1 2 3

KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP

Bert H. Deixler (70614)

Nicholas F. Daum (236155)

bdeixler@kbkfirm. com

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

FILED

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725
4
5

cdavidson@kbkfirm.com

FEB 21 2013
, ÿ -'PeP",y

Facsimile: 310.556.2705
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, LLP Eric M. Lieberman {admittedpro hac vice) 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: 212.254.1111
Facsimile: 212.674.4614

6
7

8 9 10
11

Attorneys for Church of Scientology International
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
13
14 15

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO,

Case No. BC411018

Plaintiff,
v

Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Ronald Sohigian, Dept. 41
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL TO DECLARATION OF LAURA ANN DIECKMAN

16
17 18

.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL, a corporate entity,
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER,
19
20 21 22 23
24

previously sued herein as Doe No. 1, a California Corporation, and DOES 2-20,
Defendants.

(DECRESCENZO)

Filed concurrently with Opposition to Plaintif's Motion to Compel; Declaration of Allan Cartwright; Declaration of Warren McShane; Declaration ofNicholas F. Daum Judge:
Date:

f

Hon. Ronald Sohigian
March 6, 2013

Time:
Dept.:

1:30 p.m.
41

25 26

27 28
127673.1
«d
.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL TO DECLARATION OF

LAURA ANN DIECKMAN (DECRESCENZO)

1 2

3
4

Dieckman (DeCrescenzo) submitted in connection with plaintiffs Motion to Compel and For
Terminating Sanctions, as follows.

5

6
7

8

9
10
11 12 13 14

particular organization in CSI (including
in the Sea Organization,) would be

15 16
17

18 19 .
20 21

anyoewh aseniortmny Knowledg(Evi.Code§
Objectionable Material Grounds for Objection
"During

Church of Scientology International ("CSI") objects to the Declaration of Laura A.

Sustained/Overruled

my membership in the

Hearsay Rule (Evid.

Church of Scientology International
'

Code, § 1200); Lack of

(

CSI'), I was told and understood that

F oundation/Personal

702); Declaration

Evidence Contradicted By
Prior Testimony; More

permitted to review the contents of any of
my PC Folders., This included
"

Prejudicial Than

individuals who were not auditors and had
"

Probative (Evid. Code §
402).

no auditing training. (Dieckman Deck,
4).

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR OBJECTION

Ms

.

Dieckman's statement is, to the extent it is offered in order to demonstrate the level of
.

confidentiality ascribed in the Scientology religion to the "PC Folders" [i.e the plaintiffs
,

22
23

auditing files], plainly hearsay. It is an out of court statement describing what Ms.
,

Dieckman was allegedly "told" about the manner in which these files were treated and who
could review them, and the statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted It is
.

24

thus clearly hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.
25 26
27 28
127673.1
d

.

The statement is not based upon the witnesses' personal knowledge and is thus also

inadmissible under Evidence Code § 702. Ms. Dieckman offers no basis for her personal
knowledge, whether within CSI or otherwise as to the maintenance of her PC folders or
,

1

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL TO DECLARATION OF

LAURA ANN DIECKMAN (DECRESCENZO)

1 2 3

the persons who were permitted to review the contents of her PC Folders. Indeed, Ms.

Dieckman does not even so much as identify the person who made this purported statement, the circumstances of its utterance, or when or why she was purportedly so
"

4
5

told." See Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 686, 692, 81 Cal. Rptr.

3d 406, 411 (2008) (excluding evidence where basis for personal knowledge unclear).
. The statement is directly contradicted by Ms Dieckman's prior testimony. In her
.

6
7

deposition, Ms. DeCrescenzo testified that she reported a particularly sensitive personal
incident to "the auditor that was auditing me Chris Swanson." She then testified as
,

8

9
10
11

follows:

Q And then after you reported this to Chris Swanson what happened next?
.

A 12

Nothing. ... It was like an auditing session so it was considered confidential... priest/penitent privileged information."
.

13
14 15

See Declaration of Allan Cartwright in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
("Cartwright Decl. ) at ÿ21 & Ex. C. Statements in declarations that directly contradict
"

prior sword testimony are inadmissible. Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc., 128 Cal. App. 4th
1510, 1522, (2005) ("In a nutshell the rule bars a party opposing summary judgment from
,

16
17 18

filing a declaration that purports to impeach his or her own prior sworn testimony.").
. An unsupported description of the core religious "auditing" practice of the Church of

19
20 21 22 23 24 25

Scientology is more prejudicial than probative and excludable under Evidence Code § 352
Dated: February 20, 2013
KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP

.

By:
Nicholas F. Daum

Attorneys for Church of Scientology International

26
27

28
127673.1
d
.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL TO DECLARATION OF

LAURA ANN DIECKMAN (DECRESCENZO)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful