Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • BKTK Resp To Sched Order Redacted

    Transféré par

    himself2462
    6K vues3 pages
    Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.

    Titre original

    BKTK Resp to Sched Order Redacted

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    6K vues3 pages

    BKTK Resp To Sched Order Redacted

    Transféré par

    himself2462
    Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 3
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND WILLIAM HOGE, Plaintiff, v. No. C-16-70789 BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., Defendants DEFENDANT BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN’S RESPONSE TO TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin hereby respond to paragraph 11 of the Court’s scheduling order: 1. Defendants object to many of the 65 proposed exhibits he has provided to them, a list of which is attached hereto. They are irrelevant, unauthenticated, hearsay, confusing and a waste of time. 2. Defendants intend to call the following people as witnesses: Aaron Walker, William Hoge, William Hoge Jr., George Howell, Audrey Creighton, Ken Grote, Ken Ashford, Kelsie Kimberlin, Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin, 3. The trial is scheduled for three days. Defendants believe that it can be completed in one day if the Court will streamline the witnesses and the evidence. This is a simple case for the Kimberlin defendants involving two defamation counts and two malicious prosecution counts. Plaintiff has to prove four elements of each tort yet he has no evidence supporting those elements with regard to the defamation counts, and a jury in Montgomery County has already found probable cause on the malicious prosecution counts. Therefore, this Court should could immediately dispose of the defamation counts by ordering Plaintiff to proffer what proof he has of the four elements of the tort. Also, because the defamation counts arose out of litigation, Defendants are immune from civil suit on those counts. The Court could dispose of the malicious prosecution counts by ordering Hoge to present any argument or evidence on why the Court should not accept the verdict in Montgomery County in this case under res judicata. 4, Defendants have already submitted their Motion in Limine. Respectfully submitted, Bethesda, MD 20817 (01) 320 5921 justicejtmp@comcast.net Certificate of Service I certify that | mailed a copy of this motion to Plaintiff this 11 day of August, 2017. Bret berlin Lslle Qn * opsmera™ apr of OY 28H

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi