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 FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST

DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves the Court sanction

Defendant William Schmalfeldt pursuant to Rule 2-433 for his failure to comply

with discovery. 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 WILLIAM SCHMALFELDT

Mr. Hoges Rule 2-431 Certification is attached.

SCHMALFELDT HAS FAILED TO OBEY THE COURTS ORDER COMPELLING

COMPLIANCE WITH MR. HOGES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

On 17 January, 2017, Mr. Hoge propounded a set of requests for production

of documents to William Schmalfeldt. When no response was received, Mr. Hoge

filed a Motion to Compel (Docket Item 116/0) on 21 February, 2017. The Court held

a hearing on the matter on 5 May, 2017, and ordered Schmalfeldt to respond to Mr.

Hoges requests for production of documents on or before 15 May, 2017. Docket

Item 147/0.

On 13 May, 2017, Mr. Hoge received mail from Schmalfeldt containing a

document styled Defendant Schmalfeldts Response to Plaintiffs Request for

Production of Documents. Exhibit A. No documents were produced. Schmalfeldts

assertions that he has no responsive documents might be plausible to some of the

requests if he were normal litigant, but given his continuing bad faith such claims

were not credible in this instance. Therefore, Mr. Hoge emailed a letter to

Schmalfeldt during the evening of 13 May seeking his further cooperation with the

production of documents. Exhibit B. Schmalfeldt rudely refused in the subsequent

email exchange. Exhibit C.

Every time Mr. Hoge has submitted a discovery request to Schmalfeldt, he

has failed to fully answer except when compelled by the Court, and his purposeful

failures to meet his obligations has prejudiced Mr. Hoges ability to gather evidence

and prepare his case. Schmalfeldts responses to the Courts most recent order were

due on the last day that dispositive motions were to be filed in this case, and Mr.

Hoges ability to file such motions has likewise been prejudiced by Schmalfeldts

failure to obey that order as well.

SCHMALFELDT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS

All of Mr. Hoges request for the production of documents fall with in the

bounds of acceptable discovery under Rule 2-402. No request seeks any information

dated before 1 January, 2012. Here are Mr. Hoges requests and Schmalfelts

responses:

Request 1: All documents on which you relied or which you

identified in your Answers to Interrogatories.

Answer: None known to the Defendant.

2
Even if this were true, Schmalfeldt should have raised this sooner. Certainly, he

should have made this known during the 5 May hearing. However, given

Schmalfeldts demonstrated lack of credibility, he should be compelled to produce

these documents.

Request 2: All documents you intend to introduce as evidence in

this case.

Answer: None at present.

Even if this were true, Schmalfeldt should have raised this sooner. Certainly, he

should have made this known during the 5 May hearing. However, given

Schmalfeldts demonstrated lack of credibility, he should be compelled to produce

these documents.

Request 3: All documents containing any statements made to you

by anyone with personal knowledge of the facts at issue in this case
about any fact at issue in this case.

Answer: Defendant possesses no such documents.

Even if this were true, Schmalfeldt should have raised this sooner. Certainly, he

should have made this known during the 5 May hearing. However, given

Schmalfeldts demonstrated lack of credibility, he should be compelled to produce

these documents.

Request 4: All correspondence sent by you to Plaintiff William

Hoge, including letters, emails, text messages, tweets, blog
comments, and any other written or electronic communications.

Answer: If Defendant sent any such correspondence to the Plaintiff,

it is the Plaintiffs responsibility to maintain and produce such
documents as he is the person who received them. Defendant does

3
 not keep files of the correspondence he sends to anyone, let alone
Plaintiff. I cannot produce what I do not possess.

This answer is implausible at best. Schmalfeldt has been able to produce copies of

such correspondence as exhibits in lawsuits he has filed against Mr. Hoge. See, e.g.,

Exhibit D. If he can have documents available for use when he is a plaintiff, he

should be required to produce them in discovery as a defendant.

