Oct. 14.

2013 4:55PM
No. 1358 P. 5/34
NO. C2013-1082B
MONIQUE RATHBUN IN THE DISTRICT COURT

v. 20'111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DAVID MISCA VIGE, RELIGIOUS
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH
OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND
MONTY DRAKE COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL'S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Defendant Church of Scientology International files this its Motions in Limine and
for Protective Order as provided by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6(b) and shows as
follows:
1. In its Order on Church of Scientology Intemational's Motion to Disqualify
signed on September 30, 2013, this Court recommended the use of "lesser measures'\
short of disqualification, to "limit and/or prevent any further disclosure of the alleged
confidential information". Order at p. 8.
2. Consistent with that recommendation, this Defendant moves for the entry of
an order requiring Plaintiff and her counsel:
1) Not to seek to obtain "confidential information" (as de.fined in Texas
Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct l.05(a)) regarding the
Defendants from Mark Rathbun in any communications, either
directly or indirectly. This prohibition is specifically directed to
Mark Rathbun's oversight and direction of the Defendants' legal
affairs as described in his affidavit of September 4, 2013);
2) Not to attempt to elicit "confidential information" regarding the
Defendants from Mark Rathbun while he is testifying;
Oct.14. 2013 4:55PM
No. 1358 P. 6/34
3) That Plaintiffs counsel instruct Mark Rathbun as to the scope of
"confidential information" and instruct him not to volunteer
''confidential information" regarding the Defendants either while
testifying or in communications;
4) Forbid Plaintiffs counsel from using Mark Rathbun as an expert,
consultant, or adviser on this case;
5) Not to use any "confidential information'' already obtained from
Mark Rathbun; and
6) Not to further disseminate the September 4, 2013 affidavit of Mark
Rathbun.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Church of Scientology
International prays for the relief described above, together with such other and further
relief as is just or appropriate in the circumstances.
210380/0002137-24575
Respectfully submitted,
RICARDO G. CEDILLO,
State Bar No. 04043600
LES J. STRIEBER, III
State Bar No. 19398000
DA VIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.
McCombs Plaza, Suite 500
755 E. Mulberry Ave.
San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 822-6666 - Telephone
(210) 822-1151-Facsimile
rcedillo@lawdcm.com
lstrieber@Jawdcrn.com
and
2
Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM
CLE:tvmNS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1300
No. 1358 P. 7/34
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
(210) 227-7121 -Telephone
(210) 227-0732-Facsimile
spencer@clemens-spencer.com
By: ls/George H. Spencer, Jr.
GEORGE H. SPENCER, JR.
State Bar No. 18921001
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Prior to filing this motion I attempted to resolve these matters with Plaintiffs
counsel, but, as shown by the attached letter of October 7, 2013 from Ray Jeffrey, Exhibit
A, was unsuccessful. As a consequence, it is necessary to present these matters to the
Court for resolution.
/s/Georrie H. Spencer, Jr.
George H. Spencer, Jr.
210380/0002137-24575 3
Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM
No. 1358 P. 8/34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
was served in the manner indicated below on this 14th day of October, 2013, to:
Mr. Ray Jeffrey
Ms. A. Dannette Mitchell
Jeffrey & Mitchell, P.C.
2631 Bulverde Rd., Suite 105
Bulverde, TX 78163
via Facsimile No. (830) 438-4958
Mr. Marc F. Wiegand
The Wiegand Law Finn, P.C.
434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 220 I
San Antonio, TX 78232
via Facsimile No. (210) 998-3179
Mr. Elliott S. Cappuccio
Pulman Cappuccio Pullen &
Benson, LLP
2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400
San Antonio, TX 78213
via Facsimile No. (210) 892-1610
Mr. Lamont A. Jefferson
Haynes & LLP
112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1200
San Antonio, TX 78205-1540
via Facsimile No. (210) 554-0413
210380/0002137-24575
Ms. J. Iris Gibson
Haynes & Boone, LLP
600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300
Austin, TX 78701
via Facsimile No. (512) 867-8650
Mr. Jonathan H. Hull
Reagan Bunus
401 Main Plaza, Suite 200
New Braunfels, TX 78130
via Facsimz1e No. (830) 625-4433
Mr. 0. Paul Dunagan
Sarles & Ouimet
370 Founder Square
900 Jackson St.
Dallas, TX 75202
via Facsimile No. (214) 573-6306
Mr. Bert H. Deixler
Kendall Brill & Leger LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles, CA 90067
via Facsimile No. (310) 556-2705
ls/George H. Spencer, Jr.
