Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 96 Pageid#: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

ELIZABETH SINES, SETH WISPELWEY, MARISSA BLAIR, TYLER MAGILL, APRIL MUNIZ, HANNAH PEARCE, MARCUS MARTIN, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, and JANE DOE 3,

Plaintiffs, v.

JASON KESSLER, RICHARD SPENCER, CHRISTOPHER CANTWELL, JAMES ALEX FIELDS, JR., VANGUARD AMERICA, ANDREW ANGLIN, MOONBASE HOLDINGS, LLC, ROBERT “AZZMADOR” RAY, NATHAN DAMIGO, ELLIOT KLINE a/k/a/ ELI MOSELY, IDENTITY EVROPA, MATTHEW HEIMBACH, MATTHEW PARROTT a/k/a DAVID MATTHEW PARROTT, TRADITIONALIST WORKER PARTY, MICHAEL HILL, MICHAEL TUBBS, LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH, JEFF SCHOEP, NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT, NATIONALIST FRONT, AUGUSTUS SOL INVICTUS, FRATERNAL ORDER OF THE ALT-KNIGHTS, MICHAEL “ENOCH” PEINOVICH, LOYAL WHITE KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, and EAST COAST KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN a/k/a EAST COAST KNIGHTS OF THE TRUE INVISIBLE EMPIRE,

Civil Action No. _3_:_1_7__C_V_0_0_0_72 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, allege upon knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 96 Pageid#: 2
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Over the weekend of August 11 and 12, 2017, hundreds of neo-Nazis and white supremacists traveled from near and far to descend upon the college town of Charlottesville, Virginia, in order to terrorize its residents, commit acts of violence, and use the town as a backdrop to showcase for the media and the nation a neo-nationalist agenda. 2. Plaintiffs in this action are University of Virginia undergraduates, law students and staff, persons of faith, ministers, parents, doctors, and businesspersons—white, brown, and black; Christian and Jewish; young and old. While Plaintiffs come from different backgrounds, they share a deep love of this country, their city, and our values. They also share a fierce determination to defend those values. Each Plaintiff in this action was injured as a result of the events in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12. One Plaintiff suffered a stroke. Two plaintiffs were struck in a car attack. Others suffered and continue to suffer deep and debilitating psychological and emotional distress that prevents them from resuming their former lives or from enjoying the basic sense of peace, safety, and tranquility that most in this country can take for granted. 3. Defendants are the individuals and organizations that conspired to plan, promote, and carry out the violent events in Charlottesville. They are neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white supremacists, and white nationalists. They embrace and espouse racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic ideologies. Defendants brought with them to Charlottesville the imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, of Jim Crow, and of fascism. They also brought with them semi-automatic weapons, pistols, mace, rods, armor, shields, and torches. They chanted “Jews will not replace us,” “blood and soil,” and “this is our town now.” Starting at least as early as the beginning of 2017 and continuing through today, they have joined together for the purpose of
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 96 Pageid#: 3
inciting violence and instilling fear within the community of Charlottesville and beyond, wherever their messages are received.
4. There is one thing about this case that should be made crystal-clear at the outset— the violence in Charlottesville was no accident. Under the pretext of a “rally,” which they termed “Unite the Right,” Defendants spent months carefully coordinating their efforts, on the internet and in person. They exhorted each other: “If you want to defend the South and Western civilization from the Jew and his dark-skinned allies, be at Charlottesville on 12 August,” and, “Next stop: Charlottesville, VA. Final stop: Auschwitz.” In countless posts on their own websites and on social media, Defendants and their co-conspirators promised that there would be violence in Charlottesville, and violence there was. As Defendant Eli Mosley, one of the lead organizers for the rally, declared: “We are [] going to Charlottesville. Our birthright will be ashes & they’ll have to pry it from our cold hands if they want it. They will not replace us without a fight.”
5. The violence, suffering, and emotional distress that occurred in Charlottesville was a direct, intended, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy. It was all according to plan—a plan they spent months working out and whose implementation they actively oversaw as events unfolded on the ground.
6. The events of August 11 and 12—now commonly referred to simply as “Charlottesville”—were part of Defendants’ coordinated campaign to intimidate, harass, incite, and cause violence to people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in violation not only of the values that thousands of American soldiers have died for, but also numerous state and federal laws. As the Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said: “We should call evil by
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 96 Pageid#: 4
its name. My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.”
7. By this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to challenge Defendants’ actions under the laws of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and injunctive relief. The aim of this lawsuit is to ensure that nothing like this will happen again at the hands of Defendants—not on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, and not anywhere else in the United States of America.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 9. Venue is properly in the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiffs’ claims arose in Charlottesville, Virginia, which is located in the Western District of Virginia.
THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
10. Plaintiff Tyler Magill is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia and an employee at the library of the University of Virginia (“UVA”). He lives in Charlottesville with his wife and child. On August 11 and 12, Magill participated in non-violent protests of Defendants’ planned events. Following the events of the weekend, Magill collapsed at his place of work and suffered a trauma-induced stroke. Magill spent two days in the hospital and may never fully recover from the resulting brain injuries. Magill has not been able to return to his job at the UVA library.
11. Plaintiff Reverend Seth Wispelwey was born and raised in Charlottesville and attended the University of Virginia. He moved back to Charlottesville four years ago with his wife and daughter. Wispelwey has worked at numerous non-profit organizations that advocate
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 96 Pageid#: 5
for human rights, including as the head of an organization protecting victims of human trafficking. Wispelwey is an ordained Minister with the United Church of Christ and the Directing Minister of Restoration Village Arts. He is also the co-founder of a membership organization for clergy of different faiths from across the country, called Congregate, which organized numerous trainings in non-violent protest for residents of Charlottesville leading up to the events of August 11 and 12. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and coordinated plans to commit violence against those who stood up for minority residents in Charlottesville, Wispelwey was harassed, intimidated, and assaulted by Defendants and their co-conspirators. Since the events of the weekend, Wispelwey has suffered extreme emotional distress that has manifested in physical symptoms including constricted chest pain, difficulty sleeping (including nightmares concerning the events of August 11 and 12), and the inability to return full-time to work.
12. Plaintiff April Muñiz is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Before the events of August 12, she was the Director of Clinical Operations at a company that helps develop new treatments for patients suffering from incurable diseases. On August 12, Muñiz peacefully protested Defendants’ planned event. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and coordinated plans to commit violence against minority residents, Muñiz was intimidated and harassed on multiple occasions throughout the weekend. Among other things, Muñiz was close to being hit by the car that Defendant James Alex Fields, Jr. intentionally drove into a crowd of protestors in an act of domestic terrorism. Muñiz has suffered severe emotional injury, has been diagnosed with acute stress disorder and trauma, and has not been able to return to work. She has suffered economic loss as a result of her injuries.
13. Plaintiff John Doe is an African-American resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a student at University of Virginia. On August 11, John Doe peacefully protested
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 96 Pageid#: 6
Defendants’ planned event. On the basis of his race, John Doe was intimidated, harassed, assaulted, and sprayed with caustic substances.
14. Plaintiff Hannah Pearce is a dermatologist who lives in Charlottesville with her husband and four children. Pearce and her family are active members of Congregation Beth Israel. On August 12, Pearce and her son peacefully protested Defendants’ planned event. On the basis of her religion, Pearce was threatened, harassed, intimidated, and physically assaulted. Subsequently, a few days after the Unite the Right “rally,” Defendants Andrew Anglin and Moonbase Holdings, LLC’s website, Daily Stormer, intending to intimidate Pearce and her son, posted their picture online.
15. Plaintiff Elizabeth Sines, a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, is a second-year law student at the University of Virginia Law School, and a graduate of Cornell University. On August 11 and 12, Sines peacefully protested Defendants’ planned events. As a result of witnessing the events of the weekend, including the domestic terrorist attack on August 12 where Defendant Fields drove a car into a crowd, Sines has suffered from severe emotional distress and shock.
16. Plaintiff Marissa Blair is a multi-racial resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She works as a paralegal. On August 12, Blair was peacefully protesting when Defendant Fields drove his car into a crowd of protestors, killing Blair’s co-worker and friend, Heather Heyer. Fields’ car narrowly missed Blair only because her fiancé, Plaintiff Marcus Martin, pushed her out of the way before being hit himself. Blair suffered physical injuries and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ actions.
17. Plaintiff Marcus Martin is an African-American resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He works as a landscaper. On August 12, Martin was peacefully protesting the Unite
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 96 Pageid#: 7
the Right "rally." He was struck by Defendant Fields, who drove his car into a crowd of protestors in an act of domestic terrorism. Martin pushed his fiancée out of the way of the speeding car, but he was severely injured by the attack, including sustaining a broken leg and ankle that required surgery. He continues to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ actions.
18. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 grew up in Charlottesville, VA and is an undergraduate at UVA. On August 11, Jane Doe 1 was within a group of community members and students who were surrounded by torch-bearing neo-Nazis and white supremacists at the Rotunda. On August 12, Jane Doe 1 peacefully protested Defendants’ planned event with her mother and sister. Jane Doe 1 and her sister were on Fourth street when Defendant Fields intentionally drove a car into the crowd of protestors in an act of domestic terrorism. Jane Doe 1 was struck by the vehicle driven by Fields and sustained many injuries. The car broke both of her legs, including a tibial plateau fracture in her knee which required major surgery to repair bone, multiple ligaments, and cartilage. Jane Doe 1 spent several days in the hospital following this surgery. She suffered severe contusions all over her body, a concussion, and a head injury requiring stitches. Jane Doe 1’s recovery will take over a year and requires extensive physical therapy. Jane Doe 1 also suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the planned event and terrorist attack on August 12.
19. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 has been a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia for seventeen years. Jane Doe 2 and her family are members of the Congregation Beth Israel in Charlottesville, the oldest synagogue in Virginia. On August 12, Jane Doe 2 peacefully protested Defendants’ planned event. Jane Doe 2’s daughter also peacefully protested on August 12 and was struck by Defendant Fields, who intentionally drove a car into a crowd of protestors
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 96 Pageid#: 8
in an act of domestic terrorism. As a result of being struck by the car, Jane Doe 2’s daughter’s legs were broken and she suffered severe head injuries. Jane Doe 2 has suffered (and continues to suffer) extreme emotional distress and broke her wrist assisting her daughter in her debilitated state.
20. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 is a Jewish resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Jane Doe 3 grew up in Charlottesville, VA and attended William and Mary College. After working with refugees and migrants in Malaysia, Jane Doe 3 returned home to Charlottesville at the end of July 2017. On August 12, Jane Doe 3 peacefully protested Defendants’ planned event with her mother and sister. Jane Doe 3 and her sister were on Fourth street when Defendant Fields intentionally drove a car into the crowd of protestors in an act of domestic terrorism. Her sister was struck by the vehicle, which broke both of her legs and caused severe head injuries. Jane Doe 3 remained by her sister’s side and helped provide first aid for 25 minutes while they waited for an ambulance to take them to the emergency room. Jane Doe 3 suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the planned event and terrorist attack on August 12. B. Defendants
21. Defendant Jason Kessler is a white nationalist and a member of Proud Boys. A resident of Charlottesville, Virginia, Kessler uses the handle “MadDimension” on Discord and @The_MadDimension on Twitter, and, together with Defendant Mosley, led the organizing efforts for the Unite the Right “rally” in Charlottesville. Kessler is also the president and founder of Unity and Security for America, a grassroots organization that claims it is dedicated to “defending Western civilization” and is a contributor to websites like VDare.com, a xenophobic, nativist publication, and the Daily Caller, a conservative news outlet. Kessler was the lead organizer for the Unite the Right “rally” and was one of the names featured on a promotional poster for the “rally.” In January 2017, Kessler attacked a man in downtown
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 96 Pageid#: 9
Charlottesville while collecting signatures for his petition to remove the African-American vice mayor, Wes Bellamy, from the Charlottesville City Council. In April, Kessler pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was then charged with felony perjury for lying to the police in connection with the assault.
22. Defendant Richard Spencer, a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia who attended the University of Virginia, is the head of the white nationalist “think tank,” National Policy Institute. In 2010, Spencer created an online publication called altright.com. Spencer organizes his followers to act in furtherance of his ideology, calling for an “ethnic cleansing.” Spencer planned and led the violent torchlight rally at his alma mater on Friday evening. Spencer actively promoted the Unite the Right "rally" on Saturday to his numerous followers on social media and encouraged and incited intimidation and violence based racial, religious, and ethnic animosity.
23. Defendant Christopher Cantwell is a resident of New Hampshire and is a white nationalist and a self-proclaimed fascist. He hosts “Radical Agenda,” a podcast and YouTube show streamed live multiple times a week, and runs the website christophercantwell.com. Cantwell has stated that he “realized that [Jewish people] were responsible for the communism,” and decided, “let’s fucking gas the kikes and have a race war.” He has written: “I think chemical and biological weapons can do a great deal of good for mankind. Releasing nerve gas or some kind of lethal virus into a left wing protest could prepare the bodies for physical removal without making a big scene for the cameras or destroying anything of value.” In connection with the Unite the Right “rally” in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12, Cantwell has been charged with two felony counts of illegal use of tear gas and one felony count of malicious body injury by means of a caustic substance.
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 96 Pageid#: 10
24. Defendant Alex Fields, Jr., a resident of Ohio, is a member of Defendant Vanguard America. Motivated by racial, religious, and ethnic animosity, on August 12, Fields committed an act of domestic terrorism, by driving a Dodge Challenger into a crowd of protesters, injuring dozens and killing a 32-year old woman, Heather Heyer. He has been charged by the Charlottesville police with one count of second degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run (leaving the scene of an accident).
25. Defendant Vanguard America is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15. Members of Vanguard America voluntarily join for the common purpose of promoting white nationalism and believe that people with “white blood” have a special bond with “American soil.” It was formed in California in 2015 and is comprised of twelve chapters across the country. The group’s website states that to join the group, a person must be “of at least 80% white/European heritage.” Defendant Fields is a member of Defendant Vanguard America; he wore their uniform and carried a Vanguard America shield at the Unite the Right event on August 12.
26. Defendant Andrew Anglin is a resident of Ohio, a neo-Nazi, and the founder of Daily Stormer—an organization that operates through a website that Anglin publishes. Daily Stormer has called its website the “world’s most genocidal” website. Daily Stormer was named after Der Stürmer, a Nazi propaganda tabloid known for virulently anti-Semitic caricatures and published by Julius Streicher, who was later convicted of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. Until recently, Daily Stormer had a website at www.dailystormer.com. Anglin and his associates at Daily Stormer, including Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray, use Daily Stormer’s website “as a hardcore front for the conversion of masses into a pro-white, Anti-semitic ideology,” to “sell [] global white supremacy,” and to “make a racist army.” The website, which became the most
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 96 Pageid#: 11
visited hate site on the Internet in 2016, includes sections titled “Jewish Problem” and “Race War.” The Chief Technical Officer of Daily Stormer has posited that Daily Stormer “has been effective at what [it is] doing” by “the manifestation of our people on the ground in the real world.” Followers of Anglin and Daily Stormer, who call themselves “Stormers,” communicate on the website’s forum, which is moderated by Anglin and accessible only with a special “dark web” tor browser. On Anglin’s orders and under his continuing supervision, Stormers have formed local chapters, called “Stormer Book Clubs,” as part of Anglin’s plan to “build an invisible empire.” Anglin uses the Daily Stormer forum to actively monitor the Book Clubs and uses the website to issue orders on how to organize. “Official Operations” of Stormer Book Clubs include firearms training, organizing for protests, and being ready to respond to “challenges” issued by Anglin. Daily Stormer established “meet ups” and chat rooms that coconspirators and attendees used throughout the August 11 and 12 weekend to coordinate their violence. The Daily Stormer released its own poster promoting the “rally” that read, “UNITE THE RIGHT/ Join Azzmador and the Daily Stormer to end Jewish influence in America,” accompanied by a Nazi-like figure wielding a hammer, ready to smash a Jewish star. For months before the Unite the Right events on August 11 and 12, Anglin organized his followers to attend and prepared them to commit racially motivated violent acts in Charlottesville. Although Anglin did not attend the rally himself because he is currently in hiding in order to evade service in connection with a separate lawsuit relating to events in Whitefish, Montana, Anglin orchestrated the movements of Daily Stormer followers and incited them to violence on a live feed contemporaneously with the events as they occurred on August 11 and 12 in Charlottesville.
27. Defendant Moonbase Holdings, LLC is an Ohio, for-profit, limited-liability corporation registered by Defendant Anglin that operates the Daily Stormer’s website.
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 96 Pageid#: 12
Defendant Anglin has encouraged readers to financially support the Daily Stormer by sending donations using bitcoin, checks, and credit cards, noting that “it won’t say ‘Daily Stormer’ on your credit card bill, but will instead say ‘Moonbase Holdings,’ which either sounds like a hobby shop or a multi-level marketing scheme run by reptoids. Anyway, it looks innocuous on your statement.”
28. Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray, a resident of Texas, is a neo-Nazi and a writer for Daily Stormer’s website. He has held himself out as a representative of Daily Stormer, and served as an agent of Daily Stormer in organizing the Unite the Right events. He is the leader of the “Dallas Fort Worth Stormer Book Club,” which is one of many local Daily Stormer groups across the country. In his articles published on Daily Stormer’s website, Ray encouraged extremists to attend the events in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12 and incited them to violence. Ray attended the “rally” himself and had a planning meeting with certain other Defendants in Charlottesville on August 11.
29. Defendant Nathan Damigo, a resident of California, is a white nationalist and the founder of a white supremacist organization, Defendant Identity Evropa. Defendant Spencer has stated that Damigo and his group, Identity Evropa, took the lead in organizing white supremacist participation among people from outside Charlottesville in connection with the events on August 11 and 12.
30. Defendant Eli Mosley, who is a resident of Pennsylvania, is a white supremacist and the current leader of Identity Evropa. He has described himself as “command soldier major of the ‘alt-right’” and as the organizer of the Unite the Right “rally.” On certain social media networks, Mosley has used the handles @NotEliMosley and @ThatEliMosley. Mosley was one of the key figures who planned and led the events of August 11 and 12.
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 13 of 96 Pageid#: 13
31. Defendant Identity Evropa is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15. Members of Identity Evropa voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting a “white American identity.” It was founded in March 2016 by Defendant Damigo and its current president is Defendant Mosley. The group adopted and popularized the white supremacist slogan, “You will not replace us” that Defendants and co-conspirators chanted as they marched on August 11 and 12.
32. Defendant Matthew Heimbach, a resident of Indiana, is the chairman of Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party ("TWP"). In 2013, Heimbach and Defendant Matthew Parrott founded the neo-Nazi Traditionalist Youth Network, a white nationalist group that promotes a racist interpretation of Christianity. Alongside Defendant National Socialist Movement (“NSM”) leader Jeff Schoep, Heimbach co-chairs the Nationalist Front, an umbrella organization of approximately twenty white supremacist organizations, including racist skinhead crews, Klan groups, and neo-Nazi groups. He has said, “Of course we look up to men like Adolf Hitler . . . as inspirations for what we can achieve.” Heimbach organized and led marchers from TWP on August 12.
33. Defendant Matthew Parrott, a resident of Indiana, is the co-founder of the Traditionalist Youth Network along with his stepson-in-law, Defendant Heimbach. He is currently the Chief Information Officer and Director of Defendant TWP. On August 12, Parrott refused to leave Emancipation Park after a state of emergency was declared and was arrested by the police for failing to disperse. Parrott wrote an account of his experiences at the Unite the Right “rally,” in “Catcher in the Reich: My Account of my Experiences in Charlottesville.” In it, he wrote that Defendants TWP, League of the South, NSM, and other Nationalist Front groups joined together to “help create two shield walls” for “the fight.”
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 14 of 96 Pageid#: 14
34. Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party (“TWP”) is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15, and a national political party committee registered with the Federal Election Commission since 2015. Members of TWP voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting anti-Semitism. According to Defendant Heimbach, the TWP has three dozen active chapters and an estimated 500 members across the country. The TWP was created by Defendants Heimbach and Parrott. The TWP has said: “Trust nobody who fails to name the Jew, who fails to explicitly and consistently oppose the Jew, and who preaches cleverness or nuance on the JQ [Jewish Question].” Members of the TWP prompted, attended, and fully participated in the events in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12, including by engaging in violence.
35. Defendant Michael Hill, a resident of Alabama, is the co-founder and President of the League of the South, a white nationalist organization. In 2014, Hill and the League of the South announced the formation of an armed, paramilitary unit dubbed “the Indomitables,” tasked with advancing southern secession by any means necessary. In May 2015, Hill published an article in which he asserted: “We Southern nationalists do not want a race war (or any sort of war). But if one is forced on us, we’ll participate. . . . Southern whites are geared up and armed to the teeth. . . . So if negroes think a “race war” in modern America would be to their advantage, they had better prepare themselves for a very rude awakening.” Hill, whose name was featured on a promotional poster for the “rally,” encouraged League of the South followers to attend by urging them not to “miss out on the fun” in dealing with counter-protestors—their purported enemies. On August 12, League of the South, led by Hill, marched through Charlottesville after Vanguard America. Like Vanguard America, they marched with coordinated shields and flags and carried rods and other weapons.
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 15 of 96 Pageid#: 15
36. Defendant Michael Tubbs, a resident of Florida, is the “Chief of Staff” of Defendant League of the South. Tubbs is captured on a video from August 12 ordering League of the South to attack by yelling “charge!” After receiving this command, the group streamed past him to attack counter-protestors. Defendant Hill later boasted that “Mr. Tubbs was everywhere the chaos was.” Tubbs previously served a four-year prison sentence for planning to bomb Jewish- and black-owned businesses in Florida.
37. Defendant League of the South, a privately held company located in Alabama, is a white supremacist group that advocates Southern secession. Prior to the events on August 11 and 12, Defendant Hill posted in the League’s Facebook group that he wanted “no fewer than 150 League warriors, dressed and ready for action, in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 12 August.” Numerous members of the League of the South participated in Saturday’s violent events together with co-defendants.
38. Defendant Jeff Schoep, a resident of Michigan, is the leader of Defendant NSM, the largest neo-Nazi coalition in the United States. On April 22, 2016, SchoepTWP, the Aryan Terror Brigade, and many regional factions of the Ku Klux Klan. Schoep has said that if he could meet Adolf Hitler today, he would say, “Thank you for your sacrifice, and I hope we have honored you in some small way by carrying on the fight.” Schoep participated actively in the events of August 11 and 12 and tweeted afterwards that, “It was an Honor to stand with U all in C’Ville this weekend. NSM, NF, TWP, LOS, VA, ECK, CHS, and the rest, true warriors!”1
39. Defendant National Socialist Movement (“NSM”) is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15. Members of NSM voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting a “greater America” that would deny citizenship to Jews, non-
1 This tweet refers to Defendants Nationalist Front, TWP, League of the South, Vanguard America, and East Coast Knights.
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 16 of 96 Pageid#: 16
whites, and LGBT persons. Located in Michigan, NSM is paramilitary in structure; its members claim to be lieutenants, sergeants, or other military ranks. Defendant Schoep, the head of NSM, has served as its “Commander” since 1994. Chapters of the groups are termed “units.” NSM maintains a business through NSM88 Records LLC selling neo-Nazi flags, swastikas, gear, etc. Members of NSM participated in the violence that took place in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12.
40. Defendant Nationalist Front is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15, whose members voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting white nationalism and white supremacy. Formerly known as the Aryan National Alliance, Nationalist Front is an umbrella organization consisting of white supremacist and white nationalist groups, including neo-Nazi and Klan groups. The Nationalist Front is led by Defendants Schoep, Heimbach, Hopper, and Hill. The Nationalist Front was conceived to be “the thread that would unite white supremacist and white nationalist circles.” Various members of the Nationalist Front engaged in acts of violence and intimidated residents of Charlottesville on August 11 and 12.
41. Defendant Augustus Sol Invictus, formerly Austin Mitchell Gillespie, a resident of Florida, is a white nationalist, white supremacist and a member of Defendant Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights ("FOAK"), the “military wing” of The Proud Boys, a group described as a “‘proWestern fraternal organization’ for men who ‘refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.’” He has said that a violent, second Civil War is necessary in order to preserve “Western civilization.” On August 14, 2017, Invictus announced his candidacy as a Republican for the 2018 Senate election in Florida. Invictus, whose name was featured on a promotional poster for the “rally,” drafted the “Charlottesville statement” along with Spencer and others, then participated in the torchlit rally on August 11 with co-Defendants.
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 17 of 96 Pageid#: 17
42. Defendant Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights (“FOAK”) is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15 and is self-described as the “tactical defensive arm” of Proud Boys, formed to focus on “street activism, preparation, defense, and confrontation.” Defendant Invictus is second in command at FOAK and FOAK attended the “rally” in part to provide security to him.
43. Defendant Michael “Enoch” Peinovich, a resident of New York, is the founder of the blog and website The Right Stuff and a co-host of the Daily Shoah podcast. On social media, Peinovich has at various times used the handles @NotMikeEnoch and @mikeenochsback. Peinovich frequently appears at events alongside Defendant Spencer. Peinovich was featured on a promotional poster for the “rally.” On August 12, in the immediate aftermath of the car attack, Defendants Spencer and Peinovich spoke to their followers at McIntire Park.
44. Defendant Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (“Loyal White Knights”) is an unincorporated association pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-15. Members of Loyal White Knights voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting white nationalism and white supremacy. Based in Pelham, North Carolina, the association only accepts “native-born white American Citizen[s]” as members. Following the events in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12, the Loyal White Knights changed their outgoing voicemail message to say: “Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than when we see white patriots such as James Fields, Jr., age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one nigger-lover named Heather Heyer. James Fields hail victory. It’s men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again.”
45. Defendant East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan a/k/a East Coast Knights of the True Invisible Empire (“East Coast Knights”) is an unincorporated association pursuant to
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 18 of 96 Pageid#: 18
Virginia Code § 8.01-15. Members of East Coast Knights voluntarily joined for the common purpose of promoting white nationalism and white supremacy. It is active in several states, and has a subdivision or “klavern” in the state of Maryland. Tom Larson is the imperial wizard of the East Coast Knights of the True Invisible Empire. The East Coast Knights, using the handles @tightrope33_6 and @Tightrope336, frequently tweet racist images and comments; on September 19, 2017, it tweeted pictures of burning crosses, labeled an image of lynched black men as “Alabama wind chimes,” and tweeted a cartoon of a Klansman using two black men hung from trees as a hammock in which to read the newspaper and drink an iced tea. The East Coast Knights was a key participant in the July 8 Klan rally, and conspired with the Nationalist Front and other Defendants to organize and participate in the violent events of August 12.
FACTS 46. Defendants are white supremacist, white nationalist, and neo-Nazi organizations and individuals, who have as part of their mission to engage in racial, religious, and ethnically motivated violence, threats, intimidation and harassment. The events in Charlottesville are part of Defendants’ recent concerted efforts to move from the shadows of anonymous, disassociated, online chatrooms and into a more open, organized, physical presence in our parks and on our streets. Defendants are co-conspirators with each other and others unnamed.
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 19 of 96 Pageid#: 19
I. Defendants And Unnamed Co-Conspirators Conspired To Commit Acts Of Violence, Intimidation, And Harassment Against The Citizens Of Charlottesville, Virginia
A. Defendants Targeted Charlottesville in the Months Prior August 11 and 12 (“the Summer of Hate”) When the Jews took over our society and turned it into a kiked-out living hell, they marked their achievement by declaring a “Summer of Love.” . . . They took everything away from us. That age is ending now. We are taking back our birthright. This summer, a Black Sun will pass over America. . . . I am declaring the summer of 2017 the Summer of Hate. Defendant Andrew Anglin 47. In furtherance of their above-stated goal, Defendants plotted to target
Charlottesville, Virginia as part of what they called the “Summer of Hate.” 48. Defendants selected Charlottesville because, among other things, the City was
engulfed at the time in a debate over the statue of General Robert E. Lee in a small city park. In February 2017, the Charlottesville City Council voted to remove the Lee statue and, in June 2017, it voted to rename the park in which it stood from Lee Park to Emancipation Park.
49. Defendants used the removal of the Lee statue as a rallying cry for their followers, seeking to preserve its place in the park, and use the debate about the statue as a means to stir up violence and harass, threaten, and intimidate the residents of Charlottesville.
50. For example, Defendants Kessler and Richard Spencer invited white supremacist groups to visit and hold events around the statue with the intent of intimidating nonwhite and Jewish individuals and their allies.
51. On May 13, 2017, hundreds of neo-Nazis and white supremacists carried lit torches and surrounded the statue of Robert E. Lee, in an event organized and planned by, among others, Defendants Kessler, Spencer, Damigo, Peinovich, Heimbach, Identity Evropa, Vanguard America, TWP, and League of the South. Defendants and participants carried altright.com-
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 20 of 96 Pageid#: 20

branded signs2 reading “we will not be replaced.” They chanted “you will not replace us” and “blood and soil.” “Blood and soil” is a translation of “Blut und Boden,” a German nationalist philosophy that lay at the heart of Nazi policies. The slogan expresses the idealization of a racially defined national body (“blood”) unified with a settlement area (“soil”). It was inextricably linked with the contemporary German idea of Lebensraum—the belief that the German people need to reclaim historically German areas of Eastern Europe into which they could expand—which was the driving ideology behind Hitler’s invasion of neighboring countries and the mass murder of their citizens.
52. The May 13 event was planned and intended to intimidate, threaten, and harass Charlottesville residents on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity. Defendant Kessler said he hoped that the May event would be a “fantastic first event” in a “cultural ‘civil war.’” Defendants’ avowed goal was to promote and create an atmosphere of religious and racial subordination on the streets of Charlottesville, ideally through the infliction of violence or emotional distress.
53. At a lunch before the event, Spencer—sharing a podium with Defendants Damigo, Peinovich, and Kessler, as well as co-conspirator Sam Dickson—explained: “What brings us together is that we are white, we are a people. We will not be replaced.”
54. Defendants acknowledged the success of their careful, deliberate, and monthslong planning. The Daily Stormer’s website reported that “[t]he 200+ honorable whites marched to the base of the statue as they carried torches reminiscent of the 3rd Reich.” In an essay about the May 3 event, entitled “Why We Fight,” Vanguard America explained:
“The purpose of the gathering was not simply over some metal sculpture atop a pedestal in a small Southern City. It was

2

Altright.com is Defendant Richard Spencer’s website.

20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 21 of 96 Pageid#: 21
about defending the images of white history, white heroes, and white America. . . .
[T]he greatest spectacle of the event came as we lit our torches for the night march. As we approached Lee Park for the last time, our footsteps shook the whole city. . . . This movement must begin as a spiritual movement. . . . To quote a wise /pol/lak, “If you want to gas the Jews, you must first gas the Jew within yourself.”
After a few words from Spencer and Dickson, we blew out our torches, our spiritual cups filled for perhaps the first time in all of our lives and once again shouted our deafening chants, shaking the entire city with our might.
There will be many more of these events. This march on Charlottesville was just the beginning of the inevitable Revolution of our people.
Hail Victory!
55. This May event would later be referred to by conspirators as “Charlottesville 1.0."
56. Capitalizing on the perceived success of the May event, and motivated by the
same desire to achieve racial and religious subordination of city residents, Defendants began
planning for additional events in Charlottesville. On May 30, Kessler submitted an application
for a permit to hold the Unite the Right “rally” on the weekend of August 11 and 12.
57. In June, Kessler invited Defendants and others to come to Charlottesville for a
“Proud Boys” event, which was designed to promote violence and intimidate minority residents
in advance of the Unite the Right "rally." 3 As one of the Proud Boys in attendance noted, the
group wanted to bait protestors because “a lot of us kinda like to see them bleed.” Another
3 As part of the weekend, Kessler was beaten in an alley in Charlottesville by Proud Boys members until he could name five breakfast cereals. This “cereal beat-in” is the “second degree” of initiation into the Proud Boys. The first degree is a declaration of allegiance to the Proud Boys. The second degree is the cereal beat-in and a renouncement of masturbation (although Proud Boys “Pope” Dante Nero has framed the rule as requiring that a man should only ejaculate within a yard of a woman). The third degree involves getting a tattoo and the fourth degree requires a “major fight for the cause,” meaning you “kick the crap out of antifa” and possibly get arrested.
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 22 of 96 Pageid#: 22
Proud Boy reminded others: “This of course is just the beginning. There are also bigger [ ] events planned for . . . Charlottesville on August 12.”
58. On July 8, 2017, a third white supremacist event was held in Charlottesville, this time by Defendant Loyal White Knights. Nearly fifty Klansmen marched through the streets shouting “white power,” and carrying signs that read: “Jews are Satan’s children.” Some wore white Klan robes, and many carried guns.
59. Kessler attended and live-streamed the Klan march on Twitter. He shared a tweet with his followers: “#UniteTheRight against these shitlibs in Charlottesville on August 12th is going to be so much fun. You’ve got a month to be there.” B. Defendants Planned and Coordinated a Scheme to Incite Violence, Threaten,
Intimidate and Harass Charlottesville Residents on August 11 and 12 The age of ultraviolence is coming. I don’t know when, but I do know that most of you will live to see it. There is rapidly approaching a time when in every white Western city, corpses will be stacked in the streets as high as men can stack them. And you are either going to be stacking or getting stacked . . . There will be leaders. You need to be prepared to recognize them for who they are, and you need to be prepared to do whatever they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it . . . Defendant Andrew Anglin
60. Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to incite violence and to threaten, intimidate, and harass the civilian population of Charlottesville, in particular, individuals of a racial, ethnic or religious minority, and to commit other unlawful acts as described herein. For weeks, Defendants acted on the basis of racial, religious, and/or ethnic animus, and with the intention to deny Jewish people and people of color, as well as people promoting rights for Jewish people and people of color, equal protection and other rights that they are guaranteed
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 23 of 96 Pageid#: 23
under state and federal law. Defendants' conspiracy ultimately achieved its stated goals and did in fact repeatedly, systematically, and unmistakably violate the rights of religious and racial minorities in Charlottesville.
61. The application for the Unite the Right permit submitted by Defendant Kessler claimed that the event would be a protest of the removal of the Lee monument, but Defendants also intended that the rally would instill fear in Charlottesville’s minority population and cause violence. They wanted to use the events of the weekend to intimidate the broader civilian population and recruit more followers to Defendants’ groups.
62. An article by Defendants Anglin and Ray published on the Daily Stormer’s website on August 8 explained that the purpose of the “rally” had shifted from being “in support of the Lee Monument, which the Jew Mayor and his Negroid Deputy have marked for destruction” to “something much bigger than that . . . . It is now an historic rally, which will serve as a rallying point and battle cry for the rising Alt-Right movement.”
63. Defendants Kessler, Spencer, Anglin, Ray, Cantwell, Mosley, Damigo, Invictus, Peinovich, Heimbach, Parrott, Hill, Tubbs, Fields, and Schoep, on behalf of themselves and the groups to which they belong, and Defendants Identity Evropa, FOAK, Vanguard America, TWP, League of the South, NSM, Nationalist Front, Loyal White Knights, and East Coast Knights, along with Daily Stormer (Moonbase Holdings), through their leadership and members, all agreed and coordinated with and among each other to plan, organize, promote, and commit the unlawful acts that injured Plaintiffs and countless others in Charlottesville. They also coordinated with numerous unnamed and named co-conspirators.
64. Defendant Spencer and co-conspirator Evan McLaren, a member of Defendant Identity Evropa, met in person at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. to organize and direct the
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 24 of 96 Pageid#: 24
“rally” in Charlottesville, with the purpose and result of committing acts of violence, intimidation, and harassment against the citizens of Charlottesville. Defendants Cantwell and Kessler met in Charlottesville on August 9 to plan and direct the unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection of law. Defendants Ray, Cantwell, and Mosley and co-conspirator David Duke attended another in-person meeting on August 11 to plan and direct the unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and the denial of equal protection of law. Defendants Nationalist Front, NSM, TWP, League of the South, Vanguard America, East Coast Knights, and “other allies,” coordinated their attendance as a “joint operation” in advance of August 12 to plan, direct, and prepare for unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, harassment and denial of equal protection to Charlottesville citizens.
65. Defendants also frequently coordinated the illegal acts planned for the Unite the Right event online. They made use of websites, social media (including Twitter, Facebook, 4chan and 8chan), chat rooms, radio, videos and podcasts to communicate with each other, and with their co-conspirators, followers and other attendees and did so to plan the intended acts of violence, intimidation, and the denial to citizens of the equal protection of laws.
66. For years, Defendants and others unnamed have used the Internet to, in Defendant Anglin’s terms, “solidify a stable and self-sustaining counter-culture.” Use of the Internet is part of the ways, manner and means of how Defendants’ conspiracy operated and operates.
67. Defendants and co-conspirators coordinated by posting articles on their own websites, and by using social media to send and share messages for the “rally” and to encourage attendance and the commission of illegal acts. They interviewed one another about the plans for the “rally,” and shared those messages on podcasts or other video-streaming services. They agreed to mobilize their respective members and followers to attend and be violent and suppress
24

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 25 of 96 Pageid#: 25
the equal rights of Charlottesville citizens. According to Spencer, for example: “Damigo and his group [Identity Evropa] took the lead to organize white supremacist participation among people from outside Charlottesville.”
68. One Internet tool Defendants used extensively to plan and direct illegal acts was the chat platform Discord. Originally developed as a messaging platform for group “game play,” Discord is set up as a series of private, invite-only servers, each providing a space for real-time group discussion. Each server is organized into “channels,” indicated by a “#” before the name. Participants in the chat use “handles” or nicknames to identify themselves. Participants can request to be “tagged” as a member of a group.
69. A "Charlottesville 2.0" server was established on Discord in June 2017 (hereinafter, “Discord”). This server was used to direct and plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection of law at the Unite the Right "rally." One user explained that Discord was “for closed, top super secret communications intended for the elite inner circle of the alt-right.”4 Defendants used Discord as a tool to promote, coordinate, and organize the Unite the Right “rally,” and as a means to communicate and coordinate violent and illegal activities “in secret” during the actual events of that weekend.
70. Discord was moderated, reviewed, directed, and managed by Defendants Kessler and Mosley, along with their co-conspirators. As moderators of the group, they were able to view all of the posts, invite or reject participants, and delete messages they did not condone. The group was “invite only” and not open to the public.
4 Another user explained, “unless Jason or Eli made this server public without telling me. . . this isn’t a public server. It’s invite only through our trusted, pre-vetted alt-right servers. Not sure who told you it’s public."
25

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 26 of 96 Pageid#: 26

71. Individual Defendants, including Heimbach, Parrott, Cantwell, and Ray, were all

participants on Discord, and participated in the direction, planning, and inciting of unlawful and

violent acts through Discord.

72. These Defendants and their co-conspirators used Discord for regular “leadership”

meetings through which they shared information and plans. Defendants also used Discord to

distribute what they called “Orders” to co-conspirators and attendees. One document posted by

Mosley was entitled “General Orders” for “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0.”

73. There were at least 43 channels set up on Discord as a means of sharing specific

information. Those channels included:

#announcements #dixie-lyrics #mod_help #confirmed_participants #shuttle_service_information #code_of_conduct #self_promotion #flags_banners_signs #promotion_and_cyberstrike #gear_and_attire #antifa_watch #demonstration_tactics #sponsors_only #i_need_a_sponsor

#news #safety_planning #alex_jones_chat #pictures_and_video #beltway_bigots #voice_chat #friday-night #sunday-night #chants#virginia_laws #lodging #lodging_wanted #lodging_available #carpool_wanted

#ma_ct_ri #vt_nh_me #great_lakes_region #midwest_region #ky_tn #tx_ok #florida #georgia #carolinas #california_pacific_nw #carpool_available #ny_nj #pennsylvania #dc_va_md

74. They also had a channel called #questions_for_coordinators, where participants

could ask questions of the organizers.

75. With the permission of a moderator, individuals could be “tagged” as members of

certain organizations. Defendants Vanguard America, Identity Evropa, TWP, League of the

South, and Daily Stormer (including its “book club” chapters), all had channels on Discord that

allowed their tagged members to participate in private group communications in advance of the

“rally.”

26

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 27 of 96 Pageid#: 27
76. Defendants enlisted other co-conspirators to coordinate and organize the “rally,” through Discord and other means. For example, one individual, using the Discord handle “Tyrone” (hereinafter Tyrone), agreed with Kessler that he would coordinate transportation for attendees on August 12. Others were tasked with helping Kessler and Mosley moderate the Discord server. Another individual, using the Discord handle “Caerulus Rex,” was the coordinator between various “security details” that were established by Defendants and their coconspirators.
77. Promotional materials, often promoting and inciting violence, were added to Discord in order to be shared and utilized more broadly.
78. Defendants also used Discord to coordinate how they would communicate on other social media. For example, they told followers to use #UniteTheRight and #Charlottesville on Twitter, so that they and their followers could closely communicate during the weekend of the “rally.” They shared that hashtag through Discord.
79. Defendants Anglin and Ray likewise established “meet ups” and chat rooms through the Daily Stormer’s website that co-conspirators and attendees were told to use throughout the weekend to coordinate their actions.
80. A “Charlottesville Statement” was distributed by Defendant Spencer, setting out the philosophy and ideology underlying the “rally.” He was aided in drafting his manifesto by Defendant Invictus, co-conspirator McLaren, and others. Among other things, the Charlottesville Statement holds that “‘Judeo-Christian values’ might be a quaint political slogan, but it is a distortion of the historical and metaphysical reality of both Jews and Europeans” and that “Nations must secure their existence and uniqueness and promote their own development and flourishing. . . . Racially or ethnically defined states are legitimate and necessary.”
27

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 28 of 96 Pageid#: 28
C. Defendants Promoted Attendance, Violence, and Imagery Designed to Threaten, Intimidate and Harass [T]his will clearly be an earth-shaking day that will go down in the history books . . . our time has come. August 12, 2017 is going to be a shot heard around the world . . . . There will be before Charlottesville 2.0, and there will be after Charlottesville 2.0. there is no way to exaggerate the significance of this. We can make all the noise on the internet that we want, and this is great, but our real power will come only from numbers in the streets. . . . [T]hanks to the magnitude of this event, I truly believe— more than I ever did before—that we will eventually win this struggle and secure the existence of our people and future for white children. It is our destiny. Next stop: Charlottesville, VA. Final stop: Auschwitz. See ya there, faggots. Daily Stormer 81. Anglin, through Daily Stormer, told followers: “We are angry . . . There is a [sic]
atavistic rage in us, deep in us, that is ready to boil over. There is a craving to return to an age of violence. We want a war.” He advised followers that “the hardcore message is what sells” and told them to “[b]e ready to die for [the fight].”
82. On Spencer’s website, altright.com, one article wrote of the upcoming August “rally”: “Our ideas dominate the internet . . . Now it’s time to dominate the streets. . . . You might think it’s just a rally, but really, it’s so much more . . . . We are telling the anti-White establishment and it’s [sic] attack dogs that we are not going to give another inch . . . And now we have come to the tipping point.”
83. Defendant Ray exhorted: “We are stepping off the Internet in a big way. . . . We have been organizing on the Internet. And so now they are coming out. We have greatly outnumbered the anti-white, anti-American filth. At some point we will have enough power that
28

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 29 of 96 Pageid#: 29
we will clear them from the streets forever . . . you ain’t seen nothing yet.”5 In another interview, Defendant Ray also stated that Defendants’ goal was to “stop” the “usurpation” of “our country by a foreign tribe called the Jews.”
84. Defendant Mosley tweeted: “We are [] going to Charlottesville. This is our country and it is our right that me and thousands fought for already . . . Our birthright will be ashes & they’ll have to pry it from our cold dead hands if they want it. They will not replace us without a fight.”
85. In one promotion created by Defendant TWP and distributed on Discord, the poster stated: “This is not an attack on your heritage this is an attack on your racial existence. FIGHT BACK OR DIE.”
86. The Daily Stormer released its own poster, which was later shared by Defendant Vanguard America:
5 Vice released a 22-minute documentary following Defendants throughout the day. The video can be found at https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror.
29

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 30 of 96 Pageid#: 30
87. Using Daily Stormer’s website, Anglin and Ray commanded the Daily Stormer community to attend (“You must make it there!”). They told their members: “[w]e need to do everything we can to get as many people to attend this rally as possible. . . . There is a rising nationalist movement in American and it is not going away. Having thousands of nationalists come out for this rally will put the fear of god into the hearts and minds of our enemies.” A writer on Spencer’s website, altright.com, enthused that Daily Stormer was “going to bring a lot of young new cadres to the rally,” including Identity Evropa.
88. Anglin also urged his followers: “We are now taking these [Stormer Book Clubs] to the next level . . . We are going to have challenges (which will include getting you in fit and
30

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 31 of 96 Pageid#: 31
fighting shape and learning useful masculine skills) . . . . We are going to build an invisible empire. This has all been worked out in my mind a long time ago, and this summer, the Summer of the Black Sun, is when we are going to bring it all together.”
89. Defendant Hill encouraged League of the South followers to attend by urging them not to “miss out of the fun” in dealing with their purported enemies” Defendant East Coast Knights exhorted individuals to attend: “We will be there! Join us!”
90. Another co-conspirator on Discord posted an image of a raised fist holding a dagger by its blade, dripping blood, over the words “FIGHT UNTIL THE LAST DROP.”
91. Defendants' intention to engage in violence, to ensure that others engaged in violence, and to orchestrate and direct that violence against racial and religious minorities was open and explicit. For example, on a podcast run by Defendant Peinovitch, the Daily Shoah, a co-conspirator, discussing the “rally,” asked: “Now come on, beating up the wrong negro . . . is that even a possibility? Beat up the wrong nigger . . .” A member of Vanguard America blithely asked on Discord, “When can we gas the reprobates. . .” Tyrone, a co-conspirator, wrote: “Most efficient is how you get six million Jews in a Cadillac. 3 in the front 3 in the rear 5,999,994 in the ash tray.”
31

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 32 of 96 Pageid#: 32
92. On Discord, moderated and controlled by Defendants Kessler and Mosley, there were countless exhortations to violence, including:
● “I’m ready to crack skulls.” ● “If you don’t have a flame thrower you’re wrong,” ● “It’s going to get wild. Bring your boots.” ● “Studies show 999/1000 niggers and feminists fuck right off when faced
with pepper spray.” ● “Bringing women to a protest/rally where we expect violence is fucking
retarded . . . even if you aren’t expecting violence you should prepare for it.” ● “Let there be no mistake – these two side have irreconciable [sic] differences that will never reach compromise – the only question is the level of conflict to decide the victor.” ● “You have a week, bros. Best spend it having four or five of your friends simulate jumping you. Go light, don’t get injured before the event, and focus on blocking and pushing back in ways that don’t look like assault.” ● “Let’s make this channel great again. The Carolinas (kind of) started the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, so why not add the Race War / Second Civil War to the list?” 93. Defendants took no steps to prevent any violence. To the contrary, consistent with their conspiracy to encourage and enable violence, Defendants and co-conspirators reinforced a false narrative of a larger—necessarily violent—racial and religious war in which Unite the Right events were a critical moment. This strategy was intended to—and foreseeably resulted in violence directed at the racial and religious minorities. 94. For example, Defendant Hill tweeted on July 24: “If you want to defend the South and Western civilization from the Jew and his dark-skinned allies, be at Charlottesville on 12 August.”
32

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 33 of 96 Pageid#: 33
95. Defendant Mosley published “General Orders” for the “rally” which divided attendees into “Friendlies” and “Enemies/Counter Protesters.” Individuals opposed to the ideas advanced by the Unite the Right “rally” were described as “hostile.”
96. The General Orders further instructed co-conspirators and attendees that if they ended up losing their permit to gather in the park then they may “have to initiate plan red or have to take the ground by force with plan yellow.” Plan Red was described as “incredibly dangerous” and called for meeting early at a rally point and marching to the park. The General Orders also promised that there would be “security forces . . . to reduce the threat” presented by “hostiles.”
97. Co-conspirators on Discord incited attendees to bring weapons and engage in violence. This incitement was known to and promoted by Defendants.
98. Tyrone posted a quote from Hitler’s close associate and “Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War,” Paul Joseph Goebbels, on Discord: “Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”
99. Defendants expressly acknowledged that their false narrative of “self-defense” was merely a pretext for violence. Tyrone, for example, had the following exchange on Discord:
Tyrone: “What if we are sociopathic and want [antifa] to show up, for . . . self defense purposes?” Americana – MD: If you’re concerned about antifa showing up and being violent I present you 2 valid options. 1. Don’t attend [emoji of a woman] or 2. Be better at violence than they are.
Tyrone: It’s not just about you (collective you not personal) violence like this is a team game. He told others: “The best defense is a good offense, my grandpappy taught me.”
33

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 34 of 96 Pageid#: 34
100. One Discord participant told people to “purchase self defense insurance,” while another quipped that the ability to make out a self-defense claim “[d]epends how much of a jew your lawyer is.”
101. Using Discord and other mediums, Defendants gave orders to each other, coconspirators, and followers in advance of the Unite the Right weekend, including what weapons to bring, what protective armor to wear, and instructions for uniforms. In particular, they advised other participants to bring firearms or improvised weapons. They engaged in these acts with the intention that they and their co-conspirators would in fact engage in violence and harassment against racial and religious minorities and threaten the broader Charlottesville population.
102. Defendant Cantwell expressly “encourage[d]” Radical Agenda followers “to carry a concealed firearm.”
103. Defendants and co-conspirators posted photos of themselves posing with automatic weapons and tactical gear, and boasted about the weapons they were bringing. Tyrone, for example, bragged that he would be bringing “Mosin-Nagants with bayonets attached,” referring to military rifles used by Russian and Soviet armed forces, which “will shoot clean through a crowd at least four deep.” Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet, a co-conspirator and attendee of the events of August 11 and 12, posted the following on Twitter:
34

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 35 of 96 Pageid#: 35
104. Defendant Ray wrote on Discord: “Well I also come barehanded and barefisted, bc officers don’t duck lol. But my guys will be ready with lots of nifty equipment.”
105. One co-conspirator on Discord posted a fake advertisement for a product that looked like pepper spray called “Nig-Away”—“a no-fuss, no-muss ‘nigger-killer,’” promised to “kill[] on contact . . . dissolv[ing] all tissue, leav[ing] only bone matter” in order to “rid the area of niggers.” He commented beneath the photo, “stock up now.”
35

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 36 of 96 Pageid#: 36
Discord was rife with discussions by co-conspirators of weapons and the use of everyday objects to inflict harm:
● “I’m conceal carrying.” ● “[A] real man knows how to make a shield a deadly weapon.” ● “[K]nives and guns are more legal than blunt weapons or batons, but its [sic]
better to only carry what would only be perceived as a defensive tool. I figure knives would cause the police more alarm over a can of pepper spray or a rugged and abrasive shield.” ● “[G]et standard OC spray. I personally use Fox Labs.” ● “[R]emember that newspapers can be your greatest ally / toss a few pennies in there, roll it up and fold it and bam.” ● “[A]void batons . . . just get hardwood dowel (that fits in your hand) from a store and cut it to size.” ● “If you get PVC get schedule 80 for thicker thumping.” ● “Don’t carry anything that’s explicitly a weapon. Flag poles and signs work, but openly carrying obvious weaponry is probably not a good idea.” ● “A wrench with a wrist lanyard gets the same job [as a blackjack/billyclub] accomplished.”
36

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 37 of 96 Pageid#: 37
● “Just carry a pocket full of rocks. They can be in a sock or something.”
106. One co-conspirator on Discord posted a link to his store, Resistance Tools, along with a coupon code (UNITETHERIGHT2017), and wrote “FOR PEOPLE NOT CONCEALED CARRYING IN C’VILLE: I sell stun guns, tasers, pepper spray, batons, and other self-defense stuff.”
107. Defendants Ray and Anglin issued directives using Daily Stormer’s website in advance of the Unite the Right weekend. In articles titled “Operational Security for Right Wing Rallies” and “Charlottesville: Why You Must Attend and What to Bring and Not to Bring!” “Stormers” were told that they were required to bring tiki torches and should also bring pepper spray, flag poles, flags, and shields.
108. Defendants and co-conspirators provided guidance and instructions to coconspirators and participants about how to try to avoid the legal ramifications of their violence. For example, they set up a channel on Discord devoted to understanding Virginia Law, where one co-conspirator suggested that rallygoers buy self-defense insurance.
109. Defendants also assured co-conspirators that they would be protected when they engaged in violent acts intended, incited, strategized, and encouraged by Defendants. The
37

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 38 of 96 Pageid#: 38
“General Orders” told attendees that if they found themselves arrested, there would be “money and a legal team set aside for you after.” Spencer put out a call for Attorneys on his website, altright.com.
110. Daily Stormer advised attendees: [I]f you end up in some heavy stuff and are not yet
charged with anything, use your moments of freedom to get really difficult to find. Do not wait around for bad processes to begin against you. Exit from any risky situation as quickly as you can. If you make yourself easy to serve with legal process, legal process will be likely be served to you. 111. Defendants and co-conspirators told each other to bring shields, uniforms, flags, and signs decorated with iconography that would instill fear along racial and religious lines, while also identifying rallygoers with the hate groups to which they belong. The Texas and Louisiana chapters of Vanguard America, for example, planned to have shields with their logos painted on. 112. Defendants also discussed and intended for followers to come with paraphernalia bearing racist and anti-Semitic imagery. Defendant Kessler, for example, explained: “The Confederate flag is THE BEST optics because it’s beloved by legions of Southerners who are on the doorstep of becoming just like us if we can move them beyond ‘heritage not hate.’” 113. The “official” poster for the event contained Nazi and confederate iconography, including imperial eagles reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s national emblem, confederate flags and monuments, confederate soldiers in formation.
38

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 39 of 96 Pageid#: 39

D. Defendants Coordinated Funding, Logistics, Transportation and Legal Support For Co-Conspirators and Attendees 114. Defendants furthered their conspiracy and its illegal, injurious objectives by
coordinating attendance at the rally through Discord, the Daily Stormer website, and other media.
115. On Discord, Defendants established the #sponsors_only and #i_need_a_sponsor channels to provide financial support to others who wanted to travel to Charlottesville. Defendants also used channels like #carpool_wanted and #carpool_available to organize carpools in “Hate Van[s]” and “full blown hate convoy[s].”6

6

The “Hate Van” and “hate convoy” suggested by conspirators in this case has historical precedent. During

the Civil Rights Era, George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, and his supporters drove a

two-vehicle caravan that included a blue and white van dubbed the “Hate Bus” through the South. The exterior of

the van was plastered with the words “LINCOLN ROCKWELL’S HATE BUS” and the phrases, “WE DO HATE

RACE MIXING” and “WE HATE JEW-COMMUNISM.” Rockwell pledged solidarity with the Klansmen who

attacked the Freedom Riders (black and white civil rights activists who rode interstate busses in a campaign of

desegregation) and hoped to confront the “Communist, nigger-loving” Riders when they arrived in New Orleans. In

New Orleans, they demonstrated with signs that read “America for Whites, Africa for Blacks” and “Gas Chamber

for Traitors.” After Rockwell’s assassination in 1967, the American Nazi Party broke into two factions, one of

which became the Defendant NSM, run by Defendant Schoep. See RAYMOND ARSENAULT, FREEDOM RIDERS: 1961

AND THE STRUGGLE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE 195 (1961).

39

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 40 of 96 Pageid#: 40
116. On the Daily Stormer website, attendees were advised: “If you want to come but can’t find a way, get on the BBS [a Daily Stormer forum] and ask for help. Go to the Book Club section and find the nearest book club to you and post in that thread that you want to go but need assistance. If you happen to have hit a dead thread, start a thread in General Discussion asking for help. If you are going and have an extra seat or seats, start a thread to offer a ride.”
117. Cantwell asked listeners of his Radical Agenda podcast and readers of his website to send money to him if they “want[ed] to help,” but could not attend the “rally.”
118. RootBocks, and WeSearchr—sites that were set up to raise money for hate-based causes—facilitated the attendance of co-conspirators. On July 28, for example, RootBocks tweeted “@BakedAlaska was banned from @GoFundMe so go help him out here.” Baked Alaska a/k/a Tim Gionet has advocated racial and religious based violence, including by circulating an image of a Jewish woman in a gas chamber. David Duke also tweeted, “Help my friend Baked Alaska get to the #UniteTheRight rally. Please donate to make this happen. rootbocks.com/projects/get-b . . .”
119. On the August 8 “Charlottesville Unite the Right Announcement Special” podcast with Defendant Peinovich, Defendant Mosley told listeners that they’d be setting up a general legal fund using Rootbocks. On that same program, Mosley told listeners how to get help with transportation.
120. Defendants and co-conspirators also coordinated for travel the day of the “rally” on Saturday. After consulting with Defendant Kessler, Tyrone took responsibility for helping organize shuttles. One co-conspirator instructed Discord participants: “Nobody is going to the park on their own. We will be arriving as a group.”
40

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 41 of 96 Pageid#: 41
E. When Plaintiffs and Others Sought to Prepare for the Events of August 12, They Were Targeted for Additional Threats and Harassment 121. Plaintiffs and community members understood that August 12 could be (and
ultimately was) the largest public gathering of hate groups in decades. 122. Anticipating a need for a designated, separate space for peaceful protesters, a
University of Virginia professor received permits for McGuffey Park and Justice Park for the periods during which the Unite the Right "rally" was to take place.
123. A broad group of concerned citizens, including Plaintiff Wispelwey, recognized the need to organize community members in advance of the rally weekend in order to provide a sense of solidarity for Charlottesville and give guidance on non-violent protest.
124. Wispelwey, an ordained minister, co-created a membership-organization, “Congregate,” to join interfaith clergy from around the country to “stand against white supremacy and bear witness to love and justice.” Congregate’s goal was to bring 1000 clergymembers to Charlottesville to stand up for equality and against hate. Working with other religious leaders and community organizers and organizations, Congregate planned an interfaith service for August 11 at St. Paul’s Memorial Church on University Avenue (“St. Paul’s”), the night before Defendants had obtained their permit to gather in Emancipation Park. Congregate also helped plan an interfaith “sunrise service” at the African-American First Baptist Church on West Main Street so that community members could gather, feel supported, and pray.
125. As a result of its work in support of the Charlottesville community, Congregate was targeted. Defendant Kessler advised his followers of Congregate’s work in a video released prior to the Unite the Right weekend. In doing so, Kessler intended to have others threaten, and potentially cause violence to, the organization—a practice that is not uncommon among Defendants and co-conspirators. For example, after a photograph was published of a young
41

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 42 of 96 Pageid#: 42
woman giving the middle finger to a man in a confederate army uniform, a prominent member of the East Coast Knights tweeted out the young woman's home address and wrote: “We will be having a rally at this address next week. Bring your own torch.”
126. On August 2, one co-conspirator posted on Discord screenshots from a Facebook event for an upcoming community “Back to School Block Party” in Charlottesville. He commented: “Negro block party about 1 mile SW of Lee park.” Following that post, one Discord participant suggested that a white supremacist group “go to the bloc party after and beat them at kick ball.” Another replied, asking, “What happens if we lose? I hear niggers are pretty good at sports ball.” A third replied, “We shank them.”
127. Defendant Kessler along with other co-conspirators posted various photographs on Discord and provided names and identifying information of individuals planning to protest in Charlottesville, as well as the community groups organizing the protest. On August 10, 2017, Kessler, Mosley, and others hosted a voice chat on Discord, during which an unidentified voice offered a “solid gold medal” to any person who would shave the “Bearded Lady,” referring to a photograph of an expected protestor.
128. Congregation Beth Israel, the synagogue to which Plaintiffs Pearce, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3 belong, also learned of Defendants’ online, public threats to Charlottesville’s Jewish population. In reasonable fear and apprehension of Defendants and their co-conspirators, the Temple made the painful decision to move and hide its sacred Torah scrolls off site in advance of the weekend. Among the Torahs at the Synagogue was one salvaged from a neighborhood of Eastern European Jews who were massacred during the Holocaust that is displayed in a glass cabinet. Unfortunately, that Holocaust Torah could not be moved because of
42

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 43 of 96 Pageid#: 43
its fragile condition. Plaintiff Pearce thought at the time of how ironic it was that a Torah that managed to survive the Holocaust was again being threatened by Nazis.
129. The Temple also decided it needed to move its Saturday Shabbat services up an hour, so that it could close in the afternoon when Defendants and other neo-Nazis and white supremacists were expected to be in Charlottesville. The Temple took further safety precautions, including hiring a security guard, to keep the congregation safe while they were there for services, re-directing substantial resources.
130. Stores, restaurants, and bars around town, created signs that they posted in their windows showing the businesses’ support for equality and diversity. Those stores and restaurants were also targeted by Defendants.
131. In June, for example, Kessler encouraged Discord participants to obtain the names of local businesses whose owners signed a petition to ask the government to cancel Kessler’s permit. In August, co-conspirator Griffin tweeted about targeting a local restaurant, Brazos Tacos. Defendant Mosley also tweeted about targeting several restaurants, namely Brazos Tacos, Cinema Taco, Commonwealth Restaurant and Skybar, Mudhouse, and the Whiskey Jar. Spencer tweeted a picture of Commonwealth Restaurant, which had a sign in the window reading: “If equality & diversity aren’t for you then neither are we.” On August 10, Peinovich tweeted, “Do these white business owners and shitlibs in CVille think that their virtue signaling mean they will be spared somehow? Lol.”
132. By identifying these businesses, Defendants intended that their co-conspirators and followers would threaten these businesses. A number of these businesses thereafter received in person and mailed threats:
43

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 44 of 96 Pageid#: 44
II. On August 11 and 12, Defendants Successfully Implemented the Violence and Intimidation They Had Planned
A. Friday, August 11, 2017 1) The “Secret” Torch Parade 133. Defendants, including Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, Anglin, Cantwell, and
Invictus, along with their co-conspirators, organized a torchlight march through campus culminating at the statue of Thomas Jefferson near the Rotunda on August 11 at the Grounds at UVA.
134. The permit Kessler applied for and received was for the following day, August 12, in Emancipation Park. Defendants did not publicly disclose the time or location for the August 11 torch parade “because it was a secret arrangement.”
44

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 45 of 96 Pageid#: 45
135. The torch parade was the result of weeks of planning by Defendants and coconspirators. They had established a #friday_night channel on Discord to coordinate attendance, dress code, and plans. They advised co-conspirators that the event was intended to be a secret and that they should bring torches.
136. For example, the Daily Stormer website stated: Tiki Torches: Yes – required. Pick up tiki torches before
you leave your hometown. There will be a torchlight ceremony and the tiki torches will all be gone from the shelves of the local stores. Dollar stores are your best bet. Wal-Mart has them cheap as well. Make sure and get some tiki torch fuel/oil too. Otherwise they won’t burn. 137. On a planning call conducted through Discord, Mosley instructed Defendants and co-conspirators: “We are doing a torch light event on Friday. . . . Anyone who doesn’t have tiki stuff now should go out and get it tonight or tomorrow morning and if you could get extras that would be great.” Kessler ordered attendees to buy torches for Friday, but to do so outside of Charlottesville, so that they would not “tip our enemy off.” He instructed that people “buy extras for those who are flying in or unprepared.” 138. Defendant Mosley ordered individuals to arrive at Nameless Field, a large area behind UVA’s Memorial Gymnasium, at 9:30 pm, so that they could march once darkness fell at 9:47 pm. He told them not to arrive earlier to avoid tipping off counter-protestors, and stressed that “it’s extremely important that nobody mention this outside our circle.” 139. While planning their torchlight march, Defendants were aware of the fact that open fires are illegal on UVA’s campus without authorization. Nearly one month before the planned torchlight march, a Discord participant posted a link to UVA’s guidelines against open fires. A co-conspirator, and moderator on Discord, “pinned” the regulation to the chat, meaning that it was highlighted for participants.
45

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 46 of 96 Pageid#: 46
140. The choice to use lit torches was a deliberate decision to harass and intimidate the people of Charlottesville and counter protesters, especially people of color and Jewish people. Defendants and co-conspirators intentionally drew on the history of torch-bearing mobs, and in particular, the Ku Klux Klan’s use of torches in the late 1800s and in the twentieth century, and the Nazi’s use of torches in their rallies in the 1930s. In both historical cases, just as with crossburning, the use of torches was connected with racial violence; torches were chosen by Defendants and co-conspirators as part of a deliberate plan to evoke fear of the same kind of violence. As one co-conspirator on Discord explained: “Tiki torches are the last stand of implicit whiteness.” Defendant Ray explained the purpose of the torch parade as follows: “Our country is being usurped by a foreign tribe, called the Jews. We are going to stop it.” Defendant Invictus explained to a reporter, “Somebody forgot the pitchforks at home, so all we got is torches.”
141. On the morning of August 11, Defendant Cantwell and other co-conspirators gathered at a Walmart outside of Charlottesville. Cantwell then travelled to McIntire Park to prepare for the evening. In an interview with a reporter from Vice, Cantwell said: “I’m trying to make myself more capable of violence. . . . I’m here to spread ideas, talk, in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that.”
142. On Friday evening, using Discord, Mosley alerted co-conspirators that they should go to UVA: “Everyone can start assembling at nameless field right now with your torches to start staging. We will step off from the field at 10 pm.”
143. Starting around 7:30 p.m., approximately 300 neo-Nazis and white supremacists—Defendants and their co-conspirators—began arriving at Nameless Field. They carried unlit tiki torches, and many wore khakis pants and white polo shirts (the uniform of
46

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 47 of 96 Pageid#: 47
Defendant Vanguard America) and pins marking their affiliations with different hate groups. A little after 8:00 p.m., Spencer texted a reporter: “I’d be near campus tonight, if I were you. After 9:00 p.m., Nameless field.”
144. By early evening, Plaintiffs Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Wispelwey were inside St. Paul’s Church, along with an overflow crowd of an estimated 1,000 people. Dozens of local and national clergy members visiting Charlottesville for the weekend participated and spoke at the service.
145. Plaintiff John Doe and Jane Doe 1, along with their fellow UVA students, then peacefully walked to the Rotunda where Defendants were believed to be holding their event.
146. At the same time, at Nameless Field, Plaintiff Magill observed Defendants and their co-conspirators barking and grunting loudly, making sounds that resonated for blocks. Defendants Cantwell, Kessler, Ray and other co-conspirators were issuing orders to the other white supremacists and neo-Nazis, telling them to get in specific formations and assigning people either to march with a torch or on the side as “security.”
147. Defendants and their co-conspirators filled their tiki torches with fuel, formed a long column, and lit the flames. They then started marching two-by-two from Nameless Field to the Rotunda, and down to the Jefferson Statue. Defendants and co-conspirators deliberately took a circuitous route that included marching through student housing on the Lawn, which Plaintiff Sines observed, and which was intended to threaten, intimidate and harass as many bystanders as possible.
148. Defendants marched in an organized, coordinated fashion. Organizers, including Defendant Cantwell, wore earpieces, carried radios, and shouted specific orders at the marchers. They shouted to keep pace, avoid gaps, stay in line “two-by-two” and march alongside a
47

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 48 of 96 Pageid#: 48
“security guard.” Defendant Invictus said it was a “tight operation” and, in his live video feed, frequently enthused “high T!,” meaning high testosterone.
149. Plaintiff Sines heard the marchers chanting slogans chosen for their intimidating and racially harassing effect. These slogans included, “You will not replace us!” “Jews will not replace us!” “Blood and soil!” “White lives matter!” and “This is our town now!”
150. The marchers also barked like dogs and performed Nazi salutes. Again, these actions were intentionally chosen for their racially threatening, intimidating, and harassing effect.
151. Defendants intended to send a clear message through the torch parade: Jewish people, black people, and their allies should be afraid for their safety, livelihoods, and lives.
2) The Attack at the Rotunda 152. The torch march eventually reached the steps on the far side of the Rotunda. Hundreds of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, including Kessler and Spencer, charged toward a small group of fewer than 30 people, mostly students and community members, including Plaintiff John Doe and Jane Doe 1, who had locked arms around the statue of Thomas Jefferson. 153. As Defendants and their co-conspirators rushed down the steps that surround the Rotunda and streamed toward the Jefferson statue, they continued to shout “Blood and soil,” “Jews will not replace us,” and “You will not replace us,” and to bark like dogs. They also made monkey noises at the black protesters. Plaintiff John Doe, one of the few African-American men present, was terrified and feared for his life. 154. As they reached the statue, Defendants and co-conspirators circled the students to trap them. Seeing the mob surround the students, Plaintiff Magill, who had followed the white supremacists warning others to steer clear, ran through the crowd and locked arms with the small group, which included Jane Doe 1 and John Doe. One co-conspirator yelled, “we need some more people to fill in this way to block these people off.” After the fact, one of the students
48

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 49 of 96 Pageid#: 49
tweeted: “They surrounded us at the statue / They wouldn’t let us out”; Defendant Spencer retweeted this, adding “Fact check: true.”
155. Defendants and co-conspirators began to kick and punch the protesters around the statue, using their torches as weapons, and beat individuals onto the ground. Defendant Ray claimed that the group of white supremacists “went through [the protestors] like shit through a goose!”
156. From the crowd, Defendants co-conspirators and others threw an unidentified fluid at the peaceful protesters around the statue, including on Plaintiffs Magill. Looking down at the fluid on their clothing, which they feared was fuel or other flammable liquid, and the hundreds of lit torches around them, Plaintiff John Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Magill believed that they might be killed. Co-Conspirators and others then threw their lit torches through the air, aimed and directed at many of the protesters around the statue. At one point, Defendant Ray shouted, “The heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!”
157. Plaintiff Sines witnessed co-conspirators throwing fuel and tiki torches at the peaceful protestors around the statute.
158. Defendants and co-conspirators, including Cantwell, attacked the protestors with mace. The Daily Stormer included the below photo of Cantwell spraying a protestor in the eyes in its live feed with the caption “. . . might be the greatest photo I’ve ever seen.” The same photo was retweeted by Eli Mosley under a caption: “He protect / He atack / But most importantly he got your back.”
49

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 50 of 96 Pageid#: 50
159. Due to Defendants’ conduct, and consistent with their intention to terrorize, Plaintiff John Doe feared that he was in imminent danger. He was sprayed with mace.
160. Fearing for their lives, Plaintiffs John Doe, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1, and the other protesters struggled to escape the mob. Defendants and their co-conspirators climbed to the top of the Thomas Jefferson statue and waved their torches high in the air, yelling, “Hail Spencer! Hail victory!” Spencer spoke briefly to the crowd, saying, “We own these streets! We occupy this ground!” He told the crowd that they were “risking their lives” for their future. This was consistent with the unlawful plan developed by Defendants through their conspiratorial acts in the weeks and months preceding these events, and as operationalized and modified by Defendants in response to developments on the ground.
161. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 and her oldest daughter, Jane Doe 3, left an interfaith service at St Paul’s Church to go home early. From their perch, just across from the Rotunda, they could
50

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 51 of 96 Pageid#: 51
see the events unfolding. Jane Doe 2 did not know until she approached the Rotunda that her youngest daughter was one of the group of students surrounding the statue.
162. These acts of violence were not isolated or unplanned incidents. The torch rally was planned with the specific intent of engaging in racially-motivated violence, threats, intimidation, and harassment. The attacks upon the students were coordinated both in advance and on the day that they occurred. Defendants and co-conspirators intentionally formed a circle trapping the students and either directly participated in the ensuing violence or continued to incite it—including through the chants described above—as the violence was occurring.
3) St. Paul’s Memorial Church 163. During the attack at the Rotunda, hundreds of people were across the street at St. Paul’s Church, listening to civil rights and religious leaders speak of peace and equality. At least one white supremacist, Defendants’ co-conspirator, was within the church, live-streaming the interfaith service to his followers. 164. Some of the individuals within the church, including Plaintiff Wispelwey, along with people who had volunteered to serve in a security role outside, could see and hear the mob charging through the Rotunda, chanting and wielding torches. 165. After seeing the mob surround and attack the peaceful protestors at the Rotunda, Plaintiff Wispelwey and others were reasonably afraid that the mob would come towards the church to cause violence to the building and the individuals inside, particularly given the racial and religious make-up of the assembled group and the fact that Defendant Jason Kessler had specifically targeted the Congregate, in advance, for harassment and intimidation. 166. At around 10:00 p.m., when the service at St. Paul’s ended, the organizers asked everyone in attendance to leave in groups through the back doors to avoid the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. However, after learning more details of the violence occurring at the
51

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 52 of 96 Pageid#: 52
Rotunda, Plaintiff Wispelwey reasonably apprehended that force would be used against those still within the church if they went outside. The church was filled with children and elderly individuals who were particularly vulnerable to any violence that could occur. Accordingly, a few minutes later, everyone at St. Paul’s was asked to return to their seats. They remained in the church for nearly an hour after the service was supposed to end.
167. After the church re-opened its doors, Plaintiff Wispelwey drove some of his fellow clergy back to their hotels to make sure they were safe. From his car, Wispelwey saw coconspirators carrying baseball bats and torches—carried for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, and harassing residents.
168. Directly outside of one hotel, Defendant Augustus Invictus asked Wispelwey, who was wearing a collar, what church he belonged to, and intentionally intimidated him, consistent with Defendants’ broad campaign of racial and religious subordination.
4) Defendants Celebrated the Torch Parade as an Advertisement for the “Unite the Right” Rally the Following Day
169. David Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and co-conspirator, posted the following:
52

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 53 of 96 Pageid#: 53
170. Co-conspirator McLaren posted a photo of the march and tweeted: “White peoples never agreed to become minorities in their own lands, in numbers and spirit.” Defendant Kessler tweeted a picture of the torchlight marchers surrounding the protestors at the statue and wrote: “Incredible moment for white people who’ve had it up to here & aren’t going to take it anymore. Tomorrow we #UniteTheRight #Charlottesville.” Spencer retweeted that tweet.
53

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 54 of 96 Pageid#: 54
171. Invictus told watchers of his livestream to come on Saturday to the most important “rally” of the year. Anticipating and strategizing violence, Defendant Anglin wrote on his Daily Stormer website that people should “be at Lee Park by noon, preferably by 11:00.” Although he wouldn’t be there, Anglin said that he had given Defendant Ray words to relay to the crowd. He told readers: “Make sure you’re with a crew. Don’t park alone, don’t walk to your car alone . . . If you wanna stay up all night with Stormers, or arrange to travel to the park together tomorrow, get in this thread and start sending people PMs.” He signed off for the evening saying “[w]e are on the verge of breaking through into a whole other realm.” B. Saturday, August 12, 2017
1) Defendants Intentionally Planned A Violent Confrontation With CounterProtesters
172. On August 12, Defendants, their co-conspirators, and others acting at their direction executed their plan to carry out racial, religious, and ethnic violence, intimidation, and
54

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 55 of 96 Pageid#: 55
harassment. Defendants Kessler, Cantwell, Mosley, Heimbach, Hill, Invictus, Ray, Spencer, Damigo, Peinovich, Fields, Parrott, Tubbs, the Nationalist Front, League of the South, NSM, TWP, Vanguard, the East Coast Knights, the Loyal White Knights, FOAK, and hundreds of Stormers (many of them from Stormer Book Clubs) all participated in the violent events of the day together with co-conspirators including Duke and the Proud Boys.
173. Defendants and co-conspirators planned to arrive early and anticipated and encouraged the use of violence to assist the rally. As one co-conspirator explained: “Me, the rest of TWP and LS [League of the South] have been to more than one rodeo. / And shit NSM will be there early too / Those guys are nuts / In a good way.” Kessler promised that there would be hundreds of members of TWP and League of the South at the park as early as 8:00 a.m.
174. Defendants Mosley, Kessler, and co-conspirators exhorted rallygoers to arrive before the park opened to form “a white bloc barrier or square around the entire statue + podium . . . . given that they know we’re coming, we’ll all need as many people as possible to be there right when the park opens.”
175. Defendant Kessler told Discord participants: “EVERYONE needs to get to the park as early as possible and defend our territory.” He suggested that camping out at the monument the night before would give them “[t]he most extremely prepared position.” In these remarks, Kessler referred to (and actively encouraged) preparation for violence against racial and religious minorities and anyone who supported their cause.
176. A co-conspirator asked the Discord group: “So are we going to occupy very early? Or try and force this commie scum out after the fact? I’m good with either.” Another participant responded, “We will be fine as long as we have bodies there and willing to remove
55

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 56 of 96 Pageid#: 56
whoever is in our way. Vanguard is fabricating 20 additional shields. We should have a good amount between organizations. We just need to make sure we have bodies there ready to rock.”
177. Consistent with the conspiracy’s effort to organize and maximize violent acts, a co-conspirator and moderator on Discord told participants that “we’ll be putting out a video for basic formation, roles, and commands to all of the group leaders shortly” and “posted a “Shields & Shield Tactics Primer” made by the “Detroit Right Wings,” as well as a video illustrating shield fighting techniques, to be studied by participants. Defendant Eli Mosley said: “I run this [the Unite the Right “rally”] as a military operation . . . I was in the army.”
178. Defendants took no steps to prevent, or aid in preventing, the intimidating, threatening and otherwise illegal conduct they knew was being planned and coordinated.
2) The Events On August 12 Were Intentionally Violent In Accordance with Defendants’ Planning
179. According to Charlottesville Police Chief Al S. Thomas Jr., Defendants refused to follow a plan that had been worked out to keep them separated from the counter-protesters. For example, instead of entering the park from one entrance, they came in from all sides.
180. Most of the Defendant groups arrived in military formations, armed like paramilitary forces—carrying, among other things, guns, shields, protective gear, flags, and rods. They shouted commands at their groups to “move forward” or “retreat.” Governor Terry McAuliffe stated that “80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons . . . you saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army.”
181. Four members of Defendant Nationalist Front, the League of the South, NSM, TWP, and Vanguard America met at a pre-set location in order to march to Emancipation Park in formation.
56

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 57 of 96 Pageid#: 57 182. Vanguard America marched to the Park first, chanting “Blood and soil!”
Members of the group were dressed in helmets, white or black polos, and khakis, and wielded matching shields and flags. Defendant Fields (who was wearing the uniform white polo, khakis and carrying a black shield with the Vanguard logo) marched with Vanguard America.
183. The League of the South, led by defendant Michael Hill, followed. Like Vanguard America, they marched with coordinated shields and flags and carried rods and other weapons.
184. One member of the League of the South explained that he attended the Unite the Right “rally” because: “I intend to stand for the South and die for it if need be. They will not replace us.”
57

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 58 of 96 Pageid#: 58
185. TWP marched behind the League of the South, and Defendant Parrott marched with TWP. Defendant Heimbach guided the group, wearing a black combat helmet with a bodyguard close on his heels.
186. As the Nationalist Front groups and other Defendants and co-conspirators marched towards Emancipation Park, they shouted threatening, harassing, and intimidating language at Charlottesville residents and protesters on the basis of their race, religion, and ethnicity or their support for people of different races, religions and ethnicities. These included statements like, “Get the fuck out of our country, bitches! Yeah, come up to me! Come up to me, bitch!”
187. Marching down Jefferson Street, Defendants and co-conspirators passed the synagogue where plaintiffs Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 and Pearce are members. During the Shabbat services, three co-conspirators in uniforms and semi-automatic rifles stood across form the temple. As others paraded past, they shouted, “There’s the synagogue!” followed by chants of “Sieg Heil” and other anti-Semitic language. Some carried flags with swastikas and other Nazi symbols. Defendant Ray, intending to threaten, intimidate and harass Charlottesville’s Jewish population, carried a banner (later posted on Daily Stormer’s website) that read “Gas the kikes, race war now!” Defendant Ray also told a woman to “put on a fucking burka” and called her a “sharia whore.” He ended by proclaiming: “Hitler did nothing wrong.” These acts were fully consistent with the broader campaign of racial and religious suppression at the heart of Defendants’ conspiracy.
188. Later that day, in a thread with Daily Stormer, co-conspirators suggested meeting at 3 p.m. to “torch those Jewish monsters.” After seeing their exchange, the Charlottesville’s
58

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 59 of 96 Pageid#: 59 mayor made a frantic appeal to the Secretary of Public Safety asking for police protection at the Temple.
189. By contrast, Plaintiff Wispelwey had organized a 6:00 a.m. interfaith prayer “sunrise” service that was held at the historical African-American First Baptist Church on West Main Street.
190. After the service, a number of community members left the church to hold a peaceful march from nearby Jefferson School African American Heritage Center to McGuffey Park. Others, including Plaintiff Wispelwey, silently marched with other clergy members directly from the sunrise service to Emancipation Park.
59

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 60 of 96 Pageid#: 60
191. When Plaintiff Wispelwey and his fellow clergy arrived at Emancipation Park, around 8:00 am, they were confronted by heavily armed militiamen and extremists, many in full military attire with semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Plaintiff Wispelwey and other clergy members locked arms and knelt before them.
192. Consistent with their elaborate planning and lessons in battlefield tactics, Defendants and their co-conspirators charged through the peaceful clergy. Many of the clergy were pushed to the ground, and Plaintiff Wispelwey was knocked into a bush. A co-conspirator stood staring Plaintiff Wispelwey directly in the eyes and repeatedly shouting “fuck you, faggot” at him.
193. After the initial charge, Plaintiff Wispelwey and other clergy were afraid that they could get seriously injured. After this assault, Plaintiff Wispelwey became afraid that he and the other faith leaders would suffer another, more serious attack. As a result of Defendants’ and
60

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 61 of 96 Pageid#: 61
their co-conspirators’ actions, and as the violence escalated, Plaintiff Wispelwey was forced to end his peaceful protest and leave the park where he and others were lawfully standing.
194. Defendants bragged about their violence after the fact. Defendant Parrott, for example, wrote an account of the Unite the Right “rally” in “Catcher in the Reich: My Account of my Experience in Charlottesville.” He wrote that Defendants TWP, League of the South, NSM, and other Nationalist Front groups joined together “to help create two shield walls” for “the fight.” He explained, “While most of the Identity Evropa men were occupied on other fronts, they sent a detachment of fighters to assist us and to relay intelligence to Jason Kessler and other organizers. They offered more fighters, but we had our positions amply covered.” He further said, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times:
With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work. 195. Defendant Hill later exclaimed that: “Mr. Tubbs was everywhere the chaos was.”
61

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 62 of 96 Pageid#: 62
196. By around 10:00 a.m., having charged through protesters, pushing and shoving them with their shields and rods, TWP, NSM and League of the South lined up inside Emancipation Park, led by, among others, Defendants Schoep, Hill, Heimbach, and Parrott. Defendant Parrott explained that they had “stuck with the original plan to define and secure the event perimeter.”
197. Once inside the Park, Defendants’ racial, religious, and ethnically motivated violence did not stop. It escalated.
198. As they had planned, Defendants used their shields and rods to plow through people and knock them over. They used rods and flags to assault protesters.
199. Defendants also encouraged violence by others. Over the course of the morning, Daily Stormer, through a livefeed maintained by Defendants Anglin and Ray and other Daily Stormer staff on the ground encouraged followers to organize in groups and deliberately incited them to engage in violent acts. Among their writings, they told followers: “WHITE SHARIA NOW!” and “WE HAVE AN ARMY! THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A WAR!”
200. Having witnessed the events of Friday and the anti-Semitic chants of defendants and their co-conspirators, Plaintiff Pearce struggled with whether she should attend the peaceful protest and whether she should identify herself as Jewish. On the one hand, she believed that it was important to peacefully protest, but she also feared for her safety. As she left her house, she made a Star of David out of duct tape and attached it to her shirt which dawned a Hebrew letter in rainbow colors to show her support for the LGBT community. She went to Emancipation Park to peacefully protest the neo-Nazis and white supremacist presence in Charlottesville.
62

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 63 of 96 Pageid#: 63
201. One of the rallygoers, a co-conspirator, saw Pearce on the street, pointed at her, and, shouted: “Oh good, they are marking themselves for us, so it is easy to find them.” At the Park, Pearce was joined by her son, who also wore a Star of David and carried a rainbow flag.
202. While Pearce was standing, peacefully, outside of the Park, expressing her solidarity with other Jewish and non-white members of her community, another whitesupremacist and co-conspirator threw an open bottle filled with a foul liquid at her—a common tactic of Defendants and their co-conspirators. Indeed, in advance of the rally, co-conspirators had encouraged others to “[p]ee in balloons and throw them at communists / In self defense,” and to “[f]eel free to urinate and defacate on your nearest antifa terrorist faggot pussy.” The bottle struck Pearce on her leg and she could smell the foul liquid on her body.
203. In short order, peaceful protesters, including Plaintiffs Jane Doe 2, Wispelwey, Muñiz and Pearce, were forced to leave the area of Emancipation Park as Defendants and coconspirators attacked people with clubs, smoke bombs, and pepper spray, in fulfillment of their premeditated strategy of inflicting injury.
3) The Authorities Declared the Rally an Unlawful Assembly and Defendants and Co-Conspirators Intentionally Spread the Violence Outside Emancipation Park
204. By 11:22 am, before the permit for the “rally” even began, Charlottesville officials declared the gathering in Emancipation Park an unlawful assembly, defined under Virginia law as “whenever three or more persons assembled share the common intent to advance some lawful or unlawful purpose by the commission of an act or acts of unlawful force or violence likely to jeopardize seriously public safety, peace or order.”
205. At 11:28 am, Governor McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating: “It is now clear that public safety cannot be safeguarded without additional powers, and that the mostly out-of-state protestors have come to Virginia to endanger our citizens and property. I am
63

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 64 of 96 Pageid#: 64 disgusted by the hatred, bigotry and violence these protestors have brought to our state over the past 24 hours.” 206. Daily Stormer wrote shortly thereafter: “Someone is getting gassed! . . . LET’S HOPE IT’S JEWS!” 207. Jason Kessler and other Defendants directed the mob to move to McIntire Park. Some Defendants and co-conspirators, including Defendants Ray, and Cantwell, loaded into white vans. In his interview with Vice that day, Ray explained: “We’re showing to this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country. This country was built by our forefathers. It was sustained by us. It’s going to remain our country.” 208. Daily Stormer encouraged its followers to go to McIntire Park and assemble “behind” Defendants Ray and Cantwell, and incited violence by the crowd:
64

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 65 of 96 Pageid#: 65
209. Among those who followed their direction was Vanguard America. Defendant Schoep also marched to McIntire Park, attacking protestors along the way. He explained, “I was offered a ride to safety and declined to leave until the women and others were safe, so we just marched back through antifa . . . We went right through [antifa] like warriors.” Defendant Parrott refused to leave Emancipation Park and was arrested by the police for failing to disperse. Parrott described his detention as being “a political prisoner for about 20 minutes.”
210. By 1:00 pm, Defendants Spencer and Peinovich, and their followers, had mostly reassembled in McIntire Park. Violence again broke out. One woman protesting Defendants’ message was choked by co-conspirator, Steven Balcaitis, who was wearing a t-shirt advertising a white nationalist and anti-Semitic website, Red Ice. As he grabbed her neck, he looked at a bystander and said, “Don’t save her.”
211. Defendants Spencer and Peinovich spoke to their followers at McIntire Park. Defendant Peinovich called the counter-protestors “savages.”
212. Defendants at McIntire Park discussed returning to Emancipation Park in defiance of the police’s orders. Defendant Mosley sought people with guns: “I need shooters,” he said. “We’re gonna send 200 people with long rifles back to that statue.” According to a NSM twitter account, Defendant Schoep “led a group of 40 back the 1.3 miles from the 2nd park back to Lee Park, through Antifa and police interference!” They jeered: “So much respect for my Commander Jeff Schoep. I will go into battle with you anytime Sir 83/88!”
213. A few minutes after 1:00 p.m., Daily Stormer posted:
65

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 66 of 96 Pageid#: 66
214. Defendants took no steps to prevent, or aid in preventing, the violent actions that they knew was being planned.
215. Some Defendants and co-conspirators stayed in the parks while others dispersed among the downtown area of Charlottesville, near the pedestrian mall, where they terrorized residents. Muñiz, wearing a t-shirt with a representation of women of color, witnessed the marchers walk back to town from McIntire Park and then followed herself to join a group of peaceful counter-demonstrators.
216. Jane Doe 2, who is white, was wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt. A group of men shouted at her for Jane Doe 2's public display of support for minority residents of Charlottesville.
217. On the mall, Defendants and co-conspirators again brought violence. One coconspirator, for example, was caught on video punching two peaceful counter-protestors directly in the face.
66

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 67 of 96 Pageid#: 67
4) The Car Attack 218. “Run Them Over” is a popular anti-Black Lives Matter and anti-racial justice protest catchphrase and shows up in memes and comments across the Internet.7 In late January 2017, Fox Nation, the opinion website operated by Fox News, tweeted out a “Reel Of Cars Plowing Through Protestors Trying To Block The Road.” The author of the video piece, which originally appeared on the Daily Caller, wrote: “Here’s a compilation of liberal protesters getting pushed out of the way by cars and trucks” and “Study the technique; it may prove useful in the next four years.” On Facebook, the author bragged about the popularity of the piece, boasting that he “[m]ade a profit for the company today. Went from 400,000 to 2 million views in a 24 hour timespace #winning.” 219. The same trope was used as part of planning for the Unite the Right “rally.” On Discord, for example, in response to a post from Tyrone that if “something happens . . . adjustments will have to be made to remove people from the scene,” co-conspirator “AltCelt(IL)” responded with an image from a famous scene in the movie Dawn of the Dead, in which the protagonists retrofit buses with chainsaws and barbed wire to escape a mall by running over thousands of swarming zombies. AltCelt(IL) added a “crying laughing” emoji and wrote “This will be us.”

7

Over the past two years, the imagery of running protestors over with a car has gained currency among

Defendants and others. Defendant Heimbach encouraged a police car to mow down peaceful protestors. An article

reports that Heimbach was walking near the parade route when he encountered a group of demonstrators holding

signs about water preservation. A black SUV with police plates drove up and stopped in front of the demonstrators.

An officer leaned out the window and asked them to step aside so that they could pass. “Don’t stop, officer,”

shouted Heimbach as the SUV made its way through the group, “Fucking step on the gas!”

67

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 68 of 96 Pageid#: 68
220. Tyrone replied with picture of a John Deere tractor captioned “Introducing John Deere’s new multi-lane protestor digestor” and commented, “I know NC law is on the books that driving over protesters blocking roadway isn’t an offense… Sure would be nice.”
221. On the same day (July 17, 2017), Tyrone asked the #virginia_laws channel, “Is it legal to run over protestors blocking roadways? I’m NOT just shitposting. I would like clarification. I know it’s legal in NC and a few other states. I’m legitimately curious for the answer.” Two participants reacted to this post with red heart emojis.
222. Another co-conspirator on Discord, using the #virginia_laws channel, posted a photo of an armored military tank and wrote: “Is this legal in VA?” Eleven participants responded with emojis expressing approval.
223. Similarly, when Defendant Kessler asked the #demonstration_tactics channel for advice on planning a march, one co-conspirator, “PrimitveXaoc,” encouraged the use of sidewalks because “straight through the streets like they did a few weeks ago for the ‘community defense’ March was awful (Antifa).” He posted several photos from that march and wrote:
68

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 69 of 96 Pageid#: 69
“These fools had babies and children in the streets dragging banners over cars blocking their view and such. Too bad the civilians didn’t just make new speed bumps for some of these scum.”
224. At approximately 1:40 pm, motivated and encouraged by Defendants and their conspiracy, Defendant Fields deliberately drove his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of peaceful protesters.
225. Plaintiffs Martin, Blair, Sines, Muñiz, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 3 were marching up Fourth Street when Fields attacked. Plaintiff Muñiz had walked to the front of the crowd when it was at the intersection of Fourth Street and Water Street to take a picture of the gathering. When the crowd turned left onto Fourth Street, Muñiz was towards the front of the crowd.
226. Plaintiffs Martin and Blair were approaching the same intersection, walking up Fourth Street towards the downtown mall, with their friend, Heather Heyer. As he saw the car speeding down the road, Martin pushed Blair out of the path of the moving car. She fell to the ground and sustained injuries, including a hematoma on her left side and a gash on her right arm. He was hit directly by the car, sustaining serious injuries, including a broken leg, fractured ankle, and multiple bruises.
69

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 70 of 96 Pageid#: 70 227. He is pictured below, flying through the air after the car slammed into his body.
228. Looking for Martin on the street, Blair saw people lying on the ground and bleeding. She stepped over them looking for Martin.
229. Blair found Martin on the ground, where people were trying to help him. Fifteen minutes after the attack, Martin was taken to the hospital and Blair rode in the ambulance with him. Blair did not receive immediate treatment for her injuries because she was looking after Martin.
230. While waiting in the hospital, Blair learned that a woman had died in the car attack. She feared that she knew who it was, and began asking everyone around her if they knew who it was. Eventually she learned that it was her friend, Heather Heyer, who had been struck and killed.
70

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 71 of 96 Pageid#: 71
231. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was hit directly by Defendant Field's car. She immediately went into shock. Her sister, Jane Doe 3, who had been steps away from the car attack, could not find Jane Doe 1 at first. Jane Doe 3 looked down at her t-shirt and observed spots of blood. Finally, Jane Doe 3 found her sister lying on the ground; she screamed for help after realizing her sister was seriously injured.
232. Jane Doe 1 had a gash in her head and was bleeding heavily. Jane Doe 3 feared for her sister's life. A street medic stood with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 3 until an ambulance came to take both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 3 to Martha Jefferson Hospital.
233. At the time, Martha Jefferson Hospital was on lock down because of concerns of mass casualties caused by the car attack. As a result, Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 was not allowed inside the hospital with her sister. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 called her mother, Jane Doe 2, to let her know she was with Jane Doe 1 at the hospital.
234. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 was in shock after receiving the phone call that her daughter, Jane Doe 3, was hit by a car. When Jane Doe 2 arrived at the hospital she was not allowed to enter to see her daughter. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 collapsed into Jane Doe 2's arms outside the hospital entrance.
235. When Jane Doe 2 was finally able to enter the hospital, she sat in the waiting room waiting to hear any updates about her daughter. Watching the news, Jane Doe 2, for the first time, saw the video of Defendant Fields's car driving into the crowd where her daughters had been. She watched the footage repeat, repeat, and repeat. She sat in horror realizing that this was an intentional terrorist attack that physically injured Jane Doe 1.
236. Plaintiffs Muñiz and Sines narrowly escaped being struck by the car. They witnessed belongings and bodies flying in the air. When they saw Defendant Fields speed his
71

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 72 of 96 Pageid#: 72
car in reverse—backing over many of the bodies he already hit—they were sure that he was going to come charging back into the crowd. Plaintiff Muñiz feared that the cars would be coming from all directions.
237. Plaintiff Muñiz ran away and collapsed on the side of the road. She suffered an acute stress reaction. Plaintiff Sines ran into an alleyway and was so shocked she had difficulty forming any words.
238. Plaintiff Muñiz saw volunteer medics arriving. Plaintiff Muñiz was shaken and terrified and could not stand up. Plaintiff Muñiz feared that the incident was no longer over. Finally, when Muñiz felt that she was safe from further attack, the medic got Muñiz to her feet and walked her to the trauma center.
239. Plaintiff Sines ran into an alleyway in complete shock. Fearing other attacks, she ran to the closest friend’s house downtown.
240. Plaintiff Wispelwey was not at Market Street when the car attack occurred. When he learned of what happened, he sprinted to the site with other clergy to provide assistance and support to victims and to help control the crowds and support medical vehicles reaching victims.
241. Plaintiff Pearce also rushed to the scene to provide care and, with the help of her son, tried to suppress the crowds so that medical vehicles could reach those injured.
242. But as Plaintiffs mourned and tried to care for one another, Defendants and coconspirators celebrated and encouraged others to leave town immediately, before they found themselves in trouble.
243. Defendant Spencer tweeted “My recommendation: Disperse. Get out of Charlottesville city limits.” Defendant Kessler retweeted him. At 2:25 pm, Defendant Hill
72

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 73 of 96 Pageid#: 73
tweeted “The League of the South had a good day in Charlottesville, Virginia. Our warriors acquitted themselves as men. God be praised!
244. Concluding its live feed for the day, Daily Stormer posted: “THE STREET WAR HAS ENDED. WE WON. WE SHOWED THAT OUR IDEAS HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN WITH VIOLENCE.”
5) After the Fact, Defendants Celebrated Their Successful Plan to Incite Violence 245. As news about the car attack spread, Defendants celebrated what they believed was their “victory” and mocked the death of Heather Heyer. 246. Only one hour after the car attack, Defendant East Coast Knights’s prominent member “Kneuss” tweeted: “At least nobody important got hurt. #Charlottesville,” followed by another tweet stating, “Dirty apes playing in the street gotta learn the hard way #Charlottesville.”8 Both tweets were liked by the East Coast Knights Twitter account. 247. Later that evening, Defendant Anglin posted a message: “Roadkill Nights Powered by Dodge. It’s going down Saturday Aug. 12th from 11am to 10 pm.” 248. The following day, Discord participants posted memified photos of Defendant Fields driving his car into the crowd, one labeling the car “RESPECT” and the crowd “WOMEN.” Another meme circulated online labeled the image “BACK TO THE FHURER.”
8 Kneuss, who uses the handle “@realDRKNEUSS” on Twitter, interacts frequently with the East Coast Knights on Twitter and they retweet each other frequently; often they are each other’s only retweet. On August 12, at 3:43 p.m., Kneuss tweeted “Big shout out to League of the South, TWP, and NSM the East Coast Knights greatly appreciate you and everything you do. #Charlottesville.” The East Coast Knights’ Twitter account retweeted this tweet. On September 19, Kneuss tweeted a stylized image saying ECK 33/6, which is a reference to the East Coast Knights.
73

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 74 of 96 Pageid#: 74
249. Daily Stormer encouraged followers to find out the details of Heather Heyer’s funeral and to attend. A tweet from Jason Kessler’s account referred to Heather Heyer as a communist and said: “Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time.” Jason Kessler claimed he was on a mixture of prescription drugs and alcohol when he wrote that message and did not remember it; an agent of Daily Stormer claimed credit for hacking Kessler’s account and posting the tweet.
250. Defendant Heimbach said of the rally: “We achieved all of our objectives. We showed that our movement is not just online, but growing physically. We asserted ourselves as the voice of white America. We had zero vehicles damaged, all our people accounted for, and moved a large amount of men and materials in and out of the area. I think we did an incredibly impressive job.”
251. White supremacists debriefed on Discord, celebrating that protesters “got btfo [blown the fuck out] by all objective measures / only people who moved us a single inch were the zog-cops.” “Kneuss” of the Defendant East Coast Knights celebrated: “3 fatalities in #Charlottesville. How many WN’s [white nationalists]? NOT 1. Fuck the left, Fuck commies,
74

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 75 of 96 Pageid#: 75
and all kayaks belong in ovens. Amen.” This tweet was liked by the East Coast Knights official Twitter account.
252. Defendant Schoep tweeted: “It was an Honor to stand with U all in C’Ville this weeknd. NSM, NF, TWP, LOS, VA, ECK, CHS, and the rest, true warriors!” “Kneuss” and other co-conspirators retweeted and liked this. A co-conspirator posted on Facebook: “Don’t feel ashamed of Cville. This is your future. This is the enemy.”
253. Speaking of Charlottesville in an interview, the grand dragon for Defendant Loyal White Knights, said: “I’m sorta glad that them people got hit and I’m glad that girl died. They were a bunch of Communists out there protesting against somebody’s freedom of speech, so it doesn’t bother me that they got hurt at all.” The Loyal White Knights also changed their outgoing voicemail message to say: “Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields, Jr, age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one nigger-lover named Heather Heyer. James Fields hail victory. It’s men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again.”
254. Likewise, Defendant Spencer told the New York Times that August 12 was “a huge moral victory.” Defendant Cantwell told a Vice reporter: “I’d say it was worth it. Nobody on our side died . . . none of our people killed anybody unjustly . . . our rivals are just a bunch of stupid animals who don’t pay attention that couldn’t just get out of the way of the car.” Speaking of counter-protesters like Plaintiffs, he said: “These people want violence and the right is just meeting market demand.”
75

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 76 of 96 Pageid#: 76

III. Defendants’ Actions Have Caused and Will Continue to Cause Damage to Plaintiffs A. The Unlawful Acts By Defendants, Co-Conspirators and Others
Acting at Their Direction Caused Serious Injury, Including To Plaintiffs 1) Defendants’ Actions Caused Serious Bodily Injury and Damage to Property 255. The planned violence brought about by Defendants in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12 left an indelible mark on Plaintiffs, Charlottesville, and the rest of the country. Three innocent people lost their lives: a peaceful protestor, Heather Heyer, and two state law enforcement officers, Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Pilot Berke M.M. Bates. At least 34 individuals, including Plaintiffs, were injured and countless others were victims of assault. Hundreds, if not thousands, were subjected to verbal abuse, threats, harassment, and intimidation when Defendants, co-conspirators, and their followers chanted and shouted overtly anti-Semitic, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic messages. 256. Countless public officials, including Virginia’s governor Terry McAuliffe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Senators Cory Gardner, Ted Cruz, and Ron Wyden, have recognized that the Unite the Right “rallygoers” were motivated by racism, xenophobia, and antiSemitism, that the “rallygoers” engaged in hate-based violence, and that the events that unfolded were properly characterized as domestic terrorism. 257. On September 12, 2017, Congress passed a unanimous and bipartisan joint resolution “rejecting white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups,” recognizing that they engaged in a “horrific and violent display of bigotry” in Charlottesville, and condemning “the violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place during events between August 11 and August 12, 2017.”9

9

Joint resolution condemning the violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place during events

between August 11 and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, S.J. Res. 49, 115th Cong., 115 Stat. 58 (2017),

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/49/text?r=95.

76

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 77 of 96 Pageid#: 77
258. The joint resolution also documented that the hate-based groups are “organizing similar events” around the country, and urged the President to “speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy,” and address “the threats posed by those groups,” which are currently growing within the United States.
259. President Trump signed the resolution, and issued a signing statement “oppos[ing] hatred, bigotry, and racism in all forms.”
2) Plaintiffs Suffered And Continue To Suffer Serious Injuries 260. Plaintiff Magill: Magill has permanent physical injury from a stroke that was caused by the trauma of the events of August 11 and 12. Four days after the “rally,” on Tuesday, August 15, Magill collapsed at the University of Virginia library. He began losing his vision and speech and could barely speak words to tell someone to call an ambulance. Thankfully, he was able to motion to someone in the library to call for help, and he was rushed to the hospital. 261. Magill was admitted to the emergency room at 10:00 am on Tuesday where doctors found that his carotid artery had torn and two blood clots were released to his brain, causing a stroke. Medical professionals maintain that Magill’s stroke was a result of trauma to his neck as a result of a the events during the weekend. 262. Magill spent two days in the hospital and according to medical professionals, will never fully recover from the resulting brain injuries. He has lost aspects of his vision and speech and has difficulty writing and reading for long periods of time. He has incurred significant medical expenses, and will continue to do so. He will need continued medical care. Magill has not yet been able to return to work. 263. Plaintiff Martin: As a result of the car attack, Martin was diagnosed with a shattered tibia in his left leg, a fractured ankle, and significant ligament damage. He underwent surgery and had two screws placed in his ankle. He experienced swelling in both ankles, and he
77

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 78 of 96 Pageid#: 78
could not walk for 3 or 4 days. He has been told to expect swelling in his left ankle for at least a year. Due to the nature of his job, he will not be able to work for at least 8-9 months. He has suffered severe emotional distress that includes having mental flashbacks to the events of the "rally." Martin is going to mental counseling twice a week to seek support for his emotional trauma.
264. Plaintiff Blair: For days after the attack, Blair found herself short of breath, shaking, and crying uncontrollably at times. To this day she has trouble focusing, including at work, and finds herself often uncharacteristically angry. She is scared of Dodge challengers and loud noises. She is also experiencing flashbacks. She is withdrawn and reticent in ways she never was before. She has lost about ten pounds since the attack due to lack of appetite. She cannot walk by the location of the attack.
265. Plaintiff Wispelwey: Wispelwey continues to suffer from emotional distress. Wispelwey’s emotional distress has manifested in physical symptoms including constricted chest pain, difficulty breathing, and chronic sleep issues. He regularly wakes up with night terrors recalling the events of August 11 and 12 and has had to take time off from his work in order to cope with the trauma of the weekend. He has seen a trauma-informed therapist, has been proscribed with sleep medication, and diagnosed with acute stress disorder. Wispelwey has also become hyper-vigilant, especially in crowds.
266. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1: Jane Doe 1 suffered serious physical injuries as a result of Defendant Fields's terrorist attack. Both of her legs were broken and she suffered severe head injuries. The injuries include a tibial plateau fracture in her knee which required major surgery to repair bone, multiple ligaments, and cartilage. Jane Doe 1 spent several days in the hospital following the surgery. Jane Doe 1 suffered severe contusions all over her body, a concussion,
78

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 79 of 96 Pageid#: 79
and a head injury requiring stitches. Jane Doe 1’s recovery is expected to take over a year and she will require extensive physical therapy, at significant cost. Jane Doe 1 also suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the planned event and terrorist attack on August 12. Jane Doe 1 was not able to return to school as full-time student this semester and has instead been forced to take a light course load. Moreover, Jane Doe 1 cannot participate in nearly all of the student activities that she previously had enjoyed.
267. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2: Since the car attack, Jane Doe 2 has been unable to resume normal life. She now spends much of her time caretaking for her daughter. Jane Doe 2 has sought psychological support for herself and her family. Jane Doe 2 continues to suffer from anxiety, which manifests itself in difficulty sleeping and repetitive anxious thoughts that make it very difficult to focus.
268. Plaintiff Jane Doe 3: Jane Doe 3 has been unable to resume normal life and suffers from severe emotional distress. She spends a significant amount of time taking care of her sister, Jane Doe 1, and has not been able to work or seek employment as a result of caretaking full time. Jane Doe 3 suffers from severe anxiety after witnessing the events of August 11 and 12 and has had difficulty sleeping and focusing. Jane Doe 3 has become hyper-vigilant and severely anxious in public spaces.
269. Plaintiff Muñiz: After experiencing the car attack, in addition to the countless other acts of violence and harassment throughout August 12, Muñiz has suffered severe emotional injury. For the first days or weeks following the attack, Muñiz could not drive a car. She was afraid even to be a passenger without covering her left eye, because the sight of oncoming traffic was terrifying. Muñiz has since experienced triggers—moments where she relives the fear of that day and she shakes and trembles. She has suffered a few episodes, in
79

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 80 of 96 Pageid#: 80
which she has fallen to the ground in a catatonic state—she can do nothing but cry and drool for long periods. She has been sleeping a lot, has suffered short term memory issues, and has become socially withdrawn. She has been unable to obtain medical care for other conditions due to her stress, so she continues to suffer from other ailments. She is seeing a therapist multiple times per week and has started home therapy. At work, Muñiz used to manage a department of around twenty people, with two managers beneath her. Unable to return to work, Muñiz has been paid 70% of her pay, and has lost other financial benefits, such as tuition reimbursement. She is trying to go back to work, but her company made a decision that she is not capable of doing that job anymore. Medical professionals have diagnosed Muñiz with acute stress disorder. Muñiz is not yet able to return to work and is on leave for disability.
270. Plaintiff John Doe: As a result of being barked at, yelled at, and physically assaulted, John Doe has suffered numerous emotional injuries. He has had difficulty focusing in school and is constantly recalling the trauma of Friday evening. When he walks past the Thomas Jefferson statue on his campus, he is immediately triggered by the recollection of the events on August 11. Since the “rally,” John Doe has had difficulty sleeping and has developed a heightened, anxious, sense of awareness in public spaces. John Doe also had to miss two weeks of work.
271. Plaintiff Sines: Upon witnessing the car attack and nearly being hit, Sines suffered extreme emotional distress and shock. She often wakes up with nightmares of the car attack and her academic performance has suffered in law school as a result. Sines is unable to focus, and has missed classes due to her emotional distress. Sines is also now hyper-vigilant, and afraid in her own home.
80

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 81 of 96 Pageid#: 81 272. Plaintiff Pearce: In addition to the physical and verbal, religious-based assault
Pearce experienced on August 12, she continues to suffer serious emotional distress. In his Hebrew school class, Pearce’s son was asked to answer several writing prompts. In response to the question, “what makes me uncomfortable about being Jewish,” he wrote “neo Nazis.”
B. Defendants Will Continue to Cause Violence and Intimidation Unless Restrained: “We Will Be Back” 273. In the weeks after the “rally” and the mass of injuries in Charlottesville,
Defendants not only claimed “victory,” but swore that they would return. Already, they have followed through on their promise.
81

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 82 of 96 Pageid#: 82
274. Defendant Spencer said: “To Mayor Mike Signer and Wes Bellamy and all these little creeps of this little town who don’t understand who they’re dealing with—the local little losers—we are never backing down. We are going to be back.”
275. Defendant Anglin wrote on August 14: “As for media rumors that the [Daily Stormer] site will be shut down . . . . You should know better. It’s going to take bullets to stop us.”
276. Co-conspirator McLaren tweeted: “Brothers & sisters across the Alt Right—this is a taste of how it feels to be the tip of the spear entering our civilizational crisis.” A few days later, he tweeted: “If you were there in #Charlottesville, you’re amused at the pronouncements of the Alt Right’s death. We are only just beginning.”
277. “There’s no way in hell I’m not going back to Charlottesville,” Defendant Spencer declared at a press conference with Defendant Damigo. Defendant Mosley told the Huffington Post: “Our people are feeling real good right now…This day was a milestone pushing us into our next stage. We had a large turnout. We’re coming back to Charlottesville.”
278. The Daily Stormer also vowed that it would hold similar events “soon.” A post on the website read: “We are going to start doing this nonstop. Across the country . . . We are going to go bigger than Charlottesville. We are going to go huge.” Furthermore, it told readers that “[w]e are now at war,” and promised to “take over the country.”
279. Kessler promised: “We’re going to have bigger and bigger events in Charlottesville.”
280. Defendants plan for these other events to be violent. After the Unite the Right “rally,” Cantwell explained, “I came pretty well prepared for this thing today,” while pulling out three pistols, two semi-automatic machine guns, and a knife. Of the next “alt-right protest,” he
82

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 83 of 96 Pageid#: 83
said, “it’s going to be tough to top but we’re up to the challenge . . . I think a lot more people are
going to die before we’re done here, frankly.”
281. One week after the Unite the Right “rally,” Richard Spencer’s website, Vincent
Law, published “The Alt-Right is Finished Debating: No More Words, Only Preparation Now”:
Now, what happens next? Our side certainly isn’t ready for mass action . . . yet. And there are no street actions planned for the near future. Still, the lines have been drawn. Think about those brave young men at Charlottesville. There is no going back for them. . . .
The public will see very soon that debate is pointless. There are no principles at play anymore. Only our tribe and theirs. And only one group out there has drawn a line in the clay and decided to make a stand for what is theirs by birth, by blood and by the will of God. The Alt-Right is finished debating, negotiating, surrendering. We’re ready to close ranks and fight for what is ours. Post-Charlottesville our fleet lies at the bottom of a deep and troubled sea and we can only march on forward like Cortez once did. And like him, we stand poised to conquer the continent. 282. On Saturday, October 7, Defendant Richard Spencer and other co-conspirators
returned to Charlottesville. The called the event “Charlottesville 3.0.” Again, they carried tiki
torches, and again they chanted “You will not replace us.” But this time, they added: “We will
be back, we will be back.”
283. Although not clear at this point whether Defendants are involved, on October 11,
it was reported that the Charlottesville Police Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation
were investigating online posts suggesting that Charlottesville schools should be the target for
mass shooting as a result of “recent events” in Charlottesville.
CONSPIRACY ACTS
284. As detailed above, all Defendants had an agreement and understanding to engage
in, promote, and incite racial, religious, and ethnicity-based harassment and violence. They did
83

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 84 of 96 Pageid#: 84
so through, among other things, using and encouraging the use of weapons and caustic substances, military-style marches, burning torches, intimidating iconography, and threats of violence. They did so in order to (a) injure black and Jewish residents of Virginia by denying them the equal privileges and immunities of citizenship, and the use, benefits and privileges of property and/or contractual relationships, (b) further Defendants’ cause of recruiting new followers to engage in racial, religious and ethnically-motivated violence referenced above both at the Unite the Right “rally” and in the future, and (c) compel the city of Charlottesville to maintain the statue of Robert E Lee in Emancipation Park as a means of furthering their aforementioned goals.
285. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Fields, on behalf of themselves or the organizations for which they are agents, planned and coordinated the Unite the Right “rally,” encouraged attendance, actively organized followers to attend, coordinated logistical support to attendees, promoted the “rally” as violent, and encouraged attendees to prepare for and commit violent acts.
286. Among other things, they used online and media platforms to encourage attendance at the Unite the Right “rally,” to discuss and promote causing harm to Jewish people and people of color, and to promote violence.
287. Defendant Spencer and co-conspirator McLaren met in person to plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection for the Unite the Right events.
288. Defendants Cantwell and Kessler met in person in Charlottesville to plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection for the Unite the Right events.
84

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 85 of 96 Pageid#: 85
289. Defendants Ray, Cantwell, and Mosley and co-conspirator David Duke attended an in-person planning meeting on August 11 to plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events.
290. Defendants Anglin and Ray (using, among other things, Daily Stormer’s website), Hill, and East Coast Knights organized and caused others to attend the Unite the Rightevents and commit acts of violence, intimidation and denial of equal protection.
291. Defendants Nationalist Front, NSM, TWP, League of the South, Vanguard America, East Coast Knights, and “other allies,” coordinated their attendance as a “joint operation” in advance of August 12, in order to plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events.
292. Defendant Damigo and his group Identity Evropa took a lead role in organizing white supremacist participation among people from outside Charlottesville to engage in unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events.
293. Defendants Kessler and Mosley organized the “rally” and coordinated logistics, along with co-conspirator Tyrone, for attendees on August 12 in Charlottesville so that they would engage in unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events.
294. Defendant Kessler and Mosley moderated, reviewed, and managed the Charlottesville discussion forum on the application named Discord to direct and plan unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events. Along with Kessler and Mosley, Defendants Heimbach, Parrott, Cantwell, Ray, an agent of Daily Stormer (and, hence, Defendants Anglin and Moonbase Holdings), and co-conspirator Tyrone were all participants in Discord and in the direction, planning, and inciting of such unlawful acts
85

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 86 of 96 Pageid#: 86
through Discord, including the use of weapons and objects to inflict harm and intimidate. Defendants Vanguard America, Identity Evropa, TWP, League of the South, and Moonbase Holdings (through Daily Stormer) all had members on the Discord channel.
295. Defendants Cantwell, Ray, and Anglin, among others, advised rallygoers on bringing weapons.
296. Using Discord, Defendant Kessler and Mosley set up a channel for coconspirators to coordinate unlawful acts at the Unite the Right events, including acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection.
297. Defendants Anglin, Ray, and, through Daily Stormer, Moonbase Holdings, set up a channel for co-conspirators to coordinate unlawful acts, including acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection, at the Unite the Right events.
298. Defendants Cantwell, Kessler, Mosley, Anglin, Ray, and Peinovich, and others, raised funds, planned for legal support, and arranged travel for the participants who engaged in unlawful acts of violence, intimidation, and denial of equal protection at the Unite the Right events.
299. Defendants Peinovich, Invictus, Kessler, Spencer, Cantwell, Heimbach, and Hill were featured in the promotional poster for the Unite the Right “rally.”
300. Defendants Cantwell, Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, Anglin, and co-conspirators planned and organized a “secret” torch parade at UVA for August 11, with a plan and intent to intimidate, threaten and harass Charlottesville residents, particularly Jews, blacks and other minority residents.
301. Defendants Cantwell, Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray and Invictus attended and participated in the violent August 11 torch parade, and directed and incited physical assaults and
86

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 87 of 96 Pageid#: 87
violence, the use of open flames, and the intimidation of minority residents and those who advocate for equal rights for minority citizens.
302. Defendant Cantwell assaulted peaceful protestors with mace, a caustic substance, during the August 11 march.
303. Co-conspirators attended the torchlight march on August 11 and engaged in acts of intimidation, harassment, and violence.
304. All Defendants, with the exception of Anglin, attended and participated in the Unite the Right “rally” on August 12, during which they threatened, intimidated, and harassed protestors and minority residents. Defendant Fields attended with Vanguard America, wearing the uniform white polo and khakis, and carrying a black shield with the Vanguard logo.
305. All Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Fields, directed and incited acts of violence and intimidation at the Unite the Right “rally” on August 12.
306. Co-Conspirators attended the Unite the Right “rally” on August 12 and engaged in acts of intimidation, harassment, and violence.
307. Defendant Fields deliberately drove his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of peaceful protestors on August 12, intending to instill fear in the community and to cause injuries on a mass scale.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 308. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs. 309. Defendants plotted, coordinated, and executed a common plan to engage in violence and intimidation in the streets of Charlottesville.
87

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 88 of 96 Pageid#: 88
310. In furtherance of a conspiracy to violate the rights of Plaintiffs and other black and Jewish people and their supporters, Defendants repeatedly engaged in campaigns of violence, threats, and intimidation at Lee Park and throughout the city of Charlottesville.
311. Defendants have committed numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs’ rights, which are set forth in the paragraphs above. Defendants have sought to create an atmosphere of violence against Plaintiffs, and to violate Plaintiffs’ equal rights, including those under U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 to the full and equal benefit of the laws and proceedings for the security of persons, and their right to freely use their houses of worship.
312. Co-conspirators whose identities are not known committed numerous additional acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs’ rights, including those alleged herein.
313. The illegal activities described were undertaken by Defendants, their agents, and co-conspirators as express overt acts pursuant to an unlawful conspiracy, the purpose of which was and is to discriminatorily deprive black, Jewish, nonwhite individuals, and their white supporters, of their rights to the equal protection of the laws and their rights to the equal enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Constitution and laws, because of their race, religion, and open and obvious advocacy for the rights of nonwhite individuals.
314. As a result of the acts set out in the above paragraphs committed in furtherance of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs suffered injuries to their person or property and/or suffered the discriminatory deprivation of one or more of their rights or privileges guaranteed by the Constitution or laws because of one or more of the illegal overt acts of Defendants and their agents. These rights include but are not limited to their rights to be free of the badges and incidents of slavery pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, including the rights to be free from
88

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 89 of 96 Pageid#: 89
racially motivated violence and the right to move through and enjoy public spaces, their rights to the full and equal benefit of the laws and proceedings for the security of persons, and their right to freely use their houses of worship.
315. Because of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs have suffered numerous and various injuries, including bodily injury, injuries to property, lost income, and severe emotional distress.
COUNT II: 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 316. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs. 317. Defendants all possessed actual knowledge of the Section 1985(3) anti-civil rights conspiracy described in this complaint that was planned and then underway against the class of American citizens described—including a number of the Plaintiffs named herein. 318. Defendants, as organizers, planners, promoters, and leaders of the conspiracy, were each in a position and had the power to have stopped the anti-civil rights conspiracy or to aid in stopping it. 319. Each of the Defendants failed and refused to take any steps to attempt to stop this conspiracy or any of the overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy so as to stop the injuries which occurred to Plaintiffs or to other members of the class of citizens targeted by the anti-civil rights conspiracy described. 320. The failure of Defendants to take any steps to aid in preventing the actions described herein, by informing the lawful authorities or otherwise, violated the command of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
89

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 90 of 96 Pageid#: 90
321. Plaintiffs suffered their injuries as a result of the individual Defendants’ failure to stop the described conspiracy.
COUNT III: CIVIL CONSPIRACY (By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 322. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs. 323. Each Defendant combined with one or more other persons to accomplish, through concerted action, acts for an unlawful purpose, and/or unlawful acts, including: • Subjecting persons to acts of intimidation or harassment, motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity, in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1. • Directing violence at another person, motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity, in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1. • Directing vandalism at a person’s real or personal property, motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity, in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1. • Causing or producing a riot, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-408. • Directing, inciting, or soliciting other persons participating in a riot to acts of force or violence in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-408. • Causing public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-415. • Assembling a collection of people for the purpose and with the intention of committing, and actually committing, an assault or battery on another person, in violation of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-38, 18.2-42, and 18.2-42.1.
90

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 91 of 96 Pageid#: 91
• Assembling a collection of people for the purpose and with the intention of committing, and actually committing, an act of violence (as defined in Virginia Code § 19.2-297.1), in violation of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-38, 18.2-42, and 18.242.1.
• Maliciously causing another person bodily injury by use of any explosive or fire, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-52.
• Burning an object with the intent to intimidate on a highway or other public place in a manner having a direct tendency to place another person in reasonable fear of apprehension of death or bodily injury, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2423.01.
• Burning an object with the intent to intimidate on the private property of another without permission, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-423.01.
• Committing an act of violence with the intent to intimidate a civilian population at large, or influence the conduct or activities of a government through intimidation, in violation of § 18.2-46.5.
• Possessing, using, selling, giving, distributing, or manufacturing a weapon or imitation weapon that could cause serious bodily harm in connection with an act of terrorism in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5.
• Inviting, soliciting, recruiting, encouraging, or otherwise causing another to participate in an act of terrorism in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5.
• Knowingly providing material support to an individual or organization whose primary objective is to commit an act of terrorism, with the intent to further the individual or organization’s objectives, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5.
91

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 92 of 96 Pageid#: 92
• Engaging in an overt act intended to inflict bodily harm, or intended to place the victim in fear or apprehension of bodily harm (assault).
• Committing an unwanted touching that was neither consented to, excused, or justified (battery).
324. Each of the Plaintiffs suffered damages resulting from acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
325. As co-conspirators, Defendants are civilly liable to Plaintiffs for the actions of all individuals who acted in pursuit of the common conspiratorial scheme.
COUNT IV: NEGLIGENCE PER SE (By Plaintiffs Muniz, Sines, Blair, Martin, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 3
Against Defendant Fields) 326. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs. 327. Pursuant to Virginia Code 18.2-46.5, any person who commits or conspires to commit or aids and abets the commission of an act of terrorism is guilty of a felony. 328. Virginia Code 18.2-46.4 defines an “act of terrorism” as, among other things, an act of violence committed with the intent to intimidate the civilian population at large. 329. Virginia Code 18.2-46.5 was enacted to protect the civilian population from acts of terrorism and violence. 330. Fields intentionally drove his vehicle into a group of civilians and counterprotestors with the intent to murder, injure, and intimidate the civilian population at large, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5.
92

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 93 of 96 Pageid#: 93
331. Plaintiffs, as members of the civilian population, belong to the class of persons for whose benefit Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5 was enacted and the violation of the Statute constitutes negligence per se.
332. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs were the type of harm against which Virginia Code 18.2-46.5 was designed to protect.
333. Defendant’s violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-46.5 directly and proximately caused the Plaintiffs harm.
COUNT V: VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CODE § 8.01-42.1 CIVIL ACTION FOR RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, OR ETHNIC HARASSMENT
(By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 334. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs. 335. Virginia Code 8.01-42.1 creates a civil cause of action for any person who is subjected to the following if motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity: (1) acts of intimidation or harassment; (2) violence directed at his or her person; or (3) vandalism directed against his or her real or personal property. 336. Plaintiffs were subjected to acts of intimidation and/or harassment, violence directed at their persons, and/or vandalism directed against their real and/or personal property. 337. These acts were motivated by Defendants' racial, religious, or ethnic animosity.
COUNT VI: ASSAULT AND BATTERY (By Plaintiffs Muniz, Sines, Blair, Martin, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 3
Against Defendant Fields) 338. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs.
93

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 94 of 96 Pageid#: 94
339. As a result of the intentional and unlawful acts of Defendants as described herein, plaintiffs were placed in apprehension of harmful and/or offensive bodily contact, and suffered harmful, offensive bodily touching which was neither consented to, excused, or justified.
COUNT VII: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (By Plaintiffs Muniz, Blair, Martin, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 3 Against Defendant James Alex Fields, Jr.)
340. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in all preceding paragraphs.
341. Defendant Fields intentionally and/or recklessly drove his car into a crowd of counter-protestors with the intent to murder, severely injure, and intimidate a civilian population.
342. As a result of Defendant Fields' outrageous and extreme actions, Plaintiffs Muniz, Blair, Martin, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 suffered severe emotional distress that no reasonable person could be expected to endure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request an award of the following relief:
343. A declaratory judgment that the actions described herein deprived Plaintiffs of their rights under federal and state law.
344. Injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from future violations of rights guaranteed by state and federal law.
345. Compensatory and statutory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 346. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 347. Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and just.
94

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 95 of 96 Pageid#: 95
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Robert T. Cahill Robert T. Cahill (VSB 38562) COOLEY LLP 11951 Freedom Drive, 14th Floor Reston, VA 20190-5656 Telephone: (703) 456-8000 Fax: (703) 456-8100 Email: rcahill@cooley.com
Of Counsel:
Roberta A. Kaplan Julie E. Fink KAPLAN & COMPANY, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Email: rkaplan@kaplanandcompany.com Email: jfink@kaplanandcompany.com
Karen L. Dunn William A. Isaacson BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Fax: (202) 237-6131 Email: kdunn@bsfllp.com Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
Philip M. Bowman BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Fax: (212) 446-2350 Email: pbowman@bsfllp.com
95

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 1 Filed 10/11/17 Page 96 of 96 Pageid#: 96

152101150

Alan Levine COOLEY LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 46th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 479-6260 Fax: (212) 479-6275 Email: alevine@cooley.com
David E. Mills COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 842-7800 Fax: (202) 842-7899 Email: dmills@cooley.com

96

 
 81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

)257+(:(67(51',675,&72)9,5*,1,$

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LYLVLRQ




(/,=$%(7+6,1(66(7+:,63(/:(<



0$5,66$%/$,57</(50$*,//$35,/

081,=+$11$+3($5&(0$5&86

0$57,11$7$/,(520(52&+(/6($

$/9$5$'2DQG-2+1'2(



3ODLQWLIIV



Y







-$621.(66/(55,&+$5'63(1&(5

&+5,6723+(5&$17:(//-$0(6



$/(;),(/'6-59$1*8$5'

$0(5,&$$1'5(:$1*/,1

&LYLO$FWLRQ1RFY1.0

0221%$6(+2/',1*6//&52%(57

³$==0$'25´5$<1$7+$1'$0,*2



(//,27./,1(DND(/,026/(<

,'(17,7<(9523$0$77+(:

-85<75,$/'(0$1'('

+(,0%$&+0$77+(:3$55277DND

'$9,'0$77+(:3$55277

75$',7,21$/,67:25.(53$57<

0,&+$(/+,//0,&+$(/78%%6

/($*8(2)7+(6287+-())6&+2(3

1$7,21$/62&,$/,67029(0(17

1$7,21$/,67)5217$8*8678662/

,19,&786)5$7(51$/25'(52)7+(

$/7.1,*+760,&+$(/³(12&+´

3(,129,&+/2<$/:+,7(.1,*+762)

7+(.8./8;./$1DQG($67&2$67

.1,*+762)7+(.8./8;./$1DND

($67&2$67.1,*+762)7+(758(

,19,6,%/((03,5(



'HIHQGDQWV







),567$0(1'('&203/$,17

3ODLQWLIIVE\WKHLUXQGHUVLJQHGDWWRUQH\VDOOHJHXSRQNQRZOHGJHDVWRWKHPVHOYHVDQG

WKHLURZQDFWLRQVDQGXSRQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHIDVWRDOORWKHUPDWWHUVDVIROORZV

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 112 Pageid#: 813


 





1$785(2)7+($&7,21  2YHUWKHZHHNHQGRI$XJXVWDQGKXQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVWUDYHOHGIURPQHDUDQGIDUWRGHVFHQGXSRQWKHFROOHJHWRZQRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 9LUJLQLDLQRUGHUWRWHUURUL]HLWVUHVLGHQWVFRPPLWDFWVRIYLROHQFHDQGXVHWKHWRZQDVD EDFNGURSWRVKRZFDVHIRUWKHPHGLDDQGWKHQDWLRQDQHRQDWLRQDOLVWDJHQGD  3ODLQWLIIVLQWKLVDFWLRQDUH8QLYHUVLW\RI9LUJLQLDXQGHUJUDGXDWHVODZVWXGHQWV DQGVWDIISHUVRQVRIIDLWKPLQLVWHUVSDUHQWVGRFWRUVDQGEXVLQHVVSHUVRQV²ZKLWHEURZQDQG EODFN&KULVWLDQDQG-HZLVK\RXQJDQGROG:KLOH3ODLQWLIIVFRPHIURPGLIIHUHQWEDFNJURXQGV WKH\VKDUHDGHHSORYHRIWKLVFRXQWU\WKHLUFLW\DQGRXUYDOXHV7KH\DOVRVKDUHDILHUFH GHWHUPLQDWLRQWRGHIHQGWKRVHYDOXHV(DFK3ODLQWLIILQWKLVDFWLRQZDVLQMXUHGDVDUHVXOWRIWKH HYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG2QH3ODLQWLIIVXIIHUHGDVWURNH7KUHHSODLQWLIIV ZHUHVWUXFNLQDFDUDWWDFN2WKHUVVXIIHUHGDQGFRQWLQXHWRVXIIHUGHHSDQGGHELOLWDWLQJ SV\FKRORJLFDODQGHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWSUHYHQWVWKHPIURPUHVXPLQJWKHLUIRUPHUOLYHVRU IURPHQMR\LQJWKHEDVLFVHQVHRISHDFHVDIHW\DQGWUDQTXLOLW\WKDWPRVWLQWKLVFRXQWU\FDQWDNH IRUJUDQWHG  'HIHQGDQWVDUHWKHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQVWKDWFRQVSLUHGWRSODQSURPRWH DQGFDUU\RXWWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH\DUHQHR1D]LV.ODQVPHQZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWV7KH\HPEUDFHDQGHVSRXVHUDFLVWDQWL6HPLWLFVH[LVW KRPRSKRELFDQG[HQRSKRELFLGHRORJLHV'HIHQGDQWVEURXJKWZLWKWKHPWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWKH LPDJHU\RIWKH+RORFDXVWRIVODYHU\RI-LP&URZDQGRIIDVFLVP7KH\DOVREURXJKWZLWKWKHP VHPLDXWRPDWLFZHDSRQVSLVWROVPDFHURGVDUPRUVKLHOGVDQGWRUFKHV7KH\FKDQWHG³-HZV ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´³EORRGDQGVRLO´DQG³WKLVLVRXUWRZQQRZ´6WDUWLQJDWOHDVWDVHDUO\DVWKH EHJLQQLQJRIDQGFRQWLQXLQJWKURXJKWRGD\WKH\KDYHMRLQHGWRJHWKHUIRUWKHSXUSRVHRI

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 2 of 112

Pageid#: 814


 





LQFLWLQJYLROHQFHDQGLQVWLOOLQJIHDUZLWKLQWKHFRPPXQLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGEH\RQG ZKHUHYHUWKHLUPHVVDJHVDUHUHFHLYHG
 7KHUHLVRQHWKLQJDERXWWKLVFDVHWKDWVKRXOGEHPDGHFU\VWDOFOHDUDWWKHRXWVHW² the violence in Charlottesville was no accident8QGHUWKHSUHWH[WRID³UDOO\´ZKLFKWKH\ WHUPHG³8QLWHWKH5LJKW´'HIHQGDQWVVSHQWPRQWKVFDUHIXOO\FRRUGLQDWLQJWKHLUHIIRUWVRQWKH LQWHUQHWDQGLQSHUVRQ7KH\H[KRUWHGHDFKRWKHU³,I\RXZDQWWRGHIHQGWKH6RXWKDQG:HVWHUQ FLYLOL]DWLRQIURPWKH-HZDQGKLVGDUNVNLQQHGDOOLHVEHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW´DQG ³1H[WVWRS&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$)LQDOVWRS$XVFKZLW]´,QFRXQWOHVVSRVWVRQWKHLURZQ ZHEVLWHVDQGRQVRFLDOPHGLD'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSURPLVHGWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEH YLROHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGYLROHQFHWKHUHZDV$V'HIHQGDQW(OL0RVOH\RQHRIWKHOHDG RUJDQL]HUVIRUWKHUDOO\GHFODUHG³:HDUH>@JRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH2XUELUWKULJKWZLOOEH DVKHV WKH\¶OOKDYHWRSU\LWIURPRXUFROGKDQGVLIWKH\ZDQWLW7KH\ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV ZLWKRXWDILJKW´
 7KHYLROHQFHVXIIHULQJDQGHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWRFFXUUHGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH ZDVDGLUHFWLQWHQGHGDQGIRUHVHHDEOHUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶XQODZIXOFRQVSLUDF\,WZDVDOO DFFRUGLQJWRSODQ²DSODQWKH\VSHQWPRQWKVZRUNLQJRXWDQGZKRVHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQWKH\ DFWLYHO\RYHUVDZDVHYHQWVXQIROGHGRQWKHJURXQG
 7KHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG²QRZFRPPRQO\UHIHUUHGWRVLPSO\DV ³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´²ZHUHSDUWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶FRRUGLQDWHGFDPSDLJQWRLQWLPLGDWHKDUDVVLQFLWH DQGFDXVHYLROHQFHWRSHRSOHEDVHGRQWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQHWKQLFLW\DQGVH[XDORULHQWDWLRQLQ YLRODWLRQQRWRQO\RIWKHYDOXHVWKDWWKRXVDQGVRI$PHULFDQVROGLHUVKDYHGLHGIRUEXWDOVR QXPHURXVVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOODZV$VWKH8WDK6HQDWRU2UULQ+DWFKVDLG³:HVKRXOGFDOOHYLOE\

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 3 of 112

Pageid#: 815


 





LWVQDPH0\EURWKHUGLGQ¶WJLYHKLVOLIHILJKWLQJ+LWOHUIRU1D]LLGHDVWRJRXQFKDOOHQJHGKHUHDW KRPH´
 %\WKLVODZVXLW3ODLQWLIIVVHHNWRFKDOOHQJH'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQVXQGHUWKHODZVRI WKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFDDQGWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD3ODLQWLIIVVHHNFRPSHQVDWRU\ DQGLQMXQFWLYHUHOLHI7KHDLPRIWKLVODZVXLWLVWRHQVXUHWKDWQRWKLQJOLNHWKLVZLOOKDSSHQDJDLQ DWWKHKDQGVRI'HIHQGDQWV²QRWRQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDDQGQRWDQ\ZKHUHHOVH LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD
-85,6',&7,21$1'9(18(  7KHFRXUWKDVMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUWKLVDFWLRQSXUVXDQWWR86&  9HQXHLVSURSHUO\LQWKH:HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI9LUJLQLDSXUVXDQWWR86& EEHFDXVH3ODLQWLIIV¶FODLPVDURVHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDZKLFKLVORFDWHGLQWKH :HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI9LUJLQLD
7+(3$57,(6 $ 3ODLQWLIIV
 3ODLQWLII7\OHU0DJLOOLVDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDDQGDQ HPSOR\HHDWWKHOLEUDU\RIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI9LUJLQLD³89$´+HOLYHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHZLWK KLVZLIHDQGFKLOG2Q$XJXVWDQG0DJLOOSDUWLFLSDWHGLQQRQYLROHQWSURWHVWVRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQWV)ROORZLQJWKHHYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQG0DJLOOFROODSVHGDWKLVSODFH RIZRUNDQGVXIIHUHGDWUDXPDLQGXFHGVWURNH0DJLOOVSHQWWZRGD\VLQWKHKRVSLWDODQGPD\ QHYHUIXOO\UHFRYHUIURPWKHUHVXOWLQJEUDLQLQMXULHV0DJLOOKDVQRWEHHQDEOHWRUHWXUQWRKLVMRE DWWKH89$OLEUDU\
 3ODLQWLII5HYHUHQG6HWK:LVSHOZH\ZDVERUQDQGUDLVHGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQG DWWHQGHG89$+HPRYHGEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRXU\HDUVDJRZLWKKLVZLIHDQGGDXJKWHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 4 of 112

Pageid#: 816


 





:LVSHOZH\KDVZRUNHGDWQXPHURXVQRQSURILWRUJDQL]DWLRQVWKDWDGYRFDWHIRUKXPDQULJKWV LQFOXGLQJDVWKHKHDGRIDQRUJDQL]DWLRQSURWHFWLQJYLFWLPVRIKXPDQWUDIILFNLQJ:LVSHOZH\LV DQRUGDLQHG0LQLVWHUZLWKWKH8QLWHG&KXUFKRI&KULVWDQGWKH'LUHFWLQJ0LQLVWHURI5HVWRUDWLRQ 9LOODJH$UWV+HLVDOVRWKHFRIRXQGHURIDPHPEHUVKLSRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUFOHUJ\RIGLIIHUHQW IDLWKVIURPDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\FDOOHG&RQJUHJDWHZKLFKRUJDQL]HGQXPHURXVWUDLQLQJVLQQRQ YLROHQWSURWHVWIRUUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHOHDGLQJXSWRWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG$VD UHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶LQWHQWLRQDODQGFRRUGLQDWHGSODQVWRFRPPLWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWWKRVHZKR VWRRGXSIRUPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:LVSHOZH\ZDVKDUDVVHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQG DVVDXOWHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV6LQFHWKHHYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQG:LVSHOZH\ KDVVXIIHUHGH[WUHPHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWKDVPDQLIHVWHGLQSK\VLFDOV\PSWRPVLQFOXGLQJ FRQVWULFWHGFKHVWSDLQGLIILFXOW\VOHHSLQJLQFOXGLQJQLJKWPDUHVFRQFHUQLQJWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVW DQGDQGWKHLQDELOLW\WRUHWXUQIXOOWLPHWRZRUN
 3ODLQWLII$SULO0XxL]LVD0H[LFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLD%HIRUHWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWVKHZDVWKH'LUHFWRURI&OLQLFDO2SHUDWLRQVDWD FRPSDQ\WKDWKHOSVGHYHORSQHZWUHDWPHQWVIRUSDWLHQWVVXIIHULQJIURPLQFXUDEOHGLVHDVHV2Q $XJXVW0XxL]SHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW$VDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶ LQWHQWLRQDODQGFRRUGLQDWHGSODQVWRFRPPLWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWV0XxL]ZDV LQWLPLGDWHGDQGKDUDVVHGRQPXOWLSOHRFFDVLRQVRQ$XJXVW$PRQJRWKHUWKLQJV0XxL]ZDV FORVHWREHLQJKLWE\WKHFDUWKDW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHLQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUV LQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP0XxL]KDVVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOLQMXU\KDVEHHQGLDJQRVHG ZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHUDQGWUDXPDDQGZDVXQDEOHWRUHWXUQWRZRUNIRUPRQWKV6KHKDV VXIIHUHGHFRQRPLFORVVDVDUHVXOWRIKHULQMXULHV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 5 of 112

Pageid#: 817


 





 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHLVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLDDQGDVWXGHQWDW89$2Q$XJXVW-RKQ'RHSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶ SODQQHGHYHQW2QWKHEDVLVRIKLVUDFH-RKQ'RHZDVLQWLPLGDWHGKDUDVVHGDVVDXOWHGDQG VSUD\HGZLWKFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFHV
 3ODLQWLII+DQQDK3HDUFHLVDGHUPDWRORJLVWZKROLYHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHZLWKKHU KXVEDQGDQGIRXUFKLOGUHQ3HDUFHDQGKHUIDPLO\DUHDFWLYHPHPEHUVRI&RQJUHJDWLRQ%HWK ,VUDHO2Q$XJXVW3HDUFHDQGKHUVRQSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW2Q WKHEDVLVRIKHUUHOLJLRQ3HDUFHZDVWKUHDWHQHGKDUDVVHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQGSK\VLFDOO\DVVDXOWHG 6XEVHTXHQWO\DIHZGD\VDIWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´'HIHQGDQWV$QGUHZ$QJOLQDQG 0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&¶VZHEVLWH'DLO\6WRUPHULQWHQGLQJWRLQWLPLGDWH3HDUFHDQGKHUVRQ SRVWHGWKHLUSLFWXUHRQOLQH
 3ODLQWLII(OL]DEHWK6LQHVDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDLVD VHFRQG\HDUODZVWXGHQWDW89$/DZ6FKRRODQGDJUDGXDWHRI&RUQHOO8QLYHUVLW\2Q$XJXVW DQG6LQHVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQWV$VDUHVXOWRIZLWQHVVLQJWKH HYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQGLQFOXGLQJWKHGRPHVWLFWHUURULVWDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWZKHUH'HIHQGDQW )LHOGVGURYHDFDULQWRDFURZG6LQHVKDVVXIIHUHGIURPVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDQGVKRFN
 3ODLQWLII0DULVVD%ODLULVDPXOWLUDFLDOUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD 6KHZRUNVDVDSDUDOHJDO2Q$XJXVW%ODLUZDVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWLQJZKHQ'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV GURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUVNLOOLQJ%ODLU¶VFRZRUNHUDQGIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HU )LHOGV¶VFDUQDUURZO\PLVVHG%ODLURQO\EHFDXVHKHUILDQFp3ODLQWLII0DUFXV0DUWLQSXVKHGKHU RXWRIWKHZD\EHIRUHEHLQJKLWKLPVHOI%ODLUVXIIHUHGSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVDQGFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHU IURPVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDVDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 6 of 112

Pageid#: 818


 





 3ODLQWLII0DUFXV0DUWLQLVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLD+HZRUNVDVDODQGVFDSHU2Q$XJXVW0DUWLQZDVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWLQJWKH8QLWH WKH5LJKW³UDOO\´+HZDVVWUXFNE\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKRGURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRI SURWHVWRUVLQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP0DUWLQSXVKHGKLVILDQFpHRXWRIWKHZD\RIWKH VSHHGLQJFDUEXWKHZDVVHYHUHO\LQMXUHGE\WKHDWWDFNLQFOXGLQJVXVWDLQLQJDEURNHQOHJDQG DQNOHWKDWUHTXLUHGVXUJHU\+HFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDVDUHVXOWRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQV
 3ODLQWLII1DWDOLH5RPHURLVD&RORPELDQ$PHULFDQXQGHUJUDGXDWHDW89$2Q $XJXVW5RPHURZDVRQHRIDJURXSRIFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVDQGVWXGHQWVZKRZHUH VXUURXQGHGE\WRUFKEHDULQJQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDWWKH5RWXQGD2Q$XJXVW 5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW5RPHURZDVRQ)RXUWK6WUHHWZKHQ 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHDFDULQWRWKHFURZGRISURWHVWRUVLQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLF WHUURULVP5RPHURZDVVWUXFNE\WKHYHKLFOHGULYHQE\)LHOGVDQGVXVWDLQHGPDQ\LQMXULHV7KH FDUNQRFNHGKHUXQFRQVFLRXVIUDFWXULQJKHUVNXOODQGOHDYLQJKHUZLWKDFRQFXVVLRQ7KHFDU DOVRIUDFWXUHGWKHURRWRIRQHWRRWKDQGOHIWVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVDFURVVKHUERG\5RPHUR FRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUYHUWLJRDQGGHELOLWDWLQJKHDGDFKHV,WLVXQFOHDUZKHQ5RPHUR¶VV\PSWRPV ZLOOVXEVLGH,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDOLQMXULHV5RPHURDOVRVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV DVDUHVXOWRIWKHSODQQHGHYHQWDQGWHUURULVWDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWDQGKDVIHDUHGUHWXUQLQJWRWKH 89$FDPSXV$VDUHVXOWRIKHUSK\VLFDODQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD5RPHURKDVDOUHDG\PLVVHGD VHPHVWHURIVFKRRO
 3ODLQWLII&KHOVHD$OYDUDGRLVDUHVLGHQWRI5LFKPRQG9LUJLQLD6KHZRUNVDVD FULVLVFRXQVHORUIRUWKHKRPHOHVVDQGPHQWDOO\LOO2Q$XJXVW$OYDUDGRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG 'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW6KHZDVVWUXFNE\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKHQKHGURYHKLVFDUGRZQ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 7 of 112

Pageid#: 819


 





)RXUWK6WUHHWLQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUV6KHQDUURZO\PLVVHGEHLQJKLWDJDLQE\)LHOGVZKHQKH GURYHKLVFDUEDFNZDUGVXSWKHVWUHHW7KHFDUNQRFNHG$OYDUDGRWRWKHJURXQGFDXVLQJKHUWR VXIIHUVHULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDFRQFXVVLRQDQGVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVRQKHUOHJV$OYDUDGR FRQWLQXHVWRH[SHULHQFHVLGHHIIHFWVRIWKHFRQFXVVLRQLQFOXGLQJFRQIXVLRQIRUJHWIXOQHVVDQG GLIILFXOW\SURFHVVLQJQRUPDOFRQYHUVDWLRQV$OYDUDGRKDVDOVRVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV DVDUHVXOWRIWKH$XJXVWHYHQWV % 'HIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW-DVRQ.HVVOHULVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGDPHPEHURIWKH3URXG%R\V $UHVLGHQWRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD.HVVOHUXVHVWKHKDQGOH³0DG'LPHQVLRQ´RQ'LVFRUGDQG #7KHB0DG'LPHQVLRQRQ7ZLWWHU7RJHWKHUZLWK'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\.HVVOHUOHGWKHRUJDQL]LQJ HIIRUWVIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH.HVVOHULVDOVRWKHSUHVLGHQWDQG IRXQGHURI8QLW\DQG6HFXULW\IRU$PHULFDDJUDVVURRWVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWFODLPVLWLVGHGLFDWHG WR³GHIHQGLQJ:HVWHUQFLYLOL]DWLRQ´DQGLVDFRQWULEXWRUWRZHEVLWHVOLNH9'DUHFRPD [HQRSKRELFQDWLYLVWSXEOLFDWLRQDQGWKH'DLO\&DOOHUDFRQVHUYDWLYHQHZVRXWOHW.HVVOHUZDV WKHOHDGRUJDQL]HUIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´DQGZDVRQHRIWKHQDPHVIHDWXUHGRQD SURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH³UDOO\´,Q-DQXDU\.HVVOHUDWWDFNHGDPDQLQGRZQWRZQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHZKLOHFROOHFWLQJVLJQDWXUHVIRUKLVSHWLWLRQWRUHPRYHWKH$IULFDQ$PHULFDQYLFH PD\RU:HV%HOODP\IURPWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&LW\&RXQFLO,Q$SULO.HVVOHUSOHDGHGJXLOW\WR DPLVGHPHDQRUFKDUJHIRUWKHDVVDXOWDQGZDVWKHQFKDUJHGZLWKIHORQ\SHUMXU\IRUO\LQJWRWKH SROLFHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHDVVDXOW
 'HIHQGDQW5LFKDUG6SHQFHUDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDZKR DWWHQGHG89$LVWKHKHDGRIWKHZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVW³WKLQNWDQN´1DWLRQDO3ROLF\,QVWLWXWH,Q 6SHQFHUFUHDWHGDQRQOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQFDOOHGDOWULJKWFRP6SHQFHURUJDQL]HVKLVIROORZHUV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 8 of 112

Pageid#: 820


 





WRDFWLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIKLVLGHRORJ\FDOOLQJIRUDQ³HWKQLFFOHDQVLQJ´6SHQFHUSODQQHGDQGOHG WKHYLROHQWWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\DWKLVDOPDPDWHURQ)ULGD\HYHQLQJ6SHQFHUDFWLYHO\SURPRWHGWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ6DWXUGD\WRKLVQXPHURXVIROORZHUVRQVRFLDOPHGLDDQGHQFRXUDJHG DQGLQFLWHGLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGYLROHQFHEDVHGRQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\
 'HIHQGDQW&KULVWRSKHU&DQWZHOOLVDUHVLGHQWRI1HZ+DPSVKLUHDQGLVDZKLWH QDWLRQDOLVWDQGDVHOISURFODLPHGIDVFLVW+HKRVWV³5DGLFDO$JHQGD´DSRGFDVWDQG<RX7XEH VKRZVWUHDPHGOLYHPXOWLSOHWLPHVDZHHNDQGUXQVWKHZHEVLWHFKULVWRSKHUFDQWZHOOFRP &DQWZHOOKDVVWDWHGWKDWRQFHKH³UHDOL]HGWKDW>-HZLVKSHRSOH@ZHUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKH FRPPXQLVP´KHGHFLGHG³OHW¶VIXFNLQJJDVWKHNLNHVDQGKDYHDUDFHZDU´+HKDVZULWWHQ³, WKLQNFKHPLFDODQGELRORJLFDOZHDSRQVFDQGRDJUHDWGHDORIJRRGIRUPDQNLQG5HOHDVLQJ QHUYHJDVRUVRPHNLQGRIOHWKDOYLUXVLQWRDOHIWZLQJSURWHVWFRXOGSUHSDUHWKHERGLHVIRU SK\VLFDOUHPRYDOZLWKRXWPDNLQJDELJVFHQHIRUWKHFDPHUDVRUGHVWUR\LQJDQ\WKLQJRIYDOXH´ ,QFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG&DQWZHOO ZDVFKDUJHGZLWKWZRIHORQ\FRXQWVRILOOHJDOXVHRIWHDUJDVDQGRQHIHORQ\FRXQWRIPDOLFLRXV ERG\LQMXU\E\PHDQVRIDFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFH+HZDVLQGLFWHGRQ'HFHPEHURQDIHORQ\FKDUJH RILOOHJDOXVHRIWHDUJDV
 'HIHQGDQW-DPHV$OH[)LHOGV-UDUHVLGHQWRI2KLRLVDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD0RWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\DQGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\RQ$XJXVW)LHOGVFRPPLWWHGDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVPE\GULYLQJ D'RGJH&KDOOHQJHULQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWHUVLQMXULQJGR]HQVDQGNLOOLQJD\HDUROGZRPDQ +HDWKHU+H\HU2Q'HFHPEHUKHZDVLQGLFWHGRQRQHFRXQWRIILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHUWKUHH FRXQWVRIPDOLFLRXVZRXQGLQJWKUHHFRXQWVRIDJJUDYDWHGPDOLFLRXVZRXQGLQJWZRFRXQWVRI IHORQLRXVDVVDXOWDQGRQHFRXQWRIKLWDQGUXQOHDYLQJWKHVFHQHRIDQDFFLGHQW

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 9 of 112

Pageid#: 821


 





 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR 9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI9DQJXDUG$PHULFDYROXQWDULO\MRLQIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGEHOLHYHWKDWSHRSOHZLWK³ZKLWHEORRG´KDYHD VSHFLDOERQGZLWK³$PHULFDQVRLO´,WZDVIRUPHGLQ&DOLIRUQLDLQDQGLVFRPSULVHGRI WZHOYHFKDSWHUVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\7KHJURXS¶VZHEVLWHVWDWHVWKDWWRMRLQWKHJURXSDSHUVRQ PXVWEH³RIDWOHDVWZKLWH(XURSHDQKHULWDJH´'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLVDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKHZRUHWKHLUXQLIRUPDQGFDUULHGD9DQJXDUG$PHULFDVKLHOGDWWKH8QLWH WKH5LJKWHYHQWRQ$XJXVW
 'HIHQGDQW$QGUHZ$QJOLQLVDUHVLGHQWRI2KLRDQHR1D]LDQGWKHIRXQGHURI 'DLO\6WRUPHU²DQRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWRSHUDWHVWKURXJKDZHEVLWHWKDW$QJOLQSXEOLVKHV'DLO\ 6WRUPHUKDVFDOOHGLWVZHEVLWHWKH³ZRUOG¶VPRVWJHQRFLGDO´ZHEVLWH'DLO\6WRUPHUZDVQDPHG DIWHU'HU6WUPHUD1D]LSURSDJDQGDWDEORLGNQRZQIRUYLUXOHQWO\DQWL6HPLWLFFDULFDWXUHVDQG SXEOLVKHGE\-XOLXV6WUHLFKHUZKRZDVODWHUFRQYLFWHGRIFULPHVDJDLQVWKXPDQLW\DW1XUHPEHUJ 8QWLOUHFHQWO\'DLO\6WRUPHUKDGDZHEVLWHDWZZZGDLO\VWRUPHUFRP$QJOLQDQGKLVDVVRFLDWHV DW'DLO\6WRUPHULQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQW5REHUW³$]]PDGRU´5D\XVH'DLO\6WRUPHU³DVD KDUGFRUHIURQWIRUWKHFRQYHUVLRQRIPDVVHVLQWRDSURZKLWH$QWL6HPLWLFLGHRORJ\´WR³VHOO>@ JOREDOZKLWHVXSUHPDF\´DQGWR³PDNHDUDFLVWDUP\´7KHZHEVLWHZKLFKEHFDPHWKHPRVW YLVLWHGKDWHVLWHRQWKH,QWHUQHWLQLQFOXGHVVHFWLRQVHQWLWOHG³-HZLVK3UREOHP´DQG³5DFH :DU´7KH&KLHI7HFKQLFDO2IILFHURI'DLO\6WRUPHUKDVSRVLWHGWKDW'DLO\6WRUPHU³KDVEHHQ HIIHFWLYHDWZKDW>LWLV@GRLQJ´E\³WKHPDQLIHVWDWLRQRIRXUSHRSOHRQWKHJURXQGLQWKHUHDO ZRUOG´)ROORZHUVRI$QJOLQDQG'DLO\6WRUPHUZKRFDOOWKHPVHOYHV³6WRUPHUV´FRPPXQLFDWH RQWKHZHEVLWH¶VIRUXPZKLFKLVPRGHUDWHGE\$QJOLQDQGDFFHVVLEOHRQO\ZLWKDVSHFLDO³GDUN ZHE´WRUEURZVHU2Q$QJOLQ¶VRUGHUVDQGXQGHUKLVFRQWLQXLQJVXSHUYLVLRQ6WRUPHUVKDYH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 10 of 112

Pageid#: 822


 





IRUPHGORFDOFKDSWHUVFDOOHG³6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV´DVSDUWRI$QJOLQ¶VSODQWR³EXLOGDQ LQYLVLEOHHPSLUH´$QJOLQXVHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUIRUXPWRDFWLYHO\PRQLWRUWKH%RRN&OXEVDQG XVHVWKHZHEVLWHWRLVVXHRUGHUVRQKRZWRRUJDQL]H³2IILFLDO2SHUDWLRQV´RI6WRUPHU%RRN &OXEVLQFOXGHILUHDUPVWUDLQLQJRUJDQL]LQJIRUSURWHVWVDQGEHLQJUHDG\WRUHVSRQGWR ³FKDOOHQJHV´LVVXHGE\$QJOLQ'DLO\6WRUPHUHVWDEOLVKHG³PHHWXSV´DQGFKDWURRPVWKDWFR FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVXVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH$XJXVWDQGZHHNHQGWRFRRUGLQDWHWKHLU YLROHQFH7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUUHOHDVHGLWVRZQSRVWHUSURPRWLQJWKH³UDOO\´WKDWUHDG³81,7( 7+(5,*+7-RLQ$]]PDGRUDQGWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUWRHQG-HZLVKLQIOXHQFHLQ$PHULFD´ DFFRPSDQLHGE\D1D]LOLNHILJXUHZLHOGLQJDKDPPHUUHDG\WRVPDVKD-HZLVKVWDU)RUPRQWKV EHIRUHWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVRQ$XJXVWDQG$QJOLQRUJDQL]HGKLVIROORZHUVWRDWWHQG DQGSUHSDUHGWKHPWRFRPPLWUDFLDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQWDFWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH$OWKRXJK$QJOLQ GLGQRWDWWHQGWKHUDOO\KLPVHOIEHFDXVHKHLVFXUUHQWO\LQKLGLQJWRHYDGHVHUYLFHLQFRQQHFWLRQ ZLWKDVHSDUDWHODZVXLWUHODWLQJWRHYHQWVLQ:KLWHILVK0RQWDQD$QJOLQRUFKHVWUDWHGWKH PRYHPHQWVRI'DLO\6WRUPHUIROORZHUVDQGLQFLWHGWKHPWRYLROHQFHRQDOLYHIHHGWKDWVWUHDPHG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXVO\ZLWKWKHHYHQWVDVWKH\RFFXUUHGRQ$XJXVWDQGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 0RUHRYHU$QJOLQXVHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUWRHQWLFHKLVIROORZHUVWRKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWH ³-HZIHPLQLVWHWF´LQGLYLGXDOVE\PDQGDWLQJLQLWV³VW\OHJXLGH´WKDWWKHDXWKRUVDOZD\VLQFOXGH WKHWDUJHWHGLQGLYLGXDOV¶VRFLDOPHGLDDFFRXQWVEHFDXVH³>Z@H¶YHJRWWHQSUHVVDWWHQWLRQEHIRUH ZKHQ,GLGQ¶WHYHQFDOOIRUVRPHRQHWREHWUROOHGEXWMXVWOLQNHGWKHPDQGSHRSOHZHQWDQGGLG LW´
 'HIHQGDQW0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&LVDQ2KLRIRUSURILWOLPLWHGOLDELOLW\ FRUSRUDWLRQUHJLVWHUHGE\'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQWKDWRSHUDWHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH 'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQKDVHQFRXUDJHGUHDGHUVWRILQDQFLDOO\VXSSRUWWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUE\VHQGLQJ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 11 of 112

