Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 322 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT'

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

cif;il:lc'

~,::JI.... I L"

~O!5 r::: 28 P;l 3: 21;

BRETT KIMBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

1.1

__

f1L~

.!

I"; .:

-.O:OPUTY

No GjH 13-3059

v.
PATRICK FREY,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FREY'S MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENAS
Now comes Plaintiff and responds
Quash subpoenas

in opposition

to Defendant Frey's Motion to

to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's

Office and Google

Inc. In short, the motion is without merit and premature.

1. Counsel for Defendant Frey's Motion to Quash is premature
reasons.

for several

First, as counsel grudgingly admits, Plaintiff agreed to narrow the scope of

the subpoenas

but counsel never told Plaintiff what would be acceptable.

2. Second, Plaintiff then contacted attorneys

Attorney's Office and came to an agreement

at the LA County District

on what documents

they should provide

at this time. Exhibit A. Plaintiff notified counsel for Frey about this agreement.
3. Third, this Court has not yet authorized

the subpoena

for Google so there is

nothing to quash. Moreover, Plaintiff has advised counsel that he would withdraw
that subpoena

if Defendant Frey would fully comply with Plaintiffs Motion to

Produce Documents.
documents,

Although Defendant Frey has provided over 2000 pages of

there are many missing documents.

such potential documents

Plaintiff has sent counsel a list of

but has not received them.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 322 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2

Wherefore, for these reasons, this Court should deny Defendant Frey's Motion to
Quash.

Certificate of Service
I certifY that I emailed a copy to the attorneys for Defendant Frey this 28th day of
December 2015.

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 322-1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 1

Subpoena (LA COunty DA)

Sent By: Lana Chol On: Dec 12/231156:44 PM

"LanIi CIIoI"
Add to Addrha

To: justicejtrrp@comcastnet

-----------

Book

------_._---------

Dear Mr. KlmberlinThank you for your call today. As we discussed, we have agreed to narrow the scope of your subpoena to the los Angeles County District Attorney's
1)

Custodian of Records as follows:

Policies of the los Angeles County DA's Office related to use of social media (including blogging) by employees.

2) Documents (if any) setting forth the conclusIon/findings

underlying documentation of that investigation.

of the los Angeles County DA's Office's investigation

into your complaint

against Patrick Frey. We maintain our objections

to producing any

You have also agreed to file proof of service of the subpoena.

As we discussed. once you have filed proof of service, I should be able to mall the above documents to you during the week of January 4.
Please feel free to share this email with Mr. Frey's counsel.
Thank you very much. I wish you a happy holiday.
lana Chol
Senior Associate County Counsel
law Enforcement

Division

(213) 974-lJ811
Ichoi@counsel.lacounty.gov
Notice Of Contident.al Communication: This mesSilge is intended only for the use of the individUOlIor cr'tity to which it is addressed. This message contains intormatiO"l from the County Counsel's Office. attorneys tor the County of los Angeles, which may be
privileged, confidential and Ckcmpt from disclosure under applicable law. If the rC.lder of this mcsSilgc Is not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, this will notify you that any dissemin.ation. distribution. or copying of
this communication is strictly ;lrot'libited. It you have received this comMunication in error, please notify our OHitc at 213.974-0811 and destroy this message.