176656887 monique rathbun v scientology scientology s motion in limine and protective order

7/27/2019 176656887 Monique Rathbun v Scientology Scientology s Motion in Limine and Protective Order

1/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:55PM No . 1358 P. 5/34

NO. C2013-1082BMONIQUE RATHBUN IN THE DISTRICT COURTv. 20'111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND MONTY DRAKE COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL'SMOTIONS IN LIMINE AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:Defendant Church of Scientology International files this its Motions in Limine and

for Protective Order as provided by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6(b) and shows asfollows:

1. In its Order on Church of Scientology Intemational's Motion to Disqualifysigned on September 30, 2013, this Court recommended the use of "lesser measures'\short of disqualification, to "limit and/or prevent any further disclosure of the allegedconfidential information". Order at p. 8.

2. Consistent with that recommendation, this Defendant moves for the entry ofan order requiring Plaintiff and her counsel:

1) Not to seek to obtain "confidential information" (as de.fined in TexasDisciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct l.05(a)) regarding theDefendants from Mark Rathbun in any communications, eitherdirectly or indirectly. This prohibition is specifically directed toMark Rathbun's oversight and direction of the Defendants' legalaffairs as described in his affidavit of September 4, 2013);2) Not to attempt to elicit "confidential information" regarding theDefendants from Mark Rathbun while he is testifying;


2/7

Oct.14. 2013 4:55PM No. 1358 P. 6/34

3) That Plaintiffs counsel instruct Mark Rathbun as to the scope of"confidential information" and instruct him not to volunteer''confidential information" regarding the Defendants either whiletestifying or in o u t ~ o f - c o u r t communications;

4) Forbid Plaintiffs counsel from using Mark Rathbun as an expert,consultant, or adviser on this case;5) Not to use any "confidential information'' already obtained from

Mark Rathbun; and6) Not to further disseminate the September 4, 2013 affidavit of MarkRathbun.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Church of ScientologyInternational prays for the relief described above, together with such other and furtherrelief as is just or appropriate in the circumstances.

210380/0002137-24575

Respectfully submitted,RICARDO G. CEDILLO,State Bar No. 04043600LES J. STRIEBER, IIIState Bar No. 19398000DA VIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INC.McCombs Plaza, Suite 500755 E. Mulberry Ave.San Antonio, Texas 78212(210) 822-6666 - Telephone(210) [email protected]@Jawdcrn.com

and

2


3/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM

CLE:tvmNS & SPENCER112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1300

No . 1358 P. 7/34

San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531(210) 227-7121 -Telephone(210) [email protected]

By: ls/George H. Spencer, Jr.GEORGE H. SPENCER, JR.State Bar No. 18921001

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCEPrior to filing this motion I attempted to resolve these matters with Plaintiffscounsel, but, as shown by the attached letter ofOctober 7, 2013 from Ray Jeffrey, ExhibitA, was unsuccessful. As a consequence, it is necessary to present these matters to theCourt for resolution.

/s/Georrie H. Spencer, Jr.George H. Spencer, Jr.

210380/0002137-24575 3


4/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM No. 1358 P. 8/34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document

was served in the manner indicated below on this 14th day ofOctober, 2013, to:Mr. Ray JeffreyMs. A. Dannette MitchellJeffrey & Mitchell, P.C.2631 Bulverde Rd., Suite 105Bulverde, TX 78163via Facsimile No. (830) 438-4958Mr. Marc F. WiegandThe Wiegand Law Finn, P.C.434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 220 ISan Antonio, TX 78232via Facsimile No. (210) 998-3179Mr. Elliott S. CappuccioPulman Cappuccio Pullen &

Benson, LLP2161 N.W. Military Hwy., #400San Antonio, TX 78213via Facsimile No. (210) 892-1610Mr. Lamont A. JeffersonHaynes & B o o n e ~ LLP112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1200San Antonio, TX 78205-1540via Facsimile No. (210) 554-0413

210380/0002137-24575

Ms. J. Iris GibsonHaynes & Boone, LLP600 Congress Ave., Suite 1300Austin, TX 78701via Facsimile No. (512) 867-8650Mr. Jonathan H. HullReagan Bunus401 Main Plaza, Sui te 200New Braunfels, TX 78130via Facsimz1e No. (830) 625-4433Mr. 0. Paul DunaganSarles & Ouimet370 Founder Square900 Jackson St.Dallas, TX 75202via Facsimile No. (214) 573-6306Mr. Bert H. DeixlerKendall Brill & Leger LLP10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles, CA 90067via Facsimile No. (310) 556-2705

ls/George H. Spencer, Jr.George H. S p e n c e r ~ Jr.

