William John Joseph Hoge, IN THE

Plaintiff, CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
v.
Case No. 06-C-16-070789
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT

TETYANA KIMBERLIN

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves the Court compel answers

to interrogatories propounded to Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin pursuant to

Maryland Rule 2-432. In support of his motion Mr. Hoge states as follows:

MR. HOGE HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THIS DISCOVERY
DISPUTE WITH DEFENDANT TETYANA KIMBERLIN

Mr. Hoges certification pursuant Md. Rule 2-431 is attached below.

DEFENDANT TETYANA KIMBERLIN HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY ANSWER

MR. HOGES INTERROGATORIES

On 13 February, 2017, Mr. Hoge propounded a set of interrogatories to

Tetyana Kimberlin. During a hearing on 17 March, 2017, Brett Kimberlin hand

delivered her answers to Mr. Hoges requests. Mrs. Kimberlin failed to answer

Interrogatories 8 and 9, and she provided incomplete or non-responsive answers to

Interrogatories 1, 3, 5, and 6.
 MR. HOGES INTERROGATORIES AND MRS. KIMBERLINS RESPONSES

As the Court can see below, several of Mrs. Kimberlins answers served on

Mr. Hoge are facially insufficient. Specifically, her answers to Interrogatories 1, 3,

5, and 6 are not directly responsive, and she as completely failed to answer

Interrogatories 8 and 9. Mrs. Kimberlin should be compelled to provide proper

answers.

Interrogatory 1 is one of the form interrogatories:

1. Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called

as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information that
tends to support a position that you have taken or intend to take in
this action, including any claim for damages, and state the subject
matter of the information possessed by that person.

Answer: No expert witness,

This interrogatory does not ask about expert witnesses, so the answer is not

responsive. If the answer to Interrogatory 3 was intended to also answer this

interrogatory as well, that answer is defective because it fails to identify the subject

matter of testimony of each prospective witness, and it fails to provide the required

contact information for each prospective witness.

Interrogatory 3 is also one of the form interrogatories:

3. If you intend to rely upon any documents, electronically stored

information, or tangible things to support a position that you have
taken or intend to take in the action, including any claim for
damages, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all
such documents, electronically stored information, and tangible
things, and identify all persons having possession, custody, or
control of them.

2
 Answer: All documents to be used at trial were provided today in
the hundreds of pages provided in the production of documents.
Witnesses will be Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Audrey Creighton,
Judge Mason, me, my husband, my daughters, Bill Schmalfeldt,
Tae Kim, Assistant States Attorney Grote, and Carroll County
Circuit Judge Stansfield. This is an updated list.

Mrs. Kimberlin appears to be referring to the documents produced by Brett

Kimberlin in discovery. Those documents were a jumbled, uncategorized mess, and

none of them are identified as potential evidence to be used at trial.1

Interrogatory 5 seeks the identification of any specific instance of alleged

harassment of Mrs. Kimberlins daughter attributable to Mr. Hoge that might be

the basis for the Application for Statement of Charges she filed against Mr. Hoge:

5. Identify any and all specific incidences of harassment allegedly

suffered by your elder daughter which you believe to have been
caused by a writing or statement made by Plaintiff William Hoge,
including the place and time of the incident(s) and the person(s)
who engaged in the harassment.

Answer: These are listed in the Peace Order and in the documents.
You have been harassing my daughter non stop for years. Your
sick, twisted sexual obsession with my daughter is shameful,
disgusting, abhorrent and frightening. Your suit against me is
more harassment of my daughter. I have told you to leave us alone
but you will not. We received al letter from your friend in
December detailing your perverted obsession with our daughter.

The peace order petition filed by Brett Kimberlin against Mr. Hoge in March, 2015,

does not contain any mention of any specific instance of alleged harassment. None

of the documents produced by Mr. Kimberlin in discovery are labeled as relating to

such alleged harassment. Indeed, none of the those documents mention any specific

1Mr. Hoge has filed a separate motion to compel related to the deficiencies in Brett
Kimberlins production of documents.

3
incident of such alleged harassment. If such a document exists and Mrs. Kimberlin

intends to use it as evidence at trial, Mr. Hoge is entitled to discover it.

Similarly, Interrogatory 6 seeks the identification of any specific writing or

statement made by Mr. Hoge which might be a basis for the Application for

Statement of Charges she filed against Mr. Hoge:

6. Identify any specific writing or statement made by Mr. Hoge

which you believe caused your elder daughter to be harassed,
specifying where and when such writings were published or
statements were made and explaining the causal nexus between
the writings or statements and any alleged harassment.

Answer: Same as # 5.

Again, neither the March, 2015, peace order petition nor the documents provided by

Brett Kimberlin identifies any writing or statement made by Mr. Hoge that would

form a basis for the Application for Statement of Charges Mrs. Kimberlin filed. If

Mrs. Kimberlin intends to use writings or statements by Mr. Hoge as evidence at

trial, he is entitled to discover what they are.

Interrogatory 8 seeks information related to a motion filed in the criminal

case resulting from Mrs. Kimberlins May, 2015, Application for Statement of

Charges filed against Mr. Hoge.

8. Identify the person(s) who prepared the Motion to Seal or

Otherwise Limit Inspection of a Case Record for Case No.
3D00333028 filed on your behalf in the District Court of Maryland
for Montgomery County on or about 8 July, 2016, and identify the
person who actually signed the Affidavit that is part of said Motion.

Answer: Objection. Irrelevant. You are a vicious stalker who

investigates every aspect of our lives.

4
Interrogatory 8 is not irrelevant. It seeks the identity of the person(s) who prepared

and signed a motion to prevent me from having access to the case record for the

criminal case at issue in Count XI of the Complaint. Neither the identity of the

person preparing a court paper nor the identity of the person actually signing it is

privileged, and the information sought by the interrogatory could reasonably be

expected to lead to evidence admissible at trial. Thus, Interrogatory 8 is proper

under the Maryland Rules.

Interrogatory 9 seeks to verify information given to Mr. Hoge by Mrs.

Kimberlin during July and August of 2015.

9. Identify any country other than the United States of America in

which you spent more than 24 hours during the months of
November, 1997, to April, 1999, inclusive, and the dates you were
in any such countries.

Answer: Objection. Irrelevant and none of your business. You are

one really sick person to be trying to invade the privacy of my
international travel itinerary.

Interrogatory 9 is not irrelevant. It bears on the truthfulness of statements made by

both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin under oath. The information is not privileged

and could reasonably be expected to lead to evidence admissible at trial. Thus,

Interrogatory is proper under the Maryland Rules.

After reviewing the answers served on him by Mrs Kimberlin, Mr. Hoges

sent her a letter on 19 March, 2017, outlining the deficiencies in her answers and

asking her either to serve a corrected set of answers not later than 6:00 pm on

5
25March, 2017, or to contact Mr. Hoge to arrange for additional time to respond if

necessary. Mr. Hoge has received no response to his letter.

CONCLUSION

Per the Courts Scheduling Order, discovery in the instant lawsuit ends on 14

April, 2017, and dispositive motions are due on 28 April, 2017. Tetyana Kimberlins

failure to timely provide discovery is prejudicing Mr. Hoges ability to faithfully

comply with the Courts schedule.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to compel Defendant Tetyana

Kimberlin to fully answer Interrogatories 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 propounded to her on

13 February, 2017, and to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and

proper.

Date: 27 March, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

RULE 2-431 CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have made a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute
with Tetyana Kimberlin. Specifically, I sent her a letter attempting to resolve the
dispute; that letter was mailed on 19 March, 2017. I received no response.

Date: 27 March, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

6
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 27th day of March, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235

Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT

I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury
that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.

Date: 27 March, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge