IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JANE DOE, Case No. 2019-027633 CA 05 Plaintiff, vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., a Florida corporation; CLEARWATER ACADEMY, INC., a Florida corporation; THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California corporation; and DAVID MISCAVIGE, a California resident, Defendants. _______________________________________/
DEFENDANT RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Filing # 104909967 E-Filed 03/16/2020 09:06:44 AM
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………...1 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND……………………………...5 A. The Complaint Concedes RTC is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Florida and Alleges No Facts Establishing RTC Is Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in Florida…………………………………………………………………..…5 B. RTC’s Motion to Dismiss Challenges the Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over RTC………………………………………………………………………………….6 C. Plaintiff’s Notice Unilaterally Setting RTC’s Depositions Is Improper, Overly Broad, and Unconstitutionally Intrusive………………………………………….7 D. RTC’s Meet and Confer Efforts to Resolve the Dispute and/or Identify Alternative Dates for the Depositions Were Unsuccessful, Compelling the Filing of This Motion……………………………………………………………………...9 ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….11 A. Standard for Obtaining a Motion for Protective Order………………………………..11 B. Broad Merits-Based Discovery is Not Appropriate…………………………………..12 C. Jurisdictional Discovery is Not Appropriate Because Plaintiff Has Failed to Respond to the Motion to Dismiss and Failed to Submit Competing Evidence on Personal Jurisdiction………………………………………………………..14 D. The Notice Infringes on RTC’s Constitutional Protections Against Excessive Entanglement and Invasive Discovery of a Church…………………………..16 E. The Notice Provides No Valid or Appropriate Basis for Pursuing Limited and Narrowly Tailored Jurisdictional Discovery…………………………………………19 1. Plaintiff concedes RTC is not subject to general jurisdiction and should not be permitted to burden RTC with discovery demands purportedly in furtherance of general jurisdiction……………………...19 2. Plaintiff’s Notice topics are not appropriate for seeking discovery on general jurisdiction under Daimler’s framework…………………...19 3. Plaintiff’s Notice does not establish grounds for engaging in discovery as to specific jurisdiction over RTC…………………………………21
ii F. If, Notwithstanding the Foregoing, the Court Remains Inclined to Grant Limited and Narrowly Tailored Jurisdictional Discovery of RTC, RTC Should be Permitted Jurisdictional Discovery of Plaintiff First…………………….22 G. It is Reckless and Irresponsible to Proceed with a Non-Emergency Deposition in Los Angeles During a Public Health Crisis………………………………23 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..23