IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY MARYLAND AARON WALKER, Plaintiff, v. No. 398855-V BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al, Defendants MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FROM DISCOVERY AND FOR A HEARING Now come Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin and move this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-403(a) and for good cause, to issue a protective order in this case to protect Defendants from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and undue burden or expense as a result of Plaintiffs discovery requests. Specifically Defendants request an order that discavery not be had and that certain matters not be inquired into. In support of this Motion, Defendants state the following: 1. Onor about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff presented the following discovery requests on Defendants—844 requests fo: admissions, 52 interrogatories, and 48 paragraphs of document requests. 2. Much of the information requested is perverse, sexually depraved, and frankly disgusting and therefore, Defendants request a hearing rather than having to include the six-inch thick of requested discovery as an exhibit to this motion. 3. Many of the discovery demands information protected by the marital spousal privilege under Maryland Code, Section 9-105 (confidential communications privilege) and 9-106 (adverse testimony privilege). In Brown v. State, 783 A.2d 84(Md. 2000), the Court of Appeals found that this privilege is absolute, even in matters involving admissions of criminal activity. Requests for Admissions 4. Plaintiff's request for 844 admissions covering 144 pages is oppressive and constitutes an undue burden. The requests are brought for an improper purpose to annoy, harass, embarrass and oppress Defendants. Virtually all of the requests have nothing to do with the instant case but rather are made to advance an agenda by Plaintiff to harm Defendants through false narratives. Most of the requests fall outside the time frame covered in Plaintiff's complaint, and many request information as long ago as 1978. Many of the requests relate to Plaintiff's employer. Many of the requests have to do with other cases that are pending or have been closed. Many of the requests relate to Defendants’ minor children. Many of the requests relate to sex, abortion, infidelity, pedophilia, and racism. Many of the requests relate to matters that have been sealed by the Montgomery County Circuit Court. Two of the questions relate to a book published in 1996, Interrogatories 5. A400-page book about Plaintiff published in 1996 accompanied Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories directed to Defendant Brett Kimberlin. Plaintiff asked Plaintiff to answer the following two interrogatories: “27. Identify and describe in detail all inaccuracies in the book ... attached as Exhibit A, providing the page number for each inaccuracy identified and stating the truth in relation to each claim. 28. Identify any person or entity you kave sued or threatened to sue for in part of in whole for defamation, false light or any other cause of action based on alleged false statements arising from the creation and publication of the book ...identify and describe all correspondence related to any such suits or threats to sue, and provide the names of all parties, the name of the court, the court's jurisdiction and the case number for every such suit filed.” ‘These interrogatories dealing a 20-year old book have nothing to do with the instant case. It is breathtaking that Plaintiff would ask Defendant Brett Kimberlin to go page by page through a 400 page book and detail every inaccuracy. Moreover, the interrogatory related to any litigation over the book is protected by a court, approved confidentiality order. tiffs other Interrogatories are equally oppressive and breathtaking; + #8 he asks for every phone aumber, email address and social media account ever used by Defendants or their employer, and an unknown company named Almighty Media. * #10 he asks for mental health records of Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin and Defendants’ minor child + #11 he asks for the identity of every female under the age of 19 who has ever stayed overnight at Defendants’ residence since 2010. ‘+ #12 he asks for the identity of every female under the age of 19 who has stayed overnight in any room where Defendant Brett Kimberlin was staying since 2010. + #13 and #14 he asks for the identity of every person who ever bullied Defendants’ minor daughter. + #15 he asks for the identity of minors who were kept away from Defendant's minor daughter.+ #16 he asks for the identity of every person ever hired by Defendants, their employers and an unknown company named Almighty Media since 2010, including their duties, dates of service, and salary. + #17 he asks for the all information related to every song ever written by Defendant Brett Kimberlin related to sex with teenagers or persons under 18, + #19 he asks for a description of Defendant Brett Kimberlin’s relationship with a person unrelated to the instant case. + #20 he asks for complete description of all activities Defendant Brett Kimberlin has taken for his employer this year. + #21 and #22 he asks for every communication regarding every confidential scttlcment and the actual settlement Defendant Brett Kimberlin has been a part of since 2010, * #23 he asks for the identity of every person involved with music videos created for Defendants’ minor daughter. None of the information requested above has anything to do with this case. Some of the information is covered by court ordered confidentiality agreements. The information is irrelevant, and the requests annoying, harassing, oppressive and over burdensome. Document Requests . In his document requests, Plaintiff asks for all documents used to support the answers to the Interrogatories,asks for a copy of a music album released by Defendant Brett Kimberlin’s, band in 1993. + asks for copies of Defendants’ minor child’s school records since 2010; + asks for a copy of the driver's license of Defendants and for every person who has ever worked for Defendants and their employer and an unknown company named Almighty Media since 2010. ‘+ asks for copies of every song ever written by Defendant Brett Kimberlin related to sex with persons uncer 18. + asks for copies of every settlement agreement entered into by Defendant Brett Kimberlin’s employer since 2010. *+ asks for mental health and medical records of Defendant Brett Kimberlin, * asks for copies of all records related to Defendant's parole more than ten years ago. + asks for copies of all settlement agreements related to a 1996 book about Defendant Brett Kimberlin. None of the above information is relevant to the instant case. Some of the information is covered by court ordered confidentiality agreements. Some of the information is confidential under federal and state law, such as medical and academic records. Plaintiff's Discovery Requests Are For An Improper Purpose As Defendants have been trying to tell this Court from the very beginning of this case, Plaintiff is using it for an improper purpose to advance his agenda of harassment of Defendants. He is using his discovery requests as a fishing expeditionin the hope that he can uncover anything that will support his agenda of false narratives and harassment. Because Plaintiff's discovery requests were made for an improper purpose and done in bad faith, a protective order prohibiting discovery is entirely appropriate. Indeed, if counsel represented Defendants, Maryland law would require the imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for his misuse and abuse of discovery. In Mullaney v. Aude, 730 A.2d 759 (Md. 1999), the Court imposed sanctions for harassing a party wi improper discovery: Mr. Harris's behavior with respect to Ms. Aude and her counsel at the deposition was a crass attempt to gain an unfair advantage through the use of demeaning language, a blatant example of "sexual [deposition] tactics." With respect to the effect on the profession, we think Judge Waldron stated it well when he said: "These actions .. have no place in our system of justice and when attorneys engage in such actions they do not merely reflect on their own lack of professionalism but they disgrace the entire legal profession and the system of justice that provides a stage for such oppressive actors.” [Id. at 767] Wherefore, Defendants move this Court to issue a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff from conducting discovery from Defendants. RespéPtfully submitted, Bregeyimber Tetyang Kimber|; oa Certificate of Service ¢ I certify that I emailed a copy of this motion to Defendants this 13% day of July, 2016. 4 Brett Klmberlin