Upload
anonlover
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 1/28
r'"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28endal l Bril l
Klieger LLP0100 Santa Mon ica Blvd.uite 1725
os Angeles. CA 90067
KENDALL BRILL & KL IEGER LLP
Bert H . Deixler (70614)bdeixler@kbktrm . com
Nicholas F. Daum (236155)ndaum@kbkfirm . com
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles , California 90067Telephone : 310.556.2700Facsim ile : 310.556 .2705
RABINOWITZ , BOUDIN , STANDARD ,
KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN , LLP
Eric M . Lieberman (pro hac vice)45 Broadway, Suite 1700New York, NY 10006
Telephone : 212.254.1111Facsim ile : 212.674 .4614
Attorneys for Church of Scientology International
FILEDSuperior Court of Californ ia
County of Los Angeles
FEB 21 2013John A . C |aAe, Executive Oicer/C lerk
Bv PernioMOSES J™ "
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAL IFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES , CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity,REL IGIOU S TECHNOLOGY CENTER ,
previously sued herein as Doe No. 1, aCalifornia Corporation, and DOES 2-20 ,
Defendants.
Case No . BC411018
Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. RonaldSohigian, Dept . 41
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS F .
DAUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR
FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS
Judge : Hon. Ronald SohigianDate : M arch 6
, 2013
Time : 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: 41
Filed concurrently with Opposition to
P laintiff 's Motion to Compel; Declaration ofA llan Cartwright; Declaration of Warren
McShane; Evidentiary Objections
127522. 1
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS F. DAUM IN OPP OSITION TO PLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FORTERM INAT ING SANCT IONS
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 2/28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d .
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS F . DAUM
I, Nicholas F. Daum, declare as follows :
1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Kendall Bril l & Klieger LLP , counsel of record
for Defendant Church of Scientology Internation al ("CSI") in the above-caption ed action. I am a
member in good standing of the State Bar of California and am admitted to practice before this
Court . Except where otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
Declaration and , if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under
oath .
2. On January 7 , 2013 , the Court granted plaintiffs motion to compel production of
documents in this matter, and issued an order that, in summary, required CSI to either (a) produce
documents responsive to certain discovery requests (by January 25, 2013) or (b) if withholding
documents on the basis of privilege, to provide, by January 18 , 2013 , a privilege log that identified
each document withheld , and that, for each document, included information as to dates, time,
place, preparation , to whom the communication went, and a clear statement of the basis for an
assertion of privilege . A true and correct copy of the notice of the Court's order is attached hereto
as Exh ib it A .
3.
On January 18, 2013 , after an extensive review of the plaintiffs auditing files, CSI
produced to the plaintiff a supplemental privilege log ("
Log") covering documents CSI intends to
withhold from production, specifically identifying each such document and the basis upon which
privilege is claimed . For each such document, the relevant privilege is the California C lergy-
Penitent Privilege and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The log identifies,
for each document, (a) the specific privilege claimed, (b) the date and place of preparation , (c) the
specific clergymen , identified by name, to whom the communication was made or who made the
communication, and (d) a brief description of the document (without revealing the content of the
protected communication) .
4. Because the Log runs to hundreds of pages, and has already been included in the
plaintiffs moving papers, to avoid burdening the Court's files I have attached hereto a true and
correct copy of representative excerpts from the Log , together with the transm ittal letter and proof
127522.1 ]
DECLA RATION OF NICHOLAS F . DAU M IN OPPOSITION TO PLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FORTERM INAT ING SANCT IONS
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 3/28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d .
of service enclosing the Log , as Exhibit B . The excerpted pages are substantively similar in form
to the remainder of the Log .
A typical entry from the Log appears as follows:
Document
Date Nbr of pages Location Copies Description Privilege
Numb er
00 5 Aug 20 , 1995 5 1 Los Ange les None Record of
confidential
communication
in spiritua l
counseling
Clergy Penitent
(Ev . Code
§1034 ); First
Amendment
Free Exerc ise
session between Clause and
LD and her Establishment
clergyman (TL). C lause
5 .
On January 25 , 2013 , CSI produced and delivered to the office of plaintiff s
counsel add itional documents, totaling more than 2,800 pages, responsive to plaintiffs discovery
requests. These documents included the entirety of plaintiff s ethics files, as well as several
hundred documents that had been filed in plaintiff s pc files bu t that were not confidential
commun ications made in the religious practice of auditing.
6 . Aside from the documents specifically identified on the Log served on January 18,
2013 , CSI is not currently withholding from production any documents responsive to the
discovery requests for which production was compelled by the January 7, 2013 Order .
7. The documents being withheld rom production , and identified on the Log , date at
the latest rom April , 20 04.
8 . Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the opinion of the Court
of App eal in this matter, Case No. B224409 .
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed February 21, 2013 , at Los Angeles, California//
N icholas F . Daum
127522.1 2
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS F . DAUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR
TERM INATING SANCTIONS
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 4/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 5/28
Clt-js® £ M f
<f i a n
_ r w u
SSagf«8i
ui Li y Jz k a. >o u. 0 >I ,. u
u
111
S iuP BfoNoj,,H us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ID
§ 11<*ioa)
o
<n
Z L)
U 2 3|!(2j
z- t £J <
UJ ,
t < £9< 1- >,5£ 2 2?2 W
UJ I tiÿf*
0 s 9u > *.
"
<
fz 0 HU o JTv" « ÿF *J
D.
-
,<
UU >-< a u wn: o V i2<l b- o „q >
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F:\WP\C8ses\952 7WOTlCES\RUUNG S\20l3-01-07 MTC.wpd
BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION
JOHN P , BLUMBERG , ESQ. (SBN 70200 )SINDEE M. SMOLOWITZ , ESQ. (SBN 123237)444 W. OCEAN BLVD. , SUITE 1500LONG BEACH , CA 90802
TELEPHONE : (562 ) 437-0403
TELECOPIER : (562 ) 432-0107
METZGER LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ. (SBN 116020)KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ . (SBN 251364 )401 E . OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800
LONG BEACH , CA 90802ÿ-496 6TELEPH ONE : (562 ) 437-4499
TELECOPIER : (562 ) 436-1561
Attorneys for PlaintiffLAURA ANN DECRESCENZO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COU NTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAURA ANN DeCRESCE NZO , aka
LAURA A. DIECKMAN ,
Plaintiffs,
vs .
CHURCH OF SCIENT OLOGY
INTERN ATIONAL , a corporate
entity, AND DOES 1-20 ,
Defendants .
CASE NO, BC411018
Assigned to the HonorableRonald M. Sohigian , Dept . 41
NOTICE OF RULING ON
PLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL
NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Exhibit A Page 3
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 6/28
f " fc 5 £<» £ m °<t o H u<t . 10 WJ X|)H« "P "g
© 5 2 §in - hW
w S >'u iiiSJsz a a. 5OMs
X j ufl. j uU 0 J-i t: uu b hH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
o
_ O 10
3 « 2
G5§i|S&fS
o N o £
10
11
12
1 3
ou.
14
15
K
c 35-&eIÿ?SIS5J O
h $ 0 0<i° iob® 16
<s3 17<1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O inZ M
y o 3 =*2 jio 5 £ -I. < r -"S ozr »:= t £* i- 2. /N
n -
i z 0° 0 1-- ,
a ,-, '5 jjc - tF 'PSÿb w u iyU ?
" O &'K ÿ0 r ÿ ~ ,U > Z J
.5 2" ,"
Z«W0 H 3 *<EOUa o u 2''»D. H O O
F:\WP\Case9\9527WOTIC6S\RUUNGS\20l3-0l-07 MTC .wpd
TO THE PARTIES HERETO AND TO THEIR ATTORNEY S OF RECORD :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 7., 2013 in Department 41
of the above-entitled Court , Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant ,
Church of Scientology International ("CSI") , to Provide Code Compliant
Responses and to Produce Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Notice
of Deposition of the Custodian of Records of Church of Scientology
International and Request for Production of Documents came on
regularly for hearing before the Honorable Ronald M. Sohigian .
After considering the papers submitted in support of and in
opposition to the motion , and after hearing arguments of counsel
thereon , the Court ruled as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion is granted as to each request except
for request numbers 15 , 34 and 35 . CSI may still precipitate non
compliance with the notice and order, but to do so , must provide a
coherent and focused privilege log that (1) identifies each document ,
including information relating to dates , time , place , preparation , who
wrote the document , to whom the document went , etc.; and (2) provide
a clearer statement and grounds for the specific objection and
privilege asserted with respect to each document . Plaintiff may
review the privilege log and meet and confer further if necessary , and
the Court will consider ruling on any supplemental privilege log at
a later date.
2. CSI must produce responses in accordance with the
Court's order by January 18, 2013 , unless CSI supports its non -
compliant responses with a privilege log by the same date . CSI must
produce all responsive documents no later than January 25 , 2 013 , at
9:30 a.m. at the offices of Metzger Law Group .
//
NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Exhibit A Page 4
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 7/28
KlOo 2 u
5 -le« n|vto no oui W h
w u y Jz a o. sO itOiT I II -
*
; llt
o
- o <fl2 a <oo,,g
5ÿ< E N2 p o
U .J)2 U3 t;
U 2 J D; 2 jio fr 2 2l. < r
« 2 U
- E s! xo - " 2:2(il i 0ÿ't < "Toi ÿ > z
I 5 5"<H
y O I Uz IV J "
0 S <5U > 2"<2 o U
111 u -U« r -,
h ""
5; 2< (V w j-K o U 20. H <ÿ £J(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F :\WP lCases\952 7WOOES\RUUNaS\20IMI-07 MTC .wpd
3. Plaintiff to give notice .
DATED : January 7 , 2013 METZGER LAW GROUPA Professional Law Corporation
KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ .
Attorneys for PlaintiffLAURA ANN DECRESCENZO
NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CO MPEL
Exhibit A Page 5
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 8/28
0) I- 5 £® s $°If
"u
<l I IIII)K X 0 *.
5 ° "S
-Ng5
<s o S o
W ft >u u y >2 a o. £o u . o >
i J, u0. J u
U) o Jj l! iiiU r H
S «Z u
y gX 2 j T8**2
» = Sh-1 s x
Sj oZ°
s f)i£ 5 Z <H U[W iiW I
'
J'
Ku o K5 « ?-z*i > 2 <
Z fO Uu u !c- .W * 5 wp jS v>u h b-
"
<
< S U Ka o U 52a I- o*-o
fT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
26
27
28
FAWP\C8ses\9S27\NCmCES\RUUNGSlMIM I-07MTC.wpi)
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA , COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles , State of California . I airover the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action .
business address is 401 East Ocean Blvd., #800 , Long Beach , CA 90802 .My
On January 8, 2013 , I served the foregoing document , described asNOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL on the parties to thiaction as follows:
X (BY MAIL ) I caused copies of such document , enclosed in sealed
envelopes , to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach , California withpostage thereon fully prepaid to the persons and addresses indicated on the
attached list . I am "readily familiar" with the firm,s practice ofcollecting and processing correspondence for mailing . It is deposited withU.S
. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business .I am aware that on motion of any party served , service is presumed invalidif the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one dayafter the date of deposit for mailing set forth in this affidavit .
(BY FACSIMILE) I served the foregoing document by faxing true
copies thereof from facsimile number (562 ) 436-1561 , to the facsimilenumbers indicated on the attached list . Said document was transmitted byfacsimile transmission , which was reported complete and without error .