Request 5: All correspondence to or from any third party, sent or

received by you, and mentioning or relating to the August, 2014,
Settlement Agreement between you and Plaintiff William Hoge,
including letters, emails, text messages, tweets, and any other
written or electronic communications.

Answer: Defendant has no such correspondence.

Even if this were true, Schmalfeldt should have raised this sooner. Certainly, he

should have made this known during the 5 May hearing. However, given

Schmalfeldts demonstrated lack of credibility, he should be compelled to produce

these documents.

Request 6: All correspondence to or from any third party, sent or

received by you, and mentioning, discussing, or referring to the
March, 2015, peace order petition filed by Defendant Brett
Kimberlin against Plaintiff William Hoge, including letters, emails,
text messages, tweets, and any other written or electronic
communications.

Answer: As the peace order petition mentioned in Request #6 was

between Defendant Kimberlin and Plaintiff Hoge, it was none of
Defendant Schmalfeldts business. Unlike Plaintiff Hoge, this
defendant prefers to keep his nose out of other peoples legal affairs.
Defendant has no such correspondence.

4
This answer contradicts his statement under oath during the 5 May, 2017, hearing

that he discussed the March, 2015, peace order with Matt Osborne and Brett

Kimberlin. Schmalfeldt should be required to produce all such correspondence.

Request 7: All correspondence sent or received by you mentioning

or relating to Breitbart Unmasked, including letters, emails, text
messages, tweets, and any other written or electronic
communications.

Answer: Refused as any such correspondence, if it exists, would be

work product of a journalist and would violate the privacy of people
not involved in this case.

This refusal is specious. First, a journalist and the publication for which he works

may not hide behind journalist privilege to shield themselves from a defamation

lawsuit, and Mr. Hoges request is within the bounds set by Rule 2-402 and WBAL

v. State, 300 Md. 233 (1984). Second, if there were legitimate privacy concerns to be

addressed because of this request, Schmalfeldt could have moved for a protective

order during the nearly four months since these requests were served on him. He

should be required to produce these documents.

Request 8: All blog entries, including comments and podcasts, made

by you mentioning, discussing, or referring to Plaintiff William
Hoge, his wife, or his son posted to the following websites:
a. billschmalfeldt.net
b. brainslices.com
c. breitbartunmasked.com
d. cabinboycomedy.com
e. cabinboyradio.com
f. cheeseskreist.com
g. deepbrainradio.com
h. derangedcyberstalker.blogspot.com
i. deterioradio.com
j. dirtyschnitzel.com
k. endtimestribune.com

5
 l. fatmanpodcast.com
m. galleryofoddcasts.com
n. grouchcast.com
o. hogewash.net
p. howardcountyexaminer.com
q. i-got-yer-lawsuit-right-here.com
r. kingofthehonyocks.com
s. lakesideinquisitor.org
t. liberalgrouch.com
u. parkinsonspersecution.com
v. patriot-ombudsman.com
w. patriotombudsman.com
x. radio-drumpf.com
y. radiofreemaryland.blogspot.com
z. radiowiseguy.com
aa. schmalfeldt.org
ab. spreaker.com
ac. teamschmalfeldt.wordpress.com
ad. theelkridgeinciter.com
ae.. theliberalgrouch.com
af. theliberalgrouch.tumblr.com
ag. themerrywidower.com
ah. thepontificator.com
ai. thetruthtribune.com
aj. threepercenter.org
ak. thermonuclearlawfare.com
al. trailertrashtalk.com
am. welcometomyweltschmerz.blogspot.com
an. wms-db.com
ao. youngestoldman.com
ap. billmunko.com

Answer: Request objected to as overly broad. If one were to ask the

Plaintiff, his readers can provide him with practically any comment
on [sic] any tweet or any podcast as they claim to maintain detailed
files of every word they gather from Defendants Internet presence.
As Defendant prefers to keep his hard drive as clean as possible, he
does not maintain archives of documents such as these.

The request is not overly broad. It only seeks online posts related to Mr. Hoge. On

information and belief, Schmalfeldt has stated that he as backups of everything

6
that he has posted online. Even if his claim that he has everything backed up is

false, he has the ability to recover some of what he has posted about Mr. Hoge

online, and he should be required to produce it.

Request 9: All applications for registration of copyright filed by you

with the U. S. Copyright Office, including applications that were
withdrawn, whether or not registration was granted.

Answer: Request refused as irrelevant to the issues in this case.

This response is nonsensical. It seeks information directly related to paragraph 75

of the Complaint, and it is calculated to develop additional information admissible

as evidence at trial.

Request 10: A copy of the front and back of your current drivers
license.

Answer: Request refused as a violation of Defendants privacy and

given Defendant Schmalfeldts belief that Plaintiff would plaster
said copies all over the Internet.

Schmalfeldt had almost four months to seek a protective order. He did not. He

should produce all documents requested.

Request 11: All tweets sent by you and all direct messages sent or
received by you mentioning, discussing, or referring to Plaintiff
William Hoge, his wife, or his son posted to the following Twitter
accounts/handles:
a. @1934radio
b. @2014Radio
c. @AWalkerUnmasked
d. @BalmerLiberal
e. @bexmajella
f. @BillSchmalfeldt
g. @BlitzParkinsons
h. @BooksOBilly
i. @BrainSlices
j. @BreitbartsBane

7
k. @Breitbitnews
l. @cabinboybilly
m. @CabinBoyRadio
n. @cbparodyrecords
o. @ComedyVengeance
p. @DaLiberalGrouch
q. @DeadAndrew
r. @DeepBrainRadio
s. @DeepBrainTV
t. @deepstatenews
u. @DementiaHouse
v. @DerangedComic
w. @DespicableBill
x. @DystopianHijinx
y. @FightRightRadio
z. @Fite_Rite_Radio
aa. @FreestateLib
ab. @FTR_Radio
ac. @FTRRadioNews
ad. @FTRRNews
ae. @GhostRadioOnlin
af. @hamiltonpig
ag. @HamiltonPigg
ah. @Hogewatch
ai. @HogeWJJ
aj. @hoggyjr1
ak. @hoggysenior
al. @HowardCoLiberal
am. @icrapradio
an. @InjusticeBuster
ao. @johnnycapstone
ap. @justplainbill15
aq. @LesterKlemper
ar. @LiberalGrouch
as. @LiberalGrouchcast
at. @liberalgrouchcd
au. @LibGrouchcast
av. @libtardmedia
aw. @LobotomyRadio
ax. @lobotomysandwich
ay. @LordOfSatire
az. @markinmd2
ba. @MentalHealthRad

8
bb. @NatBloggersClub
bc. @newsroomdude
bd. @OldUncleBastard
be. @ParkinsonsHumor
bf. @Parkinsonsmedia
bg. @ParkinsonsRadio
bh. @ParkyBill
bi. @ParkyBillTweets
bj. @ParkyPundit
bk. @PatOmbudsman
bl. @PatriotOmbud
bm. @PDDisco
bn. @PoopFlakedBeard
bo. @Radio_Shiloh
bp. @Radio1944
bq. @RadioNixonUSA
br. @radioparkinsons
bs. @radioshiloh
bt. @RadioShilohNews
bu. @RadioWiseGuy
bv. @RadioWMS
bw. @RMNixonRadio
bx. @SlappyMcWingnut
by. @TeabagTribune
bz. @TeamSchmalfeldt
ca. @The_Book_Jerk
cb. @TheLiberalGrouch
cc. @TheLibrulGrouch
cd. @TidingsofDoom
ce @timeskipradio
cf. @VeryBadRadio
cg. @wallywalt
ch. @weltschmerz2015
ci. @WMSBroadcasting
cj. @wmsdb
ck. @WMSMusicRadio
cl. @WMSRadio1943
cm. @wmsradionetwork
cn. @worthingsuesblogger
co. @SchmalfeldtBill
cp. @TheFatmant_BTR
cq. @FatManPodcast
cr. @MackCanudo

9
 cs @Mr_Plaintiff
ct. @MunkoMentia
cu. @MunkoTales
cv. @MusicUnshackled
cw. @YouGetNoQuarter
cx. @NuclearLawfare
cy. @OnlineRadioSRN
cz. @EndTimesTribune
da. @waroftheweasels
db. @AudioOddities
dc. @BloodontheMike
dd. @FrendoDaPeeples
de. @Grouch365
df. @Grouchcast
dg. @Grouchcast365
dh. @GrouchOldLib
di. @TheHonyyockKing
dj. @hotcheeseshot
dk. @InTheseEndTimes
dl. @Leonidas_BU
dm. @LiberalGrouch16
dn. @ParkinsonPundit
do. @PurloinedParody
dp. @RadioDrumpf
dq. @SchmalfeldtRUs
dr. @TheMerryWidower
ds. @TheTruthTribune
dt. @The_Walking_Zed
du. @TheGrouchcast
dv. @TrailerTrashGuy
dw. @Weltschmerz1955
dx. @WMS_DB_Online

Answer: Refused as overly broad. When a Twitter account is

suspended or deleted, the Tweets are no longer available.
Defendant no longer has access to the vast majority of the
mentioned Twitter handles, and several of the handles mentioned
by Plaintiff were never operated by this Defendant.

The request is not overly broad. It only seeks tweets and direct messages (DMs)

relating to Mr. Hoge. On information and belief, Twitter keeps all tweet and DMs

10
sent through their system It is possible for an account holder to obtain a record of

his traffic, although a subpoena may be necessary in the case a suspended or

deleted account. Schmalfeldt has had nearly four months to respond to this

request, but he has simply failed to make any effort to find and produce the

documents sought.

SCHMALFELDT ONGOING FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY HAS

PREJUDICED MR. HOGES ABILITY TO CONDUCT HIS CASE AND SHOULD BE
SANCTIONED

Saying that Schmalfeldt has been uncooperative with discovery would be a

gross understatement. He has stonewalled at least part of every request sent to

him, causing Mr. Hoge to file motions to compel for two sets of interrogatories and

the requests for production of documents. Docket Items 101/0 and 116/0.

Schmalfeldts failure to obey the Courts order to answer an interrogatory (Docket

Item 108/0) caused Mr. Hoge to file a request for a show cause order, and

Schmalfeldts failure to respond in any way to Mr. Hoges second set of

interrogatories or to his request for production of documents caused Mr. Hoge to file

the second motion to compel. At the 5 May, 2017, hearing dealing with the second

motion to compel, the Court ordered Schmalfeldt to respond to Mr. Hoges request

for production of documents not later than 15 May. Docket Item 147/0.

Schmalfeldt has failed to properly respond and, as such, is in contempt.

However, Mr. Hoge moves that the Court impose sanctions on Schmalfeldt rather

than issuing yet another show cause order. Regardless of the remedy granted, there

will be a some delay in providing relief, and that delay will subject Mr. Hoge to

11
further prejudice against his ability to prepare his case for trial. Because the Court

can probably impose discovery sanctions more quickly than it can pass an order for

contempt, Mr. Hoge believes sanctions are the remedy less prejudicial to him.

Specifically, Mr. Hoge recommends the following sanctions:

a.) As to Requests 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11: Any document proffered by Mr.

Hoge that might have been produced by Schmalfeldt in response to any of these

requests shall be deemed authentic.

b.) As to Request 6: Because Schmalfeldt has made contradictory

statements concerning these communications relating to the 2015 peace order

petition, he shall not be permitted give testimony concerning matters related to

2015 peace order petition or Breitbart Unmaskeds reporting on it.

c.) As to all Requests: Because Schmalfeldt has not produced any

documents and has stated in his response to Request 2 that he does not presently

intend to introduce documents into evidence at trial, Schmalfeldt shall not be

permitted to introduce any documents as evidence at trial or as exhibits to any

further court papers.

d.) As to all Requests: Schmalfeldt shall diligently search for all responsive

documents, including taking all steps necessary to acquire backup copies from third

parties, and shall delivered all responsive documents to Mr. Hoge not later than

16June, 2017. He shall provide an individual explanation specifying the steps

taken to recover any missing document and the reason it cannot be produced.

