Hon. Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 280 S. First Street, #2112 San Jose California 95113-3008 April 10, 1996 [cc: Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante] Re: Religious Technology Center, v. Grady Ward No. C 96-20207 Dear Judge Whyte: In your court last March 29, you explicitly requested that Mr. Thomas R. Hogan to treat me, a pro per, in a professional manner. I believed at the time that would be the case during pre-trial litigation. However events occurring during my deposition in Arcata, CA on Monday, April 8 and Tuesday, April 9, has caused me to believe that Mr. Hogan has simply ignored the court's admonition and is simply trying to defeat me, not on the basis of law, but on the basis of litigation tactics. As your Honor may remember, although the plaintiff requested a full two days or more and you suggested that they be limited to a four hour session as I am unrepresented, we eventually compromised for the plaintiff to depose me for a full eight hour day on April 9th in Redding, CA as that was more convenient to me living in remote Arcata, CA. This compromise was recorded in your order of April 1, 1996. In fact I further agreed to give them an additional hour to depose me if they would hold the location in an even more convenient location of Eureka, CA. And I permitted them to divide the nine clock (not "on record") hours over two days in case they had follow-up questions. This compromise was explicitly memorialized in my Objections and Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things served upon Mr Hogan on April 4, 1996: "Acknowledge as per compromise with Judge Whyte that deposition will be limited to one eight hour session, with an additional hour granted because of Eureka location. This time may be divided over two days in any proportion desired by plaintiff." Mr. Hogan received this document and in fact commented on my Reponses and Objections in a 45 minute mini-deposition conference with me, Helena Kobrin and Warren McShane in a phone call immediately after his receipt. During that conference call he did not comment on the memorandum of our agreement of a nine hour deposition over two consecutive days. When I arrived at my deposition on Monday morning April 8th, still without representation or even opportunity for an attorney on one of the related cases to attend on their clients behalf, I asked Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Hogan how they would like to divide the nine hours of time allotted to my deposition. Mr. Lieberman responded, "I didn't see a limitation to one day in the Judge's [Whyte, April 1] order. Did you?" I said that your order's intent was to limit my time as a deponent, especially without representation and facing four law firms and a small army of paralegals to a single day, but we could cross that bridge when we came to the nine hour limit. On Monday, April 8th we in fact completed 7.5 hours of my deposition, calculated as my total time at the deposition site less a lunch hour. (We started at 9 a.m. and finished just after 5:30 p.m.) At the end of the session, however Mr. Hogan again asserted that as far as he was concerned, I had to be deposed for another additional full day and perhaps more if demanded by the plaintiff On Tuesday, April 9th I again punctually arrived ready to be deposed for the final 1.5 hours as per our agreement, but I immediately suspended proceedings under Rule 30 because I felt the plaintiff counsel was patently acting in bad faith in demanding even more time in deposition that in their original request on March 29, 1996 that you explicitly denied. Mr. Hogan shouted that I was a "liar" on the record, which I reciprocated when I pointed out our agreement in the written memorandum on my Objections and Reponses to discovery document that I had submitted on April 4. While I am still unrepresented the room had a full contingent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's counsel, paralegals, OSA operatives, plaintiff's computer expert, while I was by myself. Since I do not have legal experience I do not know if this kind of shouting is appropriate or is considered professional but it seemed to be especially oppressive to me as a pro per. We phoned Judge Infante who ruled that the deposition would be concluded at 12:15 p.m. after Mr. Hogan claimed that I had just "sprung" this objection on him. Sometime later in the morning's deposition, Mr. Hogan said that since the plaintiff's computer expert was flown up a some expense, would I please agree to have him copy all my backup disks of computer data that I maintain in my safety deposit box so he could examine all the data at his leisure? I objected since it appeared that this request to capture all my data, including unrelated letters, business records, and my trade secrets was overbroad and a thinly-disguised way of impounding my goods without the benefit of judicial review. I had already testified under oath that this computer data does not contain any responsive materials under the plaintiff's discovery demand. And I am fully willing to have an independent third party or Special Master search the data contained therein for an agreed set of key words in a way that would preserve my business and personal privacy. We again called Judge Infante who I believe acted fairly in "freezing" the contents of the box to preserve any evidence that may be present, but did not permit the plaintiff through counsel Hogan to summarily impound my property. However, your honor, these incidents which have occurred in the short time since your admonition to Mr. Hogan I think testifies to the beginning of the abusive discovery process that I warned seemed to accompany all of recent RTC litigation in this court as well as the court of Judge Brinkema of Eastern Virginia and Judge Kane of Colorado. And all this has happened before I had finished my Answer and Counterclaim that is due Thursday, April 11th. I have a difficult time believing that an attorney with Mr. Hogan's experience and training could have inadvertently forgotten a memorandum or your admonition in so short a time, or that shouting "liar" is the kind of professional decorum expected of counsel. I am writing this letter to alert you to the seeming contempt for your instruction to treat me, a pro per without any legal experience, in a professional manner. I do not ask for any relief now, but I would respectfully ask the court to be alert for further discovery or motion abuses and to be sympathetic to my possible future request for a protective order while we try to accomplish due process of law. Respectfully Submitted, Grady Ward Defendant, in Pro Per cc: Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 Magistrate Judge Edward Infante -3-