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such document by
hand to the firms listed on the attached list where personal service isindicated.
(BY E-MAIL ) I delivered such document by electronic mail to thefirms listed on the attached list.
_ (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL ) I caused such document to be delivered to the
firms indicated on the attached list by Express Mail or by another expressservice carrier , by placing the document in an envelope designated by the
carrier and addressed as indicated on the attached list , with the deliveryfees provided for , and depositing same in a box or facility regularlymaintained by that carrier or by delivering same to an authorized courieror driver authorized by the carrier to receive documents .
X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of theState of California that the above is true and correct .
_ (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the offices of a memberof this court, at whose direction service was made .
Executed on January 8 , 2013 , at Long Beach , California .
Susan M. Simpson , Declarant
NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Exhibit A Page 6
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 9/28
(fl to
; l £ * a. * o* 5 u
® b i® J Il uIS?"
*5 .
5-
«nJxto o 2 oinW i-"
U fjsui u y >2 K t . §0 4- 0 >I j uL jUU o JJ if ulil h
UK
8 "! "
X o "* 3
5 2 j i
Pÿzp
Sy- t S Xn J z o
S£fst ? 2 <
Z s .
ss.""°s<?u > z <
x*UMUC .U S W
p -4«l)hD<
< « U Ma o-U i2HhOO
k )
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F :\WP\Cases\9527\NOTICES\RULINGS\20l3-0t-07 MTC,wpi
SERVICE LIST
(DeCrescenzo v . Church of Scientology , Case No . BC411018 )
-oOo-
Bert H . Deixler , Esq .
Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 172S
Los Angeles , CA 90067
(Church of Scientology International )
Kendrick L . Moxon , Esq .
Moxon & Kobrin
3500 W . Olive Avenue , Suite 300
Burbank , CA 91505
(Church of Scientology International )
Matthew D . Hinks , Esq .Jeffer, Mangels , Butler & Mitchell
1900 Avenue of the Stars , 7" " Flooir
Los Angeles , CA 90067-4308
(Religious Technology Center)
John P. Blumberg , Esq .
Blumberg Law Corporation
444 W. Ocean Blvd. , Suite 1500
Long Beach , CA 90802
(Plaintiff )
(Updated August 23, 2013 Jlp)
NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF 'S MOTION TO COMPE L
Exhibit A Page 7
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 10/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 11/28
K Kendall Brill K lieger writer,s direct :
310.272 .7906
January 18, 2013
VIA MESSENGER
Kathryn Saldana, Esq.METZGER LAW GROUP
401 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste . 800
Long Beach, California 90802
Re: DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology International, et al.,
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC411018
_Dear Ms. Saldana:
Enclosed are privilege logs produced by Church of Scientology International inconnection with the above-referenced matter, These privilege logs are produced pursuant to theCourt's January 7, 2013 Order Concern ing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel .
Sincerely,
Patricia S . Perell6
Paralegal
Enclosure
cc: Bert Deixler, Esq .
Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP Exhibit B Page 810100 Santa Mon ica Blvd. Su ite 1725 Los Angeles, CA 90067 telephone 310.556.270 0 facsimile 310.556.2705 www.kbkirmxom
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 12/28
Kendall Brill
6 Klleger LLPtOIOOSirtaWoolosnW .
Suite 172 5
los Angees, CA S006V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP
BertH. Deixler (70614)
bdeixler (a).lcbkfirm . comNicholas F. Daum (236155)
ndauni@kbkftrm. com10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
Los Angeles , California 90067Teleph one : 310.556.2700Facsimile: 310.556.2705
RAB 1NOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,
KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN , LLP
Eric M . Lieberman (pro hac vice)45 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York , NY 10006elephone : 212.254.1111acsimile: 212.674.4614
Attorneys for DefendantCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL
JEFFER , MANGELS, BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLPRobert E . Mangels (48291)Matthew D . Hinlcs (200750)1900 Avenue of the Stars, Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067Telephone: 310.203.8080Facsimile : 310 .203.0567
Attorneys for Defendant RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY .CENTER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES , CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO ,
Plaintiff,
v .
