ECF 330 Redacted

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 12
'.01.
[/STR.
. ,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southem
Divisioll
--~
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff
v.
CASE NO.: GJH-13-3059
J. I'ATRICK FREY,
Defendant
*
*
MR. WALKER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST

FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER (ECF NO. 324)
Now COMESnon-party Aaron J. Walker, Esq.,1 and files this Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel and Request for Show Cause Order (ECF No. 324) (hereafter "Motion to Compel") and states
the following:
I.
TilE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROPERLY SERVE THE SUBPOENA ON MR. WALKER
I.
The Plaintiff is not entitled to a motion to compel until he successfully serves Mr. Walker
in compliance with the rules and Mr. Walker has refused to comply.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(I) states in
relevant part as follows: "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena.
Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person[.]"
Sister courts have interpreted
this language as requiring actual service of a subpoena before a motion to compel can be granted as its
plain language suggests.
See, e.g.,
/11
re Subpoena
10
Huawei Techs. Co., 720 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. III.
Mr. Walker refers to himself in the third person for stylistic purposes and to de-personalize this case.
2010) (denying a motion to compel on Huawei Technologies,
Co., Ltd. because they had not been
served).
2.
The Plaintiff's service is insufficient as a matter of law. The Plaintiff claims to have
served Mr. Walker as follows: "On or about November 16, 2015, Plaintiff served that subpoena on
Walker via first class Priority Mail with a date of December 16,2015
for compliance. See Plaintiffs
Declaration at Exhibit B." It is worth noting that there is no Exhibit B, but there is a declaration which
essentially repeats the allegation that the Plaintiff mailed service to Mr. Walker on November 16.
3.
First, whether he knows it or not, the Plaintiff has admitted that he did not serve Mr.
Walker in compliance with Rule 45(b)(I).
The Plaintiff repeatedly claims that he carried out service of
process himself, while Rule 45(b)(I) explicitly states that the person serving the subpoena cannot be a
party to the case. See Rule 45(b)(I) ("Any person who is... not a party may serve a subpoena.")
4.
Second, in Benford v. American Broadcasting, 98 F.R.D. 40, 41 n. 5 (D. Md. 1983) this
Court held that service by mail was insufficient
under Rule 45(b)(I);
rather, service must be
accomplished by personal service. The Plaintiff should have hired a process server.
5.
Third, the Plaintiff's claim that he sent Mr. Walker the subpoena is factually false. He
did no such thing. Mr. Walker did receive mail from the Plaintiff that appeared to be sent on or about
November 16,2015.
It contained service of process for a large number of filings by the Plaintiff, largely
related to the current state court case of Kimberlin v. National B10ggers Club, et al (J1). No. 403868V
(Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2015),2 but it contained no subpoena.
Mr. Walker will leave it to the Court's
2 By way of background, this Court will recall that it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
state law claims in relation to all of the original Defendants in this case. This Court further advised the
PlaintitTthat he could re-file those claims in state court if they were not barred by collateral estoppel or
2
judgment to detennine whether the Plaintiff has perjured himself (again) or is genuinely confused on the
subject, but Mr. Walker has not actually received the Plaintiffs
self-serving
subpoena.
In any case, the Plaintiffs
allegation that he completed service should not be taken as credible given the "Plaintiffs
checkered past with representations to the Court" Letter Order of July 28, 2014, p. 3, n. 2 (ECF No.
168). He has demonstrated that he is not to be trusted.
6.
Not only do these three failures in regard to service of process preclude a motion to
compel, they also preclude any claim for contempt.
Contempt in relation to subpoenas is governed by
Rule 45(g) which states in relevant part that "The court for the district where compliance is required ...
may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it" (emphasis added).
The Plaintiffs
admitted (and factual) failure to
serve Mr. Walker bars any finding of contempt.