George H. Jr.
4
Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM No. 1358 P. 9/34
EXHIBIT A
Oct. 14. 2013 4:57PM
Oct. 7. 2013 2:33PM
Jlrl'JrRJ:Y S. P,C,
George H. Spencer, Jr.
CLEMENS & SPENCER
112 E. Pecan, Suite 1300
San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531
Qctober 7, 2013
No. 1358 P. 10/34
2.'-r51s-
No. 0163 P. 2/3
'RAYS. J'!IPJll'Jlte'Y
EIOARC CERTIFIED
'T'EXAS BOARD OrWi:GAt. SP'iiC:IAWZA1iON:
C:lVJL 'TRIAi. LAw
?l!:RSONALINJURVT!l.IALLAW
0::631 6Vl.Ve:ROtRC,, sum: 10!
S1.11.VSRcS.TliltAS
630.43!!1.e93!!
. ,,Alll
Re; Cause No. Monique Rathbun v. David Mtscavige, et al, in the
207
1
h Judicial District Coui-t, Comal County, Texas
Dear Mr. Spencer,
We received your letter of October 3, 2013. Judge Waldrip did not ''endorse
1
' anything. He
simply pointed out that, under Texas law, the defendants have not, but may, request judicial
measures to protect certain information.
At thls point, we must conclude that you are intentionally misusing the concept of
"confidential infomiation" to obstruct the plaintiff's preparation of her case. In substance, you are
saying that all information possessed by Mr. Rathbun about his 30 years in Scientology is
"coIJfidential" and must not be used in court by the plaintiiii who happens to be his wife. You can't
be serious -is the quality of the food m the defendantsi mess hall 'What about Mr.
Miscavige's temper tantrums that end with him beating, kicking, and choking - is that
"confidential''? This is why, in this and every other Scientology case, the defendants cannot bring
themselves to specify what they claim to 'f?e "confidential". Last week, a federal judge in Florida
refused rhe Scientology defendants' motion to disqualify plamtiffs' counsel, largely because the
defendants could not identify any allegedly infonnation.
Your letter concems Mark Rathbun, a non.lawyeri who ended his relationship with the
defendants in 2004. The plaintiff's cause of action arises frorn events occuning more than five
yea.ts after Mark Rathbun's escape from captivity in Mr. Miscavige's private prison. Judge
Waldrip's Order identified the legal significance of Mr. Rathbun,s lack of insider status with the
defendants since 2004. Accordingly, the question raised by your letter is as follows: What legally
protecta.ble infonnation of the .defendants is possessed by Mark Rathbun? As usual, the
defendants refuse t.o be specific.
We categorically reject your use of TDRPC l.05(a) in this situation. This rule addresses
information to be protected by a lawyer about his client. The defendants have never been
represented by my co-counsel Of me. Mark Ra.th.bun has never been a lawyer, and he is not subject
to Rule l.OS(a). Therefore, Rule l.OS(a) does not apply. '
In Texas, there are two kinds of information about which the defendants may argue the
need for protection. First, the defendants may seek to protc:ct their attorney-client privileged
information. Without admitting that Mt. Rathbun is in possession of any attomey-cliet1t privileged
Oct. 14. 2013 4:57PM
Oct. 7. 2013 2:33PM
George H. Spencer, Jr,
October 7, 2013
Page2
No. 1358 P. 11134
No. 0183 P. 3/3
information, we have nonetheless instructed Mr. Rathbun not to disclose to us any attorney-client
privileged information.
S e c o n ~ Texas recognizes a protectable interest in trade secret information. If the
defendants have any trade secret information that they believe is possessed by Mr. Rathbun and for
which they believe they are entitled to judicial protection, please specify the specific type of
information. We are 11Ilawa.re of any information held by Mr. Rathbun that would qualify as trade
secret.s of the defendants. We bave no obligation to guess about this. If you claim there are
protect.able trade secrets you need to be more specific and identify precise categories and types of
information.
You want us to agree.to a protective order without identifying any categories or kinds of
information _that you claim to be protectable. The Scientology defendanT.s are serial abusers of the
court system. We refuse to agree to hand them a mechanism to designate every document,
videotape, deposition, etc. as "confidential'', thereby requiring a neverending series of court
hearings for rulings on these claims of confidentiality.
RBJ/cat
cc: Elliott S. Cappuccio
Marc F. Wiegand
Lamont A. Jeffei:son
Richard Cedillo