William John Joseph Hoge, IN THE

Plaintiff, CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
v.
Case No. 06-C-16-070789
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM BRETT KIMBERLIN

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendants Response

to Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Defendants

Opposition). In reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Nothing in the Kimberlins1 Opposition to Mr. Hoges Motion to Compel

directed at Brett Kimberlin explains how his answers to the requests for production

of documents are responsive or complete. Nor does the Defendants Opposition offer

any lawful reason why he should be excused from answering.

BRETT KIMBERLIN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THE

MARYLAND RULES HE WILL OBEY AND WHICH HE WILL DISREGARD

Rule 2-422(d)(1) states that

[a] party who produces documents or electronically stored

information for inspection shall (A) produce the documents or
information as they are kept in the usual course of business or
organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the
request, and (B) produce electronically stored information in the

1Although she lacks standing to oppose a motion to compel directed at another

defendant, Tetyana Kimberlin has filed the Opposition jointly with Brett Kimberlin.
 form specified in the request or, if the request does not specify a
form, in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form
that is reasonably usable.

Rule 2-422(d)(1). Brett Kimberlin has clearly stated that he does not intend to obey

this Rule. In response to Mr. Hoges complaint that the inch-thick 2 jumble of papers

Kimberlin provided was a disorganized mess, Kimberlin stated:

Defendants, unlike the obsessive Plaintiff, do not and will not

organize and label all the documents in their possession. The pro se
Defendants didn't do so in the Walker case or any other case they
have ever been involved. Plaintiff is using this Motion to
Compel to further stalk and harass Defendants as he has done for
years and years.

Defendants Opposition, 3. Bolding added, italics in the original. Kimberlin

admits in Defendants Opposition that the documents he provided are not business

records. Therefore, he is obliged to organize and label them to correspond to the

categories in [Mr. Hoges] request. He did not, and now he refuses to do so. The

Court should disregard all of Kimberlins huffing and puffing about non-germane

matters and order him to categorize and label his answers to the requests for

production of documents as per Mr. Hoges requests in accordance with Rule

2-422(d)(1).

Kimberlin states unequivocally that he does not intend to provide answers to

Requests 6 and 8. Defendants Opposition, 7 and 9. Rule 2-432(a) states that

any such failure to comply with a request for production under Rule 2-422 may not

2Mr. Hoge originally estimated the thickness of the bundle papers provided as
1-1/2-inch. In fact, it measures only about an inch. The bundle of papers Kimberlin
handed Mr. Hoge contains 241 sheets of paper. A ream of 500 sheets measures
about 2-inches thick, so 1 inch is the correct value.

2
be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless a

protective order has been obtained under Rule 2-403. Emphasis added. Kimberlin

has not sought a protective order related to this lawsuit. Thus, the Court should

order him to fully answer Requests 6 and 8.

Kimberlin states that the settlement agreements sought by Request 8 are

under seal but he offers no evidence to support his assertion.3 Examination of the

dockets for the cases shows no orders to seal any settlement agreements. While a

3Kimberlins statement that all the settlement agreements sought by Request 8

have been sealed is clearly false.

With respect to Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380966V (Md. Cir.Ct Mont. Co.
2014), the order dismissing that lawsuit against Lynn Thomas and Peter Malone as
the result of a settlement is not sealed. Docket Item 249. The settlement
agreement is not sealed.

With respect to Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No. 13-
CV-0359-GJH (D.Md. 2015), nothing in that case was sealed prior to Judge Hazels
dismissing the case against Mr. Hoge on 17 March, 2015. That includes the
following docket entries relating to voluntary dismissals stemming from settlements
with these defendants: The American Spectator, ECF No. 196 (Sept. 10, 2014);
Simon & Schuster and James OKeefe, III, ECF No. 203 (Oct. 6, 2014); Lynn
Thomas, ECF No. 226 (Nov. 24, 2014); and The Franklin Center for Government
and Public Integrity, ECF No. 230 (Dec. 8, 2014). None of these dismissals seal any
related settlement agreements.

With respect to Kimberlin v. Hutton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No. 15-CV-723-
GJH (D.Md. 2016), the only restriction placed on the settlement with Patrick Ryan
is that [n]o person not a party to this action has an interest in the subject matter of
the action. However, Mr. Hoge is not subject to that restriction because he was a
party to the case. ECF No. 101 (Dec. 28, 2015), 3.

With respect to Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No. 403868V
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016), the order dismissing Erick Erickson and RedState
(Docket Item 86) and the line relating to Michelle Malkin and Twitchy (Docket Item
149) are not sealed and the online docket entries do not mention anything being
sealed.

3
settlement agreement might be sealed, the order sealing it would be available for

public on the case docket. Kimberlin offers no evidence to support his unsworn

statement because there is no evidence to support it.

As this Court told the Kimberlins during the 27September, 2016, motions

hearing, there is not one set of rules for lawyers and another for pro se litigants.

Mr. Hoge appreciates the Courts patience in dealing with a lawsuit among a group

of pro se litigants, but he believes that all parties, including Brett Kimberlin, should

be held to the Maryland Rules Brett Kimberlin should not be allowed to continue to

flout them.

KIMBERLINS ONGOING REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY IS PREJUDICING

MR. HOGES ABILITY TO COMPLY THE COURTS SCHEDULING ORDER

This is not the first time that the Kimberlins have flagrantly disregarded the

Maryland Rules regarding discovery. In Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No.

380966V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), Brett Kimberlin diddled with discovery and

only provided it over two months late after he was told by Judge McGann that he

would either provide discovery or not be able to introduce documents at trial. Even

then, the two-thousand-or-so sheets of paper he provided were such a disorganized

and unresponsive mess that he was sanctioned. Tetyana Kimberlin was sanctioned

in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016)

for her failure to be deposed in that case. Neither Brett nor Tetyana Kimberlin has

ever paid those sanctions.

This motion is being filed with less than two weeks left for discovery. Even if

4
the Court quickly rules in Mr. Hoges favor, it is unlikely that he will receive proper

answers from Kimberlin soon enough to allow him reasonable time to prepare any

dispositive motion based on evidence developed from that discovery. Indeed, he

may not have all the discovery he is entitled to by the Courts present 28 April,

2017, deadline for dispositive motions.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to compel Defendant Brett Kimberlin

to fully answer with properly labeled items the requests for productions of

document propounded to Kimberlin on 13 February, 2017, and to grant such other

relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Date: 3 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732

Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT

I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury
that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.

Date: 3 April, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge