William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR A SHOW CAUSE ORDER

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves the Court order Defendant
Brett Kimberlin to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to
obey an order of this Court. In support of his motion Mr. Hoge states as follows:
DEFENDANT BRETT KIMBERLIN HAS FAILED TO OBEY THIS COURTS ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY
On 4 January, 2017, this Court ordered Brett Kimberlin to provide complete
answers to Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 propounded to him on 17 October, 2016.
Order, Docket Item 108/0 at 1. The Order required service of the complete answers
on Mr. Hoge within fifteen days (i.e., on or before 19 January). Kimberlin has not
complied with that Order.
On 17 January, 2017, Mr. Hoge received a large envelope via U. S. Mail from
Brett Kimberlin. The envelope contained two items: the Kimberlin Defendants
Reply to Mr. Hoges Opposition to their Corrected Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item
105/2) and an identical copy of the answers Kimberlin provided in late December,
2016. These are the same answers the Court found noncompliant, and Mr. Hoge
has received no other communication from Brett Kimberlin relating to the

Interrogatories. Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and the December and January

sets of answers are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.
The instant lawsuit is not the first case in which the Kimberlins have
engaged in misbehavior related to discovery. When Brett Kimberlin sued Mr. Hoge,
Kimberlin failed to provide any timely responses to Mr. Hoges request for
production of documents, and he was sanctioned by the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County.1 Kimberlin v. Walker, Case No. 380966V, Order, Docket Item
215 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Aug. 1, 2014). Similarly, Tetyana Kimberlin was
sanctioned for her failure to sit for a deposition in the recent Walker v. Kimberlin, et
al. case. Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V, Order, Docket Item 376.
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Dec. 13, 2016).
It appears from the records of multiple cases that Brett Kimberlins general
litigation strategy includes defiance of Maryland and federal Rules and of courts
orders followed by refusing to pay when monetary sanctions are imposed.2
1

A $600 dollar sanction to cover Mr. Hoges and his codefendants attorneys fees
related to Kimberlins non-compliance with discover was imposed. Over two years
have passed, and Kimberlin has not yet paid anything.
2

For example, on 3 September, 2015, Judge Mason imposed sanctions against Brett
Kimberlin to partially cover the cost of defendants attorneys fees resulting from
Kimberlins failure to appear at a scheduling hearing in Kimberlin v. National
Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 403868V, Order, Docket Item 85 (Md. Cir.Ct Mont.
Co. Sept. 3, 2015). Mr. Hoge was awarded $150 in that Order for the fees of his
counsel. Over a year has passed, and Kimberlin has not paid anything yet. Most
recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that Brett
Kimberlin had filed a frivolous appeal naming Mr. Hoge as an appellee and
sanctioned Kimberlin, ordering him to pay Mr. Hoge $600 for attorneys fees.
Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No. 16-1500, Order, Doc. No. 69
(4th Cir. Jan. 12, 2017).
2

Therefore, it is unlikely that a monetary sanction will have any salutary effect, and
most likely, the appropriate way for the Court to address Brett Kimberlins defiance
is an order to show cause why he should not be found in contempt. Further, if
Kimberlin were found to be in contempt, incarceration would be appropriate until
the contempt be purged by Brett Kimberlins either providing complete answers to
Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 or invoking his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination for any interrogatory he refuses to answer.
CONCLUSION
Thus, it appears Brett Kimberlin has knowingly and purposefully defied this
Courts Order to serve complete answers to Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Mr.
Hoge.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to order Brett Kimberlin to show cause
why he should not be found in contempt for his failure to obey this Courts Order to
serve complete answers to Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 propounded to him on 17
October, 2016, and to grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
Date: 23 January, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

RULE 2-431 CERTIFICATION

I certify that I have made a good faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute
with Brett Kimberlin. Specifically, I sent him a letter attempting to resolve the
dispute; that letter was sent by email at 12:29 am on 6 December, 2016. It was sent
to both of the email addresses Kimberlin has recently used to communicate with my
counsel in other pending matters. I received no response and retransmitted the
letter via email again at 8:36 am on 9 December, 2016. Again, I received no
response. I sent him an additional letter attempting to resolve the dispute; that
letter was sent by email at 12:13 pm on 22 December, 2016. Mr. Kimberlin
responded with answers identical to those shown in Exhibit A. On 4 January, 2017,
the Court ordered Kimberlin to provide complete answers to Interrogatories 5, 6, 7,
8, and 9, and Kimberlin responded with the answers shown in Exhibit A, i.e., the
same unsatisfactory response provided in late December.
Date: 23 January, 2017
William John Joseph Hoge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 23rd day ofJanuary, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing
on the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT
I, William John Joseph Hoge, 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: 23 January, 2017
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A
Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 propounded to Brett Kimberlin on 17 October, 2017.

5. In your Complaint filed in Kimberlin v. McConnell, et al., Case No. 16CV-1211-GJH (D.Md. 2016) you stated that in conjunction with your employment
by Justice Through Music Project, Plaintiffs work includes seeking redress in
federal court for violations of his civil and statutory rights. Id., 1. Identify any
instructions, directives, corporate minutes, or job descriptions from your employer
ordering or authorizing you to engage in such activity as corporate business and the
who, if anyone, provides supervision of those activities.
6. Identify any instances in which corporate funds or other resources
belonging to Justice Through Music or Velvet Revolution.US have been used to pay
for expenses or to provide other support related to any civil action (state or federal)
or criminal complaint (including, but not limited to, the Applications for Statement
of Charges at issue in this matter) filed by you against Mr. Hoge, describing the
amount paid or support provided and which entity paid or provided it.
7. Identify any instances in which you or any person acting on your behalf
filed any sort of criminal complaint or report (including, but not limited to, an
Application for Statement of Charges or statement to a law enforcement agency)
against Mr. Hoge, describing the nature of any such complaint or report, when it
was made, to whom it was made, and any disposition of the complaint or report.
8. Identify any instance in which you or any person acting on your behalf
sent any email or other communication relating to or mentioning Mr. Hoge to any
office, employee, or contractor of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, describing the contents of any such communication, when it was

sent, to whom it was sent, and the nature and date of any reply.
9. Identify any instance in which you or any person acting on your behalf
sent any email or other communication relating to or mentioning Mr. Hoge to any
member of the Carroll County Forestry Board, the Maryland Forestry Board
Foundation, or the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, describing the
contents of any such communication, when it was sent, to whom it was sent, and the
nature and date of any reply.

Exhibit B
Answer to Interrogatories received from Brett Kimberlin on or about 27 December,
2016.

Exhibit C
Answer to Interrogatories received from Brett Kimberlin on 17 January, 2017.