Pageid#: 823


 





GRQDWLRQVXVLQJELWFRLQFKHFNVDQGFUHGLWFDUGVQRWLQJWKDW³LWZRQ¶WVD\µ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶RQ \RXUFUHGLWFDUGELOOEXWZLOOLQVWHDGVD\µ0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV¶ZKLFKHLWKHUVRXQGVOLNHDKREE\ VKRSRUDPXOWLOHYHOPDUNHWLQJVFKHPHUXQE\UHSWRLGV$Q\ZD\LWORRNVLQQRFXRXVRQ\RXU VWDWHPHQW´
 'HIHQGDQW5REHUW³$]]PDGRU´5D\DUHVLGHQWRI7H[DVLVDQHR1D]LDQGD ZULWHUIRU'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH+HKDVKHOGKLPVHOIRXWDVDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI'DLO\6WRUPHU DQGVHUYHGDVDQDJHQWRI'DLO\6WRUPHULQRUJDQL]LQJWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV+HLVWKH OHDGHURIWKH³'DOODV)RUW:RUWK6WRUPHU%RRN&OXE´ZKLFKLVRQHRIPDQ\ORFDO'DLO\6WRUPHU JURXSVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\,QKLVDUWLFOHVSXEOLVKHGRQ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH5D\HQFRXUDJHG H[WUHPLVWVWRDWWHQGWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQGDQGLQFLWHGWKHPWR YLROHQFH5D\DWWHQGHGWKH³UDOO\´KLPVHOIDQGKDGDSODQQLQJPHHWLQJZLWKFHUWDLQRWKHU 'HIHQGDQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW
 'HIHQGDQW1DWKDQ'DPLJRDUHVLGHQWRI&DOLIRUQLDLVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGWKH IRXQGHURIDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQ'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRZDV DUUHVWHGRQ$SULOIRUDVVDXOWLQJDZRPDQDWWKH³%DWWOHIRU%HUNHOH\´UDOO\ZKLFK 'DPLJRGHVFULEHGDVDWHVWUXQIRUWKH³UDOOLHV´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUKDVVWDWHG WKDW'DPLJRDQGKLVJURXS,GHQWLW\(YURSDWRRNWKHOHDGLQRUJDQL]LQJZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW SDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJSHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHHYHQWVRQ$XJXVW DQG
 'HIHQGDQW(OL0RVOH\ZKRLVDUHVLGHQWRI3HQQV\OYDQLDLVDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW DQGZDVWKHOHDGHURI,GHQWLW\(YURSDIURP$XJXVWWR1RYHPEHU+HLVDOVRDFRIRXQGHU ZLWK'HIHQGDQW5LFKDUG6SHQFHURI2SHUDWLRQ+RPHODQGDQHZRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWDLPVWRWDNH ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDFWLYLVP³WRWKHQH[WOHYHO´+HKDVGHVFULEHGKLPVHOIDVWKH³FRPPDQGVROGLHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 12 of 112

Pageid#: 824


 





PDMRURIWKHµDOWULJKW¶´DQGDVWKHRUJDQL]HURIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2QFHUWDLQVRFLDO PHGLDQHWZRUNV0RVOH\KDVXVHGWKHKDQGOHV#1RW(OL0RVOH\DQG#7KDW(OL0RVOH\0RVOH\ ZDVRQHRIWKHNH\ILJXUHVZKRSODQQHGDQGOHGWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSDLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD &RGH0HPEHUVRI,GHQWLW\(YURSDYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRI SURPRWLQJD³ZKLWH$PHULFDQLGHQWLW\´,WZDVIRXQGHGLQ0DUFKE\'HIHQGDQW'DPLJR DQGRQ$XJXVW'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VXFFHHGHGKLPDV³FKLHIH[HFXWLYHRIILFHU´7KH JURXSLVFXUUHQWO\OHGE\3DWULFN&DVH\,GHQWLW\(YURSD¶VIRUPHU&KLHIRI6WDII7KHJURXS DGRSWHGDQGSRSXODUL]HGWKHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVORJDQ³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´WKDW'HIHQGDQWV DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFKDQWHGDVWKH\PDUFKHGRQ$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ+HLPEDFKDUHVLGHQWRI,QGLDQDLVWKHFKDLUPDQRI 'HIHQGDQW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW:RUNHU3DUW\³7:3´,Q+HLPEDFKDQG'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ 3DUURWWIRXQGHGWKHQHR1D]L7UDGLWLRQDOLVW<RXWK1HWZRUNDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWJURXSWKDW SURPRWHVDUDFLVWLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI&KULVWLDQLW\$ORQJVLGH'HIHQGDQW-HII6FKRHSWKHOHDGHURI 1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQW³160´+HLPEDFKFRFKDLUVWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWDQXPEUHOOD RUJDQL]DWLRQRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\WZHQW\ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQVLQFOXGLQJUDFLVWVNLQKHDG FUHZV.ODQJURXSVDQGQHR1D]LJURXSV+HKDVVDLG³2IFRXUVHZHORRNXSWRPHQOLNH$GROI +LWOHUDVLQVSLUDWLRQVIRUZKDWZHFDQDFKLHYH´+HLPEDFKRUJDQL]HGDQGOHGPDUFKHUVIURP 7:3RQ$XJXVW
 'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ3DUURWWDUHVLGHQWRI,QGLDQDLVWKHFRIRXQGHURIWKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW<RXWK1HWZRUNDORQJZLWKKLVVWHSVRQLQODZ'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFK+HLV FXUUHQWO\WKH&KLHI,QIRUPDWLRQ2IILFHUDQG'LUHFWRURI'HIHQGDQW7:32Q$XJXVW3DUURWW UHIXVHGWROHDYH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDIWHUDVWDWHRIHPHUJHQF\ZDVGHFODUHGDQGZDVDUUHVWHGE\

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 13 of 112

Pageid#: 825


 





WKHSROLFHIRUIDLOLQJWRGLVSHUVH3DUURWWZURWHDQDFFRXQWRIKLVH[SHULHQFHVDWWKH8QLWHWKH 5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ³&DWFKHULQWKH5HLFK0\$FFRXQWRIP\([SHULHQFHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´,QLW KHZURWHWKDW'HIHQGDQWV7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK160DQGRWKHU1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSV MRLQHGWRJHWKHUWR³KHOSFUHDWHWZRVKLHOGZDOOV´IRU³WKHILJKW´
 'HIHQGDQW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW:RUNHU3DUW\³7:3´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQ SXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQGDQDWLRQDOSROLWLFDOSDUW\FRPPLWWHHUHJLVWHUHGZLWKWKH )HGHUDO(OHFWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQVLQFH0HPEHUVRI7:3YROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJDQWL6HPLWLVP$FFRUGLQJWR'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKWKH7:3KDVWKUHH GR]HQDFWLYHFKDSWHUVDQGDQHVWLPDWHGPHPEHUVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\7KH7:3ZDVFUHDWHG E\'HIHQGDQWV+HLPEDFKDQG3DUURWW7KH7:3KDVVDLG³7UXVWQRERG\ZKRIDLOVWRQDPHWKH -HZZKRIDLOVWRH[SOLFLWO\DQGFRQVLVWHQWO\RSSRVHWKH-HZDQGZKRSUHDFKHVFOHYHUQHVVRU QXDQFHRQWKH-4>-HZLVK4XHVWLRQ@´0HPEHUVRIWKH7:3SURPSWHGDWWHQGHGDQGIXOO\ SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQGLQFOXGLQJE\HQJDJLQJLQ YLROHQFH
 'HIHQGDQW0LFKDHO+LOODUHVLGHQWRI$ODEDPDLVWKHFRIRXQGHUDQG3UHVLGHQWRI 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQ,Q+LOODQGWKH/HDJXHRI WKH6RXWKDQQRXQFHGWKHIRUPDWLRQRIDQDUPHGSDUDPLOLWDU\XQLWGXEEHG³WKH,QGRPLWDEOHV´ WDVNHGZLWKDGYDQFLQJVRXWKHUQVHFHVVLRQE\DQ\PHDQVQHFHVVDU\,Q0D\+LOOSXEOLVKHG DQDUWLFOHLQZKLFKKHDVVHUWHG³:H6RXWKHUQQDWLRQDOLVWVGRQRWZDQWDUDFHZDURUDQ\VRUWRI ZDU%XWLIRQHLVIRUFHGRQXVZH¶OOSDUWLFLSDWH6RXWKHUQZKLWHVDUHJHDUHGXSDQGDUPHG WRWKHWHHWK6RLIQHJURHVWKLQND³UDFHZDU´LQPRGHUQ$PHULFDZRXOGEHWRWKHLU DGYDQWDJHWKH\KDGEHWWHUSUHSDUHWKHPVHOYHVIRUDYHU\UXGHDZDNHQLQJ´+LOOZKRVHQDPH ZDVIHDWXUHGRQDSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH³UDOO\´HQFRXUDJHG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKIROORZHUV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 14 of 112

Pageid#: 826


 





WRDWWHQGE\XUJLQJWKHPQRWWR³PLVVRXWRQWKHIXQ´LQGHDOLQJZLWKFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV²WKHLU SXUSRUWHGHQHPLHV2Q$XJXVW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOHGE\+LOOPDUFKHGWKURXJK &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDIWHU9DQJXDUG$PHULFD/LNH9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKH\PDUFKHGZLWK FRRUGLQDWHGVKLHOGVDQGIODJVDQGFDUULHGURGVDQGRWKHUZHDSRQV
 'HIHQGDQW0LFKDHO7XEEVDUHVLGHQWRI)ORULGDLVWKH³&KLHIRI6WDII´RI 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK7XEEVLVFDSWXUHGRQDYLGHRIURP$XJXVWRUGHULQJ/HDJXH RIWKH6RXWKWRDWWDFNE\\HOOLQJ³FKDUJH´$IWHUUHFHLYLQJWKLVFRPPDQGWKHJURXSVWUHDPHG SDVWKLPWRDWWDFNFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV'HIHQGDQW+LOOODWHUERDVWHGWKDW³0U7XEEVZDV HYHU\ZKHUHWKHFKDRVZDV´7XEEVSUHYLRXVO\VHUYHGDIRXU\HDUSULVRQVHQWHQFHIRUSODQQLQJWR ERPE-HZLVKDQGEODFNRZQHGEXVLQHVVHVLQ)ORULGD
 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDSULYDWHO\KHOGFRPSDQ\ORFDWHGLQ$ODEDPDLV DZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXSWKDWDGYRFDWHV6RXWKHUQVHFHVVLRQ3ULRUWRWKHHYHQWVRQ$XJXVW DQG'HIHQGDQW+LOOSRVWHGLQWKH/HDJXH¶V)DFHERRNJURXSWKDWKHZDQWHG³QRIHZHUWKDQ /HDJXHZDUULRUVGUHVVHGDQGUHDG\IRUDFWLRQLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDRQ$XJXVW´ 1XPHURXVPHPEHUVRIWKH/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKSDUWLFLSDWHGLQ6DWXUGD\¶VYLROHQWHYHQWVWRJHWKHU ZLWKFRGHIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW-HII6FKRHSDUHVLGHQWRI0LFKLJDQLVWKHOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW 1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQWWKHODUJHVWQHR1D]LFRDOLWLRQLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV2Q$SULO 6FKRHSIRUPHGWKH$U\DQ1DWLRQDOLVW$OOLDQFHODWHUUHQDPHGWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWZKLFK LVWKHXPEUHOODRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUKDWHJURXSVVXFKDVWKH7:3WKH$U\DQ7HUURU%ULJDGHDQG PDQ\UHJLRQDOIDFWLRQVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ6FKRHSKDVVDLGWKDWLIKHFRXOGPHHW$GROI+LWOHU WRGD\KHZRXOGVD\³7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUVDFULILFHDQG,KRSHZHKDYHKRQRUHG\RXLQVRPH VPDOOZD\E\FDUU\LQJRQWKHILJKW´6FKRHSSDUWLFLSDWHGDFWLYHO\LQWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 15 of 112

Pageid#: 827


 





DQGWZHHWHGDIWHUZDUGVWKDW³,WZDVDQ+RQRUWRVWDQGZLWK8DOOLQ&¶9LOOHWKLVZHHNHQG 1601)7:3/269$(&.&+6DQGWKHUHVWWUXHZDUULRUV´
 'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQW³160´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHG DVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI160YROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKH FRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJD³JUHDWHU$PHULFD´WKDWZRXOGGHQ\FLWL]HQVKLSWR-HZVQRQ ZKLWHVDQG/*%7SHUVRQV/RFDWHGLQ0LFKLJDQ160LVSDUDPLOLWDU\LQVWUXFWXUHLWVPHPEHUV FODLPWREHOLHXWHQDQWVVHUJHDQWVRURWKHUPLOLWDU\UDQNV'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSWKHKHDGRI160 KDVVHUYHGDVLWV³&RPPDQGHU´VLQFH&KDSWHUVRIWKHJURXSVDUHWHUPHG³XQLWV´160 PDLQWDLQVDEXVLQHVVWKURXJK1605HFRUGV//&VHOOLQJQHR1D]LIODJVVZDVWLNDVJHDUHWF 0HPEHUVRI160SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQFHWKDWWRRNSODFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW DQG
 'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD &RGHZKRVHPHPEHUVYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWH QDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\)RUPHUO\NQRZQDVWKH$U\DQ1DWLRQDO$OOLDQFH1DWLRQDOLVW )URQWLVDQXPEUHOODRUJDQL]DWLRQFRQVLVWLQJRIZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWJURXSV LQFOXGLQJQHR1D]LDQG.ODQJURXSV7KH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWLVOHGE\'HIHQGDQWV6FKRHS +HLPEDFK+RSSHUDQG+LOO7KH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWZDVFRQFHLYHGWREH³WKHWKUHDGWKDWZRXOG XQLWHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWFLUFOHV´9DULRXVPHPEHUVRIWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW HQJDJHGLQDFWVRIYLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWHGUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW$XJXVWXV6RO,QYLFWXVIRUPHUO\$XVWLQ0LWFKHOO*LOOHVSLHDUHVLGHQW RI)ORULGDLVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW)UDWHUQDO

 7KLVWZHHWUHIHUVWR'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDQG(DVW&RDVW .QLJKWV

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 16 of 112 Pageid#: 828


 





2UGHURI$OW.QLJKWV³)2$.´WKH³PLOLWDU\ZLQJ´RIWKH3URXG%R\VDJURXSGHVFULEHGDVD ³µSUR:HVWHUQIUDWHUQDORUJDQL]DWLRQ¶IRUPHQZKRµUHIXVHWRDSRORJL]HIRUFUHDWLQJWKHPRGHUQ ZRUOG¶´+HKDVVDLGWKDWDYLROHQWVHFRQG&LYLO:DULVQHFHVVDU\LQRUGHUWRSUHVHUYH³:HVWHUQ FLYLOL]DWLRQ´2Q$XJXVW,QYLFWXVDQQRXQFHGKLVFDQGLGDF\DVD5HSXEOLFDQIRUWKH 6HQDWHHOHFWLRQLQ)ORULGD,QYLFWXVZKRVHQDPHZDVIHDWXUHGRQDSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRU WKH³UDOO\´GUDIWHGWKH³&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVWDWHPHQW´DORQJZLWK6SHQFHUDQGRWKHUVDQG SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHWRUFKOLWUDOO\RQ$XJXVWZLWKFR'HIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW)UDWHUQDO2UGHURIWKH$OW.QLJKWV³)2$.´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHG DVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQGLVVHOIGHVFULEHGDVWKH³WDFWLFDOGHIHQVLYH DUP´RI3URXG%R\VIRUPHGWRIRFXVRQ³VWUHHWDFWLYLVPSUHSDUDWLRQGHIHQVHDQG FRQIURQWDWLRQ´'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVLVVHFRQGLQFRPPDQGDW)2$.DQG)2$.DWWHQGHGWKH ³UDOO\´LQSDUWWRSURYLGHVHFXULW\WRKLP
 'HIHQGDQW0LFKDHO³(QRFK´3HLQRYLFKDUHVLGHQWRI1HZ<RUNLVWKHIRXQGHURI WKHEORJDQGZHEVLWH7KH5LJKW6WXIIDQGDFRKRVWRIWKH'DLO\6KRDKSRGFDVW2QVRFLDOPHGLD 3HLQRYLFKKDVDWYDULRXVWLPHVXVHGWKHKDQGOHV#1RW0LNH(QRFKDQG#PLNHHQRFKVEDFN 3HLQRYLFKIUHTXHQWO\DSSHDUVDWHYHQWVDORQJVLGH'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU3HLQRYLFKZDVIHDWXUHGRQ DSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH³UDOO\´2Q$XJXVWLQWKHLPPHGLDWHDIWHUPDWKRIWKHFDUDWWDFN 6SHQFHUDQG3HLQRYLFKVSRNHWRWKHLUIROORZHUVDW0F,QWLUH3DUN
 'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ³/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV´LV DQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI/R\DO:KLWH .QLJKWVYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDF\%DVHGLQ3HOKDP1RUWK&DUROLQDWKHDVVRFLDWLRQRQO\DFFHSWV³QDWLYHERUQZKLWH $PHULFDQ&LWL]HQ>V@´DVPHPEHUV)ROORZLQJWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 17 of 112

Pageid#: 829


 





WKH/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVFKDQJHGWKHLURXWJRLQJYRLFHPDLOPHVVDJHWRVD\³1RWKLQJPDNHVXV PRUHSURXGDWWKH...WKDQZKHQZHVHHZKLWHSDWULRWVVXFKDV-DPHV)LHOGV-UDJHWDNLQJ KLVFDUDQGUXQQLQJRYHUQLQHFRPPXQLVWDQWLIDVFLVWNLOOLQJRQHQLJJHUORYHUQDPHG+HDWKHU +H\HU-DPHV)LHOGVKDLOYLFWRU\,W¶VPHQOLNH\RXWKDWKDYHPDGHWKHJUHDWZKLWHUDFHVWURQJ DQGZLOOEHVWURQJDJDLQ´
 'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQDND(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRI WKH7UXH,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH³(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR 9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVYROXQWDULO\MRLQIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\,WLVDFWLYHLQVHYHUDOVWDWHVDQG KDVDVXEGLYLVLRQRU³NODYHUQ´LQWKHVWDWHRI0DU\ODQG7RP/DUVRQLVWKHLPSHULDOZL]DUGRI WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH7UXH,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH7KH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVXVLQJWKHKDQGOHV #WLJKWURSHBDQG#7LJKWURSHIUHTXHQWO\WZHHWVUDFLVWLPDJHVDQGFRPPHQWVRQ 6HSWHPEHULWWZHHWHGSLFWXUHVRIEXUQLQJFURVVHVODEHOHGDQLPDJHRIO\QFKHGEODFN PHQDV³$ODEDPDZLQGFKLPHV´DQGWZHHWHGDFDUWRRQRID.ODQVPDQXVLQJWZREODFNPHQ KXQJIURPWUHHVDVDKDPPRFNLQZKLFKWRUHDGWKHQHZVSDSHUDQGGULQNDQLFHGWHD7KH(DVW &RDVW.QLJKWVZDVDNH\SDUWLFLSDQWLQWKH-XO\.ODQUDOO\DQGFRQVSLUHGZLWKWKH1DWLRQDOLVW )URQWDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVWRRUJDQL]HDQGSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVRI$XJXVW
)$&76  'HIHQGDQWVDUHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGQHR1D]LRUJDQL]DWLRQV DQGLQGLYLGXDOVZKRKDYHDVSDUWRIWKHLUPLVVLRQWRHQJDJHLQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\ PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHWKUHDWVLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQW7KHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDUHSDUW RI'HIHQGDQWV¶UHFHQWFRQFHUWHGHIIRUWVWRPRYHIURPWKHVKDGRZVRIDQRQ\PRXVGLVDVVRFLDWHG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 18 of 112

Pageid#: 830


 





RQOLQHFKDWURRPVDQGLQWRDPRUHRSHQRUJDQL]HGSK\VLFDOSUHVHQFHLQRXUSDUNVDQGRQRXU

VWUHHWV'HIHQGDQWVDUHFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQGRWKHUVXQQDPHG

, 'HIHQGDQWV$QG8QQDPHG&R&RQVSLUDWRUV&RQVSLUHG7R&RPPLW$FWV2I9LROHQFH ,QWLPLGDWLRQ$QG+DUDVVPHQW$JDLQVW7KH&LWL]HQV2I&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD
$ 'HIHQGDQWV7DUJHWHG&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQWKH0RQWKV3ULRUWR$XJXVWDQG³WKH 6XPPHURI+DWH´

:KHQWKH-HZVWRRNRYHURXUVRFLHW\DQGWXUQHGLWLQWRDNLNHGRXW OLYLQJKHOOWKH\PDUNHGWKHLUDFKLHYHPHQWE\GHFODULQJD³6XPPHU RI /RYH´    7KH\ WRRN HYHU\WKLQJ DZD\ IURP XV  7KDW DJH LV HQGLQJ QRZ  :H DUH WDNLQJ EDFN RXU ELUWKULJKW  7KLV VXPPHU D %ODFN6XQZLOOSDVVRYHU$PHULFD,DPGHFODULQJWKHVXPPHU RIWKH6XPPHURI+DWH









Defendant Andrew Anglin

 ,QIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHLUDERYHVWDWHGJRDO'HIHQGDQWVSORWWHGWRWDUJHW

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDDVSDUWRIZKDWWKH\FDOOHGWKH³6XPPHURI+DWH´

 'HIHQGDQWVVHOHFWHG&KDUORWWHVYLOOHEHFDXVHDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKHFLW\ZDV

HQJXOIHGDWWKHWLPHLQDGHEDWHRYHUWKHVWDWXHRI*HQHUDO5REHUW(/HHLQDVPDOOFLW\SDUN,Q

)HEUXDU\WKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&LW\&RXQFLOYRWHGWRUHPRYHWKH/HHVWDWXHDQGLQ-XQH

LWYRWHGWRUHQDPHWKHSDUNLQZKLFKLWVWRRGIURP/HH3DUNWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN

 'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWKHSODQQHGUHPRYDORIWKH/HHVWDWXHDVDUDOO\LQJFU\IRUWKHLU

IROORZHUVVHHNLQJWRSUHVHUYHLWVSODFHLQWKHSDUNDQGXVHWKHGHEDWHDERXWWKHVWDWXHDVD

PHDQVWRVWLUXSYLROHQFHDQGKDUDVVWKUHDWHQDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKHUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

 )RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG6SHQFHULQYLWHGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXSV

WRYLVLWDQGKROGHYHQWVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHZLWKWKHLQWHQWRILQWLPLGDWLQJQRQZKLWHDQG-HZLVK

LQGLYLGXDOVDQGWKHLUDOOLHV

 2Q0D\KXQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVFDUULHGOLW

WRUFKHVDQGVXUURXQGHGWKHVWDWXHRI5REHUW(/HHLQDQHYHQWRUJDQL]HGDQGSODQQHGE\DPRQJ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 19 of 112

Pageid#: 831


 





RWKHUV'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU'DPLJR3HLQRYLFK+HLPEDFK,GHQWLW\(YURSD9DQJXDUG $PHULFD7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK'HIHQGDQWVDQGSDUWLFLSDQWVFDUULHGDOWULJKWFRP EUDQGHGVLJQVUHDGLQJ³ZHZLOOQRWEHUHSODFHG´7KH\FKDQWHG³\RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQG ³EORRGDQGVRLO´³%ORRGDQGVRLO´LVDWUDQVODWLRQRI³%OXWXQG%RGHQ´D*HUPDQQDWLRQDOLVW SKLORVRSK\WKDWOD\DWWKHKHDUWRI1D]LSROLFLHV7KHVORJDQH[SUHVVHVWKHLGHDOL]DWLRQRID UDFLDOO\GHILQHGQDWLRQDOERG\³EORRG´XQLILHGZLWKDVHWWOHPHQWDUHD³VRLO´,WLVLQH[WULFDEO\ OLQNHGZLWKWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\*HUPDQLGHDRILebensraum²WKHEHOLHIWKDWWKH*HUPDQSHRSOH QHHGHGWRUHFODLPKLVWRULFDOO\*HUPDQDUHDVRI(DVWHUQ(XURSHLQWRZKLFKWKH\FRXOGH[SDQG² ZKLFKZDVWKHGULYLQJLGHRORJ\EHKLQG+LWOHU¶VLQYDVLRQRIQHLJKERULQJFRXQWULHVDQGWKHPDVV PXUGHURIWKHLUFLWL]HQV
 7KH0D\HYHQWZDVSODQQHGDQGLQWHQGHGWRLQWLPLGDWHWKUHDWHQDQGKDUDVV &KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFHUHOLJLRQDQGHWKQLFLW\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUVDLGKH KRSHGWKDWWKH0D\HYHQWZRXOGEHD³IDQWDVWLFILUVWHYHQW´LQD³FXOWXUDOµFLYLOZDU¶´ 'HIHQGDQWV¶DYRZHGJRDOZDVWRSURPRWHDQGFUHDWHDQDWPRVSKHUHRIUHOLJLRXVDQGUDFLDO VXERUGLQDWLRQRQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLGHDOO\WKURXJKWKHLQIOLFWLRQRIYLROHQFHRU HPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV
 $WDOXQFKEHIRUHWKHHYHQW'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU²VKDULQJDSRGLXPZLWK 'HIHQGDQWV'DPLJR3HLQRYLFKDQG.HVVOHUDVZHOODVFRFRQVSLUDWRU6DP'LFNVRQ²H[SODLQHG ³:KDWEULQJVXVWRJHWKHULVWKDWZHDUHZKLWHZHDUHDSHRSOH:HZLOOQRWEHUHSODFHG´
 'HIHQGDQWVODWHUDFNQRZOHGJHGWKHVXFFHVVRIWKHLUFDUHIXOGHOLEHUDWHDQG PRQWKVORQJSODQQLQJ7KH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHUHSRUWHGWKDW³>W@KHKRQRUDEOHZKLWHV

 $OWULJKWFRPLV'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 20 of 112

Pageid#: 832


 





PDUFKHGWRWKHEDVHRIWKHVWDWXHDVWKH\FDUULHGWRUFKHVUHPLQLVFHQWRIWKHUG5HLFK´,QDQ
HVVD\DERXWWKH0D\HYHQWHQWLWOHG³:K\:H)LJKW´9DQJXDUG$PHULFDH[SODLQHG
³7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH JDWKHULQJ ZDV QRW VLPSO\ RYHU VRPH PHWDO VFXOSWXUH DWRS D SHGHVWDO LQ D VPDOO 6RXWKHUQ &LW\  ,W ZDV DERXW GHIHQGLQJ WKH LPDJHV RI ZKLWH KLVWRU\ ZKLWH KHURHV DQG ZKLWH$PHULFD
 >7@KH JUHDWHVW VSHFWDFOH RI WKH HYHQW FDPH DV ZH OLW RXU WRUFKHV IRU WKH QLJKW PDUFK  $V ZH DSSURDFKHG /HH 3DUN IRU WKH ODVWWLPHRXUIRRWVWHSVVKRRNWKHZKROHFLW\7KLVPRYHPHQW PXVWEHJLQDVDVSLULWXDOPRYHPHQW7RTXRWHDZLVHSROODN ³,I \RX ZDQW WR JDV WKH -HZV \RX PXVW ILUVW JDV WKH -HZ ZLWKLQ \RXUVHOI´  $IWHUDIHZZRUGVIURP6SHQFHUDQG'LFNVRQZHEOHZRXW RXUWRUFKHVRXUVSLULWXDOFXSVILOOHGIRUSHUKDSVWKHILUVWWLPHLQDOO RIRXUOLYHVDQGRQFHDJDLQVKRXWHGRXUGHDIHQLQJFKDQWVVKDNLQJ WKHHQWLUHFLW\ZLWKRXUPLJKW  7KHUHZLOOEHPDQ\PRUHRIWKHVHHYHQWV7KLVPDUFKRQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHZDVMXVWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKHLQHYLWDEOH5HYROXWLRQ RIRXUSHRSOH  +DLO9LFWRU\   7KLV0D\HYHQWZRXOGODWHUEHUHIHUUHGWRE\FRQVSLUDWRUVDV³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 &DSLWDOL]LQJRQWKHSHUFHLYHGVXFFHVVRIWKH0D\HYHQWDQGPRWLYDWHGE\WKH
VDPHGHVLUHWRDFKLHYHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVVXERUGLQDWLRQRIFLW\UHVLGHQWV'HIHQGDQWVEHJDQ
SODQQLQJIRUDGGLWLRQDOHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH2Q0D\.HVVOHUVXEPLWWHGDQDSSOLFDWLRQ
IRUDSHUPLWWRKROGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQWKHZHHNHQGRI$XJXVWDQG
 ,Q-XQH'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHULQYLWHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUVWRFRPHWR
&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRUD³3URXG%R\V´HYHQWZKLFKZDVGHVLJQHGWRSURPRWHYLROHQFHDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 21 of 112

Pageid#: 833


 





LQWLPLGDWHPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´$VRQHRIWKH3URXG %R\VLQDWWHQGDQFHQRWHGWKHJURXSZDQWHGWREDLWSURWHVWRUVEHFDXVH³DORWRIXVNLQGDOLNHWR VHHWKHPEOHHG´$QRWKHU3URXG%R\UHPLQGHGRWKHUV³7KLVRIFRXUVHLVMXVWWKHEHJLQQLQJ 7KHUHDUHDOVRELJJHU>@HYHQWVSODQQHGIRU&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW´
 2Q-XO\DWKLUGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWHYHQWZDVKHOGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWKLV WLPHE\'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV1HDUO\ILIW\.ODQVPHQPDUFKHGWKURXJKWKHVWUHHWV VKRXWLQJ³ZKLWHSRZHU´DQGFDUU\LQJVLJQVWKDWUHDG³-HZVDUH6DWDQ¶VFKLOGUHQ´6RPHZRUH ZKLWH.ODQUREHVDQGPDQ\FDUULHGJXQV
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHGDWWKH-XO\.ODQPDUFK)ROORZLQJ -XO\5RPHURUHFHLYHGWKHILUVWRIIRXUKDUDVVLQJSKRQHFDOOVIURPDPHPEHURIWKH.ODQ,Q WKHILUVWFDOOWKHPDQH[SODLQHGWKDWDVDPHPEHURIWKH.ODQKHORYHGJRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH WRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VSRZHUDQGDVNHG5RPHURLIVKHXQGHUVWRRGWKDWZKLWHSHRSOH DUHWKHVXSHULRUUDFH$VGHVFULEHGLQSDUDJUDSKVDQGEHORZWKHODWHUFDOOVZKLFK RFFXUUHGDIWHU5RPHURZDVVHULRXVO\LQMXUHGE\)LHOGV¶VDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURURQ$XJXVW ZHUHPRUHWKUHDWHQLQJ
 .HVVOHUDWWHQGHGDQGOLYHVWUHDPHGWKH.ODQPDUFKRQ7ZLWWHU+HVKDUHGDWZHHW ZLWKKLVIROORZHUV³8QLWH7KH5LJKWDJDLQVWWKHVHVKLWOLEVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWWKLV JRLQJWREHVRPXFKIXQ<RX¶YHJRWDPRQWKWREHWKHUH´

 $VSDUWRIWKHZHHNHQG.HVVOHUZDVEHDWHQLQDQDOOH\LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHE\3URXG%R\VPHPEHUVXQWLOKHFRXOG QDPHILYHEUHDNIDVWFHUHDOV7KLV³FHUHDOEHDWLQ´LVWKH³VHFRQGGHJUHH´RILQLWLDWLRQLQWRWKH3URXG%R\V7KHILUVW GHJUHHLVDGHFODUDWLRQRIDOOHJLDQFHWRWKH3URXG%R\V7KHVHFRQGGHJUHHLVWKHFHUHDOEHDWLQDQGDUHQRXQFHPHQW RIPDVWXUEDWLRQDOWKRXJK3URXG%R\V³3RSH´'DQWH1HURKDVIUDPHGWKHUXOHDVUHTXLULQJWKDWDPDQVKRXOGRQO\ HMDFXODWHZLWKLQD\DUGRIDZRPDQ7KHWKLUGGHJUHHLQYROYHVJHWWLQJDWDWWRRDQGWKHIRXUWKGHJUHHUHTXLUHVD ³PDMRUILJKWIRUWKHFDXVH´PHDQLQJ\RX³NLFNWKHFUDSRXWRIDQWLID´DQGSRVVLEO\JHWDUUHVWHG 

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 22 of 112

Pageid#: 834


 





% 'HIHQGDQWV3ODQQHGDQG&RRUGLQDWHGD6FKHPHWR,QFLWH9LROHQFH7KUHDWHQ ,QWLPLGDWHDQG+DUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOH5HVLGHQWVRQ$XJXVWDQG
7KHDJHRIXOWUDYLROHQFHLVFRPLQJ,GRQ¶WNQRZZKHQEXW,GR NQRZWKDWPRVWRI\RXZLOOOLYHWRVHHLW  7KHUHLVUDSLGO\DSSURDFKLQJDWLPHZKHQLQHYHU\ZKLWH:HVWHUQ FLW\FRUSVHVZLOOEHVWDFNHGLQWKHVWUHHWVDVKLJKDVPHQFDQVWDFN WKHP  $QG\RXDUHHLWKHUJRLQJWREHVWDFNLQJRUJHWWLQJVWDFNHG  7KHUHZLOOEHOHDGHUV<RXQHHGWREHSUHSDUHGWRUHFRJQL]HWKHP IRUZKRWKH\DUHDQG\RXQHHGWREHSUHSDUHGWRGRZKDWHYHUWKH\ WHOO\RXWRGRH[DFWO\DVWKH\WHOO\RXWRGRLW 
Defendant Andrew Anglin
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFRQVSLUHGWRLQFLWHYLROHQFHDQGWRWKUHDWHQ
LQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVVWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGLQSDUWLFXODUUDFLDOHWKQLF
RUUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGWRFRPPLWRWKHUXQODZIXODFWVDVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQ)RUZHHNV
'HIHQGDQWVDFWHGRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGRUHWKQLFDQLPXVDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQWR
GHQ\-HZLVKSHRSOHDQGSHRSOHRIFRORUDVZHOODVSHRSOHDGYRFDWLQJIRUWKHULJKWVRI-HZLVK
SHRSOHDQGSHRSOHRIFRORUHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDQGRWKHUULJKWVWKDWWKH\DUHJXDUDQWHHGXQGHUVWDWH
DQGIHGHUDOODZ'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\XOWLPDWHO\DFKLHYHGLWVVWDWHGJRDOVDQGGLGLQIDFW
UHSHDWHGO\V\VWHPDWLFDOO\DQGXQPLVWDNDEO\YLRODWHWKHULJKWVRIUHOLJLRXVDQGUDFLDOPLQRULWLHV
LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH
 7KHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWSHUPLWVXEPLWWHGE\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU
FODLPHGWKDWWKHHYHQWZRXOGEHDSURWHVWRIWKHUHPRYDORIWKH/HHPRQXPHQWEXW'HIHQGDQWV
DOVRLQWHQGHGWKDWWKHUDOO\ZRXOGLQVWLOOIHDULQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶VPLQRULW\SRSXODWLRQDQGFDXVH
YLROHQFH7KH\ZDQWHGWRXVHWKHHYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQGWRLQWLPLGDWHWKHEURDGHUFLYLOLDQ
SRSXODWLRQDQGUHFUXLWPRUHIROORZHUVWR'HIHQGDQWV¶JURXSV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 23 of 112

Pageid#: 835


 





 $QDUWLFOHE\'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\SXEOLVKHGRQWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶V ZHEVLWHRQ$XJXVWH[SODLQHGWKDWWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH³UDOO\´KDGVKLIWHGIURPEHLQJ³LQVXSSRUW RIWKH/HH0RQXPHQWZKLFKWKH-HZ0D\RUDQGKLV1HJURLG'HSXW\KDYHPDUNHGIRU GHVWUXFWLRQ´WR³VRPHWKLQJPXFKELJJHUWKDQWKDW,WLVQRZDQKLVWRULFUDOO\ZKLFKZLOO VHUYHDVDUDOO\LQJSRLQWDQGEDWWOHFU\IRUWKHULVLQJ$OW5LJKWPRYHPHQW´
 'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU$QJOLQ5D\&DQWZHOO0RVOH\'DPLJR,QYLFWXV 3HLQRYLFK+HLPEDFK3DUURWW+LOO7XEEV)LHOGVDQG6FKRHSRQEHKDOIRIWKHPVHOYHVDQGWKH JURXSVWRZKLFKWKH\EHORQJDQG'HIHQGDQWV,GHQWLW\(YURSD)2$.9DQJXDUG$PHULFD7:3 /HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK1601DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVDQG(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV DORQJZLWK'DLO\6WRUPHU'HIHQGDQW0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVWKURXJKWKHLUOHDGHUVKLSDQG PHPEHUVDOODJUHHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKDQGDPRQJHDFKRWKHUWRSODQRUJDQL]HSURPRWHDQG FRPPLWWKHXQODZIXODFWVWKDWLQMXUHG3ODLQWLIIVDQGFRXQWOHVVRWKHUVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH\ DOVRFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKQXPHURXVQDPHGDQGXQQDPHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV
 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU(YDQ0F/DUHQDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW ,GHQWLW\(YURSDPHWLQSHUVRQDWWKH7UXPS+RWHOLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'&WRRUJDQL]HDQGGLUHFWWKH ³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHZLWKWKHSXUSRVHDQGUHVXOWRIFRPPLWWLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQWDJDLQVWWKHFLWL]HQVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG.HVVOHUPHWLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWWRSODQDQG GLUHFWWKHXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZ
 'HIHQGDQWV5D\&DQWZHOODQG0RVOH\DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU'DYLG'XNHDWWHQGHG DQRWKHULQSHUVRQPHHWLQJRQ$XJXVWWRSODQDQGGLUHFWWKHXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGWKHGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 24 of 112

Pageid#: 836


 





 'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW1607:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG $PHULFD(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVDQG³RWKHUDOOLHV´FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLUDWWHQGDQFHDVD³MRLQW RSHUDWLRQ´LQDGYDQFHRI$XJXVWWRSODQGLUHFWDQGSUHSDUHIRUXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLWL]HQV
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRIUHTXHQWO\FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLOOHJDODFWVSODQQHGIRUWKH8QLWHWKH 5LJKWHYHQWRQOLQH7KH\PDGHXVHRIZHEVLWHVVRFLDOPHGLDLQFOXGLQJ7ZLWWHU)DFHERRN FKDQDQGFKDQFKDWURRPVUDGLRYLGHRVDQGSRGFDVWVWRFRPPXQLFDWHZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQG ZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVIROORZHUVDQGRWKHUDWWHQGHHVDQGGLGVRWRSODQWKHLQWHQGHGDFWVRI YLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGWKHGHQLDOWRFLWL]HQVRIWKHHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZV
 )RU\HDUV'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUVXQQDPHGKDYHXVHGWKH,QWHUQHWWRLQ'HIHQGDQW $QJOLQ¶VWHUPV³VROLGLI\DVWDEOHDQGVHOIVXVWDLQLQJFRXQWHUFXOWXUH´8VHRIWKH,QWHUQHWLVSDUW RIWKHZD\VPDQQHUDQGPHDQVRIKRZ'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\RSHUDWHGDQGRSHUDWHV
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFRRUGLQDWHGE\SRVWLQJDUWLFOHVRQWKHLURZQ ZHEVLWHVDQGE\XVLQJVRFLDOPHGLDWRVHQGDQGVKDUHPHVVDJHVIRUWKH³UDOO\´DQGWRHQFRXUDJH DWWHQGDQFHDQGWKHFRPPLVVLRQRILOOHJDODFWV7KH\LQWHUYLHZHGRQHDQRWKHUDERXWWKHSODQVIRU WKH³UDOO\´DQGVKDUHGWKRVHPHVVDJHVRQSRGFDVWVRURWKHUYLGHRVWUHDPLQJVHUYLFHV7KH\ DJUHHGWRPRELOL]HWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHPHPEHUVDQGIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGDQGEHYLROHQWDQGVXSSUHVV WKHHTXDOULJKWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLWL]HQV$FFRUGLQJWR6SHQFHUIRUH[DPSOH³'DPLJRDQG KLVJURXS>,GHQWLW\(YURSD@WRRNWKHOHDGWRRUJDQL]HZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJ SHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 2QH,QWHUQHWWRRO'HIHQGDQWVXVHGH[WHQVLYHO\WRSODQDQGGLUHFWLOOHJDODFWVZDV WKHFKDWSODWIRUP'LVFRUG2ULJLQDOO\GHYHORSHGDVDPHVVDJLQJSODWIRUPIRUJURXS³JDPHSOD\´ 'LVFRUGLVVHWXSDVDVHULHVRISULYDWHLQYLWHRQO\VHUYHUVHDFKSURYLGLQJDVSDFHIRUUHDOWLPH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 25 of 112

Pageid#: 837


 





JURXSGLVFXVVLRQ(DFKVHUYHULVRUJDQL]HGLQWR³FKDQQHOV´LQGLFDWHGE\D³´EHIRUHWKHQDPH 3DUWLFLSDQWVLQWKHFKDWXVH³KDQGOHV´RUQLFNQDPHVWRLGHQWLI\WKHPVHOYHV3DUWLFLSDQWVFDQ UHTXHVWWREH³WDJJHG´DVDPHPEHURIDJURXS2QFHWDJJHGWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVFDQUHDGDQG SDUWLFLSDWHLQWKDWJURXS¶VFKDWV
 $³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´VHUYHUZDVHVWDEOLVKHGRQ'LVFRUGLQ-XQH7KLV VHUYHUZDVXVHGWRGLUHFWDQGSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDO SURWHFWLRQRIODZDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2QHXVHUH[SODLQHGWKDW'LVFRUGZDV³IRU FORVHGWRSVXSHUVHFUHWFRPPXQLFDWLRQVLQWHQGHGIRUWKHHOLWHLQQHUFLUFOHRIWKHDOWULJKW´ 'HIHQGDQWVXVHG'LVFRUGDVDWRROWRSURPRWHFRRUGLQDWHDQGRUJDQL]HWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW ³UDOO\´DQGDVDPHDQVWRFRPPXQLFDWHDQGFRRUGLQDWHYLROHQWDQGLOOHJDODFWLYLWLHV³LQVHFUHW´ GXULQJWKHDFWXDOHYHQWVRIWKDWZHHNHQG
 'LVFRUGZDVPRGHUDWHGUHYLHZHGGLUHFWHGDQGPDQDJHGE\'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU DQG0RVOH\DORQJZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV$VPRGHUDWRUVRIWKHJURXSWKH\ZHUHDEOHWR YLHZDOORIWKHSRVWVLQYLWHRUUHMHFWSDUWLFLSDQWVDQGGHOHWHPHVVDJHVWKH\GLGQRWFRQGRQH7KH JURXSZDV³LQYLWHRQO\´DQGQRWRSHQWRWKHSXEOLF
 ,QGLYLGXDO'HIHQGDQWVLQFOXGLQJ+HLPEDFK3DUURWW&DQWZHOODQG5D\ZHUHDOO SDUWLFLSDQWVRQ'LVFRUGDQGSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHGLUHFWLRQSODQQLQJDQGLQFLWLQJRIXQODZIXODQG YLROHQWDFWVWKURXJK'LVFRUG
 7KHVH'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVXVHG'LVFRUGIRUUHJXODU³OHDGHUVKLS´ PHHWLQJVWKURXJKZKLFKWKH\VKDUHGLQIRUPDWLRQDQGSODQV'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHG'LVFRUGWR GLVWULEXWHZKDWWKH\FDOOHG³2UGHUV´WRFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHV2QHGRFXPHQWSRVWHGE\

 $QRWKHUXVHUH[SODLQHG³XQOHVV-DVRQRU(OLPDGHWKLVVHUYHUSXEOLFZLWKRXWWHOOLQJPHWKLVLVQ¶WDSXEOLF VHUYHU,W¶VLQYLWHRQO\WKURXJKRXUWUXVWHGSUHYHWWHGDOWULJKWVHUYHUV1RWVXUHZKRWROG\RXLW¶VSXEOLF´ 

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 26 of 112

Pageid#: 838


 





'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\ZDVHQWLWOHG³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´IRU³2SHUDWLRQ8QLWHWKH5LJKW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

´

 7KHUHZHUHDWOHDVWFKDQQHOVVHWXSRQ'LVFRUGDVDPHDQVRIVKDULQJVSHFLILF

LQIRUPDWLRQ7KRVHFKDQQHOVLQFOXGHG

DQQRXQFHPHQWV

QHZV

PDBFWBUL

GL[LHO\ULFV

VDIHW\BSODQQLQJ

YWBQKBPH

PRGBKHOS

DOH[BMRQHVBFKDW

JUHDWBODNHVBUHJLRQ

FRQILUPHGBSDUWLFLSDQWV

SLFWXUHVBDQGBYLGHR PLGZHVWBUHJLRQ

VKXWWOHBVHUYLFHBLQIRUPDWLRQ EHOWZD\BELJRWV

N\BWQ

FRGHBRIBFRQGXFW

YRLFHBFKDW

W[BRN

VHOIBSURPRWLRQ

IULGD\QLJKW

IORULGD

IODJVBEDQQHUVBVLJQV

VXQGD\QLJKW

JHRUJLD

SURPRWLRQBDQGBF\EHUVWULNH FKDQWV

FDUROLQDV

JHDUBDQGBDWWLUH

YLUJLQLDBODZV

FDOLIRUQLDBSDFLILFBQZ

DQWLIDBZDWFK

ORGJLQJ

FDUSRROBDYDLODEOH

GHPRQVWUDWLRQBWDFWLFV

ORGJLQJBZDQWHG

Q\BQM

VSRQVRUVBRQO\

ORGJLQJBDYDLODEOH

SHQQV\OYDQLD

LBQHHGBDBVSRQVRU

FDUSRROBZDQWHG

GFBYDBPG



 7KH\DOVRKDGDFKDQQHOFDOOHGTXHVWLRQVBIRUBFRRUGLQDWRUVZKHUHSDUWLFLSDQWV

FRXOGDVNTXHVWLRQVRIWKHRUJDQL]HUVDQGDFKDQQHOIRUWKH³OHDGHUVKLS´UHVHUYHGIRU

FRQYHUVDWLRQVDPRQJWKHPDLQRUJDQL]HUVRIWKHHYHQWDERXW³SODQQLQJ´DQG³LQIUDVWUXFWXUH´DVD

OHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDODWHUGHVFULEHGLW:LWKWKHSHUPLVVLRQRIDPRGHUDWRU

LQGLYLGXDOVFRXOGEH³WDJJHG´DVPHPEHUVRIFHUWDLQRUJDQL]DWLRQV'HIHQGDQWV9DQJXDUG

$PHULFD,GHQWLW\(YURSD7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDVZHOODV'DLO\6WRUPHU0RRQEDVH

+ROGLQJVDQGLWV³ERRNFOXE´FKDSWHUVDOOKDG³SULYDWHRUJDQL]DWLRQFKDQQHO>V@´RQWKH

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUWKDWDOORZHGWKHLUWDJJHGPHPEHUVWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQSULYDWH

JURXSFRPPXQLFDWLRQVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH³UDOO\´

 'HIHQGDQWVHQOLVWHGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHDQGRUJDQL]HWKH³UDOO\´

WKURXJK'LVFRUGDQGRWKHUPHDQV)RUH[DPSOHRQHLQGLYLGXDOXVLQJWKH'LVFRUGKDQGOH

³7\URQH´KHUHLQDIWHU7\URQHDJUHHGZLWK'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUWKDWKHZRXOGFRRUGLQDWH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 27 of 112

Pageid#: 839


 





WUDQVSRUWDWLRQIRUDWWHQGHHVRQ$XJXVW2WKHUVZHUHWDVNHGZLWKKHOSLQJ'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU DQG0RVOH\PRGHUDWHWKH'LVFRUGVHUYHU$QRWKHULQGLYLGXDOXVLQJWKH'LVFRUGKDQGOH ³&DHUXOXV5H[´ZDVWKHFRRUGLQDWRUEHWZHHQYDULRXV³VHFXULW\GHWDLOV´WKDWZHUHHVWDEOLVKHGE\ 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV³&DHUXOXV5H[´KDVDOVREHHQLGHQWLILHGDVDIUHTXHQW ERG\JXDUGRI'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU
 3URPRWLRQDOPDWHULDOVRIWHQSURPRWLQJDQGLQFLWLQJYLROHQFHZHUHDGGHGWR 'LVFRUGLQRUGHUWREHVKDUHGDQGXWLOL]HGPRUHEURDGO\
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHG'LVFRUGWRFRRUGLQDWHKRZWKH\ZRXOGFRPPXQLFDWHRQ RWKHUVRFLDOPHGLD)RUH[DPSOHWKH\WROGIROORZHUVWRXVH8QLWH7KH5LJKWDQG&KDUORWWHVYLOOH RQ7ZLWWHUVRWKDWWKH\DQGWKHLUIROORZHUVFRXOGFORVHO\FRPPXQLFDWHGXULQJWKHZHHNHQGRIWKH ³UDOO\´7KH\VKDUHGWKDWKDVKWDJWKURXJK'LVFRUG
 $GGLWLRQDO'LVFRUGVHUYHUVZHUHXVHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWR VSUHDGWKHZRUGDERXWWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWRHQFRXUDJHIROORZHUVWRVKRZXSDQGEH SUHSDUHGIRUYLROHQFH)RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKDVDWOHDVWRQH'LVFRUG VHUYHUFDOOHG6RXWKHUQ)URQWZKLFKZDVHVWDEOLVKHGIRUPHPEHUVRIWKHJURXSOLYLQJLQVRXWKHUQ VWDWHV9DQJXDUG$PHULFDOHDGHUVZKRZHUHDFWLYHRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHU XVHGWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHUWRFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFHRIDGGLWLRQDO9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVDQGWR SURYLGHFKDQQHOVRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQ9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVDQGWKHPDLQRUJDQL]HUVRIWKH &KDUORWWHVYLOOHHYHQW
 &HUWDLQFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQDVHOIVW\OHG³DQWL$QWLID´JURXSFDOOHG ³$QWLFRP´ZKLFKSXUSRUWVWRSURYLGHGHIHQVLYHYLROHQFHDWZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWHYHQWVOLNHWKH

 ,QWKLV)LUVW$PHQGHG&RPSODLQWUHIHUHQFHVWR³'LVFRUG´DUHWRWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUH[FHSW ZKHUHRWKHUZLVHLQGLFDWHG

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 28 of 112 Pageid#: 840


 





³%DWWOHIRU%HUNHOH\´RUJDQL]HGLQWKHLURZQ'LVFRUGVHUYHU7KHOHDGHURI$QWLFRPZDVDFWLYH
RQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUDQGWKHQXVHGWKH$QWLFRPVHUYHUWRWHOOIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGWKH
HYHQWDQGEULQJZHDSRQVSXUVXDQWWRWKHGLUHFWLYHVRIWKH³UDOO\´RUJDQL]HUV
 $OWKRXJKFHUWDLQSRVWVRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6RXWKHUQ)URQWDQG$QWLFRP
'LVFRUGVHUYHUVKDYHEHHQPDGHSXEOLFQXPHURXVRWKHU'LVFRUGVHUYHUVDQGFKDQQHOVZHUHXVHG
DORQJZLWKWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGVHUYHUVWRSODQDQGFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFHDQGYLROHQWDFWVDWWKH
HYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG7KHVHDGGLWLRQDOVHUYHUVDQGFKDQQHOVKDYHQRW\HWEHHQPDGH
SXEOLF/LNHZLVHWKHOHDGHUVKLSFKDQQHORQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUUHPDLQVXQGLVFORVHG
 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\OLNHZLVHHVWDEOLVKHG³PHHWXSV´DQGFKDWURRPV
WKURXJKWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHWKDWFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVZHUHWROGWRXVH
WKURXJKRXWWKHZHHNHQGWRFRRUGLQDWHWKHLUDFWLRQV
 $³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6WDWHPHQW´ZDVGLVWULEXWHGE\'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUVHWWLQJRXW
WKHSKLORVRSK\DQGLGHRORJ\XQGHUO\LQJWKH³UDOO\´+HZDVDLGHGLQGUDIWLQJKLVPDQLIHVWRE\
'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVFRFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQDQGRWKHUV$PRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKH
&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6WDWHPHQWKROGVWKDW³µ-XGHR&KULVWLDQYDOXHV¶PLJKWEHDTXDLQWSROLWLFDOVORJDQ
EXWLWLVDGLVWRUWLRQRIWKHKLVWRULFDODQGPHWDSK\VLFDOUHDOLW\RIERWK-HZVDQG(XURSHDQV´DQG
WKDW³1DWLRQVPXVWVHFXUHWKHLUH[LVWHQFHDQGXQLTXHQHVVDQGSURPRWHWKHLURZQGHYHORSPHQW
DQGIORXULVKLQJ5DFLDOO\RUHWKQLFDOO\GHILQHGVWDWHVDUHOHJLWLPDWHDQGQHFHVVDU\´
& 'HIHQGDQWV3URPRWHG$WWHQGDQFH9LROHQFHDQG,PDJHU\'HVLJQHGWR7KUHDWHQ ,QWLPLGDWHDQG+DUDVV
>7@KLV ZLOO FOHDUO\ EH DQ HDUWKVKDNLQJ GD\ WKDW ZLOO JR GRZQLQWKHKLVWRU\ERRNVRXUWLPHKDVFRPH
 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUDQRUJDQL]HURIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWDQGOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDZKR ZDVDFWLYHRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWDQG&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUVSRVWHGLQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHULQ UHVSRQVHWRUHSRUWVWKDWFHUWDLQ'LVFRUGFRQYHUVDWLRQVKDGEHHQPDGHSXEOLF³:HKDYHEHHQDZDUHRIWKDW7KHFKDW ORJVZHUHUHOHDVHGWRXQLFRUQULRW7KH\KDYHPRQWKVRIFRQYHUVDWLRQV,WZDVWKHJHQHUDOFKDWQRWWKHOHDGHUVKLS WKRXJKVRWKH\JRWYHU\OLWWOHLQWKHZD\RISODQQLQJRULQIUDVWUXFWXUH´

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 29 of 112 Pageid#: 841


 





 $XJXVW   LV JRLQJ WR EH D VKRW KHDUG DURXQG WKH ZRUOG7KHUHZLOOEHEHIRUH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWKHUHZLOO EH DIWHU &KDUORWWHVYLOOH   WKHUH LV QR ZD\ WR H[DJJHUDWH WKH VLJQLILFDQFHRIWKLV:HFDQPDNHDOOWKHQRLVHRQWKHLQWHUQHWWKDW ZHZDQWDQGWKLVLVJUHDWEXWRXUUHDOSRZHUZLOOFRPHRQO\IURP QXPEHUVLQWKHVWUHHWV  >7@KDQNV WR WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKLV HYHQW , WUXO\ EHOLHYH² PRUH WKDQ , HYHU GLG EHIRUH²WKDW ZH ZLOO HYHQWXDOO\ ZLQ WKLV VWUXJJOHDQGVHFXUHWKHH[LVWHQFHRIRXUSHRSOHDQGIXWXUHIRUZKLWH FKLOGUHQ,WLVRXUGHVWLQ\1H[WVWRS&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$)LQDO VWRS$XVFKZLW]6HH\DWKHUHIDJJRWV
Daily Stormer
 'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHUWROGIROORZHUV³:HDUHDQJU\
7KHUHLVD>VLF@DWDYLVWLFUDJHLQXVGHHSLQXVWKDWLVUHDG\WRERLORYHUThere is a craving to
return to an age of violence. We want a war´+HDGYLVHGIROORZHUVWKDW³WKHKDUGFRUHPHVVDJH
LVZKDWVHOOV´DQGWROGWKHPWR³>E@HUHDG\WRGLHIRU>WKHILJKW@´
 2Q'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRPRQHDUWLFOHRQWKHXSFRPLQJ
$XJXVW³UDOO\´H[SODLQHG³2XULGHDVGRPLQDWHWKHLQWHUQHW1RZLW¶VWLPHWRGRPLQDWHWKH
VWUHHWV<RXPLJKWWKLQNLW¶VMXVWDUDOO\EXWUHDOO\LW¶VVRPXFKPRUH:HDUHWHOOLQJWKH
DQWL:KLWHHVWDEOLVKPHQWDQGLW¶V>VLF@DWWDFNGRJVWKDWZHDUHQRWJRLQJWRJLYHDQRWKHULQFK
$QGQRZZHKDYHFRPHWRWKHWLSSLQJSRLQW´
 'HIHQGDQW5D\GHFODUHG³:HDUHVWHSSLQJRIIWKH,QWHUQHWLQDELJZD\:H
KDYHEHHQRUJDQL]LQJRQWKH,QWHUQHW$QGVRQRZWKH\DUHFRPLQJRXW:HKDYHJUHDWO\
RXWQXPEHUHGWKHDQWLZKLWHDQWL$PHULFDQILOWK$WVRPHSRLQWZHZLOOKDYHHQRXJKSRZHUWKDW
ZHZLOOFOHDUWKHPIURPWKHVWUHHWVIRUHYHU\RXDLQ¶WVHHQQRWKLQJ\HW´,QDQLQWHUYLHZ



9LFHUHOHDVHGDPLQXWHGRFXPHQWDU\IROORZLQJ'HIHQGDQWVWKURXJKRXWWKHGD\7KHYLGHRFDQEHIRXQGDW

KWWSVQHZVYLFHFRPVWRU\YLFHQHZVWRQLJKWIXOOHSLVRGHFKDUORWWHVYLOOHUDFHDQGWHUURU



Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 30 of 112

Pageid#: 842


 





GXULQJWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\'HIHQGDQW5D\DOVRVWDWHGWKDW'HIHQGDQWV¶JRDOZDVWR³VWRS´WKH ³XVXUS>DWLRQ@´RI³RXUFRXQWU\´³E\DIRUHLJQWULEHFDOOHGWKH-HZV´
 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WZHHWHG³:HDUH>@JRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KLVLVRXU FRXQWU\DQGLWLVRXUULJKWWKDWPHDQGWKRXVDQGVIRXJKWIRUDOUHDG\2XUELUWKULJKWZLOOEH DVKHV WKH\¶OOKDYHWRSU\LWIURPRXUFROGGHDGKDQGVLIWKH\ZDQWLW7KH\ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV ZLWKRXWDILJKW´
 2QHSURPRWLRQDOLPDJHFUHDWHGE\'HIHQGDQW7:3DQGGLVWULEXWHGRQ'LVFRUG VWDWHG³7KLVLVQRWDQDWWDFNRQ\RXUKHULWDJHWKLVLVDQDWWDFNRQ\RXUUDFLDOH[LVWHQFH),*+7 %$&.25',(´
 7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUUHOHDVHGLWVRZQSRVWHUZKLFKZDVODWHUVKDUHGE\'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 31 of 112

Pageid#: 843


 







 8VLQJ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\FRPPDQGHGWKH

'DLO\6WRUPHUFRPPXQLW\WRDWWHQG³<RXPXVWPDNHLWWKHUH´7KH\WROGWKHLUPHPEHUV

³>Z@HQHHGWRGRHYHU\WKLQJZHFDQWRJHWDVPDQ\SHRSOHWRDWWHQGWKLVUDOO\DVSRVVLEOH

7KHUHLVDULVLQJQDWLRQDOLVWPRYHPHQWLQ$PHULFDDQGLWLVQRWJRLQJDZD\+DYLQJWKRXVDQGVRI

QDWLRQDOLVWVFRPHRXWIRUWKLVUDOO\ZLOOSXWWKHIHDURIJRGLQWRWKHKHDUWVDQGPLQGVRIRXU

HQHPLHV´$ZULWHURQ6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRPHQWKXVHGWKDW'DLO\6WRUPHUZDV³JRLQJ

WREULQJDORWRI\RXQJQHZFDGUHVWRWKHUDOO\´LQFOXGLQJ,GHQWLW\(YURSD

 $QJOLQDOVRXUJHGKLVIROORZHUV³:HDUHQRZWDNLQJWKHVH>6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV@

WRWKHQH[WOHYHO:HDUHJRLQJWRKDYHFKDOOHQJHVZKLFKZLOOLQFOXGHJHWWLQJ\RXLQILWDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 32 of 112

Pageid#: 844


 





ILJKWLQJVKDSHDQGOHDUQLQJXVHIXOPDVFXOLQHVNLOOV:HDUHJRLQJWREXLOGDQLQYLVLEOH HPSLUH7KLVKDVDOOEHHQZRUNHGRXWLQP\PLQGDORQJWLPHDJRDQGWKLVVXPPHUWKH6XPPHU RIWKH%ODFN6XQLVZKHQZHDUHJRLQJWREULQJLWDOOWRJHWKHU´2Q'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG $PHULFD¶V6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHU'HIHQGDQW5D\WROG9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVLQ-XO\ ³<RXGRQ¶WWKLQNWKH>'DLO\6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV@KDYHDQ\WKLQJWRGRZLWKERRNVGR\RX" 7KLQNERRWVQRWERRNV´
 'HIHQGDQW+LOOHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVRI'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKWRDWWHQG E\XUJLQJWKHPQRWWR³PLVVRXWRIWKHIXQ´LQGHDOLQJZLWKWKHLUSXUSRUWHGHQHPLHV'HIHQGDQW (DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVH[KRUWHGLQGLYLGXDOVWRDWWHQG³:HZLOOEHWKHUH-RLQXV´
 $QRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDQLPDJHRIDUDLVHGILVWKROGLQJD GDJJHUE\LWVEODGHGULSSLQJEORRGRYHUWKHZRUGV³),*+7817,/7+(/$67'523´

  'HIHQGDQWV¶LQWHQWWRHQJDJHLQYLROHQFHWRHQVXUHWKDWRWKHUVHQJDJHGLQ YLROHQFHDQGWRRUFKHVWUDWHDQGGLUHFWWKDWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVZDV RSHQDQGH[SOLFLW)RUH[DPSOHRQDSRGFDVWUXQE\'HIHQGDQW3HLQRYLFKWKH'DLO\6KRDKD FRFRQVSLUDWRUGLVFXVVLQJWKH³UDOO\´DVNHG³1RZFRPHRQEHDWLQJXSWKHZURQJQHJURLV WKDWHYHQDSRVVLELOLW\"%HDWXSWKHZURQJQLJJHU´$PHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 33 of 112

Pageid#: 845


 





$PHULFDEOLWKHO\DVNHGRQ'LVFRUG³:KHQFDQZHJDVWKHUHSUREDWHV´7\URQHDFR
FRQVSLUDWRUZURWH³0RVWHIILFLHQWLVKRZ\RXJHWVL[PLOOLRQ-HZVLQD&DGLOODFLQWKHIURQW
LQWKHUHDULQWKHDVKWUD\´
 2Q'LVFRUGPRGHUDWHGDQGFRQWUROOHGE\'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\WKHUH
ZHUHFRXQWOHVVH[KRUWDWLRQVWRYLROHQFHLQFOXGLQJ
Ɣ ³,¶PUHDG\WRFUDFNVNXOOV´
Ɣ ³,I\RXGRQ¶WKDYHDIODPHWKURZHU\RX¶UHZURQJ´
Ɣ ³,W¶VJRLQJWRJHWZLOG%ULQJ\RXUERRWV´
Ɣ ³6WXGLHVVKRZQLJJHUVDQGIHPLQLVWVIXFNULJKWRIIZKHQIDFHG ZLWKSHSSHUVSUD\´
Ɣ ³%ULQJLQJZRPHQWRDSURWHVWUDOO\ZKHUHZHH[SHFWYLROHQFHLVIXFNLQJ UHWDUGHGHYHQLI\RXDUHQ¶WH[SHFWLQJYLROHQFH\RXVKRXOGSUHSDUHIRU LW´
Ɣ ³/HWWKHUHEHQRPLVWDNH±WKHVHWZRVLGHKDYHLUUHFRQFLDEOH>VLF@ GLIIHUHQFHVWKDWZLOOQHYHUUHDFKFRPSURPLVH±WKHRQO\TXHVWLRQLVWKH OHYHORIFRQIOLFWWRGHFLGHWKHYLFWRU´
Ɣ ³<RXKDYHDZHHNEURV%HVWVSHQGLWKDYLQJIRXURUILYHRI\RXUIULHQGV VLPXODWHMXPSLQJ\RX*ROLJKWGRQ¶WJHWLQMXUHGEHIRUHWKHHYHQWDQG IRFXVRQEORFNLQJDQGSXVKLQJEDFNLQZD\VWKDWGRQ¶WORRNOLNHDVVDXOW´
Ɣ ³/HW¶VPDNHWKLVFKDQQHOJUHDWDJDLQ7KH&DUROLQDVNLQGRIVWDUWHGWKH 5HYROXWLRQDU\:DUDQGWKH&LYLO:DUVRZK\QRWDGGWKH5DFH:DU 6HFRQG&LYLO:DUWRWKHOLVW"´
 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWDQ\YLROHQFH7RWKHFRQWUDU\FRQVLVWHQW
ZLWKWKHLUFRQVSLUDF\WRHQFRXUDJHDQGHQDEOHYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV
UHLQIRUFHGDIDOVHQDUUDWLYHRIDODUJHU²QHFHVVDULO\YLROHQW²UDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVZDULQZKLFK
8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVZHUHDFULWLFDOPRPHQW7KLVVWUDWHJ\ZDVLQWHQGHGWR²DQGIRUHVHHDEO\
UHVXOWHGLQ²YLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWWKHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 34 of 112

Pageid#: 846


 





 )RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW+LOOWZHHWHGRQ-XO\³,I\RXZDQWWRGHIHQGWKH 6RXWKDQG:HVWHUQFLYLOL]DWLRQIURPWKH-HZDQGKLVGDUNVNLQQHGDOOLHVEHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ $XJXVW´
 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\SXEOLVKHG³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´IRUWKH³UDOO\´ZKLFKGLYLGHG DWWHQGHHVLQWR³)ULHQGOLHV´DQG³(QHPLHV&RXQWHU3URWHVWHUV´,QGLYLGXDOVRSSRVHGWRWKHLGHDV DGYDQFHGE\WKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´ZHUHGHVFULEHGDV³KRVWLOH´
 7KH*HQHUDO2UGHUVIXUWKHULQVWUXFWHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVWKDWLIWKH\ HQGHGXSORVLQJWKHLUSHUPLWWRJDWKHULQWKHSDUNWKHQWKH\PD\³KDYHWRLQLWLDWHSODQUHGRUKDYH WRWDNHWKHJURXQGE\IRUFHZLWKSODQ\HOORZ´3ODQ5HGZDVGHVFULEHGDV³LQFUHGLEO\ GDQJHURXV´DQGFDOOHGIRUPHHWLQJHDUO\DWDUDOO\SRLQWDQGPDUFKLQJWRWKHSDUN7KH*HQHUDO 2UGHUVDOVRSURPLVHGWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEH³VHFXULW\IRUFHVWRUHGXFHWKHWKUHDW´SUHVHQWHGE\ ³KRVWLOHV´
 &RFRQVSLUDWRUVRQ'LVFRUGLQFLWHGDWWHQGHHVWREULQJZHDSRQVDQGHQJDJHLQ YLROHQFH7KLVLQFLWHPHQWZDVNQRZQWRDQGSURPRWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV
 7\URQHSRVWHGDTXRWHIURP+LWOHU¶VFORVHDVVRFLDWHDQG³5HLFK3OHQLSRWHQWLDU\ IRU7RWDO:DU´3DXO-RVHSK*RHEEHOVRQ'LVFRUG³:KRHYHUFDQFRQTXHUWKHVWUHHWZLOORQHGD\ FRQTXHUWKHVWDWHIRUHYHU\IRUPRISRZHUSROLWLFVDQGDQ\GLFWDWRUVKLSUXQVWDWHKDVLWVURRWVLQ WKHVWUHHW´
 'HIHQGDQWVH[SUHVVO\DFNQRZOHGJHGWKDWWKHLUIDOVHQDUUDWLYHRI³VHOIGHIHQVH´ ZDVPHUHO\DSUHWH[WIRUYLROHQFH7\URQHIRUH[DPSOHKDGWKHIROORZLQJH[FKDQJHRQ'LVFRUG
7\URQH³:KDWLIZHDUHVRFLRSDWKLFDQGZDQW>DQWLID@WRVKRZXSIRUVHOI GHIHQVHSXUSRVHV"´  $PHULFDQD±0',I\RX¶UHFRQFHUQHGDERXWDQWLIDVKRZLQJXSDQGEHLQJYLROHQW ,SUHVHQW\RXYDOLGRSWLRQV'RQ¶WDWWHQG>HPRMLRIDZRPDQ@RU%HEHWWHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 35 of 112

Pageid#: 847


 





DWYLROHQFHWKDQWKH\DUH  7\URQH,W¶VQRWMXVWDERXW\RXFROOHFWLYH\RXQRWSHUVRQDOYLROHQFHOLNHWKLVLVD WHDPJDPH
7\URQHWKHQWROGRWKHUV³7KHEHVWGHIHQVHLVDJRRGRIIHQVHP\JUDQGSDSS\WDXJKWPH´

 2QH'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWWROGSHRSOHWR³SXUFKDVHVHOIGHIHQVHLQVXUDQFH´ZKLOH

DQRWKHUTXLSSHGWKDWWKHDELOLW\WRPDNHRXWDVHOIGHIHQVHFODLP³>G@HSHQGVKRZPXFKRIDMHZ

\RXUODZ\HULV´

 8VLQJ'LVFRUGDQGRWKHUPHGLXPV'HIHQGDQWVJDYHRUGHUVWRHDFKRWKHUFR

FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGIROORZHUVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQGLQFOXGLQJZKDWZHDSRQV

WREULQJZKDWSURWHFWLYHDUPRUWRZHDUDQGLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUXQLIRUPV,QSDUWLFXODUWKH\

DGYLVHGRWKHUSDUWLFLSDQWVWREULQJILUHDUPVRULPSURYLVHGZHDSRQV7KH\HQJDJHGLQWKHVHDFWV

ZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQWKDWWKH\DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZRXOGLQIDFWHQJDJHLQYLROHQFHDQG

KDUDVVPHQWDJDLQVWUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGWKUHDWHQWKHEURDGHU&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

SRSXODWLRQ

 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOH[SUHVVO\³HQFRXUDJH>G@´5DGLFDO$JHQGDIROORZHUV³WRFDUU\

DFRQFHDOHGILUHDUP´

 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUZKRZDVDFWLYHRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUDV

WKH³+HDG5HSUHVHQWDWLYH´RI$QWLFRPRQWKHVHUYHUWROGKLVIROORZHUVLQWKH$QWLFRPVHUYHURQ

$XJXVW³#HYHU\RQH%ULQJDVPXFKJHDUDQGZHDSRQU\DV\RXFDQZLWKLQWKHFRQILQHVRIWKH

ODZ,¶PVHULRXV<RXVWLOOKDYHDIHZGD\VWRJHWVRPHSURWHFWLRQIURP+RPH'HSRWDQG

EULQJDQ\JXQV\RXKDYH7KLVLVQ¶WMXVW$QWLFRP6SHQFHURUJDQL]HUVHYHU\RQHDUHEHKLQG

WKLV´+HDGGHG³7KLVLVWKHWLPHWRJHWRII'LVFRUGDQGWDNHDFWLRQ´2Q$XJXVWKH

VLPXOWDQHRXVO\SRVWHGRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQG$QWLFRPVHUYHUVWKHDSKRWRJUDSKRI

KLPVHOILQWDFWLFDOJHDUFDUU\LQJDULIOHVHHLPDJHVEHORZIURPWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 36 of 112

Pageid#: 848


 





OHIWDQG$QWLFRPVHUYHUULJKW+HWROGKLVIROORZHUV³,ZDVQ¶WNLGGLQJZKHQ,PDGHDQ DQQRXQFHPHQWWREULQJDVPXFKZHDSRQU\DVOHJDOO\IHDVLEOH7KLVZDVGLVFXVVHGZLWKWKH RUJDQL]HUV´$Q$QWLFRPIROORZHUUHVSRQGHG³<HDK,DOVRUHFRPPHQGHGFURZGIXQGLQJD GROODUFDPSDLJQWRKDQGRXWSHSSHUVSUD\WRIHOORZJRHUV´





 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSRVWHGSKRWRVRIWKHPVHOYHVSRVLQJZLWK

DXWRPDWLFZHDSRQVDQGWDFWLFDOJHDUDQGERDVWHGDERXWWKHZHDSRQVWKH\ZHUHEULQJLQJ

7\URQHIRUH[DPSOHEUDJJHGRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUWKDWKHZRXOGEHEULQJLQJ

³0RVLQ1DJDQWVZLWKED\RQHWVDWWDFKHG´UHIHUULQJWRPLOLWDU\ULIOHVXVHGE\5XVVLDQDQG6RYLHW

DUPHGIRUFHVZKLFK³ZLOOVKRRWFOHDQWKURXJKDFURZGDWOHDVWIRXUGHHS´7LP³%DNHG$ODVND´

*LRQHWDFRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGDWWHQGHHRIWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQGSRVWHGWKHIROORZLQJRQ

7ZLWWHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 37 of 112

Pageid#: 849


 





  'HIHQGDQW5D\ZURWHRQ'LVFRUG³:HOO,DOVRFRPHEDUHKDQGHGDQGEDUHILVWHG EFRIILFHUVGRQ¶WGXFNORO%XWP\JX\VZLOOEHUHDG\ZLWKORWVRIQLIW\HTXLSPHQW´  2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDIDNHDGYHUWLVHPHQWIRUDSURGXFWWKDW ORRNHGOLNHSHSSHUVSUD\FDOOHG³1LJ$ZD\´²´DQRIXVVQRPXVVµQLJJHUNLOOHU¶´SURPLVHGWR ³NLOO>@RQFRQWDFWGLVVROY>LQJ@DOOWLVVXHOHDY>LQJ@RQO\ERQHPDWWHU´LQRUGHUWR³ULGWKHDUHD RIQLJJHUV´+HFRPPHQWHGEHQHDWKWKHSKRWR³VWRFNXSQRZ´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 38 of 112

Pageid#: 850


 







'LVFRUGZDVULIHZLWKGLVFXVVLRQVE\FRFRQVSLUDWRUVRIZHDSRQVDQGWKHXVHRIHYHU\GD\

REMHFWVWRLQIOLFWKDUP

Ɣ ³,¶PFRQFHDOFDUU\LQJ´

Ɣ ³>$@UHDOPDQNQRZVKRZWRPDNHDVKLHOGDGHDGO\ZHDSRQ´

Ɣ ³>.@QLYHVDQGJXQVDUHPRUHOHJDOWKDQEOXQWZHDSRQVRUEDWRQVEXWLWV>VLF@ EHWWHUWRRQO\FDUU\ZKDWZRXOGRQO\EHSHUFHLYHGDVDGHIHQVLYHWRRO,ILJXUH NQLYHVZRXOGFDXVHWKHSROLFHPRUHDODUPRYHUDFDQRISHSSHUVSUD\RUD UXJJHGDQGDEUDVLYHVKLHOG´

Ɣ ³>*@HWVWDQGDUG2&VSUD\,SHUVRQDOO\XVH)R[/DEV´

Ɣ ³>5@HPHPEHUWKDWQHZVSDSHUVFDQEH\RXUJUHDWHVWDOO\WRVVDIHZSHQQLHVLQ WKHUHUROOLWXSDQGIROGLWDQGEDP´

Ɣ ³>$@YRLGEDWRQVMXVWJHWKDUGZRRGGRZHOWKDWILWVLQ\RXUKDQGIURPD VWRUHDQGFXWLWWRVL]H´

Ɣ ³,I\RXJHW39&JHWVFKHGXOHIRUWKLFNHUWKXPSLQJ´

Ɣ ³'RQ¶WFDUU\DQ\WKLQJWKDW¶VH[SOLFLWO\DZHDSRQ)ODJSROHVDQGVLJQVZRUN EXWRSHQO\FDUU\LQJREYLRXVZHDSRQU\LVSUREDEO\QRWDJRRGLGHD´

Ɣ ³$ZUHQFKZLWKDZULVWODQ\DUGJHWVWKHVDPHMRE>DVDEODFNMDFNELOO\FOXE@ DFFRPSOLVKHG´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 39 of 112

Pageid#: 851


 





Ɣ ³-XVWFDUU\DSRFNHWIXOORIURFNV7KH\FDQEHLQDVRFNRUVRPHWKLQJ´



 2Q-XQH.HVVOHUSRVWHGLQWKHDQQRXQFHPHQWFKDQQHORIWKH

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHU³#HYHU\RQH,UHFRPPHQG\RXEULQJSLFNHWVLJQSRVW

VKLHOGVDQGRWKHUVHOIGHIHQVHLPSOHPHQWVZKLFKFDQEHWXUQHGIURPDIUHHVSHHFKWRROWRDVHOI

GHIHQVHZHDSRQVKRXOGWKLQJVWXUQXJO\´

 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDOLQNWRKLVVWRUH5HVLVWDQFH7RROVDORQJ

ZLWKDFRXSRQFRGH81,7(7+(5,*+7DQGZURWH³)253(23/(127&21&($/('

&$55<,1*,1&¶9,//(,VHOOVWXQJXQVWDVHUVSHSSHUVSUD\EDWRQVDQGRWKHUVHOIGHIHQVH

VWXII´

 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKURXJKLWVOHDGHUVDQGPHPEHUVHQFRXUDJHGLWV

PHPEHUVWRDWWHQGWKHUDOO\RQLWVRZQ'LVFRUGVHUYHU6RXWKHUQ)URQW$QLQGLYLGXDOZLWKWKH

XVHUQDPH³7KRPDV5\DQ´RQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI

9DQJXDUG$PHULFDUHSHDWHGO\XUJHGPHPEHUVWRFRQWDFWKLPGLUHFWO\LIWKH\SODQQHGWRDWWHQG

WKH³8QLWHWKH5LJKW´HYHQWDQGLIWKH\ZDQWHGWRWUDYHOWRJHWKHULQD³KDWHEXV´VD\LQJ³7KLV

HYHQWLVD%,*'($/DQGRIIHUVDFKDQFHWROLQNXS9DQJXDUG*X\VIURPDFURVVWKH

QDWLRQ´+HDOVRLVVXHGRUGHUVRQWKHSURSHU9DQJXDUGXQLIRUPIRUWKHHYHQW

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 40 of 112

Pageid#: 852


 





 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHPEHUVZHUHLQVWUXFWHGWRDUULYHDWWKHUDOO\LQ PDWFKLQJNKDNLSDQWVDQGZKLWHSRORVDERXWZKLFKRQHPHPEHURQWKHVHUYHUFRPPHQWHG³, OLNHWKHSRORVLW¶VDJRRGILJKWLQJXQLIRUP´5RXVVHDXDOVRWROGKLV9DQJXDUG$PHULFDFR FRQVSLUDWRUV³6HOIGHIHQVHLWHPVDUHQRWOLVWHGRQWKHJHDUOLVWVRPHLQGLYLGXDOVZLOOKDYH FRQFHDOHGFDUU\VRPHZLOOQRW´2Q$XJXVWRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUDVNHG³6HULRXVTXHVWLRQZK\ DUHWKH\VD\LQJQRWWREULQJILUHDUPV"´$QRWKHUUHSOLHG³6RXQGVOLNHWKH\DUHVFDUHGORO, DOZD\VFDUU\DFROODSVLEOHEDWRQQRZLW¶VP\QHZIDYRULWH´³7KRPDV5\DQ´UHSOLHG³,W¶V FRQFHDOHGFDUU\RQO\&RQFHDOHGNQLYHVKDYHGR]HQVRIODZVDURXQGWKHP2SHQNQLYHVGR QRWEXWLWORRNVUHDOO\GXPEWRFDUU\DQRSHQODUJHNQLIHVRZH¶UHQRWGRLQJWKDW1RWVXUH DERXWEDWRQV´
 'HIHQGDQW5D\D³JRRGIULHQG´RI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDFFRUGLQJWR WKHLUOHDGHU5RXVVHDXDOVRXVHGWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHUWRHQFRXUDJH9DQJXDUG$PHULFD PHPEHUVWRDWWHQGWKHUDOO\SRVWLQJDOLQNWRWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUDUWLFOH³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:K\ <RX0XVW$WWHQGDQG:KDWWR%ULQJDQG1RWWR%ULQJ´$9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHPEHU UHVSRQGHGWR5D\¶VSRVWZLWKDYLROHQWGUDZLQJRI'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKZHDULQJDVKLUWEHDULQJ 1D]LDQG'HIHQGDQW7:3V\PEROVDQGWKHZRUGV³QLJJHUNLOOHU´DERYHDWDOO\RI³FRPPXQLVWV NLOOHG´VPLOLQJLQIURQWRIGHFDSLWDWHGEODFNPHQZHDULQJORJRVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDQWLIDVFLVW PRYHPHQWV


Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 41 of 112

Pageid#: 853


 





  2QHPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDH[SODLQHGRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW VHUYHUDIWHUWKHHYHQWWKDW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKDGFRRUGLQDWHGZLWK'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW 0RYHPHQWEHFDXVHWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHHYHQWZDVDERXWYLROHQFH³,QFYLOOHZHQHHGHGQXPEHUV 160IRXJKWVRKDUGUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHLURSWLFV'RZHQHHGWKHPDWQRUPLHHYHQWV"1R:H QHHGWKHPLQDILJKW"<HV´  ,QDGGLWLRQWRGLUHFWLYHVEHLQJFLUFXODWHGRQ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWV5D\DQG$QJOLQ LVVXHGGLUHFWLYHVXVLQJ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQG,Q DUWLFOHVWLWOHG³2SHUDWLRQDO6HFXULW\IRU5LJKW:LQJ5DOOLHV´DQG³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:K\<RX

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 42 of 112

Pageid#: 854


 





0XVW$WWHQGDQG:KDWWR%ULQJDQG1RWWR%ULQJ´³6WRUPHUV´ZHUHWROGWKDWWKH\ZHUHUHTXLUHG WREULQJWLNLWRUFKHVDQGVKRXOGDOVREULQJSHSSHUVSUD\IODJSROHVIODJVDQGVKLHOGV
 ,QGHHGWKHHYLGHQFHWKDW'HIHQGDQWVZHUHSODQQLQJWRDUPWKHPVHOYHVLQDGYDQFH RIWKH³UDOOLHV´ZDVVRSHUYDVLYHWKDWWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWUHFHLYHGSULYDWH WKUHDWDVVHVVPHQWVIURPWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQLQGLFDWLQJWKDW³8QLWH7KH5LJKW VXSSRUWHUVZRXOGEULQJEDWVEDWRQVIODJVWLFNVNQLYHVDQGILUHDUPVWRFRQIURQWWKHLUSROLWLFDO RSSRQHQWV´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSURYLGHGJXLGDQFHDQGLQVWUXFWLRQVWRFR FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGSDUWLFLSDQWVDERXWKRZWRWU\WRDYRLGWKHOHJDOUDPLILFDWLRQVRIWKHLUYLROHQFH )RUH[DPSOHWKH\VHWXSDFKDQQHORQ'LVFRUGGHYRWHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLQJ9LUJLQLDODZZKHUHRQH FRFRQVSLUDWRUVXJJHVWHGWKDWUDOO\JRHUVEX\VHOIGHIHQVHLQVXUDQFH'HIHQGDQWVDOVRDVVXUHGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVWKDWWKH\ZRXOGEHSURWHFWHGZKHQWKH\HQJDJHGLQYLROHQWDFWVLQWHQGHGLQFLWHG VWUDWHJL]HGDQGHQFRXUDJHGE\'HIHQGDQWV7KH³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´WROGDWWHQGHHVWKDWLIWKH\ IRXQGWKHPVHOYHVDUUHVWHGWKHUHZRXOGEH³PRQH\DQGDOHJDOWHDPVHWDVLGHIRU\RXDIWHU´ 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUSXWRXWDFDOOIRUDWWRUQH\VRQKLVZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRP'DLO\6WRUPHU DGYLVHGDWWHQGHHV
>,@I\RXHQGXSLQVRPHKHDY\VWXIIDQGDUHQRW\HWFKDUJHG ZLWKDQ\WKLQJXVH\RXUPRPHQWVRIIUHHGRPWRJHWUHDOO\GLIILFXOW WRILQG'RQRWZDLWDURXQGIRUEDGSURFHVVHVWREHJLQDJDLQVW\RX ([LW IURP DQ\ ULVN\ VLWXDWLRQ DV TXLFNO\ DV \RX FDQ ,I \RX PDNH \RXUVHOI HDV\ WR VHUYH ZLWK OHJDO SURFHVV OHJDO SURFHVV ZLOO EH OLNHO\EHVHUYHGWR\RX  'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWROGHDFKRWKHUWREULQJVKLHOGVXQLIRUPVIODJV DQGVLJQVGHFRUDWHGZLWKLFRQRJUDSK\WKDWZRXOGLQVWLOOIHDUDORQJUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVOLQHV ZKLOHDOVRLGHQWLI\LQJUDOO\JRHUVZLWKWKHKDWHJURXSVWRZKLFKWKH\EHORQJ7KH7H[DVDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 43 of 112

Pageid#: 855


 





/RXLVLDQDFKDSWHUVRI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDIRUH[DPSOHSODQQHGWRKDYHVKLHOGVZLWK WKHLUORJRVSDLQWHGRQ
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRGLVFXVVHGDQGLQWHQGHGIRUIROORZHUVWRFRPHZLWKSDUDSKHUQDOLD EHDULQJUDFLVWDQGDQWL6HPLWLFLPDJHU\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUIRUH[DPSOHH[SODLQHG³7KH &RQIHGHUDWHIODJLV7+(%(67RSWLFVEHFDXVHLW¶VEHORYHGE\OHJLRQVRI6RXWKHUQHUVZKRDUHRQ WKHGRRUVWHSRIEHFRPLQJMXVWOLNHXVLIZHFDQPRYHWKHPEH\RQGµKHULWDJHQRWKDWH¶´
 7KH³RIILFLDO´SRVWHUIRUWKHHYHQWFRQWDLQHG1D]LDQGFRQIHGHUDWHLFRQRJUDSK\ LQFOXGLQJLPSHULDOHDJOHVUHPLQLVFHQWRI1D]L*HUPDQ\¶VQDWLRQDOHPEOHPFRQIHGHUDWHIODJVDQG PRQXPHQWVDQGFRQIHGHUDWHVROGLHUVLQIRUPDWLRQ


' 'HIHQGDQWV&RRUGLQDWHG)XQGLQJ/RJLVWLFV7UDQVSRUWDWLRQDQG/HJDO6XSSRUW)RU &R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQG$WWHQGHHV
 'HIHQGDQWVIXUWKHUHGWKHLUFRQVSLUDF\DQGLWVLOOHJDOLQMXULRXVREMHFWLYHVE\

FRRUGLQDWLQJDWWHQGDQFHDWWKHUDOO\WKURXJK'LVFRUGWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHDQGRWKHU

PHGLD

 2Q'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWVHVWDEOLVKHGWKHVSRQVRUVBRQO\DQGLBQHHGBDBVSRQVRU

FKDQQHOVWRSURYLGHILQDQFLDOVXSSRUWWRRWKHUVZKRZDQWHGWRWUDYHOWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 44 of 112

Pageid#: 856


 





'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHGFKDQQHOVOLNHFDUSRROBZDQWHGDQGFDUSRROBDYDLODEOHWRRUJDQL]H FDUSRROVLQ³+DWH9DQ>V@´DQG³IXOOEORZQKDWHFRQYR\>V@´
 2QWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHDWWHQGHHVZHUHDGYLVHG³,I\RXZDQWWRFRPHEXW FDQ¶WILQGDZD\JHWRQWKH%%6>D'DLO\6WRUPHUIRUXP@DQGDVNIRUKHOS*RWRWKH%RRN&OXE VHFWLRQDQGILQGWKHQHDUHVWERRNFOXEWR\RXDQGSRVWLQWKDWWKUHDGWKDW\RXZDQWWRJREXWQHHG DVVLVWDQFH,I\RXKDSSHQWRKDYHKLWDGHDGWKUHDGVWDUWDWKUHDGLQ*HQHUDO'LVFXVVLRQDVNLQJ IRUKHOS,I\RXDUHJRLQJDQGKDYHDQH[WUDVHDWRUVHDWVVWDUWDWKUHDGWRRIIHUDULGH´
 &DQWZHOODVNHGOLVWHQHUVRIKLV5DGLFDO$JHQGDSRGFDVWDQGUHDGHUVRIKLVZHEVLWH WRVHQGPRQH\WRKLPLIWKH\³ZDQW>HG@WRKHOS´EXWFRXOGQRWDWWHQGWKH³UDOO\´
 5RRW%RFNVDQG:H6HDUFKU²VLWHVWKDWZHUHVHWXSWRUDLVHPRQH\IRUKDWHEDVHG FDXVHV²IDFLOLWDWHGWKHDWWHQGDQFHRIFRFRQVSLUDWRUV2Q-XO\IRUH[DPSOH5RRW%RFNV WZHHWHG³#%DNHG$ODVNDZDVEDQQHGIURP#*R)XQG0HVRJRKHOSKLPRXWKHUH´%DNHG $ODVNDDND7LP*LRQHWKDVDGYRFDWHGUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVEDVHGYLROHQFHLQFOXGLQJE\ FLUFXODWLQJDQLPDJHRID-HZLVKZRPDQLQDJDVFKDPEHU'DYLG'XNHDOVRWZHHWHG³+HOSP\ IULHQG%DNHG$ODVNDJHWWRWKH8QLWH7KH5LJKWUDOO\3OHDVHGRQDWHWRPDNHWKLVKDSSHQ URRWERFNVFRPSURMHFWVJHWE´

 7KH³+DWH9DQ´DQG³KDWHFRQYR\´VXJJHVWHGE\FRQVSLUDWRUVLQWKLVFDVHKDVKLVWRULFDOSUHFHGHQW'XULQJWKH&LYLO 5LJKWV(UD*HRUJH/LQFROQ5RFNZHOOWKHIRXQGHURIWKH$PHULFDQ1D]L3DUW\DQGKLVVXSSRUWHUVGURYHDWZR YHKLFOHFDUDYDQWKDWLQFOXGHGDEOXHDQGZKLWHYDQGXEEHGWKH³+DWH%XV´WKURXJKWKH6RXWK7KHH[WHULRURIWKH YDQZDVSODVWHUHGZLWKWKHZRUGV³/,1&2/152&.:(//¶6+$7(%86´DQGWKHSKUDVHV³:('2+$7( 5$&(0,;,1*´DQG³:(+$7(-(:&20081,60´5RFNZHOOSOHGJHGVROLGDULW\ZLWKWKH.ODQVPHQZKR DWWDFNHGWKH)UHHGRP5LGHUVEODFNDQGZKLWHFLYLOULJKWVDFWLYLVWVZKRURGHLQWHUVWDWHEXVVHVLQDFDPSDLJQRI GHVHJUHJDWLRQDQGKRSHGWRFRQIURQWWKH³&RPPXQLVWQLJJHUORYLQJ´5LGHUVZKHQWKH\DUULYHGLQ1HZ2UOHDQV,Q 1HZ2UOHDQVWKH\GHPRQVWUDWHGZLWKVLJQVWKDWUHDG³$PHULFDIRU:KLWHV$IULFDIRU%ODFNV´DQG³*DV&KDPEHU IRU7UDLWRUV´$IWHU5RFNZHOO¶VDVVDVVLQDWLRQLQWKH$PHULFDQ1D]L3DUW\EURNHLQWRWZRIDFWLRQVRQHRI ZKLFKEHFDPHWKH'HIHQGDQW160UXQE\'HIHQGDQW6FKRHS6HH5$<021'$56(1$8/7)5(('205,'(56 $1'7+(6758**/()255$&,$/-867,&(



Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 45 of 112

Pageid#: 857


 





 2QWKH$XJXVW³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH8QLWHWKH5LJKW$QQRXQFHPHQW6SHFLDO´SRGFDVW

ZLWK'HIHQGDQW3HLQRYLFK'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WROGOLVWHQHUVWKDWWKH\¶GEHVHWWLQJXSDJHQHUDO

OHJDOIXQGXVLQJ5RRWERFNV2QWKDWVDPHSURJUDP0RVOH\WROGOLVWHQHUVKRZWRJHWKHOSZLWK

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDOVRFRRUGLQDWHGWUDYHOIRUWKHGD\RIWKH³UDOO\´

RQ6DWXUGD\$IWHUFRQVXOWLQJZLWK'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU7\URQHWRRNUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUKHOSLQJ

RUJDQL]HVKXWWOHV2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRULQVWUXFWHG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWV³1RERG\LVJRLQJWRWKH

SDUNRQWKHLURZQ:HZLOOEHDUULYLQJDVDJURXS´

( :KHQ3ODLQWLIIVDQG2WKHUV6RXJKWWR3UHSDUHIRUWKH(YHQWVRI$XJXVW7KH\ :HUH7DUJHWHGIRU$GGLWLRQDO7KUHDWVDQG+DUDVVPHQW
 3ODLQWLIIVDQGFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVXQGHUVWRRGWKDW$XJXVWFRXOGEHDQG

XOWLPDWHO\ZDVWKHODUJHVWSXEOLFJDWKHULQJRIKDWHJURXSVLQGHFDGHV

 $QWLFLSDWLQJDQHHGIRUDGHVLJQDWHGVHSDUDWHVSDFHIRUSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVD

89$SURIHVVRUUHFHLYHGSHUPLWVIRU0F*XIIH\3DUNDQG-XVWLFH3DUNIRUWKHSHULRGVGXULQJ

ZKLFKWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´ZDVWRWDNHSODFH

 $EURDGJURXSRIFRQFHUQHGFLWL]HQVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\UHFRJQL]HG

WKHQHHGWRRUJDQL]HFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVLQDGYDQFHRIWKHUDOO\ZHHNHQGLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHD

VHQVHRIVROLGDULW\IRU&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGJLYHJXLGDQFHRQQRQYLROHQWSURWHVW

 :LVSHOZH\DQRUGDLQHGPLQLVWHUFRFUHDWHGDPHPEHUVKLSRUJDQL]DWLRQ

³&RQJUHJDWH´WRMRLQLQWHUIDLWKFOHUJ\IURPDURXQGWKHFRXQWU\WR³VWDQGDJDLQVWZKLWH

VXSUHPDF\DQGEHDUZLWQHVVWRORYHDQGMXVWLFH´&RQJUHJDWH¶VJRDOZDVWREULQJFOHUJ\

PHPEHUVWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRVWDQGXSIRUHTXDOLW\DQGDJDLQVWKDWH:RUNLQJZLWKRWKHU

UHOLJLRXVOHDGHUVDQGFRPPXQLW\RUJDQL]HUVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQV&RQJUHJDWHSODQQHGDQLQWHUIDLWK

VHUYLFHIRU$XJXVWDW6W3DXO¶V0HPRULDO&KXUFKRQ8QLYHUVLW\$YHQXH³6W3DXO¶V´WKH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 46 of 112

Pageid#: 858


 





QLJKWEHIRUH'HIHQGDQWV¶SHUPLWWRJDWKHULQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN&RQJUHJDWHDOVRKHOSHGSODQDQ LQWHUIDLWK³VXQULVHVHUYLFH´IRU$XJXVWDWWKH$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ)LUVW%DSWLVW&KXUFKRQ:HVW 0DLQ6WUHHWVRWKDWFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVFRXOGJDWKHUIHHOVXSSRUWHGDQGSUD\
 $VDUHVXOWRILWVZRUNLQVXSSRUWRIWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFRPPXQLW\&RQJUHJDWH ZDVWDUJHWHG'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDGYLVHGKLVIROORZHUVRI&RQJUHJDWH¶VZRUNLQDYLGHRUHOHDVHG SULRUWRWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQG,QGRLQJVR.HVVOHULQWHQGHGWRKDYHRWKHUVWKUHDWHQDQG SRWHQWLDOO\FDXVHYLROHQFHWRWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ²DSUDFWLFHWKDWLVQRWXQFRPPRQDPRQJ 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV)RUH[DPSOHDIWHUDSKRWRJUDSKZDVSXEOLVKHGRID\RXQJ ZRPDQJLYLQJWKHPLGGOHILQJHUWRDPDQLQDFRQIHGHUDWHDUP\XQLIRUPDSURPLQHQWPHPEHURI WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVWZHHWHGRXWWKH\RXQJZRPDQ¶VKRPHDGGUHVVDQGZURWH³:HZLOOEH KDYLQJDUDOO\DWWKLVDGGUHVVQH[WZHHN%ULQJ\RXURZQWRUFK´
 2Q$XJXVWRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGRQ'LVFRUGVFUHHQVKRWVIURPD)DFHERRN HYHQWIRUDQXSFRPLQJFRPPXQLW\³%DFNWR6FKRRO%ORFN3DUW\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH+H FRPPHQWHG³1HJUREORFNSDUW\DERXWPLOH6:RI/HHSDUN´)ROORZLQJWKDWSRVWRQH 'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVXJJHVWHGWKDWDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXS³JRWRWKHEORFSDUW\DIWHUDQGEHDW WKHPDWNLFNEDOO´$QRWKHUUHSOLHGDVNLQJ³:KDWKDSSHQVLIZHORVH",KHDUQLJJHUVDUHSUHWW\ JRRGDWVSRUWVEDOO´$WKLUGUHSOLHG³:HVKDQNWKHP´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDORQJZLWKRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSRVWHGYDULRXVSKRWRJUDSKV RQ'LVFRUGDQGSURYLGHGQDPHVDQGLGHQWLI\LQJLQIRUPDWLRQRILQGLYLGXDOVSODQQLQJWRSURWHVWLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDVZHOODVWKHFRPPXQLW\JURXSVRUJDQL]LQJWKHSURWHVW2Q$XJXVW.HVVOHU 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DQGRWKHUVKRVWHGDYRLFHFKDWRQ'LVFRUGGXULQJZKLFKDQXQLGHQWLILHG YRLFHRIIHUHGD³VROLGJROGPHGDO´WRDQ\SHUVRQZKRZRXOGVKDYHWKH³%HDUGHG/DG\´UHIHUULQJ WRDSKRWRJUDSKRIDQH[SHFWHGSURWHVWRU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 47 of 112

Pageid#: 859


 





 &RQJUHJDWLRQ%HWK,VUDHOWKHV\QDJRJXHWRZKLFK3ODLQWLII3HDUFHEHORQJVDOVR OHDUQHGRI'HIHQGDQWV¶RQOLQHSXEOLFWKUHDWVWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶V-HZLVKSRSXODWLRQ,Q UHDVRQDEOHIHDUDQGDSSUHKHQVLRQRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKH7HPSOHPDGHWKH SDLQIXOGHFLVLRQWRPRYHDQGKLGHLWVVDFUHG7RUDKVFUROOVRIIVLWHLQDGYDQFHRIWKHZHHNHQG $PRQJWKH7RUDKVDWWKH6\QDJRJXHZDVRQHVDOYDJHGIURPDQHLJKERUKRRGRI(DVWHUQ(XURSHDQ -HZVZKRZHUHPDVVDFUHGGXULQJWKH+RORFDXVWWKDWLVGLVSOD\HGLQDJODVVFDELQHW 8QIRUWXQDWHO\WKDW+RORFDXVW7RUDKFRXOGQRWEHPRYHGEHFDXVHRILWVIUDJLOHFRQGLWLRQ 3ODLQWLII3HDUFHWKRXJKWDWWKHWLPHRIKRZLURQLFLWZDVWKDWD7RUDKWKDWPDQDJHGWRVXUYLYHWKH +RORFDXVWZDVDJDLQEHLQJWKUHDWHQHGE\1D]LV
 7KH7HPSOHDOVRGHFLGHGLWQHHGHGWRPRYHLWV6DWXUGD\6KDEEDWVHUYLFHVXSDQ KRXUVRWKDWLWFRXOGFORVHLQWKHDIWHUQRRQZKHQ'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVZHUHH[SHFWHGWREHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH7HPSOHWRRNIXUWKHUVDIHW\SUHFDXWLRQV LQFOXGLQJKLULQJDVHFXULW\JXDUGWRNHHSWKHFRQJUHJDWLRQVDIHZKLOHWKH\ZHUHWKHUHIRU VHUYLFHVUHGLUHFWLQJVXEVWDQWLDOUHVRXUFHV
 6WRUHVUHVWDXUDQWVDQGEDUVDURXQGWRZQFUHDWHGVLJQVWKDWWKH\SRVWHGLQWKHLU ZLQGRZVVKRZLQJWKHEXVLQHVVHV¶VXSSRUWIRUHTXDOLW\DQGGLYHUVLW\7KRVHVWRUHVDQG UHVWDXUDQWVZHUHDOVRWDUJHWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV
 ,Q-XQHIRUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUHQFRXUDJHG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVWR REWDLQWKHQDPHVRIORFDOEXVLQHVVHVZKRVHRZQHUVVLJQHGDSHWLWLRQWRDVNWKHJRYHUQPHQWWR FDQFHO.HVVOHU¶VSHUPLW,Q$XJXVWFRFRQVSLUDWRU*ULIILQWZHHWHGDERXWWDUJHWLQJDORFDO UHVWDXUDQW%UD]RV7DFRV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DOVRWZHHWHGDERXWWDUJHWLQJVHYHUDOUHVWDXUDQWV QDPHO\%UD]RV7DFRV&LQHPD7DFR&RPPRQZHDOWK5HVWDXUDQWDQG6N\EDU0XGKRXVHDQGWKH :KLVNH\-DU'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWZHHWHGDSLFWXUHRI&RPPRQZHDOWK5HVWDXUDQWZKLFKKDGD

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 48 of 112

Pageid#: 860


 





VLJQLQWKHZLQGRZUHDGLQJ³,IHTXDOLW\ GLYHUVLW\DUHQ¶WIRU\RXWKHQQHLWKHUDUHZH´2Q $XJXVW'HIHQGDQW3HLQRYLFKWZHHWHG³'RWKHVHZKLWHEXVLQHVVRZQHUVDQGVKLWOLEVLQ&9LOOH WKLQNWKDWWKHLUYLUWXHVLJQDOLQJPHDQWKH\ZLOOEHVSDUHGVRPHKRZ"/RO´
 %\LGHQWLI\LQJWKHVHEXVLQHVVHV'HIHQGDQWVLQWHQGHGWKDWWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV DQGIROORZHUVZRXOGWKUHDWHQWKHVHEXVLQHVVHV$QXPEHURIWKHVHEXVLQHVVHVWKHUHDIWHUUHFHLYHG LQSHUVRQDQGPDLOHGWKUHDWV



Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 49 of 112

Pageid#: 861


 





,, 2Q$XJXVWDQG'HIHQGDQWV6XFFHVVIXOO\,PSOHPHQWHGWKH9LROHQFHDQG ,QWLPLGDWLRQ7KH\+DG3ODQQHG

$ )ULGD\$XJXVW

 7KH³6HFUHW´7RUFK3DUDGH

 'HIHQGDQWVLQFOXGLQJ0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\$QJOLQ&DQWZHOODQG

,QYLFWXVDORQJZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRUJDQL]HGDWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKWKURXJKFDPSXV

FXOPLQDWLQJDWWKHVWDWXHRI7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQQHDUWKH5RWXQGDRQ$XJXVWDWWKH*URXQGVDW

89$

 7KHSHUPLW'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDSSOLHGIRUDQGUHFHLYHGZDVIRUWKHIROORZLQJGD\

$XJXVWLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN'HIHQGDQWVGLGQRWSXEOLFO\GLVFORVHWKHWLPHRUORFDWLRQIRU

WKH$XJXVWWRUFKSDUDGH³EHFDXVHLWZDVDVHFUHWDUUDQJHPHQW´

 7KHWRUFKSDUDGHZDVWKHUHVXOWRIZHHNVRISODQQLQJE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR

FRQVSLUDWRUV7KH\KDGHVWDEOLVKHGDIULGD\BQLJKWFKDQQHORQ'LVFRUGWRFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFH

GUHVVFRGHDQGSODQV7KH\DGYLVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKDWWKHHYHQWZDVLQWHQGHGWREHDVHFUHW

DQGWKDWWKH\VKRXOGEULQJWRUFKHV

 )RUH[DPSOHWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHVWDWHG



7LNL7RUFKHV<HV±UHTXLUHG3LFNXSWLNLWRUFKHVEHIRUH\RXOHDYH \RXUKRPHWRZQ7KHUHZLOOEHDWRUFKOLJKWFHUHPRQ\DQGWKHWLNL WRUFKHVZLOODOOEHJRQHIURPWKHVKHOYHVRIWKHORFDOVWRUHV'ROODU VWRUHVDUH\RXUEHVWEHW:DO0DUWKDVWKHPFKHDSDVZHOO0DNH VXUH DQG JHW VRPH WLNL WRUFK IXHORLO WRR  2WKHUZLVH WKH\ ZRQ¶W EXUQ
 2QDSODQQLQJFDOOFRQGXFWHGWKURXJK'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\LQVWUXFWHG

'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV³:HDUHGRLQJDWRUFKOLJKWHYHQWRQ)ULGD\$Q\RQHZKR

GRHVQ¶WKDYHWLNLVWXIIQRZVKRXOGJRRXWDQGJHWLWWRQLJKWRUWRPRUURZPRUQLQJDQGLI\RX

FRXOGJHWH[WUDVWKDWZRXOGEHJUHDW´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHURUGHUHGDWWHQGHHVWREX\WRUFKHVIRU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 50 of 112

Pageid#: 862


 





)ULGD\EXWWRGRVRRXWVLGHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVRWKDWWKH\ZRXOGQRW³WLSRXUHQHP\RII´+H LQVWUXFWHGWKDWSHRSOH³EX\H[WUDVIRUWKRVHZKRDUHIO\LQJLQRUXQSUHSDUHG´
 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\RUGHUHGLQGLYLGXDOVWRDUULYHDW1DPHOHVV)LHOGDODUJHDUHD EHKLQG89$¶V0HPRULDO*\PQDVLXPDWSPVRWKDWWKH\FRXOGPDUFKRQFHGDUNQHVVIHOO DWSP+HWROGWKHPQRWWRDUULYHHDUOLHUWRDYRLGWLSSLQJRIIFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVDQG VWUHVVHGWKDW³LW¶VH[WUHPHO\LPSRUWDQWWKDWQRERG\PHQWLRQWKLVRXWVLGHRXUFLUFOH´
 :KLOHSODQQLQJWKHLUWRUFKOLJKWPDUFK'HIHQGDQWVZHUHDZDUHRIWKHIDFWWKDW RSHQILUHVDUHLOOHJDORQ89$¶VFDPSXVZLWKRXWDXWKRUL]DWLRQ1HDUO\RQHPRQWKEHIRUHWKH SODQQHGWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKD'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWSRVWHGDOLQNWR89$¶VJXLGHOLQHVDJDLQVWRSHQ ILUHV$FRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGPRGHUDWRURQ'LVFRUG³SLQQHG´WKHUHJXODWLRQWRWKHFKDWPHDQLQJ WKDWLWZDVKLJKOLJKWHGIRUSDUWLFLSDQWV
 7KHFKRLFHWRXVHOLWWRUFKHVZDVDGHOLEHUDWHGHFLVLRQWRKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKH SHRSOHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGFRXQWHUSURWHVWHUVHVSHFLDOO\SHRSOHRIFRORUDQG-HZLVKSHRSOH 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GUHZRQWKHKLVWRU\RIWRUFKEHDULQJPREVDQGLQ SDUWLFXODUWKH.X.OX[.ODQ¶VXVHRIWRUFKHVLQWKHODWHVDQGLQWKHWZHQWLHWKFHQWXU\DQG WKH1D]L¶VXVHRIWRUFKHVLQWKHLUUDOOLHVLQWKHV,QERWKKLVWRULFDOFDVHVMXVWDVZLWKFURVV EXUQLQJWKHXVHRIWRUFKHVZDVFRQQHFWHGZLWKUDFLDOYLROHQFHWRUFKHVZHUHFKRVHQE\ 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDVSDUWRIDGHOLEHUDWHSODQWRHYRNHIHDURIWKHVDPHNLQGRI YLROHQFH$VRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGH[SODLQHG³7LNLWRUFKHVDUHWKHODVWVWDQGRI LPSOLFLWZKLWHQHVV´'HIHQGDQW5D\H[SODLQHGWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHWRUFKSDUDGHDVIROORZV³2XU FRXQWU\LVEHLQJXVXUSHGE\DIRUHLJQWULEHFDOOHGWKH-HZV:HDUHJRLQJWRVWRSLW´'HIHQGDQW ,QYLFWXVH[SODLQHGWRDUHSRUWHU³6RPHERG\IRUJRWWKHSLWFKIRUNVDWKRPHVRDOOZHJRWLV WRUFKHV´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 51 of 112

Pageid#: 863


 





 2QWKHPRUQLQJRI$XJXVW'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV JDWKHUHGDWD:DOPDUWRXWVLGHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&DQWZHOOWKHQWUDYHOOHGWR0F,QWLUH3DUNWR SUHSDUHIRUWKHHYHQLQJ,QDQLQWHUYLHZZLWKDUHSRUWHUIURPVice&DQWZHOOVDLG³,¶PWU\LQJWR PDNHP\VHOIPRUHFDSDEOHRIYLROHQFH,¶PKHUHWRVSUHDGLGHDVWDONLQWKHKRSHVWKDW VRPHERG\PRUHFDSDEOHZLOOFRPHDORQJDQGGRWKDW´
 2Q)ULGD\HYHQLQJXVLQJ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DOHUWHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKDW WKH\VKRXOGJRWR89$³(YHU\RQHFDQVWDUWDVVHPEOLQJDWQDPHOHVVILHOGULJKWQRZZLWK\RXU WRUFKHVWRVWDUWVWDJLQJ:HZLOOVWHSRIIIURPWKHILHOGDWSP´
 6WDUWLQJDURXQGSPDSSUR[LPDWHO\QHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWV²'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV²EHJDQDUULYLQJDW1DPHOHVV)LHOG7KH\ FDUULHGXQOLWWLNLWRUFKHVDQGPDQ\ZRUHNKDNLSDQWVDQGZKLWHSRORVKLUWVWKHXQLIRUPRI 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDQGSLQVPDUNLQJWKHLUDIILOLDWLRQVZLWKGLIIHUHQWKDWHJURXSV$ OLWWOHDIWHUSP'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWH[WHGDUHSRUWHU³,¶GEHQHDUFDPSXVWRQLJKWLI,ZHUH \RX$IWHUSP1DPHOHVVILHOG´
 %\HDUO\HYHQLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVLQVLGH6W3DXO¶V&KXUFKDORQJZLWK DQRYHUIORZFURZGRIDQHVWLPDWHGSHRSOH'R]HQVRIORFDODQGQDWLRQDOFOHUJ\PHPEHUV YLVLWLQJ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRUWKHZHHNHQGSDUWLFLSDWHGDQGVSRNHDWWKHVHUYLFH
 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHDORQJZLWKRWKHU89$VWXGHQWVSHDFHIXOO\ZDONHGWRWKH 5RWXQGDZKHUH'HIHQGDQWVZHUHEHOLHYHGWREHKROGLQJWKHLUHYHQW
 3ODLQWLII1DWDOLH5RPHURKDGVSHQWWKHDIWHUQRRQRI$XJXVWSDLQWLQJEDQQHUV DQGSRVWHUVIRUXVHGXULQJWKHSODQQHGSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRIWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´5RPHURWKHQ OHDUQHGWKDW'HIHQGDQWVZRXOGEHKROGLQJDUDOO\RQWKH89$FDPSXVDWWKH5RWXQGD:LWKD JURXSRIRWKHU89$VWXGHQWV5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\PDGHKHUZD\WRWKH5RWXQGD

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 52 of 112

Pageid#: 864


 





 $WWKHVDPHWLPHDW1DPHOHVV)LHOG3ODLQWLII0DJLOOREVHUYHG'HIHQGDQWVDQG WKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVEDUNLQJDQGJUXQWLQJORXGO\PDNLQJVRXQGVWKDWUHVRQDWHGIRUEORFNV 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO.HVVOHU5D\DQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZHUHLVVXLQJRUGHUVWRWKHRWKHU ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDQGQHR1D]LVWHOOLQJWKHPWRJHWLQVSHFLILFIRUPDWLRQVDQGDVVLJQLQJ SHRSOHHLWKHUWRPDUFKZLWKDWRUFKRURQWKHVLGHDV³VHFXULW\´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVILOOHGWKHLUWLNLWRUFKHVZLWKIXHOIRUPHGD ORQJFROXPQDQGOLWWKHIODPHV7KH\WKHQVWDUWHGPDUFKLQJWZRE\WZRIURP1DPHOHVV)LHOGWR WKH5RWXQGDDQGGRZQWRWKH-HIIHUVRQ6WDWXH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVGHOLEHUDWHO\WRRN DFLUFXLWRXVURXWHWKDWLQFOXGHGPDUFKLQJWKURXJKVWXGHQWKRXVLQJRQWKH/DZQZKLFK3ODLQWLII 6LQHVREVHUYHGDQGZKLFKZDVLQWHQGHGWRWKUHDWHQLQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVVDVPDQ\E\VWDQGHUV DVSRVVLEOH
 'HIHQGDQWVPDUFKHGLQDQRUJDQL]HGFRRUGLQDWHGIDVKLRQ2UJDQL]HUVLQFOXGLQJ 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOZRUHHDUSLHFHVFDUULHGUDGLRVDQGVKRXWHGVSHFLILFRUGHUVDWWKHPDUFKHUV 7KH\VKRXWHGWRNHHSSDFHDYRLGJDSVVWD\LQOLQH³WZRE\WZR´DQGPDUFKDORQJVLGHD ³VHFXULW\JXDUG´'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVVDLGLWZDVD³WLJKWRSHUDWLRQ´DQGLQKLVOLYHYLGHRIHHG IUHTXHQWO\HQWKXVHG³KLJK7´PHDQLQJKLJKWHVWRVWHURQH
 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOPDUFKHGRQWKHRXWVLGHRIWKHFROXPQDORQJZLWKRWKHU ³JXDUGV´ZKRZHUHVHOHFWHGIRUWKHLUZLOOLQJQHVVWR³JHWSK\VLFDO´ZLWKFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV
 3ODLQWLIIV6LQHVDQG5RPHURKHDUGWKHPDUFKHUVFKDQWLQJVORJDQVFKRVHQIRUWKHLU LQWLPLGDWLQJDQGUDFLDOO\KDUDVVLQJHIIHFW7KHVHVORJDQVLQFOXGHG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´ ³-HZVZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´³%ORRGDQGVRLO´³:KLWHOLYHVPDWWHU´DQG³7KLVLVRXUWRZQQRZ´ 5RPHURDOVRKHDUGWKHPDUFKHUVFKDQW³JREDFNWRZKHUH\RXFDPHIURP´DQDSSDUHQWUHIHUHQFH WR5RPHUR¶V+LVSDQLFKHULWDJH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 53 of 112

Pageid#: 865


 





 7KHPDUFKHUVDOVREDUNHGOLNHGRJVDQGSHUIRUPHG1D]LVDOXWHV$JDLQWKHVH DFWLRQVZHUHLQWHQWLRQDOO\FKRVHQIRUWKHLUUDFLDOO\WKUHDWHQLQJLQWLPLGDWLQJDQGKDUDVVLQJHIIHFW
 'HIHQGDQWVLQWHQGHGWRVHQGDFOHDUPHVVDJHWKURXJKWKHWRUFKSDUDGH-HZLVK SHRSOHEODFNSHRSOHDQGWKHLUDOOLHVVKRXOGEHDIUDLGIRUWKHLUVDIHW\OLYHOLKRRGVDQGOLYHV
 7KH$WWDFNDWWKH5RWXQGD  7KHWRUFKPDUFKHYHQWXDOO\UHDFKHGWKHVWHSVRQWKHIDUVLGHRIWKH5RWXQGD +XQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVLQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG6SHQFHU FKDUJHGWRZDUGDVPDOOJURXSRIIHZHUWKDQSHRSOHPRVWO\VWXGHQWVDQGFRPPXQLW\ PHPEHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RHDQG5RPHURZKRKDGORFNHGDUPVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHRI 7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQ  $V'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUXVKHGGRZQWKHVWHSVWKDWVXUURXQGWKH 5RWXQGDDQGVWUHDPHGWRZDUGWKH-HIIHUVRQVWDWXHWKH\FRQWLQXHGWRVKRXW³%ORRGDQGVRLO´ ³-HZVZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQGWREDUNOLNHGRJV7KH\DOVRPDGH PRQNH\QRLVHVDWWKHEODFNSURWHVWHUV3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHRQHRIWKHIHZ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQPHQ SUHVHQWZDVWHUULILHGDQGIHDUHGIRUKLVOLIH3ODLQWLII5RPHURRQHRIWKHIHZ+LVSDQLF $PHULFDQVSUHVHQWKDGQHYHUEHHQPRUHDIUDLGLQKHUHQWLUHOLIH  $VWKH\UHDFKHGWKHVWDWXH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVWRRGVKRXOGHUWR VKRXOGHUDQGHQFLUFOHGWKHVWXGHQWVWRWUDSWKHP6HHLQJWKHPREVXUURXQGWKHVWXGHQWV3ODLQWLII 0DJLOOZKRKDGIROORZHGWKHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDQGZDVZDUQLQJRWKHUVWRVWHHUFOHDUUDQ WKURXJKWKHFURZGDQGORFNHGDUPVZLWKWKHVPDOOJURXSZKLFKLQFOXGHG3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RHDQG 5RPHUR2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRU\HOOHG³ZHQHHGVRPHPRUHSHRSOHWRILOOLQWKLVZD\WREORFN WKHVHSHRSOHRII´$IWHUWKHIDFWRQHSURWHVWRUWZHHWHG³7KH\VXUURXQGHGXVDWWKHVWDWXH7KH\ ZRXOGQ¶WOHWXVRXW´'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUUHWZHHWHGWKLVDGGLQJ³)DFWFKHFNWUXH´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 54 of 112

Pageid#: 866


 





 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFD¶V6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUG VHUYHUSRVWHGDWZHHWIURP+DWHZDWFKVD\LQJ³$QWLIDVFLVWVDUHVXUURXQGHGE\KXQGUHGVRI IDVFLVWVDW-HIIHUVRQVWDWXH1RSROLFH´$QRWKHUUHSOLHG³'2,77,0(723+<6,&$//< 5(029(7+(0´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVEHJDQWRNLFNDQGSXQFKWKHSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKH VWDWXHXVLQJWKHLUWRUFKHVDVZHDSRQVDQGWREHDWLQGLYLGXDOVRQWRWKHJURXQG'HIHQGDQW5D\ FODLPHGWKDWWKHJURXSRIZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWV³ZHQWWKURXJK>WKHSURWHVWRUV@OLNHVKLWWKURXJKD JRRVH´
 )URPWKHFURZG'HIHQGDQWVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVWKUHZDQXQLGHQWLILHG IOXLGDWWKHSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHLQFOXGLQJRQ3ODLQWLIIV0DJLOO-RKQ'RHDQG 5RPHUR/RRNLQJGRZQDWWKHIOXLGRQWKHLUFORWKLQJZKLFKWKH\IHDUHGZDVIXHORURWKHU IODPPDEOHOLTXLGDQGWKHKXQGUHGVRIOLWWRUFKHVDURXQGWKHP0DJLOODQG-RKQ'RHEHOLHYHG WKDWWKH\PLJKWEHNLOOHG&R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVWKHQWKUHZWKHLUOLWWRUFKHVWKURXJKWKHDLU DLPHGDQGGLUHFWHGDWPDQ\RIWKHSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXH$WRQHSRLQW'HIHQGDQW5D\ VKRXWHG³7KHKHDWKHUHLVQRWKLQJFRPSDUHGWRZKDW\RX¶UHJRLQJWRJHWLQWKHRYHQV´
 3ODLQWLII6LQHVZLWQHVVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKURZLQJIXHODQGWLNLWRUFKHVDWWKH SHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXWH
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURZLWQHVVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHPRYLQJWKHLUKHOPHWVDQGVZLQJLQJ WKHPDWSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUV5RPHURZDVDOVRVSLWRQE\FRFRQVSLUDWRUV
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODWWDFNHGWKH SURWHVWRUVZLWKPDFH7KH'DLO\6WRUPHULQFOXGHGWKHEHORZSKRWRRI&DQWZHOOVSUD\LQJD SURWHVWRULQWKHH\HVLQLWVOLYHIHHGZLWKWKHFDSWLRQ³PLJKWEHWKHJUHDWHVWSKRWR,¶YHHYHU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 55 of 112

Pageid#: 867


 





VHHQ´7KHVDPHSKRWRZDVUHWZHHWHGE\'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\XQGHUDFDSWLRQ³+HSURWHFW+H DWDFN%XWPRVWLPSRUWDQWO\KHJRW\RXUEDFN´

  'XHWR'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQGXFWDQGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLULQWHQWLRQWRWHUURUL]H 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHIHDUHGWKDWKHZDVLQLPPLQHQWGDQJHU(QFLUFOHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUV-RKQ'RHIHOWWUDSSHGDQGGLGQRWEHOLHYHWKDWKHFRXOGHVFDSHVDIHO\+HNQHZWKDW DVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQPDQLIKHKDGWULHGWRHVFDSHEHIRUHWKHJURXSGLVSHUVHGKHZRXOGKDYH EHHQDWWDFNHG)RUDSSUR[LPDWHO\WHQPLQXWHVKHUHPDLQHGLQSODFHDQGZKLOHFRQILQHGZLWKLQ WKHFLUFOHRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZDVVSUD\HGZLWKPDFH  )HDULQJIRUWKHLUOLYHV3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RH5RPHURDQGWKHRWKHUSURWHVWHUV VWUXJJOHGWRHVFDSHWKHPRE2QFHDZD\IURPWKHPRE5RPHURDWWHPSWHGWRZDVKRIIWKHPDFH WKDWKDGEHHQVSUD\HGLQKHUH\HVDQGDOORYHUKHUVKRXOGHUVE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV $IWHUWKHWUDXPDRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\5RPHURKDGWURXEOHVOHHSLQJWKDWQLJKW

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 56 of 112

Pageid#: 868


 





 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFOLPEHGWRWKHWRSRIWKH7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQ VWDWXHDQGZDYHGWKHLUWRUFKHVKLJKLQWKHDLU\HOOLQJ³+DLO6SHQFHU+DLOYLFWRU\´'HIHQGDQW 6SHQFHUVSRNHEULHIO\WRWKHFURZGVD\LQJ³:HRZQWKHVHVWUHHWV:HRFFXS\WKLVJURXQG´ +HWROGWKHFURZGWKDWWKH\ZHUH³ULVNLQJWKHLUOLYHV´IRUWKHLUIXWXUH7KLVZDVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKHXQODZIXOSODQGHYHORSHGE\'HIHQGDQWVWKURXJKWKHLUFRQVSLUDWRULDODFWVLQWKHZHHNVDQG PRQWKVSUHFHGLQJWKHVHHYHQWVDQGDVRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGDQGPRGLILHGE\'HIHQGDQWVLQUHVSRQVH WRGHYHORSPHQWVRQWKHJURXQG
 7KHVHDFWVRIYLROHQFHZHUHQRWLVRODWHGRUXQSODQQHGLQFLGHQWV7KHWRUFKUDOO\ ZDVSODQQHGZLWKWKHVSHFLILFLQWHQWRIHQJDJLQJLQUDFLDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHWKUHDWV LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQW7KHDWWDFNVXSRQWKHVWXGHQWVZHUHFRRUGLQDWHGERWKLQDGYDQFH DQGRQWKHGD\WKDWWKH\RFFXUUHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQWHQWLRQDOO\IRUPHGDFLUFOH WUDSSLQJWKHVWXGHQWVDQGHLWKHUGLUHFWO\SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHHQVXLQJYLROHQFHRUFRQWLQXHGWR LQFLWHLW²LQFOXGLQJWKURXJKWKHFKDQWVGHVFULEHGDERYH²DVWKHYLROHQFHZDVRFFXUULQJ
 6W3DXO¶V0HPRULDO&KXUFK  'XULQJWKHDWWDFNDWWKH5RWXQGDKXQGUHGVRISHRSOHZHUHDFURVVWKHVWUHHWDW6W 3DXO¶V&KXUFKOLVWHQLQJWRFLYLOULJKWVDQGUHOLJLRXVOHDGHUVVSHDNRISHDFHDQGHTXDOLW\$WOHDVW RQHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW'HIHQGDQWV¶FRFRQVSLUDWRUZDVZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKOLYHVWUHDPLQJWKH LQWHUIDLWKVHUYLFHWRKLVIROORZHUV  6RPHRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOVZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DORQJ ZLWKSHRSOHZKRKDGYROXQWHHUHGWRVHUYHLQDVHFXULW\UROHRXWVLGHWKHFKXUFKFRXOGVHHDQG KHDUWKHPREFKDUJLQJWKURXJKWKH5RWXQGDFKDQWLQJDQGZLHOGLQJWRUFKHV  $IWHUVHHLQJWKHPREVXUURXQGDQGDWWDFNWKHSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVDWWKH 5RWXQGD3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUVZHUHUHDVRQDEO\DIUDLGWKDWWKHPREZRXOGFRPH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 57 of 112

Pageid#: 869


 





WRZDUGVWKHFKXUFKWRFDXVHYLROHQFHWRWKHEXLOGLQJDQGWKHLQGLYLGXDOVLQVLGHSDUWLFXODUO\JLYHQ WKHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPDNHXSRIWKHDVVHPEOHGJURXSDQGWKHIDFWWKDW'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUKDG VSHFLILFDOO\WDUJHWHG&RQJUHJDWHLQDGYDQFHIRUKDUDVVPHQWDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQ
 $WDURXQGSPZKHQWKHVHUYLFHDW6W3DXO¶VHQGHGWKHRUJDQL]HUVDVNHG HYHU\RQHLQDWWHQGDQFHWROHDYHLQJURXSVWKURXJKWKHEDFNGRRUVWRDYRLGWKHQHR1D]LVDQG ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWV+RZHYHUDIWHUOHDUQLQJPRUHGHWDLOVRIWKHYLROHQFHRFFXUULQJDWWKH 5RWXQGD3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\UHDVRQDEO\DSSUHKHQGHGWKDWIRUFHZRXOGEHXVHGDJDLQVWWKRVH VWLOOZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKLIWKH\ZHQWRXWVLGH7KHFKXUFKZDVILOOHGZLWKFKLOGUHQDQGHOGHUO\ LQGLYLGXDOVZKRZHUHSDUWLFXODUO\YXOQHUDEOHWRDQ\YLROHQFHWKDWFRXOGRFFXU$FFRUGLQJO\D IHZPLQXWHVODWHUHYHU\RQHDW6W3DXO¶VZDVDVNHGWRUHWXUQWRWKHLUVHDWV7KH\UHPDLQHGLQWKH FKXUFKIRUQHDUO\DQKRXUDIWHUWKHVHUYLFHZDVVXSSRVHGWRHQG
 $IWHUWKHFKXUFKUHRSHQHGLWVGRRUV3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\GURYHVRPHRIKLV IHOORZFOHUJ\EDFNWRWKHLUKRWHOVWRPDNHVXUHWKH\ZHUHVDIH)URPKLVFDU:LVSHOZH\VDZFR FRQVSLUDWRUVFDUU\LQJEDVHEDOOEDWVDQGWRUFKHV²FDUULHGIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKUHDWHQLQJ LQWLPLGDWLQJDQGKDUDVVLQJUHVLGHQWV
 'LUHFWO\RXWVLGHRIWKH*UDGXDWH+RWHO3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\VDZ'HIHQGDQW $XJXVW,QYLFWXVKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWHDIULHQG,QYLFWXVWKHQZDONHGWRZDUGV:LVSHOZH\ZKR ZDVZHDULQJDFROODUXQWLOWKH\ZHUHPHUHLQFKHVDSDUW,QYLFWXVNHSWPRYLQJIRUZDUGHYHQDV :LVSHOZH\SXOOHGEDFN2QFHKHZDVGLUHFWO\IDFHWRIDFHZLWK:LVSHOZH\,QYLFWXVEHJDQ GHPDQGLQJLQDFKDOOHQJLQJDQGKLJKO\DJJUHVVLYHWRQHWKDW:LVSHOZH\UHYHDOZKDWFKXUFKKH EHORQJVWR'HIHQGDQW$XJXVWXV,QYLFWXVWKHQDVNHG³:KDWWKHKHOODUH\RXGRLQJ´DQG FRQWLQXHGKRXQGLQJ:LVSHOZH\WRVWDWHKLVFKXUFKGHQRPLQDWLRQ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 58 of 112

Pageid#: 870


 





 'HIHQGDQWV&HOHEUDWHGWKH7RUFK3DUDGHDVDQ$GYHUWLVHPHQWIRUWKH³8QLWHWKH 5LJKW´5DOO\WKH)ROORZLQJ'D\
 'DYLG'XNHWKHIRUPHU*UDQG:L]DUGRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU
SRVWHGWKHIROORZLQJ

  &RFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQSRVWHGDSKRWRRIWKHPDUFKDQGWZHHWHG³:KLWH SHRSOHVQHYHUDJUHHGWREHFRPHPLQRULWLHVLQWKHLURZQODQGVLQQXPEHUVDQGVSLULW´'HIHQGDQW .HVVOHUWZHHWHGDSLFWXUHRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKHUVVXUURXQGLQJWKHSURWHVWRUVDWWKHVWDWXHDQG ZURWH³,QFUHGLEOHPRPHQWIRUZKLWHSHRSOHZKR¶YHKDGLWXSWRKHUH DUHQ¶WJRLQJWRWDNHLW DQ\PRUH7RPRUURZZH8QLWH7KH5LJKW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´6SHQFHUUHWZHHWHGWKDWWZHHW

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 59 of 112

Pageid#: 871


 





  &RFRQVSLUDWRU7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG $PHULFDNHSWKLVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQIRUPHGRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHUSRVWLQJ³$OO 9$PHPEHUVVDIHDQGDFFRXQWHGIRU´ZKLOHDQRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUZURWH³,KDGDORWRIIXQ WRQLJKW&DQ¶WZDLWIRUWKHELJHYHQWWRPRUURZ´  'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVWROGZDWFKHUVRIKLVOLYHVWUHDPWRFRPHRQ6DWXUGD\WRWKH PRVWLPSRUWDQW³UDOO\´RIWKH\HDU$QWLFLSDWLQJDQGVWUDWHJL]LQJYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQ ZURWHRQKLV'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHWKDWSHRSOHVKRXOG³EHDW/HH3DUNE\QRRQSUHIHUDEO\E\ ´$OWKRXJKKHZRXOGQ¶WEHWKHUH$QJOLQVDLGWKDWKHKDGJLYHQ'HIHQGDQW5D\ZRUGVWR UHOD\WRWKHFURZG+HWROGUHDGHUV³0DNHVXUH\RX¶UHZLWKDFUHZ'RQ¶WSDUNDORQHGRQ¶W ZDONWR\RXUFDUDORQH,I\RXZDQQDVWD\XSDOOQLJKWZLWK6WRUPHUVRUDUUDQJHWRWUDYHOWR WKHSDUNWRJHWKHUWRPRUURZJHWLQWKLVWKUHDGDQGVWDUWVHQGLQJSHRSOH30V´+HVLJQHGRIIIRU WKHHYHQLQJVD\LQJ³>Z@HDUHRQWKHYHUJHRIEUHDNLQJWKURXJKLQWRDZKROHRWKHUUHDOP´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 60 of 112

Pageid#: 872


 





% 6DWXUGD\$XJXVW  'HIHQGDQWV,QWHQWLRQDOO\3ODQQHG$9LROHQW&RQIURQWDWLRQ:LWK&RXQWHU 3URWHVWHUV  2Q$XJXVW'HIHQGDQWVWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVDFWLQJDWWKHLU
GLUHFWLRQH[HFXWHGWKHLUSODQWRFDUU\RXWUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG KDUDVVPHQW'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU&DQWZHOO0RVOH\+HLPEDFK+LOO,QYLFWXV5D\6SHQFHU 'DPLJR3HLQRYLFK)LHOGV3DUURWW7XEEVWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK160 7:39DQJXDUGWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVWKH/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV)2$.DQGKXQGUHGVRI 6WRUPHUVPDQ\RIWKHPIURP6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEVDOOSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVRIWKH GD\WRJHWKHUZLWKFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQFOXGLQJ'XNHDQGWKH3URXG%R\V
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSODQQHGWRDUULYHHDUO\DQGDQWLFLSDWHGDQG HQFRXUDJHGWKHXVHRIYLROHQFHWRDVVLVWWKHUDOO\$VRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUH[SODLQHG³0HWKH UHVWRI7:3DQG/6>/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK@KDYHEHHQWRPRUHWKDQRQHURGHR$QGVKLW160 ZLOOEHWKHUHHDUO\WRR7KRVHJX\VDUHQXWV,QDJRRGZD\´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUSURPLVHGWKDW WKHUHZRXOGEHKXQGUHGVRIPHPEHUVRI7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDWWKHSDUNDVHDUO\DV DP
 'HIHQGDQWV0RVOH\.HVVOHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVH[KRUWHGUDOO\JRHUVWRDUULYH EHIRUHWKHSDUNRSHQHGWRIRUP³DZKLWHEORFEDUULHURUVTXDUHDURXQGWKHHQWLUHVWDWXHSRGLXP JLYHQWKDWWKH\NQRZZH¶UHFRPLQJZH¶OODOOQHHGDVPDQ\SHRSOHDVSRVVLEOHWREHWKHUH ULJKWZKHQWKHSDUNRSHQV´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUWROG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWV³(9(5<21(QHHGVWRJHWWRWKH SDUNDVHDUO\DVSRVVLEOHDQGGHIHQGRXUWHUULWRU\´+HVXJJHVWHGWKDWFDPSLQJRXWDWWKH PRQXPHQWWKHQLJKWEHIRUHZRXOGJLYHWKHP³>W@KHPRVWH[WUHPHO\SUHSDUHGSRVLWLRQ´,QWKHVH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 61 of 112

Pageid#: 873


 





UHPDUNV.HVVOHUUHIHUUHGWRDQGDFWLYHO\HQFRXUDJHGSUHSDUDWLRQIRUYLROHQFHDJDLQVWUDFLDODQG

UHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGDQ\RQHZKRVXSSRUWHGWKHLUFDXVH

 $FRFRQVSLUDWRUDVNHGWKH'LVFRUGJURXS³6RDUHZHJRLQJWRRFFXS\YHU\

HDUO\"2UWU\DQGIRUFHWKLVFRPPLHVFXPRXWDIWHUWKHIDFW",¶PJRRGZLWKHLWKHU´$QRWKHU

SDUWLFLSDQWUHVSRQGHG³:HZLOOEHILQHDVORQJDVZHKDYHERGLHVWKHUHDQGZLOOLQJWRUHPRYH

ZKRHYHULVLQRXUZD\9DQJXDUGLVIDEULFDWLQJDGGLWLRQDOVKLHOGV:HVKRXOGKDYHDJRRG

DPRXQWEHWZHHQRUJDQL]DWLRQV:HMXVWQHHGWRPDNHVXUHZHKDYHERGLHVWKHUHUHDG\WRURFN´

 &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRQVSLUDF\¶VHIIRUWWRRUJDQL]HDQGPD[LPL]HYLROHQWDFWVD

FRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGPRGHUDWRURQ'LVFRUGWROGSDUWLFLSDQWV³ZH¶OOEHSXWWLQJRXWDYLGHRIRUEDVLF

IRUPDWLRQUROHVDQGFRPPDQGVWRDOORIWKHJURXSOHDGHUVVKRUWO\´DQGSRVWHGD³6KLHOGV 

6KLHOG7DFWLFV3ULPHU´PDGHE\WKH³'HWURLW5LJKW:LQJV´DVZHOODVDYLGHRLOOXVWUDWLQJVKLHOG

ILJKWLQJWHFKQLTXHVWREHVWXGLHGE\SDUWLFLSDQWV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VDLG³,UXQWKLV>WKH8QLWH

WKH5LJKW³UDOO\´@DVDPLOLWDU\RSHUDWLRQ,ZDVLQWKHDUP\´

 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWRUDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHLQWLPLGDWLQJ

WKUHDWHQLQJDQGRWKHUZLVHLOOHJDOFRQGXFWWKH\NQHZZDVEHLQJSODQQHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHG

 7KH(YHQWV2Q$XJXVW:HUH,QWHQWLRQDOO\9LROHQW,Q$FFRUGDQFHZLWK 'HIHQGDQWV¶3ODQQLQJ

 $FFRUGLQJWRIRUPHU&KDUORWWHVYLOOH3ROLFH&KLHI$O67KRPDV-U'HIHQGDQWV

UHIXVHGWRIROORZDSODQWKDWKDGEHHQZRUNHGRXWWRNHHSWKHPVHSDUDWHGIURPWKHFRXQWHU

SURWHVWHUV)RUH[DPSOHLQVWHDGRIHQWHULQJWKHSDUNIURPRQHHQWUDQFHWKH\FDPHLQIURPDOO

VLGHV

 0RVWRIWKH'HIHQGDQWJURXSVDUULYHGLQPLOLWDU\IRUPDWLRQVDUPHGOLNH

SDUDPLOLWDU\IRUFHV²FDUU\LQJDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVJXQVVKLHOGVSURWHFWLYHJHDUIODJVDQGURGV

7KH\VKRXWHGFRPPDQGVDWWKHLUJURXSVWR³PRYHIRUZDUG´RU³UHWUHDW´*RYHUQRU7HUU\

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 62 of 112

Pageid#: 874


 





0F$XOLIIHVWDWHGWKDW³SHUFHQWRIWKHSHRSOHKHUHKDGVHPLDXWRPDWLFZHDSRQV\RXVDZWKH PLOLWLDZDONLQJGRZQWKHVWUHHW\RXZRXOGKDYHWKRXJKWWKH\ZHUHDQDUP\´
 )RXUPHPEHUVRI'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK1607:3 DQG9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHWDWDSUHVHWORFDWLRQLQRUGHUWRPDUFKWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQ IRUPDWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPDUFKHGWRWKH3DUNILUVWFKDQWLQJ³%ORRGDQG VRLO´0HPEHUVRIWKHJURXSZHUHLQXQLIRUPVDVLQVWUXFWHGGUHVVHGLQKHOPHWVZKLWHRUEODFN SRORVDQGNKDNLVDQGZLHOGHGPDWFKLQJVKLHOGVDQGIODJV'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKRZDVZHDULQJ WKHXQLIRUPZKLWHSRORNKDNLVDQGFDUU\LQJDEODFNVKLHOGZLWKWKH9DQJXDUGORJRPDUFKHG ZLWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFD
 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOHGE\GHIHQGDQW0LFKDHO+LOOIROORZHG/LNH 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKH\PDUFKHGZLWKFRRUGLQDWHGVKLHOGVDQGIODJVDQGFDUULHGURGV DQGRWKHUZHDSRQV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 63 of 112

Pageid#: 875


 





  2QHPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKH[SODLQHGWKDWKHDWWHQGHGWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´EHFDXVH³,LQWHQGWRVWDQGIRUWKH6RXWKDQGGLHIRULWLIQHHGEH7KH\ ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´  'HIHQGDQW7:3PDUFKHGEHKLQG'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDQG'HIHQGDQW 3DUURWWPDUFKHGZLWK7:3'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKJXLGHGWKHJURXSZHDULQJDEODFNFRPEDW KHOPHWZLWKDERG\JXDUGFORVHRQKLVKHHOV  $VWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSVDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV PDUFKHGWRZDUGV(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNWKH\VKRXWHGWKUHDWHQLQJKDUDVVLQJDQGLQWLPLGDWLQJ ODQJXDJHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVDQGSURWHVWHUVRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQDQG HWKQLFLW\RUWKHLUVXSSRUWIRUSHRSOHRIGLIIHUHQWUDFHVUHOLJLRQVDQGHWKQLFLWLHV7KHVHLQFOXGHG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 64 of 112

Pageid#: 876


 





VWDWHPHQWVOLNH³*HWWKHIXFNRXWRIRXUFRXQWU\ELWFKHV<HDKFRPHXSWRPH&RPHXSWRPH ELWFK´
 0DUFKLQJGRZQ-HIIHUVRQ6WUHHW'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSDVVHGWKH V\QDJRJXHZKHUH3ODLQWLII3HDUFHLVDPHPEHU'XULQJWKH6KDEEDWVHUYLFHVWKUHHFR FRQVSLUDWRUVLQXQLIRUPVDQGVHPLDXWRPDWLFULIOHVVWRRGDFURVVIURPWKHWHPSOH$VRWKHUV SDUDGHGSDVWWKH\VKRXWHG³7KHUH¶VWKHV\QDJRJXH´IROORZHGE\FKDQWVRI³6LHJ+HLO´DQG RWKHUDQWL6HPLWLFODQJXDJH6RPHFDUULHGIODJVZLWKVZDVWLNDVDQGRWKHU1D]LV\PEROV 'HIHQGDQW5D\LQWHQGLQJWRWKUHDWHQLQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶V-HZLVKSRSXODWLRQ FDUULHGDEDQQHUODWHUSRVWHGRQ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHWKDWUHDG³*DVWKHNLNHVUDFHZDU QRZ´'HIHQGDQW5D\DOVRWROGDZRPDQWR³SXWRQDIXFNLQJEXUND´DQGFDOOHGKHUD³VKDULD ZKRUH´+HHQGHGE\SURFODLPLQJ³+LWOHUGLGQRWKLQJZURQJ´7KHVHDFWVZHUHIXOO\FRQVLVWHQW ZLWKWKHEURDGHUFDPSDLJQRIUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVVXSSUHVVLRQDWWKHKHDUWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶ FRQVSLUDF\
 /DWHUWKDWGD\LQDWKUHDGZLWK'DLO\6WRUPHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVXJJHVWHGPHHWLQJ DWSPWR³WRUFKWKRVH-HZLVKPRQVWHUV´$IWHUVHHLQJWKHLUH[FKDQJHWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH PD\RUPDGHDIUDQWLFDSSHDOWRWKH6HFUHWDU\RI3XEOLF6DIHW\DVNLQJIRUSROLFHSURWHFWLRQDWWKH 7HPSOH

 $VPDGHFOHDULQWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU³VW\OHJXLGH´UHIHUHQFHVOLNHWKLVDUHRQO\PHDQWWRVHHPK\SHUEROLFWRWKH XQLQLWLDWHG7KH'DLO\6WRUPHULVDZDUHWKDW³>P@RVWSHRSOHDUHQRWFRPIRUWDEOHZLWKPDWHULDOWKDWFRPHVDFURVVDV YLWULROLFUDJLQJQRQLURQLFKDWUHG´DQGVR³>W@KHXQGRFWULQDWHGVKRXOGQRWEHDEOHWRWHOOLIZHDUHMRNLQJRUQRW 7KHUHVKRXOGDOVREHDFRQVFLRXVDZDUHQHVVRIPRFNLQJVWHUHRW\SHVRIKDWHIXOUDFLVWV´%XWDFFRUGLQJWR'HIHQGDQW $QGUHZ$QJOLQZKRGUDIWHGWKHVW\OHJXLGH³>W@KLVLVREYLRXVO\DSOR\DQG,DFWXDOO\GRZDQWWRJDVNLNHV´

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 65 of 112 Pageid#: 877


 





  %\FRQWUDVW3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\KDGRUJDQL]HGDDPLQWHUIDLWKSUD\HU ³VXQULVH´VHUYLFHWKDWZDVKHOGDWWKHKLVWRULFDO$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ)LUVW%DSWLVW&KXUFKRQ:HVW 0DLQ6WUHHW  $IWHUWKHVHUYLFHDQXPEHURIFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVOHIWWKHFKXUFKWRKROGD SHDFHIXOPDUFKIURPWKHQHDUE\-HIIHUVRQ6FKRRO$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ+HULWDJH&HQWHUWR 0F*XIIH\3DUN2WKHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\VLOHQWO\PDUFKHGZLWKRWKHUFOHUJ\ PHPEHUVGLUHFWO\IURPWKHVXQULVHVHUYLFHWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 66 of 112

Pageid#: 878


 





  :KHQ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGKLVIHOORZFOHUJ\DUULYHGDW(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN DURXQGDPWKH\ZHUHFRQIURQWHGE\KHDYLO\DUPHGPLOLWLDPHQDQGH[WUHPLVWVPDQ\LQIXOO PLOLWDU\DWWLUHZLWKVHPLDXWRPDWLFULIOHVDQGSLVWROV3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUFOHUJ\ PHPEHUVORFNHGDUPVDQGNQHOWEHIRUHWKHP  $VWKH\KDGSODQQHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDSSURDFKHG (PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQFRRUGLQDWHGZDYHVRISDVVHQJHUYDQV'HIHQGDQW3HLQRYLFKIODQNHGE\ KLV³VHFXULW\WHDP´DSSURDFKHG(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQWKH³WKLUGRUWKHIRXUWKZDYH´  &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLUHODERUDWHSODQQLQJDQGOHVVRQVLQEDWWOHILHOGWDFWLFV 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFKDUJHGWKURXJKWKHSHDFHIXOFOHUJ\ZKHQWKH\DUULYHGDW WKHSDUN0DQ\RIWKHFOHUJ\ZHUHSXVKHGWRWKHJURXQGDQG3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVNQRFNHG LQWRDEXVK$FRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRRGVWDULQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\GLUHFWO\LQWKHH\HVDQG UHSHDWHGO\VKRXWLQJ³IXFN\RXIDJJRW´DWKLP

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 67 of 112

Pageid#: 879


 





 7KHYLROHQFHE\WKH'HIHQGDQWVDWWKHHQWUDQFHWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNIROORZHGD FRQVLVWHQWSDWWHUQDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUSUHVHWSODQ7KH'HIHQGDQWVZRXOG³XVHVKLHOGVIODJVRU ILVWV´WREUHDNWKURXJKWKHEORFNDGHRIFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZRXOGVXFFHHGLQHQWHULQJWKHSDUN DQGWKHQDQRWKHUZDYHZRXOGDUULYH,QEHWZHHQHDFKZDYHFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZRXOGDWWHPSWWR UHDVVHPEOHEHIRUHWKHQH[WDUULYHG7KLVSOD\HGRXWDWOHDVWKDOIDGR]HQWLPHV
 $IWHUWKHEHLQJDVVDXOWHG3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUFOHUJ\ZHUHDIUDLGWKDW WKH\FRXOGJHWVHULRXVO\LQMXUHGRUZRXOGVXIIHUDQRWKHUPRUHVHULRXVDWWDFN$VDUHVXOWRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV¶DFWLRQVDQGDVWKHYLROHQFHHVFDODWHG3ODLQWLII :LVSHOZH\ZDVIRUFHGWRHQGKLVSHDFHIXOSURWHVWDQGOHDYHWKHSDUNZKHUHKHDQGRWKHUVZHUH ODZIXOO\VWDQGLQJ
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURH[SHULHQFHGDVLPLODUDWWDFNE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFR FRQVSLUDWRUV+DYLQJOLQNHGDUPVZLWKDJURXSRIZRPHQIDFLQJ'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVZKRZHUHFODGLQVKLHOGVDQGKHOPHWVRXWVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN5RPHURZDV SXVKHGDJDLQVWDSROLFHFDUDVWKH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVRXJKWWRPRYHWKURXJK 5RPHUR¶VJURXS'XULQJWKLVDVVDXOW5RPHURZDVDOVRVSLWRQ
 'HIHQGDQWVEUDJJHGDERXWWKHLUYLROHQFHDIWHUWKHIDFW'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWIRU H[DPSOHZURWHDQDFFRXQWRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ³&DWFKHULQWKH5HLFK0\$FFRXQW RIP\([SHULHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´+HZURWHWKDW'HIHQGDQWV7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK 160DQGRWKHU1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSVMRLQHGWRJHWKHU³WRKHOSFUHDWHWZRVKLHOGZDOOV´IRU ³WKHILJKW´+HH[SODLQHG³:KLOHPRVWRIWKH,GHQWLW\(YURSDPHQZHUHRFFXSLHGRQRWKHU IURQWVWKH\VHQWDGHWDFKPHQWRIILJKWHUVWRDVVLVWXVDQGWRUHOD\LQWHOOLJHQFHWR-DVRQ.HVVOHU DQGRWKHURUJDQL]HUV7KH\RIIHUHGPRUHILJKWHUVEXWZHKDGRXUSRVLWLRQVDPSO\FRYHUHG´+H IXUWKHUVDLGLQDQLQWHUYLHZZLWKWKHLos Angeles Times

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 68 of 112

Pageid#: 880


 





:LWK D IXOOWKURDWHG UHEHO \HOO WKH /HDJXH EURNH WKURXJK WKH ZDOO RI GHJHQHUDWHV DQG 7UDG:RUNHU PDQDJHG WR HQWHU WKH /HH 3DUN YHQXHLWVHOIZKLOHWKH\ZHUHODUJHO\VWLOOUHHOLQJ0LFKDHO7XEEVDQ HVSHFLDOO\ LPSRVLQJ /HDJXH RUJDQL]HU WRZHUHG RYHU DQG SXVKHG WKURXJK WKH DQWLID OLNH D 7\UDQQRVDXUXV DPRQJ UDSWRUV DV OHDJXH ILJKWHUVZLWKVKLHOGVSXWWKHLUWUDLQLQJWRZRUN
 'HIHQGDQW+LOOODWHUH[FODLPHGWKDW³0U7XEEVZDVHYHU\ZKHUHWKHFKDRVZDV´

  %\DURXQGDPKDYLQJFKDUJHGWKURXJKSURWHVWHUVSXVKLQJDQGVKRYLQJ WKHPZLWKWKHLUVKLHOGVDQGURGV'HIHQGDQWV7:3160DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOLQHGXS LQVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNOHGE\DPRQJRWKHUV'HIHQGDQWV6FKRHS+LOO+HLPEDFKDQG 3DUURWW'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWH[SODLQHGWKDWWKH\KDG³VWXFNZLWKWKHRULJLQDOSODQWRGHILQHDQG VHFXUHWKHHYHQWSHULPHWHU´  2QFHLQVLGHWKH3DUN'HIHQGDQWV¶UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\PRWLYDWHG YLROHQFHGLGQRWVWRS,WHVFDODWHG  $VWKH\KDGSODQQHG'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWKHLUVKLHOGVDQGURGVWRSORZWKURXJK SHRSOHDQGNQRFNWKHPRYHU7KH\XVHGURGVDQGIODJVWRDVVDXOWSURWHVWHUV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 69 of 112

Pageid#: 881


 





 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRHQFRXUDJHGYLROHQFHE\RWKHUV2YHUWKHFRXUVHRIWKHPRUQLQJ 'DLO\6WRUPHUWKURXJKDOLYHIHHGPDLQWDLQHGE\'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\DQGRWKHU'DLO\ 6WRUPHUVWDIIRQWKHJURXQGHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVWRRUJDQL]HLQJURXSVDQGGHOLEHUDWHO\LQFLWHG WKHPWRHQJDJHLQYLROHQWDFWV$PRQJRWKHUH[KRUWDWLRQVWKH\WROGIROORZHUV³:+,7( 6+$5,$12:´DQG³:(+$9($1$50<7+,6,67+(%(*,11,1*2)$:$5´
 0HPEHUVRI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDOVRFRPPXQLFDWHGRYHUWKH6RXWKHUQ )URQWVHUYHUVKDULQJOLYHIHHGVWUHDPVDQGHQFRXUDJLQJFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRQWKHJURXQGLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHWR³-XVWLQFLWHDULRWDOUHDG\´2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQWKH$QWLFRP'LVFRUGVHUYHU UHSRUWHGWRWKHJURXS³9DQJXDUGVKLHOGVDUHKROGLQJWKHOLQH´
 +DYLQJZLWQHVVHGWKHHYHQWVRI)ULGD\DQGWKHDQWL6HPLWLFFKDQWVRIGHIHQGDQWV DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV3ODLQWLII3HDUFHVWUXJJOHGZLWKZKHWKHUVKHVKRXOGDWWHQGWKHSHDFHIXO SURWHVWDQGZKHWKHUVKHVKRXOGLGHQWLI\KHUVHOIDV-HZLVK2QWKHRQHKDQGVKHEHOLHYHGWKDWLW ZDVLPSRUWDQWWRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWEXWVKHDOVRIHDUHGIRUKHUVDIHW\$VVKHOHIWKHUKRXVHVKH PDGHD6WDURI'DYLGRXWRIGXFWWDSHDQGDWWDFKHGLWWRKHUVKLUWZKLFKERUHD+HEUHZOHWWHULQ UDLQERZFRORUVWRVKRZKHUVXSSRUWIRUWKH/*%7FRPPXQLW\6KHZHQWWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN WRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWWKHQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSUHVHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH
 2QHRIWKHUDOO\JRHUVDFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDZ3ODLQWLII3HDUFHRQWKHVWUHHW SRLQWHGDWKHUDQGVKRXWHG³2KJRRGWKH\DUHPDUNLQJWKHPVHOYHVIRUXVVRLWLVHDV\WRILQG WKHP´$WWKH3DUN3HDUFHZDVMRLQHGE\KHUVRQZKRDOVRZRUHD6WDURI'DYLGDQGFDUULHGD UDLQERZIODJ
 :KLOH3ODLQWLII3HDUFHZDVVWDQGLQJSHDFHIXOO\RXWVLGHRIWKH3DUNH[SUHVVLQJ KHUVROLGDULW\ZLWKRWKHU-HZLVKDQGQRQZKLWHPHPEHUVRIKHUFRPPXQLW\DQRWKHUZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUWKUHZDQRSHQERWWOHILOOHGZLWKDIRXOOLTXLGDWKHU²DFRPPRQ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 70 of 112

Pageid#: 882


 





WDFWLFRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV,QGHHGLQDGYDQFHRIWKHUDOO\FRFRQVSLUDWRUV

KDGHQFRXUDJHGRWKHUVWR³>S@HHLQEDOORRQVDQGWKURZWKHPDWFRPPXQLVWV,QVHOIGHIHQVH´

DQGWR³>I@HHOIUHHWRXULQDWHDQGGHIDFDWHRQ\RXUQHDUHVWDQWLIDWHUURULVWIDJJRWSXVV\´7KH

ERWWOHVWUXFN3HDUFHRQKHUOHJDQGVKHFRXOGVPHOOWKHIRXOOLTXLGRQKHUERG\

 ,QVKRUWRUGHUSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\DQG3HDUFH

ZHUHIRUFHGWROHDYHWKHDUHDRI(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDV'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDWWDFNHG

SHRSOHZLWKFOXEVVPRNHERPEVDQGSHSSHUVSUD\LQIXOILOOPHQWRIWKHLUSUHPHGLWDWHGVWUDWHJ\

RILQIOLFWLQJLQMXU\

 7KH$XWKRULWLHV'HFODUHGWKH5DOO\DQ8QODZIXO$VVHPEO\DQG'HIHQGDQWVDQG &R&RQVSLUDWRUV,QWHQWLRQDOO\6SUHDGWKH9LROHQFH2XWVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN
 %\DPEHIRUHWKHSHUPLWIRUWKH³UDOO\´HYHQEHJDQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

RIILFLDOVGHFODUHGWKHJDWKHULQJLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDQXQODZIXODVVHPEO\GHILQHGXQGHU

9LUJLQLDODZDV³ZKHQHYHUWKUHHRUPRUHSHUVRQVDVVHPEOHGVKDUHWKHFRPPRQLQWHQWWRDGYDQFH

VRPHODZIXORUXQODZIXOSXUSRVHE\WKHFRPPLVVLRQRIDQDFWRUDFWVRIXQODZIXOIRUFHRU

YLROHQFHOLNHO\WRMHRSDUGL]HVHULRXVO\SXEOLFVDIHW\SHDFHRURUGHU´

 $WDP*RYHUQRU0F$XOLIIHGHFODUHGDVWDWHRIHPHUJHQF\VWDWLQJ³,WLV

QRZFOHDUWKDWSXEOLFVDIHW\FDQQRWEHVDIHJXDUGHGZLWKRXWDGGLWLRQDOSRZHUVDQGWKDWWKH

PRVWO\RXWRIVWDWHSURWHVWRUVKDYHFRPHWR9LUJLQLDWRHQGDQJHURXUFLWL]HQVDQGSURSHUW\,DP

GLVJXVWHGE\WKHKDWUHGELJRWU\DQGYLROHQFHWKHVHSURWHVWRUVKDYHEURXJKWWRRXUVWDWHRYHUWKH

SDVWKRXUV´

 'DLO\6WRUPHUZURWHVKRUWO\WKHUHDIWHU³6RPHRQHLVJHWWLQJJDVVHG/(7¶6

+23(,7¶6-(:6´

 -DVRQ.HVVOHUDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVGLUHFWHGWKHPREWRPRYHWR0F,QWLUH3DUN

6RPH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVORDGHGLQWRZKLWHYDQVDQG'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG5D\

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 71 of 112

Pageid#: 883


 





VKDUHGRQHYDQ,QKLVLQWHUYLHZZLWKViceWKDWGD\5D\H[SODLQHG³:H¶UHVKRZLQJWRWKLV SDUDVLWLFFODVVRIDQWLZKLWHYHUPLQWKDWWKLVLVRXUFRXQWU\7KLVFRXQWU\ZDVEXLOWE\RXU IRUHIDWKHUV,WZDVVXVWDLQHGE\XV,W¶VJRLQJWRUHPDLQRXUFRXQWU\´
 'DLO\6WRUPHUHQFRXUDJHGLWVIROORZHUVWRJRWR0F,QWLUH3DUNDQGDVVHPEOH ³EHKLQG´'HIHQGDQWV5D\DQG&DQWZHOODQGLQFLWHGWKHFURZGWRYLROHQFH

  $PRQJWKRVHZKRIROORZHGWKHLUGLUHFWLRQZDV'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFD

'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSDOVRPDUFKHGWR0F,QWLUH3DUNDWWDFNLQJSURWHVWRUVDORQJWKHZD\+H

H[SODLQHG³,ZDVRIIHUHGDULGHWRVDIHW\DQGGHFOLQHGWROHDYHXQWLOWKHZRPHQDQGRWKHUVZHUH

VDIHVRZHMXVWPDUFKHGEDFNWKURXJKDQWLID:HZHQWULJKWWKURXJK>DQWLID@OLNHZDUULRUV´

'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWUHIXVHGWROHDYH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDQGZDVDUUHVWHGE\WKHSROLFHIRUIDLOLQJ

WRGLVSHUVH3DUURWWGHVFULEHGKLVGHWHQWLRQDVEHLQJ³DSROLWLFDOSULVRQHUIRUDERXWPLQXWHV´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 72 of 112

Pageid#: 884


 





 %\SP'HIHQGDQWV6SHQFHUDQG3HLQRYLFKDQGWKHLUIROORZHUVKDGPRVWO\ UHDVVHPEOHGLQ0F,QWLUH3DUN9LROHQFHDJDLQEURNHRXW2QHZRPDQSURWHVWLQJ'HIHQGDQWV¶ PHVVDJHZDVFKRNHGE\FRFRQVSLUDWRU6WHYHQ%DOFDLWLVZKRZDVZHDULQJDWVKLUWDGYHUWLVLQJD ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGDQWL6HPLWLFZHEVLWH5HG,FH$VKHJUDEEHGKHUQHFNKHORRNHGDWD E\VWDQGHUDQGVDLG³'RQ¶WVDYHKHU´
 'HIHQGDQWV6SHQFHUDQG3HLQRYLFKVSRNHWRWKHLUIROORZHUVDW0F,QWLUH3DUN 3HLQRYLFKFDOOHGWKHFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV³VDYDJHV´
 'HIHQGDQWVDW0F,QWLUH3DUNGLVFXVVHGUHWXUQLQJWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQGHILDQFH RISROLFHRUGHUV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VRXJKWSHRSOHZLWKJXQV³,QHHGVKRRWHUV´KHVDLG³:H¶UH JRQQDVHQGSHRSOHZLWKORQJULIOHVEDFNWRWKDWVWDWXH´$FFRUGLQJWRD'HIHQGDQW160 WZLWWHUDFFRXQW'HIHQGDQW6FKRHS³OHGDJURXSRIEDFNWKHPLOHVIURPWKHQGSDUNEDFN WR/HH3DUNWKURXJK$QWLIDDQGSROLFHLQWHUIHUHQFH´7KH\MHHUHG³6RPXFKUHVSHFWIRUP\ &RPPDQGHU-HII6FKRHS,ZLOOJRLQWREDWWOHZLWK\RXDQ\WLPH6LU´
 $IHZPLQXWHVDIWHUSP'DLO\6WRUPHUSRVWHG



Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 73 of 112

Pageid#: 885


 





 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWRUDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHYLROHQWDFWLRQVWKDW WKH\NQHZZDVEHLQJSODQQHG
 6RPH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVWD\HGLQWKHSDUNVZKLOHRWKHUVGLVSHUVHG DQGEHJDQWRWHUURUL]HUHVLGHQWVLQWKHGRZQWRZQDUHDRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHQHDUWKHSHGHVWULDQPDOO 0XxL]ZHDULQJDWVKLUWZLWKDUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIZRPHQRIFRORUZLWQHVVHGWKHPDUFKHUVZDON EDFNWRWRZQIURP0F,QWLUH3DUNDQGWKHQIROORZHGKHUVHOIWRMRLQDJURXSRISHDFHIXOFRXQWHU GHPRQVWUDWRUV
 2QWKHPDOO'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDJDLQEURXJKWYLROHQFH2QHFR FRQVSLUDWRUIRUH[DPSOHZDVFDXJKWRQYLGHRSXQFKLQJWZRSHDFHIXOFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVGLUHFWO\ LQWKHIDFH
 7KH&DU$WWDFN  ³5XQ7KHP2YHU´LVDSRSXODUDQWL%ODFN/LYHV0DWWHUDQGDQWLUDFLDOMXVWLFH SURWHVWFDWFKSKUDVHDQGVKRZVXSLQPHPHVDQGFRPPHQWVDFURVVWKH,QWHUQHW,QODWH-DQXDU\ )R[1DWLRQWKHRSLQLRQZHEVLWHRSHUDWHGE\)R[1HZVWZHHWHGRXWD³5HHO2I&DUV 3ORZLQJ7KURXJK3URWHVWRUV7U\LQJ7R%ORFN7KH5RDG´7KHDXWKRURIWKHYLGHRSLHFHZKLFK RULJLQDOO\DSSHDUHGRQWKH'DLO\&DOOHUZURWH³+HUH¶VDFRPSLODWLRQRIOLEHUDOSURWHVWHUVJHWWLQJ SXVKHGRXWRIWKHZD\E\FDUVDQGWUXFNV´DQG³6WXG\WKHWHFKQLTXHLWPD\SURYHXVHIXOLQWKH QH[WIRXU\HDUV´2Q)DFHERRNWKHDXWKRUEUDJJHGDERXWWKHSRSXODULW\RIWKHSLHFHERDVWLQJ WKDWKH³>P@DGHDSURILWIRUWKHFRPSDQ\WRGD\:HQWIURPWRPLOOLRQYLHZVLQD KRXUWLPHVSDFHZLQQLQJ´

 2YHUWKHSDVWWZR\HDUVWKHLPDJHU\RIUXQQLQJSURWHVWRUVRYHUZLWKDFDUKDVJDLQHGFXUUHQF\DPRQJ'HIHQGDQWV DQGRWKHUV'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKHQFRXUDJHGDSROLFHFDUWRPRZGRZQSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUV$QDUWLFOHUHSRUWVWKDW +HLPEDFKZDVZDONLQJQHDUWKHSDUDGHURXWHZKHQKHHQFRXQWHUHGDJURXSRIGHPRQVWUDWRUVKROGLQJVLJQVDERXW ZDWHUSUHVHUYDWLRQ$EODFN689ZLWKSROLFHSODWHVGURYHXSDQGVWRSSHGLQIURQWRIWKHGHPRQVWUDWRUV$QRIILFHU OHDQHGRXWWKHZLQGRZDQGDVNHGWKHPWRVWHSDVLGHVRWKDWWKH\FRXOGSDVV³'RQ¶WVWRSRIILFHU´VKRXWHG +HLPEDFKDVWKH689PDGHLWVZD\WKURXJKWKHJURXS³)XFNLQJVWHSRQWKHJDV´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 74 of 112

Pageid#: 886


 





 7KHVDPHWURSHZDVXVHGDVSDUWRISODQQLQJIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2Q 'LVFRUGIRUH[DPSOHLQUHVSRQVHWRDSRVWIURP7\URQHWKDWLI³VRPHWKLQJKDSSHQV DGMXVWPHQWVZLOOKDYHWREHPDGHWRUHPRYHSHRSOHIURPWKHVFHQH´FRFRQVSLUDWRU ³$OW&HOW,/´UHVSRQGHGZLWKDQLPDJHIURPDIDPRXVVFHQHLQWKHPRYLHDawn of the DeadLQ ZKLFKWKHSURWDJRQLVWVUHWURILWEXVHVZLWKFKDLQVDZVDQGEDUEHGZLUHWRHVFDSHDPDOOE\UXQQLQJ RYHUWKRXVDQGVRIVZDUPLQJ]RPELHV$OW&HOW,/DGGHGD³FU\LQJODXJKLQJ´HPRMLDQGZURWH ³7KLVZLOOEHXV´


 7\URQHUHSOLHGZLWKSLFWXUHRID-RKQ'HHUHWUDFWRUFDSWLRQHG³,QWURGXFLQJ-RKQ 'HHUH¶VQHZPXOWLODQHSURWHVWRUGLJHVWRU´DQGFRPPHQWHG³,NQRZ1&ODZLVRQWKHERRNVWKDW GULYLQJRYHUSURWHVWHUVEORFNLQJURDGZD\LVQ¶WDQRIIHQVH«6XUHZRXOGEHQLFH´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 75 of 112

Pageid#: 887


 





  2QWKHVDPHGD\-XO\7\URQHDVNHGWKHYLUJLQLDBODZVFKDQQHO³Is it legal to run over protestors blocking roadways? I’m NOT just shitposting. I would like clarification. I know it’s legal in NC and a few other states. I’m legitimately curious for the answer.´7ZRSDUWLFLSDQWVUHDFWHGWRWKLVSRVWZLWKUHGKHDUWHPRMLV  $QRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGXVLQJWKHYLUJLQLDBODZVFKDQQHOSRVWHGD SKRWRRIDQDUPRUHGPLOLWDU\WDQNDQGZURWH³,VWKLVOHJDOLQ9$"´(OHYHQSDUWLFLSDQWV UHVSRQGHGZLWKHPRMLVH[SUHVVLQJDSSURYDO  6LPLODUO\ZKHQ'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDVNHGWKHGHPRQVWUDWLRQBWDFWLFVFKDQQHOIRU DGYLFHRQSODQQLQJDPDUFKRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRU³3ULPLWYH;DRF´HQFRXUDJHGWKHXVHRI VLGHZDONVEHFDXVH³VWUDLJKWWKURXJKWKHVWUHHWVOLNHWKH\GLGDIHZZHHNVDJRIRUWKHµFRPPXQLW\ GHIHQVH¶0DUFKZDVDZIXO$QWLID´+HSRVWHGVHYHUDOSKRWRVIURPWKDWPDUFKDQGZURWH ³7KHVHIRROVKDGEDELHVDQGFKLOGUHQLQWKHVWUHHWVGUDJJLQJEDQQHUVRYHUFDUVEORFNLQJWKHLU

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 76 of 112

Pageid#: 888


 





YLHZDQGVXFK7RREDGWKHFLYLOLDQVGLGQ¶WMXVWPDNHQHZVSHHGEXPSVIRUVRPHRIWKHVH VFXP´
 $WDSSUR[LPDWHO\SPLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV GURYHKLV'RGJH&KDOOHQJHURQWR)RXUWK6WUHHWLGOHGIRUDPRPHQWZKLOHKLVYHKLFOHIDFHGWKH SHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVDQGWKHQGHOLEHUDWHO\DFFHOHUDWHGLQWRWKHFURZG
 3ODLQWLIIV0DUWLQ%ODLU6LQHV0XxL]$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHURZHUHPDUFKLQJXS )RXUWK6WUHHWZKHQ)LHOGVDWWDFNHG3ODLQWLII0XxL]KDGZDONHGWRWKHIURQWRIWKHFURZGZKHQLW ZDVDWWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI)RXUWK6WUHHWDQG:DWHU6WUHHWWRWDNHDSLFWXUHRIWKHJDWKHULQJ:KHQ WKHFURZGWXUQHGOHIWRQWR)RXUWK6WUHHW0XxL]ZDVVWLOOWRZDUGVWKHIURQWRIWKHFURZG
 3ODLQWLIIV0DUWLQDQG%ODLUZHUHDSSURDFKLQJWKHVDPHLQWHUVHFWLRQZDONLQJXS )RXUWK6WUHHWWRZDUGVWKHGRZQWRZQPDOOZLWKWKHLUIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HU$VKHVDZWKHFDU VSHHGLQJGRZQWKHURDG0DUWLQSXVKHG%ODLURXWRIWKHSDWKRIWKHPRYLQJFDU6KHIHOOWRWKH JURXQGDQGVXVWDLQHGLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDKHPDWRPDRQKHUOHIWVLGHDQGDJDVKRQKHUULJKWDUP 0DUWLQZDVKLWGLUHFWO\E\WKHFDUVXVWDLQLQJVHULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDEURNHQOHJIUDFWXUHG DQNOHDQGPXOWLSOHEUXLVHV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 77 of 112

Pageid#: 889


 





 +HLVSLFWXUHGEHORZIO\LQJWKURXJKWKHDLUDIWHUWKHFDUVODPPHGLQWRKLVERG\

  /RRNLQJIRU0DUWLQRQWKHVWUHHW%ODLUVDZSHRSOHO\LQJRQWKHJURXQGDQG EOHHGLQJ6KHVWHSSHGRYHUWKHPORRNLQJIRU0DUWLQ  %ODLUIRXQG0DUWLQRQWKHJURXQGZKHUHSHRSOHZHUHWU\LQJWRKHOSKLP)LIWHHQ PLQXWHVDIWHUWKHDWWDFN0DUWLQZDVWDNHQWRWKHKRVSLWDODQG%ODLUURGHLQWKHDPEXODQFHZLWK KLP%ODLUGLGQRWUHFHLYHLPPHGLDWHWUHDWPHQWIRUKHULQMXULHVEHFDXVHVKHZDVORRNLQJDIWHU 0DUWLQ  :KLOHZDLWLQJLQWKHKRVSLWDO%ODLUOHDUQHGWKDWDZRPDQKDGGLHGLQWKHFDU DWWDFN6KHIHDUHGWKDWVKHNQHZZKRLWZDVDQGEHJDQDVNLQJHYHU\RQHDURXQGKHULIWKH\NQHZ ZKRLWZDV(YHQWXDOO\VKHOHDUQHGWKDWLWZDVKHUIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HUZKRKDGEHHQVWUXFN DQGNLOOHG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 78 of 112

Pageid#: 890


 





 3ODLQWLII5RPHURZDVKLWGLUHFWO\E\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VFDU7KHLPSDFWWKUHZ KHUDJDLQVWDSDUNHGFDUZKLFKVKHKLWEHIRUHIDOOLQJWRWKHJURXQG3ODLQWLII5RPHURUHFDOOV ZDQWLQJWROLHGRZQDQGFORVHKHUH\HVEXWVKHWKRXJKWWKDWLIVKHFORVHGKHUH\HVDQGJDYHXS VKHZRXOGGLH6KHDWWHPSWHGWRJHWXSEXWVWUXJJOHGDQGZDVWROGE\DE\VWDQGHUWRVLWEDFN GRZQ
 5RPHURLVSLFWXUHGEHORZUHFHLYLQJLQLWLDOFDUHIURPE\VWDQGHUV

  &RYHUHGLQEORRGIURPDVNXOOIUDFWXUHVXVWDLQHGGXULQJWKHDWWDFN5RPHURZDV

FDUULHGWRDQDPEXODQFHZKHUHDPHGLFLQIRUPHGKHUWKDWVKHKDGEHHQXQFRQVFLRXVDVWKH\

KHOSHGKHUGRZQ)RXUWK6WUHHW%HIRUHIDOOLQJXQFRQVFLRXV5RPHURKDGEHJJHGE\VWDQGHUVWR

FDOOKHUPRWKHUDVVKHKDGORVWKHUSKRQHZKHQVWUXFNE\)LHOGV¶VFDU

 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGRZKRDWWHQGHGWKHHYHQWVZLWK3ODLQWLII5RPHURZDVDOVRKLWE\

'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VFDU7KHLPSDFWRIWKHFDUNQRFNHGKHUWRWKHJURXQG,QLWLDOO\ILOOHGZLWK

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 79 of 112

Pageid#: 891


 





DGUHQDOLQHVKHLPPHGLDWHO\SLFNHGKHUVHOIXSDQGORRNHGIRUKHUIULHQG5RPHURZKRKDGEHHQ KLW$OYDUDGRWKHQZDWFKHGDV'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGURYHKLVFDULQUHYHUVHLQWRWKHFURZGVKHZDV VWDQGLQJLQ)LHOGVQDUURZO\PLVVHGKLWWLQJ$OYDUDGRDJDLQEHFDXVHVKHZDVDEOHWRSUHVVFORVHU WRWKHDGMRLQLQJZDOO$OYDUDGRFRQWLQXHGWRIHDUWKDWWKHFDUZRXOGFRPHEDFNGRZQWKHVWUHHW
 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGRWKHQZHQWWRDVVLVW3ODLQWLII5RPHUR6KHVXSSRUWHG5RPHURDV WKH\ZDONHGXSWKHVWUHHWXQWLO5RPHURZDVSXWLQWRWKHDPEXODQFH$OYDUDGRZDVVXEVHTXHQWO\ GLUHFWHGWRWKHPHGLFDOWHQWZKHUHVKHZDVWUHDWHGIRUKHULQMXULHV
 3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]DQG6LQHVQDUURZO\HVFDSHGEHLQJVWUXFNE\WKHFDU7KH\ ZLWQHVVHGEHORQJLQJVDQGERGLHVIO\LQJLQWKHDLU:KHQWKH\VDZ'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVVSHHGKLV FDULQUHYHUVH²EDFNLQJRYHUPDQ\RIWKHERGLHVKHDOUHDG\KLW²WKH\ZHUHVXUHWKDWKHZDV JRLQJWRFRPHFKDUJLQJEDFNLQWRWKHFURZG3ODLQWLII0XxL]IHDUHGWKDWWKHFDUVZRXOGEH FRPLQJIURPDOOGLUHFWLRQV
 3ODLQWLII0XxL]UDQDZD\DQGFROODSVHGRQWKHVLGHRIWKHURDG6KHVXIIHUHGDQ DFXWHVWUHVVUHDFWLRQ3ODLQWLII6LQHVUDQLQWRDQDOOH\ZD\DQGZDVVRVKRFNHGWKDWVKHKDG GLIILFXOW\IRUPLQJDQ\ZRUGV)HDULQJRWKHUDWWDFNVVKHUDQWRKHUFORVHVWIULHQG¶VKRXVH GRZQWRZQ
 3ODLQWLII0XxL]VDZYROXQWHHUPHGLFVDUULYLQJ0XxL]ZDVVKDNHQDQGWHUULILHG DQGFRXOGQRWVWDQGXS0XxL]IHDUHGWKDWWKHLQFLGHQWZDVQRORQJHURYHU)LQDOO\ZKHQ0XxL] IHOWWKDWQRRWKHUDWWDFNZDVIRUWKFRPLQJWKHPHGLFJRW0XxL]WRKHUIHHWDQGZDONHGKHUWRWKH WUDXPDFHQWHU
 3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVQRWDW0DUNHW6WUHHWZKHQWKHFDUDWWDFNRFFXUUHG:KHQ KHOHDUQHGRIZKDWKDSSHQHGKHVSULQWHGWRWKHVLWHZLWKRWKHUFOHUJ\WRSURYLGHDVVLVWDQFHWR VXSSRUWYLFWLPVDQGWRKHOSFRQWUROWKHFURZGVVRWKDWPHGLFDOYHKLFOHVFRXOGUHDFKYLFWLPV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 80 of 112

Pageid#: 892


 





 3ODLQWLII3HDUFHDOVRUXVKHGWRWKHVFHQHWRSURYLGHFDUHDQGZLWKWKHKHOSRIKHU VRQWULHGWRVXSSUHVVWKHFURZGVVRWKDWPHGLFDOYHKLFOHVFRXOGUHDFKWKRVHLQMXUHG
 %XWDV3ODLQWLIIVPRXUQHGDQGWULHGWRFDUHIRURQHDQRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVFHOHEUDWHGDQGHQFRXUDJHGRWKHUVWROHDYHWRZQLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKH\IRXQG WKHPVHOYHVLQWURXEOH
 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWZHHWHG³0\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ'LVSHUVH*HWRXWRI &KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLW\OLPLWV´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUUHWZHHWHGKLP$WSP'HIHQGDQW+LOO WZHHWHG³7KH/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKKDGDJRRGGD\LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD2XUZDUULRUV DFTXLWWHGWKHPVHOYHVDVPHQ*RGEHSUDLVHG´
 &RQFOXGLQJLWVOLYHIHHGIRUWKHGD\'DLO\6WRUPHUSRVWHG³7+(675((7:$5 +$6(1'(':(:21:(6+2:('7+$7285,'($6+$9(72%(6+87'2:1 :,7+9,2/(1&(´
 $IWHUWKH)DFW'HIHQGDQWV&HOHEUDWHG7KHLU6XFFHVVIXO3ODQWR,QFLWH9LROHQFH  $VQHZVDERXWWKHFDUDWWDFNVSUHDG'HIHQGDQWVFHOHEUDWHGZKDWWKH\EHOLHYHG ZDVWKHLU³YLFWRU\´DQGPRFNHGWKHGHDWKRI+HDWKHU+H\HU  2QO\RQHKRXUDIWHUWKHFDUDWWDFN'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶VSURPLQHQW PHPEHU³.QHXVV´WZHHWHG³$WOHDVWQRERG\LPSRUWDQWJRWKXUW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´IROORZHGE\ DQRWKHUWZHHWVWDWLQJ³'LUW\DSHVSOD\LQJLQWKHVWUHHWJRWWDOHDUQWKHKDUGZD\ &KDUORWWHVYLOOH´%RWKWZHHWVZHUHOLNHGE\WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV7ZLWWHUDFFRXQW

 .QHXVVZKRXVHVWKHKDQGOH³#UHDO'5.1(866´RQ7ZLWWHULQWHUDFWVIUHTXHQWO\ZLWKWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRQ 7ZLWWHUDQGWKH\UHWZHHWHDFKRWKHUIUHTXHQWO\RIWHQWKH\DUHHDFKRWKHU¶VRQO\UHWZHHW2Q$XJXVWDWSP .QHXVVWZHHWHG³%LJVKRXWRXWWR/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK7:3DQG160WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVJUHDWO\DSSUHFLDWH \RXDQGHYHU\WKLQJ\RXGR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´7KH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶7ZLWWHUDFFRXQWUHWZHHWHGWKLVWZHHW2Q 6HSWHPEHU.QHXVVWZHHWHGDVW\OL]HGLPDJHVD\LQJ(&.ZKLFKLVDUHIHUHQFHWRWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 81 of 112 Pageid#: 893


 





 /DWHUWKDWHYHQLQJ'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQSRVWHGDPHVVDJH³5RDGNLOO1LJKWV 3RZHUHGE\'RGJH,W¶VJRLQJGRZQ6DWXUGD\$XJWKIURPDPWRSP´
 7KHIROORZLQJGD\'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVSRVWHGPHPLILHGSKRWRVRI'HIHQGDQW )LHOGVGULYLQJKLVFDULQWRWKHFURZGRQHODEHOLQJWKHFDU³5(63(&7´DQGWKHFURZG ³:20(1´$QRWKHUPHPHFLUFXODWHGRQOLQHODEHOHGWKHLPDJH³%$&.727+()+85(5´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 82 of 112

Pageid#: 894


 





  ,Q6RXWKHUQ)URQWWKH'LVFRUGVHUYHUVHWXSIRUVRXWKHUQPHPEHUVRI9DQJXDUG $PHULFDDQGWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQWRZKLFK'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVEHORQJHGPHPEHUVSRVWHGVLPLODU PHPHVVXFKDVDSLFWXUHRI3ODLQWLII0DUWLQIO\LQJWKURXJKWKHDLUZLWKWKHFDSWLRQ³&DQ¶W'RGJH 7KLV´DQGDQRWKHUODEHOLQJ)LHOGVD³86$3DWULRW´2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUZURWH³,GRQ¶WWKLQNZH VKRXOGKDQGRXWVKLHOGVDQ\PRUH#HYHU\RQH:HVKRXOGKDQGRXWGRGJHFKDOOHQJHUV LQVWHDG´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 83 of 112

Pageid#: 895


 





  'DLO\6WRUPHUHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVWRILQGRXWWKHGHWDLOVRI+HDWKHU+H\HU¶V IXQHUDODQGWRDWWHQG$WZHHWIURP'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU¶VDFFRXQWUHIHUUHGWR+HDWKHU+H\HUDVD FRPPXQLVWDQGVDLG³&RPPXQLVWVKDYHNLOOHGPLOOLRQ/RRNVOLNHLWZDVSD\EDFNWLPH´ .HVVOHUFODLPHGKHZDVRQDPL[WXUHRISUHVFULSWLRQGUXJVDQGDOFRKROZKHQKHZURWHWKDW PHVVDJHDQGGLGQRWUHPHPEHULWDQDJHQWRI'DLO\6WRUPHUFODLPHGFUHGLWIRUKDFNLQJ.HVVOHU¶V DFFRXQWDQGSRVWLQJWKHWZHHW  'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKVDLGRIWKHUDOO\³:HDFKLHYHGDOORIRXUREMHFWLYHV:H VKRZHGWKDWRXUPRYHPHQWLVQRWMXVWRQOLQHEXWJURZLQJSK\VLFDOO\:HDVVHUWHGRXUVHOYHVDV WKHYRLFHRIZKLWH$PHULFD:HKDG]HURYHKLFOHVGDPDJHGDOORXUSHRSOHDFFRXQWHGIRUDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 84 of 112

Pageid#: 896


 





PRYHGDODUJHDPRXQWRIPHQDQGPDWHULDOVLQDQGRXWRIWKHDUHD,WKLQNZHGLGDQLQFUHGLEO\ LPSUHVVLYHMRE´
 :KLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVGHEULHIHGRQ'LVFRUGFHOHEUDWLQJWKDWSURWHVWHUV³JRWEWIR >EORZQWKHIXFNRXW@E\DOOREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHVRQO\SHRSOHZKRPRYHGXVDVLQJOHLQFKZHUH WKH]RJFRSV´³.QHXVV´RIWKH'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVFHOHEUDWHG³IDWDOLWLHVLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOH+RZPDQ\:1¶V>ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWV@"127)XFNWKHOHIW)XFNFRPPLHV DQGDOOND\DNVEHORQJLQRYHQV$PHQ´7KLVWZHHWZDVOLNHGE\WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶ RIILFLDO7ZLWWHUDFFRXQW
 $9DQJXDUG$PHULFDFRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGD'DLO\6WRUPHUDUWLFOHRQWKH 6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHUDQGZURWH³7KLVZDVWKHELJJHVWYLFWRU\IRURXUPRYHPHQW KLVWRU\,WZDVJORULRXVKWWSVZZZGDLO\VWRUPHUFRPFKDUORWWHVYLOOHFRPSOHWHYLFWRU\HYHQW GHEULHILQJ´WKH\FHOHEUDWHG³:HIXFNHGXSPDQ\FRPPLHV:HKRVSLWDOL]HGGR]HQV:H JRWRXUJX\VRXWZLWKRXWSROLFHKHOS:HZRQ1RZ\RXPDNHWKHQH[WUDOO\DQGILJKWIRU \RXUSHRSOH´$IWHUWKH6DWXUGD\HYHQWV7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI9DQJXDUG $PHULFDUHDVVXUHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHU³,¶PVDIHZLWKD GR]HQRUVRJX\VKDQJLQJRXWDWDKRWHOVKDULQJVWRULHVRIWKHGD\´
 'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSWZHHWHG³,WZDVDQ+RQRUWRVWDQGZLWK8DOOLQ&¶9LOOHWKLV ZHHNQG1601)7:3/269$(&.&+6DQGWKHUHVWWUXHZDUULRUV´³.QHXVV´DQG RWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHWZHHWHGDQGOLNHGWKLV$FRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGRQ)DFHERRN³'RQ¶WIHHO DVKDPHGRI&YLOOH7KLVLV\RXUIXWXUH7KLVLVWKHHQHP\´
 6SHDNLQJRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQDQLQWHUYLHZWKH*UDQG'UDJRQIRU'HIHQGDQW /R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVVDLG³,¶PVRUWDJODGWKDWWKHPSHRSOHJRWKLWDQG,¶PJODGWKDWJLUOGLHG 7KH\ZHUHDEXQFKRI&RPPXQLVWVRXWWKHUHSURWHVWLQJDJDLQVWVRPHERG\¶VIUHHGRPRIVSHHFK

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 85 of 112

Pageid#: 897


 





VRLWGRHVQ¶WERWKHUPHWKDWWKH\JRWKXUWDWDOO´'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVDOVRFKDQJHG WKHLURXWJRLQJYRLFHPDLOPHVVDJHWRVD\³1RWKLQJPDNHVXVPRUHSURXGDWWKH...WKDQZH VHHZKLWHSDWULRWVVXFKDV-DPHV)LHOGV-UDJHWDNLQJKLVFDUDQGUXQQLQJRYHUQLQH FRPPXQLVWDQWLIDVFLVWNLOOLQJRQHQLJJHUORYHUQDPHG+HDWKHU+H\HU-DPHV)LHOGVKDLO YLFWRU\,W¶VPHQOLNH\RXWKDWKDYHPDGHWKHJUHDWZKLWHUDFHVWURQJDQGZLOOEHVWURQJDJDLQ´
 /LNHZLVH'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWROGWKHNew York Times WKDW$XJXVWZDV³D KXJHPRUDOYLFWRU\´'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOWROGDViceUHSRUWHU³,¶GVD\LWZDVZRUWKLW1RERG\ RQRXUVLGHGLHGQRQHRIRXUSHRSOHNLOOHGDQ\ERG\XQMXVWO\RXUULYDOVDUHMXVWDEXQFKRI VWXSLGDQLPDOVZKRGRQ¶WSD\DWWHQWLRQWKDWFRXOGQ¶WMXVWJHWRXWRIWKHZD\RIWKHFDU´ 6SHDNLQJRIFRXQWHUSURWHVWHUVOLNH3ODLQWLIIVKHVDLG³7KHVHSHRSOHZDQWYLROHQFHDQGWKHULJKW LVMXVWPHHWLQJPDUNHWGHPDQG´
 ,QDGGLWLRQWRFHOHEUDWLQJWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´DVDVXFFHVV3ODLQWLII5RPHUR FRQWLQXHGWREHKDUDVVHGDQGLQWLPLGDWHG)ROORZLQJKHUUHOHDVHIURPWKHKRVSLWDO5RPHUR UHFHLYHGWKUHHPRUHSKRQHFDOOVIURPWKHVDPH.ODQVPDQZKRKDGKDUDVVHGKHULQ-XO\2Q WKHVHSKRQHFDOOVWKHPDQH[SODLQHGWKDWKHZDVWU\LQJWRVHOOVLOYHU'RGJH&KDOOHQJHUV²WKH FRORUPDNHDQGPRGHOXVHGE\'HIHQGDQWV)LHOGVLQKLVFDUDWWDFN²LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH)LYH PLQXWHVDIWHU5RPHURKXQJXSKHFDOOHGDJDLQZLWKWKHVDPHIRUHERGLQJSLWFK
 /DWHU5RPHURUHFHLYHGDIRXUWKFDOODJDLQIURPWKHVDPHLQGLYLGXDOLQZKLFKWKH FDOOHUVDLG³'RQ¶W\RXKDWHLWZKHQWKHUHDUHUDQGRPSHGHVWULDQVEORFNLQJWKHURDGDQGVKLWOLNH WKDW"7KHUHZDVRQHJLUOQDPHG1DWDOLH5RPHURVKHJRWFDXJKWLQWKHDFFLGHQW"6KHVKRXOG KDYHGLHGLQWKHKRVSLWDO´7KHVHFDOOVWHUULILHG5RPHURDQGVKHFRQWLQXHVWRZRUU\DERXWKHU VDIHW\

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 86 of 112

Pageid#: 898


 





 3ODLQWLII5RPHURDQGVHYHUDORWKHURIWKH3ODLQWLIIVDOVRDSSHDUHGRQDOLVW SXUSRUWLQJWRLGHQWLI\³PHPEHUVRI$QWLID´ZKRKDGDWWHQGHGWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´7KHOLVW LGHQWLILHGZKRKDGEHHQLQMXUHGDQGZKRDPRQJWKRVH³PHPEHUVRI$QWLID´ZHUH³NQRZQWREH YLROHQW´1RQHRIWKH3ODLQWLIIVZHUHLGHQWLILHGRQWKHOLVWDVDPRQJWKRVH³NQRZQWREH YLROHQW´7KHOLVWZDVFUHDWHGE\DIRUPHUPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSDZKRWKHQ MRLQHG9DQJXDUG$PHULFDLQ-XO\DQGEHFDPHDQDFWLYHSDUWLFLSDQWRQLWV6RXWKHUQ)URQW 'LVFRUGVHUYHUEUDJJLQJ³,UHDOO\FDQKHOSWUDFNPRVW$QWLID´DQG³>P@\LQIRLVJRRGDQG,ZLOO GRHYHU\WKLQJ,FDQWRKHOS9$>9DQJXDUG$PHULFD@´
 7KHOLVWKHFUHDWHGZDVFLUFXODWHGRQ*DED7ZLWWHUOLNHVRFLDOPHGLDVLWHZKHUH QHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVPDQ\RIZKRPKDYHEHHQNLFNHGRIIRIWUDGLWLRQDOVRFLDO PHGLDSODWIRUPVVKDUHDQGSRVWLQIRUPDWLRQ2Q*DEDWOHDVWRQHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHSXUSRUWHG ³$QWLID´OLVWZDVGLUHFWHGWR'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODPRQJRWKHUV ,,, 'HIHQGDQWV¶$FWLRQV+DYH&DXVHGDQG:LOO&RQWLQXHWR&DXVH'DPDJHWR3ODLQWLIIV $ 7KH8QODZIXO$FWV%\'HIHQGDQWV&R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQG2WKHUV
$FWLQJDW7KHLU'LUHFWLRQ&DXVHG6HULRXV,QMXU\,QFOXGLQJ7R3ODLQWLIIV  'HIHQGDQWV¶$FWLRQV&DXVHG6HULRXV%RGLO\,QMXU\DQG'DPDJHWR3URSHUW\  7KHSODQQHGYLROHQFHEURXJKWDERXWE\'HIHQGDQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ $XJXVWDQGOHIWDQLQGHOLEOHPDUNRQ3ODLQWLIIV&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWKHUHVWRIWKHFRXQWU\ 7KUHHLQQRFHQWSHRSOHORVWWKHLUOLYHVDSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRU+HDWKHU+H\HUDQGWZRVWDWHODZ HQIRUFHPHQWRIILFHUV/LHXWHQDQW+-D\&XOOHQDQG7URRSHU3LORW%HUNH00%DWHV$WOHDVW LQGLYLGXDOVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIVZHUHLQMXUHGDQGFRXQWOHVVRWKHUVZHUHYLFWLPVRIDVVDXOW +XQGUHGVLIQRWWKRXVDQGVZHUHVXEMHFWHGWRYHUEDODEXVHWKUHDWVKDUDVVPHQWDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQ

 ϭϮ'HIHQGDQWVFRQVLGHUHGDQ\LQGLYLGXDORSSRVLQJWKHLU³UDOO\´DVEHLQJ³$QWLID´UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKH\ZHUH YLROHQWRULQWHQGHGWREHYLROHQW

 Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 87 of 112 Pageid#: 899


 





ZKHQ'HIHQGDQWVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGWKHLUIROORZHUVFKDQWHGDQGVKRXWHGRYHUWO\DQWL6HPLWLF UDFLVW[HQRSKRELFDQGKRPRSKRELFPHVVDJHV
 &RXQWOHVVSXEOLFRIILFLDOVLQFOXGLQJ9LUJLQLD¶VJRYHUQRU7HUU\0F$XOLIIH $WWRUQH\*HQHUDO-HII6HVVLRQVDQG6HQDWRUV&RU\*DUGQHU7HG&UX]DQG5RQ:\GHQKDYH UHFRJQL]HGWKDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\JRHUV´ZHUHPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLVP[HQRSKRELDDQGDQWL 6HPLWLVPWKDWWKH³UDOO\JRHUV´HQJDJHGLQKDWHEDVHGYLROHQFHDQGWKDWWKHHYHQWVWKDWXQIROGHG ZHUHSURSHUO\FKDUDFWHUL]HGDVGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP
 2Q6HSWHPEHU&RQJUHVVSDVVHGDXQDQLPRXVDQGELSDUWLVDQMRLQW UHVROXWLRQ³UHMHFWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWVZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVWKH.X.OX[.ODQQHR1D]LVDQG RWKHUKDWHJURXSV´UHFRJQL]LQJWKDWWKH\HQJDJHGLQD³KRUULILFDQGYLROHQWGLVSOD\RIELJRWU\´LQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGFRQGHPQLQJ³WKHYLROHQFHDQGGRPHVWLFWHUURULVWDWWDFNWKDWWRRNSODFH GXULQJHYHQWVEHWZHHQ$XJXVWDQG$XJXVW´
 7KHMRLQWUHVROXWLRQDOVRGRFXPHQWHGWKDWWKHKDWHEDVHGJURXSVDUH³RUJDQL]LQJ VLPLODUHYHQWV´DURXQGWKHFRXQWU\DQGXUJHGWKH3UHVLGHQWWR³VSHDNRXWDJDLQVWKDWHJURXSVWKDW HVSRXVHUDFLVPH[WUHPLVP[HQRSKRELDDQWL6HPLWLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\´DQGDGGUHVV³WKH WKUHDWVSRVHGE\WKRVHJURXSV´ZKLFKDUHFXUUHQWO\JURZLQJZLWKLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
 3UHVLGHQW7UXPSVLJQHGWKHUHVROXWLRQDQGLVVXHGDVLJQLQJVWDWHPHQW³RSSRV>LQJ@ KDWUHGELJRWU\DQGUDFLVPLQDOOIRUPV´
 3ODLQWLIIV6XIIHUHG$QG&RQWLQXH7R6XIIHU6HULRXV,QMXULHV  3ODLQWLII0DJLOO0DJLOOVXIIHUHGSHUPDQHQWSK\VLFDOLQMXU\IURPDVWURNHWKDWZDV FDXVHGE\WKHWUDXPDRIWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG)RXUGD\VDIWHUWKH³UDOO\´RQ7XHVGD\ $XJXVW0DJLOOFROODSVHGDW89$OLEUDU\+HEHJDQORVLQJKLVYLVLRQDQGVSHHFKDQGFRXOG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 88 of 112

Pageid#: 900


 





EDUHO\VSHDNZRUGVWRWHOOVRPHRQHWRFDOODQDPEXODQFH7KDQNIXOO\KHZDVDEOHWRPRWLRQWR VRPHRQHLQWKHOLEUDU\WRFDOOIRUKHOSDQGKHZDVUXVKHGWRWKHKRVSLWDO
 0DJLOOZDVDGPLWWHGWRWKHHPHUJHQF\URRPDWDPRQ7XHVGD\ZKHUH GRFWRUVIRXQGWKDWKLVFDURWLGDUWHU\KDGWRUQDQGWZREORRGFORWVZHUHUHOHDVHGWRKLVEUDLQ FDXVLQJDVWURNH0HGLFDOSURIHVVLRQDOVPDLQWDLQWKDW0DJLOO¶VVWURNHZDVDUHVXOWRIWUDXPDWR KLVQHFNDVDUHVXOWRIWKHHYHQWVGXULQJWKHZHHNHQG
 0DJLOOVSHQWWZRGD\VLQWKHKRVSLWDODQGDFFRUGLQJWRPHGLFDOSURIHVVLRQDOVZLOO QHYHUIXOO\UHFRYHUIURPWKHUHVXOWLQJEUDLQLQMXULHV+HKDVORVWDVSHFWVRIKLVYLVLRQDQGVSHHFK DQGKDVGLIILFXOW\ZULWLQJDQGUHDGLQJIRUORQJSHULRGVRIWLPH+HKDVLQFXUUHGVLJQLILFDQW PHGLFDOH[SHQVHVDQGZLOOFRQWLQXHWRGRVR+HZLOOQHHGFRQWLQXHGPHGLFDOFDUH0DJLOOKDV QRW\HWEHHQDEOHWRUHWXUQWRZRUN
 3ODLQWLII0DUWLQ$VDUHVXOWRIWKHFDUDWWDFN0DUWLQZDVGLDJQRVHGZLWKD VKDWWHUHGWLELDLQKLVOHIWOHJDIUDFWXUHGDQNOHDQGVLJQLILFDQWOLJDPHQWGDPDJH+HXQGHUZHQW VXUJHU\DQGKDGWZRVFUHZVSODFHGLQKLVDQNOH+HH[SHULHQFHGVZHOOLQJLQERWKDQNOHVDQGKH FRXOGQRWZDONIRURUGD\V+HKDVEHHQWROGWRH[SHFWVZHOOLQJLQKLVOHIWDQNOHIRUDWOHDVWD \HDU'XHWRWKHQDWXUHRIKLVMREKHZLOOQRWEHDEOHWRZRUNIRUDWOHDVWPRQWKV+HKDV VXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWLQFOXGHVKDYLQJPHQWDOIODVKEDFNVWRWKHHYHQWVRIWKH ³UDOO\´0DUWLQLVJRLQJWRPHQWDOFRXQVHOLQJWZLFHDZHHNWRVHHNVXSSRUWIRUKLVHPRWLRQDO WUDXPD
 3ODLQWLII%ODLU)RUGD\VDIWHUWKHDWWDFN%ODLUIRXQGKHUVHOIVKRUWRIEUHDWK VKDNLQJDQGFU\LQJXQFRQWUROODEO\DWWLPHV7RWKLVGD\VKHKDVWURXEOHIRFXVLQJLQFOXGLQJDW ZRUNDQGILQGVKHUVHOIRIWHQXQFKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\DQJU\6KHLVVFDUHGRI'RGJHFKDOOHQJHUVDQG ORXGQRLVHV6KHLVDOVRH[SHULHQFLQJIODVKEDFNV6KHLVZLWKGUDZQDQGUHWLFHQWLQZD\VVKH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 89 of 112

Pageid#: 901


 





QHYHUZDVEHIRUH6KHKDVORVWDERXWWHQSRXQGVVLQFHWKHDWWDFNGXHWRODFNRIDSSHWLWH6KH FDQQRWZDONE\WKHORFDWLRQRIWKHDWWDFN
 3ODLQWLII5RPHUR$VDUHVXOWRIKHUDVVDXOWDQGIDOVHLPSULVRQPHQWDWWKH WRUFKOLJKWUDOO\5RPHURH[SHULHQFHGEXUQLQJLQKHUH\HVDQGRQKHUVKRXOGHUVDQGWKHIHDUDQG DQ[LHW\VKHIHOWWKDWQLJKWSUHYHQWHGKHUIURPVOHHSLQJ7KHFDUDWWDFNWKHIROORZLQJGD\OHIW 5RPHURZLWKVHYHUHSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVDQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD5RPHURVXIIHUHGDVNXOOIUDFWXUH FRQFXVVLRQVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVDIUDFWXUHGWRRWKDQGVFUDWFKHVDOORYHUKHUERG\6KHVXIIHUV IURPVHYHUHYHUWLJRDQGH[SHULHQFHVGHELOLWDWLQJKHDGDFKHVWKDWSUHYHQWKHUIURPOHDYLQJWKH KRXVH6KHDOVRFDQQRWEHH[SRVHGWREULJKWOLJKWRUORRNDWZKLWHSDSHUZLWKRXWH[SHULHQFLQJ SDLQ+HUGRFWRUVDUHXQVXUHRIZKHQWKHVHV\PSWRPVZLOOVXEVLGH,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDO LQMXULHV5RPHURVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOWUDXPDDVDUHVXOWRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\DQGFDU DWWDFN5RPHURGLGQRWUHWXUQWRFDPSXVIRUFODVVHVWKLVIDOOEHFDXVHRIDQ[LHW\DQGIHDU DVVRFLDWHGZLWKKHUDVVDXOWVRQ$XJXVWDQG
 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGR7KHFDUDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWFDXVHG$OYDUDGRVHULRXVSK\VLFDO LQMXULHVDQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD$OYDUDGRVXIIHUHGDFRQFXVVLRQDQGVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVWRKHU OHJV$VDUHVXOWRIKHUFRQFXVVLRQVKHFRQWLQXHVWRH[SHULHQFHFRQIXVLRQIRUJHWIXOQHVVDQG GLIILFXOW\SURFHVVLQJFRQYHUVDWLRQV,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVWKHFDUDWWDFNDOVROHIW KHUZLWKVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD$OYDUDGRVXIIHUVIURPGHSUHVVLRQZKLFKKDVOHGWRZHLJKW JDLQLVRODWLRQIURPKHUIDPLO\DQGIULHQGVDQGDQLQDELOLW\WRGRGDLO\WDVNV
 3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\:LVSHOZH\FRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUIURPHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV :LVSHOZH\¶VHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVKDVPDQLIHVWHGLQSK\VLFDOV\PSWRPVLQFOXGLQJFRQVWULFWHGFKHVW SDLQGLIILFXOW\EUHDWKLQJDQGFKURQLFVOHHSLVVXHV+HUHJXODUO\ZDNHVXSZLWKQLJKWWHUURUV UHFDOOLQJWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQGDQGKDVKDGWRWDNHWLPHRIIIURPKLVZRUNLQRUGHUWR

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 90 of 112

Pageid#: 902


 





FRSHZLWKWKHWUDXPDRIWKHZHHNHQG+HKDVVHHQDWUDXPDLQIRUPHGWKHUDSLVWKDVEHHQ SURVFULEHGZLWKVOHHSPHGLFDWLRQDQGGLDJQRVHGZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHU:LVSHOZH\KDVDOVR EHFRPHK\SHUYLJLODQWHVSHFLDOO\LQFURZGV
 3ODLQWLII0XxL]$IWHUH[SHULHQFLQJWKHFDUDWWDFNDQGEHLQJYHUEDOO\KDUDVVHGRQ $XJXVW0XxL]KDVVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOLQMXU\)RUWKHILUVWZHHNIROORZLQJWKHDWWDFN 0XxL]FRXOGQRWGULYHDFDU6KHZDVDIUDLGHYHQWREHDSDVVHQJHUZLWKRXWFRYHULQJKHUOHIW H\HEHFDXVHWKHVLJKWRIRQFRPLQJWUDIILFZDVWHUULI\LQJ0XxL]KDVVLQFHH[SHULHQFHG WULJJHUV²PRPHQWVZKHUHVKHUHOLYHVWKHIHDURIWKDWGD\DQGVKHVKDNHVDQGWUHPEOHV6KHKDV VXIIHUHGDIHZHSLVRGHVLQZKLFKVKHKDVIDOOHQWRWKHJURXQGLQDFDWDWRQLFVWDWHDQGFDQGR QRWKLQJEXWFU\DQGGURROIRUORQJSHULRGV6KHKDVEHHQVOHHSLQJHUUDWLFDOO\KDVVXIIHUHGVKRUW WHUPPHPRU\LVVXHVDQGKDVEHFRPHVRFLDOO\ZLWKGUDZQ6KHKDVEHHQXQDEOHWRREWDLQPHGLFDO FDUHIRURWKHUFRQGLWLRQVGXHWRKHUVWUHVVVRVKHFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUIURPRWKHUDLOPHQWV6KHLV VHHLQJDWKHUDSLVWPXOWLSOHWLPHVSHUZHHNDQGKDVVWDUWHGWKHUDS\IRUSRVWWUDXPDWLFVWUHVV$W ZRUN0XxL]XVHGWRPDQDJHDGHSDUWPHQWRIDURXQGWZHQW\SHRSOHZLWKWZRPDQDJHUVEHQHDWK KHU
 8QDEOHWRUHWXUQWRZRUN0XxL]ZDVRQOHDYHIRUGLVDELOLW\GXULQJZKLFKWLPHVKH ZDVSDLGRIKHUSD\DQGKDVORVWRWKHUILQDQFLDOEHQHILWVVXFKDVWXLWLRQUHLPEXUVHPHQW 6KHUHWXUQHGWRZRUNRQDUHGXFHGVFKHGXOHRQ1RYHPEHUEXWKHUFRPSDQ\PDGHDGHFLVLRQ WKDWVKHLVQRWFDSDEOHRIGRLQJWKDWMREDQ\PRUHVRVKHZDVSODFHGLQDQHZUROHZLWKOHVV UHVSRQVLELOLW\0HGLFDOSURIHVVLRQDOVKDYHGLDJQRVHG0XxL]ZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHU0XxL] UHWXUQHGWRZRUNIXOOWLPHRQ-DQXDU\DOWKRXJKLQKHUQHZUROHZLWKOHVVUHVSRQVLELOLW\6KHLV XQGHUJRLQJZHHNO\WKHUDS\IRUKHUV\PSWRPV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 91 of 112

Pageid#: 903


 





 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RH$VDUHVXOWRIEHLQJEDUNHGDW\HOOHGDWDQGSK\VLFDOO\ DVVDXOWHG-RKQ'RHKDVVXIIHUHGQXPHURXVHPRWLRQDOLQMXULHV+HKDVKDGGLIILFXOW\IRFXVLQJLQ VFKRRODQGLVFRQVWDQWO\UHFDOOLQJWKHWUDXPDRI)ULGD\HYHQLQJ:KHQKHZDONVSDVWWKH7KRPDV -HIIHUVRQVWDWXHRQKLVFDPSXVKHLVLPPHGLDWHO\WULJJHUHGE\WKHUHFROOHFWLRQRIWKHHYHQWVRQ $XJXVW6LQFHWKH³UDOO\´-RKQ'RHKDVKDGGLIILFXOW\VOHHSLQJDQGKDVGHYHORSHGD KHLJKWHQHGDQ[LRXVVHQVHRIDZDUHQHVVLQSXEOLFVSDFHV-RKQ'RHDOVRKDGWRPLVVWZRZHHNV RIZRUN
 3ODLQWLII6LQHV8SRQZLWQHVVLQJWKHFDUDWWDFNDQGQHDUO\EHLQJKLW6LQHV VXIIHUHGH[WUHPHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDQGVKRFN6KHRIWHQZDNHVXSZLWKQLJKWPDUHVRIWKHFDU DWWDFNDQGKHUDFDGHPLFSHUIRUPDQFHKDVVXIIHUHGLQODZVFKRRODVDUHVXOW6LQHVLVXQDEOHWR IRFXVDQGKDVPLVVHGFODVVHVGXHWRKHUHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV6LQHVLVDOVRQRZK\SHUYLJLODQW DQGDIUDLGLQKHURZQKRPH
 3ODLQWLII3HDUFH,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSK\VLFDODQGYHUEDOUHOLJLRXVEDVHGDVVDXOW 3HDUFHH[SHULHQFHGRQ$XJXVWVKHFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUVHULRXVHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV,QKLV +HEUHZVFKRROFODVV3HDUFH¶VVRQZDVDVNHGWRDQVZHUVHYHUDOZULWLQJSURPSWV,QUHVSRQVHWR WKHTXHVWLRQ³ZKDWPDNHVPHXQFRPIRUWDEOHDERXWEHLQJ-HZLVK´KHZURWH³QHR1D]LV´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 92 of 112

Pageid#: 904


 





 6LQFH$XJXVWDQGLQUHVSRQVHWRWKUHDWVPDGHDJDLQVWLWE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV 3HDUFH¶VV\QDJRJXH%HWK,VUDHOKDVDGRSWHGDQHZHODERUDWHVHFXULW\SURWRFROWKDWOLPLWV SDUHQWV¶DELOLW\WRSLFNXSWKHLUFKLOGUHQIURP+HEUHZVFKRRO:KHUHDVSULRUWR$XJXVW VWXGHQWSLFNXSZDVDUHOD[HGMR\IXOSURFHVVGXULQJZKLFKSDUHQWVZRXOGFKDWDQGFKLOGUHQ ZRXOGSOD\SDUHQWVPXVWQRZHQWHUDFRGHWRDORFNHGVHFXUHGRRUDIWHUZKLFKWKH\DUH SHUPLWWHGWRZDLWTXLHWO\LQVLGHWKHGRRUIRUWKHLUFKLOGWREHUHWULHYHG0RUHRYHU3ODLQWLII 3HDUFHLVQRZDIUDLGIRUKHUVDIHW\DQGIRUWKHVDIHW\RIKHUIDPLO\DWWKH6\QDJRJXH$QGVLQFH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 93 of 112

Pageid#: 905


 





WKHDWWDFNVKHKDVKDGWRH[SODLQWRKHUVRQZK\WKHUHDUHDOZD\VSROLFHRIILFHUVVWDQGLQJJXDUG RXWVLGHWKHV\QDJRJXH % 'HIHQGDQWV:LOO&RQWLQXHWR&DXVH9LROHQFHDQG,QWLPLGDWLRQ8QOHVV5HVWUDLQHG
³:H:LOO%H%DFN´  ,QWKHZHHNVDIWHUWKH³UDOO\´DQGWKHPDVVRILQMXULHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 'HIHQGDQWVQRWRQO\FODLPHG³YLFWRU\´EXWVZRUHWKDWWKH\ZRXOGUHWXUQ$OUHDG\WKH\KDYH IROORZHGWKURXJKRQWKHLUSURPLVH  'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUVDLG³7R0D\RU0LNH6LJQHUDQG:HV%HOODP\DQGDOOWKHVH OLWWOHFUHHSVRIWKLVOLWWOHWRZQZKRGRQ¶WXQGHUVWDQGZKRWKH\¶UHGHDOLQJZLWK²WKHORFDOOLWWOH ORVHUV²ZHDUHQHYHUEDFNLQJGRZQ:HDUHJRLQJWREHEDFN´  'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQZURWHRQ$XJXVW³$VIRUPHGLDUXPRUVWKDWWKH>'DLO\ 6WRUPHU@VLWHZLOOEHVKXWGRZQ<RXVKRXOGNQRZEHWWHU,W¶VJRLQJWRWDNHEXOOHWVWRVWRS XV´  &RFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQWZHHWHG³%URWKHUV VLVWHUVDFURVVWKH$OW5LJKW²WKLV LVDWDVWHRIKRZLWIHHOVWREHWKHWLSRIWKHVSHDUHQWHULQJRXUFLYLOL]DWLRQDOFULVLV´$IHZGD\V ODWHUKHWZHHWHG³,I\RXZHUHWKHUHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH\RX¶UHDPXVHGDWWKHSURQRXQFHPHQWV RIWKH$OW5LJKW¶VGHDWK:HDUHRQO\MXVWEHJLQQLQJ´  ³7KHUH¶VQRZD\LQKHOO,¶PQRWJRLQJEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´'HIHQGDQW 6SHQFHUGHFODUHGDWDSUHVVFRQIHUHQFHZLWK'HIHQGDQW'DPLJR'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WROGWKH +XIILQJWRQ3RVW³2XUSHRSOHDUHIHHOLQJUHDOJRRGULJKWQRZ«7KLVGD\ZDVDPLOHVWRQH SXVKLQJXVLQWRRXUQH[WVWDJH:HKDGDODUJHWXUQRXW:H¶UHFRPLQJEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´  7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUDOVRYRZHGWKDWLWZRXOGKROGVLPLODUHYHQWV³VRRQ´$SRVW RQWKHZHEVLWHUHDG³:HDUHJRLQJWRVWDUWGRLQJWKLVQRQVWRS$FURVVWKHFRXQWU\:HDUH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 94 of 112

Pageid#: 906


 





JRLQJWRJRELJJHUWKDQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:HDUHJRLQJWRJRKXJH´)XUWKHUPRUHLWWROGUHDGHUV
WKDW³>Z@HDUHQRZDWZDU´DQGSURPLVHGWR³WDNHRYHUWKHFRXQWU\´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUSURPLVHG³:H¶UHJRLQJWRKDYHELJJHUDQGELJJHUHYHQWVLQ
&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 'HIHQGDQWVSODQIRUWKHVHRWKHUHYHQWVWREHYLROHQW$IWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW
³UDOO\´'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOH[SODLQHG³,FDPHSUHWW\ZHOOSUHSDUHGIRUWKLVWKLQJWRGD\´ZKLOH
SXOOLQJRXWWKUHHSLVWROVWZRVHPLDXWRPDWLFPDFKLQHJXQVDQGDNQLIH2IWKHQH[W³DOWULJKW
SURWHVW´KHVDLG³LW¶VJRLQJWREHWRXJKWRWRSEXWZH¶UHXSWRWKHFKDOOHQJH,WKLQNDORW
PRUHSHRSOHDUHJRLQJWRGLHEHIRUHZH¶UHGRQHKHUHIUDQNO\´
 )ROORZLQJKLVUHOHDVHRQERQGIRUWKHRIIHQVHVFRPPLWWHGRQ$XJXVW
'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOUHPDUNHGWKDWDIWHUKLVVWLQWLQSULVRQKHZDQWVWR³WXUQLWXSWR´
 2QHZHHNDIWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´5LFKDUG6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWH9LQFHQW
/DZSXEOLVKHG³7KH$OW5LJKWLV)LQLVKHG'HEDWLQJ1R0RUH:RUGV2QO\3UHSDUDWLRQ1RZ´
1RZZKDWKDSSHQVQH[W"2XUVLGHFHUWDLQO\LVQ¶WUHDG\IRU PDVVDFWLRQ\HW$QGWKHUHDUHQRVWUHHWDFWLRQVSODQQHGIRUWKH QHDU IXWXUH  6WLOO WKH OLQHV KDYH EHHQ GUDZQ 7KLQN DERXW WKRVH EUDYH \RXQJ PHQ DW &KDUORWWHVYLOOH  7KHUH LV QR JRLQJ EDFN IRU WKHP
7KH SXEOLF ZLOO VHH YHU\ VRRQ WKDW GHEDWH LV SRLQWOHVV 7KHUHDUHQRSULQFLSOHVDWSOD\DQ\PRUH2QO\RXUWULEHDQGWKHLUV $QG RQO\ RQH JURXS RXW WKHUH KDV GUDZQ D OLQH LQ WKH FOD\ DQG GHFLGHGWRPDNHDVWDQGIRUZKDWLVWKHLUVE\ELUWKE\EORRGDQG E\WKHZLOORI*RG7KH$OW5LJKWLVILQLVKHGGHEDWLQJQHJRWLDWLQJ VXUUHQGHULQJ:H¶UHUHDG\WRFORVHUDQNVDQGILJKWIRUZKDWLVRXUV 3RVW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH RXU IOHHW OLHV DW WKH ERWWRP RI D GHHS DQG WURXEOHGVHDDQGZHFDQRQO\PDUFKRQIRUZDUGOLNH&RUWH]RQFH GLG$QGOLNHKLPZHVWDQGSRLVHGWRFRQTXHUWKHFRQWLQHQW
 2Q6DWXUGD\2FWREHU'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHWXUQHGWR
&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KHFDOOHGWKHHYHQW³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´$JDLQWKH\FDUULHGWLNLWRUFKHVDQG

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 95 of 112

Pageid#: 907


 





DJDLQWKH\FKDQWHG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´%XWWKLVWLPHWKH\DGGHG³:HZLOOEHEDFNZH ZLOOEHEDFN´
 2Q1RYHPEHU'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUILOHGDQDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSHUPLWWR KROGDQRWKHU³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH$OWKRXJKWKDWDSSOLFDWLRQZDVGHQLHG.HVVOHUKDV LQGLFDWHGWKDWLWZLOOSURFHHGQRQHWKHOHVV,WLVVFKHGXOHGWRRFFXURQ$XJXVWDQG
& 'HIHQGDQWV&RQWLQXH7KHLU(IIRUWVRI0XWXDO6XSSRUWDQG&RRUGLQDWLRQ  8VLQJPDQ\RIWKHVDPHSODWIRUPVWKH'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWRIXQGWKHLUSUH´UDOO\´ FRRUGLQDWLRQDQGSODQQLQJ'HIHQGDQWVKDYHVLQFHSURYLGHGPXWXDOVXSSRUWWRGHIUD\WKHFRVWV DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHLUXQODZIXOFRQGXFW  'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOSRVWHGEDLOLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKKLVIHORQ\LQGLFWPHQWE\ FURZGIXQGLQJRQZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVXSSRUWLYHVLWHV+DWUHRQDQG*R\)XQG0H&DQWZHOO¶V *R\)XQG0HSDJHVROLFLWHGGRQDWLRQVIRUWKH³-XVWLFH)XQG´DSHUVRQDOL]HGYHUVLRQRIWKH SRSXODUZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWQXPHULFV\PERO³´7KH³´VWDQGVIRUWKH:RUGVVORJDQ ZKLFKLVWKHKHDUWRI&DQWZHOODQGKLVFRFRQVSLUDWRUV¶LGHRORJ\³:HPXVWVHFXUHWKHH[LVWHQFH RIRXUSHRSOHDQGDIXWXUHIRUZKLWHFKLOGUHQ´,QSODFHRIWKHXVXDO³´ZKLFKLVVKRUWKDQGIRU ³+HLO+LWOHU´+EHLQJWKHWKOHWWHURIWKHDOSKDEHW³´LVDVWDQGLQIRU³&&´RU³&KULV &DQWZHOO´  :KLOHLQSULVRQ'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOFRQWLQXHGWREURDGFDVWKLVSRGFDVW5DGLFDO $JHQGDZLWKWKHDVVLVWDQFHRI'HIHQGDQW3HLQRYLFK0RUHRYHU3HLQRYLFKDVVLVWHG&DQWZHOOLQ KLVIXQGUDLVLQJE\GLVWULEXWLQJUHFRUGLQJVRISKRQHFDOOVIURPMDLOLQZKLFK&DQWZHOOPDNHVSOHDV IRUGRQDWLRQV  6LPLODUO\'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRIRXQGHURIFR'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD HVWDEOLVKHGDSXUSRUWHG³,GHQWLW\(YURSD'HIHQVH)XQG´DQGVROLFLWHGGRQDWLRQVIRUKLPVHOI

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 96 of 112

Pageid#: 908


 





'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DQG'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD0RVOH\DQG'DPLJRDOVRDSSHDUHGWRJHWKHU ZLWK'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHURQ³5HG,FH79´WRVROLFLWGRQDWLRQV
&2163,5$&<$&76  $VGHWDLOHGDERYHDOO'HIHQGDQWVKDGDQDJUHHPHQWDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJWRHQJDJH LQSURPRWHDQGLQFLWHUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFLW\EDVHGKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH7KH\GLG VRWKURXJKDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVXVLQJDQGHQFRXUDJLQJWKHXVHRIZHDSRQVDQGFDXVWLF VXEVWDQFHVPLOLWDU\VW\OHPDUFKHVEXUQLQJWRUFKHVLQWLPLGDWLQJLFRQRJUDSK\DQGWKUHDWVRI YLROHQFH7KH\GLGVRLQRUGHUWRDLQMXUHEODFNDQG-HZLVKUHVLGHQWVRI9LUJLQLDE\GHQ\LQJ WKHPWKHHTXDOSULYLOHJHVDQGLPPXQLWLHVRIFLWL]HQVKLSDQGWKHXVHEHQHILWVDQGSULYLOHJHVRI SURSHUW\DQGRUFRQWUDFWXDOUHODWLRQVKLSVEIXUWKHU'HIHQGDQWV¶FDXVHRIUHFUXLWLQJQHZ IROORZHUVWRHQJDJHLQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHUHIHUHQFHGDERYHERWK DWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´DQGLQWKHIXWXUHDQGFFRPSHOWKHFLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWR PDLQWDLQWKHVWDWXHRI5REHUW(/HHLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDVDPHDQVRIIXUWKHULQJWKHLU DIRUHPHQWLRQHGJRDOV  $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVRQEHKDOIRIWKHPVHOYHV RUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVIRUZKLFKWKH\DUHDJHQWVSODQQHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW ³UDOO\´HQFRXUDJHGDWWHQGDQFHDFWLYHO\RUJDQL]HGIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGFRRUGLQDWHGORJLVWLFDO VXSSRUWWRDWWHQGHHVSURPRWHGWKH³UDOO\´DVYLROHQWDQGHQFRXUDJHGDWWHQGHHVWRSUHSDUHIRU DQGFRPPLWYLROHQWDFWV  $PRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKH\XVHGRQOLQHDQGPHGLDSODWIRUPVWRHQFRXUDJH DWWHQGDQFHDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´WRGLVFXVVDQGSURPRWHFDXVLQJKDUPWR-HZLVKSHRSOH DQGSHRSOHRIFRORUDQGWRSURPRWHYLROHQFH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 97 of 112

Pageid#: 909


 





 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQPHWLQSHUVRQWRSODQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG.HVVOHUPHWLQSHUVRQLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRSODQ XQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW HYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV5D\&DQWZHOODQG0RVOH\DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU'DYLG'XNHDWWHQGHG DQLQSHUVRQSODQQLQJPHHWLQJRQ$XJXVWWRSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG GHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\XVLQJDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJV'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH +LOODQG(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRUJDQL]HGDQGFDXVHGRWKHUVWRDWWHQGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV DQGFRPPLWDFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW1607:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG $PHULFD(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVDQG³RWKHUDOOLHV´FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLUDWWHQGDQFHDVD³MRLQW RSHUDWLRQ´LQDGYDQFHRI$XJXVWLQRUGHUWRSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG GHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRDQGKLVJURXS,GHQWLW\(YURSDWRRNDOHDGUROHLQRUJDQL]LQJ ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJSHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRHQJDJHLQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\RUJDQL]HGWKH³UDOO\´DQGFRRUGLQDWHGORJLVWLFV DORQJZLWKFRFRQVSLUDWRU7\URQHIRUDWWHQGHHVRQ$XJXVWLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVRWKDWWKH\ ZRXOGHQJDJHLQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 98 of 112

Pageid#: 910


 





 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\PRGHUDWHGUHYLHZHGDQGPDQDJHGWKH &KDUORWWHVYLOOHGLVFXVVLRQIRUXPRQWKHDSSOLFDWLRQQDPHG'LVFRUGWRGLUHFWDQGSODQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV $ORQJZLWK.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\'HIHQGDQWV+HLPEDFK3DUURWW&DQWZHOO5D\DQDJHQWRI'DLO\ 6WRUPHUDQGKHQFH'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU7\URQH ZHUHDOOSDUWLFLSDQWVLQ'LVFRUGDQGLQWKHGLUHFWLRQSODQQLQJDQGLQFLWLQJRIVXFKXQODZIXODFWV WKURXJK'LVFRUGLQFOXGLQJWKHXVHRIZHDSRQVDQGREMHFWVWRLQIOLFWKDUPDQGLQWLPLGDWH 'HIHQGDQWV9DQJXDUG$PHULFD,GHQWLW\(YURSD7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDQG0RRQEDVH +ROGLQJVWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHUDOOKDGPHPEHUVRQWKH'LVFRUGFKDQQHO
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO5D\DQG$QJOLQDPRQJRWKHUVDGYLVHGUDOO\JRHUVRQ EULQJLQJZHDSRQV
 8VLQJ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\VHWXSDFKDQQHOIRUFR FRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHXQODZIXODFWVDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVLQFOXGLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQ5D\DQGWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHU0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVVHWXS DFKDQQHOIRUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHXQODZIXODFWVLQFOXGLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO.HVVOHU0RVOH\$QJOLQ5D\DQG3HLQRYLFKDQGRWKHUV UDLVHGIXQGVSODQQHGIRUOHJDOVXSSRUWDQGDUUDQJHGWUDYHOIRUWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVZKRHQJDJHGLQ XQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW HYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV3HLQRYLFK,QYLFWXV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU&DQWZHOO+HLPEDFKDQG+LOO ZHUHIHDWXUHGLQWKHSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18

Page 99 of 112

Pageid#: 911


 





 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\$QJOLQDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV SODQQHGDQGRUJDQL]HGD³VHFUHW´WRUFKSDUDGHDW89$IRU$XJXVWZLWKDSODQDQGLQWHQWWR LQWLPLGDWHWKUHDWHQDQGKDUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVSDUWLFXODUO\-HZVEODFNVDQGRWKHU PLQRULW\UHVLGHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\DQG,QYLFWXVDWWHQGHGDQG SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQW$XJXVWWRUFKSDUDGHDQGGLUHFWHGDQGLQFLWHGSK\VLFDODVVDXOWVDQG YLROHQFHWKHXVHRIRSHQIODPHVDQGWKHLQWLPLGDWLRQRIPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVDQGWKRVHZKR DGYRFDWHIRUHTXDOULJKWVIRUPLQRULW\FLWL]HQV
 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODVVDXOWHGSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVZLWKPDFHDFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFH GXULQJWKH$XJXVWPDUFK
 &RFRQVSLUDWRUVDWWHQGHGWKHWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKRQ$XJXVWDQGHQJDJHGLQDFWV RILQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH
 $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI$QJOLQDWWHQGHGDQGSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVWGXULQJZKLFKWKH\WKUHDWHQHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQGKDUDVVHG SURWHVWRUVDQGPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVDQGLQFLWHGDQGHQJDJHGLQYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV DWWHQGHGZLWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFDZHDULQJWKHXQLIRUPZKLWHSRORDQGNKDNLVDQGFDUU\LQJD EODFNVKLHOGZLWKWKH9DQJXDUGORJR
 $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGLUHFWHGDQGLQFLWHGDFWV RIYLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVW
 &R&RQVSLUDWRUVDWWHQGHGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVWDQGHQJDJHG LQDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 912

Page 100 of 112

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGHOLEHUDWHO\GURYHKLV'RGJH&KDOOHQJHULQWRDFURZGRI SHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVRQ$XJXVWLQWHQGLQJWRLQVWLOOIHDULQWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGWRFDXVHLQMXULHV RQDPDVVVFDOH
&$86(62)$&7,21 &2817,86& %\$OO3ODLQWLIIV$JDLQVW$OO'HIHQGDQWV  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV  'HIHQGDQWVSORWWHGFRRUGLQDWHGDQGH[HFXWHGDFRPPRQSODQWRHQJDJHLQ YLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQLQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH  ,QIXUWKHUDQFHRIDFRQVSLUDF\WRYLRODWHWKHULJKWVRI3ODLQWLIIVDQGRWKHUEODFN DQG-HZLVKSHRSOHDQGWKHLUVXSSRUWHUV'HIHQGDQWVUHSHDWHGO\HQJDJHGLQFDPSDLJQVRI YLROHQFHWKUHDWVDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQDW/HH3DUNDQGWKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH  'HIHQGDQWVKDYHFRPPLWWHGQXPHURXVRYHUWDFWVLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\ WRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWVZKLFKDUHVHWIRUWKLQWKHSDUDJUDSKVDERYH'HIHQGDQWVKDYHVRXJKW WRFUHDWHDQDWPRVSKHUHRIYLROHQFHDJDLQVW3ODLQWLIIVDQGWRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶HTXDOULJKWV LQFOXGLQJWKRVHXQGHU86&  &RFRQVSLUDWRUVZKRVHLGHQWLWLHVDUHQRWNQRZQFRPPLWWHGQXPHURXVDGGLWLRQDO DFWVLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\WRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHDOOHJHGKHUHLQ  7KHLOOHJDODFWLYLWLHVGHVFULEHGZHUHXQGHUWDNHQE\'HIHQGDQWVWKHLUDJHQWVDQG FRFRQVSLUDWRUVDVH[SUHVVRYHUWDFWVSXUVXDQWWRDQXQODZIXOFRQVSLUDF\WKHSXUSRVHRIZKLFK ZDVDQGLVWRGLVFULPLQDWRULO\GHSULYHEODFN-HZLVKQRQZKLWHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGWKHLUZKLWH VXSSRUWHUVRIWKHLUULJKWVWRWKHHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIWKHODZVDQGWKHLUULJKWVWRWKHHTXDO

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 913

Page 101 of 112

Pageid#:


 





HQMR\PHQWRIWKHSULYLOHJHVDQGLPPXQLWLHVRIFLWL]HQVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVJXDUDQWHHGE\WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDQGODZVEHFDXVHRIWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQDQGRSHQDQGREYLRXVDGYRFDF\IRUWKH ULJKWVRIQRQZKLWHLQGLYLGXDOV
 $VDUHVXOWRIWKHDFWVVHWRXWLQWKHDERYHSDUDJUDSKVFRPPLWWHGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRI WKLVFRQVSLUDF\3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGLQMXULHVWRWKHLUSHUVRQRUSURSHUW\DQGRUVXIIHUHGWKH GLVFULPLQDWRU\GHSULYDWLRQRIRQHRUPRUHRIWKHLUULJKWVRUSULYLOHJHVJXDUDQWHHGE\WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQRUODZVEHFDXVHRIRQHRUPRUHRIWKHLOOHJDORYHUWDFWVRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLU DJHQWV7KHVHULJKWVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHLUULJKWVWREHIUHHRIWKHEDGJHVDQG LQFLGHQWVRIVODYHU\SXUVXDQWWRWKH7KLUWHHQWK$PHQGPHQWDVZHOODVWKHLUULJKWVSURWHFWHGE\ 86&
 %HFDXVHRI'HIHQGDQWV¶YLRODWLRQRI3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWV3ODLQWLIIVKDYHVXIIHUHG QXPHURXVDQGYDULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJERGLO\LQMXU\LQMXULHVWRSURSHUW\ORVWLQFRPHDQG VHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV
&2817,,86& %\$OO3ODLQWLIIV$JDLQVW$OO'HIHQGDQWV  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV  'HIHQGDQWVDOOSRVVHVVHGDFWXDONQRZOHGJHRIWKH6HFWLRQDQWLFLYLOULJKWV FRQVSLUDF\GHVFULEHGLQWKLVFRPSODLQWWKDWZDVSODQQHGDQGWKHQXQGHUWDNHQDJDLQVWWKHFODVVRI $PHULFDQFLWL]HQVGHVFULEHG²LQFOXGLQJDQXPEHURIWKH3ODLQWLIIVQDPHGKHUHLQ  'HIHQGDQWVDVRUJDQL]HUVSODQQHUVSURPRWHUVDQGOHDGHUVRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\ ZHUHHDFKLQDSRVLWLRQDQGKDGWKHSRZHUWRKDYHVWRSSHGWKHDQWLFLYLOULJKWVFRQVSLUDF\RUWR DLGLQVWRSSLQJLW

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 914

Page 102 of 112

Pageid#:


 





 (DFKRIWKH'HIHQGDQWVIDLOHGDQGUHIXVHGWRWDNHDQ\VWHSVWRDWWHPSWWRVWRSWKLV FRQVSLUDF\RUDQ\RIWKHRYHUWDFWVFRPPLWWHGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\VRDVWRVWRSWKH LQMXULHVZKLFKRFFXUUHGWR3ODLQWLIIVRUWRRWKHUPHPEHUVRIWKHFODVVRIFLWL]HQVWDUJHWHGE\WKH DQWLFLYLOULJKWVFRQVSLUDF\GHVFULEHG
 7KHIDLOXUHRI'HIHQGDQWVWRWDNHDQ\VWHSVWRDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHDFWLRQV GHVFULEHGKHUHLQE\LQIRUPLQJWKHODZIXODXWKRULWLHVRURWKHUZLVHYLRODWHGWKHFRPPDQGRI 86&
 3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGWKHLULQMXULHVDVDUHVXOWRIWKHLQGLYLGXDO'HIHQGDQWV¶IDLOXUHWR VWRSWKHGHVFULEHGFRQVSLUDF\
&2817,,,&,9,/&2163,5$&< 
%\$OO3ODLQWLIIV$JDLQVW$OO'HIHQGDQWV  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV  (DFK'HIHQGDQWFRQVSLUHGWRJHWKHUDQGFRPELQHGZLWKRQHRUPRUHRWKHUSHUVRQV WRDFFRPSOLVKWKURXJKWKHFRQFHUWHGDFWLRQGHVFULEHGDERYHXQODZIXODQGWRUWLRXVDFWV LQFOXGLQJ
D 6XEMHFWLQJSHUVRQVWRDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQRUKDUDVVPHQWPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDO UHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
E 'LUHFWLQJYLROHQFHDWDQRWKHUSHUVRQPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLF DQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
F 'LUHFWLQJYDQGDOLVPDWDSHUVRQ¶VUHDORUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\PRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDO UHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
G &DXVLQJRUSURGXFLQJDULRWLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 915

Page 103 of 112

Pageid#:


 





H 'LUHFWLQJLQFLWLQJRUVROLFLWLQJRWKHUSHUVRQVSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQDULRWWRDFWVRI IRUFHRUYLROHQFHLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
I &DXVLQJSXEOLFLQFRQYHQLHQFHDQQR\DQFHRUDODUPRUUHFNOHVVO\FUHDWLQJDULVN WKHUHRILQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
J $VVHPEOLQJDFROOHFWLRQRISHRSOHIRUWKHSXUSRVHDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQRI FRPPLWWLQJDQGDFWXDOO\FRPPLWWLQJDQDVVDXOWRUEDWWHU\RQDQRWKHUSHUVRQLQ YLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHDQG
K $VVHPEOLQJDFROOHFWLRQRISHRSOHIRUWKHSXUSRVHDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQRI FRPPLWWLQJDQGDFWXDOO\FRPPLWWLQJDQDFWRIYLROHQFHDVGHILQHGLQ9LUJLQLD &RGHLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHDQG 
L 0DOLFLRXVO\FDXVLQJDQRWKHUSHUVRQERGLO\LQMXU\E\XVHRIDQ\H[SORVLYHRUILUH LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
M %XUQLQJDQREMHFWZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHRQDKLJKZD\RURWKHUSXEOLFSODFH LQDPDQQHUKDYLQJDGLUHFWWHQGHQF\WRSODFHDQRWKHUSHUVRQLQUHDVRQDEOHIHDURI DSSUHKHQVLRQRIGHDWKRUERGLO\LQMXU\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH 
N %XUQLQJDQREMHFWZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHRQWKHSULYDWHSURSHUW\RIDQRWKHU ZLWKRXWSHUPLVVLRQLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
O &RPPLWWLQJDQDFWRIYLROHQFHZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHDFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDW ODUJHRULQIOXHQFHWKHFRQGXFWRUDFWLYLWLHVRIDJRYHUQPHQWWKURXJKLQWLPLGDWLRQ LQYLRODWLRQRI

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 916

Page 104 of 112

Pageid#:


 





P 3RVVHVVLQJXVLQJVHOOLQJJLYLQJGLVWULEXWLQJRUPDQXIDFWXULQJDZHDSRQRU

LPLWDWLRQZHDSRQWKDWFRXOGFDXVHVHULRXVERGLO\KDUPLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDQDFW

RIWHUURULVPLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH

Q ,QYLWLQJVROLFLWLQJUHFUXLWLQJHQFRXUDJLQJRURWKHUZLVHFDXVLQJDQRWKHUWR

SDUWLFLSDWHLQDQDFWRIWHUURULVPLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH

R .QRZLQJO\SURYLGLQJPDWHULDOVXSSRUWWRDQLQGLYLGXDORURUJDQL]DWLRQZKRVH

SULPDU\REMHFWLYHLVWRFRPPLWDQDFWRIWHUURULVPZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRIXUWKHUWKH

LQGLYLGXDORURUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VREMHFWLYHVLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH

S (QJDJLQJLQDQRYHUWDFWLQWHQGHGWRLQIOLFWERGLO\KDUPRULQWHQGHGWRSODFHWKH

YLFWLPLQIHDURUDSSUHKHQVLRQRIERGLO\KDUPDVVDXOW

T &RPPLWWLQJDQXQZDQWHGWRXFKLQJWKDWZDVQHLWKHUFRQVHQWHGWRH[FXVHGRU

MXVWLILHGEDWWHU\

U &DXVLQJUHDVRQDEOHDSSUHKHQVLRQWKDWIRUFHZLOOEHXVHGXQOHVVDSHUVRQZLOOLQJO\

VXEPLWVDQGFDXVLQJKLPWRVXEPLWWRWKHH[WHQWWKDWKHLVGHQLHGIUHHGRPRI

DFWLRQIDOVHLPSULVRQPHQW

 (DFKRIWKH3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGGDPDJHVUHVXOWLQJIURPDFWVFRPPLWWHGLQ

IXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\

 $VFRFRQVSLUDWRUV'HIHQGDQWVDUHFLYLOO\OLDEOHWR3ODLQWLIIVIRUWKHDFWLRQVRIDOO

LQGLYLGXDOVZKRDFWHGLQSXUVXLWRIWKHFRPPRQFRQVSLUDWRULDOVFKHPH

&2817,91(*/,*(1&(3(56( 
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ

SDUDJUDSKV

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 917

Page 105 of 112

Pageid#:


 





 3XUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQ\SHUVRQZKRFRPPLWVRUFRQVSLUHVWR FRPPLWRUDLGVDQGDEHWVWKHFRPPLVVLRQRIDQDFWRIWHUURULVPLVJXLOW\RIDIHORQ\
 9LUJLQLD&RGHGHILQHVDQ³DFWRIWHUURULVP´DVDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVDQ DFWRIYLROHQFHFRPPLWWHGZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDWODUJH
 9LUJLQLD&RGHZDVHQDFWHGWRSURWHFWWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQIURPDFWV RIWHUURULVPDQGYLROHQFH
 )LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHKLVYHKLFOHLQWRDJURXSRIFLYLOLDQVDQGFRXQWHU SURWHVWRUVZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRPXUGHULQMXUHDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDWODUJHLQ YLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
 3ODLQWLIIVDVPHPEHUVRIWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQEHORQJWRWKHFODVVRISHUVRQVIRU ZKRVHEHQHILW9LUJLQLD&RGHZDVHQDFWHGDQGWKHYLRODWLRQRIWKH6WDWXWHFRQVWLWXWHV QHJOLJHQFHSHUVH
 7KHLQMXULHVVXIIHUHGE\3ODLQWLIIVZHUHWKHW\SHRIKDUPDJDLQVWZKLFK9LUJLQLD &RGHZDVGHVLJQHGWRSURWHFW
 'HIHQGDQW¶VYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHGLUHFWO\DQGSUR[LPDWHO\ FDXVHGWKH3ODLQWLIIVKDUP
&281799,2/$7,212)9,5*,1,$&2'( &,9,/$&7,21)255$&,$/5(/,*,28625(7+1,&+$5$660(17
 %\3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\0DJLOO0XxL]-RKQ'RH6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG 5RPHUR$JDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV)LHOGV0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\&DQWZHOODQG,QYLFWXV
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV
 9LUJLQLD&RGHFUHDWHVDFLYLOFDXVHRIDFWLRQIRUDQ\SHUVRQZKRLV VXEMHFWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJLIPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\DFWVRI

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 918

Page 106 of 112

Pageid#:


 





LQWLPLGDWLRQRUKDUDVVPHQWYLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWKLVRUKHUSHUVRQRUYDQGDOLVPGLUHFWHG
DJDLQVWKLVRUKHUUHDORUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\
 3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\0DJLOO0XxL]-RKQ'RH6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR
DQG5RPHURZHUHVXEMHFWHGWRDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQDQGRUKDUDVVPHQWYLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWWKHLU
SHUVRQVDQGRUYDQGDOLVPGLUHFWHGDJDLQVWWKHLUUHDODQGRUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\
 7KHVHDFWVZHUHPRWLYDWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV¶UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\
&28179,$66$8/7$1'%$77(5< 
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV
 $VDUHVXOWRIWKHLQWHQWLRQDODQGXQODZIXODFWVRI'HIHQGDQWVDVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQ
3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHURZHUHSODFHGLQDSSUHKHQVLRQRI
KDUPIXODQGRURIIHQVLYHERGLO\FRQWDFWDQGVXIIHUHGKDUPIXORIIHQVLYHERGLO\WRXFKLQJZKLFK
ZDVQHLWKHUFRQVHQWHGWRH[FXVHGRUMXVWLILHG
&28179,,,17(17,21$/,1)/,&7,212)(027,21$/',675(66
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV
 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\DQGRUUHFNOHVVO\GURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRI
FRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRPXUGHUVHYHUHO\LQMXUHDQGLQWLPLGDWHDFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQ

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 919

Page 107 of 112

Pageid#:


 





 $VDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VRXWUDJHRXVDQGH[WUHPHDFWLRQV3ODLQWLIIV

0XxL]%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHURVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWQR

UHDVRQDEOHSHUVRQFRXOGEHH[SHFWHGWRHQGXUH

35$<(5)255(/,()

:KHUHIRUH3ODLQWLIIVUHVSHFWIXOO\UHTXHVWDQDZDUGRIWKHIROORZLQJUHOLHI

 $GHFODUDWRU\MXGJPHQWWKDWWKHDFWLRQVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQGHSULYHG3ODLQWLIIVRI

WKHLUULJKWVXQGHUIHGHUDODQGVWDWHODZ

 ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHIHQMRLQLQJ'HIHQGDQWVIURPIXWXUHYLRODWLRQVRIULJKWVJXDUDQWHHG

E\VWDWHDQGIHGHUDOODZ

 &RPSHQVDWRU\DQGVWDWXWRU\GDPDJHVLQDQDPRXQWWREHGHWHUPLQHGDWWULDO

 3XQLWLYHGDPDJHVLQDQDPRXQWWREHGHWHUPLQHGDWWULDO

 6XFKRWKHUUHOLHIDVWKH&RXUWGHHPVQHFHVVDU\DQGMXVW





Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 920

Page 108 of 112

Pageid#:


 





  
Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG 
s/ Robert T. Cahill 5REHUW7&DKLOO96% &22/(<//3 )UHHGRP'ULYHWK)ORRU 5HVWRQ9$ 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOUFDKLOO#FRROH\FRP

Of Counsel for all Plaintiffs:

5REHUWD$.DSODQpro hac vice -XOLH()LQNpro hac vice &KULVWRSKHU%*UHHQHpro hac vice 6HJXLQ/6WURKPHLHUpro hac vice .$3/$1 &203$1<//3 )LIWK$YHQXH6XLWH 1HZ<RUN1< 7HOHSKRQH (PDLOUNDSODQ#NDSODQDQGFRPSDQ\FRP (PDLOMILQN#NDSODQDQGFRPSDQ\FRP (PDLOFJUHHQH#NDSODQDQGFRPSDQ\FRP (PDLOVVWURKPHLHU#NDSODQDQGFRPSDQ\FRP

.DUHQ/'XQQpro hac vice :LOOLDP$,VDDFVRQpro hac vice %2,(66&+,//(5)/(;1(5//3 1HZ<RUN$YH1: :DVKLQJWRQ'& 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLONGXQQ#EVIOOSFRP (PDLOZLVDDFVRQ#EVIOOSFRP

3KLOLS0%RZPDQpro hac vice -RVKXD-/LEOLQJpro hac vice <RWDP%DUNDLpro hac vice %2,(66&+,//(5)/(;1(5//3 /H[LQJWRQ$YH 1HZ<RUN1< 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOSERZPDQ#EVIOOSFRP (PDLOMOLEOLQJ#EVIOOSFRP (PDLO\EDUNDL#EVIOOSFRP


Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 109 of 112 Pageid#: 921


 
 





$ODQ/HYLQHpro hac vice &22/(<//3 $YHQXHRIWKH$PHULFDVWK)ORRU 1HZ<RUN1< 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLODOHYLQH#FRROH\FRP  'DYLG(0LOOVpro hac vice &22/(<//3 3HQQV\OYDQLD$YHQXH1: 6XLWH :DVKLQJWRQ'& 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOGPLOOV#FRROH\FRP 
Of Counsel for Plaintiff Natalie Romero:  .HQQHWK'%\QXP96% %<180 -(1.,163//& &DPHURQ6WUHHW $OH[DQGULD9LUJLQLD 'LUHFW'LDO )D[ .%\QXP#%\QXP$QG-HQNLQV/DZFRP  3OHDVDQW6%URGQD[,,,96% 3HQQV\OYDQLD$YHQXH1: 6XLWH :DVKLQJWRQ'& 7HOHSKRQH )D[ ZZZSOHDVDQWEURGQD[FRP

Y

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 922

Page 110 of 112

Pageid#:

&(57,),&$7(2)6(59,&(

,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWRQ-DQXDU\,ILOHGWKHIRUHJRLQJZLWKWKH&OHUNRI&RXUW

WKURXJKWKH&0(&)V\VWHPZKLFKZLOOVHQGDQRWLFHRIHOHFWURQLFILOLQJWR

-XVWLQ6DXQGHUV*UDYDWW 'DYLG/+DXFN 'DYLG/&DPSEHOO 'XDQH+DXFN'DYLV *UDYDWW3& :HVW)UDQNOLQ6WUHHW6XLWH 5LFKPRQG9$ MJUDYDWW#GKGJODZFRP GKDXFN#GKGJODZFRP GFDPSEHOO#GKGJODZFRP  Counsel for Defendant James A. Fields, Jr.
 %U\DQ-RQHV :6RXWK6W6XLWH &KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ EU\DQ#EMRQHVOHJDOFRP
 Counsel for Defendants Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs, and League of the South  (OPHU:RRGDUG 86+Z\ %ODLUV9$ LVXHFURRNV#FRPFDVWQHW  -DPHV(.ROHQLFK .ROHQLFK/DZ2IILFH :DWHUVWRQH%OYG &LQFLQQDWL2+ MHN#JPDLOFRP 

Counsel for Defendants Jeff Schoep, Nationalist Front, National Socialist Movement, Matthew

Parrott, Matthew Heimbach, Robert Ray, Traditionalist Worker Party, Elliot Kline, Jason

Kessler, Vanguard America, Nathan Damigo, Identity Europa, Inc. (Identity Evropa), and

Christopher Cantwell





Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 111 of 112 Pageid#: 923




,IXUWKHUKHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWRQ-DQXDU\,DOVRVHUYHGWKHIROORZLQJQRQ(&)

SDUWLFLSDQWVYLD86PDLO)LUVW&ODVVDQGSRVWDJHSUHSDLGDGGUHVVHGDVIROORZV



/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ DND/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV&KXUFKRIWKH ,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH,QF FR&KULVDQG$PDQGD%DUNHU 32%R[ 3HOKDP1&  5LFKDUG6SHQFHU $.LQJ6WUHHW $OH[DQGULD9$  0LFKDHO3HLQRYLFK DND0LFKDHO³(QRFK´3HLQRYLFK 32%R[ +RSHZHOO-XQFWLRQ1<  0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//& FR$QGUHZ$QJOLQ 1+LJK6WUHHW6XLWH :RUWKLQJWRQ2+     
 

$QGUHZ$QJOLQ 1+LJK6WUHHW6XLWH :RUWKLQJWRQ2+  (DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ DND(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH7UXH ,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH 6RXWK3LQH6W 5HG/LRQ3$  )UDWHUQDO2UGHURIWKH$OW.QLJKWVFR 3URXG%R\V FR/HJDO&RUS6ROXWLRQV//& %URDGZD\6XLWH 1HZ<RUN1<
$XJXVWXV6RO,QYLFWXV 10LOOV$YHQXH 2UODQGR)/
s/ Robert T. Cahill 5REHUW7&DKLOO96% &22/(<//3 )UHHGRP'ULYHWK)ORRU 5HVWRQ9$ 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOUFDKLOO#FRROH\FRP  Counsel for Plaintiffs

  

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 175 Filed 01/05/18 Page 112 of 112 Pageid#: 924

 
 07/09/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

ELIZABETH SINES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00072

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JASON KESSLER, ET AL.,

Defendants.

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

In 1871, Congress passed a law “directed at the organized terrorism in the Reconstruction

South[.]” Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 610 n.25 (1979); see 42

U.S.C. § 1985. Over a hundred and forty years later, on August 11th and 12th, 2017, the

Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and

associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.

Charlottesville residents who suffered injuries at the rallies, the Plaintiffs, allege that this

violence was no accident. Instead, they allege the Defendants violated the 1871 Act and related

state laws by conspiring to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters. The Defendants retort that they were simply engaged in lawful, if unpopular, political protest and so

their conduct is protected by the First Amendment. While ultimate resolution of what happened

at the rallies awaits another day, the Court holds the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the

Defendants formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims largely survive, although one Defendant is

dismissed and other claims are pared down.

I. LEGAL STANDARD This opinion addresses one precise question: the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Defendants conspired to engage in racial violence. This question comes

before the Court because some of the Defendants have moved the Court to dismiss the complaint.1 A motion to dismiss a complaint tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations to determine whether the Plaintiffs have properly stated a claim; “it does not, however, resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). And so the Court does not today choose between the parties’ competing narratives of what “actually happened” at the August rallies.
Plaintiffs’ complaint is required to “to provide the ‘grounds’ of [their] entitle[ment] to relief,” but this “requires more than labels and conclusions[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A court need not “accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts” by Plaintiffs or “accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 768 (4th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). But the Court takes all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d at 212. In sum, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS Before addressing the complaint, three brief points are necessary. First, Plaintiffs’ complaint is 112-pages long, pushing the limits of Rule 8(a)’s requirement of a “short, plain

1

More specifically, Defendants Michael Hill, League of the South, and Michael Tubbs

jointly filed a motion to dismiss (dkt. 201); Defendants Jason Kessler, Christopher Cantwell,

Vanguard America, Robert “Azzmador” Ray, Nathan Damigo, Elliot Kline, Identity Evropa,

Matthew Heimbach, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party, Jeff Schoep, and National

Socialist Movement filed another motion to dismiss (dkt. 205); Defendant Nationalist Front filed

a motion to dismiss (dkt. 207); Defendant Richard Spencer filed a pro se motion to dismiss (dkt.

209); and Defendant Michael Peinovich filed a pro se motion to dismiss (dkt. 212). Other

Defendants either answered, (dkt. 196), filed a motion to dismiss that was stricken, (dkt. 202), or

failed to appear. Judge Hoppe struck Defendant Fraternal Organization of the Alt-Knights’

motion to dismiss because organizational defendants cannot proceed pro se. (Dkt. 210).

2

statement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While the Court will not ask the Plaintiffs to trim their complaint, the following summary will necessarily leave out some details. To the extent those details are material to the Court’s analysis, they are discussed later in the opinion. Second, the complaint frequently uses vague nouns, lumping all Defendants and all co-conspirators together. Because this style of pleading raises problems addressed below, the following summary focuses on allegations that are tied to specific Defendants. Third, it is important to remember that the following summary is a recounting of allegations. While the Court does not repeatedly state “Plaintiffs allege that Defendant X did Y,” this summary should not be taken as the Court’s endorsement of one version of the facts. A. The Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs are ten Charlottesville residents who each allegedly suffered some injury related to the rallies. Their relationships to the Defendants fall into three general groups. First, there are those that attended a counter-protest on the night of Friday, August 11th, 2017. As discussed more fully below, various Defendants led a torchlight march at the University of Virginia. At the end of that march, some Plaintiffs were assaulted. One of these Plaintiffs was Tyler Magill, who was surrounded and assaulted by various marchers around a Thomas Jefferson statue. (Dkt. 175 at ¶166). The marchers hurled torches at Magill and others, sprayed them with pepper spray, and threw other liquids on them. (Id. at ¶¶169, 173, 174). He later suffered a “trauma-induced stroke” and related injuries. (Id. at ¶11). Plaintiff John Doe, an AfricanAmerican UVA student, attended the march where he also was harassed and assaulted. (Id. at ¶13). He suffered various emotional injuries. (Id. at ¶293). A third Plaintiff, a UVA student named Natalie Romero, was also surrounded and assaulted at the statue. (Id. at ¶18).
3

Second, another group of Plaintiffs was injured when one of the Defendants, James Fields, drove his car into a crowd of counter-protestors after the “Unite the Right” rally on Saturday, August 12th. Plaintiff Romero also falls into this second group, as she was hit by Fields’s car and sustained subsequent injuries. (Id.). Plaintiff Marcus Martin, an AfricanAmerican counter-protestor, was hit by Fields’s car and sustained a broken leg and ankle. (Id. at ¶17). He pushed his fiancé, Plaintiff Marissa Blair, out of the way of the oncoming car, but she too suffered various physical injuries. (Id. at ¶16). Plaintiff Chelsea Alvarado was also hit by Defendant Fields’s car, and she suffered physical and emotional injuries. (Id. at ¶19). Plaintiff Elizabeth Sines, a second year law student, witnessed the events and suffered severe emotional distress and shock. (Id. at ¶15). Plaintiff April Muñiz was close to being hit by the car, and she has been diagnosed with acute stress disorder and trauma since the event. (Id. at ¶12).
Third, there are two other Plaintiffs who are more difficult to classify. Plaintiff Seth Wispelwey is a minister who led an ecumenical organization called “Congregate” in non-violent protest. (Id. at ¶¶11, 134). He was part of a church service across from the torchlight march on the 11th, was confronted by one of the Defendants after the torchlight rally, and was assaulted while counter-protesting on Saturday. (Id. at ¶¶178, 182, 208). The last Plaintiff is Hannah Pearce. She is a member of Congregation Beth Israel, a synagogue close to the park where the Saturday rally took place. (Id. at ¶14). She peacefully protested throughout the weekend and was subjected to anti-Semitic harassment. (Id. at ¶¶219–21). B. The Defendants
Two of the primary organizers of the Friday and Saturday events were Defendants Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. Defendant Richard Spencer planned the Friday night march and encouraged his many followers to attend the Saturday rally. (Dkt. 175 at ¶21). Defendant
4

Jason Kessler is a Charlottesville resident who applied for, and eventually received, a permit to hold the Saturday rally. (Id. at ¶¶20, 55).
Two other promoters were Defendants Christopher Cantwell and Michael Peinovich. Defendant Cantwell attended the events and faced criminal charges for using pepper spray at the Friday night march. (Id. at ¶22). Defendant Michael Peinovich hosts a podcast called The Daily Shoah and was featured on a promotional poster for the event. (Id. at ¶42).
Many of the individual Defendants who helped plan the events are part of organizations that are themselves Defendants. Defendants Andrew Anglin and Robert “Azzmador” Ray run a website called The Daily Stormer. (Id. at ¶¶25, 27). They used this platform and associated “book clubs” to promote the events, which Ray attended. (Id.). The website is owned by an Ohio limited liability corporation, Defendant Moonbase Holdings, LLC. (Id. at ¶26).
Defendant Vanguard America is a white nationalist group with twelve chapters across the country. (Id. at ¶24). Many of its members attended the events. (Id. at ¶¶153, 197). Plaintiffs alleged one of its members, Defendant James Fields, intentionally drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one individual and injuring many others. (Id. at ¶23).
Another organizer was Defendant Eli Mosley. (Dkt. 175 at ¶29). He is associated with the white supremacist organization Defendant Identity Evropa. (Id. at ¶¶29, 30). The founder of that organization is Defendant Damigo, who helped facilitate transportation for the events. (Id. at ¶28). Defendant Identity Evropa popularized the “You will not replace us!” chant that became the protesters’ rally cry. (Id. at ¶30). Both Damigo and Mosley attended the events.
Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party is a white nationalist organization, with many members who attended the rallies. (Id. at ¶33). It is led by Defendant Matthew Heimbach and Defendant Matthew Parrott. (Id. at ¶¶31, 32). Parrott wrote an account of his experiences at the
5

Saturday rally, and he described how multiple Defendants used organized formations of “shield walls” in “the fight.” (Id.).
Defendant League of the South and two of its leaders, Defendants Michael Hill and Michael Tubbs, were also involved in the fighting at the Saturday rally. (Id. at ¶¶34–36). Defendant Tubbs, in particular, led an organized charge of League of the South members against counter-protestors. (Id.).
Defendant Augustus Sol Invictus is a member of Defendant Fraternal Order of AltKnights, which is the “military wing” of the white nationalist group “Proud Boys.” (Id. at ¶¶40– 41). He attended both events. (Id.).
Two different Ku Klux Klan organizations also participated in some capacity. Defendant Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan organized a previous Charlottesville rally, and then made various statements celebrating Defendant Fields’s decision to drive his car into counterprotesters. (Id. at ¶36). Defendant East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan also attended the previous rally and then participated in the August 12 rally. (Id. at ¶44).
Defendant National Socialist Movement is a white supremacist organization that has a “paramilitary” structure. (Id. at ¶38). Defendant Jeff Schoep, its leader, attended the rallies and afterwards tweeted that is was an “honor” to stand with the other “warriors.” (Id. at ¶37).
Finally, Defendants Schoep, Heimbach, and Hill lead Defendant Nationalist Front, an umbrella organization that includes many of the aforementioned organizations. (Id. at ¶39). C. Months preceding August 11 and 12th
Charlottesville drew Defendants’ attention because of its decision to change the name of Lee Park, a small park in Downtown Charlottesville that contains a statue of General Robert E. Lee, to Emancipation Park in February 2017. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶47–48). In May 2017, various
6

white supremacist groups, including some Defendants, led a torchlight march around the Lee statue. (Id. at ¶50). “Capitalizing on the perceived success of the May event,” Defendant Kessler submitted an application for a follow-up rally on August 12th. (Id. at ¶55). In the intervening months, various Defendants came to Charlottesville for marches and demonstrations. (Id. at ¶¶56–57). Plaintiff Romero protested one of these events, a Ku Klux Klan march, and received harassing phone calls afterwards from a member of the Klan. (Id. at ¶58). D. Planning for the August 11th and 12th rallies
Key Defendants met together in person for planning purposes at least a few times. Defendant Spencer and Evan McLaren, a member of Defendant Identity Evropa, met at the Trump Hotel in D.C. to organize the rally on an unspecified date. (Dkt. 175 at ¶64). Closer to the rallies, Defendants Cantwell and Kessler then met on August 9th in Charlottesville to plan. (Id. at ¶65). Defendants Ray, Cantwell, Mosley, and purported co-conspirator David Duke had a similar meeting on August 11. (Id. at ¶66).
Much more significantly, the majority of the planning appears to have occurred online. Defendants Kessler and Mosley used an online program called “Discord” for planning. (Id. at ¶¶71–73). This “invite only” platform allowed Defendants and their chosen invitees to engage in private conversations during the lead up to the events. (Id. at ¶72). While Defendants Kessler and Mosley moderated and managed Discord, many other Defendants participated on the platform, including Defendants Heimbach, Parrott, Cantwell, Ray, Vanguard America, Identity Evropa, Traditionalist Worker Party, League of the South, and Moonbase Holdings. (Id. at ¶¶74, 77). Organizational Defendants were able to maintain private sub-forums for their own members. (Id. at ¶77).
7

Conversation on Discord included mundane planning details, racist “jokes,” and concrete threats of violence. Defendant Mosley posted “General Orders” for “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0.” (Id. at ¶75). Organizers also posted information about shuttle service information, lodging, and carpools. (Id. at ¶76). Other corners of Discord were significantly darker. One user posted a fake advertisement for a pepper-spray-look-alike called “Nig-Away,” described as a “a no-fuss, no muss ‘nigger killer,’” promised to “kill[] on contact” in order to “rid the area of niggers.” (Id. at ¶111). Another frequent Discord user asked whether it was “legal to run over protestors blocking roadways?” (Id. at ¶239). He clarified he was not joking, “I’m NOT just shitposting. I would like clarification. I know it’s legal in [North Carolina] and a few other states. I’m legitimately curious for the answer.” (Id.). Other Discord users made similar comments about running over counter-protestors. (Id. at ¶236–41). Elsewhere on Discord, users made it clear they planned to fight at the events, saying things like “I’m ready to crack skulls.” (Id. at ¶97). Defendant Kessler told users: “I recommend you bring picket sign post, shields and other self-defense implements which can be turned from a free speech tool to a self-defense weapon should things turn ugly.” (Id. at ¶ 112). Defendant Vanguard America instructed its members “to arrive at the rally in matching khaki pants and white polos,” with one member noting that this was “a good fighting uniform.” (Id. at ¶ 115). Defendant Hill wrote, in a Defendant League of the South Facebook group, that he wanted “no fewer than 150 League warriors, dressed and ready for action, in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 12 August.” (Id. at ¶36). Similar comments from other Defendants abound. E. Counter-protestors prepare
While this planning was ongoing, separate counter-protesters received permits to hold events in other parks during the Defendants’ rally. (Dkt. 175 at ¶132). Plaintiff Wispelwey
8

started an organization, “Congregate,” to join with interfaith clergy in protesting against racial inequality and the rally. (Id. at ¶134). Defendant Kessler advised other attendees about Congregate’s work, allegedly in an attempt to threaten the organization. (Id. at ¶135). The names of other counter-protestors were shared over Discord. (Id. at ¶137).
Other individuals opposed to the “Unite the Right” rally also prepared. Plaintiff Pearce’s temple, Congregation Beth Israel, moved its Torah scrolls off site in advance of the rally and changed the time of its normal Shabbat services. (Id. at ¶¶138–39). Stores around town put signs up supporting diversity and equality. (Id. at ¶140). Defendants Kessler, Mosley, Spencer, and Peinovich shared the names and addresses of these businesses, allegedly in an attempt to have attendees intimidate them. (Id. at ¶141). Some of these businesses received various threats. (Id. at ¶142). F. The march on August 11th
Defendants Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, Anglin, Cantwell, and Invictus organized a secret torchlight march at UVA. (Dkt. 175 at ¶143–49). These torches were supposed to invoke the Ku Klux Klan’s and Nazi’s similar use of torches. (Id. at ¶150). The marchers marched twoby-two up the Lawn, around the Rotunda, and towards a Thomas Jefferson statue on the far side of the Rotunda. (Id. at ¶¶159, 164). As they marched, they chanted various racist slogans and performed Nazi salutes. (Id. at ¶¶161–62).
Although the march was supposed to be secret, approximately thirty counter-protesters, including Plaintiffs Doe, Magill, and Romero, reached the Jefferson statute before the marchers. (Id. at ¶¶164, 169). The counter-protesters linked arms and surrounded the statue, facing away from it. (Id. at ¶164). As the marchers rounded the Rotunda, they charged towards the statue and surrounded the counter-protestors. (Id. at ¶¶164, 166). Fighting broke out, and the marchers
9

kicked and punched the counter-protesters. (Id. at ¶168). People in the crowd threw an unidentified fluid at the counter-protesters, including on Plaintiffs Doe, Magill, and Romero. (Id. at ¶169). These Plaintiffs were afraid it was fuel and that they would be burned. (Id.). Defendant Ray shouted, “The heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!” (Id.). A photo shows Defendant Cantwell spraying a counter-protestor with pepper spray. Id. at 56. (Id. at ¶172). Plaintiffs Doe and Romero felt trapped and did not believe they could escape safely. (Id. at ¶¶173–74).
During this time, Plaintiff Wispelwey and around 1,000 others were inside St. Paul’s Church, which is located across the street from the Rotunda. (Id. at ¶154). The faith community at St. Paul’s, including Plaintiff Wispelwey, witnessed the marchers. (Id. at ¶178). The church leaders asked everyone to remain at the church out of a fear of violence. (Id. at ¶180). Plaintiff Wispelwey eventually drove some attendees to their homes and hotels. (Id. at ¶181). At one hotel, Defendant Invictus confronted Wispelwey and aggressively asked him what he was doing at the hotel and what church he belonged to. (Id. at ¶182).
The night ended with Defendants Kessler and Spencer, and others, celebrating the evening’s events and encouraging their followers to come to the following day’s rally. (Id. at ¶184). G. The rally on August 12th
Almost all of the Defendants attended Saturday’s “Unite the Right” rally, including Defendants Kessler, Cantwell, Mosley, Heimbach, Hill, Invictus, Ray, Spencer, Damigo, Peinovich, Fields, Parrott, Tubbs, Nationalist Front, League of the South, National Socialist Movement, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America, East Coast Knights, Loyal White
10

Knights, Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, and members of The Daily Stormer’s “book clubs.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶187).
Defendants arrived in passenger vans, gathered at pre-arranged meet up spots, and then marched towards the park. (Id. at ¶¶196, 207). They entered Emancipation Park “in military formations, armed like paramilitary forces.” (Id. at ¶195). Organizations marched with matching uniforms, coordinated shields, and regimental flags. (Id. at ¶¶197–98). Defendant Fields, who would later drive his car into the crowd, wore Defendant Vanguard America’s uniform and marched with other Vanguard America members. (Id. at ¶197).
As the military formations marched into the park, they assaulted and knocked over various counter-protestors, including Plaintiffs Wispelwey and Romero. (Id. at ¶208). Other counter-protesters were blockaded around the park, and rally attendees used “shields, flags, or fists” to break through these counter-protesters and enter the park. (Id. at ¶209). Once in the park, the violence escalated. According to an account of the day written by Defendant Parrott, members of Defendants Traditionalist Worker Party, League of the South, National Socialist Movement, and other Nationalist Front groups, jointly created “two shield walls” for “the fight.” (Id. at ¶212). Defendant Identity Evropa “were occupied on other fronts,” but “sent a detachment of fighters to assist us and to relay intelligence to Jason Kessler and other organizers.” (Id.). Defendant Tubbs ordered Defendant League of the South members to “charge,” and “[a]fter receiving this command, the group streamed past him to attack counterprotesters.” (Id. at ¶35).
Some marchers also yelled anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans while passing Plaintiff Pearce’s synagogue. (Id. at ¶202). Defendant Ray carried a banner that stated “Gas the kikes, race war now!” (Id.). An anonymous individual later threatened to “torch those Jewish monsters” in a
11

comment on a YouTube video, leading Charlottesville’s mayor to ask for police protection for the synagogue. (Id. at ¶203). Plaintiff Pearce and her son counter-protested the rally outside the park. (Id. at ¶220). She wore a Star of David and carried a rainbow flag. (Id. at ¶219). She was harassed by a rally attendee, who shouted, “Oh good, they are marking themselves for us.” (Id. at ¶220). Another rally attendee threw an open bottle with a “foul liquid” that hit Plaintiff Pearce. (Id. at ¶221).
Then, at 11:22 a.m., Charlottesville declared the gathering an unlawful assembly. (Id. at ¶223). Defendants Kessler, Cantwell, Ray, Schoep, and Vanguard America among others, moved to McIntire Park. (Id. at ¶226–28). Defendant Parrott did not leave, and was arrested for failure to disperse. (Id. at ¶228). Violence continued in McIntire Park and on Charlottesville’s downtown mall. (Id. at ¶¶229, 234). H. The car attack on August 12th
At 1:40 p.m., Plaintiffs allege Defendant Fields deliberately drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters that were congregated at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Downtown mall. (Id. at ¶242). Plaintiffs Martin, Blair, Sines, Muñiz, Alvarado, and Romero were all on Fourth Street when Fields drove his car into the crowd. (Id. at ¶243). Multiple of these Plaintiffs were struck by Defendant Fields’ car and incurred serious injuries. (Id. at ¶¶244–56). A friend of some of the Plaintiffs, Heather Heyer, was killed. (Id. at ¶248). I. Happenings after the event
After the event, Defendants Anglin, Vanguard America, Kessler, Heimbach, East Coast Knights, and Loyal White Knights posted messages approving of the Defendant Fields’s car attack. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶264, 266–69, 272). Defendant Schoep said it was an honor “to stand” with the other co-Defendants at the rally, and referred to them as “true warriors.” (Id. at ¶271).
12

Defendant Spencer referred to the rally a “huge moral victory.” (Id. at ¶273). Defendant Cantwell was glad nobody on the Defendants’ “side” died. (Id.).
Many Defendants have stated they would like to return to Charlottesville for a similar event. (Id. at ¶296). Defendant Spencer and others engaged in another torchlight march in Charlottesville on October 7, 2017. (Id. at ¶306). Defendant Kessler filed an application for another rally on August 11 and 12, 2018. (Id. at ¶307).
III. COUNT ONE: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) In Count One, Plaintiffs allege all Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which states: If two or more persons . . . conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . [and] if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. The specific Defendants identified in footnote one moved to dismiss. The majority of the Section 1985(3) claims survive, although Plaintiff Pearce’s claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, and all claims against Defendant Peinovich will be dismissed. Plaintiffs must plausibly allege the following elements to state a Section 1985(3) claim: (1) a conspiracy of two or more persons, (2) who are motivated by a specific class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus to (3) deprive the plaintiff of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all, (4) and which results in injury to the plaintiff as (5) a consequence of an overt act committed by the defendants in connection with the conspiracy.
13

A Soc’y Without A Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1376 (4th Cir. 1995)).2 Importantly, and unlike Section 1983, Section 1985(3) reaches private conspiracies (i.e., there is no state action requirement). See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971).
In order to frame a Defendant-by-Defendant analysis of the pleadings, the Court works through these elements slightly out of order. The Court first addresses the requisite racial animus and purpose of the conspiracy (the second and third elements). After laying this framework, the Court evaluates the complaint to see if it plausibly alleges that each Defendant joined such a conspiracy (the first element). The Court then asks whether that conspiracy caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries (the fourth and fifth elements). Finally, while Plaintiffs’ overarching First Amendment and other defenses are addressed separately at the end of this opinion, the Court does flag specific allegations that are not protected by that Amendment throughout the following discussion. A. Racial animus
Plaintiffs must plead that the Defendants were “motivated by a specific class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.” A Soc’y Without A Name, 655 F.3d at 346; Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 196–97 (4th Cir. 2009) (same). No Defendant seriously disputes that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Defendants possessed racial animus against black and Jewish individuals; the complaint is replete with racist statements made and affirmed by Defendants. However, some Defendants do argue that they only possessed racial animus against non-white

2

This statute is “the surviving version of § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871” which was

passed to address the Ku Klux Klan’s violence against minorities and is known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 368, 394 (1979); Ken

Gormley, Private Conspiracies and the Constitution: A Modern Vision of 42 U.S.C. Section

1985(3), 64 Tex. L. Rev. 527, 530 (1985) (providing history of the Act’s background).

14

individuals, and so they cannot be held liable by white Plaintiffs. But Section 1985(3) was enacted “to combat the prevalent animus against Negroes and their supporters.” United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610, AFL-CIO v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 836 (1983) (emphasis added). And the Supreme Court has said the statute reaches “class-based animus” directed “against Negroes and those who championed their cause[.]” Id. (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they were attacked because of their support of non-white racial minorities, and so this element is satisfied as to all Defendants. B. Intent to deprive Plaintiffs of equal protection of rights secured by law
In addition to racial animus, the purpose of the alleged conspiracy must be to “deprive the plaintiff of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.” But importantly, “Section 1985(3) provides no substantive rights itself; it merely provides a remedy for violation of the rights it designates.” Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 372 (1979). And so, “[t]he rights, privileges, and immunities that § 1985(3) vindicates must be found elsewhere.” Scott, 463 U.S. at 833. The Fourth Circuit has further clarified that these underlying rights must be “rights guaranteed by federal law or the Constitution.” Doski v. M. Goldseker Co., 539 F.2d 1326, 1333 (4th Cir. 1976).
Additionally, the federal substantive right “found elsewhere” must be “guaranteed against private impairment.” Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 274 (1993). For example, a plot by solely private parties to deprive individuals of their First Amendment rights is not actionable because those rights are only protected against public impairment (i.e., “Congress shall make no law . . .”). See Scott, 463 U.S. at 833 (“[H]ere the right claimed to have been infringed has its source in the First Amendment. Because that Amendment restrains only official
15

conduct, to make out their § 1985(3) case, it was necessary for respondents to prove that the state was somehow involved in or affected by the conspiracy.”).
In light of these limitations, the Supreme Court has noted there are “few” rights that can support a Section 1985(3) claim. Bray, 506 U.S. at 278. The only rights to be so recognized by the Supreme Court are “the Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude, United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942 (1988), and, in the same Thirteenth Amendment context, the right of interstate travel, see United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. [745,] 759, n. 17 [(1966)].” Id.; see also Tilton v. Richardson, 6 F.3d 683, 686–87 (10th Cir. 1993) (same). So the big question under this element is which of Plaintiffs’ underlying rights satisfy these requirements. Plaintiffs suggest two potentially viable sources.
First, Plaintiffs claim the Thirteenth Amendment provides them with a right to be free from racial violence. In Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971), the Court held that Section 1985(3) reached a private conspiracy where white Mississippians allegedly stopped AfricanAmericans on a public highway (mistaking them for civil rights workers), pulled them out of their car, and beat them. Id. at 89–92. The Supreme Court later summarized Griffin as holding that “the conspiracy at issue was actionable because it was aimed at depriving the plaintiffs of the rights protected by the Thirteenth Amendment and the right to travel guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Section 1985(3) constitutionally can and does protect those rights from interference by purely private conspiracies.” Scott, 463 U.S. at 832–33. But if Section 1985(3) protects Thirteenth Amendment rights that were implicated by the facts of Griffin, those rights must extend beyond the core “right to be free from involuntary servitude.” In Griffin, after all, the alleged assaults were certainly motivated by racial animus, but they could not be fairly described as seeking to literally enslave the plaintiffs.
16

Plaintiffs respond by citing cases (including Griffin) that discuss Congress’s authority to legislate under Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment, which “extend[s] far beyond [legislation addressing] the actual imposition of slavery or involuntary servitude.” Griffin, 403 U.S. at 105. Because, “[b]y the Thirteenth Amendment, we committed ourselves as a Nation to the proposition that the former slaves and their descendants should be forever free,” these cases teach that “‘Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determination into effective legislation.’” Griffin, 403 U.S. at 105 (quoting Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 440 (1968)); United States v. Cannon, 750 F.3d 492, 501 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he term ‘badge of slavery’ . . . refers to indicators, physical or otherwise, of African–Americans’ slave or subordinate status.” (internal citations omitted)). But this language is not entirely helpful here. No one disputes that Congress’s power under the Thirteenth Amendment allows it to address “badges and incidents” of slavery; the question here is whether the Thirteenth Amendment provides rights independent of Congressional action that go beyond a more narrow reading of the “right to be free from involuntary servitude.”
The Court concludes the Thirteenth Amendment provides Plaintiffs an underlying right to be free from racial violence analogous to that present in Griffin. In doing so, the Court relies most heavily on Scott’s statement that the Griffin conspiracy was “aimed at depriving the plaintiffs of the rights protected by the Thirteenth Amendment,” rights which “Section 1985(3) constitutionally can and does protect . . . .” Scott, 463 U.S. at 832–33 (emphasis added). Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has characterized Griffin as holding that Section 1985(3) protects underlying rights granted by the Thirteenth Amendment. See Harrison v. KVAT Food Mgmt., Inc., 766 F.2d 155, 158 (4th Cir. 1985) (“The Court held that the statute does create a cause of
17

action for certain kinds of private action interfering with the federally protected rights to travel and Thirteenth Amendment rights . . . .” (emphasis added)); Bellamy v. Mason’s Stores, Inc. (Richmond), 508 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1974) (“The language of [Section 1985(3)] tracks the language of the fourteenth amendment, and we now know that included within it is a wholly private conspiracy to deny Negro citizens the right of travel and rights based upon the thirteenth amendment.” (emphasis added)). District courts have also assumed Section 1985(3) reaches racial violence analogous to that alleged here, although most have not engaged in careful analysis of the Thirteenth Amendment’s scope. See, e.g., Frazier v. Cooke, No. 4:17-CV-54, 2017 WL 5560864, at *2–*3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2017). The repeated Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit interpretations of Griffin provide very persuasive guidance, even if found in dicta, that the Thirteenth Amendment does provide an underlying right to be free from racial violence that can sustain a Section 1985(3) claim. See Doe v. Chao, 435 F.3d 492, 508 (4th Cir. 2006) (“We said long ago that ‘certainly dicta of the United States Supreme Court should be very persuasive.’” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims can proceed on this theory.
Second, Plaintiffs alternatively suggest Section 1982 as a fountainhead of enforceable rights. That statute provides: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” Plaintiffs claim that rally attendees interfered with the property rights of Congregation Beth Israel by marching past it and making anti-Semitic remarks outside of it. Plaintiff Pearce, a member of that synagogue, seeks to assert its alleged rights. Assuming Pearce can assert the synagogue’s rights, Plaintiffs have still failed to adequately allege Defendants conspired to violate rights guaranteed to them by Section 1982.
18

The Supreme Court’s seminal case on Section 1982 is Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). There the Court held that Congress had authority to prevent private defendants from refusing to sell a home to black plaintiffs because of their race. Id. at 438–44. Those facts represent a paradigmatic Section 1982 violation. Some courts have extended the reach of that statute to something closer to Plaintiff’s theory. For example, in United States v. Greer, 939 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1991), opinion reinstated in relevant part on reh’g, 968 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1992), the Court affirmed a conviction for conspiracy to violate Section 1982 when a neo-Nazi group damaged the temple’s gas lines, painted swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans on the temple, and shot out the windows with a pistol. 939 F.2d at 1083. The court agreed with the Government “that members and non-members of the temple and community center, such as guests, could claim that the acts of defendants violated their right to use this property.” Id. at 1091. Similarly in United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162 (6th Cir. 1995), the court upheld another conviction for conspiracy to violate Section 1982. In that case, a skinhead and member of the Klu Klux Klan shot into a synagogue late at night. Even though no one was present, the court found this conduct violated Section 1982. Id. at 1164.
Here, alternatively, there are no allegations that anyone touched or harmed the synagogue. The worst of the allegations concern unidentified individuals who marched past the synagogue and shouted anti-Semitic slogans. This alleged conduct is very different from the shots fired into synagogues in the above cases or the repeated harassment found in other cases. Furthermore, the only allegation concerning an actual Defendant states Defendant Ray carried a banner with anti-Semitic language. (Dkt. 175 at ¶202). It does not allege he carried this banner past the synagogue or otherwise interacted with it. (Id.). Likewise, the allegation that Defendants can be held liable for a statement made by an unknown individual on a YouTube
19

video is frivolous. (Id. at ¶203). These allegations do not adequately plead that one of the Defendants interfered with the property rights of the synagogue.
While Plaintiffs have identified an underlying federal right guaranteed against private impairment in the Thirteenth Amendment, they must plausibly allege that Defendants entered a conspiracy to deprive them of that right. Determining whether they have done so requires the Court to return to the first element, conspiracy. C. Conspiracy
In order to adequately plead a Section 1985(3) conspiracy, “the plaintiff must show an agreement or a meeting of the minds by [the] defendants to violate the [plaintiff’s] constitutional rights.” A Soc’y Without A Name, 655 F.3d at 346. “[A]lthough an express agreement is not necessary, the participants in the conspiracy must share the general conspiratorial objective . . . . [I]t simply must be shown that there was a single plan, the essential nature and general scope of which was known to each person who is to be held responsible for its consequences.” Simmons, 47 F.3d at 1378.
One effect of these pleadings requirements, and the overlapping First Amendment interests discussed below, is that Plaintiffs cannot plausibly plead that all rally attendees who disagreed with them were part of one overarching conspiracy. See A Soc’y Without A Name, 655 F.3d at 347 (holding Section 1985(3) allegations were insufficient when the plaintiff “fail[ed] to allege with any specificity the persons who agreed to the alleged conspiracy, the specific communications amongst the conspirators, or the manner in which any such communications were made”). Plaintiffs at various times call anonymous individuals who shouted anti-Semitic slogans “co-conspirators.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶202). Stretching credulity even further, Plaintiffs allege various statements posted on Facebook and YouTube were made by “co-conspirators.” (See id.
20

at ¶203 (attributing screen shot of youtube.com with comment “it’s time to torch those jewish monsters” to a co-conspirator); id. at ¶271 (“A co-conspirator posted on Facebook . . . .”)). Plaintiffs seemingly label everyone at the rally (and for that matter on the internet) who disagreed with them as co-conspirators. The Court does not credit such conclusory labeling. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ . . . will not do.”).3
Instead, Plaintiffs must allege each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events. The plausibility of these factual allegations increase as Plaintiffs add specificity about the method of agreement, the time or place of the agreement, and the scope of the agreement. The Court works through Plaintiffs’ allegations on a Defendant-by-Defendant basis below. While the Court does not credit the conclusory labels discussed above, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have adequately pled specific factual allegations that each moving Defendant, except for Defendant Peinovich, was part of a conspiracy to engage in racially motivated violence at the “Unite the Right” events.
i. Jason Kessler Jason Kessler appears prominently throughout the complaint. (See dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 20, 49– 52, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 65, 73, 78, 97, 112, 122, 130, 135, 137, 141, 143, 147, 157, 164, 179, 184, 187–89, 190, 212, 226, 241, 260, 267, 302, 307, 316, 321, 322, 324, 326–29). Kessler was perhaps the overarching organizer for the event. He applied for the permit for the August 12th

3

The complaint also contains some other conclusory allegations that the Court does not

credit. (See, e.g., dkt. 175 at ¶63 (“[A list of all Defendants] all agreed and coordinated with and

among each other to plan, organize, promote, and commit the unlawful acts that injured Plaintiffs

and countless others in Charlottesville.”); id. at ¶187 (“On August 12, Defendants, their co-

conspirators, and others acting at their direction executed their plan to carry out racial, religious,

and ethnic violence, intimidation, and harassment.”). These more general allegations lack the

requisite factual specificity and would not be able to sustain Plaintiffs’ claims without the more

specific allegations detailed below.

21

rally and then worked with Defendant Spencer to invite a plethora of white supremacist groups. (Id. at ¶¶49, 55, 61, 326). He hoped this rally would help to move white Americans across the South “beyond ‘heritage not hate.’” (Id. at ¶122). He allegedly “moderated, reviewed, directed, and managed” Discord. (Id. at ¶¶ 73, 322, 324). Despite this moderation, he allowed statements like “I’m ready to crack skulls” and “Studies show 999/1000 niggers and feminists fuck right off when faced with pepper spray” to proliferate across the platform. (Id. at ¶97). Kessler himself told others on Discord to “bring picket sign post, shields and other self-defense implements which can be turned from a free speech tool to a self-defense weapon should things turn ugly.” (Id. at ¶112). And, in the days leading up to the event, he met in person with Defendant Cantwell to plan “unlawful acts of violence [and] intimidation.” (Id. at ¶¶65, 316).
At the Friday night torchlight march, Defendant Kessler once again functioned as an organizer, telling the marchers to get in formation. (Id. at ¶¶143, 147, 157, 328). Along with Defendants Cantwell, Mosley, Spencer, Ray, and Invictus, Defendant Kessler “directed and incited physical assaults and violence, the use of open flames, and the intimidation of minority residents and those who advocate for equal rights for minority citizens” at the rally. (Id. at ¶329). The complaint identifies Defendant Kessler as leading the charge towards Plaintiffs Magill, Doe, and Romero at the Thomas Jefferson statue. (Id. at ¶164). This charge culminated with the circling of the counter-protesters (id. at ¶166), Defendant Cantwell and others spraying pepper spray at the counter-protesters (id. at ¶172), and the marchers throwing their burning torches at the counter-protesters. (Id. at ¶169). Throughout this time, the marchers were performing Nazi salutes, chanting “Blood and Soil,” “Jews will not replace us,” and making monkey noises at black counter-protesters. (Id. at ¶162, 165). Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
22

Kessler came to an agreement with these co-Defendants to engage in racially motivated violence against the counter-protesters at the torchlight march.
Then, the next day at the rally, various co-Defendant organizations fought against counter-protesters. (Id. at ¶212). While they did this, Defendant Identity Evropa “sent a detachment of fighters to assist [Defendant League of the South] and to relay intelligence to Jason Kessler and other organizers.” (Id.). This paragraph plausibly alleges Defendant Kessler was overseeing the racial violence at the rally. Finally, after hearing about Defendant Fields’s later attack, Kessler called Heather Heyer, the victim who died, a “communist” and said “Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time.” (Id. at ¶267). In light of his other conduct, this plausibly alleges ratification of Defendant Fields’s conduct.
The complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant Kessler entered into agreements with these other Defendants for the purpose of assaulting and intimidating individuals who were counter-protesting Defendants’ message of white supremacy. As discussed below, many of these actions are completely divorced from any First Amendment protection. (See, e.g., id. at ¶164 (the charge resulting in violence around the Jefferson statute); id. at ¶212 (overseeing the violence at the Saturday rally)).
ii. Richard Spencer Defendant Spencer was also prominently involved in the organization of the events. (See dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 21, 28, 29, 40, 42, 49, 52, 63, 64, 70, 85, 87, 92, 108, 120, 141, 143, 153, 164, 166, 175, 184, 187, 229, 230, 260, 273, 297, 300, 305, 306, 311, 315, 327–29). Alongside Defendant Kessler, “Spencer invited white supremacist groups to visit and hold events around the statue with the intent of intimidating nonwhite and Jewish individuals and their allies.” (Id. at ¶49). Spencer coordinated with Defendants Damigo and Identity Evropa, who “took the lead in
23

organizing white supremacist participation among people from outside Charlottesville . . . .” (Id. at ¶¶28, 70). In the lead up to the rally, Spencer met Evan McLaren, a purported Defendant Identity Evropa member, in person in Washington, D.C. for further organization and direction of the rally. (Id. at ¶64). During this time of planning, Spencer made statements that plausibly demonstrate an agreement to engage in violence. An article posted on his website told his followers that “it’s time to dominate the streets.” (Id. at ¶87). A Discord user relayed Spencer’s desire that rally attendees “[b]ring as much gear and weaponry as you can within the confines of the law.” (Id. at ¶108).
Spencer was also a planner of Friday’s torchlight march. (Id. at ¶¶21, 143, 153, 328). Along with Defendants Cantwell, Mosley, Kessler, Ray, and Invictus, Defendant Spencer “directed and incited physical assaults and violence, the use of open flames, and the intimidation of minority residents and those who advocate for equal rights for minority citizens” at the rally. (Id. at ¶329). As with Defendant Kessler, Spencer is specifically alleged to have led the charge towards Plaintiffs Magill, Doe, and Romero at the Thomas Jefferson statue. (Id. at ¶164). Marchers climbed to the top of the statue, waved their torches, and yelled “Hail Spencer! Hail victory!” (Id. at ¶175). Afterwards, Defendant Spencer confirmed that Defendants had surrounded the counter-protestors at the statue. (Id. at ¶166). After the event, he addressed the crowd and thanked them for “risking their lives” for their future. (Id. at ¶175).
Defendant Spencer was also involved with and attended the Saturday rally. (Id. at ¶187). He continued to actively promote the rally through social media. (Id. at ¶¶21, 184). And then, in the aftermath of the rally, his website posted a statement that announced “The Alt-Right is finished debating, negotiating, surrendering. We’re ready to close ranks and fight for what is ours. . . . [W]e stand poised to conquer the continent.” (Id. at ¶305).
24

Allegations of this degree of planning, followed by these coordinated actions (specifically at the Friday night march), plausibly allege that Defendant Spencer joined a conspiracy to engage in the racially motivated violence that occurred on August 11th and 12th. As with Spencer, much of this conduct was not protected by the First Amendment. (See, e.g., id. at ¶164 (the charge resulting in violence around the Jefferson statute)). Other statements might be protected speech taken by themselves, but in light of Spencer’s other conduct they can plausibly “be taken as evidence that [he] gave other specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927 (1982); see, e.g., dkt. 175 at ¶175 (thanking marchers who charged the statue “for risking their lives”); id. at ¶305 (“The AltRight is finished debating, negotiating, surrendering. We’re ready to close ranks and fight for what is ours.”).
iii. Christopher Cantwell While Defendant Cantwell may have been lower in the pecking order than either Kessler or Spencer, he is more closely tied to acts of overt violence in furtherance of the conspiracy than either of them. (See dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 22, 63, 65, 66, 74, 107, 127, 143, 151, 157, 159, 160, 172, 187, 226, 227, 273, 277, 303, 304, 309, 310, 316, 317, 322, 323, 326–330). He was an active participant on Discord in the months leading up to the event. (Id. at ¶¶74, 322). He used his various platforms to “advise[] rallygoers on bringing weapons.” (Id. at ¶323). In the days before the rally, he met with Defendants Kessler, Ray, Mosley, and purported co-conspirator David Duke “to plan and direct the unlawful acts of violence . . . .” (Id. at ¶¶65, 66, 316, 317). On the morning of the 11th, he told a reporter that he was “trying to make [himself] more capable of violence.” (Id. at ¶151).
25

Then, at the Friday night torchlight march, Cantwell joined Defendants Spencer, Mosley, Kessler, Ray, and Invictus, Defendant Spencer in “direct[ing] and incit[ing] physical assaults and violence, the use of open flames, and the intimidation of minority residents and those who advocate for equal rights for minority citizens.” (Id. at ¶329). “Defendants Cantwell, Kessler, Ray, and other co-conspirators were issuing orders to the other white supremacists and neoNazis, telling them to get in specific formations and assigning people either to march with a torch or on the side as ‘security.’” (Id. at ¶157). “Organizers, including Defendant Cantwell, wore earpieces, carried radios, and shouted specific orders at the marchers. They shouted to keep pace, avoid gaps, stay in line ‘two-by-two,’ and march alongside a ‘security guard.’” (Id. at ¶159). Defendant Cantwell himself marched with guards “who were selected for their willingness to ‘get physical’ with counter-protestors.” (Id. at ¶160).
As they approached counter-protesters, Defendant Cantwell personally “attacked the [counter-]protestors with mace.” (Id. at ¶172). A photograph included in the complaint shows Cantwell in the act of spraying counter-protestors. (Id.). He was later charged “with two felony counts of illegal use of tear gas and one felony count of malicious body injury by means of a caustic substance. He was indicted on December 4 on a felony charge of illegal use of tear gas.” (Id. at ¶22). This conduct, of course, is not protected by the First Amendment. Other coDefendants shared this picture, congratulating Cantwell on his violence. (Id. at ¶172).
Defendant Cantwell came to the Saturday rally heavily armed, bringing three pistols, two semi-automatic machine guns, and a knife. (Id. at ¶303). Then as events spiraled out of control, the Daily Stormer informed its followers to assemble “behind” Defendants Cantwell and Ray. (Id. at ¶227). In the aftermath, he told a reporter that he thought “a lot more people are going to die before we’re done here, frankly.” (Id. at ¶303). Reflecting on co-Defendant Fields’s attack,
26

he said “[N]one of our people killed anybody unjustly . . . . [O]ur rivals are just a bunch of stupid animals who don’t pay attention that couldn’t just get out of the way of the car.” (Id. at ¶273). He continued, saying “[t]hese people want violence and the right is just meeting market demand.” (Id.).
In light of the specific statements made by Cantwell, the picture of him assaulting counter-protesters with pepper spray, and his joint leadership of various portions of the events with other Defendants (e.g., the Friday night march, the Daily Stormer’s encouragement for its followers to get “behind” him), Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendant Cantwell joined the conspiracy to engage in the racially motivated violence at the “Unite the Right” events.
iv. Vanguard America Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant Vanguard America’s fingerprints were all over last August’s events. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 24, 34, 50, 53, 63, 67, 77, 81, 91, 93, 96, 114–17, 121, 153, 167, 185, 187, 191, 196–98, 218, 228, 266, 270, 276, 319, 322, 332). Like other organizational Defendants, Vanguard America had a private channel on Discord called “Southern Front.” (Id. at ¶77). They used this channel to coordinate attendance, with an organizer telling other members “This event is a **BIG DEAL** and offers a chance to link up Vanguard Guys from across the nation.” (Id. at ¶¶81, 114). Specifically, members were instructed to wear “matching khaki pants and white polos,” which members liked because “it’s a good fighting uniform.” (Id. at ¶115). Some chapters planned to bring shields with matching logos. (Id. at ¶121). Vanguard America made twenty extra shields for attendees who were unprepared. (Id. at ¶191). Members made their violent plans explicit. “One member of Defendant Vanguard America explained on the Southern Front server after the event that Vanguard America had coordinated with Defendant National Socialist Movement because the Charlottesville event was
27

about violence.” (Id. at ¶117). While Vanguard America did not normally associate with National Socialist Movement, they needed to in Charlottesville because “NSM fought so hard” and Vanguard America “need[ed] them in a fight.” (Id.). Members also discussed whether to bring firearms, collapsible batons, and various types of knives. (Id. at ¶115). A Vanguard America member also posted “a violent drawing of Defendant Heimbach wearing a shirt bearing Nazi and Defendant TWP symbols and the words ‘nigger killer’ above a tally of ‘communists killed,’ smiling in front of decapitated black men wearing logos associated with anti-fascist movements.” (Id. at ¶116). While this could potentially being taken as very dark hyperbole in some instances, in the light of the later events it plausibly alleges a plan for violence.
Defendant Vanguard America members were present at the Friday night event, marching in uniform. (Id. at ¶153). Once they had surrounded counter-protesters at the Thomas Jefferson statue, online members encouraged those members present “to physically remove [the counterprotestors].” (Id. at ¶167). The violence described above ensued.
Defendant Vanguard America also led the violent events at the Saturday rally. Its members met with Defendants Nationalist Front, League of the South, National Socialist Movement, and Traditionalist Worker’s Party to coordinate the march into the park in formation. (Id. at ¶196). “Defendant Vanguard America marched to the Park first.” (Id. at ¶197). They chanted “Blood and Soil!” and carried matching shields and flags. (Id.). Defendant Fields, wearing the pre-approved uniform, marched with Defendant Vanguard America. (Id.). Members also carried rods and other weapons. (Id. at ¶34). Other groups followed. (Id. at ¶198). Members on Discord had said they would “remove whoever is in [their] way” when they got to the park. (Id. at ¶191). Consistent with this plan, members used their shields to break through counter-protestors and move into the park. (Id. at ¶209). Once inside the park, online
28

members continued telling members physically there to “[j]ust incite a riot already.” (Id. at ¶218).
At some point, Defendant Fields broke off from the rest of the group and allegedly committed his attack. He was “wearing the uniform white polo and khakis.” (Id. at ¶332). After his attack, Defendant Vanguard America members congratulated him and celebrated the attack on Discord, stating, “We fucked up many commies . . . . We hospitalized dozens . . . . Now you make the next rally and fight for your people.” (Id. at ¶¶266, 270).
In light of the coordinated marching and shield tactics, the various communications on Discord, and their members’ continued admissions of violence, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendant Vanguard America was part of the conspiracy to engage in racially motivated violence. Many of these allegations describe conduct that either does not implicate the First Amendment, (id. at ¶191 (alleging “Vanguard is fabricating 20 additional shields” for the fighting at the rally)), or plausibly serves as evidence of other specific violent acts. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 927; dkt. 175 at ¶270 (“We fucked up many commies . . . . We hospitalized dozens . . . .”).
v. Robert “Azzmador” Ray Defendant Ray is a writer at the Daily Stormer, where he published various anti-Semitic and white supremacist content in support of the rally. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 25, 27). He has held himself out as a representative of the Daily Stormer. (Id. at ¶27). The complaint alleges he went beyond this role as a publisher of content to become an active conspirator and participant in the violence at the events. (Id. at ¶¶ 25, 27, 62, 63, 66, 74, 84, 88, 92, 93, 110, 116, 118, 143, 150, 157, 168, 169, 186, 187, 202, 217, 226, 227, 317, 318, 323, 325, 326, 328, 329).
29

Defendant Ray contributed to the planning through the use of Discord. (Id. at ¶74). Ray also used the Daily Stormer’s website to coordinate other meetings for attendees. (Id. at ¶84). Some of these meetings were under the auspices of the Daily Stormer’s “book clubs,” which Defendant Ray clarified do not actually have anything to do with books and instead were used to organize the events. (See id. at ¶93 (“You don’t think the [Daily Stormer book clubs] have anything to do with books do you? . . . Think boots, not books.”). In the days leading up to the rally, Defendant Ray attended in-person meeting with Defendants Cantwell, Mosley, and purported co-conspirator David Duke. (Id. at ¶66).
Throughout this time, Defendant Ray used violent language and demonstrated signs of planning for violence. He told a reporter, “We are stepping off the Internet in a big way . . . . We have been organizing on the Internet. And so now they are coming out. We have greatly outnumbered the anti-white, anti-American filth. At some point we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever . . . you ain’t seen nothing yet.” (Id. at ¶88). He wrote that “this rally will put the fear of god into the hearts and minds of our enemies.” (Id. at ¶92). On Discord, he advised that his followers would “be ready with lots of nifty equipment.” (Id. at ¶110). He directed his followers to bring tiki torches (for the Friday night march), pepper spray, flag poles, flags, and shields. (Id. at ¶118).
This planning came to life on Friday the 11th. Along with Defendants Cantwell and Kessler, Defendant Ray was “issuing orders to the other white supremacists and neo-Nazis, telling them to get in specific formations and assigning people either to march with a torch or on the side as ‘security.’” (Id. at ¶157). Once they had surrounded the counter-protesters at the statue and torches were being thrown at counter-protesters, he shouted “The heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!” (Id. at ¶169). Within this context, this was
30

a “true threat” not entitled to First Amendment protection. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). The marchers “began to kick and punch the protesters around the statue, using their torches as weapons, and to beat individuals onto the ground.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶168). Defendant Ray claimed the marchers “went through [the counter-protestors] like shit through a goose!” (Id.).
Defendant Ray also attended the rally on the 12th. He carried a banner that said “Gas the kikes, race war now!” (Id. at ¶202). He made various anti-Muslim statements as well, calling a woman a “sharia whore.” (Id.). The Daily Stormer also maintained a livefeed of events on its website, where users exhorted further violence. (Id. at ¶217 (“We have an army! This is the beginning of a war!”)).
Defendant Ray’s alleged actions, and most specifically his leadership and statements at the Friday night rally, demonstrate that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that he was an active member of the conspiracy to commit racial violence.
vi. Nathan Damigo and Identity Evropa Defendant Nathan Damigo attended the events with members of the white supremacist organization he founded, Defendant Identity Evropa. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 28–30, 50, 52, 63, 64, 70, 77, 92, 187, 212, 276, 300–02, 308, 311, 320, 322). Defendant Spencer claims that Defendants Damigo and Identity Evropa coordinated attendance from outside Charlottesville. (Id. at ¶¶70, 320). A purported Identity Evropa member, Evan McClaren, met with Defendant Spencer to coordinate and organize the rally in Washington, D.C. (Id. at ¶64). Defendant Identity Evropa also had its own Discord channel, which it used to communicate with its members about the events. (Id. at ¶¶77, 322). Defendant Damigo also attended a previous rally held in Berkeley, California. (Id. at ¶28). Damigo referred to Berkeley as a “test run” for Charlottesville. (Id.).
31

At that rally, Damigo was arrested for assaulting a counter-protestor, demonstrating his violent intentions for the main event. (Id.).
Defendants Damigo and Identity Evropa were key participants in the violence on the 12th. In an account of the day called “Catcher in the Reich: My Account of My Experience in Charlottesville,” co-Defendant Parrott claimed that “most of the Identity Evropa men were occupied on other fronts” during the fighting, but that Defendant Identity Evropa “sent a detachment of fighters to assist us and to relay intelligence to Jason Kessler and other organizers. They offered more fighters, but we had our positions amply covered.” (Id. at ¶212). These allegations of organized paramilitary fighting plausibly allege that Defendants Damigo and Identity Evropa were part of the conspiracy to commit racial violence at these events. Defendant Damigo’s prior violence at the “test run” for the Charlottesville events further bolsters the allegations of his personal involvement in a plan to commit racial violence at these events. The First Amendment does not shield Defendants from these allegations of violence. See Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 916 (“The First Amendment does not protect violence.”).
vii. Eli Mosley Defendant Mosley is closely related to Defendants Damigo and Identity Evropa, taking over leadership of Identity Evropa in late August 2017. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶29, 30). However, Defendant Mosley had a more central role in the organization of the events, and particularly in the organization of violence at them. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 4, 20, 29, 30, 63, 66, 73, 75, 78, 89, 97, 100, 129, 137, 141, 143, 147, 148, 152, 172, 187, 189, 192, 231, 300, 311, 317, 321, 322, 324, 326, 328, 329). Defendant Mosley referred to himself as the “command soldier major of the ‘altright’” and told attendees that he was running the rally “as a military operation.” (Id. at ¶¶29, 192). He also declared that Defendants would not be replaced “without a fight.” (Id. at ¶¶4, 89).
32

Defendant Mosley, along with Kessler, “moderated, reviewed, directed, and managed” Discord. (Id. at ¶¶ 73, 322). Mosley and other leaders “used Discord for regular ‘leadership’ meetings through which they shared information and plans.” (Id. at ¶75). Defendant Mosley used this platform to issue “General Orders” for “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0.” (Id.). These orders described individuals opposed to Defendants’ racist ideologies as “hostiles.” (Id.). A “video for basic formation, roles, and commands” was also promised on Discord, and a “Shield Tactics Primer” and accompanying video was then posted. (Id. at ¶192). The video illustrated shield fighting techniques. (Id.). Distribution of these sorts of instruction manuals to commit crimes is not protected by the First Amendment. See Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 265 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding publisher of a “hit man” book was not immune from liability under the First Amendment).
In the build up to the events, Defendant Mosley attended the in-person meeting with Defendants Ray, Cantwell, and purported co-conspirator David Duke. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶66, 317). Mosley then helped lead the Friday night march, previously having instructed attendees to buy torches. (Id. at ¶¶143, 147, 328). He ordered the marchers “to arrive at Nameless Field, a large area behind UVA’s Memorial Gymnasium, at 9:30p.m., so that they could march once darkness fell at 9:47 p.m.” (Id. at ¶148). He used Discord to tell marchers when “to start staging.” (Id. at ¶152). He would later approvingly tweet the picture of Cantwell spraying pepper spray in a counter-protester’s eyes, saying “He protect / He at[t]ack / But most importantly he got your back.” (Id. at ¶172). This plausibly alleges Defendant Mosley ratified Cantwell’s assault.
Defendant Mosley was also active in organizing events on the 12th. He exhorted attendees to arrive before the park opened and create a “a white bloc barrier or square around the entire statue.” (Id. at ¶189). Once an unlawful assembly was declared and the attendees began
33

leaving the park, “Defendant Mosley sought people with guns.” (Id. at ¶231). He said, “I need shooters” because “[w]e’re gonna send 200 people with long rifles back to that statue.” (Id.).
In light of the Defendant Mosley’s self-proclaimed role as “command soldier major of the alt-right,” his use of Discord to share fighting tactics, and his alleged organization of attendees at the Friday night march, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that he was part of a conspiracy to commit racial violence.
viii. Matthew Heimbach, Matthew Parrott, and Traditionalist Worker Party Defendants Matthew Heimbach and Matthew Parrott are leaders of Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party, an anti-Semitic organization with around 500 members. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶31–33). These Defendants, alongside the Defendants associated with Defendant League of the South, allegedly engaged in many of the most specific acts of violence in furtherance of the conspiracy. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 31–33, 37, 50, 63, 67, 74, 77, 90, 116, 187, 188, 196, 200, 212, 214, 228, 268, 271, 319, 322, 327). Like other organizational Defendants, Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party used a private Discord channel for planning with its members. (Id. at ¶77). Defendants Heimbach and Parrott participated on Discord. (Id. at ¶74). In addition to planning, and as mentioned above, a member of co-Defendant Vanguard America used Discord to distribute a drawing of Defendant Heimbach with “kill tallies” of communists, the words “nigger killer,” and drawing of decapitated black men. (Id. at ¶116). On the morning of the 12th, members of Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party met with members from Defendants Nationalist Front, League of the South, and National Socialist Movement “at a pre-set location in order to march to Emancipation Park in formation.” (Id. at ¶196). Defendants Parrott, Heimbach, and other Traditionalist Worker Party members then marched behind Defendant League of the South. (Id. at ¶200). Defendants in these formations
34

“charged through the peaceful clergy when they arrived at the park . . . and Plaintiff Wispelwey was knocked into a bush.” (Id. at ¶208). Then, in Parrott’s words, members worked with other Defendants “to help create two shield walls” for “the fight.” (Id. at ¶212). This apparently was part of an “original plan to define and secure the event perimeter.” (Id. at ¶214). Defendants Parrott and Traditionalist Worker Party then coordinated the placement of “detachment[s] of fighters” with other Defendants to “amply cover” their positions. (Id. at ¶212). Defendant Parrott described how, “[w]ith a full-throated rebel yell,” co-Defendant League of the South member Michael Tubbs “towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as League fighters with shields put their training to work.” (Id.). Once the gathering was declared an unlawful assembly, Defendant Parrott was arrested for failure to disperse. (Id. at ¶228). A co-Defendant later thanked Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party for their work, referring to them as “true warriors.” (Id. at ¶271).
Plaintiff’s recounting of Defendant Parrott’s own account of the events, as well as the other allegations of violence, plausibly allege that these three Defendants joined the conspiracy to commit racial violence. As with other Defendants, the First Amendment does not prevent the imposition of liability for the acts of violence alleged here. (See id. at ¶212 (summarizing Defendant Parrott’s account of the fighting)).
ix. Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs, and League of the South As with the three just-discussed Defendants, Defendants Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs, and League of the South were allegedly in the heart of the violence that occurred on Saturday the 12th. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 34–36, 39, 50, 63, 67, 77, 94, 99, 187, 188, 196, 198–200, 212–14, 260, 318, 319, 322, 327). Defendant Michael Hill is the co-founder and President of Defendant League of the South. (Id. at ¶34). The white supremacist organization includes “an armed,
35

paramilitary unit” called “the Indomitables” that has been “tasked with advancing southern secession by any means necessary.” (Id.). Defendant Michael Tubbs is the “Chief of Staff” of Defendant League of the South. (Id. at ¶35).
Defendant League of the South used Discord and Facebook to communicate with its members. (Id. at ¶¶77, 322). In the lead up to the events, Defendant Hill posted in the Facebook group, saying he wanted “no fewer than 150 League warriors, dressed and ready for action, in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 12 August.” (Id. at ¶36). One member explained that he planned to attend the rally because “I intend to stand for the South and die for it if need be.” (Id.).
They coordinated with the other Defendants. Defendant Kessler “promised that there would be hundreds of members of [Traditionalist Worker Party] and League of the South at the park as early as 8:00 a.m.” on the 12th. (Id. at ¶188). Before going to the park, members met with co-Defendants “at a pre-set location in order to march to Emancipation Park in formation.” (Id. at ¶196). Members then followed Defendant Hill, marching “with coordinated shields and flags,” and carrying “rods and other weapons.” (Id. at ¶198). Either as they approached the park, or once they were already within it, Defendant Tubbs ordered League of the South members “to attack by yelling ‘charge!’” (Id. at ¶35). “After receiving this command, the group streamed past him to attack counter-protestors.” Id.; compare with Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297–98 (1961) (“[M]ere abstract teaching . . . is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. There must be some substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of a call to violence now or in the future which is both sufficiently strong and sufficiently pervasive to lend color to the otherwise ambiguous theoretical material . . . .”).
And as recounted above, Defendant Parrott’s account of the fighting explained how Defendant League of the South used their shields in the fighting. (Id. at ¶212). Defendant Tubbs
36

was the individual pushing “through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors.” (Id.). Defendant Parrott’s account also explained that “League fighters with shields put their training to work.” (Id.). Elsewhere, Defendant Hill claimed that “Mr. Tubbs was everywhere the chaos was.” (Id. at ¶213). As the day wound down, “Defendant Hill tweeted ‘The League of the South had a good day in Charlottesville, Virginia. Our warriors acquitted themselves as men. God be praised!’” (Id. at ¶260).
These allegations, specifically the acknowledgment by co-Defendant Parrott that Defendant League members were “putting their training to work,” state a claim that these three Defendants entered into a conspiracy to commit racial violence.
x. Jeff Schoep, National Socialist Movement, and Nationalist Front Defendant Schoep is a leader of Defendant National Socialist Movement, “the largest neo-Nazi coalition in the United States.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶37). Defendant National Socialist Movement “is paramilitary in structure; its members claim to be lieutenants, sergeants, or other military ranks.” (Id. at ¶38). Schoep is the organization’s “Commander.” (Id.). Schoep also formed Defendant Nationalist Front, which is an umbrella organization for groups such as Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party, the Aryan Terror Brigade, and regional factions of the Ku Klux Klan. (Id. at ¶37). Co-Defendants Heimbach and Hill also serve as leaders of Defendant Nationalist Front. (Id. at ¶39). Defendants Schoep, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, and the members of their umbrella structure are featured throughout the complaint. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 37, 39, 44, 63, 67, 117, 187, 188, 196, 201, 212, 214, 228, 231, 271, 319). Other Defendants viewed Defendant National Socialist Movement as being more “hard core” than some of the other groups. A Defendant Vanguard America member explained
37

National Socialist Movement was needed in Charlottesville because “NSM fought so hard regardless of their optics. Do we need them at normie events? No. We need them in a fight? Yes.” (Id. at ¶117). Likewise, another Discord described National Socialist Movement as “nuts . . . in a good way.” (Id. at ¶188). Members from Defendant National Socialist Movement met with other Defendants “at a pre-set location in order to march to Emancipation Park in formation.” (Id. at ¶196). Defendant Schoep, alongside Defendants Hill, Heimbach, and Parrott, led these Defendants in a “charge[] through [counter-]protesters, pushing and shoving them with their shields and rods.” (Id. at ¶214). This was part of “the original plan to define and secure the event perimeter.” (Id.). Defendants National Socialist Movement and Nationalist Front were also engaged in the fighting summarized by Defendant Parrott’s account. (Id. at ¶212).
After the rally was declared an unlawful assembly, “Defendant Schoep also marched to McIntire Park, attacking counter-protestors along the way.” (Id. at ¶228). He explained how he and others following him “went right through [counter-protestors] like warriors.” (Id.). Then, according to Defendant National Socialist Movement’s twitter account, Defendant Schoep “led a group of 40 back the 1.3 miles from [McIntire] park back to Lee Park, through Antifa and police interference!” (Id. at ¶231). Members crooned their admiration: “So much respect for my Commander Jeff Schoep. I will go into battle with you anytime Sir . . . .” (Id.). After everything had settled down, Defendant Schoep tweeted that “It was an Honor to stand with U all in C’Ville this weekend. [National Socialist Movement], [Nationalist Front], [Traditionalist Worker Party], [League of the South], [Vanguard America], [East Coast Knights], and the rest, true warriors!” (Id. at ¶¶37, 271)
As with the other Defendants discussed above, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that these three Defendants were engaged in the conspiracy to commit racial violence against
38

counter-protestors. In particular, the Court returns to Defendant Parrott’s account of these Defendants’ role in the violence, the meeting and then organized fighting to enter the park, and Defendant Schoep’s embrace of the other Defendants in his tweet.
xi. Michael Peinovich The only moving Defendant who Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege was part of the conspiracy is Defendant Michael Peinovich. Through their briefing and argument, Plaintiffs point to fourteen paragraphs that mention Peinovich. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶ 42, 50, 52, 63, 96, 129, 141, 187, 207, 229, 230, 310, 326, 327). Two of those paragraphs contain merely conclusory language. (See id. at ¶63 (“[A list of all Defendants including Peinovich] all agreed and coordinated with and among each other to plan, organize, promote, and commit the unlawful acts that injured Plaintiffs and countless others in Charlottesville.”); id. at ¶187(similar)). Other than these two conclusory paragraphs, there are no allegations that he participated in any violent acts. The others do not plausibly allege that Defendant Peinovich joined the alleged conspiracy. Two paragraphs note he hosts a racist podcast, was featured on a poster for the rally, and spoke to followers after the events. (Id. at ¶¶42, 327). The podcast, without more, is protected speech. Another paragraph alleges that on his podcast, an unnamed individual asked “Now come on, beating up the wrong negro . . . is that even a possibility? Beat up the wrong nigger . . . .” (Id. at ¶96). Without more context about, for example, when and who said this and how Defendant Peinovich responded, this is insufficient to demonstrate Peinovich had entered an agreement to engage in racial violence at the events. The promotional poster at most demonstrates an agreement to promote the rally, an event which many people attended for divergent reasons. His promotion of the event is insufficient to plausibly allege an agreement to commit violence. Finally, the mere fact he addressed followers is innocuous. Although it is
39

ambiguous whether this was part of the same address, the complaint elsewhere alleges “Peinovich called the counter-protestors ‘savages.’” (Id. at ¶230). This sort of name calling is far short of plausibly pleading an agreement to commit racial violence and, even within this context, is protected speech. See, e.g., Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015) (“Offensive statements made generally to a crowd are not excluded from First Amendment protection; the insult or offense must be directed specifically at an individual.”).
Turning to his actions at Emancipation Park, while Plaintiffs allege Defendant Peinovich arrived at the park in a passenger van, and was surrounded by a “security team,” there are no allegations he was involved in violence. (Id. at ¶207). Likewise, the fact he reassembled with followers in McIntire Park, without an allegation of an agreement to commit violence, is insufficient. (Id. at ¶229).
Two other paragraphs concern only his appearances at a previous rally with some coDefendants. (Id. at ¶¶50, 52). But there are no allegations these rallies were unlawful; Defendant Peinovich cannot be held liable simply for his associations. Three other paragraphs allege that Defendant Peinovich set up a legal fund before the rally and helped Defendant Cantwell fundraise from prison after the events. (Id. at ¶¶129, 310, 326). This sort of fundraising is too far removed from the other Defendants’ violence to plausibly connect Defendant Peinovich to a conspiracy to commit violence.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Peinovich tweeted, “Do these white business owners and shitlibs in CVille think that their virtue signaling mean they will be spared somehow? Lol.” (Id. at ¶141). Peinovich was responding to signs put up by various organizations in Charlottesville that “voiced support for equality and diversity.” (Id. at ¶140). Some of these businesses later received threatening mail. (Id. at ¶142). His tweet is still insufficient to
40

demonstrate a conspiracy to commit violence that injured these Plaintiffs. Even if these businesses were injured, a fact not alleged here, they are not parties to this lawsuit. This tweet does not plausibly allege an agreement to engage in racial violence at these events.
There are no allegations Defendant Peinovich engaged in violence. There are no allegations that he even used Discord. And in light of this discussion, there are no other plausible allegations that he joined the conspiracy to commit racial violence. Accordingly, the Court holds Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to plausibly allege that Defendant Peinovich violated Section 1985(3), and so he will be dismissed without prejudice. D. Whether Plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from overt acts committed in furtherance of
the conspiracy Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants, other than Peinovich, joined a conspiracy to engage in racially motivated violence at the “Unite the Right” events. However, in order to hold Defendants liable, Plaintiffs must also plausibly allege they suffered injuries caused by Defendants’ overt acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy (the fourth and fifth elements). A Soc’y Without A Name, 655 F.3d at 346. For almost all Plaintiffs, this is not a problem. Each Plaintiff need not be able to point to an injury incurred from each Defendant. Instead, because Plaintiffs have adequately pled that all Defendants (other than Peinovich) were part of the conspiracy, Plaintiffs may hold each Defendant liable for the reasonably foreseeable acts of their co-conspirators. See, e.g., Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647–48 (1946) (“A different case would arise if the substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.”); United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 338 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[U]nder conspiracy law, he is liable for
41

the conduct of all co-conspirators that was in furtherance of the conspiracy and reasonably

foreseeable to him.”); Willis v. Blevins, 957 F. Supp. 2d 690, 700 (E.D. Va. 2013) (applying the

reasonably foreseeable standard in a Section 1985(3) case).

i. Injuries incurred at the torchlight march

Plaintiffs Magill, Doe, and Romero allege they were pepper sprayed and otherwise

assaulted at the base of the Thomas Jefferson statute on the night of August 11th. (Dkt. 175 at

¶¶11, 13, 18, 166, 169, 173, 174, 293). Injuries associated with these assaults were reasonably

foreseeable consequences of the Defendants’ conspiracy: Defendant Cantwell sprayed pepper

spray at counter-protestors at the foot of the statue (id. at ¶22), Defendants Spencer and Cantwell

led the charge of marchers towards the statue (id. at ¶¶164, 166), and Defendant Ray yelled “The

heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!” while torches were

being thrown at them. (Id. at ¶169). These Plaintiffs have adequately pled their Section 1985(3)

claims. ii.

Injuries incurred from Defendant Fields’s attack

Plaintiffs Romero, Martin, Blair, Alvarado, Sines, and Muñiz were all injured by

Defendant Fields’s car attack. (Id. at ¶¶12, 15–19). Other Defendants may be held liable for

these injuries if it was “reasonably foreseeable” to them that a co-conspirator would intentionally

drive his car into a crowd of counter-protestors. The Court holds that Plaintiffs have adequately

pled that Defendant Fields’s attack was reasonably foreseeable for three reasons.

First, the exact possibility of running over counter-protestors was explicitly mentioned on

the invite-only Discord platform before the events. The complaint alleges that a “run them over”

catchphrase was popularized on the Fox Nation website, the Daily Caller website, and by

Defendants. (Dkt. 175 at ¶236). For example, Defendant Heimbach had previously encouraged

42

a police car to run over protesters, saying “Don’t stop, officer” and “Fucking step on the gas!” (Id.). A Discord user posted an image of a bus retrofitted with chainsaws and running over pedestrians. (Id. at ¶237). Another frequent Discord user responded, saying “I know NC law is on the books that driving over protesters blocking roadway isn’t an offense . . . Sure would be nice.” (Id. at ¶238). The user later asked whether it was “legal to run over protestors blocking roadways?” (Id. at ¶239). He clarified that this was not some sort of sick joke: “I’m NOT just shitposting. I would like clarification. I know it’s legal in [North Carolina] and a few other states. I’m legitimately curious for the answer.” (Id.). Kessler was part of a conversation where a different Discord user talked about how counter-protestors had previously flooded streets, and regretted that it was “[t]oo bad the civilians didn’t just make new speed bumps for some of these scum.” (Id. at ¶241). These posts were all on the private, invite-only, moderated platform that Defendants used.
Second, the Defendants planned to bring deadly weaponry to the event. (See, e.g., dkt. 175 at ¶303 (“After the Unite the Right ‘rally,’ Defendant Cantwell explained, ‘I came pretty well prepared for this thing today,’ while pulling out three pistols, two semi-automatic machine guns, and a knife.”)). Allegations concerning this level of weaponry demonstrate that it was eminently foreseeable to the Defendants that the rally could turn deadly. The fact that a counterprotestor was killed by a vehicle, instead of by the “semi-automatic machine guns” Defendants brought, provides a distinction that makes no difference to this analysis.
Third, multiple Defendants ratified Defendant Fields’s attack after the fact. (Dkt. 175 at ¶¶263–67, 272–73). For example, Defendant Loyal White Knights said: “Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields, Jr, age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one nigger-lover named Heather Heyer.
43

James Fields hail victory.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶272). Defendant Kessler tweeted “Communists have killed 94 million. Looks like it was payback time.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶267). Others made similar comments. These ratifications plausibly demonstrate that Defendant Fields’s actions were consistent with the conspiracy’s avowed goals.
In light of the discussion of these sorts of attacks, the potentially deadly nature of the planned violence, and the various ratifications of Defendant Fields’s attack, the Court finds Plaintiffs Romero, Martin, Blair, Alvarado, Sines, and Muñiz have adequately pled Defendant Fields’s attack was reasonably foreseeable to his co-conspirator Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that these co-conspirator Defendants may be held liable for the overt act Fields’s took in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 338 (4th Cir. 2003). Of course, factual development may undermine this conclusion.
iii. Plaintiffs Wispelwey and Pearce That leaves only two remaining Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Wispelwey was “knocked into a bush” when rally attendees charged through peaceful clergy, “[c]onsistent with their elaborate planning and lessons in battlefield tactics.” (Id. at ¶208). While Plaintiff Wispelwey does not allege which specific Defendant knocked him into a bush, the preceding paragraphs of the complaint extensively allege that specific Defendants, including Vanguard America and League of the South, organized in military formations outside Emancipation Park. (Id. at ¶¶195–98). Defendant Parrott specifically alleges that Defendant League of the South entered the park by breaking “through the wall of degenerates and [an otherwise unidentified individual named “TradWorker”] managed to enter the [Emancipation] Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling.” (Id. at ¶212). Plaintiffs also allege Defendants “use[d] shields, flags, or fists to break through the blockade of counter-protestors” in order to enter the park. (Id. at ¶209). In
44

light of the specificity of these allegations of how Defendants entered the park, and Plaintiff Wispelwey’s allegation that he was knocked over by someone who was acting consistently with these “battlefield tactics,” he has plausibly alleged his injuries were caused by overt actions of the Defendants.
On the other hand, while the Court in no way minimizes the injuries Plaintiff Pearce suffered, she has not sufficiently alleged her injuries were caused by overt acts committed in connection with Defendants’ conspiracy. Pearce is mentioned in nine paragraphs. (Id. at ¶¶14, 138, 202, 219–22, 258, 295). Some of these paragraphs only allege injury in a conclusory fashion. (See, e.g., id. at ¶14 (“On the basis of her religion, Pearce was threatened, harassed, intimidated, and physically assaulted.”). Others mention fear of injury that was not associated with a specific overt act of any Defendant. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶138, 219, 295). There is no allegation she was exposed to certain anti-Semitic banners allegedly carried by a Defendant. (See id. at ¶202). And the most targeted injuries and insults were made by anonymous “coconspirators,” who Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege were part of Defendants’ conspiracy. (See id. at ¶¶220, 221). While the Court finds Plaintiff Pearce has insufficiently alleged her injuries were caused by overt acts made in connection with the conspiracy, she may seek leave to amend with more specific factual allegations if she is able to provide them.
Accordingly, each of the Plaintiffs except Pearce has alleged they suffered injuries that were caused by an overt act in furtherance of the moving Defendants’ conspiracy. E. Count I conclusion
The Court concludes Plaintiffs have, for the most part, adequately alleged that Defendants formed a conspiracy to hurt black and Jewish individuals, and their supporters, because of their race at the August 11th and 12th events. The alleged violence is greater than
45

that alleged in Griffin, and likewise “lies so close to the core of the coverage intended by Congress [in enacting Section 1985(3)] that it is hard to conceive of wholly private conduct that would come within the statute if this does not.” 403 U.S. at 103. There are two caveats to that general conclusion. First, Plaintiff Pearce’s Section 1985(3) claims against the moving Defendants will be dismissed because she has not adequately connected her injuries to these Defendants. Second, the Section 1985(3) claims against Defendant Peinovich will be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged he joined the conspiracy. Finally, while the Court has pointed out conduct and statements that were not protected by Defendants’ First Amendment defense along the way, that defense is addressed more fulsomely at the end of this opinion.
IV. COUNT II: 42 U.S.C. § 1986 In Count Two, Plaintiffs allege all Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1986, which provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured . . . for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented . . . . “A cause of action based upon § 1986 is dependent upon the existence of a claim under § 1985.” Trerice v. Summons, 755 F.2d 1081, 1085 (4th Cir. 1985); id. (“Having affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1985 claim, we also affirm the dismissal of his § 1986 claim.”). The Defendants merely argue that the Section 1986 claim must fail because the Section 1985(3) claim must fail. But as just discussed, those claims survive, and so this argument must be discarded for the majority of the Defendants. With respect to Defendant Peinovich, just as Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that he was part of the underlying conspiracy, they have also failed to allege that he (1) was aware of a conspiracy to commit violence or (2) had “power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same.” 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Accordingly, as with the Section
46

1985(3) claim, the Section 1986 claim against him will be dismissed. Finally, because Plaintiff Pearce has insufficiently pled that she was injured by these Defendants, her Section 1986 claim fails for the same reasons discussed in the Section 1985(3) context.
V. COUNT III: CIVIL CONSPIRACY In Count III, Plaintiffs allege a common law conspiracy under Virginia law. The complaint alleges all Defendants conspired together to commit various state law torts and crimes against all the Plaintiffs.4 Although a different claim, the above Defendant-by-Defendant Section 1985(3) analysis also governs the analysis here. This is because Plaintiffs have alleged Defendants committed various assaults, batteries, and violations of Virginia’s hate crime statute in furtherance of the above conspiracy to commit racial violence. “A common law conspiracy consists of two or more persons combined to accomplish, by some concerted action, some criminal or unlawful purpose or some lawful purpose by a criminal or unlawful means.” Commercial Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Bellsouth Servs., Inc., 249 Va. 39, 48 (1995); see also Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard, 673 F.3d 308, 320 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Commercial Bus. Sys.).5 “[T]he plaintiff must first allege that the defendants combined together to effect a preconceived plan and unity of design and purpose, for the common design is the essence of the conspiracy.” Bay Tobacco, LLC v. Bell Quality Tobacco Products, LLC, 261 F.Supp.2d 483, 499 (E.D.Va. 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the just-described

4

While Plaintiffs maintain there were some eighteen different laws violated in furtherance

of the conspiracy, only four are discussed in Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss.

(Dkt. 231 at ECF44–48). The Court expects this list to be winnowed as the parties develop the

facts.

5

Defendants argue that under Vansant & Gusler, Inc. v. Washington, 245 Va. 356 (1993),

there is no general civil cause of action for criminal violations. While that is true as general

matter, it neither undermines nor addresses the above case law describing counts of common law

conspiracy based on criminal violations. The Court also notes tort liability would exist for the

same alleged assaults and battery.

47

conspiracy to commit racial violence at the “Unite the Right” events provides such a conspiracy. As demonstrated in the Defendant-by-Defendant analysis, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Defendants (other than Defendant Peinovich) conspired to assault counter-protesters out of racial animus.
A claim of civil conspiracy also “requires proof that the underlying tort was committed” by a co-conspirator in furtherance of that conspiracy. Almy v. Grisham, 273 Va. 68, 80 (2007); Terry v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 493 F. App’x 345, 357 (4th Cir. 2012) (“The ‘unlawful act’ element requires that a member of the alleged conspiracy have ‘committed’ an ‘underlying tort.’”). Additionally, the plaintiff must suffer an injury from the tort: “The gist of the civil action of conspiracy is the damage caused by the acts committed in pursuance of the formed conspiracy and not the mere combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or use unlawful means.” CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22, 28 (1993).
As discussed above when addressing the fourth and fifth elements of the Section 1985(3) claim, Plaintiffs (other than Pearce) have adequately pled specific alleged violations of state tort and statutory law. More specifically, the alleged injuries to Plaintiffs’ persons at the Friday night march, Saturday rally, and car attack would all violate Virginia’s hate crime statute (discussed more robustly under the following count) and constitute assaults and batteries. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.1(A) (“An action for . . . civil damages, or both, shall lie for any person who is subjected to acts of (i) intimidation or harassment or (ii) violence directed against his person . . . where such acts are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity.”); Koffman v. Garnett, 265 Va. 12, 16 (2003) (“The tort of battery is an unwanted touching which is neither consented to, excused, nor justified.”); id. (“The tort of assault consists of an act intended to cause either
48

harmful or offensive contact with another person or apprehension of such contact, and that creates in that other person’s mind a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.”). Plaintiffs (other than Pearce) have also pled that their injuries were caused by these unlawful acts of Defendants.
As with Count I, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have, for the most part, adequately alleged that Defendants formed a conspiracy to attack black and Jewish counter-protesters, and their supporters, because of racial animus. Those allegations, reviewed in detail above, can support the civil conspiracy claims. The two caveats to that general conclusion remain. First, Plaintiff Pearce’s common law conspiracy claims against the moving Defendants will be dismissed. Second, the common law claims against Defendant Peinovich will also be dismissed.
VI. COUNT V: VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CODE § 8.01-42.1 In Count Five, Plaintiffs Wispelwey, Magill, Muñiz, Doe, Sines, Blair, Martin, Alvarado, and Romero allege Defendants Fields, Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, Cantwell, and Invictus violated Virginia’s hate crime statute. Plaintiffs state a claim against any Defendant who engaged in “intimidation or harassment or . . . violence directed against his person . . . where such acts are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.1(A). Very few courts have provided elaboration of the statute. Cases have found the statute satisfied when defendants “used racial slurs and physically attacked [the plaintiffs] because of their race,” Frazier v. Cooke, No. 4:17-CV-54, 2017 WL 5560864, at *7 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2017); when a defendant’s employee “harassed plaintiff based on racial animus because he apprehended her, used a racial slur, and later implied that African–Americans came into [the store] to steal,” Berry v. Target Corp., 214 F. Supp. 3d 530, 535 (E.D. Va. 2016); and when a skating rink, which was under a consent
49

decree for denying equal access to public accommodations, singled the plaintiff out for discriminatory treatment and called the police on him, Johnson v. Hugo’s Skateway, 949 F.2d 1338 (4th Cir. 1991), on reh’g, 974 F.2d 1408 (4th Cir. 1992).
Each of the Plaintiffs bringing this claim (Wispelwey, Magill, Muñiz, Doe, Sines, Blair, Martin, Alvarado, and Romero) must demonstrate each of the moving Defendants (Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, and Cantwell) violated the statute. To start, Plaintiffs Muñiz, Blair, Martin, and Alvarado do not allege they ever interacted with these Defendants; they allegedly incurred injuries from Defendant Fields’s attack. In response to the motions to dismiss, these Plaintiffs do not attempt to identify any allegations that the moving Defendants violated this statute. These Plaintiffs’ claims against the moving Defendants will be dismissed.
That leaves Plaintiffs Wispelwey, Magill, Doe, Sines, and Romero. Plaintiff Sines claims against the moving Defendants will also be dismissed. In response to the motion to dismiss, she points to two paragraphs. In the first of these, she alleges that she “heard the marchers chanting slogans chosen for their intimidating and racially harassing effect.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶161). But this allegation neither alleges the chants were “directed against [her] person,” Va. Code Ann. § 8.0142.1(A), nor alleges that one of these specific Defendants was chanting. In the second, she alleges she “witnessed co-conspirators throwing fuel and tiki torches at the peaceful protestors around the statute.” (Dkt. 175 at ¶170). The same problems apply. Plaintiff neither alleges that these specific Defendants were the ones throwing fuel and torches, nor does she allege that this conduct was directed at her. Her claims under this statute against the moving Defendants will be dismissed.
Likewise, Plaintiff Wispelwey’s claims against the moving Defendants cannot survive. In response to the motion to dismiss, he identifies five relevant paragraphs. (Id. at ¶¶178–82).
50

These paragraphs describe the church service that occurred across from the Rotunda, where Wispelwey and others could see the mob and their torches. (Id.). But the only Defendant mentioned by name in these paragraphs is Defendant Invictus, who is not moving to dismiss. As to the other Defendants, these paragraphs fail to plausibly allege that this conduct was directed against Plaintiff Wispelwey or that these Defendants were specifically involved.
Plaintiffs Magill, Doe, and Romero were each surrounded by the marchers at the base of the Thomas Jefferson statue. (Id. at ¶¶164–69). They have plausibly alleged violations of the hate crime statute by Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, and Cantwell, and so the motion to dismiss these claims against these Defendants will be denied. Plaintiffs allege the torchlight march was designed to intimidate racial minorities by replicating the Ku Klux Klan’s and Nazi’s use of torches. (Id. at ¶150). Plaintiffs allege that the torch-wielding mob, including each of these Defendants, “charged toward a small group . . . including Plaintiffs John Doe and Romero, who had locked arms around the statue of Thomas Jefferson.” (Id. at ¶¶143, 164, 169, 172). Magill later joined Doe and Romero at the statue. (Id. at ¶169). These Plaintiffs were surrounded by Defendants and other marchers. (Id. at ¶166). Marchers then “began to kick and punch the protesters around the statue, using their torches as weapons, and to beat the individuals onto the ground.” (Id. at ¶168). Marchers also threw fluid, which Plaintiffs feared was fuel, onto them. (Id. at ¶169). Marchers then threw their torches in the air at Plaintiffs and other counterprotesters. (Id.). Defendant Ray said, “The heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!” (Id.).
Even if some of the torchlight march could be characterized as expressive conduct, the combination of the torches and this violence was not protected by the First Amendment, and these moving Defendants can be held liable under Virginia’s hate crime statute. “[T]he First
51

Amendment . . . permits a State to ban a ‘true threat.’” Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). “Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.” Id. at 360. Just as the Supreme Court has recognized that cross burnings are often intimidating, the torchlight march and the violence directed at Plaintiffs and other counter-protesters at the foot of the Thomas Jefferson statute, was likewise intimidating “in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word.” Id. Plaintiffs Magill, Doe, and Romero have plausibly alleged that Defendants Mosley, Spencer, Kessler, Ray, and Cantwell engaged in “intimidation or harassment or . . . violence directed against [their] person[s] . . . where such acts are motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.1(A). Accordingly, their claims will survive.
VII. REMAINING DEFENSES AND ISSUES While Defendants’ specific arguments have been addressed throughout, the Court now turns to two remaining defenses that were framed at a higher level of abstraction concerning the First and Second Amendments. The Court finds that neither requires dismissal at this stage, although concerns about the possibility of chilling First Amendment speech do inform the entirety of this opinion. Finally, the Court also addresses two other general issues: judicial notice and Virginia law governing unincorporated associations. A. The First Amendment Defendants argue their conduct was generally protected by the First Amendment. Of course, peaceful picketing, see Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), and peaceful marching, see Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), are the sorts of expressive activities that are protected by the First Amendment. And some of the Defendants’ behavior
52

certainly was protected by the First Amendment. After all, the genesis of the Defendants’ interest in Charlottesville was the renaming of the park. Picketing and marching protesting that decision, even if motivated by racist ideology, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969), would be protected speech. See generally Citizens Against Rent Control/Coal. for Fair Hous. v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 454 U.S. 290, 295 (1981) (“The Court has long viewed the First Amendment as protecting a marketplace for the clash of different views and conflicting ideas.”). These are the First Amendment values that led Judge Conrad to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining Charlottesville from revoking Defendant Kessler’s permit last August. See Kessler v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia, No. 3:17CV00056, 2017 WL 3474071, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2017).6
But “[t]he First Amendment does not protect violence.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). And so “if [the Defendants] have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order” and thereby “transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects,” any law holding them liable for such conspiracy does not violate the First Amendment. De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 (1937); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 55 (1982) (“Although agreements to engage in illegal conduct undoubtedly possess some element of association, the State may ban such illegal agreements without trenching on any right of association protected by the First Amendment.”);

6

Defendant Kessler applied for and was originally granted a permit for the Saturday rally.

See Kessler v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia, 2017 WL 3474071, at *1 (providing further

background). However, “[o]n August 7, 2017, less than a week before the long-planned

demonstration at the Park, the defendants notified Kessler by letter that they were ‘revok[ing]’

the permit.” Id. Defendant Kessler filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which Judge

Conrad granted. Judge Conrad granted the motion, finding Kessler was likely to succeed on the

merits, because “the evidence cited by Kessler supports the conclusion that the City’s decision

constitutes a content-based restriction of speech” and the City did not come forward with

evidence that supported its proffered reason for the revocation. Id. at *2.

53

United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457, 482 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Forming an agreement to engage in criminal activities—in contrast with simply talking about religious or political beliefs—is not protected speech.”). Just as those conspiracies can violate the criminal law, the First Amendment does not prohibit “tort liability for . . . losses that are caused by violence and by threats of violence.” Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 916. As described above, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Defendants formed just such a conspiracy to commit violence, and so the First Amendment does not protect Defendants.
To be clear, if Plaintiffs alleged Defendants only engaged in “abstract” advocacy of violence, those statements would be protected. See Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[A]bstract advocacy of lawlessness is protected speech under the First Amendment.”); Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 927 (“[M]ere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment.”); Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 447 (“[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”). The complaint, though, is replete with specific allegations that extend beyond mere “abstract” advocacy. The allegations of physical assault are “not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 484 (1993). And even many of those allegations that do concern expressive conduct, which the Court included in its above analysis, fall into three main categories of speech that extend beyond the First Amendment’s protections for advocacy.
First, as the Supreme Court recognized in Claiborne Hardware, “a finding that [a Defendant] authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity would justify holding him
54

responsible for the consequences of that activity.” 458 U.S. at 927. The allegations that Defendants directed a charge towards Plaintiffs while they were around the Jefferson statute (dkt. 175 at ¶164), sprayed them with pepper spray (id. at ¶172), ratified the other assaults (id. at ¶¶166, 169, 172), organized and oversaw violence in the park (id. at ¶212), and ratified Defendant Fields’s attack all fall within this category. (Id. at ¶267).
“Second, a finding that [a Defendant’s public statements] were likely to incite lawless action could justify holding him liable for unlawful conduct that in fact followed within a reasonable period.” Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927. Falling within this category are the allegations that Defendants encouraged the throwing of torches at counter-protesters (dkt. 175 at ¶169), and ordered others to “charge!” (id. at ¶35). See also Bible Believers v. Wayne Cty., Mich., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015) (“The Brandenburg test precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to riot unless (1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action, (2) the speaker intends that his speech will result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of his speech.”).
“Third, [otherwise protected speech] might be taken as evidence that [a Defendant] gave other specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats.” Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927. Multiple allegations fall into this category, including allegations Defendants distributed shield fighting tactics (dkt. 175 at ¶192), instructed members to wear “good fighting uniforms” (id. at ¶ 115), and recommended attendees “bring picket sign posts, shields, and other selfdefense implements which can be turned from a free speech tool to a self-defense weapon should things turn ugly.” (Id. at ¶112). Taken by themselves, these statements may be protected. But
55

taken in light of the other allegations, they can serve as evidence of an agreement to commit violence.
While Defendants are incorrect in suggesting that the First Amendment immunizes them entirely, it does require a careful parsing of the allegations. When conspiracy or other unprotected speech “occurs in the context of constitutionally protected activity, . . . ‘precision of regulation’ is demanded.” Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 916 (quoting N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 (1963)); id. at 908 (“The right to associate does not lose all constitutional protection merely because some members of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrine that itself is not protected.”). “Specifically, the presence of activity protected by the First Amendment imposes restraints on the grounds that may give rise to damages liability and on the persons who may be held accountable for those damages.” Id. at 916–17.
One of the primary effects of these restraints is that Plaintiffs may recover “[o]nly those losses proximately caused by unlawful conduct[.]” Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 918. This requires tracing the “specific parties [who] agreed to use unlawful means” and “identify[ing] the impact of such unlawful conduct.” Id. at 933–34. These requirements substantially overlap with the pleading requirements framed above. See A Soc’y Without A Name, 655 F.3d at 347 (holding Section 1985(3) allegations were insufficient when the plaintiff “fail[ed] to allege with any specificity the persons who agreed to the alleged conspiracy, the specific communications amongst the conspirators, or the manner in which any such communications were made”). And so, as described there, the Court has required Plaintiffs to plausibly allege that their various injuries resulted from agreements made by specific Defendants; they cannot allege that all the rally attendees who disagree with them were part of
56

one overarching conspiracy. The Court has imposed this heightened standard to the pleadings in order to satisfy the “precision of regulation” demanded by the First Amendment. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 916. However, Defendants’ more general argument that it is immunized from liability by the First Amendment fails.7 B. The Second Amendment
Many of the above allegations note that Defendants brought weapons (e.g., assault rifles, shields, poles, and pepper spray) to the Friday and Saturday events. Defendants briefly argue that the Second Amendment protected their rights to bring these weapons to the rally. But Plaintiffs’ theory here is not that Defendants incurred liability by bringing these weapons, but by using them. (Dkt. 231 at ECF 52). As Plaintiffs correctly point out, the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” no more insulates Defendants from civil liability for the use of their weapons in an assault than it insulates a criminal defendant from liability because he committed his crime with a weapon. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008).

7

Two remaining First Amendment arguments can be dismissed quickly. First, a few

Defendants argue that this Court’s August 2017 order enjoining Charlottesville from revoking

the attendee’s permit establishes the legality of the rally as a matter of res judicata. But that ex

ante determination, that included none of these Plaintiffs, about whether Charlottesville violated

the First Amendment is completely different than this ex post consideration of whether

Defendants violated specific laws. As just discussed, Defendants and other rally attendees did

have legitimate First Amendment rights at the rally, but the problem is that Plaintiffs allege

Defendants exceeded the bounds of those rights by conspiring to commit violence.

Second, the same Defendants argue that the torchlight march was an expressive activity

that is no different than flag burning. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). While

this may or may not be correct, see, e.g., Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (cross burning is

not necessarily protected by the First Amendment because true threats are not protected speech),

Plaintiffs’ allegations are based not just on the torches themselves, but on the associated violence

that occurred during the march. As just discussed, that violence is not protected by the First

Amendment.

57

Likewise, Defendants point to no authority preventing the Court from considering Defendants’ decisions to bring substantial amounts of weapons to the rally as evidence of a plan to engage in violence. (See, e.g., dkt. 175 at ¶303 (“After the Unite the Right ‘rally,’ Defendant Cantwell explained, ‘I came pretty well prepared for this thing today,’ while pulling out three pistols, two semi-automatic machine guns, and a knife. Of the next ‘alt-right protest,’ he said, ‘it’s going to be tough to top but we’re up to the challenge . . . I think a lot more people are going to die before we’re done here, frankly.’”)). While the reasonableness of this inference may vary based on specific allegations (e.g., an individual lawfully carrying a licensed gun does not reasonably give rise to this inference), some of Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning weapons do support an inference that Defendants planned to engage in racially motivated violence at the rally. (See, e.g., id. at ¶191 (“Vanguard is fabricating 20 additional shields. We should have a good amount between organizations.”); id. at ¶192 (describing a “Shield Tactics Primer” and “a video illustrating shield fighting techniques” posted on Discord); id. at ¶212 (describing how Defendants used shields in “the fight”)). Defendants cite no cases to the contrary, choosing instead to invoke Heller and McDonald as talismans. Defendants’ Second Amendment arguments fall flat. C. Judicial notice
Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of various documents and videos, ranging from the Heaphy Report (a report Charlottesville commissioned in the wake of the rally) to YouTube videos of speeches Defendants’ made at the rally. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 201. First, Defendants wish to demonstrate that the City of Charlottesville and various counterprotesters were also responsible for the violence. While the Court has reviewed the Heaphy Report, other potential causes of violence mentioned by it do not undermine Plaintiffs’
58

allegations about these Defendants’ conspiracy to commit violence. Even assuming it is proper to take judicial notice of the whole report, see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact . . . .”), its only relevance here is to provide general background to the allegations.
Second, Defendants also wish to provide context for various quotes and statements that they made through videos and transcripts of their speeches and statements. Here, the Court declines to take judicial notice of these documents because doing so would lead the Court into some of the fundamental factual disputes of the case, disputes that are appropriate for discussion later in the litigation. See Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 791 F.3d 500, 511 (4th Cir. 2015) (“We are mindful that judicial notice must not ‘be used as an expedient for courts to consider ‘matters beyond the pleadings’ and thereby upset the procedural rights of litigants to present evidence on disputed matters.’”). More specifically, because “[t]he parties clearly and reasonably disagree about the meaning to be ascribed to these [statements],” it is appropriate for the Court to “decline to judicially notice them.” Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 216 (4th Cir. 2009). D. Unincorporated associations under Va. Code § 8.01-15
Multiple Defendants are sued as “unincorporated associations” under Virginia law. Virginia Code § 8.01-15 “provides that unincorporated associations may sue or be sued in their own name, but does not otherwise alter the legal definitions of such groups.” Bedford Genealogical Soc., Inc. v. Bedford Museum & Genealogical Library, No. CIV.A. 6:09-CV00060, 2010 WL 2038843, at *3 n.4 (W.D. Va. May 21, 2010). And so, looking to the common law governing unincorporated associations, “[a]n unincorporated association is a collection of individuals gathered for a common purpose and ‘is not a legal entity separate from the persons who compose it.’” Id. (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, association (8th ed. 2004)). “Such an
59

association suggests an organized group made up of persons who become members of the association voluntarily, but subject to certain rules or by-laws; the members are customarily subject to discipline for violations or non-compliance with the rules of the association.” Yonce v. Miners Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 161 F. Supp. 178, 186 (W.D. Va. 1958). The word has been used to refer to “associations such as trade unions, fraternal organizations, business organizations, and the like.” Id. Another court has listed the following unincorporated associations: “a hospital association, real estate investment trust, racing commission, landowner association, and a labor organization.” Muniz v. Fairfax Cty. Police Dep’t, No. 1:05CV466 (JCC), 2005 WL 1838326, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2005). Generally, associations have the abilities “to prescribe the conditions or qualifications of their membership or their duties, to enlarge or reduce their membership, to enlarge or decrease the scope of their activities, [and] to dissolve the association . . . .” Yonce, 161 F. Supp. at 186.
Only one organizational Defendant addresses whether it qualifies as an “unincorporated associations,” and it does so by introducing an affidavit that is not properly before the Court at this stage.8 However, the Court will eventually need to consider the question in order to

8

Defendant Nationalist Front briefly raised this issue in a motion to dismiss filed in

response to the original complaint. (Dkt. 105 at 1–2; dkt. 207). Defendant Schoep, the founder

of Defendant Nationalist Front, filed an affidavit in support of the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 105-

1). The affidavit states that Nationalist Front “has no existence other than [its] website.” (Id. at

¶9). This is directly contradicted by Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants Schoep and

Heimbach “co-chair” the organization (dkt. 175 at ¶31), that Defendant Hill also assists in its

leadership (id. at ¶39), that it was designed to be “the thread that would unite white supremacist

and white nationalist circles” (id. at ¶39), and that its members were present and acted as

“warriors” at the Saturday rally (id. at ¶¶37, 196, 212). Considering this affidavit and resolving

whether Defendant Nationalist was merely a website or instead a platform for Defendants to

coordinate their conduct at the rally would require the Court to treat this as a motion for

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Furthermore, Defendant Nationalist Front does not

respond to Plaintiffs’ argument that consideration of the affidavit would be inappropriate without

allowing Plaintiffs time for discovery. The Court holds consideration of the affidavit would be

inappropriate at this stage, and so the affidavit will be excluded. See Occupy Columbia v. Haley,

60

determine what alleged actions and statements of individuals are attributable to the purported unincorporated associations. See 7 Corpus Juris Secundum Associations § 75 (2018 Westlaw) (“An unincorporated association, formed to accomplish a common purpose, is bound to use the same care to avoid injury to others as natural persons, and it may be liable in tort for the wrongful acts of its members when acting collectively in the prosecution of the business for which it is organized. . . . An association may not be held liable for torts of a member when it has no control over his or her acts.” (emphasis added)).9 But because this issue is not properly before the Court at this stage and requires further factual development, the Court does not consider these issues at this stage of the litigation.

738 F.3d 107, 117 (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court’s refusal to consider affidavits at the motion to dismiss stage). The parties may seek leave to brief this issue on an expedited basis.

9

Difficult questions are also raised by the alleged ratification of certain actions (e.g.,

Defendant Fields’s car attack) by various organizational Defendants. See N.A.A.C.P. v.

Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 931 (1982) (“To impose liability without a finding that

the NAACP authorized—either actually or apparently—or ratified unlawful conduct would

impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First

Amendment.”); see also 7 Corpus Juris Secundum Associations § 75 (2018 Westlaw) (“In the

absence of authorization or ratification by all of its members, an association can only be held

liable for the unintentional act of an agent or employee, and cannot be held to account for the

intentional act of an agent which results in a trespass.”); id. at § 71 (“An unincorporated

association can ratify the conduct of one of its members and an unincorporated association’s

ratification of an unauthorized act of one of its members has retroactive effect.”).

Another thorny issue is whether actions of these organizations can create liability for

their individual members. See Feldman v. N. British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 137 F.2d 266, 268

(4th Cir. 1943) (“It is generally held that an unincorporated voluntary association, formed to

accomplish a common purpose, is bound to use the same care to avoid injury to others as natural

persons, but mere membership in the body or contribution of dues or money to effectuate the

common purpose does not make all the members liable for unlawful acts of the association done

without their participation and without their knowledge or approval.”) (applying South Carolina

law); see also Bedford Genealogical Soc., Inc. v. Bedford Museum & Genealogical Library, No.

CIV.A. 6:09-CV-00060, 2010 WL 2038843, at *3 (W.D. Va. May 21, 2010) (“The unilateral

acts of certain Society members—without notice to or the knowledge or consent of the entire

membership—in forming a corporation of the same name did not transfer the assets or members

of the unincorporated association to the corporation.”).

61

VIII. CONCLUSION In litigation of this kind the stakes are high. Concerted action is a powerful weapon. History teaches that special dangers are associated with conspiratorial activity. And yet one of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. at 932–33. While the Court acknowledges the weighty First Amendment interests implicated by the “Unite the Right” events, Plaintiffs here have plausibly alleged conduct that lies “close to the core of the coverage intended by Congress” when it passed the Ku Klux Klan Act to address violence against racial minorities. Griffin, 403 U.S. at 103; Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 442 U.S. at 368, 394. Accordingly, the Court will largely deny the motion to dismiss. Defendant Peinovich will be dismissed from the case. Plaintiff Pearce’s claims against the moving Defendants will be dismissed, although the Court does not address her claims against the non-moving Defendants. And the claims under the Virginia hate crime statute survive only for those Plaintiffs who were injured at the torchlight march.10 An appropriate order will issue. The Clerk of Court is requested to send a copy of this Opinion and the accompanying Order to the parties. Entered this __9_t_h_ day of July, 2018.
10 Counts Four, Five, and Six are only alleged against Defendant Fields, and are tied to his car attack. He has not moved to dismiss, and so these claims are not addressed here.
62

 
 CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

FILED

09/17/2019

81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK

)257+(:(67(51',675,&72)9,5*,1,$ BY: /s/ J. JONES

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LYLVLRQ

DEPUTY CLERK




(/,=$%(7+6,1(66(7+:,63(/:(<



0$5,66$%/$,57</(50$*,//$35,/

081,=+$11$+3($5&(0$5&86

0$57,11$7$/,(520(52&+(/6($

$/9$5$'2DQG-2+1'2(



3ODLQWLIIV



Y







-$621.(66/(55,&+$5'63(1&(5

&+5,6723+(5&$17:(//-$0(6



$/(;),(/'6-59$1*8$5'

$0(5,&$$1'5(:$1*/,1

&LYLO$FWLRQ1RFY1.0

0221%$6(+2/',1*6//&52%(57

³$==0$'25´5$<1$7+$1'$0,*2



(//,27./,1(DND(/,026/(<

,'(17,7<(9523$0$77+(: +(,0%$&+0$77+(:3$55277DND

-85<75,$/'(0$1'('

'$9,'0$77+(:3$55277

75$',7,21$/,67:25.(53$57<

0,&+$(/+,//0,&+$(/78%%6

/($*8(2)7+(6287+-())6&+2(3

1$7,21$/62&,$/,67029(0(17

1$7,21$/,67)5217$8*8678662/

,19,&786)5$7(51$/25'(52)7+(

$/7.1,*+760,&+$(/³(12&+´

3(,129,&+/2<$/:+,7(.1,*+762)

7+(.8./8;./$1DQG($67&2$67

.1,*+762)7+(.8./8;./$1DND

($67&2$67.1,*+762)7+(758(

,19,6,%/((03,5(



'HIHQGDQWV







6(&21'$0(1'('&203/$,17

3ODLQWLIIVE\WKHLUXQGHUVLJQHGDWWRUQH\VDOOHJHXSRQNQRZOHGJHDVWRWKHPVHOYHVDQG

WKHLURZQDFWLRQVDQGXSRQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHIDVWRDOORWKHUPDWWHUVDVIROORZV

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 Page 1 of 111 Pageid#: 6472


 





1$785(2)7+($&7,21  2YHUWKHZHHNHQGRI$XJXVWDQGKXQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVWUDYHOHGIURPQHDUDQGIDUWRGHVFHQGXSRQWKHFROOHJHWRZQRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 9LUJLQLDLQRUGHUWRWHUURUL]HLWVUHVLGHQWVFRPPLWDFWVRIYLROHQFHDQGXVHWKHWRZQDVD EDFNGURSWRVKRZFDVHIRUWKHPHGLDDQGWKHQDWLRQDQHRQDWLRQDOLVWDJHQGD  3ODLQWLIIVLQWKLVDFWLRQDUH8QLYHUVLW\RI9LUJLQLDXQGHUJUDGXDWHVODZVWXGHQWV DQGVWDIISHUVRQVRIIDLWKPLQLVWHUVSDUHQWVGRFWRUVDQGEXVLQHVVSHUVRQV²ZKLWHEURZQDQG EODFN&KULVWLDQDQG-HZLVK\RXQJDQGROG:KLOH3ODLQWLIIVFRPHIURPGLIIHUHQWEDFNJURXQGV WKH\VKDUHDGHHSORYHRIWKLVFRXQWU\WKHLUFLW\DQGRXUYDOXHV7KH\DOVRVKDUHDILHUFH GHWHUPLQDWLRQWRGHIHQGWKRVHYDOXHV(DFK3ODLQWLIILQWKLVDFWLRQZDVLQMXUHGDVDUHVXOWRIWKH HYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG)RXUSODLQWLIIVZHUHVWUXFNLQDFDUDWWDFN2WKHUV VXIIHUHGDQGFRQWLQXHWRVXIIHUGHHSDQGGHELOLWDWLQJSV\FKRORJLFDODQGHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDW SUHYHQWVWKHPIURPUHVXPLQJWKHLUIRUPHUOLYHVRUIURPHQMR\LQJWKHEDVLFVHQVHRISHDFHVDIHW\ DQGWUDQTXLOLW\WKDWPRVWLQWKLVFRXQWU\FDQWDNHIRUJUDQWHG  'HIHQGDQWVDUHWKHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQVWKDWFRQVSLUHGWRSODQSURPRWH DQGFDUU\RXWWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH\DUHQHR1D]LV.ODQVPHQZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWV7KH\HPEUDFHDQGHVSRXVHUDFLVWDQWL6HPLWLFVH[LVW KRPRSKRELFDQG[HQRSKRELFLGHRORJLHV'HIHQGDQWVEURXJKWZLWKWKHPWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWKH LPDJHU\RIWKH+RORFDXVWRIVODYHU\RI-LP&URZDQGRIIDVFLVP7KH\DOVREURXJKWZLWKWKHP VHPLDXWRPDWLFZHDSRQVSLVWROVPDFHURGVDUPRUVKLHOGVDQGWRUFKHV7KH\FKDQWHG³-HZV ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´³EORRGDQGVRLO´DQG³WKLVLVRXUWRZQQRZ´6WDUWLQJDWOHDVWDVHDUO\DVWKH EHJLQQLQJRIDQGFRQWLQXLQJWKURXJKWRGD\WKH\KDYHMRLQHGWRJHWKHUIRUWKHSXUSRVHRI



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 2 of 111

Pageid#: 6473


 





LQFLWLQJYLROHQFHDQGLQVWLOOLQJIHDUZLWKLQWKHFRPPXQLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGEH\RQG ZKHUHYHUWKHLUPHVVDJHVDUHUHFHLYHG
 7KHUHLVRQHWKLQJDERXWWKLVFDVHWKDWVKRXOGEHPDGHFU\VWDOFOHDUDWWKHRXWVHW² the violence in Charlottesville was no accident8QGHUWKHSUHWH[WRID³UDOO\´ZKLFKWKH\ WHUPHG³8QLWHWKH5LJKW´'HIHQGDQWVVSHQWPRQWKVFDUHIXOO\FRRUGLQDWLQJWKHLUHIIRUWVRQWKH LQWHUQHWDQGLQSHUVRQ7KH\H[KRUWHGHDFKRWKHU³,I\RXZDQWWRGHIHQGWKH6RXWKDQG:HVWHUQ FLYLOL]DWLRQIURPWKH-HZDQGKLVGDUNVNLQQHGDOOLHVEHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW´DQG ³1H[WVWRS&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$)LQDOVWRS$XVFKZLW]´,QFRXQWOHVVSRVWVRQWKHLURZQ ZHEVLWHVDQGRQVRFLDOPHGLD'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSURPLVHGWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEH YLROHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGYLROHQFHWKHUHZDV$V'HIHQGDQW(OL0RVOH\RQHRIWKHOHDG RUJDQL]HUVIRUWKHUDOO\GHFODUHG³:HDUH>@JRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH2XUELUWKULJKWZLOOEH DVKHV WKH\¶OOKDYHWRSU\LWIURPRXUFROGKDQGVLIWKH\ZDQWLW7KH\ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV ZLWKRXWDILJKW´
 7KHYLROHQFHVXIIHULQJDQGHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWRFFXUUHGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH ZDVDGLUHFWLQWHQGHGDQGIRUHVHHDEOHUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶XQODZIXOFRQVSLUDF\,WZDVDOO DFFRUGLQJWRSODQ²DSODQWKH\VSHQWPRQWKVZRUNLQJRXWDQGZKRVHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQWKH\ DFWLYHO\RYHUVDZDVHYHQWVXQIROGHGRQWKHJURXQG
 7KHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG²QRZFRPPRQO\UHIHUUHGWRVLPSO\DV ³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´²ZHUHSDUWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶FRRUGLQDWHGFDPSDLJQWRLQWLPLGDWHKDUDVVLQFLWH DQGFDXVHYLROHQFHWRSHRSOHEDVHGRQWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQHWKQLFLW\DQGVH[XDORULHQWDWLRQLQ YLRODWLRQQRWRQO\RIWKHYDOXHVWKDWWKRXVDQGVRI$PHULFDQVROGLHUVKDYHGLHGIRUEXWDOVR QXPHURXVVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOODZV$VWKH8WDK6HQDWRU2UULQ+DWFKVDLG³:HVKRXOGFDOOHYLOE\



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 3 of 111

Pageid#: 6474


 





LWVQDPH0\EURWKHUGLGQ¶WJLYHKLVOLIHILJKWLQJ+LWOHUIRU1D]LLGHDVWRJRXQFKDOOHQJHGKHUHDW KRPH´
 %\WKLVODZVXLW3ODLQWLIIVVHHNWRFKDOOHQJH'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQVXQGHUWKHODZVRI WKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFDDQGWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD3ODLQWLIIVVHHNFRPSHQVDWRU\ DQGLQMXQFWLYHUHOLHI7KHDLPRIWKLVODZVXLWLVWRHQVXUHWKDWQRWKLQJOLNHWKLVZLOOKDSSHQDJDLQ DWWKHKDQGVRI'HIHQGDQWV²QRWRQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDDQGQRWDQ\ZKHUHHOVH LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD
-85,6',&7,21$1'9(18(  7KHFRXUWKDVMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUWKLVDFWLRQSXUVXDQWWR86&  9HQXHLVSURSHUO\LQWKH:HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI9LUJLQLDSXUVXDQWWR86& EEHFDXVH3ODLQWLIIV¶FODLPVDURVHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDZKLFKLVORFDWHGLQWKH :HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI9LUJLQLD
7+(3$57,(6 $ 3ODLQWLIIV
 3ODLQWLII5HYHUHQG6HWK:LVSHOZH\ZDVERUQDQGUDLVHGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQG DWWHQGHG89$+HPRYHGEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRXU\HDUVDJRZLWKKLVZLIHDQGGDXJKWHU :LVSHOZH\KDVZRUNHGDWQXPHURXVQRQSURILWRUJDQL]DWLRQVWKDWDGYRFDWHIRUKXPDQULJKWV LQFOXGLQJDVWKHKHDGRIDQRUJDQL]DWLRQSURWHFWLQJYLFWLPVRIKXPDQWUDIILFNLQJ:LVSHOZH\LV DQRUGDLQHG0LQLVWHUZLWKWKH8QLWHG&KXUFKRI&KULVWDQGWKH'LUHFWLQJ0LQLVWHURI5HVWRUDWLRQ 9LOODJH$UWV+HLVDOVRWKHFRIRXQGHURIDPHPEHUVKLSRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUFOHUJ\RIGLIIHUHQW IDLWKVIURPDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\FDOOHG&RQJUHJDWHZKLFKRUJDQL]HGQXPHURXVWUDLQLQJVLQQRQ YLROHQWSURWHVWIRUUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHOHDGLQJXSWRWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG$VD UHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶LQWHQWLRQDODQGFRRUGLQDWHGSODQVWRFRPPLWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWWKRVHZKR



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 4 of 111

Pageid#: 6475


 





VWRRGXSIRUPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:LVSHOZH\ZDVKDUDVVHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQG DVVDXOWHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV6LQFHWKHHYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQG:LVSHOZH\ KDVVXIIHUHGH[WUHPHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWKDVPDQLIHVWHGLQSK\VLFDOV\PSWRPVLQFOXGLQJ FRQVWULFWHGFKHVWSDLQGLIILFXOW\VOHHSLQJLQFOXGLQJQLJKWPDUHVFRQFHUQLQJWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVW DQGDQGWKHLQDELOLW\WRUHWXUQIXOOWLPHWRZRUN
 3ODLQWLII$SULO0XxL]LVD0H[LFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLD%HIRUHWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWVKHZDVWKH'LUHFWRURI&OLQLFDO2SHUDWLRQVDWD FRPSDQ\WKDWKHOSVGHYHORSQHZWUHDWPHQWVIRUSDWLHQWVVXIIHULQJIURPLQFXUDEOHGLVHDVHV2Q $XJXVW0XxL]SHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW$VDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶ LQWHQWLRQDODQGFRRUGLQDWHGSODQVWRFRPPLWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWV0XxL]ZDV LQWLPLGDWHGDQGKDUDVVHGRQPXOWLSOHRFFDVLRQVRQ$XJXVW$PRQJRWKHUWKLQJV0XxL]ZDV FORVHWREHLQJKLWE\WKHFDUWKDW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHLQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUV LQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP0XxL]KDVVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOLQMXU\KDVEHHQGLDJQRVHG ZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHUDQGWUDXPDDQGZDVXQDEOHWRUHWXUQWRZRUNIRUPRQWKV6KHKDV VXIIHUHGHFRQRPLFORVVDVDUHVXOWRIKHULQMXULHV
 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHLVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLDDQGDVWXGHQWDW89$2Q$XJXVW-RKQ'RHSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶ SODQQHGHYHQW2QWKHEDVLVRIKLVUDFH-RKQ'RHZDVLQWLPLGDWHGKDUDVVHGDVVDXOWHGDQG VSUD\HGZLWKFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFHV
 3ODLQWLII+DQQDK3HDUFHLVDGHUPDWRORJLVWZKROLYHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHZLWKKHU KXVEDQGDQGIRXUFKLOGUHQ3HDUFHDQGKHUIDPLO\DUHDFWLYHPHPEHUVRI&RQJUHJDWLRQ%HWK ,VUDHO2Q$XJXVW3HDUFHDQGKHUVRQSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW2Q WKHEDVLVRIKHUUHOLJLRQ3HDUFHZDVWKUHDWHQHGKDUDVVHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQGSK\VLFDOO\DVVDXOWHG



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 5 of 111

Pageid#: 6476


 





6XEVHTXHQWO\DIHZGD\VDIWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´'HIHQGDQWV$QGUHZ$QJOLQDQG 0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&¶VZHEVLWH'DLO\6WRUPHULQWHQGLQJWRLQWLPLGDWH3HDUFHDQGKHUVRQ SRVWHGWKHLUSLFWXUHRQOLQH
 3ODLQWLII(OL]DEHWK6LQHVDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDLVD VHFRQG\HDUODZVWXGHQWDW89$/DZ6FKRRODQGDJUDGXDWHRI&RUQHOO8QLYHUVLW\2Q$XJXVW DQG6LQHVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQWV$VDUHVXOWRIZLWQHVVLQJWKH HYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQGLQFOXGLQJWKHGRPHVWLFWHUURULVWDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWZKHUH'HIHQGDQW )LHOGVGURYHDFDULQWRDFURZG6LQHVKDVVXIIHUHGIURPVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDQGVKRFN
 3ODLQWLII0DULVVD%ODLULVDPXOWLUDFLDOUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLD 6KHZRUNVDVDSDUDOHJDO2Q$XJXVW%ODLUZDVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWLQJZKHQ'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV GURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUVNLOOLQJ%ODLU¶VFRZRUNHUDQGIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HU )LHOGV¶VFDUQDUURZO\PLVVHG%ODLURQO\EHFDXVHKHUILDQFp3ODLQWLII0DUFXV0DUWLQSXVKHGKHU RXWRIWKHZD\EHIRUHEHLQJKLWKLPVHOI%ODLUVXIIHUHGSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVDQGFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHU IURPVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDVDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQV
 3ODLQWLII0DUFXV0DUWLQLVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI 9LUJLQLD+HZRUNVDVDODQGVFDSHU2Q$XJXVW0DUWLQZDVSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWLQJWKH8QLWH WKH5LJKW³UDOO\´+HZDVVWUXFNE\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKRGURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRI SURWHVWRUVLQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP0DUWLQSXVKHGKLVILDQFpHRXWRIWKHZD\RIWKH VSHHGLQJFDUEXWKHZDVVHYHUHO\LQMXUHGE\WKHDWWDFNLQFOXGLQJVXVWDLQLQJDEURNHQOHJDQG DQNOHWKDWUHTXLUHGVXUJHU\+HFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDVDUHVXOWRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQV
 3ODLQWLII1DWDOLH5RPHURLVD&RORPELDQ$PHULFDQXQGHUJUDGXDWHDW89$2Q $XJXVW5RPHURZDVRQHRIDJURXSRIFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVDQGVWXGHQWVZKRZHUH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 6 of 111

Pageid#: 6477


 





VXUURXQGHGE\WRUFKEHDULQJQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDWWKH5RWXQGD2Q$XJXVW 5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW5RPHURZDVRQ)RXUWK6WUHHWZKHQ 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHDFDULQWRWKHFURZGRISURWHVWRUVLQDQDFWRIGRPHVWLF WHUURULVP5RPHURZDVVWUXFNE\WKHYHKLFOHGULYHQE\)LHOGVDQGVXVWDLQHGPDQ\LQMXULHV7KH FDUNQRFNHGKHUXQFRQVFLRXVIUDFWXULQJKHUVNXOODQGOHDYLQJKHUZLWKDFRQFXVVLRQ7KHFDU DOVRIUDFWXUHGWKHURRWRIRQHWRRWKDQGOHIWVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVDFURVVKHUERG\5RPHUR FRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUYHUWLJRDQGGHELOLWDWLQJKHDGDFKHV,WLVXQFOHDUZKHQ5RPHUR¶VV\PSWRPV ZLOOVXEVLGH,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDOLQMXULHV5RPHURDOVRVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV DVDUHVXOWRIWKHSODQQHGHYHQWDQGWHUURULVWDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWDQGKDVIHDUHGUHWXUQLQJWRWKH 89$FDPSXV$VDUHVXOWRIKHUSK\VLFDODQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD5RPHURKDVDOUHDG\PLVVHGD VHPHVWHURIVFKRRO
 3ODLQWLII&KHOVHD$OYDUDGRLVDUHVLGHQWRI5LFKPRQG9LUJLQLD6KHZRUNVDVD FULVLVFRXQVHORUIRUWKHKRPHOHVVDQGPHQWDOO\LOO2Q$XJXVW$OYDUDGRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHG 'HIHQGDQWV¶SODQQHGHYHQW6KHZDVVWUXFNE\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKHQKHGURYHKLVFDUGRZQ )RXUWK6WUHHWLQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWRUV6KHQDUURZO\PLVVHGEHLQJKLWDJDLQE\)LHOGVZKHQKH GURYHKLVFDUEDFNZDUGVXSWKHVWUHHW7KHFDUNQRFNHG$OYDUDGRWRWKHJURXQGFDXVLQJKHUWR VXIIHUVHULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDFRQFXVVLRQDQGVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVRQKHUOHJV$OYDUDGR FRQWLQXHVWRH[SHULHQFHVLGHHIIHFWVRIWKHFRQFXVVLRQLQFOXGLQJFRQIXVLRQIRUJHWIXOQHVVDQG GLIILFXOW\SURFHVVLQJQRUPDOFRQYHUVDWLRQV$OYDUDGRKDVDOVRVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV DVDUHVXOWRIWKH$XJXVWHYHQWV
 3ODLQWLII7KRPDV%DNHULVDUHVLGHQWRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH+HZRUNVDVFRQVHUYDWLRQ ELRORJLVWIRUDODQGVFDSHDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPSDQ\2Q$XJXVW%DNHUREVHUYHGWKH8QLWHWKH 5LJKWHYHQW+HZDVZDONLQJRQ)RXUWK6WUHHWZLWKDJURXSRIFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVDIWHUWKHHYHQW



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 7 of 111

Pageid#: 6478


 





ZKHQ'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGURYHLQWRWKHFURZG)LHOGVUDPPHG%DNHUZLWKKLVFDUKXUOLQJ%DNHU WKURXJKWKHDLU%DNHUVXIIHUHGVHYHUHLQMXULHVIURPWKHDWWDFNLQFOXGLQJDFRQFXVVLRQWRUQ OLJDPHQWLQKLVOHIWZULVWDQGDWRUQODEUXPLQKLVULJKWKLS+HKDGWRXQGHUJRPDMRUVXUJHU\ PDQ\KRVSLWDOYLVLWVDQGPHGLFDOWUHDWPHQWVDQGSK\VLFDOWKHUDS\DPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVEHFDXVH RIKLVLQMXULHV+HKDGWRPLVVPRUHWKDQDPRQWKRIZRUNZKLOHKHUHFRYHUHGDQGKHVWLOO FDQQRWOLIWKHDY\ZHLJKWVUXQMXPSRUSOD\FRPSHWLWLYHWHDPVSRUWVRUVWD\VWLOORUVWDQGIRU ORQJSHULRGVZLWKRXWSDLQ+HZLOOOLNHO\QHHGDKLSUHSODFHPHQWDQGPD\QHYHUIXOO\UHJDLQKLV VWUHQJWK+HVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOLQMXULHVDQGFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV DVDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶DFWLRQV % 'HIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW-DVRQ.HVVOHULVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGDPHPEHURIWKH3URXG%R\V $UHVLGHQWRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD.HVVOHUXVHVWKHKDQGOH³0DG'LPHQVLRQ´RQ'LVFRUGDQG #7KHB0DG'LPHQVLRQRQ7ZLWWHU7RJHWKHUZLWK'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\.HVVOHUOHGWKHRUJDQL]LQJ HIIRUWVIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH.HVVOHULVDOVRWKHSUHVLGHQWDQG IRXQGHURI8QLW\DQG6HFXULW\IRU$PHULFDDJUDVVURRWVRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWFODLPVLWLVGHGLFDWHG WR³GHIHQGLQJ:HVWHUQFLYLOL]DWLRQ´DQGLVDFRQWULEXWRUWRZHEVLWHVOLNH9'DUHFRPD [HQRSKRELFQDWLYLVWSXEOLFDWLRQDQGWKH'DLO\&DOOHUDFRQVHUYDWLYHQHZVRXWOHW.HVVOHUZDV WKHOHDGRUJDQL]HUIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´DQGZDVRQHRIWKHQDPHVIHDWXUHGRQD SURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH³UDOO\´,Q-DQXDU\.HVVOHUDWWDFNHGDPDQLQGRZQWRZQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHZKLOHFROOHFWLQJVLJQDWXUHVIRUKLVSHWLWLRQWRUHPRYHWKH$IULFDQ$PHULFDQYLFH PD\RU:HV%HOODP\IURPWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&LW\&RXQFLO,Q$SULO.HVVOHUSOHDGHGJXLOW\WR DPLVGHPHDQRUFKDUJHIRUWKHDVVDXOWDQGZDVWKHQFKDUJHGZLWKIHORQ\SHUMXU\IRUO\LQJWRWKH SROLFHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHDVVDXOW



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 8 of 111

Pageid#: 6479


 





 'HIHQGDQW5LFKDUG6SHQFHUDUHVLGHQWRIWKH&RPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDZKR DWWHQGHG89$LVWKHKHDGRIWKHZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVW³WKLQNWDQN´1DWLRQDO3ROLF\,QVWLWXWH,Q 6SHQFHUFUHDWHGDQRQOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQFDOOHGDOWULJKWFRP6SHQFHURUJDQL]HVKLVIROORZHUV WRDFWLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIKLVLGHRORJ\FDOOLQJIRUDQ³HWKQLFFOHDQVLQJ´6SHQFHUSODQQHGDQGOHG WKHYLROHQWWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\DWKLVDOPDPDWHURQ)ULGD\HYHQLQJ6SHQFHUDFWLYHO\SURPRWHGWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ6DWXUGD\WRKLVQXPHURXVIROORZHUVRQVRFLDOPHGLDDQGHQFRXUDJHG DQGLQFLWHGLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGYLROHQFHEDVHGRQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\
 'HIHQGDQW&KULVWRSKHU&DQWZHOOLVDUHVLGHQWRI1HZ+DPSVKLUHDQGLVDZKLWH QDWLRQDOLVWDQGDVHOISURFODLPHGIDVFLVW+HKRVWV³5DGLFDO$JHQGD´DSRGFDVWDQG<RX7XEH VKRZVWUHDPHGOLYHPXOWLSOHWLPHVDZHHNDQGUXQVWKHZHEVLWHFKULVWRSKHUFDQWZHOOFRP &DQWZHOOKDVVWDWHGWKDWRQFHKH³UHDOL]HGWKDW>-HZLVKSHRSOH@ZHUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKH FRPPXQLVP´KHGHFLGHG³OHW¶VIXFNLQJJDVWKHNLNHVDQGKDYHDUDFHZDU´+HKDVZULWWHQ³, WKLQNFKHPLFDODQGELRORJLFDOZHDSRQVFDQGRDJUHDWGHDORIJRRGIRUPDQNLQG5HOHDVLQJ QHUYHJDVRUVRPHNLQGRIOHWKDOYLUXVLQWRDOHIWZLQJSURWHVWFRXOGSUHSDUHWKHERGLHVIRU SK\VLFDOUHPRYDOZLWKRXWPDNLQJDELJVFHQHIRUWKHFDPHUDVRUGHVWUR\LQJDQ\WKLQJRIYDOXH´ ,QFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG&DQWZHOO ZDVFKDUJHGZLWKWZRIHORQ\FRXQWVRILOOHJDOXVHRIWHDUJDVDQGRQHIHORQ\FRXQWRIPDOLFLRXV ERG\LQMXU\E\PHDQVRIDFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFH+HZDVLQGLFWHGRQ'HFHPEHURQDIHORQ\FKDUJH RILOOHJDOXVHRIWHDUJDV
 'HIHQGDQW-DPHV$OH[)LHOGV-UDUHVLGHQWRI2KLRLVDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD0RWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\DQGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\RQ$XJXVW)LHOGVFRPPLWWHGDQDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURULVPE\GULYLQJ D'RGJH&KDOOHQJHULQWRDFURZGRISURWHVWHUVLQMXULQJGR]HQVDQGNLOOLQJD\HDUROGZRPDQ



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19

Page 9 of 111

Pageid#: 6480


 





+HDWKHU+H\HU2Q'HFHPEHUKHZDVLQGLFWHGRQRQHFRXQWRIILUVWGHJUHHPXUGHUWKUHH FRXQWVRIPDOLFLRXVZRXQGLQJWKUHHFRXQWVRIDJJUDYDWHGPDOLFLRXVZRXQGLQJWZRFRXQWVRI IHORQLRXVDVVDXOWDQGRQHFRXQWRIKLWDQGUXQOHDYLQJWKHVFHQHRIDQDFFLGHQW
 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR 9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI9DQJXDUG$PHULFDYROXQWDULO\MRLQIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGEHOLHYHWKDWSHRSOHZLWK³ZKLWHEORRG´KDYHD VSHFLDOERQGZLWK³$PHULFDQVRLO´,WZDVIRUPHGLQ&DOLIRUQLDLQDQGLVFRPSULVHGRI WZHOYHFKDSWHUVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\7KHJURXS¶VZHEVLWHVWDWHVWKDWWRMRLQWKHJURXSDSHUVRQ PXVWEH³RIDWOHDVWZKLWH(XURSHDQKHULWDJH´'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLVDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKHZRUHWKHLUXQLIRUPDQGFDUULHGD9DQJXDUG$PHULFDVKLHOGDWWKH8QLWH WKH5LJKWHYHQWRQ$XJXVW
 'HIHQGDQW$QGUHZ$QJOLQLVDUHVLGHQWRI2KLRDQHR1D]LDQGWKHIRXQGHURI 'DLO\6WRUPHU²DQRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWRSHUDWHVWKURXJKDZHEVLWHWKDW$QJOLQSXEOLVKHV'DLO\ 6WRUPHUKDVFDOOHGLWVZHEVLWHWKH³ZRUOG¶VPRVWJHQRFLGDO´ZHEVLWH'DLO\6WRUPHUZDVQDPHG DIWHU'HU6WUPHUD1D]LSURSDJDQGDWDEORLGNQRZQIRUYLUXOHQWO\DQWL6HPLWLFFDULFDWXUHVDQG SXEOLVKHGE\-XOLXV6WUHLFKHUZKRZDVODWHUFRQYLFWHGRIFULPHVDJDLQVWKXPDQLW\DW1XUHPEHUJ 8QWLOUHFHQWO\'DLO\6WRUPHUKDGDZHEVLWHDWZZZGDLO\VWRUPHUFRP$QJOLQDQGKLVDVVRFLDWHV DW'DLO\6WRUPHULQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQW5REHUW³$]]PDGRU´5D\XVH'DLO\6WRUPHU³DVD KDUGFRUHIURQWIRUWKHFRQYHUVLRQRIPDVVHVLQWRDSURZKLWH$QWL6HPLWLFLGHRORJ\´WR³VHOO>@ JOREDOZKLWHVXSUHPDF\´DQGWR³PDNHDUDFLVWDUP\´7KHZHEVLWHZKLFKEHFDPHWKHPRVW YLVLWHGKDWHVLWHRQWKH,QWHUQHWLQLQFOXGHVVHFWLRQVHQWLWOHG³-HZLVK3UREOHP´DQG³5DFH :DU´7KH&KLHI7HFKQLFDO2IILFHURI'DLO\6WRUPHUKDVSRVLWHGWKDW'DLO\6WRUPHU³KDVEHHQ HIIHFWLYHDWZKDW>LWLV@GRLQJ´E\³WKHPDQLIHVWDWLRQRIRXUSHRSOHRQWKHJURXQGLQWKHUHDO



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6481

Page 10 of 111

Pageid#:


 





ZRUOG´)ROORZHUVRI$QJOLQDQG'DLO\6WRUPHUZKRFDOOWKHPVHOYHV³6WRUPHUV´FRPPXQLFDWH RQWKHZHEVLWH¶VIRUXPZKLFKLVPRGHUDWHGE\$QJOLQDQGDFFHVVLEOHRQO\ZLWKDVSHFLDO³GDUN ZHE´WRUEURZVHU2Q$QJOLQ¶VRUGHUVDQGXQGHUKLVFRQWLQXLQJVXSHUYLVLRQ6WRUPHUVKDYH IRUPHGORFDOFKDSWHUVFDOOHG³6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV´DVSDUWRI$QJOLQ¶VSODQWR³EXLOGDQ LQYLVLEOHHPSLUH´$QJOLQXVHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUIRUXPWRDFWLYHO\PRQLWRUWKH%RRN&OXEVDQG XVHVWKHZHEVLWHWRLVVXHRUGHUVRQKRZWRRUJDQL]H³2IILFLDO2SHUDWLRQV´RI6WRUPHU%RRN &OXEVLQFOXGHILUHDUPVWUDLQLQJRUJDQL]LQJIRUSURWHVWVDQGEHLQJUHDG\WRUHVSRQGWR ³FKDOOHQJHV´LVVXHGE\$QJOLQ'DLO\6WRUPHUHVWDEOLVKHG³PHHWXSV´DQGFKDWURRPVWKDWFR FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVXVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH$XJXVWDQGZHHNHQGWRFRRUGLQDWHWKHLU YLROHQFH7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUUHOHDVHGLWVRZQSRVWHUSURPRWLQJWKH³UDOO\´WKDWUHDG³81,7( 7+(5,*+7-RLQ$]]PDGRUDQGWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUWRHQG-HZLVKLQIOXHQFHLQ$PHULFD´ DFFRPSDQLHGE\D1D]LOLNHILJXUHZLHOGLQJDKDPPHUUHDG\WRVPDVKD-HZLVKVWDU)RUPRQWKV EHIRUHWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVRQ$XJXVWDQG$QJOLQRUJDQL]HGKLVIROORZHUVWRDWWHQG DQGSUHSDUHGWKHPWRFRPPLWUDFLDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQWDFWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH$OWKRXJK$QJOLQ GLGQRWDWWHQGWKHUDOO\KLPVHOIEHFDXVHKHLVFXUUHQWO\LQKLGLQJWRHYDGHVHUYLFHLQFRQQHFWLRQ ZLWKDVHSDUDWHODZVXLWUHODWLQJWRHYHQWVLQ:KLWHILVK0RQWDQD$QJOLQRUFKHVWUDWHGWKH PRYHPHQWVRI'DLO\6WRUPHUIROORZHUVDQGLQFLWHGWKHPWRYLROHQFHRQDOLYHIHHGWKDWVWUHDPHG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXVO\ZLWKWKHHYHQWVDVWKH\RFFXUUHGRQ$XJXVWDQGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 0RUHRYHU$QJOLQXVHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUWRHQWLFHKLVIROORZHUVWRKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWH ³-HZIHPLQLVWHWF´LQGLYLGXDOVE\PDQGDWLQJLQLWV³VW\OHJXLGH´WKDWWKHDXWKRUVDOZD\VLQFOXGH WKHWDUJHWHGLQGLYLGXDOV¶VRFLDOPHGLDDFFRXQWVEHFDXVH³>Z@H¶YHJRWWHQSUHVVDWWHQWLRQEHIRUH ZKHQ,GLGQ¶WHYHQFDOOIRUVRPHRQHWREHWUROOHGEXWMXVWOLQNHGWKHPDQGSHRSOHZHQWDQGGLG LW´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6482

Page 11 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&LVDQ2KLRIRUSURILWOLPLWHGOLDELOLW\ FRUSRUDWLRQUHJLVWHUHGE\'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQWKDWRSHUDWHVWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH 'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQKDVHQFRXUDJHGUHDGHUVWRILQDQFLDOO\VXSSRUWWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUE\VHQGLQJ GRQDWLRQVXVLQJELWFRLQFKHFNVDQGFUHGLWFDUGVQRWLQJWKDW³LWZRQ¶WVD\µ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶RQ \RXUFUHGLWFDUGELOOEXWZLOOLQVWHDGVD\µ0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV¶ZKLFKHLWKHUVRXQGVOLNHDKREE\ VKRSRUDPXOWLOHYHOPDUNHWLQJVFKHPHUXQE\UHSWRLGV$Q\ZD\LWORRNVLQQRFXRXVRQ\RXU VWDWHPHQW´
 'HIHQGDQW5REHUW³$]]PDGRU´5D\DUHVLGHQWRI7H[DVLVDQHR1D]LDQGD ZULWHUIRU'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH+HKDVKHOGKLPVHOIRXWDVDUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI'DLO\6WRUPHU DQGVHUYHGDVDQDJHQWRI'DLO\6WRUPHULQRUJDQL]LQJWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV+HLVWKH OHDGHURIWKH³'DOODV)RUW:RUWK6WRUPHU%RRN&OXE´ZKLFKLVRQHRIPDQ\ORFDO'DLO\6WRUPHU JURXSVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\,QKLVDUWLFOHVSXEOLVKHGRQ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH5D\HQFRXUDJHG H[WUHPLVWVWRDWWHQGWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQGDQGLQFLWHGWKHPWR YLROHQFH5D\DWWHQGHGWKH³UDOO\´KLPVHOIDQGKDGDSODQQLQJPHHWLQJZLWKFHUWDLQRWKHU 'HIHQGDQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW
 'HIHQGDQW1DWKDQ'DPLJRDUHVLGHQWRI&DOLIRUQLDLVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGWKH IRXQGHURIDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQ'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRZDV DUUHVWHGRQ$SULOIRUDVVDXOWLQJDZRPDQDWWKH³%DWWOHIRU%HUNHOH\´UDOO\ZKLFK 'DPLJRGHVFULEHGDVDWHVWUXQIRUWKH³UDOOLHV´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUKDVVWDWHG WKDW'DPLJRDQGKLVJURXS,GHQWLW\(YURSDWRRNWKHOHDGLQRUJDQL]LQJZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW SDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJSHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKHHYHQWVRQ$XJXVW DQG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6483

Page 12 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW(OL0RVOH\ZKRLVDUHVLGHQWRI3HQQV\OYDQLDLVDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW DQGZDVWKHOHDGHURI,GHQWLW\(YURSDIURP$XJXVWWR1RYHPEHU+HLVDOVRDFRIRXQGHU ZLWK'HIHQGDQW5LFKDUG6SHQFHURI2SHUDWLRQ+RPHODQGDQHZRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWDLPVWRWDNH ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDFWLYLVP³WRWKHQH[WOHYHO´+HKDVGHVFULEHGKLPVHOIDVWKH³FRPPDQGVROGLHU PDMRURIWKHµDOWULJKW¶´DQGDVWKHRUJDQL]HURIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2QFHUWDLQVRFLDO PHGLDQHWZRUNV0RVOH\KDVXVHGWKHKDQGOHV#1RW(OL0RVOH\DQG#7KDW(OL0RVOH\0RVOH\ ZDVRQHRIWKHNH\ILJXUHVZKRSODQQHGDQGOHGWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSDLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD &RGH0HPEHUVRI,GHQWLW\(YURSDYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRI SURPRWLQJD³ZKLWH$PHULFDQLGHQWLW\´,WZDVIRXQGHGLQ0DUFKE\'HIHQGDQW'DPLJR DQGRQ$XJXVW'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VXFFHHGHGKLPDV³FKLHIH[HFXWLYHRIILFHU´7KH JURXSLVFXUUHQWO\OHGE\3DWULFN&DVH\,GHQWLW\(YURSD¶VIRUPHU&KLHIRI6WDII7KHJURXS DGRSWHGDQGSRSXODUL]HGWKHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVORJDQ³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´WKDW'HIHQGDQWV DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFKDQWHGDVWKH\PDUFKHGRQ$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ+HLPEDFKDUHVLGHQWRI,QGLDQDLVWKHFKDLUPDQRI 'HIHQGDQW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW:RUNHU3DUW\³7:3´,Q+HLPEDFKDQG'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ 3DUURWWIRXQGHGWKHQHR1D]L7UDGLWLRQDOLVW<RXWK1HWZRUNDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWJURXSWKDW SURPRWHVDUDFLVWLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI&KULVWLDQLW\$ORQJVLGH'HIHQGDQW-HII6FKRHSWKHOHDGHURI 1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQW³160´+HLPEDFKFRFKDLUVWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWDQXPEUHOOD RUJDQL]DWLRQRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\WZHQW\ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQVLQFOXGLQJUDFLVWVNLQKHDG FUHZV.ODQJURXSVDQGQHR1D]LJURXSV+HKDVVDLG³2IFRXUVHZHORRNXSWRPHQOLNH$GROI +LWOHUDVLQVSLUDWLRQVIRUZKDWZHFDQDFKLHYH´+HLPEDFKRUJDQL]HGDQGOHGPDUFKHUVIURP 7:3RQ$XJXVW



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6484

Page 13 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW0DWWKHZ3DUURWWDUHVLGHQWRI,QGLDQDLVWKHFRIRXQGHURIWKH 7UDGLWLRQDOLVW<RXWK1HWZRUNDORQJZLWKKLVVWHSVRQLQODZ'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFK+HLV FXUUHQWO\WKH&KLHI,QIRUPDWLRQ2IILFHUDQG'LUHFWRURI'HIHQGDQW7:32Q$XJXVW3DUURWW UHIXVHGWROHDYH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDIWHUDVWDWHRIHPHUJHQF\ZDVGHFODUHGDQGZDVDUUHVWHGE\ WKHSROLFHIRUIDLOLQJWRGLVSHUVH3DUURWWZURWHDQDFFRXQWRIKLVH[SHULHQFHVDWWKH8QLWHWKH 5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ³&DWFKHULQWKH5HLFK0\$FFRXQWRIP\([SHULHQFHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´,QLW KHZURWHWKDW'HIHQGDQWV7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK160DQGRWKHU1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSV MRLQHGWRJHWKHUWR³KHOSFUHDWHWZRVKLHOGZDOOV´IRU³WKHILJKW´
 'HIHQGDQW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW:RUNHU3DUW\³7:3´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQ SXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQGDQDWLRQDOSROLWLFDOSDUW\FRPPLWWHHUHJLVWHUHGZLWKWKH )HGHUDO(OHFWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQVLQFH0HPEHUVRI7:3YROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJDQWL6HPLWLVP$FFRUGLQJWR'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKWKH7:3KDVWKUHH GR]HQDFWLYHFKDSWHUVDQGDQHVWLPDWHGPHPEHUVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\7KH7:3ZDVFUHDWHG E\'HIHQGDQWV+HLPEDFKDQG3DUURWW7KH7:3KDVVDLG³7UXVWQRERG\ZKRIDLOVWRQDPHWKH -HZZKRIDLOVWRH[SOLFLWO\DQGFRQVLVWHQWO\RSSRVHWKH-HZDQGZKRSUHDFKHVFOHYHUQHVVRU QXDQFHRQWKH-4>-HZLVK4XHVWLRQ@´0HPEHUVRIWKH7:3SURPSWHGDWWHQGHGDQGIXOO\ SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQGLQFOXGLQJE\HQJDJLQJLQ YLROHQFH
 'HIHQGDQW0LFKDHO+LOODUHVLGHQWRI$ODEDPDLVWKHFRIRXQGHUDQG3UHVLGHQWRI 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWRUJDQL]DWLRQ,Q+LOODQGWKH/HDJXHRI WKH6RXWKDQQRXQFHGWKHIRUPDWLRQRIDQDUPHGSDUDPLOLWDU\XQLWGXEEHG³WKH,QGRPLWDEOHV´ WDVNHGZLWKDGYDQFLQJVRXWKHUQVHFHVVLRQE\DQ\PHDQVQHFHVVDU\,Q0D\+LOOSXEOLVKHG DQDUWLFOHLQZKLFKKHDVVHUWHG³:H6RXWKHUQQDWLRQDOLVWVGRQRWZDQWDUDFHZDURUDQ\VRUWRI



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6485

Page 14 of 111

Pageid#:


 





ZDU%XWLIRQHLVIRUFHGRQXVZH¶OOSDUWLFLSDWH6RXWKHUQZKLWHVDUHJHDUHGXSDQGDUPHG WRWKHWHHWK6RLIQHJURHVWKLQND³UDFHZDU´LQPRGHUQ$PHULFDZRXOGEHWRWKHLU DGYDQWDJHWKH\KDGEHWWHUSUHSDUHWKHPVHOYHVIRUDYHU\UXGHDZDNHQLQJ´+LOOZKRVHQDPH ZDVIHDWXUHGRQDSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH³UDOO\´HQFRXUDJHG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKIROORZHUV WRDWWHQGE\XUJLQJWKHPQRWWR³PLVVRXWRQWKHIXQ´LQGHDOLQJZLWKFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV²WKHLU SXUSRUWHGHQHPLHV2Q$XJXVW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOHGE\+LOOPDUFKHGWKURXJK &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDIWHU9DQJXDUG$PHULFD/LNH9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKH\PDUFKHGZLWK FRRUGLQDWHGVKLHOGVDQGIODJVDQGFDUULHGURGVDQGRWKHUZHDSRQV
 'HIHQGDQW0LFKDHO7XEEVDUHVLGHQWRI)ORULGDLVWKH³&KLHIRI6WDII´RI 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK7XEEVLVFDSWXUHGRQDYLGHRIURP$XJXVWRUGHULQJ/HDJXH RIWKH6RXWKWRDWWDFNE\\HOOLQJ³FKDUJH´$IWHUUHFHLYLQJWKLVFRPPDQGWKHJURXSVWUHDPHG SDVWKLPWRDWWDFNFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV'HIHQGDQW+LOOODWHUERDVWHGWKDW³0U7XEEVZDV HYHU\ZKHUHWKHFKDRVZDV´7XEEVSUHYLRXVO\VHUYHGDIRXU\HDUSULVRQVHQWHQFHIRUSODQQLQJWR ERPE-HZLVKDQGEODFNRZQHGEXVLQHVVHVLQ)ORULGD
 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDSULYDWHO\KHOGFRPSDQ\ORFDWHGLQ$ODEDPDLV DZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXSWKDWDGYRFDWHV6RXWKHUQVHFHVVLRQ3ULRUWRWKHHYHQWVRQ$XJXVW DQG'HIHQGDQW+LOOSRVWHGLQWKH/HDJXH¶V)DFHERRNJURXSWKDWKHZDQWHG³QRIHZHUWKDQ /HDJXHZDUULRUVGUHVVHGDQGUHDG\IRUDFWLRQLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDRQ$XJXVW´ 1XPHURXVPHPEHUVRIWKH/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKSDUWLFLSDWHGLQ6DWXUGD\¶VYLROHQWHYHQWVWRJHWKHU ZLWKFRGHIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW-HII6FKRHSDUHVLGHQWRI0LFKLJDQLVWKHOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW 1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQWWKHODUJHVWQHR1D]LFRDOLWLRQLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV2Q$SULO 6FKRHSIRUPHGWKH$U\DQ1DWLRQDOLVW$OOLDQFHODWHUUHQDPHGWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWZKLFK



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6486

Page 15 of 111

Pageid#:


 





LVWKHXPEUHOODRUJDQL]DWLRQIRUKDWHJURXSVVXFKDVWKH7:3WKH$U\DQ7HUURU%ULJDGHDQG PDQ\UHJLRQDOIDFWLRQVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ6FKRHSKDVVDLGWKDWLIKHFRXOGPHHW$GROI+LWOHU WRGD\KHZRXOGVD\³7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUVDFULILFHDQG,KRSHZHKDYHKRQRUHG\RXLQVRPH VPDOOZD\E\FDUU\LQJRQWKHILJKW´6FKRHSSDUWLFLSDWHGDFWLYHO\LQWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG DQGWZHHWHGDIWHUZDUGVWKDW³,WZDVDQ+RQRUWRVWDQGZLWK8DOOLQ&¶9LOOHWKLVZHHNHQG 1601)7:3/269$(&.&+6DQGWKHUHVWWUXHZDUULRUV´
 'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQW³160´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHG DVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI160YROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKH FRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJD³JUHDWHU$PHULFD´WKDWZRXOGGHQ\FLWL]HQVKLSWR-HZVQRQ ZKLWHVDQG/*%7SHUVRQV/RFDWHGLQ0LFKLJDQ160LVSDUDPLOLWDU\LQVWUXFWXUHLWVPHPEHUV FODLPWREHOLHXWHQDQWVVHUJHDQWVRURWKHUPLOLWDU\UDQNV'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSWKHKHDGRI160 KDVVHUYHGDVLWV³&RPPDQGHU´VLQFH&KDSWHUVRIWKHJURXSVDUHWHUPHG³XQLWV´160 PDLQWDLQVDEXVLQHVVWKURXJK1605HFRUGV//&VHOOLQJQHR1D]LIODJVVZDVWLNDVJHDUHWF 0HPEHUVRI160SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQFHWKDWWRRNSODFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW DQG
 'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWLVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD &RGHZKRVHPHPEHUVYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWH QDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\)RUPHUO\NQRZQDVWKH$U\DQ1DWLRQDO$OOLDQFH1DWLRQDOLVW )URQWLVDQXPEUHOODRUJDQL]DWLRQFRQVLVWLQJRIZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWJURXSV LQFOXGLQJQHR1D]LDQG.ODQJURXSV7KH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWLVOHGE\'HIHQGDQWV6FKRHS +HLPEDFK+RSSHUDQG+LOO7KH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWZDVFRQFHLYHGWREH³WKHWKUHDGWKDWZRXOG



7KLVWZHHWUHIHUVWR'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDQG(DVW&RDVW

.QLJKWV



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6487

Page 16 of 111

Pageid#:


 





XQLWHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWFLUFOHV´9DULRXVPHPEHUVRIWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW HQJDJHGLQDFWVRIYLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWHGUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG
 'HIHQGDQW$XJXVWXV6RO,QYLFWXVIRUPHUO\$XVWLQ0LWFKHOO*LOOHVSLHDUHVLGHQW RI)ORULGDLVDZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWDQGDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW)UDWHUQDO 2UGHURI$OW.QLJKWV³)2$.´WKH³PLOLWDU\ZLQJ´RIWKH3URXG%R\VDJURXSGHVFULEHGDVD ³µSUR:HVWHUQIUDWHUQDORUJDQL]DWLRQ¶IRUPHQZKRµUHIXVHWRDSRORJL]HIRUFUHDWLQJWKHPRGHUQ ZRUOG¶´+HKDVVDLGWKDWDYLROHQWVHFRQG&LYLO:DULVQHFHVVDU\LQRUGHUWRSUHVHUYH³:HVWHUQ FLYLOL]DWLRQ´2Q$XJXVW,QYLFWXVDQQRXQFHGKLVFDQGLGDF\DVD5HSXEOLFDQIRUWKH 6HQDWHHOHFWLRQLQ)ORULGD,QYLFWXVZKRVHQDPHZDVIHDWXUHGRQDSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRU WKH³UDOO\´GUDIWHGWKH³&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVWDWHPHQW´DORQJZLWK6SHQFHUDQGRWKHUVDQG SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHWRUFKOLWUDOO\RQ$XJXVWZLWKFR'HIHQGDQWV
 'HIHQGDQW)UDWHUQDO2UGHURIWKH$OW.QLJKWV³)2$.´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHG DVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQGLVVHOIGHVFULEHGDVWKH³WDFWLFDOGHIHQVLYH DUP´RI3URXG%R\VIRUPHGWRIRFXVRQ³VWUHHWDFWLYLVPSUHSDUDWLRQGHIHQVHDQG FRQIURQWDWLRQ´'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVLVVHFRQGLQFRPPDQGDW)2$.DQG)2$.DWWHQGHGWKH ³UDOO\´LQSDUWWRSURYLGHVHFXULW\WRKLP
 'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQ³/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV´LV DQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI/R\DO:KLWH .QLJKWVYROXQWDULO\MRLQHGIRUWKHFRPPRQSXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDF\%DVHGLQ3HOKDP1RUWK&DUROLQDWKHDVVRFLDWLRQRQO\DFFHSWV³QDWLYHERUQZKLWH $PHULFDQ&LWL]HQ>V@´DVPHPEHUV)ROORZLQJWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWDQG WKH/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVFKDQJHGWKHLURXWJRLQJYRLFHPDLOPHVVDJHWRVD\³1RWKLQJPDNHVXV PRUHSURXGDWWKH...WKDQZKHQZHVHHZKLWHSDWULRWVVXFKDV-DPHV)LHOGV-UDJHWDNLQJ



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6488

Page 17 of 111

Pageid#:


 





KLVFDUDQGUXQQLQJRYHUQLQHFRPPXQLVWDQWLIDVFLVWNLOOLQJRQHQLJJHUORYHUQDPHG+HDWKHU +H\HU-DPHV)LHOGVKDLOYLFWRU\,W¶VPHQOLNH\RXWKDWKDYHPDGHWKHJUHDWZKLWHUDFHVWURQJ DQGZLOOEHVWURQJDJDLQ´
 'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQDND(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRI WKH7UXH,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH³(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV´LVDQXQLQFRUSRUDWHGDVVRFLDWLRQSXUVXDQWWR 9LUJLQLD&RGH0HPEHUVRI(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVYROXQWDULO\MRLQIRUWKHFRPPRQ SXUSRVHRISURPRWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\,WLVDFWLYHLQVHYHUDOVWDWHVDQG KDVDVXEGLYLVLRQRU³NODYHUQ´LQWKHVWDWHRI0DU\ODQG7RP/DUVRQLVWKHLPSHULDOZL]DUGRI WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRIWKH7UXH,QYLVLEOH(PSLUH7KH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVXVLQJWKHKDQGOHV #WLJKWURSHBDQG#7LJKWURSHIUHTXHQWO\WZHHWVUDFLVWLPDJHVDQGFRPPHQWVRQ 6HSWHPEHULWWZHHWHGSLFWXUHVRIEXUQLQJFURVVHVODEHOHGDQLPDJHRIO\QFKHGEODFN PHQDV³$ODEDPDZLQGFKLPHV´DQGWZHHWHGDFDUWRRQRID.ODQVPDQXVLQJWZREODFNPHQ KXQJIURPWUHHVDVDKDPPRFNLQZKLFKWRUHDGWKHQHZVSDSHUDQGGULQNDQLFHGWHD7KH(DVW &RDVW.QLJKWVZDVDNH\SDUWLFLSDQWLQWKH-XO\.ODQUDOO\DQGFRQVSLUHGZLWKWKH1DWLRQDOLVW )URQWDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVWRRUJDQL]HDQGSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVRI$XJXVW
)$&76  'HIHQGDQWVDUHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGQHR1D]LRUJDQL]DWLRQV DQGLQGLYLGXDOVZKRKDYHDVSDUWRIWKHLUPLVVLRQWRHQJDJHLQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\ PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHWKUHDWVLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQW7KHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDUHSDUW RI'HIHQGDQWV¶UHFHQWFRQFHUWHGHIIRUWVWRPRYHIURPWKHVKDGRZVRIDQRQ\PRXVGLVDVVRFLDWHG RQOLQHFKDWURRPVDQGLQWRDPRUHRSHQRUJDQL]HGSK\VLFDOSUHVHQFHLQRXUSDUNVDQGRQRXU VWUHHWV'HIHQGDQWVDUHFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQGRWKHUVXQQDPHG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6489

Page 18 of 111

Pageid#:


 





, 'HIHQGDQWV$QG8QQDPHG&R&RQVSLUDWRUV&RQVSLUHG7R&RPPLW$FWV2I9LROHQFH ,QWLPLGDWLRQ$QG+DUDVVPHQW$JDLQVW7KH&LWL]HQV2I&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD

$ 'HIHQGDQWV7DUJHWHG&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQWKH0RQWKV3ULRUWR$XJXVWDQG³WKH 6XPPHURI+DWH´

:KHQWKH-HZVWRRNRYHURXUVRFLHW\DQGWXUQHGLWLQWRDNLNHGRXW OLYLQJKHOOWKH\PDUNHGWKHLUDFKLHYHPHQWE\GHFODULQJD³6XPPHU RI /RYH´    7KH\ WRRN HYHU\WKLQJ DZD\ IURP XV  7KDW DJH LV HQGLQJ QRZ  :H DUH WDNLQJ EDFN RXU ELUWKULJKW  7KLV VXPPHU D %ODFN6XQZLOOSDVVRYHU$PHULFD,DPGHFODULQJWKHVXPPHU RIWKH6XPPHURI+DWH









Defendant Andrew Anglin

 ,QIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHLUDERYHVWDWHGJRDO'HIHQGDQWVSORWWHGWRWDUJHW

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLDDVSDUWRIZKDWWKH\FDOOHGWKH³6XPPHURI+DWH´

 'HIHQGDQWVVHOHFWHG&KDUORWWHVYLOOHEHFDXVHDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKHFLW\ZDV

HQJXOIHGDWWKHWLPHLQDGHEDWHRYHUWKHVWDWXHRI*HQHUDO5REHUW(/HHLQDVPDOOFLW\SDUN,Q

)HEUXDU\WKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&LW\&RXQFLOYRWHGWRUHPRYHWKH/HHVWDWXHDQGLQ-XQH

LWYRWHGWRUHQDPHWKHSDUNLQZKLFKLWVWRRGIURP/HH3DUNWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN

 'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWKHSODQQHGUHPRYDORIWKH/HHVWDWXHDVDUDOO\LQJFU\IRUWKHLU

IROORZHUVVHHNLQJWRSUHVHUYHLWVSODFHLQWKHSDUNDQGXVHWKHGHEDWHDERXWWKHVWDWXHDVD

PHDQVWRVWLUXSYLROHQFHDQGKDUDVVWKUHDWHQDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKHUHVLGHQWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

 )RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG6SHQFHULQYLWHGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXSV

WRYLVLWDQGKROGHYHQWVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHZLWKWKHLQWHQWRILQWLPLGDWLQJQRQZKLWHDQG-HZLVK

LQGLYLGXDOVDQGWKHLUDOOLHV

 2Q0D\KXQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVFDUULHGOLW

WRUFKHVDQGVXUURXQGHGWKHVWDWXHRI5REHUW(/HHLQDQHYHQWRUJDQL]HGDQGSODQQHGE\DPRQJ

RWKHUV'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU'DPLJR+HLPEDFK,GHQWLW\(YURSD9DQJXDUG$PHULFD



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6490

Page 19 of 111

Pageid#:


 





7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK'HIHQGDQWVDQGSDUWLFLSDQWVFDUULHGDOWULJKWFRPEUDQGHGVLJQV UHDGLQJ³ZHZLOOQRWEHUHSODFHG´7KH\FKDQWHG³\RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQG³EORRGDQGVRLO´ ³%ORRGDQGVRLO´LVDWUDQVODWLRQRI³%OXWXQG%RGHQ´D*HUPDQQDWLRQDOLVWSKLORVRSK\WKDWOD\ DWWKHKHDUWRI1D]LSROLFLHV7KHVORJDQH[SUHVVHVWKHLGHDOL]DWLRQRIDUDFLDOO\GHILQHGQDWLRQDO ERG\³EORRG´XQLILHGZLWKDVHWWOHPHQWDUHD³VRLO´,WLVLQH[WULFDEO\OLQNHGZLWKWKH FRQWHPSRUDU\*HUPDQLGHDRILebensraum²WKHEHOLHIWKDWWKH*HUPDQSHRSOHQHHGHGWRUHFODLP KLVWRULFDOO\*HUPDQDUHDVRI(DVWHUQ(XURSHLQWRZKLFKWKH\FRXOGH[SDQG²ZKLFKZDVWKH GULYLQJLGHRORJ\EHKLQG+LWOHU¶VLQYDVLRQRIQHLJKERULQJFRXQWULHVDQGWKHPDVVPXUGHURIWKHLU FLWL]HQV
 7KH0D\HYHQWZDVSODQQHGDQGLQWHQGHGWRLQWLPLGDWHWKUHDWHQDQGKDUDVV &KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFHUHOLJLRQDQGHWKQLFLW\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUVDLGKH KRSHGWKDWWKH0D\HYHQWZRXOGEHD³IDQWDVWLFILUVWHYHQW´LQD³FXOWXUDOµFLYLOZDU¶´ 'HIHQGDQWV¶DYRZHGJRDOZDVWRSURPRWHDQGFUHDWHDQDWPRVSKHUHRIUHOLJLRXVDQGUDFLDO VXERUGLQDWLRQRQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLGHDOO\WKURXJKWKHLQIOLFWLRQRIYLROHQFHRU HPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV
 $WDOXQFKEHIRUHWKHHYHQW'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU²VKDULQJDSRGLXPZLWK 3HLQRYLFK'HIHQGDQWV'DPLJRDQG.HVVOHUDVZHOODVFRFRQVSLUDWRU6DP'LFNVRQ²H[SODLQHG ³:KDWEULQJVXVWRJHWKHULVWKDWZHDUHZKLWHZHDUHDSHRSOH:HZLOOQRWEHUHSODFHG´
 'HIHQGDQWVODWHUDFNQRZOHGJHGWKHVXFFHVVRIWKHLUFDUHIXOGHOLEHUDWHDQG PRQWKVORQJSODQQLQJ7KH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHUHSRUWHGWKDW³>W@KHKRQRUDEOHZKLWHV PDUFKHGWRWKHEDVHRIWKHVWDWXHDVWKH\FDUULHGWRUFKHVUHPLQLVFHQWRIWKHUG5HLFK´,QDQ HVVD\DERXWWKH0D\HYHQWHQWLWOHG³:K\:H)LJKW´9DQJXDUG$PHULFDH[SODLQHG

 $OWULJKWFRPLV'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6491

Page 20 of 111

Pageid#:


 





³7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH JDWKHULQJ ZDV QRW VLPSO\ RYHU VRPH PHWDO VFXOSWXUH DWRS D SHGHVWDO LQ D VPDOO 6RXWKHUQ &LW\  ,W ZDV DERXW GHIHQGLQJ WKH LPDJHV RI ZKLWH KLVWRU\ ZKLWH KHURHV DQG ZKLWH$PHULFD
 >7@KH JUHDWHVW VSHFWDFOH RI WKH HYHQW FDPH DV ZH OLW RXU WRUFKHV IRU WKH QLJKW PDUFK  $V ZH DSSURDFKHG /HH 3DUN IRU WKH ODVWWLPHRXUIRRWVWHSVVKRRNWKHZKROHFLW\7KLVPRYHPHQW PXVWEHJLQDVDVSLULWXDOPRYHPHQW7RTXRWHDZLVHSROODN ³,I \RX ZDQW WR JDV WKH -HZV \RX PXVW ILUVW JDV WKH -HZ ZLWKLQ \RXUVHOI´  $IWHUDIHZZRUGVIURP6SHQFHUDQG'LFNVRQZHEOHZRXW RXUWRUFKHVRXUVSLULWXDOFXSVILOOHGIRUSHUKDSVWKHILUVWWLPHLQDOO RIRXUOLYHVDQGRQFHDJDLQVKRXWHGRXUGHDIHQLQJFKDQWVVKDNLQJ WKHHQWLUHFLW\ZLWKRXUPLJKW  7KHUHZLOOEHPDQ\PRUHRIWKHVHHYHQWV7KLVPDUFKRQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHZDVMXVWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKHLQHYLWDEOH5HYROXWLRQ RIRXUSHRSOH  +DLO9LFWRU\   7KLV0D\HYHQWZRXOGODWHUEHUHIHUUHGWRE\FRQVSLUDWRUVDV³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 &DSLWDOL]LQJRQWKHSHUFHLYHGVXFFHVVRIWKH0D\HYHQWDQGPRWLYDWHGE\WKH
VDPHGHVLUHWRDFKLHYHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVVXERUGLQDWLRQRIFLW\UHVLGHQWV'HIHQGDQWVEHJDQ
SODQQLQJIRUDGGLWLRQDOHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH2Q0D\.HVVOHUVXEPLWWHGDQDSSOLFDWLRQ
IRUDSHUPLWWRKROGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQWKHZHHNHQGRI$XJXVWDQG
 ,Q-XQH'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHULQYLWHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUVWRFRPHWR
&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRUD³3URXG%R\V´HYHQWZKLFKZDVGHVLJQHGWRSURPRWHYLROHQFHDQG
LQWLPLGDWHPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´$VRQHRIWKH3URXG

 $VSDUWRIWKHZHHNHQG.HVVOHUZDVEHDWHQLQDQDOOH\LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHE\3URXG%R\VPHPEHUVXQWLOKHFRXOG QDPHILYHEUHDNIDVWFHUHDOV7KLV³FHUHDOEHDWLQ´LVWKH³VHFRQGGHJUHH´RILQLWLDWLRQLQWRWKH3URXG%R\V7KHILUVW GHJUHHLVDGHFODUDWLRQRIDOOHJLDQFHWRWKH3URXG%R\V7KHVHFRQGGHJUHHLVWKHFHUHDOEHDWLQDQGDUHQRXQFHPHQW RIPDVWXUEDWLRQDOWKRXJK3URXG%R\V³3RSH´'DQWH1HURKDVIUDPHGWKHUXOHDVUHTXLULQJWKDWDPDQVKRXOGRQO\ HMDFXODWHZLWKLQD\DUGRIDZRPDQ7KHWKLUGGHJUHHLQYROYHVJHWWLQJDWDWWRRDQGWKHIRXUWKGHJUHHUHTXLUHVD ³PDMRUILJKWIRUWKHFDXVH´PHDQLQJ\RX³NLFNWKHFUDSRXWRIDQWLID´DQGSRVVLEO\JHWDUUHVWHG 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6492

Page 21 of 111

Pageid#:


 





%R\VLQDWWHQGDQFHQRWHGWKHJURXSZDQWHGWREDLWSURWHVWRUVEHFDXVH³DORWRIXVNLQGDOLNHWR

VHHWKHPEOHHG´$QRWKHU3URXG%R\UHPLQGHGRWKHUV³7KLVRIFRXUVHLVMXVWWKHEHJLQQLQJ

7KHUHDUHDOVRELJJHU>@HYHQWVSODQQHGIRU&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVW´

 2Q-XO\DWKLUGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWHYHQWZDVKHOGLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWKLV

WLPHE\'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV1HDUO\ILIW\.ODQVPHQPDUFKHGWKURXJKWKHVWUHHWV

VKRXWLQJ³ZKLWHSRZHU´DQGFDUU\LQJVLJQVWKDWUHDG³-HZVDUH6DWDQ¶VFKLOGUHQ´6RPHZRUH

ZKLWH.ODQUREHVDQGPDQ\FDUULHGJXQV

 3ODLQWLII5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWHGDWWKH-XO\.ODQPDUFK)ROORZLQJ

-XO\5RPHURUHFHLYHGWKHILUVWRIIRXUKDUDVVLQJSKRQHFDOOVIURPDPHPEHURIWKH.ODQ,Q

WKHILUVWFDOOWKHPDQH[SODLQHGWKDWDVDPHPEHURIWKH.ODQKHORYHGJRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

WRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VSRZHUDQGDVNHG5RPHURLIVKHXQGHUVWRRGWKDWZKLWHSHRSOH

DUHWKHVXSHULRUUDFH$VGHVFULEHGLQSDUDJUDSKVDQGEHORZWKHODWHUFDOOVZKLFK

RFFXUUHGDIWHU5RPHURZDVVHULRXVO\LQMXUHGE\)LHOGV¶VDFWRIGRPHVWLFWHUURURQ$XJXVW

ZHUHPRUHWKUHDWHQLQJ

 .HVVOHUDWWHQGHGDQGOLYHVWUHDPHGWKH.ODQPDUFKRQ7ZLWWHU+HVKDUHGDWZHHW

ZLWKKLVIROORZHUV³8QLWH7KH5LJKWDJDLQVWWKHVHVKLWOLEVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWWKLV

JRLQJWREHVRPXFKIXQ<RX¶YHJRWDPRQWKWREHWKHUH´

% 'HIHQGDQWV3ODQQHGDQG&RRUGLQDWHGD6FKHPHWR,QFLWH9LROHQFH7KUHDWHQ ,QWLPLGDWHDQG+DUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOH5HVLGHQWVRQ$XJXVWDQG

7KHDJHRIXOWUDYLROHQFHLVFRPLQJ,GRQ¶WNQRZZKHQEXW,GR NQRZWKDWPRVWRI\RXZLOOOLYHWRVHHLW  7KHUHLVUDSLGO\DSSURDFKLQJDWLPHZKHQLQHYHU\ZKLWH:HVWHUQ FLW\FRUSVHVZLOOEHVWDFNHGLQWKHVWUHHWVDVKLJKDVPHQFDQVWDFN WKHP  $QG\RXDUHHLWKHUJRLQJWREHVWDFNLQJRUJHWWLQJVWDFNHG 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6493

Page 22 of 111

Pageid#:


 





7KHUHZLOOEHOHDGHUV<RXQHHGWREHSUHSDUHGWRUHFRJQL]HWKHP IRUZKRWKH\DUHDQG\RXQHHGWREHSUHSDUHGWRGRZKDWHYHUWKH\ WHOO\RXWRGRH[DFWO\DVWKH\WHOO\RXWRGRLW 
Defendant Andrew Anglin  'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFRQVSLUHGWRLQFLWHYLROHQFHDQGWRWKUHDWHQ LQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVVWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGLQSDUWLFXODUUDFLDOHWKQLF RUUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGWRFRPPLWRWKHUXQODZIXODFWVDVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQ)RUZHHNV 'HIHQGDQWVDFWHGRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGRUHWKQLFDQLPXVDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQWR GHQ\-HZLVKSHRSOHDQGSHRSOHRIFRORUDVZHOODVSHRSOHDGYRFDWLQJIRUWKHULJKWVRI-HZLVK SHRSOHDQGSHRSOHRIFRORUHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDQGRWKHUULJKWVWKDWWKH\DUHJXDUDQWHHGXQGHUVWDWH DQGIHGHUDOODZ'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\XOWLPDWHO\DFKLHYHGLWVVWDWHGJRDOVDQGGLGLQIDFW UHSHDWHGO\V\VWHPDWLFDOO\DQGXQPLVWDNDEO\YLRODWHWKHULJKWVRIUHOLJLRXVDQGUDFLDOPLQRULWLHV LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH  7KHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWSHUPLWVXEPLWWHGE\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU FODLPHGWKDWWKHHYHQWZRXOGEHDSURWHVWRIWKHUHPRYDORIWKH/HHPRQXPHQWEXW'HIHQGDQWV DOVRLQWHQGHGWKDWWKHUDOO\ZRXOGLQVWLOOIHDULQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶VPLQRULW\SRSXODWLRQDQGFDXVH YLROHQFH7KH\ZDQWHGWRXVHWKHHYHQWVRIWKHZHHNHQGWRLQWLPLGDWHWKHEURDGHUFLYLOLDQ SRSXODWLRQDQGUHFUXLWPRUHIROORZHUVWR'HIHQGDQWV¶JURXSV  $QDUWLFOHE\'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\SXEOLVKHGRQWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶V ZHEVLWHRQ$XJXVWH[SODLQHGWKDWWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH³UDOO\´KDGVKLIWHGIURPEHLQJ³LQVXSSRUW RIWKH/HH0RQXPHQWZKLFKWKH-HZ0D\RUDQGKLV1HJURLG'HSXW\KDYHPDUNHGIRU GHVWUXFWLRQ´WR³VRPHWKLQJPXFKELJJHUWKDQWKDW,WLVQRZDQKLVWRULFUDOO\ZKLFKZLOO VHUYHDVDUDOO\LQJSRLQWDQGEDWWOHFU\IRUWKHULVLQJ$OW5LJKWPRYHPHQW´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6494

Page 23 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU$QJOLQ5D\&DQWZHOO0RVOH\'DPLJR,QYLFWXV +HLPEDFK3DUURWW+LOO7XEEV)LHOGVDQG6FKRHSRQEHKDOIRIWKHPVHOYHVDQGWKHJURXSVWR ZKLFKWKH\EHORQJDQG'HIHQGDQWV,GHQWLW\(YURSD)2$.9DQJXDUG$PHULFD7:3/HDJXH RIWKH6RXWK1601DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVDQG(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVDORQJZLWK 'DLO\6WRUPHU'HIHQGDQW0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVWKURXJKWKHLUOHDGHUVKLSDQGPHPEHUVDOO DJUHHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHGZLWKDQGDPRQJHDFKRWKHUWRSODQRUJDQL]HSURPRWHDQGFRPPLWWKH XQODZIXODFWVWKDWLQMXUHG3ODLQWLIIVDQGFRXQWOHVVRWKHUVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH\DOVR FRRUGLQDWHGZLWKQXPHURXVQDPHGDQGXQQDPHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV
 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU(YDQ0F/DUHQDPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW ,GHQWLW\(YURSDPHWLQSHUVRQDWWKH7UXPS+RWHOLQ:DVKLQJWRQ'&WRRUJDQL]HDQGGLUHFWWKH ³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHZLWKWKHSXUSRVHDQGUHVXOWRIFRPPLWWLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQWDJDLQVWWKHFLWL]HQVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG.HVVOHUPHWLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ$XJXVWWRSODQDQG GLUHFWWKHXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZ
 'HIHQGDQWV5D\&DQWZHOODQG0RVOH\DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU'DYLG'XNHDWWHQGHG DQRWKHULQSHUVRQPHHWLQJRQ$XJXVWWRSODQDQGGLUHFWWKHXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGWKHGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZ
 'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW1607:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG $PHULFD(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVDQG³RWKHUDOOLHV´FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLUDWWHQGDQFHDVD³MRLQW RSHUDWLRQ´LQDGYDQFHRI$XJXVWWRSODQGLUHFWDQGSUHSDUHIRUXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLWL]HQV
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRIUHTXHQWO\FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLOOHJDODFWVSODQQHGIRUWKH8QLWHWKH 5LJKWHYHQWRQOLQH7KH\PDGHXVHRIZHEVLWHVVRFLDOPHGLDLQFOXGLQJ7ZLWWHU)DFHERRN



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6495

Page 24 of 111

Pageid#:


 





FKDQDQGFKDQFKDWURRPVUDGLRYLGHRVDQGSRGFDVWVWRFRPPXQLFDWHZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQG ZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVIROORZHUVDQGRWKHUDWWHQGHHVDQGGLGVRWRSODQWKHLQWHQGHGDFWVRI YLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGWKHGHQLDOWRFLWL]HQVRIWKHHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIODZV
 )RU\HDUV'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUVXQQDPHGKDYHXVHGWKH,QWHUQHWWRLQ'HIHQGDQW $QJOLQ¶VWHUPV³VROLGLI\DVWDEOHDQGVHOIVXVWDLQLQJFRXQWHUFXOWXUH´8VHRIWKH,QWHUQHWLVSDUW RIWKHZD\VPDQQHUDQGPHDQVRIKRZ'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQVSLUDF\RSHUDWHGDQGRSHUDWHV
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFRRUGLQDWHGE\SRVWLQJDUWLFOHVRQWKHLURZQ ZHEVLWHVDQGE\XVLQJVRFLDOPHGLDWRVHQGDQGVKDUHPHVVDJHVIRUWKH³UDOO\´DQGWRHQFRXUDJH DWWHQGDQFHDQGWKHFRPPLVVLRQRILOOHJDODFWV7KH\LQWHUYLHZHGRQHDQRWKHUDERXWWKHSODQVIRU WKH³UDOO\´DQGVKDUHGWKRVHPHVVDJHVRQSRGFDVWVRURWKHUYLGHRVWUHDPLQJVHUYLFHV7KH\ DJUHHGWRPRELOL]HWKHLUUHVSHFWLYHPHPEHUVDQGIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGDQGEHYLROHQWDQGVXSSUHVV WKHHTXDOULJKWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLWL]HQV$FFRUGLQJWR6SHQFHUIRUH[DPSOH³'DPLJRDQG KLVJURXS>,GHQWLW\(YURSD@WRRNWKHOHDGWRRUJDQL]HZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJ SHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 2QH,QWHUQHWWRRO'HIHQGDQWVXVHGH[WHQVLYHO\WRSODQDQGGLUHFWLOOHJDODFWVZDV WKHFKDWSODWIRUP'LVFRUG2ULJLQDOO\GHYHORSHGDVDPHVVDJLQJSODWIRUPIRUJURXS³JDPHSOD\´ 'LVFRUGLVVHWXSDVDVHULHVRISULYDWHLQYLWHRQO\VHUYHUVHDFKSURYLGLQJDVSDFHIRUUHDOWLPH JURXSGLVFXVVLRQ(DFKVHUYHULVRUJDQL]HGLQWR³FKDQQHOV´LQGLFDWHGE\D³´EHIRUHWKHQDPH 3DUWLFLSDQWVLQWKHFKDWXVH³KDQGOHV´RUQLFNQDPHVWRLGHQWLI\WKHPVHOYHV3DUWLFLSDQWVFDQ UHTXHVWWREH³WDJJHG´DVDPHPEHURIDJURXS2QFHWDJJHGWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVFDQUHDGDQG SDUWLFLSDWHLQWKDWJURXS¶VFKDWV
 $³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´VHUYHUZDVHVWDEOLVKHGRQ'LVFRUGLQ-XQH7KLV VHUYHUZDVXVHGWRGLUHFWDQGSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDO



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6496

Page 25 of 111

Pageid#:


 





SURWHFWLRQRIODZDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2QHXVHUH[SODLQHGWKDW'LVFRUGZDV³IRU

FORVHGWRSVXSHUVHFUHWFRPPXQLFDWLRQVLQWHQGHGIRUWKHHOLWHLQQHUFLUFOHRIWKHDOWULJKW´

'HIHQGDQWVXVHG'LVFRUGDVDWRROWRSURPRWHFRRUGLQDWHDQGRUJDQL]HWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW

³UDOO\´DQGDVDPHDQVWRFRPPXQLFDWHDQGFRRUGLQDWHYLROHQWDQGLOOHJDODFWLYLWLHV³LQVHFUHW´

GXULQJWKHDFWXDOHYHQWVRIWKDWZHHNHQG

 'LVFRUGZDVPRGHUDWHGUHYLHZHGGLUHFWHGDQGPDQDJHGE\'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU

DQG0RVOH\DORQJZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV$VPRGHUDWRUVRIWKHJURXSWKH\ZHUHDEOHWR

YLHZDOORIWKHSRVWVLQYLWHRUUHMHFWSDUWLFLSDQWVDQGGHOHWHPHVVDJHVWKH\GLGQRWFRQGRQH7KH

JURXSZDV³LQYLWHRQO\´DQGQRWRSHQWRWKHSXEOLF

 ,QGLYLGXDO'HIHQGDQWVLQFOXGLQJ+HLPEDFK3DUURWW&DQWZHOODQG5D\ZHUHDOO

SDUWLFLSDQWVRQ'LVFRUGDQGSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHGLUHFWLRQSODQQLQJDQGLQFLWLQJRIXQODZIXODQG

YLROHQWDFWVWKURXJK'LVFRUG

 7KHVH'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVXVHG'LVFRUGIRUUHJXODU³OHDGHUVKLS´

PHHWLQJVWKURXJKZKLFKWKH\VKDUHGLQIRUPDWLRQDQGSODQV'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHG'LVFRUGWR

GLVWULEXWHZKDWWKH\FDOOHG³2UGHUV´WRFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHV2QHGRFXPHQWSRVWHGE\

'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\ZDVHQWLWOHG³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´IRU³2SHUDWLRQ8QLWHWKH5LJKW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

´

 7KHUHZHUHDWOHDVWFKDQQHOVVHWXSRQ'LVFRUGDVDPHDQVRIVKDULQJVSHFLILF

LQIRUPDWLRQ7KRVHFKDQQHOVLQFOXGHG

DQQRXQFHPHQWV

QHZV

GL[LHO\ULFV

VDIHW\BSODQQLQJ

PRGBKHOS

DOH[BMRQHVBFKDW

FRQILUPHGBSDUWLFLSDQWV

SLFWXUHVBDQGBYLGHR

VKXWWOHBVHUYLFHBLQIRUPDWLRQ EHOWZD\BELJRWV

PDBFWBUL YWBQKBPH JUHDWBODNHVBUHJLRQ PLGZHVWBUHJLRQ N\BWQ

 $QRWKHUXVHUH[SODLQHG³XQOHVV-DVRQRU(OLPDGHWKLVVHUYHUSXEOLFZLWKRXWWHOOLQJPHWKLVLVQ¶WDSXEOLF
VHUYHU,W¶VLQYLWHRQO\WKURXJKRXUWUXVWHGSUHYHWWHGDOWULJKWVHUYHUV1RWVXUHZKRWROG\RXLW¶VSXEOLF´ 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6497

Page 26 of 111

Pageid#:


 





FRGHBRIBFRQGXFW

YRLFHBFKDW

W[BRN

VHOIBSURPRWLRQ

IULGD\QLJKW

IORULGD

IODJVBEDQQHUVBVLJQV

VXQGD\QLJKW

JHRUJLD

SURPRWLRQBDQGBF\EHUVWULNH FKDQWV

FDUROLQDV

JHDUBDQGBDWWLUH

YLUJLQLDBODZV

FDOLIRUQLDBSDFLILFBQZ

DQWLIDBZDWFK

ORGJLQJ

FDUSRROBDYDLODEOH

GHPRQVWUDWLRQBWDFWLFV

ORGJLQJBZDQWHG

Q\BQM

VSRQVRUVBRQO\

ORGJLQJBDYDLODEOH

SHQQV\OYDQLD

LBQHHGBDBVSRQVRU

FDUSRROBZDQWHG

GFBYDBPG



 7KH\DOVRKDGDFKDQQHOFDOOHGTXHVWLRQVBIRUBFRRUGLQDWRUVZKHUHSDUWLFLSDQWV

FRXOGDVNTXHVWLRQVRIWKHRUJDQL]HUVDQGDFKDQQHOIRUWKH³OHDGHUVKLS´UHVHUYHGIRU

FRQYHUVDWLRQVDPRQJWKHPDLQRUJDQL]HUVRIWKHHYHQWDERXW³SODQQLQJ´DQG³LQIUDVWUXFWXUH´DVD

OHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDODWHUGHVFULEHGLW:LWKWKHSHUPLVVLRQRIDPRGHUDWRU

LQGLYLGXDOVFRXOGEH³WDJJHG´DVPHPEHUVRIFHUWDLQRUJDQL]DWLRQV'HIHQGDQWV9DQJXDUG

$PHULFD,GHQWLW\(YURSD7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDVZHOODV'DLO\6WRUPHU0RRQEDVH

+ROGLQJVDQGLWV³ERRNFOXE´FKDSWHUVDOOKDG³SULYDWHRUJDQL]DWLRQFKDQQHO>V@´RQWKH

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUWKDWDOORZHGWKHLUWDJJHGPHPEHUVWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQSULYDWH

JURXSFRPPXQLFDWLRQVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH³UDOO\´

 'HIHQGDQWVHQOLVWHGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHDQGRUJDQL]HWKH³UDOO\´

WKURXJK'LVFRUGDQGRWKHUPHDQV)RUH[DPSOHRQHLQGLYLGXDOXVLQJWKH'LVFRUGKDQGOH

³7\URQH´KHUHLQDIWHU7\URQHDJUHHGZLWK'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUWKDWKHZRXOGFRRUGLQDWH

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQIRUDWWHQGHHVRQ$XJXVW2WKHUVZHUHWDVNHGZLWKKHOSLQJ'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU

DQG0RVOH\PRGHUDWHWKH'LVFRUGVHUYHU$QRWKHULQGLYLGXDOXVLQJWKH'LVFRUGKDQGOH

³&DHUXOXV5H[´ZDVWKHFRRUGLQDWRUEHWZHHQYDULRXV³VHFXULW\GHWDLOV´WKDWZHUHHVWDEOLVKHGE\

'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV³&DHUXOXV5H[´KDVDOVREHHQLGHQWLILHGDVDIUHTXHQW

ERG\JXDUGRI'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6498

Page 27 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 3URPRWLRQDOPDWHULDOVRIWHQSURPRWLQJDQGLQFLWLQJYLROHQFHZHUHDGGHGWR 'LVFRUGLQRUGHUWREHVKDUHGDQGXWLOL]HGPRUHEURDGO\
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHG'LVFRUGWRFRRUGLQDWHKRZWKH\ZRXOGFRPPXQLFDWHRQ RWKHUVRFLDOPHGLD)RUH[DPSOHWKH\WROGIROORZHUVWRXVH8QLWH7KH5LJKWDQG&KDUORWWHVYLOOH RQ7ZLWWHUVRWKDWWKH\DQGWKHLUIROORZHUVFRXOGFORVHO\FRPPXQLFDWHGXULQJWKHZHHNHQGRIWKH ³UDOO\´7KH\VKDUHGWKDWKDVKWDJWKURXJK'LVFRUG
 $GGLWLRQDO'LVFRUGVHUYHUVZHUHXVHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWR VSUHDGWKHZRUGDERXWWKHHYHQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWRHQFRXUDJHIROORZHUVWRVKRZXSDQGEH SUHSDUHGIRUYLROHQFH)RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKDVDWOHDVWRQH'LVFRUG VHUYHUFDOOHG6RXWKHUQ)URQWZKLFKZDVHVWDEOLVKHGIRUPHPEHUVRIWKHJURXSOLYLQJLQVRXWKHUQ VWDWHV9DQJXDUG$PHULFDOHDGHUVZKRZHUHDFWLYHRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHU XVHGWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHUWRFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFHRIDGGLWLRQDO9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVDQGWR SURYLGHFKDQQHOVRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQ9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVDQGWKHPDLQRUJDQL]HUVRIWKH &KDUORWWHVYLOOHHYHQW
 &HUWDLQFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQDVHOIVW\OHG³DQWL$QWLID´JURXSFDOOHG ³$QWLFRP´ZKLFKSXUSRUWVWRSURYLGHGHIHQVLYHYLROHQFHDWZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWHYHQWVOLNHWKH ³%DWWOHIRU%HUNHOH\´RUJDQL]HGLQWKHLURZQ'LVFRUGVHUYHU7KHOHDGHURI$QWLFRPZDVDFWLYH RQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUDQGWKHQXVHGWKH$QWLFRPVHUYHUWRWHOOIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGWKH HYHQWDQGEULQJZHDSRQVSXUVXDQWWRWKHGLUHFWLYHVRIWKH³UDOO\´RUJDQL]HUV
 $OWKRXJKFHUWDLQSRVWVRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6RXWKHUQ)URQWDQG$QWLFRP 'LVFRUGVHUYHUVKDYHEHHQPDGHSXEOLFQXPHURXVRWKHU'LVFRUGVHUYHUVDQGFKDQQHOVZHUHXVHG



,QWKLV)LUVW$PHQGHG&RPSODLQWUHIHUHQFHVWR³'LVFRUG´DUHWRWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUH[FHSW

ZKHUHRWKHUZLVHLQGLFDWHG



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6499

Page 28 of 111

Pageid#:


 





DORQJZLWKWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGVHUYHUVWRSODQDQGFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFHDQGYLROHQWDFWVDWWKH

HYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQG7KHVHDGGLWLRQDOVHUYHUVDQGFKDQQHOVKDYHQRW\HWEHHQPDGH

SXEOLF/LNHZLVHWKHOHDGHUVKLSFKDQQHORQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUUHPDLQVXQGLVFORVHG

 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\OLNHZLVHHVWDEOLVKHG³PHHWXSV´DQGFKDWURRPV

WKURXJKWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHWKDWFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVZHUHWROGWRXVH

WKURXJKRXWWKHZHHNHQGWRFRRUGLQDWHWKHLUDFWLRQV

 $³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6WDWHPHQW´ZDVGLVWULEXWHGE\'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUVHWWLQJRXW

WKHSKLORVRSK\DQGLGHRORJ\XQGHUO\LQJWKH³UDOO\´+HZDVDLGHGLQGUDIWLQJKLVPDQLIHVWRE\

'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVFRFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQDQGRWKHUV$PRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKH

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH6WDWHPHQWKROGVWKDW³µ-XGHR&KULVWLDQYDOXHV¶PLJKWEHDTXDLQWSROLWLFDOVORJDQ

EXWLWLVDGLVWRUWLRQRIWKHKLVWRULFDODQGPHWDSK\VLFDOUHDOLW\RIERWK-HZVDQG(XURSHDQV´DQG

WKDW³1DWLRQVPXVWVHFXUHWKHLUH[LVWHQFHDQGXQLTXHQHVVDQGSURPRWHWKHLURZQGHYHORSPHQW

DQGIORXULVKLQJ5DFLDOO\RUHWKQLFDOO\GHILQHGVWDWHVDUHOHJLWLPDWHDQGQHFHVVDU\´

& 'HIHQGDQWV3URPRWHG$WWHQGDQFH9LROHQFHDQG,PDJHU\'HVLJQHGWR7KUHDWHQ ,QWLPLGDWHDQG+DUDVV

>7@KLV ZLOO FOHDUO\ EH DQ HDUWKVKDNLQJ GD\ WKDW ZLOO JR GRZQLQWKHKLVWRU\ERRNVRXUWLPHKDVFRPH
 $XJXVW   LV JRLQJ WR EH D VKRW KHDUG DURXQG WKH ZRUOG7KHUHZLOOEHEHIRUH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWKHUHZLOO EH DIWHU &KDUORWWHVYLOOH   WKHUH LV QR ZD\ WR H[DJJHUDWH WKH VLJQLILFDQFHRIWKLV:HFDQPDNHDOOWKHQRLVHRQWKHLQWHUQHWWKDW ZHZDQWDQGWKLVLVJUHDWEXWRXUUHDOSRZHUZLOOFRPHRQO\IURP QXPEHUVLQWKHVWUHHWV  >7@KDQNV WR WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKLV HYHQW , WUXO\ EHOLHYH² PRUH WKDQ , HYHU GLG EHIRUH²WKDW ZH ZLOO HYHQWXDOO\ ZLQ WKLV



2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUDQRUJDQL]HURIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWDQGOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDZKR

ZDVDFWLYHRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWDQG&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUVSRVWHGLQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHULQ

UHVSRQVHWRUHSRUWVWKDWFHUWDLQ'LVFRUGFRQYHUVDWLRQVKDGEHHQPDGHSXEOLF³:HKDYHEHHQDZDUHRIWKDW7KHFKDW

ORJVZHUHUHOHDVHGWRXQLFRUQULRW7KH\KDYHPRQWKVRIFRQYHUVDWLRQV,WZDVWKHJHQHUDOFKDWQRWWKHOHDGHUVKLS

WKRXJKVRWKH\JRWYHU\OLWWOHLQWKHZD\RISODQQLQJRULQIUDVWUXFWXUH´



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6500

Page 29 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VWUXJJOHDQGVHFXUHWKHH[LVWHQFHRIRXUSHRSOHDQGIXWXUHIRUZKLWH FKLOGUHQ,WLVRXUGHVWLQ\1H[WVWRS&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$)LQDO VWRS$XVFKZLW]6HH\DWKHUHIDJJRWV
Daily Stormer  'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHUWROGIROORZHUV³:HDUHDQJU\ 7KHUHLVD>VLF@DWDYLVWLFUDJHLQXVGHHSLQXVWKDWLVUHDG\WRERLORYHUThere is a craving to return to an age of violence. We want a war´+HDGYLVHGIROORZHUVWKDW³WKHKDUGFRUHPHVVDJH LVZKDWVHOOV´DQGWROGWKHPWR³>E@HUHDG\WRGLHIRU>WKHILJKW@´  2Q'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRPRQHDUWLFOHRQWKHXSFRPLQJ $XJXVW³UDOO\´H[SODLQHG³2XULGHDVGRPLQDWHWKHLQWHUQHW1RZLW¶VWLPHWRGRPLQDWHWKH VWUHHWV<RXPLJKWWKLQNLW¶VMXVWDUDOO\EXWUHDOO\LW¶VVRPXFKPRUH:HDUHWHOOLQJWKH DQWL:KLWHHVWDEOLVKPHQWDQGLW¶V>VLF@DWWDFNGRJVWKDWZHDUHQRWJRLQJWRJLYHDQRWKHULQFK $QGQRZZHKDYHFRPHWRWKHWLSSLQJSRLQW´  'HIHQGDQW5D\GHFODUHG³:HDUHVWHSSLQJRIIWKH,QWHUQHWLQDELJZD\:H KDYHEHHQRUJDQL]LQJRQWKH,QWHUQHW$QGVRQRZWKH\DUHFRPLQJRXW:HKDYHJUHDWO\ RXWQXPEHUHGWKHDQWLZKLWHDQWL$PHULFDQILOWK$WVRPHSRLQWZHZLOOKDYHHQRXJKSRZHUWKDW ZHZLOOFOHDUWKHPIURPWKHVWUHHWVIRUHYHU\RXDLQ¶WVHHQQRWKLQJ\HW´,QDQLQWHUYLHZ GXULQJWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\'HIHQGDQW5D\DOVRVWDWHGWKDW'HIHQGDQWV¶JRDOZDVWR³VWRS´WKH ³XVXUS>DWLRQ@´RI³RXUFRXQWU\´³E\DIRUHLJQWULEHFDOOHGWKH-HZV´  'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WZHHWHG³:HDUH>@JRLQJWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KLVLVRXU FRXQWU\DQGLWLVRXUULJKWWKDWPHDQGWKRXVDQGVIRXJKWIRUDOUHDG\2XUELUWKULJKWZLOOEH



9LFHUHOHDVHGDPLQXWHGRFXPHQWDU\IROORZLQJ'HIHQGDQWVWKURXJKRXWWKHGD\7KHYLGHRFDQEHIRXQGDW

KWWSVQHZVYLFHFRPVWRU\YLFHQHZVWRQLJKWIXOOHSLVRGHFKDUORWWHVYLOOHUDFHDQGWHUURU





Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6501

Page 30 of 111

Pageid#:


 





DVKHV WKH\¶OOKDYHWRSU\LWIURPRXUFROGGHDGKDQGVLIWKH\ZDQWLW7KH\ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV ZLWKRXWDILJKW´
 2QHSURPRWLRQDOLPDJHFUHDWHGE\'HIHQGDQW7:3DQGGLVWULEXWHGRQ'LVFRUG VWDWHG³7KLVLVQRWDQDWWDFNRQ\RXUKHULWDJHWKLVLVDQDWWDFNRQ\RXUUDFLDOH[LVWHQFH),*+7 %$&.25',(´
 7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUUHOHDVHGLWVRZQSRVWHUZKLFKZDVODWHUVKDUHGE\'HIHQGDQW 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD



 8VLQJ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\FRPPDQGHGWKH

'DLO\6WRUPHUFRPPXQLW\WRDWWHQG³<RXPXVWPDNHLWWKHUH´7KH\WROGWKHLUPHPEHUV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6502

Page 31 of 111

Pageid#:


 





³>Z@HQHHGWRGRHYHU\WKLQJZHFDQWRJHWDVPDQ\SHRSOHWRDWWHQGWKLVUDOO\DVSRVVLEOH 7KHUHLVDULVLQJQDWLRQDOLVWPRYHPHQWLQ$PHULFDDQGLWLVQRWJRLQJDZD\+DYLQJWKRXVDQGVRI QDWLRQDOLVWVFRPHRXWIRUWKLVUDOO\ZLOOSXWWKHIHDURIJRGLQWRWKHKHDUWVDQGPLQGVRIRXU HQHPLHV´$ZULWHURQ6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRPHQWKXVHGWKDW'DLO\6WRUPHUZDV³JRLQJ WREULQJDORWRI\RXQJQHZFDGUHVWRWKHUDOO\´LQFOXGLQJ,GHQWLW\(YURSD
 $QJOLQDOVRXUJHGKLVIROORZHUV³:HDUHQRZWDNLQJWKHVH>6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV@ WRWKHQH[WOHYHO:HDUHJRLQJWRKDYHFKDOOHQJHVZKLFKZLOOLQFOXGHJHWWLQJ\RXLQILWDQG ILJKWLQJVKDSHDQGOHDUQLQJXVHIXOPDVFXOLQHVNLOOV:HDUHJRLQJWREXLOGDQLQYLVLEOH HPSLUH7KLVKDVDOOEHHQZRUNHGRXWLQP\PLQGDORQJWLPHDJRDQGWKLVVXPPHUWKH6XPPHU RIWKH%ODFN6XQLVZKHQZHDUHJRLQJWREULQJLWDOOWRJHWKHU´2Q'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG $PHULFD¶V6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHU'HIHQGDQW5D\WROG9DQJXDUGPHPEHUVLQ-XO\ ³<RXGRQ¶WWKLQNWKH>'DLO\6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEV@KDYHDQ\WKLQJWRGRZLWKERRNVGR\RX" 7KLQNERRWVQRWERRNV´
 'HIHQGDQW+LOOHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVRI'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKWRDWWHQG E\XUJLQJWKHPQRWWR³PLVVRXWRIWKHIXQ´LQGHDOLQJZLWKWKHLUSXUSRUWHGHQHPLHV'HIHQGDQW (DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVH[KRUWHGLQGLYLGXDOVWRDWWHQG³:HZLOOEHWKHUH-RLQXV´
 $QRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDQLPDJHRIDUDLVHGILVWKROGLQJD GDJJHUE\LWVEODGHGULSSLQJEORRGRYHUWKHZRUGV³),*+7817,/7+(/$67'523´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6503

Page 32 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  'HIHQGDQWV¶LQWHQWWRHQJDJHLQYLROHQFHWRHQVXUHWKDWRWKHUVHQJDJHGLQ

YLROHQFHDQGWRRUFKHVWUDWHDQGGLUHFWWKDWYLROHQFHDJDLQVWUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVZDV

RSHQDQGH[SOLFLW)RUH[DPSOHRQDSRGFDVWUXQE\0LFKDHO3HLQRYLFKWKH'DLO\6KRDKDFR

FRQVSLUDWRUGLVFXVVLQJWKH³UDOO\´DVNHG³1RZFRPHRQEHDWLQJXSWKHZURQJQHJURLVWKDW

HYHQDSRVVLELOLW\"%HDWXSWKHZURQJQLJJHU´$PHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFD

EOLWKHO\DVNHGRQ'LVFRUG³:KHQFDQZHJDVWKHUHSUREDWHV´7\URQHDFRFRQVSLUDWRU

ZURWH³0RVWHIILFLHQWLVKRZ\RXJHWVL[PLOOLRQ-HZVLQD&DGLOODFLQWKHIURQWLQWKHUHDU

LQWKHDVKWUD\´

 2Q'LVFRUGPRGHUDWHGDQGFRQWUROOHGE\'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\WKHUH

ZHUHFRXQWOHVVH[KRUWDWLRQVWRYLROHQFHLQFOXGLQJ

Ɣ ³,¶PUHDG\WRFUDFNVNXOOV´
Ɣ ³,I\RXGRQ¶WKDYHDIODPHWKURZHU\RX¶UHZURQJ´
Ɣ ³,W¶VJRLQJWRJHWZLOG%ULQJ\RXUERRWV´
Ɣ ³6WXGLHVVKRZQLJJHUVDQGIHPLQLVWVIXFNULJKWRIIZKHQIDFHG ZLWKSHSSHUVSUD\´
Ɣ ³%ULQJLQJZRPHQWRDSURWHVWUDOO\ZKHUHZHH[SHFWYLROHQFHLVIXFNLQJ UHWDUGHGHYHQLI\RXDUHQ¶WH[SHFWLQJYLROHQFH\RXVKRXOGSUHSDUHIRU LW´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6504

Page 33 of 111

Pageid#:


 





Ɣ ³/HWWKHUHEHQRPLVWDNH±WKHVHWZRVLGHKDYHLUUHFRQFLDEOH>VLF@ GLIIHUHQFHVWKDWZLOOQHYHUUHDFKFRPSURPLVH±WKHRQO\TXHVWLRQLVWKH OHYHORIFRQIOLFWWRGHFLGHWKHYLFWRU´
Ɣ ³<RXKDYHDZHHNEURV%HVWVSHQGLWKDYLQJIRXURUILYHRI\RXUIULHQGV VLPXODWHMXPSLQJ\RX*ROLJKWGRQ¶WJHWLQMXUHGEHIRUHWKHHYHQWDQG IRFXVRQEORFNLQJDQGSXVKLQJEDFNLQZD\VWKDWGRQ¶WORRNOLNHDVVDXOW´
Ɣ ³/HW¶VPDNHWKLVFKDQQHOJUHDWDJDLQ7KH&DUROLQDVNLQGRIVWDUWHGWKH 5HYROXWLRQDU\:DUDQGWKH&LYLO:DUVRZK\QRWDGGWKH5DFH:DU 6HFRQG&LYLO:DUWRWKHOLVW"´
 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWDQ\YLROHQFH7RWKHFRQWUDU\FRQVLVWHQW
ZLWKWKHLUFRQVSLUDF\WRHQFRXUDJHDQGHQDEOHYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV
UHLQIRUFHGDIDOVHQDUUDWLYHRIDODUJHU²QHFHVVDULO\YLROHQW²UDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVZDULQZKLFK
8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVZHUHDFULWLFDOPRPHQW7KLVVWUDWHJ\ZDVLQWHQGHGWR²DQGIRUHVHHDEO\
UHVXOWHGLQ²YLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWWKHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHV
 )RUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW+LOOWZHHWHGRQ-XO\³,I\RXZDQWWRGHIHQGWKH
6RXWKDQG:HVWHUQFLYLOL]DWLRQIURPWKH-HZDQGKLVGDUNVNLQQHGDOOLHVEHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ
$XJXVW´
 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\SXEOLVKHG³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´IRUWKH³UDOO\´ZKLFKGLYLGHG
DWWHQGHHVLQWR³)ULHQGOLHV´DQG³(QHPLHV&RXQWHU3URWHVWHUV´,QGLYLGXDOVRSSRVHGWRWKHLGHDV
DGYDQFHGE\WKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´ZHUHGHVFULEHGDV³KRVWLOH´
 7KH*HQHUDO2UGHUVIXUWKHULQVWUXFWHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGDWWHQGHHVWKDWLIWKH\
HQGHGXSORVLQJWKHLUSHUPLWWRJDWKHULQWKHSDUNWKHQWKH\PD\³KDYHWRLQLWLDWHSODQUHGRUKDYH
WRWDNHWKHJURXQGE\IRUFHZLWKSODQ\HOORZ´3ODQ5HGZDVGHVFULEHGDV³LQFUHGLEO\
GDQJHURXV´DQGFDOOHGIRUPHHWLQJHDUO\DWDUDOO\SRLQWDQGPDUFKLQJWRWKHSDUN7KH*HQHUDO
2UGHUVDOVRSURPLVHGWKDWWKHUHZRXOGEH³VHFXULW\IRUFHVWRUHGXFHWKHWKUHDW´SUHVHQWHGE\
³KRVWLOHV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6505

Page 34 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 &RFRQVSLUDWRUVRQ'LVFRUGLQFLWHGDWWHQGHHVWREULQJZHDSRQVDQGHQJDJHLQ
YLROHQFH7KLVLQFLWHPHQWZDVNQRZQWRDQGSURPRWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV
 7\URQHSRVWHGDTXRWHIURP+LWOHU¶VFORVHDVVRFLDWHDQG³5HLFK3OHQLSRWHQWLDU\
IRU7RWDO:DU´3DXO-RVHSK*RHEEHOVRQ'LVFRUG³:KRHYHUFDQFRQTXHUWKHVWUHHWZLOORQHGD\
FRQTXHUWKHVWDWHIRUHYHU\IRUPRISRZHUSROLWLFVDQGDQ\GLFWDWRUVKLSUXQVWDWHKDVLWVURRWVLQ
WKHVWUHHW´
 'HIHQGDQWVH[SUHVVO\DFNQRZOHGJHGWKDWWKHLUIDOVHQDUUDWLYHRI³VHOIGHIHQVH´
ZDVPHUHO\DSUHWH[WIRUYLROHQFH7\URQHIRUH[DPSOHKDGWKHIROORZLQJH[FKDQJHRQ'LVFRUG
7\URQH³:KDWLIZHDUHVRFLRSDWKLFDQGZDQW>DQWLID@WRVKRZXSIRUVHOI GHIHQVHSXUSRVHV"´  $PHULFDQD±0',I\RX¶UHFRQFHUQHGDERXWDQWLIDVKRZLQJXSDQGEHLQJYLROHQW ,SUHVHQW\RXYDOLGRSWLRQV'RQ¶WDWWHQG>HPRMLRIDZRPDQ@RU%HEHWWHU DWYLROHQFHWKDQWKH\DUH  7\URQH,W¶VQRWMXVWDERXW\RXFROOHFWLYH\RXQRWSHUVRQDOYLROHQFHOLNHWKLVLVD WHDPJDPH 7\URQHWKHQWROGRWKHUV³7KHEHVWGHIHQVHLVDJRRGRIIHQVHP\JUDQGSDSS\WDXJKWPH´
 2QH'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWWROGSHRSOHWR³SXUFKDVHVHOIGHIHQVHLQVXUDQFH´ZKLOH
DQRWKHUTXLSSHGWKDWWKHDELOLW\WRPDNHRXWDVHOIGHIHQVHFODLP³>G@HSHQGVKRZPXFKRIDMHZ
\RXUODZ\HULV´
 8VLQJ'LVFRUGDQGRWKHUPHGLXPV'HIHQGDQWVJDYHRUGHUVWRHDFKRWKHUFR
FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGIROORZHUVLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQGLQFOXGLQJZKDWZHDSRQV
WREULQJZKDWSURWHFWLYHDUPRUWRZHDUDQGLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUXQLIRUPV,QSDUWLFXODUWKH\
DGYLVHGRWKHUSDUWLFLSDQWVWREULQJILUHDUPVRULPSURYLVHGZHDSRQV7KH\HQJDJHGLQWKHVHDFWV
ZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQWKDWWKH\DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZRXOGLQIDFWHQJDJHLQYLROHQFHDQG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6506

Page 35 of 111

Pageid#:


 





KDUDVVPHQWDJDLQVWUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGWKUHDWHQWKHEURDGHU&KDUORWWHVYLOOH SRSXODWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOH[SUHVVO\³HQFRXUDJH>G@´5DGLFDO$JHQGDIROORZHUV³WRFDUU\ DFRQFHDOHGILUHDUP´
 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUZKRZDVDFWLYHRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHUDV WKH³+HDG5HSUHVHQWDWLYH´RI$QWLFRPRQWKHVHUYHUWROGKLVIROORZHUVLQWKH$QWLFRPVHUYHURQ $XJXVW³#HYHU\RQH%ULQJDVPXFKJHDUDQGZHDSRQU\DV\RXFDQZLWKLQWKHFRQILQHVRIWKH ODZ,¶PVHULRXV<RXVWLOOKDYHDIHZGD\VWRJHWVRPHSURWHFWLRQIURP+RPH'HSRWDQG EULQJDQ\JXQV\RXKDYH7KLVLVQ¶WMXVW$QWLFRP6SHQFHURUJDQL]HUVHYHU\RQHDUHEHKLQG WKLV´+HDGGHG³7KLVLVWKHWLPHWRJHWRII'LVFRUGDQGWDNHDFWLRQ´2Q$XJXVWKH VLPXOWDQHRXVO\SRVWHGRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQG$QWLFRPVHUYHUVWKHDSKRWRJUDSKRI KLPVHOILQWDFWLFDOJHDUFDUU\LQJDULIOHVHHLPDJHVEHORZIURPWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHU OHIWDQG$QWLFRPVHUYHUULJKW+HWROGKLVIROORZHUV³,ZDVQ¶WNLGGLQJZKHQ,PDGHDQ DQQRXQFHPHQWWREULQJDVPXFKZHDSRQU\DVOHJDOO\IHDVLEOH7KLVZDVGLVFXVVHGZLWKWKH RUJDQL]HUV´$Q$QWLFRPIROORZHUUHVSRQGHG³<HDK,DOVRUHFRPPHQGHGFURZGIXQGLQJD GROODUFDPSDLJQWRKDQGRXWSHSSHUVSUD\WRIHOORZJRHUV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6507

Page 36 of 111

Pageid#:


 









 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSRVWHGSKRWRVRIWKHPVHOYHVSRVLQJZLWK

DXWRPDWLFZHDSRQVDQGWDFWLFDOJHDUDQGERDVWHGDERXWWKHZHDSRQVWKH\ZHUHEULQJLQJ

7\URQHIRUH[DPSOHEUDJJHGRQWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVHUYHUWKDWKHZRXOGEHEULQJLQJ

³0RVLQ1DJDQWVZLWKED\RQHWVDWWDFKHG´UHIHUULQJWRPLOLWDU\ULIOHVXVHGE\5XVVLDQDQG6RYLHW

DUPHGIRUFHVZKLFK³ZLOOVKRRWFOHDQWKURXJKDFURZGDWOHDVWIRXUGHHS´7LP³%DNHG$ODVND´

*LRQHWDFRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGDWWHQGHHRIWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQGSRVWHGWKHIROORZLQJRQ

7ZLWWHU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6508

Page 37 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  'HIHQGDQW5D\ZURWHRQ'LVFRUG³:HOO,DOVRFRPHEDUHKDQGHGDQGEDUHILVWHG EFRIILFHUVGRQ¶WGXFNORO%XWP\JX\VZLOOEHUHDG\ZLWKORWVRIQLIW\HTXLSPHQW´  2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDIDNHDGYHUWLVHPHQWIRUDSURGXFWWKDW ORRNHGOLNHSHSSHUVSUD\FDOOHG³1LJ$ZD\´²´DQRIXVVQRPXVVµQLJJHUNLOOHU¶´SURPLVHGWR ³NLOO>@RQFRQWDFWGLVVROY>LQJ@DOOWLVVXHOHDY>LQJ@RQO\ERQHPDWWHU´LQRUGHUWR³ULGWKHDUHD RIQLJJHUV´+HFRPPHQWHGEHQHDWKWKHSKRWR³VWRFNXSQRZ´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6509

Page 38 of 111

Pageid#:


 







'LVFRUGZDVULIHZLWKGLVFXVVLRQVE\FRFRQVSLUDWRUVRIZHDSRQVDQGWKHXVHRIHYHU\GD\

REMHFWVWRLQIOLFWKDUP

Ɣ ³,¶PFRQFHDOFDUU\LQJ´

Ɣ ³>$@UHDOPDQNQRZVKRZWRPDNHDVKLHOGDGHDGO\ZHDSRQ´

Ɣ ³>.@QLYHVDQGJXQVDUHPRUHOHJDOWKDQEOXQWZHDSRQVRUEDWRQVEXWLWV>VLF@ EHWWHUWRRQO\FDUU\ZKDWZRXOGRQO\EHSHUFHLYHGDVDGHIHQVLYHWRRO,ILJXUH NQLYHVZRXOGFDXVHWKHSROLFHPRUHDODUPRYHUDFDQRISHSSHUVSUD\RUD UXJJHGDQGDEUDVLYHVKLHOG´

Ɣ ³>*@HWVWDQGDUG2&VSUD\,SHUVRQDOO\XVH)R[/DEV´

Ɣ ³>5@HPHPEHUWKDWQHZVSDSHUVFDQEH\RXUJUHDWHVWDOO\WRVVDIHZSHQQLHVLQ WKHUHUROOLWXSDQGIROGLWDQGEDP´

Ɣ ³>$@YRLGEDWRQVMXVWJHWKDUGZRRGGRZHOWKDWILWVLQ\RXUKDQGIURPD VWRUHDQGFXWLWWRVL]H´

Ɣ ³,I\RXJHW39&JHWVFKHGXOHIRUWKLFNHUWKXPSLQJ´

Ɣ ³'RQ¶WFDUU\DQ\WKLQJWKDW¶VH[SOLFLWO\DZHDSRQ)ODJSROHVDQGVLJQVZRUN EXWRSHQO\FDUU\LQJREYLRXVZHDSRQU\LVSUREDEO\QRWDJRRGLGHD´

Ɣ ³$ZUHQFKZLWKDZULVWODQ\DUGJHWVWKHVDPHMRE>DVDEODFNMDFNELOO\FOXE@ DFFRPSOLVKHG´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6510

Page 39 of 111

Pageid#:


 





Ɣ ³-XVWFDUU\DSRFNHWIXOORIURFNV7KH\FDQEHLQDVRFNRUVRPHWKLQJ´



 2Q-XQH.HVVOHUSRVWHGLQWKHDQQRXQFHPHQWFKDQQHORIWKH

&KDUORWWHVYLOOH'LVFRUGVHUYHU³#HYHU\RQH,UHFRPPHQG\RXEULQJSLFNHWVLJQSRVW

VKLHOGVDQGRWKHUVHOIGHIHQVHLPSOHPHQWVZKLFKFDQEHWXUQHGIURPDIUHHVSHHFKWRROWRDVHOI

GHIHQVHZHDSRQVKRXOGWKLQJVWXUQXJO\´

 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGSRVWHGDOLQNWRKLVVWRUH5HVLVWDQFH7RROVDORQJ

ZLWKDFRXSRQFRGH81,7(7+(5,*+7DQGZURWH³)253(23/(127&21&($/('

&$55<,1*,1&¶9,//(,VHOOVWXQJXQVWDVHUVSHSSHUVSUD\EDWRQVDQGRWKHUVHOIGHIHQVH

VWXII´

 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKURXJKLWVOHDGHUVDQGPHPEHUVHQFRXUDJHGLWV

PHPEHUVWRDWWHQGWKHUDOO\RQLWVRZQ'LVFRUGVHUYHU6RXWKHUQ)URQW$QLQGLYLGXDOZLWKWKH

XVHUQDPH³7KRPDV5\DQ´RQLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI

9DQJXDUG$PHULFDUHSHDWHGO\XUJHGPHPEHUVWRFRQWDFWKLPGLUHFWO\LIWKH\SODQQHGWRDWWHQG

WKH³8QLWHWKH5LJKW´HYHQWDQGLIWKH\ZDQWHGWRWUDYHOWRJHWKHULQD³KDWHEXV´VD\LQJ³7KLV

HYHQWLVD%,*'($/DQGRIIHUVDFKDQFHWROLQNXS9DQJXDUG*X\VIURPDFURVVWKH

QDWLRQ´+HDOVRLVVXHGRUGHUVRQWKHSURSHU9DQJXDUGXQLIRUPIRUWKHHYHQW



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6511

Page 40 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHPEHUVZHUHLQVWUXFWHGWRDUULYHDWWKHUDOO\LQ PDWFKLQJNKDNLSDQWVDQGZKLWHSRORVDERXWZKLFKRQHPHPEHURQWKHVHUYHUFRPPHQWHG³, OLNHWKHSRORVLW¶VDJRRGILJKWLQJXQLIRUP´5RXVVHDXDOVRWROGKLV9DQJXDUG$PHULFDFR FRQVSLUDWRUV³6HOIGHIHQVHLWHPVDUHQRWOLVWHGRQWKHJHDUOLVWVRPHLQGLYLGXDOVZLOOKDYH FRQFHDOHGFDUU\VRPHZLOOQRW´2Q$XJXVWRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUDVNHG³6HULRXVTXHVWLRQZK\ DUHWKH\VD\LQJQRWWREULQJILUHDUPV"´$QRWKHUUHSOLHG³6RXQGVOLNHWKH\DUHVFDUHGORO, DOZD\VFDUU\DFROODSVLEOHEDWRQQRZLW¶VP\QHZIDYRULWH´³7KRPDV5\DQ´UHSOLHG³,W¶V FRQFHDOHGFDUU\RQO\&RQFHDOHGNQLYHVKDYHGR]HQVRIODZVDURXQGWKHP2SHQNQLYHVGR QRWEXWLWORRNVUHDOO\GXPEWRFDUU\DQRSHQODUJHNQLIHVRZH¶UHQRWGRLQJWKDW1RWVXUH DERXWEDWRQV´
 'HIHQGDQW5D\D³JRRGIULHQG´RI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDFFRUGLQJWR WKHLUOHDGHU5RXVVHDXDOVRXVHGWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQWVHUYHUWRHQFRXUDJH9DQJXDUG$PHULFD PHPEHUVWRDWWHQGWKHUDOO\SRVWLQJDOLQNWRWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUDUWLFOH³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:K\ <RX0XVW$WWHQGDQG:KDWWR%ULQJDQG1RWWR%ULQJ´$9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHPEHU UHVSRQGHGWR5D\¶VSRVWZLWKDYLROHQWGUDZLQJRI'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKZHDULQJDVKLUWEHDULQJ 1D]LDQG'HIHQGDQW7:3V\PEROVDQGWKHZRUGV³QLJJHUNLOOHU´DERYHDWDOO\RI³FRPPXQLVWV NLOOHG´VPLOLQJLQIURQWRIGHFDSLWDWHGEODFNPHQZHDULQJORJRVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDQWLIDVFLVW PRYHPHQWV




Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6512

Page 41 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  2QHPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDH[SODLQHGRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW VHUYHUDIWHUWKHHYHQWWKDW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDKDGFRRUGLQDWHGZLWK'HIHQGDQW1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW 0RYHPHQWEHFDXVHWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHHYHQWZDVDERXWYLROHQFH³,QFYLOOHZHQHHGHGQXPEHUV 160IRXJKWVRKDUGUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHLURSWLFV'RZHQHHGWKHPDWQRUPLHHYHQWV"1R:H QHHGWKHPLQDILJKW"<HV´  ,QDGGLWLRQWRGLUHFWLYHVEHLQJFLUFXODWHGRQ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWV5D\DQG$QJOLQ LVVXHGGLUHFWLYHVXVLQJ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHLQDGYDQFHRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQG,Q DUWLFOHVWLWOHG³2SHUDWLRQDO6HFXULW\IRU5LJKW:LQJ5DOOLHV´DQG³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:K\<RX



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6513

Page 42 of 111

Pageid#:


 





0XVW$WWHQGDQG:KDWWR%ULQJDQG1RWWR%ULQJ´³6WRUPHUV´ZHUHWROGWKDWWKH\ZHUHUHTXLUHG WREULQJWLNLWRUFKHVDQGVKRXOGDOVREULQJSHSSHUVSUD\IODJSROHVIODJVDQGVKLHOGV
 ,QGHHGWKHHYLGHQFHWKDW'HIHQGDQWVZHUHSODQQLQJWRDUPWKHPVHOYHVLQDGYDQFH RIWKH³UDOOLHV´ZDVVRSHUYDVLYHWKDWWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH3ROLFH'HSDUWPHQWUHFHLYHGSULYDWH WKUHDWDVVHVVPHQWVIURPWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQLQGLFDWLQJWKDW³8QLWH7KH5LJKW VXSSRUWHUVZRXOGEULQJEDWVEDWRQVIODJVWLFNVNQLYHVDQGILUHDUPVWRFRQIURQWWKHLUSROLWLFDO RSSRQHQWV´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSURYLGHGJXLGDQFHDQGLQVWUXFWLRQVWRFR FRQVSLUDWRUVDQGSDUWLFLSDQWVDERXWKRZWRWU\WRDYRLGWKHOHJDOUDPLILFDWLRQVRIWKHLUYLROHQFH )RUH[DPSOHWKH\VHWXSDFKDQQHORQ'LVFRUGGHYRWHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLQJ9LUJLQLDODZZKHUHRQH FRFRQVSLUDWRUVXJJHVWHGWKDWUDOO\JRHUVEX\VHOIGHIHQVHLQVXUDQFH'HIHQGDQWVDOVRDVVXUHGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVWKDWWKH\ZRXOGEHSURWHFWHGZKHQWKH\HQJDJHGLQYLROHQWDFWVLQWHQGHGLQFLWHG VWUDWHJL]HGDQGHQFRXUDJHGE\'HIHQGDQWV7KH³*HQHUDO2UGHUV´WROGDWWHQGHHVWKDWLIWKH\ IRXQGWKHPVHOYHVDUUHVWHGWKHUHZRXOGEH³PRQH\DQGDOHJDOWHDPVHWDVLGHIRU\RXDIWHU´ 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUSXWRXWDFDOOIRUDWWRUQH\VRQKLVZHEVLWHDOWULJKWFRP'DLO\6WRUPHU DGYLVHGDWWHQGHHV
>,@I\RXHQGXSLQVRPHKHDY\VWXIIDQGDUHQRW\HWFKDUJHG ZLWKDQ\WKLQJXVH\RXUPRPHQWVRIIUHHGRPWRJHWUHDOO\GLIILFXOW WRILQG'RQRWZDLWDURXQGIRUEDGSURFHVVHVWREHJLQDJDLQVW\RX ([LW IURP DQ\ ULVN\ VLWXDWLRQ DV TXLFNO\ DV \RX FDQ ,I \RX PDNH \RXUVHOI HDV\ WR VHUYH ZLWK OHJDO SURFHVV OHJDO SURFHVV ZLOO EH OLNHO\EHVHUYHGWR\RX  'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWROGHDFKRWKHUWREULQJVKLHOGVXQLIRUPVIODJV DQGVLJQVGHFRUDWHGZLWKLFRQRJUDSK\WKDWZRXOGLQVWLOOIHDUDORQJUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVOLQHV ZKLOHDOVRLGHQWLI\LQJUDOO\JRHUVZLWKWKHKDWHJURXSVWRZKLFKWKH\EHORQJ7KH7H[DVDQG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6514

