UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) ) California non-profit corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. C 96-20207 EAI RMW vs. ) ) GRADY WARD, an individual, ) ) Defendant ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY The plaintiff RTC asked for and obtained an order for accelerated discovery from Judge Whyte on April 1, 1996. This order resulted in the plaintiff's Request for production of documents and things and the defendant Grady Ward's deposition on April 8 and 9, 1996. In the plaintiff's application for expedited discovery the plaintiff alleged that the defendant will "seek to conceal the infringing materials and destroy any evidence" while "there is no conceivable injury Ward will face by the grant of expedited discovery." The first allegation is false. I have denied all material allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, have answered the plaintiff's Request for production of documents and things, and have completed my deposition. Further I have publicly and repeatedly asserted during the past year on the public internet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology that I specifically do not store or maintain documents or notes relating to scientology or works allegedly authored by L. Ron Hubbard. Nor in my life have I ever been sued or charged in any civil or criminal proceeding. Moreover, the plaintiff has not produced a single particle of admissible evidence that I would even consider obstructing justice even if any of their allegations were accurate. In fact I believe that Judge Whyte erred in granting a preliminary injunction and order for expedited discovery since he was not presented any admissible evidence of the defendant's alleged infringement or trade secret violation, other than in the plaintiff's own pleading to base his finding of plaintiff's "fair chance of prevailing" at a future trial. As far as the second allegation that I would not suffer any "conceivable" injury through the granting of expedited discovery, this too is false. The plaintiff now is using the unequal discovery schedules to hinder the defendant's own discovery into matters of torts committed by the plaintiff which stem from multiple criminal acts by the plaintiff or those acting in concert or participation with the plaintiff. These acts include trespass, theft, and forgery of Usenet posts as described in my verified Answer and Counterclaims. The defendant's allegations about the plaintiff involve far more serious issues that the plaintiff's allegations about the defendant, which I have totally denied. Further, since the plaintiff is proceeding with their own discovery they have no incentive to "meet and confer" pursuant to FRCivP 26(d) and (f) and Local Rules 16-3, 16-4. Thus while they aggressively and abusively (cf my April 10th letter complaining about counsel Hogan's behavior) pursue discovery on me, they are obstructing my own discovery into potentially more serious criminal acts that I allege they have committed relating to this litigation. In fact a letter date April 22, 1996 from the plaintiff, they made it clear that as far as they were concerned, they have "no obligation to respond and will not respond further" to the defendant's discovery requests until a meet and confer session that may occur as late as June 19, 1996. This is going to be a difficult battle for me in any event given that I an an inexperienced pro per facing four separate law firms representing a client who has been characterized in an April 11, 1996 Ninth Circuit unpublished memorandum [No. 94-55781 DC No. CV-85-0711-AWT(Bx)] [Citable as (Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 796 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1103, 107 9. Ct. 1336, 94 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987); Religious Technology Center et al. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992), and three denials of certiorari by the Supreme Court, the third district judge, A. Wallace Tashima, entered Final Judgment.] "3. The past 8 years have consisted mainly of a prolonged, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to persuade or compel the plaintiff to comply with lawful discovery. These efforts have been fiercely resisted by Plaintiffs [RTC]. They have utilized every device that we on the District Court have ever heard of to avoid such compliance, and some that are new to us." "4. This noncompliance has consisted of evasions, misrepresentations, broken promises and lies, but ultimately with refusal. As part of this scheme to not comply, the plaintiffs have undertaken a massive campaign of filing every conceivable motion (and some inconceivable) to disguise the true issue in these pretrial proceedings. Apparently viewing litigation as war, plaintiffs by this tactic have had the effect of massively increasing the costs to the other parties, and, for a while, to the Court. The appointment of the Special Master 4 years ago has considerably relieved the burden to this Court. The scope of plaintiff's efforts have to be seen. to be believed. (See Exhibit "A", photo of clerk with filings, and Exhibit "B", copy of clerk's docket with 81 pages and 1,737 filings.)" and recently characterized by the California Court of Appeals: [Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim Cite as: 96 C.D.O.S. 733] "In the instant action the Church's actions clearly fall within the ambit of section 425.16. Among its other litigation strategies, the Church has filed two non-meritorious federal court actions as well as this one. The Church has filed numerous appeals in state and federal courts and has prolonged Wollersheim's 1980 lawsuit for 15 years. When the litigation actions of the Church are analyzed in the light of the entire litigation history between the parties it appears the instant lawsuit was brought by the Church against Wollersheim: (a) in retaliation for his 1980 lawsuit against the Church; (b) to punish him economically for bringing that lawsuit, and (c) to obliterate the value of any victories over the Church by forcing him to abandon his efforts to recover the damages awarded in the prior action by making it too costly to do so." In all likelihood I will not be able to afford such powerful tools for discovery as oral depositions, however I am asking for permission to submit interrogatories, request for production of documents and things, and request for admissions. And as the above citations show, I expect excessive resistance to my lawful discovery requests causing time-delaying appeals and motions to compel. Given the vastly unequal positions of wealth and litigation experience of the plaintiff and those working in concert and participation with the plaintiff compared to the defendant, and given the admissible evidence that defendant Grady Ward has provided with his verified Answer and Counterclaims, there is no conceivable injury that the plaintiff will suffer by the grant of expedited discovery. To restore the discovery playing field to an even level (even though the plaintiff's team still has a surfeit of members compared to the single inexperienced defendant pro per), defendant's request for expedited discovery should be granted. Respectfully submitted, April 25, 1996 ___________________________ Grady Ward in pro per