IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PAUL SHAFER AND JOSHUA HARDER. ) ) Plaintiffs, v.

RODERICK BREMBY, Defendants. ) ) ) JUDGE THOMPSON CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00039-AWT

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BREMBYS MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO DEFEND AGAINST RULE 11 SANCTIONS There is simply no lawful reason why this Court should grant Defendant Bremby any continuance, particularly given that Counsel for Bremby didnt even seek concurrence pursuant to Local Rule 7(b)(3) that requires Defendant to make an attempt to contact the parties involved. All motions shall include a statement from moving counsel that he or she has inquired of opposing counsel and that there is agreement or objection to the motion However Defendant Bremby, by and through Rosemary McGovern, admits that they never even attempted to contact Intervenor King, yet they DID contact counsel for Plaintiff. So first they lied about the circumstances surrounding a grandmother dying of Alzheimers Disease, then they refuse to contact her as they try to fight off Rule 11 Sanctions occasioned because of the lie itself. When will this Court make them pay for this because the taxpayers have already paid enough. Intervenor will be issuing a FOIA request for the amount of money spent defending the Motion to Intervene and related filings. To continue, first of all Defendant Bremby initiated the problem by and through Attorney Jennifer Callahan by positing a sham Affidavit from a DSS supervisor who had no direct first hand knowledge of the exchanges between Intervenor and case worker Diane Wood, in blatant violation of Fed Rule Evid. 602. Second, when called on the mat and with further evidence against yet another Attorney (Hugh Barber) instead of producing the contents of the hard drive and admitting the wrongdoing Bremby then sought out present counsel Rosemary McGovern to do his dirty work. Recall the email noted in Intervenors Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Rule 11 Sanctions against Defendant Bremby and Counsel:

"I owe one more document from GE. It is the same life insurance form I forwarded last year it should be ready by tomorrow. SSN.... let me know if you need more." Third, there is no need for any continuance because all Defendant had to do is to get an Affidavit from Diane Wood as to what she received and when. Note that Defendant uses a special program called Tumbleweed to log and to maintain these communications as seen hereinbelow:

That makes it nice and easy for this Court to cut through the nonsense and to ORDER Defendant to produce the contents of its hard drive at its own expense, showing each and every email delivered by and through the email address of kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com. Accord His Honors Decision in United States v. Ganias, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67806 (June 24, 2011); Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 279 F.R.D. 245 (SDNY 2012) and Aliki Foods, LLC v. Otter Valley Foods, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 159 (U.S. Dist Conn July 7, 2010):
Every factor identified in Agiwal favors dismissal of this case as a Rule 37 sanction. First, there is no question in the Court's mind that Aliki acted willfully and in bad faith in repeatedly violating its discovery obligations and this Court's orders. Aliki's bad faith is apparent from a number of factors. For one, Aliki has persisted in refusing to produce relevant documents to Otter Valley for nearly two years. HN3 A party becomes obligated to preserve evidence when it "has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation . . . [or] should have known that the evidence

[**26] may be relevant to future litigation." Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, there is no question that Aliki was aware of the relevance of its computers and hard drive to this case. In fact, during an on-the-record telephonic conference on October 5, 2009, the Court asked Aliki's counsel whether his client had instituted a litigation hold to ensure that relevant emails were not destroyed. Though he did not say whether a hold was put in place, Aliki's counsel did represent that he had advised his client to do so. In light of Aliki's conduct, and despite the Court's view that dismissal is a last resort to be avoided if at all possible, there does not appear to be any alternative to dismissal that would properly punish Aliki for its transgressions; deter others from attempting similar conduct in the future; compensate Otter Valley for the prejudice caused by Aliki; and not impact this Court's ability to administer justice in the other cases before it. See Nat'l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643 ("[T]he most severe in the spectrum of sanctions provided by statute or rule must be available to the district court in appropriate cases, not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.");Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 836 F.2d 731, 735 (2d Cir. 1987) [**38] ("[I]n this day of burgeoning, costly, and protracted litigation courts should not shrink from imposing harsh sanctions where . . . they are clearly warranted.") (quoting Cine FortySecond St. Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062, 1068 (2d Cir. 1979)); S. New Eng. Tel. Co., 251 F.R.D. at 96 (entering default judgment as a sanction for the defendant's willful defiance of court orders and its discovery obligations in order "to prevent defendants' willful noncompliance and destruction [of evidence] from impacting the court's other cases and thus impacting the orderly administration of justice for other litigants."). IV. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Otter Valley's motions to dismiss [docs. ## 111, 117] and DENIES Aliki's motions to vacate [docs. ## 112, 118, and 125] the Court's prior orders. The Clerk is directed to dismiss this case with prejudice and to close the file.

This case is no different and a Discovery Order must issue, sua sponte. In sum, it may be unfortunate for Defendant that they underestimated the legal prowess of Intervenor but that is not Intervenors fault. This Court must not grant Quarter to the Defendants brazen lawlessness but must instead ORDER production of the results of a hard drive search and an Affidavit from caseworker Diane Wood. Enough Judicial resources and taxpayer monies have been wasted already.

/s/ Christopher King, J.D. _____________________________ Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com 617.543.8085 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I the undersigned, solemnly swear that a true copy of this Memorandum was delivered via ECF filing on 4 January, 2013 to: Defendant Roderick Bremby c/o Jennifer L. Callahan, Esq. ct 29033 CT AG 55 Elm Street PO Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 hugh.barger@ct.gov Plaintiffs Shafer and Harder Sheldon Toubman (ct08533) New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. 426 State Street New Haven, CT 06510-2018 Phone: 203.946.4811 Fax: 203.498-9271 stoubman@nhlegal.org /s/Christopher King, J.D. __________________________________ KingCast.net By and through Christopher King, J.D. 617.543.8085m