IN THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

GEORGIA DEZSO BENEDEK, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL F. ADAMS, and THE BOARD OF REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13EV016714D

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS RESPOPNSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comes now Plaintiff Dezso Benedek, in response to Defendant

Michael Adams Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for

Testimony and the Production of Documents, and shows the Court as

follows:

Plaintiff filed the Notice of Deposition for Michael Adams on proper

authority, and properly subpoenaed him to produce any documents in his

possession before he changes jobs and leaves the state of Georgia for

alternate employment in California. OCGA 9-11-30(b)(2). Adams is already

a party to this action, and not affected by any question of additional parties

before the Court on remand. However, his deposition will have a bearing on

other claims and parties to be added in connection with the alleged evidence-

2

tampering scheme. His deposition is also pertinent to issues related to his

pending motion to dismiss. Adams deposition will have a bearing on the

very issues of sovereign immunity on which Defendants motion to dismiss

was based, for which the Attorney General has repeatedly demanded proof.

Plaintiff intends to provide extensive evidence illustrating the difference

between the Attorney Generals hypothetical breach of a private tort duty

governed by the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA) and the criminal RICO

predicate acts governed by the Georgia RICO Act that are actually alleged in

this case. OCGA 16-14-1 et seq. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if not allowed to

examine this witness, without further unnecessary delay, and prior to his

departure from the University of Georgia (UGA).

Therefore, the Court should deny Defendant Attorney Generals

motion to quash--which only compounds the prejudice Plaintiff has already

suffered from endless and unjustified delays in discovery. These delays

have been occasioned by the Attorney Generals prior baseless defenses and

this Courts dismissal order that evaded the governing procedural law.

Benedek v. Adams, __ Ga. App. ___ (A15A0088 6/24/15).

PREJUDICE FROM DELAY

3

Contrary to the Attorney Generals protests, there is no oppression of

Michael Adams involved in requiring him to produce any UGA documents

in his possessionthat are more likely to be beyond his access or control

after he leaves UGA for his new position at Pepperdine on August 1. As a

practical matter, now is the time to procure those documents, if ever.

The Attorney General has actually raised this issue concerning

documents in Defendants possession by repeatedly claiming that Plaintiff

has no evidence to support the allegations of criminal RICO predicate acts.

Defendants Supplemental Motion filed January 6, 2014, p. 12 (Plaintiff

has failed to present any evidence that Defendants engaged in any criminal

violations other than his own self-serving, conclusory allegations.) Georgia

Attorney General Sam Olens has opposed independent investigation of the

allegationsthat concern wrongdoing in the very Office by publicly

claiming there is no credible evidence to support the frivolous and

nonsensical allegations. In fact, extensive evidence documenting the

allegations has already been identified and authenticated, and placed in the

public record in the tenure revocation proceeding and the Fulton uperior

Court action, Benedek v. Olens. Thus there is nothing oppressive about

requiring Adams to produce these and any other relevant documents in his

possession.

4

Plaintiff is also entitled to pursue the knowingly false claims already

made by the Attorney General in this action in view of amendment for

additional RICO predicate acts. Plaintiff will be prejudiced in this regard if

not allowed to examine this witness on a timely basis.

Courts commonly recognize such delay as cause of prejudice against a

party seeking discovery. Singleton v. State, 732 SE2d 312, 318 (Ga. App.

2012) (prejudice from delay in discovery includes dimming memories and

loss of evidence).

In this case, we also face the concrete problem of loss of documents

which is already specifically an issue in this case. The Jilin Memo, which

contradicted the tenure revocation charge brought against Professor

Benedek, was concealed by Defendants.

In response to lawful Open Records requests, Defendants falsely

denied the existence of correspondence illegally sent out by Adams

administration officials in the name of UGA studentsstudents who had no

idea their identities had been misappropriated in order to create a false paper

trail to use against Professor Benedek. Once again, that illegally

manufactured false paper trail contradicted probative documents Defendants

attempted to conceal.

5

The UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement also contradicted the tenure

revocation charge brought against Professor Benedek. Defendants denied the

existence of that document under oathuntil it was recovered by Benedeks

counsel, bearing the signature of Michael Adams.

Given this proven track record of obfuscation and deceit, Plaintiffs

trepidation about allowing the deponent to clean out his old desk and move

to a new position across the country is entirely justified.

Delay compounds prior court errors

Prior errors and delayssuch as that occasioned by the courts May 2

dismissal order that was reversed by the Court of Appeals--have already

resulted in concrete prejudice to Plaintiff. The courts prior erroneous order

already resulted in evasion of service by Jane Gatewood, a proposed

Defendant who is a principal witness to the very scheme of evidence

tampering, influencing witnesses, and perjury for which Attorney General

claims sovereign immunity on behalf of himself and co-Defendants.

The deposition notice and subpoena were served on proper lawful

basis under OCGA 9-11-30(b)(2) and 9-11-45, which the Court should not

disturb. The delay in deposing the named individual defendant would

prejudice Plaintiff even more than the procedural irregularities that allowed

Gatewoods escape from Georgia.

6

This prejudice is compounded by the courts erroneous order failing to

properly address amendment as of right and motion to add parties. While the

court never decided the issue under the proper statute, as found by the Court

of Appeals, there are no meaningful grounds for denying addition of parties

in a case in which discovery has never commenced. OCGA 9-11-21 (parties

maybe added at any stage on such terms that are just). Due in large part to

this courts actions, this case has not progressed past square one over tow-

and-a-half years after it was filed.

Sovereign immunity does not extend to Malibu

Contrary to the Attorney Generals claims, there is no sovereign

immunity grounds to oppose the deposition of Michael Adams itselfwhich

in no way interferes with Adams work for state of Georgia. Sovereign

immunity in Georgia does not protect employees of Pepperdine University

in Malibu, California.

Discovery related to question of dismissal for sovereign immunity

Moreover, Plaintiffs seek discovery for the purpose of penetrating the

sovereign immunity shield the Attorney General seeks to throw up. The

Attorney General has argued previously that Plaintiff has no evidence to

support his contentions. Attorney General Sam Olens has publicly opposed

independent investigation claiming no credible evidence.

7

Plaintiff is entitled to respond to these claims, to have the named

individual defendant review the voluminous documentation that does exist in

order to refute the Attorney Generals spurious defenses.

No pending motion to dismiss according to Court of Appeals

Last but not least, there is no extant motion to dismiss pending that

bars Plaintiffs discovery. As the Court of Appeals reversal and remand

order makes clear, there is no motion by Defendants that was filed after

March 24, 2014, and therefore no motion pending that addresses Plaintiffs

operative complaint. Benedek, Ga. App. At p.6 (remanded to consider

whether the claims asserted against the original defendants in the March 24,

2014 Second Amended Complaint are subject to dismissal on the merits).

Conclusion

There is nothing unreasonable or oppressive about requiring a party to bring

to a deposition any documents related to allegations in the complaint

which was filed well over a year ago. The Attorney General as much as

admits that by going back and forth between arguing that Adams is not

likely to have any responsive documents to claiming that the documents

could constitute a vast treasure trove. Again, many of the documents

implicating Defendant Adams in a criminal evidence tampering scheme have

8

already been identified, authenticated, and produced in the course of these

proceedings. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to any records and recollections of

the deponent before the deponent leaves his current position at UGA and

before another two-and-a-half years of stonewalling elapses.

As the deposition is noticed for July 23, and Plaintiff received this

objection on July 21, Plaintiff requests the Court to hold a hearing to decide

this matter on July 22, 2015, and to DENY Defendants Motion.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.

/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys ___________________________

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS Georgia Bar No. 378099 P.O. Box 192 Athens, GA 30603 1671 Meriweather Drive Bogart, GA 30622 (706) 543-7777 p (706) 543-1844 f (706) 207-6982 m

9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE XXX(NOT FILED OR SERVED)XXX (Exhibit only)

Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that all Defendants in this action have

been served this Response via electronic mail and US mail, this 21st day of

July, 2015, as follows:

Samuel S. Olens Dennis R. Dunn Kathleen M. Pacious Annette M. Cowart Loretta L. Pinkston Christopher A. McGraw C. McLaurin Sitton Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.

/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys ___________________________

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS Georgia Bar No. 378099 P.O. Box 192 Athens, GA 30603 1671 Meriweather Drive Bogart, GA 30622 (706) 543-7777 p (706) 543-1844 f (706) 207-6982 m