The Honorable George J.

Hazel
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770

Friday, July 18, 2014

Re: Brett Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. GJH-13-3059: Defendant Walkers
Response to ECF No. 155.

Dear Judge Hazel,

In response to the Plaintiffs letter filed as ECF 155, I hereby oppose it as procedurally defective, and on
its merits.

First, it is procedurally defective. As this court is aware, under the Case Management Order (ECF No.
97), there is a specific procedure parties in this case are supposed to follow if they wish to file certain
kinds of motions. The Plaintiff has disregarded this order in the past, and has chosen to do so again. See,
e.g., Order of March 5, 2014 (ECF No. 99) and Letter of June 24, 2014 (ECF No. 132).

Here, the Plaintiff has committed the exact same breach of procedure that he had previously: rather than
asking permission to make a filing, he simply made the filing. The Case Management Order provides
that no other motion [besides an answer or a motion to dismiss] may be filed in this case without
advance permission of the Court. Page 2, I.A.2. Just as the Plaintiff did with ECF Nos. 128 and 129,
rather than styling it as a motion, the Plaintiff styled his breach of procedure as a letter, but in substance
this letter moves (without permission) for an extension of his time to respond to the motions to dismiss.
This Court, therefore, should deny the motion based solely on his breach of procedure.
1
It is the only
way short of sanctions that the Plaintiff will learn to follow this Courts orders.

Further, the Plaintiff has not certified that any service of this letter motion has occurred and there is
reason to believe it has not been done properly. When Plaintiff filed ECF Nos. 128 and 129, the Plaintiff
didnt mail either document to me until June 23, four days after filing. This is not the first time the
Plaintiff has played games with service. On January 8, 2014, this Court had to admonish the Plaintiff on
this point as follows: The failure to serve a party is no mere technicality.... Proper service is a
prerequisite for filing, and future motions will not be considered in the absence of proper service. Letter
Order of Jan. 8, 2014 (ECF No. 26) p. 2. Here, the Plaintiff is not even claiming to have served anyone
with this motion in disguise. This provides an additional reason to deny his request out of hand.

Turning to the merits of ECF No. 155, the Plaintiff should not be granted any extension of time to
respond. He has offered no reason to grant him effectively an additional seventy six daysfor a total of

1
Although the same procedural defects plague ECF Nos. 153 and 154, I will respond to them separately
and in due time as appropriate. This response is being filed promptly so that the Plaintiff will have no
excuse for delaying of any opposition to the motions to dismiss.
ninety three daysto respond to my motion to dismiss (ECF No. 152), when in theory this Court could
complete the motion-opposition-reply cycle by mid-August. Further, the basis of my motion to dismiss
applies with equal or greater force to all of the Defendants, and there is a similar universality in many of
the other arguments in the other motions to dismiss that are pending. Judicial economy is a reasonable
consideration, but it can be served by simply dismissing the remaining Defendants sua sponte as
appropriate. I submit that when the briefing is done for the seven motions to dismiss that are currently
outstanding, that this Court will see that dismissal is appropriate not only for those thirteen who have
already sought it, but also for the remaining eleven who have not yet filed a motion to dismiss.

Further, prior efforts by this Court to promote judicial economy by setting a global date by which
filings would be due were frustrated by the Plaintiffs failure to diligently serve all Defendants on a
timely basis, not to mention his decision to forge a summons.

Moreover, his proposed due date seems to be chosen as a slap in the face to the Defendants: the one year
anniversary of this frivolous lawsuit. However, there is no reason why the Plaintiff should be granted
this additional time. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), the Plaintiff should have formed his legal theories
by the time he filed his Second Amended Complaint. If his claims have a legal basis, he shouldnt need
time to research. For the Plaintiff, a certified paralegal with a long pro se litigation history, it should
simply be a matter of applying the law he should already know to counter the points in the Defendants
motions to dismiss (if he can). Indeed, he has already had a dress rehearsal for this with his prior
filings.

It is also worth noting that previously when the Plaintiff was granted extra time he abused that privilege
by filing responses that improperly attempted to amend his complaint with new allegations. This
presents another reason to deny him that opportunity, here.

One suspects that the real reason why the Plaintiff wants the extra time is that he has another case in
Montgomery County Circuit Court, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al No. 380966V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.
2013), and he has discovered that he is overwhelmed. However, the fact he chose to file two concurrent
cases involving five of the same Defendants, is not a reason to defer matters in this Court and to delay
justice to all of the Defendants, again.

Therefore for all of these reasons, the Plaintiffs letter motion for an extension of time should be denied.
I thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,



Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
[redacted]