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 REPLY TO THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM TETYANA KIMBERLIN

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendants Response

to Plaintiffs Third Motion to Compel Discovery, This Time, Interrogatories from

Tetyana Kimberlin (Defendants Opposition). In reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Nothing in the Kimberlins1 Opposition to Mr. Hoges Motion to Compel

directed at Mrs. Kimberlin explains how her answers to the interrogatories are

responsive or complete. Nor does the Defendants Opposition offer any lawful

reason why she should be excused from answering.

INTERROGATORIES 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 9 HAVE STILL NOT BEEN PROPERLY

ADDRESSED BY TETYANA KIMBERLIN

Even if the answer given by Mrs. Kimberlin to Interrogatory 3 is taken as a

partial answer to Interrogatory 1, that answer is still incomplete. She still has not

provided information concerning the subject matter of each potential witness

testimony, and she has not provided contact information for her potential witnesses.

1Although he lacks standing to oppose a motion to compel directed at another

defendant, Brett Kimberlin has filed the Opposition jointly with Tetyana Kimberlin.
Tetyana Kimberlin should be compelled to fully answer Interrogatory 1.

Mrs. Kimberlins answer to Interrogatory 3 remains woefully incomplete.

The interrogatory asks for a brief description, by category and location, of all such

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that she intends

to use as evidence for her defense. Simply saying that she will pull things out of an

unorganized stack of papers provided by her husband is not a reasonable answer.

The Kimberlins misrepresent what information has been provided to Mr.

Hoge in the past. They state that he knows exactly what the evidence is that will

be used to show that he is a sick sexual predator of the Defendants minor

daughter. Defendants Opposition, 1. Mr. Hoge has been through two peace

order hearings based on a petition from Brett Kimberlin, and he has not yet seen a

shred of evidence from the Kimberlins supporting their conclusory allegations of

harassment.

Furthermore, the Kimberlins misrepresent the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.2

trial, Mr. Hoges involvement in it, and what evidence he may have gathered as a

result of that trial. They state that

Plaintiff testified at that trial and was cross-examined with

documents that showed that he is a serial harasser and cyber
stalker.

Id. In fact, Mr. Hoge was never cross examined on anything related to harassment

or cyber stalking. However, during direct examination by Brett Kimberlin,

Mr.Hoge was shown documents that did not come into evidence. For example:

2 Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016).

2
 Q [Kimberlin] Im going to show you Exhibit 31.

A [Hoge] Oh, yeah, these are the forged comments that you
tried to introduce in the peace order hearing back in March of 2015.

Q Do you recognize that one?

A I

THE COURT: He just said that theyre forged, so he cant

authenticate them.

Walker v. Kimberlin, Trial Transcript, Oct. 12, 2016, at 193. See Exhibit A. Mr.

Hoge has no knowledge of what Brett Kimberlin intended to prove with such

inadmissible documents.3 Mrs. Kimberlin never examined Mr. Hoge during the

Walker v. Kimberlin trial.

Finally with respect to Interrogatory 3, whether or not Mr. Hoge has copies of

any documents or other evidence is not material to whether or not Mrs. Kimberlin

intends to use something as a part of her defense. The purpose of the interrogatory

is to identify all such things for Mr. Hoge so that he is not blindsided at trial. You

already have what I might use, is not a proper answer. A properly cataloged,

detailed inventory is. She should be compelled to fully answer Interrogatory 3.

Interrogatories 5 and 6 seek the identification of specific instances when Mr.

Hoge allegedly engaged in the harassment of Mrs. Kimberlins daughter or of which

specific writing or statements he made that resulted in her alleged harassment.

Mrs. Kimberlin has still not pointed to a specific incident or writing or statement.

3The Kimberlins also continue to misrepresent the findings of the jury in the
Walker v. Kimberlin case. That jury made no findings of facts concerning Mr. Hoge.

3
She should either do so or admit that she has no such evidence. Tetyana Kimberlin

should be compelled to fully answer Interrogatories 5 and 6.

Mrs. Kimberlins answer to Interrogatory 8 inartfully attempts to sidestep

the question presented, stating:

If Plaintiff wants to unseal case records referred to in Interrogatory

8, he can file a motion with the Montgomery County District Court
and make his case for relevancy.

Defendants Opposition, 4. The District Court in Montgomery County has already

granted Mr. Hoges motion to unseal Case No. 3D00333028, the case underlying

Count XI of the Complaint. That court did so last year. Mr. Hoge filed his motion

to unseal after a Motion to Seal or Otherwise Limit Inspection of a Case Record was

filed in Mrs. Kimberlins name.4 On information and belief, Mrs. Kimberlin did not

file that motion, and the identity of the person who drafted and filed the motion

bears on the truthfulness of statements made under oath by Brett and Tetyana

Kimberlin. That information could reasonably be expected to lead to evidence

admissible at trial. Rule 2-432(b)(2) states that an evasive or incomplete answer is

treated as a failure to answer. Thus, Mrs. Kimberlin should be compelled to fully

answer Interrogatory 8.

Similarly, Mrs. Kimberlin attempts to dodge Interrogatory 9 by pointing out

that the dates of the travel in question are well before the time frame of the acts at

issue in this lawsuit. However, the actual dates of that travel go to the truthfulness

4Mr. Hoge learned of the Motion to Seal when the Clerk of the District Court sent
him a copy of the order denying it. Mr. Hoge was never served with the motion
when it was filed.

4
of statements she made to Mr. Hoge during the summer of 2013, and Mr. Hoge

relied to those statements by Mrs. Kimberlin while taking steps to help her in 2013.

Thus, the information sought is related to Count I of the Complaint. Mrs.

Kimberlins whereabouts during the time period in question also bear on the

truthfulness of statements made under oath by both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin.

The information sought through the interrogatory could reasonably be expected to

lead to evidence admissible at trial. Thus, Mrs. Kimberlin should be compelled to

fully answer Interrogatory 9.

TETYANA KIMBERLIN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO EVADE DISCOVERY

The Kimberlins seem to believe that they should be allowed to pick which of

the Maryland Rules they will obey and which they will ignore. They have explicitly

stated that they do not intend to be bound by Rule 2-422(d) which requires that

they produce documents or information organized and labeled to correspond to the

categories of Mr. Hoges request.

Defendants are not going to go to any additional lengths to satisfy

Plaintiff [sic] perverse obsession to harass them by having them
waste hours labeling and identifying documents he already knows
everything about. Defendants will not enable or participate in
Plaintiffs charade just because he has found some rule that he can
ram down the throats of Defendants as if they are a million dollar
law firm that has to dot every i and cross every t.

Defendants Opposition, 2. They have also refused to provide discovery that is

clearly allowed under Rule 2-402(a) which disallows objections based the belief that

the inquiring party may already have information or be able to otherwise obtain

information.

5
 Many of those documents were used at the two prior peace order
hearing and at the civil trial. In addition, Plaintiff has copies of the
transcripts of that trial[.]

Id., 1.

As this Court told the Kimberlins during the 27September, 2016, motions

hearing, there is not one set of rules for lawyers and another for pro se litigants.

Mr. Hoge appreciates the Courts patience in dealing with a lawsuit among a group

of pro se litigants, but he believes that all parties, including Tetyana Kimberlin,

should be held to the Maryland Rules She should not be allowed to flout them.

Rather, she should be compelled to properly answer the interrogatories propounded

to her by Mr. Hoge.

As the Kimberlins have noted in the Defendants Opposition, discovery is

scheduled to close in this lawsuit in less than two weeks. According to the Courts

Scheduling Order, dispositive motions are due two later on 28 April, 2017. Tetyana

Kimberlins continued defiance of the Maryland Rules by failing to provide proper

answers to Mr. Hoges interrogatories is prejudicing his ability to meet the Courts

deadline for filing dispositive motions.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to compel Defendant Tetyana

Kimberlin to fully answer Interrogatories 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 propounded to her on

13 February, 2017, and to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and

proper.

6
Date: 3 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732

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

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: 3 April, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge

7
Exhibit A
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

JURY TRIAL

Rockville, Maryland October 12, 2016

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874
(301) 881-3344
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

------------------------------X
:
AARON WALKER, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 398855
:
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
------------------------------X

Rockville, Maryland

October 12, 2016

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

matter commenced

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. MASON, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

AARON WALKER, Pro Se

7587 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

BRETT KIMBERLIN, Pro Se

TETYANA KIMBERLIN, Pro Se
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
 I N D E X

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Plaintiff:

Aaron Walker -- 24,135 159 161

William John Joseph
Hoge 167 172,175 -- --

For the Defendant:

William John Joseph

Hoge 187 221 -- --
Brett Kimberlin 228 -- -- --

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Plaintiff:

Exhibit No. 1 -- 13
Exhibit No. 2 -- 13
Exhibit No. 3 -- 17
Exhibit No. 4 21 21
Exhibit No. 5 -- 22
Exhibit No. 6 -- 24

For the Defendant:

Exhibit No. 1 -- 37
Exhibit No. 2 -- 41
Exhibit No. 10 -- 79
Exhibit No. 11 -- 83
Exhibit No. 17 -- 106
Exhibit No. 18 -- 105
Exhibit No. 19 -- 107
Exhibit No. 26 -- 114
Exhibit No. 30 -- 164
Exhibit No. 41 -- 246
Exhibit No. 42 -- 250
 193

1 THE COURT: Stop.

2 THE COURT: That's not a question.

3 You'll ignore the comment, ladies and gentlemen.

4 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:

5 Q Did you ever read an article about my daughter in the

6 Bethesda Gazette?

7 A No. I, I've read several comments about it. I was

8 aware of it. I did click on it, and look at it to see that it

9 existed, but I didn't bother to read it.

10 Q I'm going to show you Exhibit 31.

11 A Oh, yeah, these are the forged comments that you

12 tried to introduce in the peace order hearing back in March of

13 2015.

14 Q Do you recognize that one?

15 A I --

16 THE COURT: He just said that they're forged, so he

17 can't authenticate them.

18 THE WITNESS: I cannot authenticate it; they're

19 forged.

20 THE COURT: Give them to the clerk, please, they've

21 been marked.

22 BY MR. KIMBERLIN:

23 Q I'm going to show you Exhibit 32. Do you recognize

24 that Tweet?

25 A Yes.
 279
Digitally signed by Pat Ives

DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the

attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the

electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the Circuit

Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:

Civil No. 398855

AARON WALKER

v.

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.

By:

_________________________
PAT IVES
Transcriber