William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND

v.

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT BRETT KIMBERLINS OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendant Brett
Kimberlins Opposition to the Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Item 102/1). In
reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
In Brett Kimberlins Opposition to Mr. Hoges Motion to Compel, Kimberlin
states that he did answer the Interrogatories. In fact, Mr. Hoge received an
unsatisfactory set of answers from Kimberlin the day after he filed his Motion to
Compel. See Docket Item 102/1, attachment. After Mr. Hoge sent a second letter to
Kimberlin seeking to resolve the issue, Kimberlin sent a second set of answers to
the Interrogatories. Exhibit A. Those answers were also inadequate and
incomplete. Kimberlin objected to several of the Interrogatories and failed to
answer them, but he has not filed for a protective order. Rule 2-432 states that
such failure may not be excused on the ground that discovery is objectionable
unless a protective order is obtained[.]

Further, Kimberlins objections are groundless. First, marital privilege is not

applicableunless, as a hypothetical example, Tetyana Kimberlin were to supervise
Brett Kimberlins legal work for Justice Through Music Project (Interrogatory 5).
Kimberlin does not lay out the facts necessary to support any claim of marital (or an
other) privilege. Second, the discovery is not for any improper purpose. As is shown
below, each interrogatory seeks information permissible under Rule 2-402. Third,
production of the information sought should be straightforward and should not be
burdensome, harassing, annoying, or oppressive, and all information sought is
relevant to the case. Fourth, none of the information sought is shielded by any
state or federal privacy law. Any information covered by a confidential settlement
agreement could be sealed pursuant to a protective order, but Kimberlin has not
sought such an order. Therefore, the Court should order Brett Kimberlin to
properly answer the following Interrogatories propounded to him on 17 October,
2016: 1, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13.
KIMBERLINS ANSWERS TO SEVERAL INTERROGATORIES ARE FACIALLY
INSUFFICIENT
As the Court can see from Exhibit A, several of the second set of answers he
served on Mr. Hoge are facially insufficient. Specifically, the answers to
Interrogatories 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 are lacking, and Kimberlin should be
compelled to provide proper answers.
Interrogatory 1 is one of the form interrogatories:
1. Identify each person, other than a person intended to be called
as an expert witness at trial, having discoverable information that
2

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.
Answer: Brett, Tetyana and Kelsie Kimberlin address below
Aaron Walker, 7537 Remington Road, Westminster, MD 20109 [sic]
William Hoge, duh [sic]
Bill Schmalfeldt, unknown in Wisconsin
Audrey Creighton, 15 W Montgomery Ave #202, Rockville, MD
20850
Michael Mason, Montgomery County Circuit Court
Kathy Knight, Montgomery County Circuit Court
They will all testify that William Hoge stalked, harassed and
engaged in a continuous course of insidious, perverted, and
depraved conduct towards the Kimberlins.
The interrogatory clearly states that the answer must contain the subject matter of
the information possessed by each person. While the answer gives a general area
that might be covered by defense testimony, it does not specify the particular
subject matter each witness might address, e.g., what specific set of facts Bill
Schmalfeldt or Michael Mason could address. Further, the instructions for the
Interrogatories clearly state that each person should be identified by that persons
full name, last known address, home and business telephone numbers, and present
occupation or business affiliation. None of that information has been provided for
anyone listed in the answer. In fact, Kimberlin failed to provide his own contact
information. As can be seen in Exhibit A, it is not shown below on either page of
his answers, not even in a signature block.

Interrogatory 5 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy

alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe and Acme defendants.
5. In your Complaint filed in Kimberlin v. McConnell, et al., Case
No. 16- CV-1211-GJH (D.Md. 2016) you stated that in conjunction
with your employment by Justice Through Music Project,
Plaintiffs work includes seeking redress in federal court for
violations of his civil and statutory rights. Id., 1. Identify any
instructions, directives, corporate minutes, or job descriptions from
your employer ordering or authorizing you to engage in such
activity as corporate business and the who, if anyone, provides
supervision of those activities.
Answer: Irrelevant.
None of the information sought is privileged. Thus, this interrogatory is
permissible under Rule 2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of [a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory 6 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy
alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe and Acme defendants.
6. Identify any instances in which corporate funds or other
resources belonging to Justice Through Music or Velvet
Revolution.US have been used to pay for expenses or to provide
other support related to any civil action (state or federal) or
criminal complaint (including, but not limited to, the Applications
for Statement of Charges at issue in this matter) filed by you
against Mr. Hoge, describing the amount paid or support provided
and which entity paid or provided it.

Answer: Irrelevant.1
None of the information sought is privileged. Thus, this interrogatory is
permissible under Rule 2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of [a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory 7 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy
alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe and Acme defendants.
7. Identify any instances in which you or any person acting on
your behalf filed any sort of criminal complaint or report
(including, but not limited to, an Application for Statement of
Charges or statement to a law enforcement agency) against Mr.
Hoge, describing the nature of any such complaint or report, when
it was made, to whom it was made, and any disposition of the
complaint or report.
Answer: Overbroad. Irrelevant. There are only two complaints
mention in the complaint.
None of the information sought is privileged. Thus, this interrogatory is
permissible under Rule 2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of [a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

As the Court can see from the answers attached to Docket Item 102/1, Kimberlins
original answer to Interrogatory 6 was None. However, after Mr. Hoge pointed
out that his answers were under penalty of perjury, Kimberlin changed his answer
to Irrelevant.
5

Interrogatory 8 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy

alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe defendants. It also seeks evidence related to Count III.
8. Identify any instance in which you or any person acting on your
behalf sent any email or other communication relating to or
mentioning Mr. Hoge to any office, employee, or contractor of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, describing the
contents of any such communication, when it was sent, to whom it
was sent, and the nature and date of any reply.
Answer: Irrelevant. No idea what the interrogatory is asking.
Kimberlins response is disingenuous. If he does not understand what is sought,
how can he know if the information is irrelevant? Either he or someone acting on
his behalf sent such emails or communications or they did not. None of the
information sought is privileged. Thus, this interrogatory is permissible under Rule
2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of
[a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory 9 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy
alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe defendants. It also seeks evidence related to Count III.
9. Identify any instance in which you or any person acting on your
behalf sent any email or other communication relating to or
mentioning Mr. Hoge to any member of the Carroll County
Forestry Board, the Maryland Forestry Board Foundation, or the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, describing the
contents of any such communication, when it was sent, to whom it
was sent, and the nature and date of any reply.

Answer: Irrelevant. No idea what the interrogatory is asking.

Kimberlins response is disingenuous. If he does not understand what is sought,
how can he know if the information is irrelevant? Either he or someone acting on
his behalf sent such emails or communications or they did not. None of the
information sought is privileged. Thus, this interrogatory is permissible under Rule
2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of
[a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory 10 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy
alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe and Acme defendants.
10. Identify any person other than yourself for whom you have
drafted a legal document (including, but not limited to, a court
paper or Application for Statement of Charges) from 1 January,
2012, to the present date, describing the topic and contents of each
document, when it was drafted, when it was filed, the court or
agency with which it was filed, and for whom it was drafted.
Answer: Irrelevant, confidential, and overbroad.
Because Brett Kimberlin is not licensed to practice law, none of the information
sought can be covered by attorney/client privilege. Thus, this interrogatory is
permissible under Rule 2-402 as either relating to the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of [a] discoverable matter or as being reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Interrogatory 13 seeks information related to evidence of the civil conspiracy

alleged in the Complaint and/or information as to the identity and location of the
John Doe and Acme defendants.
13. Identify who paid the fees for Tae Kim to defend you as a
respondent to a Peace Order in 2013.
Answer: Confidential. Irrelevant. Attorney Client Privilege.
Attorney/client privilege does not apply to the identity of the person(s) paying
someones legal bills.2 Thus, this interrogatory is permissible under Rule 2-402 as
either relating to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of [a]
discoverable matter or as being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
KIMBERLIN HAS NOT CITED ANY LAWFUL REASON WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE
COMPELLED TO ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES
Brett Kimberlin has not cited any facts or law that explain why he
should not be compelled to answer these Interrogatories. He should either do so or
invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Further, he should be
ordered to provide complete answers, including the full identity and contact and
affiliation information of all persons referred to in his answers.

While Mr. Kims actual billing records might be privileged as work product, Mr.
Hoge is not seeking them, and if that privilege existed, it would attach to Mr. Kim
but not to Kimberlin. See, e.g., 100 Harborview Drive v. Clark, 224 Md.App. 13, 119
A3d. 87, 94 (2015).
8

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to compel Defendant Brett Kimberlin
to properly answer Interrogatories 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 propounded to him on
17 October, 2016, and to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and
proper.
Date: 29 December, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

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

RULE 2-431 CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have made a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute
with Brett Kimberlin. Specifically, I sent him an additional letter attempting to
resolve the dispute; that letter was sent by email at 12:13 pm on 22 December,
2016. It was sent to both of the email addresses Kimberlin has recently used to
communicate with my counsel in other pending matters. Mr. Kimberlin responded
with the answers shown in Exhibit A.
Date: 29 December, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 29th day of December, 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: 29 December, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

10

Exhibit A