Klayman's request for more discovery

Read the filing for the details.
of 9
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
    1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 5:13-CV-00143-ACC-PRL LARRY KLAYMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY PAGES, et. al. Defendants. MOTION TO FILE REPLY AND REPLY CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND APPOINT A COMPUTER EXPERT AND MOTION TO SHORTEN RESPONSE TIME Plaintiff, Larry Klayman hereby moves for leave to file this reply as set forth below on the grounds that Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel  misstates facts and law with the effect of attempting to mislead this Court. Again, missing no opportunity to smear and defame Plaintiff, Defendants and their counsel mischaracterize the factual record and again maliciously impugn Plaintiff’s reputation. First, not citing actual findings of the Magistrate in Plaintiff’s custody case in Cleveland Ohio, which has given rise to on-going litigation against this Magistrate, who harbored an extra- judicial bias and prejudice against Plaintiff based in large part on his religious beliefs  –   indeed several mocking statements were contained in his recommended decision  –   Defendants instead dwell primarily on the false allegations of Klayman’s estranged ex-wife. These false allegations, made only after Plaintiff was forced to file for custody of his children, and conveniently years after the alleged fact, were soundly rejected and dismissed by the Cleveland Department of Children and Families, the Cleveland District Attorney and were totally put to rest by virtue of a  polygraph test which Plaintiff voluntarily took and handily passed. See Exhibits 1, 2, 3. To the Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 99 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 2547    2 contrary, Plaintiff’s ex -wife refused to take a polygraph after she conjured up the false allegations which she then fed to the family’s longstanding pediatrician, the likes of which regrettably are used frequently by sleazy divorce lawyers in custody cases. Indeed, even the magistrate never found that Plaintiff had sexually abused his children, since there was no evidence on the record to do so. He stated “ [h]is conduct may not have been sexual in the sense that he intended to or did derive any sexual pleasure from it or that he intended his children would.”  Instead, he found only that Plaintiff had act ed in an “inappropriate manner”,  a finding that was also wholly false. But Defendants make no mention of these undisputed facts because their continued aim is to totally destroy Plaintiff and prejudice this Court, as he is the lawyer or perceived counsel for  persons which they loathe; Bradlee Dean and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, as plead in the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is also a friend and conservative colleague of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who Defendants hate based on her alleged views on homosexuality and gay marriage. A book written by Defendant Avidor, but not produced in discovery despite a request to do so, smears not just Bachmann but also Plaintiff who he ties to Congresswoman Bachmann as a close friend , underscoring Defendants’ malice.  As for The Florida Bar, Plaintiff agreed to a reprimand only to get the matter behind him, as he was going through a very difficult period financially and personally with the false allegations about his children. Indeed, the Consent Judgment shows that Plaintiff was not  found to have acted dishonestly, only that he could not pay the agreed settlement amount timely due to his financial distress. The Consent Judgment contains a recitation of mitigating circumstances: 9.32(a) (absence of prior disciplinary record)  –   Respondent has been continuously a member of The Florida Bar in good standing for nearly thirty-five (35) years. Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 99 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2548    3 9.32(c)(personal or emotional problems)  –   Respondent maintains that since the time the Mediation Agreement was entered into he has sustained significant financial distress, which prevented him from making timely payments to Humm and from providing timely responses to The Florida Bar. Respondent further maintains that he agreed to submit Humm’s claim to mediation and agreed to the terms of the Mediation Agreement simply to save valuable time and resources for all concerned. Respondent had agreed to represent Humm in a criminal  proceeding, but she subsequently decided to retain new counsel when the case was transferred from Miami to Orlando federal court. Respondent maintains that Humm was never entitled to any refund and further asserts that Humm’s subsequent counsel admitted as much in an e-mail he sent to Respondent, where he stated, “[i]t is unlikely that (you) would want to refund a cent so please provide me with an explanation so that I may pass it along to Ms. Humm.” Respondent also maintains that Humm had similarly asked her prior counsel for a refund and even requested that Respondent sue him, which Respondent refused to do. Respondent thus claims a pattern in Humm’s behavior toward counsel.  Nevertheless, in an effort to promptly resolve the claim and to save valuable time and resources, Respondent ultimately agreed to the terms of the Mediation Agreement, as the mediator had urged. With respect to his failure to provide timely responses to The Bar, Respondent submits that he did not timely receive correspondence from The Bar, as his address had changed and he inadvertently did not immediately change the address with The Florida Bar. As a result, Respondent claims he did not timely receive notice that the Grievance Committee had made a probable cause finding or that a formal complaint had been filed in this matter, and consequently, that he did not have a timely opportunity to argue against the probable cause finding or to resolve this matter prior to a formal complaint being filed. Respondent acknowledges that he should have provided his new address to The Bar, but inadvertently forgot to do so in time for the referenced correspondence to arrive timely. 9.32(g) (character or reputation)  –   Respondent has been a respected member of The Bar for nearly thirty-five (35) years. 9.32(i) (remorse)  –   Respondent is remorseful for his delay in satisfying the terms of the Mediation Agreement which ultimately led to the filing of a formal complaint in this matter. Moreover, Respondent has now fully satisfied his outstanding obligation to Humm and made such payment without conditioning it on any consent judgment. As set forth in Exhibit 4, Plaintiff has continuously been a member in good standing of The Florida Bar for thirty-seven (37) years. And, he has had a distinguished career of legal and  political activism, running for the U.S. Senate in this state in 2004. Exhibit 5 is a recent Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 99 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID 2549    4 Washington Post Magazine cover story about him, an eight (8) page expose and pictorial which hardly depicts someone who, as Defendants would like to portray, is “ libel proof  ” in their equally vile motion for summary judgment, filed just two days ago. See also Exhibit 6, the front and  back of Plaintiff’s book with similarly positive remarks on Plaintiff’s reputation. Thus, not only do the Defendants misstate facts to again smear Plaintiff, these false “ facts ”  are irr  elevant to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and only intended to prejudice the court against Plaintiff. The smear job by Defendants and their pliant counsel rises to such a level, given its blatant misstatement of facts, to amount to multiple violations of the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility, and not just the laws of defamation. See Rules 4-4.1(a) 4-4.4, 4-4.8(c) and 4-4.8(d).  Notwithstanding the factual misstatements, the thrust of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is that Defendants must produce documents that are not just relevant, but which may lead to relevant evidence. This is “Evidence 101” for any law student. Indeed, the scope of discovery is  broad and it is not for Defendants and their counsel to make evidentiary rulings on what would ultimately be admissible at trial. Thus, their disingenuous argument that documents which show actual malice must make specific reference to the three defamatory articles at issue is absurd. As  just one example, suppose an unproduced document makes reference to or characterizes Plaintiff as a criminal, but does not make reference to the defamatory statements that Klayman criminally sexually abused his children and took, that is stole, money from a client without doing any work. That the document does not make these specific references to the defamatory articles and statements 1  at issue does not mean that the document referring to Plaintiff as a criminal  –   which 1  For examples of some of the alleged defamatory statements plead , “Turns out, gays aren’t the only ones capable of disturbing, criminal sexual behavior  –   apparently even conservative straight guys tight with Bradlee Dean can turn out to be total creeps”  and “Klayman’s been in trouble Case 5:13-cv-00143-ACC-PRL Document 99 Filed 10/22/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID 2550


Jul 23, 2017

Assignment Ethics

Jul 23, 2017
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks