Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRETT KIMBERLIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appellant,
v.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, et al.,
Appellees.

Appeal No. 16-1500

OPPOSITION OF APPELLEES, STRATIO INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
AND GREG HOGLUND, TO APPELLANTS MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
Appellees, Stratio Information Technology, LLC (Stratio), ManTech
International Corporation (ManTech), and Greg Hoglund (Hoglund) (together,
the Stratio Defendants), by and through undersigned counsel, oppose the Motion
to Show Cause (Motion) filed by Appellant, Brett Kimberlin (Kimberlin), and
in support thereof state as follows:
1.

Kimberlins Motion raises non-meritorious legal arguments that should

have been, but were not, included in his principal Informal Brief. Rather than raise
the District Courts alleged failure to lift a protective order in another case and
construe 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) part 1 as five (5) separate and distinct causes of action,
as arguments in his opening Informal Brief, Kimberlin only belatedly argues them
in his Informal Reply Brief and his Motion seeking sanctions against Appellees.

Appeal: 16-1500

2.

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

In responding to Kimberlins hurled charges that Appellees counsel

sought to mislead the Court, the Stratio Defendants incorporate by reference the
arguments set forth in the Opposition of Hunton & Williams, LLP, John Woods,
Richard Wyatt, and Robert Quackenboss (H&W Appellees) to Kimberlins
Motion to Show Cause.
3.

Kimberlin was given leave to amend his Complaint and did not do so.

That is true. Kimberlins own motion for leave to file an amended complaint makes
clear that the Frey case documents were not the only basis on which he sought to
amend. Kimberlin also stated that:
One of the original defendants in this case has reached an agreement
with Plaintiff to provide a complete mea culpa that will be included in
the amended complaint. This information will provide much greater
specificity to the RICO claim.
ECF No. 108 at 2. This proffered amendment has nothing to do with the Frey
documents, yet Kimberlin did not amend his complaint asserting these new facts that
he claimed to possess and that he told the Court would provide much greater
specificity to the RICO claim. Such a choice was completely of his own volition,
not because of any ruling by the District Court.
4.

Kimberlin also claims that Appellees should have disclosed that 42

U.S.C. 1985(2) part 1 is in fact five (5) independent clauses constituting five (5)
independent causes of action. Kimberlin cites no case law in either his Motion, his
Informal Brief, or his Informal Reply Brief in support of this theory. Moreover, this
2

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

splintering of Section 1985(2) into 5 clauses was never argued before the trial court
or in his Informal Brief.
5.

Nonetheless, Kimberlin charges that Appellees, in an egregious effort

to mislead and confuse the Court, argued to this Court and cited the second clause
when they know that Appellant has not ever alleged violation of that clause.
Motion, at 3-4. Specifically, Kimberlin says that he did not allege the second
clause, which prohibits someone from deterring another from actually testifying.
Id., at 3.
6.

Yet, Kimberlin alleged that very thing several times in his Complaint.

ECF No. 1 at 61 (Defendants . . . conspired to use the tactics set forth above to deter
Plaintiff . . . from testifying to any matter pending in a federal court, freely, fully,
and truthfully);1 62 (Defendants conspired to use illegal means to deter and
intimidate Plaintiff from testifying about these matters and to undermine his
credibility so he would not be called to testify.).
7.

As the H&W Appellees point out, even if the Court indulged

Kimberlins novel attempt to slice 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) part 1 into five (5) clauses,
Kimberlin would still have failed to state a claim because he was not deterred from
attending the Blankenship proceeding (which by his own admission he actually

The language of the second clause that Kimberlin says he did not allege tracks this
language almost exactly, in that one cannot deter another from testifying to any
matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully. 1985(2).
3
1

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

attended) and was not retaliated against on account of his testimony (which occurred
after the filing of the Complaint). Also, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which contains the
remedy for all of Section 1985s subsections, expressly requires an injury that
Kimberlin affirmatively admitted did not occur.
8.

Kimberlins Motion casts aspersions that are wholly lacking in merit,

raises flawed arguments as to the substance of his meritless appeal, and presents no
ground for the Court to order any Appellee to show cause about anything. Mr.
Kimberlin apparently views litigation as a great game and this Court as a playground
where he can hurl whatever baseless allegations tickle his fancy. The Motion should
be denied.
PALEY, ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN,
ROSENBERG, EIG & COOPER, CHTD.
By: /s___________________________
Patricia M. Weaver, Esquire
Telephone: (301) 951-9360
tweaver@paleyrothman.com
By: /s___________________________
Glenn M. Cooper, Esquire
Telephone: (301) 951-9322
gcooper@paleyrothman.com
By: /s___________________________
D. Jack Blum, Esquire
Telephone: (301) 968-3415
jblum@paleyrothman.com
4800 Hampden Lane, 7th Floor
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Attorneys for Appellees Stratio Information
4

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

Technology, LLC, ManTech International

Corporation, and Greg Hoglund

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 53

Filed: 07/15/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

RULE 32(A) CERTIFICATION

This Opposition complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 792 words.
This Opposition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
Opposition has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word 2013 in 14 pt. Times New Roman font.
/s___________________________
Patricia M. Weaver
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a copy of the foregoing Opposition of
Appellees, Stratio Information Technology, LLC, Mantech International
Corporation, and Greg Hoglund, to Appellants Motion to Show Cause to be served
on all counsel of record via filing the same through the electronic case filing system.
A copy of the foregoing was also mailed via first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the
following unrepresented parties:
Brett Kimberlin
8100 Beech Tree Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
Appellant, pro se
William Hoge
20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
Appellee, pro se
/s___________________________
Patricia M. Weaver