[Note: material in square brackets is commentary by Keith Henson] [this is the result of a scan, and contains many OCR errors] Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN 60 South Market Street, Suite 1125 San Jose, CA 95113-2332 (408) 292-7600 Roger M. Mugrim William M. Hart PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor New York, New York 10022-4697 (212)318-6000 Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 (213) 960-1933 Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER a ) CASE NO C-96 20271 RPA California non-profit corporation, ) ) DECLARATION OF WARREN L. Plaintiff, ) MCSHANE IN SUPPORT OF EX ) PARTE APPLICATION FOR V ) TEMPORARY RESTRAIMNG ORDER, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND H. KEITH HENSON, an individual ) ORDER FOR EXPEDITED ) DISCOVERY Defendant ) I, WARREN L. McSHANE, hereby declare: 1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of California. Since August of 1983, I have been employed by Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), a church of the Scientology religion. Since October 1983, I have been a Director and Officer of RTC, and I am currently its President. An important part of my functions is to ensure the protection of certain unpublished, confidential scriptures belonging to RTC which are further described throughout this declaration. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I make this dcclaration in support of RTC's motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and related relief and specifically, to bring to the Court's attention the imminent threat which defendant H. Keith Henson's acts now pose to RTC's proprietary rights, including judicially recognized copyright and trade secret rights (see paragraph 42 Infra), in its religious scriptures. Mr. Henson has now begun posting and is threatening and poised to post onto the Internet all or parts of the entire series (consisting of 55 separately protected works), of plaintiff's confidential copyrighted works entitled "NOT5" (described below) the very behavior enjoined by this Court's TRO entered on March 21, 1996 in Religious Technology Center V. Ward, Case No.96- 20207 RMW, which was followed by a preliminary Injunction on April 1, 1996. 3. In a posting to alt.religion.scientology on March 30, 1996, Mr. Henson listed as the subject "An Open Letter to Judge Whyte," which included the contents of what he claimed was a letter he had purportedly written to this Court. Included in Henson's posting was the entirety of NOTs Series 34 verbatim. He advised readers that he was "publicly seeking more NOTs material, stolen or not." (Emphasis supplied.) The "NOTs" works which Henson was soliciting are the entirety of a set of the unpublished, confidential works known as New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans, or "NOTs".' A true and correct copy of the posting, with the unpublished NOTs Series 34 redacted is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 4. Henson further stated in the posting that he had read, in its entirety, a posting to alt.religion.scientology of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on March 21, 1996 in the case of Religious Technology Center v. Ward, Case No.96-20207 RMW, against Grady Ward and persons in active concert with him, which prohibited the reproduction, distribution, or performance of any of the NOTs works, and prohibited the acquisition, display, or disclosure of 49 of the NOTs works (all but NOTs Series 1, 24, 34, 35, 36, and 42.) 5. Henson was also present at the preliminary injunction hearing in Ward and announced in his posting that: "after talking to the court," he was convinced that he was free to solicit and post plaintiffs copyrighted material to the Internet on the theory that his alleged purpose -- to show that [footnote] "OT" is an abbreviation for Operating Thetan. A "thetan" in Scientology doctrine is a name for the individual spiritual being who is immortal and who survives from lifetime to lifetime. The term "operating thetan" designates a person able to "operate" to his full potential as a spiritual being. "Dianetics" is a sub-study of the Scientology religion, and "NED for OTs" is an abbreviation for "New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans." [end footnote] plaintiff is "criminal "--"overrides commercial copyright considerations." (Exhibit 1.) He was thus obviously aware of RTC's claims of trade secret and copyright protection for these materials. 6. To Scientologists, the NOTs scriptures are highly sacred and confidential. Pursuant to RTC's policies for protection of the Advanced Technology, no authorization has ever been given to defendant to copy, acquire, use, disclose, reproduce, or display any of the NOTs works or any other Advanced Technology work. When I was informed of Henson's posting, I requested that RTC's attorney, Helena Kobrin, send Henson a cease and desist letter to inform him that RTC regards these works as trade secrets, and that even their acquisition is regarded as a misappropriation under California law. A letter was sent to him by e-mail on March 30, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 7. On March 31, Ms. Kobrin also wrote to counsel for Henson's service provider, Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., ("Netcom"), requesting that Netcom warn Henson not to post RTC's copyrighted materials and that continuing violations would result in suspension of Mr. Henson's account. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. [sorry guys, another error, no Exhibit 2 of this description was attached. Since Netcom did not send me anything, I suspect that they did not send you a letter either. hkh] 8. Mr. Henson responded to Ms. Kobrin's letter in two fashions. First, on March 31, he posted his "Open Letter to Judge Whyte," with NOTs Series 34 included, to alt.religion. scientology. A true and correct copy of that posting, with NOTs Series 34 redacted, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Second, he responded to Ms. Kobrin by e-mail that same day and also posted that message to alt. religion.scientology on April 1. In that response, Mr. Henson told counsel that he was "going to put it a little nicer than Grady [Ward] would, but you can take your demand, fold it till it is all corners, and stick it where 'the Sun don't shine."' He then said he was *again* asking for NOTs or any other Scientology 'AT' [Advanced Technology] materials, acquired by legal, or *illegal* means," further announcing his intention to "post this material in the public interest." (Emphasis supplied.) It should be noted by the Court that the use of asterisks in Internet postings signals emphasis. A true and correct copy of the e-mail to Ms. Kobrin is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 to Complaint, and the posting as Exhibit 3. 9. Henson attempted to justify his posting by saying that the "document was right in the middle of a letter to Judge Whyte" and that: I am certainly not an agent, servant or employee' of either Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward, nor do I act under any kind of direction or control. Mr. Henson further signaled his intention to continue to solicit, receive, and post RTC's unpublished materials by daring, RTC to file suit against him, stating he would go to the offices of RTC's attorney, Thomas Hogan, and pick up any papers from him. 10. Henson's statements that he is not acting in concert with Grady Ward are belied by his own activities. I am informed by an officer of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco that on March 9, 1996, both Grady Ward and Keith Henson showed up at that Church and harassed the Church and its parishioners by taunting them and holding up signs. 11. Henson's postings soliciting the NOTs materials state that he resides in San Jose, California. 12. The NOTs Series 34 work which Henson posted and the NOTs Series which he is soliciting are unpublished works, registered as part of collective registration TXu 257326.2 The works are not presented at this time in light of their unpublished and confidential nature, but will be made available for the Court to review. They are listed on Exhibits A and B to the Complaint and true and correct copies of the relevant copyright registrations are attached to the Complaint as part of Exhibit F. 13. If the Court does not act immediately to prevent Mr. Henson from his postings RTC's materials now threatened, there can be little doubt, based on his own statements, that he will post all or portions of the NOTs series onto the Internet. This will cause severe irreparable harm to RTC and, if other recent court rulings are any indication, it will effectively destroy RTC's trade secret rights in these materials. ~ 66 44-47 below. 14. I therefore urge the Court to grant the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requested on this motion with respect to the NOTs series Mr. Henson is now threatening to post.3 [footnote] The details of RTC's ownership of the trade secret information, its license to the copyrights, and its protection of these materials including the issuance of copyright registrations by the US Copyright Office, is set forth in detail commencing at paragraph 16 hereof. [end fn] 15. RTC has also requested expedited discovery, which is appropriate in this case because of the situation which now exists. This is the second suit which RTC has been forced to file since March 21 in light of solicitation of the NOTs materials by individuals who are already posting other of RTC's materials in utter disregard of RTC's rights. Other individuals connected with alt.religion.scientology are also soliciting the NOTs materials, threatening to distribute them and place them in libraries, and the apparency is that these individuals, including Henson, are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy RTC's trade secrets and infringe its copyrights. If RTC cannot discover into these matters rapidly, it may well be prevented from obtaining meaningful relief. 16. The remaining sections of this declaration briefly set forth RTC's rights, pertinent copyright registrations, the nature of the NOTs materials that are the subject of this motion and recent rulings in other cases involving RTC materials on the Internet. RTC's Rights in the Advanced Technology 17. In 1982, L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion, assigned to RTC his entire right, title and interest in and to the unpublished, confidential Scientology technology known as the "Advanced Technology" in the United States of America. This assignment included the obligation to protect the confidentiality of the Advanced Technology. A true and correct copy of that assignment is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. 