William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT

BRETT KIMBERLIN
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves the Court to sanction
Defendant Brett Kimberlin pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-432 and 2-433 for failure
to serve answers to discovery interrogatories. In support of his motion Mr. Hoge
states as follows:
DEFENDANT BRETT KIMBERLIN HAS FAILED TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES WITH
NO PROTECTIVE ORDER SOUGHT, LET ALONE IN PLACE
On 17 October, 2016, Mr. Hoge propounded a series of interrogatories to
Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin his filed a Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket Item 84/0)
asking the Court for a further stay in discovery beyond that previously ordered by
the Court. See Docket Item 77/0. In that Motion to Stay Discovery, the Kimberlins
announced: Defendants will not be complying with any discovery directed toward
them at this time. Docket Item 84/0, 7.
The Defendants state that discovery should be stayed pending their motion
for summary judgment. Mr. Hoge disagrees and has filed an Opposition to their
Motion to Stay. Meanwhile, the Court has not stayed discovery, and the Kimberlins

have not sought a protective order. Therefore, Brett Kimberlin has no excuse for his
failure to serve any response to the Interrogatories propounded to him on 17
October, 2016.
The first three interrogatories propounded to Brett Kimberlin were as
follows:
1. Identify each person, other than a person intended to be
called as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information
that tends to support a position that you have taken or intend to
take in this action, including any claim for damages, and state the
subject matter of the information possessed by that person.
2. Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert
witness at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is
expected to testify, state the substance of the findings and opinions
to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the
grounds for each opinion, and, with respect to an expert whose
findings and opinions were acquired in anticipation of litigation or
for trial, summarize the qualifications of the expert, state the terms
of the expert's compensation, and attach to your answers any
available list of publications written by the expert and any written
report made by the expert concerning the expert's findings and
opinions.
3. If you intend to rely upon any documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things to support a position that you
have taken or intend to take in the action, including any claim for
damages, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all
such documents, electronically stored information, and tangible
things, and identify all persons having possession, custody, or
control of them.

These same interrogatories were propounded to both Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana
Kimberlin during discovery in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit1 which the
Kimberlin Defendants cite in their Motion to Stay Discovery (Docket Item 84/0). In
their Motion to Stay Discovery the Kimberlins assert that the Walker lawsuit is a
related case based on essentially the same facts as the instant lawsuit.
If that be true, then the answers the Kimberlins provided to the identical
interrogatories in the Walker lawsuit should be taken as correct in this case as well.
The Affidavit of Aaron J. Walker, Esq., attached to Mr. Hoges Opposition to the
Kimberlins Motion to Stay Discovery shows that the Kimberlins answers to the
three same interrogatories in the Walker suit were None, None, and None,
respectively. See Docket Item 84/1, Exhibit A.
Therefore, the Court should sanction Brett Kimberlin for his failure to
answer Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3. Further, the Court should find that the
following are established as facts: 1) that Brett Kimberlin has no expert witnesses
to support his defense or any position he takes in the instant lawsuit, 2) that Brett
Kimberlin has no non-expert witnesses to support his defense or any position he
takes in the instant lawsuit, and 3) that Brett Kimberlin has no documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things to support his defense or any
position he takes in the instant lawsuit.

Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016).
3

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to sanction Defendant Brett Kimberlin
for his failure to answer the Interrogatories propounded to him on 17 October, 2016,
and to find the following facts to be established for this case:
i.) that Brett Kimberlin has no expert witnesses to support his defense
or any position he takes in the instant lawsuit,
ii.) that Brett Kimberlin has no non-expert witnesses to support his
defense or any position he takes in the instant lawsuit, and
iii.) that Brett Kimberlin has no documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things to support his defense or any position he
takes in the instant lawsuit.
Mr. Hoge also asks the Court to grant such other relief as it may find just and
proper.
Date: 22 November, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 22nd day of November, 2016, I served copies of the
foregoing on the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT
I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury
that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.
Date: 22 November, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge