Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 378 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 2

I ..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

No.

,. I
'o,:!.,7fi.iili:5

1" i ."..

GIH 13 3059

- .. --<:J:I:"'
-,.
~.

PARTICK FREY,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO HIS MOTION TO COMPEL

Now comes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin and replies to the responses

by third parties

Hunton & Williams, Berko, Palantir and the Chamber opposing Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel and moving to quash the subponenas.
1. First, Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams, has been dismissed by this Court so the
subpoenas

issued to the Defendants must be treated the same as any other third

party subpoena.
2. Plaintiff has stated that he needs the requested

discovery for the instant case,

and therefore, the third parties, who are not prosecuting

the instant case, cannot

choose what discovery Plaintiff needs. As this Court knows, discovery could address
an issue directly or lead to other discoverable
there were direct and indirect communications

information.

Plaintiff is aware that

between the Frey and some of the

third parties in this case as early as October 2010. Those communications

continued

into 2012. For example, on October 18, 2010, a reporter

for Fox News,

acting on behalf of the Chamber, contacted Defendant Frey to request all

information

he possessed

on Plaintiff. The following day, that reporter

wrote a

smear piece about Plaintiff that resulted in threats of harm and death against
Plaintiff.

...

~:~,Tf'.:~;~

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 378 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2

3. Plaintiff has indicated to the third parties that he would narrow the scope of
the subpoenas

if requested.

None of the third parties took him up on that offer,

instead telling this Court that the subpoenas

are overboard.

4. The third parties make the specious claim that Plaintiff did not obtain
authorization

from this Court before issuing the subpoenas.

As this Court well

knows, Plaintiff did seek and obtain such authorization.

5. Third party Hunton & Williams stated that it would accept the subpoena
email and therefore

by

it has waived the issue of service.

In conclusion, Plaintiff properly served the third parties with the Court issued
subpoenas,

and the third parties have failed to demonstrate

any valid basis for

quashing the subpoenas.

ret
imberlin
8100 Beech Tree Rd
Bethesda, MD 20817
j us tice j tm R@j;Qmcast.ne!
(301) 320 5921
Certificate of Service
I certify that I emailed a copy of this motion to the third party attorneys
day of May, 2016
Brett

this 17th