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL , a corporate entity,RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
previously sued herein as Doe No , 1 , aCalifornia Corporation , aud DOES 2-20,_ Defendants ._
Case No . BC411018
Assigned for Al l Puiposes to the Hon . RonaldSohigian, Dept . 41
DEFENDANTS, SUPPLEMENTALPRIVILEGE LOG
Judge : Hon. Ronald SohigianDept.: 41
Action Filed :
Trial Date:
April 2 , 2009ÿTu lv 29 . 2013
124322.1 Exhibit B Page 9
DEFENDANTS> SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 13/28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Kendall Bril l
ft Kliegerl.LP10100 iahla Monica O lnl .Suite 1725
los Angefes, CA 90067
Pursuant to the Cou rt's Order of January 7,2013 on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, attached
hereto as Exhibits 1-42 is a Supplemental Privilege Log prepared by Defendants . Exhibit 43
provides a key to the initials in the Privilege Log , and is produced as Confidential Information.
Dated; Januaiy 18,2013
124322.1
KENDALL BRILL & KLTÿGER LLP
By :N icholas F . Daum
Attorneys for Church of Scientology International
1 Exhibit B Page 10
DEFENDANTS > SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 14/28
fw
Pv ,
Kendal l Brill
& IjCJieger LLP10 100 Santa Monka B lvd.
SuHÿlfSLos Aftfeles, CA 90067
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - Laura Ann DeCrescenzo v.
Church of Scientology International, et al. - BC 411018
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action . I amemployed in the County of Los Ang eles , State of California . My business add ress is 10100 SantaMonica Blvd., Suite 1725, Los Angeles, Califon ia 90067 .
On January 18,2013, 1 served true copies of the following document(s) described asDEFE NDANTS, SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG on the interested parties in this actionas follows:
Raphae l Metzge r, Esq.
Kathryn Saldana , Esq.
METZGER LAW GROUP
401 E . Ocean Blvd., Ste. 800
Long Bea ch , California 90802
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the document(s) to be delivered by hand to theof fices of each interested party at the addres s indicated above or on the attached service list.
I declare under pena lty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforegoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 18, 2013, at Los Angeles, California.
PROOF OF SERV ICEExhibit B Page 11
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 15/28
EXH IB IT 1EBSSsa aasssBssasasÿÿsaÿasKa
fT ;i
W
re
Jr. iI
l"v
M
Exhibit B Page 12
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 16/28
Laura D eCrescenzo v CSI, et a!., PRIVILEGE LOG Page | 1Folder #01 Preclear Fo lders
Maintained in accordance with Scientology scripture
(See 1111 30-37 of Declarat ion of Warren McShane December 21, 2012)
Document
Number
Date Nb r of
pages
Location Copies Descript ion Privilege
001
Nov 26, 1989 8
Albuquerque ,
NM CA lb")
None Record of confidential commun ication in
spiritual counseling sess ion between LD and
her clergyman (FD).
Clergy Penitent (Ev . Code §10 34);First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
00 2
Nov 26, 1989 1
Alb None Record of confidentia l commun ication
between LD and clergyman (LGe) regardingher spiritual condition.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §10 34);First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
003
Nov 29, 1989 4
Alb None Record of confidentia l commun ication in
spiritual counseling session between LD and
her clergyman (FD).
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
004
Nov 29, 1989 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l comm un ication
between LD and clergyman (JE) regarding
her spiritua l condition.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndment Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
00 5
Dec 1, 1989 4
Alb None Record of confidentia l com munication in
sp iritual counseling session between LD andher clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Penitent (Ev . Code §1034);
First Amendm ent Free ExerciseClause and Establishment Clause
006
Dec 1, 1989 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l comm unication
between LD and clergyma n (JE) regarding
her spiritua l condition.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 17/28
Laura D eCrescenzo v CSI, et. al., PRIVILEGE LO G Page | 2Folder #01 Preclear Folders
Maintained in accordance with Sciento logy sc ripture(See 30-37 of Dec laation of Warren McShane December 21, 2012)
Document
Number
Date Nbr of
pages
Location Copies Description Privilege
007
Dec 5, 1989 2A lb None Record of conf identia l commun ication
between LD an d clergyman (LGe) regarding
her spiritual condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndment Free Exe rcise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
008
Dec 9, 1989 1
A lb
N n W r i n mm ni i n l r m n n mot ident ified, clerical status evident from
nature of do cument) from senior clergyman
(case superv isor) re lating to previousconfidentia l commun ications between LD and
clergymen , and regarding LD 's sp iritua lcond ition
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndment Free Exercise
Clause and Establishm ent Clause
009
Dec 12, 1989 1
Alb None Record of confidentia l communication
between LD and clergyman (LGe) regarding
her sp iritual condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034 );First Ame ndment Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
010
Dec 12, 1989 5
A lb None Record of conf idential communicat ion in
sp iritua l counseling session between LD and
her clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
011
Dec 12, 1989 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l commun ication
between LD an d clergyman (JE) regarding
her spiritua l condition.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 18/28
Laura DeCrescenzo v CSI, et al., PRIVILEGE LOG P a g e | 3Fo lder #01 Preclear Fo lders
Maintained in accordance with Scientology scripture(See mi 30-37 of Declaration of Warren McShane December 21, 2012)
Document
Numbe r
Date Nb r of
pages
Location Copies Description Privilege
012
Dec 19, 1989 4
A lb None Record of conf idential communication in
spiritua l counseling session between LD and
her clergyma n (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev . Cod e §103 4);First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
013
Dec 19, 1989 1
Alb None Record of confidentia l comm un ication
between LD and clergyman (LGe) rega rding
her spiritual condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034);First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
014
Dec 20, 1989 3
Alb None Record of confidentia l communication in
spiritual counseling session between LD and
her c lergyman (FD).
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
015
Dec 20, 1989 1
Alb None Record of confident ial communicat ion
between LD and clergyman (LGe) regarding
he r spiritual condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev . Cod e §1034 );First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishme nt Clause
016
Dec 29, 1989 4
Alb None Record of conf identia l commun ication in
sp iritual counse ling session between LD andher clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034);
First Amendment Free Exe rciseClause and Establishment Clause
017
Dec 29, 1989 1
A lb None Record of confidential communication
between LD and c lergyman (JE) regarding
her sp iritua l condit ion.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034 );First Am endme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 19/28
Laura DeCrescenzo v CSIr et. a!., PRIVILEGE LOG Page | 4Fo lder #01 Prec lear Fo lders
Maintained in accorda nce with Scientology scripture(See UH 30-37 of Declarat ion of Wa rren McShane December 21, 2012)
Document
Number
Date Nbr of
pages
Location Copies Descript ion Pr ivilege
018
Jan 3,1990 3
Alb None Record of confidential commun ication in
spiritual counseling session between LD andher
"
clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Cod e §1034);First Amendm ent Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
019
Jan 3, 1990 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l commun ication
between LD an d clergyman (JE) regarding
her sp iritua l condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034);First Ame ndment Free Exercise
Clause and Establ ishment Clause
02 0
Jan 4,1990 4
A lb None Record of confidentia l comm unication in
sp iritua l counseling session between LD and
her clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Cod e §103 4);First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
021
Jan 4, 1990 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l commun ication
between LD an d clergyman (SM) regarding
her sp iritual condit ion.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §10 34);First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
022
Jan 4,1990 4
Alb None Record of confidential communication in
spiritual counseling session between LD andher clergyman (FD) .
