1 Charles Rodrick, pro per

2
34522 North Scottsdale Road, #120-467
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
3 480-250-3838
chuckrodrick@gmail.com
4

6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
7
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
8

9 Charles Rodrick, ) Case No.: CV2016-052228

Plaintiff )
10
v. ) MOTION TO AUTHORIZE DEPOSITION
11 ) OF NON-PARTY DANIEL WARNER WITH
) GOOD CAUSE PURSUANT RULE 30(a)(1)
12 Barri Grossman, et al., ) ARIZONA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Defendants )
13
)
14 ______________________________ ) (Assigned to Hon. Aimee Anderson)

15
Pursuant to Rule 30(a)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Charles
16

17 Rodrick (hereinafter, Rodrick) hereby moves this Court for authorization to issue a Notice

18 for Deposition for non-party Daniel Warner (hereinafter, Warner). Rodrick requests the
19
Court to issue an Order granting the Motion to Authorize Deposition of Non-Party Warner as
20
there is good cause as required pursuant Rule 30(a)(1).
21

22
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23 Rule 30(a)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure requires requesting the Courts
24 authorization for the depositions of non-parties to the complaint. Pursuant Rule 30(a)(1) the
25
Court does have the discretion to grant an Order allowing non-parties to be deposed with good
26
cause.
27

28

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 The considerations for the Court in determining what would constitute good cause for
2
granting the deposition of a non-party is whether the request advances an agenda to secure
3
sworn testimony that is relevant and will establish the evidentiary foundation of the claims and
4

5
allegations of the complaint before the tribunal. The legal basis established by the relevant

6 Arizona case law requires the meeting of two (2) significant elements which are: (1) no other
7 means exist to obtain the information and (2) the information is critical to preparing the case.
8
See Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir 1986); Sterne Kessler Goldstein
9
& Fox, PLLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 276 F.R.D. 376, 380-82 (D.D.C. 2011); N.F.A. Corp. v.
10

11 Riverview Narrow Fabrics, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 83, 86 (M.D.N.C. 1987); Tow Intl, Inc. v. Pontin,

12 246 F.R.D. 421, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). The pertinent criteria required for good cause for the
13
deposition of non-party Warner is met, thus the Motion before the Court should be granted.
14
WARNER IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE THAT CAN ESTABLISH THE MATERIAL
15
FACTS TO THE CLAIMS OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COURT.
16

17 At the core of the complaint before the Court is the defamatory blog post uploaded and

18 disseminated over the Internet on the Kelly/Warner Law website on June 11, 2015 entitled
19
Extortion Racket Websites: Mugshot & Sex Offender Sites, with the subtitle Two Men, One
20
Extortion Racket Website?(See, Exhibit A). To maximize the damage being perpetrated upon
21

22
Rodrick was the coordinated program to immediately republish the article onto additional

23 websites that would claim civil litigation immunity under Section 230 of the Communication
24 Decency Act (See, Exhibit B). Although, it should be noted there is no immunity protection
25
under Section 230 when the republishing website is well aware that the content in question is
26
factually inaccurate and was authored and posted online as an intentional defamatory attack
27

28

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 against an individual (i.e. Rodrick).1 Warner is the key figure known to have all the
2
information critical to establishing the facts associated to this case and no other means exist in
3
which it can be obtained.
4

5 I) THE CLAIMS OF NON-PARTY WARNER TO THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA

6 CONCERNING GROSSMAN ARE GOOD CAUSE TO GRANT A DEPOSITION.

7 The first time Rodrick would learn of the possible existence of a Barri Grossman
8
(hereinafter, Grossman) was in November of 2015. It was Warners response to a complaint
9
filed by Rodrick with the State Bar of Arizona (hereinafter, SBA) in October of 2015
10

11 concerning the Internet article posted on the Kelly/Warner Law website twenty (20) months

12 AFTER withdrawal as a client that the name of Grossman was revealed as allegedly being
13
responsible for authoring and posting the defamatory content in question. In the response
14
prepared by Warners ethics attorney dated November 3, 2015, the serious issue of the
15
defamatory post disseminated over the Internet on the Kelly/Warner Law website was
16

17 addressed in the following manner (See, Exhibit C):

18 Publication of Blog Post: The June 15, 2015 blog post on Mr. Warners firm
19 website was not a breach of confidentiality. Mr. Warner did not author it, nor
20 publish it, nor know anything about it until shortly after it was published.
21 Rather, Barri Grossman (Grossman), an independent contractor who works
22 for the firm as a marketing consultant, authored the blog post based on publicly
23 available information about Complainant and then published it in violation of
24 the firms policies and procedure, which require all posts on the firms website
25 to be approved before they are posted. When Mr. Warner learned about the bog
26 post, Grossman was reprimanded and required to sign an agreement, a mere six
27

28 1
E.g. - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 days after the posting, acknowledging her understanding of the firms policies
2 and procedures, admitting that the blog post violated the firms policies and
3 procedures, and agreeing that any future violation would be grounds for
4 immediate termination. [Ex. 30.] At Mr. Warners direction, the blog post was
5 also removed from the website, and a retraction was issued. [Ex. 31.]
6 The issue germane to the Motion before the Court is this explanation prepared for Warner,
7
which he signed a sworn verification (See, Exhibit D), raises numerous issues concerning
8
information critical to the case and only Warner can clarify the veracity of the version of events
9

10
as depicted in November of 2015.

11 A) Not a breach of confidentiality: Warner is the only person who can explain
12 how posting derogatory information on his law firms website concerning a
13
previous client does not violate the sacred attorney client privilege. It appears it
14
is Warners contention that independent contractors working for the firm are
15

16 exempt from the dictates of this long standing and fundamental prerequisite of

17 the legal profession. The premise that someone else in a law firm, as long as it
18
is not the clients personal attorney, can disclose defamatory information about
19
a previous client on a law firms website is perfectly ethical conduct is
20
ludicrous. Was Grossman advised that this was the standards adhered to when
21

22 working for Kelly/Warner Law? The only means to determine the facts is the

23 deposition of Warner.
24
B) Warner did not know anything about it until shortly after it was published:
25
Only Warner can provide the pertinent details to clarify exactly how this series
26

27
of events occurred for the article to be posted on June 11, 2015. It would not be

28

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 removed until two (2) weeks after it had been published thus allowing it to be
2
intentionally and knowingly republished by multiple additional websites.
3
C) Barri Grossman, an independent contractor who works for the firm as a
4

5
marketing consultant: How was a consultant able to access the

6 administrative functions of the firms website with the ability to publish it?
7 D) Warner has claimed Grossman published it in violation of the firms policies
8
and procedure: Only Warner can provide the information as to what were the
9
policies and procedure of Kelly/Warner Law as no such documentation has
10

11 ever been made available for review. Only Warner can testify to the practice

12 and procedures involved in providing employees such as Grossman this

13
information and what documentation is available to prove such policies and
14
procedure were in fact shared with employees. Only Warner can answer why
15
the policy and procedures of the Kelly/Warner Law website were allegedly
16

17 acknowledged by Grossman in an agreement dated six (6) days AFTER the

18 posting of the defamatory content concerning Rodrick

19
E) Warner claims all posts on the firms website to be approved before they are
20
posted: Only Warner can answer how Grossman was able to somehow
21

22
circumvent this VERY easy and basic protocol to website administration

23 controlling the what, when and the who can publish content live on the
24 Internet.
25
F) Grossman was reprimanded and required to sign an agreement: The response
26
provided by Warner to the SBA includes [Ex. 30] which claims to be an
27

28 agreement in which Grossman conveniently confesses to and acknowledges

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 full responsibility for the defamatory post against Rodrick (See, Exhibit E). As
2
previously discussed in pleadings before the Court, there are many serious
3
issues with this document that demand some meaningful explanation as to the
4

5
veracity of the stated details. Only Warner can explain the discrepancy of

6 Grossman specifically being named on the three (3) page document cited
7 twenty-eight (28) times in the agreement, yet the initials appearing three (3)
8
times are clearly BW and the signature is clearly NOT that of Barri
9
Grossman which anyone can see with a simple cursory review. By definition,
10

11 the signature NOT being that of Barri Grossman is good cause to assert the

12 document is a forgery and only Warner can provide the information for this
13
falsification occurring. Only Warner can explain why he submitted such an
14
obvious misrepresentation to the SBA and did not obtain a notarized signature
15
to validate the authenticity of such a document. Only Warner can confirm the
16

17 name of the second signature on the document, apparently representing an

18 agent of Kelly/Warner Law, as it clearly is NOT that of his partner Aaron

19
Kelly (the only other member of the company/firm) or that of Warner
20
(member and official agent of the company/firm) (See, Exhibit F).
21

22
G) At Mr. Warners directiona retraction was issued: There was in fact a

23 completely inadequate and disingenuous retraction posted on the

24 Kelly/Warner Law website (See, Exhibit G). It was published two (2) weeks
25
after the posting first appeared online and only served as an intentional further
26
slight against Rodrick by not acknowledging that the information posted was a
27

28 total fabrication of lies and a personal defamatory online assault. Warner is the

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 only party that can provide the details in the preparation of the so-called
2
retraction, who was involved in its wording, why it did not identify
3
Grossman as the alleged responsible party and/or offer any kind of apology to
4

5
previous client Rodrick for the falsehoods disseminated over the Internet by the

6 Kelly/Warner Law website.

7 II) IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED WITH THE SBA THAT GROSSMAN ENGAGED
8
IN A TELEPHONIC INTERVIEW ON BEHALF OF WARNER.
9
It was noted in the Motion to Intervene by David M. Ellis (hereinafter, Ellis) filed
10

11 May 19, 2017 that Rodrick is, and has been, well aware that the State Bar of Arizona (SBA)

12 interviewed Grossman(See, pg. 5:26-27). This was the first time that Rodrick had ever been
13
made aware Grossman was interviewed by the SBA. At no time was such an occurrence ever
14
disclosed to Rodrick by any party including, but not limited to, the SBA, Warner, Kelly/Warner
15
Law, Ellis, Warners ethics attorney or anyone else. This was completely new information.
16

17 The only person who can provide relevant details as to what may have been involved in

18 the interview by the SBA of Grossman is Warner. It is critical to the case to ascertain how
19
Warner involved Grossman in the response furthering the investigation by the SBA. It was due
20
to this disclosure by Ellis that led to communications between Rodrick and the SBA concerning
21

22
this matter. It was revealed to Rodrick by Naomi Lopez of the SBA on June 14, 2017 that there

23 had in fact been an interview conducted of Grossman back in November, 2015. The ONLY
24 communication involved ONE telephonic conversation. There was no documentation provided
25
in the form of a notarized affidavit or an in-person interview, thus no definitive evidence that
26
Grossman was the actual party interviewed by the SBA. Only Warner can provide the
27

28 rationale why proper documentation in the form of a notarized affidavit by Grossman was not

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 provided to the SBA in responding to the Rodrick complaint in order to authenticate the
2
veracity of the information and was in fact received from the identified person being Grossman.
3
It is also worth noting that somehow Ellis was aware of such a detail as an interview by
4

5
the SBA of Grossman when Rodrick was completely in the dark. Only Warner can provide an

6 explanation how Ellis was provided this significant detail concerning his response to the SBA.
7 Further, how such information would NOT be in violation of the attorney client privilege
8
whether by Warner and/or a Kelly/Warner Law employee (presumably Grossman) interacting
9
with Rodricks legal adversary Ellis concerning legal matters associated to Grossman and/or
10

11 the Kelly/Warner Law website. Clearly there is an ongoing relationship between Warner Ellis

12 Grossman Kelly/Warner Law and the website posting of June 11, 2015 and there exist no
13
other means to ascertain how the connections fit together without the deposition of Warner.
14
III) EX EMPLOYEE GROSSMAN RECEIVES UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
15
DELIVERED MAIL AT THE KELLY/WARNER LAW FIRM OFFICES TODAY.
16
The Motion to Intervene filed by Ellis on May 19, 2017 was a treasure trove of new
17
information that is both critical to the preparation of the case and requires that aspects of
18
clarification are necessary that can only be obtained from Warner in a deposition. Specifically,
19
an exhibit is provided that reveals a disclosure that was previously unknown to Rodrick that (the
20
alleged) Grossman has been in contact with the FBI Phoenix Field Office. As Exhibit 11 to the
21
Motion, is a letter authored by FBI Special Agent Erin Gibbs addressed to Barri Grossman
22
dated May 17, 2017 (See, Exhibit H). Further, it is addressed in care of the Kelly/Warner Law
23
Firm to their offices in Scottsdale, Arizona apparently due to Grossmans prior employment.
24
This letter raises a number of relevant issues that need further examination to establish the
25
factual basis as it pertains to the case before this Court that only Warner can answer. Such issues
26
as:
27
A) The FBI letter names Grossman as the contact person: Once again, why does the
28
name Grossman that now appears on an FBI letter not match with the
8

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 agreement that clearly was signed by a person of a different name? Why
2 would Grossman not be identified in the correct name matching the signature
3 when conversing with the FBI?
4 B) The letter was mailed to the offices of Kelly/Warner Law: Why is the letter
5 addressed to the offices of Kelly/Warner Law when it is clearly stated Grossman
6 association was that of previous employment and prior employment? Is
7 Grossman operating under some other capacity at Kelly//Warner Law offices
8 justifying the United States Postal Service to deliver mail to this address. Has the
9 Kelly/Warner Law firm engaged in some form of mail fraud in inappropriately
10 directing U.S. mail to its offices for Grossman? What other mail is being
11 delivered to the Kelly/Warner Law firm on behalf of Grossman? How long has
12 this arrangement of receiving mail for Grossman been in place? The acceptance
13 of U.S. mail by Grossman at the law firms offices in Scottsdale, Arizona clearly
14 establishes jurisdiction is proper in being litigated in the Superior Court of the
15 State of Arizona for the County of Maricopa. These are all very relevant issues
16 that the only means that exist to unravel the facts requires the good cause
17 deposition of Warner.
18 C) Grossman was NOT met in person, only telephonically: Once again, the
19 communications that allegedly occurred between Grossman and the FBI have
20 been stated to have been telephonic and not in person. What was Warners
21 and/or Kelly/Warner Law involvement with these communications? Did they
22 occur at the law firms offices? How many times? What dates? Did Warner
23 participate in these calls with the FBI concerning Grossman? It is a fact that was
24 disclosed to Rodrick that all calls into and out of Kelly/Warner Law are
25 recorded. If the calls took place at the firms offices there would be recordings
26 that can be made available via Discovery for review. These are all very relevant
27 issues that the only means that exist to unravel many relevant and material facts
28 requires the good cause deposition of Warner.
9

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 D) Communications were officially documented in December of 2015: The
2 Motion to Intervene filed by Ellis would also assert that Special Agent Gibbs
3 also indicated how Grossman has expressed concerns about being stalked and
4 harassed by Rodrick since 2015. First, the FBI letter makes no such claims.
5 Second, where does Ellis obtain such information to include in a court pleading
6 when Rodrick has never met, spoken to, written to, emailed, faxed and/or
7 ascertained any location where a real person named Grossman can be found to
8 reside. The implications here are clear that Ellis has once again worked with
9 Warner to create a false narrative with the FBI as the continued harassment and
10 attacks against Rodrick. Third, the FBI letter was authored by Special Agent
11 Gibbs on June 17, 2017, which was (a) a full eighteen (18) months since the
12 communications had occurred in December 2015; but (b) inexplicitly ONLY
13 two days prior to the filing the Motion to Intervene by Ellis on June 19, 2017 at
14 8:47AM as an exhibit for a 23 page pleading with 156 pages of exhibits. How is
15 this possible? How did Ellis receive a document written, mailed via U.S.P.S. to
16 Kelly/Warner Law in Scottsdale addressed to Grossman find its way to the court
17 in UNDER 36 hours? Just the logistics involved to achieve such a feat are
18 definitive proof a wide range of collusion and/or conspiracy had occurred
19 between Ellis and Kelly/Warner Law associated with the critical material matters
20 involving Grossman. The timeline associated with these events are irrefutable
21 and demand a serious investigation. These are obvious issues that cannot be
22 addressed by any other means and the only existing party being Warner with
23 sworn testimony authorized by the Court granting his deposition.
24 E) The FBI letter identifies Grossman as Ms. Grossman: It is especially telling
25 and relevant that is irrefutable information critical to preparing the case that FBI
26 Special Agent Erin Gibbs claims to have spoken with Grossman. The letter is
27 addressed to Ms. Grossman. The Kelly/Warner Law agreement offered as a
28 confession and acknowledgement of responsibility of their independent
10

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 contract employee states Grossman has knowingly and voluntarily executed
2 this agreement of HIS own free will. (See, Exhibit E, pg. 3(A)). How did the
3 FBI speak to a female (MS.) and the agreement was prepared by and for the
4 Kelly/Warner employee who is a male (HIS)? Kelly/Warner Law is a small
5 firm only consisting of a half dozen people and it is inconceivable that Warner
6 would NOT be aware of the gender of Grossman. This obvious and egregious
7 contradiction is critical to preparing for the case and the only means available to
8 ascertain the TRUTH is by granting the deposition of Warner.
9 F) Kelly/Warner Law is under federal law enforcement investigation: The issue of
10 concern surrounding the identity of Grossman is NOT conspiracy theory
11 rhetoric meant as a distraction it is real and it matters. It is not known if
12 Grossman is a real person and NOT another fake identity of Kelly/Warner
13 Laws own creation as those that have received significant media attention,2
14 including, but not limited to, the work of respected Law Professor Eugene
15 Volokh who writes for WashingtonPost.com.3 It has also garnered a new
16 investigation initiated by the SBA to review these very serious allegations and an
17 active investigation by the FBI overseen by the U.S. Attorney General of Rhode
18 Island. These are all very relevant issues that question the fundamental fact of
19

20 2
E.g. Arizona Attorney Daniel Warner Under Investigation for Alleged Legal

21 Fraud - http://usaherald.com/arizona-attorney-daniel-warner-investigation-

22 alleged-legal-fraud/ and Aaron Kelly Law Firm Resorts to Attacking Former

23 Client Again On KellyWarnerLaw.com Pattern Recognized -

24 http://usaherald.com/aaron-kelly-law-firm-resorts-attacking-former-client-

25 kellywarnerlaw-com-pattern-recognized/

26 3
E.g. Libel Takedown Injunctions and Fake Notarizations -

27 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/30/libel-

28 takedown-injunctions-and-fake-notarizations/?utm_term=.469092b66cbd

11

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 Grossmans identity. The concerns associated with the business practices of
2 Kelly/Warner Law have attracted the additional national attention of respected
3 attorney Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group who recently on June
4 23, 2013 filed a challenge to an Injunction obtained in a suit litigated by
5 Kelly/Warner Law.4 The answers to these concerns establish the veracity to
6 information critical to the case involving the claims associated to Grossmans
7 involvement with the defamatory content posted against Rodrick. The only
8 means that exist to determine the TRUTH requires the good cause deposition of
9 Warner.
10 CONCLUSION
11
There are no other means exist[ing] to obtain the information and the information is
12
critical to preparing the case which provides good cause for the deposition of non-party Warner.
13
The only way to adequately address the numerous inconsistencies, misrepresentations,
14
unsupported assertions and most importantly, to finally establish the FACTS about Grossman
15
and any association to the posting of June 11, 2015 on the Kelly/Warner Law website is the
16
deposition of Warner.
17
Based on the foregoing, Rodrick respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order
18
allowing the deposition of non-party Warner to be scheduled pursuant Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule
19

20
30(a)(1). For good cause to allow for discovery of relevant information concerning the posting

21 appearing June 11, 2015 on the Kelly/Warner Law website, the alleged involvement of
22 Grossman and whether such a person actually was an employee of Kelly/Warner Law and
23
responsible for the defamatory content concerning Rodrick.
24

25 4
E.g. Fake Litigation 2.0: Defrauding an Arizona Court to Sanitize Megan

26 Welters Reputation - http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2017/06/fake-

27 litigation-20-defrauding-an-arizona-court-to-sanitize-megan-welters-

28 reputation.html

12

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner

 1 Dated: June 27, 2017
2
By: /s/ Charles Rodrick
3 Charles Rodrick, pro per
34522 North Scottsdale Road, #120-467
4 Scottsdale, AZ 85266
5
480-250-3838
chuckrodrick@gmail.com
6

10

11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12
ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed this 27th day of May, 2017 with:
13

14 Clerk of the Court

Maricopa County Superior Court
15
ORIGINAL of the foregoing mailed, via USPS, postage pre-paid on this 27th day of May, 2017,
16
to:
17
BRENT OESTERBLAD
18 20369 N 52nd Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85308
19

20 BARRI GROSSMAN
UNKNOWN ADDRESS
21

22

23
By: /s/ Charles Rodrick
24 Charles Rodrick, pro per
25 34522 North Scottsdale Road, #120-467
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
26 480-250-3838
chuckrodrick@gmail.com
27

28

13

Motion to Authorize the Deposition of Non-Party Daniel Warner