gi i as a Permitted Use, with Special Exception Approval, in the Agricultural Zoning District - Council Vice- President M.C. Keecan-Ayer (Sponsor) Council Vice-President Keegan-Ayer introduced a proposed bill that would allow Medical Cannabis Grower as a permitted use, with Special Exception approval, in the Agricultural Zoning District. Council Vice-President Keegan-Ayer noted there was an additional recommendation by staf § 1-19-8.361, MEDICAL CANNABIS GROWER IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, (4) The premises may not be located within 1,000 feet of a dwelling, the lot line of ‘a public or private school, or the lot line of real property owned by the Board of Education. This setback may be modified by the approving body. Council Member Otis advised the public that the proposed bill would be scheduled for a public hearing at a later date. Introduction of a Bill to Amend Chapter 1-7.1 of the County Code (Ethics) — Council President Bud Otis (Sponsor Council President Otis introduced a proposed bill regarding an amendment to the Frederick County Gode, Chapter 1-7,1: Ethics. Council Member Otis advised the public that the proposed bill wouid be scheduled for a public heering at a later date Page 3 of 8al Copy COUNTY COUNCIL OF FREDERICK COUNTY MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Motion to go into Closed Session Maryland Annotated Coce General Provisions Article §3-305(b) (7) To cansult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; and (8) To consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation. ‘Topic; To discuss with the County Attomey the possible settlement of threatened litigation. Council Member Keegan-Ayer moved fo go into closed session. Council Member Fitzwater seconded the motion ihat passed 7-0. ‘Absent? Council Mombars Abstalnt Neo Present District 1- Donate Bistrot 2- Chinelik Disirict 3 - Keegan-Ayer Disiriet ¢-Fitawater District 5 - Dewauier ‘Atlarge + Otis ‘At-large - Shreve Presiding Officer - Otte >| >| 2 ne] od |» Public Comments Richard Kaplowitz Joe Parsley Craig Giangrand Martha Hartwell Mark Long Council Comments ‘Comments were provided by the Council Members, Adiourn The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Bud Otis, President County Council Page 4 of 6Final Copy COUNTY COUNCIL OF FREDERICK COUNTY MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, January 12, 2016 FORM OF STATEMENT FOR CLOSING THE MEETING OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CLOSE SESSION Maryland Annotated Code General Provisions Article §3-305(b): (7) To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter, and (8) To consuit with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation. Motion: Upon a motion by Council Member Keegan-Ayer, seconded by Gauneil Member Fitzwater, the Council voied 7-0 to go into closed session in accordance with Maryland Annotated Code General Provisions Article §3-305(b): (7) To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; and (8) To consult with staff, consultants, or other Individuals about pending or potential litigation. Time and Location: 5:25 p.m. — Council Conference Room, Winchester Hall Topic to be Discussed: To discuss with the County Attomey the possible settlement of threatened litigation. Bud Otis, President County Council Page & of 6Final Copy COUNTY COUNCIL OF FREDERICK COUNTY MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, January 12, 2016 FORM OF STATEMENT FOR MINUTES OF NEXT OPEN MEETING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016, FOLLOWING THE CLOSED MEETING OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CLOSE SESSION Maryland Annotated Code General Provisions Article §3-305(b); (7) To consult with ‘counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter, and (8) To consult with sta‘, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential itigation. Motion: Upon a motion by Council Member Keegan-Ayer, seconded by Council Member Fitzwater, the Council voted 7-0 to go into closed session in accordanes with Maryland Annotated Code General Provisions Article §3-308(b): (7) To consult with counsel to ‘obtain legal advice on a lega! matter, and (8) To consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation. Time and Location: 8:25 p.m. ~ Council Conference Room, Winchester Hail Others In Attendance: J. Mathias, M. Chomel, L. Depies, and R. Chemey. Topic to be Discussed: ‘To discuss with the County Attomney the possiblo settlement of threatened litigation. Action Taken: No action was taken. Bud Otis, President ‘County Council Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT FFREDERICK COUNY COUNCIL BILL SYNOPSIS Bill Tie: Sxl Excepiion Uses in Connestion with Historle Siruetures and Sites Sponsor: Cotneil Member Jessiea Fitawator Co-Sponsors: Goimelt Member Jerry Donald First Reading Date; | Tudsday, January 5, 2016 . SYNOPSIS ‘The Bill propases to amend Ghapler 1-19 of the County Code (the Zoning Ordinance) to provide definitions for certain special exception uses permitted ia connection with an historio structure oF silos to dolete “group home ufo" ag an allowed use; and defete "the National Register of Historle Places and the Maryland Register of Historie Places" for Hting of aa historic structure or site, “The proposed legislation also crentes the following dofizitions; INFORMATION CENTER, |A structure or site that makes available information relat to the history, culture, development'and/ar social amenities of Frederick County. i FACILITY FOR FUNCTIONS. A structure or site used to host events and fictions such as weddings, corporate retreats, seminars, festivals, cultural os social events or activities of historic interest,pilNo, Concerning: Special Exception Uses in connection with ‘Hletorie Structures and Sites Revised: Draft No. Tnroduced: Expires: Bygated; Executive: Bifeotive: es ! Brederiok County Code, Chapter 19, Sections) i 1-19-8,600 and 1-191 1,100 | | COUNTY COUNCIL DERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND FOR FR By: Counell Members Jessics Htzwater (Primary Sponsor) aud Jerry Donsld (Co-Sponsor) AN ACT to: Provide deflions for certsin special exooption uses permitted in onnnection “with « historje structire oF site; to delete “group home usc’ as an allowed! use} ‘and delete “the National Register of Historie Pacos and the Maryland Register of Historie Places? for listing ofa historie stractuce or site, By amending Frederick County Cote, Chapter 19, Sectton(s) _1-19-8,600 nnd 1-19-11.100 Other: Boldtes Heading ov defined term. Undeslining edged to existing lass by ortgined bith, [Single boldface brackets) Deleted jrom existing lave by original bill Rouble ynderlinine I Added by anrendiient, [[Donble boldface brackets] Deleted from existing law on the bill by amendment tee Aaisting fave wnagficted by bilBill No. ‘The County Council of Frederick County, Maryland, finds it necessary and appropriate (0 mond Kiederick County Cote Section 1-19-8.600 by removing the reference to osttain uses * pennitfed as spectal excepticn uses in conseotion with an hrstorie structure site and fo provide io alrvoture or site, and {o identify the historle tisting for which a definitions for those cextah: special exception uses, 10 delete “group home use” es an allowable ‘use in connection with an wh special exception approval eqn be granted, NOW, THEREMORE) BEIT IN ENACTED, that the Predetick County Code be, and itis hereby, amended as shown al the ritached Sxhibit 1. Harold F. (Bud) Olis, President ‘County Counell of Frederick County, Maryland i | | | | | | | | | | | :' | paubint Ammend §1-19-8,600 a8 follows: § 1-19-8,600, HISTORIC STRUCTURES OR SITES, ‘the Board of Apgeats my grant a spell exception In any onlng ese, For the sonversion of an exialing historio structure or site into a restaurant, hia, antique shop, museum, information center, business or professidan offic, [group home use, or # Teity for fumtlons fh os sominacy, festivals, cullusal or social avents, or other similar aoilvties of historic interest), provided that off-streot parking requirements of this chapler ate met. Suck conversion shall not roault in any substantial extemal alteration of the appearance of the historle stevetua ov site, Historie stractire or site aa uged in this section only means & structure or site liste on or eligible for (the Natiannt Register of Historie Places, the Marylaxd Register of Historie Places ox} the Frederik County Register of Historle Places. All requests for specinl exception under this soction shall be referred th the Frederick County Historic Preservation Cooxnission for dotermination of eligibility for piaeement on the Frederick County Register of Historie Places, and for review and comment, Before the special exeeption ean take effec, the histosie stractaze or site must be listed on the Frederick County Register of Flistorie Places, i Amend §1-19-11,100 fo add new definitions, as follo § 1-19-11.100, DEFINITIONS, i INFORMATION CENTER.| A sivucture or site that makes available infgrmation relating to (he history, culture, development and/or social amenities of Frederick County. HLITY FOR FUNCTIONS, _A stiveture or site used! fo host events and fim u weddings, compprate retvents, Seminars, festivals, cultural or sovial events o1 activities of historic: iniuast, nesting inteste tly now ater et xing I by onan bl, {Single volts broke) ines deleting fom exiting I by ogi! ‘vor ndiontes exiting law uneffetted by bith . ! i i { |EXHIBIT GLINOWES AND! BLOCHER tip ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 1, 2016 Jennifer L, Kneeland jknesland@linowox-lave.com 401.961.5205, VIA EMAIL (councitmembers(@frederickcountymd.gov) AND HAND DELIVERY Council President Bed Otis and Members of the Frederick County Council ‘Winchester Hall 12 Bast Church Strect Frederick, MD 2170! Re: Frederick County Council Bill No. 16-2 — Special Exception Uses in Connection with, Hisioric Structures and Sites (the “Bil!”) Dear Council President Otis and Mentbers of the Frederick County Council: On behalf of Social Belterment Properties International (“Social Betterment”, owner of the Trout RuavRichey Lodge property, loceted at 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, near Thurmont, Maryland (*Trout Run”), I hereby submit this written testimony in strong opposition to the above-referenced Bil. The Bill proposes to amend Chapter 1-19-8,600 of the County Code (the “ffistorie Zoning”) to eliminate “group home use” as an allowed use, subject to special exception approval fiom the Frederick County Board of Appeals (the “Board of Appeals”), onee a property is fisted on the Frederick County Historic Register (the “Register”), ‘The Bill singles out “group home use” for elimination from the current Hist Zoning without any rational or identifiable reason related to promoting the general welfare of the County. Rather, the Bill was introduced in direct response to Social Betterment’s efforts to place Trout Run on the Register and thus be abte to operate a drug and schabilitation facihity, “bs evidenced by the recard, the Bill came about in response to “applications for listings of properties on the County's Register of Historic Propertios ... including a controversial proposal for a group home use al the Trout Run property." Moreover, the Bill was introduced following substantial public comment focused on Social Betterment’s relationships with Nazconon and the Church of Scienlology. The Bill proposes to amend the Hisioric Zoning in order to keep & single entity, Social Betterment, from operating a drug rehebilitetion program at Trout Run. " See January 6, 2016, Memorandum from Steve Hor, Division Director, Division of Planning & Permitting, (0 ‘County Council Re: Zoning Text Amendment; Historie Structures and Sites (1-19-8,600). 7209 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 800 Bethesda, MIO 20814-4842 | 391,854,0804 «901.604.2601 Fax | vrwurlinowestewsomLINOWES AND IBLOCHER tip Pebruaty 1, 2016 Page 2 Proceeding under the curent Historic Zoning and Chapter 1-23-6 of the County Code (the “Historic Ordinance”), on July 8, 2013, Social Betterment submitted an application to the Board “of Appeals requesting a special exception for the.conversion of an existing historic site into a group home for an alechol and drug abuse treatment facitity at Trout Ram. Tn conjunction with its special exception application, on August 5, 2013, Social Betterment submitted its nomination to the Historic Preservation Commission (the “Commission” for a éetermination of Trout Run’s eligibility for placement on the Register. On August 19, 2013, the Commission made an initial determination of cligil ‘On October 1, 2013, the Board of Appeals unanimously granted Social Betterment’s special exccption request. Thereafter, on December 3, 2014, the Commission unsnimously voted (0 reco:nmend Trout Run's placement on the Register to the Frederick County Council (the “Council”. On February 16, 2015, the Division of Community Development for the County's Department of Planning and Development Review (the "Planning Department”) submitted a staff report supporting Trout Run's placement on the Register and requesting a public hearing. The Council held two public hearings on Trout Run's placement: April 7, 20/5 and April 21, 2015, In advance of the first hearing, # small anti-developriont group began attacking the proposed use of Trout Run, Thezeafter, te public hearings were dominated not by the merits of ‘Tront Run’s ease for placement on the Registes, but by testimony about its proposed use as a drag rehabilitation facility to be operated by Netconon and its reletionship with the Church of Scientotogy. On June 2, 2015, the Covnei! voted and denied Trout Run's placement on the Register, Two days later, the Council sent a lever fo the County Executive requesting « temporary moratorium on all applications for placement on the Register, which the County Execulive granted, The moratorium expited on December 7, 2015. ‘On January 6, 2016, the Division of Planning and Permitting of the Planning Department submitted a staff report reconsmending the Council introduce the Bill, In the repor, it is noted that the Bill is being introduced because “[eloncerns were raised when a number of applications for listings of properties of the [Register] were zeccived, i rowp home use at the Trout Run property[.