RE°=ivVED
var 2 12016
Glerk 0. cieuit Court
Montgon.y County, Ma,
INTHE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, tal
Defendans.
DEFENDANTS THE BLAZE INC., MERCURY RADIO ARTS, AND GLENN
[BECK’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
‘MOTION TO REOPEN & MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff Brett Kimberin’s("Kiraberlin”) motion to “eopen” this case a6 10 The
Blaze Ine, Mereary Radio Arts, and Glenn Beck (collectively the “Blaze Defendants”)
as no bass tm awn fat, or inthe Maryland rules of procedure. This Cour should
deny the purported motion and sanction Kimberlin for his cotimiing abusive and
‘vexatious lkgation tates.
BACKGROUND
The Blaze Defendants respecfilly refer the Court to their memorandum of law in
‘suppor oftheir motion to dismiss (D.E 4] forthe ssteent of facts, which the Blaze
Defendants inonporate herein by reference. The Court, a ral argument on September
3, 2015 and ina subsequent wten onder on September 18, 2015), dismissed this case
‘with prejudice ae to the Blaze Defendants for lac of personal juris or, inthe
altenative, forthe reasons set fort inthe Blaze Defendants’ motion papers (with the
‘exception ofthe Blaze Defendants statue-ofinittions end ant-SLAPP arguments),
[See DE. 81 & motion hearing audio second; DE, 9,] Kimbecin filed a "Motion forReconsderation/Relief fom Judgment" on September 14,2015. [DE 90 This Court
denied shat motion on December 1, 2015, [D.E. 110.)
ARGUMENT
‘This Cour should deny Kimbertin’s purported motion to “enpen” the case forthe
substantive and procedural easons set forth in defendant Brethar.com’s (“Breitbart”)
‘memorandum of law in opposition to Kimberin's motion to reopen the case aginst
‘Breitbart dated March 7, 2016, (DLE. 175,] The Blaze Defendants hereby join in
Breitbart: arguments and incorporate those arguments herein by refeence, including
‘with respect tothe issuance of sanctions aginst Kimberin
Im ation to Breitbart’swell-easoned arguments, the Blaze Defendants also
‘emphasize tha, even if Kimbeslin had a procedural basis to fle ths motion, Kimbesin
makes no new arguments, vances no new theories, and points ono new evidence that
‘would support his meritless contentions regarding the Blaze Defendants ~ contentions
‘hat have slready been rejected twice by this Court. Even ithe supposed newiy
Aiscovered e-mails were before this Cour, Kimberlin’s description of them, assuming
their truth (which the Blaze Defendans do ant concede), would nat change the outcome
ofthis case, Intemal statements from an editor regarding supposed ise stovies (which
‘he Blaze Defendants donot concede even exis) do not change the fi tha he stories at
‘sna here were neither false nar unlawful; he stories speak for themselves regardless of
‘how someone might have desribed them in private internal e-mail. Such
communications also do not constintessivitie directed toward Maryland for purposes
of personal jurisdiction, nor do they evidence any such activites,-Mereaver, tht Me. Bock, in Kimbelin's own words, wanted to “et the tris
cut the “widest asience” (Mot to Reopen st 2) contadiets Kimben's assertion tat
the llegedy fase statements were directed epeifally to Kimberin in Maryland, end
soppors the Blaze Defendants contention tht he glbely availabe online brosdeast of