You are on page 1of 9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY MARYLAND

WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH HOGE, III )


Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Case No. 06-C-16-070789
)
BRETT KIMBERLIN, et al., )
Defendants )
) _________________

DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR


DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

COMES NOW Defendant William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. to RESPOND to the WJJ Hoges

motion for discovery sanctions against this defendant.


HOGE HAS NOT MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT, OR ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER
TO RESOLVE THIS DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Apart from the fact that this defendant finds it laughable that a plaintiff who lied to this

defendant to get him to skip an appeal hearing for a peace order in 2014, a plaintiff who filed

what turned out to be a bogus copyright lawsuit against this defendant in 2014, a plaintiff who

brought criminal charges against this defendant for offering to assist in any way possible to

navigate the bureaucracy at the National Institutes of Health where the defendant was employed

until his retirement when plaintiff announced in 2014 that his wife suffered from a cancer that

eventually killed her in 2017, a man who, on information and belief, took part in a scheme to

frame the defendant with a forged letter to the plaintiff to make it seem as if defendant had

violated his peace order, has the temerity to use the words good faith effort when mentioning

this issue. Defendant avers Plaintiff made NO effort to resolve this issue except to say give me

everything I want and I wont ask for sanctions.


THIS COURT DID NOT ORDER DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, AS
HOGE STATES IN HIS BRIEF. THE COURT ORDERED DEFENDANT TO RESPOND
TO THE REQUEST.

The plaintiff himself in his brief writes that the court ordered Schmalfeldt to respond to

Mr. Hoges request for production of documents. Defendant obeyed the courts order, responded
to Hoge, sent a certificate of filing and a courtesy copy of the response to the honorable judge.

Defendant has followed this Courts order to the letter.


HOGE HAS NO CREDIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE SUBJECT OF BAD FAITH
Defendant refers the court to the second paragraph of this brief. Were Hoge to be placed

under oath, he would have to admit to the truth of those statements or be guilty of perjury.
DEFENDANT CANNOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTS HE DOES NOT HAVE
Hoge may claim his requests fall within the bounds of acceptable discovery. Unlike

Hoge, defendant does not possess every document he has ever written. I do not have access to

blogs I no longer operate as they have been taken offline by the various hosting companies.

When a Twitter account is deleted or suspended, those tweets are erased from the system and are

unavailable. In fact, 19 of the Twitter accounts Hoge demands are not even Defendants

accounts.
This is what you find when you try to access any of Defendants dead blog accounts.

2
We could continue, but the court gets the idea.
In his motion, Hoge states:

3
Defendant would have gladly done so, were he asked. He wasnt asked. And again, Hoge

is not the one to be lecturing about demonstrated lack of credibility.


Also in his motion, Hoge states:

Same as above, was defendant asked this question during the May 5 hearing? He was not. Were

he asked, he would have given the same answer.


Also in his motion, Hoge says:

4
Same response as above from defendant, who is not a mind-reader.
Also in his motion, Hoge demands:

Why is Hoge asking for documents he already has?


He further demands in his motion:

5
Defendant would have gladly given the same answer were he asked at the May 5 hearing.
Also in his motion, Hoge orders:

6
Defendant stands by his response. As stated, Defendant doesnt keep correspondence he no

longer requires. And Plaintiff surely must have heard of the Telephone. They are widely in use

nowadays.
Plaintiff further demands:

In WBAL v. State, the State sought a piece of videotape, not the name of a confidential source.

As Defendant has averred in the past, Mr. Hoge is asking Defendant to turn over privileged

material from confidential sources which he will not do, even if so ordered. Defendant takes his

responsibilities as a journalist very seriously. Hoge is engaging in a fishing expedition and this

Defendant refuses to bait his hooks for him.


He further demands:

7
Defendants answer remains the same. Hoge has every right to go to copyright.gov and

do an online search to determine what copyrights Defendant owns.


HOGE HAS ASSUMED THE JUDGES DUTY OF DETERMINING WHAT IS OR IS
NOT A PROPER ANSWER TO A REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, AND HE
EXPECTS THIS COURT TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS DEMANDS

In his motion, Hoge writes:

How kind of Mr. Hoge to relieve the honorable judge of making those decisions for himself,

declaring Defendants responses improper and finding Defendant in contempt. Lord knows

Defendant would love nothing more than to make Plaintiffs attempted railroading of the

Defendant as slick and easy for him as possible, but facts are facts, and Defendant can not

produce documents he does not possess and he will not jeopardize confidential sources just so

Hoge can go on a fishing expedition.

8
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE this Defendant, as stated above, has complied completely and to the letter

with the honorable judges order of May 5 and Mr. Hoge is kvetching because he does not like

the perfectly legal response to his demands, Schmalfeldt asks this court to deny Hoges motion

and, once again, to PLEASE bring this travesty to a halt by responding favorably to defendant

Kimberlins motion for summary judgment before Hoge wastes any more of this courts and this

defendants time on money on this fools errand of a civil case.


Date: May 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr.


Woodspring Suites, Room 224
220 Whitty Drive
Myrtle Beach, SC 29579
563-219-8179
bschmalfeldt@mediacombb.net

AFFIDAVIT

I, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the

contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: May 22, 2017 __________________________

William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr. Pro Se