|" (emphasis added). Yct, the minutes from the September 3, 2015, Couneil Work Shop show that only four applications were diseussed: the ‘Trout Rea application with « proposed use for drug ond alcohol rebebilitation and three applications pending Council approval with a proposed fkeilities for functions nse, one of which ‘was approved on January 12, 2016, by the Council, “The facilities for functions use is not being eliminated as an allowed use under the Historic Register, Additionally, the record for Trout Rum’s application clearly shows that the controversy was not about the proposed use as a drug rehabilitation facility, par se, but about Nexconon and the Chureh of Scientology's involvement vith the proposed use.LINOWES: AND IBLOCHER up February 1, 2016 Page 3 Furtherinore, the Bill singles out group homes as the only category of use eliminated and prohibited for histozic properties, thus discriminating against a broad category of use employed by a wide variety of disability programs. This discriminatory Bill changes an existing section of the Historie Zoning without providing any analysis or e compelling reason as to why a fecility that provides disability treatment to the community would be an ill-fitted or harmful use, in comparison to any other use categories. Numerous federal eases, including thom this State, make clear that such actions that have the effect of restricting provision of facilities and homes for the disabled, including those suffering from alcohol or drug addiction, are subject to strict scrutiny under the American With Disabilities Act and the Federal Housing Act, which provide for injunctive relief, damayes, and attorneys" fees. See, eg., United Stares v. City of Baltiiore, 845 Supp 2d 640 (0.Md. 21012); Start, Inc. v. Baltimore County, 295 FSupp.2d 569 (D.Md, 2003). Accordingly, Social Betterment opposes the passage of tie Bill dye to its impermissibly discriminetory nature, “Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony, Please do not hesitate to contact ime should you have any questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, LINOWES AND BLOCHER LL? EAS ifer . Kneeland ce: Ragen Chemey, Legislative Director (rherney@TrederickCountyMD.gov) sea ssuet9tesm 461 02EXHIBIT HLINOWES ANDI BLOCHER Lip ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ienifer L. Kneeland iknoeland@linower-law.com 401.961.5205 January 15, 2016 By Hand Delivery Department of Planning and Development Review Frederick County, Maryland clo Denis Superczynski, AICP Principal Planner 30N, Market Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 Re: Request for Information Uncer the Maryland Public Information Act Dear Mr, Superszynskiz ‘This Fim represents Socinl Betterment Properties International. This is a request under the ‘Maryland Public Information Act (“MPIA”), State Government Article §§ 10-611 to 628. On behalf of our client, we zequest copies of all documents and communications for the following records 1, All documents and communications related in any way to 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, near Thurmont, Maryland fom January 1, 2085 to the present, other than documents produced as part of the Record in Cese No, 10-C-15-0018595 2. All documents and communications by, among, or between any employee or agent of the Department of Plamiing and any person or entity relating in any way to the property located at 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Near Thumtont, Maryland, ‘tom January 1, 2G15 to the presents 3. All documents and communications related in any way to an application for a special exception for 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Near Thumiont, Maryland, filed with the Board of Appeals; and 4, All documents and communications related in any way to Council Bill 16-02 - ‘Special Exception Uses in Connection with Historic Sites and Structures. {In order to help to determine my status fo assess fees, you should know thet I am affilisted with private law firm and am seeking information for use in the Firm's litigation business. We ate ‘willing to pay reasonable fees as provided for by the statute for this request up to a maximum of $50.00, Ifyou estimate that the Zees will exceed this limit, please inform me first. IF this written request for access to records has been made fo the incorrect person or if you are not the proper custodian of these records, within ten (10) working days of the receipt of this “7200 Wisconsin Avenue {Suite 090 | Bethesda, MO 29614-4842 1 307.654.0604 | 207,064.2801 Fax | weywallnowee-law.comLINOWES AND/BLOCHER Lp Department of Planning aud Development Review ofo Denis Superczynski Jannary 15, 2016 Page 2 request, please notify me of this fact and, if known, advise as to the actual custodian of the records and the location or possible location of the records per SG § 10-614(a)(2). ‘Thank you in sdvance for your cooperation with the MPIA request, Very truly yours, LINOWES AND BLOCHER 14.7 K havbenk. jennifer L.. Kneeland onan sumer wel onoEXHIBIT ILINOWES AND | BLOCHER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jennifer L, Kaooland jknoeland@linoees-Iaw.com 301.961.5205 January 15, 2016 Delive Planning and Permitting Division Frederick County, Maryland @/o Steven C, Hom Director 30.N. Market Strect Frederick, Maryland 21701 Re: Request for Information Under the Maryland Public Information Act ‘Dear Mr, Hom: ‘This Firm represents Social Betterment Properties International. This is a request under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA"), State Government Article §§ 10-611 fo 628. On behalf of our elient, we request copies of ail documents aud communications for the following records: 1 All documents and communications retated in any way to 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, near Thurmont, Maryland from January 1, 2015 to the present, other than documents pro- ‘duced ns part of the Record in Case No, 10-C-15-001859; 2, Ail documents and communiéations by, among, or between, any employee or agent of the Planning and Petmitting Division and any person or entity relating in any way to the property located at 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Near Thwmont, Maryland, fiom January 1, 2015 to the present; 3, All documents and communications related in any way to an application for a special exception for 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Near Thurmont, Maylene, fled with the Board of Appeals; and 4, Ali documents and communications refated in any way to Couneif Bill 16-02 ~ Special Exception Uses in Conneetion with Historic Sites and Structures. In order to help to determine my situs to assess fees, you should know that I am affiliated with a private law firm and am seeking information for use in the Firm’s litigation business, We are ‘willing fo pay reasonable fees as provided for by the statute for this request up to a maximum of $50.00. Tf you ostimate that the foes will exceed this limit, please inform me frst, IE this written request for gecess (© records has beon made to the incorrect person or if you are not