4


5/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:56PM No. 1358 P. 9/34

EXHIBIT A


6/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:57PMOct. 7. 2013 2:33PM

Jlrl'JrRJ:Y S. M I T C H ~ P,C,

George H. Spencer, Jr.CLEMENS &SPENCER 112 E. Pecan, Suite 1300San Antonio, Texas 78205-1531

Qctober 7, 2013

No. 1358 P. 10/342.'-r51s-No . 0163 P. 2/3

'RAYS. J'!IPJll'Jlte'YEIOARC CERTIFIED ~'T'EXAS BOARD OrWi:GAt. SP'iiC:IAWZA1iON: C:lVJL 'TRIAi. LAw ?l!:RSONALINJURVT!l.IALLAW

0::631 6Vl.Ve:ROtRC,, sum: 10 !S1.11.VSRcS.TliltAS 7 e 1 e ~630.43!!1.e93!!

~ 0 . 4 J e . ; e ~ e ,,Alll

Re; Cause No. C - 2 0 1 3 ~ 1 0 8 2 B ; Monique Rathbun v. David Mtscavige, et al, in the2071h Judicial District Coui-t, Comal County, Texas Dear Mr. Spencer,

We received your letter ofOctober 3, 2013. Judge Waldrip did not ''endorse1' anything. Hesimply pointed out that, under Texas law, the defendants have not, but may, request judicialmeasures to protect certain information.At thls point, we must conclude that you are intentionally misusing the concept of"confidential infomiation" to obstruct the plaintiff's preparation of her case. In substance, you aresaying that all information possessed by Mr. Rathbun about his 30 years in Scientology is

"coIJfidential" and must not be used in court by the plaintiiii who happens to be his wife. You can'tbe serious - is the quality of he food mhe defendantsi mess hall ~ c o n f i d e n t i a l " ? 'What about Mr.Miscavige's temper tantrums that end with him beating, kicking, and choking o ~ w o r k e r s - is that"confidential''? This iswhy, in this and every other Scientology case, the defendants cannot bringthemselves to specify what they claim to 'f?e "confidential". Last week, a federal judge in Floridarefused rhe Scientology defendants' motion to disqualify plamtiffs' counsel, largely because thedefendants could not identify any allegedly o n f i ~ e n t i a l infonnation.

Your letter concems Mark Rathbun, a non.lawyeri who ended his relationship with thedefendants in 2004. The plaintiff's cause of action arises frorn events occuning more than fiveyea.ts after Mark Rathbun's escape from captivity in Mr. Miscavige's private prison. JudgeWaldrip's Order identified the legal significance of Mr. Rathbun,s lack of insider status with thedefendants since 2004. Accordingly, the question raised by your letter is as follows: What legallyprotecta.ble infonnation of the .defendants is possessed by Mark Rathbun? As usual, thedefendants refuse t.o be specific.We categorically reject your use of TDRPC l.05(a) in this situation. This rule addressesinformation to be protected by a lawyer about his client. The defendants have never beenrepresented by my co-counsel Of me. Mark Ra.th.bun has never been a lawyer, and he is not subjectto Rule l.OS(a). Therefore, Rule l.OS(a) does not apply. 'In Texas, there are two kinds of information about which the defendants may argue theneed for protection. First, the defendants may seek to protc:ct their attorney-client privilegedinformation. Without admitting that Mt. Rathbun is inpossession ofany attomey-cliet1t privileged


7/7

Oct. 14. 2013 4:57PMOct. 7. 2013 2:33PM

George H. Spencer, Jr,October 7, 2013Page2

No. 1358 P. 11134No. 0183 P. 3/3

information, we have nonetheless instructed Mr. Rathbun not to disclose to us any attorney-clientprivileged information.S e c o n ~ Texas recognizes a protectable interest in trade secret information. I f thedefendants have any trade secret information that they believe is possessed by Mr. Rathbun and forwhich they believe they are entitled to judicial protection, please specify the specific type ofinformation. We are 11Ilawa.re of any information held by Mr. Rathbun that would qualify as tradesecret.s of the defendants. We bave no obligation to guess about this. If you claim there areprotect.able trade secrets you need to be more specific and identify precise categories and types ofinformation.You want us to agree.to a protective order without identifying any categories or kinds of

information _that you claim to be protectable. The Scientology defendanT.s are serial abusers of thecourt system. We refuse to agree to hand them a mechanism to designate every document,videotape, deposition, etc. as "confidential'', thereby requiring a neverending series of courthearings for rulings on these claims of confidentiality.

RBJ/catcc: Elliott S. CappuccioMarc F. WiegandLamont A. Jeffei:sonRichard Cedillo

176656887 monique rathbun v scientology scientology s motion in limine and protective order

Documents