18. Mr. Hubbard died on January 24, 1986. By agreement dated September 17, 1987, all rights in the copyrights to certain of Mr. Hubbard's unpublished works, referred to as the "Advanced Technology materials," were granted by Mr. Hubbard's Estate to plaintiff RTC. RTC was granted authority, inter alia, to enforce all rights belonging to the holder of the copyrights in the Advanced Technology materials. At all relevant times that agreement has remained in full force and effect. [footnote] The court need not concern itself with the trade secret status of 6 of those NOTs issues that have previously been posted to the Internet by Scamizdat or others. Without prejudice to RTC's position that the trade secrets in those particular issues have not been divested by such fleeting appearances on the Internet, RTC has not made these NOTs issues the subject of this motion for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief on trade secret grounds, but rather only on copyright grounds. The remaining 49 NOTs issues, which have never been published or posted to the Internet by anyone are the subject of RTC~s instant motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief on both copyright and trade secret grounds. [end footnote] A true and correct copy of that agreement is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. 19. All of the assets of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, including the copyrights pertaining to the Advanced Technology materials, were distributed in 1993. In an agreement dated November 29, 1993, the successor in interest to the Estate affirmed RTC's September 17, 1987 license under all copyrights pertaining to the Advanced Technology materials with the right and obligation to enforce all the copyrights in those Technology materials. A true and correct copy of that agreement is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E. 20. As a result of these agreements, RTC has the exclusive right to control the use and dissemination of the Advanced Technology materials. 21. Because of the confidential nature of the Advanced Technology, RTC licenses only seven Churches of Scientology to use the Advanced Technology materials in conformity with strict guidelines. While many of the basic Scientology scriptures are publicly available, the Advanced Technology materials are considered confidential and are available through these seven churches only to those approved parishioners, who have attained the proper level of spiritual enlightenment. The Advanced Technology is also a source of substantial revenue for RTC in the form of licensing fees paid by the Churches that are licensed to use the Advanced Technology. These Churches pay RTC six percent of the donations made by parishioners in exchange for the services based upon the Advanced Technology. 22. The Advanced Technology is divided into gradient counseling levels. Each level has to be fully completed before the next is started. The list of these counseling levels which are delivered by the authorized Churches of Scientology to select parishioners includes the following: Grades V and VA (Power and Power Plus) Grade VI (R6EW) Clearing Course OT I - (OT stands for Operating Thetan which describes a high state of spiritual awareness) OT II OT III OT IV OT V (New Era Dianetics for OTs (NOTs) OT VI (Solo NOTs Course) OT VII (Solo NOTs) OT VIII Sunshine Rundown The Works at Issue 23. RTC's copyrights in the works at issue have been registered in the U.S. Copyright Office as unpublished works: NOTs Series works Reg. TXu 257326 24. When the copies of the works covered by the NOTs Series registration were filed in the Copyright Office, they were masked to prevent the content from being read, as is permitted for special registration of confidential materials. These works are listed in Exhibits A and B to the Complaint with the pertinent U.S. Copyright Office registration number. 25. Each of the Advanced Technology levels consists not only of copyrightable authorship, but also of techniques and processes and descriptions of the theory behind those processes. Since their initial development and up to the present each of the above listed advanced levels has been distinct and different. Some of the levels involve confidential counseling, or "auditing," from a trained minister of the Church, while other levels call for the parishioner to study the confidential materials and counsel himself (known in the Church as "solo auditing"). 26. The advanced levels entitled Grade V and VA, OT IV and OT V are delivered to the parishioner by a highly trained and trusted minister of the Church. The parishioner never actually sees or studies the materials covering the procedures and theories of these levels, but simply receives the counseling. 27. The other confidential levels - Grade VI, Clearing Course, OT I, OT II, OT III, OT VI, OT VII, and OT VIII and the Sunshine Rundown - are delivered in two stages, always in a controlled, secure environment. The parishioner is never given copies of the materials to retain. First, the parishioner studies the confidential materials of the level and then he counsels himself on the level. He is supervised on each step to ensure that he delivers the Advanced Technology to himself correctly and that he obtains the exact expected results from each level. 28. No individual can legitimately gain access to the Advanced Technology without being invited to participate in these services after RTC has confirmed that individual's eligibility. An individual must be a Scientology parishioner in good standing who has demonstrated a high ethical character and who has passed stringent eligibility requirements. The parishioner must also sign an agreement to keep the contents of the Advanced Technology secret and not to disclose them to anyone without authorization, and then only to those who have attained the proper level of spiritual enlightenment needed to assure proper understanding of them. Confidentiality agreements, security pledges and bonds have been in use since the creation of the Advanced Technology. 29. Numerous measures have always been taken to ensure the physical security of the materials that contain the Advanced Technology and to protect these materials from unauthorized disclosure. In general, security systems have been used at all times which strictly limit physical access to the materials and, further, limit access only to those who have met the requirements described in paragraph 27 above, and have agreed to be bound by agreements to maintain the confidentiality of the materials. The security systems employed have always limited access, and, as security technology has advanced over the years, the systems employed to protect the confidentiality of the Advanced Technology have become more sophisticated. 30. Exhibit 4 consists of photographs that fairly and accurately depict the procedures and personnel which currently protect the confidentiality of the Advanced Technology. While the pictures show a Church of Scientology staff member, what is depicted and demonstrated in the photographs that comprise Exhibit 4 are the exact same procedures anyone authorized to do so would go through to receive and partake in services using the Advanced Technology. The exact steps that each eligible parishioner goes through are fairly and accurately re-enacted in these photos, and the procedures being demonstrated in these photos are the precise security procedures employed each day. I incorporate these photographs and their captions as though set forth in full in this declaration. 3T. The courses utilizing the Advanced Technology are delivered in separate Churches called Advanced Organizations. RTC issues each of these organizations a limited number of copies of the materials containing the Advanced Technology. Each copy is numbered and logged. Historically and currently, the materials have been maintained in locked filing cabinets in rooms with locked doors, which only authorized people may access. The building itself is equipped with security personnel trained to respond immediately to any alarm indicating a potential unauthorized access to the Advanced Technology. Many of the buildings currently have cameras and motion detectors, as well as outside doors which are capable of being closed electronically from the central security office. 32. Access to the materials has always been closely and carefully monitored. The parishioner has always been required to provide identification, as well as evidence of eligibility to participate in the services in order to gain access to the Advanced Technology materials. When a person comes to an Advanced Organization, he must go to the Advanced Courses receptionist to be directed to the service the individual came for. The parishioner then goes to Security and presents his certificate showing he has met all eligibility requirements to participate in the services using the Advanced Technology, and is then approved to route onto the service. 33. At the entrance to the area where the actual delivery of the services utilizing the Advanced Technology occurs, there is usually a locked door with admission monitored by some type of Security. Currently, in those facilities, which are state of the art, the door can only be opened with a card reader. Only individuals who have been issued a photo-identity card and a password by Security are able to open the door to enter this space. The first door opens onto a passageway. This passageway has several doors leading off it which go into the various course rooms. The doors are monitored by security cameras. The course rooms delivering confidential services have a second card reader at their entrance. For these doors to open, the outer door must be closed and locked, otherwise these doors will not open. 34. The confidential materials generally were, and are, stored within the actual course room and controlled by someone whose responsibility it is to administer them. Currently, within the actual course room is the course administrator's room in which the confidential materials are stored. The materials are bound in individual packs and are stored in locked cabinets. Each pack has a specifically designated electronic connection point in the locked cabinet or safe and is plugged into that connection point at all times via a thick cable. Each pack is monitored by the security computer which automatically alerts security personnel if the packs are tampered with. When an approved parishioner goes into the course room to study the confidential materials on a particular advanced level, he presents the course administrator with his eligibility certificate, and the course administrator then logs the numbered pack out to the parishioner, unplugs the pack from the security cabinet or safe and hands the pack to the parishioner. The moment the pack is unplugged the door to the course room is magnetically locked and stays locked until the pack is plugged into a corresponding