1 KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP FILED Bert H. Deixler (70614) Superior Court of California 2 [Nicholas F. Daum (236155) ‘County of Los Angeles 10100 Santa Monica Bivd,, Suite 1725 3||Los Angeles, California 96067 16 Telephone: 310.556.2700 Hat 1620 4|| Facsimile: 310.556.2705 Sherri R. ecutive Officer/Clerk .Depety 5|] Attomeys for Defendant Church of Scientology Intemational aRaittcnars 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 8 LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO, Case No. BC411018 9 Plaintiff Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. John P. 10 Doyle, Dept. 58 v. u VERIFIED STATEMENT OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANT CHURCH OF 12] INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity, SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S 13] previously sued herein as Doe No. 1, a DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; California Corporation, and DOES 2-20, REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION 14 Defendants Judge: Hon. John P. Doyle Dept: 58 Action Filed: April 2, 2009 Trial Date: None set 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 2 2 = 6 nm 27 Eeaiy ae |] 2701 joueseewevate ||“ VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE. hoe ast08 TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 nN 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ao 2 =~ Som S28 Seay ce STATEMENT RE: COURT’S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016 In response to the Court’s disclosure of May 10, 2016, Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) provides the following verified written statement: 1. CSTintends to call as a witness at trial in the action one individual, Andrea Smith, with a direct family connection to Greg Smith, the first cousin of Judge Doyle. 2. Andrea Smith is the wife of Hans Smith, the son of Greg Smith. Andrea Smith was a friend of, and co-worker with, the Plaintiff, Laura DeCrescenzo, when they were both members of the Sea Org, the Scientology religious order. Andrea Smith would be one of a number of defense witnesses who would testify to the normal, apparently happy and religiously-committed daily life of Plaintiff in the Sea Org. 3. Plaintiff and Andrea Smith worked together in the “Commodore’s Messenger Organization” unit of CSI, and were close in the year 1997 (the year following Plaintiff's abortion). During this period they were both colleagues and friends, and sat next to one another at work, 4, Andrea Smith would testify that Plaintiff appeared to enjoy what she did as a member of a religious order, that Plaintiff was outwardly proud of the work she was doing for the Sea Org, that Plaintiff had a genuine religious commitment to the organization, and that Plaintiff did not have had any apparent desire to leave the Sea Org. More specifically, Andrea Smith would describe events such as the sharing of family photos and discussion of their respective families and home lives. Andrea Smith would testify to Plaintiff's apparent pride in her daily work for the Sea Org and Plaintiff's work, which included consulting with other Sea Org members who were experiencing difficulties in their positions. Andrea Smith would testify to her own shock and surprise that Plaintiff had “routed out” of the Sea Org, given Plaintiff's apparent commitment to, and success in, her position, 5. Based on CSI’s current understanding of how Plaintiff intends to present her case, Andrea Smith's testimony would be introduced at both (a) the bench trial on the issue of whether the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” bars Defendants’ assertion of the statute of limitations, and (b) ee VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE, ‘TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION.Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP a 10 MW 12 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 at the jury trial on the merits of the action. As to the issue of equitable estoppel, Plaintiff currently contends that her time in the Sea Org left her so “threatened” or “brainwashed” that she was unable to bring a lawsuit within the statutory period. To disprove Plaintiff's theory, CSI intends to present a number of witnesses, including Andrea Smith, who would testify to Plaintiff's apparently normal and religiously-committed behavior while in the Sea Org, and the lack of “threats” and “brainwashing,” If the case proceeds to trial on the merits, Andrea Smith would also be one of a number of witnesses who would testify that Plaintiff's behavior while in the Sea Org belies her claim that she was kept in the Sea Org (or even “forced” to obtain an abortion) against her will. 6 CSI may (but is not currently planning to) call two other individuals with direct family connections to Greg Smith. CSI does not currently plan to call these witnesses, but depending on pre-trial and/or trial developments and CSI’s developing understanding of Plaintiff's theory of the case, it may decide to do so. First, CSI may call Hans Smith, the son of Greg Smith, Hans Smith is also a Sea Org member and was a colleague of Plaintiff in 1996 (the year that Plaintiff obtained her abortion). It does not currently appear that Hans Smith’s testimony would be necessary (particularly given that Andrea Smith, the wife of Hans Smith, knew the Plaintiff better), but that determination may change. Second, CSI may call Audra Smith, the wife of Eric ‘Smith, another son of Greg Smith. Audra Smith did not know Plaintiff. However, she was a Sea Org member who successfully “routed out” of the organization after becoming pregnant and deciding not to obtain an abortion, and her testimony might be helpful to the trier of fact on that issue. 7. Inthe Court's May 10, 2016 disclosure, the Court noted that “If... one of these family members might turn up as a witness in this case, that of course would present an untenable situation.” The Court further noted that an “anticipated or potential family member witness” would disable the Court going forward with the matter. 8 Accordingly, based on the Court’s disclosure, it appears that the Court would agree that disqualification of Judge Doyle is appropriate in this instance, perhaps under Code of Ci 2 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE, ‘TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION.ew anne en 10 N 12 13 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 2 me 28 Kendaff’Brill & Kelly LLP ‘nga cas Procedure Section 170.1(6)(A)(i) (disqualification appropriate when it would “further the interests, of justice”) or Section 170.1(6)(A)(ii) (disqualification appropriate when “A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”). 9. Tobe absolutely clear, CSI does not believe, and does not contend, that Judge Doyle has acted, or would act, in anything other than a fair and impartial manner in presiding over this action. Nonetheless, given the family connection between Judge Doyle and planned and potential CSI witnesses, it does appear that disqualification is appropriate, and that the Court agrees. 10, Ifthe Court does conclude that disqualification of Judge Doyle is appropriate, there remains a question of what to do about the only substantive ruling made by Judge Doyle in the matter, the Court's April 27, 2016 order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and adjudication. 11, Based on CSI’s review of the governing law, it appears that if Judge Doyle is disqualified, the April 27, 2016 order is void. This is because the facts underlying the disqualification existed before April 27, 2016, and the degree of relationship between Judge Doyle and members of the Sea Organization was known to Judge Doyle prior to the date of that order. See Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Bank of Am., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1353, 1362-63 (2007) (holding that an order issued by a Superior Court judge prior to disqualification was void, even though that judge ‘was not aware at the time the judge issued the order that the already-existing facts required disqualification). In Rossco, the Court of Appeal explained that “Orders made by a disqualified judge are void” and went on to explain that “[D]isqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not when the disqualification is established.” and that “it is the fact of disqualification that controls, not subsequent judicial action on that disqualification.” 1d. This precedent would appear to establish that the April 27, 2016 order will be voided if the Court determines that Judge Doyle is disqualified. 12. Asall parties to this action have already engaged in lengthy briefing of the summary judgment motion determined by Judge Doyle on April 27, 2016, CSI suggests that the 3 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE ‘TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION.Xeni seciie we ea ane on 10 rst 12 3 4 1s 16 7 18, 19 20 2 22 23 25 26 27 28 proper procedure would be to void the April 27, 2016 order and allow the subsequent judicial officer assigned to the action to determine the merits of the issues addressed in the April 27, 2016 order based on the already-existing briefing. 13, CSI does not provide this statement lightly, out of any disrespect for Judge Doyle, or out of any belief that Judge Doyle is unable or unwilling to fairly preside over the action. Until Judge Doyle’s May 10, 2016 disclosure (which CSI received for the first time on May 12, 2016), neither counsel for CST nor CSI's staff directly involved in the defense of the matter were aware of the family relationship between Judge Doyle, Greg Smith, and Andrea Smith. Had CSI leamed of the relationship earlier, it would have brought this issue to Judge Doyle's and Plaintiff's attention, and it would have done so well in advance of the April 27, 2016 hearing. 14, CSTs statement of intention with regards to all of these witnesses is based on its understanding of Plaintiff's theory of the case and the way Plaintiff will present its case at trial. Additional discovery or developments in the case may alter or affect CSTs decisions about appropriate trial witnesses. CSI is not aware of any discovery or other obligation which would require it to disclose to Plaintiff at this date its use of trial witnesses, including these witnesses. 15. CSThopes that this issue can be promptly and efficiently resolved and that the parties can proceed to an appropriate resolution of their dispute. VERIFICATION 16. 1, Allan Cartwright, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this statement, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to those facts under ath. I am the Assistant Secretary of Church of Scientology International and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the facts set forth in this statement are true and correct, and that this document was executed on May 16, 2016, [Cota Allan Cartwright Submitted by: 4 VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE ‘TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION+i958 at = 28 Kendall Brill, Ekelly LP ‘cravat C9087 DATED: May 16, 2016 KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP By: Nicholas F. Daum Attomeys for Defendant Church of Scientology International VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE ‘TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATIONwe wn wwe ua 10 u 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 2B 24 @ 2% = 6 > 27 am 28 Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Tam employed ir Ye County of Los Angeles, State of California, My business address is 10100 Santa Monica Blt Suite 1725, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On May 16, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION on the interested parties in this action as follows: Raphael Metzger, Esq. Robert E. Mangels, Esq, Kathryn Saldana, Esq. ‘Matthew Hinks, Esq. METZGER LAW GROUP JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & 401 E. Ocean Bivd., Ste, 800 MITCHELL LLP Long Beach, California 90802 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor metzger@toxictorts.com Los Angeles, California 90067 re ksaldana@toxictorts.com ibm.com mh2@jmbm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Laura Ann DeCresenzo Attorneys for defendant Religious Technology Center, Inc. John P. Blumberg, Esq. BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION 444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1500 Long Beach, California 90802 Klasorsa@blumberglaw.com Attorneys for plaintiff Laura Ann DeCrescenzo BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: | enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or package addressed to each interested party at the address listed above or on the attached service list. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly Utilized drop box of the overnight service carrier or delivered such envelope or package to a carrier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 16, 2016, at Los Angeles, California Shifley Shamda|& 2 es 28 Kendall Bil feeeraetes iertages A087 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ‘At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 1 am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725, Los Angeles, CA 90067. On May 16, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as VERIFIED STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S DISCLOSURE OF MAY 10, 2016; REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION on the interested parties in this action as follows: Hon. John P. Doyle Department 58 Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, California 90012 BY MESSENGER SERVICE: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope and caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the interested party at the address indicated above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 16, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. ans Shirley Shamdas DECLARATION OF MESSENGER personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in the service list. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package, which was clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not less than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. I served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date):May 16, 2016 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)