Pretrial Statement02

MARYLAND:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.
Case No. 398855-V
BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants
PRETRIAL STATEMENT
Now Comes the Plaintiff, Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Pretrial Statement. He
states the following:
Mr. Walker notes briefly that this represents only the statement of Mr. Walker. Mr.
Walker knows that this Court ordered the parties to file a joint pretrial statement, and about two
weeks before the deadline, Mr. Walker attempted to communicate with the Defendants in an
attempt to coordinate with them within the limitations of this Courts order at Dkt. No. 57. Mr.
Walker has received no response from the Defendants. Because of the Defendants failure of
cooperation, it was not possible to create a joint pretrial statement. Instead, Mr. Walker submits
the following proposed pretrial statement and moves that this Court adopt it in light of the
Defendants failure to cooperate:
1.
Nature of the Case

The Defendants have filed two Applications for Statement of Charges (hereinafter the
Applications) against the Plaintiff, causing the Commissioner to issue charges that
were dismissed on a plea of nolle prosequi by the States Attorney. The Plaintiff
contends that these Applications contained numerous false statements and, therefore,
induced the Commissioner to find that there was probable cause when there wasnt. The
Defendants contend that they did not make any false statements in the Applications. The
Plaintiff has also claimed that Mr. Kimberlin has stalked the Plaintiffs wife. As of this
writing, Mr. Kimberlin has denied this. The Plaintiff claims that Mr. Kimberlin is
vicariously liable for the charges filed by Mrs. Kimberlin. As of this writing, Mr.
Kimberlin has neither admitted nor denied this. The Plaintiff also claims that he is
entitled to an injunction preventing further abuse of the citizen complaint process and to
prevent Mr. Kimberlin from intimidating conduct aimed at Mr. Walker, his wife, or their
families. The Defendants believe Mr. Walker is not entitled to such an injunction.
2.
Claims and/or Defenses

Plaintiff:
Two counts of malicious prosecution.

Vicarious liability for Mr. Kimberlin for the malicious prosecution
committed by Mrs. Kimberlin.
Injunction sought as relief for malicious prosecution and to prevent further
intimidating conduct by Mr. Kimberlin directed at Mr. Walker and his
family (broadly defined).
Defendants:
3.
Has not met the elements of malicious prosecution.

Mr. Kimberlin is not vicariously liable for Mrs. Kimberlins alleged
malicious prosecution.
Injunction is not appropriate.
Undisputed Issues and Facts: List all issues not in dispute and set for the stipulated
facts.
Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with discovery, the Plaintiff is not
yet in a position to list all such facts. However, as stated in Mr. Walkers motions for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 213 and 216), there is no dispute that Mrs. Kimberlin
committed malicious prosecution against Mr. Walker in relation to the May 18, 2015
charges, there is no dispute that Mr. Kimberlin has committed malicious prosecution in
relation to the July 30, 2013 charges, that Mr. Kimberlin stalked Mr. Walkers wife on
2
March 1, 2013, that Mr. Walker suffered damages in relation to both malicious
prosecutions, that an injunction is justified in relation to both defendants, and that
punitive damages are justified.
4.
Disputed Issues and Facts: List all issues not in dispute and set forth the stipulated facts.
Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with discovery, the Plaintiff is not
yet in a position to list all such facts.
5.
Relief Sought: Specify nature and amount of each item of damage claimed or description
of equitable relief sought by each party.
a)
Plaintiff:
compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000 per

Defendant.
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages of no less than $1 million.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as described in Fourth Amended
Complaint.
b)
6.
Defendants: Complete dismissal of all Counts and Claims.
Citations: List any cases or statutes which need to be called to the Courts attention.
a)
Plaintiff: none at this time.
b)
Defendants: none known.
7.
Pending Motions: List title, movant, and filing date of pending motions.
a)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
b)
Title:
c)
Title:
d)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Second Renewed Request for an Order of Default

166
Plaintiff
July 1, 2016
Dkt. No. 170, filed July 8, 2016.
Motion to Strike the Defendants Answer (Dkt. No. 163) and their
Latest Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 164)
Dkt. No.
169
Movant:
Plaintiff
Filing Date: July 1, 2016
Opposition: Dkt. No. 171, filed July 8, 2016.
Reply:
Motion That This Court Refrain from Striking Sua Sponte The
Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Second Motion for
Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike It and The Defendants
Response to Plaintiffs Second Renewed Request for an Order of
Default
Dkt. No.
174
Movant:
Plaintiff
Opposition: None.
Reply:
n/a
Motion for Protective Order from Discovery and for a Hearing
177
Defendants
July 13, 2016
e)
Title:
Verified Motion for Immediate Sanctions and Costs for Failure of