the proper custodian of these records, within fon (10) working days of the receipt of this {7200 Wisconsin Avenue [ Suit #00 1 Bothssde, MD 20874-4822 | 301.654.0804 | $01.054.2001 Fax | www linowes low.comLINOWES | ‘AND IBLOCHER wp Planning and Permitting Division c/o Steven C. Hom January 15, 2016 Page 2 request, please notify me of this fact and, if known, advise as to the actual custodian of the ‘records and the location or possible location of the records per SG § 10-614(a)Q2). “Thank you in advance for your cooperation with the MPLA request. Very truly yours, LINOWES AND BLOCHER LiP fewricfire Hb nttlaad. Jennifer L, Kneeland vay ssss46rei nats 0002EXHIBIT JLINOWES AnD | BLOCHER Lp ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jamuary 15, 2016 Jennifer L. Kneeland nary Jkoveland@linewss-Inw.com 304.961.5205 By Hand Delivery Zoning Administration Frederick County, Maryland c/o Lary Smith Zoning Administrator 30 N, Market Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 Re: Request for Information Under the Maryland Public Information Act Dear Mr. Smith: ‘This Firm represents Social Betterment Properties Intemational. ‘This is a request under the Maryland Public Information Act C°MPIA"), State Government Aiticle §§ 10-611 %0 628, On behalf of our client, we request copies of all documents and communications for the following, records: 1, All documents and communications related is any way fo 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Near Tharmont, Maryland from Jamuary 1, 2015 to the present, other than documents produced as part of the Record in Case No. 10-C-15-001859; 2, All documents and communications by, among, or between any employee or agent of the Zouing Administration and any person or entity relating in any way to the property located at 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road, Neat Thurmont, Marytand, from January 1, 2015 to the present; 3, All documents and communications related in any way to an application for a special exception for 12929 Catoctin Hollow Rosd, Near Thurmont, Maryland, filed with the Board of Appeals; and 4, All documents and communications related in any way to Council Bill 16-02 - ‘Special Exception Uses in Connection with Historic Sites and Structures. In order to help to determine my status fo assess feos, you should know that Lam affiliated with a private Jaw firm and am seeking information for use in the Firm's litigation business. We are willing to pay reasonable fees as provided for by the sintute for this request up to a maximum of $50.00, If you estimate thet the fees will exceed this limit, please inform me first. YF this writen request for access to records has been made to the incorrect person or if you are not the proper custodian of these records, within ten (10) working days of the receipt of this “7208 Wisconsin Avenue 1 Suite 800 {Bethestla, MD 20814-4842 1301.854.0504 | $02,654.2001 Fax ! wwwilinowes-lawecomLINOWES| AND | BLOCHER tue Zoning Administration fo Lary Smith Fanuary 15,2016 Page? request, please notify me of this fact and, if known, atlvise as to the aciual custodian of the records and the location ot possible location of the records por SG § 10-614(a)(2).. ‘Thank you in advance for your cooperation with the MPIA request. Very truly yous, LINOWES AND BLOCHER LL? pomp Le knsberd Jennifer 1, Kneeland rin s53s4ese1346| 0002EXHIBIT KFrom: ‘hal Unda to ocean Joes = 1K ube Freeman A cques Tek un Date: Handy, Fetmary 0, 2016 5:24 AM Ms, Kneeland, Your January 18, 2016 Public formation Act requests to Frederick County were forwarded tome fora response, a | generally coordinate the County’s responses to these requests. | have received several hundred pages of records from tne vision of Planning and Permiting and the County Council. Many of these records are privileged. | crn the process of reviewing the records for privilege and preparing a privilege log to identify the records that need to be withheld or redacted. | anticipate that the records willbe ready for production within the thirty day period provided by the PIA ‘The County has already exceeded the two hour time period that the Act requiresit to provide free of charge, In akin to the time required by staffin the Dision of Planning and Permitting and the County Council to identity and forward the records jwhich exceeded ? hours collectively, but will not be charged to you), | have spent approximately six hours so far cn this request. Severai more hours will be required to complete my review for priviege and finish the privilege lag. For that reason, | ‘am requesting a depositin the amount of $348 fer the anticipated costs (6 hours @ $58 per hour for my time). Your check should be made payable to the Treasurer of Frederick County and sent to my attention at the address shown below. Once Ihave the deposi, | wll resume work on your request. If you would ike to-receive electronic copies of the records when they are ready fer release, please also provide a thumb drive to facilitate that orocess. Linda B. Thait ‘Senior Assistant County Attorney 12 Basi Church Street! Frederick, Meryland 21701 (a01] 600° 1633 (vated) (901) 600-1161 (fax)EXHIBIT LFrom: ea nda Tor ‘weg Jeanie = 4K Subjects RE: Pale tferaton At requests Trt Ron Date: “Tauedsy Foorvary 33,2016 1:12:19 PH Ms. Kneeland, ‘Thank you for your payment of the requested deposit and for providing the thumb drive, The County's records, including the privilege log, have been copied ento the thumb drive; those records “will be released upon payment of the remaining costs associated with the PIA request. 'As {indicated below, the County will nat charge you for the time required by staff in the Diviston of Planning and Permitting, the County Council and the County Attorney's Office to focate the: responsive records and forward them to me. This effort tock considerably more than the two hours: that the law requires the County to provide at no charge. 1 ar billing you, however, for the 21 hours, that | spent reviewing the records for privilege, redacting privileged records and preparing a privitege log. Your $348 deposit covered the first ¢ hours of my time, leaving a balance of $870 due for the remaining 15 hours. Please send your check, made payable to the Treasurer of Frederick County, to my attention and advise me as to whether you want me to raal the thunb drive or hold it here for pickup. Linda B. That Senior Assisiant County Attorney 42 Bast Church Street Frederick, Maryland 21701 (301) 690-1683 (voice) (801) 690-1161 (ax) Mhall@FrederickCouniyah gor From: Thali, Linda Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 9:16 AM ‘Tos knecland@linowes-law.com* Subject: Public Information Act requests = Trout Run ‘Ms. Kneeland, Your January 15, 2016 Public information Act requests to Frederick County were forwarded to me. fot a response, as | generaily coordinate the County's responses te these requests. } have received several hunded pages of records from the Division of Planning and Permitting and the County Council. Many of these records are privileged. | amin the process of reviewing the records for privilege and preparing a privilege log to identity the records that need to be withheld or redacted. 1 anticipate that the records will be ready for production within the thirty day period provided by the PIA. “The County has already exceeded the wo hour time period that the Act requires it to provide free of charge. In addition to the time required by staffin the Dhvsion of Planning and Permitting and theCounty Council to identify and forward the records (which exceeded 2 hours collectively, but will mot be charged to you}, | have spent agpraximately sir hours so far on this request. Several more hours wil be required to complete my review for privilege and finish the privilege log. For that reason | ‘am requesting a deposit in the amount of $348 for the anticipated costs (6 hours @ $58 per hour for my time). Your check should be made payable to the Treasurer of Frederick County and sent=to my attention at the adciress shown below, Once | have the deposit, | will resume work on your request, If you would like to eeceive electronic copies of the records when they are ready for release, please also provide a thumb drive to facilitate that process. Linda B. Thal Senior Assistant County Attorsey 12 Bast Church Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701 (801) 600-1633 {votce) (801) 600-1262 (fax)EXHIBIT MLINOWES AND | BLOCHER tip ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 24, 2016 Jennifer Knestand jhrecland@lisewes-le-com ‘301.961.5205 VIA HAND DELIVERY Linda B. ‘Thail Sr. Assistant County Attorney Winchester Hall 12 B, Church Street Frederick, MD 21701 Ret Maryland Public Information Act (*MPIA”) Requests Follow-Up — Social Betterment Properties International and 12929 Catoctin Hollow Road Dea Ms, Thell: This letter concerns Frederick County's responses to our client, Soeial Betterment Properties Iniernational’s (“Social Betterment") MPIA Requests, which were sent by letters dated) Jamsary 15, 2086, to the Zoning Administration, the Department of Planning and Development Review, and the Planning and Permitting Division, We exe prepared to file « Petition Seeking, an Injunction requiring the County to respond to the MPIA Requests. However, prior to filing @ petition, we will give the Couaty the opportunity to supplement its responses. We ask that the County supplement its responses end produce the requested documents within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, On Februsry 16, 2016, the County produced documents responsive to the MPIA Requests, However, the County's production is deficient in several regards: (1) several e-mails had attachments that were not provided; (2) there are dozens of partially ot completely blank pages ‘with no indication as to why those pages are blank; and (3) the County withheld certain dcouments by improperly invoking the following privileges: "deliberative process,” “executive privilege,” and “inter-agency or imra-agency recon.” This letter addresses cach of these deficiencies. For euse of reference, we numbered each page of the County's produetion and have enclosed the numbered documents. MISSING ATTACUMENTS We identified 27 e-mails with attachments that were not produced! in response to the MPIA Requests, Those e-mails, by number are: [so sis sat 4 319 445 [isi | 3a oa “7900 Wieeonsin Avenues | Suite 200 | Bethosde, MO 20814-4842 | 301.656.0808 | 201.859.2801 Fax | vewwlinowes-law.eamLINOWES: AND |BLOCHER tie February 24, 2016 Page 2 139 336 38 160 423 373 236 430 374 286 adi 35 | 290 az PS 302 443 By, Please review these e-mails and provide-us with copies of the missing attachments within 10 days of the date of this letter. BLANK Pages We identified 62 pages that appear (0 be either completely or partially blank. From the production, we cannot determine if these pages are purposefully blank as the result of « redzction, or whether thee is some ather reason why these pages are blank, ‘Those pages are: 32 8 58 Téi (33. 0 128 163 a6 2 130 245 37 73 131 248 38 74 tal 276 a 39 5 143 3 40 79 144 220) 56 2 149 379) i 8 156 585 54 84 133 395, 35 86 154 29 61 88 156 667 _ 4 89 157 872 65 94 158 «= 883, | 66 95 159 | oT 96, 160 —_ 7] Please review these pages and produce the complete copies of the correspondence within 10 days of the date of this letter.LINOWES and IBLOCHER Lr February 24, 2016 Page 3 ‘Tue CounTy’s AsseRTION oF PRIVILEGES The County withheld the production of 59 documents’ by invoking three privileges and exceptions: the executive privilege, the deliberative process privilege, and inter-agency or intra- agency record exception. ‘These interrelated privileges and exceptious apply only under narow circumstances not applicable fo these MPIA Requests, particularly when the government itself is f party 10 litigation or is & potential pty to impending litigation. The policy reason for this Jimitation is straightforward ~ there are profound concerns regarding the administation of justice whon the government seeks (o shield itself from liability by hiding behind “exceutive privilege” ‘and the related “deliberative process” privilege and “inter- or intra-agency record” exception. Moreover, it is well-established that “the provisions of the [MPIA] reflect the legislative intent thal citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to publie infomation concerning the operation of their government.” Caffrey v. Departient of Liquar Contro! for Montgoniery County, 370 Nid. 272, 305 (2002). i, The Deliberative Provess/Exeeutive Privilege “The Court of Special Appeals recently ssid that the “deliberative process privilege is a species of executive privilege,” Maryland Ba. af Physicians v. Geier, 225 Md, App. 114, 148 (2015). The terms are “used imerchangeably in relevant case lav." Id. The Court of Appeals stated (hat the “executiveldeliberative process privilege” shields records “made in connection with the deliberative decision-making, process used by chief or high Executive officials ~ Presidents, Governors, and their immediate advisors” Stromberg Metal Works, inc. v. University of Maryland, 382 Md, 151, 161-62 (2004) (enaphasis added). Indeed, appellate courts repeatedly deny claims of cxeoutive privilege thal do not involve the deliberative processes of igh. governmental officials, See, e.g., Stromberg, 382 Md, st 163 (nothing that the “Constitutional Uunderpinnings of any exccutivesiclibermtive process privilege” on the part of a supervisor in University’s Department of Architecture, Sngineering, and Construction, who was “seven rungs down in the chain of command and responsibility within one Slate agency,” was “exceedingly remote and tenuous,” if it “exisifed] at sll”); Prince George's County ». The Woshingion Post Co,, 149 Me, App. 289, 320 (2003) (holding that executive privilege did not protect the county's Police Commanders” Information Reports). The “deliberative procesv/executive privilege” is generally reserved for use as “the umbrella for shielding diplomatic, military, and seeurity-laden secrets.” Stromberg, 382 Md, at 162. Here, the County invoked the deliberative provess/execuiive privilege for 11 e-mails (the “Gardner E-mails") thet were sent either direetly to or fiom Jan Gardner, the Connty Executive, "For ease of