7.
Therefore, with the Plaintiff having admitted that he did not properly serve Mr. Walker
and having not in fact delivered the subpoena to Mr. Walker, a motion to compel is not appropriate and
a finding of contempt is barred as a matter of law.
res judicata. Despite the fairly clear application of both doctrines, Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club,
et al (11) mainly represents his attempt to re-file those state claims in Maryland state court.
J It is worth noting that Rule 45(b)(I)'s
requirement that a non-party serve the subpoena on a person
appears to be based on the assumption that any claim that service is completed by a party is self-serving
and, therefore, inherently suspect. The Plaintiffs violation of this rule, therefore, is not a mere
technicality. Instead, his conduct has created precisely the kind of "he said, he said" dispute that the rule
makers wished to avoid.
3
II.
THE SUBI'OENA IS UNENI"ORCEABLE BECAUSE IT IS OVERBROAD AND IMPOSES AN
UNDUE BURDEN UPON MR. WALKER, JUSTIFYING SANCTIONS UNDER
RULE 45(0)(1)
8.
Even if the subpoena had been properly and actually served on Mr. Walker, the subpoena
cannot be enforced and, indeed, represents a sanctionable breach of the Plaintiffs duty to avoid unduly
burdensome subpoenas.
As a preliminary matter, as of December I, 2015, the rules of civil procedure have
9.
changed.
Where previously Rule 26(b)( I) arguably allowed for discovery if it "appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," the new rule has deleted that phrase in its
entirety. This is how the rule reads today:
the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
The reason for the deletion of the "reasonably
calculated"
language is explained
In the official
commentary:
The former provision for discovery of relevant but inadmissible information that appears
"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" is also deleted.
The phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery. As the
Committee Note to the 2000 amendments observed, use of the "reasonably calculated"
phrase to define the scope of discovery "might swallow any other limitation on the scope
of discovery." The 2000 amendments sought to prevent such misuse by adding the word
"Relevant" at the beginning of the sentence, making clear that "'relevant' means within
the scope of discovery as defined in this subdivision .... " The "reasonably calculated"
phrase has continued to create problems, however, and is removed by these amendments.
It is replaced by the direct statement that "Information within this scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." Discovery of nonprivileged
information not admissible in evidence remains available so long as it is otherwise within
the scope of discovery.
4
Adv. Comm. Notes-2015
Amend., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The plain import of these changes is to tighten
up the scope of discovery and rebuke the interpretation of the "reasonably calculated"
setting tbe outer edge of the scope of discovery.
language as
Meanwhile, Rule 45(d)(l) directs parties such as the
Plaintiff to "take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena" and that "The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and
impose an appropriate sanction-which
may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on
party or attorney who fails to comply."

IO.
Additionally, it is worth taking a moment to examine the Plaintiff's theory of the case as
it stands on this date, because one cannot determine what evidence might be relevant without first
determining what it must be relevant to. This case is not about whether Mr. Kimberlin SWATted Mr.
Walker, Mr. Erickson, or any person other than Mr. Frey. Rather, the case is about Mr. Frey allegedly
engaging in a retaliatory investigation related to Mr. Frey's own SWATting.
That is, the Plaintiff
alleges absurdly that rather than pursue the "real SWATter" and protect the public and his family from
future SW ATtings, Mr. Frey took the occasion of a crime being committed against him to retaliate
against an allegedly innocent man, the Plaintiff, to punish the Plaintiff for complaints to Mr. Frey's
public employer.
II.
Viewed in this light, the subpoena at issue is startling in its breadth. As quoted in Exhibit
A to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, it states that Mr. Walker must produce documents, electronically
stored information, or objects containing "All communication between you and Patrick Frey concerning
Brett Kimberlin from September 2011 through May 2013." The Plaintiff adds that this "includ[es] those
concerning swattings of you and Frey" but that is only a specific example of what he has requested: it is
not language limiting the scope of the subpoena.
Indeed, that language is redundant.

5
Therefore,
properly understood, the Plaintiff is seeking all communications concerning Mr. Kimberlin in any way
between those two individuals in that time period.
12.
According to the Plaintiff's
communicated
subpoena,
for example,
if Mr. Frey and Mr. Walker
regarding the abusive subpoena against Mr. Walker filed in Kimberlin v. Allen, No.
339254V (Md. Mont. Co. Cir. Ct. 2011) that allegedly must be produced.
If Mr. Walker and Mr. Frey
discussed efforts to keep their families safe from this convicted bomber, that allegedly must be
produced.
If Mr. Walker and Mr. Frey discussed the merits of the two abusive peace orders that the
Plaintiff sought against Mr. Walker in that period, or the three criminal charges (all dismissed
voluntarily by the State of Maryland), that would be allegedly covered by the subpoena. However, none
of these communications
that might or might not exist are relevant to the only question before this
Court: did Mr. Frey allow the person who SWATted him to go free while he directed a retaliatory
investigation against the Plaintiff?
13.
Likewise, even discussions ofMr. Walker's own SWATting are irrelevant. Mr. Frey is a
California prosecutor.
The crime committed against Mr. Walker was committed in Virginia. Mr. Frey
would have no power to direct any investigation by law enforcement
in Virginia and there
IS
no
allegation in the surviving portions of the complaint that relate to Mr. Walker's SWATting.
14.
Furthermore, the subpoena is duplicative and therefore presents an undue burden.
For
instance, attached as Exhibit RC-3 is the second document request delivered to Mr. Frey's attorney, Ron
Coleman.
It requests in relevant part that Mr. Frey provide: "A complete copy of any and all digital,
electronic or stored media containing any information related to Brett Kimberlin and swattings from
2010 through 2013, including hard drives, CDs, DVD and thumb drives" (emphasis in original).
Obviously, the term "any information related to Brett Kimberlin" would include documents containing
6
"All communication
between you [Mr. Walker] and Patrick Frey concerning Brett Kimberlin from
September 2011 through May 2013" as sought in the subpoena to Mr. Walker.
15.
Meanwhile, attached as Exhibit RC-I is the interrogatories
posed to Mr. Frey.
In
interrogatory number 23, the Plaintiff instructs Mr. Frey to "State the dates, times, and subject matter of
your conversations with Aaron Walker concerning Brett Kimberlin before during [sic] and after your
swatting incident, and provide copies of those communications."
Since there is no time limitation
asserted in relation to the time "before" or "after" Mr. Frey's SWATting the time frame is unlimited.
For instance, technically, Mr. Frey was born "before" his SWATting.
was "after" his SWATting.
Likewise, technically, yesterday
Therefore, requesting a catalogue of all communications "before[,] during
and after" Mr. Frey's SWATting is to request a catalogue of all communications, period. Further, even
if it was deemed improper to make a request for documents in an interrogatory, the first set of document
production requests included a request for "All documents identified, referenced, or relied upon in
Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and/or concerning the subject matter of
said Interrogatories, and all documents requested in said Interrogatories."
See RC-2. So, therefore, the
Plaintiff has already asked Mr. Frey to provide copies of all communications between Mr. Walker and
Mr. Frey long before he obtained the instant subpoena.
There is no reason to obtain these documents
twice, and therefore the entirety of the subpoena violates the Plaintiff's duty to avoid imposing an undue
burden on Mr. Walker.
16.
Indeed, it is even significantly redundant with prior discovery requests directed to Mr.
Walker in another case. Attached as Exhibit DB- I is the document request filed against Mr. Walker by
Mr. Kimberlin in the case of Walker v. Kimberlin, No. 12000631-00 CPr. Wm. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012), a
Virginia case.
As this Court can see, the Plaintiff asked Mr. Walker to "Produce all records of
7
correspondence in any form Plaintiff has had with any other party regarding Defendant Kimberlin since
January 1,2011."
This was interpreted by Mr. Walker to include communications between Mr. Walker
and Mr. Frey regarding the instant Plaintiff, and since that case ended on December 4, 2012, it
represents a prior disclosure of precisely the same material in that time period.
So, in essence, the
Plaintiff has asked Mr. Walker to produce the same documents that Mr. Frey was required to produce
and many of the same documents that Mr. Walker had already previously produced.
17.
This is not permitted by the Rules. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) governs when this Court must limit
discovery as follows:
(2)
Limitations on Frequency and Extent ....

(C)
When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the
frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by
local rule if it determines that:
(i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or

can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii)
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain

the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule

26(b)( I).
Both Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i)
and (ii) are implicated by the instant facts.
The discovery is deeply
duplicative. Additionally, the Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery
from Mr. Frey. Upon information and belief, Mr. Frey has complied when appropriate and objected
when appropriate and will comply with any motion to compel that this Court might issue as appropriate.
Thus, the Plaintiff has received, or will receive, any documents he is entitled to from Mr. Frey regarding
any correspondence with Mr. Walker and has no need to obtain the same infonnation from Mr. Walker
8
as well. Therefore, this Court must deny any motion to compel this subpoena-Rule
26(b)(2)(C)(i) and
(ii) are not discretionary rules.

18.
Likewise, a duplicative subpoena violates Rule 45(d)( I), which requires the Plaintiff to
avoid imposing an undue burden on third parties such as Mr. Walker.
The same rule also states that
"The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty[.]"
non-discretionary
See, e.g.,
rule, requiring the Court to enforce the duty-by
Id. This is again a
refusing to enforce the subpoena.
EI/io/l v. Superior Pool Prods., LLC, No. l5-cv-1126 at *5 (C.D. Ill., October 7, 2015)
("Ordering NEXTCHEX
burden on NEXTCHEX");
to produce duplicate records is unnecessary and would impose an undue

Bada Co. v. MontgomelY
Ward & Co., 32 F.R.D. 208,209-10
(S.D. Cal.
1963) (a non-party "should not be burdened with the annoyance and expense of producing the
documents sought unless the plaintiff is unable to discover them from the defendant"); and Countryman
v. Community Link Federal Credit Union, 2012 WL 1143572, at *5 (N.D. Ind. April 3, 2012) ("A
party's ability to obtain documents from a source with which it is litigating is a good reason to forbid it
from burdening a non-party with production of those same documents").
19.
However, that is not all that this provision requires: the entire sentence says: "The court
for the district where compliance

sanction-which
is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate
may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on
a party or attorney who
fails to comply." id. (emphasis added). Mr. Walker asks for this Court to impose such sanctions at this
time in a separate motion filed simultaneously with this opposition, including $500 for lost earnings as
he was forced to respond to his frivolous motion to compel, rather than serve paying c1ients4
Mr. Walker does not ask for attorneys' fees because there is doubt that a pro se is entitled to them.
However, nothing in the statutory language indicates that Mr. Walker cannot be compensated for his
20.
Finally, Mr. Walker notes that he doesn't know at this time how many documents are
responsive to the subpoena and whether any privilege or other objection applies to them.
reserve such document-specific
He asks to
objections for the future, should any subpoena be upheld implicating
such potential objections5