Plaintiff to Attend Deposition
Dkt. No.
186
Movant:
Defendants
Opposition: Dkt. No. 193, filed July 29, 2016.
Reply:
Dkt. No. 203, filed August 2, 2016.
f)
Title:
g)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
h)
Title:
i)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Second Motion for Immediate Sanctions against Plaintiff for

Intentionally Refusing to Comply with Discovery
Dkt. No.
188
Movant:
Defendants
Opposition: Dkt. No. 199, filed August 1, 2016.
Reply:
Motion to Compel
189
Plaintiff
July 27, 2016
Dkt. Nos. 196-198, filed August 1, 2016.
Dkt. Nos. 217-218, filed August 9, 2016.
Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Discovery Sanctions under

Maryland Rule 2-433
Dkt. No.
190
Movant:
Plaintiff
Reply:
Motion to Declare Certain Matters Admitted
191
Plaintiff
July 27, 2016
j)
Title:
Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Sanctions against the

Defendants for Presenting Fabricated Evidence to This Court
Dkt. No.
194
Movant:
Plaintiff
Reply:
Notes:
This motion (Dkt. No. 194) is the same document as the opposition
to the Defendants motion for sanctions at Dkt. No. 193.
k)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Notes:
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Discovery Filings

198
Defendants
August 1, 2016
None
This motion (Dkt. No. 198) is the same document as their
opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to Declare Certain Matters
Admitted (Dkt. No. 197).
l)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Response:
Reply:
Notes:
Motion to Quash Deposition of Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin

202
Defendants
August 2, 2016
This motion technically wasnt opposed, but instead in response
(Dkt. No. 215) the Plaintiff agreed that a protective order was
appropriate in light of Mrs. Kimberlins decision to invoke her
privilege against self-incrimination and cross-moved for a motion
in limine.
m)
Title:
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant Brett

Kimberlin
Dkt. No.
213
Movant:
Plaintiff
Filing Date: August 9, 2016
Reply:
Notes:
The Defendants oppositions to both MSJs (Dkt. Nos. 213 and
216) incorporate by reference a response (Dkt. No. 195) to a prior
MSJ against Tetyana Kimberlin that was stricken.
n)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Motion in Limine
215
Plaintiff
August 9, 2016
o)
Title:
p)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Motion to Strike Defendants July Filings

220
Plaintiff
August 10, 2016
None.
n/a
q)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Motion for Foreign Subpoenas

221
Plaintiff
August 10, 2016
Opposition to the Defendants Second Motion for Protective
Order, filed August 29. 2016 (no docket number yet).
Although the Defendants Second Motion for Protective Order to
Quash Subpoenas (Dkt. No. 228) is not technically an opposition,
it functions as one, which is why it is listed here as an opposition.
Also the Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants Second Motion
for Protective Order has been filed simultaneously with this
pretrial statement, and, therefore, it doesnt have a docket number
yet.
Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Tetyana

Kimberlin
Dkt. No.
216
Movant:
Plaintiff
Reply:
Notes:
The Defendants oppositions to both MSJs (Dkt. Nos. 213 and
216) incorporate by reference a response (Dkt. No. 195) to a prior
MSJ against Tetyana Kimberlin that was stricken.
Notes:
r)
Title:
Notification That States Attorney Nolle Prossed Criminal Charges

Plaintiff Filed against Defendants
Dkt. No.
208
Movant:
Defendants
Reply:
None
Notes:
Although styled as a line the Plaintiff has argued that this is a de
facto supplement to the Defendants motions for discovery
sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 186 and 188).
s)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Notes:
Second Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoenas

228
Defendants
August 12, 2016
Opposition to the Defendants Second Motion for Protective
Order, filed August 29. 2016 (no docket number yet).
None as of this writing.
The Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants Second Motion for
Protective Order has been filed simultaneously with this pretrial
statement, and, therefore, it doesnt have a docket number yet.
t)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Motion to Compel