connection point on the table where the parishioner assigned to that pack is to study. Additionally, an alarm sounds and the doors lock if the confidential pack is not plugged into its connection point in the table within seconds. As a result, there is no physical way any of the confidential packs can be removed from the room where they are kept. 35. At the end of the study period, the security procedure is reversed. The pack is unplugged from the table which automatically locks the door. The parishioner unplugs the pack and hands it to the course administrator who has seconds to plug the pack back into the cabinet or safe. Even the pages of the packs which contain the confidential materials are manufactured and bound together in such a way that if they leave the designated security area, alarms sound and the doors automatically lock. If a parishioner needs to take with him the specific small segment of the materials of an OT level that is needed for the particular auditing he is doing at a given time, he must carry those materials to the auditing space located within a secure location in a locked briefcase, and must either keep it with him at all times or have the materials, in the locked briefcase, in a locked closet. Those materials are signed out and signed back in, all within the secure location. A student who has done an advanced course does not retain possession of the advanced course materials studied. 36. No one is allowed to leave Church premises with the packs of confidential materials, either before, during or after taking these services. 37. The Advanced Technology works which Henson has been posting and soliciting, and which he is now threatening to post to the Internet if not restrained, have never left the custody of RTC, its predecessors or authorized licensees except through theft or misappropriation. The NOTs works were stolen from one of RTC's licensees in Denmark in 1983, for which one of the Danish co conspirators was arrested, tried and convicted. 38. In the past, competing churches have been set up to use those stolen works to deliver competitive services, and other groups exist today which are interested in similarly exploiting these works. In particular, various individuals who are apostates from the Scientology religion have established a group which they refer to as the "Free Zone." Sub-groups within that group, such as one called the United Free Zone Foundation, seek out copies of Advanced Technology materials for the purpose of engaging in wrongful use of those materials. 39. Neither RTC nor any of its licensees has ever given or sold Advanced Technology materials to anyone. The only way that any of the confidential materials could be removed is by outright theft or breach of confidence. Enforcement of the Copyrights and Trade Secrets 40. Among the unpublished confidential works constituting the Advanced Technology materials which RTC owns, and in which RTC holds the exclusive rights under its September 17, 1987 copyright license, are the works listed in Exhibits A and B to the Complaint. 41. RTC, as exclusive copyright licensee, assumed the rights, responsibility and obligations to protect and enforce the copyrights in the Advanced Technology materials and the trade secrets it owns in the Advanced Technology against infringement or violation by others. RTC has, when necessary, brought litigation to enforce those rights, both under the U.S. Copyright Act and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (or under common law). In a number of instances, it has succeeded in obtaining protection from the courts for its trade secrets. Such protection has taken the form of confidentiality orders, temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages for misappropriation of the trade secrets. 42. In the consolidated cases of Reli~ious Technology Center v. Scott, No. CV 85-711 AWT (Bx) and Reli~ious Technolo~y Center v. Wollersheim, No. CV 85-7197 AWT (Bx) ("Scotti Wollersheim"), brought by RTC and Church of Scientology International for violations of intellectual property rights through the theft of certain of the Advanced Technology materials, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer of the United States District Court for the Central District of California recognized the protectability of the confidential Advanced Technology materials in 1985 and issued an order of confidentiality related to the use of the materials, which is still in force. (See Exhibit 8, November 13, 1985 Order of Confidentiality.) In a ruling related to the appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction in those cases, the Ninth Circuit also recognized that the Advanced Technology can qualify as trade secrets if it could be shown to have economic value in addition to its spiritual value 1 Relit,~ious Technolo~v Center V. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (9th Cir. 1989). Judge Pfaelzer found the Advanced Technology materials to have economic value. 43. In 1992, the Scott ruling was cited by the Southern District of California Federal Court in San Diego in issuing a permanent injunction and awarding damages and costs of $52,000 for trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement against a former Scientologist who was violating the intellectual property rights held by RTC, Church of Scientology International, and Bridge Publications Inc., in the Advanced Technology materials and other copyrighted materials. Bfld2e Publications Inc. v. Vien, 827 F. Supp. 629 (S.D. Cal. 1993). In that case, the court ruled that the Advanced Technology Works in question, which included the NOTs materials, were subject to trade secret protection. No ruling to the contrary has ever been made as to the 49 NOTs works which are addressed in the TRO application here. 44. Both the court in ScottiWollersheim and the court in Vien recognized that the Church takes appropriate precautions to keep the Advanced Technology confidential, and that it has economic value to RTC and the other Churches which are granted highly restrictive licenses for its use. 45. RTC brought three cases last year also relating to the unauthorized appearance of various portions of the Advanced Technology materials on the Internet. With the advent of this new technology, courts have had certain difficulties in applying trade secret law where works have been posted to the Internet in some fashion. RTC therefore obtained certain adverse preliminary rulings with respect to its trade secrets in certain of the Advanced Technology works in those cases, Reli~ious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., No.95-20091 (t'Netcom")(September 22, 1995) and Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., No. 95-K- 2143 ("FACTNET")(September 15, 1995). The Court in FACTNET did not address the NOTs works at all, and while it did not grant a preliminary injunction as to the works it did address, it prohibited all copying and distribution of these materials and ordered that the defendants' computer media were to be returned to them with these unpublished materials redacted. And Netcom addressed NOTs Series I, 24, 34, 35, 36, 42, but not the other 49 individual unpublished works contained in that Series, which have never been posted to the Internet and which the defendant in this case imminently threats to post now. Furthermore, while there is no preliminary injunction in Netcom as to trade secrets, the defendant who posted the materials there, Dennis Erlich, is enjoined under copyright law from wholesale copying of NOTs Series 1, 24, 34, 35, 36, and 42, as his copying of those and other works was found to be copyright infringement. Erlich's fair use defense was flatly rejected by the court in Netcom. In addition, the Court left open various issues related to those trade secrets, as to which a renewed motion for preliminary injunction is pending, set for May 24, 1996. 46. The third case was brought against another individual who is a director of FACTNET and who posted works from the Series and individual works known as OT 1-VII. In that case, Religious Technolo~~ Center v. Lerma, Case No. 95-1107-A, ("Lerma"), the court granted summary judgment against RTC on its trade secret claim as to portions of the OT 1-VII works which had been posted to the Internet, based on the presence of those materials in an unsealed court file. The court granted summary judgment in RTC's favor on copyright infringement as to certain individual works which are part of OT II and OT III, NOTs Series, the Sunshine Rundown, and certain works comprising the Power Series which the defendant there, Arnaldo Lerma, had either posted to the Internet after scanning them into his computer or downloaded into his computer. See Ex. 5, pertinent excerpts of January 19, 1996 Transcript and Ex. 6, Order. The Court has also verbally ordered in an unrecorded telephone hearing that Lerma may not have access to these Advanced Technology works. 47. Furthermore, on March 21, 1996, RTC filed in this Court a lawsuit entitled Rehitious Technology Center v. Ward, No. C 96-20207 against another individual who had posted Advanced Technology materials and was soliciting the same NOTs Series works which are being solicited by Mr. Henson here. On that day, the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte granted a TRO against Mr. Ward, and at a preliminary injunction hearing on March 29, Judge Whyte granted a preliminary injunction and ordered that expedited discovery could be conducted. 48. Every one of the rulings by the courts thus far fully supports the proposition that the copying and transmission of the Advanced Technology materials onto the Internet constitutes copyright infringement, which is fully enjoinable. Moreover, to the extent that RTC was denied relief on trade secret grounds in certain instances because once such postings occurred, it put into question the continued viability of RTC's trade secret rights, these judicial rulings only further reinforce the need to prevent the defendant in this case from making such postings and putting RTC's rights (in materials which have never appeared on the Internet) into the same sort of jeopardy. 49. For all of the reasons set forth above, I respectfully urge the Court to grant the temporary and preliminary injunctive relief as well as the expedited discovery requested by RTC on this motion. Defendant Henson can make no plausible countervailing argument to prevent such relief. Indeed, given the intentions he expresses in his own words, in the postings attached as exhibits to this motion, including his defiance to RTC's repeated demands that he cease and his explicit taunting to be sued, Mr. Henson can present no equitable reason which would in any way impede the relief sought herein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this ___4____ day of April, 1996 at Los Angeles, California. Warren L McShane