Article 62491 of alt.religion.scientology: Path: news.cybercom.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!wb24+ From: William Bardwell Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: CO FACTNet v CoS Stipulated discovery and schedule Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 01:40:24 -0500 Organization: Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 447 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: po9.andrew.cmu.edu This has a list of preliminary deposition subjects and the basic schedule and such... OCRed, but clean... ---- [Filed November 17, 1995] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 95-K-2143 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, V. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., et al., Defendants. STIPULATED SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER 1. DATE OF CONFERENCE The scheduling conference is to be held on November 8, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom C-401. 2. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES a. Plaintiffs: Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Bridge Publications, Inc. ("BPI") As exclusive licensee under the copyrights in certain unpublished and confidential Church of Scientology works known is Advanced Technology ("OT") and referred to in the First Amended Verified Complaint as the "Unpublished Confidential Works," RTC claims that the defendants infringed its exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. section 106 to reproduce, publish, display, and distribute the Unpublished Confidential Works; that defendants's unauthorized copying and use of the Unpublished Confidential Works constitutes copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 501; that defendants' unlawful acts constitute willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 504; and that defendants have contributed to the copyright infringement by others. Defendants' unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to: (1) scanning hard copies of portions of the Unpublished Confidential Works onto computer hard drives, (2) generating multiple hard copies and computer files of the Unpublished Confidential Works onto CD's, floppies and backup tapes; (3) E-mailing computer- generated copies from Lerma to Wollersheim; (4) posting 1 portions of Unpublished Confidential Works to a World Wide Web site on the Internet; (5) encouraging others to do the same, all without authorization from RTC; and (6) selling unauthorized copies. As exclusive licensee under the copyrights in certain published materials containing the religious and philosophical teachings of Mr. Hubbard, founder of Scientology, referred to in the First Amended Verified Complaint as the "Published Literary Works." BPI claims that the defendants infringed its exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. section 106 to reproduce, publish, display, and distribute the Published Literary Works; that defendants's unauthorized copying and use of the Published Literary Works constitute copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 501; that defendants' unlawful acts constitute willful copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 504; and that defendants have contributed to the copyright infringement by others. Defendants' unlawful conduct includes, but is not limited to: (1) scanning hard copies of the Published Literary Works onto computer hard drives; (2) generating multiple hard copies and computer files of the Published Literary Works onto CD's, floppies and backup tapes; (3) allowing public use of its database containing such files; and (4) selling unauthorized copies. RTC further claims that the defendants, by the same conduct delineated in Paragraph I above, and without authorization, misappropriated valuable and confidential trade secrets, C.R.S. sections 7-74-102, et. seq., contained in the Unpublished Confidential Works which the Church has taken extreme security steps to protect from public disclosure. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to statute. b. Defendants: F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ("FACTNet"); Lawrence Wollersheim ("Wollersheim"); and Robert Penny ("Penny") Defendants responded with specific admissions and denials of the allegations of the complaint in which they denied the material allegations of liability and damages. In addition, the defendants pleaded as affirmative defenses absence of secrecy, fair use, privilege under the free speech provisions of the state and federal constitutions, copyright misuse and other conduct by the plaintiff which bars its claims, as well as other privileges and defenses, all as set forth with greater particularity in the defendants' answer. Defendants assert a counterclaim for declaratory judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 57 and request a determination as to what materials in issue, if any, are trade secrets. The defendants also seek attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to statute. C. Other Parties: None 2 3. UNDISPUTED FACTS Religious Technology Center ("RTC") is a California non- profit, religious corporation and a formal entity of the Church of Scientology. Bridge Publications, Inc. ("BPI") is a California non-profit religious corporation. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ("FACTNET') is a non-profit corporation registered and with its principal place of business in Colorado. Lawrence Wollersheim ("Wollersheim") is a member of the Board of Directors and Executive Director of FACTNET. Wollersheim is an ex- Scientologist. Robert Penny ("Penny") is also a member of the Board of Directors of FACTNET. Penny is an ex-Scientologist. Arnaldo P. Lerma ("Lerma") has been a member of the Board of Directors of FACTNET since July 1995. Lerma is an ex- Scientologist. Lerma scanned a copy of the Fishman affidavit onto his hard drive in Virginia and then sent it electronically to Wollersheim in e-mails. Lerma also posted the Fishman affidavit electronically on the Internet on August 1 - 3, 1995. 4. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES Plaintiffs seek actual damages for both copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, to include, but are not limited to, the loss of licensing fees and other revenues that would have been Generated from the donations of parishioners related to services involving the various OT level materials by Scientologists who will now resort to self- instruction because these materials have been made available by the defendants. Plaintiffs also seek actual damages for the reduction in value, i.e., deflated value of services, that can now be charged to Scientologists who wish to acquire OT instruction from the Advanced Churches. Because defendants have made the OT materials available at no cost, the OT materials now have a deflated value. Further, Plaintiffs seek actual damages for all gains, profits and advantages derived or diverted by defendants from their infringements of copyrights and misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages of $ 100,000 for each copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 504(c)(2) for willful violations, as well as exemplary damages for trade secrets misappropriation. Finally, Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. section 505 and C.R.S. section 7-74-105. 5. REPORT OF PRE-CONFERENCE DISCOVERY & MEETING UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 26(f) a. Date of rule 26(f) meeting. Due to the expedited discovery ordered and conducted in this case for the preliminary injunction complaint, a rule 26(f) meeting was not held. 3 b. Names of each participant and each party represented. N/A. See 5.a. above. c. Proposed changes, if any, in timing or requirement of disclosure under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). None. d. Statement as to when rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made or will be made. If a party's disclosures were not made within the time provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), the party must here provide an explanation showing good cause for the omission. Because of the procedural posture of the case, considerable disclosure has already occurred from the expedited discovery and seizure of materials conducted pursuant to court order in August. The parties agree to make additional disclosure by December 10, 1995. e. A statement as to whether the parties will conduct joint interviews with potential witnesses; and, if they will, the names of such witnesses and a date and time for the interview which have been agreed to by the witness and all counsel. The parties are unaware, at this time, of any joint interviews that are likely to need to be scheduled. 6. CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE The plan and schedule must include the following items: a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties: No later than close of discovery. Joinder of Parties must take place by January 5, 1996. Deadline to Amend Pleadings: No later than close of discovery. Amended Pleadings must be filed no later than June 15, 1996. b. Discovery Cut-off. Not more than six months if one plaintiff and one defendant. Not more than 12 months if multiple parties. Any longer periods must be fully justified to court at scheduling conference. The Discovery Cut-Off-Date is May 31, 1996. If additional parties are added and require more time for discovery, a motion to amend the Discovery Cut-Off-Date must be made. 4 Dispositive Motion Deadline: Not more than 30 days after discovery cut off. The deadline for Dispositive Motions is June 15, 1996. Note: No additional order should be requested for briefing on motions. All motions should be filed with the briefs attached. There are no page limits, but discretion on length and against repetition is advised. The following briefing schedule will apply to all motions without further order of the Court: the Response Brief is due 20 days after the motion is filed. Movant may file a Reply Brief 10 days after the Response Brief is filed. C. Deposition Schedule: Depositions of employees and/or officials of the parties may be scheduled between now and December 20, 1995. There shall be a hiatus in deposition discovery from December 20, 1995 until February 15, 1996. Depositions of any witnesses not taken or completed prior to December 20, 1995 will be scheduled between February 15, 1996 and May 1, 1996, unless an earlier time is stipulated to between the parties. The parties reserve the right to depose others who are shown by further discovery to be necessary. The parties also reserve the right to challenge the depositions of any and all deponents. Name of Date of Time of Expected Length Deponent Deposition Deposition of Deposition Defendants: Warren McShane Robert Tencati Michael Rinder David Miscavige Lynn Farny Rule 30(b)(6) depos of BPI and RTC Plaintiffs: Lawrence Wollersheim Robert Penny Uwe Geertz Vaughn Young Steven Fishman Jan Nerrill 5 Graham Berry Ron Newman Homer Smith Dennis Erlich Jeff Jacobson Joe Harrington Jonathan Cavan-Atack Any and all experts All parties stipulate that the depositions taken in the Lerma case can be used in the FACTNet case, if the parties will not repeat examinations conducted in the Lerma depositions when deposing the same deponents in the FACTNet case. d. Interrogatory Schedule FACTNet served its First Set of Interrogatories on RTC on August 28, 1995,. and RTC responded on September 5, 1995. Any subsequent Sets of Interrogatories must be requested so that the responses are due by thirty (30) days prior to the close of discovery. e. Schedule for Request for Production of Documents RTC served its First Request for Production of Documents on all three Defendants on August 21, 1995. FACTNet served its First Request for Production of Documents on RTC on August 28, 1995. All responded on September 5, 1995. Any subsequent Requests for Production of Documents must be requested so that the responses are due by thirty (30) days prior to the close of discovery. RTC served its First Request for Admissions on all three Defendants on August 21, 1995. FACTNet served its First Request for Admissions on RTC on August 28, 1995. All responded on September 5, 1995. Requests for Admissions shall be served so answers are due by thirty (30) days prior to the close of discovery. f. Discovery Limitations: (1) any limits which any party wishes to propose on the length of depositions. 6 The deposition of Mr. Penny will be scheduled and conducted with considerations for his health. The parties are to work out the length of depositions. Concerns regarding oppressive depositions should be raised by motion to the Court after consulting local rules. (2) modifications which any party proposes on the presumptive numbers of depositions or interrogatories contained in the federal rules. Plaintiffs are permitted 15 depositions and defendants are permitted 15 depositions. If a party wishes to take additional depositions, a motion showing need must be filed. (3) limitations which any party proposes on number of requests for production of documents and/or requests for admissions. The parties are to work out the number of interrogatories, requests for productions of documents and requests for admissions. The Court will manage the case by receiving motions for protective orders on these discovery matters. 9. Other Planning or Discovery Orders None. 7. SETTLEMENT The parties certify that, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P . 26(f), we have discussed the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case by alternate dispute resolution and no possibility of settlement currently exists. The parties agree to inform the Court in writing should the possibility of settlement arise during the pre-trial stage. 8. OTHER SCHEDULING ISSUES a. A statement of those discovery or scheduling issues, if any, on which counsel, after a good faith effort, were unable to reach an agreement, including the question of whether to refer the case to a magistrate for a settlement conference. None. b. Anticipated motions to be filed, by whom, estimated time of filing, and estimated proposed briefing schedule. 7 Both plaintiffs and defendants anticipate the filing of summary judgment motions or, at least, partial summary judgment motions. BPI anticipates the filing of a motion for preliminary injunction in the near future. As discussed above, all motions are to be filed with briefs attached. C. Anticipated fields of expert testimony, if any. The following fields of expert testimony are anticipated: theology, computer technology; Internet usage and communications; public opinion research, behavior and analysis; economics; accounting; trade secrets maintenance and enforcement; and copyright maintenance and enforcement. The parties do not concede the relevance of any of the listed areas of expert testimony and reserve the right to object thereto. The parties will disclose the names of their expert witnesses by March 15, 1996. Expert depositions must be taken and reports prepared by May 31, 1995. The Court will permit an extension of the May 31, 1995, deadline if need is shown due to scheduling problems with experts. d. Anticipated length of trial and whether trial is to the court or jury. The case will be tried to a jury. A trial date will be determined later. 9. AMENDMENTS TO DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER Counsel acknowledge that the Stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order may be altered or amended only upon motion showing good cause and order entered thereon. DATED this 17 day of November, 1995. BY THE COURT: [signed] John L. Kane, Jr. Senior United States District Judge 8 -- William Bardwell wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu