IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY AARON WALKER, Plaintiff, v. No 398855-V BRETT KIMBERLIN. and TETYANA KIMBERLIN, Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ STRONG OPPOSITION TO CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin respond as follows with strong, opposition to any delay in the October 11, 2016 trial date in this case. 1. Plaintiff seeks at least a three-month continuance in the trial of this case on various grounds, all based around his gaining a tactical advantage to his meritless case. He wants more time for discovery, to develop his case, to decide his strategy following this Court’s September 30% hearing, and to further investigate. 2. This case has been pending in this Court since February 2015, and trial has been set for more than six months. Defendants have been ready for trial for five months, and even asked this Court to grant them a quicker trial date, which this Court denied. See Docket numbers 133 and 162 3. Plaintiff has had plenty of time in which to file for discovery. The fact that he delayed until July 2016 to begin discovery is on him, and should not be used to delay the trial. 4, Plai not request subpoenas in this case until August 10, 2016, and he requested a whole host of improper, private, confidential and privileged documents from defendants and third parties. He filed those in the dead of August, knowing fullwell that they would be opposed by most of the parties subpoenaed. All of the subpoenas requesting such information will never be complied with so there is no reason to delay the trial based on meritless and malicious subpoenas. Plaintiff should not be rewarded for delaying the service of those subpoenas or for filing improper subpoenas that will result in contentious litigation. 5. The motions referred to by Plaintiff that were stricken have been re-filed with the Court and will be ruled on at the September 30" hearing, Itis pure fantasy for Plaintiff to assert that this Court will grant his motions for default or summary judgment, and fantasy is not a proper basis for continuing the trial. 6. Plaintiff has misused discovery by requesting information in order to harass, oppress and annoy Defendants. He has requested confidential school records of Defendants’ minor children, confidential medical records of Defendants and their daughters, confidential settlements in other cases, documents related to a criminal case from 1978, documents related to a book from 1996, documents from Defendants’ employer, drivers’ licenses from every person who has ever worked or volunteered for Defendants, the names of every minor who has ever spent the night at Defendants’ home, and documents that have been sealed in several cases in both the Montgomery County Circuit Court and the Montgomery County District Court, including the Family Law Court, This Court should not grant a delay in the trial in order to allow Plaintiff to continue to file more improper discovery, and should not enable his improper use of discovery.7. Plaintiffs the party who filed this case. He has had ample time to prepare for trial. His bad faith in failing to comply with discovery from Defendants is, grounds alone for dismissing this case. 8. Defendants have had this perverse case hanging over their heads for almost 16 months. It has caused them tremendous anxiety and stress. They have been inundated with hundreds of filings in the case, and Plaintiff has repeatedly accused them of criminal conduct and he even filed criminal charges against both Defendants (which were nolle prossed). If this case is going to trial, Defendants want that to occur as soon as possible so they can methodically show the jury the five year reign of terror and stalking inflicted on them and their minor daughters by Plaintiff, Defendants have great faith that a Montgomery County jury will be horrified and sickened by the obsessive stalking of them by Plaintiff the past five years and will reject his claims with a special verdict form that will provide the basis for an end to his obsessive behavior. 9, Itis more than likely that this Court will end this case on September 30" by ruling in Defendants’ favor on their motions for sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery, or by finding that they had probable cause for initiating their citizen complaints against Plaintiff, or that they did not act with malice, or by finding that Plaintiff has no foundation for alleging that Defendants filed complaints against him. Wherefore, Defendants strongly oppose any delay or continuance of the trial.Respegtfilly sulffnitted, Bret Kipyeflin Certificate of Service I certify that I mailed a copy of this pleading to Plaintiff by certified mail this 6 day of September, 2016. fi Brett Kimberlin