21.
Accordingly, this Court should refuse to compel enforcement of the subpoena for the
additional reason that it is wholly duplicative of other discovery and, therefore, places an undue burden
on Mr. Walker.
Further, Mr. Walker is entitled to sanctions to compensate him for lost earnings and
suggests a sanction of not less than $500 as well be laid out in a separate motion.
CONCLUSION
22.
the Plaintiffs
The Plaintiff is not only not entitled to a motion to compel or a finding of contempt, but
behavior in relation to the subpoena has itself been sanctionable.
First, the Plaintiff did
not in fact serve the subpoena on Mr. Walker. Second, the Plaintiff admits he did not properly serve the
subpoena on Mr. Walker, claiming that he attempted to perform service himself and attempted to
perform such service by mail in violation of Rule 45(b)(l).
In addition, the Plaintiff violated his duty to
avoid imposing an undue burden under Rule 45( d)( I) on Mr. Walker by seeking a subpoena that is
time just like the average plumber. The fact that Mr. Walker happens to work in the legal profession
should not give him less right to recover than other persons.
5 Mr. Walker's reasoning in deciding not examine the documents to determine if any issue of privilege
or other objection applied, now, is as follows. It is an axiom of law that one has a duty to mitigate the
damage they seek to pass to another person. Mr. Walker believes that the subpoena is so clearly
duplicative that it is highly unlikely to be enforced and that Mr. Walker would be entitled to sanctions
including lost wages to compensate him for his time. If he also went through every document that might
be responsive, that will add a great deal to those lost wages, but if Mr. Walker is right-that this Court
will not enforce such a clearly duplicative subpoena-then
that would have been a wasted effort. Thus,
to avoid the potential waste of Mr. Walker's time-which
then Mr. Walker would want compensation
from the Plaintiff for-Mr. Walker asks to reserve this issue in the unlikely event that the Plaintiff is
allowed to obtain any documents subpoenaed from Mr. Walker.
10
entirely duplicative with two document requests directed to Mr. Frey, and partially duplicative with a
document request in a prior case involving Mr. Walker.
The Plaintiff's failure to avoid imposing an
undue burden in tum imposes two duties on this Court. First, this Court must enforce the duty to avoid
an undue burden by refusing to enforce the subpoena at issue.
Plaintiff for having violated that duty.
Second, this Court must sanction the
Mr. Walker has suggested a sanction of no less $500 to
compensate Mr. Walker for lost earnings.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs
motion to compel and for sanctions should be denied; the Plaintiff should
be sanctioned not less than $500 for Mr. Walker loss of earnings; and this Court should grant any other
relief that isjust and equitable.
Wednesday, January 13,2016
Respectfully submitted,
b1~~~--
Va Bar# 48882
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW72@gmail.com
(No fax)
II
VERIFICA nON
I, Aaron Walker, state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct and that all exhibits are true and correct copies of the originals.
Executed on Wednesday, January 13,2016.
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
l3Jk
Icertify that on the

daYOf~"\l-lI'-Ort
' 2016,
I served copies of this document on Brett Kimberlin at 8 I 0 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland
20817 and Ron Coleman, Esq. for Patrick Frey by email with his permission.
ILtlIId;
12
Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330-1 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT
A:
Declaration of Ronald D. Coleman, Esq.

J.v.
D!.3TP:':
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "nl~ .
J,v~
, .'
'I"
...
P'IIt.~:
17
,)
SOllthem Divisiol/
,v_.
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
EFUTY
Plaintiff
v.
CASE NO.: GJH-I3-3059
PATRICK FREY,
Defendant
*
*
DECLARATION
1.
OF RONALD D. COLEMAN
I am Ronald D. Coleman, a member of the bars of New York and New Jersey and
co-counsel for defendant Patrick Frey in this matter. I make these statements based upon my own
personal knowledge, and if called to do so, I am competent to testify that the contents of this
declaration are accurate and true.
2.
On or about June 10, 2015, Plaintiff transmitted a document request and
interrogatories to me by email for service on Mr. Frey. A true and correct copy of the
interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit RC-l and a true and correct copy of the document
request is attached as RC-2.
3.
On or about December 2, 2015, I received a second document request from Mr.
Kimberlin, also by email. A tme and correct copy of that document request is attached as Exhibit
RC-3.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and that if the foregoing statements are
found to be intentionally false, 1am subject to punishment.
Executed on January 10,2016 in Passaic County, New Jersey.
RONALD D. COLEMAN
EXHIBIT
RC-l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
No. G/H 13 3059
PARTlCK FREY,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES/PATRICK
1.
Provide and state all evidence to support your statements
is responsible
2.
FREY
that Brett Kimberlin
for swatting you or others.
State all policies, letters, emails or other communications
of your employer,
including those you relied on, giving you authority to use your official capacity to
target Brett Kimberlin for criminal prosecution.
3.
State what you reported to the police the night of your swatting concerning
who you were writing about and who you believed was involved in the swatting call
to your home, and provide a copy of you swatting police report
4.
State what prompted you to contact Kent Gibson rather than someone with the
FBI to determine the voice analysis of your swatting call.

5.
State who told you to contact Kent Gibson.
6.
State the nature of your relationship
7.
Describe your conversations
with Erick Erickson.
with Erick Erickson prior to his swatting and
whether you advised him to contact his local police department

might be swatted.
to tell them that he
8.
State the dates and times that you contacted Erick Erickson before during and
after your swatting incident and provide copies of any written communications
regarding Brett Kimberlin and swattings.
9.
State your relationship with the person who blogs as AceotSpades, state his
real name, and provide copies of all emails you had with him regarding Brett
Kimberlin and swattings.
10. State the dates, times, and subject matter of your discussions with the blogger
known as AceofSpades before during and after your swatting incident
11. State the names of the FBI agents and US Attorneys you contacted in Los
Angeles, Dallas, and Washington, DCconcerning Brett Kimberlin and your swatting
incident, and provide copies of any written communications
with them.
12. State the dates, times, names and subject matter of all correspondence
with FBI
agents and U.S.Attorneys or Assistant U.S.Attorneys concerning your swatting

incident and provide copies of all communications
with them.
13. State your reasons for stating that Los Angeles County or California state
officials were not interested enough in your swatting incident to investigate it to
your satisfaction.
14. State why you had "given up" on law enforcement
to solve your swatting
incident, and what you meant by that statement

15. State how many different people you have stated were involved with or
responsible for your swatting incident, and provide what evidence you compiled on
these possible suspects.
16. State the dates, times, and names and subject matter of all contacts to United
States Senator(s) or Representative(s)
that you contacted regarding your swatting
incident, and provide copies of those communications.

17. State the dates, times, and names and subject matter of media contacts that you
talked to before during and after your swatting incident to discuss the incident, and
provide copies of those communications.
18. State the date times and subject matter of all discussions between you and
Andrew Breitbart concerning Brett Kimberlin, and any action planned of taken
against Mr. Kimberlin.
19. State the policy of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office that gave you
permission to be directly involved in investigating crimes committed against you.
20. State whether the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has a policy that
precludes you from investigating criminal cases in which you are directly involved.
21. State whether you were you told by anyone in a supervisory
capacity in the Los
Angeles District Attorney's Office not to be involved in investigating your own

swatting case. lfso, state the name(s) of this person(s) you talked with, and what
were the dates, times and subject matter of these conversations,
and provide copies
of those communications.
22. State the dates, times, and subject matter of your conversations
with William
Hoge concerning Brett Kimberlin before during and after your swatting incident,
and provide copies of those communications.
with Aaron
Walker concerning Brett Kimberlin before during and after your swatting incident,
and provide copies of those communications.
24. State whether you are aware of any disposition of your the swatting incident by
law enforcement officials at the state or federalleveI.
If so, state the result of that
investigation and provide any written communication
regarding that disposition
and whether it is still pending.

25. State the dates, times, and subject matter of conversations
you had with
Brandon Darby about Brett Kimberlin before during and after your swatting
incident
26. State the names and contact information of all Law Enforcement investigators
you talked with concerning your swatting incident, and provide copies of those
communications.
27. State whether it is the policy of Law Enforcement or Prosecutors
in Los Angeles
County to recuse themselves from investigating crimes in which they are directly
involved.
28. State the names of all persons who you believe have discoverable
information
about this case, and provide any such information that is in your custody.
with Glen
Reynolds concerning Brett Kimberlin before during and after your swatting
incident, and provide copies of those communications.
Dated this 9th day of]une, 201S
Brett Kimberlin
EXHIBIT
RC-2

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,
No. GJH 13 3059
PATRICKFREY,
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS'
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

DOCUMENTS
OF
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

Brett Kimberlin hereby requests that Defendant Patrick Frey produce for Plaintiff
each of the documents identified below within thirty (30) days from the date of
service of this Request, at the home of Brett Kimberlin, 8100 Beech Tree Rd,
Bethesda, MD 20817
INSTRUCTIONS
I.
Defendant's responses should include all responsive documents in the
possession, custody or control of Defendant or any of his agents, servants,

representatives,
and attorneys as well as his employer and related state agencies.
The requests include all documents and communications
between Defendant and an
outside party.
2.
The documents requested are to be reproduced
either as they are
kept in the usual course of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond
with the categories in this request in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
3.
In the event that any documents responsive to the requests set forth
in the numbered paragraphs
below were, but not longer are, within Defendant's
such writing are protected from disclosure; (b) each and every fact upon which the
defendant relies on to support the claim of privilege; (c) the type of writing (e.g.
letter, memorandum,
conversations,
telegram, telefax, notes or memoranda
of telephone
etc.); (d) the date of each such writing; (e) the author(s) of each such
writing; (f) the person(s) to whom each such writing was directed; (g) the person(s)
to whom copies of each such writing were supplied;
and (h) the general subject
matter of each such writing.

9.
lfno documents exist that are responsive to a particular request,
please state that no documents exist

10.
These document requests are deemed to be continuing so as to
require the service of supplemental

productions
responses and supplemental
document
in the event that Defendant (including counsel) locate additional
documents not previously disclosed.

II.
Unless otherwise'~d,
these document requests are limited to
documents created and/or dated between August 2010 and the present
DEFINITIONS
All det1nitions as set forth in Fed. R. eiv. P. 34(a) are incorporated
by
reference including in particular, but without limitation, the det1nitions therein as to

"document,"
"communication,"
"p,e.r.son," and
ltconcerning."
=--'
I.
"Defendant," "you, or "your" means each Patrick Frey.

(a)
The term "document" shall include, without limitation, any
writing, whether handwritten,
printed, typed or otherwise made, of any kind
or nature, however produced or reproduced,
including drafts thereof, and
including copies bearing notations or marks not found on the original.

(b)
This definition shall further include, without limitation,
agreements, letters, correspondence,
memoranda, e-mail, notes, analyses,
appraisals, valuations, reports, studies, bills, statements,
work papers, books,
records, journals, ledgers, logs, messages of any nature [including reports,

notes, notations, and memoranda
of or relating to telephone conversations
and conferences), agenda, minutes or transcripts

or meetings, desk calendars, appointment
questionnaires,
or tapes of communications
books, diaries, lists,
surveys, tapes or other recordings from which information
can be obtained.
[c)
transmitted
2.
This definition shall include documents stored, maintained, or

as electronic data.
The term "electronic data" includes writings of every kind and
description whether inscribed by mechanical, facsimile, electronic, magnetic, digital,

or other means, and means the original, or identical duplicate when the original is
not available, and any non-identical copies, whether non-identical because of notes
made on copies or attached comments, annotations,
marks, transmission
notations,
or highlighting of any kind. Electronic data includes, but is not limited to, activity
listings of electronic mail recipients and/or transmittals,
output resulting from the
use of any software program, including word processing documents, spreadsheets,

database files, charts, graphs and outlines, electronic mail, any and all items stored
on electronic media, including, but not limited to, computer memories, hard disks,
tloppy disks, CD-ROMsand removable media. Electronic data also includes the file,
folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or associated with, any
physical storage device associated with each original and/or copy.
3.
The phrase "provided" or "providing" means any service or treatment
offered, authorized, funded, or approved by the defendant, the Partnership,
or the
Medicaid HMOs.
4.
The term "State" means the State of California and its agencies.
5.
"And" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively,
whichever makes the particular Interrogatory
more inclusive, and "any" shall mean
each and every.

6.
The singular form of a word shall be deemed to include the plural, and
the masculine or feminine, whenever appropriate

of these Interrogatories
in order to bring within the scope
any information which otherwise might be considered to be
beyond their scope.

7.
To the extent that any request, or interrogatory,
thereot: that is incorporated
or any subpart
into a request by reference, refers to a statute or
regulation, terms used in the request or interrogatory
shall have the same meaning
as used in the statute or regulation.

DOCUMENT REOUESTS
Request No.1.
All documents concerning, retlecting or referring to any and all matters
related to the swatting of Defendant, Aaron Walker, Mike Stack and Eric Erickson.
Request No.2.
All documents identified. referenced, or relied upon in Defendants' Answers to
Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories
Interrogatories,
and/or concerning the subject matter of said
and all documents requested in said Interrogatories.
Request No.3
All documents not referenced in Plaintiffs Interrogatories
but related in any way to
the subject matter of this complaint. swattings, and Brett Kimberlin that may be
relevant to the claim in the complaint
Respectfully,
Brett Kimberlin
June 9, 2015
EXHIBIT
RC-3

BRETT KIMBERLIN.
Plaintiff.
No. GJH 13 3059
PATRICK FREY.
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS
Pursuantto
Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
Brett Kimberlin hereby requests that Defendant Patrick Frey produce for Plaintiff
each of the documents identified below within thirty (30) days from the date of
service of this Request. at the home of Brett Kimberlin, 8100 Beech Tree Rd,
Bethesda, MD 20817
INSTRUCTIONS
I.
Defendant's responses should include all responsive documents in the
possession. custody or control of Defendant or any of his agents. servants.

representatives,
and attorneys as well as his employer and related state agencies.
The requests include all documents and communications
between Defendant and an
outside party.
2.
The documents requested are to be reproduced
either as they are
kept in the usual course of business or shall be organized and labeled to correspond
with the categories in this request in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
3.
In the event that any documents responsive to the requests set forth
in the numbered paragraphs below were. but not longer are. within Defendant's
possession, custody, or control, state the circumstances
and timing of the loss of
possession, custody, or control, and the name of the persons or entities to which
possession was transferred,
4.
if any.
Each request for the production of documents is a request for the
original of the final version of such document(s),
although an identical copy may be
produced when an original is not available, as well as any non-identical drafts or

non-identical
copies of such document(s),
including those that are non-identical by
reason of notations or markings on the copies.

5.
Proper safeguards against destruction of electronic/computer
including the destruction
data,
of back-up and archival data. must be followed pending
final resolution of this case.

6.
Where electronic data or information stored on any electronic media
is responsive to a request, the plaintiffs seek electronic copies of the information, as

well as instruction and programs necessary to search or retrieve such information,
including all attachments
and enclosures, which should not be separated
from the
items to which they are attached or with which they are enclosed.
7.
If Defendant contends that any responsive document is protected
from disclosure by virtue of a privilege. supply a description of the information in

question which shall provide, with respect to each such writing as part of such
description thereof: (a) each privilege whereby Defendant contends the contents of
such writing are protected from disclosure; (b) each and every fact upon which the
defendant relies on to support the claim of privilege; (c) the type of writing (e.g.
letter, memorandum,
telegram. telefax, notes or memoranda
of telephone
conversations,
etc.); (d) the date of each such writing; (e) the author(s) of each such
writing; (f) the person(s) to whom each such writing was directed; (g) the person(s)
to whom copies of each such writing were supplied;
and (h) the general subject
matter of each such writing.

8.
If no documents exist that are responsive to a particular request,
please state that no documents exist

9.
These document requests are deemed to be continuing so as to
require the service of supplemental

productions
responses and supplemental
document
in the event that Defendant (including counsel) locate additional
documents not previously disclosed.

10.
Unless otherwise stated, these document requests are limited to
documents created and/or dated between August 2010 and 2013.

DEFINITIONS
All definitions as set forth in Fed. R. eiv. P. 34(a) are incorporated
by
reference including in particular, but without limitation, the definitions therein as to

"document,"
I.
"comnlunication,"
"person," and "concerning."
"Defendant," "you, or "your" means each Patrick Frey.

(a)
The term "document" shall include, without limitation, any
writing, whether handwritten,
printed, typed or otherwise made, of any kind
or nature, however produced or reproduced,
including drafts thereof, and
including copies bearing notations or marks not found on the original.

(b)
This definition shall further include, without limitation,
agreements, letters, correspondence,
memoranda,
e-mail, notes, analyses,
appraisals, valuations, reports, studies, bills, statements,
work papers, books,
records, journals, ledgers, logs, messages of any nature (including reports,

notes, notations, and memoranda
of or relating to telephone conversations
and conferences), agenda, minutes or transcripts

or meetings, desk calendars, appointment
questionnaires,
or tapes of communications
books, diaries, lists,
surveys, tapes or other recordings from which information
can be obtained.
(c)
transmitted
2.
This definition shall include documents stored, maintained, or

as electronic data.
The term "electronic data" includes writings of every kind and
description whether inscribed by mechanical, facsimile, electronic, magnetic, digital,

or other means, and means the original, or identical duplicate when the original is
not available, and any non-identical copies, whether non-identical because of notes
made on copies or attached comments, annotations,
marks, transmission
notations,
or highlighting of any kind. Electronic data includes, but is not limited to, activity
listings of electronic mail recipients and/or transmittals,
output resulting from the
use of any software program, including word processing documents, spreadsheets,

database files, charts, graphs and outlines, electronic mail, any and all items stored
on electronic media, including, but not limited to, computer memories, hard disks,
floppy disks, CD-ROMs and removable media. Electronic data also includes the file,
folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or associated with, any
physical storage device associated with each original and/or copy.
3.
The phrase "provided" or "providing" means any service or treatment
offered, authorized, funded, or approved by the defendant, the Partnership,
or the
Medicaid HMOs.
4.
The term "State" means the State of California and its agencies.
5.
"And" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively,
whichever makes the particular Interrogatory
more inclusive, and "any" shall mean
each and every.

6.
The singular form of a word shall be deemed to include the plural, and
the masculine or feminine, whenever appropriate

of these Interrogatories
in order to bring within the scope
any information which otherwise might be considered to be
beyond their scope.

7.
To the extent that any request, or interrogatory,
thereof. that is incorporated
or any subpart
into a request by reference, refers to a statute or
regulation, terms used in the request or interrogatory
shall have the same meaning
as used in the statute or regulation.

DOCUMENT REOUESTS
Request NO.1.
A complete copy of any and all digital, electronic or stored
media containing any information related to Brett Kimberlin and swattings from
2010 through 2013, including hard drives, CDs, DVDand thumb drives.
Brett Kimberin
EXHIBITB
Declaration of Dan Backer, Esq.
Il" THE Ul"ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF i\IARYLA~D
SOlltheT1lDb'isioll
BRETT KIMBERLI1\,
*
Plaintiff
CASE 1\0.: GJH-13-3059
Y.
*
lXATI01\AL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al.,
*
Defendants
*
*
DECLARUI01\
1.
OF DA~ BACKER, ESO.
My name is Dan Backer. Esq . and I make Ihcse statements based upon my o\m
personal knowledge. I am allomey in good standing in Virginia. I am over 18 years of age. and
if called
10
do so. I am competent to testif}' Ihat the contents of this declaration are accurate and
true.
2.
I represented Aaron J. Walker. Esq. in the case of Walker
12000631-00 (Pr. Wm. Co. Cir. Ct. 2012).
1'.
Kimherlin. No.
That is the same ~lr. Walker who was once a
defendant in Ihis case. and that lawsuit was filed against Ihe same Bretl Kimberlin \\ho is Ihe
plaintifT in Ihis case. On or aboul September 19.2012,1 received a document request from :vlr.
Kimberlin.
A lrue and correct copy of il is allached as Exhibit DB-I.
ivlr. Walker and I
interpreted it as including (but not limited 10) any records of correspondence between ~Ir.
Walker and J. Patrick Frey. Esq .. Ihe Defendant in Ihis case with respect
10
:vlr. Kimberlin. We
complied with that document request on or about October 10, 2012, and had a continuing
obligation to tum over new documents until the case was ended on December 4.2012.
I declare under penalty of peIjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that the attached exhibit is a true
and correct copy of the original.
ExecutedonJanuary
CD
.2016inAle'xc.o'I"ir;CA
(city)
...~
EXHIBIT
DB-l
IN THE CIRCUITCOURT FOR PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

MANASSAS,VIRGINIA
AARONWALKER,
Plaintiff,
Vs
No. CL 12-631
BRETT KIMBERLIN,eta],
Defendants.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Comes now Defendant Brett Kimberlin, pursuant to Rule 4.9 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, and requests the following for production within twenty one days.
1. Produce a complete copy of Plaintiff's Everyone Draw Mohammed blog, with
all photos, depictions, videos, comment, text, submissions, and all other
material related to the blog as it existed on January 1, 2012 or until it was
made private by Plaintiff.
Z. Produce all records involving Plaintiff's employment at Professional Health
Care Resources, including salary, termination
such determination,
and communications
determinations,
appeals of
with PHCI with regard to that
determination.
3. Produce all records and accounting of all funds raised by Plaintiff or on
behalf of Plaintiff by others, including the National Bloggers Club and the
Bloggers Defense Team, to litigate against Defendant or to assist Plaintiff
with other expenses.
4. Produce all records of correspondence
in any form Plaintiff has had with any
other party regarding Defendant Kimberlin since January 1, 2011.
5. Produce a copy of any police record of an alleged Swatting incident that

occurred at Plaintiffs residence.
Brett Kimberli
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY THAT I MAILED A COpy TO ATTORNEY DAN BACKER THIS 19TH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2012.
BRETT KIMBERLIN.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southem Divisioll
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff
v.
CASE NO.: GJH-I3-3059
.1.PATRICK FREY, et al.,
Defendant
*
*
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SHOW CAUSE

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces
Tecum and Request for an Order to Show [Cause Why] Non-Party Aaron Walker Should Not Be Held in
Contempt," (ECF No. 324), Mr. Walker's "Opposition to Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel and Request for
Show Cause Order," and any other filings in support or opposition thereto, it is this
____________
,,2016, hereby
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's to compel and for a show cause order is hereby is DENIED.
Hon. George J. Hazel

United States District Judge for the District of Maryland
day of

ECF 330 Redacted

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ECF 330 Redacted

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO.: GJH-13-3059

MR. WALKER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(I) states in

Sister courts have interpreted

Huawei Techs. Co., 720 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. III.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 12

2010) (denying a motion to compel on Huawei Technologies,

Co., Ltd. because they had not been

for compliance. See Plaintiffs

Walker in compliance with Rule 45(b)(I).

The Plaintiff repeatedly claims that he carried out service of

Court held that service by mail was insufficient

under Rule 45(b)(I);

rather, service must be

Mr. Walker will leave it to the Court's

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 12

In any case, the Plaintiffs

compel, they also preclude any claim for contempt.

Contempt in relation to subpoenas is governed by

admitted (and factual) failure to

serve Mr. Walker bars any finding of contempt.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 12

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 12

Adv. Comm. Notes-2015

Meanwhile, Rule 45(d)(l) directs parties such as the

may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on

party or attorney who fails to comply."

That is, the Plaintiff

Indeed, that language is redundant.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 12

According to the Plaintiff's

if Mr. Frey and Mr. Walker

If Mr. Walker and Mr. Frey

would have no power to direct any investigation by law enforcement

in Virginia and there

Furthermore, the subpoena is duplicative and therefore presents an undue burden.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 12

Meanwhile, attached as Exhibit RC-I is the interrogatories

posed to Mr. Frey.

Since there is no time limitation

Likewise, technically, yesterday

Therefore, requesting a catalogue of all communications "before[,] during

See RC-2. So, therefore, the

There is no reason to obtain these documents

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 8 of 12

So, in essence, the

Limitations on Frequency and Extent ....

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or

the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain

the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule

Both Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i)

and (ii) are implicated by the instant facts.

The discovery is deeply

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 330 Filed 01/13/16 Page 9 of 12

(ii) are not discretionary rules.

avoid imposing an undue burden on third parties such as Mr. Walker.

The same rule also states that

rule, requiring the Court to enforce the duty-by

Id. This is again a

refusing to enforce the subpoena.

to produce duplicate records is unnecessary and would impose an undue

Ward & Co., 32 F.R.D. 208,209-10