You are on page 1of 2

Case 8:16-cv-03588-GJH Document 7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 2

I -
rj . ["f' ..j
IN HIE UNITED STATES Dlsml~r c.:~)'tJ;((.::.~,..:~
Soutltern Dil'isiOlI Iun oel \ 0 P 1.1: 20
_ r ,.
C\ '

I'laintiff, *
v. Case No.: G.JII-1 6-351111

* * * * * * * * * * *


The Court is in reccipt ofplaintilTI3relt Kimherlin's Scaled Complaint. lOCI' No, I. a

leiter Ii'om counscl for defendant Breitbart Iioidings ("'Breitbart"). ECF NO.4. and a rcsponse

leiter fi'lml Kimberlin. ECF NO.5. Breitbart asserts that. among other things. Kimberlin's Scaled

Complaint violates the COlIl1's Protective Order and prior discovery rulings in Kill/her/iIII'. Frey.

Case No. GJH-13-3059 ("Frey"). and asks the Court to dismiss Kimberlin's Sealed Complaint

on that basis. ECF NO.4 at 1-3.

In the Frey case. the Court entered a Protective Order instructing the partics that certain

discovery materials and information obtained Ii'om those materials were to be treated as

conlidential. including depositions. Frey. ECF No. 312'i I. The Court instructed that such

inl(mnation could not be used I(JI'"any purposes whatsocver othcr than prcparing t(JI' and

conducting thc litigation in which the infimnation or documcnts were disclosed (including

appeals)," Id ~ l(c). Kimbcrlin suhsequently asked the Court to lili the Protectivc Order to allow

him to usc protectcd documents in other cases. Frey. ECF No. 344 at 3. The Court instructcd that

"r a l"owing Plainti ITto usc thc protccted documents in this case to pursuc dclcndants in a
Case 8:16-cv-03588-GJH Document 7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 2

scparatc casc would delCat thc purposc of the Protcctivc Ordcr'" !d at 4-5. In his rcsponsc to

Brcitbart's Icttcr. Kimbcrlin points out that hc "did not attach any ofthc discovcry documcnts to

the ... complaint'" ECr No. 5 ~ 2. Based on the Court's initial rcview ofthc Scaled Complaint.

it sccms that while hc may not havc allached thc actual documcnts, Kimbcrlin's casc is bascd

hcavily on discovery obtained under the Protcctive Order in Frey. In lilCt. Kimbcrlin himsclf

states that "r t]hc allcgations in this complaint are bascd on hundrcds of pagcs of discO\wy

provided in a rclatcd case. Kill/her/ill \'. Frey" and admits that "Plaintiff 'discovcrcd' thc

involvement of many of the Dcfcndants Irom thosc documcnts ECF No. I at 6. Rcpcatcdly

throughout the Sealed Complaint. Kimberlin sccms to summarizc or dcscribc inl()J"Il1ation which

was apparently obtaincd through discovcry in Frey. See. e.g.. ECF No. I 'i 6-8 (dcscribing
communications bctwccnthird-partics which wcrc likely obtaincd through discovcry). ~ 18

(samc).'i 40 (samc). 'i 65-82. At onc point in thc Scaled Complaint. Kimbcrlin cvcn gocs so lill"

as to explain that hc "rcccived discovcry li'om Frcy undcr a protectivc order somc of which is

summarizcd below": Kimbcrlin thcn idcntilics spccific documcnts by thcir Batcs Numbers. and

quotes Irom them cxtcnsivcly. !d 'i 84. Although thc documcnts could hm'c becn used in Frey.

ineluding I()r thc purposc of sccking lcavc to amcnd and adding defendants to that casc. thc

Court vicws thc usc of this matcrial in a scparate casc as a Ilagrant violation of its Protcctivc
Ordcr and prior rulings in Frey. and thercl()rc it is. this JQ. day ofOctobcr. 2017.

ORDERED that plaintilTshow good causc within 14 days ofthc datc of this ordcr why

thc complaint should not be dismisscd based on a violation of this Court's Protcctivc Ordcr in


Unitcd Statcs District Judgc