Clergy , Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);
First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
023
Jan 4, 1990 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l communication
between LD and clergyman (illegib le)
regarding her spiritua l condition.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Cod e §1034 );First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 20/28
Laura DeCrescenzo v CSI, et a!., PRIVILEGE LOG Page | 5Fo lder #01 Preclear Folders
Maintained in accorda nce with Sciento logy sc ripture
(See 111 1 30-37 of Dec larat ion of Warren McShane December 21, 2012)
Document
Number
Date Nbr of
pages
Location Cop ies Description Priv ilege
024
Jan 9,1990 1
Alb None Record of confident ial communica t ion in
sp iritual counseling sess ion between LD and
her clergyma n (FD) .
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);First Amendment Free Exe rcise
C lause and Establishment Clause
025
Jan 9, 1990 7
Alb None Record of confidentia l commun ication in
sp iritua l counse ling session betwee n LD and
her clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Penitent (Ev . Code §1034);First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
026
Jan 9,1990 1
A lb None Record of confidentia l comm un ication
between LD and clergyman (JE) regarding
her spiritual condiion.
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034 );First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Estab lishment Clause
027
Jan 10,199 0 4
A lb None Record of confidentia l communication in
spiritual counseling sess ion between LD and
her clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Code §1034 );First Amendme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
028
Jan 10,1990 1
Alb None Record of conf identia l comm un ication
between LD and clergym an (JE) regardingher spiritual condition.
Clergy Penitent (Ev. Code §1034);
First Ame ndme nt Free ExerciseClause and Establishm ent Clause
029
Jan 11, 1990 4
A lb None Record of confidentia l comm unication in
sp iritual counseling session between LD and
her clergyman (FD) .
Clergy Pen itent (Ev. Cod e §1034);First Ame ndme nt Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 21/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 22/28
DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology Intern., Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2011)
Not Oficially Pub lished
(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.11 10, 8.1115)2011WL 2508142
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available .
California Rules of Court , rule 8.11 15 , restricts citation of unpublished opinions in California courts.
Court of Appeal, Second District , Division 3, California .
Laura Ann DeCRESCENZO , Plaintiff and Appellant ,v .
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL et al., Defendants and Respondents .
No . B224409 . | (Los Angeles County Super . Ct . No . BC411018) . | June 24, 2011. | As Mod ified on Denial ofRehearing July 22, 2011.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ronald M . Sohigian, Judge . Reversed withdirections.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Metzger Law Group , Raphael Metzger and Kathryn Darnell for Plaintiff and Appellant .
Proskauer Rose, Bert H. Deixler, Harold M . Brody, G. Samu el Cleaver; Jeffer Mangels Butler & M itchell, Robert Mangels,
Matthew D . Hinks; Rabinowitz , Boud in , Standard , Krinsky & Lieberman, Eric M . Lieberman and David B . Goldstein for
Defendants and Respondents.
Op inion
CROSKEY , J .
*
1 Laura Ann DeCrescenzo appeals a judgment dism issing her com plaint against Church of Scientology International
(Scientology) and Religious Technology Center (collectively, defendants) after the sustaining of demurrers without leave to
amend based on the statutes of lim itations. Plaintiff contends she has adequately pled a combination of delayed discovery ofher causes of action and a basis for equ itable estoppel precluding defendants from asserting a statute of limitation s defense.Our review of this record compels the conc lusion that plaintiff has adequately alleged that (1) she was unable to comprehend
the wrongfulness of the defendants, conduct for a period of time and that her causes of action did not accrue until she did so
and (2) even after her delayed discovery of her causes of action , the defendants, threats and intim idation caused her to delayfiling her comp laint . In addition , we reject defendants' contention that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from prosecuting heraction by a federal court judgment that equitable estoppel was inapplicable because the facts alleged in plaintiffs priorcomplaint were insufficient to demonstrate reasonable reliance on defendants' representations. We hold that her allegations
of additiona l facts in the present complaint establish a basis for reasonable reliance and such new allegations are notprecluded by the federal judgment . We therefore wil l reverse the judgment with directions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a comp laint aga inst Scientology in April 2009 alleging that she began working for that organization at the ageof nine, became effectively a full-time employee at the age of ten, and later le ft her home and family in another state to workfor Scientology in California. She alleged that she married a co-worker at the age of sixteen , became pregnant, and that
WestlawNexr © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No c la im to origina l U .S . Government Works. 1
Exhibit C Page 18
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 23/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 24/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 25/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 26/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 27/28
7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Nicholas Daum Declaration - Motion to Compel Opposition (Feb 2013)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-nicholas-daum-declaration-motion-to-compel-opposition 28/28
DeCrescenzo v . Church of Scientology Intern., Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d (2011)
for reasonable reliance sufficient to support a claim of equ itable estoppel. Any deficiency in the first amended complaint as to
reasonable reliance is cured by the additional allegations in the second amended complaint . In light of the additional
allegations, the issue decided by the federal court based on the prior allegations is not identical to the issue presented here, so
collateral estoppel does not apply.4
4 Plaintiff also argues that collateral estoppe l is inapplicable for other reasons that we need not address in light of our conclusion .
5. The Judgment in Favor ofRTC Cannot Be Affirmed Based on a Purported Sham Allegation
RTC argued in support of its demurrer that the allegation in the second amended complaint that plaintiff "also worked for
Defendant, RTC" contradicted allegations in her prior complaints that she "was not employed by" RTC. RTC argued that thenew allegation was a sham , that plaintiff was bound by her prior allegations, and that the fact that she was not employed byRTC precluded each count alleged in the second amended complaint . Plaintiff argued in opposition that her current allegationthat she "also worked for" RTC differed from her current allegation that she "was employed by" Sciento logy, and that she
did not allege an employment relationship with RTC . She also argued that her current allegation that RTC "was responsiblefor and directly oversaw a number of the policies and conditions of Plaintiff s emp loyment" explained RTC's ro le
, and that
there was no inconsistency with her prior allegations.
An amended complaint that om its harmfu l factual allegations from a previous complaint, whether verified or unverified, or
alleges facts contradicting those prior allegations, without an adequate explanation for the discrepancy is regarded as a sham
pleading . A court ruling on a demurrer may take judicial notice of facts alleged in a prior complaint revealing a defect in anamended complaint, and may disregard any inconsistent allegation s in the amended complaint . (State ex rel.
Metz v . CCC
Information Services , Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402 , 412, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 156 ; see Deveny v. Entropin, Inc . (2006) 139Cal.App.4th 408,425-426 , 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 807 .)
We conclude that the allegation that plaintiff "also worked for" RTC does not contradict the prior allegation that she "was notemployed by
"
RTC . These allegations are not contradictory because an employee of one company can provide services toanother company without becom ing an employee of the second company. (Marsh v. Tilley Steel Co. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 486 ,492-493 , 162 Cal .Rptr. 320 , 606 P .2d 355 .) As we read the complaint, plaintiff alleges that she provided for services to RTC
and that RTC oversaw some of the policies and conditions of her emp loyment, and does not allege that RTC was her
employer. Accordingly, we conclude that the allegation that plaintiff "also worked for" RTC is not a sham and that the
sustaining of the demurrer cannot be aff irmed on this basis .
The judgment is reversed with directions to the trial court to vacate the order sustaining the demurrer to the second amended
complaint without leave to amend and enter a new order overruling the demurrer to each count. Plaintiff is ent itled to recover
her costs on appeal .
DISPOSITION
J W e Concur : KLE IN, P.J., and K ITCH ING, J .
J End of Document © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to origina l U.S. Government Works.
hj
QWestlawNexr ©2013 Thomson Reuters . No claim to original U.S . Government Works.7