Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 383 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 5

FILED

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITEI> STATES I>ISTRICT COlJlnlJlSTRICT
OF t1ARYLAND
I>ISTRICT OF MARYLANI>
SOllthern

Dit'i.\'iOll

( 1l,,18n~
OF
(;H)lUa: J.\KIWIlIl\l.U.
l'.'1IU) ST.\ I P; ()lSTRlC! ./l'l)(:t:

.Junc 1.2016

RE: Killlherlill \'. Frey,

G.JH-13-3059

LETTER ORI>ER
Dear Counsel

and Mr. Kimbcrlin:

This letter addrcsses

Hogc's

scveralmotions

Motion to Strike Plaintiffs

Kimbcrlin's
Discovery

Supplemcntal

Motion to Scal Discovcry

F.B.1. to Comply with Subpocna

Documcnts

prcscntly

Responsc

Documcnts

Dcsignation

Motion to Scal (lOCI' No. 350): Plaintilrs

of Discovcry

Motion

and Allow Plaintiff to Usc DiscO\wy

in Motion lor Summary

Subpocnas

(ECF No. 3(3): and, Motions to Quash by Non-parties

Commerce

("Chambcr")

Ilol!c's

Motion to Compel

Motion to Rc\'ic\\' Withhcld

Documcnts

Palantir Technologies

William

(ECF No. 333): Plaintiff BrCll

(lOCI' No. 337): Plaintilrs

(lOCI' No. 339): Plaintitrs

(ECF No. 340): Ilogc's

to Contcst Conlidcntial

bclllrc thc Court: Non-party

.Judgmcnt (ECF No. 355): Plaintiffs

ivlotion to Compcl

Unitcd Statcs Chambcr of

(lOCI' No. 360), Ilunton & Williams C'IIW") (ECF No. 374), and
(""Palantir") (ECF No. 372) (ECF Nos. 360. 372, 374).

Motion to Strikc I'laintilrs

Supplcmental

Rcsponsc

(lOCI' No. 333)

Citing Local Rule 105.2(a), William Hogc rcqucsts that thc Court strikc "I'laintilrs
Supplcmental

Rcsponsc

to William

Hogc's Objcction

332). See Loc. R. 105.2(a) ("'Unlcss othcrwisc

permittcd

Without Ieavc ofthc

providing

to Iloge's

Court. Plaintiffthcn

tiled a "supplcmcntal

thc Court with a copy of a "partial privilegc

having ruled on Hoge's

DENIES

to Plaintifrs

scalcd liling. ECF No. 321.

or rcccivcd

rcsponsc"

in 2013. 2014 and 2015'"

Motion to Strikc, as moot.

to Ilogc's

rcply.

log" to show that Hogc "is a party to

ECF No. 332. Thc Court.

motion. ECF No. 321. which was thc subject ofthc

Iloge's

arc not

motion, ECF No. 323. to which Ilogc rcplicd, ECF No. 325.

scorcs of cmails that he authorcd

surreply,

ordcrcd by thc Court. surrcply mcmoranda

to bc filcd."). Hogc filcd a motion objccting

Plaintiffrespondcd

to Scaled Motion, ECF 319" (ECF No.

unauthori/.cd

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 383 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 5

Plaintiffs

Motion to Seal Discoverv

Documents

(ECF No. 337)

In support of his Motion to Lili Protectivc

Motion to Seal Discovery

Documents.

tiled a

ECF No. 337. The purpose of the iI/lotion \\'as to "show

thc Court that there is no need for a protectivc

Motion to Lin Protective

Ordcr (ECF No. 327). PlaintitThas

Order. DENIES

order:'

Plaintifrs

Id The Court. having rulcd on Plaintilrs

Motion to Seal Discovcry

Documcnts.

as

moot.
Plaintifrs

Motion to Compel F.B.1. to Complv \\ith Subpoena

(ECF No. 339)

Plaintiff has tiled a motion to compel the 1'.13.1.to comply \\ith Plaintitrs
No. 339. In his subpoena.

PlaintilTrequests

subpocna.

"[al" rccords related to the invcstigation

ECF

by Agcnt

Daniel Borsuk and othcrs of the swatting of Patrick Frcy. Aaron Walkcr. and Eric Erickson in
20 II and 2012. and all rccords related to thc lillse accusations
Kimberlin

was involved

with those swattings:'

documents

contain communications

bctwcen

of those pcople that Brctt

ECF No. 339-2. PlaintilTasserts

Dcfendant

Frcy and thc F.B.I.. \\hich Plaintiff

needs for this casc. ECF No. 339'; 6. Arguing that there is no ongoing
related to the documents

sought. PlaintitTrequcsts

produce is arbitrary and capricious.

'"If[a] non-party
immunity

apply:'

recipicnt

9,2(07):

is a government

or employee

at q (D. Md.

testimony

in response

to a third-party

subpoena

if t'Hmd to bc "arbitrary

is

and

COMSA T Co!"p.. 190 I' .3d at 278. The agency "does not hm'e to spell out a
incantation'

the APA:'

SOli('/' /IIC. \". Lexingtoll/IIS.

of its consideration

156127. at *11 (E,D.N.C.

being "vague. overbroad.

caleulated

Additionally.

Procedure

with an explanation

ECF No. 339-3. Their reasoning

ineluded.

to release any documcnts

("Rulc")

in ordcr to satisfy

2014lJ.S.

Dist. I.EXIS

to thc

45(b). lOCI' No. 339-4. and thc

and seekl ingl inltJrlllation

of admissible

the 1'.13.1.eitcs TOllhy Rcgulations

agency then indicated

'liJilhy rcgulations

from the 1'.13.1. indicatcs that thc F.Il.1. objcctcd

to lead to the discovery

Mr. Kimbcrlin

applicable

Oct. 3 I. 2(14).

request based on Federal Rule ofCi\'il

reasonably

ofthc

Agen(\', /IIL'.. No. 5:13-CV-180-F.

Here. the attached eorrespondencc

authorized

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9590I.

and should only be overturncd

'ltJrlllulaic

providing

ofsovcrign

Johllson \'. Folino. 528 F. Supp. 2d 54X. 551 (E.D. Pa. 2(07). "Thc decision

to agency discretion:'

capricious:'

subpoena

agency. principles

COMSA T COI'l', \'. NSF. 190 F.3d 269. 27X (4th Cir. 1999): see 01.,0 Ilow!"ioll

whether to provide documents

committed

refusal to

'1'1 7-X.

Nordic AiS \".Acmnhis /IIC.. No. DKC 2006-2406.

Jan.

1'.13.1. investigation

that thc Court tind that thc F.B.I:s

ECF No. 339

ofa subpoena

that thc

that is ncithcr admissiblc

evidenec."

nor is

lOCI' No. 339-3 at 2,

and the Pri\'acy Act as thc bascs lill' its refusal.

of why it would not comply with his subpocna.

but was not limitcd to. the lilet that thc "agency

or inltmllation

produced

by non-FBI sourccs:'

is not

Id The

that it would not comply until the issucs thcy identi Iicd \vcrc rcsol\'C(l. Id

The Court does not lind the agcncy's

reasoning

to bc arbitrary or capricious.

Furthcrmorc.

as thc

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 383 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 5

1'.13.1.suggcsts.

any communications

bctwccn

discovery

providcd

by Frey. Plaintilrs

I'laintitrs

Motion to Rcvicw Withhcld

Frey and the 1'.8.1. should bc includcd in

Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Discoven'

Documcnts

(ECF No. 340)

Plainti ITrequests that thc Court conduct a review of documcnts

Defcndant

under assertions

of privilege.

Delendantliled

a Conscnt IVlotion to Extend Timc to

Rcspond (ECF No. 349). which the Court will GRANT.

documents

are not protectcd

by attorncy-clicnt

many of whom are not cvcn dclendants"

not reprcsentcd

documcnts

and informational

communications

and Dcfcndant

dcfensc"' or "common

should be able to communicate

prosccutc

logs produccd

in thc privilcgc

asserts that thcy are privilcged

usually waivcs the attorney-client

Whilc voluntary
"'pcrsons

with thcir rcspcctive

or dctend thcir claims'

by Plaintiff in his

liled by Plaintiff 13rett

ECF No. 353

','1 I. 4.

of documcillS under thc "joint

disclosurc

by the clicnt to a third party

who sharc a common

attorncys

an

logs constitutc joiI1l strategic

accordingly'"

Dcfendant" s nondisclosurc

privilcge.

ECF No.

"proITcrs as a court ofliccr that hc conductcd

idcntilicd

intcrest"' doctrinc.

partics.

among partics \\'ho arc

about the several pro sc complaints

PlaintilT appcars to challcngc

effectivcly

lcgal discussions

itcmizcd in thc privilegc

and that thc "communications

Kimbcrlin.

that many ofthc

privilegc becausc they includc "multiple

and "having

counscl. T. Bruce Godfrey.

rcvicw ofthc

Motion"

PlaintilTargucs

by counscl or with third parties \\'aives any attorncy c1icnt pri\'ilcgc'"

340. Dcfendant"s
individual

bcing \\'ithhcld by thc

intcrest in litigation

and with cach othcr to morc

without \vaiving pri\'ilegcd

attorncy-clicnt

Nellhaga
Ball/an Real Estate /ncoII/e Fllnd /nL".\". Lo/a 13/"O\I"n"li'lIsl ,\'0,
/13, 230 F. R.D. 398. 415 (0. Md. 20(5) (quoting /n /"e Grand .//1/:\' /'mceedings 8')-3 & 8')--1. 902

communications'"

F.2d 244. 249 (4th Cir. 19(0.

apply to any information
communications
The "common

Thc common

intcrcst "'must bc lcgal in naturc Itlr thc privilcgc

shared among thc partics'"

!d at 416. Additionally.

whcn sharcd must havc bccn a part of an ongoing common

intcrest"' rule also applics "'to communications

protected

the

/d

legal entcrprisc.

by thc \\"(\rK product

LaSalle Bank Nat '1 Ass 'n \'. Lehll/an 13ms, Holdings, /nc .. 209 F. R.D. I 12. I 17

doctrinc:'

to

(I).

Md. 2(02).
Thc privilegc

log describcs

communication

in naturc. See ECF No. 340-1. According

various co un sci and partics (including
dcfcnse agrcemcnt
No. 353

'i

or othcrwisc

that occurred

to Godli"cy. the communications

cmployccs

rcgard matcrials

of corporate
intendcd

5. Thc Court linds that thc communication

doctrinc and DENIES

Plaintitrs

during litigation and was legal

dclendaI1ls) within that joint

It)r thcir strategic joint delense."

is protected

ivlotion to Review Withheld

340).

werc ""among thc

by thc common

Discovcry

ECF

intcrcst

Documcnts

(ECF No.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 383 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 5

Hoge's Motion to Seal (lOCI' No. 350)

Pursuant to Local Rule 105.11 and thc Court's Protcctivc Ordcr. non-Party William Ilogc
filed an unopposed motion secking leave to file li\'c paragraphs of his Opposition to ECF No.
319 under seal. Thc motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs Motion to Contest Confidential Dcsi!!nation of Discovcrv and Allow Plaintilflo
Discoverv Documents in Motion for Summary Jud!!mcnt (ECF No. 355)

Usc

PlaintilThas filed a motion rcquesting that the Court revicw thc conlidential dcsignation
of discovery documents and direct Defendant's counscl to allow Plaillli ITto use the documcnts in
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff asserts that Dcfendant designatcd "virtually
all of the documents as confidcntial:' yct "Plaintiff has revic\\'ed e\"Cry single doeumcnt and hc
can lind not onc that contains thc requircd 'scnsitivc pcrsonal inlormation' necessary Illl' a
confidential designation:'
lOCI' No. 355 ~ I. As such.Plaintiffchallcngcs
all ofthc documcnts
marked conlidcntial. lOCI' No. 355 ~i
2.
Plaintiff corrcctly notes that he can use the documents Illr a motion Illl'slllllmary
judgment and to conduct the instant litigation. thcn states that hc "nccds an ordcr Ii'om this COllrt
allowing him to publicly usc thc discovery documents in his i'vlotion Illr Summary Judgmcnt:'
lOCI' No. 355
3-4. As Defendant noles. givcn that Plainti ff seems to understand that hc is ablc
to usc the documcnts markcd confidential in connection with this litigation. Plaintiff does not
explain the need to have the confidential stamp remo\"Cd from these documents at this juncture.
PlaintilTcanuse
thc discovery documents ifhe chooses to file a motion Illr summary judgment
but should lile the attachments under seal (and. if necessary. rcdact conlidcntialmaterial
Irom
the public version of the motion) in accordancc with the Protective Order and thc Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 5.2(a). The Court. in conducting its revicw of thc mcrits
of thc motions lor summary j udgmcnt. \\'i II also dctcrm inc if ccrtai n port ions 0 I' those Iilings can
be placcd on the public record. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

'i'i

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Subpoenas

(lOCI' Nos. 360. 363. 372. 37-1)

(ECF No. 3(3) and Non-parties'

Motions to Ouash

Finally. thc Court addrcsses Plaintilrs motion to compel and \'arious motions to quash.
Non-parties Chamber. Palantir. and IIW havc all lilcd a motion to quash Plaintiffs subpoenas.
lOCI' Nos. 360.372.37-1. Additionallv. Chamber (ECF ]\!o. 3(5). HW (ECF No. 373). and Ilcrico
Technologies ("l3erico") (ECF No. 377) havc tiled oppositions to Plaintilrs Motion to Compel
Subpoenas (ECF No. 3(3).
As sevcral of thc non-partics notc. and Plainti 1'1'acknO\\ledgcs in his Motion to Compcl.
Plainti ITpcrsonally scrvcd thc subpoenas on the non-partics in violation of Fcdcral Rule of Ci\'i I
Procedurc ("Rulc") 45(b)( I). Feci. R. Civ. P. 45(b)( I) ("Any pcrson who is at Icast I X ycars old
and not a party may scrve a subpoena."): see ECI' No. 363'i 4 ("All orthe subpoenas \\'Cre
4

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 383 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 5

personally served on the non-parties. cxccpt Ilunton & Williams altcr its counsel statcd in
writing that hc would acccpt scrvicc on hchalf of Hunton & Williams."): ECF '0.365 (citing
Rule 45(h)(1: ECI' No. 374-1 at 2 ("Sewl1'/. scrvicc was impropcr hccausc Mr. Kimhcrlin-a
party to this action-attcmpted
to effect scrvicc himself."): ECF No. 373 at 4 ("Because Mr.
Kimberlin purportcd to effcct scrvice himself via an cmai\. Ex. 2 (EmaillromPlaintift).
scn'ice
ofthc suhpoena was dclicient undcr Rule 45."). Despite hcing prcviously informcd hy thc Court
that PlaintitTpcrsonally serving a suhpocna is impropcr. ECF No. 344 at 3. Plaintiff lililed to
havc the suhpoenas propcrly servcd. Accordingly. Plainlilrs Motion to Compel (ECF No. 363)
is DENIED and non-parties' motions to quash (ECF No. 360. 372. 374) are all GRANTED.
In summary. thc motions arc resolvcd are foIlO\\'s:

Non-party William Iloge's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplcmcntal Rcsponsc (lTF No.

333) is DENIED. as moot:

Plaintiff Brett Kimhcrlin's Motion to Seal Discovcry Documcnts (ECF No. 337) is

DENIED. as moot:
Plaintilrs Motion to Compcl F.B.\. to Comply with Suhpocna (ECF No. 339) is

DENIED:
PlaintilTs Motion to Rcview Withheld Discovcry Documcnts (ECF No. 340) is

DENIED:
Defendant Patrick Frcy's Conscnt Motion to Extcnd Timc to Rcspondto ECF No. 340
(ECF No. 349) is GRANTED:
Hogc's Motion to Seal (ECI' No. 350) is GRANTED:
Plaintiff's Motion 10 Contest Confidcntial Designation of DiscO\wy and Allo,,'Plaintiff
to Use Discovery Documcnts in Motion lor Summary Judgmcnt (ECF No. 355) is
DENIED:
PlaintitTs Motion to Compel Suhpoenas (ECF No. 3(3) is DENIED: and.
Motions to Quash by Non-partics Unitcd Stalcs Chamhcr of Commcrce (lTF No. 360):
Palantir Tcchnologics (ECF No. 372). andllunton & Williams (ECF No. 374) (ECF Nos.
360.372.374) arc all GRANTED.
Although in/orma\. this is an Order of thc Court and shall hc dockctcd as such.

&~---GEORGE J. IIA7.EL
Unitcd Statcs District Judgc