12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
DEFENDANTS CSI’S AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477) wforman@scheperkim.com DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174) dscheper@scheperkim.com MARGARET E. DAYTON (State Bar No. 274353) pdayton@scheperkim.com 800 West Sixth Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2701 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656 Attorneys for Defendants Church of Scientology International and Celebrity Centre International
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
CHRISSIE CARNEL BIXLER; CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA; JANE DOE #1; MARIE BOBETTE RIALES; and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL; DAVID MISCAVIGE; DANIEL MASTERSON; and DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. 19STCV29458
ssigned to Hon. Steven J. Kleifield, Dept. 57
DEFENDANTS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL'S AND CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Date: February 14, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Comlaint Filed: Auust 22 2019
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/13/2020 03:48 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Bolden,Deputy Clerk
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
DEFENDANTS CSI’S AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................4
III.
ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................7
A.
Plaintiff Has Not Demonstrated
Ex Parte
Relief Is Appropriate, and The Court Should Deny the Application on Procedural Grounds .....................................7
B.
The
Ex Parte
Application Should Be Denied Because the Motion For Leave To Conduct Discovery Is Meritless and Futile .........................................................10
1.
The Questions On Which Plaintiffs Seek Discovery Are For the Arbitrator, And Not the Court, Therefore The Discovery Seeks Irrelevant Information and Is Unnecessary ..................................................10
2.
Pre-Arbitration Discovery Is Not Appropriate .............................................13
IV.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................17
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
DEFENDANTS CSI’S AND CC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY
I.
INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs’
Ex Parte
Application is nothing but a last minute attempt to delay a briefing schedule on motions to arbitrate that they themselves agreed to. What is not in the application is more telling than its contents. Plaintiffs fail to inform the Court that Judge Burdge, in Department 37 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, already has rejected
both
a similar
ex parte
request for discovery in opposition to Defendants’ motions to compel religious arbitration
and
similar arguments that such agreements are unenforceable. At the same January 30, 2020 hearing in which he denied a similar
ex parte
request for discovery by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Judge Burdge granted Defendants’ motions to compel religious arbitration based on similar arbitration agreements. (
See
Exhibit H to the concurrently-filed Declaration of William H. Forman.) The same delay in requesting relief, failure to substantiate a need for discovery, and facial irrelevance of the “information” sought doomed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
ex parte
application for discovery in Department 37, and dooms it here. On December 11, 2019, counsel for Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”) and Celebrity Center (“CC”) made a formal demand on Plaintiffs to arbitrate this matter and provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with arbitration agreements. At a meet-and-confer the next day, CSI, CC, and counsel for Defendant Religious Technology Center (“RTC”) again advised counsel for Plaintiffs that the claims were subject to religious arbitration. On January 6, 2020, CSI, CC, and RTC filed and served their Motions to Compel Arbitration. On January 14, 2020, one month ago today, the Court at a Case Management Conference consolidated the hearing dates on the Motions to Compel Arbitration to March 27, 2020, without any objection from Plaintiffs’ counsel. And then, just two days later, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to a briefing schedule on the Motions to Compel Arbitration, where Plaintiffs’ Oppositions would be due on March 6, 2020, instead of the date required under the Code (March 16). But just today, Plaintiffs have filed an
ex parte
application to shorten time to hear a motion to conduct vague, unlimited discovery in opposition to the Motions to Compel Arbitration. This eleventh-hour attempt to derail the noticed hearings and a briefing schedule that Plaintiffs agreed to should be rejected for several independent reasons. First, the Notice of
Ex Parte
Application is inadequate. Plaintiffs are seeking an “order