reference, we have enclosed x chert of those improperly withheld dosuments and e-mails under a cialin oF detiberaive process privilege, exeeutive privilege, or the inter-ngeneyfintra-tgency exception, See Exhibl: A,LINOWES: np |BLOCHER LLP February 24, 2016 Paget or ofierwvise included her on the communications. See Exhibil A, However, Jan Gardner is neither a President, x Governor, or other similerly-situated high-level executive official and thus js not entitled the benefits of the deliberative processlexecutive privilege. See generally, Stromberg, 382 Md. et 161-62. Even if she were entitled the benefits of the deliberative process/exccutive privitepe, the privilege does not apply to the communications that the County withheld. Flist, several of the Gardner E-mails are not between Jan Gardner and her immediate advisors, but are between Jan Gardner and the legislative branch of the Frederick County government or steff members of the variovs the County departments, ‘These communications are not matters of diplomacy, military or national security warranting the protection of the deliberative procesa/executive privilege. Id, it 151 (holding that the “deliberative process/exceulive privilege” is only for high-end executive officials and their immediate advisors and generally (o protect matters that involving diplomacy, the military, of security), Rather, based on the timing of the e-mails, the e-mails that were produced, and the subject line of the e-meils as provided in the Privllege Log, the Gardner B- Inails appear to be requests for thetual information, rad not communications relating (0 & deliberative process, and must be produced, See NLRB v, Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 US. 132, 1$0-52 (1974) (holding that the deliberative process/executive privilege does not protect those inaterials that “simply state ot explain a decision the government haa already made... or ‘material that is purely factual”). “Phe County also withiveld an additional 47 e-maits and documents (the “Additional Deliberative Process E-mails”) under the guise of the deliberative process/executive privilege, However, the ‘Additional Deliberative Process E-mails do not involve the County Sxecutive af afl. See Exhibit A, Rather, the Additional Deliberative Process E-mails ate communications between the members of the County Council, staff of vazions County departments, and other non-executive and lower-liered individuals. See id, Moreover, the deliberative procossfexccutive privilege is ‘meant (0 protect only “predecisional” and “deliberative materials,” and not those materials that state or explain a decision already made by the government or that are purely factual. See MLRB, 421 US. at 150-52. Given the very limited application and purpose of the deliberative processexecutive privilege, the deliberative process/executive privilege is wholly inapplicable to the Additional Deliberative Process E-mails. Furthermore, #3 with the Gardner E-mails, is highly tlikely that any of the Addifione] Deliberative Process B-mails involve matters of diplomacy, military, ov nstional security thus abrogating any noed to assert the deliberative process/executive privilege. ‘The County's invocation of the deliberative process/exeoutive privilege is highly-questiongble in Tight of the curcent dispute between Sovial Betterment and the County. As you are aware, itis ‘Social Betterment’s position that several of the County's actions and proposed actions are based ‘apon religious or other discrimination against Social Betterment. For example, several of theLINOWES| ano IBLOCHER wp February 24, 2016 Page 5 Gardner E-mails and the Additionat Deliberative Process E-nils involve discussions about Bill 16-02 and amending County Code § 1-19.8.600 to prohibit “group homes.” See Exhibit A. Several other e-mails relate to press inquirles or requests to access information by eitomeys from this firw, id Other e-mails diseuss Social Bottermeut’s building permits, which were put “on hold.” Jel Accordingly, the Gardner E-malls and the Additional Deliberative Process E-mails may be the very documents that demonstrate the County's liability. Thus, he County cannot use the deliberative provess/executive privilege a3 a sbield to avoid liability. Please produce these documents within 10 days of the date of this letter. 2. The Inter-Agency/intra-Agency Exception ‘The Couniy invokes the “inter-ageneyfinira-ageney” exception for {8 of the 39 withheld documents {ihe “Agency Documents”). However, the MPLA Act limits the “inter-ageney/inira~ agency” exception to only those records that ()) “would be privileged in litigation,” ard Gi) disclosure would be contrary (o the “public interest.” See Md. Code Aon., GP §§ 4-343, 4-344, Neither of these limitations applies to the Ageney Deeuments, ‘As discussed, infia, Social Betterment alleges thet the County discriminated on the basis of religion against Social Betterment becanse of Social Betterment’s relationship with the Church fof Scientology. Specificaily, the County Councli denied Social Betterment's application for historic designation without justification. See Opinion of the Honorable William R. Nicklas, Jt, In the Matter of Socal Betterment Properties, International, Case No. 10-C-i5-O01859 (Md, Cir, Ct, Jon, 13, 2016), Further, the Counly Council permitted testimony and accepted evidence against Social Betterment on the basis of its religious affilietion with the Chureh of Scientology. Next, the County introduced Bill 16-02 seeking to eliminate “group homes” from the permitted tases for properties of historic designation, As shown by the documents that were produced in response ta the MPLA Requests, Bill 16-02 was introduced to address “Trout Run,” the property for which Social Betterment secks historic designation, Indeed, the County Council's denial of Social Betterment’s application for historic designation resulted in an appeal to the Cireuit Court. As such, the Agency Documents may contain facts that would support a religious discrimination suit brought by Social Betterment, For example, and not by way of limitation, four of the Ageney Documents purport to involve discussions about drafting Bill 16-02. See Exhibit A. Accotdingly, Social Retterment is entitled te. those documents in connection with litigation against the County. See generally, Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Mai, 759, 785 (1984) (holding that in » damages-for-deiey litigation between building contractor nd owner, notes ofa progress meeting made by « participant in the meeting are routinely discoverable because who said what in a job in progress mecting is factual imsierial not subject to the infer-agenoy/intra-agency exception).LINOWES: ‘ano IBLOCHER we February 24, 2016 Page 6 Moreover, the “inter-egencyfinima-agency recor” exception does not protect documents that are not pre-decisional aux deliberative in nature. See Stromberg, 382 Md. at 165-67. Several of the ‘Agency Documents are not pre-decisional in nature becuse they occurred after a decision was nade, Le, rejecting Social Botterment’s application for historie designation, For cxample, and hot by way of limitation, two e-mails from July 2015 involve County Council Members? ‘comments on Social Belterment’s litigation, See Exhibit A: see alsa NLRB, 32) U.S, at 150-52 {noting that communications after @ devision is made and which explain a decision are not privileged). Similarly, the “inter-ageney/intie-agency record” exception is suspect when the cortmunications fre top-down. See Cranford, 300 Md, at 787 (it is unusual for predecisiovel deliberative ‘communications to move down the organizational ladder”), There are several of these “top- down” e-mails exchanged between Steve Hom to Gary Hessong, or e-malls from Bud Otis to his excoutive assistant, Diana Modelski, See Exhibit A. Acoonlingly, these documents should be produced, ‘The “inter-ageney/intra-ageney record” exception also does not protect documents that consist “only of complied factnal material or purely factual material.” See Stromberg, 382 Md, at 165 67, Tiere, severni of the Agency Documents ace clearly factual in nature and not pact of the deliberative process. For example, end not by way of limitation, several e-mails were withheld ‘where one party is requesting information from saother party, eg. a May 4, 2015, e-mail botween Bud Otis and Diana Modelski requesting information related to Catoctin Mountain Park, ‘These factual requests and the factual responses are precisely the sort of information to which the “inter-agency/intra-agency” exception does not epply. See generally, Cranford, 300 Md. 759; see also Stromberg, 382 Ma. 151 (holding that memoranda consisting of only factuat material ig not properly withheld under the inter-agencyfintra-agency exception), Lastly, the “public interest” argument “in and of itself is insufficient” to prevent disclosure. See generally, Cranford, 300 Md. at 785. Even if the “public interest” argument alone were Sufficient to prevent diselosuro, the “pablic interest” here favors disclosure. Social Betténnent alleges thet the Counly repentedly acted discciminatorily, arbitrarily, and eapriciously when dealing with Sociat Betterment. The public has a vested interest in sceing that i(s goverment does 701 illegally discriminate or otherwise aol arbitrarily and capriciously towards its citizens. ‘As such, the “contrary 1o the public interest” Limitation is inapplicable in the context of these MPTA RequestsLINOWES |, nb IBLOCHER Ltr February 24, 2016 Page 7 In sum, the County improperly invoked the “inter-agenoyfintes-ageney” exegption, Please produce these documents within 10 days of the date of this letter Respectfully yours, LINOWES AND BLOCHER LLP JLXanld Rnelosuresopr woace seas pasodaud| soqaug oanroaxg wwe Ze] wo yuawu0 - equ ssoo0ig aanematieg|t esoyg sais] SU9/IT onan mes SURI yew, aBoyiatig anznoarl wad 17:6] _wonse youmer a1qiss0d 30) sseonig oanemgued|t sno png] 1/21/11 | worssnostp ~ zaps eagmooxg, emg proce TEpIO aapaxay Sepa Aouste-una, 10 Kouee rot sroqezap4 “uo wonsod s,}24N09) SsSaqiatie sapnoong] ound) id o5:1 Jo MOISSNOSIP - 18PL0} ssvocug aaResogtteCl 1 stogumoy youne5] Aunod too} prod Anos] stieciTi| sanroeNy Rutwe7 suoxT wag aueasissy| weal aannaaxg pus] 107] 1 Koa} sBoqasg sana seuurjg droura] ‘cpsukzarodng| sssooid sameroqgted.t _[evaossang worsaic] sqoteg| wor onns| treerg| Soquay| procas peg Arno) sag pure saimanag 2101 AcuaSe-zrt Jo Kouste-soany |Z Jor soar] worstaid]| (puneg Aeg} — woH sams] srriErcl| weUPUSMY Del SmUEZ] OwOW YRC] proce sore] spuowse7] ouno9| AouaBe-nimn 20 foxtaBe-ian] juauaredag pap] ewer 07 {209 un09| afopara aaron soaue;g jedioug] ‘pisuztorodag| ‘Yodo1 gins wo swweuraoo| ot owaur weap sson0ig samecoqned|s [or somaticr rorsucl srasg| _wror ane; soos esi-t pau eng) pe ew posal AouaBe-eamn 20 Aousse som aarautg annnoexal somang wIstg| prsezoredng| md zr-p] oda: yes wo smioanuten ssevorgeanesqreg|! orseuueg fedioug| oH! ena! sweq| 91oeis/t| 0098 61-1 peau oF a weary @INDMIOME qaLwassy ‘aa | Of ORLOV MLL -aniosaa @wornama _|xo#| soamsar | wnmaomr | vontay | iva | wartvwaoarans | aaxt 200 vnquxgorsoz sxnnoo Ane) ——_aaquuare| worse younor 205 suena Jo Bog aapnoona| pure sioquiayy) Heunen s91R0 ssooong saneioatica| lstin0> mone pue zeupzep woz] _preuog Aare wes “aqua sung ssi ‘apnoaxq Amneg| per saupre9| Sanna exnnoerg| pur saquayg] — wepen Ado ssspoig annesaaaqr|t emeg sora] sprewoa Axes] _sverus Ara ows Senay sannoeral same] sioquiy sseporg aaneioatfeay prenog Asay yew sBopog ntmaoxe| ssenoig eameremneaft sesneioa Aase| ie sSanauid sasmnoexg| sereacaig| wd gcc] pary ss0006q aamenqroa omnes mora] spreuog Aue assoq| sunt] - enna] qUBAT SERED] stoqnpg angnoosg| soneng voisatg| pfsuzoncag) wre ¢z:9] yyy Supsons soy oonazedai| sso aanenayag|! — evsevume eccocug] wry ata! sea] _s19/t) 295 vonepusanosoy eos @inaagOTL aaLassv ‘ad| OL¥ORIOV ALL “aiosat (asrnard _|ao#| so awsa | inmaom | womtoy | iva | warrvwsograns | aaxx 0a Vnqxg‘u97 04 Kéca| srequaye nomen! Laky-aefeoy puesscieuy} = OSH oBoqaprg oapnoang| panes] 07] pag ‘pueydoug PISSDOW sseootg axrmiogttoct|z | amasssy onze oyare 2am etsy aSoyatig aAnneoKg wuepisesg joano | ssaooig aammoqtec|i | otsqureyy your9| sg png) _prewog Atop pea ws sansa pur 4ye1s| pueidoug ayares| popRD tumsssy| pur éaumrp| sannooxg| astey oy sonssy ‘sioqupy] Adoo ‘osiepor| go uorsmnesip par uorrda ‘artattg onmmaoxg| ppune5 myo] euRG ‘preu9G| » aoreuIpg woREuB sec] sseoold eanereqzred |Z Suagmay Tunes} Kur “no png! DEIOISEH UO GOrss—S 10] Trearg] wepsra 231 caddig tose:g ‘amg preuoy ‘Buppae seI0021N “poyeH sorkg ‘preakeg| Pasay ‘epee aresp veg wo] pow quopisaig proces} ‘onoin seguzoy| Tpune| AowoBe-2ni 20 KouaBe rey sereg AreD| sruounuoa io} sonboa pas] Arne) aaqgetag aanmnooxa| sequen Jay] “wyeg erag pysctandng| wd gpg) sensei Smpuad jo use} 04923 sseonig samzreqyaay | oa souunta Tediourza| “uedg exegzog suuec| si/als, -Sanseu oan zequerdeg| yen ‘wewal @InnaIIOTL caLLaassy ‘da | OL¥onLay OAL carpsaa (SoUTIARE 404) dOdTHSM | INUIT | YOHLAY | ALvd | WaALLYWIoarans | zakL-D0c VHXone y Bes J0 J91ND PRR auapysatg [oMROD foaiey9) ‘aBoyatig aannooxg} ‘on quapysarg | airy c| seky) wid gp:T] ‘wogse amy! sso008d aAtesaqnoct|l 2014 TlaMmo9| Stoo ‘mo pra] -uatiooy OV so ween ue OMT neo THESIS] uD] song oxpaoong] ‘annex 51 0) rupees sonbos uno) Sevoaug anmaonyt CT spoptsaig younop| vTap sue] SHO PAG! _S1/) sSonarg oantooxg| Is 20 32390 a] pisrepoyy| ure grs0r| ot asuodsss pred saprsoud ssosorg annesoqiiad)|| | UmSISSY aartnoog| SoumyD wae agg) sliys|__~ ed meron wyDONED erg x00 Sovate-eni 10 Rouse amass ‘uonsenb sued @ oF azz sSoyang oannosry apnang oi oY we gig] uogemogm Simasonbay ssvocag onnEIOCHOCHLE auapisang JouROo|NePOW BUT! NO Pra|_et/bs| _ ~ ea BIEUNOWN SOD) rea, souaBe-en 10 Kouaite-z0a] asnbar spuoprsarg sBoynvg sxnoorg| BES JOT PASPON| we 80:01 youn 0 dea womey ssooarg aameegirsa|t | yeasissy aaninoosea] Kou uate! ewe) sUbis| _- ea Brew moor) tren sffoqyncg nanmnoo% ‘ypeas jrouno9 01) 01 Acco | wd gc: souieme aauoo| sseooig aapeingyieg |__| soaissey exmnoexg| yomog Ano! umwts awggea] s/s] = sun AN woH 38805] ecg wep e%g| ano pure apg 30 sxo| aBapiaug sarmoorg| PUD oLwaprsarg) png oy Acoo| saky) ure Lp6| ssoo0sq oATRIOAIaCT Bata Tome | Keun wary] wo] STLUS trewa| afapaueg aannosg| OH, wwe gbi6| sssooug enneroqteq] orggms JO Jer] -we8eay DWyjfowrouD weal SL/L IVS| Ses aasiBoy Sumo9| qrewsg| @unmaOaE aacwassy ‘aa | OLYORLAY OAL -antosad (moana __|do#| somHsa | Inataoay | wonLoy | iva | waLtvcroarans | aaA1'00a vy Hag01306 px0203] ‘woy aaaig pur| Aotffe-enmy 20 KoueSe-so sromeac uosiic] eos mae o) -Baqiang aannoowa| pte siaunzedaq| Atos ‘spuomey] rysuzauadng| 21] asuodsou wsog woxtayse ssosoigoanessarrea|t [ou sauueia recto Bwxeug| sTau3qy posodaxd to stusm0| pewg aBoqytg sapnoneg| 435 50 J01U9 oF Pesrepoyy| oncoztp| ssooogoaneincred| | __|10sisssy eannoeNg| Aouad wdey| ‘uezg| of senbat - zonal uouoase, engl ge Boring oagnong| FRIUD Or BEpISAZa| sedy] ue isigi| Sunes gH Supe, sssonig aANeHaQTAG |Z AAA HMNOD) Mowe wEY) wey DW] S1/Tery|_—_uomaumayuy soy ssonbay | teurg| smasisey| snnneoseg Youn) Aumog samsssy| angooxal ‘ora apr souo] segs P| snsmastmpy] Sousy pia sau} Suwwougl sonata exmnoerg| ‘gpmg yo ger) hog oy Aloo wd seg) Susu aH pI/¥/cI stoorgenneeqed|t —_[oLsoraa voisiya] fourse) uséiey] wo axmgl t/1z/| mpmas Kimber oy asvodsay Tris] proce Aowae-ann 30 Kouae-ry awopysacal yssnostp auoydaiay sMopianig aaqnoexy| Bounog 04] BSISPOWE Oe FETT) 40} ssonbor saveptsong| ssoo0ig aanemeqned|{ Tumsjssy exnnoeng| 520 pre] mum) St/9/5| gquonog wo En woo | yeurg| ag as] seg ueusoD ener msfns 3 wormed ssvo0ng sanesoatiaq] pwETYK a SrspepeyA| me TTT} MIM Doxssnostp suoudarar sBayatid aannooxg| yumsissy aannvexg| Ieumés yay uel sivs| 2mnpeqps os ysonbery| fearg| @inmaaort caLeassy ‘ad | OLNOMLAY ANIL ‘antnsaa @sormama _jso#| aoamsa | inaidoay | wontov | arva| warwwsosrans | ganz 900 vgsoro sSoniang sarmoona ssecodg sanezoauieal aneyg| Suosssy Len ‘sonppusamrosaa| 0p sanbad - omen de syeaddy 50 preg ewe sHojiaug ennroaxa| sson0ng anse10911°0) secpmeg wes] _ usr enais| Ticks BOESHON poterar suopsonb saannoaxal Asmar or sosundsox! (e) sem eSeqyag eagncera| ssevo1g anpesoario() mcg assis] soup wey| Koons 804-560 yp] 303 woResTiogUr Loy Sano @aueug] gOS} pyssAzouedng| wre yest] 25 syouag| suopsonb sprenctosoy| any go 200k dn poyeew a wnp ane} si/cir| asuodsor 150g woxturyE2 | pesoderd wo siueun03} neo ‘spacey uid Ze°Z1 wueegs| S1/Lih| ssuodsen wo woxSOrasesA| pasodard no siei209} s0# ‘OAL Ixmarax | voutov | sive caraosaa waLIvWioarans ‘aK 0G VanaCCitouit Court for Frederick Count = CIVIL - NON-DOMESTIC CASE INFORMATION REPORT [piRECTIONS: ‘Pliniff: This information Report mest be completed and attached to the complaint led withthe Clerk of Court liners yourcase tr exempt fom the requérenent by ibe Chief Judge ofthe Court of Appecteprsuant to ede 2-110). [a copy must beincued foreach defendant tobe served. Defendant: You must ie on information Report. required by Rule 23230). TEDAS AN ANSWER OR RESPONSE: [FORM FIED BY: Ox) PLAINTIFF [J DEPENDANT —CASENUMBER Te |cast NAME: Seelal Bettennent Properties Internations] yg, Frederick County, Maryland, ota Pet a eee howesor V2 days JURY DEMAND: C] Yes §EJNo Anicipated tengih of teal RELATED CASE PENDING?L] Yes GX)No_I yes, Cuse is), if known: [Special Requirements? [_Jlnerpreter (Piesse altach Form CC-DC Al) LADA accontnodstion (Pleas etic Porm CC-DC 49) NATURE OF ACTION DAMAGEVRELIEF Ghee One HON) TORTS TABOR TORTS Motor Tort (Fy workers’ Comp. Premises Lisbillly [FD wrengfat Discharge O medical pitts IGhasewk & Beusry sco (srs00-sso000 Perust Linky Conse [sso.a00-si09,000 Ch Property Damages” |Elrroresstona Malpractice CONTRACTS [FFover $190,000 3 Swot Deak oe Clwigetos Gousines & Conmcrciat | JConfezed denen : cist stander [Dotter ratse aresvimprisonment ‘REAL PROPERTY B.CONTRACTS [© NONMONETARY (Dnuisaace (Doaticiat sae (rosie Tons Cleonematon Punts: sioa00 —[Gnecieretry Sudgerent (Orava (Dr anocd Tenant TV sie.900 -520,000 [Bahinjunetion CI Mlicious Prosecution [lomer____ | F overs20,0000 Gk otner Expedited Ret irc ine ‘OTHER asbestos DoivitRigtis Corser (Heirons ana Rloter Violation of MLA ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION bs this cace sppnoprinte fr gefeval fo ae AD process under Me Rule 17-101? (Check gl that aap) ‘AMediaion [Yes BI Ne . Sutlesmat Conference L_] Yes Bl ke 1. Arbitration EJ Yes 6] No D.Newtal Bvatoation Ef Ye5 6) No TRACK REQUEST nthe exception of Botimore Counts and Batmare City peace fn the estimated LENGTH OF TRIAL, P1119 CASE WILL. THEN BE TRACKED ACCORDINGL ° VR day of alo Yess 23 eys of tial time 1 day oft time ‘More th 3 days oftriat Gime 2 days of ia tine 4c “TEASE SEU PAGE TWO OF TINS FORA FOR INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING 10 THE DUSINDSS AND ITHCHNOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COMPLEX SCIENCE AND/OR MEDICAL CASE. |MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR), AS WELL AS ADDIT/QNAL INSTRUCTIONS IF YOU ARK FILING vouR|ora prisdenons, f Basiness end Technology track designation ander MA. Rae 16-205 Is requested attach a dupHtate ‘copy of complaint and cick one ofthe tracks below. Expedited Standard Trial within 7 months ‘Till iin 8 mons of Filing of Filing CaM ERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED, Sem 2 7 :OMPLEX SCIENCE AND/OR MEDICAL CASE | 7. ee Sc eMANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR) 502 oR PURPOSES OF POSSTOLE SPECIAL ASSIGHHEN? To ANASTIR RESOURCE JUDGE wader a ie 16-202, "Please check the apltcale bax below a atch a duplicae copy of sexe ceapnt (Dexpeated - vat within 7 months of Filing CB stendard- ral within 18 months of Filey |i YOUARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN BALTIMORE CITY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, OR BALTIMORE lcouNTY PLEASE FILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW. CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY (CHICK ONLY ONE) CF expediiea “Trial 60 to 120 days trom vote. Noneiury unter. OD Standore-Shot vial 210 days D1 Sterdans “Talal 360 days, toa Paint Filtin: Birth Dat of youngest plant C7 Astesies LEveols end deadlines set by individual judge, 177 Proiracied Cases Complex cases resignoted iy the Adminisirative Judge, GiNCUTT COURT Fon FRINGE GEORGES COUNTY “To ssi the Court delzrmining to appropiate Tack for this eis, cbe2k ono ofthe boxes Below, This information Fama fn adnision snd ny not based Ray purpose othe han Track Assigonenk, 1 Liabitity is conceded. Fishin i not concocted, bat is mat seronsy in spe {F ciapniy esos lyin spate ‘CCIDEM 002 (Rev. 22010) Page 20f3CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY. 1 expettea ‘Attache Before Sadgmens, Delrtory Slane (Single), Adena Appeals, Disa {Mak Dete90 days) Coat Appeals and Jory Til Pryor, Guach, nnn, Mendon. 1 sioner Condenmaion, Confers Judgments (Vaeted, Concet, Employee Related Cases, Fra ad ‘Teal Date-240 days) Misepesentatin, ntemaonl Tor Motor Ten, ther Personal injury, Worker Compametoe ses. 11 extended Stondard Astestos, Lender Lshilly, Professions Malpratie, Serious Motor Tort or Porson Injury Cases ‘Taal Date<#S days) (medica expenses and woge loss of $100,000, expert and out-of-state witnesses (pares). and tah Df fve or mere day}, State insolvency 1 comps Cisne, Designed Tene Tor, Mor Contato Const, Major Proc ait, (Teal bse-430 cays) Oher Comps Ces. , ‘CCMEM 002 (Rey. 272010) Page 3 of 3