Garcia: Plaintiff's Objection to Culkin Deposition Terms

7/28/2019 Garcia: Plaintiff's Objection to Culkin Deposition Terms

1/6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMP A DIVISION

LUIS GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA DELROCIO GARCIA,Plaintiffs,

vs.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUSTRUST; U.S. lAS MEMBERS TRUST;CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICEORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICEORGANIZATION, INC. d/b/a Majestic CruiseLines; and DAVID MISCA VIGE,

Defendants.

Case No. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

_____________________________________ /PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO THE "UNOPPOSED" VERIFIED

MOTION OF THE SCIENTOLOGY DEFENDANTS FOR LEAVE TOTAKE THE DEPOSITION OF NON-PARTY BRIAN CULKIN

Plaintiffs, Luis A. Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia, hereby respond andmove to strike the Unopposed Verified Motion of the Church of Scientology Defendants forleave to depose non-party witness Brian Culkin (the "Verified Motion") [D.E. 53].

The Verified Motion erroneously represents an agreement of the parties on the purposeand scope of the deposition of a non-party witness and improperly presents alleged facts that arefalse and wholly unrelated to the agreed-upon deposition. Defendants' counsel contactedPlaintiffs' counsel for the sole purpose of determining whether Plaintiffs objected to a depositionof Brian Culkin, a non-party witness whose affidavit is attached in support of Defendants'Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from this case. Plaintiffs confirmed they have noobjection to Mr. Culkin's deposition, as previously represented to this Court. (See Joint Motion

1


2/6

for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Counsel, 4 [D.E.51].)

Despite that limited agreement, the Scientology Defendants filed the Verified Motionstating that Mr. Culkin's deposition (i) must take place in Boston, (ii) under the supervision of aSpecial Magistrate, and (iii) be limited to the Scientology Defendants' scope of questioning.Plaintiffs never agreed to these conditions for the deposition and believe them to be unnecessary.

Even more compelling, however, are the alleged grounds for these conditions. In yetanother state of baseless over-reaching, the Scientology Defendants brazenly misrepresent thatMr. Culkin, his family and his business have become the subject of "a substantial campaign ofintimidation and harassment." (See Verified Motion at pp. 3-6). The Church of ScientologyDefendants further claim that Mr. Culkin "is unwilling to appear voluntarily at the evidentiaryhearing" as a result of"withering threats, intimidation and condemnation." (!d. at p. 6.)

Nothing could be further from the truth.On July 12, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel received a letter from counsel for Mr. Culkin, Ray

B. Jeffrey, which demonstrates the falsehoods contained in the Verified Motion and clarifies therecord on Mr. Culkin's willingness to submit to courtroom and/or deposition testimony. (A trueand correct copy of Mr. Jeffrey's July 12 , 2013 Letter is attached as Exhibit "A.") Significantly,Mr. Culkin's lawyer makes clear the following:

"The Scientology defendants have dragged him against his will into theabove-referenced litigation." (Ex. A at p. 1.) . "They have misused a declaration he signed as part of a confidential exitinterview," being assured prior to signing same that it was "for the Church's'internal use only' ." (!d.)

2


3/6

. "If he had been informed that his declaration might be used againstplaintiffs in this case, or in some other adversarial way, he would have refused tosign it." (Id.). "The Scientology defendants violated his rights of confidentiality by filingthis declaration in this suit without his informed consent. As the Scientologydefendants know all too well, Mr. Culkin wants no part in controversies, disputes,or proceedings with the Church." (!d. at pp. 1 - 2.) "They have publicly given the appearance that Mr. Culkin supports themin their attack on plaintiffs' legal team in this case. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Mr. Culkin respects those individuals and is unaware of anywrongdoing on their part." (!d. at p. 2, emphasis added.) "By their deceptive actions in connection with this suit, the Scientologydefendants have caused Mr. Culkin considerable mental anguish. He feelsbetrayed by their public violation of trust and by their use of factual distortions intheir pleadings." (!d.) "The Scientology defendants' motion to take Mr. Culkin's deposition isdesigned to give the impression that he is unwilling to testify because ofintimidation by plaintiffs, their legal team, and their sympathizers. This is false. "(!d., emphasis added) "As the Scientology defendants know, Mr. Culkin's distress and angerwas with the Scientology defendants. He complained to them in the strongestpossible terms about their outrageous, inexcusable behavior. The public outcry

3


4/6

against Mr. Culkin was a direct result of the Scientology defendants ' publicmisuse of confidential information." (/d. , emphasis added) "Instead of making an apology, they have continued to publicly misstateand mischaracterize his position." (/d.)

Contrary to Defendants' assertions, Mr. Culkin has volunteered to testify in court or atdeposition on his involvement in this case. (See Ex. A. , at p. 2.) He is also willing to travel toFlorida, reasonable expenses paid. (/d.) Defendants' request for the deposition of Mr. Culkin tobe restricted to one that is "de bene esse," is simply unwarranted.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court permit Mr. Culkin 'sdeposition to be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at such time andlocation as mutually agreed with Mr. Culkin' s counsel. In light of the misrepresentations to thisCourt, the Scientology Defendants should be sanctioned and compelled to award the costsassociated with the preparation and filing of this response.

Dated: July 15 , 2013Respectfully submitted,s/ Theodore BabbittTheodore Babbitt, Esq.Florida Bar No: 091146Babbitt Johnson Osborne & LeClainche, P.A.1641 Worthington Road, Suite 100West Palm Beach, FL 33409T: 561.684.2500F: [email protected]

-and-

4


5/6

Ronald P. Weil, Esq.Florida Bar No: 169966Amanda M. McGovernFlorida Bar No: 964263Weil Quaranta McGovern, P.A.Southeast Financial Center, Suite 900200 South Biscayne Blvd.Miami, FL 33131T: 305.372.5352F: [email protected]@weillaw.netCounselfor Plaintiffs Luis A. Garcia Saz andMaria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia

5


6/6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEWe hereby certify that, on July 15, 2013, we electronically filed the foregoing documentwith the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that the foregoing document is beingserved this day on all counsel or pro se parties identified below in the manner specified, either

via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some otherauthorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronicallyNotices ofElectronic Filings.

F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Esq.FBN 124449Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel& Burns, LLPP. o. Box 1368Clearwater, FL 33757Phone: (727) 461-1818Fax: (727) 462-0365E-mail: [email protected] for Defendants

Marie Tomassi, Esq.FBN 772062Trenam Kember Scharf Barkin FryeO'Neill & Mullis, P.A.Bank ofAmerica Building200 Central A venue, Suite 1600St. Petersburg, FL 33701Phone: (727) 820-3952Fax: (727) 820-3972E-mail: [email protected] for lAS Administrations, Inc.And U.S. lAS Members Trust

6

Nathan M. Berman, Esq.FBN 329230E-mail: [email protected] Fugate, Esq.FBN 170928E-mail: [email protected] E. Fernandez, Esq.FBN 843751E-mail: [email protected] V. Wise, Esq.FBN 65570E-mail: [email protected] Spaeder, LLP101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1200Tampa, FL 33602Phone: (813) 221-1010Fax: (813) 223-7961Counsel for Church of ScientologyReligious Trust

Garcia: Plaintiff's Objection to Culkin Deposition Terms

Documents

Transcript of Garcia: Plaintiff's Objection to Culkin Deposition Terms