233
Plaintiff
August 18, 2016
None at this time.
None at this time.
u)
Title:
Dkt. No.
Movant:
Filing Date:
Opposition:
Reply:
Motion to Quash and for Protective Order

234
Montgomery County Public Schools
August 22, 2016
None at this time.
None at this time.
8.
Witnesses: Name, address and telephone number of each person who may be called to
testify.
a)
Plaintiff: Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with discovery, the
Plaintiff is not in a position to name all witnesses. However, he will name the
following, provisionally:
b)
9.
Aaron J. Walker, Esq., 7537 Remington Road, Manassas, Virginia 20109,

(703) 216-0455.
William Hoge III, 20 Ridge Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157, (410)
596-2854.
Defendants: Because of their answers to interrogatories, the Defendants are

prohibited from calling any witnesses in their favor.
Expert witnesses: list matters about which each expert will testify. No party may call at
trial any witness omitted from that partys pre-trial statement, except for impeachment or
rebuttal purposes.
None named by either side.
10.
Exhibits: Attach a listing of the exhibits to be offered in evidence by each party at the
trial, other than those expected to be used solely for impeachment, indicating which
exhibits the parties agree may be offered in evidence without the usual authentication.
Complete list of exhibits identifying by exhibit number each document that may be
offered at trial. (Stickers to be attached to each exhibit are available in Clerks office.)
Any objections to another partys exhibits should be stated.
Plaintiff:
Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with discovery, Mr.
Walker is not in a position to list all potential exhibits. However, Mr.
Walker can state with reasonable certainty that he will seek to admit the
two Applications for Statement of Charges at the heart of this suit, purely
for the purpose of proving what the Defendants presented to the
Commissioner and not as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted. The
order of such also cannot be determined at this time, but those documents
are:
Application for Statement of Charges by Brett Kimberlin against

the Plaintiff, dated July 30, 2013.
Application for Statement of Charges by Tetyana Kimberlin
against the Plaintiff, dated May 18, 2015.
Defendants: Because of their responses to interrogatories, the Defendants cannot
validly offer any exhibits.
11.
Deposition Testimony: Designation by page and line of deposition testimony to be

offered as substantive evidence, not impeachment.
None for either party. Mr. Walker has only sought the deposition of Mrs. Kimberlin and
has conceded that because she has invoked her Fifth Amendment Privilege, a protective
order should issue. Meanwhile, Mrs. Kimberlin has not sought any depositions and Mr.
Kimberlin has not properly served his sole notice of deposition upon Mr. Walker.
12.
13.
Pleadings and Discovery Responses: Designation by page and paragraph of any

pleading or discovery response to be offered as substantive evidence, not impeachment.
a)
Plaintiff:
Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with

discovery, the Plaintiff cannot complete this portion.
b)
Defendants: Because of their responses to interrogatories, the Defendants are

barred from introducing any documentary evidence.
Demonstrative or Physical Evidence: Describe any items of non-testimonial, nondocumentary evidence -- models, samples, objects, etc. -- to be utilized at trial.
a)
Plaintiff:

10
b)
14.
15.
16.

Videotapes: Identify any videotapes to be shown to the jury and authority for doing so.
a)
Plaintiff:

b)

Requested Jury Selection Questions: Identify those agreed upon and include any
objections made by either side.
a)
Plaintiff:
Because the Defendants have failed to communicate with Mr.

Walker regarding this pre-trial statement, Mr. Walker has been
unable to come to an agreement with them on this issue. Mr.
Walker has attached proposed jury selection instructions of his
own.
b)
Defendants: Unknown.
Civil Pattern Jury Instructions: (all references are to Maryland Civil Pattern Jury
Instructions, Fourth Edition with 2013 Supplement)
a)
Plaintiff:
1)
General Instructions:
1.1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, 1:11,

1:12, 1:16(b), 1:17 and 1:18.
2)
Malicious Prosecution:
17:1, 17:2, and 17:4.
3)
Conspiracy:
7:6.
11
4)
b)
17.
Damages:
10:1, 10:7, 10:11(a), 10:12, 10:13, and

10:18.
Non-Pattern Jury Instructions: Supply complete text of each instruction, with

authorities.
a)
Plaintiff:
There is no pattern instruction for aiding and abetting, therefore, Mr. Walker proposes the
following:
AIDING AND ABETTING ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY
A defendant has aided and abetted a tort where (1) there is a tortious act
committed by the primary actor, (2) the defendant knew about tortious act was
committed or being contemplated by the primary actor, and (3) the defendant
gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the primary actor to commit the
tortious act.
This is derived from Alleco Inc. v. Weinberg Foundation, 340 Md. 176, 186 (1994).
b)
18.
Verdict Sheet (if requested): Text of verdict sheet, including any special interrogatories,
to be submitted to the jury.
See attached.
19.
Settlement: Minimum demand; Maximum offer.

a)
Plaintiff: Stated in general terms:

12
b)
20.
1)
$50,000 per defendant.
2)
Consent to the injunctions sought in this case and a pre-filing injunction

for any future civil suits filed against Mr. Walker and his family.
3)
Mr. Kimberlin ends all litigation and appeals involving Mr. Walker.
4)
Both Defendants agree never to seek discovery against Mr. Walker or his
family in any future lawsuit in which Mr. Walker isnt a party.
5)
For every agreement settling any part of any case Mr. Walker has been
involved in, Mr. Kimberlin will inform the other parties to those contracts
that he waives all provisions of any existing agreements requiring any
voluntary limits on their own expression and any requirement that they
delete or otherwise alter any writings they have written about Mr.
Kimberlin in the past. That includes but is not limited to any agreement
with Lynn Thomas; Peter Malone; the American Spectator; Red State,
Erick Erickson; Red State; Ace of Spades; James OKeefe III; Simon and
Schuster; Michelle Malkin and Twitchy, LLC. This waiver will
specifically promise that any contracts otherwise remain in effect and that
Mr. Kimberlin will continue to uphold his end of the bargain.
Defendants: unknown.
Estimated Length of Trial: 1-3 days; (we will have a better idea after Mr. Walkers
request for default and motions for summary judgment are resolved).
13
Monday, August 29, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.

Va Bar# 48882
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
AaronJW72@gmail.com
(703) 216-0455
(no fax)
VERIFICATION
I, Aaron Walker, 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.
Dated:
Certificate of Service
I certify that on the
day of
, 2016, I served copies of this
document on Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.
In accordance with the Courts order of March 10, 2016 (Dkt. No. 111), I have performed such
service by certified mail and will file the green card when it is returned to me.
14

Pretrial Statement02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pretrial Statement02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Nature of the Case

Claims and/or Defenses

Two counts of malicious prosecution.

Has not met the elements of malicious prosecution.

compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000 per

Defendants: Complete dismissal of all Counts and Claims.

Plaintiff: none at this time.

Defendants: none known.

Second Renewed Request for an Order of Default

Verified Motion for Immediate Sanctions and Costs for Failure of

Second Motion for Immediate Sanctions against Plaintiff for

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Discovery Sanctions under

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Sanctions against the

Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Discovery Filings

Motion to Quash Deposition of Defendant Tetyana Kimberlin

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant Brett

Motion to Strike Defendants July Filings

Motion for Foreign Subpoenas

Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Tetyana

Notification That States Attorney Nolle Prossed Criminal Charges

Second Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoenas

Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Motion to Compel

Motion to Quash and for Protective Order

Aaron J. Walker, Esq., 7537 Remington Road, Manassas, Virginia 20109,

Defendants: Because of their answers to interrogatories, the Defendants are

Application for Statement of Charges by Brett Kimberlin against

Deposition Testimony: Designation by page and line of deposition testimony to be

Pleadings and Discovery Responses: Designation by page and paragraph of any

Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with

Defendants: Because of their responses to interrogatories, the Defendants are

Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with

Defendants: Because of their responses to interrogatories, the Defendants are

Because the Defendants have not yet fully complied with

Defendants: Because of their responses to interrogatories, the Defendants are

Because the Defendants have failed to communicate with Mr.

1.1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, 1:11,

17:1, 17:2, and 17:4.

10:1, 10:7, 10:11(a), 10:12, 10:13, and

Non-Pattern Jury Instructions: Supply complete text of each instruction, with

Settlement: Minimum demand; Maximum offer.

Plaintiff: Stated in general terms:

$50,000 per defendant.

Consent to the injunctions sought in this case and a pre-filing injunction

Monday, August 29, 2016

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.

You might also like