12
 CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to sanction Defendant William

Schmalfeldt as recommended supra and to grant such other relief as the Court may

find just and proper.

Date: 16 May, 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 William Schmalfeldt. A letter was sent by email to him at 5:37 pm on 13 May,
2017. During the following email exchange, Schmalfeldt refused any cooperation.
My letter is attached as Exhibit B. The email exchange is attached as Exhibit C.

Date: 16 May, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

13
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 16th day of May, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 220 Whitty Drive, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina 29579

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

Breitbart Unmasked by First Class U. S. Mail c/o William Schmalfeldt, Editor,

220Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

Almighty Media by First Class U. S. Mail c/o Breitbart Unmasked, William

Schmalfeldt, Editor, 220Whitty Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29579

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: 16 May, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

14
 Exhibit A
Defendant Schmalfeldts Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of
Documents as served on Mr. Hoge by mail on 13 May, 2017.
 Exhibit B
Mr. Hoges Letter to Schmalfeldt sent via email on 13 May, 2017.
 Hogewash! is a trademark of W. J. J. Hoge

www.hogewash.com

Snail Mail to 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157

Email to himself@wjjhoge.com

(410) 596-2854

13 May, 2017

VIA EMAIL

William M. Schmalfeldt
220 Whitty Drive
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 59579

RE: Hoge v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Dear Mr. Schmalfeldt:

I have received your Response to my Request of Production of Documents. It

is unsatisfactory. I sent you these requests four months ago. You have had plenty
of time to object to them or to file for a protective order. You did neither. You could
have objected to any of them during the hearing on the 5th or sought a protective
order then. You didnt. You need to obey Judge Heckers order. You are running
out of time.

Your response to Request 6 appears to contradict your testimony that you

communicated with Matt Osborne and Brett Kimberlin concerning the 2015 peace
order. You must produce copies of any emails, DMs, tweets, or other
communications with those individuals that relate to the peace order.

Your response to Request 7 is insufficient. There is no privilege for a

journalists work product as far as the applicable law is concerned.

Your response to Request 8 is insufficient. Your statement about keeping a

clean hard drive contradicts your previous statements that you have everything you
ever posted online. Further, your recent ability to access a deleted Breitbart
Unmasked post about me shows that you can still access at least some archived
data. The request is not overly broad. It is limited in scope to your writings about
me since the beginning of 2012. You must provide what you have.

Your response to Request 9 is insufficient. The information requested bears

directly on Count XII. You must provide it.
 Schmalfeldt, 13 May, 2017 p. 2

Your response to Request 11 is insufficient. If you dont have backups, get

the information from Twitter. Twitter keeps everything (for their own protection)
and can access the information in deleted and suspended accounts. You may have
to use a subpoena to get the information. The Clerk should assist you in getting a
subpoena issued if you need one. You must provide this information.

Its time for your lame attempts at gaming the system to end. If, by close of
business on Monday, 15 April, you have not provided me with complete sets of
documents responsive to Requests 6, 7, 8, and 9 and with a schedule of how you
intend to provide the documents for Request 11, I will take further steps to force
your compliance with this discovery.

Very truly yours,

/s/ W. J. J. Hoge
 Exhibit C
Email exchange between Schmalfeldt and Mr. Hoge on 13 May, 2017. Email
timestamps are in UTC which +4 hour ahead of Eastern Time.
 Exhibit D
Schmalfeldt v. Hoge, et al., Case No. 13-C-15-102498, Complaint (Md.
Howard Co. Feb. 23, 2015), Ex. G showing Schmalfeldts use of retained (albeit
altered) as emails evidence against Mr. Hoge in this previous lawsuit.