Page 43 of 111

Pageid#:


 





/RXLVLDQDFKDSWHUVRI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDIRUH[DPSOHSODQQHGWRKDYHVKLHOGVZLWK WKHLUORJRVSDLQWHGRQ
 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRGLVFXVVHGDQGLQWHQGHGIRUIROORZHUVWRFRPHZLWKSDUDSKHUQDOLD EHDULQJUDFLVWDQGDQWL6HPLWLFLPDJHU\'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUIRUH[DPSOHH[SODLQHG³7KH &RQIHGHUDWHIODJLV7+(%(67RSWLFVEHFDXVHLW¶VEHORYHGE\OHJLRQVRI6RXWKHUQHUVZKRDUHRQ WKHGRRUVWHSRIEHFRPLQJMXVWOLNHXVLIZHFDQPRYHWKHPEH\RQGµKHULWDJHQRWKDWH¶´
 7KH³RIILFLDO´SRVWHUIRUWKHHYHQWFRQWDLQHG1D]LDQGFRQIHGHUDWHLFRQRJUDSK\ LQFOXGLQJLPSHULDOHDJOHVUHPLQLVFHQWRI1D]L*HUPDQ\¶VQDWLRQDOHPEOHPFRQIHGHUDWHIODJVDQG PRQXPHQWVDQGFRQIHGHUDWHVROGLHUVLQIRUPDWLRQ


' 'HIHQGDQWV&RRUGLQDWHG)XQGLQJ/RJLVWLFV7UDQVSRUWDWLRQDQG/HJDO6XSSRUW)RU &R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQG$WWHQGHHV
 'HIHQGDQWVIXUWKHUHGWKHLUFRQVSLUDF\DQGLWVLOOHJDOLQMXULRXVREMHFWLYHVE\

FRRUGLQDWLQJDWWHQGDQFHDWWKHUDOO\WKURXJK'LVFRUGWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHDQGRWKHU

PHGLD

 2Q'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWVHVWDEOLVKHGWKHVSRQVRUVBRQO\DQGLBQHHGBDBVSRQVRU

FKDQQHOVWRSURYLGHILQDQFLDOVXSSRUWWRRWKHUVZKRZDQWHGWRWUDYHOWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6515

Page 44 of 111

Pageid#:


 





'HIHQGDQWVDOVRXVHGFKDQQHOVOLNHFDUSRROBZDQWHGDQGFDUSRROBDYDLODEOHWRRUJDQL]H FDUSRROVLQ³+DWH9DQ>V@´DQG³IXOOEORZQKDWHFRQYR\>V@´
 2QWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHDWWHQGHHVZHUHDGYLVHG³,I\RXZDQWWRFRPHEXW FDQ¶WILQGDZD\JHWRQWKH%%6>D'DLO\6WRUPHUIRUXP@DQGDVNIRUKHOS*RWRWKH%RRN&OXE VHFWLRQDQGILQGWKHQHDUHVWERRNFOXEWR\RXDQGSRVWLQWKDWWKUHDGWKDW\RXZDQWWRJREXWQHHG DVVLVWDQFH,I\RXKDSSHQWRKDYHKLWDGHDGWKUHDGVWDUWDWKUHDGLQ*HQHUDO'LVFXVVLRQDVNLQJ IRUKHOS,I\RXDUHJRLQJDQGKDYHDQH[WUDVHDWRUVHDWVVWDUWDWKUHDGWRRIIHUDULGH´
 &DQWZHOODVNHGOLVWHQHUVRIKLV5DGLFDO$JHQGDSRGFDVWDQGUHDGHUVRIKLVZHEVLWH WRVHQGPRQH\WRKLPLIWKH\³ZDQW>HG@WRKHOS´EXWFRXOGQRWDWWHQGWKH³UDOO\´
 5RRW%RFNVDQG:H6HDUFKU²VLWHVWKDWZHUHVHWXSWRUDLVHPRQH\IRUKDWHEDVHG FDXVHV²IDFLOLWDWHGWKHDWWHQGDQFHRIFRFRQVSLUDWRUV2Q-XO\IRUH[DPSOH5RRW%RFNV WZHHWHG³#%DNHG$ODVNDZDVEDQQHGIURP#*R)XQG0HVRJRKHOSKLPRXWKHUH´%DNHG $ODVNDDND7LP*LRQHWKDVDGYRFDWHGUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVEDVHGYLROHQFHLQFOXGLQJE\ FLUFXODWLQJDQLPDJHRID-HZLVKZRPDQLQDJDVFKDPEHU'DYLG'XNHDOVRWZHHWHG³+HOSP\ IULHQG%DNHG$ODVNDJHWWRWKH8QLWH7KH5LJKWUDOO\3OHDVHGRQDWHWRPDNHWKLVKDSSHQ URRWERFNVFRPSURMHFWVJHWE´

 7KH³+DWH9DQ´DQG³KDWHFRQYR\´VXJJHVWHGE\FRQVSLUDWRUVLQWKLVFDVHKDVKLVWRULFDOSUHFHGHQW'XULQJWKH&LYLO 5LJKWV(UD*HRUJH/LQFROQ5RFNZHOOWKHIRXQGHURIWKH$PHULFDQ1D]L3DUW\DQGKLVVXSSRUWHUVGURYHDWZR YHKLFOHFDUDYDQWKDWLQFOXGHGDEOXHDQGZKLWHYDQGXEEHGWKH³+DWH%XV´WKURXJKWKH6RXWK7KHH[WHULRURIWKH YDQZDVSODVWHUHGZLWKWKHZRUGV³/,1&2/152&.:(//¶6+$7(%86´DQGWKHSKUDVHV³:('2+$7( 5$&(0,;,1*´DQG³:(+$7(-(:&20081,60´5RFNZHOOSOHGJHGVROLGDULW\ZLWKWKH.ODQVPHQZKR DWWDFNHGWKH)UHHGRP5LGHUVEODFNDQGZKLWHFLYLOULJKWVDFWLYLVWVZKRURGHLQWHUVWDWHEXVVHVLQDFDPSDLJQRI GHVHJUHJDWLRQDQGKRSHGWRFRQIURQWWKH³&RPPXQLVWQLJJHUORYLQJ´5LGHUVZKHQWKH\DUULYHGLQ1HZ2UOHDQV,Q 1HZ2UOHDQVWKH\GHPRQVWUDWHGZLWKVLJQVWKDWUHDG³$PHULFDIRU:KLWHV$IULFDIRU%ODFNV´DQG³*DV&KDPEHU IRU7UDLWRUV´$IWHU5RFNZHOO¶VDVVDVVLQDWLRQLQWKH$PHULFDQ1D]L3DUW\EURNHLQWRWZRIDFWLRQVRQHRI ZKLFKEHFDPHWKH'HIHQGDQW160UXQE\'HIHQGDQW6FKRHS6HH5$<021'$56(1$8/7)5(('205,'(56 $1'7+(6758**/()255$&,$/-867,&(





Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6516

Page 45 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 2QWKH$XJXVW³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH8QLWHWKH5LJKW$QQRXQFHPHQW6SHFLDO´SRGFDVW

ZLWK3HLQRYLFK'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WROGOLVWHQHUVWKDWWKH\¶GEHVHWWLQJXSDJHQHUDOOHJDOIXQG

XVLQJ5RRWERFNV2QWKDWVDPHSURJUDP0RVOH\WROGOLVWHQHUVKRZWRJHWKHOSZLWK

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDOVRFRRUGLQDWHGWUDYHOIRUWKHGD\RIWKH³UDOO\´

RQ6DWXUGD\$IWHUFRQVXOWLQJZLWK'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU7\URQHWRRNUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUKHOSLQJ

RUJDQL]HVKXWWOHV2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRULQVWUXFWHG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWV³1RERG\LVJRLQJWRWKH

SDUNRQWKHLURZQ:HZLOOEHDUULYLQJDVDJURXS´

( :KHQ3ODLQWLIIVDQG2WKHUV6RXJKWWR3UHSDUHIRUWKH(YHQWVRI$XJXVW7KH\ :HUH7DUJHWHGIRU$GGLWLRQDO7KUHDWVDQG+DUDVVPHQW
 3ODLQWLIIVDQGFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVXQGHUVWRRGWKDW$XJXVWFRXOGEHDQG

XOWLPDWHO\ZDVWKHODUJHVWSXEOLFJDWKHULQJRIKDWHJURXSVLQGHFDGHV

 $QWLFLSDWLQJDQHHGIRUDGHVLJQDWHGVHSDUDWHVSDFHIRUSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVD

89$SURIHVVRUUHFHLYHGSHUPLWVIRU0F*XIIH\3DUNDQG-XVWLFH3DUNIRUWKHSHULRGVGXULQJ

ZKLFKWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´ZDVWRWDNHSODFH

 $EURDGJURXSRIFRQFHUQHGFLWL]HQVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\UHFRJQL]HG

WKHQHHGWRRUJDQL]HFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVLQDGYDQFHRIWKHUDOO\ZHHNHQGLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHD

VHQVHRIVROLGDULW\IRU&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGJLYHJXLGDQFHRQQRQYLROHQWSURWHVW

 :LVSHOZH\DQRUGDLQHGPLQLVWHUFRFUHDWHGDPHPEHUVKLSRUJDQL]DWLRQ

³&RQJUHJDWH´WRMRLQLQWHUIDLWKFOHUJ\IURPDURXQGWKHFRXQWU\WR³VWDQGDJDLQVWZKLWH

VXSUHPDF\DQGEHDUZLWQHVVWRORYHDQGMXVWLFH´&RQJUHJDWH¶VJRDOZDVWREULQJFOHUJ\

PHPEHUVWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRVWDQGXSIRUHTXDOLW\DQGDJDLQVWKDWH:RUNLQJZLWKRWKHU

UHOLJLRXVOHDGHUVDQGFRPPXQLW\RUJDQL]HUVDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQV&RQJUHJDWHSODQQHGDQLQWHUIDLWK

VHUYLFHIRU$XJXVWDW6W3DXO¶V0HPRULDO&KXUFKRQ8QLYHUVLW\$YHQXH³6W3DXO¶V´WKH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6517

Page 46 of 111

Pageid#:


 





QLJKWEHIRUH'HIHQGDQWV¶SHUPLWWRJDWKHULQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN&RQJUHJDWHDOVRKHOSHGSODQDQ LQWHUIDLWK³VXQULVHVHUYLFH´IRU$XJXVWDWWKH$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ)LUVW%DSWLVW&KXUFKRQ:HVW 0DLQ6WUHHWVRWKDWFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVFRXOGJDWKHUIHHOVXSSRUWHGDQGSUD\
 $VDUHVXOWRILWVZRUNLQVXSSRUWRIWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHFRPPXQLW\&RQJUHJDWH ZDVWDUJHWHG'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDGYLVHGKLVIROORZHUVRI&RQJUHJDWH¶VZRUNLQDYLGHRUHOHDVHG SULRUWRWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWZHHNHQG,QGRLQJVR.HVVOHULQWHQGHGWRKDYHRWKHUVWKUHDWHQDQG SRWHQWLDOO\FDXVHYLROHQFHWRWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ²DSUDFWLFHWKDWLVQRWXQFRPPRQDPRQJ 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV)RUH[DPSOHDIWHUDSKRWRJUDSKZDVSXEOLVKHGRID\RXQJ ZRPDQJLYLQJWKHPLGGOHILQJHUWRDPDQLQDFRQIHGHUDWHDUP\XQLIRUPDSURPLQHQWPHPEHURI WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVWZHHWHGRXWWKH\RXQJZRPDQ¶VKRPHDGGUHVVDQGZURWH³:HZLOOEH KDYLQJDUDOO\DWWKLVDGGUHVVQH[WZHHN%ULQJ\RXURZQWRUFK´
 2Q$XJXVWRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGRQ'LVFRUGVFUHHQVKRWVIURPD)DFHERRN HYHQWIRUDQXSFRPLQJFRPPXQLW\³%DFNWR6FKRRO%ORFN3DUW\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH+H FRPPHQWHG³1HJUREORFNSDUW\DERXWPLOH6:RI/HHSDUN´)ROORZLQJWKDWSRVWRQH 'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVXJJHVWHGWKDWDZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWJURXS³JRWRWKHEORFSDUW\DIWHUDQGEHDW WKHPDWNLFNEDOO´$QRWKHUUHSOLHGDVNLQJ³:KDWKDSSHQVLIZHORVH",KHDUQLJJHUVDUHSUHWW\ JRRGDWVSRUWVEDOO´$WKLUGUHSOLHG³:HVKDQNWKHP´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDORQJZLWKRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSRVWHGYDULRXVSKRWRJUDSKV RQ'LVFRUGDQGSURYLGHGQDPHVDQGLGHQWLI\LQJLQIRUPDWLRQRILQGLYLGXDOVSODQQLQJWRSURWHVWLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDVZHOODVWKHFRPPXQLW\JURXSVRUJDQL]LQJWKHSURWHVW2Q$XJXVW.HVVOHU 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DQGRWKHUVKRVWHGDYRLFHFKDWRQ'LVFRUGGXULQJZKLFKDQXQLGHQWLILHG YRLFHRIIHUHGD³VROLGJROGPHGDO´WRDQ\SHUVRQZKRZRXOGVKDYHWKH³%HDUGHG/DG\´UHIHUULQJ WRDSKRWRJUDSKRIDQH[SHFWHGSURWHVWRU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6518

Page 47 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 &RQJUHJDWLRQ%HWK,VUDHOWKHV\QDJRJXHWRZKLFK3ODLQWLII3HDUFHEHORQJVDOVR OHDUQHGRI'HIHQGDQWV¶RQOLQHSXEOLFWKUHDWVWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶V-HZLVKSRSXODWLRQ,Q UHDVRQDEOHIHDUDQGDSSUHKHQVLRQRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKH7HPSOHPDGHWKH SDLQIXOGHFLVLRQWRPRYHDQGKLGHLWVVDFUHG7RUDKVFUROOVRIIVLWHLQDGYDQFHRIWKHZHHNHQG $PRQJWKH7RUDKVDWWKH6\QDJRJXHZDVRQHVDOYDJHGIURPDQHLJKERUKRRGRI(DVWHUQ(XURSHDQ -HZVZKRZHUHPDVVDFUHGGXULQJWKH+RORFDXVWWKDWLVGLVSOD\HGLQDJODVVFDELQHW 8QIRUWXQDWHO\WKDW+RORFDXVW7RUDKFRXOGQRWEHPRYHGEHFDXVHRILWVIUDJLOHFRQGLWLRQ 3ODLQWLII3HDUFHWKRXJKWDWWKHWLPHRIKRZLURQLFLWZDVWKDWD7RUDKWKDWPDQDJHGWRVXUYLYHWKH +RORFDXVWZDVDJDLQEHLQJWKUHDWHQHGE\1D]LV
 7KH7HPSOHDOVRGHFLGHGLWQHHGHGWRPRYHLWV6DWXUGD\6KDEEDWVHUYLFHVXSDQ KRXUVRWKDWLWFRXOGFORVHLQWKHDIWHUQRRQZKHQ'HIHQGDQWVDQGRWKHUQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWVZHUHH[SHFWHGWREHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KH7HPSOHWRRNIXUWKHUVDIHW\SUHFDXWLRQV LQFOXGLQJKLULQJDVHFXULW\JXDUGWRNHHSWKHFRQJUHJDWLRQVDIHZKLOHWKH\ZHUHWKHUHIRU VHUYLFHVUHGLUHFWLQJVXEVWDQWLDOUHVRXUFHV
 6WRUHVUHVWDXUDQWVDQGEDUVDURXQGWRZQFUHDWHGVLJQVWKDWWKH\SRVWHGLQWKHLU ZLQGRZVVKRZLQJWKHEXVLQHVVHV¶VXSSRUWIRUHTXDOLW\DQGGLYHUVLW\7KRVHVWRUHVDQG UHVWDXUDQWVZHUHDOVRWDUJHWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV
 ,Q-XQHIRUH[DPSOH'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUHQFRXUDJHG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVWR REWDLQWKHQDPHVRIORFDOEXVLQHVVHVZKRVHRZQHUVVLJQHGDSHWLWLRQWRDVNWKHJRYHUQPHQWWR FDQFHO.HVVOHU¶VSHUPLW,Q$XJXVWFRFRQVSLUDWRU*ULIILQWZHHWHGDERXWWDUJHWLQJDORFDO UHVWDXUDQW%UD]RV7DFRV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DOVRWZHHWHGDERXWWDUJHWLQJVHYHUDOUHVWDXUDQWV QDPHO\%UD]RV7DFRV&LQHPD7DFR&RPPRQZHDOWK5HVWDXUDQWDQG6N\EDU0XGKRXVHDQGWKH :KLVNH\-DU'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWZHHWHGDSLFWXUHRI&RPPRQZHDOWK5HVWDXUDQWZKLFKKDGD



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6519

Page 48 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VLJQLQWKHZLQGRZUHDGLQJ³,IHTXDOLW\ GLYHUVLW\DUHQ¶WIRU\RXWKHQQHLWKHUDUHZH´2Q $XJXVW3HLQRYLFKWZHHWHG³'RWKHVHZKLWHEXVLQHVVRZQHUVDQGVKLWOLEVLQ&9LOOHWKLQNWKDW WKHLUYLUWXHVLJQDOLQJPHDQWKH\ZLOOEHVSDUHGVRPHKRZ"/RO´
 %\LGHQWLI\LQJWKHVHEXVLQHVVHV'HIHQGDQWVLQWHQGHGWKDWWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV DQGIROORZHUVZRXOGWKUHDWHQWKHVHEXVLQHVVHV$QXPEHURIWKHVHEXVLQHVVHVWKHUHDIWHUUHFHLYHG LQSHUVRQDQGPDLOHGWKUHDWV





Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6520

Page 49 of 111

Pageid#:


 





,, 2Q$XJXVWDQG'HIHQGDQWV6XFFHVVIXOO\,PSOHPHQWHGWKH9LROHQFHDQG ,QWLPLGDWLRQ7KH\+DG3ODQQHG
$ )ULGD\$XJXVW
 7KH³6HFUHW´7RUFK3DUDGH
 'HIHQGDQWVLQFOXGLQJ0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\$QJOLQ&DQWZHOODQG

,QYLFWXVDORQJZLWKWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRUJDQL]HGDWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKWKURXJKFDPSXV

FXOPLQDWLQJDWWKHVWDWXHRI7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQQHDUWKH5RWXQGDRQ$XJXVWDWWKH*URXQGVDW

89$

 7KHSHUPLW'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDSSOLHGIRUDQGUHFHLYHGZDVIRUWKHIROORZLQJGD\

$XJXVWLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN'HIHQGDQWVGLGQRWSXEOLFO\GLVFORVHWKHWLPHRUORFDWLRQIRU

WKH$XJXVWWRUFKSDUDGH³EHFDXVHLWZDVDVHFUHWDUUDQJHPHQW´

 7KHWRUFKSDUDGHZDVWKHUHVXOWRIZHHNVRISODQQLQJE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR

FRQVSLUDWRUV7KH\KDGHVWDEOLVKHGDIULGD\BQLJKWFKDQQHORQ'LVFRUGWRFRRUGLQDWHDWWHQGDQFH

GUHVVFRGHDQGSODQV7KH\DGYLVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKDWWKHHYHQWZDVLQWHQGHGWREHDVHFUHW

DQGWKDWWKH\VKRXOGEULQJWRUFKHV

 )RUH[DPSOHWKH'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHVWDWHG



7LNL7RUFKHV<HV±UHTXLUHG3LFNXSWLNLWRUFKHVEHIRUH\RXOHDYH \RXUKRPHWRZQ7KHUHZLOOEHDWRUFKOLJKWFHUHPRQ\DQGWKHWLNL WRUFKHVZLOODOOEHJRQHIURPWKHVKHOYHVRIWKHORFDOVWRUHV'ROODU VWRUHVDUH\RXUEHVWEHW:DO0DUWKDVWKHPFKHDSDVZHOO0DNH VXUH DQG JHW VRPH WLNL WRUFK IXHORLO WRR  2WKHUZLVH WKH\ ZRQ¶W EXUQ
 2QDSODQQLQJFDOOFRQGXFWHGWKURXJK'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\LQVWUXFWHG

'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV³:HDUHGRLQJDWRUFKOLJKWHYHQWRQ)ULGD\$Q\RQHZKR

GRHVQ¶WKDYHWLNLVWXIIQRZVKRXOGJRRXWDQGJHWLWWRQLJKWRUWRPRUURZPRUQLQJDQGLI\RX

FRXOGJHWH[WUDVWKDWZRXOGEHJUHDW´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHURUGHUHGDWWHQGHHVWREX\WRUFKHVIRU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6521

Page 50 of 111

Pageid#:


 





)ULGD\EXWWRGRVRRXWVLGHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVRWKDWWKH\ZRXOGQRW³WLSRXUHQHP\RII´+H LQVWUXFWHGWKDWSHRSOH³EX\H[WUDVIRUWKRVHZKRDUHIO\LQJLQRUXQSUHSDUHG´
 'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\RUGHUHGLQGLYLGXDOVWRDUULYHDW1DPHOHVV)LHOGDODUJHDUHD EHKLQG89$¶V0HPRULDO*\PQDVLXPDWSPVRWKDWWKH\FRXOGPDUFKRQFHGDUNQHVVIHOO DWSP+HWROGWKHPQRWWRDUULYHHDUOLHUWRDYRLGWLSSLQJRIIFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVDQG VWUHVVHGWKDW³LW¶VH[WUHPHO\LPSRUWDQWWKDWQRERG\PHQWLRQWKLVRXWVLGHRXUFLUFOH´
 :KLOHSODQQLQJWKHLUWRUFKOLJKWPDUFK'HIHQGDQWVZHUHDZDUHRIWKHIDFWWKDW RSHQILUHVDUHLOOHJDORQ89$¶VFDPSXVZLWKRXWDXWKRUL]DWLRQ1HDUO\RQHPRQWKEHIRUHWKH SODQQHGWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKD'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWSRVWHGDOLQNWR89$¶VJXLGHOLQHVDJDLQVWRSHQ ILUHV$FRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGPRGHUDWRURQ'LVFRUG³SLQQHG´WKHUHJXODWLRQWRWKHFKDWPHDQLQJ WKDWLWZDVKLJKOLJKWHGIRUSDUWLFLSDQWV
 7KHFKRLFHWRXVHOLWWRUFKHVZDVDGHOLEHUDWHGHFLVLRQWRKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKH SHRSOHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGFRXQWHUSURWHVWHUVHVSHFLDOO\SHRSOHRIFRORUDQG-HZLVKSHRSOH 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GUHZRQWKHKLVWRU\RIWRUFKEHDULQJPREVDQGLQ SDUWLFXODUWKH.X.OX[.ODQ¶VXVHRIWRUFKHVLQWKHODWHVDQGLQWKHWZHQWLHWKFHQWXU\DQG WKH1D]L¶VXVHRIWRUFKHVLQWKHLUUDOOLHVLQWKHV,QERWKKLVWRULFDOFDVHVMXVWDVZLWKFURVV EXUQLQJWKHXVHRIWRUFKHVZDVFRQQHFWHGZLWKUDFLDOYLROHQFHWRUFKHVZHUHFKRVHQE\ 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDVSDUWRIDGHOLEHUDWHSODQWRHYRNHIHDURIWKHVDPHNLQGRI YLROHQFH$VRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGH[SODLQHG³7LNLWRUFKHVDUHWKHODVWVWDQGRI LPSOLFLWZKLWHQHVV´'HIHQGDQW5D\H[SODLQHGWKHSXUSRVHRIWKHWRUFKSDUDGHDVIROORZV³2XU FRXQWU\LVEHLQJXVXUSHGE\DIRUHLJQWULEHFDOOHGWKH-HZV:HDUHJRLQJWRVWRSLW´'HIHQGDQW ,QYLFWXVH[SODLQHGWRDUHSRUWHU³6RPHERG\IRUJRWWKHSLWFKIRUNVDWKRPHVRDOOZHJRWLV WRUFKHV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6522

Page 51 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 2QWKHPRUQLQJRI$XJXVW'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV JDWKHUHGDWD:DOPDUWRXWVLGHRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH&DQWZHOOWKHQWUDYHOOHGWR0F,QWLUH3DUNWR SUHSDUHIRUWKHHYHQLQJ,QDQLQWHUYLHZZLWKDUHSRUWHUIURPVice&DQWZHOOVDLG³,¶PWU\LQJWR PDNHP\VHOIPRUHFDSDEOHRIYLROHQFH,¶PKHUHWRVSUHDGLGHDVWDONLQWKHKRSHVWKDW VRPHERG\PRUHFDSDEOHZLOOFRPHDORQJDQGGRWKDW´
 2Q)ULGD\HYHQLQJXVLQJ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DOHUWHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKDW WKH\VKRXOGJRWR89$³(YHU\RQHFDQVWDUWDVVHPEOLQJDWQDPHOHVVILHOGULJKWQRZZLWK\RXU WRUFKHVWRVWDUWVWDJLQJ:HZLOOVWHSRIIIURPWKHILHOGDWSP´
 6WDUWLQJDURXQGSPDSSUR[LPDWHO\QHR1D]LVDQGZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWV²'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV²EHJDQDUULYLQJDW1DPHOHVV)LHOG7KH\ FDUULHGXQOLWWLNLWRUFKHVDQGPDQ\ZRUHNKDNLSDQWVDQGZKLWHSRORVKLUWVWKHXQLIRUPRI 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDQGSLQVPDUNLQJWKHLUDIILOLDWLRQVZLWKGLIIHUHQWKDWHJURXSV$ OLWWOHDIWHUSP'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWH[WHGDUHSRUWHU³,¶GEHQHDUFDPSXVWRQLJKWLI,ZHUH \RX$IWHUSP1DPHOHVVILHOG´
 %\HDUO\HYHQLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVLQVLGH6W3DXO¶V&KXUFKDORQJZLWK DQRYHUIORZFURZGRIDQHVWLPDWHGSHRSOH'R]HQVRIORFDODQGQDWLRQDOFOHUJ\PHPEHUV YLVLWLQJ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHIRUWKHZHHNHQGSDUWLFLSDWHGDQGVSRNHDWWKHVHUYLFH
 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHDORQJZLWKRWKHU89$VWXGHQWVSHDFHIXOO\ZDONHGWRWKH 5RWXQGDZKHUH'HIHQGDQWVZHUHEHOLHYHGWREHKROGLQJWKHLUHYHQW
 3ODLQWLII1DWDOLH5RPHURKDGVSHQWWKHDIWHUQRRQRI$XJXVWSDLQWLQJEDQQHUV DQGSRVWHUVIRUXVHGXULQJWKHSODQQHGSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRIWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´5RPHURWKHQ OHDUQHGWKDW'HIHQGDQWVZRXOGEHKROGLQJDUDOO\RQWKH89$FDPSXVDWWKH5RWXQGD:LWKD JURXSRIRWKHU89$VWXGHQWV5RPHURSHDFHIXOO\PDGHKHUZD\WRWKH5RWXQGD



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6523

Page 52 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 $WWKHVDPHWLPHDW1DPHOHVV)LHOG7\OHU0DJLOOREVHUYHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLU FRFRQVSLUDWRUVEDUNLQJDQGJUXQWLQJORXGO\PDNLQJVRXQGVWKDWUHVRQDWHGIRUEORFNV 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO.HVVOHU5D\DQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZHUHLVVXLQJRUGHUVWRWKHRWKHU ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDQGQHR1D]LVWHOOLQJWKHPWRJHWLQVSHFLILFIRUPDWLRQVDQGDVVLJQLQJ SHRSOHHLWKHUWRPDUFKZLWKDWRUFKRURQWKHVLGHDV³VHFXULW\´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVILOOHGWKHLUWLNLWRUFKHVZLWKIXHOIRUPHGD ORQJFROXPQDQGOLWWKHIODPHV7KH\WKHQVWDUWHGPDUFKLQJWZRE\WZRIURP1DPHOHVV)LHOGWR WKH5RWXQGDDQGGRZQWRWKH-HIIHUVRQ6WDWXH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVGHOLEHUDWHO\WRRN DFLUFXLWRXVURXWHWKDWLQFOXGHGPDUFKLQJWKURXJKVWXGHQWKRXVLQJRQWKH/DZQZKLFK3ODLQWLII 6LQHVREVHUYHGDQGZKLFKZDVLQWHQGHGWRWKUHDWHQLQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVVDVPDQ\E\VWDQGHUV DVSRVVLEOH
 'HIHQGDQWVPDUFKHGLQDQRUJDQL]HGFRRUGLQDWHGIDVKLRQ2UJDQL]HUVLQFOXGLQJ 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOZRUHHDUSLHFHVFDUULHGUDGLRVDQGVKRXWHGVSHFLILFRUGHUVDWWKHPDUFKHUV 7KH\VKRXWHGWRNHHSSDFHDYRLGJDSVVWD\LQOLQH³WZRE\WZR´DQGPDUFKDORQJVLGHD ³VHFXULW\JXDUG´'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVVDLGLWZDVD³WLJKWRSHUDWLRQ´DQGLQKLVOLYHYLGHRIHHG IUHTXHQWO\HQWKXVHG³KLJK7´PHDQLQJKLJKWHVWRVWHURQH
 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOPDUFKHGRQWKHRXWVLGHRIWKHFROXPQDORQJZLWKRWKHU ³JXDUGV´ZKRZHUHVHOHFWHGIRUWKHLUZLOOLQJQHVVWR³JHWSK\VLFDO´ZLWKFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV
 3ODLQWLIIV6LQHVDQG5RPHURKHDUGWKHPDUFKHUVFKDQWLQJVORJDQVFKRVHQIRUWKHLU LQWLPLGDWLQJDQGUDFLDOO\KDUDVVLQJHIIHFW7KHVHVORJDQVLQFOXGHG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´ ³-HZVZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´³%ORRGDQGVRLO´³:KLWHOLYHVPDWWHU´DQG³7KLVLVRXUWRZQQRZ´ 5RPHURDOVRKHDUGWKHPDUFKHUVFKDQW³JREDFNWRZKHUH\RXFDPHIURP´DQDSSDUHQWUHIHUHQFH WR5RPHUR¶V+LVSDQLFKHULWDJH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6524

Page 53 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 7KHPDUFKHUVDOVREDUNHGOLNHGRJVDQGSHUIRUPHG1D]LVDOXWHV$JDLQWKHVH DFWLRQVZHUHLQWHQWLRQDOO\FKRVHQIRUWKHLUUDFLDOO\WKUHDWHQLQJLQWLPLGDWLQJDQGKDUDVVLQJHIIHFW
 'HIHQGDQWVLQWHQGHGWRVHQGDFOHDUPHVVDJHWKURXJKWKHWRUFKSDUDGH-HZLVK SHRSOHEODFNSHRSOHDQGWKHLUDOOLHVVKRXOGEHDIUDLGIRUWKHLUVDIHW\OLYHOLKRRGVDQGOLYHV
 7KH$WWDFNDWWKH5RWXQGD  7KHWRUFKPDUFKHYHQWXDOO\UHDFKHGWKHVWHSVRQWKHIDUVLGHRIWKH5RWXQGD +XQGUHGVRIQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVLQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG6SHQFHU FKDUJHGWRZDUGDVPDOOJURXSRIIHZHUWKDQSHRSOHPRVWO\VWXGHQWVDQGFRPPXQLW\ PHPEHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RHDQG5RPHURZKRKDGORFNHGDUPVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHRI 7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQ  $V'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUXVKHGGRZQWKHVWHSVWKDWVXUURXQGWKH 5RWXQGDDQGVWUHDPHGWRZDUGWKH-HIIHUVRQVWDWXHWKH\FRQWLQXHGWRVKRXW³%ORRGDQGVRLO´ ³-HZVZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´DQGWREDUNOLNHGRJV7KH\DOVRPDGH PRQNH\QRLVHVDWWKHEODFNSURWHVWHUV3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHRQHRIWKHIHZ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQPHQ SUHVHQWZDVWHUULILHGDQGIHDUHGIRUKLVOLIH3ODLQWLII5RPHURRQHRIWKHIHZ+LVSDQLF $PHULFDQVSUHVHQWKDGQHYHUEHHQPRUHDIUDLGLQKHUHQWLUHOLIH  $VWKH\UHDFKHGWKHVWDWXH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVWRRGVKRXOGHUWR VKRXOGHUDQGHQFLUFOHGWKHVWXGHQWVWRWUDSWKHP6HHLQJWKHPREVXUURXQGWKHVWXGHQWV0DJLOO ZKRKDGIROORZHGWKHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVDQGZDVZDUQLQJRWKHUVWRVWHHUFOHDUUDQWKURXJKWKH FURZGDQGORFNHGDUPVZLWKWKHVPDOOJURXSZKLFKLQFOXGHG3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RHDQG5RPHUR 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRU\HOOHG³ZHQHHGVRPHPRUHSHRSOHWRILOOLQWKLVZD\WREORFNWKHVHSHRSOH RII´$IWHUWKHIDFWRQHSURWHVWRUWZHHWHG³7KH\VXUURXQGHGXVDWWKHVWDWXH7KH\ZRXOGQ¶WOHW XVRXW´'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUUHWZHHWHGWKLVDGGLQJ³)DFWFKHFNWUXH´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6525

Page 54 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFD¶V6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUG VHUYHUSRVWHGDWZHHWIURP+DWHZDWFKVD\LQJ³$QWLIDVFLVWVDUHVXUURXQGHGE\KXQGUHGVRI IDVFLVWVDW-HIIHUVRQVWDWXH1RSROLFH´$QRWKHUUHSOLHG³'2,77,0(723+<6,&$//< 5(029(7+(0´
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVEHJDQWRNLFNDQGSXQFKWKHSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKH VWDWXHXVLQJWKHLUWRUFKHVDVZHDSRQVDQGWREHDWLQGLYLGXDOVRQWRWKHJURXQG'HIHQGDQW5D\ FODLPHGWKDWWKHJURXSRIZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWV³ZHQWWKURXJK>WKHSURWHVWRUV@OLNHVKLWWKURXJKD JRRVH´
 )URPWKHFURZG'HIHQGDQWVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVWKUHZDQXQLGHQWLILHG IOXLGDWWKHSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXHLQFOXGLQJRQ3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RHDQG5RPHUR /RRNLQJGRZQDWWKHIOXLGRQWKHLUFORWKLQJZKLFKWKH\IHDUHGZDVIXHORURWKHUIODPPDEOH OLTXLGDQGWKHKXQGUHGVRIOLWWRUFKHVDURXQGWKHP-RKQ'RHEHOLHYHGWKDWKHPLJKWEHNLOOHG &R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVWKHQWKUHZWKHLUOLWWRUFKHVWKURXJKWKHDLUDLPHGDQGGLUHFWHGDW PDQ\RIWKHSURWHVWHUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXH$WRQHSRLQW'HIHQGDQW5D\VKRXWHG³7KHKHDWKHUHLV QRWKLQJFRPSDUHGWRZKDW\RX¶UHJRLQJWRJHWLQWKHRYHQV´
 3ODLQWLII6LQHVZLWQHVVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWKURZLQJIXHODQGWLNLWRUFKHVDWWKH SHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVDURXQGWKHVWDWXWH
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURZLWQHVVHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHPRYLQJWKHLUKHOPHWVDQGVZLQJLQJ WKHPDWSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUV5RPHURZDVDOVRVSLWRQE\FRFRQVSLUDWRUV
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQFOXGLQJ'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODWWDFNHGWKH SURWHVWRUVZLWKPDFH7KH'DLO\6WRUPHULQFOXGHGWKHEHORZSKRWRRI&DQWZHOOVSUD\LQJD SURWHVWRULQWKHH\HVLQLWVOLYHIHHGZLWKWKHFDSWLRQ³PLJKWEHWKHJUHDWHVWSKRWR,¶YHHYHU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6526

Page 55 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VHHQ´7KHVDPHSKRWRZDVUHWZHHWHGE\'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\XQGHUDFDSWLRQ³+HSURWHFW+H DWDFN%XWPRVWLPSRUWDQWO\KHJRW\RXUEDFN´

  'XHWR'HIHQGDQWV¶FRQGXFWDQGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLULQWHQWLRQWRWHUURUL]H 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RHIHDUHGWKDWKHZDVLQLPPLQHQWGDQJHU(QFLUFOHGE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUV-RKQ'RHIHOWWUDSSHGDQGGLGQRWEHOLHYHWKDWKHFRXOGHVFDSHVDIHO\+HNQHZWKDW DVDQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQPDQLIKHKDGWULHGWRHVFDSHEHIRUHWKHJURXSGLVSHUVHGKHZRXOGKDYH EHHQDWWDFNHG)RUDSSUR[LPDWHO\WHQPLQXWHVKHUHPDLQHGLQSODFHDQGZKLOHFRQILQHGZLWKLQ WKHFLUFOHRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVZDVVSUD\HGZLWKPDFH  )HDULQJIRUWKHLUOLYHV3ODLQWLIIV-RKQ'RH5RPHURDQGWKHRWKHUSURWHVWHUV VWUXJJOHGWRHVFDSHWKHPRE2QFHDZD\IURPWKHPRE5RPHURDWWHPSWHGWRZDVKRIIWKHPDFH WKDWKDGEHHQVSUD\HGLQKHUH\HVDQGDOORYHUKHUVKRXOGHUVE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV $IWHUWKHWUDXPDRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\5RPHURKDGWURXEOHVOHHSLQJWKDWQLJKW



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6527

Page 56 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFOLPEHGWRWKHWRSRIWKH7KRPDV-HIIHUVRQ VWDWXHDQGZDYHGWKHLUWRUFKHVKLJKLQWKHDLU\HOOLQJ³+DLO6SHQFHU+DLOYLFWRU\´'HIHQGDQW 6SHQFHUVSRNHEULHIO\WRWKHFURZGVD\LQJ³:HRZQWKHVHVWUHHWV:HRFFXS\WKLVJURXQG´ +HWROGWKHFURZGWKDWWKH\ZHUH³ULVNLQJWKHLUOLYHV´IRUWKHLUIXWXUH7KLVZDVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKHXQODZIXOSODQGHYHORSHGE\'HIHQGDQWVWKURXJKWKHLUFRQVSLUDWRULDODFWVLQWKHZHHNVDQG PRQWKVSUHFHGLQJWKHVHHYHQWVDQGDVRSHUDWLRQDOL]HGDQGPRGLILHGE\'HIHQGDQWVLQUHVSRQVH WRGHYHORSPHQWVRQWKHJURXQG
 7KHVHDFWVRIYLROHQFHZHUHQRWLVRODWHGRUXQSODQQHGLQFLGHQWV7KHWRUFKUDOO\ ZDVSODQQHGZLWKWKHVSHFLILFLQWHQWRIHQJDJLQJLQUDFLDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHWKUHDWV LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGKDUDVVPHQW7KHDWWDFNVXSRQWKHVWXGHQWVZHUHFRRUGLQDWHGERWKLQDGYDQFH DQGRQWKHGD\WKDWWKH\RFFXUUHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQWHQWLRQDOO\IRUPHGDFLUFOH WUDSSLQJWKHVWXGHQWVDQGHLWKHUGLUHFWO\SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHHQVXLQJYLROHQFHRUFRQWLQXHGWR LQFLWHLW²LQFOXGLQJWKURXJKWKHFKDQWVGHVFULEHGDERYH²DVWKHYLROHQFHZDVRFFXUULQJ
 6W3DXO¶V0HPRULDO&KXUFK  'XULQJWKHDWWDFNDWWKH5RWXQGDKXQGUHGVRISHRSOHZHUHDFURVVWKHVWUHHWDW6W 3DXO¶V&KXUFKOLVWHQLQJWRFLYLOULJKWVDQGUHOLJLRXVOHDGHUVVSHDNRISHDFHDQGHTXDOLW\$WOHDVW RQHZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVW'HIHQGDQWV¶FRFRQVSLUDWRUZDVZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKOLYHVWUHDPLQJWKH LQWHUIDLWKVHUYLFHWRKLVIROORZHUV  6RPHRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOVZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DORQJ ZLWKSHRSOHZKRKDGYROXQWHHUHGWRVHUYHLQDVHFXULW\UROHRXWVLGHWKHFKXUFKFRXOGVHHDQG KHDUWKHPREFKDUJLQJWKURXJKWKH5RWXQGDFKDQWLQJDQGZLHOGLQJWRUFKHV  $IWHUVHHLQJWKHPREVXUURXQGDQGDWWDFNWKHSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVDWWKH 5RWXQGD3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUVZHUHUHDVRQDEO\DIUDLGWKDWWKHPREZRXOGFRPH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6528

Page 57 of 111

Pageid#:


 





WRZDUGVWKHFKXUFKWRFDXVHYLROHQFHWRWKHEXLOGLQJDQGWKHLQGLYLGXDOVLQVLGHSDUWLFXODUO\JLYHQ WKHUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVPDNHXSRIWKHDVVHPEOHGJURXSDQGWKHIDFWWKDW'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUKDG VSHFLILFDOO\WDUJHWHG&RQJUHJDWHLQDGYDQFHIRUKDUDVVPHQWDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQ
 $WDURXQGSPZKHQWKHVHUYLFHDW6W3DXO¶VHQGHGWKHRUJDQL]HUVDVNHG HYHU\RQHLQDWWHQGDQFHWROHDYHLQJURXSVWKURXJKWKHEDFNGRRUVWRDYRLGWKHQHR1D]LVDQG ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWV+RZHYHUDIWHUOHDUQLQJPRUHGHWDLOVRIWKHYLROHQFHRFFXUULQJDWWKH 5RWXQGD3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\UHDVRQDEO\DSSUHKHQGHGWKDWIRUFHZRXOGEHXVHGDJDLQVWWKRVH VWLOOZLWKLQWKHFKXUFKLIWKH\ZHQWRXWVLGH7KHFKXUFKZDVILOOHGZLWKFKLOGUHQDQGHOGHUO\ LQGLYLGXDOVZKRZHUHSDUWLFXODUO\YXOQHUDEOHWRDQ\YLROHQFHWKDWFRXOGRFFXU$FFRUGLQJO\D IHZPLQXWHVODWHUHYHU\RQHDW6W3DXO¶VZDVDVNHGWRUHWXUQWRWKHLUVHDWV7KH\UHPDLQHGLQWKH FKXUFKIRUQHDUO\DQKRXUDIWHUWKHVHUYLFHZDVVXSSRVHGWRHQG
 $IWHUWKHFKXUFKUHRSHQHGLWVGRRUV3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\GURYHVRPHRIKLV IHOORZFOHUJ\EDFNWRWKHLUKRWHOVWRPDNHVXUHWKH\ZHUHVDIH)URPKLVFDU:LVSHOZH\VDZFR FRQVSLUDWRUVFDUU\LQJEDVHEDOOEDWVDQGWRUFKHV²FDUULHGIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKUHDWHQLQJ LQWLPLGDWLQJDQGKDUDVVLQJUHVLGHQWV
 'LUHFWO\RXWVLGHRIWKH*UDGXDWH+RWHO3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\VDZ'HIHQGDQW $XJXVW,QYLFWXVKDUDVVDQGLQWLPLGDWHDIULHQG,QYLFWXVWKHQZDONHGWRZDUGV:LVSHOZH\ZKR ZDVZHDULQJDFROODUXQWLOWKH\ZHUHPHUHLQFKHVDSDUW,QYLFWXVNHSWPRYLQJIRUZDUGHYHQDV :LVSHOZH\SXOOHGEDFN2QFHKHZDVGLUHFWO\IDFHWRIDFHZLWK:LVSHOZH\,QYLFWXVEHJDQ GHPDQGLQJLQDFKDOOHQJLQJDQGKLJKO\DJJUHVVLYHWRQHWKDW:LVSHOZH\UHYHDOZKDWFKXUFKKH EHORQJVWR'HIHQGDQW$XJXVWXV,QYLFWXVWKHQDVNHG³:KDWWKHKHOODUH\RXGRLQJ´DQG FRQWLQXHGKRXQGLQJ:LVSHOZH\WRVWDWHKLVFKXUFKGHQRPLQDWLRQ



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6529

Page 58 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWV&HOHEUDWHGWKH7RUFK3DUDGHDVDQ$GYHUWLVHPHQWIRUWKH³8QLWHWKH 5LJKW´5DOO\WKH)ROORZLQJ'D\
 'DYLG'XNHWKHIRUPHU*UDQG:L]DUGRIWKH.X.OX[.ODQDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU
SRVWHGWKHIROORZLQJ

  &RFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQSRVWHGDSKRWRRIWKHPDUFKDQGWZHHWHG³:KLWH SHRSOHVQHYHUDJUHHGWREHFRPHPLQRULWLHVLQWKHLURZQODQGVLQQXPEHUVDQGVSLULW´'HIHQGDQW .HVVOHUWZHHWHGDSLFWXUHRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKHUVVXUURXQGLQJWKHSURWHVWRUVDWWKHVWDWXHDQG ZURWH³,QFUHGLEOHPRPHQWIRUZKLWHSHRSOHZKR¶YHKDGLWXSWRKHUH DUHQ¶WJRLQJWRWDNHLW DQ\PRUH7RPRUURZZH8QLWH7KH5LJKW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´6SHQFHUUHWZHHWHGWKDWWZHHW



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6530

Page 59 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  &RFRQVSLUDWRU7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG $PHULFDNHSWKLVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQIRUPHGRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHUSRVWLQJ³$OO 9$PHPEHUVVDIHDQGDFFRXQWHGIRU´ZKLOHDQRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUZURWH³,KDGDORWRIIXQ WRQLJKW&DQ¶WZDLWIRUWKHELJHYHQWWRPRUURZ´  'HIHQGDQW,QYLFWXVWROGZDWFKHUVRIKLVOLYHVWUHDPWRFRPHRQ6DWXUGD\WRWKH PRVWLPSRUWDQW³UDOO\´RIWKH\HDU$QWLFLSDWLQJDQGVWUDWHJL]LQJYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQ ZURWHRQKLV'DLO\6WRUPHUZHEVLWHWKDWSHRSOHVKRXOG³EHDW/HH3DUNE\QRRQSUHIHUDEO\E\ ´$OWKRXJKKHZRXOGQ¶WEHWKHUH$QJOLQVDLGWKDWKHKDGJLYHQ'HIHQGDQW5D\ZRUGVWR UHOD\WRWKHFURZG+HWROGUHDGHUV³0DNHVXUH\RX¶UHZLWKDFUHZ'RQ¶WSDUNDORQHGRQ¶W ZDONWR\RXUFDUDORQH,I\RXZDQQDVWD\XSDOOQLJKWZLWK6WRUPHUVRUDUUDQJHWRWUDYHOWR WKHSDUNWRJHWKHUWRPRUURZJHWLQWKLVWKUHDGDQGVWDUWVHQGLQJSHRSOH30V´+HVLJQHGRIIIRU WKHHYHQLQJVD\LQJ³>Z@HDUHRQWKHYHUJHRIEUHDNLQJWKURXJKLQWRDZKROHRWKHUUHDOP´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6531

Page 60 of 111

Pageid#:


 





% 6DWXUGD\$XJXVW  'HIHQGDQWV,QWHQWLRQDOO\3ODQQHG$9LROHQW&RQIURQWDWLRQ:LWK&RXQWHU 3URWHVWHUV  2Q$XJXVW'HIHQGDQWVWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGRWKHUVDFWLQJDWWKHLU
GLUHFWLRQH[HFXWHGWKHLUSODQWRFDUU\RXWUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG KDUDVVPHQW'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU&DQWZHOO0RVOH\+HLPEDFK+LOO,QYLFWXV5D\6SHQFHU 'DPLJR)LHOGV3DUURWW7XEEVWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK1607:3 9DQJXDUGWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVWKH/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV)2$.DQGKXQGUHGVRI6WRUPHUV PDQ\RIWKHPIURP6WRUPHU%RRN&OXEVDOOSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQWHYHQWVRIWKHGD\ WRJHWKHUZLWKFRFRQVSLUDWRUVLQFOXGLQJ'XNHDQGWKH3URXG%R\V
 'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSODQQHGWRDUULYHHDUO\DQGDQWLFLSDWHGDQG HQFRXUDJHGWKHXVHRIYLROHQFHWRDVVLVWWKHUDOO\$VRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRUH[SODLQHG³0HWKH UHVWRI7:3DQG/6>/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK@KDYHEHHQWRPRUHWKDQRQHURGHR$QGVKLW160 ZLOOEHWKHUHHDUO\WRR7KRVHJX\VDUHQXWV,QDJRRGZD\´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUSURPLVHGWKDW WKHUHZRXOGEHKXQGUHGVRIPHPEHUVRI7:3DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDWWKHSDUNDVHDUO\DV DP
 'HIHQGDQWV0RVOH\.HVVOHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVH[KRUWHGUDOO\JRHUVWRDUULYH EHIRUHWKHSDUNRSHQHGWRIRUP³DZKLWHEORFEDUULHURUVTXDUHDURXQGWKHHQWLUHVWDWXHSRGLXP JLYHQWKDWWKH\NQRZZH¶UHFRPLQJZH¶OODOOQHHGDVPDQ\SHRSOHDVSRVVLEOHWREHWKHUH ULJKWZKHQWKHSDUNRSHQV´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUWROG'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWV³(9(5<21(QHHGVWRJHWWRWKH SDUNDVHDUO\DVSRVVLEOHDQGGHIHQGRXUWHUULWRU\´+HVXJJHVWHGWKDWFDPSLQJRXWDWWKH PRQXPHQWWKHQLJKWEHIRUHZRXOGJLYHWKHP³>W@KHPRVWH[WUHPHO\SUHSDUHGSRVLWLRQ´,QWKHVH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6532

Page 61 of 111

Pageid#:


 





UHPDUNV.HVVOHUUHIHUUHGWRDQGDFWLYHO\HQFRXUDJHGSUHSDUDWLRQIRUYLROHQFHDJDLQVWUDFLDODQG

UHOLJLRXVPLQRULWLHVDQGDQ\RQHZKRVXSSRUWHGWKHLUFDXVH

 $FRFRQVSLUDWRUDVNHGWKH'LVFRUGJURXS³6RDUHZHJRLQJWRRFFXS\YHU\

HDUO\"2UWU\DQGIRUFHWKLVFRPPLHVFXPRXWDIWHUWKHIDFW",¶PJRRGZLWKHLWKHU´$QRWKHU

SDUWLFLSDQWUHVSRQGHG³:HZLOOEHILQHDVORQJDVZHKDYHERGLHVWKHUHDQGZLOOLQJWRUHPRYH

ZKRHYHULVLQRXUZD\9DQJXDUGLVIDEULFDWLQJDGGLWLRQDOVKLHOGV:HVKRXOGKDYHDJRRG

DPRXQWEHWZHHQRUJDQL]DWLRQV:HMXVWQHHGWRPDNHVXUHZHKDYHERGLHVWKHUHUHDG\WRURFN´

 &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFRQVSLUDF\¶VHIIRUWWRRUJDQL]HDQGPD[LPL]HYLROHQWDFWVD

FRFRQVSLUDWRUDQGPRGHUDWRURQ'LVFRUGWROGSDUWLFLSDQWV³ZH¶OOEHSXWWLQJRXWDYLGHRIRUEDVLF

IRUPDWLRQUROHVDQGFRPPDQGVWRDOORIWKHJURXSOHDGHUVVKRUWO\´DQGSRVWHGD³6KLHOGV 

6KLHOG7DFWLFV3ULPHU´PDGHE\WKH³'HWURLW5LJKW:LQJV´DVZHOODVDYLGHRLOOXVWUDWLQJVKLHOG

ILJKWLQJWHFKQLTXHVWREHVWXGLHGE\SDUWLFLSDQWV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VDLG³,UXQWKLV>WKH8QLWH

WKH5LJKW³UDOO\´@DVDPLOLWDU\RSHUDWLRQ,ZDVLQWKHDUP\´

 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWRUDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHLQWLPLGDWLQJ

WKUHDWHQLQJDQGRWKHUZLVHLOOHJDOFRQGXFWWKH\NQHZZDVEHLQJSODQQHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHG

 7KH(YHQWV2Q$XJXVW:HUH,QWHQWLRQDOO\9LROHQW,Q$FFRUGDQFHZLWK 'HIHQGDQWV¶3ODQQLQJ
 $FFRUGLQJWRIRUPHU&KDUORWWHVYLOOH3ROLFH&KLHI$O67KRPDV-U'HIHQGDQWV

UHIXVHGWRIROORZDSODQWKDWKDGEHHQZRUNHGRXWWRNHHSWKHPVHSDUDWHGIURPWKHFRXQWHU

SURWHVWHUV)RUH[DPSOHLQVWHDGRIHQWHULQJWKHSDUNIURPRQHHQWUDQFHWKH\FDPHLQIURPDOO

VLGHV

 0RVWRIWKH'HIHQGDQWJURXSVDUULYHGLQPLOLWDU\IRUPDWLRQVDUPHGOLNH

SDUDPLOLWDU\IRUFHV²FDUU\LQJDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVJXQVVKLHOGVSURWHFWLYHJHDUIODJVDQGURGV

7KH\VKRXWHGFRPPDQGVDWWKHLUJURXSVWR³PRYHIRUZDUG´RU³UHWUHDW´*RYHUQRU7HUU\



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6533

Page 62 of 111

Pageid#:


 





0F$XOLIIHVWDWHGWKDW³SHUFHQWRIWKHSHRSOHKHUHKDGVHPLDXWRPDWLFZHDSRQV\RXVDZWKH PLOLWLDZDONLQJGRZQWKHVWUHHW\RXZRXOGKDYHWKRXJKWWKH\ZHUHDQDUP\´
 )RXUPHPEHUVRI'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK1607:3 DQG9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPHWDWDSUHVHWORFDWLRQLQRUGHUWRPDUFKWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQ IRUPDWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDPDUFKHGWRWKH3DUNILUVWFKDQWLQJ³%ORRGDQG VRLO´0HPEHUVRIWKHJURXSZHUHLQXQLIRUPVDVLQVWUXFWHGGUHVVHGLQKHOPHWVZKLWHRUEODFN SRORVDQGNKDNLVDQGZLHOGHGPDWFKLQJVKLHOGVDQGIODJV'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVZKRZDVZHDULQJ WKHXQLIRUPZKLWHSRORNKDNLVDQGFDUU\LQJDEODFNVKLHOGZLWKWKH9DQJXDUGORJRPDUFKHG ZLWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFD
 'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOHGE\GHIHQGDQW0LFKDHO+LOOIROORZHG/LNH 'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDWKH\PDUFKHGZLWKFRRUGLQDWHGVKLHOGVDQGIODJVDQGFDUULHGURGV DQGRWKHUZHDSRQV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6534

Page 63 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  2QHPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKH[SODLQHGWKDWKHDWWHQGHGWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´EHFDXVH³,LQWHQGWRVWDQGIRUWKH6RXWKDQGGLHIRULWLIQHHGEH7KH\ ZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´  'HIHQGDQW7:3PDUFKHGEHKLQG'HIHQGDQW/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDQG'HIHQGDQW 3DUURWWPDUFKHGZLWK7:3'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKJXLGHGWKHJURXSZHDULQJDEODFNFRPEDW KHOPHWZLWKDERG\JXDUGFORVHRQKLVKHHOV  $VWKH1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSVDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV PDUFKHGWRZDUGV(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNWKH\VKRXWHGWKUHDWHQLQJKDUDVVLQJDQGLQWLPLGDWLQJ ODQJXDJHDW&KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVDQGSURWHVWHUVRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQDQG HWKQLFLW\RUWKHLUVXSSRUWIRUSHRSOHRIGLIIHUHQWUDFHVUHOLJLRQVDQGHWKQLFLWLHV7KHVHLQFOXGHG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6535

Page 64 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VWDWHPHQWVOLNH³*HWWKHIXFNRXWRIRXUFRXQWU\ELWFKHV<HDKFRPHXSWRPH&RPHXSWRPH ELWFK´
 0DUFKLQJGRZQ-HIIHUVRQ6WUHHW'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVSDVVHGWKH V\QDJRJXHZKHUH3ODLQWLII3HDUFHLVDPHPEHU'XULQJWKH6KDEEDWVHUYLFHVWKUHHFR FRQVSLUDWRUVLQXQLIRUPVDQGVHPLDXWRPDWLFULIOHVVWRRGDFURVVIURPWKHWHPSOH$VRWKHUV SDUDGHGSDVWWKH\VKRXWHG³7KHUH¶VWKHV\QDJRJXH´IROORZHGE\FKDQWVRI³6LHJ+HLO´DQG RWKHUDQWL6HPLWLFODQJXDJH6RPHFDUULHGIODJVZLWKVZDVWLNDVDQGRWKHU1D]LV\PEROV 'HIHQGDQW5D\LQWHQGLQJWRWKUHDWHQLQWLPLGDWHDQGKDUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOH¶V-HZLVKSRSXODWLRQ FDUULHGDEDQQHUODWHUSRVWHGRQ'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWHWKDWUHDG³*DVWKHNLNHVUDFHZDU QRZ´'HIHQGDQW5D\DOVRWROGDZRPDQWR³SXWRQDIXFNLQJEXUND´DQGFDOOHGKHUD³VKDULD ZKRUH´+HHQGHGE\SURFODLPLQJ³+LWOHUGLGQRWKLQJZURQJ´7KHVHDFWVZHUHIXOO\FRQVLVWHQW ZLWKWKHEURDGHUFDPSDLJQRIUDFLDODQGUHOLJLRXVVXSSUHVVLRQDWWKHKHDUWRI'HIHQGDQWV¶ FRQVSLUDF\
 /DWHUWKDWGD\LQDWKUHDGZLWK'DLO\6WRUPHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVXJJHVWHGPHHWLQJ DWSPWR³WRUFKWKRVH-HZLVKPRQVWHUV´$IWHUVHHLQJWKHLUH[FKDQJHWKH&KDUORWWHVYLOOH PD\RUPDGHDIUDQWLFDSSHDOWRWKH6HFUHWDU\RI3XEOLF6DIHW\DVNLQJIRUSROLFHSURWHFWLRQDWWKH 7HPSOH



$VPDGHFOHDULQWKH'DLO\6WRUPHU³VW\OHJXLGH´UHIHUHQFHVOLNHWKLVDUHRQO\PHDQWWRVHHPK\SHUEROLFWRWKH

XQLQLWLDWHG7KH'DLO\6WRUPHULVDZDUHWKDW³>P@RVWSHRSOHDUHQRWFRPIRUWDEOHZLWKPDWHULDOWKDWFRPHVDFURVVDV

YLWULROLFUDJLQJQRQLURQLFKDWUHG´DQGVR³>W@KHXQGRFWULQDWHGVKRXOGQRWEHDEOHWRWHOOLIZHDUHMRNLQJRUQRW

7KHUHVKRXOGDOVREHDFRQVFLRXVDZDUHQHVVRIPRFNLQJVWHUHRW\SHVRIKDWHIXOUDFLVWV´%XWDFFRUGLQJWR'HIHQGDQW

$QGUHZ$QJOLQZKRGUDIWHGWKHVW\OHJXLGH³>W@KLVLVREYLRXVO\DSOR\DQG,DFWXDOO\GRZDQWWRJDVNLNHV´



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6536

Page 65 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  %\FRQWUDVW3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\KDGRUJDQL]HGDDPLQWHUIDLWKSUD\HU ³VXQULVH´VHUYLFHWKDWZDVKHOGDWWKHKLVWRULFDO$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ)LUVW%DSWLVW&KXUFKRQ:HVW 0DLQ6WUHHW  $IWHUWKHVHUYLFHDQXPEHURIFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUVOHIWWKHFKXUFKWRKROGD SHDFHIXOPDUFKIURPWKHQHDUE\-HIIHUVRQ6FKRRO$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ+HULWDJH&HQWHUWR 0F*XIIH\3DUN2WKHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\VLOHQWO\PDUFKHGZLWKRWKHUFOHUJ\ PHPEHUVGLUHFWO\IURPWKHVXQULVHVHUYLFHWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6537

Page 66 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  :KHQ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGKLVIHOORZFOHUJ\DUULYHGDW(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN DURXQGDPWKH\ZHUHFRQIURQWHGE\KHDYLO\DUPHGPLOLWLDPHQDQGH[WUHPLVWVPDQ\LQIXOO PLOLWDU\DWWLUHZLWKVHPLDXWRPDWLFULIOHVDQGSLVWROV3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUFOHUJ\ PHPEHUVORFNHGDUPVDQGNQHOWEHIRUHWKHP  $VWKH\KDGSODQQHG'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDSSURDFKHG (PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQFRRUGLQDWHGZDYHVRISDVVHQJHUYDQV3HLQRYLFKIODQNHGE\KLV³VHFXULW\ WHDP´DSSURDFKHG(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQWKH³WKLUGRUWKHIRXUWKZDYH´  &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHLUHODERUDWHSODQQLQJDQGOHVVRQVLQEDWWOHILHOGWDFWLFV 'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVFKDUJHGWKURXJKWKHSHDFHIXOFOHUJ\ZKHQWKH\DUULYHGDW WKHSDUN0DQ\RIWKHFOHUJ\ZHUHSXVKHGWRWKHJURXQGDQG3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVNQRFNHG LQWRDEXVK$FRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRRGVWDULQJ3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\GLUHFWO\LQWKHH\HVDQG UHSHDWHGO\VKRXWLQJ³IXFN\RXIDJJRW´DWKLP



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6538

Page 67 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 7KHYLROHQFHE\WKH'HIHQGDQWVDWWKHHQWUDQFHWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNIROORZHGD FRQVLVWHQWSDWWHUQDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUSUHVHWSODQ7KH'HIHQGDQWVZRXOG³XVHVKLHOGVIODJVRU ILVWV´WREUHDNWKURXJKWKHEORFNDGHRIFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZRXOGVXFFHHGLQHQWHULQJWKHSDUN DQGWKHQDQRWKHUZDYHZRXOGDUULYH,QEHWZHHQHDFKZDYHFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZRXOGDWWHPSWWR UHDVVHPEOHEHIRUHWKHQH[WDUULYHG7KLVSOD\HGRXWDWOHDVWKDOIDGR]HQWLPHV
 $IWHUWKHEHLQJDVVDXOWHG3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\DQGRWKHUFOHUJ\ZHUHDIUDLGWKDW WKH\FRXOGJHWVHULRXVO\LQMXUHGRUZRXOGVXIIHUDQRWKHUPRUHVHULRXVDWWDFN$VDUHVXOWRI 'HIHQGDQWV¶DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV¶DFWLRQVDQGDVWKHYLROHQFHHVFDODWHG3ODLQWLII :LVSHOZH\ZDVIRUFHGWRHQGKLVSHDFHIXOSURWHVWDQGOHDYHWKHSDUNZKHUHKHDQGRWKHUVZHUH ODZIXOO\VWDQGLQJ
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURH[SHULHQFHGDVLPLODUDWWDFNE\'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFR FRQVSLUDWRUV+DYLQJOLQNHGDUPVZLWKDJURXSRIZRPHQIDFLQJ'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVZKRZHUHFODGLQVKLHOGVDQGKHOPHWVRXWVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN5RPHURZDV SXVKHGDJDLQVWDSROLFHFDUDVWKH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVRXJKWWRPRYHWKURXJK 5RPHUR¶VJURXS'XULQJWKLVDVVDXOW5RPHURZDVDOVRVSLWRQ
 'HIHQGDQWVEUDJJHGDERXWWKHLUYLROHQFHDIWHUWKHIDFW'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWIRU H[DPSOHZURWHDQDFFRXQWRIWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´LQ³&DWFKHULQWKH5HLFK0\$FFRXQW RIP\([SHULHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´+HZURWHWKDW'HIHQGDQWV7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK 160DQGRWKHU1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWJURXSVMRLQHGWRJHWKHU³WRKHOSFUHDWHWZRVKLHOGZDOOV´IRU ³WKHILJKW´+HH[SODLQHG³:KLOHPRVWRIWKH,GHQWLW\(YURSDPHQZHUHRFFXSLHGRQRWKHU IURQWVWKH\VHQWDGHWDFKPHQWRIILJKWHUVWRDVVLVWXVDQGWRUHOD\LQWHOOLJHQFHWR-DVRQ.HVVOHU DQGRWKHURUJDQL]HUV7KH\RIIHUHGPRUHILJKWHUVEXWZHKDGRXUSRVLWLRQVDPSO\FRYHUHG´+H IXUWKHUVDLGLQDQLQWHUYLHZZLWKWKHLos Angeles Times



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6539

Page 68 of 111

Pageid#:


 





:LWK D IXOOWKURDWHG UHEHO \HOO WKH /HDJXH EURNH WKURXJK WKH ZDOO RI GHJHQHUDWHV DQG 7UDG:RUNHU PDQDJHG WR HQWHU WKH /HH 3DUN YHQXHLWVHOIZKLOHWKH\ZHUHODUJHO\VWLOOUHHOLQJ0LFKDHO7XEEVDQ HVSHFLDOO\ LPSRVLQJ /HDJXH RUJDQL]HU WRZHUHG RYHU DQG SXVKHG WKURXJK WKH DQWLID OLNH D 7\UDQQRVDXUXV DPRQJ UDSWRUV DV OHDJXH ILJKWHUVZLWKVKLHOGVSXWWKHLUWUDLQLQJWRZRUN
 'HIHQGDQW+LOOODWHUH[FODLPHGWKDW³0U7XEEVZDVHYHU\ZKHUHWKHFKDRVZDV´

  %\DURXQGDPKDYLQJFKDUJHGWKURXJKSURWHVWHUVSXVKLQJDQGVKRYLQJ WKHPZLWKWKHLUVKLHOGVDQGURGV'HIHQGDQWV7:3160DQG/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKOLQHGXS LQVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNOHGE\DPRQJRWKHUV'HIHQGDQWV6FKRHS+LOO+HLPEDFKDQG 3DUURWW'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWH[SODLQHGWKDWWKH\KDG³VWXFNZLWKWKHRULJLQDOSODQWRGHILQHDQG VHFXUHWKHHYHQWSHULPHWHU´  2QFHLQVLGHWKH3DUN'HIHQGDQWV¶UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\PRWLYDWHG YLROHQFHGLGQRWVWRS,WHVFDODWHG  $VWKH\KDGSODQQHG'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWKHLUVKLHOGVDQGURGVWRSORZWKURXJK SHRSOHDQGNQRFNWKHPRYHU7KH\XVHGURGVDQGIODJVWRDVVDXOWSURWHVWHUV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6540

Page 69 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWVDOVRHQFRXUDJHGYLROHQFHE\RWKHUV2YHUWKHFRXUVHRIWKHPRUQLQJ 'DLO\6WRUPHUWKURXJKDOLYHIHHGPDLQWDLQHGE\'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\DQGRWKHU'DLO\ 6WRUPHUVWDIIRQWKHJURXQGHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVWRRUJDQL]HLQJURXSVDQGGHOLEHUDWHO\LQFLWHG WKHPWRHQJDJHLQYLROHQWDFWV$PRQJRWKHUH[KRUWDWLRQVWKH\WROGIROORZHUV³:+,7( 6+$5,$12:´DQG³:(+$9($1$50<7+,6,67+(%(*,11,1*2)$:$5´
 0HPEHUVRI'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFDDOVRFRPPXQLFDWHGRYHUWKH6RXWKHUQ )URQWVHUYHUVKDULQJOLYHIHHGVWUHDPVDQGHQFRXUDJLQJFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRQWKHJURXQGLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHWR³-XVWLQFLWHDULRWDOUHDG\´2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRURQWKH$QWLFRP'LVFRUGVHUYHU UHSRUWHGWRWKHJURXS³9DQJXDUGVKLHOGVDUHKROGLQJWKHOLQH´
 +DYLQJZLWQHVVHGWKHHYHQWVRI)ULGD\DQGWKHDQWL6HPLWLFFKDQWVRIGHIHQGDQWV DQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV3ODLQWLII3HDUFHVWUXJJOHGZLWKZKHWKHUVKHVKRXOGDWWHQGWKHSHDFHIXO SURWHVWDQGZKHWKHUVKHVKRXOGLGHQWLI\KHUVHOIDV-HZLVK2QWKHRQHKDQGVKHEHOLHYHGWKDWLW ZDVLPSRUWDQWWRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWEXWVKHDOVRIHDUHGIRUKHUVDIHW\$VVKHOHIWKHUKRXVHVKH PDGHD6WDURI'DYLGRXWRIGXFWWDSHDQGDWWDFKHGLWWRKHUVKLUWZKLFKERUHD+HEUHZOHWWHULQ UDLQERZFRORUVWRVKRZKHUVXSSRUWIRUWKH/*%7FRPPXQLW\6KHZHQWWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN WRSHDFHIXOO\SURWHVWWKHQHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSUHVHQFHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH
 2QHRIWKHUDOO\JRHUVDFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDZ3ODLQWLII3HDUFHRQWKHVWUHHW SRLQWHGDWKHUDQGVKRXWHG³2KJRRGWKH\DUHPDUNLQJWKHPVHOYHVIRUXVVRLWLVHDV\WRILQG WKHP´$WWKH3DUN3HDUFHZDVMRLQHGE\KHUVRQZKRDOVRZRUHD6WDURI'DYLGDQGFDUULHGD UDLQERZIODJ
 :KLOH3ODLQWLII3HDUFHZDVVWDQGLQJSHDFHIXOO\RXWVLGHRIWKH3DUNH[SUHVVLQJ KHUVROLGDULW\ZLWKRWKHU-HZLVKDQGQRQZKLWHPHPEHUVRIKHUFRPPXQLW\DQRWKHUZKLWH VXSUHPDFLVWDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUWKUHZDQRSHQERWWOHILOOHGZLWKDIRXOOLTXLGDWKHU²DFRPPRQ



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6541

Page 70 of 111

Pageid#:


 





WDFWLFRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLUFRFRQVSLUDWRUV,QGHHGLQDGYDQFHRIWKHUDOO\FRFRQVSLUDWRUV

KDGHQFRXUDJHGRWKHUVWR³>S@HHLQEDOORRQVDQGWKURZWKHPDWFRPPXQLVWV,QVHOIGHIHQVH´

DQGWR³>I@HHOIUHHWRXULQDWHDQGGHIDFDWHRQ\RXUQHDUHVWDQWLIDWHUURULVWIDJJRWSXVV\´7KH

ERWWOHVWUXFN3HDUFHRQKHUOHJDQGVKHFRXOGVPHOOWKHIRXOOLTXLGRQKHUERG\

 ,QVKRUWRUGHUSHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\DQG3HDUFH

ZHUHIRUFHGWROHDYHWKHDUHDRI(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDV'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDWWDFNHG

SHRSOHZLWKFOXEVVPRNHERPEVDQGSHSSHUVSUD\LQIXOILOOPHQWRIWKHLUSUHPHGLWDWHGVWUDWHJ\

RILQIOLFWLQJLQMXU\

 7KH$XWKRULWLHV'HFODUHGWKH5DOO\DQ8QODZIXO$VVHPEO\DQG'HIHQGDQWVDQG &R&RQVSLUDWRUV,QWHQWLRQDOO\6SUHDGWKH9LROHQFH2XWVLGH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUN
 %\DPEHIRUHWKHSHUPLWIRUWKH³UDOO\´HYHQEHJDQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH

RIILFLDOVGHFODUHGWKHJDWKHULQJLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDQXQODZIXODVVHPEO\GHILQHGXQGHU

9LUJLQLDODZDV³ZKHQHYHUWKUHHRUPRUHSHUVRQVDVVHPEOHGVKDUHWKHFRPPRQLQWHQWWRDGYDQFH

VRPHODZIXORUXQODZIXOSXUSRVHE\WKHFRPPLVVLRQRIDQDFWRUDFWVRIXQODZIXOIRUFHRU

YLROHQFHOLNHO\WRMHRSDUGL]HVHULRXVO\SXEOLFVDIHW\SHDFHRURUGHU´

 $WDP*RYHUQRU0F$XOLIIHGHFODUHGDVWDWHRIHPHUJHQF\VWDWLQJ³,WLV

QRZFOHDUWKDWSXEOLFVDIHW\FDQQRWEHVDIHJXDUGHGZLWKRXWDGGLWLRQDOSRZHUVDQGWKDWWKH

PRVWO\RXWRIVWDWHSURWHVWRUVKDYHFRPHWR9LUJLQLDWRHQGDQJHURXUFLWL]HQVDQGSURSHUW\,DP

GLVJXVWHGE\WKHKDWUHGELJRWU\DQGYLROHQFHWKHVHSURWHVWRUVKDYHEURXJKWWRRXUVWDWHRYHUWKH

SDVWKRXUV´

 'DLO\6WRUPHUZURWHVKRUWO\WKHUHDIWHU³6RPHRQHLVJHWWLQJJDVVHG/(7¶6

+23(,7¶6-(:6´

 -DVRQ.HVVOHUDQGRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVGLUHFWHGWKHPREWRPRYHWR0F,QWLUH3DUN

6RPH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVORDGHGLQWRZKLWHYDQVDQG'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG5D\



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6542

Page 71 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VKDUHGRQHYDQ,QKLVLQWHUYLHZZLWKViceWKDWGD\5D\H[SODLQHG³:H¶UHVKRZLQJWRWKLV SDUDVLWLFFODVVRIDQWLZKLWHYHUPLQWKDWWKLVLVRXUFRXQWU\7KLVFRXQWU\ZDVEXLOWE\RXU IRUHIDWKHUV,WZDVVXVWDLQHGE\XV,W¶VJRLQJWRUHPDLQRXUFRXQWU\´
 'DLO\6WRUPHUHQFRXUDJHGLWVIROORZHUVWRJRWR0F,QWLUH3DUNDQGDVVHPEOH ³EHKLQG´'HIHQGDQWV5D\DQG&DQWZHOODQGLQFLWHGWKHFURZGWRYLROHQFH

  $PRQJWKRVHZKRIROORZHGWKHLUGLUHFWLRQZDV'HIHQGDQW9DQJXDUG$PHULFD

'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSDOVRPDUFKHGWR0F,QWLUH3DUNDWWDFNLQJSURWHVWRUVDORQJWKHZD\+H

H[SODLQHG³,ZDVRIIHUHGDULGHWRVDIHW\DQGGHFOLQHGWROHDYHXQWLOWKHZRPHQDQGRWKHUVZHUH

VDIHVRZHMXVWPDUFKHGEDFNWKURXJKDQWLID:HZHQWULJKWWKURXJK>DQWLID@OLNHZDUULRUV´

'HIHQGDQW3DUURWWUHIXVHGWROHDYH(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDQGZDVDUUHVWHGE\WKHSROLFHIRUIDLOLQJ

WRGLVSHUVH3DUURWWGHVFULEHGKLVGHWHQWLRQDVEHLQJ³DSROLWLFDOSULVRQHUIRUDERXWPLQXWHV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6543

Page 72 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 %\SP'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQG3HLQRYLFKDQGWKHLUIROORZHUVKDGPRVWO\ UHDVVHPEOHGLQ0F,QWLUH3DUN9LROHQFHDJDLQEURNHRXW2QHZRPDQSURWHVWLQJ'HIHQGDQWV¶ PHVVDJHZDVFKRNHGE\FRFRQVSLUDWRU6WHYHQ%DOFDLWLVZKRZDVZHDULQJDWVKLUWDGYHUWLVLQJD ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWDQGDQWL6HPLWLFZHEVLWH5HG,FH$VKHJUDEEHGKHUQHFNKHORRNHGDWD E\VWDQGHUDQGVDLG³'RQ¶WVDYHKHU´
 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQG3HLQRYLFKVSRNHWRWKHLUIROORZHUVDW0F,QWLUH3DUN 3HLQRYLFKFDOOHGWKHFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUV³VDYDJHV´
 'HIHQGDQWVDW0F,QWLUH3DUNGLVFXVVHGUHWXUQLQJWR(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNLQGHILDQFH RISROLFHRUGHUV'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\VRXJKWSHRSOHZLWKJXQV³,QHHGVKRRWHUV´KHVDLG³:H¶UH JRQQDVHQGSHRSOHZLWKORQJULIOHVEDFNWRWKDWVWDWXH´$FFRUGLQJWRD'HIHQGDQW160 WZLWWHUDFFRXQW'HIHQGDQW6FKRHS³OHGDJURXSRIEDFNWKHPLOHVIURPWKHQGSDUNEDFN WR/HH3DUNWKURXJK$QWLIDDQGSROLFHLQWHUIHUHQFH´7KH\MHHUHG³6RPXFKUHVSHFWIRUP\ &RPPDQGHU-HII6FKRHS,ZLOOJRLQWREDWWOHZLWK\RXDQ\WLPH6LU´
 $IHZPLQXWHVDIWHUSP'DLO\6WRUPHUSRVWHG





Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6544

Page 73 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWVWRRNQRVWHSVWRSUHYHQWRUDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHYLROHQWDFWLRQVWKDW WKH\NQHZZDVEHLQJSODQQHG
 6RPH'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVVWD\HGLQWKHSDUNVZKLOHRWKHUVGLVSHUVHG DQGEHJDQWRWHUURUL]HUHVLGHQWVLQWKHGRZQWRZQDUHDRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHQHDUWKHSHGHVWULDQPDOO 0XxL]ZHDULQJDWVKLUWZLWKDUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIZRPHQRIFRORUZLWQHVVHGWKHPDUFKHUVZDON EDFNWRWRZQIURP0F,QWLUH3DUNDQGWKHQIROORZHGKHUVHOIWRMRLQDJURXSRISHDFHIXOFRXQWHU GHPRQVWUDWRUV
 2QWKHPDOO'HIHQGDQWVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDJDLQEURXJKWYLROHQFH2QHFR FRQVSLUDWRUIRUH[DPSOHZDVFDXJKWRQYLGHRSXQFKLQJWZRSHDFHIXOFRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVGLUHFWO\ LQWKHIDFH
 7KH&DU$WWDFN  ³5XQ7KHP2YHU´LVDSRSXODUDQWL%ODFN/LYHV0DWWHUDQGDQWLUDFLDOMXVWLFH SURWHVWFDWFKSKUDVHDQGVKRZVXSLQPHPHVDQGFRPPHQWVDFURVVWKH,QWHUQHW,QODWH-DQXDU\ )R[1DWLRQWKHRSLQLRQZHEVLWHRSHUDWHGE\)R[1HZVWZHHWHGRXWD³5HHO2I&DUV 3ORZLQJ7KURXJK3URWHVWRUV7U\LQJ7R%ORFN7KH5RDG´7KHDXWKRURIWKHYLGHRSLHFHZKLFK RULJLQDOO\DSSHDUHGRQWKH'DLO\&DOOHUZURWH³+HUH¶VDFRPSLODWLRQRIOLEHUDOSURWHVWHUVJHWWLQJ SXVKHGRXWRIWKHZD\E\FDUVDQGWUXFNV´DQG³6WXG\WKHWHFKQLTXHLWPD\SURYHXVHIXOLQWKH QH[WIRXU\HDUV´2Q)DFHERRNWKHDXWKRUEUDJJHGDERXWWKHSRSXODULW\RIWKHSLHFHERDVWLQJ WKDWKH³>P@DGHDSURILWIRUWKHFRPSDQ\WRGD\:HQWIURPWRPLOOLRQYLHZVLQD KRXUWLPHVSDFHZLQQLQJ´

 2YHUWKHSDVWWZR\HDUVWKHLPDJHU\RIUXQQLQJSURWHVWRUVRYHUZLWKDFDUKDVJDLQHGFXUUHQF\DPRQJ'HIHQGDQWV DQGRWKHUV'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKHQFRXUDJHGDSROLFHFDUWRPRZGRZQSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUV$QDUWLFOHUHSRUWVWKDW +HLPEDFKZDVZDONLQJQHDUWKHSDUDGHURXWHZKHQKHHQFRXQWHUHGDJURXSRIGHPRQVWUDWRUVKROGLQJVLJQVDERXW ZDWHUSUHVHUYDWLRQ$EODFN689ZLWKSROLFHSODWHVGURYHXSDQGVWRSSHGLQIURQWRIWKHGHPRQVWUDWRUV$QRIILFHU OHDQHGRXWWKHZLQGRZDQGDVNHGWKHPWRVWHSDVLGHVRWKDWWKH\FRXOGSDVV³'RQ¶WVWRSRIILFHU´VKRXWHG +HLPEDFKDVWKH689PDGHLWVZD\WKURXJKWKHJURXS³)XFNLQJVWHSRQWKHJDV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6545

Page 74 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 7KHVDPHWURSHZDVXVHGDVSDUWRISODQQLQJIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´2Q 'LVFRUGIRUH[DPSOHLQUHVSRQVHWRDSRVWIURP7\URQHWKDWLI³VRPHWKLQJKDSSHQV DGMXVWPHQWVZLOOKDYHWREHPDGHWRUHPRYHSHRSOHIURPWKHVFHQH´FRFRQVSLUDWRU ³$OW&HOW,/´UHVSRQGHGZLWKDQLPDJHIURPDIDPRXVVFHQHLQWKHPRYLHDawn of the DeadLQ ZKLFKWKHSURWDJRQLVWVUHWURILWEXVHVZLWKFKDLQVDZVDQGEDUEHGZLUHWRHVFDSHDPDOOE\UXQQLQJ RYHUWKRXVDQGVRIVZDUPLQJ]RPELHV$OW&HOW,/DGGHGD³FU\LQJODXJKLQJ´HPRMLDQGZURWH ³7KLVZLOOEHXV´


 7\URQHUHSOLHGZLWKSLFWXUHRID-RKQ'HHUHWUDFWRUFDSWLRQHG³,QWURGXFLQJ-RKQ 'HHUH¶VQHZPXOWLODQHSURWHVWRUGLJHVWRU´DQGFRPPHQWHG³,NQRZ1&ODZLVRQWKHERRNVWKDW GULYLQJRYHUSURWHVWHUVEORFNLQJURDGZD\LVQ¶WDQRIIHQVH«6XUHZRXOGEHQLFH´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6546

Page 75 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  2QWKHVDPHGD\-XO\7\URQHDVNHGWKHYLUJLQLDBODZVFKDQQHO³Is it legal to run over protestors blocking roadways? I’m NOT just shitposting. I would like clarification. I know it’s legal in NC and a few other states. I’m legitimately curious for the answer.´7ZRSDUWLFLSDQWVUHDFWHGWRWKLVSRVWZLWKUHGKHDUWHPRMLV  $QRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRURQ'LVFRUGXVLQJWKHYLUJLQLDBODZVFKDQQHOSRVWHGD SKRWRRIDQDUPRUHGPLOLWDU\WDQNDQGZURWH³,VWKLVOHJDOLQ9$"´(OHYHQSDUWLFLSDQWV UHVSRQGHGZLWKHPRMLVH[SUHVVLQJDSSURYDO  6LPLODUO\ZKHQ'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDVNHGWKHGHPRQVWUDWLRQBWDFWLFVFKDQQHOIRU DGYLFHRQSODQQLQJDPDUFKRQHFRFRQVSLUDWRU³3ULPLWYH;DRF´HQFRXUDJHGWKHXVHRI VLGHZDONVEHFDXVH³VWUDLJKWWKURXJKWKHVWUHHWVOLNHWKH\GLGDIHZZHHNVDJRIRUWKHµFRPPXQLW\ GHIHQVH¶0DUFKZDVDZIXO$QWLID´+HSRVWHGVHYHUDOSKRWRVIURPWKDWPDUFKDQGZURWH ³7KHVHIRROVKDGEDELHVDQGFKLOGUHQLQWKHVWUHHWVGUDJJLQJEDQQHUVRYHUFDUVEORFNLQJWKHLU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6547

Page 76 of 111

Pageid#:


 





YLHZDQGVXFK7RREDGWKHFLYLOLDQVGLGQ¶WMXVWPDNHQHZVSHHGEXPSVIRUVRPHRIWKHVH VFXP´
 $WDSSUR[LPDWHO\SPLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV GURYHKLV'RGJH&KDOOHQJHURQWR)RXUWK6WUHHWLGOHGIRUDPRPHQWZKLOHKLVYHKLFOHIDFHGWKH SHDFHIXOSURWHVWHUVDQGWKHQGHOLEHUDWHO\DFFHOHUDWHGLQWRWKHFURZG
 3ODLQWLIIV0DUWLQ%ODLU6LQHV0XxL]$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHURZHUH PDUFKLQJXS)RXUWK6WUHHWZKHQ)LHOGVDWWDFNHG3ODLQWLII0XxL]KDGZDONHGWRWKHIURQWRIWKH FURZGZKHQLWZDVDWWKHLQWHUVHFWLRQRI)RXUWK6WUHHWDQG:DWHU6WUHHWWRWDNHDSLFWXUHRIWKH JDWKHULQJ:KHQWKHFURZGWXUQHGOHIWRQWR)RXUWK6WUHHW0XxL]ZDVVWLOOWRZDUGVWKHIURQWRI WKHFURZG
 3ODLQWLIIV0DUWLQDQG%ODLUZHUHDSSURDFKLQJWKHVDPHLQWHUVHFWLRQZDONLQJXS )RXUWK6WUHHWWRZDUGVWKHGRZQWRZQPDOOZLWKWKHLUIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HU$VKHVDZWKHFDU VSHHGLQJGRZQWKHURDG0DUWLQSXVKHG%ODLURXWRIWKHSDWKRIWKHPRYLQJFDU6KHIHOOWRWKH JURXQGDQGVXVWDLQHGLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDKHPDWRPDRQKHUOHIWVLGHDQGDJDVKRQKHUULJKWDUP 0DUWLQZDVKLWGLUHFWO\E\WKHFDUVXVWDLQLQJVHULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDEURNHQOHJIUDFWXUHG DQNOHDQGPXOWLSOHEUXLVHV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6548

Page 77 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 +HLVSLFWXUHGEHORZIO\LQJWKURXJKWKHDLUDIWHUWKHFDUVODPPHGLQWRKLVERG\

  /RRNLQJIRU0DUWLQRQWKHVWUHHW%ODLUVDZSHRSOHO\LQJRQWKHJURXQGDQG EOHHGLQJ6KHVWHSSHGRYHUWKHPORRNLQJIRU0DUWLQ  %ODLUIRXQG0DUWLQRQWKHJURXQGZKHUHSHRSOHZHUHWU\LQJWRKHOSKLP)LIWHHQ PLQXWHVDIWHUWKHDWWDFN0DUWLQZDVWDNHQWRWKHKRVSLWDODQG%ODLUURGHLQWKHDPEXODQFHZLWK KLP%ODLUGLGQRWUHFHLYHLPPHGLDWHWUHDWPHQWIRUKHULQMXULHVEHFDXVHVKHZDVORRNLQJDIWHU 0DUWLQ  :KLOHZDLWLQJLQWKHKRVSLWDO%ODLUOHDUQHGWKDWDZRPDQKDGGLHGLQWKHFDU DWWDFN6KHIHDUHGWKDWVKHNQHZZKRLWZDVDQGEHJDQDVNLQJHYHU\RQHDURXQGKHULIWKH\NQHZ ZKRLWZDV(YHQWXDOO\VKHOHDUQHGWKDWLWZDVKHUIULHQG+HDWKHU+H\HUZKRKDGEHHQVWUXFN DQGNLOOHG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6549

Page 78 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 3ODLQWLII%DNHUDOVRZDVWKURZQWKURXJKWKHDLUZKHQKHZDVVWUXFNE\'HIHQGDQW )LHOGV¶VFDU,QWKHSLFWXUHDERYHKHLVXSVLGHGRZQDVKHIOLSSHGRYHUWKHFDUGXULQJWKHDWWDFN %DNHUVXIIHUHGVHYHUHLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJDFRQFXVVLRQWRUQOLJDPHQWLQKLVOHIWZULVWODFHUDWLRQV DQGDWRUQODEUXPLQKLVULJKWKLS
 3ODLQWLII5RPHURZDVKLWGLUHFWO\E\'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VFDU7KHLPSDFWWKUHZ KHUDJDLQVWDSDUNHGFDUZKLFKVKHKLWEHIRUHIDOOLQJWRWKHJURXQG3ODLQWLII5RPHURUHFDOOV ZDQWLQJWROLHGRZQDQGFORVHKHUH\HVEXWVKHWKRXJKWWKDWLIVKHFORVHGKHUH\HVDQGJDYHXS VKHZRXOGGLH6KHDWWHPSWHGWRJHWXSEXWVWUXJJOHGDQGZDVWROGE\DE\VWDQGHUWRVLWEDFN GRZQ
 5RPHURLVSLFWXUHGEHORZUHFHLYLQJLQLWLDOFDUHIURPE\VWDQGHUV

  &RYHUHGLQEORRGIURPDVNXOOIUDFWXUHVXVWDLQHGGXULQJWKHDWWDFN5RPHURZDV

FDUULHGWRDQDPEXODQFHZKHUHDPHGLFLQIRUPHGKHUWKDWVKHKDGEHHQXQFRQVFLRXVDVWKH\



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6550

Page 79 of 111

Pageid#:


 





KHOSHGKHUGRZQ)RXUWK6WUHHW%HIRUHIDOOLQJXQFRQVFLRXV5RPHURKDGEHJJHGE\VWDQGHUVWR FDOOKHUPRWKHUDVVKHKDGORVWKHUSKRQHZKHQVWUXFNE\)LHOGV¶VFDU
 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGRZKRDWWHQGHGWKHHYHQWVZLWK3ODLQWLII5RPHURZDVDOVRKLWE\ 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VFDU7KHLPSDFWRIWKHFDUNQRFNHGKHUWRWKHJURXQG,QLWLDOO\ILOOHGZLWK DGUHQDOLQHVKHLPPHGLDWHO\SLFNHGKHUVHOIXSDQGORRNHGIRUKHUIULHQG5RPHURZKRKDGEHHQ KLW$OYDUDGRWKHQZDWFKHGDV'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGURYHKLVFDULQUHYHUVHLQWRWKHFURZGVKHZDV VWDQGLQJLQ)LHOGVQDUURZO\PLVVHGKLWWLQJ$OYDUDGRDJDLQEHFDXVHVKHZDVDEOHWRSUHVVFORVHU WRWKHDGMRLQLQJZDOO$OYDUDGRFRQWLQXHGWRIHDUWKDWWKHFDUZRXOGFRPHEDFNGRZQWKHVWUHHW
 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGRWKHQZHQWWRDVVLVW3ODLQWLII5RPHUR6KHVXSSRUWHG5RPHURDV WKH\ZDONHGXSWKHVWUHHWXQWLO5RPHURZDVSXWLQWRWKHDPEXODQFH$OYDUDGRZDVVXEVHTXHQWO\ GLUHFWHGWRWKHPHGLFDOWHQWZKHUHVKHZDVWUHDWHGIRUKHULQMXULHV
 3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]DQG6LQHVQDUURZO\HVFDSHGEHLQJVWUXFNE\WKHFDU7KH\ ZLWQHVVHGEHORQJLQJVDQGERGLHVIO\LQJLQWKHDLU:KHQWKH\VDZ'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVVSHHGKLV FDULQUHYHUVH²EDFNLQJRYHUPDQ\RIWKHERGLHVKHDOUHDG\KLW²WKH\ZHUHVXUHWKDWKHZDV JRLQJWRFRPHFKDUJLQJEDFNLQWRWKHFURZG3ODLQWLII0XxL]IHDUHGWKDWWKHFDUVZRXOGEH FRPLQJIURPDOOGLUHFWLRQV
 3ODLQWLII0XxL]UDQDZD\DQGFROODSVHGRQWKHVLGHRIWKHURDG6KHVXIIHUHGDQ DFXWHVWUHVVUHDFWLRQ3ODLQWLII6LQHVUDQLQWRDQDOOH\ZD\DQGZDVVRVKRFNHGWKDWVKHKDG GLIILFXOW\IRUPLQJDQ\ZRUGV)HDULQJRWKHUDWWDFNVVKHUDQWRKHUFORVHVWIULHQG¶VKRXVH GRZQWRZQ
 3ODLQWLII0XxL]VDZYROXQWHHUPHGLFVDUULYLQJ0XxL]ZDVVKDNHQDQGWHUULILHG DQGFRXOGQRWVWDQGXS0XxL]IHDUHGWKDWWKHLQFLGHQWZDVQRORQJHURYHU)LQDOO\ZKHQ0XxL]



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6551

Page 80 of 111

Pageid#:


 





IHOWWKDWQRRWKHUDWWDFNZDVIRUWKFRPLQJWKHPHGLFJRW0XxL]WRKHUIHHWDQGZDONHGKHUWRWKH WUDXPDFHQWHU
 3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\ZDVQRWDW0DUNHW6WUHHWZKHQWKHFDUDWWDFNRFFXUUHG:KHQ KHOHDUQHGRIZKDWKDSSHQHGKHVSULQWHGWRWKHVLWHZLWKRWKHUFOHUJ\WRSURYLGHDVVLVWDQFHWR VXSSRUWYLFWLPVDQGWRKHOSFRQWUROWKHFURZGVVRWKDWPHGLFDOYHKLFOHVFRXOGUHDFKYLFWLPV
 3ODLQWLII3HDUFHDOVRUXVKHGWRWKHVFHQHWRSURYLGHFDUHDQGZLWKWKHKHOSRIKHU VRQWULHGWRVXSSUHVVWKHFURZGVVRWKDWPHGLFDOYHKLFOHVFRXOGUHDFKWKRVHLQMXUHG
 %XWDV3ODLQWLIIVPRXUQHGDQGWULHGWRFDUHIRURQHDQRWKHU'HIHQGDQWVDQGFR FRQVSLUDWRUVFHOHEUDWHGDQGHQFRXUDJHGRWKHUVWROHDYHWRZQLPPHGLDWHO\EHIRUHWKH\IRXQG WKHPVHOYHVLQWURXEOH
 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWZHHWHG³0\UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ'LVSHUVH*HWRXWRI &KDUORWWHVYLOOHFLW\OLPLWV´'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUUHWZHHWHGKLP$WSP'HIHQGDQW+LOO WZHHWHG³7KH/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKKDGDJRRGGD\LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9LUJLQLD2XUZDUULRUV DFTXLWWHGWKHPVHOYHVDVPHQ*RGEHSUDLVHG´
 &RQFOXGLQJLWVOLYHIHHGIRUWKHGD\'DLO\6WRUPHUSRVWHG³7+(675((7:$5 +$6(1'(':(:21:(6+2:('7+$7285,'($6+$9(72%(6+87'2:1 :,7+9,2/(1&(´
 $IWHUWKH)DFW'HIHQGDQWV&HOHEUDWHG7KHLU6XFFHVVIXO3ODQWR,QFLWH9LROHQFH  $VQHZVDERXWWKHFDUDWWDFNVSUHDG'HIHQGDQWVFHOHEUDWHGZKDWWKH\EHOLHYHG ZDVWKHLU³YLFWRU\´DQGPRFNHGWKHGHDWKRI+HDWKHU+H\HU  2QO\RQHKRXUDIWHUWKHFDUDWWDFN'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶VSURPLQHQW PHPEHU³.QHXVV´WZHHWHG³$WOHDVWQRERG\LPSRUWDQWJRWKXUW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´IROORZHGE\



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6552

Page 81 of 111

Pageid#:


 





DQRWKHUWZHHWVWDWLQJ³'LUW\DSHVSOD\LQJLQWKHVWUHHWJRWWDOHDUQWKHKDUGZD\ &KDUORWWHVYLOOH´%RWKWZHHWVZHUHOLNHGE\WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV7ZLWWHUDFFRXQW
 /DWHUWKDWHYHQLQJ'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQSRVWHGDPHVVDJH³5RDGNLOO1LJKWV 3RZHUHGE\'RGJH,W¶VJRLQJGRZQ6DWXUGD\$XJWKIURPDPWRSP´
 7KHIROORZLQJGD\'LVFRUGSDUWLFLSDQWVSRVWHGPHPLILHGSKRWRVRI'HIHQGDQW )LHOGVGULYLQJKLVFDULQWRWKHFURZGRQHODEHOLQJWKHFDU³5(63(&7´DQGWKHFURZG ³:20(1´$QRWKHUPHPHFLUFXODWHGRQOLQHODEHOHGWKHLPDJH³%$&.727+()+85(5´



.QHXVVZKRXVHVWKHKDQGOH³#UHDO'5.1(866´RQ7ZLWWHULQWHUDFWVIUHTXHQWO\ZLWKWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRQ

7ZLWWHUDQGWKH\UHWZHHWHDFKRWKHUIUHTXHQWO\RIWHQWKH\DUHHDFKRWKHU¶VRQO\UHWZHHW2Q$XJXVWDWS P

.QHXVVWZHHWHG³%LJVKRXWRXWWR/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK7:3DQG160WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVJUHDWO\DSSUHFLDWH

\RXDQGHYHU\WKLQJ\RXGR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´7KH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶7ZLWWHUDFFRXQWUHWZHHWHGWKLVWZHHW2Q

6HSWHPEHU.QHXVVWZHHWHGDVW\OL]HGLPDJHVD\LQJ(&.ZKLFKLVDUHIHUHQFHWRWKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6553

Page 82 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  ,Q6RXWKHUQ)URQWWKH'LVFRUGVHUYHUVHWXSIRUVRXWKHUQPHPEHUVRI9DQJXDUG $PHULFDDQGWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQWRZKLFK'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVEHORQJHGPHPEHUVSRVWHGVLPLODU PHPHVVXFKDVDSLFWXUHRI3ODLQWLII0DUWLQIO\LQJWKURXJKWKHDLUZLWKWKHFDSWLRQ³&DQ¶W'RGJH 7KLV´DQGDQRWKHUODEHOLQJ)LHOGVD³86$3DWULRW´2QHFRFRQVSLUDWRUZURWH³,GRQ¶WWKLQNZH VKRXOGKDQGRXWVKLHOGVDQ\PRUH#HYHU\RQH:HVKRXOGKDQGRXWGRGJHFKDOOHQJHUV LQVWHDG´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6554

Page 83 of 111

Pageid#:


 





  'DLO\6WRUPHUHQFRXUDJHGIROORZHUVWRILQGRXWWKHGHWDLOVRI+HDWKHU+H\HU¶V IXQHUDODQGWRDWWHQG$WZHHWIURP'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHU¶VDFFRXQWUHIHUUHGWR+HDWKHU+H\HUDVD FRPPXQLVWDQGVDLG³&RPPXQLVWVKDYHNLOOHGPLOOLRQ/RRNVOLNHLWZDVSD\EDFNWLPH´ .HVVOHUFODLPHGKHZDVRQDPL[WXUHRISUHVFULSWLRQGUXJVDQGDOFRKROZKHQKHZURWHWKDW PHVVDJHDQGGLGQRWUHPHPEHULWDQDJHQWRI'DLO\6WRUPHUFODLPHGFUHGLWIRUKDFNLQJ.HVVOHU¶V DFFRXQWDQGSRVWLQJWKHWZHHW  'HIHQGDQW+HLPEDFKVDLGRIWKHUDOO\³:HDFKLHYHGDOORIRXUREMHFWLYHV:H VKRZHGWKDWRXUPRYHPHQWLVQRWMXVWRQOLQHEXWJURZLQJSK\VLFDOO\:HDVVHUWHGRXUVHOYHVDV WKHYRLFHRIZKLWH$PHULFD:HKDG]HURYHKLFOHVGDPDJHGDOORXUSHRSOHDFFRXQWHGIRUDQG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6555

Page 84 of 111

Pageid#:


 





PRYHGDODUJHDPRXQWRIPHQDQGPDWHULDOVLQDQGRXWRIWKHDUHD,WKLQNZHGLGDQLQFUHGLEO\ LPSUHVVLYHMRE´
 :KLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVGHEULHIHGRQ'LVFRUGFHOHEUDWLQJWKDWSURWHVWHUV³JRWEWIR >EORZQWKHIXFNRXW@E\DOOREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHVRQO\SHRSOHZKRPRYHGXVDVLQJOHLQFKZHUH WKH]RJFRSV´³.QHXVV´RIWKH'HIHQGDQW(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVFHOHEUDWHG³IDWDOLWLHVLQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOH+RZPDQ\:1¶V>ZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWV@"127)XFNWKHOHIW)XFNFRPPLHV DQGDOOND\DNVEHORQJLQRYHQV$PHQ´7KLVWZHHWZDVOLNHGE\WKH(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV¶ RIILFLDO7ZLWWHUDFFRXQW
 $9DQJXDUG$PHULFDFRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGD'DLO\6WRUPHUDUWLFOHRQWKH 6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHUDQGZURWH³7KLVZDVWKHELJJHVWYLFWRU\IRURXUPRYHPHQW KLVWRU\,WZDVJORULRXVKWWSVZZZGDLO\VWRUPHUFRPFKDUORWWHVYLOOHFRPSOHWHYLFWRU\HYHQW GHEULHILQJ´WKH\FHOHEUDWHG³:HIXFNHGXSPDQ\FRPPLHV:HKRVSLWDOL]HGGR]HQV:H JRWRXUJX\VRXWZLWKRXWSROLFHKHOS:HZRQ1RZ\RXPDNHWKHQH[WUDOO\DQGILJKWIRU \RXUSHRSOH´$IWHUWKH6DWXUGD\HYHQWV7KRPDV5\DQ5RXVVHDXDOHDGHURI9DQJXDUG $PHULFDUHDVVXUHGFRFRQVSLUDWRUVRQWKH6RXWKHUQ)URQW'LVFRUGVHUYHU³,¶PVDIHZLWKD GR]HQRUVRJX\VKDQJLQJRXWDWDKRWHOVKDULQJVWRULHVRIWKHGD\´
 'HIHQGDQW6FKRHSWZHHWHG³,WZDVDQ+RQRUWRVWDQGZLWK8DOOLQ&¶9LOOHWKLV ZHHNQG1601)7:3/269$(&.&+6DQGWKHUHVWWUXHZDUULRUV´³.QHXVV´DQG RWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHWZHHWHGDQGOLNHGWKLV$FRFRQVSLUDWRUSRVWHGRQ)DFHERRN³'RQ¶WIHHO DVKDPHGRI&YLOOH7KLVLV\RXUIXWXUH7KLVLVWKHHQHP\´
 6SHDNLQJRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHLQDQLQWHUYLHZWKH*UDQG'UDJRQIRU'HIHQGDQW /R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVVDLG³,¶PVRUWDJODGWKDWWKHPSHRSOHJRWKLWDQG,¶PJODGWKDWJLUOGLHG 7KH\ZHUHDEXQFKRI&RPPXQLVWVRXWWKHUHSURWHVWLQJDJDLQVWVRPHERG\¶VIUHHGRPRIVSHHFK



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6556

Page 85 of 111

Pageid#:


 





VRLWGRHVQ¶WERWKHUPHWKDWWKH\JRWKXUWDWDOO´'HIHQGDQW/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWVDOVRFKDQJHG WKHLURXWJRLQJYRLFHPDLOPHVVDJHWRVD\³1RWKLQJPDNHVXVPRUHSURXGDWWKH...WKDQZH VHHZKLWHSDWULRWVVXFKDV-DPHV)LHOGV-UDJHWDNLQJKLVFDUDQGUXQQLQJRYHUQLQH FRPPXQLVWDQWLIDVFLVWNLOOLQJRQHQLJJHUORYHUQDPHG+HDWKHU+H\HU-DPHV)LHOGVKDLO YLFWRU\,W¶VPHQOLNH\RXWKDWKDYHPDGHWKHJUHDWZKLWHUDFHVWURQJDQGZLOOEHVWURQJDJDLQ´
 /LNHZLVH'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUWROGWKHNew York Times WKDW$XJXVWZDV³D KXJHPRUDOYLFWRU\´'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOWROGDViceUHSRUWHU³,¶GVD\LWZDVZRUWKLW1RERG\ RQRXUVLGHGLHGQRQHRIRXUSHRSOHNLOOHGDQ\ERG\XQMXVWO\RXUULYDOVDUHMXVWDEXQFKRI VWXSLGDQLPDOVZKRGRQ¶WSD\DWWHQWLRQWKDWFRXOGQ¶WMXVWJHWRXWRIWKHZD\RIWKHFDU´ 6SHDNLQJRIFRXQWHUSURWHVWHUVOLNH3ODLQWLIIVKHVDLG³7KHVHSHRSOHZDQWYLROHQFHDQGWKHULJKW LVMXVWPHHWLQJPDUNHWGHPDQG´
 ,QDGGLWLRQWRFHOHEUDWLQJWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´DVDVXFFHVV3ODLQWLII5RPHUR FRQWLQXHGWREHKDUDVVHGDQGLQWLPLGDWHG)ROORZLQJKHUUHOHDVHIURPWKHKRVSLWDO5RPHUR UHFHLYHGWKUHHPRUHSKRQHFDOOVIURPWKHVDPH.ODQVPDQZKRKDGKDUDVVHGKHULQ-XO\2Q WKHVHSKRQHFDOOVWKHPDQH[SODLQHGWKDWKHZDVWU\LQJWRVHOOVLOYHU'RGJH&KDOOHQJHUV²WKH FRORUPDNHDQGPRGHOXVHGE\'HIHQGDQWV)LHOGVLQKLVFDUDWWDFN²LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH)LYH PLQXWHVDIWHU5RPHURKXQJXSKHFDOOHGDJDLQZLWKWKHVDPHIRUHERGLQJSLWFK
 /DWHU5RPHURUHFHLYHGDIRXUWKFDOODJDLQIURPWKHVDPHLQGLYLGXDOLQZKLFKWKH FDOOHUVDLG³'RQ¶W\RXKDWHLWZKHQWKHUHDUHUDQGRPSHGHVWULDQVEORFNLQJWKHURDGDQGVKLWOLNH WKDW"7KHUHZDVRQHJLUOQDPHG1DWDOLH5RPHURVKHJRWFDXJKWLQWKHDFFLGHQW"6KHVKRXOG KDYHGLHGLQWKHKRVSLWDO´7KHVHFDOOVWHUULILHG5RPHURDQGVKHFRQWLQXHVWRZRUU\DERXWKHU VDIHW\



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6557

Page 86 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 3ODLQWLII5RPHURDQGVHYHUDORWKHURIWKH3ODLQWLIIVDOVRDSSHDUHGRQDOLVW SXUSRUWLQJWRLGHQWLI\³PHPEHUVRI$QWLID´ZKRKDGDWWHQGHGWKH$XJXVW³UDOO\´7KHOLVW LGHQWLILHGZKRKDGEHHQLQMXUHGDQGZKRDPRQJWKRVH³PHPEHUVRI$QWLID´ZHUH³NQRZQWREH YLROHQW´1RQHRIWKH3ODLQWLIIVZHUHLGHQWLILHGRQWKHOLVWDVDPRQJWKRVH³NQRZQWREH YLROHQW´7KHOLVWZDVFUHDWHGE\DIRUPHUPHPEHURI'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSDZKRWKHQ MRLQHG9DQJXDUG$PHULFDLQ-XO\DQGEHFDPHDQDFWLYHSDUWLFLSDQWRQLWV6RXWKHUQ)URQW 'LVFRUGVHUYHUEUDJJLQJ³,UHDOO\FDQKHOSWUDFNPRVW$QWLID´DQG³>P@\LQIRLVJRRGDQG,ZLOO GRHYHU\WKLQJ,FDQWRKHOS9$>9DQJXDUG$PHULFD@´
 7KHOLVWKHFUHDWHGZDVFLUFXODWHGRQ*DED7ZLWWHUOLNHVRFLDOPHGLDVLWHZKHUH QHR1D]LVDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVPDQ\RIZKRPKDYHEHHQNLFNHGRIIRIWUDGLWLRQDOVRFLDO PHGLDSODWIRUPVVKDUHDQGSRVWLQIRUPDWLRQ2Q*DEDWOHDVWRQHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHSXUSRUWHG ³$QWLID´OLVWZDVGLUHFWHGWR'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODPRQJRWKHUV ,,, 'HIHQGDQWV¶$FWLRQV+DYH&DXVHGDQG:LOO&RQWLQXHWR&DXVH'DPDJHWR3ODLQWLIIV $ 7KH8QODZIXO$FWV%\'HIHQGDQWV&R&RQVSLUDWRUVDQG2WKHUV
$FWLQJDW7KHLU'LUHFWLRQ&DXVHG6HULRXV,QMXU\,QFOXGLQJ7R3ODLQWLIIV  'HIHQGDQWV¶$FWLRQV&DXVHG6HULRXV%RGLO\,QMXU\DQG'DPDJHWR3URSHUW\  7KHSODQQHGYLROHQFHEURXJKWDERXWE\'HIHQGDQWVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHRQ $XJXVWDQGOHIWDQLQGHOLEOHPDUNRQ3ODLQWLIIV&KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGWKHUHVWRIWKHFRXQWU\ 7KUHHLQQRFHQWSHRSOHORVWWKHLUOLYHVDSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRU+HDWKHU+H\HUDQGWZRVWDWHODZ HQIRUFHPHQWRIILFHUV/LHXWHQDQW+-D\&XOOHQDQG7URRSHU3LORW%HUNH00%DWHV$WOHDVW LQGLYLGXDOVLQFOXGLQJ3ODLQWLIIVZHUHLQMXUHGDQGFRXQWOHVVRWKHUVZHUHYLFWLPVRIDVVDXOW +XQGUHGVLIQRWWKRXVDQGVZHUHVXEMHFWHGWRYHUEDODEXVHWKUHDWVKDUDVVPHQWDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQ



ϭϮ'HIHQGDQWVFRQVLGHUHGDQ\LQGLYLGXDORSSRVLQJWKHLU³UDOO\´DVEHLQJ³$QWLID´UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKH\ZHUH

YLROHQWRULQWHQGHGWREHYLROHQW



 



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6558

Page 87 of 111

Pageid#:


 





ZKHQ'HIHQGDQWVFRFRQVSLUDWRUVDQGWKHLUIROORZHUVFKDQWHGDQGVKRXWHGRYHUWO\DQWL6HPLWLF UDFLVW[HQRSKRELFDQGKRPRSKRELFPHVVDJHV
 &RXQWOHVVSXEOLFRIILFLDOVLQFOXGLQJ9LUJLQLD¶VJRYHUQRU7HUU\0F$XOLIIH $WWRUQH\*HQHUDO-HII6HVVLRQVDQG6HQDWRUV&RU\*DUGQHU7HG&UX]DQG5RQ:\GHQKDYH UHFRJQL]HGWKDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\JRHUV´ZHUHPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLVP[HQRSKRELDDQGDQWL 6HPLWLVPWKDWWKH³UDOO\JRHUV´HQJDJHGLQKDWHEDVHGYLROHQFHDQGWKDWWKHHYHQWVWKDWXQIROGHG ZHUHSURSHUO\FKDUDFWHUL]HGDVGRPHVWLFWHUURULVP
 2Q6HSWHPEHU&RQJUHVVSDVVHGDXQDQLPRXVDQGELSDUWLVDQMRLQW UHVROXWLRQ³UHMHFWLQJZKLWHQDWLRQDOLVWVZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVWKH.X.OX[.ODQQHR1D]LVDQG RWKHUKDWHJURXSV´UHFRJQL]LQJWKDWWKH\HQJDJHGLQD³KRUULILFDQGYLROHQWGLVSOD\RIELJRWU\´LQ &KDUORWWHVYLOOHDQGFRQGHPQLQJ³WKHYLROHQFHDQGGRPHVWLFWHUURULVWDWWDFNWKDWWRRNSODFH GXULQJHYHQWVEHWZHHQ$XJXVWDQG$XJXVW´
 7KHMRLQWUHVROXWLRQDOVRGRFXPHQWHGWKDWWKHKDWHEDVHGJURXSVDUH³RUJDQL]LQJ VLPLODUHYHQWV´DURXQGWKHFRXQWU\DQGXUJHGWKH3UHVLGHQWWR³VSHDNRXWDJDLQVWKDWHJURXSVWKDW HVSRXVHUDFLVPH[WUHPLVP[HQRSKRELDDQWL6HPLWLVPDQGZKLWHVXSUHPDF\´DQGDGGUHVV³WKH WKUHDWVSRVHGE\WKRVHJURXSV´ZKLFKDUHFXUUHQWO\JURZLQJZLWKLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
 3UHVLGHQW7UXPSVLJQHGWKHUHVROXWLRQDQGLVVXHGDVLJQLQJVWDWHPHQW³RSSRV>LQJ@ KDWUHGELJRWU\DQGUDFLVPLQDOOIRUPV´
 3ODLQWLIIV6XIIHUHG$QG&RQWLQXH7R6XIIHU6HULRXV,QMXULHV  3ODLQWLII0DUWLQ$VDUHVXOWRIWKHFDUDWWDFN0DUWLQZDVGLDJQRVHGZLWKD VKDWWHUHGWLELDLQKLVOHIWOHJDIUDFWXUHGDQNOHDQGVLJQLILFDQWOLJDPHQWGDPDJH+HXQGHUZHQW VXUJHU\DQGKDGWZRVFUHZVSODFHGLQKLVDQNOH+HH[SHULHQFHGVZHOOLQJLQERWKDQNOHVDQGKH FRXOGQRWZDONIRURUGD\V+HKDVEHHQWROGWRH[SHFWVZHOOLQJLQKLVOHIWDQNOHIRUDWOHDVWD



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6559

Page 88 of 111

Pageid#:


 





\HDU'XHWRWKHQDWXUHRIKLVMREKHZLOOQRWEHDEOHWRZRUNIRUDWOHDVWPRQWKV+HKDV VXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWLQFOXGHVKDYLQJPHQWDOIODVKEDFNVWRWKHHYHQWVRIWKH ³UDOO\´0DUWLQLVJRLQJWRPHQWDOFRXQVHOLQJWZLFHDZHHNWRVHHNVXSSRUWIRUKLVHPRWLRQDO WUDXPD
 3ODLQWLII%ODLU)RUGD\VDIWHUWKHDWWDFN%ODLUIRXQGKHUVHOIVKRUWRIEUHDWK VKDNLQJDQGFU\LQJXQFRQWUROODEO\DWWLPHV7RWKLVGD\VKHKDVWURXEOHIRFXVLQJLQFOXGLQJDW ZRUNDQGILQGVKHUVHOIRIWHQXQFKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\DQJU\6KHLVVFDUHGRI'RGJHFKDOOHQJHUVDQG ORXGQRLVHV6KHLVDOVRH[SHULHQFLQJIODVKEDFNV6KHLVZLWKGUDZQDQGUHWLFHQWLQZD\VVKH QHYHUZDVEHIRUH6KHKDVORVWDERXWWHQSRXQGVVLQFHWKHDWWDFNGXHWRODFNRIDSSHWLWH6KH FDQQRWZDONE\WKHORFDWLRQRIWKHDWWDFN
 3ODLQWLII5RPHUR$VDUHVXOWRIKHUDVVDXOWDQGIDOVHLPSULVRQPHQWDWWKH WRUFKOLJKWUDOO\5RPHURH[SHULHQFHGEXUQLQJLQKHUH\HVDQGRQKHUVKRXOGHUVDQGWKHIHDUDQG DQ[LHW\VKHIHOWWKDWQLJKWSUHYHQWHGKHUIURPVOHHSLQJ7KHFDUDWWDFNWKHIROORZLQJGD\OHIW 5RPHURZLWKVHYHUHSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVDQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD5RPHURVXIIHUHGDVNXOOIUDFWXUH FRQFXVVLRQVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVDIUDFWXUHGWRRWKDQGVFUDWFKHVDOORYHUKHUERG\6KHVXIIHUV IURPVHYHUHYHUWLJRDQGH[SHULHQFHVGHELOLWDWLQJKHDGDFKHVWKDWSUHYHQWKHUIURPOHDYLQJWKH KRXVH6KHDOVRFDQQRWEHH[SRVHGWREULJKWOLJKWRUORRNDWZKLWHSDSHUZLWKRXWH[SHULHQFLQJ SDLQ+HUGRFWRUVDUHXQVXUHRIZKHQWKHVHV\PSWRPVZLOOVXEVLGH,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDO LQMXULHV5RPHURVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOWUDXPDDVDUHVXOWRIWKHWRUFKOLJKWUDOO\DQGFDU DWWDFN5RPHURGLGQRWUHWXUQWRFDPSXVIRUFODVVHVWKLVIDOOEHFDXVHRIDQ[LHW\DQGIHDU DVVRFLDWHGZLWKKHUDVVDXOWVRQ$XJXVWDQG
 3ODLQWLII$OYDUDGR7KHFDUDWWDFNRQ$XJXVWFDXVHG$OYDUDGRVHULRXVSK\VLFDO LQMXULHVDQGHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD$OYDUDGRVXIIHUHGDFRQFXVVLRQDQGVHYHUHFRQWXVLRQVWRKHU



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6560

Page 89 of 111

Pageid#:


 





OHJV$VDUHVXOWRIKHUFRQFXVVLRQVKHFRQWLQXHVWRH[SHULHQFHFRQIXVLRQIRUJHWIXOQHVVDQG GLIILFXOW\SURFHVVLQJFRQYHUVDWLRQV,QDGGLWLRQWRKHUSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVWKHFDUDWWDFNDOVROHIW KHUZLWKVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOWUDXPD$OYDUDGRVXIIHUVIURPGHSUHVVLRQZKLFKKDVOHGWRZHLJKW JDLQLVRODWLRQIURPKHUIDPLO\DQGIULHQGVDQGDQLQDELOLW\WRGRGDLO\WDVNV
 3ODLQWLII%DNHU%DNHUVXIIHUHGVHYHUHSK\VLFDOLQMXULHVDQGHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV +HWRUHWKHOLJDPHQWLQKLVOHIWZULVWWRUHWKHODEUXPLQKLVULJKWKLSDQGVXIIHUHGDFRQFXVVLRQ DQGVHYHUDOODFHUDWLRQVIURPWKHFDUDWWDFN+LVDUPZDVLQDFDVWIRUVL[ZHHNV+LVLQMXU\ UHTXLUHGPDMRUVXUJHU\ZLWKDQHLJKWPRQWKUHFRYHU\LQFOXGLQJIRXUPRQWKVRISK\VLFDOWKHUDS\ DQGIRXUZHHNVRXWRIZRUNWRKHDO+HFDQQRWUXQRUMXPSDQGKHKDGWRJLYHXSVRPHRIKLV IDYRULWHDFWLYLWLHVLQFOXGLQJVRFFHUODFURVVHDQGZHLJKWOLIWLQJ%DNHUZLOOOLNHO\QHHGDKLS UHSODFHPHQWDVDUHVXOWRIWKHDWWDFN+HVWLOOVXIIHUVIURPWKHVHLQMXULHVDQGFDQQRWXVHKLVKLS DVZHOODVKHFRXOGEHIRUHWKHDWWDFN
 $GGLWLRQDOO\%DNHUFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUIURPHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV(YHU\GD\ VLWXDWLRQVQRZPDNHKLPDQ[LRXVDQGFDQWULJJHUIODVKEDFNV+HJHWVSDQLFDWWDFNV+HIHDUHG PDNLQJSXEOLFVWDWHPHQWVDERXWKLVH[SHULHQFHIRURYHUPRQWKV%DNHUZDVMXVWLILDEO\DIUDLG IRUWKHVDIHW\RIKLPVHOIDQGKLVZLIHLIKHVSRNHRXW
 3ODLQWLII:LVSHOZH\:LVSHOZH\FRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUIURPHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV :LVSHOZH\¶VHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVKDVPDQLIHVWHGLQSK\VLFDOV\PSWRPVLQFOXGLQJFRQVWULFWHGFKHVW SDLQGLIILFXOW\EUHDWKLQJDQGFKURQLFVOHHSLVVXHV+HUHJXODUO\ZDNHVXSZLWKQLJKWWHUURUV UHFDOOLQJWKHHYHQWVRI$XJXVWDQGDQGKDVKDGWRWDNHWLPHRIIIURPKLVZRUNLQRUGHUWR FRSHZLWKWKHWUDXPDRIWKHZHHNHQG+HKDVVHHQDWUDXPDLQIRUPHGWKHUDSLVWKDVEHHQ SURVFULEHGZLWKVOHHSPHGLFDWLRQDQGGLDJQRVHGZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHU:LVSHOZH\KDVDOVR EHFRPHK\SHUYLJLODQWHVSHFLDOO\LQFURZGV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6561

Page 90 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 3ODLQWLII0XxL]$IWHUH[SHULHQFLQJWKHFDUDWWDFNDQGEHLQJYHUEDOO\KDUDVVHGRQ $XJXVW0XxL]KDVVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOLQMXU\)RUWKHILUVWZHHNIROORZLQJWKHDWWDFN 0XxL]FRXOGQRWGULYHDFDU6KHZDVDIUDLGHYHQWREHDSDVVHQJHUZLWKRXWFRYHULQJKHUOHIW H\HEHFDXVHWKHVLJKWRIRQFRPLQJWUDIILFZDVWHUULI\LQJ0XxL]KDVVLQFHH[SHULHQFHG WULJJHUV²PRPHQWVZKHUHVKHUHOLYHVWKHIHDURIWKDWGD\DQGVKHVKDNHVDQGWUHPEOHV6KHKDV VXIIHUHGDIHZHSLVRGHVLQZKLFKVKHKDVIDOOHQWRWKHJURXQGLQDFDWDWRQLFVWDWHDQGFDQGR QRWKLQJEXWFU\DQGGURROIRUORQJSHULRGV6KHKDVEHHQVOHHSLQJHUUDWLFDOO\KDVVXIIHUHGVKRUW WHUPPHPRU\LVVXHVDQGKDVEHFRPHVRFLDOO\ZLWKGUDZQ6KHKDVEHHQXQDEOHWRREWDLQPHGLFDO FDUHIRURWKHUFRQGLWLRQVGXHWRKHUVWUHVVVRVKHFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUIURPRWKHUDLOPHQWV6KHLV VHHLQJDWKHUDSLVWPXOWLSOHWLPHVSHUZHHNDQGKDVVWDUWHGWKHUDS\IRUSRVWWUDXPDWLFVWUHVV$W ZRUN0XxL]XVHGWRPDQDJHDGHSDUWPHQWRIDURXQGWZHQW\SHRSOHZLWKWZRPDQDJHUVEHQHDWK KHU
 8QDEOHWRUHWXUQWRZRUN0XxL]ZDVRQOHDYHIRUGLVDELOLW\GXULQJZKLFKWLPHVKH ZDVSDLGRIKHUSD\DQGKDVORVWRWKHUILQDQFLDOEHQHILWVVXFKDVWXLWLRQUHLPEXUVHPHQW 6KHUHWXUQHGWRZRUNRQDUHGXFHGVFKHGXOHRQ1RYHPEHUEXWKHUFRPSDQ\PDGHDGHFLVLRQ WKDWVKHLVQRWFDSDEOHRIGRLQJWKDWMREDQ\PRUHVRVKHZDVSODFHGLQDQHZUROHZLWKOHVV UHVSRQVLELOLW\0HGLFDOSURIHVVLRQDOVKDYHGLDJQRVHG0XxL]ZLWKDFXWHVWUHVVGLVRUGHU0XxL] UHWXUQHGWRZRUNIXOOWLPHRQ-DQXDU\DOWKRXJKLQKHUQHZUROHZLWKOHVVUHVSRQVLELOLW\6KHLV XQGHUJRLQJZHHNO\WKHUDS\IRUKHUV\PSWRPV
 3ODLQWLII-RKQ'RH$VDUHVXOWRIEHLQJEDUNHGDW\HOOHGDWDQGSK\VLFDOO\ DVVDXOWHG-RKQ'RHKDVVXIIHUHGQXPHURXVHPRWLRQDOLQMXULHV+HKDVKDGGLIILFXOW\IRFXVLQJLQ VFKRRODQGLVFRQVWDQWO\UHFDOOLQJWKHWUDXPDRI)ULGD\HYHQLQJ:KHQKHZDONVSDVWWKH7KRPDV -HIIHUVRQVWDWXHRQKLVFDPSXVKHLVLPPHGLDWHO\WULJJHUHGE\WKHUHFROOHFWLRQRIWKHHYHQWVRQ



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6562

Page 91 of 111

Pageid#:


 





$XJXVW6LQFHWKH³UDOO\´-RKQ'RHKDVKDGGLIILFXOW\VOHHSLQJDQGKDVGHYHORSHGD KHLJKWHQHGDQ[LRXVVHQVHRIDZDUHQHVVLQSXEOLFVSDFHV-RKQ'RHDOVRKDGWRPLVVWZRZHHNV RIZRUN
 3ODLQWLII6LQHV8SRQZLWQHVVLQJWKHFDUDWWDFNDQGQHDUO\EHLQJKLW6LQHV VXIIHUHGH[WUHPHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVDQGVKRFN6KHRIWHQZDNHVXSZLWKQLJKWPDUHVRIWKHFDU DWWDFNDQGKHUDFDGHPLFSHUIRUPDQFHKDVVXIIHUHGLQODZVFKRRODVDUHVXOW6LQHVLVXQDEOHWR IRFXVDQGKDVPLVVHGFODVVHVGXHWRKHUHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV6LQHVLVDOVRQRZK\SHUYLJLODQW DQGDIUDLGLQKHURZQKRPH
 3ODLQWLII3HDUFH,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSK\VLFDODQGYHUEDOUHOLJLRXVEDVHGDVVDXOW 3HDUFHH[SHULHQFHGRQ$XJXVWVKHFRQWLQXHVWRVXIIHUVHULRXVHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV,QKLV +HEUHZVFKRROFODVV3HDUFH¶VVRQZDVDVNHGWRDQVZHUVHYHUDOZULWLQJSURPSWV,QUHVSRQVHWR WKHTXHVWLRQ³ZKDWPDNHVPHXQFRPIRUWDEOHDERXWEHLQJ-HZLVK´KHZURWH³QHR1D]LV´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6563

Page 92 of 111

Pageid#:

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 Page 93 of 111 Pageid#: 6564


 





WKHDWWDFNVKHKDVKDGWRH[SODLQWRKHUVRQZK\WKHUHDUHDOZD\VSROLFHRIILFHUVVWDQGLQJJXDUG RXWVLGHWKHV\QDJRJXH % 'HIHQGDQWV:LOO&RQWLQXHWR&DXVH9LROHQFHDQG,QWLPLGDWLRQ8QOHVV5HVWUDLQHG
³:H:LOO%H%DFN´  ,QWKHZHHNVDIWHUWKH³UDOO\´DQGWKHPDVVRILQMXULHVLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH 'HIHQGDQWVQRWRQO\FODLPHG³YLFWRU\´EXWVZRUHWKDWWKH\ZRXOGUHWXUQ$OUHDG\WKH\KDYH IROORZHGWKURXJKRQWKHLUSURPLVH  'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUVDLG³7R0D\RU0LNH6LJQHUDQG:HV%HOODP\DQGDOOWKHVH OLWWOHFUHHSVRIWKLVOLWWOHWRZQZKRGRQ¶WXQGHUVWDQGZKRWKH\¶UHGHDOLQJZLWK²WKHORFDOOLWWOH ORVHUV²ZHDUHQHYHUEDFNLQJGRZQ:HDUHJRLQJWREHEDFN´  'HIHQGDQW$QJOLQZURWHRQ$XJXVW³$VIRUPHGLDUXPRUVWKDWWKH>'DLO\ 6WRUPHU@VLWHZLOOEHVKXWGRZQ<RXVKRXOGNQRZEHWWHU,W¶VJRLQJWRWDNHEXOOHWVWRVWRS XV´  &RFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQWZHHWHG³%URWKHUV VLVWHUVDFURVVWKH$OW5LJKW²WKLV LVDWDVWHRIKRZLWIHHOVWREHWKHWLSRIWKHVSHDUHQWHULQJRXUFLYLOL]DWLRQDOFULVLV´$IHZGD\V ODWHUKHWZHHWHG³,I\RXZHUHWKHUHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH\RX¶UHDPXVHGDWWKHSURQRXQFHPHQWV RIWKH$OW5LJKW¶VGHDWK:HDUHRQO\MXVWEHJLQQLQJ´  ³7KHUH¶VQRZD\LQKHOO,¶PQRWJRLQJEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´'HIHQGDQW 6SHQFHUGHFODUHGDWDSUHVVFRQIHUHQFHZLWK'HIHQGDQW'DPLJR'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\WROGWKH +XIILQJWRQ3RVW³2XUSHRSOHDUHIHHOLQJUHDOJRRGULJKWQRZ«7KLVGD\ZDVDPLOHVWRQH SXVKLQJXVLQWRRXUQH[WVWDJH:HKDGDODUJHWXUQRXW:H¶UHFRPLQJEDFNWR&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´  7KH'DLO\6WRUPHUDOVRYRZHGWKDWLWZRXOGKROGVLPLODUHYHQWV³VRRQ´$SRVW RQWKHZHEVLWHUHDG³:HDUHJRLQJWRVWDUWGRLQJWKLVQRQVWRS$FURVVWKHFRXQWU\:HDUH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6565

Page 94 of 111

Pageid#:


 





JRLQJWRJRELJJHUWKDQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH:HDUHJRLQJWRJRKXJH´)XUWKHUPRUHLWWROGUHDGHUV
WKDW³>Z@HDUHQRZDWZDU´DQGSURPLVHGWR³WDNHRYHUWKHFRXQWU\´
 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUSURPLVHG³:H¶UHJRLQJWRKDYHELJJHUDQGELJJHUHYHQWVLQ
&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´
 'HIHQGDQWVSODQIRUWKHVHRWKHUHYHQWVWREHYLROHQW$IWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW
³UDOO\´'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOH[SODLQHG³,FDPHSUHWW\ZHOOSUHSDUHGIRUWKLVWKLQJWRGD\´ZKLOH
SXOOLQJRXWWKUHHSLVWROVWZRVHPLDXWRPDWLFPDFKLQHJXQVDQGDNQLIH2IWKHQH[W³DOWULJKW
SURWHVW´KHVDLG³LW¶VJRLQJWREHWRXJKWRWRSEXWZH¶UHXSWRWKHFKDOOHQJH,WKLQNDORW
PRUHSHRSOHDUHJRLQJWRGLHEHIRUHZH¶UHGRQHKHUHIUDQNO\´
 )ROORZLQJKLVUHOHDVHRQERQGIRUWKHRIIHQVHVFRPPLWWHGRQ$XJXVW
'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOUHPDUNHGWKDWDIWHUKLVVWLQWLQSULVRQKHZDQWVWR³WXUQLWXSWR´
 2QHZHHNDIWHUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´5LFKDUG6SHQFHU¶VZHEVLWH9LQFHQW
/DZSXEOLVKHG³7KH$OW5LJKWLV)LQLVKHG'HEDWLQJ1R0RUH:RUGV2QO\3UHSDUDWLRQ1RZ´
1RZZKDWKDSSHQVQH[W"2XUVLGHFHUWDLQO\LVQ¶WUHDG\IRU PDVVDFWLRQ\HW$QGWKHUHDUHQRVWUHHWDFWLRQVSODQQHGIRUWKH QHDU IXWXUH  6WLOO WKH OLQHV KDYH EHHQ GUDZQ 7KLQN DERXW WKRVH EUDYH \RXQJ PHQ DW &KDUORWWHVYLOOH 7KHUHLV QR JRLQJ EDFN IRU WKHP
7KH SXEOLF ZLOO VHH YHU\ VRRQ WKDW GHEDWH LV SRLQWOHVV 7KHUHDUHQRSULQFLSOHVDWSOD\DQ\PRUH2QO\RXUWULEHDQGWKHLUV $QG RQO\ RQH JURXS RXW WKHUH KDV GUDZQ D OLQH LQ WKH FOD\ DQG GHFLGHGWRPDNHDVWDQGIRUZKDWLVWKHLUVE\ELUWKE\EORRGDQG E\WKHZLOORI*RG7KH$OW5LJKWLVILQLVKHGGHEDWLQJQHJRWLDWLQJ VXUUHQGHULQJ:H¶UHUHDG\WRFORVHUDQNVDQGILJKWIRUZKDWLVRXUV 3RVW&KDUORWWHVYLOOH RXU IOHHW OLHV DW WKH ERWWRP RI D GHHS DQG WURXEOHGVHDDQGZHFDQRQO\PDUFKRQIRUZDUGOLNH&RUWH]RQFH GLG$QGOLNHKLPZHVWDQGSRLVHGWRFRQTXHUWKHFRQWLQHQW
 2Q6DWXUGD\2FWREHU'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGRWKHUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVUHWXUQHGWR
&KDUORWWHVYLOOH7KHFDOOHGWKHHYHQW³&KDUORWWHVYLOOH´$JDLQWKH\FDUULHGWLNLWRUFKHVDQG



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6566

Page 95 of 111

Pageid#:


 





DJDLQWKH\FKDQWHG³<RXZLOOQRWUHSODFHXV´%XWWKLVWLPHWKH\DGGHG³:HZLOOEHEDFNZH ZLOOEHEDFN´
 2Q1RYHPEHU'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUILOHGDQDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDSHUPLWWR KROGDQRWKHU³UDOO\´LQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH$OWKRXJKWKDWDSSOLFDWLRQZDVGHQLHG.HVVOHUKDV LQGLFDWHGWKDWLWZLOOSURFHHGQRQHWKHOHVV,WLVVFKHGXOHGWRRFFXURQ$XJXVWDQG
& 'HIHQGDQWV&RQWLQXH7KHLU(IIRUWVRI0XWXDO6XSSRUWDQG&RRUGLQDWLRQ  8VLQJPDQ\RIWKHVDPHSODWIRUPVWKH'HIHQGDQWVXVHGWRIXQGWKHLUSUH´UDOO\´ FRRUGLQDWLRQDQGSODQQLQJ'HIHQGDQWVKDYHVLQFHSURYLGHGPXWXDOVXSSRUWWRGHIUD\WKHFRVWV DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHLUXQODZIXOFRQGXFW  'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOSRVWHGEDLOLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKKLVIHORQ\LQGLFWPHQWE\ FURZGIXQGLQJRQZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWVXSSRUWLYHVLWHV+DWUHRQDQG*R\)XQG0H&DQWZHOO¶V *R\)XQG0HSDJHVROLFLWHGGRQDWLRQVIRUWKH³-XVWLFH)XQG´DSHUVRQDOL]HGYHUVLRQRIWKH SRSXODUZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWQXPHULFV\PERO³´7KH³´VWDQGVIRUWKH:RUGVVORJDQ ZKLFKLVWKHKHDUWRI&DQWZHOODQGKLVFRFRQVSLUDWRUV¶LGHRORJ\³:HPXVWVHFXUHWKHH[LVWHQFH RIRXUSHRSOHDQGDIXWXUHIRUZKLWHFKLOGUHQ´,QSODFHRIWKHXVXDO³´ZKLFKLVVKRUWKDQGIRU ³+HLO+LWOHU´+EHLQJWKHWKOHWWHURIWKHDOSKDEHW³´LVDVWDQGLQIRU³&&´RU³&KULV &DQWZHOO´  :KLOHLQSULVRQ'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOOFRQWLQXHGWREURDGFDVWKLVSRGFDVW5DGLFDO $JHQGDZLWKWKHDVVLVWDQFHRI3HLQRYLFK0RUHRYHU3HLQRYLFKDVVLVWHG&DQWZHOOLQKLV IXQGUDLVLQJE\GLVWULEXWLQJUHFRUGLQJVRISKRQHFDOOVIURPMDLOLQZKLFK&DQWZHOOPDNHVSOHDVIRU GRQDWLRQV  6LPLODUO\'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRIRXQGHURIFR'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD HVWDEOLVKHGDSXUSRUWHG³,GHQWLW\(YURSD'HIHQVH)XQG´DQGVROLFLWHGGRQDWLRQVIRUKLPVHOI



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6567

Page 96 of 111

Pageid#:


 





'HIHQGDQW0RVOH\DQG'HIHQGDQW,GHQWLW\(YURSD0RVOH\DQG'DPLJRDOVRDSSHDUHGWRJHWKHU ZLWK'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHURQ³5HG,FH79´WRVROLFLWGRQDWLRQV
&2163,5$&<$&76  $VGHWDLOHGDERYHDOO'HIHQGDQWVKDGDQDJUHHPHQWDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJWRHQJDJH LQSURPRWHDQGLQFLWHUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFLW\EDVHGKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH7KH\GLG VRWKURXJKDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVXVLQJDQGHQFRXUDJLQJWKHXVHRIZHDSRQVDQGFDXVWLF VXEVWDQFHVPLOLWDU\VW\OHPDUFKHVEXUQLQJWRUFKHVLQWLPLGDWLQJLFRQRJUDSK\DQGWKUHDWVRI YLROHQFH7KH\GLGVRLQRUGHUWRDLQMXUHEODFNDQG-HZLVKUHVLGHQWVRI9LUJLQLDE\GHQ\LQJ WKHPWKHHTXDOSULYLOHJHVDQGLPPXQLWLHVRIFLWL]HQVKLSDQGWKHXVHEHQHILWVDQGSULYLOHJHVRI SURSHUW\DQGRUFRQWUDFWXDOUHODWLRQVKLSVEIXUWKHU'HIHQGDQWV¶FDXVHRIUHFUXLWLQJQHZ IROORZHUVWRHQJDJHLQUDFLDOUHOLJLRXVDQGHWKQLFDOO\PRWLYDWHGYLROHQFHUHIHUHQFHGDERYHERWK DWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´DQGLQWKHIXWXUHDQGFFRPSHOWKHFLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWR PDLQWDLQWKHVWDWXHRI5REHUW(/HHLQ(PDQFLSDWLRQ3DUNDVDPHDQVRIIXUWKHULQJWKHLU DIRUHPHQWLRQHGJRDOV  $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVRQEHKDOIRIWKHPVHOYHV RUWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQVIRUZKLFKWKH\DUHDJHQWVSODQQHGDQGFRRUGLQDWHGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW ³UDOO\´HQFRXUDJHGDWWHQGDQFHDFWLYHO\RUJDQL]HGIROORZHUVWRDWWHQGFRRUGLQDWHGORJLVWLFDO VXSSRUWWRDWWHQGHHVSURPRWHGWKH³UDOO\´DVYLROHQWDQGHQFRXUDJHGDWWHQGHHVWRSUHSDUHIRU DQGFRPPLWYLROHQWDFWV  $PRQJRWKHUWKLQJVWKH\XVHGRQOLQHDQGPHGLDSODWIRUPVWRHQFRXUDJH DWWHQGDQFHDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´WRGLVFXVVDQGSURPRWHFDXVLQJKDUPWR-HZLVKSHRSOH DQGSHRSOHRIFRORUDQGWRSURPRWHYLROHQFH



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6568

Page 97 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW6SHQFHUDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU0F/DUHQPHWLQSHUVRQWRSODQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOODQG.HVVOHUPHWLQSHUVRQLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRSODQ XQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW HYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV5D\&DQWZHOODQG0RVOH\DQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU'DYLG'XNHDWWHQGHG DQLQSHUVRQSODQQLQJPHHWLQJRQ$XJXVWWRSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG GHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG5D\XVLQJDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJV'DLO\6WRUPHU¶VZHEVLWH +LOODQG(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVRUJDQL]HGDQGFDXVHGRWKHUVWRDWWHQGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV DQGFRPPLWDFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQWV1DWLRQDOLVW)URQW1607:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK9DQJXDUG $PHULFD(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWVDQG³RWKHUDOOLHV´FRRUGLQDWHGWKHLUDWWHQGDQFHDVD³MRLQW RSHUDWLRQ´LQDGYDQFHRI$XJXVWLQRUGHUWRSODQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQG GHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQW'DPLJRDQGKLVJURXS,GHQWLW\(YURSDWRRNDOHDGUROHLQRUJDQL]LQJ ZKLWHVXSUHPDFLVWSDUWLFLSDWLRQDPRQJSHRSOHIURPRXWVLGH&KDUORWWHVYLOOHWRHQJDJHLQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\RUJDQL]HGWKH³UDOO\´DQGFRRUGLQDWHGORJLVWLFV DORQJZLWKFRFRQVSLUDWRU7\URQHIRUDWWHQGHHVRQ$XJXVWLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOHVRWKDWWKH\ ZRXOGHQJDJHLQXQODZIXODFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6569

Page 98 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\PRGHUDWHGUHYLHZHGDQGPDQDJHGWKH &KDUORWWHVYLOOHGLVFXVVLRQIRUXPRQWKHDSSOLFDWLRQQDPHG'LVFRUGWRGLUHFWDQGSODQXQODZIXO DFWVRIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV $ORQJZLWK.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\'HIHQGDQWV+HLPEDFK3DUURWW&DQWZHOO5D\DQDJHQWRI'DLO\ 6WRUPHUDQGKHQFH'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQDQG0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRU7\URQH ZHUHDOOSDUWLFLSDQWVLQ'LVFRUGDQGLQWKHGLUHFWLRQSODQQLQJDQGLQFLWLQJRIVXFKXQODZIXODFWV WKURXJK'LVFRUGLQFOXGLQJWKHXVHRIZHDSRQVDQGREMHFWVWRLQIOLFWKDUPDQGLQWLPLGDWH 'HIHQGDQWV9DQJXDUG$PHULFD,GHQWLW\(YURSD7:3/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWKDQG0RRQEDVH +ROGLQJVWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHUDOOKDGPHPEHUVRQWKH'LVFRUGFKDQQHO
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO5D\DQG$QJOLQDPRQJRWKHUVDGYLVHGUDOO\JRHUVRQ EULQJLQJZHDSRQV
 8VLQJ'LVFRUG'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHUDQG0RVOH\VHWXSDFKDQQHOIRUFR FRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHXQODZIXODFWVDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWVLQFOXGLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQ
 'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQ5D\DQGWKURXJK'DLO\6WRUPHU0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJVVHWXS DFKDQQHOIRUFRFRQVSLUDWRUVWRFRRUGLQDWHXQODZIXODFWVLQFOXGLQJDFWVRIYLROHQFH LQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO.HVVOHU0RVOH\$QJOLQ5D\DQGRWKHUVUDLVHGIXQGV SODQQHGIRUOHJDOVXSSRUWDQGDUUDQJHGWUDYHOIRUWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVZKRHQJDJHGLQXQODZIXODFWV RIYLROHQFHLQWLPLGDWLRQDQGGHQLDORIHTXDOSURWHFWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKWHYHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV,QYLFWXV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU&DQWZHOO+HLPEDFKDQG+LOOZHUH IHDWXUHGLQWKHSURPRWLRQDOSRVWHUIRUWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´



Ca se 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6570

Page 99 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\$QJOLQDQGFRFRQVSLUDWRUV SODQQHGDQGRUJDQL]HGD³VHFUHW´WRUFKSDUDGHDW89$IRU$XJXVWZLWKDSODQDQGLQWHQWWR LQWLPLGDWHWKUHDWHQDQGKDUDVV&KDUORWWHVYLOOHUHVLGHQWVSDUWLFXODUO\-HZVEODFNVDQGRWKHU PLQRULW\UHVLGHQWV
 'HIHQGDQWV&DQWZHOO0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\DQG,QYLFWXVDWWHQGHGDQG SDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHYLROHQW$XJXVWWRUFKSDUDGHDQGGLUHFWHGDQGLQFLWHGSK\VLFDODVVDXOWVDQG YLROHQFHWKHXVHRIRSHQIODPHVDQGWKHLQWLPLGDWLRQRIPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVDQGWKRVHZKR DGYRFDWHIRUHTXDOULJKWVIRUPLQRULW\FLWL]HQV
 'HIHQGDQW&DQWZHOODVVDXOWHGSHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVZLWKPDFHDFDXVWLFVXEVWDQFH GXULQJWKH$XJXVWPDUFK
 &RFRQVSLUDWRUVDWWHQGHGWKHWRUFKOLJKWPDUFKRQ$XJXVWDQGHQJDJHGLQDFWV RILQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH
 $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI$QJOLQDWWHQGHGDQGSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKH 8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVWGXULQJZKLFKWKH\WKUHDWHQHGLQWLPLGDWHGDQGKDUDVVHG SURWHVWRUVDQGPLQRULW\UHVLGHQWVDQGLQFLWHGDQGHQJDJHGLQYLROHQFH'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV DWWHQGHGZLWK9DQJXDUG$PHULFDZHDULQJWKHXQLIRUPZKLWHSRORDQGNKDNLVDQGFDUU\LQJD EODFNVKLHOGZLWKWKH9DQJXDUGORJR
 $OO'HIHQGDQWVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGLUHFWHGDQGLQFLWHGDFWV RIYLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQDWWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVW
 &R&RQVSLUDWRUVDWWHQGHGWKH8QLWHWKH5LJKW³UDOO\´RQ$XJXVWDQGHQJDJHG LQDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQKDUDVVPHQWDQGYLROHQFH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6571

Page 100 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVGHOLEHUDWHO\GURYHKLV'RGJH&KDOOHQJHULQWRDFURZGRI SHDFHIXOSURWHVWRUVRQ$XJXVWLQWHQGLQJWRLQVWLOOIHDULQWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGWRFDXVHLQMXULHV RQDPDVVVFDOH
&$86(62)$&7,21 &2817,86&  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV  7KLV&RXQWLVEURXJKWDJDLQVWDOO'HIHQGDQWVE\DOO3ODLQWLIIVH[FHSWWKDWL 3ODLQWLII%DNHUDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU&DQWZHOO)LHOGV 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD5D\'DPLJR0RVOH\,GHQWLW\(YURSD+HLPEDFK3DUURWW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW :RUNHU3DUW\+LOO7XEEV/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK6FKRHS1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQWDQG 1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWDQGLL3ODLQWLII3HDUFHDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQ 0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV)2$.,QYLFWXVDQG/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV  'HIHQGDQWVSORWWHGFRRUGLQDWHGDQGH[HFXWHGDFRPPRQSODQWRHQJDJHLQ YLROHQFHDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQLQWKHVWUHHWVRI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH  ,QIXUWKHUDQFHRIDFRQVSLUDF\WRYLRODWHWKHULJKWVRI3ODLQWLIIVDQGRWKHUEODFN DQG-HZLVKSHRSOHDQGWKHLUVXSSRUWHUV'HIHQGDQWVUHSHDWHGO\HQJDJHGLQFDPSDLJQVRI YLROHQFHWKUHDWVDQGLQWLPLGDWLRQDW/HH3DUNDQGWKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\RI&KDUORWWHVYLOOH  'HIHQGDQWVKDYHFRPPLWWHGQXPHURXVRYHUWDFWVLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\ WRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWVZKLFKDUHVHWIRUWKLQWKHSDUDJUDSKVDERYH'HIHQGDQWVKDYHVRXJKW WRFUHDWHDQDWPRVSKHUHRIYLROHQFHDJDLQVW3ODLQWLIIVDQGWRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶HTXDOULJKWV LQFOXGLQJWKRVHXQGHU86&



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6572

Page 101 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 &RFRQVSLUDWRUVZKRVHLGHQWLWLHVDUHQRWNQRZQFRPPLWWHGQXPHURXVDGGLWLRQDO DFWVLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\WRYLRODWH3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHDOOHJHGKHUHLQ
 7KHLOOHJDODFWLYLWLHVGHVFULEHGZHUHXQGHUWDNHQE\'HIHQGDQWVWKHLUDJHQWVDQG FRFRQVSLUDWRUVDVH[SUHVVRYHUWDFWVSXUVXDQWWRDQXQODZIXOFRQVSLUDF\WKHSXUSRVHRIZKLFK ZDVDQGLVWRGLVFULPLQDWRULO\GHSULYHEODFN-HZLVKQRQZKLWHLQGLYLGXDOVDQGWKHLUZKLWH VXSSRUWHUVRIWKHLUULJKWVWRWKHHTXDOSURWHFWLRQRIWKHODZVDQGWKHLUULJKWVWRWKHHTXDO HQMR\PHQWRIWKHSULYLOHJHVDQGLPPXQLWLHVRIFLWL]HQVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVJXDUDQWHHGE\WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDQGODZVEHFDXVHRIWKHLUUDFHUHOLJLRQDQGRSHQDQGREYLRXVDGYRFDF\IRUWKH ULJKWVRIQRQZKLWHLQGLYLGXDOV
 $VDUHVXOWRIWKHDFWVVHWRXWLQWKHDERYHSDUDJUDSKVFRPPLWWHGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRI WKLVFRQVSLUDF\3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGLQMXULHVWRWKHLUSHUVRQRUSURSHUW\DQGRUVXIIHUHGWKH GLVFULPLQDWRU\GHSULYDWLRQRIRQHRUPRUHRIWKHLUULJKWVRUSULYLOHJHVJXDUDQWHHGE\WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQRUODZVEHFDXVHRIRQHRUPRUHRIWKHLOOHJDORYHUWDFWVRI'HIHQGDQWVDQGWKHLU DJHQWV7KHVHULJKWVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHLUULJKWVWREHIUHHRIWKHEDGJHVDQG LQFLGHQWVRIVODYHU\SXUVXDQWWRWKH7KLUWHHQWK$PHQGPHQWDVZHOODVWKHLUULJKWVSURWHFWHGE\ 86&
 %HFDXVHRI'HIHQGDQWV¶YLRODWLRQRI3ODLQWLIIV¶ULJKWV3ODLQWLIIVKDYHVXIIHUHG QXPHURXVDQGYDULRXVLQMXULHVLQFOXGLQJERGLO\LQMXU\LQMXULHVWRSURSHUW\ORVWLQFRPHDQG VHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVV
&2817,,86&  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6573

Page 102 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 7KLV&RXQWLVEURXJKWDJDLQVWDOO'HIHQGDQWVE\DOO3ODLQWLIIVH[FHSWWKDWL 3ODLQWLII%DNHUDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU&DQWZHOO)LHOGV 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD5D\'DPLJR0RVOH\,GHQWLW\(YURSD+HLPEDFK3DUURWW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW :RUNHU3DUW\+LOO7XEEV/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK6FKRHS1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQWDQG 1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWDQGLL3ODLQWLII3HDUFHDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQ 0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV)2$.,QYLFWXVDQG/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV
 'HIHQGDQWVDOOSRVVHVVHGDFWXDONQRZOHGJHRIWKH6HFWLRQDQWLFLYLOULJKWV FRQVSLUDF\GHVFULEHGLQWKLVFRPSODLQWWKDWZDVSODQQHGDQGWKHQXQGHUWDNHQDJDLQVWWKHFODVVRI $PHULFDQFLWL]HQVGHVFULEHG²LQFOXGLQJDQXPEHURIWKH3ODLQWLIIVQDPHGKHUHLQ
 'HIHQGDQWVDVRUJDQL]HUVSODQQHUVSURPRWHUVDQGOHDGHUVRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\ ZHUHHDFKLQDSRVLWLRQDQGKDGWKHSRZHUWRKDYHVWRSSHGWKHDQWLFLYLOULJKWVFRQVSLUDF\RUWR DLGLQVWRSSLQJLW
 (DFKRIWKH'HIHQGDQWVIDLOHGDQGUHIXVHGWRWDNHDQ\VWHSVWRDWWHPSWWRVWRSWKLV FRQVSLUDF\RUDQ\RIWKHRYHUWDFWVFRPPLWWHGLQIXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\VRDVWRVWRSWKH LQMXULHVZKLFKRFFXUUHGWR3ODLQWLIIVRUWRRWKHUPHPEHUVRIWKHFODVVRIFLWL]HQVWDUJHWHGE\WKH DQWLFLYLOULJKWVFRQVSLUDF\GHVFULEHG
 7KHIDLOXUHRI'HIHQGDQWVWRWDNHDQ\VWHSVWRDLGLQSUHYHQWLQJWKHDFWLRQV GHVFULEHGKHUHLQE\LQIRUPLQJWKHODZIXODXWKRULWLHVRURWKHUZLVHYLRODWHGWKHFRPPDQGRI 86&
 3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGWKHLULQMXULHVDVDUHVXOWRIWKHLQGLYLGXDO'HIHQGDQWV¶IDLOXUHWR VWRSWKHGHVFULEHGFRQVSLUDF\



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6574

Page 103 of 111

Pageid#:


 





&2817,,,&,9,/&2163,5$&< 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ SDUDJUDSKV
 7KLV&RXQWLVEURXJKWDJDLQVWDOO'HIHQGDQWVE\DOO3ODLQWLIIVH[FHSWWKDWL 3ODLQWLII%DNHUDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV.HVVOHU6SHQFHU&DQWZHOO)LHOGV 9DQJXDUG$PHULFD5D\'DPLJR0RVOH\,GHQWLW\(YURSD+HLPEDFK3DUURWW7UDGLWLRQDOLVW :RUNHU3DUW\+LOO7XEEV/HDJXHRIWKH6RXWK6FKRHS1DWLRQDO6RFLDOLVW0RYHPHQWDQG 1DWLRQDOLVW)URQWDQGLL3ODLQWLII3HDUFHDVVHUWVWKLVFODLPRQO\DJDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV$QJOLQ 0RRQEDVH+ROGLQJV//&(DVW&RDVW.QLJKWV)2$.,QYLFWXVDQG/R\DO:KLWH.QLJKWV
 (DFK'HIHQGDQWFRQVSLUHGWRJHWKHUDQGFRPELQHGZLWKRQHRUPRUHRWKHUSHUVRQV WRDFFRPSOLVKWKURXJKWKHFRQFHUWHGDFWLRQGHVFULEHGDERYHXQODZIXODQGWRUWLRXVDFWV LQFOXGLQJ
D 6XEMHFWLQJSHUVRQVWRDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQRUKDUDVVPHQWPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDO UHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
E 'LUHFWLQJYLROHQFHDWDQRWKHUSHUVRQPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLF DQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
F 'LUHFWLQJYDQGDOLVPDWDSHUVRQ¶VUHDORUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\PRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDO UHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
G &DXVLQJRUSURGXFLQJDULRWLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH H 'LUHFWLQJLQFLWLQJRUVROLFLWLQJRWKHUSHUVRQVSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQDULRWWRDFWVRI
IRUFHRUYLROHQFHLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH I &DXVLQJSXEOLFLQFRQYHQLHQFHDQQR\DQFHRUDODUPRUUHFNOHVVO\FUHDWLQJDULVN
WKHUHRILQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6575

Page 104 of 111

Pageid#:


 





J $VVHPEOLQJDFROOHFWLRQRISHRSOHIRUWKHSXUSRVHDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQRI FRPPLWWLQJDQGDFWXDOO\FRPPLWWLQJDQDVVDXOWRUEDWWHU\RQDQRWKHUSHUVRQLQ YLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHDQG
K $VVHPEOLQJDFROOHFWLRQRISHRSOHIRUWKHSXUSRVHDQGZLWKWKHLQWHQWLRQRI FRPPLWWLQJDQGDFWXDOO\FRPPLWWLQJDQDFWRIYLROHQFHDVGHILQHGLQ9LUJLQLD &RGHLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHDQG 
L 0DOLFLRXVO\FDXVLQJDQRWKHUSHUVRQERGLO\LQMXU\E\XVHRIDQ\H[SORVLYHRUILUH LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
M %XUQLQJDQREMHFWZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHRQDKLJKZD\RURWKHUSXEOLFSODFH LQDPDQQHUKDYLQJDGLUHFWWHQGHQF\WRSODFHDQRWKHUSHUVRQLQUHDVRQDEOHIHDURI DSSUHKHQVLRQRIGHDWKRUERGLO\LQMXU\LQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH 
N %XUQLQJDQREMHFWZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHRQWKHSULYDWHSURSHUW\RIDQRWKHU ZLWKRXWSHUPLVVLRQLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
O &RPPLWWLQJDQDFWRIYLROHQFHZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHDFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDW ODUJHRULQIOXHQFHWKHFRQGXFWRUDFWLYLWLHVRIDJRYHUQPHQWWKURXJKLQWLPLGDWLRQ LQYLRODWLRQRI
P 3RVVHVVLQJXVLQJVHOOLQJJLYLQJGLVWULEXWLQJRUPDQXIDFWXULQJDZHDSRQRU LPLWDWLRQZHDSRQWKDWFRXOGFDXVHVHULRXVERGLO\KDUPLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDQDFW RIWHUURULVPLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
Q ,QYLWLQJVROLFLWLQJUHFUXLWLQJHQFRXUDJLQJRURWKHUZLVHFDXVLQJDQRWKHUWR SDUWLFLSDWHLQDQDFWRIWHUURULVPLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6576

Page 105 of 111

Pageid#:


 





R .QRZLQJO\SURYLGLQJPDWHULDOVXSSRUWWRDQLQGLYLGXDORURUJDQL]DWLRQZKRVH
SULPDU\REMHFWLYHLVWRFRPPLWDQDFWRIWHUURULVPZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRIXUWKHUWKH
LQGLYLGXDORURUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VREMHFWLYHVLQYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH S (QJDJLQJLQDQRYHUWDFWLQWHQGHGWRLQIOLFWERGLO\KDUPRULQWHQGHGWRSODFHWKH
YLFWLPLQIHDURUDSSUHKHQVLRQRIERGLO\KDUPDVVDXOW T &RPPLWWLQJDQXQZDQWHGWRXFKLQJWKDWZDVQHLWKHUFRQVHQWHGWRH[FXVHGRU
MXVWLILHGEDWWHU\ U &DXVLQJUHDVRQDEOHDSSUHKHQVLRQWKDWIRUFHZLOOEHXVHGXQOHVVDSHUVRQZLOOLQJO\
VXEPLWVDQGFDXVLQJKLPWRVXEPLWWRWKHH[WHQWWKDWKHLVGHQLHGIUHHGRPRI
DFWLRQIDOVHLPSULVRQPHQW  (DFKRIWKH3ODLQWLIIVVXIIHUHGGDPDJHVUHVXOWLQJIURPDFWVFRPPLWWHGLQ
IXUWKHUDQFHRIWKHFRQVSLUDF\  $VFRFRQVSLUDWRUV'HIHQGDQWVDUHFLYLOO\OLDEOHWR3ODLQWLIIVIRUWKHDFWLRQVRIDOO
LQGLYLGXDOVZKRDFWHGLQSXUVXLWRIWKHFRPPRQFRQVSLUDWRULDOVFKHPH
&2817,91(*/,*(1&(3(56( 
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV  3XUVXDQWWR9LUJLQLD&RGHDQ\SHUVRQZKRFRPPLWVRUFRQVSLUHVWR
FRPPLWRUDLGVDQGDEHWVWKHFRPPLVVLRQRIDQDFWRIWHUURULVPLVJXLOW\RIDIHORQ\  9LUJLQLD&RGHGHILQHVDQ³DFWRIWHUURULVP´DVDPRQJRWKHUWKLQJVDQ
DFWRIYLROHQFHFRPPLWWHGZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRLQWLPLGDWHWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDWODUJH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6577

Page 106 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 9LUJLQLD&RGHZDVHQDFWHGWRSURWHFWWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQIURPDFWV RIWHUURULVPDQGYLROHQFH
 )LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\GURYHKLVYHKLFOHLQWRDJURXSRIFLYLOLDQVDQGFRXQWHU SURWHVWRUVZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRPXUGHULQMXUHDQGLQWLPLGDWHWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQDWODUJHLQ YLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGH
 3ODLQWLIIVDVPHPEHUVRIWKHFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQEHORQJWRWKHFODVVRISHUVRQVIRU ZKRVHEHQHILW9LUJLQLD&RGHZDVHQDFWHGDQGWKHYLRODWLRQRIWKH6WDWXWHFRQVWLWXWHV QHJOLJHQFHSHUVH
 7KHLQMXULHVVXIIHUHGE\3ODLQWLIIVZHUHWKHW\SHRIKDUPDJDLQVWZKLFK9LUJLQLD &RGHZDVGHVLJQHGWRSURWHFW
 'HIHQGDQW¶VYLRODWLRQRI9LUJLQLD&RGHGLUHFWO\DQGSUR[LPDWHO\ FDXVHGWKH3ODLQWLIIVKDUP
&281799,2/$7,212)9,5*,1,$&2'( &,9,/$&7,21)255$&,$/5(/,*,28625(7+1,&+$5$660(17
 %\3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\0XxL]-RKQ'RH6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG5RPHUR
$JDLQVW'HIHQGDQWV)LHOGV0RVOH\6SHQFHU.HVVOHU5D\&DQWZHOODQG,QYLFWXV  3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV  9LUJLQLD&RGHFUHDWHVDFLYLOFDXVHRIDFWLRQIRUDQ\SHUVRQZKRLV
VXEMHFWHGWRWKHIROORZLQJLIPRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\DFWVRI LQWLPLGDWLRQRUKDUDVVPHQWYLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWKLVRUKHUSHUVRQRUYDQGDOLVPGLUHFWHG DJDLQVWKLVRUKHUUHDORUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6578

Page 107 of 111

Pageid#:


 





 3ODLQWLIIV:LVSHOZH\0XxL]-RKQ'RH6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGRDQG
5RPHURZHUHVXEMHFWHGWRDFWVRILQWLPLGDWLRQDQGRUKDUDVVPHQWYLROHQFHGLUHFWHGDWWKHLU
SHUVRQVDQGRUYDQGDOLVPGLUHFWHGDJDLQVWWKHLUUHDODQGRUSHUVRQDOSURSHUW\
 7KHVHDFWVZHUHPRWLYDWHGE\'HIHQGDQWV¶UDFLDOUHOLJLRXVRUHWKQLFDQLPRVLW\
&28179,$66$8/7$1'%$77(5< 
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV
 $VDUHVXOWRIWKHLQWHQWLRQDODQGXQODZIXODFWVRI'HIHQGDQWVDVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQ
3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHURZHUHSODFHGLQ
DSSUHKHQVLRQRIKDUPIXODQGRURIIHQVLYHERGLO\FRQWDFWDQGVXIIHUHGKDUPIXORIIHQVLYHERGLO\
WRXFKLQJZKLFKZDVQHLWKHUFRQVHQWHGWRH[FXVHGRUMXVWLILHG
&28179,,,17(17,21$/,1)/,&7,212)(027,21$/',675(66
%\3ODLQWLIIV0XxL]6LQHV%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHUR $JDLQVW'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV 
 3ODLQWLIIVLQFRUSRUDWHKHUHLQE\UHIHUHQFHWKHDYHUPHQWVFRQWDLQHGLQDOOSUHFHGLQJ
SDUDJUDSKV
 'HIHQGDQW)LHOGVLQWHQWLRQDOO\DQGRUUHFNOHVVO\GURYHKLVFDULQWRDFURZGRI
FRXQWHUSURWHVWRUVZLWKWKHLQWHQWWRPXUGHUVHYHUHO\LQMXUHDQGLQWLPLGDWHDFLYLOLDQSRSXODWLRQ
 $VDUHVXOWRI'HIHQGDQW)LHOGV¶VRXWUDJHRXVDQGH[WUHPHDFWLRQV3ODLQWLIIV
0XxL]%ODLU0DUWLQ$OYDUDGR%DNHUDQG5RPHURVXIIHUHGVHYHUHHPRWLRQDOGLVWUHVVWKDWQR
UHDVRQDEOHSHUVRQFRXOGEHH[SHFWHGWRHQGXUH



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6579

Page 108 of 111

Pageid#:


 





35$<(5)255(/,()

:KHUHIRUH3ODLQWLIIVUHVSHFWIXOO\UHTXHVWDQDZDUGRIWKHIROORZLQJUHOLHI

 $GHFODUDWRU\MXGJPHQWWKDWWKHDFWLRQVGHVFULEHGKHUHLQGHSULYHG3ODLQWLIIVRI

WKHLUULJKWVXQGHUIHGHUDODQGVWDWHODZ

 ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHIHQMRLQLQJ'HIHQGDQWVIURPIXWXUHYLRODWLRQVRIULJKWVJXDUDQWHHG

E\VWDWHDQGIHGHUDOODZ

 &RPSHQVDWRU\DQGVWDWXWRU\GDPDJHVLQDQDPRXQWWREHGHWHUPLQHGDWWULDO

 3XQLWLYHGDPDJHVLQDQDPRXQWWREHGHWHUPLQHGDWWULDO

 6XFKRWKHUUHOLHIDVWKH&RXUWGHHPVQHFHVVDU\DQGMXVW







Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6580

Page 109 of 111

Pageid#:


 







5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG





s/ Robert T. Cahill



5REHUW7&DKLOO96%

&22/(<//3

)UHHGRP'ULYHWK)ORRU

5HVWRQ9$

7HOHSKRQH

)D[

(PDLOUFDKLOO#FRROH\FRP



Of Counsel for all Plaintiffs:

5REHUWD$.DSODQpro hac vice -XOLH()LQNpro hac vice *DEULHOOH(7HQ]HUpro hac vice -RVKXD$0DW]pro hac vice 0LFKDHO/RZ%ORFKpro hac vice .$3/$1+(&.(5 ),1.//3

)LIWK$YHQXH6XLWH

1HZ<RUN1<

7HOHSKRQH

(PDLOUNDSODQ#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP

(PDLOMILQN#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP

(PDLOŐƚĞŶǌĞƌΛNDSODQKHFNHUFRP (PDLOMPDW]#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP

(PDLOPEORFK#NDSODQKHFNHUFRP


$ODQ/HYLQHpro hac vice 3KLOLS0%RZPDQpro hac vice &22/(<//3

+XGVRQ<DUGV

1HZ<RUN1<

7HOHSKRQH

)D[

(PDLODOHYLQH#FRROH\FRP

(PDLOSERZPDQ#FRROH\FRP



'DYLG(0LOOVpro hac vice &22/(<//3

3HQQV\OYDQLD$YHQXH1:

6XLWH

:DVKLQJWRQ'&

7HOHSKRQH

)D[

(PDLOGPLOOV#FRROH\FRP



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6581

Page 110 of 111

Pageid#:


 
 





 .DUHQ/'XQQpro hac vice :LOOLDP$,VDDFVRQpro hac vice -HVVLFD(3KLOOLSVpro hac vice %2,(66&+,//(5)/(;1(5//3 1HZ<RUN$YH1: :DVKLQJWRQ'& 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLONGXQQ#EVIOOSFRP (PDLOǁŝƐĂĂĐƐŽŶΛďƐĨůůƉ͘ĐŽŵ (PDLOMSKLOOLSV#EVIOOSFRP

-RVKXD-/LEOLQJpro hac vice <RWDP%DUNDLpro hac vice %2,(66&+,//(5)/(;1(5//3 +XGVRQ<DUGVWK)ORRU 1HZ<RUN1< 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOMOLEOLQJ#EVIOOSFRP (PDLOǇďĂƌŬĂŝΛďƐĨůůƉ͘ĐŽŵ  -%HQMDPLQ5RWWHQERUQ96% (ULQ%$VKZHOO96% :22'652*(563/& 6RXWK-HIIHUVRQ6W6XLWH 5RDQRNH9$ 7HOHSKRQH )D[ (PDLOEURWWHQERUQ#ZRRGVURJHUVFRP (PDLOHDVKZHOO#ZRRGVURJHUVFRP  



Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH



Document 557 Filed 09/17/19 6582

Page 111 of 111

Pageid#:

 
 CASREF,PROSE,PROTO
U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH

Sines et al v. Kessler et al Assigned to: Judge Norman K. Moon Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe Related Cases: 3:18-cv-00107-NKM-JCH
3:19-cv-00044-NKM-JCH
3:20-mc-00010-NKM Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Sines

Date Filed: 10/11/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alan Levine Cooley LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 46th Floor New York, NY 10036 212-479-6260 Email: alevine@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexandra Kendal Conlon Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: aconlon@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexandra Eber Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 202-776-2983 Fax: 202-842-7800 Email: aeber@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY

1

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani Cooley LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 212-479-6188 Fax: 212-479-6275 Email: aliverzani@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: bwhite@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 202-842-7800 Fax: 202-842-7899 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 929-294-2528 Email: cgreene@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2

Daniel Philip Roy , III Cooley LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 212-479-6000 Fax: 212-479-6275 Email: droy@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 202-842-7800 Fax: 202-842-7899 Email: dmills@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Email: ecole@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell Office of the Attorney General 202 North Ninth Street 23219 Richmond, VA 23219 804-786-2435 Email: eashwell@oag.state.va.us TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer
3

Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: gtenzer@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 202-223-7300 Email: jphillips@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn Woods Rogers PLC P.O. Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038-4125 540-983-7540 Fax: 540-983-7711 Email: brottenborn@woodsrogers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: jkay@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001
4

212-446-2300 Fax: 212-446-2350 Email: jlibling@bsfllp.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: jmatz@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: jfink@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 202-223-7300 Email: kdunn@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-237-2727
5

Fax: 202-237-6131 Email: kcheng@bsfllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: mbloch@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 212-446-2300 Fax: 212-446-2350 Email: pbowman@bsfllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: rtolentino@kaplanhecker.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill Cooley LLP 11951 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 703-456-8000 Fax: 703-456-8100 Email: rcahill@cooley.com
6

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: rkaplan@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400 202-842-7800 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: sstrohmeier@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, Garrison LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 202-223-7300 Fax: 202-223-7420 Email: wisaacson@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY
7

Plaintiff Seth Wispelwey

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 212-763-0883 Email: ybarkai@kaplanhecker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 202-842-7800 Fax: 202-842-7899 Email: jsiegel@cooley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki Cooley LLP 11951 Freedom Drive, 14th Floor Reston, VA 20190 703-456-8000 Fax: 703-456-8100 Email: sstemetzki@cooley.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber
8

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
9

Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
10

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address)
11

Plaintiff Marissa Blair

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
12

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell
13

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
14

Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
15

Plaintiff
Tyler Magill TERMINATED: 04/16/2019

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
16

Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
17

Plaintiff April Muniz

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address)
18

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
19

Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
20

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
21

Plaintiff
Hannah Pearce TERMINATED: 01/22/2020

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
23

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address)
24

Plaintiff Marcus Martin

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address)
25

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay
26

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
27

Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
28

Plaintiff John Doe

Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
29

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
30

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino
31

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki
32

Plaintiff
Jane Doe 1 TERMINATED: 01/05/2018

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
33

Plaintiff
Jane Doe 2 TERMINATED: 01/05/2018

Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
34

Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
35

Plaintiff
Jane Doe 3 TERMINATED: 01/05/2018

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address)
36

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan
37

Plaintiff Natalie Romero

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
38

Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 202-842-7800 Fax: 202-842-7899 Email: dmills@cooley.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
39

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink Kaplan & Company, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: jfink@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address)
40

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 212-446-2300 Fax: 212-446-2350 Email: pbowman@bsfllp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roberta Ann Kaplan Kaplan & Company, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: rkaplan@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY
41

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier Kaplan & Company, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: sstrohmeier@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene Kaplan & Company, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 929-294-2528 Email:
42

Plaintiff Chelsea Alvarado

cgreene@kaplanandcompany.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills
43

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
44

Joshua Adam Matz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
45

Plaintiff Thomas Baker

Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seguin Layton Strohmeier (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bradford Greene (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Levine (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
46

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Kendal Conlon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexandra Eber (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Lee Liverzani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Daniel White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caitlin B. Munley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Philip Roy , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Mills (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Carrie Cole (See above for address)
47

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin B. Ashwell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/13/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Benjamin Rottenborn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan R. Kay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua James Libling (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Adam Matz Kaplan & Company, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883
48

Email: jmatz@kaplanandcompany.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julie Eden Fink (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen Leah Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Marie Cheng (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Low Bloch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Matthew Bowman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond Patrick Tolentino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert T. Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
49

V. Movant David Duke TERMINATED: 02/28/2019
Movant John Doe TERMINATED: 04/10/2018

Roberta Ann Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samantha A Strauss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Anthony Isaacson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Yotam Barkai (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Michael Siegel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott William Stemetzki (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Duke 240 Garden Avenue Mandeville, LA 70471 985-869-0720 PRO SE
represented by John Doe 98 West 1st Street Yuma, AZ 85364 928-329-4766
50

Movant James Hart Stern President/Director of the National Socialist Movement TERMINATED: 04/15/2019 Movant Denise Y. Lunsford
Movant John I. Hill
Movant John Anthony DiNucci TERMINATED: 03/24/2021
V. Defendant Jason Kessler

PRO SE
represented by James Hart Stern 12625 Frederick Street Suite I-5 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 PRO SE
represented by Denise Yvette Lunsford Denise Y. Lunsford, LLC 414 East Market Street, Suite C Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-328-8798 Email: d@lunsford-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Irving Hill PoindexterHill, P.C. 404 South Wayne Avenue Waynesboro, VA 22980 540-943-1118 Fax: 540-949-6476 Email: john@poindexterhill.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Anthony DiNucci 8180 Greensboro Drive Suite 1150 McLean, VA 22102 7038214232 Fax: 7037909863 PRO SE
represented by Elmer Woodard 5661 US Hwy 29 Blairs, VA 24527 434-878-3422 Email: isuecrooks@comcast.net
51

Defendant Richard Spencer
Defendant Christopher Cantwell

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich Kolenich Law Office 9435 Waterstone Blvd., Suite 140 Cincinnati, OH 45249 513-444-2150 Fax: 513-297-6065 Email: Jek318@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Spencer PO Box 1676 Whitefish, MT 59937 PRO SE
John A. DiNucci Law Office of John A. DiNucci 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1150 McLean, VA 22102 703-821-4232 Fax: 703-790-9863 Email: dinuccilaw@outlook.com TERMINATED: 06/22/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher Cantwell #991509 Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility 19351 US Highway 49 North Tutwiler, MS 38963 PRO SE
Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich
52

Defendant James Alex Fields, Jr.
Defendant Vanguard America

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Leon Campbell Duane, Hauck, Davis, Gravatt & Campbell 100 West Franklin Street, Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23220 804-644-7400 Email: dcampbell@dhdgclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M. Lorish Federal Public Defenders Office Western District of Virginia Charlottesville 401 E Market Street, Suite 106 Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-220-3388 Fax: 434-220-3390 Email: lisa_lorish@fd.org TERMINATED: 08/20/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Saunders Gravatt Duane, Hauck, Davis & Gravatt, P.C. 100 West Franklin Street, Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23220 804-644-7400 ext. 120 Fax: 804-303-8911 Email: jgravatt@dhdglaw.com
represented by Vanguard America c/o Dillon Hopper PRO SE
Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
53

Defendant Andrew Anglin Defendant Moonbase Holdings, LLC Defendant Robert Azzmador Ray
Defendant Nathan Damigo
Defendant Elliott Kline also known as Eli Mosely

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Azzmador Ray PRO SE
Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elliott Kline PRO SE
54

Defendant Identity Evropa
Defendant Matthew Heimbach
Defendant Matthew Parrott

Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew Heimbach P.O. Box 278 Steubenville, OH 43592 301-525-1474 PRO SE
Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard
55

also known as David Matthew Parrott
Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party
Defendant Michael Hill
Defendant Michael Tubbs
Defendant League of the South
Defendant Jeff Schoep PO Box 13768

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bryan Jeffrey Jones Bryan J. Jones, Attorney at law 106 W. South Street, Suite 211 Charlottesville, VA 22902 540-623-6952 Fax: 434-381-4397 Email: bryan@bjoneslegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bryan Jeffrey Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bryan Jeffrey Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address)
56

Detroit, MI 48213 313-671-2583
Defendant National Socialist Movement
Defendant Nationalist Front

TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edward ReBrook , IV The Rebrook Law Office 6013 Clerkenwell Court Burke, VA 22015 571-215-9006 Email: rebrooklaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edward ReBrook , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elmer Woodard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Edward Kolenich
57

Defendant Augustus Sol Invictus
Defendant Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights
Defendant Michael Enoch Peinovich TERMINATED: 07/09/2018
Defendant Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan
Defendant East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan also known as East Coast Knights of The True Invisible Empire

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/04/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Edward ReBrook , IV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Enoch Peinovich P.O. Box 1069 Hopewell Junction, NY 12533 917-747-9238 PRO SE

Date Filed 10/11/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Anglin, Augustus Sol Invictus, Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, James Alex Fields, Jr, Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights, Matthew Heimbach, Michael Hill, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, League of the South, Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, Moonbase Holdings, LLC, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Michael "Enoch" Peinovich, Robert "Azzmador" Ray, Jeff Schoep, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Michael Tubbs, Vanguard America (Filing & Administrative fee $ 400 paid by e-receipt 0423-2765137), filed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz,

58

10/13/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017

John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(hnw) Modified on 10/13/2017 (ca). (Entered: 10/12/2017)
2 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Cahill, Robert)
3 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Nathan Damigo.(Cahill, Robert)
4 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Michael Enoch Peinovich.(Cahill, Robert)
5 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Matthew Heimbach.(Cahill, Robert)
6 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Michael Hill.(Cahill, Robert)
7 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Matthew Parrott.(Cahill, Robert)
8 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Robert Azzmador Ray.(Cahill, Robert)
9 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Jeff Schoep.(Cahill, Robert)
10 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Richard Spencer.(Cahill, Robert)
11 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Michael Tubbs.(Cahill, Robert)
12 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Andrew Anglin.(Cahill, Robert)
13 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Augustus Sol Invictus.(Cahill, Robert)
14 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Christopher Cantwell.(Cahill, Robert)

59

10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/17/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017

15 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to James Alex Fields, Jr.(Cahill, Robert)
16 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Jason Kessler.(Cahill, Robert)
17 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Elliot Kline.(Cahill, Robert)
18 Electronic Summons Issued as to Andrew Anglin NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
19 Electronic Summons Issued as to Augustus Sol Invictus NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
20 Electronic Summons Issued as to Christopher Cantwell NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
21 Electronic Summons Issued as to Elliot Kline NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
22 Electronic Summons Issued as to James Alex Fields, Jr NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
23 Electronic Summons Issued as to Jason Kessler NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
24 Electronic Summons Issued as to Jeff Schoep NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
25 Electronic Summons Issued as to Matthew Parrott NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
26 Electronic Summons Issued as to Matthew Heimbach NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
27 Electronic Summons Issued as to Michael Hill NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
28 Electronic Summons Issued as to Michael Tubbs NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)

60

10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/18/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017
10/19/2017 10/19/2017

29 Electronic Summons Issued as to Michael Enoch Peinovich NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
30 Electronic Summons Issued as to Nathan Damigo NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
31 Electronic Summons Issued as to Richard Spencer NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
32 Electronic Summons Issued as to Robert Azzmador Ray NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
33 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights.(Cahill, Robert)
34 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to National Socialist Movement.(Cahill, Robert)
35 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to League of the South.(Cahill, Robert)
36 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Nationalist Front.(Cahill, Robert)
37 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC.(Cahill, Robert)
38 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Vanguard America.(Cahill, Robert)
39 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Identity Evropa.(Cahill, Robert)
40 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.(Cahill, Robert)
41 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Traditionalist Worker Party.(Cahill, Robert)
42 Electronic Summons Issued as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each

61

10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 11/01/2017
11/01/2017
11/01/2017

defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
43 Electronic Summons Issued as to Identity Evropa NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
44 Electronic Summons Issued as to League of the South NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
45 Electronic Summons Issued as to Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
46 Electronic Summons Issued as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
47 Electronic Summons Issued as to Nationalist Front NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
48 Electronic Summons Issued as to National Socialist Movement NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
49 Electronic Summons Issued as to Traditionalist Worker Party NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
50 Electronic Summons Issued as to Vanguard America NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
51 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Identity Evropa.(Cahill, Robert)
52 Electronic Summons Issued as to Identity Europa, Inc. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
53 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Jason Kessler served on 10/31/2017, answer due 11/21/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
54 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Matthew Parrott served on 10/20/2017, answer due 11/13/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
55 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. League of the South served on 10/24/2017,

62

11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 11/02/2017

answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
56 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan served on 10/24/2017, answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
57 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Michael Hill served on 10/23/2017, answer due 11/13/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
58 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Michael Tubbs served on 10/24/2017, answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
59 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Nathan Damigo served on 10/20/2017, answer due 11/13/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
60 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Nationalist Front served on 10/24/2017, answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
61 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Michael Enoch Peinovich served on 10/31/2017, answer due 11/21/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
62 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Elliot Kline served on 10/27/2017, answer due 11/17/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
63 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Identity Evropa served on 10/25/2017, answer due 11/15/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
64 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Christopher Cantwell served on 10/25/2017, answer due 11/15/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
65 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. James Alex Fields, Jr served on 10/24/2017, answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
66 MOTION for Roberta A. Kaplan to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John

63

11/03/2017
11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/06/2017
11/06/2017

Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
67 ORDER granting 66 MOTION for Roberta A. Kaplan to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Roberta A. Kaplan for Marissa Blair,Roberta A. Kaplan for John Doe,Roberta A. Kaplan for Jane Doe 1,Roberta A. Kaplan for Jane Doe 2,Roberta A. Kaplan for Jane Doe 3,Roberta A. Kaplan for Tyler Magill,Roberta A. Kaplan for Marcus Martin,Roberta A. Kaplan for April Muniz,Roberta A. Kaplan for Hannah Pearce,Roberta A. Kaplan for Elizabeth Sines,Roberta A. Kaplan for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/3/17. (jcj)
68 MOTION for Alan Levine to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
69 MOTION for David E. Mills to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
70 MOTION for Julie E. Fink to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
71 MOTION for Christopher B. Greene to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
72 MOTION for Seguin L. Strohmeier to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
73 ORDER granting 68 MOTION for Alan Levine to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Alan Levine for Marissa Blair,Alan Levine for John Doe,Alan Levine for Jane Doe 1,Alan Levine for Jane Doe 2,Alan Levine for Jane Doe 3,Alan Levine for Tyler Magill,Alan Levine for Marcus Martin,Alan Levine for April Muniz,Alan Levine for Hannah Pearce,Alan Levine for Elizabeth Sines,Alan Levine for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/6/17. (jcj)
74 ORDER granting 69 MOTION for David E. Mills to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney David E. Mills for Marissa Blair,David E. Mills for John Doe,David E. Mills for Jane Doe 1,David E. Mills for Jane Doe 2,David E. Mills for Jane Doe 3,David E. Mills for Tyler Magill,David E. Mills for Marcus Martin,David E. Mills for April Muniz,David E. Mills for Hannah Pearce,David E. Mills for Elizabeth Sines,David E. Mills for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/6/17. (jcj)

64

11/06/2017 11/06/2017
11/06/2017
11/06/2017 11/06/2017 11/06/2017 11/06/2017 11/06/2017 11/07/2017

75 ORDER granting 70 MOTION for Julie E. Fink to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Julie E. Fink for Marissa Blair,Julie E. Fink for John Doe,Julie E. Fink for Jane Doe 1,Julie E. Fink for Jane Doe 2,Julie E. Fink for Jane Doe 3,Julie E. Fink for Tyler Magill,Julie E. Fink for Marcus Martin,Julie E. Fink for April Muniz,Julie E. Fink for Hannah Pearce,Julie E. Fink for Elizabeth Sines,Julie E. Fink for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/6/17. (jcj)
76 ORDER granting 71 MOTION for Christopher B. Greene to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Christopher B. Greene for Marissa Blair,Christopher B. Greene for John Doe,Christopher B. Greene for Jane Doe 1,Christopher B. Greene for Jane Doe 2,Christopher B. Greene for Jane Doe 3,Christopher B. Greene for Tyler Magill,Christopher B. Greene for Marcus Martin,Christopher B. Greene for April Muniz,Christopher B. Greene for Hannah Pearce,Christopher B. Greene for Elizabeth Sines,Christopher B. Greene for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/6/17. (jcj)
77 ORDER granting 72 MOTION for Seguin L. Strohmeier to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Seguin L. Strohmeier for Marissa Blair,Seguin L. Strohmeier for John Doe,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Jane Doe 1,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Jane Doe 2,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Jane Doe 3,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Tyler Magill,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Marcus Martin,Seguin L. Strohmeier for April Muniz,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Hannah Pearce,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Elizabeth Sines,Seguin L. Strohmeier for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/6/17. (jcj)
78 MOTION for Yotam Barkai to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
79 MOTION for Philip M. Bowman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
80 MOTION for Karen L. Dunn to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
81 MOTION for William A. Isaacson to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
82 MOTION for Joshua J. Libling to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
83 ORDER granting 78 MOTION for Yotam Barkai to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney

65

11/07/2017
11/07/2017
11/07/2017
11/07/2017
11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/09/2017

Yotam Barkai for Marissa Blair,Yotam Barkai for John Doe,Yotam Barkai for Jane Doe 1,Yotam Barkai for Jane Doe 2,Yotam Barkai for Jane Doe 3,Yotam Barkai for Tyler Magill,Yotam Barkai for Marcus Martin,Yotam Barkai for April Muniz,Yotam Barkai for Hannah Pearce,Yotam Barkai for Elizabeth Sines,Yotam Barkai for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/7/17. (jcj)
84 ORDER granting 79 MOTION for Philip M. Bowman to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Philip M. Bowman for Marissa Blair,Philip M. Bowman for John Doe,Philip M. Bowman for Jane Doe 1,Philip M. Bowman for Jane Doe 2,Philip M. Bowman for Jane Doe 3,Philip M. Bowman for Tyler Magill,Philip M. Bowman for Marcus Martin,Philip M. Bowman for April Muniz,Philip M. Bowman for Hannah Pearce,Philip M. Bowman for Elizabeth Sines,Philip M. Bowman for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/7/17. (jcj)
85 ORDER granting 80 MOTION for Karen L. Dunn to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Karen L. Dunn for Marissa Blair,Karen L. Dunn for John Doe,Karen L. Dunn for Jane Doe 1,Karen L. Dunn for Jane Doe 2,Karen L. Dunn for Jane Doe 3,Karen L. Dunn for Tyler Magill,Karen L. Dunn for Marcus Martin,Karen L. Dunn for April Muniz,Karen L. Dunn for Hannah Pearce,Karen L. Dunn for Elizabeth Sines,Karen L. Dunn for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/7/17. (jcj)
86 ORDER granting 81 MOTION for William A. Issacson to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney William A. Isaacson for Marissa Blair,William A. Isaacson for John Doe,William A. Isaacson for Jane Doe 1,William A. Isaacson for Jane Doe 2,William A. Isaacson for Jane Doe 3,William A. Isaacson for Tyler Magill,William A. Isaacson for Marcus Martin,William A. Isaacson for April Muniz,William A. Isaacson for Hannah Pearce,William A. Isaacson for Elizabeth Sines,William A. Isaacson for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/7/17. (jcj)
87 ORDER granting 82 MOTION for Joshua J. Libling to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Joshua J. Libling for Marissa Blair,Joshua J. Libling for John Doe,Joshua J. Libling for Jane Doe 1,Joshua J. Libling for Jane Doe 2,Joshua J. Libling for Jane Doe 3,Joshua J. Libling for Tyler Magill,Joshua J. Libling for Marcus Martin,Joshua J. Libling for April Muniz,Joshua J. Libling for Hannah Pearce,Joshua J. Libling for Elizabeth Sines,Joshua J. Libling for Seth Wispelwey added. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/7/17. (jcj)
88 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,, by James Alex Fields, Jr.(Gravatt, Justin)
89 LETTER MOTION for extension of time to retain counsel by Nathan Damigo, Identity Europa. (jcj)
90 ORDER granting 89 Motion for extension of time of fourteen days to file their answers so that they may acquire counsel. Damigo's answer is now due on November 27, 2017 and defendant Identity Europa's answer is now due on November 29, 2017.. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/9/17. (jcj)

66

11/09/2017

91 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Notice of Supplemental Service) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cahill, Robert)

11/10/2017 92 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan Jeffrey Jones on behalf of Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs (Jones, Bryan)

11/10/2017 93 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (Jones, Bryan)

11/10/2017 95 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 93 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (jcj) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/10/2017 96 Notice of Correction re 95 Brief / Memorandum in Support replaced by clerk due to counsel docketing as a motion. (jcj) (Entered: 11/13/2017)

11/13/2017 97 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs re 93 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Jones, Bryan)

11/13/2017 98 MOTION To proceed under pseudonyms with memorandum in support by John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Cahill, Robert)

11/13/2017 99 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Matthew Parrott. (Woodard, Elmer)

11/13/2017 100 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 99 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Matthew Parrott. (Woodard, Elmer)

11/14/2017 101 PRETRIAL ORDER. CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe.. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/14/17. (jcj)

11/14/2017 102 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 98 MOTION To proceed under pseudonyms with memorandum in support filed by Jane Doe 2, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 3 Motions referred to Joel C. Hoppe.. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/14/17. (jcj)

11/14/2017 103 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Notice of Supplemental Service) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cahill, Robert)

11/14/2017 104 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Nationalist Front. (Woodard, Elmer)

11/14/2017 105 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 104 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Nationalist Front. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Jeff Schoep)(Woodard, Elmer)

11/15/2017 106 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Traditionalist Worker Party served on

67

11/3/2017, answer due 11/27/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
11/15/2017 107 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Robert Azzmador Ray served on 11/2/2017, answer due 11/27/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
11/15/2017 108 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Matthew Heimbach served on 11/6/2017, answer due 11/27/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
11/15/2017 109 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Jeff Schoep served on 10/22/2017, answer due 11/13/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
11/15/2017 110 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. National Socialist Movement served on 10/24/2017, answer due 11/14/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
11/15/2017 111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Christopher Cantwell. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/15/2017 112 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 111 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Christopher Cantwell. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/15/2017 113 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by National Socialist Movement. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/15/2017 114 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 113 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by National Socialist Movement. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/15/2017 115 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Jeff Schoep. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/15/2017 116 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 115 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Jeff Schoep. (Woodard, Elmer)
11/21/2017 117 Pro se MOTION to Dismiss by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (jcj)
11/21/2017 118 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 117 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (jcj)
11/22/2017 119 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Extending Time) (Greene, Christopher)
11/22/2017 120 ORDER granting 119 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 12/7/2017. Oppositions to all motions to dismiss will be due 1/5/18.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/22/17. (hnw)
11/27/2017 121 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler
68

Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Notice of Supplemental Service) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cahill, Robert)
11/29/2017 122 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Richard Spencer.(Cahill, Robert)
11/29/2017 123 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights.(Cahill, Robert)
11/29/2017 124 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.(Cahill, Robert)
11/29/2017 125 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Augustus Sol Invictus.(Cahill, Robert)
11/29/2017 126 MOTION Prohibition of recording parties' discovery negotiations. by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Christopher)
11/30/2017 127 Electronic Summons Issued as to Richard Spencer NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
11/30/2017 128 Electronic Summons Issued as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
11/30/2017 129 Electronic Summons Issued as to East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
11/30/2017 130 Electronic Summons Issued as to Augustus Sol Invictus NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
12/01/2017 131 MOTION for James Kolenich to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Heimbach, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Jeff Schoep, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Elmer)
12/04/2017 132 Oral ORDER granting 131 MOTION for James Kolenich to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 12/4/17. (JCH)
12/06/2017 133 MOTION for permission to participate in electronic filing by Michael Enoch
69

Peinovich.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
12/06/2017 134 RESPONSE in Opposition re 126 MOTION Prohibition of recording parties' discovery negotiations. . filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (jcj)
12/06/2017 135 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Greene, Christopher)
12/07/2017 136 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Elliot Kline. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 137 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 136 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Elliot Kline. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 138 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Vanguard America. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 139 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Jason Kessler. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 140 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 139 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Jason Kessler. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 141 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Robert Azzmador Ray. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 142 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 141 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Robert Azzmador Ray. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 143 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Matthew Heimbach, Traditionalist Worker Party. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 144 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 143 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Matthew Heimbach, Traditionalist Worker Party. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/07/2017 145 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 138 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Vanguard America. (Woodard, Elmer)
12/11/2017 146 Response re 45 Electronic Summons Issued. filed by Amanda Barker, Imperial Kommander of the Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan. (Attachments: # 1 Letter from Amanda Barker)(jcj) STRICKEN from the docket pursuant to Order 275 entered 03/15/2018 Modified on 3/16/2018 (hnw).
12/11/2017 147 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Andrew Anglin on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
12/11/2017 148 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
12/11/2017 149 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
12/11/2017 150 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Augustus Sol Invictus on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
12/11/2017 151 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Moonbase Holdings, Inc. on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
70

12/11/2017 152 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Complaint served on Richard Spencer on 12/11/17, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
12/12/2017 153 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Notice of Supplemental Service) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cahill, Robert)
12/13/2017 154 ORDER granting 133 Motion for access to the Court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system to defendant Michael Peinovich.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 12/13/17. (jcj)
12/15/2017 155 MOTION to Strike 146 Response to Complaint by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Greene, Christopher)
12/18/2017 156 NOTICE of Appearance by David Leon Campbell on behalf of James Alex Fields, Jr (Campbell, David)
12/18/2017 157 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Vanguard America served on 11/17/2017, answer due 12/8/2017.(Cahill, Robert)
12/18/2017 158 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair. Richard Spencer served on 12/14/2017, answer due 1/4/2018.(Cahill, Robert)
12/18/2017 159 STIPULATION re Plaintiffs Motion to Preclude Defendant Peinovich from Recording Parties Discovery Negotiations by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Greene, Christopher)
12/20/2017 160 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 155 (NOTICE OF AMENDED SERVICE) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cahill, Robert)
12/20/2017 161 NOTICE by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 126 (Notice of Supplemental Service) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Cahill, Robert)
12/28/2017 162 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 98 MOTION To proceed under pseudonyms with memorandum in support . filed by James Alex Fields, Jr. (Campbell, David)
12/28/2017 163 NOTICE by John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms (Cahill, Robert)
12/29/2017 164 MOTION to Strike 162 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition as Untimely by John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Greene, Christopher)
71

01/02/2018 165 STIPULATION concerning the production of documents and exchange of confidential information by Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
01/03/2018 166 ORDER granting in part 155 Motion to Strike. Defendant LWK is hereby DIRECTED to retain a licensed attorney and have that attorney note an appearance in this matter and file a proper responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/3/18. (jcj)
01/03/2018 167 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/3/18. (jcj)
01/03/2018 168 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Andrew Anglin.(Cahill, Robert)
01/03/2018 169 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Augustus Sol Invictus.(Cahill, Robert)
01/03/2018 170 Proposed Summons by Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Jane Doe 1, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Jane Doe 2, Marissa Blair as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC.(Cahill, Robert)
01/04/2018 171 Electronic Summons Issued as to Andrew Anglin NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/04/2018 172 Electronic Summons Issued as to Augustus Sol Invictus NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/04/2018 173 Electronic Summons Issued as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/04/2018 174 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION To proceed under pseudonyms with memorandum in support . filed by John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Cahill, Robert)
01/05/2018 175 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Andrew Anglin, Augustus Sol Invictus, Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, James Alex Fields, Jr, Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights, Matthew Heimbach, Michael Hill, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, League of the South, Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, Moonbase Holdings, LLC, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Michael Enoch Peinovich, Robert Azzmador Ray, Jeff Schoep, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Michael Tubbs, Vanguard America, filed by Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair, Natalie Romero, Chelsea Alvarado.(Greene, Christopher)
72

01/08/2018 176 LETTER MOTION requesting additional time to find adequate legal counsel in Virginia by Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights (c/o Kyle Chapman).Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of envelope)(jcj)
01/11/2018 177 ORDER denying as moot 176 Motion extension of time to reply to complaint while he obtains counsel. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/11/18. (jcj)
01/17/2018 178 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Andrew Anglin.(Cahill, Robert)
01/17/2018 179 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC.(Cahill, Robert)
01/17/2018 180 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Augustus Sol Invictus.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 181 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 182 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 183 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Richard Spencer.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 184 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 185 Proposed Summons by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair as to Richard Spencer.(Cahill, Robert)
01/18/2018 186 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Christopher)
01/18/2018 187 ORDER granting 186 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 1/26/2018 Replies due by 2/20/2018. Served defendants' replies in support of any motions to dismiss will be due 3/5/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/18/18. (jcj)
01/18/2018 188 Electronic Summons Issued as to Andrew Anglin NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary
73

to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 189 Electronic Summons Issued as to Augustus Sol Invictus NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 190 Electronic Summons Issued as to East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 191 Electronic Summons Issued as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 192 Electronic Summons Issued as to Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 193 Electronic Summons Issued as to Moonbase Holdings, LLC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 194 Electronic Summons Issued as to Richard Spencer NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 195 Electronic Summons Issued as to Richard Spencer NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(jcj)
01/18/2018 196 ANSWER to 175 Amended Complaint,,, by James Alex Fields, Jr.(Campbell, David)
01/19/2018 197 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Andrew Anglin on 1/19/2018, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
01/19/2018 198 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Augustus Sol Invictus on 1/19/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
01/19/2018 199 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on East Coast Knights of the KKK on 1/19/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
01/19/2018 200 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Moonbase Holdings, LLC on 1/19/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
01/25/2018 201 Second MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Incorporating previous motion to dismiss by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (Jones, Bryan)
01/26/2018 202 LETTER MOTION to Dismiss and request for Oral Argument by Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights (by Kyle Chapman) (jcj) Modified on 1/30/2018 (jcj).
01/26/2018 203 Declaration of Kyle Chapman in support of 202 Fraternal Order of Alt-Kinights' MOTION to Dismiss (jcj)
01/26/2018 204 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 202 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Kyle
74

Chapman on behalf of the Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights. (jcj)
01/26/2018 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Heimbach, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Jeff Schoep, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America. (Woodard, Elmer)
01/26/2018 206 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Heimbach, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Jeff Schoep, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America. (Woodard, Elmer)
01/26/2018 207 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint by Nationalist Front. (Woodard, Elmer)
01/30/2018 208 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Amended Complaint and to find legal counsel by Kyle Chapman c/o Fraternal Order of AltKnights.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of envelope)(jcj)
01/30/2018 209 Pro Se MOTION to Dismiss with Memorandum in Support by Richard Spencer. (jcj)
01/31/2018 210 ORDER Striking 202 Motion to Dismiss ; 203 Declaration and 204 Brief and granting in part and denying in part 208 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply( (Responses due by 2/14/2018)) Defendant Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights is DIRECTED to retain a licensed attorney and have that attorney note an appearance in this matter and file a proper responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days of entry of the Order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/31/18. (jcj) (Main Document 210 replaced on 1/31/2018) (jcj).
01/31/2018 211 Notice of Correction re 210 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply at the request of chambers. (jcj)
01/31/2018 212 Pro Se MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (jcj)
01/31/2018 213 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 212 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (jcj)
01/31/2018 214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 203 Declaration, 202 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kyle Chapman c/o Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights. (jcj)
02/01/2018 215 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair. Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights served on 12/21/2017, answer due 1/11/2018.(Cahill, Robert)
02/01/2018 216 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair. Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights served on
75

1/23/2018, answer due 2/13/2018.(Cahill, Robert)
02/01/2018 217 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Moonbase Holdings LLC c/o Andrew Anglin on 2/1/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
02/01/2018 218 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan on 2/1/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
02/01/2018 219 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Andrew Anglin on 2/1/18, filed by Elizabeth Sines et al.(jcj)
02/12/2018 220 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 164 Motion to Strike Defendant Fields' Untimely Opposition to Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms (Cahill, Robert)
02/13/2018 221 NOTICE by James Alex Fields, Jr Request for Hearing (Campbell, David)
02/13/2018 222 ORDER granting 98 Motion to proceed under pseudonyms; denying 164 Motion to Strike and the Court directs that John Doe may continue to proceed under a fictitious name. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/13/18. (hnw)
02/14/2018 223 ORDER denying as moot 93 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 99 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 104 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 111 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 113 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 115 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 117 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as moot 136 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 138 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 139 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 141 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot 143 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 2/14/18. (hnw)
02/14/2018 224 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Michael Enoch Peinovich.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (hnw)
02/14/2018 225 Memorandum in Support re 224 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (hnw)
02/14/2018 226 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas to Twitter, Godaddy, Cloudfare and Hatreon by Michael Enoch Peinovich.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support Memo in support of Motion to Quash, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A Twitter Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B GoDaddy Subpoena, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C Cloudflare Subpoena, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D Hatreon Subpoena)(Peinovich, Michael)
02/15/2018 227 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Strohmeier, Seguin)
02/15/2018 228 Response concerning representation from Amanda Barker (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(hnw) STRICKEN from the docket pursuant to Order 275 entered 03/15/18 Modified on 3/16/2018 (hnw). (Entered: 02/16/2018)
76

02/20/2018 229 First MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance With Rule 45 by Michael Enoch Peinovich.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Intent to Serve GoDaddy and Cloudflare, # 2 Exhibit Notice of Intent to serve Twitter, # 3 Exhibit Notice of intent to serve hatreon, # 4 Exhibit Email exchange Peinovich and Greene, # 5 Exhibit Full Cloudflare Subpoena) (Peinovich, Michael)
02/20/2018 230 MOTION for Joshua A. Matz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
02/20/2018 231 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 209 MOTION to Dismiss, 212 MOTION to Dismiss, 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 207 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 201 Second MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Incorporating previous motion to dismiss . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
02/21/2018 232 Oral ORDER granting 230 MOTION for Joshua A. Matz to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/21/18. (JCH)
02/23/2018 233 MOTION to Stay Discovery by James Alex Fields, Jr.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Campbell, David)
02/23/2018 234 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 233 MOTION to Stay Discovery Memorandum in Support by James Alex Fields, Jr. (Campbell, David) Modified on 2/23/2018 to change name of document (jcj).
02/26/2018 235 MOTION to Quash by David Duke. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
02/26/2018 236 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 235 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by David Duke. (jcj)
02/26/2018 237 Objections by Movant David Duke (jcj)
02/26/2018 238 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by David Duke re 235 MOTION to Quash, 237 Objections, 236 Brief / Memorandum in Support (jcj)
02/26/2018 239 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Natalie Romero, Tyler Magill, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair. Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan served on 2/1/2018, answer due 2/22/2018.(Cahill, Robert)
02/26/2018 240 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 224 MOTION to Stay Discovery. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
02/26/2018 242 MOTION to Quash subpoenas to Twitter, Inc., Godaddy.com LLC, Cloudflare, Inc., and Hatreon and for Protective Order by John Doe.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj) STRICKEN from the docket pursuant to Order 245 entered
77

2/27/18 Modified on 2/27/2018 (hnw). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
02/26/2018 243 Brief / Memorandum of points and authorities in Support re 242 MOTION to Quash. filed by John Doe. (jcj) STRICKEN from the docket pursuant to Order 245 entered 2/27/18 Modified on 2/27/2018 (hnw). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
02/26/2018 244 Declaration in support of 242 MOTION to Quash by John Doe (jcj)STRICKEN from the docket pursuant to Order 245 entered 2/27/18 Modified on 2/27/2018 (hnw). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
02/27/2018 245 ORDER Striking 241 Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously; Striking 242 Motion to Quash; and Striking documents 243 and 244 , as improperly filed. The pro se Movant's additional request for "anonymous ECF credentials" is hereby Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/27/18. (hnw)
02/28/2018 246 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Moonbase Holdings, LLC c/o Andrew Anglin on 2/28/18.(jcj)
02/28/2018 247 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons and Amended Complaint served on Andrew Anglin on 2/28/18.(jcj)
02/28/2018 248 MOTION to Strike 228 Letter as Improper by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Greene, Christopher)
02/28/2018 249 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 226 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas to Twitter, Godaddy, Cloudfare and Hatreon, 229 First MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance With Rule 45 . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bowman, Philip)
03/01/2018 250 NOTICE of Hearing: (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) Scheduling Conference set for 3/16/2018 02:00 PM in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up conference call and email dial in information to Mr. Kolenich and Mr. Campbell. If other parties need dial information, they are to contact the deputy clerk as stated on the notice.(kld)
03/05/2018 251 REPLY to Response to Motion re 212 MOTION to Dismiss amended complaint by Michael Peinovich. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tweet by Roberta Kaplan indicating intent ot use the Court to punish free speech, # 2 Exhibit Transcript of Speech by Michael Peinovich at Charlottesville August 12, 2017)(Peinovich, Michael)
03/05/2018 252 REPLY to Response to Motion re 224 MOTION to Stay discovery. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email chain with defendants' counsel)(Peinovich, Michael)
03/06/2018 253 Brief / Memorandum in further Support re 209 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Richard Spencer. (jcj)
03/06/2018 254 LETTER MOTION requesting the Court to allow him to represent FOAK pro se for the limited purpose of the duration in bringing and defending FOAK's motion
78

to dismiss by Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Letter dated 2/27/2018, # 2 Copy of envelope)(jcj)
03/07/2018 255 REPLY to Response to Motion re 226 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas to Twitter, Godaddy, Cloudfare and Hatreon, 229 First MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Compliance With Rule 45 . filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
03/08/2018 256 Notice Rescheduling Hearing (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) previously set for 3/16/2018 at 2:00 PM before Judge Hoppe in Charlottesville. Hearing to be held by CONFERENCE CALL instead of in person. Scheduling Conference and Motion Hearing on 126 Motion to Preclude Recording of Discovery Negotiations, 224 Motion to Stay Discovery and 233 Motion to Stay Discovery set for 3/16/2018 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email counsel dial in information. Dial in information written on notice and mailed to pro se dft Richard Spencer.(kld)
03/08/2018 257 RESPONSE in Opposition re 233 MOTION to Stay Discovery . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Cahill, Robert)
03/10/2018 258 MOTION for Sanctions to restrain Roberta Kaplan, Esq. and Kaplan and Company LLP from further improper and unethical extrajudicial statements and for sanctions by Michael Enoch Peinovich.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript of Roberta Kaplan, Marissa Blair talk)(Peinovich, Michael)
03/12/2018 259 MOTION for Gabrielle E. Tenzer to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
03/12/2018 260 Oral ORDER granting 259 MOTION for Gabrielle E. Tenzer to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/12/18. (JCH)
03/12/2018 261 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 235 MOTION to Quash . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Bowman, Philip)
03/12/2018 262 MOTION to Strike 254 MOTION requesting the Court to allow him to represent FOAK pro se for the limited purpose of the duration in bringing and defending FOAK's motion to dismiss by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Greene, Christopher)
03/14/2018 263 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment as to Andrew Anglin and Moonbase Holdings LLC by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines,
79

Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9) (Cahill, Robert) Modified on 3/14/2018 to change document title(jcj).
03/14/2018 264 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment as to East Coast Knights of the Klu Klux Klan by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Cahill, Robert) Modified on 3/14/2018 to change title of document (jcj).
03/14/2018 265 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Cahill, Robert) Modified on 3/14/2018 to change document title (jcj).
03/14/2018 266 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment as to Augustus Sol Invictus by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Cahill, Robert) Modified on 3/14/2018 to change document title (jcj).
03/14/2018 267 Notice of Correction re 264 MOTION for Default Judgment as to East Coast Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, 266 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Augustus Sol Invictus, 265 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Fraternal Order of the AltKnights, 263 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Andrew Anglin and Moonbase Holdings LLC to change document titles to Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. (jcj)
03/14/2018 268 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Andrew Anglin, Moonbase Holdings, LLC (jcj)
03/14/2018 269 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan (jcj)
03/14/2018 270 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights (jcj)
03/14/2018 271 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Augustus Sol Invictus (jcj)
03/14/2018 272 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Show Cause, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)(Greene, Christopher)
03/14/2018 273 RESPONSE in Opposition re 258 MOTION for Sanctions to restrain Roberta Kaplan, Esq. and Kaplan and Company LLP from further improper and unethical extrajudicial statements and for sanctions . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
03/15/2018 274 ORDER denying Chapman's 254 Letter Motion requesting the Court to allow him to represent FOAK; granting 262 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/15/18. (hnw)
80

03/15/2018 275 ORDER granting 248 Motion to Strike. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Defendant LWKs pro se responses, ECF Nos. 146 , 228 , from the docket as improperly filed, and to ENTER Defendant LWKs default in accordance with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/15/18. (hnw)
03/16/2018 276 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 209 MOTION to Dismiss, 212 MOTION to Dismiss, 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 207 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 201 Second MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Incorporating previous motion to dismiss : (CR) Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2018 10:00 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (hnw)
03/16/2018 277 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Hourly Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Hearing held on 3/16/2018 before Judge Norman K. Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
03/16/2018 278 FTR Certificate for TELEPHONIC Scheduling Conference/Motion hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/16/18. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
03/16/2018 279 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephone Conference /Scheduling hearing/Motions held on 3/16/2018. FTR (hnw)
03/16/2018 280 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan (hnw)
03/19/2018 281 Financial arrangements made (Daily Service) re 277 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 3/20/2018. (ca)
03/20/2018 282 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Scheduling Conference / Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2018 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, Email: carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. Tape Number: FTR. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/10/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2018. (ca)
81

03/21/2018 283 REPLY to Response to Motion re 258 MOTION for Sanctions to restrain Roberta Kaplan, Esq. and Kaplan and Company LLP from further improper and unethical extrajudicial statements and for sanctions . filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
03/22/2018 284 ORDER denying as moot 126 Motion for Prohibition of recording parties' discovery negotiations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/22/18. (jcj)
03/22/2018 285 ORDER denying 258 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/22/18. (jcj)
03/22/2018 286 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Clerk"s Entry of Default regarding East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan; (No forwarding address given.) (jcj)
03/26/2018 287 ORDER denying 224 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/26/18. (jcj)
03/26/2018 288 ORDER denying 233 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/26/18. (jcj)
03/27/2018 289 RESPONSE in Opposition re 272 MOTION for Order to Show Cause . filed by Matthew Parrott. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matt Parrott)(Kolenich, James)
04/03/2018 290 REPLY to Response to Motion re 272 MOTION for Order to Show Cause . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Greene, Christopher)
04/04/2018 291 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (COPY *Only applies if original transcript has been ordered Service) for Telephonic Scheduling Conference / Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2018 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (ca)
04/04/2018 292 Financial arrangements made (COPY - Ordinary-30 calendar days Service) re 291 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 5/4/2018. (ca)
04/04/2018 293 Transcript Copy Delivered re 291 Transcript Request. (ca)
04/05/2018 294 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Order denying as moot 126 motion for prohibition of recording parties' discovery negotiations (No forwarding address given for John Doe.) (jcj)
04/05/2018 295 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Clerk's Entry of Default regarding Andrew Anglin; (No forwarding address given.) (jcj)
04/05/2018 296 Objections by Defendant Michael Enoch Peinovich re 285 Order on Motion for Sanctions (Peinovich, Michael)
04/06/2018 297 ORDER denying without prejudice 235 Motion to Quash subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/6/18. (jcj)
04/10/2018 298 ORAL ORDER terminating the movant John Doe. John Doe terminated.. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/10/18. (jcj)
04/17/2018 299 NOTICE Rescheduling Hearing on Motion 212 MOTION to Dismiss, 207
82

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 209 MOTION to Dismiss, 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint, 201 Second MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Incorporating previous motion to dismiss (CR) (No Interpreter requested) previously set for May 24, 2018 at 10:00 A.M. before Judge Norman K. Moon in Charlottesville: Motion Hearing RESET for May 24, 2018 10:30 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (hnw)
04/19/2018 300 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 4/19/2018 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Dial in instructions emailed to attys and pro se dft Spencer.(kld)
04/19/2018 301 Response re 296 Objections to March 22 Order. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Strohmeier, Seguin)
04/19/2018 302 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Disc/Status Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/19/18. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
04/19/2018 303 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: TELEPHONIC Discovery Hearing held on 4/19/2018. (hnw)
04/20/2018 304 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 226 Motion to Quash and denying 229 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/20/18. (jcj)
04/25/2018 305 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Discovery Hearing held on 4/19/2018 reported by Court Reporter Wheeler (recorded) before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
04/26/2018 306 Financial arrangements made (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 305 Transcript Request. Court Reporter/Transcriber: FTR/Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 5/3/2018. (ca)
04/26/2018 307 Brief/Memorandum Reply to 301 Response re 296 Objections to March 22 Order. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
04/30/2018 308 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 4/19/2018 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, Email: carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to
83

the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/21/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/31/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/30/2018. (ca)
05/04/2018 309 Objections by Defendant Michael Enoch Peinovich re 304 Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion to Compel (Peinovich, Michael)
05/18/2018 310 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) Discovery Hearing set for 5/24/2018 01:00 PM (or as soon as hearing is completed with Judge Moon) in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Parties may appear in person or call in. (kld)
05/18/2018 311 ORDER REGARDING THE hearing on the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint currently set for May 24,2018 at 10:30 a.m. The Court allots the times for oral argument as more specifically set forth in said order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 5/18/18. (hnw)
05/18/2018 312 Response re 309 Objections (Memorandum in Response). filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bowman, Philip)
05/22/2018 313 Notice Rescheduling Hearing (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) previously set for 5/24/18 at 1:00 pm before Judge Hoppe. Telephonic Discovery Hearing RESET for 5/29/2018 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email parties dial in information. Dial in information written on notices mailed to pro se dfts. (kld)
05/22/2018 314 NOTICE of Appearance by John Benjamin Rottenborn on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Rottenborn, John)
05/23/2018 315 NOTICE of Appearance by John A. DiNucci on behalf of Richard Spencer (DiNucci, John)
05/24/2018 316 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Motion Hearing held on 5/24/2018 re 209 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Richard Spencer, 212 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich, 205 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint filed by Jeff Schoep, Identity Evropa, Vanguard America, Matthew Heimbach, National Socialist Movement, Elliot Kline, Jason Kessler, Christopher Cantwell, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party, Robert Azzmador Ray, Nathan Damigo, 207 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM RE:DE175 Amended Complaint filed by Nationalist Front, 201 Second MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Incorporating previous motion to dismiss filed by Michael Tubbs, League of the South, Michael Hill. Order will issue. (Court Reporter Tracey Aurelio.) (hnw)
05/24/2018 317 Notice of Cancellation of Telephonic Discovery Hrg 5/29/18 at 1:00 pm (No
84

Interpreter requested) (FTR). Hearing cancelled at parties request, to be rescheduled in the near future. (kld)
05/24/2018 318 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Motion Hearing - May 24, 2018 held on May 24, 2018 reported by Court Reporter Tracey Aurelio before Judge Norman K. Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
05/25/2018 319 Brief/Memorandum in Reply to 312 Response re 309 Objections (Memorandum in Response). filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
05/29/2018 320 Financial arrangements made (3 Days Service) re 318 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 5/31/2018. (ta)
05/31/2018 321 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motions Hearing held on 5/24/18 before Judge Norman K. Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Tracey Aurelio, Telephone number 434-847-5722. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/21/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/2/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/29/2018. (ta) (Main Document 321 replaced on 5/31/2018 with version that shows page and line numbers.) (ca)
06/01/2018 322 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) Status Conference Call set for 6/5/2018 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Dial in information emailed to all counsel and Mr. Peinovich. (kld)
06/05/2018 323 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Status Conference Call held on June 5, 2018 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
06/05/2018 324 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/6/2018. (kld) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
06/05/2018 325 FTR Log Notes for Status Conference Call in the Harrisonburg Division in CR1 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/5/18. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: Karen Dotson (kld) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
85

06/06/2018 326 Financial arrangements made (3 Days Service) re 323 Transcript Request. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 6/11/2018. (ca)
06/08/2018 327 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held on June 5, 2018 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/29/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2018. (sfc)
06/13/2018 328 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) Jury Trial set for July 8August 2, 2019 09:30 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs. (hnw)
06/15/2018 329 ORDER adopting Rule 26f report 135 and AMENDING the pretrial order [101. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/15/18. (jcj)
06/21/2018 330 MOTION to Compel Response to Second Set of Interrogatories by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Greene, Christopher)
06/23/2018 331 Brief/Memorandum Supplemental in Further Support of 296 Objections to Magistrate Report and Motion for Emergency Relief Requiring Removal of Inflammatory and Prejudicial Video by Roberta Kaplan. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
06/28/2018 332 Response re 331 Brief/Memorandum, in Support of His Objections to March 22, 2018 Order. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Strohmeier, Seguin)
07/05/2018 333 RESPONSE in Opposition re 330 MOTION to Compel Response to Second Set of Interrogatories . filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit)(Peinovich, Michael)
07/05/2018 334 Brief/Memorandum in Reply to 332 Response to Peinovich's Emergency Motion regarding Unethical and Prejudicial video by Roberta Kaplan. filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich. (Peinovich, Michael)
07/09/2018 335 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on
86

7/9/18. (hnw) (Main Document 335 replaced on 7/10/2018 for correction of typographical error only) (hnw).
07/09/2018 336 ORDER; For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,Defendant Peinovich's motion to dismiss (dkt. 212), is GRANTED without prejudice. The other motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants motions to dismiss all claims by Plaintiff Pearce are GRANTED without prejudice. Defendants motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Muizs, Blairs, Martins, Alvarados, Siness, and Wispelweys claims brought under Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 (Count V) are GRANTED without prejudice. Defendants motions to dismiss Plaintiffs Magills, Does, and Romeros claims brought under Virginia Code § 8.01-42.1 (Count V) are DENIED. Defendants motions to dismiss all other claims are DENIED.. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 7/9/18. (hnw)
07/10/2018 337 Notice of Correction re 335 Memorandum Opinion was modified to replace deficient/incorrect pdf document with corrected pdf document to correct typographical error only (hnw)
07/11/2018 338 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by James Alex Fields, Jr.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lorish, Lisa)
07/12/2018 339 ORDER granting 338 Motion to Appoint Counsel to represent defendant Fields in this case as an ancillary matter to his criminal case currently pending in this district, Case No. 3:18-cr-11. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 7/12/18. (hnw)
07/12/2018 340 ORAL ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER. Entered by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 7/12/18. (hnw)
07/12/2018 341 ORDER, Regarding the motions to quash subpoenas, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Peinovich are to confer about (1) whether the Courts order dismissing Defendant Peinovich changes the scope of relevant information that may be sought by Plaintiffs' subpoenas, and (2) whether any supplemental briefing is needed to address this change or the posture of the motion. Parties are ORDERED to confer within seven (7) days of this order, and file any supplemental briefing or notices concerning the status of this motion within fourteen (14) days of this order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 7/12/18. (hnw) (Main Document 341 replaced on 7/12/2018 and regenerated missing filed stamp/date) (hnw).
07/23/2018 342 ANSWER to 175 Amended Complaint,,, by Richard Spencer.(DiNucci, John)
07/23/2018 343 ANSWER to 175 Amended Complaint,,, by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Heimbach, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Jeff Schoep, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America.(Woodard, Elmer)
07/23/2018 344 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Elliot Kline.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Woodard, Elmer)
07/23/2018 345 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 344 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Elliot Kline. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Woodard, Elmer)
87

07/23/2018 346 First ANSWER to 175 Amended Complaint,,, by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs.(Jones, Bryan)
07/25/2018 347 ORDER granting 344 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney James Edward Kolenich and Elmer Woodard terminated as to Elliott Kline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/25/18. (hnw)
07/26/2018 348 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 341 (Greene, Christopher)
07/26/2018 349 NOTICE by Michael Enoch Peinovich re 341 Peinovich's Response to the Court order of 7/12/2018 concerning the his motions to quash subpoenas (Peinovich, Michael)
09/12/2018 350 MOTION for Jessica E. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice. by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
09/12/2018 351 Oral ORDER granting 350 MOTION for Jessica E. Phillips to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/12/18. (JCH)
09/17/2018 352 ORDER denying as moot 330 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/17/18. (jcj)
09/21/2018 353 Oral ORDER denying without prejudice 272 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The Court understand that the parties continue to discuss the steps to ensure preservation of electronically stored information. Should those discussions ultimately not resolve the issues raised in Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs may renew their motion. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/21/18. (JCH)
10/02/2018 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order for the Imaging, Preservation, and Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26)(Greene, Christopher)
10/16/2018 355 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Richard Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(DiNucci, John)
10/16/2018 356 RESPONSE in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Jeff Schoep, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America.
88

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nathan Damigo, # 2 Declaration of Dillon Hopper, # 3 Declaration of Patrick Casey, # 4 Declaration of Jason Kessler, # 5 Declaration of Matt Parrott, # 6 Declaration of Tony Hovater)(Kolenich, James)
10/16/2018 357 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Christopher Cantwell, Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
10/16/2018 358 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 357 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolenich, James)
10/16/2018 359 Declaration re 356 Response in Opposition to Motion,, additional declarations in support of DE 356 by National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Jeff Schoep (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nationalist Front, # 2 Declaration of Jeff Schoep)(Kolenich, James)
10/16/2018 360 RESPONSE in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (Jones, Bryan)
10/19/2018 361 NOTICE by Christopher Cantwell re 357 withdrawing motion to withdraw as attorneys for Christopher Cantwell (Kolenich, James)
10/19/2018 362 MOTION to deem defendant Cantwell as having joined in DE 356 re 356 Response in Opposition to Motion,, by Christopher Cantwell.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
10/19/2018 363 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 362 MOTION to deem defendant Cantwell as having joined in DE 356 re 356 Response in Opposition to Motion,, . filed by Christopher Cantwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher Cantwell) (Kolenich, James)
10/22/2018 364 ORDER denying without prejudice 357 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. The Motion to Withdraw as to Christopher Cantwell is Deemed Moot. Granting 362 Motion to deem defendant Cantwell as having joined in DE 356 re 356 Response in Opposition to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/22/18. (hnw)
10/23/2018 365 REPLY to Response to Motion re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Greene, Christopher)
10/26/2018 367 RESPONSE in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert Ray, # 2 Declaration of Christopher Cantwell)(Kolenich, James)
10/26/2018 368 RESPONSE in Opposition re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices . filed by Matthew Heimbach. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Heimbach)(Kolenich, James)
10/26/2018 369 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Richard Spencer.Motions
89

referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Spencer's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit Defendant Richard Spencer's First Request for Production of Documents to all Plaintiffs, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Responses and Objections to Defendant Richard Spencer's First Request for Production of Documents to All Plaintiffs, # 4 Exhibit Letter of August 10, 2018, # 5 Exhibit Letter of October 22, 2018)(DiNucci, John)
10/26/2018 370 Exhibit (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Responses and Objections to Defendant Richard Spencer's First Request for Production of Documents to All Plaintiffs)(DiNucci, John)
11/05/2018 371 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices : (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2018 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Dial in information emailed to participants. (kld)
11/05/2018 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
11/05/2018 373 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolenich, James)
11/08/2018 374 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Concerning Defendant Spencer's Motion to Compel (ECF 369) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Kaplan, Roberta)
11/09/2018 375 STIPULATION AND ORDER finding as moot 369 Defendant Spencer's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/9/18. (jcj)
11/09/2018 376 FTR Log Notes for TELEPHONIC Motion Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/9/18. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
11/09/2018 377 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: TelephonicMotion Hearing held on 11/9/2018 re 354 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection and Imaging of Electronic Devices filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Tyler Magill, Marissa Blair, Hannah Pearce, Chelsea Alvarado, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
11/13/2018 378 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for motion hearing held on 11/9/2018 reported by FTR before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
90

Modified docket text on 11/13/2018 to show hearing recorded by FTR. (ca)
11/13/2018 379 ORDER granting 354 Motion to Compel and further relief as set forth in said order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/13/2018. (hnw)
11/14/2018 381 Financial arrangements made (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 378 Transcript Request. Court Reporter: Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 11/21/2018. (ca)
11/16/2018 382 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re Modified Proposed Imaging Stipulation and Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Greene, Christopher)
11/19/2018 383 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR THE IMAGING, PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/19/18. (jcj)
11/19/2018 384 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
11/20/2018 385 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on November 9, 2018 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, Email: carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/19/2019. (ca)
11/26/2018 386 REPLY to Response to Motion re 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Kolenich, James)
12/12/2018 387 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : (FTR) Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 12/12/2018 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email parties dial in information.(kld)
12/12/2018 388 ORDER taking under advisement 372 Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for defendants Matthew Heimback and Robert Azzmador. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 12/12/18. (jcj)
12/12/2018 389 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 12/12/2018 re 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. (FTR Operator: Karen Dotson) (kld) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
91

12/12/2018 390 FTR Log Notes for Motion Hearing in the Harrisonburg Division in CR2 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 12/12/18. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: Karen Dotson (kld) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
12/17/2018 391 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 12/12/2018 reported by FTR before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Modified docket text on 12/17/2018 to reflect this as an FTR request. (ca)
12/19/2018 392 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : (FTR) Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 1/4/2019 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email dial information to plaintiffs' counsel and to Mr. Kolenich (dfts Mr. Ray and Mr. Heimbach to be on call too). (kld)
12/21/2018 393 Letter for request of extension of time regarding discovery deadlines by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Levine, Alan)
01/02/2019 394 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY Upon the Record by Nathan Damigo (Kolenich, James)
01/04/2019 395 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Motion Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/4/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
01/04/2019 396 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: TelephonicMotion and Discovery Hearing held on 1/4/2019 re 372 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Matthew Heimbach, Robert Azzmador Ray. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
01/04/2019 397 ORDER GRANTING in Part and taking under advisement in Part 372 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and For good cause shown, the deadline to complete fact discovery is extended to April 17, 2019. All other deadlines remain in effect. ECF Nos. 101, 328, 329. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/4/19. (hnw)
01/08/2019 398 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 01/04/2019 reported by Court Reporter FTR/H. Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Modified docket text on 1/9/2019 to add FTR. (ca)
01/10/2019 399 Financial arrangements made (3 Days Service) re 398 Transcript Request. Court
92

Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 1/14/2019. (ca)
01/11/2019 400 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 1/04/2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, Carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/1/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/11/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/11/2019. (sfc)
02/04/2019 401 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) Telephonic Discovery Hearing with plaintiff's counsel and defendants Matthew Heimbach and Elliot Kline (aka Eli Mosely) set for 2/8/2019 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email dial in information to plaintiff's counsel. Dial in information emailed to dfts, written on notice, and left on voice mail.(kld)
02/05/2019 402 Clerk called and emailed Elliot Kline (aka Eli Mosely) and Matthew Heimbach three times regarding setting a telephonic hearing on AN outstanding discovery issue. After no response from either, clerk set hearing. Clerk called and left voice mails, mailed and emailed notice of hearing to both dfts. (kld)
02/06/2019 403 MOTION for Michael L. Bloch to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3068093. by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
02/06/2019 404 Oral ORDER granting 403 MOTION for Michael L. Bloch to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/6/19. (JCH)
02/07/2019 405 MOTION to Withdraw by Tyler Magill.Motions no longer referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Greene, Christopher) Modified on 2/22/2019 (hnw).
02/07/2019 406 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 405 MOTION to Withdraw . filed by Tyler Magill. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Tyler Magill, # 2 Declaration in Support by Michael Bloch)(Greene, Christopher)
02/08/2019 407 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 2/12/2019 12:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email dial in information to counsel. Clerk emailed and mailed dial in information to Mr. Heimbach and Mr. Kline (aka Mosely).(kld)
02/08/2019 408 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Status Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/8/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue
93

difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
02/08/2019 409 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/8/2019. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
02/12/2019 410 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Discovery Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/12/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
02/12/2019 411 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 2/12/2019. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
02/14/2019 412 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 02/12/2019 reported by Court Reporter: FTR/H. Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Modified docket text on 2/15/2019 to add FTR. (ca)
02/15/2019 413 Pro Se MOTION to Substitute Attorneys Elmer Woodard and James Kolenich by James Hart Stern. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
02/15/2019 414 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) Status Conference Call set for 2/21/2019 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Clerk to email notice of hrg, dial in information to all counsel and pro se dfts Kline (aka Mosley), Heimbach, Peinovich.(kld)
02/19/2019 415 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 2/19/19. (jcj)
02/19/2019 416 ORDER hereby OVERRULED the Objections 309 filed by Michael Enoch Peinovich to U.S. Magistrate Judge Hoppe's opinion denying the aforementioned motions (dkt. numbers 226 and 229). Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 2/19/19. (jcj)
02/19/2019 417 Financial arrangements made (3 Days Service) re 412 Transcript Request,, Transcript due by 2/22/2019. (dp)
02/19/2019 418 Pro Se MOTION to Substitute Attorneys Elmer Woodard and James Kolenich and represent himself pro se by Jeff Schoep.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
02/20/2019 419 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 2-12-2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Donna Prather, Telephone number 276-628-5116 donnap@vawd.uscourts.gov. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to
94

the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been fil Redaction Request due 3/13/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/21/2019. (dp) (Main Document 419 replaced on 2/21/2019 at court reporter's request due to error with transcript page numbers.) (ca)
02/21/2019 420 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Jeff Schoep.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
02/21/2019 421 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 420 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Jeff Schoep. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of James E. Kolenich)(Kolenich, James)
02/21/2019 422 RESPONSE in Opposition re 405 MOTION to Withdraw . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America. (Kolenich, James)
02/21/2019 423 Declaration re 422 Response in Opposition to Motion, of John DiNucci by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America (Kolenich, James)
02/21/2019 424 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Discovery Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/21/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
02/21/2019 425 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 2/21/2019. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
02/22/2019 426 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on February 21, 2019 reported by Court Reporter FTR/H. Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Modified docket text on 2/22/2019 to add FTR. (ca)
02/22/2019 427 ORDER denying without prejudice, 413 Motion to Substitute Attorney.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/22/19. (hnw)
02/22/2019 428 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 426 Transcript Request. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 2/25/2019. (ca)
02/25/2019 429 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 02/21/2019
95

before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been fil Redaction Request due 3/18/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/28/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/28/2019. (sfc) (Main Document 429 replaced on 2/25/2019. Document initially had incorrect hearing type on title page.) (ca)
02/25/2019 430 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 418 MOTION to Substitute Attorney, 420 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : (FTR) .Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2019 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Dial in information emailed to Ms. Tenzer, Mr. Stern, Mr. Kolenich and Mr. Schoep.(kld)
02/26/2019 431 REPLY to Response to Motion re 405 MOTION to Withdraw . filed by Tyler Magill. (Greene, Christopher)
02/27/2019 432 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Schoep by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey.Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Plaintiffs' [Corrected] First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Defendant Schoep's Responses to Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Apr. 24, 2018 Letter from G. Tenzer to J. Kolenich and E. Woodard, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Transcript of Jan. 4, 2019 Hearing, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Feb. 6, 2019 Email from G. Tenzer to Judge Hoppe, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Transcript of Feb. 12, 2019 Hearing, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Feb. 14, 2019 Emails between Counsel and Third-Party Vendor, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Feb. 16, 2019 Emails between Counsel and Third-Party Vendor, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Feb. 20, 2019 Email from C. Greene to Defendant Schoep, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Transcript of Feb. 21, 2019 Hearing, # 12 Exhibit 12 Excerpts from Defendant Schoep's VK Public Profile)(Greene, Christopher)
02/28/2019 433 PRO SE MOTION for Summary Judgment by the Court as a Matter of Law by James Hart Stern. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope)(jv)
02/28/2019 434 ORAL ORDER terminating MOVANT David Duke. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/28/2019. (jv)
02/28/2019 435 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Amendment to 432 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Schoep - Supplemental Certificate of Service (Greene, Christopher)
03/01/2019 436 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Discovery and Motion Hearing in the
96

Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/1/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
03/01/2019 437 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery and Motion Hearing held on 3/1/2019 re 418 MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by Jeff Schoep, 420 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Jeff Schoep, Nationalist Front, National Socialist Movement. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
03/01/2019 438 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Discovery and Motion Hearing held on 03/01/2019 reported by Court Reporter Wheeler before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
03/04/2019 439 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 438 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 3/7/2019. (sfc)
03/04/2019 440 ORDER granting 418 Motion to Substitute Attorney for Jeff Schoep. Attorney James Edward Kolenich and Elmer Woodard terminated and granting 420 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for the Nationalist Front and National Socialist Movement. Attorney James Edward Kolenich and Elmer Woodard terminated. All three parties have until the end of the day on March 18, 2019 to retain counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/4/19. (jcj)
03/05/2019 441 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Motion and Discovery Hearing held on 03/01/2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Carol Jacobs White, Carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been fil Redaction Request due 3/26/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/5/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/3/2019. (sfc) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
03/11/2019 442 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Daily Service) by James Hart Stern for Telephonic Motion and Discovery Hearing held on March 1, 2019 reported by Court Reporter Carol Jacobs White before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (ca)
03/11/2019 443 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Daily Service) re 442 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 3/12/2019. (sfc) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
97

03/11/2019 444 Transcript Copy Delivered re 442 Transcript Request (sfc) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
03/13/2019 445 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) Status Conference Call set for 3/18/2019 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call, dial in information emailed to counsel and pro se parties.(kld)
03/18/2019 446 Email from Edward ReBrook, Esq. stating he will be representing Jeff Schoep and that his paperwork has been submitted. (jcj)
03/18/2019 447 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Status Conference in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/18/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
03/18/2019 448 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Daily Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Status Hearing held on March 18, 2019 reported by Court Reporter H. Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
03/18/2019 449 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America for Telephone Status Conference held on 3/18/2019 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Kolenich, James)
03/18/2019 450 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/18/2019. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
03/19/2019 451 NOTICE of Appearance by William Edward ReBrook, IV on behalf of National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Jeff Schoep (ReBrook, William)
03/20/2019 452 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to defendant VANGUARD AMERICA. The defendant shall file within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order a written response. Show Cause Response due by 4/3/2019.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/20/19. (jcj)
03/20/2019 453 Financial arrangements made (Original) (Daily Service) re 448 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 3/21/2019. (jw)
03/20/2019 454 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 449 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 3/27/2019. (jw)
03/20/2019 455 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Status Conference held on 3/18/2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such
98

Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been fil Redaction Request due 4/10/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/22/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/18/2019. (jw)
03/26/2019 456 Transcript Copy Delivered re 449 Transcript Request, (jw)
04/03/2019 457 MOTION for Sanctions/Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Facts re: Defendants Heimbach and Kline, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Extracts of Dec. 3, 2018 Alduino Deposition Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Extracts of May 16, 2018 Kessler Deposition Transcript, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Pictures of Defendant Kline, # 6 Exhibit 6 Excerpts from Defendant Kline's Twitter Profile, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Nov. 9, 2018 Email from J. Kolenich to G. Tenzer, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Plaintiffs' [Corrected] First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Identity Evropa's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Nov. 16, 2018 Email from C. Greene to Defendant Kline, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Nov. 27, 2018 Email from C. Greene to Defendant Kline, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Excerpts from Defendant Heimbach's Discord Profile, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Pictures of Defendant Heimbach, # 15 Exhibit 15 - Excerpts from Defendant Heimbach's Gab Profile, # 16 Exhibit 16 - Excerpts from Defendant Parrott's Facebook Profile, # 17 Exhibit 17 - Washington Post Article, # 18 Exhibit 18 - Excerpts from Defendant Parrott's Gab Profile, # 19 Exhibit 19 - April 24, 2018 Letter from G. Tenzer to J. Kolenich, # 20 Exhibit 20 - Nov. 20, 2018 Email from Defendant Heimbach, # 21 Exhibit 21 - Dec. 4, 2018 Email from C. Greene to J. Kolenich, # 22 Exhibit 22 - Excerpts from Defendant Heimbach's VK Profile, # 23 Exhibit 23 - Extracts of Jan. 4, 2019 Hearing Transcript, # 24 Exhibit 24 - Feb. 8, 2019 Email from G. Tenzer to Court, # 25 Exhibit 25 - Excerpts from Defendant Heimbach's Twitter Profile, # 26 Exhibit 26 - Extracts of March 18, 2019 Hearing Transcript) (Greene, Christopher) Modified title of document on 4/3/2019 (jcj).
04/03/2019 458 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. filed by Vanguard America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James E. Kolenich)(Kolenich, James)
04/03/2019 459 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Vanguard America. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
04/03/2019 460 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 459 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Vanguard America. (Kolenich, James)
04/04/2019 461 ORDER to CONTINUE the trial date due to the complicated nature of discovery
99

and related delays and the parties not being able to meet the case deadlines. The Court hereby BARS Mr. Stern from further participation in this litigation on behalf of NSM and accepts the notice of appearance of Mr. ReBrook on behalf of NSM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/4/19. (jcj)
04/05/2019 462 NOTICE by Tyler Magill re 405 - Local Rule 11(b) (Greene, Christopher)
04/05/2019 463 RESPONSE in Support re 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 27 - Excerpt from Defendant Heimbach's Twitter Profile)(Greene, Christopher)
04/08/2019 464 Notice of Cancellation of July 8- August 2, 2019 09:30 AM in Charlottesville Jury Trial (No Interpreter requested) (Cancel Court Reporter) (hnw)
04/11/2019 465 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Facts re: Defendant Vanguard America, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Vanguard America, On Charlottesville Why We Fight, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on May 17, 2017, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Excerpt from @VanguardAms Twitter Profile on Aug. 11, 2017, # 5 Exhibit 5 - First Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Jun. 26, 2017, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Second Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Jun. 26, 2017, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Anti-Defamation League, Vanguard America, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Southern Poverty Law Center, Thomas Rosseau, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 7, 2017, # 10 Exhibit 10 - First Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 12, 2017, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Second Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 12, 2017, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Apr. 18, 2018 E-mail from J. Kolenich to Plaintiffs Counsel, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Third Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 12, 2017, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Jun. 21, 2017, # 15 Exhibit 15 - Photograph from Summer of Hate, # 16 Exhibit 16 - Apr. 16, 2018 E-mail from D. Campbell to Counsel, # 17 Exhibit 17 The Guardian, Charlottesville: Man Charged with Murder was Pictured at NeoNazi Rally, # 18 Exhibit 18 - NBC12, Fields Instagram Posts Depicting Car Running Into Crowd to be Shown, # 19 Exhibit 19 - First Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 13, 2017, # 20 Exhibit 20 - Second Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 13, 2017, # 21 Exhibit 21 - Third Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 13, 2017, # 22 Exhibit 22 - Fourth Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Aug. 13, 2017, # 23 Exhibit 23 Mar. 9, 2018 Letter from J. Fink to E. Woodard & J. Kolenich, # 24 Exhibit 24 Apr. 24, 2018 E-mail from C. Greene to J. Kolenich, # 25 Exhibit 25 - May 10, 2018 Letter from G. Tenzer to J. Kolenich, # 26 Exhibit 26 - Dec. 7, 2018 E-mail from J. Kolenich to Counsel regarding VA Certification, # 27 Exhibit 27 - First Excerpt from @VanAmOfficials Twitter Profile on Dec. 1, 2017, # 28 Exhibit 28 Excerpt from @VanAmOfficials Twitter Profile on Dec. 14, 2017, # 29 Exhibit 29
100

- Second Excerpt from @VanAmOfficials Twitter Profile on Dec. 1, 2017, # 30 Exhibit 30 - Excerpt from TradWorker Discord Server on Feb. 1, 2017, # 31 Exhibit 31 - Excerpt from Southern Front Discord Server on Jun. 20, 2017, # 32 Exhibit 32 - Mar. 18, 2019 E-mail from M. Bloch to the Court, # 33 Exhibit 33 Apr. 9, 2019 E-mail from Third-Party Vendor to Counsel)(Greene, Christopher)
04/15/2019 466 ORDER Striking 433 Motion for Summary Judgment from the Court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 4/15/19. (jcj)
04/16/2019 467 ORDER directing plaintiffs' to file exhibits to document 465 Motion for Sanctions against defendant Vanguard America. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/16/19. (jcj)
04/16/2019 468 ORDER granting 405 Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims without prejudice and withdraw from the case. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 4/16/19. (jcj)
04/17/2019 469 RESPONSE in Opposition re 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Richard Spencer. (DiNucci, John)
04/17/2019 470 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 459 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Vanguard America. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
04/19/2019 471 MOTION to Seal Certain Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Against Vanguard America by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Christopher)
04/22/2019 472 ORDER granting 471 Plaintiff's Motion to seal and Exhibits 12, 26 and 33 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions against Vanguard America 465 are hereby sealed pursuant to Local Rule 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/22/19. (jcj)
04/22/2019 473 Sealed Documents for Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Vanguard America (ECF No. 465) pursuant to Order 472 - Exhibit 12 - Email re VA's R&Os (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 26 - Email re VA's ESI and VA ESI and # 2 Exhibit 33 Email re iDS Status and IDS Status )(jcj)
04/23/2019 474 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 432 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Schoep : (FTR) Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2019 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email dial in information to plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for Mr. Schoep.(kld)
04/24/2019 475 REPLY to Response to Motion re 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Defendant Spencer's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Defendant Ray's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 3 Exhibit 3 -
101

Defendant Kesslers Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Defendant Schoep's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Defendant Cantwell's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 6 Exhibit 6 Defendant Damigo's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Defendant NSMs Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Defendant TWP's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 9 Exhibit 9 Defendant IE's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, # 10 Exhibit 10 - WRCBtv, Tennessee May Soon Have Hands-Free Law, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Apr. 20, 2019 Defendant Heimbach Tweet, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Mar. 27, 2017 Defendant Mosley/Kline Discord Chat) (Greene, Christopher)
04/24/2019 476 MOTION to Seal Certain Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant Spencer's Opposition to Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants Kline and Heimbach by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Greene, Christopher)
04/25/2019 477 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 476 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall file under seal unredacted copies of Exhibit 1 through 9. On May 2, 2019, Plaintiffs shall publicly file copies of Exhibits 1 through 9, but all identifying information, such as telephone numbers, social media accounts, and email addresses, must be redacted. Additionally, the financial information in Exhibit 3 should not be filed publicly. Within five (5) days, any party may move, in accordance with Local Rule 9, that Exhibits 1 through 9 should be sealed in their entirety or additional information in those exhibits should be redacted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/25/19. (jcj)
04/25/2019 478 Sealed Documents pursuant to Order 477 . Plaintiff's Exhibits 1-9. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 6, # 6 Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit 8, # 8 Exhibit 9)(jcj)
04/25/2019 479 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 465 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America . filed by Richard Spencer. (DiNucci, John)
04/26/2019 480 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Motion Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/26/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: Heidi N. Wheeler (hnw)
04/26/2019 481 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2019 re 432 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Schoep filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey,
102

April Muniz, Tyler Magill, Marissa Blair, Hannah Pearce, Chelsea Alvarado, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines. (FTR Operator: Heidi Wheeler) (hnw)
04/26/2019 482 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2019 reported by Court Reporter Heidi Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
04/29/2019 483 ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 432 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT pending further Order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/29/19. (jcj)
04/29/2019 484 Financial arrangements made (Original) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 482 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 5/6/2019. (jw)
04/29/2019 485 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Traditionalist Worker Party, Vanguard America for Telephone Status Conference held on 4/26/2019 reported by Court Reporter Heidi Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Kolenich, James)
04/30/2019 486 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 485 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 5/7/2019. (jw)
05/02/2019 487 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 5/23/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/3/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/31/2019. (jw)
05/02/2019 488 REDACTION to 475 Reply to Response to Motion,,,,,,, Redactions to Exhibits Pursuant to April 25, 2019 Order (ECF No. 477) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Defendant Spencers Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Defendant Rays Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Defendant Kesslers Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Defendant Schoeps Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit 5 -
103

Defendant Cantwells Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Defendant Damigos Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Defendant National Socialist Movements Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Defendant Traditionalist Worker Partys Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Defendant Identity Evropas Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories)(Greene, Christopher)
05/02/2019 489 REPLY to Response to Motion re 465 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Greene, Christopher)
05/02/2019 490 Transcript Copy Delivered re 485 Transcript Request, (jw) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
05/20/2019 491 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach, 459 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney : (FTR) Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2019 11:00 AM in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (kld)
05/28/2019 492 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 465 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America : (FTR) Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2019 11:00 AM in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (kld)
06/02/2019 493 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Boyd Ashwell on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Ashwell, Erin)
06/03/2019 494 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2019 re 465 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Tyler Magill, Marissa Blair, Hannah Pearce, Chelsea Alvarado, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Tyler Magill, Marissa Blair, Hannah Pearce, Chelsea Alvarado, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, 459 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Vanguard America. (FTR Operator: Heidi Wheeler) (hnw)
06/03/2019 495 FTR Log Notes for Motion Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/3/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
06/03/2019 496 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2019 reported by Court Reporter H. Wheeler before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
06/03/2019 497 ORDER granting 459 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for defendant Vanguard
104

America. Attorney James Edward Kolenich and Elmer Woodard terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/3/19. (hnw)
06/04/2019 498 Financial arrangements made (Original) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 496 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/11/2019. (jw)
06/04/2019 499 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Traditionalist Worker Party for Motion Hearing held on 6/03/2019 reported by Court Reporter Heidi Wheeler before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Kolenich, James)
06/04/2019 500 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 499 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/11/2019. (jw)
06/04/2019 502 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 499 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/11/2019. (jw) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
06/06/2019 501 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 496 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/9/2019. (jw) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
06/07/2019 503 Transcript Copy Delivered re 499 Transcript Request, (jw)
06/07/2019 504 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 6/28/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/5/2019. (jw)
06/10/2019 505 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Greene, Christopher)
06/10/2019 506 Declaration re 505 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Michael L. Bloch by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Greene, Christopher)
06/13/2019 507 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey of Withdrawal of Appearance (Greene, Christopher)
06/21/2019 508 ORDER taking under advisement 457 Motion for Sanctions and taking under advisement 465 Motion for Sanctions. Accordingly, each defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file a written response to Plaintiffs' petition regarding recoverable
105

attorney's fees, ECF. No. 505, on or before July 5, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/21/19. (jcj)
06/24/2019 509 Letter Response re 508 Order on Motion for Sanctions. filed by Dillon U. Hopper for Vanguard America. (jcj)
06/27/2019 510 NOTICE of Hearing: (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) TELEPHONIC Discovery Hearing set for 7/2/2019 12:00 PM in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 7/2/2019 12:00 PM in Charlottesville before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call and email counsel and parties dial in information (hnw) Modified on 6/27/2019 to correct typographical error-Time of hearing will be 12:00 PM (hnw).
07/02/2019 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 Jun. 18, 2019 Telegram post by Defendant Cantwell, # 3 Exhibit 2 Mar. 11, 2018 Gab post by Defendant Cantwell, # 4 Exhibit 3 Feb. 10, 2018 Twitter post by Defendant Kessler, # 5 Exhibit 4 Aug. 11, 2018 Gab post by Defendant Cantwell, # 6 Exhibit 5 Affidavit of Oren Segal (Jul. 2, 2019), # 7 Exhibit 6 Aug. 11, 2017 Photograph of Defendant Cantwell, 3:17-cv00089, ECF No. 4-13, # 8 Exhibit 7 CR17000784-00 Docket Sheet, Albemarle Cty Cir. Ct. Crim. Div., # 9 Exhibit 8 CR17000845-00 Docket Sheet, Albemarle Cty Cir. Ct. Crim. Div., # 10 Exhibit 9 GC18001568-00 Docket Sheet, Loudoun Cty, General Dist. Ct., # 11 Exhibit 10 Am. (First) Counterclaims of E. Gorcenski and K. Goad (Mar. 20, 3018), 3:17-cv-00089, ECF No. 25, # 12 Exhibit 11 Dec. 10, 2017 blog post by Defendant Cantwell, 3:17-CV-00089, ECF No. 25-2, # 13 Exhibit 12 Excerpted blog post by Defendant Cantwell, 3:17-CV-00089, ECF No. 25-3, # 14 Exhibit 13 Excerpted Gab posts by Defendant Cantwell, 3:17-CV00089, ECF No. 25-4, # 15 Exhibit 14 Mot. to Revoke or Modify Bond (Jul. 6, 2018), CR17-784, CR17-845, Albemarle Cty Cir. Ct., # 16 Exhibit 15 CR17000784-01 Docket Sheet, Albemarle Cty Cir. Ct. Crim. Div., # 17 Exhibit 16 Jun. 19, 2019 Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe, # 18 Exhibit 17 NYS Crim. History Record search results for Defendant Cantwell)(Kaplan, Roberta)
07/02/2019 512 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 7/2/2019. (FTR Operator: Karen Dotson) (kld)
07/02/2019 513 FTR Log Notes for discovery hearing in the Harrisonburg Division in CR1 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/2/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: Karen Dotson (kld)
07/02/2019 514 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on
106

7/2/2019 reported by Court Reporter FTR - Karen Dotson before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
07/03/2019 515 ORDER as to Defendant Matthew Heimbach regarding outstanding discovery obligations, setting a schedule for him to comply with those obligations and addressing other procedural matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/3/19. (hnw)
07/03/2019 516 ORDER as to Defendant Elliot Kline regarding outstanding discovery obligations, setting a schedule for him to comply with those obligations and addressing other procedural matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/3/19. (hnw)
07/03/2019 517 ORDER as to Defendant Vanguard America regarding outstanding discovery obligations, setting a schedule for Mr. Hopper, Vanguard America's authorized representative in this litigation, to comply with those obligations and addressing other procedural matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/3/19. (hnw)
07/03/2019 518 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 514 Transcript Request. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Jacobs White. Transcript due by 7/8/2019. (ca)
07/05/2019 519 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on July 2, 2019 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Jacobs White, Email: carol.jacobs.white@gmail.com. Tape Number: FTR. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 7/26/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/3/2019. (ca) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
07/11/2019 520 Respondent's MOTION to Dismiss by Matthew Heimbach. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit to Appeal Sanctions)(jcj)
07/15/2019 521 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 520 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Barkai, Yotam)
07/15/2019 522 REPLY to Response to Motion re 505 MOTION for Attorney Fees Against Defendant Heimbach. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Kaplan, Roberta)
07/15/2019 523 REPLY to Response to Motion re 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel
107

Supplement. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Cantwell Post)(Kaplan, Roberta)
07/17/2019 524 MOTION to Amend/Correct First Amended Complaint to add Plaintiff by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cahill, Robert)
07/18/2019 525 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: re 517 Order, regarding Vangurad America/Dillon Hopper; (No forwarding address given) (hnw)
07/19/2019 526 ORDER TO DEFENDANT VANGUARD AMERICA directing Mr. Dillon Hopper to update his mailing address with the Court's Clerk"s Office no later than Friday, July 26, 2019. Mr. Hopper's mailing address and other personal contact information will be maintained UNDER SEAL and shall not be made available to the public. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/19/19. (jcj)
07/19/2019 527 Respondent's MOTION to appeal Sanctions by Matthew Heimbach. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
07/23/2019 528 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach (Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Further Support). filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Phillips, Jessica)
07/23/2019 529 Declaration re 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach (Declaration of Jessica E. Phillips) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Phillips, Jessica)
07/25/2019 530 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Christopher Cantwell, Robert Azzmador Ray. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James)
07/25/2019 531 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 530 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Kolenich, James)
07/31/2019 532 RESPONSE in Support re 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel Supplement. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Kaplan, Roberta)
08/02/2019 533 ORDER following Order 516 , Kline and Plaintiffs' counsel are hereby ORDERED to appear before the Court for a telephonic status conference on Thursday, August 8, 2019, at a time to be scheduled by the Clerk to discuss Kline's compliance with that Order. The Court also expects a report on Kline's good-faith participation at his deposition on Wednesday, August 7, 2019. ECF Nos. 508, 516.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/2/19. (hnw)
108

08/06/2019 534 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 528 Brief / Memorandum in Support, of Motion for Sanctions. filed by Richard Spencer. (DiNucci, John)
08/07/2019 535 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing with plaintiffs' counsel and Mr. Kline: (FTR) Telephonic Hearing set for 8/8/2019 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Dial in information emailed to plaintiffs' counsel, written on notice emailed to Mr. Kline and left on Mr. Kline's voice mail.(kld)
08/08/2019 536 FTR Log Notes for Status Conference in the Harrisonburg Division in CR1 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/8/19. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: Karen Dotson (kld)
08/08/2019 537 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery / Status Hearing held on 8/8/2019. (FTR Operator: Karen Dotson) (kld)
08/08/2019 538 THIRD ORDER TO DEFENDANT ELLIOT KLINE to comply pursuant to telephonic status conference call held on August 8, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/8/19. (jcj)
08/09/2019 539 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/9/19. (jcj)
08/09/2019 540 ORDER granting in part 457 Motion for Sanctions and granting in part 465 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/9/19. (jcj)
08/13/2019 541 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic discovery/status hearing held on 8/8/2019 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
08/13/2019 542 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 541 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 8/16/2019. (mb)
08/16/2019 543 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Discovery & Status Hearing held on 8/8/2019 before Judge Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mary J. Butenschoen, Telephone number 540-857-5100 Ext. 5312. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 9/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/16/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/14/2019. (mb)
08/16/2019 544 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by James Alex Fields, Jr. Motions referred to
109

Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lorish, Lisa)
08/20/2019 545 ORDER granting 544 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Lisa M. Lorish terminated because this matter is no longer an ancillary proceeding to his completed criminal case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/20/19. (jcj)
08/28/2019 546 Letter for Request Under Local Rule 11(b) on Motion to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Bloch, Michael)
09/03/2019 547 MOTION to Compel Defendant National Socialist Movement to Disclose Custodians of Discoverable Documents and Information by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - NSM88.com, National Officers & Departments, Aug. 9, 2019, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Counter Extremism Project, Guide to White Supremacy Groups, last visited Aug. 28, 2019, # 3 Exhibit 3 - HoCoMDcc, Get to know some of the Unite the Right rally participants and sympathizers, last visited Aug. 28, 2019, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Excerpt of Heimbach Deposition Transcript, Aug. 9, 2019, # 5 Exhibit 5 - ESI Stipulation and Certificate Responses of Jeff Schoep Individually, National Socialist Movement, and Nationalist Front, Dec. 6, 2018, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, Apr. 8, 2019, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch, Apr. 9, 2019, # 8 Exhibit 8 Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, Apr. 9, 2019, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, Apr. 23, 2019, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch, Apr. 23, 2019, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, May 3, 2019, # 12 Exhibit 12 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, May 13, 2019, # 13 Exhibit 13 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, June 11, 2019, # 14 Exhibit 14 - Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch, June 12, 2019, # 15 Exhibit 15 Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, June 12, 2019, # 16 Exhibit 16 - Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch, June 13, 2019, # 17 Exhibit 17 - Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch, June 17, 2019, # 18 Exhibit 18 - Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook, Aug. 22, 2019, # 19 Exhibit 19 - Email from E. ReBrook to Court, Aug. 28, 2019, # 20 Exhibit 20 - NSM88.com, Press Release, March 6, 2019)(Bloch, Michael)
09/03/2019 548 MOTION to Seal Certain Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant National Socialist Movement to Disclose Custodians of Discoverable Documents and Information by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bloch, Michael)
09/05/2019 549 ORDER granting 548 Motion to Seal Plaintiff's exhibits 4 and 5 from ECF Document 547 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/5/19. (jcj)
09/05/2019 550 Sealed Documents to ECF Document 547 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Exhibit 4
110

- Excerpt of Heimbach Deposition Transcript of 8/9/2019 and (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 - ESI Stipulation and Certificate Responses of Jeff Schoep Individually, National Socialist Movement and Nationalist Front on 12/6/2018)(jcj)
09/05/2019 551 MOTION to Take Deposition from Thomas Ryan Rousseau by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Levine, Alan)
09/05/2019 552 MOTION to Seal Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Leave to Depose Thomas Ryan Rousseau as an Authorized Representative of Vanguard America, (ECF No. 551) by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Levine, Alan)
09/06/2019 553 ORDER granting 551 Motion to Take Deposition from Thomas Ryan Rousseau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/6/19. (hnw)
09/06/2019 554 ORDER granting 552 Motion to Seal Ex 1 to Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Leave to Depose Thomas Ryan Rousseau. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/6/19. (hnw)
09/06/2019 555 Sealed Document-Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Motion 551 Seeking Leave to Depose Thomas Ryan Rousseau. (hnw)
09/17/2019 556 ORDER granting 524 Motion to file a second amended complaint adding Thomas Baker as a named plaintiff to the action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/17/19. (jcj)
09/17/2019 557 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Andrew Anglin, Augustus Sol Invictus, Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, East Coast Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, James Alex Fields, Jr., Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights, Matthew Heimbach, Michael Hill, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Elliot Kline, League of the South, Loyal White Knights of The Ku Klux Klan, Moonbase Holdings, LLC, National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front, Matthew Parrott, Robert Azzmador Ray, Natalie Romero, Jeff Schoep, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Michael Tubbs, Vanguard America, filed by Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Chelsea Alvarado, Hannah Pearce, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, John Doe, Marissa Blair, Thomas Baker.(jcj)
09/19/2019 558 Oral ORDER denying without prejudice 372 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The Court previously took this motion under advisement as to Defendant Ray. Counsel has recently noted problems communicating with Defendant Ray. If counsel believe that they must withdraw from representing Defendant Ray, they may file a renewed motion, providing grounds for their request to withdraw. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/19/19. (JCH)
09/23/2019 559 ORAL ORDER giving defendant Christopher Cantwell seven (7) days to respond pursuant to his call to the Clerk's office that he had given his response to his attorney on 8/3/2019 and it has not been filed as of this date. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/23/19. (jcj)
111

09/24/2019 560 RESPONSE in Opposition re 530 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Christopher Cantwell. (Kolenich, James)
09/25/2019 561 REPLY to Response to Motion re 530 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Transcript of Radical Agenda Podcast S05E071) (Bloch, Michael)
09/25/2019 562 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 557 Amended Complaint,, by Christopher Cantwell, Robert Azzmador Ray. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support)(Kolenich, James)
09/25/2019 563 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 562 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 557 Amended Complaint,, . filed by Christopher Cantwell, Robert Azzmador Ray. (Kolenich, James)
09/26/2019 564 Second RESPONSE in Opposition re 530 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Christopher Cantwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email)(Kolenich, James)
09/26/2019 565 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline A/K/A Eli Mosley by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Phillips, Jessica)
09/26/2019 566 Declaration re 565 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline A/K/A Eli Mosley (Declaration of Jessica E. Phillips) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L) (Phillips, Jessica)
09/30/2019 567 ANSWER to 557 Amended Complaint,, by Richard Spencer.(DiNucci, John)
10/01/2019 568 ANSWER to 557 Amended Complaint,, by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party.(Kolenich, James)
10/01/2019 569 ANSWER to 557 Amended Complaint,, with JURY DEMAND by James Alex Fields, Jr.(Campbell, David)
10/01/2019 570 ANSWER to 557 Amended Complaint,, by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs.(Jones, Bryan)
10/02/2019 571 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (CR) Telephonic Hearing to discuss pace of discovery set for 10/18/2019 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to email counsel dial in information. Clerk to mail dial in info to pro se parties.(kld)
10/10/2019 572 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Michael Siegel on behalf of Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Siegel, Joshua)
10/15/2019 573 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth
112

Wispelwey of Withdrawal of Appearance (Matz, Joshua)

10/18/2019 574 Supplemental Response re 483 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Supplemental BitChute Answer. filed by Jeff Schoep. (ReBrook, William)

10/18/2019 575 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 547 MOTION to Compel Defendant National Socialist Movement to Disclose Custodians of Discoverable Documents and Information Memorandum of Compliance. filed by Jeff Schoep. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Certification, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Plaintiffs' Email, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Email RE: Document, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(ReBrook, William)

10/18/2019 576 RESPONSE in Support re 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel Supplement. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Russia Insider Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 Comment on Russia Insider Article, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Cantwell Telegram Posts) (Bloch, Michael)

10/18/2019 577 ANSWER to 557 Amended Complaint,, by Jeff Schoep.(ReBrook, William)

10/18/2019 579 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 10/18/2019. (Court Reporter: Mary Butenschoen) (jcj) (Entered: 10/21/2019)

10/21/2019 578 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Status Hearing held on 10/18/2019 reported by Court Reporter Mary Butenschoen before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Modified on 10/21/2019 to correct name of Court Reporter to Mary Butenschoen, not FTR. (ca)

10/21/2019 580 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 578 Transcript Request,, Transcript due by 10/24/2019. (mb)

10/23/2019 581 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/18/2019 before Judge Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mary J. Butenschoen, Telephone number 540-857-5100 Ext. 5312. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 11/13/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2020. (mb)

10/23/2019

Records received on 10/23/2019 from Verizon pursuant to subpoena issued by Jessica E. Phillips. Records will be forwarded to plaintiff's counsel. (jcj)

113

10/28/2019 582 ORDER granting 547 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees is withdrawn and additionally this order is setting discovery deadlines as stated. The court will hold another status conference call in November. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/28/19. (jcj)
10/28/2019 583 ORDER granting 530 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney James Edward Kolenich and Elmer Woodard terminated as to Mr. Cantwell and Mr. Ray; granting 562 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer the Second Amended Complaint. Christopher Cantwell answer due 11/12/2019; Robert Azzmador Ray answer due 11/12/2019.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/28/19. (jcj)
10/30/2019 584 ORDER FOR ELLIOT KLINE TO SHOW CAUSE AND CERTIFICATION (under 28 USC 636(e)(6)(B)(iii)). Show Cause Hearing set for 11/25/2019 01:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/30/19. (jcj)
10/31/2019 585 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) FOR ELLIOT KLINE TO SHOW CAUSE AND CERTIFICATION (under 28 USC 636(e)(6)(B)(iii)) Show Cause Hearing set for 11/25/2019 01:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon, (hnw)
11/13/2019 586 ORAL ORDER: On October 28, 2019, the Court directed the parties, within 14 days, to file a joint proposed schedule for completing discovery. ECF No. 582, para. 6. On November 12, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed my Chambers and all case participants seeking a short extension of time while the parties continue to negotiate a proposed schedule. Plaintiffs' request is GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). The parties shall file their joint proposed schedule on or before Friday, November 15, 2019. If the parties cannot agree on proposed deadlines, they should note the different proposals in their joint filing.. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/13/2019. (jcj)
11/14/2019 587 ORDER: Plaintiffs' are hereby advised that they may, but need not, file a response to Judge Hoppe's October 30, 2019 Order and Certification (ECF No. 584), no later than Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. EST. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/14/19. (jcj)
11/14/2019 588 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Defendant Elliott Kline. Show Cause Hearing set for 11/25/2019 01:00 PM EST in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. At the hearing before this Court on November 25, 2019, Kline shall be prepared to address the facts certified by Judge Hoppe, as well as the recommended sanctions. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/14/19. (jcj)
11/15/2019 589 Scheduling Letter (Bloch, Michael)
11/15/2019 590 ANSWER to 557 Second Amended Complaint,, by Christopher Cantwell. (Attachments: # 1 Cantwell Answer to Second Amended Complaint - Part 2, # 2 Cantwell Answer to Second Amended Complaint - Part 3). Defendant also included a CD of this document that includes his exhibits.(This is located in the file cabinet) (jcj) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
11/21/2019 591 ADDITIONAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for
114

11/25/2019 01:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Show Cause Response due by 11/22/2019 at 5:00 p.m. EST.. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/21/19. (Attachments: # 1 Email from Kline dated November 21, 2019)(jcj)
11/21/2019 592 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 584 and 587. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Phillips, Jessica)
11/25/2019 593 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Evidentiary Hearing held on 11/25/2019, Show Cause Hearing held on 11/25/2019, Contempt Hearing held on 11/25/2019. (Court Reporter: JoRita Meyer) (hnw) (Main Document 593 replaced on 12/2/2019 to correct typographical errors only) (hnw).
11/25/2019 594 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) Status Conference set for 12/16/2019 11:00 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (hnw)
11/25/2019 595 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Contempt-Show Cause-Evidentiary Hearing held on November 25, 2019 reported by Court Reporter JoRita Meyer before Judge Norman K. Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
11/26/2019 596 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 595 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 11/29/2019. (jm)
11/27/2019 597 ORDER regarding Joint Proposed Discovery Schedule 589 . Having reviewed the parties' filing and considered all relevant interests, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the deadlines proposed therein and hereby FURTHER AMENDS the Pretrial Order, ECF No. 101; see ECF Nos. 329, 461 as more fully set forth in said order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/26/19. (hnw)
11/27/2019 598 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) Jury Trial set for October 26-30, 2020; November 2-6, 2020; November 9-10 and November 12-13, 2020; at 09:30 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs. (hnw)
11/27/2019 599 ORDER FINDING ELLIOTT KLINE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT; Granting in Part 565 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline A/K/A Eli Mosley and otherwise taking said motion under advisement. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 11/27/19. (hnw)
11/27/2019 600 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Show Cause hearing held on 11/25/2019 before Judge Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber JoRita Meyer, Telephone number 540857-5100, ext. 5311, JoRitaM@vawd.uscourts.gov. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such
115

Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 12/18/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/30/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/25/2020. (jm)
12/06/2019 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Phillips, Jessica)
12/10/2019 602 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Defendant Elliott Kline; Show Cause Hearing set for 12/16/2019 11:00 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Kline to submit Responses by 12/13/2019 by 12:00 PM and further relied as set forth in said order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 12/10/19. (hnw)
12/10/2019 603 Order for Plaintiffs to Respond / file a supplemental brief no later than 12/13/2019 at 12:00 PM. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 12/10/19. (hnw)
12/13/2019 604 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Affidavit of Karen Stemland)(Phillips, Jessica)
12/13/2019 605 ORDER : Court has scheduled a second civil contempt hearing concerning Defendant Elliott Kline, which has been and remains set for Monday, December 16, 2019 at 11:00 A.M. EST, at the United States Courthouse in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Court finds that Kline has not shown good cause to delay the hearing on December 16 or to permit him to appear telephonically. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 12/13/19. (hnw)
12/16/2019 606 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Second Supplemental Contempt Hearing held on 12/16/2019. (Court Reporter: Judy Webb) (hnw) (Main Document 606 replaced on 12/18/2019) to correct typographical error only (Entered: 12/17/2019)
12/17/2019 607 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Second Supplemental Contempt Hearing held on December 16, 2019 reported by Court Reporter Judy Webb before Judge Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
12/18/2019 608 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 607 Transcript
116

Request, Transcript due by 12/20/2019. (jw) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
12/20/2019 609 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Status Hearing held on 12/16/2019 before Judge Norman K. Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 1/10/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/20/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/19/2020. (jw)
12/23/2019 610 ORDER FINDING ELLIOTT KLINE REMAINS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT and ORDER FOR ELLIOTT KLINE TO SURRENDER TO CUSTODY OF THE U.S. MARSHAL. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 12/23/19. (jcj)
12/31/2019 611 Order Directing Response re Elliott Kline civil contempt status. If Plaintiffs wish to be heard on Kline's submission as it relates to this Court's finding of Elliott Kline in civil contempt and sanctions they shall file a response no later than Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. EST. If Kline wishes to be hear further he shall respond as stated in said Order no later than Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. EST. Kline remains under this Court's order to appear in Charlottesville, Virginia on Monday, January 6, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. EST. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 12/31/19. (jcj)
01/02/2020 612 Response re 611 Order to Respond,, . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Phillips, Jessica)
01/03/2020 613 ORDER FOR ELLIOTT KLINE TO SURRENDER TO CUSTODY OF THE U.S. MARSHAL as directed on January 6, 2020.. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/3/20. (hnw)
01/06/2020 614 MOTION for Extension of Time to Object to 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley by Christopher Cantwell. (This filing includes a zip file on a thumb drive that is available in the Clerk's Office)Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
01/06/2020 615 Response re: ECF No. 612 . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Phillips, Jessica)
01/06/2020 616 ORDER regarding Custody of Elliott Kline's electronic devices and documents and hereby ORDERS the Clerk's Office to retain and hold any and all materials and devices brought by Kline during any periods of his incarceration. Signed by
117

Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/6/20. (jcj)
01/06/2020 617 Responses re 616 Order and 613 Order filed by Elliott Kline. (Attachments: # 1 Response #2)(jcj)
01/06/2020 618 NOTICE of Hearing: (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/6/2020 02:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Chambers will email dial in instructions to Counsel. (Mr. Kline present in Courtroom 300)(hnw)
01/06/2020 619 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Status/Contempt Hearing in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/6/20. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw)
01/06/2020 620 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Telephonic Status/Contempt Hearing held on 1/6/2020. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
01/07/2020 621 ORDER further addressing steps Defendant Elliott Kline must take to purge himself of civil contempt as set forth herein; finding that Elliott Kline has the present ability to comply with such steps in order to purge himself of contempt. The Court will promptly consider any submission from Kline and will afford Plaintiffs' counsel the opportunity to respond to any submission from Kline. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/7/20. (jcj)
01/07/2020 622 ORDER granting in part 614 Cantwell's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions 601 . Responses due by 1/21/2020. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/7/20. (jcj)
01/07/2020 623 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Daily Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Status/Contempt Hearing held on 1/6/2020 reported by Court Reporter FTR - H. Wheeler before Judge Norman K. Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
01/07/2020 624 ORAL ORDER: At the direction of chambers, docket entries 604-2 and 612-3 have been filed under seal. Counsel for the Plaintiffs will re-file public versions of such documents by January 10, 2020, with account password information redacted. Entered by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/7/20. (jcj)
01/07/2020 625 Response re 621 Order further addressing steps Defendant Elliott Kline must take to purge himself of civil contempt filed by Elliott Kline. (jcj)
01/07/2020 626 ORAL ORDER: Plaintiffs' shall file any response they may have to Defendant Elliott Kline's filing (Dkt. 625) by January 8, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. EST. Entered by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/7/20. (jcj)
01/07/2020 627 REDACTION to 604 Brief / Memorandum in Support, (Redacted Exhibit B to Brief/Memorandum in Support) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa
118

Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Phillips, Jessica)
01/07/2020 628 REDACTION to 612 Response, (Redacted Exhibit C to Response) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Phillips, Jessica)
01/07/2020 629 MOTION to Withdraw and Dismiss Claims by Hannah Pearce. (Bloch, Michael) Modified on 1/9/2020 to remove mag judge referral and correct docket event (kld).
01/08/2020 630 Financial arrangements made (Original) (Daily Service) re 623 Transcript Request, per Court Reporter Sonia Ferris Transcript due by 1/9/2020. (sad)
01/08/2020 631 Response re 625 Response . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Phillips, Jessica)
01/08/2020 632 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Hearing held on 1/6/2020 before Judge Norman K. Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sonia Ferris, email sonia.ferris@gmail.com. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 1/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/10/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2020. (sad)
01/08/2020 633 Transcript Delivered re 623 Transcript Request, per transcriber Sonia Ferris. (sad)
01/08/2020 634 ORDER releasing Elliott Kline from custody of the U.S. Marshal. Kline shall file any response to Plaintiffs' submission (Dkt. 631) by January 10, 2020. Plaintiffs and Kline are DIRECTED to file briefs by January 29, 2020 and all else as stated in the order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/8/20. (jcj)
01/10/2020 635 ORDER regarding Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/10/20. (jcj)
01/10/2020 636 ORDER regarding scheduling any responses to the MOTION to Withdraw and Voluntarily Dismiss 629 filed by Hannah Pearce. Responses shall be filed by January 16, 2020. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/10/20. (jcj)
01/21/2020 637 Objections by Defendant Christopher Cantwell re 601 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions, (Attachments: # 1 Part 2-a, # 2 Part 2-b, # 3 Part 3, # 4 Part 4)(Thumb drive available in Clerk's office)(jcj)
01/22/2020 638 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' request for Immediate Production of Responsive Documents from Elliott Kline (Dkt. 631). Signed by Senior Judge Norman K.
119

Moon on 1/22/20. (jcj) (Main Document 638 replaced at request of chambers on 1/22/2020) (jcj).
01/22/2020 639 ORDER granting 629 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Hannah Pearce's claims without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2). Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/22/20. (jcj)
01/23/2020 640 RESPONSE in Support re 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel Supplement. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Indictment, United States v. Cantwell)(Bloch, Michael)
01/28/2020 641 REPLY to Response to Motion re 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Phillips, Jessica)
01/29/2020 642 Response re 634 Order, . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Phillips, Jessica)
01/31/2020 643 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ashwell, Erin)
02/07/2020 644 ORDER GRANTS Plaintiffs' Request 631 and ORDERS that the Third-Party Discovery Vendor may attempt to access the CvilleReports email address, image the contents of that email address, and produce such documents directly to Plaintiffs' counsel, subject to the same terms concerning purportedly privileged documents as in the Court's Order of January 22, 2020 (Dkt. 638 at 3). Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 2/7/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties Elliot Kline, Dillon Hopper and Matthew Heimbach via US Mail (and emailed); and also emailed to Christopher Cantwell and Robert Ray)(jcj)
02/07/2020 645 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley, 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Phillips, Jessica)
02/07/2020 646 MOTION to Seal Document (Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Further Support of Their Motions for Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
02/10/2020 647 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents by Denise Y. Lunsford.
120

Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
02/10/2020 648 MOTION to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents by John I. Hill. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2-4, # 3 Exhibit 5)(jcj)
02/12/2020 649 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley, 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Phillips, Jessica)
02/12/2020 650 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Vanguard America by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Levine, Alan)
02/12/2020 651 MOTION to Seal Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Vanguard America, (ECF No. 650) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levine, Alan)
02/12/2020 652 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Levine, Alan)
02/12/2020 653 Declaration re 652 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Levine, Alan)
02/12/2020 654 MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Declaration re 653 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler, (ECF No. 652) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levine, Alan)
02/13/2020 655 ORDER granting 643 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Erin Boyd Ashwell terminated Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/13/2020. (Order mailed,via US Mail, and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
02/13/2020 656 ORDER granting 646 Motion to Seal Document Exhibit A to 645 Brief / Memorandum in Support Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/13/2020. (Order mailed, via US Mail, and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
02/13/2020 657 Sealed Document-Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in Support 645 (hnw)
121

02/13/2020 658 ORDER granting 651 Motion to Seal; Sealing Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion for Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Vanguard America Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/13/2020. (Order mailed,via US Mail, and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
02/13/2020 659 Sealed Document-Sealed Document-Exhibit 3 to 650 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Vanguard America (hnw)
02/13/2020 660 ORDER granting 654 Motion to Seal Exhibits to Declaration re 653 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/13/2020. (Order mailed, via US mail, and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
02/13/2020 661 Sealed Documents- Exhibits to Declaration re 653 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler, Exhibit 1 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5, # 3 Exhibit 6, # 4 Exhibit 7, # 5 Exhibit 8, # 6 Exhibit 9, # 7 Exhibit 10, # 8 Exhibit 11)(hnw)
02/13/2020 662 Personal Identifier Reference List - Unredacted (SEALED) 652 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler (hnw) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
02/13/2020 663 Personal Identifier Reference List - Unredacted (SEALED) 653 Declaration re 652 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler (hnw) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
02/14/2020 664 Pro Se Defendant Cantwell's Letter of Status, MOTION to Dismiss from this suit, MOTION to Sanction Plaintiffs for their meritless filings by Christopher Cantwell. (hnw) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
02/24/2020 665 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 648 MOTION to Quash, 647 MOTION to Quash by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mills, David)
02/24/2020 666 RESPONSE in Opposition re 652 MOTION to Compel Direct Access to Certain Discovery of Defendant Kessler . filed by Jason Kessler. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support)(Kolenich, James)
02/26/2020 667 Oral ORDER granting 665 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs shall respond to the motions to quash, ECF Nos. 647, 648, not later than March 9, 2020. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 2/26/20. (JCH)
02/27/2020 668 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Libling, Joshua)
03/02/2020 669 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: regarding Matthew Heimbach; (No forwarding address given) (Copies mailed of Orders 605, 613, 616, 621, 622, 634, 635, 636, 638, 639, 644, 655, 656, 658 and 660) (Attachments: # 1 Envelopes (9)) (jcj)
122

03/03/2020 670 Oral ORDER granting 668 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Joshua James Libling terminated. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/3/20. (JCH)
03/09/2020 671 MOTION to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendant James Fields by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Mills, David)
03/09/2020 672 RESPONSE in Opposition re 648 MOTION to Quash, 647 MOTION to Quash . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Mills, David)
03/11/2020 673 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/11/2020 674 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant National Socialist Movement by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/11/2020 675 Declaration re 674 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant National Socialist Movement by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Phillips, Jessica)
03/11/2020 676 MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray (ECF No. 673) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/11/2020 677 MOTION to Seal Exhibits and Appendices to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
123

Discovery from Defendant National Socialist Movement (ECF No. 674) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/13/2020 678 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Copy of Order 610 regarding Matthew Heimbach; (No forwarding address given) (jcj)
03/13/2020 679 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 601 MOTION for Sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley, 457 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley and Matthew Heimbach . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/13/2020 680 MOTION to Seal Document 679 Brief / Memorandum in Support,, and exhibits annexed thereto by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/16/2020 681 ORDER granting 680 Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in further support of their motions for evidentiary sanctions against defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/16/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail and emailed)(jcj)
03/16/2020 682 Sealed Document - Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in further support of their motions for evidentiary sanctions against defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley (Unredacted) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(jcj)
03/19/2020 683 ORDER denying as moot 520 Heimbach's untimely Second Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, without prejudice. Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees specifically for responding to Heimbach's Second Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED, without prejudice to any other request for fees or sanctions arising from Heimbach's litigation conduct besides filing the Second Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/19/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
03/20/2020 684 Oral ORDER taking under advisement 676 Motion to Seal. Plaintiffs are directed to resubmit the actual documents proposed to be sealed rather than a link that requires the court to login or take further steps to access the documents. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/20/20. (JCH)
03/20/2020 685 Oral ORDER taking under advisement 677 Motion to Seal. Plaintiffs are directed to resubmit the actual documents proposed to be sealed rather than a link that requires the court to login or take further steps to access the documents. Entered
124

by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/20/20. (JCH)
03/23/2020 686 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 671 MOTION to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendant James Fields . filed by James Alex Fields, Jr. (Campbell, David)
03/23/2020 687 MOTION for Recusal of Certain Law Clerks by Nathan Damigo, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Social Media Post, # 2 Exhibit UVA Law article)(Woodard, Elmer)
03/25/2020 688 RESPONSE to Motion re 687 MOTION for Recusal of Certain Law Clerks . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bloch, Michael)
03/27/2020 689 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Phillips, Jessica) (Attachment 1, 2 & 3 replaced on 3/30/2020) Modified on 3/30/2020 to add sealed exhibits A, B & C as per order at doc 692 (kld).
03/27/2020 690 MOTION to Seal Exhibits A through C to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep (ECF No. 689) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
03/28/2020 691 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by National Socialist Movement, Nationalist Front. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(ReBrook, William)
03/30/2020 692 ORDER granting 690 Motion to Seal Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/30/20. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(kld)
03/30/2020 693 REPLY to Response to Motion re 671 MOTION to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendant James Fields . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Mills, David)
04/01/2020 694 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 689 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep . filed by Jeff Schoep. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(ReBrook, William)
04/08/2020 695 REPLY to Response to Motion re 689 MOTION to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Phillips, Jessica)
04/08/2020 696 MOTION for Alexandra K. Conlon to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3368177. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
125

04/08/2020 697 MOTION for Emily C. Cole to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3368188. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
04/08/2020 698 MOTION for Jonathan R. Kay to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3368193. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
04/09/2020 699 Oral ORDER granting 698 MOTION for Jonathan R. Kay to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case for Plaintiffs. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/9/20. (JCH)
04/09/2020 700 Oral ORDER granting 696 MOTION for Alexandra K. Conlon to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case for Plaintiffs. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/9/20. (JCH)
04/09/2020 701 Oral ORDER granting 697 MOTION for Emily C. Cole to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case for Plaintiffs. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/9/20. (JCH)
04/09/2020 702 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Copies of Orders 681 and 683 sent to Matthew Heimbach. (No forwarding address given) (jcj)
04/09/2020 703 MOTION for Katherine M. Cheng to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3368807. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
04/10/2020 704 Oral ORDER granting 703 MOTION for Katherine M. Cheng to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/10/20. (JCH)
04/13/2020 705 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Copy of Order (Dkt. #692) regarding Michael Heimbach; (No forwarding address given) (jcj)
04/13/2020 706 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 691 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Phillips, Jessica)
04/14/2020 707 ORDER granting 677 Motion to Seal and the Clerk is directed to file under seal Exhibits 5, 9, 26, 31, 34, 35, 27 and 38 and Appendices A-C to the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 674, pursuant to Local Rule 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/14/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail and emailed) (jcj)
04/14/2020 708 Sealed Document - Sealed documents pursuant to (ECF. No. 677) Plaintiffs' Motion to seal Exhibits and appendices to Plaintiffs' Motion to compel discovery from Defendant National Socialist Movement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9 (marked as Exhibit 5), # 2 Exhibit 26, # 3 Exhibit 31, # 4 Exhibit 33, # 5 Exhibit 34, # 6 Exhibit 35, # 7 Exhibit 37, # 8 Attachments 1-10, # 9 Attachments 11-18, #
126

10 Exhibits A-E, # 11 Attachments 19-25, # 12 Attachments 26-29, # 13 Exhibit 38, # 14 Appendices)(jcj) Modified on 4/14/2020 to add Exhibit 5 (jcj). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/14/2020: # 15 Exhibit 5) (jcj).

04/14/2020 709 ORDER granting 676 Motion to Seal and the Clerk is directed to file under seal Exhibits 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 to the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 673, and the redacted portions of the Motion to Compel, pursuant to Local Rule 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/14/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail and emailed)(jcj)

04/14/2020 710 Sealed Document - Sealed documents filed pursuant to ECF Dkt. 676 - Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal exhibits to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Robert Azzmador" Ray. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 7, # 3 Exhibit 8, # 4 Exhibit 9, # 5 Exhibit 12, # 6 Exhibit 13, # 7 Exhibit 14, # 8 Exhibit 16, # 9 Exhibit 17, # 10 Exhibit 18, # 11 Unredacted Motion to Compel (673))(jcj)

04/15/2020

At the direction of Hon. Joel C. Hoppe, we will no longer be mailing copies of orders to Matthew Heimbach since they are being returned as undeliverable. Once the Court receives a current address we will mail copies once again. The Court will continue to send Mr. Heimbach notices and orders by email.(jcj)

04/20/2020 711 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing: (FTR) Status Conference Call re: discovery set for 4/27/2020 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Chambers to set up call. Clerk emailed dial in information to parties. (Notice emailed to Pro Se Parties)(kld)

04/20/2020 712 REPLY to Response to Motion re 691 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney , First RESPONSE in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. filed by National Socialist Movement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (ReBrook, William)

04/23/2020 713 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37)(Levine, Alan)

04/23/2020 714 MOTION to Seal Document 713 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levine, Alan)

04/27/2020 715 ORDER granting 714 Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal select portions and exhibits to Plaintiffs' renewed Motion for Sanctions against defendant Vanguard America.

127

Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/24/20. (Order mailed via US Mail and emailed to Pro Se parties)(jcj)
04/27/2020 716 Sealed Document - Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Sanctions against defendant Vanguard America (Unredacted) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10, # 2 Exhibit 12, # 3 Exhibit 17, # 4 Exhibit 19, # 5 Exhibit 20, # 6 Exhibit 21, # 7 Exhibit 22, # 8 Exhibit 23, # 9 Exhibit 24, # 10 Exhibit 26, # 11 Exhibit 27, # 12 Exhibit 28)(jcj)
04/27/2020 717 FTR Log Notes for Telephonic Status Conference on Motions in the Charlottesville Division in CR3 held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 4/27/2020. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on the FTR (For the Record) Player, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. FTR Operator: H. Wheeler (hnw) (Main Document 717 replaced on 4/27/2020 to correct typographical error/clerical error) (hnw).
04/27/2020 718 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/27/2020. (FTR Operator: H. Wheeler) (hnw)
04/27/2020 719 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Status Hearing held on 4/27/2020 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Court Reporter Judy Webb (judy.webb@gmail.com) to transcribe. Modified on 4/27/2020 (sad).
04/27/2020 720 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 719 Transcript Request,, Transcript due by 4/30/2020. (jw) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
04/30/2020 721 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/27/2020 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 5/21/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/1/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/29/2020. (jw)
04/30/2020 722 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Hourly Service) by Jeff Schoep for Telephonic Status Conference held on 04/27/2020 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (ReBrook, William) Judy Webb, court reporter to transcribe;modified on 5/1/2020 (sad).
128

05/01/2020 723 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Daily Service) re 722 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 5/4/2020. (jw)
05/01/2020 724 Transcript Copy Delivered re 722 Transcript Request, (jw)
05/01/2020 725 RESPONSE in Support re 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel Supplement. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - U.S. v. Cantwell, 1:20-cr-06, Feb. 20, 2020 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 2 - U.S. v. Cantwell, 1:20-cr-06, Feb. 25, 2020 Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3 - U.S. v. Cantwell, 1:20-cr-06, Order of Detention Pending Trial) (Bloch, Michael)
05/04/2020 726 ORDER denying without prejudice as moot 650 Motion to Compel and 652 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/4/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(jcj)
05/15/2020 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer by Richard Spencer. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (DiNucci, John)
05/18/2020 728 ORDER granting in its entirety 673 Motion to Compel and all else as set forth in said Order. Finally, Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray is hereby warned that his failure to fully comply with this Order may result in the Court imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or directing Ray to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/18/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail and sent to their email addresses)(jcj)
05/20/2020 729 Supplemental RESPONSE in Opposition re 648 MOTION to Quash, 647 MOTION to Quash . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Mills, David)
05/21/2020 730 RESPONSE to Motion re 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bloch, Michael)
05/21/2020 731 MOTION for Daniel P. Roy III to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3398731. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
05/21/2020 732 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott William Stemetzki on behalf of Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Stemetzki, Scott)
05/22/2020 733 MOTION for Amanda L. Liverzani to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3398991. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
129

05/22/2020 734 MOTION for Caitlin B. Munley to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3399010. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
05/22/2020 735 Oral ORDER granting 731 MOTION for Daniel P. Roy III to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/22/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(JCH)
05/22/2020 736 Oral ORDER granting 733 MOTION for Amanda L. Liveranzi to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/22/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(JCH)
05/22/2020 737 Oral ORDER granting 734 MOTION for Caitlin B. Munley to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/22/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(JCH)
05/26/2020 738 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/26/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
05/26/2020 739 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 505 Motion for Attorney Fees and terminating 527 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff's request for travel and lodging expenses related to the June 3, 2019 motion hearing is DENIED and all else as stated in said Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/26/20. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
05/27/2020 740 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer : (FTR)Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2020 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Dial in information emailed to parties and also on public website.(kld)
05/27/2020 741 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in its entirety 689 Motion to Compel and all further as set for in said Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/27/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
05/28/2020 742 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 691 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/28/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
05/28/2020 743 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 741 Order on Motion to Compel by Jeff Schoep. (ReBrook, William)
05/28/2020 744 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 743 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 741 Order on Motion to Compel , 741 Order on Motion to Compel Memorandum In Support of Motion for Reconsideration by Jeff Schoep. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(ReBrook, William)
05/29/2020 745 Log Notes for Telephonic Motion Hearing held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/29/20. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on your computer, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. AT&T Conference Manager: Karen Dotson (kld)
05/29/2020 746 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe:
130

Telephonic Court Hearing held on 5/29/2020. (AT&T Conference Manager: Karen Dotson) (kld)
05/29/2020 747 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying 511 MOTION to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel 511 filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Marissa Blair, Hannah Pearce, Chelsea Alvarado, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/29/20. (Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties by US Mail)(kld)
05/30/2020 748 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 5/29/2020 reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Judy Webb to transcribe. Modified on 6/1/2020 (sad).
06/01/2020 749 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 748 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/4/2020. (jw)
06/01/2020 750 MOTION for Sanctions (Motion For Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray and for an Order Directing Ray To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Phillips, Jessica)
06/01/2020 751 MOTION to Seal Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw and to Conduct Ex Parte or Closed Heariing re Same by Richard Spencer. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Formal Opinion 476, # 2 Exhibit Virginia Lawyer)(DiNucci, John)
06/01/2020 752 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 748 Transcript Request,, Transcript due by 6/4/2020. (jw) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
06/03/2020 753 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motion Hearing held on 5/29/2020 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy K. Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 6/24/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/6/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/1/2020. (jw)
131

06/04/2020 754 ORDER denying 751 Motion to Seal and for Ex Parte Hearing. Mr. DiNucci is ORDERED to respond within three (3) days of this Order stating whether he agrees to have his Memorandum in Support filed on the public docket. The Court will schedule a public hearing on Mr. DiNucci's Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/4/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/05/2020 755 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer : (FTR) (No Interpreter requested) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via ZoomTelephonic Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2020 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Clerk emailed dial in information to parties.(kld)
06/08/2020 756 RESPONSE in Opposition re 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer. filed by Richard Spencer. (jcj)
06/08/2020 757 MOTION for permission to participate in electronic filing by Richard Spencer. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
06/08/2020 758 NOTICE by John Anthony DiNucci re 727 Motion for Leave to Withdraw, etc. (DiNucci, John)
06/11/2020 759 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/11/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/11/2020 760 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 671 Motion to Compel and all else as set forth in said Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/11/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/11/2020 761 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 6/11/2020 re 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer filed by Richard Spencer. (Court Reporter: Judy Webb, OCR) (kld) Corrected hearing date on minute sheet(Main Document 761 replaced on 6/11/2020) (kld).
06/11/2020 762 RESPONSE in Opposition re 743 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 741 Order on Motion to Compel . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A May 28 Email Chain)(Phillips, Jessica)
06/11/2020 763 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on June 11, 2020 reported by Court Reporter Judy Webb before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
06/11/2020 764 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 763 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 6/15/2020. (jw) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
06/12/2020 765 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER sustaining 647 Motion to Quash as to Denise Lunsford and overruling 648 Motion to Quash as to John Hill and further such relief as set forth in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on
132

6/12/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/12/2020 766 ORDER denying 743 Motion for Reconsideration and denying 744 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/12/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/12/2020 767 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motion Hearing held on 6/11/2020 before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber Judy Webb, Telephone number judyw@vawd.uscourts.gov/540-857-5100 x 5333. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 7/3/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/13/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/10/2020. (jw)
06/18/2020 768 Letter re: Subpoenas to Hutton Marshall and Joshua LeFebvre by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena to Hutton Marshall, # 2 Subpoena to Joshua LeFebvre)(Kaplan, Roberta)
06/18/2020 769 MOTION to Stay re 765 Order Denying in part Motions to Quash subpoenas duces tecum by Michael Hill, Denise Y. Lunsford. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
06/18/2020 770 MOTION for Reconsideration re 765 Order denying in part Motions to Quash Subpoenas duces tecum served by John I. Hill, Denise Y. Lunsford. Request for additional time for Response and Request for Appointment of a Special Master. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 and 2)(jcj)
06/18/2020 771 ORDER denying as moot 687 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 6/18/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/18/2020 772 Response re 727 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Richard B. Spencer . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Partial Transcript of May 19, 2020 Hearing, DR-18474C, # 2 Exhibit B - Order to Show Cause, January 8, 2020, DR-18-474C) (Bloch, Michael)
06/22/2020 773 ORDER granting 727 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by Mr. DiNucci. Attorney John A. DiNucci terminated; granting 757 Motion to utilize the Court's Case Management / ECF System by Mr. Spencer Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/22/2020. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail) (hnw)
06/23/2020 774 MEMRANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in its entirety 674 Motion to
133

Compel and all else as set forth in said order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/23/20. (Opinion and Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/23/2020 775 NOTICE of Telephonic Hearing on Motion 770 MOTION for Reconsideration re 765 Order on Motion to Quash. (FTR) Telephonic Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2020 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Dial in information emailed to parties. (kld)
06/24/2020 776 MOTION for Benjamin D. White to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3421015. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
06/25/2020 777 Exhibit Motion to Reconsider (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Reconsider, # 2 Exhibit Motion to Reconsider)(Lunsford, Denise)
06/25/2020 778 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 6/25/2020 re 770 MOTION for Reconsideration re 765 Order on Motion to Quash, filed by Denise Y. Lunsford, John I. Hill. (AT&T Conference Manager: Karen Dotson) (kld)
06/25/2020 779 FTR Log Notes for Motion Hearing held before Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/25/20. In accordance with 28 USC 753(b), I certify that I monitored the digital recording of this proceeding and that it is a true and correct record, that it is sufficiently intelligible when played on your computer, and that it can be transcribed without undue difficulty. AT&T Conference Manager: Karen Dotson (kld)
06/25/2020 780 Oral ORDER granting 776 MOTION for Benjamin D. White to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/25/20. (JCH)
06/25/2020 781 Email from B. Colucci dated 6/25/2020 - Questions for the Court(jcj) PURSUANT TO ORDER, Dkt. 782, this email will be STRICKEN from the record as improperly filed. (Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/26/2020 782 ORDER regarding B. Colucci email to the Court 781 : The Clerk of Court is directed to docket Mr. Colucci's email and STRIKE the document from the record as improperly filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/25/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/26/2020 783 ORDER denying 769 Motion to Stay Case and granting in part 770 Motion for Reconsideration. If Plaintiffs' oppose this relief, they shall ask the Court to reconsider within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 6/26/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
06/26/2020 784 Response re 782 Order, 781 Docket Annotation . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Phillips, Jessica)
06/26/2020 785 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Telephonic Motion Hearing held on June 25, 2020
134

reported by Court Reporter FTR before Judge Joel C. Hoppe. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert) Main Document 785 replaced on 6/26/2020 with flattened PDF (sad).
06/26/2020 786 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Robert)
06/29/2020 787 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 785 Transcript Request,, Transcript due by 6/30/2020. (jm)
06/30/2020 788 MOTION for Raymond P. Tolentino to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3425524. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
06/30/2020 789 CORRECTED TRASNCRIPT FILED AT DOCKET ENTRY #793.TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motions held on 6/25/2020 before Judge Hoppe. Court Reporter/Transcriber JoRita Meyer, Telephone number 540-8575100, ext. 5311, JoRitaM@vawd.uscourts.gov. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 7/21/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2020. (jm) Corrected transcript filed at 793 /Corrections made to spelling. Modified on 7/6/2020 (sad).
07/01/2020 790 Oral ORDER granting 788 MOTION for Raymond P. Tolentino to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/1/20. (JCH)
07/01/2020 791 ORDER granting 786 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and AMENDS the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 597 as stated in said Order. All other deadlines shall remain the same as stated in the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 597. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/1/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
07/03/2020 792 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Phillips, Jessica) (Attachment 1 replaced on 7/6/2020) (hnw).
07/06/2020 793 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motions held on 6/25/2020 before Judge Hoppe.
135

Court Reporter/Transcriber JoRita Meyer, Telephone number 540-857-5100, ext. 5311, JoRitaM@vawd.uscourts.gov. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 7/27/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/6/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/5/2020. (jm)
07/07/2020 794 MOTION to Quash or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Bloch, Michael)
07/07/2020 795 Mail Returned as Undeliverable: re 773 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, regarding Richard Spencer; (No forwarding address given) (jcj)
07/08/2020 796 Oral ORDER TO JOHN A. DINUCCI, ESQ. On June 20, 2020, the Court granted Mr. DiNucci's motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant Richard Spencer. ECF No. 773. A copy of the Court's Order mailed to Mr. Spencer at his address of record has been returned to the Clerk's Office an undeliverable and cannot be forwarded. ECF No. 795. On or before Friday, July 10, 2020, Mr DiNucci SHALL provide the Clerk's Office with any mailing addresses, email addresses, and/or telephone numbers that Mr. DiNucci used to communicate with Mr. Spencer while representing him in this matter. Mr. Spencer's contact information will be viewable by court personnel and the parties only. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Mr. DiNucci at his email address of record. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/8/20. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order emailed to Mr. DiNucci and pro se parties and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
07/08/2020 797 MOTION for Samantha A. Strauss to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3434019. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
07/08/2020 798 MOTION for Alexandra Eber to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423-3434631. by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Cahill, Robert)
07/09/2020 799 Oral ORDER granting 797 MOTION for Samantha A. Strauss to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/9/20. (JCH)
136

07/09/2020 800 Oral ORDER granting 798 MOTION for Alexandra Eber to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/9/20. (JCH)
07/10/2020 801 Response in Opposition to Third Party John Hill and Denise Lunsford's Request for Cost-Shifting . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Mills, David)
07/14/2020 802 Letter from Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski dated June 30, 2020 to James Kolenich, Esq. regarding law clerk subpoenas (jcj)
07/14/2020 803 MOTION to Compel (Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Phillips, Jessica)
07/14/2020 804 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles Bennett Klein on behalf of Joshua T Lefebvre, Joseph Hutton Marshall (Klein, Charles)
07/14/2020 805 Consent MOTION for Protective Order by Joshua T Lefebvre, Joseph Hutton Marshall. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Klein, Charles)
07/15/2020 806 ORDER granting 805 Motion for Protective Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/15/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
07/15/2020 807 RESPONSE to Motion re 794 MOTION to Quash or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order advising withdrawal of subpoenas. filed by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. (Kolenich, James)
07/16/2020 808 Reply re 801 Response, To Plaintiffs' Opposition to Court's Order for Compensation. filed by Denise Y. Lunsford. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5, # 6 Exhibit Ex 6, # 7 Exhibit Ex 7, # 8 Exhibit Ex 8, # 9 Exhibit Ex 9, # 10 Exhibit Ex 10, # 11 Exhibit Ex 11, # 12 Exhibit Ex 12, # 13 Exhibit Ex 13, # 14 Exhibit Ex 14) (Lunsford, Denise)
07/17/2020 809 NOTICE of Change of Address by Karen Leah Dunn (Dunn, Karen)
07/21/2020 810 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 792 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Phillips, Jessica)
07/22/2020 811 Oral ORDER directing Plaintiffs to file notices of deposition under seal. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motions to sanction pro se Defendants Elliott Kline and Robert Azzmador Ray for failing to appear at their properly noticed depositions, and to compel each Defendant to appear at a deposition to be
137

rescheduled. On or before Friday, July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a notice of deposition as to each Defendant stating the date, time, and place at which his rescheduled deposition will be held, and whether the deposition will be conducted in person, by videoconference, or through some other specified method. Each notice shall be filed on the docket under seal. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/22/20. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
07/23/2020 812 Sealed Document - Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition of Defendant Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley (jcj)
07/23/2020 813 Sealed Document - Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition of Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray (jcj)
07/23/2020 814 ORDER TO DEFENDANT ROBERT "AZZMADOR" RAY denying without prejudice 803 Motion to Compel. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to appear by videoconference for a deposition upon oral examination by Plaintiff's counsel at 9:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, July 29, 2020 and all else as stated in said Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/23/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
07/24/2020 815 FOURTH DISCOVERY ORDER TO DEFENDANT ELLIOTT KLINE granting in part and denying in part 792 Motion to Compel. Defendant Elliott Kline ORDERED to appear by videoconference for a deposition upon oral examination by Plaintiffs counsel in this matter at 9:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, August 12, 2020 and further such relief as set forth in said order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 7/24/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(hnw) Modified on 7/27/2020 to show "name of order" (hnw).
07/24/2020 816 MOTION to Compel Documents from the United States Department of Justice by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18)(Mills, David)
08/04/2020 817 MOTION to Compel the deposition of Wes Bellamy by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena, # 2 Affidavit of Service, # 3 Statement of non Appearance)(Kolenich, James)
08/05/2020 818 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Support re 803 MOTION to Compel (Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray) . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Phillips, Jessica)
08/05/2020 819 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jessica E. Phillips (Phillips, Jessica)
08/06/2020 820 MOTION to Take Deposition from Incarcerated Defendant James Alex Fields, Jr.
138

by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Mills, David)
08/06/2020 821 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Jones, Bryan)
08/07/2020 822 Response re 821 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Levine, Alan)
08/07/2020 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter Exhibit Table of Contents, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 4, # 5 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 5, # 6 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 6, # 7 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 8, # 8 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 15, # 9 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 18, # 10 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 19, # 11 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 22, # 12 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 24, # 13 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 25, # 14 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 26, # 15 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 27, # 16 Exhibit Hill. Dep. Ex 31, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 18 Exhibit Tubbs Dep. Ex. 16, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit 21, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit 22, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit 24, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit 25, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit 26, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit 27, # 43 Exhibit Exhibit 28, # 44 Exhibit Exhibit 29, # 45 Exhibit Exhibit 30, # 46 Exhibit Exhibit 31, # 47 Exhibit Exhibit 33, # 48 Exhibit Exhibit 34, # 49 Exhibit Exhibit 36, # 50 Exhibit Exhibit 40, # 51 Exhibit Exhibit 41, # 52 Exhibit Exhibit 44, # 53 Exhibit Exhibit 47, # 54 Exhibit Exhibit 48, # 55 Exhibit Exhibit 50, # 56 Exhibit Exhibit 51, # 57 Exhibit Exhibit 52, # 58 Exhibit Exhibit 53, # 59 Exhibit Exhibit 55, # 60 Exhibit Exhibit 58, # 61 Exhibit Exhibit 59, # 62 Exhibit Exhibit 60, # 63 Exhibit Exhibit 61, # 64 Exhibit Exhibit 62)(Jones, Bryan)
08/07/2020 824 RESPONSE in Opposition re 816 MOTION to Compel Documents from the United States Department of Justice . filed by United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Winn, Sara)
08/07/2020 825 ORDER denying as moot 794 Motion to Quash subpoenas issued to non-parties Hutton Marshall and Joshua Lefebvre by several Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/7/2020. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw)
08/07/2020 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. Motion no longer referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Kolenich, James) Modified on 10/5/2020 (hnw).
139

08/07/2020 827 MOTION to Seal Exhibits by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolenich, James)
08/10/2020 828 ORDER granting 821 Motion for Leave to exceed the page limit. Defendants Hill, Tubbs and League of the South may file a memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment that exceeds the page limit set forth in the Pretrial Order and that is approximately forty-six (46) pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/07/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
08/10/2020 829 ORDER granting 820 Motion to Take Deposition from James Fields Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/10/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jcj)
08/10/2020 830 NOTICE of Change of Address by William Anthony Isaacson (Isaacson, William)
08/11/2020 831 ORDER temporarily granting 827 Motion to Seal the proposed exhibits for seven (7) days. On August 17, 2020, the expert reports will be unsealed unless a party has moved that they remain sealed and demonstrated that they meet the requirements for sealing set forth in Local Rule 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/10/20. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail) (jcj)
08/11/2020 832 Expert Reports of Stephen J. Fenton w/attachments pursuant to Order (ECF 831) (Attachments: # 1 Expert Report of Deborah E. Lipstadt, # 2 Expert Report of Kathleen Blee and Peter Simi)(jcj) UNSEALED Pursuant to Order 855 entered 9/1/2020 Modified on 9/3/2020 (hnw).
08/11/2020 833 PRO SE MOTION for permission to participate in electronic filing by Richard Spencer. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (jcj)
08/11/2020 834 Table of Exhibits with Flash Drive filed by Bryan Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Letter dated August 7, 2020)(Flash drive located in the Clerk's office)(jcj)
08/14/2020 835 MOTION to Seal Exhibits filed in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Bryan)
08/14/2020 836 REPLY to Response to Motion re 816 MOTION to Compel Documents from the United States Department of Justice . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Mills, David)
08/17/2020 837 Pro Se MOTION For Accommodations by Christopher Cantwell. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (hnw)
08/17/2020 838 Letter re: Motion to Seal Exhibits by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Bloch, Michael)
08/17/2020 839 MOTION to Seal re ECF 827, 831, and 832 by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolenich, James)
08/18/2020 840 Oral (), ORDER Granting request re: Letter 838 filed by John Doe, Marcus
140

Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Marissa Blair, Chelsea Alvarado, Elizabeth Sines, Natalie Romero, Thomas Baker regarding Order on Motion to Seal, 831 , temporarily granting an extension of the sealing the exhibits until August 24, 2020. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/18/2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(hnw)
08/19/2020 841 Letter re: Request for Conference by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Bloch, Michael)
08/21/2020 842 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levine, Alan)
08/25/2020 843 ORDER granting 842 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond Motion for Summary Judgment Responses due by 9/4/2020 Replies due by 9/11/2020. Motion hearing Deadline set for the week of 9/14/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/25/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties) (hnw)
08/25/2020 844 SCHEDULING ORDER: The jury trial in this case is currently scheduled for October 26, 2020. The trial is scheduled for three weeks at present, and Plaintiffs anticipate it will take up to four weeks in total. There are nine Plaintiffs, and twenty individual and organizational Defendants. Considering the health risks presented by COVID-19 in this District and Virginia; and considering the nature of this case and the projected extensive breadth and scope of this trial, the Court finds good cause to CONTINUE the trial. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove the jury trial in this case from the Court's calendar. A Telephonic Status Conference is set for 9/14/2020 02:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon.. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/25/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
08/25/2020 845 Notice of Cancellation of October 26-November 13, 2020 Jury Trial (No Interpreter requested) (Cancel Court Reporter) (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
08/26/2020 846 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bloch, Michael)
08/27/2020 847 ORDER granting 846 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Responses due by 9/11/2020 Replies due by 9/18/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/27/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties) (hnw)
08/27/2020 848 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 9/14/2020 02:00 PM in
141

Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Ray shall, no later than Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. ET file any brief or response to Plaintiffs brief requesting the Court compel his deposition (Dkt. 818), or any other information which Ray would like this Court to consider before the September 14, 2020 show cause hearing and further such relief as set forth in said order. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/27/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
08/27/2020 849 ORDER; Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to, by September 1, 2020, file under seal and serve a notice of deposition on Ray, for his video-conference deposition upon oral examination that is to take place on September 14, 2020 at 9:30 A.M. ET. Plaintiffs are advised that they may, but need not, file written submissions or exhibits they may wish the Court to consider at the Show Cause Hearing. Any such submissions shall be filed no later than September 9, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. ET.. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/27/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
08/27/2020 850 Oral ORDER; On August 25, 2020, the Court entered an order that scheduled a telephonic status conference on September 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Dkt. 844. That order is MODIFIED to the extent that such status conference shall now be conducted by video-conference. The Clerk of Court shall provide login instructions beforehand. Entered by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 8/27/2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties.)(hnw)
08/28/2020 851 ORDER denying without prejudice 835 Motion to Seal. Defendants may refile a motion that identifies the exhibits sought to be filed under seal and provides a legally adequate basis, consistent with Local Rule 9, for sealing any exhibit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/28/2020. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw)
08/28/2020 852 NOTICE of Change of Address by Yotam Barkai (Barkai, Yotam)
08/31/2020 853 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via Zoom Video Show Cause Hearing set for 9/14/2020 02:00 PM as to Robert Ray in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
08/31/2020 854 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via ZoomVideo Status Conference set for 9/14/2020 02:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw) Modified on 9/1/2020 to correct time to 2:00 PM(hnw).
09/01/2020 855 ORDER denying 839 Motion to Seal Exhibits or for Alternative Relief. The expert reports shall be filed on thepublic docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 8/31/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
09/01/2020 856 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for response in opposition to motion for summary judgment by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Levine, Alan)
142

09/02/2020 857 Oral ORDER granting 856 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment may exceed the page limit set forth in the Pretrial Order. Their brief may be up to 55 pages. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/2/20. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached.(JCH)
09/03/2020 858 Sealed Document-Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition of Robert "Azzmador" Ray filed pursuant to Court Order of 8/27/2020, Dkt 849 (hnw)
09/03/2020 859 MOTION to Take Deposition from Incarcerated Defendant Christopher Cantwell by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bloch, Michael)
09/04/2020 860 MOTION to Take Deposition from Incarcerated Witness Benjamin Daley by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bloch, Michael)
09/04/2020 861 ORDER regarding Order to Show Cause 848 . Upon notice that the attorney for Plaintiffs referenced in the Show Cause Order had since changed firm affiliation, Dkt. 852, the Court accordingly ORDERS Ray to contact Plaintiffs' counsel at (212) 763-0883 or ybarkai@kaplanhecker.com no later than September 9, 2020 at 5:00 P.M. ET, to get any necessary login or contact information for Ray to participate in a deposition upon oral examination by Plaintiffs' counsel in this case on Monday, September 14, 2020 at 9:30 A.M. ET. The Court's Show Cause Order is MODIFIED in only this respect, and remains in full effect. Dkt. 848. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 9/3/2020. (Order emailed to Pro Se Party) (hnw)
09/04/2020 862 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached ***TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL***. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Levine, Alan)
09/05/2020 863 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached (REDACTED). filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support by Alan Levine, # 2 Exhibits 1-13, # 3 Exhibit 14, # 4 Exhibit 15, # 5 Exhibit 16, # 6 Exhibit 17, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibits 19-44, # 9 Exhibit 45, # 10 Exhibits 46-61, # 11 Exhibit 62, # 12 Exhibit 63, # 13 Exhibit 64, # 14 Exhibit 65, # 15 Exhibit 66, # 16 Exhibit 67, # 17 Exhibit 68, # 18 Exhibit 69, # 19 Exhibit 70, # 20 Exhibit 71, # 21 Exhibit 72, # 22 Exhibits 73-81, # 23 Exhibit 82, # 24 Exhibit 83, # 25 Exhibit 84, # 26 Exhibit 85, # 27 Exhibit 86, # 28 Exhibit 87, # 29 Exhibit 88, # 30 Exhibit 89, # 31 Exhibit 90, # 32 Exhibit 91, # 33 Exhibit 92, # 34 Exhibit 93, # 35 Exhibit 94, # 36 Exhibit 95, # 37 Exhibit 96, # 38 Exhibit 97, # 39 Exhibit 98, # 40 Exhibit 99, # 41 Exhibit 100, # 42 Exhibit 101, # 43 Exhibit 102, # 44 Exhibit 103, # 45 Exhibit 104, # 46 Exhibits 105-129, # 47 Exhibit 130, # 48
143

Exhibits 131-137, # 49 Exhibit 138, # 50 Exhibit 139, # 51 Exhibit 140, # 52 Exhibit 141, # 53 Exhibit 142, # 54 Exhibit 143, # 55 Exhibit 144, # 56 Exhibit 145, # 57 Exhibit 146, # 58 Exhibit 147, # 59 Exhibit 148, # 60 Exhibit 149, # 61 Exhibit 150, # 62 Exhibit 151)(Levine, Alan)

09/05/2020 864 MOTION to Seal Document 863 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition,,,,,, 862 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition, by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Levine, Alan)

09/09/2020 865 Response re: Order at ECF No. 849 . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Phillips, Jessica)

09/09/2020 866 Order Requesting the Warden at Stafford County Department of Corrections to have Christopher Cantwell #20-00348 available for a VIDEO-CONFERENCE or TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE on September 14, 2020 beginning at 2:00 PM. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 9/9/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/10/2020 867 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Jones, Bryan)

09/10/2020

Docket No. 868 Deleted by Clerk, entry was docketed to the wrong case. Entry has been docketed to case 3:12CV36 (hnw)

09/11/2020 868 ORDER granting 860 Motion to Take Deposition from Benjamin Daley Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/11/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/11/2020 869 ORDER granting 859 Motion to Take Deposition from Christopher Cantwell Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/11/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/11/2020 870 MOTION to Amend/Correct 597 Order, by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bloch, Michael)

09/11/2020 871 Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Bloch, Michael)

09/14/2020 872 Oral ORDER granting 867 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants Michael Hill, League of the South, and Michael Tubbs shall file their reply brief to their motion for summary judgment no later than September 18, 2020. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/14/20. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (JCH)

144

09/14/2020 873 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Show Cause Hearing held on 9/14/2020, Status Conference held on 9/14/2020(). (Court Reporter: Mary Butenschoen) (hnw) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
09/15/2020 874 ORDER granting 870 Motion to Amend deadlines. Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED, and the deadlines for parties to submit witness lists, motions in limine and responses, deposition designations, counter designations and objections, proposed jury instructions, and special interrogatories are hereby SUSPENDED pending further order of the Court. See ECF No. 597, at 2. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order the parties are directed to submit a joint proposed schedule setting new deadlines for these submissions. And further relief as set forth in said order Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/15/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
09/15/2020 875 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Video Show Cause and Status Hearing held on Sept. 14, 2020 reported by Court Reporter Butenschoen before Judge Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
09/16/2020 876 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 875 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 9/19/2020. (mb)
09/16/2020 877 ORDER FINDING ROBERT "AZZMADOR" RAY IN CIVIL CONTEMPT. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 9/16/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
09/17/2020 878 REPLY to Response to Motion re 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached . filed by Michael Hill, League of the South, Michael Tubbs. (Jones, Bryan)
09/17/2020 879 ORDER granting 864 Motion to Seal Response in Opposition to Defendants Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs and League of the South's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' unredacted Response in Opposition to Defendants Michael Hill,Michael Tubbs and League of the South's Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Exhibits 1-13, 19-44, 46-61, 65, 68, 72-81, 105-129, 131-137 and 140 be filed under seal by the Clerk pursuant to Local Rule 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/17/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
09/18/2020 880 REPLY to Response to Motion re 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses . filed by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party. (Kolenich, James)
09/18/2020 881 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Video Show Cause and Status Hearing held on <>9/14/2020 before Judge Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mary J. Butenschoen, Telephone number 540-857-5100 Ext. 5312. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
145

The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 10/9/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/19/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/17/2020. (mb)

09/21/2020

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia (WDVA) will be going live on the Next Generation of CM/ECF (NextGen CM/ECF) Tuesday, October 13, 2020. Preparing for NextGen CM/ECF is a two-step process. Step One is that each attorney must upgrade their individual PACER account, no shared accounts within firms will be allowed. Check and see if your PACER account is an "Upgraded" PACER account. Many PACER accounts have already been upgraded. If any of the following is true, you have an upgraded PACER account and no action is required until after the VAWD NextGen CM/ECF upgrade on October 13, 2020: 1) You have an upgraded PACER account for another NextGen Court or 2) Your PACER account was created after August 10, 2014. If none of these are true, you must upgrade your legacy PACER account before you will be able to link your PACER account to your VAWD CM/ECF account for your new NextGen CM/ECF account. Click here to learn how to upgrade your PACER Account. If you still have questions regarding your PACER account, please contact the PACER Service Center 800676-6856. Complete information regarding the WDVA NextGen CM/ECF implementation can be found at NextGen Information. (mzc) (ADI)

09/22/2020 882 AGREED PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/22/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/22/2020 883 Oral ORDER finding as moot 816 Motion to Compel based on entry of protective order entered this date. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 9/22/2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/22/2020 884 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached : (CR) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via Zoom Telephonic or Video Motion Hearing set for 10/30/2020 02:00 PM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)

09/29/2020

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Western District of Virginia will be going live on NextGen CM/ECF Tuesday, October 13, 2020. This is a Two-Step process. In Step one each attorney was to make sure they had an upgraded individual PACER account. Now in preparation for Step Two please make sure you know your VAWD CM/ECF username and password. Please manually log in to the VAWD CM/ECF system at ht tps://ecf.vawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl to make sure you know your current VAWD CM/ECF username and password. (do not rely on the auto-populating in your browser, because you will have to manually enter your CM/ECF username and password during the linking process after we go live on

146

NextGen.) If you do not know your username or password please email ecf@vawd.uscourts.gov and include your bar# and contact phone#. (ADI) (mzc)

09/29/2020 885 Joint Response re 874 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,, Enclosing Proposed Amended Schedule . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bloch, Michael)

09/29/2020 886 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey of Withdrawal of Appearance (Tolentino, Raymond)

09/30/2020 887 ORDER denying 664 Pro Se Defendant Cantwell's 664 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Sanction Plaintiffs. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on September 30, 2020. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(ca)

10/02/2020 888 Oral ORDER directing James Kolenich, Esq., or Elmer Woodard, Esq., to file notice of non-party deposition under seal. This matter is before the Court on certain Defendants' motion to sanction non-party witness Wes Bellamy for failing to obey a subpoena to appear by videoconference and testify at a properly noticed deposition on July 21, 2020, and to compel Mr. Bellamy to appear for his deposition. ECF No. 817 . Mr. Bellamy did not respond. On or before Wednesday, October 7, 2020, Defendants' counsel shall file a notice of deposition stating the date, time, and place at which Mr. Bellamy's rescheduled deposition will be held, and whether the deposition will be conducted in person, by videoconference, or through some other specified method. The notice shall be filed on the docket under seal. Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on October 2, 2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(ca)

10/02/2020 889 Oral ORDER denying as moot pro se Defendant Richard Spencer's Motion for Permission to Participate in Electronic Filing. ECF No. 833 . The Court previously granted Spencer's request to participate in electronic filing in this case, as long as he still represents himself, on the condition that he comply with the Court's registration procedures. ECF Nos. 757 , 773 . Entered by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on October 2, 2020. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. (Order emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(ca)

10/05/2020 890 ORDER Denying as Moot and Granting in Part and Denying in Part 837 Motion For Accommodations Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/5/2020. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw)

10/05/2020

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Western District of Virginia will be going live on NextGen CM/ECF Tuesday, October 13, 2020. The VAWD CM/ECF system will be unavailable from 8:00 am, October 10, 2020, through 8:00 am on Tuesday October 13, 2020. Preparing for NextGen CM/ECF is a two-step process. Step one was to upgrade your PACER account. Each attorney should have their own individual Upgraded PACER account at this time. Step two will be to link your upgraded PACER account to your VAWD CM/ECF account after the Court goes live on NextGen CM/ECF October 13, 2020. Instructions for linking you r account

147

can be found by clicking here. Remember you cannot link your accounts until on or after the court goes live on NextGe n October 13, 2020. If you have any additional questions please call the VAWD Clerks Office at 540-857-5100 or email ecf@vawd.uscourts.gov. (ADI) (mzc)
10/07/2020 891 Sealed Document-Defendants' Sealed Notice of Deposition of Non-Party Wes Bellamy (hnw) (Entered: 10/08/2020)
10/09/2020 892 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 817 MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF WES BELLAMY as more fully set forth in said order Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 10/9/2020. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
10/14/2020 893 MOTION to Voluntary Dismiss Claims Against Defendant James Alex Fields, Jr. by Chelsea Alvarado. (Phillips, Jessica)
10/15/2020 894 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant National Socialist Movement by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Phillips, Jessica)
10/19/2020 895 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Richard Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Exhibits)(hnw)Motion Stricken from docket pursuant to ORDER 952 . Modified on 5/20/2021 (dg). (Entered: 10/20/2020)
10/22/2020 896 MOTION to Strike 895 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bloch, Michael)
10/23/2020 897 Sealed Document-Plaintiffs' Unredacted Response in Opposition to Defendants Michaal Hill, Michael Tubbs and League of the South's Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Exhibits Filed under seal pursuant to Order 879 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 19, # 16 Exhibit 20, # 17 Exhibit 21, # 18 Exhibit 22, # 19 Exhibit 23, # 20 Exhibit 24, # 21 Exhibit 25, # 22 Exhibit 26, # 23 Exhibit 27, # 24 Exhibit 28, # 25 Exhibit 29, # 26 Exhibit 30, # 27 Exhibit 31, # 28 Exhibit 32, # 29 Exhibit 33, # 30 Exhibit 34, # 31 Exhibit 35, # 32 Exhibit 36, # 33 Exhibit 37, # 34 Exhibit 38, # 35 Exhibit 39, # 36 Exhibit 40, # 37 Exhibit 41, # 38 Exhibit 42, # 39 Exhibit 43, # 40 Exhibit 44, # 41 Exhibit 46, # 42 Exhibit 47, # 43 Exhibit 48, # 44 Exhibit 49, # 45 Exhibit 50, # 46 Exhibit 51, # 47 Exhibit 52, # 48 Exhibit 53, # 49 Exhibit 54, # 50 Exhibit 55, # 51 Exhibit 56, # 52 Exhibit 57, # 53 Exhibit 58, # 54 Exhibit 59, # 55 Exhibit 60, # 56 Exhibit 61, # 57 Exhibit 65, # 58 Exhibit 68, # 59 Exhibit 72, # 60 Exhibit 73, # 61 Exhibit 74, # 62 Exhibit 75, # 63 Exhibit 76, # 64 Exhibit 77, # 65 Exhibit 78, # 66 Exhibit 79, # 67 Exhibit 80, # 68 Exhibit 81, # 69 Exhibit 105, # 70 Exhibit 106, # 71 Exhibit 107, # 72 Exhibit 108, # 73 Exhibit 110, # 74 Exhibit 112, # 75 Exhibit 113, # 76 Exhibit
148

114, # 77 Exhibit 115, # 78 Exhibit 116, # 79 Exhibit 118, # 80 Exhibit 119, # 81 Exhibit 120, # 82 Exhibit 121, # 83 Exhibit 122, # 84 Exhibit 123, # 85 Exhibit 125, # 86 Exhibit 126, # 87 Exhibit 127, # 88 Exhibit 128, # 89 Exhibit 129, # 90 Exhibit 131, # 91 Exhibit 132, # 92 Exhibit 133, # 93 Exhibit 134, # 94 Exhibit 135, # 95 Exhibit 136, # 96 Exhibit 137, # 97 Exhibit 140, # 98 Exhibit 117, # 99 Exhibit 124) All Video Exhibits lodged in the clerks office on thumb drive. (hnw)
10/27/2020 898 MOTION for Sanctions Against Robert "Azzmador" Ray by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Phillips, Jessica)
10/29/2020 899 First RESPONSE in Opposition re 894 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant National Socialist Movement . filed by Jeff Schoep. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(ReBrook, William)
10/30/2020 900 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Motion Hearing held on 10/30/2020 re 823 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Exhibits attached filed by Michael Tubbs, Michael Hill, League of the South. (Court Reporter: JoRita Meyer) (hnw)
10/30/2020 901 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (3 Day Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Summary Judgment Hearing held on October 30, 2020 reported by Court Reporter JoRita Meyer before Judge Norman Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
11/03/2020 902 Financial arrangements made (Original) (3 Days Service) re 901 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 11/5/2020. (jm)
11/05/2020 903 NOTICE of Hearing: (CR) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via Zoom Jury Trial RESET for Four Weeks; April 26-30, May 3-7, May 10-14, and May 17-21, 2021 09:30 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs. (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw) Modified on 11/5/2020 to correct Month to "May" (hnw).
11/05/2020 904 Reply re 899 Response in Opposition to Motion, 894 MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant National Socialist Movement . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Phillips, Jessica)
11/05/2020 905 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motions held on 10/30/2020 before Judge Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber JoRita Meyer, Telephone number 540.857.5100, ext. 5311, JoRitaM@vawd.uscourts.gov. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on
149

our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 11/27/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/7/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/3/2021. (jm)
11/10/2020 906 RESPONSE in Opposition re 896 MOTION to Strike 895 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Richard Spencer. (hnw)
11/12/2020 907 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses : (CR) (No Interpreter requested) If this is a video conference click here for guidance re: participation via ZoomVIDEO Motion Hearing set for 12/17/2020 10:00 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (Notice mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw) Modified on 11/13/2020 to Correct TIME of hearing to 10:00 AM(hnw).
11/12/2020 908 Reply re 906 Response in Opposition to Motion . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bloch, Michael)
11/23/2020 909 Supplemental Brief / Memorandum in Opposition re 801 Response, in Further Opposition to Third Parties Hill and Lunsford Request for Cost-Shifting. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Mills, David)
11/30/2020 910 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 601 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 11/30/2020. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(jv)
12/17/2020 911 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon: Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2020 re 826 MOTION to Exclude certain Expert Witnesses filed by Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Identity Evropa, Traditionalist Worker Party, Nathan Damigo. (Court Reporter: Mary Butenschoen) (hnw)
12/18/2020 912 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey for Motion Hearing held on December 17, 2020 reported by Court Reporter Butenschoen before Judge Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Cahill, Robert)
12/18/2020 913 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) by Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa, Jason Kessler, Matthew Parrott, Traditionalist Worker Party for Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2020 reported by Court Reporter Mary Butenschoen before Judge Moon. Transcript Due Deadline will be set when Financial Arrangements are made. (Kolenich, James)
12/18/2020 914 Financial arrangements made (Original) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 912 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 12/28/2020. (mb)
150

12/18/2020 915 Financial arrangements made (Copy) (Expedited-7 calendar days Service) re 913 Transcript Request, Transcript due by 12/28/2020. (mb)
12/23/2020 916 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2020 before Judge Moon. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mary J. Butenschoen, Telephone number 540857-5100 Ext 5312. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 1/13/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/25/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2021. (mb)
12/23/2020 917 Transcript Copy Delivered re 913 Transcript Request, (mb)
01/13/2021 918 Consent MOTION for Entry of Default by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Corrected First Set of Document Requests, # 2 Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Nationalist Front's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs First Requests for Production and Interrogatories, # 4 Under Seal, # 5 Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories to Entity Defendants, # 6 Nationalist Front's Response to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 7 Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition to Nationalist Front, # 8 Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition to Jeff Schoep, # 9 Jeff Schoep Deposition Transcript, # 10 Edward ReBrook Email, # 11 Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition to Nationalist Front, # 12 Edward ReBrook Email, # 13 Statement re Nonappearance of Nationalist Front)(Phillips, Jessica)
01/13/2021 919 MOTION to Seal Document 918-4 by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Phillips, Jessica)
01/15/2021 920 ORDER granting 919 Motion to Seal Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 1/15/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
01/15/2021 921 Sealed Document-Pursuant to Order 92 Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default (hnw)
01/15/2021 922 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 918 Consent MOTION for Entry of Default filed by John Doe, Marcus Martin, Seth Wispelwey, April Muniz, Marissa Blair, Chelsea Alvarado, Elizabeth Sines, Natalie Romero, Thomas Baker Motions referred to Joel C. Hoppe. for a report and recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/15/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
01/19/2021 923 Letter re Defendants Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony by Chelsea Alvarado,
151

Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S. v. Hassan - Kohlmann Report, # 2 Exhibit Far-Right Symbols Seen at the U.S. Capitol Riot - Washington Post)(Bloch, Michael)
02/03/2021 924 ORDER; The trial in this matter shall be continued until October 25 to November 19, 2021, the dates previously set aside on the Courts calendar and by the parties for this trial. Signed by Senior Judge (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)Norman K. Moon on 2/3/2021. (hnw)
02/03/2021 925 Notice Rescheduling Hearing (CR) previously set for April 26-May 21, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Norman K. Moon in Charlottesville Jury Trial reset for October 25-November 19, 2021 09:30 AM in Charlottesville before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. Counsel must contact the Clerk's Office no later than five (5) business days before the scheduled trial date for your technology needs. (Notice mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
02/22/2021 926 MOTION to Stay Deposition by James Alex Fields, Jr. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Campbell, David)
02/23/2021 927 RESPONSE in Opposition re 926 MOTION to Stay Deposition and Appoint a Guardian Ad Litem. filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Mills, David)
03/02/2021 928 ORDER denying 926 Motion to Stay Case or to appoint a GAL Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/2/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw) (Main Document 928 replaced on 3/2/2021 to correct header in order ) (hnw).
03/05/2021 929 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Chelsea Alvarado, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support - Jessica Phillips, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Phillips, Jessica) Modified on 3/8/2021 To correct Errata C to read "EXHIBIT C" (hnw).
03/11/2021 930 Pro Se Objections to Notice of Deposition by Defendant Christopher Cantwell (hnw)
03/16/2021 931 Response re 930 Objections to Deposition . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bloch, Michael)
03/19/2021 932 Supplemental Response re 931 Response, In Opposition to Defendant Cantwell's Objection to Deposition . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Notice of Deposition of Christopher Cantwell)(Bloch, Michael)
03/25/2021 933 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER; Plaintiffs' "Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant Robert 'Azzmador' Ray and for an Order Directing
152

Ray to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court," ECF No. 750, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Robert "Azzmador" Ray is GRANTED subject to the presiding District Judge's final approval. Plaintiffs should submit their proposed language to the presiding District Judge in their proposed jury instructions. 2. Plaintiffs' request for an order directing Ray to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating the May 18, 2020 discovery order, ECF No. 728, is DENIED without prejudice, and further such relief as set forth in said order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/24/2021. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(hnw)
03/26/2021 934 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 932 Response, Supplemental Response re 931 Response, In Opposition to Defendant Cantwell's Objection to Deposition (Bloch, Michael)
03/29/2021 935 NOTICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re withdraw of attorney Scott Stemetzki (Cahill, Robert)
03/30/2021 936 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America, ECF No. 713. Plaintiffs' request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Vanguard America is hereby GRANTED subject to the presiding District Judges final approval. Plaintiffs should submit their proposed language to the presiding District Judge in their proposed jury instructions.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 3/30/2021. (Opinion and Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties) (hnw)
03/31/2021 937 ORDER denying Motion to Exclude 826 . However, Defendants may later raise specific objections in the course of the experts' testimony. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/31/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties) (hnw)
03/31/2021 938 ORDER denying 823 Motion for Summary Judgment. There are material conflicts in evidence, to be set forth more fully in a forthcoming Memorandum Opinion, that preclude an award of summary judgment to League of the South Defendants. Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment will be and hereby is DENIED. Dkt. 823. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/30/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
04/12/2021 939 Pro Se MOTION to Sanction Plaintiffs by Christopher Cantwell. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (hnw)
04/12/2021 940 Letter, which was received on April 5th, with last page/signature page for Motion 939 by Christopher Cantwell. The Motion having finally been received in Clerk's office April 12th, to be docketed and joined with signature page. (hnw)
04/15/2021 941 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 4/15/2021. (Opinion mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(hnw)
153

04/16/2021 942 Pro Se MOTION to file by Fax by Christopher Cantwell. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (hnw)
04/20/2021 943 RESPONSE to Motion re 942 MOTION to file by Fax . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Bloch, Michael)
04/21/2021 944 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey re 943 Response to Motion, (Bloch, Michael)
04/26/2021 945 RESPONSE in Opposition re 939 MOTION for Sanctions . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Email from J. Kolenich to Judge Hoppe, # 2 Exhibit B - Email from J. Kolenich to M. Bloch, # 3 Exhibit C - Email from C. Cantwell to M. Bloch, # 4 Exhibit D - C. Cantwell Deposition Notice, # 5 Exhibit E Declaration of Michael L. Bloch)(Bloch, Michael)
04/26/2021 946 Pro se Supplemental to Defendant's 939 MOTION to Sanction Plaintiffs by Christopher Cantwell (hnw) (Entered: 05/04/2021)
05/04/2021 947 Pro Se Second Supplemental to Defendant's 939 MOTION to Sanction Plaintiffs by Christopher Cantwell (hnw) (Entered: 05/05/2021)
05/07/2021 948 Letter Updating Court on current situation and address by Christopher Cantwell (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(hnw)
05/11/2021 949 Response re 946 Additional Evidence, 947 Additional Evidence Defendant Cantwell's "Supplemental" Motion to Sanction Plaintiffs . filed by Chelsea Alvarado, Thomas Baker, Marissa Blair, John Doe, Tyler Magill, Marcus Martin, April Muniz, Hannah Pearce, Natalie Romero, Elizabeth Sines, Seth Wispelwey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Email from A. Conlon to L. Noseworthy, K. Chadbourne)(Bloch, Michael)
05/14/2021 950 Pro se MOTION to Stay Deposition by Christopher Cantwell. Motions referred to Judge Joel C. Hoppe. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(hnw)
05/14/2021 951 ORDER; Cantwell's motion to sanction Plaintiffs for their occasional "failure to properly serve him with documents [while]... he has been incarcerated," ECF No. 939, is DENIED; Cantwell's motion to "submit motions, responses, and other necessary correspondence in this case by faxing documents to the Clerk," ECF No. 942, is DENIED ; Cantwell's objection to Plaintiffs' notice of deposition, ECF Nos. 930, 950, is OVERRULED Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/14/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties )(hnw)
05/19/2021 952 ORDER granting 896 Motion to Strike. Defendant Richard Spencer's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 895 , is STRICKEN from the docket as untimely filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 05/19/2021. (Order mailed to Pro Se Parties via US Mail)(dg)
05/21/2021 953 Mailing received this date. This document has previously been filed at 939 . This
154

document was lost in the mail ( see Post Mark of 3/29/2021 ) and Party, Mr. Cantwell, discovered it had not been received when trying to arrange for signature page to be included. The replacement document was then sent to the Court in April and filed on 4/12/21. (hnw) Modified on 5/21/2021 to correct filed date(hnw).
05/26/2021 954 ORDER Scheduling Status Conference. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 05/26/2021. (Order mailed and emailed to Pro Se Parties)(dg)
05/27/2021 955 NOTICE of Videoconference Hearing: (CR) (No Interpreter requested) (Click on this link for guidance for participation via Zoom and Click on this link for instructions on how to listen to public hearings) Status Conference set for June 4, 2021 at 2:00 PM via Zoom before Senior Judge Norman K. Moon. (Notice and Zoom dial-in information emailed and mailed to Pro Se Parties)(ca)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/28/2021 12:33:21

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Yu

Description :

Docket Report

Search 3:17-cv-

Criteria 00072-

:

NKM-JCH

Billable Pages:

30

Cost: 3.00

Exempt flag:

Not Exempt

Exempt Not reason: Exempt

155

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 28 Pageid#: 11035

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED 05/26/2020

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division

JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: /s/ J. JONES

ELIZABETH SINES et al.,

)

DEPUTY CLERK

Plaintiffs,

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

v.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

JASON KESSLER et al.,

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

Defendants.

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Petition Regarding Recoverable Attorney’s

Fees. ECF No. 505. The Court previously held that Defendants Elliott Kline, Matthew

Heimbach, and Vanguard America (together, “Defendants”) disobeyed numerous court orders

directing them to provide or permit discovery of materials and information going to the heart of

this lawsuit, and that Plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees caused by each

Defendant’s failure to obey those orders. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1–2, 26, 32, 34–35,

ECF No. 539.1 For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to

payment of $41,300.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). This amount

shall be apportioned among the three Defendants as follows:

Elliott Kline: Matthew Heimbach: Vanguard America:

$12,528.33 $12,528.33 $16,243.33

See Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 4, ECF No. 505. Plaintiffs’ request for travel and lodging expenses

related to the motion hearing held in Charlottesville on June 3, 2019, will be denied.

I. Background

1 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed with this Court, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, use the header page numbers generated by CM/ECF. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the page numbers printed on the upper right-hand corner of the document.
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 28 Pageid#: 11036
On August 11–12, 2017, the “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan,
various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 335; see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7, ECF No. 557. Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”—rather, they allege that Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Mem. Op. on
Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1–2. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” the District Court has held the remaining Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that certain Defendants—including Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America—“formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. Kline was properly served at his residence in Pennsylvania on October 27, ECF No. 62, and Heimbach was personally served
at his residence in Tennessee on November 6, ECF No. 108. Vanguard America was served through its representative, “Dillon Ulysses Hopper a/k/a Dillon Irizarry, authorized to accept,” at a residential address on November 17.2 ECF No. 157. All three Defendants retained James
2 Mr. Hopper is not a defendant to this action. He is participating in the litigation solely in his capacity as Defendant Vanguard America’s officer or managing agent. See Order to Def. Vanguard Am., at 1–3 (July 3, 2019), ECF No. 517; Order of June 21, 2019, at 4, ECF No. 508; Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), 37(b)(2)(A). Mr. Hopper’s acts or omissions described below and in my prior Memorandum Opinion “are imputed to” Vanguard America as the disobedient party. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 5 (quoting Indep. Productions Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 30 F.R.D. 377, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)). Nothing herein shall be construed as holding Mr. Hopper personally liable for any portion of expenses that Vanguard America will be ordered pay to Plaintiffs under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). Cf. Life Techs. Corp. v. Govindaraj, 931 F.3d 259, 265–66 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that the district court’s “frustration” with non-party corporate officer’s “years-long obstructionist behavior” in the litigation was “understandable,” but reversing a money judgment against the officer in part because he “was not notified at any point during the litigation . . . that the plaintiff was seeking to impose liability on him personally, or to collect a money judgment from him under a theory that he was the alter ego of the defendant corporation,” and he therefore “did not have an opportunity to
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 28 Pageid#: 11037
Kolenich, Esq., and Elmer Woodard, Esq., to represent them beginning on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 131. The Court later allowed counsel to withdraw their representation because Kline, Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper for Vanguard America stopped communicating with counsel and refused their instructions to cooperate in discovery. Order of July 25, 2018 (Kline), ECF No. 347; Order of Jan. 4, 2019 (Heimbach), ECF No. 397; Order of June 3, 2019 (Vanguard America), ECF No. 459; see generally Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 16–17, 20–21, 23, 26, 30.
* “Plaintiffs contend that Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America each played a key role in planning the rallies and that they actively communicated with their co-Defendants and others before, during, and after these events. Most of that activity occurred online.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 7; see id. at 8–11. On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs served their [Corrected] First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on Defendants through their then-counsel. See id. at 11–12, 14–16, 29. Those requests sought “information and materials directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case,” id. at 29, including copies of any “emails, text messages, recordings, or social media content related to the preparation, planning, transportation to, or coordination for” the August 11–12 events and information identifying “all means of communications used to discuss the events, as well as the specific electronic devices used for such communications,” id. at 12 (cleaned up). Defendants’ proper responses or objections were due by February 26, 2018. Id. at 29. They did nothing. Id. My prior Memorandum Opinion details what Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America (through Mr. Hopper) did—or, more accurately, did not do—in this case over the next sixteen months. See generally Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1–2, 12–27. For now, it is enough to say
defend against personal liability with the array of defenses and procedures afforded to parties in accordance with their due process rights”).
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 28 Pageid#: 11038
that each Defendant disobeyed at least four separate orders to provide or permit discovery of materials within his control “while the litigation slowed and everyone else’s costs piled up.” Id. at 29. Those orders set out clear step-by-step instructions how Defendants could “make good their discovery obligation[s]” by deadlines repeatedly extended, Lee v. Max, Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.). See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 13–15, 17–20, 22; Order of Mar. 26, 2018, ECF No. 287; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, ECF No. 379; Stip. & Order of Nov. 19, 2018, ECF No. 383; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, ECF No. 440. Yet, their “consistent ‘practice from the very beginning [was] to ignore outright the court’s orders or submit chaotically and defectively to them.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30 (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 94 (4th Cir. 1989)).
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions against Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America in April 2019, ECF Nos. 457, 465, and none of those Defendants responded within the time allowed.3 See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 24–25. On June 3, 2019, I held a hearing in open court at which Mr. Bloch appeared in person for Plaintiffs and Mr. Kolenich appeared for Vanguard America.4 I first addressed defense counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Vanguard America. Mr. Kolenich confirmed Vanguard America had “not produced any discovery” and had made clear that “they don’t intend to produce any discovery” or “participate in the litigation.” Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 5, ECF No. 504. I granted the motion and directed Vanguard America to have a new attorney enter an appearance by June 25. Mr. Hopper promptly informed the Court that he cannot personally afford to hire a lawyer to represent Vanguard America. ECF No. 509.
3 Defendant Richard Spencer objected to some of Plaintiffs’ proposed evidentiary sanctions, ECF Nos. 469, 479, and Plaintiffs filed reply briefs addressing those concerns, ECF Nos. 475, 489. 4 Plaintiffs’ local counsel and Spencer’s counsel also appeared in person. The Court sent three notices each to Kline and Heimbach, but neither appeared at the hearing or acknowledged the Court’s communications. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 26.
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 28 Pageid#: 11039
Turning to Plaintiffs’ motions, I explained that Kline’s, Heimbach’s, and Vanguard America’s misconduct to date was “clearly sanctionable” and that I intended to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees caused by their failure to comply with my discovery orders. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 26; see id. at 33–36; Order of Aug. 9, 2019, ECF No. 540; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). “The more difficult question was what substantive sanction(s) were appropriate under the current circumstances. Plaintiffs’ filings consistently gave the impression that they still wanted the actual information and tangible things being withheld by these ‘three really important’ Defendants.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 26 (quoting Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 10). Their “request that the Court deem certain facts established or documents authentic, on the other hand, necessarily assumed that the information would never be produced in any form.” Id. (emphasis omitted). “Having carefully considered the Court’s full range of options . . . , I explained that issuing one more very specific discovery order—this time under threat of arrest and detention—could provide a way to ‘get the information that Plaintiffs were entitled to’ and clearly still wanted.” Id. at 27 (brackets omitted) (quoting Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 18). If that did not work, then “the Court likely will have run out of options other than to impose significant evidentiary sanctions.” Id. at 35; see Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 13–14, 18–21, 29–30.
Plaintiffs filed their fee petition and supporting exhibits on June 10, 2019. ECF Nos. 505, 506. I took the petition under advisement and directed Kline, Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper for Vanguard America each to file a written response on or before July 5. See Order of June 21, 2019, at 1–2, ECF No. 508. Kline never responded or attempted to show good cause for his failure to do so. I therefore “consider Plaintiffs’ petition to be unopposed” by him. Id. at 2 (citing ECF No. 101). Mr. Hopper filed a letter response explaining his “leadership” position in
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 28 Pageid#: 11040
Vanguard America, apologizing to the Court for his role in the organization’s failure to cooperate in discovery, and describing in some detail the significant medical and financial stressors that Mr. Hopper and his family have dealt with since March 2017.5 ECF No. 509.
The Court received Heimbach’s response, labeled “Respondent’s Motion to Appeal Sanction,” on July 19, 2019. Heimbach asks the Court to “withhold its judgment of sanctions” against him and lists several reasons why he shouldn’t have to compensate Plaintiffs for fees or expenses caused by his failure to comply with prior discovery orders. Def. Heimbach’s Resp. 1– 2, ECF No. 527. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief responding to Heimbach’s assertions on July 15. ECF No. 522. Accordingly, I construe Heimbach’s pro se “Motion to Appeal Sanction” as his brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ fee petition, see Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381–82 (2003), and deem the response timely filed.
II. The Legal Framework “When a litigant files suit in a court in the United States, he or she will typically pay the costs associated with hiring an attorney. This is the ‘American Rule’ and it governs litigation in federal courts ‘absent explicit congressional authorization’ to the contrary.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 734 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 814–15 (1994)). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “partially abrogate[s] the American Rule,” id., by shifting fees when “a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Indeed, “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
5 See supra n.2. 6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 28 Pageid#: 11041
expenses unjust.” Id. (emphasis added). The party seeking fees always “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Project Vote/Voting for Am. v. Long, 887 F. Supp. 2d 704, 709 (E.D. Va. 2012) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)); see Flame S.A. v. Indus. Carriers, Inc., No. 2:13cv658, 2014 WL 7185199, at *3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2014) (quoting Grissom v. The Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 320–21 (4th Cir. 2008)). Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), however, “the burden [is] on the disobedient party to avoid expenses by showing that his failure [was] justified or that special circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Porter v. Johnson, Civ. No. 04-2121, 2008 WL 2566749, at *1 (D.D.C. June 25, 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee’s note to 1970 amendment).
III. Discussion A. Lodestar Figure
A fee award under “Rule 37 is calculated using the lodestar method, in which the court multiples a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours expended” dealing with the disobedient party’s failure to obey a discovery order. Smith v. Dist. of Columbia, 249 F. Supp. 3d 106, 110 (D.D.C. 2017); see also Broccoli v. Echostar Comm’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506, 512 (D. Md. 2005). The court’s decision about “what constitutes a ‘reasonable’ number of hours and rate,” Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009), is guided by twelve factors:
(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 28 Pageid#: 11042

the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.

Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 n. 28 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing Johnson v. Ga. Hwy.

Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)). The attorneys’ experience and ability, “the time and

labor expended, the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised, [and] the skill required to

properly perform the legal services rendered” are the “most relevant” factors in determining a

reasonable fee award for a discovery violation. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. SCH Enter., No. RDB-06-

2662, 2019 WL 3841932, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2019) (quotation marks omitted); see also

Flame S.A., 2014 WL 7185199, at *3. When the applicant carries its “burden of showing that the

claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable, the resulting [lodestar amount] is presumed to

be the reasonable fee.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988); see

McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88–89 (4th Cir. 2013) (“The Supreme Court has indulged a

‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar number represents a reasonable attorney’s fee.” (quoting

Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010))); Davis v. Uhh Wee, We Care Inc.,

Civ. No. ELH-17-494, 2019 WL 3457609, at *10 (D. Md. July 31, 2019) (awarding fees under

Rule 37(b)(2)(C)); Scott v. Clarke, No. 3:12cv36, 2014 WL 1463755, at *5–6 (W.D. Va. Apr.

15, 2014) (Moon, J.) (awarding fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)).

Here, Plaintiffs seek $67,735.65 in attorney’s fees for 247.30 hours expended by one

experienced counsel, two associate attorneys, and one paralegal:

Name
Michael Bloch, Esq. Alexandra Conlon, Esq.

Total Hours Claimed 111.90
41.50

Hourly Rate Claimed $400
$225

Total Fee Claimed $44,760.00
$6,425.50

8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 28 Pageid#: 11043

Martha Fitzgerald, Esq. Emma Buckland Young

24.50 69.40

$225 $100

$5,512.50 $6,940.00

See Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 4; Decl. of Michael L. Bloch, Esq. ¶¶ 9–11, ECF No. 506; Bloch

Decl. Ex. A, at 3, ECF No. 506-1; id. Ex. B, at 3, ECF No. 506-2; id. Ex. C, at 3, ECF No. ECF

No. 506-3. Mr. Bloch, Plaintiffs’ lead counsel on the sanctions motions, attests that the time

claimed reflects an accurate contemporaneous accounting of the hours each timekeeper spent

“researching, drafting, and filing” both motions with briefs and supporting exhibits and preparing

for or participating in the June 3 hearing, excluding “further” duplicative or excessive hours that

his law firm typically would not “charge[] to a client for this kind of work,” Bloch Decl. ¶¶ 9–11, 13.6 See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (“Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not

properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to statutory authority.”).

More specifically, Plaintiffs seek:

x $27,565.00 for 96.8 total hours spent on their combined Motion for Sanctions

Against Defendants Kline and Heimbach, ECF No. 457. See Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at

2–3.

x $16,372.50 for 72.6 total hours spent on their Motion for Sanctions Against

Vanguard America, ECF No. 465. Bloch Decl. Ex. B, at 2–3; and

6 Plaintiffs also excluded “all of the time and expenses” counsel and support staff spent on (1) their repeated attempts to obtain discovery from Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America “in the nearly 18 months” it took for Defendants to respond; (2) their successful motion to compel Defendants to permit inspection and imaging of electronic devices; (3) their repeated efforts to induce Defendants’ compliance with the November 2018 order granting the motion to compel before Plaintiffs filed their motions for sanctions; (4) preparing Plaintiffs’ fee petition; and (5) the depositions of Kline, Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper held in July and August 2019. See id. ¶¶ 14–16.
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 28 Pageid#: 11044

x $23,798.15 for 77.9 total hours spent preparing for, traveling to, and participating

in the June 3 oral argument on both motions. Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2–3.

See also Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 4. They ask that the fees related to the Kline/Heimbach motion

“be apportioned equally between those two Defendants” and the fees and Mr. Bloch’s travel

expenses ($1,185.65) related to the June 3 hearing “be allocated pro rata among the three

Defendants.” Id.

Defendant
Kline Heimbach Vanguard America

Motion Hours Claimed 48.4
48.4
72.6

Motion Fee Claimed
$13,782.50
$13,782.50 $16,372.50

Hearing Hours Claimed
25.96

Hearing Fee Total claimed Hours per Defendant
$7,932.72 74.36

Requested Fee per
Defendant
$21,715.21

25.96 25.96

$7,932.72 $7,932.71

74.36 98.56

$21,715.21 $24,305.21

Id. at 5; see Bloch Decl. ¶¶ 9–13.

1. Hourly Rates

Plaintiffs seek recompense at $400.00 per hour for senior-level counsel Michael Bloch,

Esq.; $225.00 per hour for mid-level associates Alexandra Conlon, Esq., and Martha Fitzgerald,

Esq.; and $100.00 per hour for paralegal/case manager Emma Buckland Young. Pls.’ Pet. for

Att’y Fees 8; Bloch Decl. ¶¶ 4–7. They bear the burden “to show that the requested hourly rates

are consistent with the prevailing market rates” for this type of work “in the relevant

community.” McAfee, 738 F.3d at 91 (quotation marks omitted). “The relevant market . . . is

ordinarily the community” where the district court sits. Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton,

31 F.3d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 1994). Prevailing hourly rates can “be established through affidavits

reciting the fees of counsel with similar qualifications, information concerning fee awards in

similar cases, and/or specific evidence of counsel’s billing practice.” Freeman v. Potter, No.

7:04cv276, 2006 WL 2631722, at *4 (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2006) (citing Spell v. McDaniel, 824 10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 28 Pageid#: 11045
F.2d 1380, 1402 (4th Cir. 1987)); see Depaoli v. Vacation Sales Assocs., 489 F.3d 615, 622–23 (4th Cir. 2007). The court may also rely on its “own familiarity with the rates prevailing in the district.” Rogers v. Summit Receivables, No. 3:17cv69, 2018 WL 1161144, at *4 (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2018) (quoting Farbotko v. Clinton Cty., 433 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2005)); see Davis, 2019 WL 3457609, at *10–11 (citing CoStar Grp., Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 780, 788 (D. Md. 2000)); Scott, 2014 WL 1463755, at *5–6.
* * The legal market in central Virginia provides the benchmark for establishing reasonable hourly rates in this case, even though the four individuals seeking fees all work for a boutique law firm in New York City. Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 8–9; see Scott, 2014 WL 1463755, at *5–6. Mr. Bloch submitted a declaration describing his and his associates’ exceptional qualifications and notable legal experience. Bloch Decl. ¶¶ 3–7; see Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 9–10. While this information alone “is insufficient to establish that the rates sought are commensurate with the prevailing market rates” for attorneys with “similar skill and . . . experience” handling discovery disputes in this judicial district, Two Men & A Truck Int’l, Inc. v. A Mover, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 919, 927 (E.D. Va. 2015), Plaintiffs also cited cases where judges in in the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia awarded roughly $400 per hour for “experienced attorneys” like Mr. Bloch, and $225 per hour for “less experienced attorneys” like Ms. Conlon and Ms. Fitzgerald, for work performed on successful discovery disputes. Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 8–9 (collecting cases). See, e.g., Scott, 2014 WL 1463755, at *6 (concluding that class counsel were entitled to $400 per hour for senior partner’s work, and $230 per hour for a third-year associate’s work, performed on a discovery motion in late 2013). I find Plaintiffs’ proposed rates are reasonable considering their attorneys’ qualifications, the skill and professionalism required to represent their interests while dealing with the “unique and complicated [discovery] challenges” in this case, Mem. Op. of Aug.
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 28 Pageid#: 11046
9, 2019, at 35, and the presiding District Judge’s fee awards for similar work in Scott v. Clarke, No. 3:12cv36 (W.D. Va.) (Moon, J.).
Plaintiffs’ requested rate of $100 per hour for Ms. Buckland Young’s paralegal services, Bloch Decl. ¶ 7, is also in line with prevailing rates for similar work in this judicial district and the surrounding area. See, e.g., Holmes v. Gen. Dynamics Ordinance & Tactical Sys., Inc., No. 1:18cv19, 2019 WL 5704291, at *3, *5–6 (W.D. Va. June 17, 2019) (awarding $75 per hour for paralegal’s work on a discovery dispute in Abingdon); CX Reins. Co. Ltd. v. Homewood Realty, Civ. No. JKB-15-3136, 2018 WL 2118547, at *1–2 (D. Md. Mar. 9, 2018) (awarding $100 per hour for paralegal’s work on a discovery dispute in Maryland); Flame S.A., 2014 WL 4809842, at *7–8 (awarding $125 per hour for paralegal’s work on a discovery dispute in Virginia Beach); cf. Stultz v. Virginia, No. 7:13cv589, 2019 WL 4741315, at *3–5 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2019) (Ballou, J.) (recommending $125 per hour for paralegal’s work on a civil-rights case filed in Roanoke), adopted as modified on other grounds by 2019 WL 4740231 (W.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2019) (Moon, J.); Berthiaume v. Doremus, No. 6:13cv37, 2014 WL 2616990, at *6–7 (W.D. Va. June 12, 2014) (Moon, J.) (awarding $75 per hour for paralegal’s work on a disability-rights case filed in Lynchburg).
2. Hours Claimed Next, Plaintiffs must “document[] the appropriate hours” their legal team spent dealing with Defendants’ failure to obey the discovery orders. See Project Vote, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 709 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437). This requires “reliable contemporaneous recordation of time spent on legal tasks that are described with reasonable particularity” so the court can “weigh the hours claimed and exclude hours that were not reasonably expended.” Guidry v. Clare, 442 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294 (E.D. Va. 2006) (cleaned up). Plaintiffs’ counsel also “should make a good
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 28 Pageid#: 11047
faith effort to exclude from [the] fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary,” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. See Lopez v. XTEL Contr. Grp., LLC, 838 F. Supp. 2d 346, 348 (D. Md. 2012) (“The party seeking fees ‘must show that the number of hours for which he seeks reimbursement is reasonable and does not include hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” (quoting Travis v. Prime Lending, No. 3:07cv65, 2008 WL 2397330, at *4 (W.D. Va. June 12, 2008) (Moon, J.))).
“Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. It may do so “by identifying and disallowing specific hours that are not adequately documented, . . . by reducing the overall fee award by a fixed percentage or amount based on the trial court’s familiarity with the case, its complexity, and the counsel involved,” Guidry, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 294, or by some reasoned combination of the two, see Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, 188 F. Supp. 3d 333, 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“There is no precise rule or formula for determining a proper attorney’s fees award; rather, the district court should exercise its equitable discretion in light of all relevant factors.”). Plaintiffs’ billing records are not voluminous, but they do contain enough vague and combined time entries that it would be difficult to set out a line-by-line summary deleting every unreasonable hour. Accordingly, the following discussion strikes a balance between eliminating or reducing facially excessive entries where feasible and relying on my informed judgment to make reasonable, across-the-board reductions in other instances. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (noting that “trial courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time,” insofar as the “essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection”).
a. Excessive Hours for the June 3 Hearing
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 28 Pageid#: 11048
Mr. Bloch billed 6.5 hours to “[t]ravel to Charlottesville and prep for June 3 hearing” on June 2, plus 9.8 hours to “[p]rep for hearing, participate in hearing, and follow up re same [and] return travel from Charlottesville” on June 3. Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2. The hearing itself lasted 42 minutes, ECF No. 494, which means counsel spent about 15.5 hours traveling, preparing, and following up, Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2. Mr. Bloch did not say how much time he spent on those distinct activities. See Two Men & A Truck, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 928–29; Project Vote, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 715–16; Abusamhadaneh v. Taylor, No. 1:11cv939, 2013 WL 193778, at *32–33 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2013). The Court will not “labor to dissect” these entries “to hypothesize if the different” legal tasks and travel lumped together “could reasonably result in the requested time.” Abusamhadaneh, 2013 WL 193778, at *22; see id. at 32–33; Two Men & A Truck, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 929; Project Vote, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 716.
More importantly, claiming 16.3 is excessive because Mr. Bloch need not have come to Charlottesville for this hearing. Plaintiffs’ thorough briefs and supporting exhibits persuasively established they were entitled to sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2), see Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 3, and Plaintiffs’ counsel knew several weeks before the hearing that neither Kline, Heimbach, nor Vanguard America responded to their motions within the time allowed. Counsel had ably represented Plaintiffs’ interests on other motions and discovery problems in numerous telephonic hearings before June 3. See, e.g., Min. Entry of Mar. 16, 2018, ECF No. 279; Min. Entry of Apr. 19, 2018, ECF No. 303; Min. Entry of Nov. 9, 2018, ECF No. 377; Min. Entry of Jan. 4, 2019, ECF No. 396; Min. Entry of Feb. 12, 2019, ECF No. 411; Min. Entry of Apr. 26, 2019, ECF No. 481. Mr. Bloch easily could have done the same here. See Nichols v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., No. 12cv1789, 2019 WL 157915, at *7, *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019) (concluding that hours billed for
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 28 Pageid#: 11049
counsel’s in-person court appearances were “particularly excessive” because the Court allowed counsel to appear by phone for routine motion hearings).
Accordingly, I will allow 2.0 hours on June 3 for Mr. Bloch to prepare for and participate in that day’s hearing. The remaining 14.3 hours billed over June 2–3 will be excluded. Cf. Nichols, 2019 WL 157915, at *11 (reducing attorney’s hours by 20% to account “excessive, redundant, or unnecessary work,” including time spent attending in-person motion hearings that could have been held by telephone); Congregation Rabbinical Coll., 188 F. Supp. 3d at 345–46 & n.6 (concluding there was “no reason why Defendants should incur greater liability simply because” Plaintiffs insisted their out-of-state attorneys attend a sanctions hearing “despite the fact that Plaintiffs had retained competent local counsel,” and excluding all travel time and expenses claimed by the out-of-state attorneys); SunTrust Mortg., Inc. v. AIG United Guar. Grp., 933 F. Supp. 2d 762, 776, 778–79 (E.D. Va. 2013) (concluding it was “not reasonable” to make an adversary “pay the travel time necessary for lawyers” from Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and New York “to travel to Richmond [for a spoliation hearing] when the services provided were available in Richmond,” and excluding “all travel time” and expenses related to the hearing claimed by those attorneys). This leaves 63.6 total hours related to the hearing billed by Mr. Bloch (24.9), Ms. Fitzgerald (24.5), and Ms. Buckland Young (14.2), see Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2–3, and 233.0 total hours billed overall.
b. Block Billing, Vague Entries & Clerical Tasks Plaintiffs’ billing records must “provide some guidance in identifying” the time spent on compensable tasks. Denton v. PennyMac Loan Servs., 252 F. Supp. 3d 504, 523 (quoting Buffington v. Balt. Cty., 913 F.2d 113, 128 (4th Cir. 1990)). Block billing, the practice of grouping “several tasks together under a single entry, without specifying the amount of time
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 28 Pageid#: 11050
spent on each particular task,” is not sufficient. Guidry, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 294. Vague descriptions also are inadequate when the court cannot independently determine whether the time claimed is reasonable. Am. Bird Conservancy v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 110 F. Supp. 3d 655, 675 (E.D. Va. 2015). “Courts faced with excessively vague or inadequate descriptions of tasks” in fee petitions have reduced hours “by percentages ranging from 20% to 90%,” while block billing typically warrants a reduction “ranging from 10% to 20%.” Route Triple Seven Ltd. v. Total Hockey, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 607, 621 (E.D. Va. 2015) (collecting cases).
Plaintiffs’ records reflect some unacceptable block billing. For example, Ms. Buckland Young routinely grouped different tasks—like fact checking, gathering exhibits, formatting, and filing documents—into single entries without specifying how much time she spent on each task. See Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2–3; id. Ex. B, at 2–3; id. Ex. C, at 2–3.7 Some of these combined entries are also problematic because they contain “purely clerical tasks” like filing documents with the court, organizing exhibits, assembling binders, and pulling cases for oral argument. LaMonaca v. Tread Corp., 157 F. Supp. 3d 507, 521 (W.D. Va. 2016); see, e.g., Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2–3 (entries of Apr. 2–3, Apr. 5, Apr. 24); id. Ex. B, at 2–3 (entries of Apr. 9, Apr. 11, May 2); id. Ex. C, at 2–3 (entries of May 20, May 29, May 31). Such tasks “should not be compensated at all” under a fee-shifting scheme, even if billed at a lower hourly rate, because they “are ordinarily part of a law office’s overhead” costs. Two Men & A Truck, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 929. Fees for traditional legal “tasks [like] ‘factual investigation[;] . . . assistance with depositions, interrogatories, and document production; . . . checking legal citations; and drafting correspondence,’” on the other hand, are recoverable at reasonable hourly rates. Id. (quoting
7 The three attorneys, on the other hand, typically listed one task or activity per entry. See id. But see Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2 (Ms. Conlon billing 10 hours on April 24 for “[r]evisions to, finalization of, and filing of reply to Heimbach/Kline sanctions motions”).
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 17 of 28 Pageid#: 11051
Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n.10 (1989)); cf. Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239, 255 (4th Cir. 2002) (explaining that “fees for paralegal time” are permitted under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), but “such fees are only recoverable to the extent they reflect tasks traditionally performed by an attorney and for which the attorney would customarily charge the client”). Ms. Buckland Young’s pervasive block billing makes it difficult to determine how much time she spent on clerical tasks versus compensable paralegal work. See, e.g., Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2 (billing 6.2 hours on March 27 to “[m]anage formatting of proposed order,” “fact check and gather research,” and “gather exhibits for Heimbach/Kline sanctions motion”); id. (billing 6.6 hours on April 2 to “[r]eview factual support and exhibits,” do “exhibit work,” and “prepare documents for filing”); id. at 3 (billing 3.1 hours on April 3 to “[r]eview factual support and exhibits,” do “exhibit work,” “prepare documents for filing” and “file Heimbach/Kline sanctions motion”); id. Ex. B, at 2 (billing 7.1 hours on April 11 to “[f]actual cite check and research additional documentation” for Vanguard America motion, “manage formatting issues in and prepare and organize exhibits for filing,” “input edits,” and “prepare to file, and file . . . sanctions motion”); id. Ex. C, at 3 (billing 7.0 total hours on May 20 and May 29–30 to “[p]ull cases,” “prepare and organize binders,” and “prepare materials,” “sources,” and “exhibits for oral argument”).
The slightly bigger flaw in Plaintiffs’ billing records is that “many of the entries appear excessive on their face because they are too vague to understand.” Stultz, 2019 WL 4741315, at *6. “Too many tasks . . . are vaguely described as ‘preparation.’” Id. Ms. Fitzgerald billed 20.3 hours to “[p]rep for [the] June 3 oral argument on sanctions motions, including legal research,” over four days in late May, plus another 4.2 hours to do “[f]inal prep for . . . oral argument” on June 2, without explaining how she “prepared” or what her post-briefing “legal research”
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 18 of 28 Pageid#: 11052
involved. Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2; see also Bloch Decl. ¶ 8. Mr. Bloch billed 19.9 hours between May 27 and June 1 to “[p]reparation for June 3 hearing,” Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2, but he did not identify “the particular tasks performed beyond preparing” or “indicate the specific reasons for such time spent,” Stultz, 2019 WL 4741315, at *6. Ms. Buckland Young regularly billed for “prepar[ing]” documents and hearing materials, Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2–3; id. Ex. B, at 2–3; id. Ex. C, at 2, without describing “the nature, volume, or relevance of the documents,” Route Triple Seven, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 621. Such entries “frustrate any attempt to assess the reasonableness” of the many hours she apparently devoted to those tasks. Route Triple Seven, 127 F. Supp. 3d at 621.
“Other entries are just plain confusing.” Stultz, 2019 WL 4741315, at *6. For example, Mr. Bloch billed 22.45 total hours spent giving “[a]ttention to” the two motions, Defendant Spencer’s response and Plaintiffs’ reply briefs, and the hearing. See Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2 (15.95 hours); id. Ex. B, at 2 (3.5 hours); id. Ex. C, at 2 (3.0 hours). “These entries provide no insight as to the particular tasks performed, nor do they indicate the specific reasons for such time spent.” Stultz, 2019 WL 4741315, at *6. Plaintiffs also do not explain why their lead counsel billed more than 20 hours for giving “attention to” this work on top of the nearly 130 hours he and two associate attorneys already billed for “drafting,” “revising,” “reviewing,” and “finalizing” their filings and “preparing” for the uncontested hearing. See Bloch Decl. Ex. A, at 2 (Mr. Bloch and Ms. Conlon billing 48.25 total hours on March 27–29, March 31–April 3, and April 24 for Kline/Heimbach motion); id. Ex. B, at 2 (Mr. Bloch and Ms. Conlon billing 37.0 hours on April 7–11 and April 30 for Vanguard America motion); id. Ex. C, at 2 (Mr. Bloch and Ms. Fitzgerald billing 44.4 total hours on May 25–30 and May 31–June 1 to prepare for hearing). Cf. Crump v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy ex rel. Mabus, 245 F. Supp. 3d 692, 713 (E.D. Va. 2017) (“[I]f
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 19 of 28 Pageid#: 11053
multiple attorneys bill for completing the same work product and each contribution of each attorney is not justified, the billed hours should be reduced for excessiveness.” (citing Rum Creek Coal, 31 F.3d at 180)).
A payment order under Rule 37(b)(2) extends only to such “reasonable” expenses, including attorney’s fees, as were caused by the disobedient party’s failure to comply with a discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); see Stillman v. Edmund Sci. Co., 522 F.2d 798, 801 & n.7 (4th Cir. 1975) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)); Diversified Lending, LLC v. Hotz, No. 1:12mc10, 2019 WL 149557, at *2–3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)); In re Ethicon Pelvic Repair Sys Prods. Liability Litig., MDL No. 2327, 2015 WL 3767729, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. June 16, 2015) (same). Without more information about how Plaintiffs’ legal team “prepared for” or gave “attention to” Defendants’ noncompliance, it is nearly “impossible for the court to verify . . . the reasonableness of the billings, either as to the necessity of the particular service or the total amount of time expended” thereon, In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1204 (D.D.C. 1990) (cleaned up). See Kizer v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. CV 12-5387, 2017 WL 9512408, at *9–13 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2017) (awarding fees under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), and reducing claimed hours by 25% to account for pervasive block billing, insufficiently detailed entries, and facially excessive time spent on straight-forward discovery problems); cf. Stultz, 2019 WL 4741315, at *6 (“The vague and confusing descriptions weigh in favor of reducing the fee request because the Court cannot determine what the attorneys were billing for.”); Zhang v. GC Servs., LP, 537 F. Supp. 2d 805, 814–15 (E.D. Va. 2008) (excluding entries that did “not adequately describe the work performed or the effort involved,” and therefore provided “no basis on which” the court could “identify whether such time entries [were] ‘reasonable’”). Accordingly, I will further deduct the 22.45 hours that Mr. Bloch spent
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 20 of 28 Pageid#: 11054
giving “attention to” each motion and the hearing, and then reduce Plaintiffs’ remaining 210.55 hours claimed by 20% overall to account for excessively vague entries, block billing, and noncompensable clerical tasks that should not have been included in their fee petition. See Wyatt v. Owens, No. 7:14cv492, 2018 WL 10613184, at *11–12 (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2018) (proposing a 20% to 30% reduction in paralegal’s hours to account for “routine block billing” and clerical tasks), att’y fee pet. dismissed as moot by 2018 WL 10613185 (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2018); cf. LaMonaca, 157 F. Supp. 3d at 521 (reducing attorney’s hours by 20% to account for vague entries, block billing, and clerical tasks, including time spent “preparing notebooks, organizing files, [and] ‘pulling’ documents”). This leaves 168.44 total hours overall.
c. Other Johnson Factors The above analyses takes into account the time and labor expended having to deal with Defendants’ noncompliance (first Johnson factor); the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered (third factor); the customary fees for like work (fifth factor); and the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys seeking reimbursement (ninth factor). Plaintiffs also argue that the extreme nature and extent of Defendants’ noncompliance presented “novel and difficult” issues because “there was little ‘off the shelf’ research that could be brought to bear” in proposing appropriate sanctions. Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 12. I agree. While “the issues related to Defendants’ noncompliance . . . were not particularly novel, they also were not routine.” Victor Stanley, 2019 WL 3841932, at *4; cf. Baker v. Key, No. 2:15cv565, 2016 WL 11672047, at *5 (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2016) (“Sanctions for walking out of a deposition present neither novel nor complex issues, and the law is quite straight-forward regarding a party’s obligation to cooperate in discovery.”); Grayson Consulting, Inc. v. Cathcart, No. 2:072292-DCN, 2013 WL 436217, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2013) (“[T]he matter underlying this fee
20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 21 of 28 Pageid#: 11055
petition—Lloyd’s delay in producing discovery responses—is neither particularly novel nor difficult.”). Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America “flaunted their obligations under the Federal Rules,” Victor Stanley, 2019 WL 3841932, at *4, and disobeyed at least four separate discovery orders before they finally resurfaced after the June 2019 hearing, see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 13–27, 29–34. Plaintiffs expended considerable effort and resources while dealing with each Defendant’s unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and blatant disregard for their proper discovery requests and this Court’s orders trying to enforce them. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 33. Plaintiffs are also correct that the “unique and complicated challenges” in this case, id. at 35, meant there was very little clear-cut guidance on how to craft just and appropriate sanctions, see id. at 25–26, 31–34. See Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 12.
Accordingly, this Johnson factor weighs in favor of finding Plaintiffs’ attorneys did not spend an unreasonable or excessive number of hours working on their motions for sanctions, even though the underlying discovery misconduct was clear and Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America did not contest them. Compare Bloch Decl. Exs. A & B (claiming 114.2 total attorney hours to research, draft, and file motions and supporting briefs), with Kizer, 2017 WL 9512408, at *12 (concluding that 49.7 attorney hours spent on largely unopposed motion for sanctions was excessive because the work “did not involve the analysis of novel or complex legal issues” or present “matters of first impression [that] might otherwise justify the hours expended”), and Shammas v. Focarino, 990 F. Supp. 2d 587, 593–94 (E.D. Va. 2014) (concluding that 29 hours for experienced attorneys to prepare and file a motion for sanctions and supporting briefs was “clearly excessive and unreasonable” where the “discovery order was clear and unambiguous, . . . the plaintiff’s violation of that order was equally clear,” and “no novel legal issue was presented” by plaintiff’s “uncontested” conduct), aff’d, 784 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2015).
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 22 of 28 Pageid#: 11056

3. Adjusted Lodestar Figure

Plaintiffs bear the burden of documenting the appropriate hourly rates for their attorneys and

support staff and the number of hours expended dealing with each Defendant’s noncompliance

considering the facts and circumstances of this case. While Plaintiffs’ counsel excluded from their

fee request some hours that were excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, their billing

records do not fully justify the 247.30 total hours originally claimed—despite achieving excellent

results for their clients. Rather, after deducting 36.75 hours from Mr. Bloch’s total time billed and

further reducing by 20% overall the total hours claimed by all four timekeepers to account for defects

in their billing records, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ legal team reasonably expended 168.44 hours

overall and that $41,300.00 is a reasonable fee for their work. The Court’s lodestar figure

(rounded to the nearest .10) breaks down accordingly:

Name
Bloch
Buckland Young Conlon Fitzgerald Total Hours & Fees Allowed

Hourly

Motions:

Hearing:

Rate Reasonable Hours Reasonable

(K&H |VA)

Hours

Motions: Lodestar Figures
(K&H |VA)

$400 30.6 12.0

17.5 $12,240 $4,800

$100 23.7 20.5

11.4

$2,370 $2,050

$225 10.4 22.8 $225 N/A N/A

N/A

$2,340 $5,210

19.6

N/A

N/A

64.7 55.3

48.5 $16,690 $12,060

Hearing: Lodestar Figures $7,000
$1,140
N/A $4,410
$12,550 $41,300

B. Travel Expenses Rule 37 requires a disobedient party to pay “reasonable expenses” caused by the failure
to obey a discovery order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), including “out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the [prevailing] attorney” that would normally be charged to a fee-paying client, see Spell, 852 F.2d at 771. Such costs may “include necessary travel” and lodging. Singleton v.

22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 23 of 28 Pageid#: 11057
Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665, 689–90 (D. Md. 2013). In this case, Plaintiffs’ expenses related to the June 3 hearing “must be deducted” because there was no reason for Mr. Bloch appear in person at the Charlottesville courthouse. SunTrust Mortg., 933 F. Supp. 2d at 779–80. Moreover, “the law is clear that no litigation costs should be awarded in the absence of adequate documentation.” Trimper v. City of Norfolk, 58 F.3d 68, 77 (4th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs report that Mr. Bloch’s “[a]irfare for travel” to and from Charlottesville and “[o]ne night stay in standard hotel room” cost $1,185.65, Bloch Decl. Ex. C, at 2, but they did not provide any receipts to substantiate this amount. I cannot rely on Plaintiffs’ “unverified [c]hart” to determine whether these expenses should be reimbursed under Rule 37. Cf. Haught v. Louis Berkman, LLC, No. 5:03cv109, 2006 WL 344917, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 13, 2006) (denying travel and lodging expenses where plaintiffs inexplicably failed to produce the “four of five receipts” to verify the amount sought (citing Trimper, 58 F.3d at 77)).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to be reimbursed for Mr. Bloch’s travel and lodging expenses will be denied. See SunTrust Mortg., 933 F. Supp. 2d at 779–80; Haught, 2006 WL 344917, at *4. C. Rule 37(b)(2)(C)’s Safe Harbors
Having determined that an award of $48,680.00 reflects Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses caused by Kline’s, Heimbach’s, and Vanguard America’s failures to obey multiple discovery orders, I “must order the disobedient party” to pay those expenses unless “the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Rule 37 “places the burden on the disobedient party to avoid expenses by showing” either that the failure was justified or “special circumstances” exist that would make the award unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) advisory committee note to 1970 amendment. This provision
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 24 of 28 Pageid#: 11058
“ensures that the disobeying party, rather than the innocent party, bears those costs.” In re Boston Sci. Corp., MDL No. 2326, 2015 WL 6043795, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 15, 2015).
Generally, “a party meets the ‘substantially justified’ standard when there is a ‘genuine dispute’ or if ‘reasonable people could differ’ as to the appropriateness” of that party’s position or conduct. Peterson v. Hantman, 277 F.R.D. 13, 16 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee note to 1970 amendment (explaining that a party “is substantially justified” in taking a discovery dispute to court if the dispute “is genuine”). The “position can be justified even though it is not correct” and “it can be substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact.” Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 n.2. The court has “broad discretion to determine” whether a party’s discovery failure was “substantially justified,” starting with the party’s explanation for its noncompliance. Cf. S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the district court has “broad discretion to determine whether a nondisclosure of evidence is substantially justified or harmless” under Rule 37(c)(1), and that the imposition of sanctions “should be guided by . . . factors” including the evidence’s importance and “the nondisclosing party’s explanation for its failure”).
Kline did not respond to the fee petition by the extended deadline and therefore gave up his chance to mitigate his share of the bill. See Kemp v. Harris, 263 F.R.D. 293, 297 (D. Md. 2009) (awarding fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)); Porter, 2008 WL 2566749, at *1–2 (discussing fee awards under Rule 37(b)(2)(C)). Mr. Hopper’s letter response contained “no evidence that [Vanguard America’s] noncompliance was substantially justified,” Fosselman v. Gibbs, No. CV 06-375, 2010 WL 1446661, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2010), and did not identify any reason why
24

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 25 of 28 Pageid#: 11059
it would be “unjust” to make Vanguard America pay its share of the resulting expenses. As noted, Mr. Hopper is not a defendant to this action and has not otherwise been placed on notice that he could be held personally liable to pay any portion of the fees herein assessed against Vanguard America. See Life Techs. Corp., 931 F.3d at 265–66.
Heimbach claimed that he did not know “how to participate in these ongoing matters, what was expected, or how to proceed” because he lacked “legal training and knowledge”; he was “operating under an improper legal understanding in regards to the discovery process”; and he has been “forced to represent himself” because he does not have the “funds to hire counsel.” Def. Heimbach’s Resp. 1–2. He also alleged that having to pay “[a]ny economic sanction, no matter how mild, would likely result in . . . [his] homelessness” and unemployment, and make it impossible for him to financially support his disabled wife and two children. Id. The children live with Heimbach’s ex-wife, who is unemployed. Id. Heimbach did not produce any evidence to support his unsworn statements.
Heimbach’s arguments are not persuasive. To start, Heimbach was still represented by counsel when he disobeyed three separate discovery orders issued in 2018. If he had questions about discovery, then “he should have asked his attorneys” for help. Best Payphones, Inc. v. City of New York, Nos. 1cv3924, 1cv8506, 3cv192, 2016 WL 792396, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016). Instead, his “response to the [November 19, 2018] court order was to terminate [their] representation . . . . and forbid [them] to take any actions on his behalf.” Tr. of Jan. 4, 2019 Conf. Call 14, ECF No. 400; see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 19–20. Heimbach “cannot ‘pin the blame on [his] former counsel’” or his pro se status when he has steadfastly refused to participate in the case. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30 (quoting Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App’x 294, 303 (4th Cir. 2011) (other brackets omitted)); see LeGrande v. Adecco, 233 F.R.D.
25

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 26 of 28 Pageid#: 11060
253, 257 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (“There is no exception to honoring and respecting discovery orders. All litigants . . . must comply and when they flout their obligation, they must suffer the consequences of such action.”).
Moreover, Heimbach told the Court on July 2, 2019, that he had “received each of the Orders” and discovery requests that clearly “explain[ed] his outstanding discovery obligations.” Order to Def. Heimbach 1, ECF No. 515. He still did not comply with any of them. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 22, 28–29 & n.10; cf. Ins. Recovery Grp., Inc. v. Connolly, 977 F. Supp. 2d 16, 27 (D. Mass. 2013) (concluding that a party’s failure to follow discovery order’s “clear” instructions was not substantially justified). “‘On these facts, [I] cannot interpret [Heimbach’s] continued disregard’ for the Court and its orders ‘as anything other than bad faith.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31 (quoting Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302). “[T]he Court does not find culpable conduct to be substantial justification” for such disobedience. Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., 289 F.R.D. 374, 382 (D.D.C. 2013); accord Toner v. Wilson, 102 F.R.D. 275, 276 (M.D. Pa. 1984) (“Toner’s violation of the discovery order was willful and in bad faith and clearly was not ‘substantially justified.’”).
Heimbach’s response also did not identify any “special circumstances” that would make an award unjust in his case. First, “[t]here is no rule prohibiting the imposition of monetary sanctions against an impecunious party.” French v. M&T Bank, 315 F.R.D. 695, 697 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (quotation marks omitted); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) advisory committee’s note to 1970 amendment (“[I]t is not contemplated that expenses will be imposed upon the attorney merely because the [disobedient] party is indigent.”). Such a policy would be inconsistent with Rule 37’s dual purposes, see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 6, 31–33, and “open the door to many possible abuses,” Bosworth v. Record Data of Md., 102 F.R.D. 518, 521 (D. Md. 1984); see Toner, 102
26

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 27 of 28 Pageid#: 11061
F.R.D. at 279. (“Toner’s poverty should not absolutely preclude an award of expenses for disobedience to a court order, particularly where such disobedience was willful and in bad faith.”). Second, even assuming there might “be situations in which financial indigency will tilt against” ordering the disobedient party to pay otherwise reasonable expenses, “this is not such a case.” Bosworth, 102 F.R.D. at 521. Heimbach will be required to pay his share of Plaintiffs’ reasonable expenses because his repeated and ongoing discovery misconduct, especially in response to multiple court orders, must be penalized and deterred. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29–34; see, e.g., Bosworth, 102 F.R.D. at 521 (finding “every reason” to make plaintiff pay attorney’s fees under Rule 37, and “no reason not to” impose monetary sanctions, where plaintiff’s “totally unjustified” failure to attend her deposition was just the latest example of her “repeated[]” failures to comply with discovery obligations).
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of $41,300.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees caused by Kline’s, Heimbach’s, and Vanguard America’s failure to obey discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Specifically, the Court awards $16,690.00 in fees related to the Kline/Heimbach motion; $12,060.00 in fees related to the Vanguard America motion; and $12,550.00 in fees related to the June 3, 2019 motion hearing. Plaintiffs request that their fees for the Kline/Heimbach motion “be apportioned equally between those two Defendants” and their fees for the hearing “be allocated pro rata among the three Defendants.” Pls.’ Pet. for Att’y Fees 4. Finding it appropriate to do so, the Court hereby ORDERS that each Defendant shall pay the following amounts to Plaintiffs:
27

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 738 Filed 05/26/20 Page 28 of 28 Pageid#: 11062

Elliott Kline: Matthew Heimbach: Vanguard America: A separate Order shall enter.

$12,528.338 $12,528.339 $16,243.3310
ENTERED: May 26, 2020

Joel C. Hoppe United States Magistrate Judge

8 [(16,690 ÷ 2) = 8,345] + [(12,550 ÷ 3) = 4,183.33] = 12,528.33. Kline shall pay this amount in addition to any fines or fees that the Honorable Norman K. Moon, presiding District Judge, has assessed, or may yet assess, in connection with Kline’s contempt proceedings. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 599, 610. 9 [(16,690 ÷ 2) = 8,345] + [(12,550 ÷ 3) = 4,183.33] = 12,528.33. 10 12,060 + 4,183. 33 = 16,243.33.
28

 
 CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

08/09/2019
JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: /s/ J. JONES
DEPUTY CLERK

ELIZABETH SINES et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER et al., Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline and Matthew Heimbach, ECF No. 457, and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America, ECF No. 465. Vanguard America was represented by counsel when the motion against it was filed, ECF No. 497, but did not file a brief in opposition. Kline and Heimbach are representing themselves, ECF Nos. 347, 397, and neither filed a brief opposing the motion within the time allowed, see ECF No. 101. The Court held a hearing on June 3, 2019, at which counsel for Plaintiffs and (now former) counsel for Vanguard America appeared in person. The Court sent three notices each to Kline and Heimbach, but neither appeared at the hearing or acknowledged the Court’s communications.
Plaintiffs contend that Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America (together, “Defendants”) have disobeyed multiple Court orders directing them to provide or permit discovery of materials and information that go to the heart of this lawsuit. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 3–4; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 3–4.1 They ask the Court to impose substantive sanctions that will level the evidentiary playing field at trial and

1 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed with this Court, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, use the footer page numbers generated by CM/ECF and the exhibit labels assigned by the filing party. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the page numbers printed on the upper right-hand corner of the document.
1 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 35 Pageid#: 5993

“stem the tide of Defendants running from accountability by following each other out the back door, never to be heard from again.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 3–4; see also Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 18. Plaintiffs’ position is well taken. Indeed, Defendants have continually failed to fulfil even their most basic obligations to this Court, their counsel, and the other parties to this case. See generally Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 640–43 (1976); Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App’x 294, 301–04 (4th Cir. 2011); Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 525–27 (D. Md. 2010). Their refusal to meaningfully participate in discovery—or in Kline’s case to participate at all—despite repeated court orders directing them to do so has shifted everyone’s focus “from the merits to the collateral and needless” and stalled the litigation’s progress for months on end. Lee v. Max Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.). This behavior is unacceptable and will be sanctioned. As I explained at the June 3 hearing, however, it would be premature to impose Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions before making a final attempt to obtain discovery. This Memorandum Opinion further explains my conclusion and sets out the Court’s expectations for Defendants’ participation in this litigation going forward.
I. The Legal Framework “Litigants come to court to have their problems solved” in a fair, efficient, and orderly forum. See Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 86 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are a set of written rules that “for all practical purposes, and with few exceptions, . . . control the procedure in all civil actions in the United States District Courts.” 4 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1011 (4th ed. 2013); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 81. “They should be construed, administered, and employed
2 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 35 Pageid#: 5994

by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. And, although “litigation is not a game,” Bintliff v. United States, 462 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1972), federal courts do expect that everyone will play by the same rules on as level a field as is reasonably possible, see McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). “Lawyers and litigants who decide that they will play by rules of their own invention will find that the game cannot be won.” Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 663 (7th Cir. 1994).
* Rules 26 through 37 govern discovery in most civil cases. See Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs., 253 F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Md. 2008). They are rooted in “the unshakable foundation” that “[o]ur adversary system for the resolution of disputes . . . . [is] directed with unwavering effort to what, in good faith, is believed to be true on matters material to the disposition,” United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1993). See Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 526; Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “The basic philosophy” driving discovery today is “that prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged.” 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2001 (3d ed. 2002); accord Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) (“The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.”). “Discovery, in other words, is not a one-way proposition. It is available in all types of cases at the behest of any party, individual or corporate, plaintiff or defendant.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. “To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever [relevant] facts he has in his possession.” Id.; see Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209 (W.D. Va. 2016).
3 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 35 Pageid#: 5995

Rules 26 through 36 provide specific devices or procedures—such as interrogatories,
document requests, and depositions—for one party to obtain discoverable information from
another. See Pruitt v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:15cv1310, 2016 WL 7033972, at *2 (D. Md. Dec.
2, 2016) (“Interrogatories and depositions are important elements of discovery; a [party] would
be hard-pressed to conduct its case without them.”); Middlebrooks v. Sebelius, Civ. No. 04-2792,
2009 WL 251411, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 13, 2009) (“The purpose of pre-trial discovery is for a
litigating attorney [or party] to obtain information from the opposing party, information which in
many cases is not otherwise available.”). Courts rely “in large part on the good faith and
diligence of counsel and the parties in abiding by these rules and conducting themselves and
their judicial business honestly.” Metro. Opera Ass’n, 212 F.R.D. at 181; see Pack v. S. Car.
Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep’t, 92 F.R.D. 22, 25 (D.S.C. 1981) (pro se litigant must make a “good
faith attempt to comply with rules of discovery and to be present” for court). When they do not,
Rule 37 provides one mechanism for a federal court to compel compliance or to sanction an unacceptable failure to follow the rules.2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)–(f). Plaintiffs’ motions come under
Rule 37(b)(2), which gives the district court where an action is pending broad discretion to
impose sanctions when “a party, or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent, . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,”3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). See Law Funder, L.L.C. v.
2 Federal courts also have inherent power to sanction conduct that offends the legal process, including a party’s “fail[ure] to preserve or produce” discoverable information for another’s use in litigation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2004); see Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 497–99 (D. Md. 2000) (discussing both sources of the court’s authority). In this case, Rule 37(b)(A) provides an adequate framework for sanctioning each Defendant’s failure to provide or permit court-ordered discovery. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) (“[W]hen there is badfaith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than [its] inherent power. But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither [a] statute or the Rules are up to the task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power.”). 3 “Courts are entitled to interpret broadly what constitutes an order” under this subsection, and “a formal, written order to comply with discovery is not required.” REP MCR Realty, LLC v. Lynch, 363 F. Supp. 2d 984, 998 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]n oral directive from the district court
4 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 35 Pageid#: 5996

Munoz, 924 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Rule 37(b)(2)(A) allows a district court to impose a sanction when a party fails to comply with a discovery order, and the court has broad discretion in fashioning its sanction when it does so.”); cf. Indep. Productions Corp. v. Loew’s, Inc., 30 F.R.D. 377, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (explaining that a prior version of Rule 37(b)(2), which allowed courts to impose “sanctions when ‘any party or an officer or managing agent of a party’” failed to obey a discovery order, clearly indicated “that the acts of one determined to be the managing agent of a party are imputed to the party”).
“Rule 37(b)(2) contains two standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion. First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). The Fourth Circuit has “developed a four-part test for a district court to use when determining what [substantive] sanctions to impose” under this subsection.4 Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc); see S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. SherwinWilliams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The court must consider: (1) “whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith”; (2) the kind and degree of prejudice that noncompliance caused its adversary; (3) the need to deter the specific sort of noncompliance; and (4) “whether
provides a sufficient basis for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions if it unequivocally directs the party to provide the requested discovery,” Halas v. Consumer Servs., Inc., 16 F.3d 161, 164 (7th Cir. 1994), or to conduct itself in a manner that will permit anticipated discovery, see Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 519–20 (party’s failure to comply with court’s oral directive to preserve relevant information provided basis for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions). 4 The Rule also directs that “[i]nstead of or in addition to” any substantive sanctions or remedies imposed under this subsection, “the court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to obey], unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
5 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 5 of 35 Pageid#: 5997

[any] less drastic sanctions” would be effective.5 Belk, 269 F.3d at 348. “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently,” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 (1980), “both as a matter of justice in the individual case and ‘to deter others who might be tempted to similar conduct,’” Lee, 638 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643 (brackets omitted)). See Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34 (explaining that Rule 37 sanctions serve “both normative . . . and compensatory” functions). The sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “are not exclusive and arbitrary but flexible, selective, and plural. The district court may, within reason, use as many and as varied sanctions as are necessary,” 8B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2284 (3d ed. 2002), to achieve those goals in a particular case. Specific options include an order deeming facts established, allowing or requiring an adverse inference, and entering default judgment against the disobedient party. See Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)).
II. Background This section summarizes certain factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. ECF No. 175. “While the Court does not repeatedly state ‘Plaintiffs allege that Defendant X did Y,’ this summary should not be taken as the Court’s endorsement of one version of the facts” relevant to Plaintiffs’ substantive claims for relief against any named defendant. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 3 (“Mem. Op.”), ECF No. 335.
* *
5 The Fourth Circuit has not clearly defined the standard of proof on a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b). See Glynn v. EDO Corp., Civ. No. 07-1660, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2010). “However, proving misconduct by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, as opposed to by a mere preponderance, certainly suffices,” id., especially when the sanction does not result in dismissal or default judgment against the disobedient party, see Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp. of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504–05 (4th Cir. 1998); Wilson v. Volkswagen of Am., 561 F.2d 494, 503–05 (4th Cir. 1977). Here, Plaintiffs produced enough evidence of each Defendant’s misconduct to satisfy either standard.
6 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 6 of 35 Pageid#: 5998

On August 11 and 12, 2017, the “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Mem. Op. 1; see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7. Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”—rather, they allege that Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Mem. Op. 1–2. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” this Court has held that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that certain Defendants—including Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America—“formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 1; see Order of July 9, 2018 (citing ECF No. 205).
Plaintiffs contend that Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America each played a key role in planning the rallies and that they actively communicated with their co-Defendants and others before, during, and after these events. Most of that activity occurred online. Kline and Defendant Jason Kessler “used an online platform called ‘Discord’ for planning. This ‘invite only’ platform allowed Defendants and their chosen invitees to engage in private conversations during the lead up to the events.” Mem. Op. 7 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71–73). Kline and Kessler “moderated and managed Discord,” while Heimbach, Vanguard America, and others actively participated on the platform. Id. “Conversation on Discord included mundane planning details, racist ‘jokes,’ and concrete threats of violence,” id. at 8, including running over counter-protestors marching in the streets, id. at 42–43. A. Elliot Kline (“Eli Mosley”)
Kline, who also goes by “Eli Mosley,” is associated with the white-supremacist group Defendant Identity Evropa, which he led from August to November 2017. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30.
7 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 7 of 35 Pageid#: 5999

Kline “has described himself as the ‘command soldier major of the ‘alt-right,’” id. ¶ 29, and once told rally attendees that he “‘was in the Army’” and intended to run this event “‘as a military operation,’” id. ¶ 192 (capitalization corrected).
Kline and Kessler “were the principal coordinators for the Unite the Right rally on August 11 and 12, 2017.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 3, Tr. of Dep. of Jason Kessler 237 (May 16, 2018), ECF No. 457-3; see also id. Ex. 2, Tr. of Dep. of Erica Alduino 189 (Dec. 3, 2018) (“Jason Kessler and Eli Mosley were the only ones that I can confirm were planners of it.”), ECF No. 457-2. In June 2017, Kline “apparently drafted and circulated” a confidential “intel report,” titled “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0,” laying out Defendants’ plans for Saturday, August 12. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 6 (citing id. Ex. 4, ECF No. 457-4, at 2–8). As of June 11, the event was “being organized by” Kline and Kessler “with a few others” acting as event coordinators on Discord. Id. Ex. 4, at 2, 6. Kline also oversaw “Information Sharing,” and he instructed the “group leaders” who received his report to “not discuss the specifics of this event outside of official discussion channels.” Id. at 5 (“[W]e’d like to keep the info leaks to a minimum on certain things.”). He listed his Discord username, cell phone number, and email address, and encouraged recipients to “[f]eel free to msg/call whenever.” Id. at 6.
Kline, Kessler, and other Defendants organized a “secret” torchlight parade through the University of Virginia’s grounds on the night of Friday, August 11, 2017. Am. Compl. ¶ 143. During one planning call on Discord, Kline told participants, “‘We are doing a torch light event on Friday. Anyone who doesn’t have tiki stuff now should go out and get it tonight or tomorrow morning and if you could get extras that would be great.’” Id. ¶ 147 (alteration omitted). On Friday evening, Kline posted on Discord that everyone could “start assembling at Nameless Field
8 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 8 of 35 Pageid#: 6000

right now with your torches to start staging. We will step off from the field at 10 pm.” Id. ¶ 152 (capitalization corrected). Kline “would later approvingly tweet [a] picture” of Defendant Christopher Cantwell “spraying pepper spray in a counter-protester’s eyes, saying ‘He protect / He attack / But most importantly he got your back.’” Mem. Op. 33 (quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 172 (brackets omitted)).
Finally, Kline communicated with others on the ground in Charlottesville on August 12. He and Kessler “exhorted rallygoers to arrive before the park opened to form a ‘white bloc barrier . . . around the entire statue + podium. Given that they know we’re coming, we’ll all need as many people as possible to be there right when the park opens.’” Am. Compl. ¶ 189 (alteration omitted). By 11:22 a.m., local law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to leave. Id. ¶ 223. Several Defendants went to nearby McIntire Park where they “discussed returning to Emancipation Park in defiance of police orders.” Id. ¶ 231. Kline went online looking for “people with guns: ‘I need shooters,’ he said. ‘We’re gonna send 200 people with long rifles back to that statue.’” Id. B. Matthew Heimbach
Heimbach once chaired “two different white supremacist groups” that sent members to Charlottesville for the rallies: “Defendant Traditionalist Worker Party (‘TWP’), a group founded to promote anti-Semitism; and Defendant Nationalist Front, an umbrella organization of approximately twenty white supremacist organizations, including racist skinhead crews, Klan groups, and neo-Nazi groups.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 10–11. “Heimbach posted over 4,000 messages on Discord, including some in the ‘Charlottesville 2.0’ sever, and led in-person meetings to help other Defendant groups” plan for the rally. Id. at 11. “He instructed TWP members on details such as what to wear . . . and provided his followers
9 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 9 of 35 Pageid#: 6001

with ‘official TWP riot shields’ and ‘a dozen helmets . . . painted black with Party insignia on them’” Id. (quoting Id. Ex. 13, MattewHeimbach, Discord (July 23, 2017), ECF No. 457-13, at 3–4 (punctuation corrected)). “It’ll be solid,” he wrote. Id. Ex. 13, MattewHeimbach, Discord (July 30, 2017), ECF No. 457-13, at 5 (punctuation corrected). “Alongside our . . . Vanguard America allies, we’ll have an unbreakable line.” Id. (capitalization corrected).
Heimbach also “organized and led marchers from TWP on August 12.” Am. Compl. ¶ 200. He and a few other Defendants “allegedly engaged in many of the most specific acts of violence in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Mem. Op. 34; see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 187–88, 214, 268. Heimbach later deemed the rally a success: “‘We achieved all of our objectives. We showed that our movement is not just online, but growing physically. We asserted ourselves as the voice of white America. . . . I think we did an incredibly impressive job.’” Am. Compl. ¶ 268. C. Vanguard America
Vanguard America is a white nationalist group with twelve chapters across the country. Am. Compl. ¶ 25. Vanguard America had its own Discord server, “Southern Front,” where it encouraged members to attend the rallies. Id. ¶ 114. A Discord user called “Thomas Ryan” urged other “members to contact him directly if they planned to attend the ‘Unite the Right’ event and if they wanted to travel together in a ‘hate bus,’ saying: ‘This event is a **BIG DEAL** and offers a chance to link up Vanguard Guys from across the nation.’ He also issued orders on the proper Vanguard uniform for the event,” which another member described as “‘a good fighting uniform.’” Id. ¶¶ 114–15. Plaintiffs believe that “Thomas Ryan” is Thomas Ryan Rousseau, one of Vanguard America’s leaders. Id. ¶ 114. Thomas Ryan knew Vanguard America’s members planned to carry concealed weapons at the event, but he instructed them not to openly carry large knives because that would “look[] really dumb.” Id. ¶ 115. Some members planned to bring
10 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 10 of 35 Pageid#: 6002

shields with matching logos. Id. ¶ 121. Vanguard America made twenty extra shields so its members were prepared to “remove whoever is in [their] way.” See id. ¶ 191.
Many of Vanguard America’s members, including Defendant James Fields, attended the rallies wearing polo shirts and khaki pants and armed with large shields bearing the group’s logo. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24–25, 115, 153, 197. On the morning of August 12, Vanguard America’s members led the march to the park “chanting ‘Blood and soil!’” Id. ¶ 197. That afternoon, Fields intentionally drove his Dodge Challenger into a group of counter-protesters, killing one person and injuring several Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 23. Vanguard America members later used the Southern Front server to share memes celebrating Fields’s conduct, including “a picture of Plaintiff Martin flying through the air with the caption ‘Can’t Dodge This.’” Id. ¶ 266. Another member “wrote: ‘I don’t think we should hand out shields anymore. . . . We should hand out Dodge Challengers instead.’” Id. (capitalization corrected). A third member wrote that the Unite the Right rally “was the biggest victory for our movement history. It was glorious. . . . We gave many people shields, we fought and shed blood for our people today.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. Ex. 21, ECF No. 465-21.
III. Procedural History Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. Kline was properly served with a summons and copy of the Complaint at his residence in Pennsylvania on October 27, ECF No. 62, and Heimbach was personally served at his residence in Tennessee on November 6, ECF No. 108. Vanguard America was served through its representative, “Dillon Ulysses Hopper a/k/a Dillon Irizarry, authorized to accept,” at a residential street address on November 17. ECF No. 157. All three Defendants retained Elmer Woodard, Esq., and James Kolenich, Esq., to represent
11 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 11 of 35 Pageid#: 6003

them in this matter beginning on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 131. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in early January 2018. A. January 2018: Plaintiffs Serve Their Discovery Requests
On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 5–6, 10–11; id. Ex. 8, ECF No. 457-8; id. Ex. 9, ECF No. 457-9; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 6–7. The requests asked each Defendant to produce “all documents and communications concerning the events” described in the Amended Complaint, including any emails, text messages, recordings, or social media content related to the “preparation, planning, transportation to, or coordination for” those events. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 8, at 9 (capitalization altered). The interrogatories asked each Defendant to “identify, among other things, all means of communication used to discuss the events, . . . as well as the [specific] electronic devices used for such communications.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 8 (citing id. Ex. 9, at 9). Defendants’ proper responses or objections were due by February 26. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. Ex. 23, Letter from J. Fink to J. Kolenich & E. Woodard (Mar. 9, 2018), ECF No. 465-23; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). B. March 16, 2018: First Order to Provide or Permit Discovery
I held my first conference call with the parties on March 16, 2018. See Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call, ECF No. 282. Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that they had “not received any written responses to [their] requests for documents or [their] interrogatories from any of the defendants,” and “none of the defendants ha[d] produced a single document.” Id. at 10. Counsel also had “very, very serious concerns” that relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”)
12 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 12 of 35 Pageid#: 6004

would be lost or destroyed unless the Court issued a preservation order. See id. at 23. I told everyone on the call that I expected them “to preserve any potentially relevant evidence” and I took their “obligation to preserve this evidence very seriously.” Id. at 24. I also instructed the parties to meet and confer to see if they could negotiate an ESI protocol for my review. Id. at 28; see also id. at 23 (Plaintiffs’ counsel noting they were “thinking about [making] a request for an independent examiner to come in and do . . . an audit of [Defendants’] devices to make sure nothing has been deleted and, if it has, to try to get it restored”). They said that they would. C. March 26, 2018: Second Order to Provide or Permit Discovery
On March 26, 2018, I issued an Order denying a pro se defendant’s motion to stay discovery and giving Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America (and others) twenty-one days to answer, respond, or object to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests. See Order of Mar. 26, 2018, ECF No. 287. Each Defendant took a slightly different track in response to that directive.
1. Kline Kline did not do anything. On April 19, I held a brief discovery hearing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Kolenich about some of his clients’ failures to comply with the Court’s deadline. See Tr. of Apr. 19, 2018 Disc. Hr’g 2–7, ECF No. 308. There was some uncertainty about whether counsel still represented Kline in his individual capacity. See id. at 3–4. Mr. Kolenich, noting that he did “technically represent” Kline, explained that he had trouble communicating with Kline since “very early on in this litigation.” Id. at 4. He had contacted Kline “through members of the group Identity Evropa,” but they also “had difficulty communicating with him.” Id. at 5. Neither Mr. Kolenich nor the Identity Evropa members had “been able to get him to participate in this litigation.” Id. (“[W]e just have had no communication with him at all. It is not as if we haven’t tried. He’s just not participating.”). Six weeks later, Mr. Kolenich informed the
13 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 13 of 35 Pageid#: 6005

Court that Kline “steps in and out of participating in the litigation at his leisure.” Tr. of June 5, 2018 Conf. Call 16, ECF No. 327. Kline was “not resisting discovery so much as just not participating at all at [that] point.” Id.
2. Heimbach Mr. Kolenich emailed Heimbach’s sworn discovery responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 13. See Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Ex. 12, Def. Heimbach’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Set of Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 2–7, ECF No. 354-13. Heimbach used five different online platforms (Gab.ai, VK, Facebook, Twitter, Discord) and a cell phone to “communicate concerning the Events,” id. at 3–4, but he did not have any responsive documents or communications in his personal possession, id. at 4–5 (“None unless in the possession of Traditionalist Worker Party itself. What I would have had was involuntarily removed by Facebook, Twitter, etc.”). Nor could he provide “documents and communications concerning the steps [he had] taken to preserve” any potentially relevant materials or information. See id. at 6 (“Answer: N/A.”). For its part, Defendant TWP responded that it communicated about the events “through Matthew Heimbach” and at least two other individuals using identified Facebook, Twitter, Mailchimp, and Discord accounts. Decl. of C. Greene, Esq. Ex. 8, Def. TWP’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Set of Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 2–3 (Apr. 18, 2018), ECF No. 488-8.6 TWP did not identify any electronic devices that might contain relevant information. 3. Vanguard America Mr. Kolenich emailed Vanguard America’s responses, signed under oath by Dillon Hopper, to Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 18. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. Ex. 12, Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Set of Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of
6 TWP’s responses were signed under oath by an individual who is not a party to this action. See id. at 6.
14 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 14 of 35 Pageid#: 6006

Docs. 2, 4–8, ECF Nos. 465-12, 473. Mr. Hopper attested that the “Charlottesville Planning Server” on Discord was “the only way [Vanguard America] communicated regarding planning for Charlottesville,” id. at 4, and that the group used unidentified Vanguard America “member desktop computers or mobile devices” to communicate about the events, id. at 5. Vanguard America did not have any responsive documents in its possession, and “no special steps were taken” to preserve any documents or communications relevant to this lawsuit. Id. at 5–6. Plaintiffs’ counsel later pointed out that Mr. Hopper did not “identify the ‘Southern Front’ Discord server” and failed to provide complete account information for each means of communication listed in Vanguard America’s “non-Response.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. Ex. 25, Letter from G. Tenzer to J. Kolenich 5, 9 (May 10, 2018), ECF No. 465-25; see Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 10. D. April 2018: Plaintiffs’ Deficiency Letter
On April 24, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Messrs. Kolenich and Woodard a deficiency letter detailing their clients’ inadequate responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and requests for production (“RFP”) of documents. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 19, Letter from G. Tenzer to J. Kolenich & E. Woodard 2–5, ECF No. 457-19. They asked Heimbach and Vanguard America to “confirm that for each RFP, there are no responsive Documents or Communications in [their] possession, custody, or control.” See id. at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)). They also asked Heimbach to confirm he would “provide by no later than May 4, 2018, the necessary [Stored Communications Act (‘SCA’)] consents to permit the providers of electronic communications services and remote computer services” to comply with Plaintiffs’ third-party subpoenas. Id.
15 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 15 of 35 Pageid#: 6007

Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel attached a copy of their proposed ESI protocol for defense counsel’s review. They asked counsel to let them know by May 1 whether their clients were prepared to sign this agreement. See id. at 4–5. On June 5, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Kolenich were still negotiating the ESI protocol for his clients, some of whom were “resistant to machine imaging” or similar preservation measures. See Tr. of June 5, 2018 Conf. Call 10–12. Nonetheless, Mr. Kolenich agreed to produce his clients’ electronic devices for inspection and imaging. He also said that he “should be able to turn over” certain responsive documents “very quickly.” Id. at 12, 16. E. June 2018: The Case is Set for Trial
In mid-June 2018, the case was scheduled for a four-week jury trial to begin on July 8, 2019. ECF No. 328. Per the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the deadline to complete fact discovery was 150 days before trial—i.e., February 8, 2019. Order of June 15, 2018, ECF No. 329; see Joint Rule 26(f) Report 3, ECF No. 135. The Court later extended the discovery deadline to April 17, 2019. See Order of Jan. 4, 2019, ECF No. 397. The July 2019 trial date remained in place. See id. In the spring of 2019, however, it became clear that “the complicated nature of discovery . . . and related delays” meant the parties would not meet remaining pretrial deadlines. Order of Apr. 4, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 461. The trial date was continued indefinitely. It has not been rescheduled. F. July 2018: Kline’s Counsel Withdraws
Messrs. Kolenich and Woodard moved to withdraw as Kline’s counsel on July 23, 2018. ECF No. 344. They explained that they “very nearly [were] unable to respond to discovery due to Mr. Kline’s refusal to answer [their] calls or e-mails,”7 and that Kline only responded after
7 Kline still had not served his answers, objections, or written responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests directed to him as an individual defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). In its discovery responses,
16 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 16 of 35 Pageid#: 6008

their other clients told Kline that his counsel would withdraw if they did not hear from him. Kolenich & Woodard Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw as to Def. Kline ¶¶ 2–3, ECF No. 345. At that point, counsel told Kline they “would need to speak with him regularly to defend him in this and other litigation and he had to stay in touch” with his attorneys. Kline agreed. Id. ¶ 4. Upon hearing that Plaintiffs’ counsel wanted to schedule his deposition, however, Kline stopped communicating with his attorneys altogether. See id. ¶¶ 5–7.
On July 25, I issued an Order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and directing Kline to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint on or before August 8, 2018. See Order of July 25, 2018, ECF No. 347. The Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of this Order to Kline at the same street address in Pennsylvania where he was served with a summons and copy of the Complaint in October 2017. See ECF No. 62. Kline never responded. G. October 2018: Plaintiffs Move to Compel
On October 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection of Imaging of Electronic Devices. ECF No. 354 (“Pls.’ Mot. to Compel”). Plaintiffs argued that imaging by a neutral third-party vendor was warranted “because Defendants’ document production ha[d] been inadequate—indeed, nearly non-existent—in response to Plaintiffs’ multiple attempts over the past five months to facilitate the discovery process” and “several Defendants ha[d] openly admitted that they intend[ed] to delete” nonprivileged ESI relevant to the case. Id. at 9–10. Kline did not respond to the motion. Heimbach and Vanguard
Defendant Identity Evropa stated that “Eli Mosley aka Elliott [sic] Kline handled” the group’s presence in Charlottesville on August 11–12, and that the group used “Mr. Mosley’s communication devices” to discuss the events described in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. “Specific information” about those devices was “unknown to [Identity Evropa] at [that] time.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 10, Def. Identity Evropa’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Set of Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 3 (Apr. 6, 2018), ECF No. 457-10. Defendant Nathan Damigo signed the responses on Identity Evropa’s behalf. Id. at 6.
17 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 17 of 35 Pageid#: 6009

America (by Mr. Hopper) asserted that they could not afford to pay a third-party vendor to image their devices. See Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Attach. 2, Decl. of Dillon Hopper, ECF No. 356-2; Def. Heimbach’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 1, ECF No. 368. H. November 13, 2018: Third Order to Provide or Permit Discovery
On November 9, 2018, I held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, as well as their request that Kline and Heimbach sign a SCA consent form allowing Discord to respond to Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum. See Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 385. Kline did not appear at the hearing. Plaintiffs and the Defendants who appeared by counsel, including Heimbach and Vanguard America, mostly resolved their disagreements over the proposed ESI protocol.
I agreed that “ordering the parties to submit their electronic devices to a third-party vendor for imaging [was] necessary and appropriate to manage discovery in this action.” Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 1, ECF No. 379. As I explained at the November 9 hearing, Plaintiffs had waited almost ten months for Defendants to produce the requested documents, Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 8 (“[T]hese discovery requests were issued in January; now it is November. And [that] is a significant delay.”), and there were still concerns that “some relevant information may have been lost,” id. at 27. On November 13, I issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and further directing that: (1) within the next seven days, “all Defendants who appeared at the hearing” shall sign an SCA consent form allowing Discord to produce any discoverable documents or ESI in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena; (2) the parties shall submit a new proposed Stipulation and Order reflecting certain agreed-upon terms; and (3) Mr. Kolenich shall provide the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel any contact information that he had for Kline. See Order of Nov.
18 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 18 of 35 Pageid#: 6010

13, 2018, at 1–2. Mr. Kolenich promptly submitted an email address and telephone number he had used to communicate with Kline about the case. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 18–19 (“At the beginning of the case, Kline was in sporadic communication with his attorney, communicating via the same phone number he used to plan the Unite the Right events.”). The Court already had his last known home address.
Again, each Defendant had a slightly different reaction to this Order. Kline and Vanguard America did not do anything. See Order of June 21, 2019, at 3, ECF No. 508. Heimbach “submitted a facially defective SCA consent form” that could not be used to access his Discord content. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 14; see id. Ex. 21, Email from C. Greene to J. Kolenich (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF No. 457-21. On December 4, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Mr. Kolenich asking Heimbach to “identify the e-mail address with which he signed up for his Discord account, as is required.” Id. Ex. 21, at 2. Heimbach never provided that information. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 14. I. November 19, 2018: Fourth Order to Provide or Permit Discovery
The Court entered the parties’ “Stipulation and Order for the Imaging, Preservation, and Production of Documents” on November 19, 2018. See Stip. & Order 1–16, ECF No. 383. This Order binds seventeen Defendants (including Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America) and was put in place specifically to help them “collect and preserve” ESI from identified social media accounts and “electronic devices that is potentially relevant to this litigation and/or responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests” originally served on January 25, 2018. Id. at 2 (punctuation altered). Plaintiffs agreed to front the costs of imaging and collecting this ESI, at least for the time being, to keep the case moving forward. The Order gave each Defendant twenty-eight days—i.e., until December 17—to “make available to the Third Party Discovery Vendor for
19 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 19 of 35 Pageid#: 6011

imaging and collection any Electronic Devices or Social Media Account” credentials identified on the Defendant’s sworn Certification form. Id. at 8; see Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 12; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 9.
Kline never responded. See Tr. of Jan. 4, 2019 Conf. Call 14, ECF No. 400. “Heimbach’s response . . . was to terminate [counsel’s] representation.” Id. Vanguard America submitted a Certification signed by Mr. Hopper, but it only identified “a single electronic device[,] a cell phone,” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 9, on its list of “all the electronic devices . . . that may contain any potentially relevant documents or ESI,” Stip. & Order 16 (emphasis added) (capitalization altered). See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. Ex. 26, Attach. to Email from J. Kolenich to G. Tenzer (Dec. 7, 2018), ECF Nos. 465-26, 473-1. This Certification conflicts with Mr. Hopper’s earlier sworn assertion that Vanguard America used “member desktop computers or mobile devices,” plural, to communicate about the events. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 11–12. Plaintiffs also have information suggesting that Mr. Hopper provided an incomplete list of social media accounts that may contain potentially relevant information. See id. at 11 (“Plaintiffs are aware of at least two separate Twitter accounts, @VanAmOfficial and @VanGuardAm, that published material about the Unite the Right ‘rally’ both before and after” August 11–12, 2017). J. Fall 2018: Heimbach’s Counsel Moves to Withdraw – Twice
Heimbach stopped paying his attorneys for their work on this case sometime around October 2018. See Kolenich & Woodard Br. in Supp. of First Mot. to Withdraw as to Def. Heimbach 1, ECF No. 358. I denied counsel’s first motion to withdraw because they filed it “[c]oming on the deadline” for Heimbach to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Order of Oct. 22, 2018, at 2–3, ECF No. 364. Counsel moved to withdraw again two weeks later. ECF No.
20 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 20 of 35 Pageid#: 6012

372. On December 12, I held a conference call with Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Kolenich. ECF No. 389. I took defense counsel’s motion under advisement, noting that I would hold another call with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Heimbach, and his counsel to address Heimbach’s “compliance with the Stipulation and Order entered on November 19, 2018,” and on counsel’s second motion to withdraw. Order of Dec. 12, 2018, at 1–2, ECF No. 388. I also planned to address “Kline’s compliance with the Stipulation and Order and whether he agrees to sign the Discord consent form.” Id. at 2; see Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 7–8; id. Ex. 11, Email from C. Greene to E. Kline (Nov. 16, 2018), ECF No. 457-11; id. Ex. 12, Email from C. Greene to E. Kline (Nov. 27, 2018), ECF No. 457-12.
That call was held on January 4, 2019. Neither Kline nor Heimbach appeared, although Mr. Kolenich said he had “transmit[ted] the time and call-in information” to Heimbach. Tr. of Jan. 4, 2019 Conf. Call 14. Mr. Kolenich also explained that Heimbach had “fired [him] more than a week” earlier, and that he and Mr. Woodard were “explicitly forbidden from taking any further action on his behalf.” Id. at 14–15. I granted their motion to withdraw as counsel for Heimbach on the same date. ECF No. 397. K. February 2019: Kline & Heimbach Miss Three (More) Court Conferences
The Deputy Clerk “called and emailed Elliot Kline . . . and Matthew Heimbach three times” each to reschedule the January conference call. On February 4, 2019, having received “no response from either” pro se Defendant, the Deputy Clerk set the hearing for February 8 at 1:00 p.m. See Notice of Hr’g, ECF No. 401. She promptly mailed copies of the written notice, along with the call-in information, to Kline and Heimbach at the street addresses listed on each Defendant’s executed summons. She also sent that information to their email addresses of record and left it on their respective voicemails when neither Defendant answered the Court’s phone
21 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 21 of 35 Pageid#: 6013

calls. Heimbach and Kline did not call in for the February 8 hearing. ECF No. 409. The same day, the Court set another discovery hearing for February 12, at 12:30 p.m. See ECF No. 407. The Deputy Clerk “emailed and mailed [the] dial in information to Mr. Heimbach and Mr. Kline,” but, again, neither Defendant appeared as directed. They also missed the next conference call on February 21, 2019. See ECF Nos. 414, 425, 429. L. March 4, 2019: Fifth Order to Provide or Permit Discovery
On March 1, 2019, I held a hearing on two motions not related to discovery. ECF No. 441. I also addressed “ongoing problems and delays” with certain Defendants’ efforts (or lack thereof) to meet their existing discovery obligations. Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2, ECF No. 440. On March 4, I entered an Order directing that “[a]ll Defendants covered by the Stipulation & Order, ECF No. 383, shall produce their electronic devices and social media account credentials . . . to the third-party vendor by the end of the day on Friday, March 8, 2019.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America all missed that deadline.
On March 13, the Deputy Clerk scheduled a status conference call for March 18 at 4:00 p.m. She emailed the notice and call-in information to all counsel and pro se parties. Neither Kline nor Heimbach appeared on that call. Mr. Kolenich appeared for Vanguard America. M. Spring 2019: “Vanguard is a Problem”
On March 18, 2019, Mr. Kolenich gave an update on how each of his remaining clients had complied, or were trying to comply, with the Court’s prior discovery orders. See Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Conf. Call 10–15, ECF No. 455. Mr. Kolenich made clear that, despite being on notice of their obligation to do so, Vanguard America’s agents or officers had not made “any effort to comply.” Id. at 15. “Vanguard is a problem,” he conceded. Id. at 14. They had “not turned over the devices they were supposed to turn over and [were] not listening to counsel on the necessity
22 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 22 of 35 Pageid#: 6014

of hurrying up” and producing those devices. Id. Unnamed Vanguard America “officers [were] hanging on, trying to do their job in defending” against the lawsuit, but the “current guy” Mr. Kolenich had “been dealing with [was] kind of frustrated with it all and [didn’t] want to deal with it.” Id. Mr. Kolenich thought it “might be useful” if the Court issued an order directing Vanguard America’s representative to confirm “that either he is or is not going to cooperate.” Id. at 14–15.
On March 20, I issued an Order giving Vanguard America fourteen days to file a written response showing cause why it should not be held in contempt for its failure to obey this Court’s discovery orders entered on November 19, 2018, and March 4, 2019. See Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 452. Vanguard America (by Mr. Kolenich) filed its response on the evening of April 3. ECF No. 458. Mr. Kolenich attached a declaration attesting that he provided Vanguard America with a copy of the Order and “communicated with Vanguard by phone on March 20, 2019.” Def.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause Attach. A, Decl. of J. Kolenich, Esq. ¶¶ 3–4 (Apr. 3, 2019), ECF No. 458-1. Despite having been “made aware, on March 20, 2019, of . . . what [the Order] means,” Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause 1, Vanguard America had not given counsel “any information, as of April 3, 2019, indicating compliance with pending Court orders or showing cause why compliance should be excused,” Decl. of J. Kolenich ¶ 6.
Messrs. Kolenich and Woodard also moved to withdraw as counsel for Vanguard America. ECF No. 459. I granted their request primarily because, just as Kline and Heimbach had done months earlier, Vanguard America’s representative had stopped communicating with counsel. Order of June 3, 2019, at 1–2, ECF No. 497. Mr. Kolenich was instructed to provide the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel with all available contact information for Mr. Hopper and to deliver a copy of the Order to Mr. Hopper by any means reasonably necessary to ensure that he
23 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 23 of 35 Pageid#: 6015

personally receives it. Id. Vanguard America was directed to retain new counsel and have that attorney enter his or her appearance on Defendant’s behalf by June 25, 2019. Id. N. April 2019: Plaintiffs Move for Sanctions
Plaintiffs filed their pending motions in early April. They seek three substantive, caserelated sanctions against all three Defendants. See generally Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 4, 13–24; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 4, 15– 26. First, they ask the Court to “deem the facts listed in . . . Exhibit 1 established for purposes of this action.” Id. at 4; see Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions Ex. 1, ECF Nos. 457-1, 465-1. The list includes some facts that Plaintiffs must prove in order to hold each Defendant liable for conspiring to engage in violence against racial or religious minorities and their supporters. Compare Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions Ex. 1 (proposed established facts), with Mem. Op. 13–14 (essential elements under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)); see, e.g., Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions Ex. 1, at 2–3 (asserting that Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America each “entered into an agreement with one or more co-conspirators to engage in racially motivated violence” in Charlottesville on August 11–12, 2017, “attended the Unite the Right event on August 12,” and “committed acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the conspiracy” while at the event). Second, they ask the Court to “deem ‘authentic’ for purposes of Rule 901 . . . any documents that Plaintiffs have a good faith basis to believe were in fact created by” any of these Defendants, “including . . . all documents from the social media accounts” listed in Exhibit 1 to their motions. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)); Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 4 (same). That list includes several email accounts, Twitter handles, Facebook usernames, and Discord servers associated with each Defendant. See Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions Ex. 1. Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to instruct the jury that Defendants
24 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 24 of 35 Pageid#: 6016

“chose to intentionally withhold” responsive documents “and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact,” including that Defendants “chose to withhold such documents because [they were] aware such documents contained evidence that [this Defendant] conspired to plan racially-motivated violence at the United the Right event.” Id.
Plaintiffs argue that all “four prongs of the Rule 37 test . . . are easily satisfied” on both motions. Id. at 17. They contend that Defendants are similarly situated in terms of their apparent intent or disregard for the Court’s discovery orders, the kind and degree of prejudice their noncompliance has allegedly caused Plaintiffs, the need to deter this sort of noncompliance, and whether any less drastic sanctions would serve Rule 37’s normative and compensatory purposes. See generally id. at 18–26. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ refusal to produce requested materials has hampered their ability to gather evidence that goes to the heart of their civil conspiracy claims against all remaining defendants. See id. at 19–21 (discussing the inherent difficulty in proving a conspiracy and the importance of circumstantial evidence). Similarly, Plaintiffs still do not have a single document that they “can authenticate as having been generated by” Kline, Heimbach, or Vanguard America. Id. at 21–22. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that their requested evidentiary sanctions are not especially drastic—all three Defendants can still defend on the merits at trial if they want to—and that more severe, claim-dispositive sanctions would be counter-productive. See id. at 24–25 & n.8. These Defendants would be out of the case, and Plaintiffs still would not have the evidence they believe necessary to prove their conspiracy claims against the remaining defendants. Id. at 25.
Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America did not file briefs opposing the motions for sanctions against them within the time allowed by the presiding District Judge’s pretrial order. ECF No. 101. Accordingly, the Court considers those motions to be unopposed. Id. Defendant
25 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 25 of 35 Pageid#: 6017

Richard Spencer objected to some of Plaintiffs’ proposed sanctions, ECF Nos. 469, 479, and Plaintiffs filed reply briefs addressing those concerns, ECF Nos. 475, 489.
* * * On Monday, June 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the record, at which counsel for Plaintiffs and Mr. Kolenich appeared in person.8 The Court sent three notices each to Kline and Heimbach, but neither appeared at the hearing or acknowledged the Court’s communications. I first addressed defense counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing Vanguard America. Mr. Kolenich confirmed Vanguard America had “not produced any discovery” and had made clear that “they don’t intend to produce any discovery” or “participate in the litigation.” Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 5, ECF No. 504. I granted the motion to withdraw and directed Vanguard America to have a new attorney enter an appearance by June 25. Turning to Plaintiffs’ motions, I explained that each Defendant’s conduct to date was “clearly sanctionable” and that I intended to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees caused by their failure to comply with my discovery orders. Id. at 20. The more difficult question was what substantive sanction(s) were appropriate under the current circumstances. Plaintiffs’ filings consistently gave the impression that they still wanted the actual information and tangible things being withheld by these “three really important” Defendants. Id. at 10. Plaintiffs’ request that the Court deem certain facts established or documents authentic, on the other hand, necessarily assumed that the information would never be produced in any form. In my view, however, production was preferable to evidentiary sanctions at this point in the litigation. See id. at 9–10, 18. I proposed that the Court direct the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to personally serve each Defendant with a written order that: (1) identified
8 Spencer’s attorney also appeared in person.
26 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 26 of 35 Pageid#: 6018

specifically the ESI accounts and devices each Defendant must produce; (2) told each Defendant (or Mr. Hopper, in Vanguard America’s case) that he must personally appear for a deposition in this federal courthouse on a date certain, and must bring the identified ESI accounts and devices with him to the deposition; and (3) clearly explained that if the Defendant (or Mr. Hopper) failed in any way to comply with the Order, the Court could immediately issue a bench warrant directing the USMS to arrest him, transport him to this judicial district, and hold him in custody until he purged himself of civil contempt. Id. at 10. This step appeared necessary because these Defendants had ignored similar “orders telling them to do this before.” Id. at 14. Having carefully considered the Court’s full range of options, however, I explained that issuing one more very specific discovery order—this time under threat of arrest and detention—could provide a way to “get the information that [Plaintiffs were] entitled to” and clearly still wanted. Id. at 18; see id. at 12, 20, 27–28. O. June 2019: Kline, Heimbach & Vanguard America Resurface
On Friday, June 7, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that Kline and Heimbach had reached out to Mr. Kolenich after seeing social-media reports about the June 3 motion hearing. Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. (June 7, 2019 4:08 PM). Mr. Hopper also commented about the hearing on social media, asserting that he “wasn’t even involved in any of the planning for that debacle” on August 11–12, but was now “the sacrificial lamb, obviously.” Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. Attach. 1–3 (@WhitePowerStroke reply to @jackcorbin). On Tuesday, June 11, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that they had heard from all three Defendants, “each of whom has now (after hearing about the potential consequences of their continued discovery misconduct as articulated by [the Court] during last week’s hearing) expressed some inclination to participate in the discovery process.” Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. 1–2.
27 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 27 of 35 Pageid#: 6019

Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold a formal discovery conference with Defendants to develop an
expedited schedule for them to finally honor their outstanding discovery obligations.
I issued an Order taking Plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions under advisement. Order of June
21, 2019, at 1–2. The Order also outlined five discovery-related issues each Defendant (and Mr.
Hopper) should be prepared to discuss at an upcoming telephonic hearing with the Court and
Plaintiffs’ counsel and explained the Court’s expectation that each would “appear at this hearing
and make a good faith effort to provide or permit prompt and complete discovery responses, as
required by the Federal Rules . . . and this Court’s prior orders.” Id. at 2–3.
That hearing occurred on July 2. See Tr. of July 2, 2019 Disc. Hr’g, ECF No. 519. Kline,
Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper appeared as directed and indicated they were willing to participate in the litigation from now on.9 See id. at 8, 9–15. They also confirmed that they had “received each
of the Orders, discovery requests, and Stored Communications Act (‘SCA’) consent forms that
explain [their] outstanding discovery obligations.” Order to Def. Heimbach 1, ECF No. 515;
Order to Def. Kline 1, ECF No. 516; Order to Def. Vanguard Am. 1, ECF No. 517. The next day,
I issued individual orders to Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America (by Mr. Hopper) directing
each Defendant to comply with certain “steps and deadlines” over the next twenty-one days. Id. at 1–2.10 Each Order also directed its subject to “sit for a [scheduled] deposition by Plaintiffs’
9 Counsel for Plaintiffs and other Defendants also appeared. 10 More specifically, I gave each Defendant (1) seven days from the Order to “[g]ive Plaintiffs’ counsel complete and accurate SCA consent forms” allowing certain social media providers to produce responsive ESI, to execute the Third Party Discovery Vendor contract, and to “[c]omplete and give to Plaintiffs’ counsel the Certification Form attached as Exhibit A to the Stipulation and Order; (2) fourteen days from the Order to “[m]ake available to the Third Party Discovery Vendor for imaging and collection any Electronic Devices or Social Media Account credentials” identified on that Defendant’s Certification form; and (3) twenty-one days from the Order to “[p]rovide complete and accurate” written answers or responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production, and to “produce or permit inspection of any requested documents or ESI that were not collected by the Discovery Vendor.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Order of June 21, 2019, at 3 & n.2; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2–3; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 2; Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 3).
28 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 28 of 35 Pageid#: 6020

counsel devoted exclusively to [that Defendant’s] conduct in pretrial discovery, including his efforts to preserve any documents, information, or materials that are potentially relevant to this litigation.” Order to Def. Heimbach 3; Order to Def. Kline 3; see also Order to Def. Vanguard Am. 3. Those depositions “are necessary to address the significant deficiencies to date in these Defendants’ discovery responses.” Order of June 21, 2019, at 4. Plaintiffs had already been given “leave to depose these Defendants in subsequent depositions on the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations” and remaining claims. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(ii)).
IV. Discussion Eighteen months ago, Plaintiffs served Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America with discovery requests for information and materials directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendants’ proper responses or objections were due by February 26, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). They did nothing. Each Defendant then disobeyed not one, but four “court orders compelling production of the same material in [his] control” while the litigation slowed and everyone else’s costs piled up. Lee, 638 F.3d at 1321 (“This is not speedy, inexpensive, or just. Just the opposite.”). In November, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order specially designed by the parties to help Defendants locate and produce responsive ESI— something Defendants should have done on their own many months earlier. Cf. Saria v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 536, 540 (S.D. W. Va. 2005) (noting that plaintiff’s “‘pick-andchoose’ approach to answering” discovery had “waste[d] the parties’ own valuable discovery time and ultimately force[d] the court to clean up a mess which could have been altogether avoided”). The Court has patiently afforded Defendants six chances during the past eighteen months “to make good their discovery obligation[s],” Lee, 638 F.3d at 1321. Cf. Nat’l Hockey League,
29 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 29 of 35 Pageid#: 6021

427 U.S. at 640–42 (affirming district court’s dismissal as a discovery sanction “[a]fter seventeen
months where crucial interrogatories remained substantially unanswered despite numerous
extensions granted at [or beyond] the eleventh hour,” the court’s admonitions, and plaintiffs’
repeated “promises and commitments” to comply); Lee, 638 F.3d at 1319 (“No one . . . should
count on more than three chances to make good a discovery obligation.”). Yet, it has been their
consistent “practice from the very beginning to ignore outright the court’s orders or to submit
chaotically and defectively to them.” Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88,
94 (4th Cir. 1989) (thirteen months). Each Defendant and Mr. Hopper is solely responsible for
his own behavior. They cannot “pin the blame on [their] former counsel” given that it was their
own “fail[ure] to communicate with their attorney” that forced counsel to withdraw
representation. Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 303. And, although federal judges “are
sympathetic to the challenges faced by pro se litigants, we cannot exercise that sympathy unless
they at least try to participate.” Id.
Plaintiffs produced evidence showing Kline and Heimbach were active on social media—
even commenting about this litigation—when they should have been participating in discovery
and other pretrial proceedings.11 See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach
11 In November 2017, “Eli Mosley” told his Twitter followers, “[W]e still have a lot of legal battles ahead of us so check out IdentityEvropa.com for info on our case. I’ll also be on a few podcasts this weekend chatting about this stuff since it is crucial that we continue to win in court for the future of our people.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 6, at 3, @EliMosleyIE, Twitter (Nov. 9, 2017 5:13 PM), ECF No. 457-6. Kline had been served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint two weeks earlier. In late May 2018, Twitter user “Sheli Shmosley,” who Plaintiffs presume is Kline, contradicted another user’s description of the Unite the Right (“UTR”) rally, tweeting “[that] is not in anyway [sic] how UTR happened. I can’t say much more for obvious reasons but that’s just untrue.” Id. at 5, @Sheli_Shmosley, Twitter (May 27, 2018 7:47 PM). Kline was still represented by counsel at the time. On February 28, 2019, Heimbach alerted his Twitter followers to a motion filed in this case earlier the same day. Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 25, @HeimbachMatthew, Twitter (Feb. 28, 2019, 2:23 PM), ECF No. 457-25, at 2; see ECF No. 433. Additionally, sometime after this lawsuit was filed, Heimbach posted a message online quipping, “What’s the proper etiquette when the people suing you make sweet quote graphics of things you said?” The message appears above a graphic
30 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 30 of 35 Pageid#: 6022

7–10, 14–15. Both Defendants missed numerous court-ordered discovery deadlines and hearings since their attorneys withdrew, and neither acknowledged the Court’s or Plaintiffs’ counsel’s repeated efforts to contact them. Id. These actions show that they “only want[ed] to litigate on [their] terms at a time of [their] choosing.” Cf. Dukes v. Cox, No. 1:09cv1140, 2015 WL 2338664, at *11 (S.D. Ind. May 15, 2015) (dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice). There is no indication that Mr. Hopper similarly acted out on social media, “but [he] nevertheless manifested an identical posture of resistance,” Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302, and indifference to Vanguard America’s obligations.
“Ordinary defendants must participate in the ordinary process of litigation,” Mayfield v. Butler Snow LLP, 3:17cv514, 2017 WL 5616017, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 21, 2017), even if they do not want to. They cannot “step[] in and out” of the litigation at their leisure, Tr. of June 5, 2018 Conf. Call 16 (Kline); abandon the case because they are “kind of frustrated” and do not “want to deal with it,” Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Conf. Call 14 (Vanguard America); or “respon[d] to . . . [a] court order” compelling discovery by firing their attorneys and refusing to show up for court, Tr. of Jan. 4, 2019 Conf. Call 14 (Heimbach). “On these facts, [I] cannot interpret [each Defendant’s] continued disregard for” the Court and its orders “as anything other than bad faith.” Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302.
“‘[S]talling and ignoring the direct orders of the court with impunity’ is ‘misconduct’ that ‘must obviously be deterred.’” Id. at 303 (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs., 872 F.2d at 93). “It is important that [anyone] contemplating this type of tactic understand” that he cannot avoid discovery in federal litigation—and especially not in response to a court order. Progressive
that reads, “‘Of course we look up to men like Adolf Hitler.’ - Matthew Heimbach, Defendant.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 22, Matthew Heimbach, VK.com (undated), ECF No. 457-22.
31 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 31 of 35 Pageid#: 6023

Minerals v. Rashid, No. 5:07cv108, 2009 WL 2761295, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 28, 2009); 8B Federal Practice & Procedure § 2281 (“[A]ny party or person who seeks to evade or thwart full and candid discovery incurs the risk of serious consequences.”). Accordingly, the Court will impose appropriate sanctions to penalize and deter such misconduct. See Progressive Minerals, 2009 WL 2761295, at *4–5 (awarding reasonable attorney’s fees).
Next, the Court must decide which sanctions are “just” based on all the facts in this case and the claims at issue in its prior discovery orders. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., 456 U.S. at 707 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)); S. New England Tele. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court is free to consider the full record in the case in order to select the appropriate sanction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This requires the Court to consider the kind and degree of prejudice each Defendant’s noncompliance caused Plaintiffs and whether alternative, less drastic sanctions would provide an effective remedy. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NVIDIA Corp., 314 F.R.D. 190, 200–04 (E.D. Va. 2016).
Plaintiffs maintain that “Defendants’ failure to participate in discovery has resulted in textbook prejudice” because they have been denied access to myriad communications, documents, and ESI that go to the heart of their civil conspiracy claims against all remaining defendants. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21–22; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 21–22. Such information might show a “defendant’s relationship with other members of the [alleged] conspiracy, the length of this association, [and] the defendant’s attitude and conduct,” United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 200, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted), which Plaintiffs could use to help them prove that “each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events,” Mem. Op. 21. See Pls.’ Mot. for
32 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 32 of 35 Pageid#: 6024

Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21–22; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 20–22. Plaintiffs also assert that they know Vanguard America “has in its possession” potential evidence that “likely corroborates” that group’s role in planning “the Fields car attack” on August 12th. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 22. They also have not been able to depose Kline, Heimbach, or Vanguard America’s representative on the merits of their allegations. See Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21–22; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 21–22.
Each Defendant’s “repeated and ongoing discovery misconduct” so far has caused “significant procedural . . . prejudice” to Plaintiffs’ ability to resolve their claims in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., Civ. No. MJG-121133, 2014 WL 1652550, at *19 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2014) (“Plaintiff has been stymied at every turn—written discovery, depositions, subpoenas—to get the evidence it needs to prosecute its claims.”). For a long time, they have had to deal with unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and disregard for both their proper discovery requests and this Court’s many orders trying to enforce them. Cf. Diamond v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., No. 6:12cv57, 2014 WL 1404563, at *5–6 (W.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2014) (concluding that corporate defendant was “greatly prejudiced by the inability to take [pro se plaintiff’s] deposition, communicate with him in any regular fashion about the case, or receive responsive documents from him,” and dismissing the case four days before trial).
Kline, Heimbach, and Vanguard America’s “[c]ontinued contumacious behavior” and the need to deter future discovery misconduct require imposing some sanction. Flame S.A. v. Indus. Carriers, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 3d 752, 765 (E.D. Va. 2014). Plaintiffs have expended considerable effort and resources in pursuing discovery from these three Defendants. Thus, an appropriate sanction to address these considerations, at this time, is an award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable
33 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 33 of 35 Pageid#: 6025

attorney’s fees. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, however, we are not yet to the point that they “cannot present evidence essential to [their] underlying claim.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21 (quoting Knight v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 3d 837, 845 (S.D. W. Va. 2018)); Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 21 (same). The deadline to complete written discovery has been extended, Defendants’ initial depositions have been taken or scheduled, and a new trial date has not been set. See Diamond, 2014 WL 1404563, at *5. I have warned Kline, Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper in writing that the Court expects them to appear at their depositions and “participate in good faith as required by the Federal Rules . . . and this Court’s prior discovery orders,” Order to Def. Heimbach 3; Order to Def. Kline 3; Order to Def. Vanguard Am. 3, and all three stated on the record that they intend to comply. Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions—including the adverse inference and an order deeming some of their proposed facts established—would be available, and certainly could be appropriate in this case, if Kline, Heimbach, or Vanguard America fail to produce the discovery from this point forward. See Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 13–14, 18–21, 29–30.
If Defendants produce the underlying discovery in enough time for Plaintiffs to prepare their case for trial, it would be unjust for the Court to direct that Plaintiffs’ version of “designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i). Cf. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 113 (2d Cir. 2002) (explaining that “[d]istrict courts should not countenance ‘purposeful sluggishness’ in discovery on the part of parties or attorneys and should be prepared to impose sanctions when they encounter it,” even if substantive evidentiary sanctions are not warranted). The Court will also have a better sense of Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse-inference instruction after counsel has deposed each Defendant and Mr. Hopper about what steps, if any, he took to preserve potentially relevant evidence. Victor
34 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 34 of 35 Pageid#: 6026

Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 525–26; Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172, 181 (D. Md. 2008) (explaining that a party seeking an adverse-inference instruction as a sanction for spoliation must show the responsible party “acted either willfully or in bad faith in failing to preserve relevant evidence” because an adverse inference “is not an appropriate sanction” where the “spoliator’s conduct is merely negligent” (citing Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450–51)).
Because Kline, Heimbach, and Mr. Hopper (for Vanguard America) have expressed an intention to adhere to the rules of procedure and the Court’s orders, more drastic sanctions are not required at this time. Should they not follow through, the Court will likely have run out of options other than to impose significant evidentiary sanctions. This litigation has been stalled while the Court and parties work through unique and complicated challenges in case management and discovery. It is imperative, however, that the Court reschedule the trial date and set deadlines to bring discovery to a completion. I expect the parties’ good faith efforts to move this case forward.
V. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants Elliot Kline and Matthew Heimbach, ECF No. 457, and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America, ECF No. 465, are GRANTED in part in so far as the Court will award reasonable attorney’s fees as a sanction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). The Court will determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees, see ECF Nos. 505, 506, in a separate Order to be issued at a later date. Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions remain under advisement. ECF No. 508.
ENTER: August 9, 2019
Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
35 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 539 Filed 08/09/19 Page 35 of 35 Pageid#: 6027

 
 CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

FILED
02/19/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BY: /s/ J. JONES

CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

DEPUTY CLERK

ELIZABETH SINES, ET AL.,
v. JASON KESSLER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00072 MEMORANDUM OPINION JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

This matter is before the Court upon Michael Peinovich’s objections to U.S. Magistrate

Judge Hoppe’s opinion denying Peinovich’s motion to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoenas to Twitter,

GoDaddy.com, Cloudflare, and Hatreon, (dkt. 226), as well as Peinovich’s motion to require

Plaintiffs’ compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. (Dkt. 229). After this Court dismissed Peinovich

from this action without prejudice, (dkt. 335 at 41), the parties advised the Court that Peinovich’s

status as a non-party did not moot his objections. (Dkts. 348, 349). This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision.1 Having considered Judge Hoppe’s opinion and Peinovich’s

objections, the Court concludes that Judge Hoppe’s opinion is not clearly erroneous or contrary

to law. Thus, the Court will overrule Peinovich’s objections and deny Peinovich’s motions to

quash and require compliance with Rule 45.

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 permits a party to submit objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling to

the district court within fourteen days of the magistrate judge’s order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where, as here, a party objects to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a

nondispositive matter, the district court will modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only

1

Peinovich requested a hearing on his objections. (Dkt. 309 at 14). Under Local Rule

11(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b), the Court has discretion to determine a motion without an oral

hearing. After reviewing the briefing in this matter, the Court finds that oral argument will not

aid the decisional process.

1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 8 Pageid#: 3829

if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A ruling is ‘clearly erroneous’ only when the totality of the record leaves the Court with ‘the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Franklin v. Liberty University, Inc., No. 6:16cv-00065, 2017 WL 3026049, at *1 (W.D. Va. April 26, 2017) (quoting United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A ruling is “contrary to law” when it “fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. “[A]ltering a magistrate’s nondispositive orders [is] extremely difficult to justify.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).
II. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs issued four subpoenas to non-parties “to gather evidence related to Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ coordination of and planning for racially-motivated violence” they allegedly committed at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11–12, 2017. (Dkt. 249 at 2; dkt. 226-2–5). The non-parties subpoenaed were (1) GoDaddy.com, a web services company that allegedly provided services to two websites operated and used by certain

2

Peinovich concedes that the applicable standard of review is technically the “clear error”

or “contrary to law” standard established by Rule 72(a). Nevertheless, he argues that “given the

critical First Amendment issues” he raises, “the Court should conduct an independent, de novo

review.” (Dkt. 309 at 8). Peinovich cites two out-of-circuit decisions where district courts

reviewed a magistrate judge’s order de novo after defendants raised First Amendment objections.

See, e.g., Kriss v. Bayrock Group, LLC, No. 10-cv-3959, 2016 WL 406375, at *1 (S.D. N.Y.

Feb. 1, 2016) (applying de novo standard of review “in the fullness of caution” but recognizing

“clear error” or “contrary to law” as normal standard). Although it is true that appellate courts

must review “cases raising First Amendment issues” de novo, Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of

U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984), Rule 72(a) imposes a distinct standard for district courts

reviewing magistrate judges’ non-dispositive decisions. See N.C. State Conference v. McCrory,

No. 1:13-cv-658, 2015 WL 12683665, at *3 (M.D. N.C. Feb. 4, 2015) (applying “clear error” or

“contrary to law” standard in reviewing magistrate judge’s order on motions to compel and

quash, where defendants raised First Amendment objections); In re Application of the U.S. for

an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d), 830 F.Supp.2d 114, 122–27 (E.D. Va. 2011) (same).

Accordingly, the Court will evaluate Judge Hoppe’s opinion under a “clear error” or “contrary to

law” standard of review.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 8 Pageid#: 3830

defendants, (id. at 2–3); (2) Cloudflare, a web services company that allegedly provided services to Peinovich’s website and the two aforementioned websites also serviced by GoDaddy.com, (id. at 3); (3) Hatreon, a crowd-funding site allegedly used to raise money for bail following one defendant’s arrest in Charlottesville for conduct committed in connection with the “Unite the Right” rally, (id. at 4); and (4) Twitter, a social media platform allegedly used by various defendants to “disseminate information about the [Unite the Right] rally” and to “encourage others” to attend the rally. (Id.).
Peinovich, then a defendant in this case, challenged the subpoenas in two related motions: first, in a motion to quash the subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) and to issue a “protective order,” (dkt. 226); and second, in a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ “full compliance” with Rules 45(a)(4) and (b)(4) or, alternatively, to quash the subpoenas. (Dkt. 229). Specifically, Peinovich objected to requests that GoDaddy.com and Cloudflare produce “traffic logs to the websites dailystormer.com, altright.com[,] and therightstuff.biz for the dates of August 1 to August 19, 2017,” because he argued these logs would contain “personally identifiable information such as IP and MAC addresses” about “hundreds of thousands of private citizens who have done nothing more than visit a website.” (Dkt. 226-1 at 3). More broadly, Peinovich argued that the subpoenas seek “huge amounts of information,” (dkt. 229 at 1), that “cannot possibly help the [P]laintiff’s case” and “would irreparably harm Peinovich, the companies that were subpoenaed, hundreds of thousands of private internet users, and the cause of free speech.” (Dkt. 255 at 3–5, 7).
Peinovich’s motions were referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Hoppe, who construed the
3 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 8 Pageid#: 3831

motion to quash as a motion for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 263 and denied both of Peinovich’s motions. (Dkt. 304). The Court now turns to Peinovich’s objections to Judge Hoppe’s opinion.
III. ANALYSIS Peinovich objects to Judge Hoppe’s (1) denial of a protective order under Rule 26, and (2) denial of his motion to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with Rule 45. Both objections fail. A. Judge Hoppe’s Denial of a Rule 26 Protective Order Rule 26 allows “[a] party . . . from whom discovery is sought” to move for a protective order, and the rule authorizes the court, “for good cause” shown, to issue such an “order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Parties seeking protective orders under Rule 26(c) must demonstrate that they “will be harmed by disclosure.” In re Wilson, 149 F.3d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1998). Moreover, a party seeking a protective order must “present a particular and specific demonstration of fact as to why a protective order should issue” as part of Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement. Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natanzon, 240 F.R.D. 200, 202 (D. Md. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). After construing Peinovich’s motion to quash as a motion for a protective order under Rule 26, Judge Hoppe found that Peinovich could not “claim any hardship, let alone undue hardship” since he has “no obligation to produce any information under the subpoenas issued to” third parties Twitter, GoDaddy.com, Cloudfare, and Hatreon. (Dkt. 304 at 6 (citing Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Smith, 274 F.R.D. 334, 338 (D. D.C. 2011)). Additionally, Judge Hoppe

3

Peinovich does not object to Judge Hoppe’s decision to construe his motion to quash as a

motion for a protective order, or Judge Hoppe’s decision that Peinovich has standing to

challenge the subpoenas, (dkt. 304 at 2–4), and the Court finds nothing clearly erroneous or

contrary to law in Judge Hoppe’s decision on these matters.

4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 8 Pageid#: 3832

determined that Peinovich had made no “specific showing of [any] undue hardship” he would experience by complying with the subpoenas because the “alleged risk of harm to Peinovich’s reputation or online business” was “too speculative.” (Id.). Finally, Judge Hoppe concluded that Peinovich had “failed to show that any of the subpoenas are overbroad or irrelevant.” (Id.). Judge Hoppe found that, “[o]n the contrary, Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are limited in scope to particular topics, persons, and entities related to the alleged events underlying this lawsuit and seek documents or ESI covering a relatively short period.” (Id.).
Peinovich first argues that Judge Hoppe was wrong to deny a protective order against Plaintiffs’ subpoenas under Rule 26 because the subpoenas in question infringe on “his and his supporters’ associational rights” under the First Amendment. (Dkt. 309 at 11). Peinovich contends that has received “anxious communications from listeners [of his podcast] concerned about being doxed as a result of the subpoenas and has lost regular listeners as a result of these concerns,”4 and that many visitors to the online forum The Right Stuff have “cancelled their accounts and stopped visiting the site.” (Id.). Plaintiffs argue that Peinovich has waived his arguments regarding First Amendment associational rights because he never raised this argument before Judge Hoppe. (Dkt. 312 at 6–7). Plaintiffs further contend that Peinovich’s associational privilege argument is substantively without merit, since the subpoenas in question do not target “associations or groups,” “membership lists,” or other entities and materials courts have found to implicate First Amendment associational rights. (Id. at 7).
Plaintiffs are correct that Peinovich did not raise his associational privilege argument before Judge Hoppe. Although Peinovich asserted in his initial motion that users may be “subject to doxing, intimidation, and harassment” as a result of enforcing the subpoenas, and

4

Plaintiffs define “doxing” as an “Internet practice in which someone’s private personal

information is published in an effort to punish or shame the target.” (Dkt. 312 at 4).

5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 8 Pageid#: 3833

further stated that the subpoenas would “have a chilling effect on free speech generally,” he raised these concerns in support his argument that the subpoenas imposed an “undue burden” on him because of the harm such a chilling effect might have on his business. (Dkt. 226 at 4; see also Dkt. 255 at 5). Peinovich only developed his associational privilege argument once Judge Hoppe had already ruled on his motions.
Generally, a “magistrate’s decision should not be disturbed on the basis of arguments not presented to him.” Zen42 LLC v. Washington and Lee University, No. 6:17-cv-00053, 2018 WL 4625627, at *6 (W.D. Va. Sep. 26, 2018) (quoting Contravest Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 273 F. Supp. 3d 607, 620 (D. S.C. 2017)). See also Baird v. CCDC/CCSCC, No. 2:08-00044, 2008 WL 4999252, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 20, 2008) (noting that a “district court’s Rule 72(a) review is further limited in that issues not raised before the magistrate should not be considered”). However, “it appears most districts in the Fourth Circuit” have “followed the holding in United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992),” which held that a “district court must consider objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling, even if the objections are new arguments on an issue.” Zen42 LLC, 2018 WL, at *6. Thus, the Court must assess Peinovich’s associational privilege argument.
Peinovich’s associational privilege argument is without merit. The subpoenas at issue here do not seek information courts have previously found covered by the First Amendment’s associational privilege, such as the “identities of rank and file members” of an advocacy organization, “mailing lists and lists of conference attendees,” “contributor lists,” or “past political activities” of the members of an organization. Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, No. 3:12-30051, 2015 WL 4750931, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2015) (collecting cases). See also NAACP v. State of Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958) (noting that the associational
6 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 8 Pageid#: 3834

privilege covers “[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs” (emphasis added)). Peinovich cites no decision extending First Amendment associational privileges to the type of information Plaintiffs seek, namely data regarding “individuals who updated and accessed” various websites relevant to ongoing civil litigation. (Dkt. 312 at 7).
To the extent that Peinovich’s objection is simply a restatement of his contention before Judge Hoppe that enforcement of Plaintiffs’ subpoenas would impose an “undue burden” on his business, the Court finds nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law in Judge Hoppe’s determination that Peinovich’s arguments were too “speculative.” (Dkt. 304 at 6). Although Peinovich asserts in his objections that he has continued to “receive anxious communications from listeners concerned about being doxed as a result of the subpoenas,” such assertions are no more concrete or well-supported than the near-identical assertions Judge Hoppe considered and rejected as too speculative. See Baron Fin. Corp., 240 F.R.D. at 202 (noting that a party seeking a protective order must “present a particular and specific demonstration of fact as to why a protective order should issue” as part of Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” requirement).
B. Judge Hoppe’s Denial of Rule 45 Motion Peinovich raises a cursory objection to Judge Hoppe’s denial of his motion to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4) and (b)(4). Rule 45(a)(4) provides that if a subpoena “commands the production of documents” or electronically stored information, a “notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party” before the subpoena “is served on the person to whom it is directed.” Rule 45(b)(4) requires proof of service only “when necessary.” Judge Hoppe found that documents “attached to Peinovich’s motion show that Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under Rule 45(a)(4) by serving ‘a notice and a copy of
7 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 7 of 8 Pageid#: 3835

the subpoena’” on Peinovich before serving the subpoenas on the third parties to whom they were directed. (Dkt. 304 at 7). Judge Hoppe further found that Peinovich had made no concrete showing that “proof of service” under Rule 45(b)(4) was necessary, such as “to support a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or to hold a nonparty in contempt of court.” (Id. (citing Plastic the Movie Ltd. v. Doe, No. 3:15-cv-385, 2015 WL 125856114, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2015)).
Peinovich objects to Judge Hoppe’s ruling, arguing that Plaintiffs have “concealed” information required by Rule 45 and thereby deprived him of “fair notice” to “oppose the subpoenas.” (Dkt. 309 at 14). Peinovich offers no specific argument that undermines Judge Hoppe’s finding that Plaintiffs complied with Rule 45(a)(4), and Peinovich again presents no concrete showing that proof of service under Rule 45(b)(4) was necessary. Moreover, Peinovich’s contention that he has been deprived of fair notice to oppose the subpoenas rings hollow, since Peinovich has now had two opportunities to challenge Plaintiffs’ subpoenas: first before Judge Hoppe, followed by a second bite at the apple with his present objections. Finding nothing plainly erroneous or contrary to law in Judge Hoppe’s denial of Peinovich’s motion to compel compliance with Rule 45, the Court overrules Peinovich’s objection.
IV. CONCLUSION Peinovich’s objections are not well-taken and will therefore be overruled. Judge Hoppe’s opinion denying Peinovich’s motions to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoenas and to compel compliance with Rule 45 is neither plainly erroneous nor contrary to law. An accompanying order will issue. Entered this _1_9_t_h_ day of February, 2019.
8 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 415 Filed 02/19/19 Page 8 of 8 Pageid#: 3836

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 7 Pageid#: 11065

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

FILED 05/27/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: /s/ J. JONES
DEPUTY CLERK

ELIZABETH SINES et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER et al., Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from

Defendant Jeff Schoep. ECF No. 689. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Schoep to produce his

“new phone” to the Third-Party Discovery Vendor (“the Vendor”) for imaging and collection of

relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”) and directing the Vendor to produce

immediately to Plaintiffs’ counsel, “without opportunity for Schoep’s review or review by his

counsel, every document from his new phone that hits on a search term” the parties agree upon.

Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 1–2.1 Plaintiffs also seek an award of reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the motion. See id. at 2 & n.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

Schoep filed a brief in opposition largely rehashing defense counsel’s position that Plaintiffs

have propounded “overbroad,” irrelevant, “extensive, intrusive, and harassing discovery

requests” in this case, Def. Schoep’s Br. in Opp’n 12, ECF No. 694, and accusing “Plaintiffs [of]

using their economic advantage in this court like a bully would push around [sic] a weaker child

in a school yard,”2 id. at 11. See generally id. at 5–14. Nonetheless, Schoep agreed to produce his

1 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed with this Court, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, use the header page numbers generated by CM/ECF. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the page numbers printed in the upper right-hand corner of the document.
2 “Comments like these are inappropriate.” Bigelow v. Garrett, No. 6:18cv39, 2018 WL 4102821, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2018) (Moon, J.). The Court reminds all counsel and parties appearing before it of their duty of professionalism and respect. See Order, Cantwell v. Gorcenski, No. 3:17cv89 (W.D. Va. May 15, 2018) (Moon, J.). “Adjectival remarks or talismanic attacks on an opposing party, its arguments,
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 7 Pageid#: 11066
new phone to the Vendor for imaging and collection—if he and his attorney can review the results before releasing them to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See id. at 12–13. The motion has been fully briefed, ECF Nos. 689, 694, and may be decided without a hearing, Tr. of Disc. Status Conf. 9– 10 (Apr. 27, 2020), ECF No. 721; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); W.D. Va. Gen. R. 4(c)(2).
The Court has already held that Plaintiffs are entitled to the requested material because it is relevant to their surviving claims and proportional to the needs of the case considering the parties’ relative access to such information, their resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and most Defendants’ (including Schoep’s) apparent inability to locate and produce responsive documents and electronic information. See generally Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2019 WL 3767475, at *13–14 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2019); Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 1–2 (granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel inspection and imaging of Schoep’s and other Defendants’ online accounts and electronic devices), ECF No. 379. The Court has also ordered Schoep many times to provide or permit discovery “of the same material in [his] control,” Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *13 (quoting Lee v. Max Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.)), by deadlines repeatedly extended. See, e.g., Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 5 (first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents), ECF No. 288; Stip. & Order of Nov. 19, 2018, at 2, 8–9, 16 (identified electronic devices and socialmedia credentials), ECF No. 383; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 3 (same), ECF No. 440; Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2–3 (identified electronic devices, last-known social-media credentials, and
or its attorneys do nothing to advance a litigant’s cause or the Court’s understanding of the legal issues presented.” Bigelow, 2018 WL 4102821, at *2. “If accurate, the frivolity of the motion would be selfevident, and thus rhetoric is unnecessary. And if (as is typically the case) the accusations are overblown, credibility is lost and nothing is gained.” Id. While the Court does find some of the language in Plaintiffs’ motion to be more hyperbolic than helpful, see, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 4–5, the concerns underlying their motion are entirely justified. “[I]t should not have drawn remarks like those,” Bigelow, 2018 WL 4102821, at *2, peppering Schoep’s brief in opposition, see, e.g., Def. Schoep’s Br. in Opp’n 5, 6, 9 & n.1, 10, 11, 12, 13.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 3 of 7 Pageid#: 11067
consent for providers to access social-media accounts), ECF No. 582; Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1 (all requested discovery), ECF No. 597; see also Order of Apr. 29, 2019, at 1–2 (granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 37 sanctions against Schoep, and ordering Schoep to produce a laptop computer and all credentials required to access any non-public information associated with specified social-media accounts), ECF No. 483.
Yet, Schoep still resists Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on grounds that the Court has already rejected or otherwise addressed. For example, he asserts that Plaintiffs’ request to obtain “every document from his new phone that hits on a search term ‘threatens to sweep in documents and information that are not remotely relevant to the issues in the case, such as private text messages, e-mails, contact lists, and photographs.’” Def. Schoep’s Br. in Opp’n 12–13 (cleaned up) (quoting Henson v. Turn, Inc., No. 15cv1497, 2018 WL 5281629, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2018) (concluding that defendant corporation’s requests “to review all [internet] cookies stored on the plaintiffs’ mobile devices” and for “complete forensic images of the devices” was overbroad and disproportional to the case’s needs because plaintiffs offered to “produce cookie data related to any [corporate] partner website” and to “meet and confer to consider requests for specific cookies”)). He also asserts their request for direct access to those documents, without allowing Schoep or his attorney to review them, “suggests that the Plaintiffs seek ‘broad and unfettered access’ to the contents” of his new phone. Id. at 13 (quoting Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., No. 3:17cv30162, 2019 WL 3290346, at *4 (D. Mass. July 22, 2019) (noting that a defendant employer’s request to forensically image plaintiff’s cell phone, just “to see if [he] . . . withheld images” that defendant “speculate[d] may exist,” suggested defendant sought “broad and unfettered access to the contents of [the] cell phone” because it had not shown plaintiff “deleted or lost relevant information from his cell phone,” that it could not obtain potentially
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 4 of 7 Pageid#: 11068
relevant communications from other sources or through less-intrusive means, or that it could put
into place a “protocol that would limit its access to private or privileged” information)). In April
2019, I explained to Schoep’s attorney that “Plaintiffs aren’t asking for everything he has ever
produced” and that the Court had entered a Stipulation & Order setting out the parties’ agreed-
upon process for imaging, preserving, and producing any ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ original
“requests for relevant information,” which they served on Defendants in January 2018. Tr. of
Apr. 26, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 10–12, ECF No. 487. I also explained that both parties’ counsel needed
to discuss “search terms” and other parameters that would return whatever relevant, responsive
documents were on an imaged device. Id.; see also Stip. & Order 8–9. Put differently, the
parties’ agreed-upon terms will define which documents or information must be produced in
accordance with Rule 26(b)(1) and the Court’s prior discovery orders. See Tr. of Apr. 26, 2019
Mot. Hr’g 10–12 (addressing defense counsel’s request for “some sort of bracket on . . .
discovery”). Relevant communications are not immune from discovery simply because the
producing party considers their contents to be “confidential” or “private,” Def. Schoep’s Br. in
Opp’n 12–13 (citing Henson, 2018 WL 5281629, at *5).3 “Privileged” matters are immune from
3 Schoep also objects that Plaintiffs “failed to propose a means of access to [his new] phone’s contents in a manner that would protect” information obtained through Schoep’s work with “individuals who are disengaging [from] and leaving extremism.” Def. Schoep’s Br. in Opp’n 12–13. Nearly 36 months ago, the Court entered a Protective Order instructing that, unless the Court orders otherwise, any discovery materials that the producing party designates as containing either “confidential” or “highly confidential” information “shall not” be discussed with or revealed, “furnished, shown[,] or disclosed to any person or entity” except those agreed to in writing by the parties. See Order of Jan. 3, 2018, at 2–5, ECF No. 167. A qualified case participant who receives such information must, before using it for the litigation, execute an agreement stating that he or she has “carefully read and understand[s] the provisions of the [Protective] Order,” will comply with those provisions, and “submit[s] to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforc[ing] the Order in this Action.” Id. at 11. “Confidential and Highly Confidential Information shall be utilized by the [r]eceiving [p]arty and its counsel only for purposes of this action, including any appeals, and for no other purposes,” id. at 5, and all such information must be returned to the producing party, or destroyed by the receiving party, within 60 days after final termination of the litigation, id. at 8. These protections “shall, absent prior written consent of both parties, continue to be binding after the conclusion of this action.” Id. at 6. Schoep does not acknowledge the Protective Order or explain why its provisions will not protect third parties’ privacy interests. See Hardy, 2019 WL 3290346, at *4 (denying
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 7 Pageid#: 11069
discovery, but only when the producing party “expressly make[s] the claim” and “describe[s] the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do[es] so in a manner that . . . will enable other parties [and the Court] to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); see Tr. of Apr. 26, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 11–12. The chance that an electronic device might contain privileged material is not grounds for “withholding the entire device.” Tr. of Apr. 26, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 11–12. If some of the material harvested from the device is privileged, the receiving party would be required to return that material upon request pursuant to a claw-back provision of the protective order. See Order of Jan. 3, 2018, at 6–7 (providing a claw back mechanism in the event of an inadvertent disclosure of allegedly privileged information).
The Court is also concerned that Schoep twice refused Plaintiffs’ proper discovery request on grounds that a phone “obtained well after” the Unite the Right rally in August 2017 “would not contain any potentially relevant information in regards to this litigation.” Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 7 (quoting Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch ¶ 7 (Dec. 17, 2019, 8:46 AM), ECF No. 708-7); accord id. at 9 (citing Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Ex. C, Letter from E. ReBrook to J. Phillips 4 (Mar. 17, 2020), ECF No. 689-3); see also id. at 8 n.3 (citing Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch ¶ 1 (Apr. 9, 2019, 11:17 AM), ECF No. 547-7). In March 2019, I explained to all defense counsel that online “accounts created after August 2017 could hold responsive documents,” and that “every party has a duty to supplement” their prior discovery responses. Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Conf. Call 20, 24–25 (discussing ESI certification forms), ECF No. 455; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (e)(1). Schoep’s counsel should have recognized that the same logic applies to any phones, computers, and other electronic devices his client obtained or activated
defendant employer’s request to image plaintiff’s cell phone in part because it had “not proposed a protocol that would limit its access to private or privileged contents of [the] cell phone”).
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 6 of 7 Pageid#: 11070
after August 2017. See Tr. of Apr. 26, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 12–13 (“The Court: . . . ‘[T]here are going to be discussions that occurred before and after that are relevant to those days. There’s going to be information not just during those few days in Charlottesville that are relevant.’ Mr. ReBrook: ‘Very well, Your Honor.’”).
Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Schoep to produce the new phone on December 11, 2019. Had Schoep promptly complied, then he and his attorney would have had about three weeks to review the imaging results and produce all non-privileged responsive ESI to Plaintiffs’ counsel on February 5, 2020, as required by this Court’s most recent scheduling order. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1; see also Tr. of Apr. 26, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 11–12 (explaining the same). Schoep’s “track-record of failing to fulfil his discovery obligations in a timely manner . . . makes him [especially] ill-suited to participate in a discovery process that is predicated upon one’s prompt and good faith with discovery obligations.” Order of May 18, 2020, at 3 (Defendant Robert Ray), ECF No. 728; Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 3 (Defendant Elliott Kline), ECF No. 638; see also Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *2, *14–15. He leaves the Court no choice but to impose yet another special discovery procedure that will move this case forward to trial. See Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *13–14; Order of May 18, 2020, at 3; Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 2.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep, ECF No. 689, is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs are directed to file a petition setting out their reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 741 Filed 05/27/20 Page 7 of 7 Pageid#: 11071
2. On or before Monday, June 1, 2020, Schoep shall send his “new phone” to the Vendor for imaging and collection. Schoep’s counsel shall promptly provide any tracking information to the Vendor and to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
3. On or before Monday, June 8, 2020, the Vendor shall provide directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel any and all ESI collected from Schoep’s social-media accounts and devices that contain the agreed-upon search terms within the applicable date range. The Court expects Plaintiffs’ counsel will return to Schoep’s counsel any material likely to be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Finally, Defendant Jeff Schoep is hereby warned that his failure to fully comply with this Order may result in the Court imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or directing Schoep to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties.
ENTER: May 27, 2020
Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
7

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 17 Pageid#: 11072

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED 05/28/2020

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK

Charlottesville Division

BY: /s/ J. JONES

DEPUTY CLERK

ELIZABETH SINES et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

v.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

JASON KESSLER et al.,

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

Defendants.

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on a motion filed by Edward ReBrook IV, Esq., to

withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant National Socialist Movement (“NSM”) and

Defendant Nationalist Front (“NF”). ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 691. Mr. ReBrook

claims he must terminate his representation of Defendants NSM and NF primarily because a

“concurrent conflict of interest has arisen” between those entities and Mr. ReBrook’s third client

in this case, Defendant Jeff Schoep. Id. at 1.1 The motion has been fully briefed, ECF Nos. 691,

706, 712, and may be decided without oral argument. Tr. of Disc. Status Conf. 9–10 (Apr. 27,

2020), ECF No. 721; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); W.D. Va. Gen. R. 4(c)(2).

I. Background

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. Compl., ECF No. 1. Their original

complaint named as Defendants numerous individuals and artificial entities, see generally id. ¶¶

21–45, including: (1) Jeff Schoep, a resident of Michigan and “leader of Defendant NSM, the

largest neo-Nazi coalition in the United States,” id. ¶ 38; (2) NSM, an unincorporated

association2 located in Michigan and led by Schoep “as its ‘Commander’ since 1994,” id. ¶ 39;

1 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed with this Court, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, use the header page numbers generated by CM/ECF. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the page numbers printed on the upper right-hand corner of the document.
2 An unincorporated association’s capacity to sue or be sued in federal court is determined “by the law of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3). In Virginia, “[a]ll unincorporated associations or orders may sue and be sued under the name by which they are commonly known and
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 17 Pageid#: 11073
and (3) NF, an unincorporated association “led by Defendants Schoep, [Matthew] Heimbach, . . . and [Michael] Hill,” id. ¶ 40; see id. ¶¶ 32, 35. Later that month, Schoep personally accepted service of process on behalf of himself, ECF No. 109; “National Socialist Movement c/o Jeff Schoep” as the entity’s “Resident Agent, authorized to accept service,” ECF No. 110; and “Nationalist Front . . . c/o Jeff Schoep” as a person “authorized to accept,” ECF No. 60. All three Defendants retained James Kolenich, Esq., and Elmer Woodard, Esq., to represent them beginning on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 131.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2018, again naming Schoep, NSM, and NF as Defendants to the action. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37–39, ECF No. 175. All three moved to dismiss the pleading under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 207. NF also filed its own motion to dismiss, see ECF Nos. 105, 205, and an affidavit from Schoep asserting that NF is “not an entity that can be sued” because it “is merely a website that advertises the existence of certain ‘Alt-Right’ groups” and lists goals or “aspirations for interested groups” to follow, ECF No. 105, at 1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). The Honorable Norman K. Moon, presiding District Judge, denied Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the merits, Sines v. Kessler, 324 F. Supp. 3d 765, 793–94 (W.D. Va. 2018), ECF No. 335, and denied NF’s separate motion to dismiss as premature because it relied on an affidavit that was “not properly before the Court” at the pleading stage, id. at 806–07 & n.8.3 See Order of July 9, 2018, ECF No. 336.
called . . . and judgments and executions against any such association or order shall bind its real and personal property in like manner as if it were incorporated.” Va. Code § 8.01-15. A corporation’s capacity to sue or be sued is determined “by the law under which it was organized.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(2). 3 Judge Moon also explained that “the Court will eventually need to consider the [legal capacity] question in order to determine what alleged actions and statements of individuals are attributable to the purported unincorporated associations,” id. at 806, and noted the “parties may seek leave to brief this issue on an expedited basis,” id. at 807 n.8. No one has filed such a brief.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 17 Pageid#: 11074
Messrs. Kolenich and Woodard represented Schoep, NSM, and NF in the litigation through early 2019. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 343, 356, 359, 383. That February, Schoep moved to represent himself, ECF No. 418, and the attorneys moved to withdraw as counsel for Schoep, NSM, and NF after the clients terminated their services, ECF No. 420. See Tr. of Mar. 1, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 5, ECF No. 441. On March 4, I granted the motions and directed NSM and NF each to retain a licensed attorney and “have that attorney enter his or her appearance on the Defendant entity’s behalf in this matter” within two weeks. Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2 (“Unlike individuals, artificial entities may ‘appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.’ This ‘rule applies equally to all artificial entities,’ including unincorporated associations.” (quoting Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202–03 (1993)), ECF No. 440.4
Around the same time, Schoep announced that he was stepping down as NSM’s longtime leader, and that “Burt Colucci, Chief of Staff of the National Socialist Movement, w[ould] be taking over operations as the new Commander effective immediately.” Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 4, Public Release, Nat’l Socialist Movement, Announcement (Mar. 1, 2019), ECF No. 674-4; see also id. Ex. 15, Mich. Dep’t of Licensing & Reg. Affairs, Certificate of Corr. (Mar. 6, 2019) (naming Burt Colucci President and Secretary of NSM effective November 13, 2018), ECF No. 674-15. Mr. Colucci “ha[d] been handling most of the day to day operations” for NSM, and Schoep assured supporters that he had “full faith and confidence” in Mr. Colucci as the group’s new leader.5 Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from
4 I gave Schoep the same deadline by which to retain new counsel to represent him individually, if he chose to do so. Id. at 1; see 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Contrary to Mr. ReBrook’s prior assertion, this Court has never “decided” that Schoep “was responsible for finding an attorney for . . . the NSM[] and the National[ist] Front,” Email from E. ReBrook to J. Hoppe et al. (Aug. 28, 2019, 11:20 AM). See Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 1–3. 5 As the parties know, a messy dispute over who controlled NSM was also playing out in late 2018 and early 2019. In April 2019, I barred James Hart Stern from further participating in the case on NSM’s behalf because Mr. Stern was not an attorney and “the Court cannot have two people, who apparently
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 17 Pageid#: 11075
Def. NSM Ex. 4, at 2. Schoep also told supporters that “NSM as an organization” was “actively
in the process of retaining new attorneys” to replace its former counsel. See id. Mr. ReBrook
formally noted his appearance on behalf of Defendants Schoep, NSM, and NF on March 19,
2019. ReBrook Notice of Att’y Appearance, ECF No. 451; see also Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Status
Conf. Call 4, 6; Order of Apr. 4, 2019, at 1–2. Since that time, Mr. ReBrook has consistently
described Schoep as his only “real” or “human” client and, for reasons that still are not clear,
construed the scope of his attorney-client relationship with NSM and NF to be limited by
Schoep’s personal involvement with or control over those two distinct entities.6 See generally
hold opposing goals, claiming to act on behalf of the same defendant entity in this litigation.” Order of Apr. 4, 2019, at 2, ECF No. 461; see Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Status Conf. Call 32–33, ECF No. 455; Tr. of Mar. 1, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 5–8, 14–17. I also accepted Mr. ReBrook’s notice of appearance as NSM’s counsel of record. Order of Apr. 4, 2019, at 2. Schoep has acted as NF’s officer or authorized agent throughout the litigation. See Tr. of Mar. 1, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 6–9; Decl. of Nationalist Front (Oct. 16, 2018), ECF No. 359-1; Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM 4–10 (citing correspondence and discovery responses), ECF No. 547. 6 See, e.g., Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (Dec. 17, 2019, 8:48 AM) (“Please keep in mind that my control over my client(s), especially Mr. Colucci is quite limited, especially now that a conflict has arisen between him and my real client, Mr. Schoep.”), ECF No. 712-2; Email from E. ReBrook to J. Hoppe et al. (Aug. 28, 2019, 11:20 AM) (“I have only one actual, human client, Mr. Jeff Schoep. . . . I was told I had to submit a [notice of appearance] for all three defendants, (Schoep, NSM, and NF), but in truth I only have privity of contract with Mr. Schoep. . . . [T]he only human client I have is Mr. Schoep, and he has provided everything he’s been asked to provide that is within his control.”), ECF No. 547-19; Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (June 17, 2019, 12:50 PM) (“If you have specific, human persons I am expected to query for discoverable information other than my only human client, Jeff Schoep, please let me know. I believe there have been hundreds if not thousands of NSM members over the years, so in order to avoid a vagueness objection, I’m going to need to know who you expect me to contact.”), ECF No. 547-17; Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (June 12, 2019, 3:07 PM) (“The only actual human person I have a relationship with is Mr. Schoep. I do not know any of these other people [named in Plaintiffs’ May 13 email]. My relationship with NSM . . . is derivative of my relationship with Mr. Schoep. Am I being asked to develop new relationship[s] with additional natural persons?”), ECF No. 547-15; Email from M. Bloch to E. ReBrook (May 13, 2019, 1:47 PM) (“With respect to NSM and NF, it remains [Plaintiffs’] position that there must be custodians beyond Mr. Schoep that . . . possess content responsive to our document requests, particularly with respect to NSM.” (citing cases)), ECF No. 547-12; Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (Apr. 23, 2019, 12:33 PM) (“I maintain that I cannot give you what I don’t have, even if you really want me to. Mr. Schoep – my only flesh & blood, human client – literally does not control several of the things you are requesting . . . .”), ECF No. 547-10; Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (Apr. 9, 2019, 11:17 AM) (“Since Mr. Schoep is the only named defendant for the NSM . . . only materials within his possession and control are subject to discovery.”), ECF No. 547-7.
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 17 Pageid#: 11076
Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.13(a)–(e) (“Organization as Client”); Selee Corp. v. McDanel Advanced Ceramic Techs., LLC, No. 1:15cv129, 2016 WL 4546446, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon companies responding to discovery to conduct a reasonable investigation, make reasonable inquiries of its [agents], and fully respond to interrogatories and document requests.” (quotation marks omitted)).
On May 22, 2019, NSM directors Burt Colucci, Mike Scholar, and Acacia Dietz agreed to dissolve NSM as a Michigan corporation.7 Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 18, ECF No. 674-18; see id. Ex. 15, at 2. Two days later, Mr. Colucci filed papers to “‘reincorporate[]’ the NSM in Florida,” see ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw Ex. 1, Email from A. Dietz to B. Colucci (Apr. 17, 2020, 12:28 AM), ECF No. 712-1, at 3, under the name “National Socialist Movement Corporation,” Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 21, ECF No. 674-21. See also ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw Ex. 2, at 2, ECF No. 712-2. He also announced in a blog post on the organization’s longtime website, www.nsm88.org, that “the NSM HQ ha[d] relocated” to Kissimmee, Florida. Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 29, at 2–3, ECF No. 674-29. Mr. ReBrook appears to concede that Mr. Colucci’s Florida-based “NSM Corporation” is merely a continuation of the “now dissolved” Michigan-based NSM that has been a Defendant to this lawsuit since October 2017. See, e.g., ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2 (noting counsel’s “efforts to persuade Mr. Colucci that [his contrary] argument was not legally plausible and thus the Florida NSM would be required to participate and cooperate with discovery”), ECF No. 712; id. Ex. 1, at
7 The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs issued a Certificate of Dissolution for NSM on June 19, 2019. See Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 24, at 4, ECF No. 674-24. Under Michigan law, a dissolved “corporation may sue and be sued in its corporate name[,] . . . process may issue by and against the corporation in the same manner as if dissolution had not occurred,” and a legal “action brought against the corporation before its dissolution does not abate because of the dissolution.” Mich. Stat. §§ 450.1834(e), (f), 450.2834(e), (f).
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 17 Pageid#: 11077
3 (“Given that by your own admission the Florida NSM is a reincorporation of the Michigan NSM, the judge will most likely hold that the Florida nonprofit NSM [i]s the same NSM named in this current litigation. Therefore you/NSM will be required to cooperate/participate in this discovery process.”); cf. Fuisz v. Lynch, 147 F. App’x 319, 322–23 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing the “mere continuation exception” to Virginia’s rule that a corporation that purchases or otherwise receives the assets of another company is generally not responsible for the debts and liabilities of its predecessor); Johnson v. RAC Corp., 491 F.2d 510, 514 (4th Cir. 1974) (allowing plaintiff in a products liability case against defendant corporation to complete fact discovery even though the corporation allegedly dissolved under Delaware law more than three years earlier); Burris v. Versa Prods., Inc., Civ. No. 07-3938, 2013 WL 608742, at *6 (D. Minn. Feb. 19, 2013) (“If a dissolved Wisconsin corporation may still be a party in a civil lawsuit, which Versa has not disputed here, then it has a duty under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to respond to discovery that is properly served on it.”).
According to Mr. ReBrook, Schoep walked away from the white nationalist movement sometime after he appointed Mr. Colucci as NSM’s new commander. See ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 1–2; ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2, 4. On August 12, 2019, Schoep wrote on his website that he “realized many of the principles [he] . . . once held so dearly and sacrificed so much for were wrong.” See Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 10, Katie Mettler, The ‘race whisperer’: A black activist convinced a neo-Nazi he’d save him from legal ruin. Then the real plan began, Wash. Post, Oct. 30, 2019, ECF No. 674-10, at 31. His new “mission [was] to be a positive, peaceful influence of change and understanding in these uncertain times.” Id. That fall, Schoep gave his first public speech describing “the best ways of pulling people out of hate groups.” Id. “He titled it ‘American Nazi: Radical to Redemption.’”
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 17 Pageid#: 11078
Id. Schoep still “actively works to counter the ideology that his former organization espouses.” ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2 (citing Def. Schoep’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Compel 11–12, ECF No. 694).
* In October 2019, I granted Plaintiffs’ first motion to compel discovery from NSM and ordered Mr. Colucci to sit for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by Plaintiffs’ counsel “devoted exclusively to Mr. Colucci’s and/or Defendant NSM’s conduct in pretrial discovery, including their efforts to locate and preserve any documents, information, or materials that are potentially relevant to this lawsuit.” Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 1–2, ECF No. 582. The Order acknowledged Mr. Colucci’s claim that he controls “non-party ‘National Socialist Movement Corporation’” based in Florida, but also made clear that the Court considered Mr. Colucci to be an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant NSM, the organization formerly based in Michigan. See id. at 1, 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)); Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Status Conf. 14, 74, ECF No. 581. Thus, Mr. Colucci “is responsible for providing complete and accurate credentials (or consent) to access any social media accounts within [Defendant NSM’s] control that may contain discoverable information” in response to Plaintiffs’ proper discovery requests. Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2 (“The parties and any Rule 30(b)(6) representatives[, ]including Burt Colucci for Defendant NSM . . . [,] shall work together to provide information to access any social media account and to provide any Defendant’s or its representative’s consent to access stored electronic communications and other account information to a social media provider.” (emphasis omitted)). I also explained to Mr. ReBrook that his “view of who the client is for NSM [was] overly narrow in just focusing on Mr. Schoep.” Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Status Conf. 12. While Mr. ReBrook was not obligated to represent “every member” of NSM, he should consider all persons
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 17 Pageid#: 11079
“acting on behalf of NSM,” or who have had “some sort of authority” or “exercise[] control over” the organization to be his “clients as well when [he’s] representing NSM.” Id.; see also id. at 18–19. Thus, it was Mr. ReBrook’s “responsibility to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine who those [people] are,” to figure out “what discovery they may have,” and “to provide that information to the [P]laintiffs,” id. at 12, in accordance with the “multiple orders” I had already entered directing NSM to comply with its discovery obligations, id. at 15. See also id. at 17–18.
Mr. ReBrook defended Mr. Colucci’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in December 2019. See generally Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 5, Tr. of Dep. of B. Colucci 1– 273 (Dec. 10, 2019), ECF No. 708-15. Broadly speaking, Mr. Colucci testified to his leadership role in the Michigan-based NSM from late 2017 through early 2019, explained why he reincorporated NSM in Florida, and reiterated that he will not provide or permit any discovery of NSM-related materials in his possession or control without another court order because in his view Defendant NSM and NSM in Florida are wholly separate entities. See generally id. at 22– 29, 34–37, 46–57, 65–69, 74–77, 81–85, 90–93, 95–126, 163–73, 210–13, 262–72. Mr. ReBrook had not discussed Plaintiffs’ discovery requests with Mr. Colucci, see id. at 34–35, 163–72, 175– 77, 199–218, and at one point he seemed to endorse Mr. Colucci’s belief that NSM in Florida was a “separate organization” than Defendant NSM, id. at 213.
On December 17, 2019, Mr. ReBrook informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that his “control over [his] client(s), especially Mr. Colucci, is quite limited, especially now that a conflict ha[d] arisen between him and [Mr. ReBrook’s] real client, Mr. Schoep.” Email from E. ReBrook to M. Bloch (Dec. 17, 2019, 8:48 AM). He reiterated that Mr. Colucci “refuses to consent to any discovery” regarding the “now dissolved” Defendant NSM because neither Mr. Colucci nor his Florida-
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 17 Pageid#: 11080
based “National Socialist Movement Corporation” are named parties to this litigation. Id. Each Defendant in this case was supposed to “produce all discoverable material,” including any relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”) collected from that Defendant’s designated electronic devices, to Plaintiffs’ counsel on or before February 5, 2020. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 597; see also Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2–3; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 3; Stip. & Order of Nov. 19, 2018, at 2, 8–9, 16, ECF No. 383; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 1–2, ECF No. 379. Defendant NSM missed that deadline.
At some point, Mr. ReBrook “sought the advice of the Virginia State Bar Ethics Counsel and was advised that [he] should move to withdraw as NSM and NF’s counsel of record.” ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2; see also ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 1–2 (“In this instance, counsel sought the advice of the Virginia State Bar Ethics Counsel and was advised that defense counsel should move to withdraw.”). Mr. ReBrook has not provided any information about the substance of his inquiry, the VSB counsel’s response, or the rationale underlying the VSB counsel’s purported conclusion “that there exists a concurrent conflict of interest.” ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 4.
Mr. ReBrook moved to withdraw on March 28, 2020. He argues that “the interests of [his] clients” are “clearly and directly adverse” primarily because “NSM/NF espouses antisemitism and racial separation” and Schoep “has been speaking out against antisemitism, racism[,] and violence[, t]hus creating a conflict of interest.” ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 2–3; see also ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2, 4, 6 (citing Mr. Colucci’s purported deposition testimony that NSM “considers [Schoep] to be a traitor,” and asserting that both “NSM and NF view[] Mr. Schoep as a traitor”). Mr. ReBrook also asserts that it is in Schoep’s “best interests . . . to cooperate with discovery and the court, whereas NSM/NF consider Schoep
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 17 Pageid#: 11081
a traitor and have no interest in cooperating with counsel or this Court.” ReBrook Reply in Supp.
of Mot. to Withdraw 4. Mr. Colucci in particular “refuses to participate and cooperate with the
Court,” id., despite Mr. ReBrook’s purported “efforts to persuade [him] that . . . the Florida NSM
would be required to participate and cooperate in discovery,” id. at 2.8
II. The Legal Framework
Counsel of record shall not withdraw from any cause pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, except with the Court’s consent for good cause shown. W.D.
Va. Gen. R. 6(i). This Court generally looks to the Virginia State Bar’s Rules of Professional
Conduct both to govern attorneys who are admitted to practice before it, see Order In Re: Local
Rule IV(B) Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (W.D. Va. Nov. 6, 1998), and to decide
whether an attorney of record should be allowed to withdraw from a pending case, Schock, 2007
WL 2405730, at *2; see also United States v. Bryant, No. 3:04cr47-7, 2005 WL 8160794 (W.D.
Va. Nov. 4, 2005) (Moon, J.); cf. Advanced Training Grp. Worldwide, Inc. v. ProActive Techs.,
Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 902535, at *3 n.5 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2020) (“Although the
8 Mr. ReBrook also accuses his “client NSM/NF” of “threatening violence,” id. at 3, and cites to an unsigned blog post describing a March 24, 2020 incident in Belton, Missouri, where law enforcement officers killed an individual who “allegedly planned to use a car bomb to blow up a local hospital [that was] coping with the coronavirus outbreak,” ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw Ex. 1, at 1, ECF No. 691-1. The blog post notes that another media outlet identified this individual’s “apparent Telegram handle,” or online username, which included the acronym “‘NSM’ in [its] bio – a reference to the longstanding neoNazi group, National Socialist Movement.” Id. at 2–3. The post does not suggest that Defendant NSM’s leadership had any role in its alleged member’s plot to blow up the hospital, and it does not mention Defendant NF at all. Thus, there is no reason to believe that “NSM/NF” is “threatening violence,” ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 3, or that either entity “has acted or intends to act illegally or unjustly in this matter,” Schock v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., No. 6:06cv20, 2007 WL 2405730, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2007) (citing Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(b)(1)). Additionally. Virginia’s rules do not allow counsel to withdraw from representation whenever a client persists in any “course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is illegal or unjust,” ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 3. The client must “persist[] in a course of action involving the lawyer’s services that the lawyer reasonably believes is illegal or unjust.” Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(b)(1)) (emphasis added). Mr. ReBrook does not suggest that NSM or NF are so abusing their attorney-client relationship in this matter. See Schock, 2007 WL 2405730, at *2; Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16 cmt. 7.
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 11 of 17 Pageid#: 11082
Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct establish appropriate guidelines for the professional conduct of attorneys [in federal court], a violation of those Rules does not automatically result in disqualification of counsel.”). The Court also “may consider the disruptive impact the withdrawal would have” on the client and the litigation generally, as well as whether the attorney continued to represent a party even though counsel “knew of [an] alleged potential conflict” of interest. Patterson v. Gemini Org., Ltd., No. 99-1537, 2000 WL 1718542, at *2 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2000) (citing Whiting v. Lacara, 197 F.3d 317, 320 (2d Cir. 1999)); cf. Advanced Training Grp., 2020 WL 902535, at *3 (“Courts have sensibly held that a party’s failure to file a motion to disqualify [opposing] counsel in a timely manner may result in waiver of the issue.”).
In Virginia, “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest” unless certain criteria are met. Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.7(a). As relevant here, “[a] concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client . . . .” Id. Subsection (a)(1) “prohibits representation of opposing parties in litigation,” whereas subsection (a)(2) governs “[s]imultaneous representation of parties whose interests in litigation may conflict, such as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants . . . .” Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.7 cmt. 23. “An impermissible conflict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties’ testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party[,] or the fact that there are substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question.” Id. However, “common representation is permissible where clients are generally aligned in interest even though there is some difference of interest among them.” Id. cmt. 27. An attorney facing an actual concurrent conflict of interest among clients should move to withdraw from representation
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 12 of 17 Pageid#: 11083
entirely. Id. cmt. 4 (citing Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(a)(1)); see also id. cmt. 29 (“Ordinarily, the lawyer will be forced to withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails.”).
III. Discussion “Virginia’s professional rules define conflicts of interest based on adversity of position in a legal matter.” Rivers v. United States, No. 6:18cv61, 2020 WL 1480834, at *2 (W.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2020) (cleaned up) (citing Richmond Hilton Assocs. v. City of Richmond, 690 F.2d 1086, 1089 (4th Cir. 1982)). Courts have found concurrent conflicts where one client “want[ed] to point the finger of fault towards” his attorney’s other clients in defending a lawsuit, Sandford v. Commonwealth of Va., 687 F. Supp. 2d 591, 600 (E.D. Va. 2009) (citing Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.7 cmts. 8 & 23); see also Wink, Inc. v. Wink Threading Studio, No. 2:10cv450, 2011 WL 3206915, at *2, *5 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2011), but not where jointly represented clients took the same or compatible legal position against an opposing party, see, e.g., Richmond Hilton Assocs., 690 F.2d at 1089; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 570 F.2d 1197, 1200–01 (4th Cir. 1978); Federico v. Lincoln Military Hous., LLC, No. 2:12cv80, 2014 WL 12613388, at *3 (E.D. Va. May 23, 2014) (citing Aetna, 570 F.2d at 1201). Mr. ReBrook asserts that his clients now champion adverse ideological positions, ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 2; ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2, 4, and that “NSM/NF consider Schoep [to be] a traitor,” ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 4. But, he does not point to any conflict in his clients’ legal positions or “theory of the[ir] case,” Federico, 2014 WL 12613388, at *3, against Plaintiffs’ claims that they and other Defendants conspired to commit racially-motivated violence at the Unite the Right rally in August 2017. See, e.g., Richmond Hilton Assocs., 690 F.2d at 1089 (reversing order disqualifying defense counsel where the “district court mistook a political
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 13 of 17 Pageid#: 11084
conflict” among clients “for a conflict between [their] positions” in the case); Wright v. Williamsburg Area Med. Assistance Corp., No. 4:12cv152, 2013 WL 12184285, at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2013) (noting that jointly represented defendants’ interests were “mutually aligned, not adverse” where they held “substantially similar positions . . . to achieve the same ends— defending against the Plaintiff’s claims”). Evidence that Schoep apparently had a change of heart two years later, or that some NSM and NF supporters resent his decision, has no bearing on whether Mr. ReBrook’s clients are liable to Plaintiffs for the misconduct alleged in this lawsuit.
Moreover, the fact that Mr. Colucci has no desire to voluntarily participate in this case as Defendant NSM’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative does not mean that Defendants “NSM/NF . . . have no interest in cooperating with counsel or this Court,” ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 4 (emphasis added). See generally Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2019 WL 3767475, at *1–2, *10–16 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2019), ECF No. 539; Burris, 2013 WL 608742, at *7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37). Defendant Schoep has acted as NF’s authorized agent throughout this litigation, and there is no indication that Mr. Colucci has any responsibility for that association. Mr. ReBrook can still protect his organizational clients’ interests by, for example, explaining to Mr. Colucci and Schoep their roles as Rule 30(b)(6) representatives for each entity and that NSM and NF face serious consequences if they keep stonewalling Plaintiffs’ efforts to gather relevant discovery. See generally Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *1–2, *10–16; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. And, contrary to Mr. ReBrook’s assertions, Mr. Colucci indicated in his deposition testimony that he will comply with a court order directing him to provide or permit discovery of any NSM-related ESI within his possession or control. Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 5, at 264–73; see also Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Hr’g 17 (Mr. ReBrook: “I have told [Mr. Colucci] what is expected of him, and his reply was, specifically, that he would not provide anything or sit for a
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 14 of 17 Pageid#: 11085
deposition unless he was ordered to do so. (emphasis added)). On this record, there is no risk that Mr. ReBrook’s continued representation of NSM and NF will be materially limited by his responsibilities to Schoep.9
Mr. ReBrook also has known about this perceived conflict for some time. Even if counsel “did not fully appreciate or understand” Schoep’s plans to break ties with the white nationalist movement when he entered his appearance for Schoep, NSM, and NF in March 2019, see Email from E. ReBrook to J. Hoppe (Aug. 28, 2019, 11:20 AM), he should have known by mid-August that Schoep had publicly renounced the movement’s ideology and embarked on a new mission to promote peace and understanding, see ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 1; ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 2, 4–5; Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. NSM Ex. 10, at 31. Mr. ReBrook spent the next seven months representing all three of his clients in discovery matters, and he alerted Plaintiffs’ counsel to an alleged conflict between Defendant Schoep and Mr. Colucci, acting as Defendant NSM’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative, in December 2019. Mr. ReBrook offers no explanation why he waited another three months—and more than seven weeks after the (most recent) deadline expired for his clients to produce all ESI and written discovery—to bring this perceived problem to the Court’s attention.10 Cf. Patterson, 2000 WL 1718542, at *2 (affirming denial of motion to withdraw where counsel waited for one year, and until after a “court-ordered discovery deadline had already passed” and “serious motions were
9 Mr. Colucci’s willingness to comply with a court order also undercuts Mr. ReBrook’s concerns that “Defendants NSM and NF wish to pursue an approach [that] Counsel believes to be imprudent and with which Counsel disagrees,” that their “attorney-client relationship has broken down,” and that “significant differences of opinion with respect to several key issues affecting the case” have made it “unreasonably difficult for Counsel to effectively represent” NSM. ReBrook Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 5–6. 10 Mr. ReBrook also failed to file a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ second Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant NSM, ECF No. 674 (Mar. 11, 2020), within the fourteen days allowed by the presiding District Judge’s pretrial order, ECF No. 101. He moved to withdraw three days after NSM’s response deadline expired.
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 15 of 17 Pageid#: 11086
pending” against his client, to seek withdrawal); Advanced Training Grp., 2020 WL 902535, at *3–4 (denying motion to disqualify opposing counsel filed “after the close of discovery” and more than seven months after the movant “should have” known about the alleged conflict).
Finally, allowing Mr. ReBrook to withdraw from representing NSM and NF now would only further disrupt this case’s “exceptionally protracted” march towards trial. Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2; see generally Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *6–16. More than a year ago, I directed Defendant NSM and Defendant NF each to have an licensed attorney “enter his or her appearance on the Defendant entity’s behalf in this matter” because, “[u]nlike individuals, artificial entities may ‘appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.’” Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2 (quoting Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202). The Court accepted Mr. ReBrook’s notice of appearance on behalf of both entities in April 2019. Now, finally, the parties are relatively close to wrapping up discovery and the case is set for a four-week jury trial beginning on October 26, 2020. ECF No. 598. Plaintiffs correctly point out that NSM and NF will not be permitted to represent their own interests without counsel and that Mr. Colucci likely will not retain a new attorney to represent NSM going forward. See Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 3, 8, 15–16. “Plaintiffs have expended considerable effort and resources in pursuing discovery” from these two Defendants, and they have spent a long time dealing “with unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and [apparent] disregard for both their proper discovery requests and this Court’s many orders trying to enforce them,” Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *15. See, e.g., Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2–3; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 3; Stip. & Order of Nov. 19, 2018, at 2, 8–9, 16; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 1–2. I share Plaintiffs’ concerns that allowing Mr. ReBrook to withdraw from representing these entities, and Defendant NSM in particular, will further impair
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 16 of 17 Pageid#: 11087
the Court’s and the parties’ mutual responsibility to resolve this case “in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.” Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *15; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Mr. ReBrook’s cryptic statement that, “[i]n addition to the [alleged] conflict of interest, counsel has privity of contract with only one of the defendants in this civil litigation,” i.e., Jeff Schoep, “and it would be unethical for counsel to leave his representation,” ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 3, is not persuasive. See Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 13–14. Presumably, Mr. ReBrook means that Schoep was the one who “retained” him and agreed to pay any legal fees on behalf of himself, NSM, and NF. See Email from E. ReBrook to J. Hoppe et al. ¶ 1 (Aug. 28, 2019, 11:20 AM); ReBrook Mot. to Withdraw 3. But, the “Virginia Supreme Court has long held that ‘an attorney may be employed without formalities of any kind,’” and that a contract for legal services “‘is often largely implied from’” the conduct of the attorney and his or her client(s). Atlas Partners II Ltd. P’Ship v. Brumberg, Mackey & Wall, PLC, No. 4:05cv1, 2006 WL 42332, at *5 (W.D. Va. Jan. 6, 2006) (quoting Glenn v. Haynes, 55 S.E.2d 509, 512 (Va. 1951)). “Neither is the relation[ship] dependent upon the payment of fees.” Glenn, 55 S.E.2d at 512 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, “[w]hether an agreement employing an attorney to handle a particular matter is express or implied, there must be ‘some indication that the advice and assistance of the attorney was sought and received.’” Umphreyville v. Gittins, 662 F. Supp. 2d 501, 510 (W.D. Va. 2009) (quoting Carstensen v. Chrisland Corp., 442 S.E.2d 660, 668 (Va. 1994)). Mr. ReBrook has held himself out as counsel of record for Schoep, NSM, and NF in this case for more than a year now, and he defended Mr. Colucci’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for NSM in December 2019. Cf. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Autoclear, LLC, 606 F. Supp. 2d 617, 622–23 (E.D. Va. 2008) (finding attorney-client relationship existed, even though defendants argued the attorney “was not ‘retained’ as ‘litigation’ counsel,” where the attorney
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 742 Filed 05/28/20 Page 17 of 17 Pageid#: 11088
“actually worked on” the case, “understood the significance of the Complaint and [d]efendants’ duty to answer it,” and later entered an appearance on defendants’ behalf). Accordingly, “counsel is required to see it through” for his clients.11 Schock, 2007 WL 2405730, at *2 (citing Patterson, 2000 WL 1718542, at *2).
Mr. ReBrook’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant National Socialist Movement and Defendant Nationalist Front, ECF No. 691, is hereby DENIED.
ENTER: May 28, 2020
Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
11 Mr. ReBrook also does not explain why Defendants NSM and NF—who must have a licensed attorney represent their interests in federal court—are somehow less deserving of their attorney’s loyal service than is Defendant Schoep. “[A] lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty” and “diligent representation” to each client. Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.7 cmts. 31 & 33. This is why counsel ordinarily “will be forced to withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails.” Id. cmt. 29.
17

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 14 Pageid#: 11148

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

ELIZABETH SINES et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER et al., Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel. ECF No. 511 (“Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin”). Defendant Christopher Cantwell was still represented by counsel in this case when Plaintiffs filed their motion, ECF No. 530, but he did not file a response in opposition within the fourteen days allowed by the Scheduling Order, ECF No. 101. See Pls.’ Req. to Deem Mot. Unopposed, ECF No. 549 (citing W.D. Va. Civ. R. 11(c)(1)). On September 23, 2019, the Court gave Cantwell another seven days to respond to several pending motions, ECF No. 559, which he did, ECF Nos. 560, 564. The Court held a hearing on October 18, at which counsel for Plaintiffs and (now former) counsel for Cantwell appeared by telephone. Cantwell joined the conference call about ninety minutes late, but he had an opportunity to address Plaintiffs’ motion and other matters. See Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Status Conf. 60, 64–76, ECF No. 579. Both parties also filed supplemental responses after Cantwell was arrested and detained on federal criminal charges in January 2020. See Pls.’ Third Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 640; Def. Cantwell’s Second Supp’l Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 664; Pls.’ Fourth Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin, ECF No. 725.
*

1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 14 Pageid#: 11149
“Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Cantwell not to make unlawful threats against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 17. They argue that this prophylactic measure is necessary because Cantwell, who has a history of criminally violent behavior, threatened Roberta Kaplan, Esq., one of Plaintiffs’ lead attorneys. Id. at 3, 9, 12–13. On June 17, 2019, Ms. Kaplan and her work on this lawsuit were featured in an article published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Id. at 3 (citing Ron Kampeas, This Jewish Lawyer Wants to Break the Back of the Violent White Nationalist Movement, Jewish Tel. Agency https://www.jta.org/2019/06/17/unitedstates/this-jewish-lawyer-wants-to-break-the-back-of-violent-white-nationalists). The article also discussed Ms. Kaplan’s role as lead counsel on a case that overturned the federal ban on samesex marriage and included excerpts of remarks Ms. Kaplan had made at a Manhattan synagogue where she spoke about her wife. Id. On June 18, Cantwell shared a link to the article on Telegram.com, a social media website. Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 1, ECF No. 511-2. Cantwell posted the following message, which appears directly above Ms. Kaplan’s photograph, with the link to the article:
After this stupid kike whore loses this fraudulent lawsuit, we’re going to have a lot of fucking fun with her. Id. As of July 2, 2019, Cantwell’s message had been seen 226 times and “OK’d” by four Telegram.com users. Id. (“4”). “This was certainly not the first offensive message Cantwell posted about Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 3 (citing Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 2, ECF No. 511-3). This time, however, Plaintiffs maintain that “Cantwell’s post went beyond menacing and offensive language: it was a thinly-veiled threat to harm Ms. Kaplan . . . and to encourage others to harm her” because of her role in this lawsuit. Id. at 3–4; see also Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin 2–3, ECF No. 523; Pls.’ First Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin 2, ECF No. 532; Pls.’
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 14 Pageid#: 11150
Second Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin 2–3, ECF No. 576. They believe Cantwell’s rhetoric and “threatening behavior will escalate, as it has in the past, and jeopardize Plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s safety and Plaintiffs’ right to a fair trial.” Id. at 2; see, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 14, Commw.’s Mot. to Revoke or Modify Bond Conditions ¶¶ 8–17, Commonwealth v. Cantwell, Nos. CR17-784, 17-845 (Albemarle Cty. Cir. Ct. July 6, 2018), ECF No. 511-15. Thus, Plaintiffs seek an order directing Cantwell to “stop making unlawful threats against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel,” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 2, and to “refrain from making unlawful threats against [them] and [their] counsel during the course of this litigation,” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Attach. 1 (proposed order), ECF No. 511-1.1 See also Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 2–3, 12, 14.
Cantwell is detained pending trial on charges that he sent “extortionate” or “threatening” communications over the internet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), (c). See Pls.’ Third Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 1, Indictment, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2020), ECF No. 640-1; Pls.’ Fourth Supp’l Resp. in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 3, Order of Detention Pending Trial, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. Feb. 27, 2020), ECF No. 725-3. His trial was set to begin in early June 2020, but now has been continued indefinitely and will not begin until the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire resumes holding grand jury proceedings and criminal jury trials. See Def.’s Mot. for Bail 2–3, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. May 22, 2020), ECF No. 28; Standing Order 20-
1 Plaintiffs do not seek sanctions against Cantwell for his past speech about this lawsuit. Compare Reddick v. White, 456 F. App’x 191, 193–94 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (magistrate judge’s order denying motion for sanctions against a non-party who allegedly threatened plaintiffs’ counsel, “issued pursuant to a district court’s inherent authority and after the underlying litigation had ended[] was ‘dispositive’ and required de novo review”), with United States ex rel. Davis v. Prince, 753 F. Supp. 2d 561, 568 (E.D. Va. 2010) (magistrate judge “appropriately denied” defendants’ request for “a protective order prohibiting the parties from making any extrajudicial statements” about the case), and Affeldt v. Carr, 628 F. Supp. 1097, 1099, 1101 (S.D. Ohio 1985) (magistrate judge overseeing pretrial matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), had authority to issue “gag order” directing new class counsel not to speak to or associate with disqualified class counsel).
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 14 Pageid#: 11151
19, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. May 26, 2020), ECF No. 29. The jury trial in this civil action will begin on October 26, 2020. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, ECF No. 598.
* * All speech “is presumptively protected under the First Amendment unless it falls within ‘certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech,’” In re White, No. 2:07cv342, 2013 WL 5295652, at *38 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2013) (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571–72 (1942)). See United States v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), aff’d, 576 U.S. 709 (2012). “[V]irulent ethnic and religious epithets,” United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 318 (1990), “sophomoric and offensive” statements, IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386, 388 (4th Cir. 1993), and “‘vulgar repudiations . . . [or] scurrilous caricatures’” are all “typically protected,” Draego v. City of Charlottesville, No. 3:16cv57, 2016 WL 6834025, at *10–11 (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2016) (Moon J.) (quoting Eichman, 496 U.S. at 318–19). Even speech “advocating violence is protected,” Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), unless “the expression is judicially determined to be a ‘true threat’ or an incitement to imminent lawlessness,” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *37. See White v. United States, 670 F.3d 498, 508–10, 513–14 (4th Cir. 2012), abrogated on other grounds by Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 2011–12 (2015))). Plaintiffs ask the Court to curb Cantwell’s future out-of-court speech about, or “against,” them and their attorneys while this case is pending. See Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 2–3, 13–19; Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Attach. 1. They assert that their proposed order would restrict Cantwell only “from making unlawful threats,” Pls. Mot. to Enjoin Attach. 1, or “[s]tatements that amount to ‘true threats,’” which are not protected by the First Amendment, Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 18 (citing Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359–60 (2003)). “‘True threats’ [are] . . . statements where the
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 14 Pageid#: 11152
speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Black, 538 U.S. at 359. “Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribeable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death,” id. at 360, “or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat,” Elonis, 135 S. Ct. at 2012 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)). See also Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d 674, 682 n.3, 692 (4th Cir. 2018) (concluding that online messages threatening to “kill,” “euthanize,” and “[g]rape”—slang for “gang rape”—members of a student organization were “true threats” under the Fourth Circuit’s “reasonable person” standard); United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 220 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Elonis does not affect our constitutional rule that a ‘true threat’ is one that a reasonable recipient familiar with the context would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm.”). In determining whether a communication rises to the level of a true threat, courts consider “whether ‘a reasonable recipient familiar with the context’ would understand the statement to be ‘a “serious expression of an intent to do harm” to the recipient.’” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *43 (quoting White, 670 F.3d at 509 (emphasis in original) (quoting Black, 538 U.S. at 359)). “[P]rotecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur’ are fundamental concerns about the security and safety of individual citizens that place [true] ‘threats of violence . . . outside the First Amendment.’” White, 670 F.3d at 507 (quoting R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 388 (1992)); see also Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 712, 729 (E.D. Va. 2015) (citing White, 670 F.3d at 507). Here, Plaintiffs assert that Cantwell’s online comment about Ms. Kaplan—that he and unidentified others are “going to have a lot of fucking fun with her” after she “loses this fraudulent
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 14 Pageid#: 11153
lawsuit”—was a “true threat” of violence against her. See Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 2, 18–19 & n.5; Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin 2–3. Thus, they seek a court order to put Cantwell “on notice that such conduct is impermissible,” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 17, and to “give Plaintiffs and their counsel a necessary, additional layer of protection and peace of mind,” id. at 2, while they litigate this closely-watched case. See id. at 3–4, 14–15, 16, 19; Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin.
Cantwell’s statements are reprehensible, but Plaintiffs’ arguments are not persuasive. Cantwell is already “on notice” that “engaging in conduct that the law prohibits,” including making “unlawful threats” against another person, “is impermissible,” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 17. See Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Enjoin 2; Def. Cantwell’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 1, ECF No. 560; Indictment, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. Jan. 22, 2020); Order of Detention Pending Trial 3–9, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. Feb. 27, 2020). There is no reason for this Court to issue an order telling him the same thing— particularly considering that Cantwell is incarcerated and likely will have extremely limited, if any, opportunity to use social media during the next several months. See, e.g., Def. Cantwell’s Second Supp’l Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 1 (noting that federal law enforcement officials “seized [his] electronic devices” on January 23, 2020, and that he is detained at the Stafford County Correctional Facility in Dover, New Hampshire, where the “‘law library’ consists of little more than a word processor”); Order of Detention Pending Trial 6, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. Feb. 27, 2020) (concluding that Cantwell should be detained pending trial notwithstanding his “willingness to submit to restrictions on his use of social media and monitoring of his internet use and electronic device(s)” if released).
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 14 Pageid#: 11154
Plaintiffs also point out that their proposed order would allow this Court to “regulate Cantwell’s threatening conduct” occurring fully outside legal proceedings, which they believe will continue or escalate absent a court order, by treating such conduct as criminal or civil contempt. Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 17–18. This argument is more persuasive, particularly considering Cantwell has acted “inconsistent[ly] with” at least one state-court order that he have “‘[n]o contact direct or indirect with the victims’” of his assault on August 11, 2017, including by “repeatedly refer[ring] to one victim by identifying characteristics on social media” and mentioning another victim “by name on a radio broadcast.” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 14, at ¶¶ 15– 17. Even so, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ proposed order is not proper—at this point in the litigation—unless Plaintiffs can show either that Cantwell’s Telegram.com post itself was a “true threat” of violence, see In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *36–61, or that “the fear of violence” attributed to Cantwell’s comment has disrupted Plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute this case, see id. at *63–69, *71. This is because “[t]he preferred place” of free speech and expression “in our constitutional scheme ‘gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.’” Id. at *38 (quoting Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1945)).
Having carefully reviewed the evidence before the Court, I am constrained to conclude that Cantwell’s repugnant Telegram.com comment comes close to—but does not cross—the line between protected speech and a true threat of physical violence. See In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *39–40. First, the comment did not expressly (or even explicitly) portend Cantwell’s intent to kill or physically injure anyone. See United States v. Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1281–82 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (finding no true threat where defendant’s prosecution-related “website contain[ed] no references to killing, execution, or blood” and “photographs on the website [were] not disfigured”). In his response opposing Plaintiffs’ motion, Cantwell explained that he “‘said . .
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 14 Pageid#: 11155
. we’re going to have fun with her’” because he knew he should “not . . . say everything I want about this asshole while I’m in the process of this legal proceeding,’” Def. Cantwell’s Supp’l Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 3 (quoting comments on radio show). He acknowledges making religious and sexual epithets, but denies the statement was an explicit threat of violence. See id. Still, Cantwell’s statement that he and others are “going to have a lot of fucking fun with” Ms. Kaplan could be understood by a reasonable recipient as implicitly promising violent retribution against her. Cf. Feminist Majority Found., 911 F.3d at 692 (“A reasonable person would not be assuaged by the fact that a threat of violence included a popular culture reference” in addition to express threats to “kill” and “euthanize” individuals); Hill v. Gaetz, No. 13cv202, 2013 WL 1196986, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2013) (prisoner’s allegation that defendantcorrectional officer told plaintiff “‘we’re going to have fun with you tomorrow,’” among other allegations, stated a plausible excessive-force claim); Garcia v. Haws, No. 1:10cv273, 2011 WL 2197942, at *18 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (evidence that defendant told his victim that “he would have fun with her,” among other things, could have persuaded a reasonable jury that defendant “formed the intent to commit forcible sexual acts on the victim when he transported her” to another town). The statement could also be taken as a threat to denigrate Ms. Kaplan more vehemently on social media, which does not involve physical violence.
Second, Cantwell’s veiled threat was expressly predicated on Plaintiffs “los[ing] this . . . lawsuit,” Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 1, which shows that any action was conditional and not imminent. Compare Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969) (war protestor’s statement, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.,” was protected speech in part because it was “expressly made conditional upon an event . . . [that he] vowed would never occur”), with United States v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 449, 452 (4th Cir.
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 14 Pageid#: 11156
2004) (defendant’s statement, “‘If George Bush refuses to see the truth and uphold the Constitution I will personally put a bullet in his head,’” was a true threat in part because it did “not indicate what events or circumstances would prevent the threat from being carried out”). That factor is not dispositive, however, particularly considering Cantwell clearly wants Plaintiffs to lose the case so he and his cohorts can have “fun” with their attorney “[a]fter” his side prevails, Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 1; see Def. Cantwell’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 1, 4, ECF No. 560. Cf. United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Most threats are conditional; they are designed to accomplish something; the threatener hopes that they will accomplish it, so that he won’t have to carry out the threats. They are threats nonetheless.” (citation omitted) (second emphasis added)).
Third, there is no evidence that Cantwell “communicated any threats directly” to Ms. Kaplan. In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *39. That fact does distinguish this case from all of the cases Plaintiffs cited in their motion, see Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 15–16, and all other “cases of which the Court [i]s aware on this topic,” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *39 (quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., Richardson v. Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 97-2313, 1998 WL 371999, at *1–3 (4th Cir. June 9, 1998) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s order dismissing case, and barring plaintiff from filing the same or related claims against defendant, where plaintiff sent three threatening letters to a key defense witness and then “perjured himself repeatedly and extensively” in denying he wrote the letters); Carroll v. Jacques Admiralty Law Firm, 110 F.3d 290, 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s award of attorney’s fees as a sanction after defendant, who was also a practicing attorney, repeatedly “threatened and cursed at [plaintiff’s] counsel” during his deposition in part because defendant “knew better” than to behave in such an “abusive, profane, and pugnacious” manner); Frumkin v. Mayo Clinic,
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 14 Pageid#: 11157
965 F.2d 620, 626–27 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court’s decision to issue a restraining order directing plaintiff not to contact defendant as a sanction after the plaintiff, who was also an attorney, repeatedly telephoned one defense witness and “threatened to kill [the witness] before killing himself” and told another defense witnesses, “‘before I die, I’m going to take . . . you with me’”); Cameron v. Lambert, No. 07cv9258, 2008 WL 4823596, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2008) (dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice as a sanction after he “threatened defense counsel with physical violence” and “used profanity” to “disparage[]” defense counsel during his deposition); Kilborn v. Bakhir, No. 01cv1123, 2004 WL 2674491, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 9, 2004) (awarding sanctions to defendant where pro se plaintiff, who was also an attorney, personally emailed defendant, his counsel, and a potential witness threatening to have them prosecuted or deported for their conduct in the lawsuit, among other things), aff’d, 102 F. App’x 328 (4th Cir. 2004); cf. Def.’s Mot. for Bail 7, United States v. Cantwell, No. 1:20cr6 (D.N.H. May 22, 2020) (noting the prosecution’s theory that Cantwell and the alleged victim “had a private back-andforth communication over social media app,” during which Cantwell allegedly told the man, “‘So if you don’t want me to come and fuck your wife in front of your kids, then you should make yourself scarce.’”).
Fourth, no evidence suggests either that Cantwell “had some control over” the roughly 200 Telegram.com users who had seen his post as of July 2, 2019, or that Cantwell’s past rhetoric “had predictably been carried out” by his followers. White, 607 F.3d at 513; see In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *58. “The only information the Court can glean about [Cantwell’s] general audience is derived from the content of [his] writings,” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *58, and his radio show and podcast, “Radical Agenda,” Supp’l Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 1, 3; Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin Ex. 5, Aff. of Oren Segal ¶¶ 22–23, ECF No. 511-6. Cantwell describes
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 14 Pageid#: 11158
Radical Agenda as a “live, uncensored, open phones Nazi themed entertainment program” where he “talk[s] shit about people who put themselves in the news.” Def. Cantwell’s Supp’l Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 1, 3. On one episode, a “fellow white supremacist . . . called for murder of Jews, stating: ‘there is only one thing absent free speech that we can do to express our dissent and that’s to slaughter you like dogs, and you’re gonna have it coming and your children will deserve to die.’” Segal Aff. ¶ 23. Plaintiffs do not allege that Cantwell expressly endorsed his guest’s vile message. According to Plaintiffs’ consultant on extremists, Telegram.com, the platform where Cantwell posted his message about Ms. Kaplan “tends to draw social media users” whose extremist views have gotten them “banded from other more mainstream social media platforms.” Id. ¶ 20. Further, Cantwell’s following on that website “which appear[s] to number in the hundreds,” likely includes “precisely those individuals who are most dangerously committed to the white supremacist ideology and capable of violence.” Id. ¶ 24. “[T]his may be an accurate characterization” of Cantwell’s fanbase, but “there is little before the Court to support” a conclusion that Cantwell’s vulgar criticism of Ms. Kaplan “to such people necessarily constitutes a threat of bodily harm” to her. In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *58. And, while “neither direct communication nor personal or group involvement in the threat is an essential component to finding a true threat, the lack of both,” White, 670 F.3d at 513, along with the fact that Cantwell did not expressly threaten to kill or physically injure his putative target, compels the conclusion that Cantwell’s Telegram.com post was not a “true threat,” see In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *60–61; Carmichael, 326 F. Supp. 2d at 1281–89. Cantwell’s “manner of discourse . . . is certainly ‘a very crude offensive method of stating’ his opinions” about this litigation and his adversaries. In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *57 (quoting White, 670 F.3d at 509). “[B]ut when such discourse does not include a ‘serious expression of intent to do harm,’
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 14 Pageid#: 11159
from the perspective of a reasonable” person familiar with this lawsuit, “it is not ‘a true threat’ beyond the ambit of First Amendment protection.” Id. (quoting White, 670 F.3d at 509).
* * * “[T]he Court does not minimize the real fear of harm and intimidation,” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *63, that Cantwell’s inflammatory comment caused Ms. Kaplan and her cocounsel, see Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 2, 12. At this point, however, there is no indication that Cantwell’s posting has had any measurable impact on the case. In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *68; Pls.’ Mot. to Enjoin 13 (describing the potential impact on deposition and trial testimony). Indeed, the Court commends Plaintiffs’ counsel’s willingness to work with Cantwell to meet his remaining discovery obligations, see Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Status Conf. 68, even after Cantwell posted a “troubling, distracting, and distressing” comment about their colleague, Pls. Mot. to Enjoin 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s measured response is a testament to their professionalism and respect for our judicial process. See Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2020 WL 2736434, at *5 (W.D. Va. May 26, 2020). In commending counsel’s dedication to their clients, “the Court does not mean to suggest” that it is penalizing their “resilience” by denying relief to which Plaintiffs might otherwise be entitled. In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *67. Rather, the Court finds Plaintiffs are not entitled to a protective order, at this time, because the available record shows that Cantwell’s online comment about Ms. Kaplan was constitutionally protected and has not interfered with this litigation. Compare In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *67, with Richardson, 1998 WL 371999, at *1–2 (district court dismissed case and barred refiling where plaintiff committed perjury and defrauded the court in falsely denying he wrote intimidating letters to a key defense witness), and Aaron v. Durrani, No. 1:13cv202, 2013 WL 12121516 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2013) (district court entered gag order after plaintiffs’ counsel used a “racially inflammatory
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 14 Pageid#: 11160
and prejudicial” moniker to refer to one defendant and wrote letters to defense counsel threatening to “‘continue the public pounding’” until “‘every judge in every case grant[ed] a gag order’” forbidding him to “utilize the press to prosecute his cases”).
“In recognizing that constitutional protection extends even to such ‘vituperative, abusive, and inexact’ speech” as Cantwell tends to post about this lawsuit, Watts, 294 U.S. at 708, the Court emphasizes there is a line that, if crossed, “exposes the speaker to lawful sanctions without regard to his otherwise robust First Amendment interest in expressing himself,” In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *57. Cantwell should know “that his conduct going forward [will] be of significant interest and concern to the Court” Id. at *4. The Court requires that Cantwell conduct himself with the same decorum, common courtesy, and professionalism expected from everyone who comes before it, see In re Paige, 738 F. App’x 85, 85–86 (3d Cir. 2016) (emphasizing “the importance [the court] place[s] on proper decorum and professionalism for all advocates who appear before [it], whether they are pro se, or licensed attorneys”); Areizaga v. ADW Corp., No. 3:14cv2899, 2016 WL 3511788, at *8 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2016) (citing Petito v. Brewster, 562 F.3d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 2009)); Lopez v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1232 (D.N.M. 2001), even when Cantwell is discussing this case and its participants outside the Court’s presence. Plaintiffs’ counsel should promptly notify the Court if they are ever concerned that Cantwell’s speech activities cross the line into unlawful threats of violence against them or their clients, In re White, 2013 WL 5295652, at *63, or meaningfully impair their ability to prepare and prosecute their case against him, see, e.g., Carroll, 110 F.3d at 294 (upholding monetary sanction against defendant “for abusive, profane, and pugnacious behavior in his deposition” in part because “[s]uch conduct . . . mocks the search for truth that is at the heart of the litigation process”); Frumkin, 965 F.2d at 627 (explaining that a restraining order prohibiting plaintiff from
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 747 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 14 Pageid#: 11161
contacting defendant’s agents, witnesses, and consultants “was well within the district court’s discretion to craft an appropriate remedy” after plaintiff called two defense witnesses and threatened to kill them).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Enjoin Defendant Cantwell from Making Unlawful Threats Against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, ECF No. 511, is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: May 29, 2020 Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
14

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 11234

CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED 06/11/2020

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division

JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK BY: /s/ J. JONES
DEPUTY CLERK

ELIZABETH SINES et al.,

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

JASON KESSLER et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions

Against Defendant James Fields. ECF No. 671 (“Pls.’ Mot.”). Plaintiffs contend that Fields has

refused to obey multiple court orders “directing him to produce documents, identify and give

access to his social media accounts, and instruct social media companies to release his messages

to Plaintiffs” and recently admitted he did not keep Christmas cards that Defendant Vanguard

America sent to him while he has been incarcerated. Pls.’ Mot. 2; see id. at 10.1 They ask the

Court to impose evidentiary sanctions to help level the playing field at trial and deter similar

misconduct. See id. at 2–3, 17–22, 23–25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). The motion has been fully

briefed, ECF Nos. 671, 686, 693, and may be decided without oral argument. Tr. of Disc. Status

Conf. 7–9 (Apr. 27, 2020), ECF No. 721; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); W.D. Va. Gen. R. 4(c)(2).

For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be granted in part and denied

in part, and their motion for sanctions will be denied without prejudice. The parties shall bear

their own expenses incurred in litigating the motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

I. Background

1 Pinpoint citations to documents filed electronically with this Court use the “page X of Y” numbers generated by CM/ECF.
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 26 Pageid#: 11235
On August 11–12, 2017, “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Sines v. Kessler, 324 F. Supp. 3d 765, 773 (W.D. Va. 2018) (Moon, J.); see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7, ECF No. 557. Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”—rather, they allege the Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Sines, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 773. Six allegedly were injured when Fields drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters after the main “Unite the Right” event on Saturday, August 12th. See id. at 774–75. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” the District Court has held the remaining Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the remaining Defendants, Fields included, “formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 773; see generally id. at 775, 778–79, 788, 796–98, 803, 807 n.10.
* Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. On October 24, Fields was personally served with a summons and copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint at a local jail, ECF No. 65, where he had been detained on state-court charges since his arrest on August 12, see Def. Fields’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 2, ECF No. 686. Fields hired David Campbell, Esq., David Hauck, Esq., and Justin Gravatt, Esq., to represent him in this matter. ECF Nos. 135, 156. Mr. Gravatt participated in the parties’ Rule 26(f) planning meeting on November 29, 2017. See Joint R. 26(f) Rep. 1, 6, ECF No. 135. The parties did not agree upon any changes to the normal discovery rules or procedures. See id. at 3–4.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 26 Pageid#: 11236
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint in early January 2018. ECF No. 175. On January 25, Plaintiffs served on Fields’s counsel their [Corrected] First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. See Pls.’ Mot. Exs. A & B, ECF Nos. 671-1, 671-2. Plaintiffs’ interrogatories asked Fields to identify “all means of communication” that he used “to communicate concerning the [August 11–12, 2017] Events,” including email accounts, social media usernames, or Discord channels, and to identify the specific “Electronic Devices” he used to communicate about those Events. Id. Ex. B, at 9. Their requests for production (“RFP”) generally sought copies of “[a]ll Documents and Communications concerning the Events” and other relevant topics like racially or religiously motivated violence. Id. Ex. A, at 9–11. Fields’s responses or objections were due by February 26. See Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2019 WL 3757475, at *6 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2019); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). His counsel missed that deadline.
I held my first conference call with counsel for the parties on March 16, 2018. See Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call, ECF No. 282. Plaintiffs’ counsel explained they had “not received any written responses to [their] requests for documents or [their] interrogatories from any of the defendants,” and “none of the defendants ha[d] produced a single document.” Id. at 10. They also had “very, very serious concerns” that relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”) would be lost or destroyed unless the Court issued a preservation order. See id. at 23. I told everyone on the call that I expected them “to preserve any potentially relevant evidence” and I took their “obligation to preserve this evidence very seriously.” Id. at 24. I also instructed the parties to meet and confer to see if they could negotiate an ESI protocol for my review. Id. at 28; see also id. at 23 (Plaintiffs’ counsel noting they were “thinking about [making] a request for an
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 26 Pageid#: 11237
independent examiner to come in and do . . . an audit of [Defendants’] devices to make sure nothing has been deleted and, if it has, to try to get it restored”). They said that they would.
On March 26, I denied Fields’s motion to stay discovery until his “criminal cases arising from the same incidents as alleged in the Amended Complaint” were resolved. Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted), ECF No. 288; see Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call 16–21, 34, 41. I also ordered Fields to respond to Plaintiffs’ first set of written discovery requests within twenty-one days. See Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 5. Counsel served his responses on April 16, 2018. See Pls.’ Mot. Exs. C & D, ECF Nos. 671-3, 671-4. In their motion, Plaintiffs assert that Fields “largely objected, did not respond, and/or otherwise failed to produce responsive information . . . . based on objections that have no merit,” Pls.’ Mot. 3, including that he could not access his social media accounts from jail, he “did not post any original information regarding the rally,” and he did not possess “any responsive, nonprivileged documents” about any lawsuits, claims of violence, or arrests relating to or arising out of his own racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated conduct, id. at 4, 5, 6. It appears that Plaintiffs’ counsel first wrote to Fields’s attorneys about these problems on November 20, 2019. Def. Fields’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 3; see Pls.’ Mot. Ex. H, Letter from D. Campbell to M. Bloch 2–3 (Jan. 23, 2020), ECF No. 671-8; Pls.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. 5, ECF No. 693; Sines, 2019 WL 3757475, at *7 (summarizing Plaintiffs’ deficiency letter sent to other defense counsel on April 24, 2018).
In June 2018, I held a conference call to discuss the parties’ progress towards negotiating an ESI protocol. Tr. of June 5, 2018 Conf. Call, ECF No. 327. Mr. Campbell indicated that Fields could not comply with an imaging order because counsel couldn’t “make the agencies that ha[d] responsive devices . . . turn them over.” Id. at 12–13. Plaintiffs’ lead attorney responded,
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 26 Pageid#: 11238
“We certainly understand, Your Honor. If Mr. Fields’[s] devices are in the possession of the government, we’ll have to work that out separately.” Id. On October 2, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection & Imaging of Electronic Devices. ECF No. 354 (“Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging”). They asked the Court “to compel Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Fields, to submit electronic devices and social media that contain potentially relevant information to a neutral, third-party vendor for imaging and preservation of evidence” and to enter their proposed protocol for those Defendants to produce any relevant nonprivileged ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs made clear that their “motion [did] not apply” to Fields, id., and they did not raise any concerns about Fields’s responses to their written discovery requests, see id. at 2–5 & n.1 (discussing other Defendants’ deficient responses and improper objections). Plaintiffs’ counsel later confirmed on the record that they were not pursuing anything from Fields through their motion to compel imaging. See Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging 4 (Nov. 9, 2018), ECF No. 385. On November 13, I granted Plaintiffs’ motion and directed the parties to file a final proposed ESI protocol for the Court’s signature. Order of Nov. 13, 2018, ECF No. 379. This laid the groundwork for the Court on November 19, 2018, to enter the Stipulation and Order for the Imaging, Preservation, and Production of Documents. ECF No. 383 (“ESI Order”).
Plaintiffs and seventeen named Defendants “stipulated and agreed to the terms set forth” in that Order. ESI Order 2.2 Fields is not one of “the ‘Defendants,’” id., and he is mentioned only once in the Order: “Due to his current incarceration, the deadlines in Section II shall not apply to
2 “Plaintiffs and Defendants Christopher Cantwell, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Heimbach, Michael Hill, Identity Ervopa, Jason Kessler, League of the South, Eli Mosely [a.k.a. Elliott Kline], Nationalist Front, National Socialist Movement, Matthew Parrott, Robert [‘Azzmador’] Ray, Jeff Schoep, Richard Spencer, Traditionalist Worker Party, Michael Tubbs, and Vanguard America (collectively, the ‘Defendants,’ and with Plaintiffs, the ‘Parties’) hav[e] stipulated and agreed to the terms set forth herein[.]” Id.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 26 Pageid#: 11239
Defendant Fields. Plaintiffs and Defendant Fields will enter into a separate stipulation and proposed order as to the timing to be applied to Defendant Fields.” Id. at 7 n.2. Section II, captioned “Collection and Imaging of Documents,” id. at 7 (n.2 omitted), sets out specific steps that “the ‘Defendants,’” id. at 2, needed to complete by certain deadlines, including giving Plaintiffs’ counsel a certification form listing electronic devices and social media accounts that may contain relevant information (14 days), making available to the Vendor for imaging any selected electronic devices and social media accounts (28 days), and reviewing the results of the collection and producing to Plaintiffs’ counsel any non-privileged ESI responsive to their discovery requests, see id. at 3, 8–9, 16. Most of the Defendants bound by the ESI Order belated complied with it. See generally Sines, 2019 WL 3767475, at *9–12.
Plaintiffs’ counsel and Mr. Campbell appeared together on multiple conference calls with me throughout 2019. See, e.g., Min. Entry of Feb. 12, 2019, ECF No. 411; Min. Entry of Feb. 21, 2019, ECF No. 425; Min. Entry of July 2, 2019, ECF No. 512; Min. Entry of Oct. 18, 2019, ECF No. 579. On February 12, during a hearing to discuss how the Court should enforce the ESI Order, I told Mr. Campbell that he probably did not need to participate in the next conference on that subject. See Tr. of Feb. 12, 2019 Disc. Conf. Call 20–21, ECF No. 419. I asked Plaintiffs’ counsel if she had “a different view,” to which she responded, “No, Your Honor, I don’t believe that Mr. Fields is part of the [S]tipulation.” Id. at 21. The parties were “about two months away from the close of discovery,” id. at 5, and had five months to prepare for a four-week jury trial scheduled to begin on July 8, 2019, see Notice of Hr’g-Jury Trial (June 12, 2018), ECF No. 328. On February 21, Mr. Campbell expressed concern that the parties could not complete discovery in time for trial. See Tr. of Feb. 21, 2019 Conf. Call 17–18, ECF No. 429.
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 26 Pageid#: 11240
On March 1, 2019, I held a motion hearing at which I also briefly addressed certain ongoing discovery problems and delays that Plaintiffs’ counsel raised in a letter sent to the Court and to all Defendants or their counsel on February 27. Tr. of Mar. 1, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 18–23, ECF No. 441; Letter from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. 1–3 (Feb. 27, 2019) (on file with Chambers). On March 4, I ordered “[a]ll Defendants covered by the [ESI] Stipulation & Order, ECF No. 383, [to] produce their electronic devices and social media account credentials . . . to the third-party vendor by the end of the day on Friday, March 8, 2019.” Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 3 (emphasis omitted), ECF No. 440. Four weeks later, I continued the trial date because “the complicated nature of discovery” and repeated delays had made it impossible for the parties to meet remaining case deadlines. Order of Apr. 4, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 461. Many of those problems continued through the summer and fall of 2019. See, e.g., Sines, 2019 WL 3757475, at *11–13; Order of June 21, 2019, at 3–4, ECF No. 508; Social Media Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 1–3, ECF No. 582 (“Social Media Order”).
In July, a Virginia state-court judge sentenced Fields to life plus 419 years’ imprisonment after a jury convicted him of second-degree murder and multiple counts of malicious wounding arising out of the August 12 car attack. The Honorable Michael F. Urbanski, Chief United States District Judge, had already sentenced Fields to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to federal hate crimes arising out of the same event. See Am. J. in a Crim. Case, United States v. Fields, No. 3:18cr11 (W.D. Va. filed Oct. 1, 2019), ECF No. 63. Fields’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination should not have been a significant barrier to civil discovery after he was sentenced in the criminal cases. Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 2–5; see N. River Ins. Co. v. Stefanou, 831 F.2d 484, 487 (4th Cir. 1987).
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 26 Pageid#: 11241
On October 16, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed me and all defense counsel expressing concern that “despite Plaintiffs’ persistent inquires and multiple Court orders, Defendants individually and collectively have a long way to go to achieve anything close to full compliance with their discovery obligations.” Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. 1 (Oct. 16, 2019 11:16 PM). While Plaintiffs had “received partial production from certain Defendants” in the preceding four weeks, “not a single Defendant ha[d] provided all outstanding electronic devices and account credentials that contain relevant content to the third-party vendor, . . . and some Defendants still ha[d] not produced a single document.” Id. Plaintiffs’ email summarized sixteen named “Defendants’ document discovery deficiencies,”3 id., as well as their counsel’s efforts to confer with certain defense attorneys. See generally id. at 1–3. It did not mention Fields or his attorneys. Later that week, I held a two-hour conference call with counsel for the parties, including Plaintiffs and Fields, to discuss several Defendants’ outstanding discovery obligations and to set a detailed timeline for the parties to complete discovery. See generally Min. Entry of Oct. 18, 2019; Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Disc. Status Conf. 4–78, ECF No. 581. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not raise any concerns about Fields’s discovery responses or production. See Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Disc. Status Conf. 26–34, 38–49, 50–74.
On October 28, I gave “each Defendant” seven days to contact the Vendor “to determine what specific information, if any, the Vendor needs to access that Defendant’s identified social media accounts and [electronic] devices” and fourteen days to “give the Vendor the last known credentials used to access the identified social media accounts, regardless of whether the
3 The sixteen Defendants were: Elliott Kline (a.k.a. Eli Mosley); Vanguard America; Jeff Schoep; National Socialist Movement; Matthew Heimbach; Christopher Cantwell; Jason Kessler; Nathan Damigo; Identity Ervopa; Matthew Parrott; Michael Hill, Michael Tubbs, and League of the South; Robert “Azzmador” Ray; Traditionalist Worker Party; and Richard Spencer. Each is also included in the definition of “the ‘Defendants’” on page 2 of the ESI Order.
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 26 Pageid#: 11242
Defendant currently has access to the platform, or whether an account is active, inactive, or inaccessible.” Social Media Order 2. I expected “[t]he parties . . . [would] work together to provide information to access any social media account and provide any Defendant’s . . . consent to access stored electronic communications and other account information to a social media provider.” Id. “Each Defendant [was] responsible for providing complete and accurate credentials (or consent) to access any social media accounts within the Defendant’s control that may contain discoverable information.” Id. The Order also directed the parties to jointly submit a proposed schedule for completing discovery that included specific deadlines for “the Vendor to provide each Defendant access to that Defendant’s imaged” ESI and for “each Defendant to review the imaged information and produce all discoverable material to Plaintiffs’ counsel in accordance with the [ESI] Stipulation and Order” entered nearly a year earlier. Id. at 3.
On November 27, I entered an amended scheduling order directing the Vendor to “provide each Defendant with a complete copy of that Defendant’s [ESI] . . . by January 15, 2020,” and giving “[e]ach Defendant” twenty-one days after the Vendor provides that material to produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel “any nonprivileged responsive ESI, along with a privilege log fully explaining why any responsive ESI was withheld.” Am. Sched. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1 (emphasis omitted), ECF No. 597. “Each party [must] produce all discoverable material to opposing counsel . . . by 5:00 p.m. EST on February 5, 2020,” and party depositions should be complete on or before July 17, 2020. Id. (emphasis omitted). A four-week jury trial starts on October 26, 2020. Id. at 2; Notice of Hr’g-Jury Trial (Nov. 27, 2019), ECF No. 598.
Plaintiffs served their Second Set of Interrogatories on October 29, 2019. See Pls.’ Mot. Ex. I, at 3–14, ECF No. 671-9. They asked Fields to describe in detail any “[c]ontact or [c]ommunication” he had with any of “the other Defendants between January 2017 and August
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 10 of 26 Pageid#: 11243
13, 2017,” as well as for information about his “relationship” with any of the organizational Defendants and his involvement in any lawsuits and criminal proceedings or investigations related to the rallies. See id. at 11–14. Mr. Campbell served responses and objections on February 3, 2020, see Pls.’ Mot. Ex. E, at 2–11, ECF No. 671-5, followed two days later by a letter supplementing those responses, id. Ex. F, at 2, ECF No. 671-6. Mr. Campbell answered the interrogatories on Fields’s behalf and invoked his client’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination in response to several questions about Fields’s post-Rally communications with law enforcement and other government officials, as well as about “any Act of Violence in which he was allegedly involved.” See id. at 6–8. The letter noted that Fields did “not recall any additional social media accounts other than those previously identified in discovery” and could not remember “the passwords to any of his accounts.” Id. Ex. F, at 2 (“Unlike some other Defendants, Fields has had no access to any social media or his phone or computer since at least August 12, 2017.”). Fields also received “Christmas cards from Vanguard America” during his incarceration, but he did not keep any of them. Id.
II. The Legal Framework “The basic philosophy” driving discovery in civil litigation today is “that prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged.” 8 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2001 (3d ed. 2002); accord Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) (“The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.”). “To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever [relevant] facts he has in his possession.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507; see Eramo v. Rolling Stone, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209 (W.D. Va. 2016).
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 11 of 26 Pageid#: 11244
Rules 26 through 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide specific devices or
procedures—such as interrogatories, document requests, and depositions—for parties to obtain
discoverable information. See Pruitt v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:15cv1310, 2016 WL 7033972,
at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 2, 2016); Middlebrooks v. Sebelius, Civ. No. 04-2792, 2009 WL 251411, at
*3 (D. Md. Aug. 13, 2009). Courts rely “in large part on the good faith and diligence of counsel
and the parties in abiding by these rules and conducting themselves and their judicial business
honestly.” Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union, 212
F.R.D. 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). When they do not, Rule 37 provides one mechanism for a
court to compel compliance, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a), or to sanction an unacceptable failure to
follow the rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)–(f).4
Under Rule 37(a), the “party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, . . . production, or inspection” from another party who “fails to answer an interrogatory
summitted under Rule 33,” or “fails to produce documents, or fails to respond that inspection
will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.”5 Fed. R. Civ. P.
4 Federal courts also have inherent power to sanction conduct that offends the legal process, including a party’s “fail[ure] to preserve or produce” discoverable information for another’s use in litigation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2004); see Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 497–99 (D. Md. 2000) (discussing both sources of the court’s authority). In this case, Rule 37(b)(2) provides an adequate framework to determine whether Fields failed to obey court orders to provide or permit discovery and, if so, whether Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions are appropriate. See Sines, 2019 WL 3757475, at *2 n.2 (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991)). 5 Rule 34 applies only to documents, ESI, or tangible things within “the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). “Control” in this context means “actual possession” or “the legal right to obtain” the requested material “on demand.” Terry v. Modern Inv. Co., No. 3:04cv85, 2006 WL 2434264, at *6 n.15 (W.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2006) (Moon, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Poole, 192 F.R.D. at 501 (explaining it “is well established” that Rule 34 should be “broadly construed” so a party may be required to produce requested materials “even though it may not actually possess” them, and adopting the movant’s position that “documents in the possession, custody or control of a party’s attorney or former attorney are within the party’s ‘control’ for the purposes of Rule 34”). There is no such limitation on a party’s obligation to answer interrogatories. Bonumose Biochem, LLC v. Zhang, No. 3:17cv33, 2018 WL 10068638, at *6 (W.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)).
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 12 of 26 Pageid#: 11245
37(a)(3)(B)(iii)–(iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Generally, “the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both” will be required to pay some portion of “the movant’s reasonable expenses,” including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing a successful motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
Separately, Rule 37(b)(2) gives the district court where an action is pending broad discretion to impose sanctions when a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). See Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Munoz, 924 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Rule 37(b)(2)(A) allows a district court to impose a sanction when a party fails to comply with a discovery order, and the court has broad discretion in fashioning its sanction when it does so.”). “The rule’s language clearly requires two things as conditions precedent to engaging the gears of the rule’s sanction machinery: a court order must be in effect, and then must be violated, before the enumerated sanctions can be imposed.” R.W. Int’l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Carriage Hill Mgmt., LLC v. Bos. Lobster Feast, Inc., No. GJH-17-2208, 2018 WL 3329588, at *5 (D. Md. July 6, 2018); Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 518–20 (D. Md. 2010). “Courts are entitled to interpret broadly what constitutes an order,” REP MCR Realty v. Lynch, 383 F. Supp. 2d 984, 998 (N.D. Ill. 2005), to provide or permit discovery under Rule 37(b)(2), see Carriage Hill Mgmt., 2018 WL 3329588, at *5 (district court’s oral order noting the parties’ agreement to provide discovery by an extended deadline did not provide grounds for relief under Rule 37(b)(2) because the oral “[o]rder did not mandate any particular action” and “did not explicitly direct any action from either party”). Cf. Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 324
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 13 of 26 Pageid#: 11246
(4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (acknowledging “the rule in this circuit that a district court . . . is best able to interpret its own orders” (quotation marks omitted)).
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “contains two standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion” in choosing sanctions.6 Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). “First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” Id. “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently,” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 (1980), “both as a matter of justice in the individual case and ‘to deter others who might be tempted to similar conduct,’” Lee v. Max Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1320 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.) (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (brackets omitted)). Sanctions include orders deeming facts established, prohibiting the disobedient party from entering designated matters in evidence, and entering default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. 37(b)(2)(A). These options “are not exclusive and arbitrary but flexible, selective, and plural. The district court may, within reason, use as many and as varied sanctions as are necessary,” 8B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2284 (3d ed. 2002), to achieve the Rule’s dual goals in the particular case, see Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34 (noting that Rule 37 sanctions serve “both normative . . . and compensatory” functions).
The Fourth Circuit has “developed a four-part test for a district court to use when determining what sanctions to impose” under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Belk, 269 F.3d at 348; see S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The
6 “Instead of or in addition to” any orders issued under this subsection, “the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to obey a discovery order], unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 14 of 26 Pageid#: 11247
court must consider: (1) “whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith”; (2) the kind and degree of prejudice that noncompliance caused its adversary; (3) the need to deter the specific sort of noncompliance; and (4) “whether [any] less drastic sanctions” would be effective. Belk, 269 F.3d at 348. Certain sanctions, such as giving an adverse inference instruction against a party who lost or destroyed material that should have been preserved for another’s use in the litigation, see Pls.’ Mot. 3, 11–14, further require the moving party to show the person “acted either willfully or in bad faith in failing to preserve relevant evidence” because an adverse inference “is not an appropriate sanction” where the “spoliator’s conduct is merely negligent,” Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172, 181 (D. Md. 2008) (citing Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450–51). See generally Ackerson v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., No. 3:17cv11, 2018 WL 3097346, at *5–12 (W.D. Va. Apr. 11, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 3097334, at *4–6 (W.D. Va. June 22, 2018) (Moon, J.).
III. Discussion Plaintiffs argue that Fields failed to fully answer the two sets of interrogatories submitted to him under Rule 33, failed to produce documents or permit inspection of his social media accounts and ESI as requested under Rule 34, and failed to obey three court orders directing “the Defendants” or “each Defendant”—i.e., Fields included—to provide or permit discovery of relevant ESI stored online or on their identified electronic devices. Pls.’ Mot. 2–3, 3–6, 7–8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)–(b); see also Pls.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. 2 (clarifying that Plaintiffs are not asking Fields to produce any electronic devices in the government’s custody because they “understand [he] cannot produce what he does not have”). While Plaintiffs filed their motion “as both a motion to compel and a motion for sanctions,” their primary concern is that the Court give an adverse-inference instruction and impose evidentiary sanctions because, in their view, “it is
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 15 of 26 Pageid#: 11248
clear Fields has not and will not produce discovery.” Pls.’ Mot. 3. I disagree that such sanctions are warranted at this point. See generally Sines, 2019 WL 3757475, at *12–13, *16. A. Written Discovery Requests
The Court’s Orders of March 26, 2018, and November 27, 2019, required Fields to fully answer or respond to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests properly served on him at least thirty days before written discovery closed on February 5, 2020. See Pretrial Order ¶ 16, ECF No. 101; Am. Sched. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1; Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 5; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Mr. Campbell served responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of RFPs and interrogatories on April 16, 2018, and to Plaintiffs’ second set of interrogatories on February 3, 2020. See Pls.’ Mot. 3, 6. Many of those responses are deficient in form or substance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
To start, Rule 33 requires that interrogatories “must be answered . . . by the party to whom they are directed,” that each interrogatory must “be answered . . . fully in writing under oath,” and that the “person who makes the answers must sign them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)– (3), (5). Plaintiffs’ interrogatories were “directed” to Fields, which means he is the only person who may “answer” and sign them.7 See Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Jose Trucking Corp., 264 F.R.D. 233, 238–39 (W.D.N.C. 2010); Saria v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 536, 538–39 (S.D. W. Va. 2005); Garguilo v. MGI Comm’ns, Civ. A. No. 91-3885, 1992 WL 22242, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 1992) (“While it is common practice for an attorney to prepare interrogatory answers, it is his client who must read and sign them . . . . under oath.” (citation omitted)). Fields did not sign any of the interrogatory responses that Mr. Campbell served on
7 Mr. Campbell must also sign the responses and objections, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B), but he cannot answer interrogatories directed to his individual client, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(A).
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 16 of 26 Pageid#: 11249
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and there is no indication that any of Fields’s purported answers were made under oath. See generally Pls.’ Mot. Ex. D, at 2–6; id. Ex. E, at 2–8. Accordingly, Fields must cure those defects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3); see Saria, 228 F.R.D. at 540–41.
Some of Fields’s responses are evasive or incomplete. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). For example, the fact that Fields cannot personally “access his social media accounts” from jail, Pls.’ Mot. Ex. C, at 4, 5, 6, does not negate his obligation to provide the requested records of his online communications. Any responsive document held by Fields’s criminal-defense attorneys would also be within Fields’s “‘control’ for the purposes of Rule 34,” Poole, 192 F.R.D. at 501, if he has “the legal right to obtain the document on demand,” Terry, 2006 WL 2434264, at *6 n.15, or to authorize counsel to release it. See Va. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.6(a), 1.16(e); cf. Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., No. 7:09cv159, 2012 WL 13024154, at *4–5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2012) (citing N.C. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.16(d)). Fields also must fully answer each of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories asking about relevant documents or communications, even if he does not possess or control the actual records. See Bonumose Biochem, 2018 WL 10068638, at *6; Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 264 F.R.D. at 239; Saria, 228 F.R.D. at 540 n.2. This obligation covers instances where Fields “liked,” shared, or reposted relevant online content originally created by other internet users. See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. 5. Finally, when “the answering party lacks necessary information to make a full, fair[,] and specific answer to an interrogatory, [he] should so state under oath and should set forth in detail the efforts made to obtain the information.” Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 264 F.R.D. at 238. Fields must supplement his interrogatory answers to cure these defects. See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. Ex. D, at 3–4 (answer to Interrogatory No. 2); id. Ex. E, at 2–4, 6 (answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 5); see also id. Ex. C, at 6–7 (response to RFP No. 5).
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 17 of 26 Pageid#: 11250
Next, Plaintiffs assert that Fields refuses to “identify and give access to his social media accounts,” Pls.’ Mot. 1, even though their original discovery requests sought his “login information” and “passwords,” see id. at 4 (“Now, Fields says he cannot remember them, perhaps because he waited two years after Plaintiffs requested this information to try to produce it.”). As far as I can tell, however, Plaintiffs have never asked Fields either “under Rule 33” or “under Rule 34,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)–(iv), to disclose any social media account credentials or otherwise give Plaintiffs direct access to those accounts. See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. Ex. B, at 9 (first interrogatories asking Defendants to identify electronic devices and social media accounts with usernames, but not their passwords or other credentials, that may contain requested materials); id. Ex. A, at 9–11 (requesting copies of documents and communications, social media activity referencing the Events or other Defendants, and “‘friends’ and/or ‘social connections’” lists). Additionally, as explained below, Plaintiffs have not shown that either the ESI Order or the Social Media Order applied to Fields. Thus, Fields’s failure to disclose his social media credentials or to give Plaintiffs direct access to those online accounts is not grounds for compelling him to do so under Rule 37(a), or for imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b).
Conversely, Plaintiffs’ RFPs do instruct all Defendants that, to the extent they or their representatives (including attorneys) do not have copies of responsive online communications that they made or received, then the Defendant “must provide the consent necessary under the Stored Communications Act to permit the providers of electronic communications services and remote computing services to produce the [underlying] documents.” Pls.’ Mot. Ex. A, at 7 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2702); see, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. 2, 15 (noting Fields’s failure “to instruct social media companies to release his messages to Plaintiffs”). Fields maintains that he is unable to obtain documents and information from his accounts that may be relevant to this case. Although it is
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 18 of 26 Pageid#: 11251
Fields’s obligation in the first instance to obtain relevant information within his control, because he has not produced the information at this point in the case, the Court will require him to provide CSA consent forms for any requested social media accounts so that Plaintiffs may nonetheless be able to obtain that information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), (a)(4). B. Discovery Orders
Plaintiffs have not shown that the ESI Order (ECF No. 383) or the Social Media Order (ECF No. 582) required Fields to provide or permit the specific discovery at issue in this motion, Pls.’ Mot. 6–8, 14–15. See R.W. Int’l Corp., 937 F.2d at 15; Carriage Hill Mgmt., 2018 WL 3329588, at *5. The ESI Order—“drafted jointly by the parties and entered at their request,” Scott v. Clarke, 355 F. Supp. 3d 472, 492 (W.D. Va. 2019) (Moon, J.)—does not list Fields among the seventeen Defendants who “stipulated and agreed to the terms” of that Order. ESI Order 2. Plaintiffs correctly point out that, “[d]ue to his current incarceration, the deadlines in Section II shall not apply to Defendant Fields,” and that “Plaintiffs and Defendant Fields will enter into a separate stipulation and proposed order as to the timing to be applied to Defendant Fields,” id. at 7 n.2 (emphasis added).8 See Pls.’ Mot. 2, 7. The problem for Plaintiffs’ Rule 37 argument, however, is that Fields is explicitly excluded from Section II’s substantive requirements that “the ‘Defendants,’” ESI Order 2, give Plaintiffs a certification form identifying all electronic devices and social media accounts that contain potentially relevant information, make those devices and accounts available to the Vendor for imaging and collection, and produce to Plaintiffs’ counsel all non-privileged ESI recovered therefrom, see id. at 7–9. Plaintiffs’ counsel also consistently represented to the Court that Fields was not one of the
8 There is no indication that counsel for Plaintiffs and Fields made any effort to negotiate this separate agreement before fact discovery closed on February 5, 2020, or before Plaintiffs filed their Rule 37 motion to compel and for sanctions on March 9, 2020. See Pls.’ Mot. 7.
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 19 of 26 Pageid#: 11252
“Defendants covered by” the ESI Order’s substantive provisions, Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 3. See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging 2–3; Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging 4; Tr. of Feb. 12, 2019 Disc. Conf. Call 21; Tr. of June 5, 2018 Conf. Call 12–13. If Plaintiffs thought those requirements should apply to Fields, then it was their attorneys’ responsibility to negotiate with Mr. Campbell and make sure Fields was on the list of “the ‘Defendants’” who “stipulated and agreed to the terms [t]herein,” ESI Order 2. Cf. Bentley Fund. Grp. v. SK & R Grp., 609 S.E. 2d 49, 56–57 (Va. 2005) (explaining that a “court may not add to the terms of the contracts of parties by construction, in order to meet the circumstances of a particular case,” and reversing the trial court’s construction of the term “Property” to include assets that were not “specifically defined” as such in the parties’ contract); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 608 S.E. 2d 504, 508–09 (Va. Ct. App. 2005) (applying principle of expression unius est exclusion alterius to a contract between private parties, and holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to award attorney’s fees for a proceeding not listed in the contract). At the very least, they should have brought to the Court’s attention Fields’s purported noncompliance before written discovery closed on February 5, 2020. Cf. Reed v. Beverly Hills Porsche, No. 6:17cv59, 2018 WL 10396252, at *2 (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2018) (Moon, J.) (“Simply put, the law does not require a trial judge to indulge discovery motions filed after a court-imposed deadline when the party had a fair opportunity to pursue the matter before the deadline.”). The Court will not add Fields’s name to the ESI Order now.
The Social Media Order entered on October 28, 2019, was the Court’s then-most recent effort to enforce the ESI Order’s terms. See Social Media Order 2–3 (directing the parties to submit proposed deadlines for each Defendant to review imaged ESI and produce discoverable material to Plaintiffs’ counsel “in accordance with” the ESI Order); Order of Mar 4, 2019, at 3 (“All Defendants covered by the [ESI] Stipulation & Order, ECF No. 383, must produce their
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 20 of 26 Pageid#: 11253
electronic devices and social media account credentials . . . to the third-party vendor” by an extended deadline).9 The Social Media Order directed “each Defendant” to: (1) contact the Vendor to “determine what specific information, if any,” the Vendor needed in order “to access that Defendant’s identified social media accounts and devices”; (2) give the Vendor “the last known credentials used to access the identified social media accounts, regardless of whether the Defendant currently ha[d] access to the platform, or whether the account [was] active, inactive, or inaccessible”; and (3) provide “complete and accurate credentials (or consent) to access any social media accounts within the Defendant’s control that may contain discoverable information.” Social Media Order 2.
As noted, this Order was entered after Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to the Court detailing sixteen named “Defendants’ document discovery deficiencies,” Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. 1–3 (Oct. 16, 2019 11:16 PM), and I held a two-hour conference call with counsel for the parties, including Mr. Campbell and Plaintiffs’ attorneys, to discuss both those problems and the discovery schedule more generally. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that “a number of defendants . . . provided credentials to the vendor, but those credentials were ineffective because the platform had suspended the account and the platform needs consent from the defendants themselves” to release the contents of their online communications. Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Disc. Status Conf. 26–27; see also id. at 28–34, 38–40. Later, counsel addressed Plaintiffs’ concerns about each Defendant named in their October 16 email to the Court. See generally id. at 38–74. Unlike Fields, those Defendants are also listed among “the Defendants” who “stipulated and agreed to the terms” in the ESI Order. See ESI Order 2; Email from M. Bloch to J. Hoppe et al. 1–3 (Oct. 16, 2019 11:16 PM). Plaintiffs’ counsel never mentioned any
9 Notably, Plaintiffs do not argue that Fields violated the March 4 Order. 20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 21 of 26 Pageid#: 11254
problems with Fields’s discovery responses or his purported failure to comply with the ESI Order during the preceding eleven months. See generally id.; Tr. of Oct. 18, 2019 Disc. Status Conf. 4–78. They now assert, for the first time, that Fields was bound by the Social Media Order’s “credentials” and “consent” provisions because the Order refers to “‘each Defendant’” and “‘all represented Defendants’ (i.e., including Fields) who appeared by telephone to discuss the Social Media Order.” See Pls.’ Mot. 6 (quoting Social Media Order 2).10
Viewing the Social Media Order in context of my other Orders and extensive discussions with counsel, I conclude that the Order did not apply to Fields. See, e.g., Order of Mar 4, 2019, at 3; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 2; Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging 3–4, 29–34; ESI Order, at 2, 7–9; cf. Belk, 269 F.3d at 324 (acknowledging “the rule in this circuit that a district court . . . is best able to interpret its own orders”). It was not unreasonable for Mr. Campbell to reach the same conclusion. Cf. Belk, 269 F.3d at 348 (explaining that the district court acted within its discretion to sanction a party under Rule 37 where pretrial order’s provision instructing parties to file witness lists on the first day of trial was “clearly for the court’s convenience and could not reasonably be interpreted to apply to disclosures to the other parties”); Sines v. Kessler, No. 3:17cv72, 2020 WL 2736434, at *11 (W.D. Va. May 26, 2020) (“Generally, a party meets the substantially justified standard [in Rule 37(b)(2)(C)] when there is a genuine dispute or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of that party’s position or conduct.”
10 Plaintiffs overlook that the Order granting their Motion to Compel Imaging similarly directed “all Defendants who appeared at the hearing” on November 9, 2018, except for Defendant Richard Spencer, to “sign the consent form allowing Discord to produce any discoverable documents or electronically stored information in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena dues tecum.” Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 2. The Order excluded Spencer because his attorney was not prepared to discuss the matter at that hearing. See Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Imaging 29–34. Mr. Campbell did not have an opportunity to address the Discord consent issue because the Court understood Plaintiffs were not seeking any discovery from Fields at that time. See id. at 3–4, 29–34. Plaintiffs do not assert that Fields was bound by the November 13 discovery order simply because Mr. Campbell appeared on the phone call. See Pls.’ Mot. 6–8.
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 22 of 26 Pageid#: 11255
(quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, neither the ESI Order nor the Social Media Order authorizes the Court to sanction Fields under Rule 37(b)(2). See R.W. Int’l Corp., 937 F.2d at 15. C. Spoliation
Finally, Plaintiffs argue Fields should be sanctioned for spoliating evidence, specifically a few Christmas cards that Fields received from Vanguard America during the two-plus years he has been incarcerated. Pls.’ Mot. 11–14, 17–19; see Def. Fields’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 6 (noting that Fields received “two Christmas cards” from Vanguard America). Spoliation is “the destruction or material alteration of evidence or . . . the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001). A party seeking spoliation sanctions must show spoliation occurred and their requested sanctions are warranted under the governing law. Blue Sky Travel & Tours, LLC v. Al Tayyar, 606 F. App’x 689, 698 (4th Cir. 2015). Spoliation has three elements:
(1) [T]he party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered; (2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a “culpable state of mind”; and (3) the evidence that was destroyed or altered was “relevant” to the claims or defenses of the party that sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence, to the extent that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the lost evidence would have supported the claims or defenses of the party that sought it. Walker v. Owens, No. 7:13cv425, 2016 WL 320998, at *2 n.3 (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2016) (Moon, J.) (alteration in original) (quoting Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009)). “[A]ny level of fault, whether it is bad faith, willfulness, gross negligence, or ordinary negligence” satisfies the second element, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 469, 497 (E.D. Va. 2011), whereas “the nuanced, fact-specific differences among these states of mind become significant in determining” any appropriate remedy or sanction for spoliation, Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 529. See Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995). Culpability also bears on the determination
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 23 of 26 Pageid#: 11256
whether the lost materials were in fact “relevant” to the claims or defenses of the party who sought those materials, as required to meet the third element. See Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 179– 80 (citing Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156).
“The broad contours of the duty to preserve are relatively clear,” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), and flow logically from a civil litigant’s obligation to disclose and produce discoverable documents relevant to any party’s claim or defense after a complaint is filed, E.I. du Pont, 803 F. Supp. 2d at 496. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 33(a)(2), 34(a)(1), 37(d)–(e). Once the duty is triggered, a party must preserve documents that he knows or should know are, “or could be, relevant to the parties’ dispute.” Blue Sky Travel, 606 F. App’x at 698 (citing Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 282 (4th Cir. 2013)). Fields’s duty to preserve potentially relevant correspondence or communications he received from any co-Defendant in this case arose, at the latest, when Plaintiffs served him with their Complaint in October 2017. See id. He certainly should have known that he needed to preserve such correspondence by the time Plaintiffs served their first set of written discovery on his attorney in January 2018. E.I. du Pont, 803 F. Supp. 2d at 496; see, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. Ex. C, at 5–7 (RFP Nos. 3, 6); id. Ex. D, at 4–5 (First Interrogatory No. 3). Thus, Fields should have saved the Christmas cards he received from Vanguard America in late 2017, 2018, or 2019. See Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call 24 (The Court: “[I]t is incumbent upon everyone to preserve any potentially relevant evidence. . . . I do take everyone’s obligation to preserve this evidence very seriously.”). Fields admits he threw away two cards. Def. Fields’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 6.
The next question is whether Fields discarded the Christmas cards “with a culpable state of mind.” E.I. du Pont, 803 F. Supp. 2d at 497. “[A]ny level of fault,” whether ordinary
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 24 of 26 Pageid#: 11257
negligence, gross negligence, willfulness, or bad faith, satisfies this element.11 Id. Plaintiffs
maintain “[t]here should be no question that Fields destroyed [t]his correspondence in bad faith”
because he threw away the Christmas cards “after his duty to preserve arose, with knowledge of
the Complaint,” Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, Pls.’ Mot. 14, and his “sworn statements” that “he
never communicated with Vanguard America,” id. at 9, 14, and “he waited two years—until the
last day of document discovery—to disclose his spoliation,” id. at 14. I cannot reach the same
conclusion based on the information available to the Court.
Fields’s failure to save Vanguard America’s cards was negligent, “perhaps even grossly
negligent,” Ackerson, 2018 WL 3097346, at *9, considering that he received them after being
arrested for his conduct at the Rally, and possibly many months after Mr. Campbell responded
on Fields’s behalf to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in April 2018. Cf. id. (finding the same where
defendant’s former employee threw away notes from meetings he had with plaintiff after he
received in-house counsel’s preservation order, even though he insisted the notes would not have
contained relevant information). “The fundamental element of bad faith spoliation is advantage-
seeking behavior by the party with superior access to information necessary for the proper
administration of justice.” In re Ethicon, 299 F.R.D. at 519. At this point, all the Court knows
about Vanguard America’s cards is that Fields received them sometime after August 2017.
11 “Negligence is a lack of due care, the failure to exercise the level of care expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under like circumstances.” In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., 299 F.R.D. 502, 519 (S.D. W. Va. 2014). “Gross negligence is the same as ordinary negligence, except in degree.” Id. “In contrast, willfulness and bad faith require ‘intentional, purposeful, or deliberate conduct,’” id. (quoting Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 530), undertaken with the knowledge that the evidence was relevant to some issue in the litigation, see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450. “The fundamental element of bad faith spoliation is advantage-seeking behavior by the party with superior access to information necessary for the proper administration of justice.” In re Ethicon, 299 F.R.D. at 519 (quoting Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 645 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Willfulness requires a slightly lesser showing “that the actor intended to destroy the evidence,” Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 530, when he “knew the evidence was relevant to some issue” in litigation, see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450.
24

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 25 of 26 Pageid#: 11258
There’s no information about their message or contents, other than Mr. Campbell’s suggestion that they probably were not “hate mail.” See Def. Fields’s Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 5–6. While it is possible the lost Christmas cards would have supported Plaintiffs’ claim that Fields conspired with other alleged Vanguard America members to commit racially motivated violence, see Pls.’ Mot. 2–3, 10, 13, neither party has presented any evidence suggesting Fields feared their contents would “expose relevant, unfavorable facts” about their alleged association, Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 179. See Ackerson, 2018 WL 3097346, at *10–11 (discussing evidence necessary to show relevance and intent). Thus, even assuming spoliation occurred, the Court cannot yet conclude Fields threw away the Christmas cards “for the purpose of depriving [his] adversary of evidence,” Powell v. Town of Sharpsburg, 591 F. Supp. 2d 814, 820 (E.D.N.C. 2008). Giving an adverse-inference instruction on this record would be inappropriate. Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 181.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, I find that Fields failed to properly answer interrogatories that Plaintiffs submitted to him under Rule 33 and failed to produce relevant documents as requested under Rule 34. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will be GRANTED IN PART and Fields shall have twenty-one (21) days to cure the defects discussed in Section III.A. Plaintiffs’ motion will be DENIED in all other respects. The parties shall bear their own expenses incurred in litigating the motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Plaintiffs failed to show that either the ESI Order or the Social Media Order required Fields to provide or permit discovery beyond the materials or information that Plaintiffs properly requested from him under Rule 33 or Rule 34—which did not include requests to disclose any social media credentials or to give Plaintiffs direct access to any online accounts. Accordingly,
25

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 759 Filed 06/11/20 Page 26 of 26 Pageid#: 11259
their motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) will be DENIED in its entirety. Their request for an adverse-inference instruction related to the Christmas cards from Vanguard America will be DENIED without prejudice.
A separate Order shall enter. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to the parties.
ENTER: June 11, 2020 Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
26

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 42 Pageid#: 15595

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

ELIZABETH SINES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER, et al., Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ third motion for nondispositive Rule 37

sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline (a.k.a. Eli Mosley). ECF No. 601 (“Pls.’ 3d Mot. for

Sanctions”); see Pretrial Order ¶ 13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)), ECF No. 101. Kline, who

is representing himself, ECF No. 347, did not file a response within fourteen days. Accordingly,

I consider Plaintiffs’ motion to be unopposed by Kline. Pretrial Order ¶ 7. Defendants Richard

Spencer and Christopher Cantwell each filed a brief opposing Plaintiffs’ requests for evidentiary

sanctions, ECF Nos. 469, 637, to which Plaintiffs replied, ECF Nos. 475, 478, 641.1 The matter has been fully briefed, see ECF Nos. 601, 604, 642, 645, 649, 682,2 and may be decided without

another hearing, see ECF Nos. 504, 600, 609, 632. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); W.D. Va. Civ. R. 11(b).

Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, ECF No. 601, will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. The Legal Framework

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the district court where an

action is pending broad discretion to impose sanctions whenever “a party . . . fails to obey an

1 The documents at ECF No. 478 to 478-8 are certain exhibits to Plaintiffs’ reply to Spencer’s brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ first motion for evidentiary sanctions against Defendants Kline and Matthew Heimbach, ECF No. 475. These exhibits are sealed. See Order of Apr. 25, 2019, ECF No. 477. 2 Docket entries 604 and 682 are sealed. See Oral Order, ECF No. 624; Order of Mar. 16, 2020, ECF No. 681. Redacted versions of these filings may be found at ECF No. 627 and ECF No. 679, respectively.
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 42 Pageid#: 15596
order to provide or permit discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).3 See Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Munoz, 924 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Rule 37(b)(2)(A) allows a district court to impose a sanction when a party fails to comply with a discovery order, and the court has broad discretion in fashioning its sanction when it does so.”). “The rule’s language clearly requires two things as conditions precedent to engaging the gears of the rule’s sanction machinery: a court order must be in effect, and then must be violated, before the enumerated sanctions can be imposed.” R.W. Int’l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Carriage Hill Mgmt., LLC v. Bos. Lobster Feast, Inc., No. GJH-17-2208, 2018 WL 3329588, at *5 (D. Md. July 6, 2018); Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 518–20 (D. Md. 2010). “Courts are entitled to interpret broadly what constitutes an order” under this subsection. REP MCR Realty v. Lynch, 383 F. Supp. 2d 984, 998 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (“Although Rule 37 requires a party to violate a judicial directive in order to impose sanctions, a formal, written order to comply with discovery is not required.” (quotation marks omitted)); cf. Belk v. CharlotteMecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 324 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (recognizing “the rule in this circuit that a district court . . . is best able to interpret its own orders” (quotation marks omitted)). “[A]n oral directive from the district court provides a sufficient basis for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions if it unequivocally directs the party to provide the requested discovery,” Halas v. Consumer Servs., Inc., 16 F.3d 161, 164 (7th Cir. 1994), or to conduct itself in a manner that will
3 Federal courts also have inherent power to sanction conduct that offends the legal process, including a party’s “fail[ure] to preserve or produce” discoverable information for another’s use in litigation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2004); see Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 497–99 (D. Md. 2000). In this case, Rule 37 provides an adequate framework for sanctioning Kline’s repeated failures to obey court orders directing him to provide or permit discovery. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) (“[W]hen there is bad-faith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than [its] inherent power. But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither [a] statute or the Rules are up to the task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power.”).
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 42 Pageid#: 15597
permit anticipated discovery, see Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 519–20 (party’s failure to comply with court’s oral directive to preserve relevant information provided basis for Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions).
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “contains two standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion. First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.”4 Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently,” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 (1980), “both as a matter of justice in the individual case and ‘to deter others who might be tempted to similar conduct,’” Lee v. Max Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1320 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.) (brackets omitted) (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976)). See Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34. Sanctions include orders deeming certain facts established, allowing or requiring an adverse inference, and entering default judgment against the disobedient party. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). These options are “flexible, selective, and plural. The district court may, within reason, use as many and as varied sanctions as are necessary,” 8B Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2284
4 “Instead of or in addition to” any orders issued under this subsection, “the court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to obey a discovery order], unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). I previously ordered Kline to pay $12,538.33 in Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees caused by his failure to obey at least four separate discovery orders. Mem. Op. of May 26, 2020, at 1, 4, 21, ECF No. 738 (citing ECF Nos. 287, 379, 383, 440); see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 26, 33–36. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Plaintiffs’ “renewed” request for evidentiary sanctions against Kline. Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4; see Order Finding Elliott Kline in Civil Contempt 13, 16 (taking second request under advisement), ECF No. 599 (“First Civil Contempt Order”); Order of June 21, 2019, at 1 (taking first request under advisement), ECF No. 508.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 42 Pageid#: 15598
(3d ed. 2002), to achieve Rule 37’s goals in a particular case, see Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34.
The Fourth Circuit has “developed a four-part test for a district court to use when determining what sanctions to impose” under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Belk, 269 F.3d at 348; see S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The court must consider: “(1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective.” S. States, 318 F.3d at 597 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp’t of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1998)); see Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 784 F. App’x 118, 123–24 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). Some sanctions, including an adverse inference, require the court to find that the disobedient party acted willfully or in bad faith. Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172, 181 (D. Md. 2008) (citing Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450–51); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) (permitting an adverse inference where electronically stored information that should have been preserved for litigation was “lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,” but “only upon finding that the party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation”). The Fourth Circuit has not clearly defined the burden or standard of proof on a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b). Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Anta (China) Co., Ltd., No. 1:17cv1458, 2018 WL 7488924, at *11 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018), adopted by 2019 WL 969572, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2019); Glynn v. EDO Corp., Civ. No. 07-1660, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2010). “However, proving misconduct by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, as opposed to by a mere preponderance,
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 42 Pageid#: 15599
certainly suffices,” Glynn, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2, especially when the sanction does not result in dismissal or default judgment against the disobedient party, see Anderson, 155 F.3d at 504–05. Here, Plaintiffs produced persuasive evidence of Kline’s willful disobedience to satisfy the more demanding “clear and convincing” standard. See Order Finding Elliott Kline Remains in Civil Contempt & Order to Surrender to USMS Custody 8, ECF No. 610 (“Second Civil Contempt Order”); First Civil Contempt Order 7–12.5
II. Background6 On August 11–12, 2017, the “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1; see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7. These rallies are now known as “Unite the Right.” Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”— rather, they allege that Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1–2. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” the District Court has held the remaining Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that certain Defendants, Kline included, “formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 1.
5 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed on the case docket, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, typically use the header page numbers generated by CM/ECF and the exhibit labels assigned by the filing party. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the number printed on the upper right-hand corner of the cited page. 6 This section summarizes certain factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 557. “While the Court does not repeatedly state ‘Plaintiffs allege that Defendant X did Y,’ this summary should not be taken as the Court’s endorsement of one version of the facts.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 3 (July 8, 2018), ECF No. 335.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 42 Pageid#: 15600
Kline, who also goes by “Eli Mosley,” is associated with the white-supremacist group Defendant Identity Evropa, which he led from August to November 2017. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29–30; Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. A, Tr. of Elliott Kline Dep. 28–29, 48–49, 68 (Aug. 7, 2019), ECF No. 601-1 (“Kline Dep. Tr.”). He “has described himself as the ‘command soldier major of the ‘alt-right.’” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 29. Kline played a central role in planning Unite the Right. See First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 56–57 (Nov. 25, 2019), ECF No. 600; Kline Dep. Tr. 26, 106; Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 3, Tr. of Jason Kessler Dep. 237 (May 16, 2018), ECF No. 457-3; id. Ex. 2, Tr. of Erica Alduino Dep. 189 (Dec. 3, 2018), ECF No. 457-2. Kline “communicated with [his] co-Defendants and others before, during, and after these events. Most of that activity occurred online.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 7, ECF No. 539; see id. at 8–11. For example, Kline and Defendant Jason Kessler “moderated and managed” part of an online platform called Discord. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 7. “This ‘invite only’ platform allowed Defendants and their chosen invitees to engage in private conversations during the lead up to the events.” Id. (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71– 74). “Conversation on Discord included mundane planning details, racist ‘jokes,’ and concrete threats of violence,” id. at 8, including running over counter-protestors marching in the streets, id. at 42–43.
In June 2017, “Kline drafted and circulated to ‘group leaders’ a working document titled ‘Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0.’” Pls.’ 3d. Mot. for Sanctions 6 (citing id. Ex. B (“Report Version: 6/11/2017 Initial OPORD”), ECF No. 601-2, at 2–8); see also id. at 15 (citing Kline Dep. Tr. 175–76, 371–73). As of June 11, the event was “being organized by” Kline and Kessler “with a few others” acting as event coordinators on Discord. Id. Ex. B, at 2, 6. Kline also oversaw “Information Sharing,” and he instructed the “group leaders” who received his report to
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 42 Pageid#: 15601
“not discuss the specifics of this event outside of official discussion channels.” Id. at 5 (“[W]e’d like to keep the info leaks to a minimum on certain things.”). Kline listed his Discord username, a (610) phone number, and email address, and encouraged recipients to “[f]eel free to msg/call whenever.” Id. at 6; see also id. at 4 (“If you’d like to volunteer . . . please contact Eli Mosley via Discord. . . .”). That July, Kline told Discord users on the “Charlottesville 2.0” server, which he controlled, that he would not tolerate them sharing any information about the event “outside of closed circles.” Pls.’ 3d. Mot. for Sanctions Ex. D, Eli Mosley, Discord (July 11, 2017 2:14 PM), ECF No. 601-4, at 8. In August, Kline shared updated versions of the “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0” planning document listing the same Discord username and email address, but a new (347) phone number. Id. Ex. E (“Report Version: 8/8/2017 Security Orders”), ECF No. 601-5, at 3; id. Ex. F (“Report Version: 8/10/2017 Security Orders”), ECF No. 601-6, at 3. Kline told group leaders that this was his “direct contact information” and encouraged them to call or “message [him] directly for anything regarding the event.” Id. (“Feel free to msg/call whenever.”).
Kline, Kessler, and other Defendants also organized a “secret” torchlight parade through the University of Virginia’s grounds on the night of Friday, August 11, 2017. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 143. During one planning call on Discord, Kline told participants, “‘We are doing a torch light event on Friday. Anyone who doesn’t have tiki stuff now should go out and get it tonight or tomorrow morning and if you could get extras that would be great.’” Id. ¶ 146 (alteration omitted). On Friday evening, Kline posted on Discord that “everyone can start assembling at Nameless Field right now with your torches to start staging. We will step off from the field at 10 pm.” Id. ¶ 151 (capitalization corrected). Kline “would later approvingly tweet [a] picture” of Defendant Christopher Cantwell “spraying pepper spray in a counter-protester’s eyes,
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 42 Pageid#: 15602
saying ‘He protect / He attack / But most importantly he got your back.’” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 33 (quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 172 (brackets omitted)).
Finally, Kline communicated with others on the ground in Charlottesville on August 12, 2017. He and Kessler “exhorted rallygoers to arrive before the park opened to form a ‘white bloc barrier . . . around the entire statue + podium. Given that they know we’re coming, we’ll all need as many people as possible to be there right when the park opens.’” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 188 (alteration omitted). By 11:22 a.m., local law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to leave. Id. ¶ 222. Several Defendants went to nearby McIntire Park where they “discussed returning to Emancipation Park in defiance of police orders.” Id. ¶ 230. Kline went online looking for “people with guns: ‘I need shooters,’ he said. ‘We’re gonna send 200 people with long rifles back to that statue.’” Id.
* Kline later testified that he made “five or six versions” of the “Charlottesville 2.0” planning document, each several pages long, by typing and editing the document on his cell phone. He did not use a computer to plan or communicate about Unite the Right. Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 15 (citing Kline Dep. Tr. 175–76, 371–73); see also First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 34, 55–57; Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 11–12 (Dec. 16, 2019), ECF No. 609; Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 10–11, ECF No. 632; Kline Dep. Tr. 107–08, 120–22, 175–76, 371–73, 376. Kline had a computer before he moved to South Carolina in 2016 or 2017, but he did not take it with him either because he “couldn’t fit all of [his] stuff in the car,” Kline Dep. Tr. 112, or because he “dropped the computer” while moving “and it basically fell apart,” First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 34; see also Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 11–12 (“[This was] a computer that I used before I was a member of the Alt-right. The last time I had used it was in 2016, and it wasn’t used for any
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 42 Pageid#: 15603
purposes related to Unite the Right or any communication. . . . [W]hen I moved back in 2016, that computer had been dropped, and it must have been thrown out when we were moving.”). At Kline’s first deposition in August 2019, Plaintiffs showed him several Discord chats from late March 2017 in which Kline referred to “my computer,” “my PC,” or “my home PC.” See Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 14–15 (citing Pls.’ Decl. in Supp. of 2d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. F, EliMosley#5269, Discord (Mar. 22, 2017 8:42 PM) (“I have the screen cap on my home PC”), ECF No. 566-6; id. Ex. G, EliMosley#5269, Discord (Mar. 22, 2017 5:02 PM) (“if he comes in and I have to defend myself all they have to do is look through my computer and im fucked so not really a good option”), ECF No. 566-7; id. Ex. I, EliMosley#5269, Discord (Mar. 31, 2017 10:38 PM) (“the phone is backed up on my PC”), ECF No. 566-9; id. Ex. H, EliMosley#5269, Discord (Mar. 22, 2017 4:45 PM) (“they share a wall with my computer”), ECF No. 566-8). Kline admitted under oath that he sent one Discord chat about someone “look[ing] through my computer,” but explained that he must have been referring to the “computer screen” he and his girlfriend used “to watch Netflix and stuff like that” since they “didn’t have a TV.” Kline Dep. Tr. 401–03.7
III. Procedural History Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. Kline was properly served with a summons and copy of the Complaint at his residence in Reading, Pennsylvania on October 27. ECF No. 62. Two weeks later, “Eli Mosley” told his Twitter followers, “[W]e still have a lot of legal battles ahead of us so check out IdentityEvropa.com for info on our case. I’ll also be on a few podcasts this weekend chatting about this stuff since it is crucial that we
7 In March 2020, Kline’s now ex-girlfriend testified that when Kline moved into her South Carolina apartment in June 2017, he brought a tower computer and three flat-screen monitors. See ECF No. 682-2, at 105–06, 110–11. She observed Kline using the computer “all the time” and purchased an internet subscription for Kline because he “said that he couldn’t plan the rally” without it. Id. at 107.
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 42 Pageid#: 15604
continue to win in court for the future of our people.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 6, at 3, @EliMosleyIE, Twitter (Nov. 9, 2017 5:13 PM), ECF No. 457-6.
On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs served their Corrected First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on Kline through his then-counsel.8 See First Civil Contempt Order 6–7; Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 11–12, 14–16, 29. Those requests sought “information and materials directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case,” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29, including copies of any “emails, text messages, recordings, or social media content related to the preparation, planning, transportation to, or coordination for” the August 11–12 events and information identifying “all means of communications used to discuss the events, as well as the specific electronic devices used for such communications,” id. at 12 (cleaned up). Kline’s proper responses or objections were due by February 26, 2018. Id. at 29. He did not respond in any fashion. Id.
Kline’s actions in this case over the next eighteen months are well documented. See, e.g., Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1–2, 12–17, 30 n.11 (March 2018 to July 2019); Order to Show Cause & Certified Facts 8–12 (July to October 2019), ECF No. 584 (“Certification Order”); First Civil Contempt Order 3–7, 9–12 (November 2019). In short, he disobeyed numerous court orders to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials within his control “while the litigation slowed and everyone else’s costs piled up.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29. The first order, issued at my initial conference call with the parties on March 16, 2018, was an oral directive that
8 Kline was one of several Defendants who retained James Kolenich, Esq., and Elmer Woodard, Esq., to represent them in this matter beginning on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 131. In July 2018, I allowed Messrs. Kolenich and Woodard to withdraw from representing Kline because he had stopped communicating with them and refused their instructions to cooperate in discovery. See Order of July 25, 2018, ECF No. 347; Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 16–17. At the same time, I gave Kline an additional fourteen days, or until August 8, 2018, to answer Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Order of July 25, 2018, at 1; First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 4–5; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Kline still has not filed any responsive pleading in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 42 Pageid#: 15605
I expected everyone on the call, Kline’s attorneys included, “to preserve any potentially relevant evidence” and that I took their “obligation to preserve this evidence very seriously.” Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call 24, ECF No. 282; see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 12–13. The others were written orders setting out clear step-by-step instructions how Kline could “make good [his] discovery obligation” by deadlines repeatedly extended, Lee, 638 F.3d at 1321. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 13–15, 17–20, 22; Order of Mar. 26, 2018, ECF No. 287; Order of Nov. 13, 2018, ECF No. 379; Stip. & Order of Nov. 19, 2018, ECF No. 383; Order of Mar. 4, 2019, ECF No. 440; see also First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 48–51, 75–76. Yet, Kline’s “consistent ‘practice from the very beginning [was] to ignore outright the court’s orders or submit chaotically and defectively to them.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30 (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 94 (4th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiffs also produced evidence showing Kline was active on social media—even commenting about ongoing litigation—when he should have been participating in discovery and other pretrial proceedings.9
On October 30, 2019, I issued an Order to Show Cause and Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), detailing Kline’s habitual noncompliance with my discovery orders and general failure to participate in discovery. See Certification Order 4–12. The Order certified facts “show[ing] that Kline disobeyed seven court orders requiring him to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials and information for Plaintiffs’ use in this litigation.” Id. at 12 (citing ECF Nos. 287, 383, 397, 440, 508, 516, 538). It also found that “most” of Kline’s answers to
9 In late May 2018, Twitter user “Sheli Shmosley,” an account that Kline has admitted he controlled, contradicted another user’s description of the Unite the Right (“UTR”) rally, tweeting “[that] is not in anyway [sic] how UTR happened. I can’t say much more for obvious reasons but that’s just untrue.” Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 6, at 5, @Sheli_Shmosley, Twitter (May 27, 2018 7:47 PM); see Pls.’ First Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. B, Email from E. Kline to K. Kim & M. Bloch (Dec. 4, 2019), ECF No. 604-2, at 2–3. Kline was still represented by counsel at this time. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30 n.11.
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 42 Pageid#: 15606
Plaintiffs’ questions at his recent court-ordered deposition were “evasive, internally inconsistent, or simply not believable.” Id. at 10; see also id. at 8–11 (discussing orders issued on June 21, July 3, and August 8, 2019). For example, Kline admitted that both the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel had contacted him at the correct email address, phone number, and physical address, but he testified that he “didn’t know” which court conferences “he was supposed to attend” and that he “wasn’t given a means” to provide the requested discovery. Id. at 10–11 (citing Kline Dep. Tr. 35–36, 38, 138, 140–42, 203–08, 239, 250–51, 266–67, 269–71, 291–302, 305, 318 (Aug. 7, 2019), ECF No. 566-3). Or, if Kline did receive this information, he just never bothered to do anything with it. Id. at 11 (citing Kline Dep. Tr. 203, 204–08, 291–92, 301, 303, 305). Kline also admitted that he had responsive information in his possession, his former counsel had explained he must preserve any potentially relevant evidence for discovery, and he understood his obligation to produce any requested materials to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Yet, he never took any steps to preserve this information, such as backing up his emails or the contents of his phones. Id. (citing Kline Dep. Tr. 82, 91–92, 139, 209–10, 214–17, 219–21, 225–26, 229–33, 244–45, 273). Based on my familiarity with the protracted discovery in this case generally, and Kline’s continued contumacious behavior in particular, I recommended that the Honorable Norman K. Moon, presiding District Judge, grant in part Plaintiffs’ second motion for sanctions, find Kline in civil contempt, and impose graduated sanctions to coerce his compliance with my discovery orders. See id. at 12–13; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iv). I also ordered Kline to appear in person before Judge Moon on November 25, 2019, to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified in my order.
On November 14, Judge Moon issued his own Show Cause Order directing Kline to appear as scheduled on November 25 and giving him until 5:00 p.m. EST on November 21,
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 42 Pageid#: 15607
2019, to send to the Third Party Discovery Vendor specific electronic devices and social media credentials; to provide “full and complete written answers” to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production; to “confirm by email” to Judge Moon’s Chambers, my Chambers, and Plaintiffs’ counsel that “the above steps ha[d] been taken,” and attach to the email a copy of his written answers to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests; and to file any brief or response to the facts certified and the issues raised in my Certification Order that he wanted Judge Moon to consider at the contempt hearing on November 25. See First Show Cause Order ¶¶ 1–4, ECF No. 588.10 At 1:26 a.m. on November 21, Kline emailed my Chambers and one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys (but not Judge Moon’s Chambers) claiming that he was having trouble accessing his email and communicating with the Court, he only just learned of the November 25 hearing, his car was not working and he could not afford to fix it, he planned to stay in New York until after Thanksgiving and therefore did “not think [he] could make” it to Charlottesville until early December, and he intended to comply with his discovery obligations. See Second Show Cause Order 1, ECF No. 591. The same day, Judge Moon issued a second Show Cause Order informing Kline that the contempt hearing would proceed as scheduled; reiterating the specific steps that Kline needed to take, by 5:00 p.m. that evening, to fulfil his outstanding discovery obligations; advising Kline that his failure to appear at the contempt hearing and to comply with Judge Moon’s orders “could result in additional grounds of contempt”; and warning Kline that his failure to appear in person on November 25 could result in the Court issuing a bench warrant and directing the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to arrest Kline,
10 Judge Moon also invited Plaintiffs file a response by 5:00 p.m. EST on November 21, 2019. See Order of Nov. 14, 2019, ECF No. 587. Their “response stated, in relevant part: ‘Plaintiffs agree entirely with the facts certified by Judge Hoppe.’” First Civil Contempt Order 3.
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 14 of 42 Pageid#: 15608
transport him to Charlottesville, and hold him in custody until he purged himself of contempt. Id. at 2–3. He also gave Kline one extra day to respond to my Certification Order. See id.
Kline emailed his response to the Court on November 22, 2019. He “did not directly challenge any of [my] certified facts or assert that they did not amount to civil contempt.” First Civil Contempt Order 3. He briefly addressed a few issues raised therein, namely that “he had only just gotten access” to one cell phone; he “could not access his social media accounts, and so could not turn over credentials” to the discovery vendor; he “had not received a copy of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests”; and he had “difficulties communicating with counsel or the Court” using the email address that he provided. Id. at 3–4.
Kline did appear for the contempt hearing on November 25, 2019. Not surprisingly, though, he “did not avail himself of th[e] off-ramp” Judge Moon gave him nearly two weeks earlier. See First Civil Contempt Order 1 (“[Kline] failed to complete his outstanding discovery obligations before the Contempt Hearing.”). At the hearing, Judge Moon heard testimony from Kline and argument from the parties. He found “Kline’s excuses for non-compliance with a multitude of court orders unbelievable, contradictory, and at odds with the plain facts in the record.” Id. at 2; see also First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 49–51, 66, 68. Judge Moon adopted and entered as factual findings the facts in my Certification Order, see First Civil Contempt Order 4, noting that they “reflect[ed] a thorough examination of the record and [were] persuasive,” id. at 2, in documenting “Kline’s repeated failures to respond to discovery or discovery orders” over the previous twenty-two months. See id. at 4. Judge Moon further found that Kline’s statements “about his inability to access his ‘Eli F Mosley’ email account [were] not credible” because “Kline testified at his August 7 deposition that he did have access to and was able to log into the account, and he confirmed to his former lawyer in June 2019 that [this] email [address] was
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 15 of 42 Pageid#: 15609
correct and Kline could check it.” Id. at 5 (footnote citations omitted). Judge Moon also found that Kline had received Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests in January 2018 and that Kline’s explanation why he never responded to those requests was not credible considering his deposition testimony and representations to the Court in August 2019. See id. at 6–7. In short, Kline “continued to deflect blame off himself and onto others, at bottom, based upon excuses that he was too busy to respond.” Id. at 7.
On November 27, 2019, Judge Moon issued a written order finding “Kline to be presently in contempt of court, and that each of the [four] elements of civil contempt ha[d] been shown by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 9 (citing JHT Tax v. H&R Block E. Tax Servs., 395 F.3d 699, 705 (4th Cir. 2004)). First, “[n]umerous valid orders,” including those that I issued on July 3 and August 8, 2019, and that Judge Moon issued on November 14, 2019, “all required Kline” to take specific steps, within finite periods of time, to provide or permit discovery. See id. at 9–11. Second, the “Orders were in Plaintiffs’ favor” because Plaintiffs were entitled to Kline’s complete, timely responses to their valid discovery requests, id. at 10 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34), and the Orders were a “necessary step to ensure the collection of potentially discoverable information from Kline, and to guard against concerns [over] spoliation of discoverable information,” id. at 11 (footnote citations omitted). Third, “Kline had actual and constructive knowledge of these Orders” and he violated their terms by failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests, failing to produce electronic devices for imaging, and failing to provide complete and accurate information for all of his social media accounts. Id. at 9, 11 (footnote citations omitted). Finally, Plaintiffs “suffered harm as a result of Kline’s continued violations of those Orders.” Id. at 10, 12 (footnote citations omitted). Judge Moon found this harm “to be self-evident,” but noted the “financial harm and harm and delay to [Plaintiffs’]
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 16 of 42 Pageid#: 15610
ability to timely develop and present [their] case was ably articulated by Plaintiffs’ counsel” at the contempt hearing. Id. at 12; see also id. at 10. Thus, Judge Moon would “impose upon Kline a fine of $200 per day of non-compliance, . . . payable to Plaintiffs.” Id. at 13.
But Judge Moon also gave Kline an opportunity to purge himself of civil contempt— without paying any money—simply by completing step-by-step instructions to fulfil his outstanding discovery obligations. See id. at 13, 14–15. He suspended the imposition of sanctions for five days, “such that the first $200 fine would be incurred on Monday, December 2, 2019, at 5:00 P.M. EST, if Kline should remain in non-compliance on that date and time; and each subsequent daily $200 fine will be incurred at 5:00 P.M. EST, on each following day of non-compliance, and continuing until Kline purges himself of contempt.” Id. at 13. “Should the imposition of such daily fines prove insufficient to achieve” compliance with the prior discovery orders, however, Judge Moon was “prepared to . . . incarcerate Kline until he purge[d] himself of contempt.” Id. Judge Moon also set a second in-person hearing for December 16, 2019, to evaluate Kline’s progress. See id. at 13–14. “In the interim, Kline’s efforts should [have] demonstrate[d] a single-minded focus on purging himself of contempt.” Id. at 14.
Kline did not take this off-ramp, either. See Second Civil Contempt Order 1. In fact, by the time Plaintiffs filed this third motion for sanctions on December 6, 2019, Kline had given them only a single document: a different version of the August 10, 2017 “Operation Unite the Right Charlottesville 2.0” planning document. See Pls.’ 3d Mot. For Sanctions 16 (citing id. Ex G (“Report Version 8/10/2017 General Orders”), ECF No. 601-7, at 7–15. This version encouraged Unite the Right attendees to follow the Twitter handle “@NotEliMosley” for event updates, but it did not list Kline’s phone number(s) or email address(es). Id. Ex. G, at 12; see Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 11–15 (discussing Kline’s multiple phone numbers, email addresses,
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 17 of 42 Pageid#: 15611
and mobile electronic devices used in 2017). On December 5, Kline told Plaintiffs’ counsel this was “the only document” he used for Unite the Right: “I would just edit the document on google docs and then send it to someone else to edit it and post it in the planning Discord. It was done as sort of a ‘living document’ where I would just keep editing the same one.” Id. Ex. G, at 2 (Email from E. Kline to Y. Barkai, et al. (Dec. 5, 2019 3:31 PM)). Also on December 5, Kline sent his long-overdue answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories in an unsigned half-page email to Plaintiffs’ counsel. See id. at 16; First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(a); Second Civil Contempt Order 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). His unsworn answers were materially incomplete, evasive, and, in some respects, contradicted by his earlier testimony. E.g., compare Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. G, at 16 ¶ 4 (“The only other [e]lectronic devices I used were laptops owned by . . . Richard Spencer and Nathan Damigo”), with First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 21, 25, 30–31, 41, 58–59, 65, 67 (Kline testifying that he used a “family computer” to check emails), and Kline Dep. Tr. 115, 397–98 (Kline testifying that he used a “neighbor’s computer” in 2017); see Second Civil Contempt Order 1, 9–11 (discussing material omissions and discrepancies). Kline did not email copies to Judge Moon’s Chambers or to my Chambers as directed. See First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(a); Second Civil Contempt Order 9.
On December 10, 2019, Judge Moon issued another Show Cause Order directing Kline to file a “response addressing any and all steps [he had] taken to purge himself of contempt,” including “how and when” he completed each discovery task outlined in the first Civil Contempt Order. Second Show Cause Order 2, ECF No. 602. Kline was supposed to email his response to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Judge Moon’s Chambers, and my Chambers by noon on December 13. Id. Judge Moon also ordered “Kline to bring with him to Charlottesville on
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 18 of 42 Pageid#: 15612
December 16, 2019, the home computer that he identified” and to give it to Plaintiffs so they could send it to the discovery vendor for imaging. Id.
Shortly before noon on December 13, Kline emailed his response to Plaintiffs’ counsel and to my Chambers, but not to Judge Moon’s Chambers as was required. See Email from “Eli Mosley” to Y. Barkai, et al. (Dec. 13, 2019 11:32 AM). That “response did not state ‘how and when’” Kline completed each of the steps outlined in Judge Moon’s prior contempt order. Second Civil Contempt Order 6. Kline argued that he was “entirely in compliance with [his] discovery obligations to the best of [his] ability,” and he blamed Plaintiffs for not telling him “what else [he was] actually missing” since he could not access most of his social media accounts. The “home computer” that Kline had disclosed, which he now claimed did not even work “before, during[,] or after Unite the Right,” was no longer stored in his hometown. Id; see Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 12 (“I went and checked both those storage sheds and it was no longer there. . . . [I]t must have been thrown out when we were moving.”). He also asked Judge Moon to postpone the second contempt hearing, or allow him to appear by telephone, because it would “be incredibly difficult” to make the ten-hour drive from upstate New York to Charlottesville. Judge Moon promptly denied that request. Order of Dec. 13, 2019, ECF No. 605.
Kline appeared and testified at the second contempt hearing on December 16, 2019. As before, Judge Moon found “incredible Kline’s assertion that the did not know” how to fully and completely respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See Second Civil Contempt Order 9–10 (citing First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(a)). Indeed, the email and social media account information Kline omitted from his written responses was “discussed at length” during the first contempt hearing and “was also a key issue addressed throughout the Civil Contempt Order” issued on November 27, 2019. Id. at 10. “It could come as no surprise to Kline that Plaintiffs
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 19 of 42 Pageid#: 15613
sought discovery from those sources and that those sources should have been listed in Kline’s answers” to the interrogatories. Id. Judge Moon also found that Kline did not “conduct a ‘diligent search’” for any other social media credentials that should have been provided to the discovery vendor and did not “submit any declaration under oath stating with specificity the reasons why he had been unable to access credentials for any email and social accounts.” Id. (citing First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(b)(i)–(ii)); see also id. at 11 (“This Court assessed Kline’s demeanor in his responses to this Court’s questions concerning his search for responsive documents and found unbelievable his explanations why he had only one responsive document.” (citation omitted)). Thus, Kline failed to purge himself of contempt in these respects. See id. at 8–12, 13 (finding by clear and convincing evidence that Kline remained in civil contempt).
Nevertheless, Judge Moon did find that Kline had substantially “fulfilled any obligations with respect to” the requirements that he provide his Walmart phone and home computer to the discovery vendor for imaging and that he provided signed privacy and consent forms allowing the vendor to access identified social media accounts. Id. at 12–13 (citing First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(c), (d)); see Order of Jan. 7, 2020, at 2, ECF No. 621. Kline produced the Walmart phone, and he “testified under oath that his home computer could not be found.” Second Civil Contempt Order 12. Plaintiffs also appeared to concede that Kline could not at that time “take any further steps to fill out privacy or consent forms for any other social media companies” because Kline maintained he did not have access to those accounts and he did “not recall” the email addresses associated with them. Id. at 13.
Having found that the more than $600 in monetary “sanctions imposed to date ha[d] not been sufficient to coerce Kline into compliance with this Court’s orders,” Judge Moon concluded “that more stringent sanctions [were] therefore appropriate and necessary to achieve this end.”
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 20 of 42 Pageid#: 15614
Id. at 15. He ordered Kline to appear at the United States Courthouse in Charlottesville at noon on Monday, January 6, 2020 and surrender himself to USMS custody. Id. at 16. Kline was to “bring with him any and all documents, electronic devices, credentials to access e-mail and social media accounts, and materials he would need to purge himself of contempt.” Id. Judge Moon reminded Kline that he “still ha[d] an opportunity to reduce his fines” and avoid imprisonment “by completing the steps set forth in paragraph 41(a) and (b)” of the First Civil Contempt Order. Id.
Kline took “some steps” towards that modest goal between December 30 and January 2. See Order for Elliott Kline to Surrender to USMS Custody 2, ECF No. 613 (“Surrender Order”). “For one, he submitted to Plaintiffs his long-outstanding responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests, and they were signed and under oath, as was required.” Id. He also “added some more detail” to his earlier deficient answers. And he paid the $600 remedial fine representing “three days of his civil contempt fines accumulated” as of December 5, 2019. Id.; see Second Civil Contempt Order 13–14. “But the inquiry at th[at] very late stage of noncompliance,” just three days before Kline would surrender to USMS custody, was “not whether Kline ha[d] taken some steps to purge himself of contempt.” Surrender Order 3. Rather, Kline needed to show that he “took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.” Id. (quoting Schwartz v. Rent-a-Wreck of Am., 261 F. Supp. 3d 607, 615 (D. Md. 2017) (emphasis omitted)). As of Friday, January 3, Kline “inexplicably” still had not followed most of the Court’s clear, step-bystep instructions—including that he must send all required updates and responses to Judge Moon’s Chambers’ email account, as well as to Plaintiffs’ counsel and my Chambers’ email account. See id. And, Kline continued to claim that he had “just one document” responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests even after Judge Moon concluded Kline’s position was
20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 21 of 42 Pageid#: 15615
“unbelievable” and that he “did not ‘credit Kline’s assertion that he conducted a reasonable and diligent search through all available accounts, electronic devices, and sources of records.’” Id. (quoting Second Civil Contempt Order 11).
Kline arrived at the federal courthouse in Charlottesville before noon on January 6, 2020. That afternoon, Judge Moon held a hearing with Kline and Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine whether Kline remained in civil contempt, or whether he was “presently unable to comply with . . . or ha[d] substantially complied with the provisions in paragraph 41(a) and (b)” of the November 27, 2019 Civil Contempt Order. See Order of Jan. 7, 2020, at 1–2. Earlier in the day, “Plaintiff raised an as-yet-unanswered, substantial question whether Kline ha[d] ‘fully and completely’ responded” to their discovery requests or otherwise provided the discovery vendor “account credentials for ‘every’ social media or email account which may contain discoverable information,” as required by paragraph 41. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs identified Tweets that “appear[ed] to have been sent by Kline soliciting relevant photographic or other evidence about the Unite the Right rally to be sent to a ‘CvilleReports’ email address.” Id. at 2–3; see Pls.’ Supp’l Br. Ex. A, at 2–3, @ThatEliMosley replying to @NotEliMosley, Twitter (undated), ECF No. 615-1. Kline testified that he did not “recognize” this email address and did not “remember making [it] or anything like that.” Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 9. He might have posted it on Twitter for someone else. Id. Judge Moon remanded Kline to custody so he could “conduct a diligent search of any and all documents to which he ha[d] access to uncover credentials for th[e] ‘CvilleReports’ email account,” and “to demonstrate there [were] no other remaining accounts omitted” from his discovery responses. Order of Jan. 7, 2020, at 3 (citing First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(b)(i)). If Kline could not locate any such credentials, then he “must submit ‘a declaration under oath and under penalty of perjury, to that effect, and which states with
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 22 of 42 Pageid#: 15616
specificity the reasons why such credentials are unavailable’” to him. Id. (quoting First Civil
Contempt Order ¶ 41(b)(ii)).
Around 2:00 p.m. on January 7, Kline submitted a sworn declaration summarizing the
“few things” he did to uncover the credentials for the CvilleReports email account. Kline Decl. 1,
ECF No. 625. First, he tried the passwords associated with his other identified Gmail accounts. Those did not work.11 Second, he noted Google could “send a verification number, but it doesn’t
tell you the phone number associated with the account.” Id. It therefore did “not appear” to Kline
that this Gmail “account [was] associated with [his] phone number.” Id. Finally, he entered “all 3
of [his] email addresses as the recovery email” for a forgotten password, but “they did not work
to recover anything.” Id. Thus, Kline “conclude[d] that his account is not one that [he] had
access to, and the [Twitter] post referencing it was to spread the word for someone else.” Id. at
1–2. The following morning, Plaintiffs filed a response and exhibits showing that CvilleReports
was registered to “Eli Mosley,” Kline’s confirmed online alias during the relevant period. See
Pls.’ Resp. to Kline Decl. 3 (citing id. Ex. A, Email from Identity Evropa to Eli Mosley
<cvillereports@gmail.com> (Aug. 16, 2017 3:59 PM)). Printouts from Google’s “Account
Recovery” webpage showed that “Eli Mosley” added the phone number (***) ***-**29, and the
email address dep************@gmail.com, as methods to verify that the CvilleReports “account really belong[ed]” to him.12 Id. Exs. B & C, ECF Nos. 631-2 to 631-3. Kline previously
11 Plaintiffs asked the discovery vendor to try to access the CvilleReports account using these passwords as well, but the vendor was unsuccessful. Pls.’ Resp. to Kline Decl. 5, ECF No. 631. 12 Google’s “account recovery” feature reveals only the first three characters and total number of characters of the alternative email address associated with the Gmail account for which one is trying to recover a forgotten password. Similarly, it reveals only the last two digits for the phone number associated with the Gmail account. Presumably only the actual account holder would have access to the alternative email address and phone number associated with the Gmail account one is trying to recover. See Pls.’ Resp. to Kline Decl. 3 n.1, 4 n.2. In February 2020, Judge Moon noted that “Plaintiffs presented evidence and argument—to which Kline ha[d] not responded though afforded the opportunity (Dkt. 634, at 3)—that even when faced with severe sanctions and incarceration, he still may have lied under oath
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 23 of 42 Pageid#: 15617
stated under oath that the “primary communication device [he] used before, during and after the [UTR] event” was an iPhone assigned the phone number (610) ***-**29. Kline’s primary email address, deplorabletruth@gmail.com, started with the same three letters and contained the same number of characters as the CvilleReports account’s recovery email. Yet, Kline insisted in testimony before Judge Moon that he “did not know about this email address” before Plaintiffs raised it at the January 6 status conference. See Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 26–27, 30–32, 35; see also id. at 9, 15–16, 22–23, 27, 32, 35–37 (Kline testifying that he did not remember making or accessing the CvilleReports account). Plaintiffs were convinced that they would not receive the emails Kline possessed in the CvilleReports account and that Kline could not “be trusted to participate in this discovery process in good faith.” Pls.’ Resp. to Kline Decl. 2. Thus, they did “not believe” that requiring Kline to spend any more time in jail would meaningfully “resolve this interminable saga and move the case forward.” Id. They asked Judge Moon to authorize the discovery vendor to produce any presumptively responsive documents or information recovered from Kline’s electronic devices and social media accounts, including CvilleReports@gmail.com, directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel for review. See id. at 5–7. Kline did not respond. See Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 2, ECF No. 638; Order of Feb. 7, 2020, at 3.
Judge Moon released Kline from custody on January 8, 2020. See Release Order 4. “To be clear,” though, “Kline remain[ed] in civil contempt.” Id. He still had not proven that he purged himself of contempt while detained, that he was presently unable to comply with the
about this [CvilleReports] email account.” Order of Feb. 7, 2020, at 3, ECF No. 644. Judge Moon could not “simply accept Kline’s word on the matter” considering this evidence and the record before the Court. Id.; see also Order of Jan. 8, 2020, at 3 (“Plaintiffs’ assertions at this stage are grave—that Kline has persisted in lying to this Court under oath and under penalty of perjury, even while being held in incarceration for civil contempt. And Plaintiffs have provided documentation and evidence in support.”), ECF No. 634 (“Release Order”); Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 39 (Judge Moon to Kline: “[T]he Court has pretty much decided that your testimony is not credible. So we have to verify now. You have not even complied enough for us to verify whether you are telling the truth and cannot do anymore.”).
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 24 of 42 Pageid#: 15618
Court’s orders, or that he had taken all reasonable steps to ensure he had substantially complied with those orders. Id. Nor had Kline “responded ‘fully and completely’ to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests” or “turned over or provided access to any and all potentially relevant e-mail and social media accounts.” Id. (citing First Civil Contempt Order ¶ 41(a)–(b)). But, Judge Moon agreed with Plaintiffs that “other measures besides further incarceration” and additional remedial fines would “most effectively secure Kline’s compliance” with the discovery orders. See id. at 4–5 (noting that Kline incurred $5,800 payable to Plaintiffs for his noncompliance). He granted Plaintiffs’ requests for an order authorizing the discovery vendor to give Plaintiffs’ counsel direct access to presumptively responsive documents or information found on Kline’s electronic devices and social media accounts, including CvilleReports@gmail.com. See Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 2–3; Order of Feb. 7, 2020, at 3–4.13 Judge Moon also directed Plaintiffs and Kline, by January 29, 2020, “to file briefs addressing any steps Kline ha[d] taken to either purge himself of contempt or any such additional measures or sanctions sought by Plaintiffs’ from Kline’s contumacy.” Release Order 3.
Plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs reiterating their requests for evidentiary sanctions on January 29, February 7, February 12, and March 13, 2020. ECF Nos. 642, 645, 649, 679/682. Those briefs show that Kline has done absolutely nothing to purge himself of civil contempt. Moreover, Plaintiffs obtained third-party discovery indicating that Kline falsely testified— multiple times over many months—that the (347) phone number listed on certain versions of the “Charlottesville 2.0” planning document was not his and that he had “never” had a phone
13 On February 12, 2020, Plaintiffs informed the Court that the discovery vendor “successfully access[ed] the email account CvilleReports@gmail.com by using Kline’s deplorabletruth@gmail.com account as a recovery email address.” Pls.’ Third Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 1 (citing id. Ex. B, Email from B. Williams to J. Phillips, et al. (Feb. 11, 2020 7:36 AM), ECF No. 649-2, at 2), ECF No. 649. They did not say whether this account contained any relevant content. See id.
24

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 25 of 42 Pageid#: 15619
number with that area code. See Pls.’ Second Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 2–4 (citing Pls.’ 3d. Mot. for Sanctions Exs. E & F; Pls.’ Second Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. A, Google Voice Report 2–249 (May 19, 2017 to Jan. 2, 2018), ECF No. 657); Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 23–25; Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 16, 24), ECF No. 645. Google Voice records for the (347) number—the same one listed on the Charlottesville 2.0 planning documents—show that it was registered to an “Eli Mosley” and connected to the email address deplorabletruth@gmail.com. Pls.’ Second Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions Ex. A, at 2. Plaintiffs contend that Kline used this number for calls and text messages around the time of the Unite the Right rally, including the weekend of August 11–12, 2017. Pls.’ Second Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 3–4 (citing id. Ex. A, at 2). These records also “seem[] to indicate that Kline forwarded incoming text messages and phone calls from the (347) number to a (484) number during various periods from October to December 2017.”14 Id. at 4 (citing id. Ex. A, at 2–249). The (484) area code is assigned to southeastern Pennsylvania, id., which is where Kline resided when he was served with this lawsuit on October 11, 2017, see ECF No. 62. On January 6, 2020, Kline testified that he had a (484) phone number, in addition to the (610) phone number listed on the June 2017 version of the “Charlottesville 2.0” planning document. See Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 19–20, 22. He insisted that he’d “never” seen the (347) phone number except on the Charlottesville 2.0 document. Id. at 20; see also Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 23 (“I’ve never seen that number. I don’t know where it’s from. . . . I never had a 347 number linked to me or anything like that.”); id. at 25 (“I never used any 347 number or any number during this, other than the (610) ***-**29 number.”).
14 It appears that Kline canceled the Google Voice service on January 2, 2018, see id. at 3–4, shortly after his former attorneys entered their appearance in this matter, ECF No. 131 (Dec. 1, 2017).
25

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 26 of 42 Pageid#: 15620
The Court has not heard from Kline since he was released from custody on January 8, 2020. See Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 2; Order of Feb. 7, 2020, at 3; Fourth Disc. Order to Def. Elliott Kline (July 24, 2020) (granting Plaintiffs’ motion to be reimbursed for reasonable fees and expenses incurred by Kline’s failure to attend a properly noticed deposition on July 2, and to compel his attendance at a videoconference deposition on August 12, 2020), ECF No. 815.
IV. Discussion Plaintiffs’ pending Rule 37 motion seeks three evidentiary sanctions against Kline. See generally Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4, 18–22; Pls.’ Resp. to Order of Jan. 8, 2020, at 2, 3–6, ECF No. 642; Pls.’ Second Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4–5; Pls.’ Third Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4; Pls.’ Redacted Fourth Supp’l Br. in Supp. of 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4–5, ECF No. 679. First, they ask the Court to “deem [the] facts listed in Appendix A to this Motion established,” Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 23, for purposes of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i). That list includes certain factual issues that Plaintiffs must prove at trial to hold Kline liable for conspiring to engage in violence against racial or religious minorities and their supporters. Compare Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 27–28, at § I ¶¶ 3–13 (proposed facts), with Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 13–21, 32–34, 41–44 (discussing the essential elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim; summarizing Plaintiffs’ factual allegations that Kline (a.k.a. “Eli Mosley”) described himself “as ‘command soldier major of the alt-right,’ his use of Discord to share fighting tactics, and his alleged organization of attendees at the Friday night march”; concluding that the Amended Complaint “adequately alleged that he was part of a conspiracy to commit racial violence”; and concluding that certain Defendants’ acts of violence resulting in Plaintiffs’ injuries were “reasonably foreseeable to [their] co-conspirator Defendants”). For example, Plaintiffs propose the following language:
26

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 27 of 42 Pageid#: 15621
• “Kline entered into an agreement with one or more coconspirators to plan the Unite the Right event that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017.” Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 27–28, at § I ¶ 3.
• “Kline entered into an agreement with one or more coconspirators to engage in racially-motivated violence” on August 11 and 12, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 4–5.
• “Kline was motivated by animus against racial minorities, Jewish people, and their supporters when conspiring to engage in acts of intimidation and violence on August 11 and 12, 2017.” Id. ¶ 6
• “It was reasonably foreseeable to . . . Kline and intended by him that coconspirators would commit acts of racially-motivated violence and intimidation at the torchlight event,” on August 11, id. ¶ 7, and at the Unite the Right rally on August 12, 2017, id. ¶ 8.
• “It was reasonably foreseeable to . . . Kline and intended by him that a coconspirator would engage in racially-motivated violence by intentionally driving a car into a crowd of counter-protestors on August 12, 2017.” Id. ¶ 9.
• “Kline committed multiple overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy he entered into to commit racially-motivated violence . . . on August 12, 2017.” Id. ¶ 10.
• “Kline attended the torchlight march on August 11, 2017 and committed acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id. ¶ 11.
• “Kline attended the Unite the Right event on August 12, 2017 and committed acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id. ¶ 12.
• “Kline [later] ratified the racially motivated violence that occurred” at the Unite the Right events in Charlottesville on August 11–12, 2017. Id. ¶ 13.
Defendant Spencer (and, to a lesser extent, Defendant Cantwell) objected that most of Plaintiffs’
proposed findings “are so broad” that they would “negate [his] defenses” and deprive him of his
rights to due process and trial by jury. Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions
Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 4, 6, ECF No. 469; see also Def. Cantwell’s Resp. in Opp’n to
Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 1, 4–5, ECF No. 637. Put differently, deeming these facts established
would satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden to prove at trial that “a conspiracy existed,” there was “an 27

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 28 of 42 Pageid#: 15622
agreement to engage in racially, ethically and religiously motivated violence,” and “it was foreseeable that a co-conspirator would commit racially motivated violence,” including driving his car into counter-protestors. Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 5–6. Plaintiffs replied that the proposed facts are “limited by their terms to apply exclusively to Kline” and “are little more than a proxy for the type of evidence that would have been admissible at trial anyway had Kline . . . chosen to participate” in discovery. Pls.’ Reply to Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 2, ECF No. 475; see also Pls.’ Reply to Def. Cantwell’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4–5, ECF No. 641. Plaintiffs still “must prove that ‘each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events.’” Pls.’ Reply to Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 3 (quoting Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 21) (emphasis omitted). Defendants’ concerns about the “spillover effect of evidentiary rulings” against Kline, such as the risk that the jury will unfairly presume other Defendants also defied the Court’s discovery orders, can be addressed with an appropriate limiting instruction. See id. at 2–6; Pls.’ Reply to Def. Cantwell’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 5–8; Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 1, 6.
Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to “deem authentic for purposes of Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence . . . any documents that Plaintiffs have a good-faith basis to believe that Kline created, including all documents from the social media accounts listed in Appendix A to th[eir] Motion, as well as any photographs taken by or depicting Kline.” Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)). That list includes sixteen different social media
28

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 29 of 42 Pageid#: 15623
accounts for which “Plaintiffs have a good-faith basis to believe . . . belong to Defendant Kline,” including eight Twitter handles, four Discord usernames, and two Facebook accounts. Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 28–29, at § II ¶¶ 1–16. This proposed sanction would establish a factual presumption, subject to rebuttal by any Defendant, that certain documents or photographs Plaintiffs might offer into evidence at trial are “what the proponent claims” them to be, Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). See Pls.’ Reply to Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 8–9; cf. United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2009) (“The factual determination of whether evidence is that which the proponent claims is ultimately reserved for the jury. The district court’s role is to serve as gatekeeper in assessing whether the proponent has offered a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.” (internal citation omitted)); Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 776 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a document has been authenticated by a party, the requirement of authenticity is satisfied as to that document with regards to all parties, subject to the right of any party to present evidence to the ultimate fact-finder disputing its authenticity. . . . [A]n inquiry into authenticity concerns the genuineness of an item of evidence, not its admissibility.” (internal footnote and citation omitted)). Contrary to Spencer’s concern that this sanction “implicates” other evidentiary rules, Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 7 n.11 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801)), establishing a rebuttable presumption that a document or photograph is genuine would not impact the trial judge’s determination whether that item is admissible into evidence, Orr, 285 F.3d at 776; Pls.’ Reply to Def. Spencer’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 8–9. See generally Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 538–85 (D. Md. 2007) (explaining that ESI is admissible into evidence only if the court finds that it is relevant,
29

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 30 of 42 Pageid#: 15624
authentic, and offered in an acceptable format; its probative value is not substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or certain other factors; and, if the ESI is a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it either is not hearsay or it is admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403, 801, 803, 804, 807, 901, 1001–1008)).
Third, Plaintiffs ask the Court to give the jury a permissive adverse-inference instruction grounded in Kline’s admitted failures to preserve and produce relevant information and documents going to the heart of Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims against him. Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 24; see also Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1, 25, 32. More specifically, they ask the Court to “instruct the jury that Kline chose to intentionally withhold his documents, and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact, including that Kline chose to withhold such documents because he was aware that such documents contained evidence that Kline conspired to plan racially-motivated violence at Unite the Right.” Pls.’ 3d Mot. for Sanctions 24. No Defendant objected to this request.
* Nearly three years ago, Plaintiffs served Kline with discovery requests for information and materials directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. His proper responses or objections were due by February 26, 2018. Kline did not respond. He then disobeyed multiple court orders—including my oral order of March 16, 2018, ECF No. 282, and my written orders of July 3 and August 8, 2019, ECF Nos. 516, 538—directing him to provide or permit discovery of the same materials within his control. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 12–13, 28 & n.10; First Civil Contempt Order 9–11. In August 2019, I found that Kline acted in bad faith by stonewalling and ignoring the Court’s orders over the previous eighteen months—and that such
30

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 31 of 42 Pageid#: 15625
misconduct must obviously be deterred lest any other litigant think he or she can behave this way in federal court. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 4, 29–31; see Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 640–42; Lee, 638 F.3d at 1319 (“No one . . . should count on more than three chances to make good a discovery obligation.”); Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App’x 294, 301–04 (4th Cir. 2011); Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 663 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Lawyers and litigants who decide that they will play by rules of their own invention will find that the game cannot be won.”); Progressive Minerals v. Rashid, No. 5:07cv108, 2009 WL 2761295, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 28, 2009); 8B Federal Practice & Procedure § 2281 (3d ed. 2002) (“[A]ny party or person who seeks to evade or thwart full and candid discovery incurs the risk of serious consequences.”). I also found that Kline’s “‘repeated and ongoing misconduct’” thus far had “caused ‘significant procedural . . . prejudice’ to Plaintiffs’ ability to resolve their claims in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 33 (quoting First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., 2014 WL 1652550, at *19 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2014) (First Mariner II)). Plaintiffs expended enormous resources dealing with Kline’s “unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and disregard for both their proper discovery requests and this Court’s many orders trying to enforce them.” Id. at 33 (citing Diamond v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., No. 6:12cv57, 2014 WL 1404563, at *5–6 (W.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2014)); see also id. at 31–34; cf. Saria v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 536, 540 (S.D. W. Va. 2005) (noting that plaintiff’s “‘pick-and-choose’ approach to answering” discovery had “waste[d] the parties’ own valuable discovery time and ultimately force[d] the court to clean up a mess which could have been altogether avoided”).
In August 2019, however, “we [were] not yet to the point” that Plaintiffs could not “‘present evidence essential to [their] underlying claim’” against Kline. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9,
31

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 32 of 42 Pageid#: 15626
2019, at 34 (quoting Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21); see also id. at 25, 32–33. Moreover, Kline recently assured the Court and Plaintiffs that he understood his discovery obligations and he intended to comply with the Court’s orders that he participate in good faith going forward. See id. at 27–29, 34–35. In my view, “production was preferable to evidentiary sanctions at th[at] point in the litigation.” Id. at 26; accord First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 78 (“As Judge Hoppe said, it is possible that the requested evidentiary sanctions will become the only recourse available to [P]laintiffs, and he and this Court have taken those under advisement; but at present it is preferable that the facts and the evidence be uncovered rather than the case rely on evidentiary presumptions.”). I explained that “it would be unjust for the Court to direct that Plaintiffs’ version of ‘designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i),” if Kline produced the discovery in enough time for Plaintiffs to prepare their case for trial. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 34. I also would have a better sense of Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse-inference instruction after counsel deposed Kline about what steps, if any, he took to preserve potentially relevant evidence. Id. (citing Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 525–26; Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 181). Should Kline not follow through, however, the Court likely would have run out of options “other than to impose significant evidentiary sanctions.” Id. at 35; see also id. at 34 (“Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions—including the adverse inference and an order deeming some of their proposed facts established—would be available, and certainly could be appropriate in this case, if Kline . . . fail[s] to produce the discovery from this point forward.”).
** Kline did not follow through. In fact, Kline responded to two federal judges’ patient indulgence with broken promises, halfhearted steps towards compliance, and countless sworn
32

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 33 of 42 Pageid#: 15627
statements that were “evasive, internally inconsistent, or simply not believable.” Certification Order 10; see generally Fourth Disc. Order to Def. Elliott Kline 1; Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 1– 3; Release Order 3–5; Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 28–39; Surrender Order 2–6; Second Contempt Hr’g Tr. 11–13, 36–40; Second Civil Contempt Order 1–2, 8–14; First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 3–5, 45–55, 57, 59–73; First Civil Contempt Order 4–7, 9–12; 75–79; Certification Order 9– 12. On January 6, 2020, Judge Moon told Kline, “I’ve spent more time on your discovery issue than on all the other cases I’ve ever had in . . . 22 years. I never had to follow up with a magistrate judge in the manner I’ve had to in this case.” Tr. of Jan. 6, 2020 Status Conf. 31–32. Kline stated that he understood, though he again tried to blame Plaintiffs’ counsel for his failure to fulfill his discovery obligations. Id. at 32; see also First Civil Contempt Order 7. Two days later, Plaintiffs produced documentation that “Kline ha[d] persisted in lying to this Court under oath and under penalty of perjury, even while being held in incarceration for civil contempt.” Release Order 3 (citing Pls.’ Resp. to Kline Decl., ECF No. 631). Thus, there is no question that Kline disobeyed this Court’s discovery orders in bad faith. See, e.g., Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 640, 643 (district court did not abuse discretion in finding “flagrant” bad faith “[a]fter seventeen months where crucial interrogatories remained substantially unanswered despite numerous extensions granted at the eleventh hour and, in many instances, beyond the eleventh hour,” plaintiffs’ broken promises to act by a date certain, and the court’s repeated warnings that their failure to provide certain information could result in Rule 37 sanctions); Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302 (finding bad faith where the “record reflect[ed] a pattern of noncompliance,” including that the “district court was repeatedly compelled to admonish” sanctioned defendants “even after it warned them that it was going to take pretrial process ‘very seriously,’” defendants “made no effort to acknowledge their obligations,” and one defendant
33

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 34 of 42 Pageid#: 15628
tried “to pin the blame on her former attorney” who withdrew representation after defendant failed to cooperate and communicate with counsel); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Advanfort Co., No. 1:18cv1421, 2019 WL 3366103, at *8 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2019) (“In the Fourth Circuit, bad faith includes willful conduct, where the party ‘clearly should have understood his duty to the court’ but nonetheless ‘deliberately disregarded’ it.” (quoting Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996, 1000 (4th Cir. 1985)); cf. Plant v. Merryfield Town Ctr. Ltd. P’ship, 711 F. Supp. 2d 576, 584, 587 (E.D. Va. 2010) (finding bad faith was “clearly evidenced” by plaintiffs’ “repeated and flagrant disregard” for two of magistrate judge’s discovery orders and “counsel’s misrepresentation of material facts concerning plaintiffs’ noncompliance” with them); In re Derivium Capital, 372 B.R. 777, 784–86 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2007) (finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith where, despite being given “a clear and fair warning that he must fulfill” discovery obligations or face “drastic” Rule 37 sanctions, plaintiff failed to respond to court-ordered discovery, engaged in “litigation tactic[s] designed to escape the ramifications” of disobeying the order, and “did not offer substantial excuses” for his noncompliance).
Next, I must decide which sanctions are “just” based on all the facts in this case and the claims at issue in the Court’s prior discovery orders. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., 456 U.S. at 707 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)); S. New England Tele. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court is free to consider the full record in the case in order to select the appropriate sanction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This requires me to consider the kind and degree of prejudice Kline’s noncompliance caused Plaintiffs and whether alternative, less drastic sanctions would provide an effective remedy. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. NVIDIA Corp., 314 F.R.D. 190, 200–04 (E.D. Va. 2016).
34

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 35 of 42 Pageid#: 15629
Kline’s noncompliance with the discovery orders “resulted in significant procedural and substantive prejudice” to Plaintiffs. First Mariner II, 2014 WL 1652550, at *19. I already awarded attorney’s fees against Kline of $12,528.33 to sanction him for the procedural prejudice—namely “evasiveness, delay, and obfuscation,” id. at *3—he caused Plaintiffs’ ability to develop their case in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. See Mem. Op. of May 26, 2020, at 1, 4, 21; Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 33–35. Again, it is important that anyone contemplating similar tactics understand that he cannot avoid discovery in federal litigation— and especially not in response to a court order. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31 (citing Progressive Minerals, 2009 WL 2761295, at *4); see also First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., Civ. No. MJG-12-1133, 2013 WL 5797381, at *10 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2013) (First Mariner I) (“[P]iecemeal, less than complete and slow production takes a toll and inflicts a disadvantage on the requesting party. . . . It is wearing, counter-productive, wholly unacceptable and sanctionable.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). “‘[S]talling and ignoring the direct orders of the court with impunity’ is ‘misconduct’ that ‘must obviously be deterred’” and will be sanctioned as justice requires. Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 303 (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan, 872 F.2d at 93).
I now have a clearer idea how Kline’s failure to produce much of the requested discovery, or to give believable answers why the discovery did not exist, has harmed Plaintiffs’ substantive ability to prove at trial their civil conspiracy claim against Kline. Certification Order 10–11; see also First Civil Contempt Order 10, 12; First Contempt Hr’g Tr. 74–75; Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 34–35. To start, as Plaintiffs pointed out in their first motion for sanctions, discovery was especially critical in this case because it is inherently difficult to prove a conspiracy. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 25, 32–33 (citing Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against
35

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 36 of 42 Pageid#: 15630
Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21–22). Even in criminal prosecutions, “a conspiracy is usually proven by circumstantial evidence” such as “a defendant’s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, the defendant’s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy.” United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up); see Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 32 (citing Yearwood, 518 F.3d at 226). Plaintiffs sought from Kline “myriad communications, documents, and ESI” that could “help them prove that ‘each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 32 (quoting Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 21); see Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach 21–22. Kline’s failure to comply fully with court orders directing him to preserve and produce those same materials leaves an evidentiary gap justifying “appropriately tailored sanction[s],” Doug’s Word Clocks.com Pty Ltd. v. Princess Int’l, 323 F.R.D. 167, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), against him under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i). Cf. Ins. Corp. of Ir., 456 U.S. at 699, 707–78 (explaining that district court’s order deeming established the fact that defendants “had sufficient business contacts with Pennsylvania” to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over them was both “just,” considering defendants made no effort to comply with “repeated orders” to supply the requested information about their contacts despite “repeatedly agree[ing] to comply . . . within specified time periods,” and “related” to the matter at issue in the discovery orders); GSI Tech., Inc. v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13cv1081, 2015 WL 12942202, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015) (“Because the 30(b)(6) witnesses were plainly unprepared to testify knowledgeably about the Hardee document in violation of the court’s order, discovery sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i) are warranted and the court orders the Hardee document deemed authenticated.”).
36

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 37 of 42 Pageid#: 15631
Second, Kline’s admission that he did not even try to preserve any relevant information—
despite the fact his attorneys told him to do so—warrants an adverse-inference instruction under
either Rule 37(e)(2) or the traditional “spoliation” standard. Spoliation is “the destruction or
material alteration of evidence or . . . the failure to preserve property for another’s use as
evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271
F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001). A party seeking spoliation sanctions must show that spoliation
occurred and that the requested sanctions are warranted under governing law. Blue Sky Travel &
Tours, LLC v. Al Tayyar, 606 F. App’x 689, 698 (4th Cir. 2015); Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 181
(citing Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450–51). Rule 37(e) provides the legal framework for evaluating
spoliation claims involving discoverable ESI, including text messages or online communications,
not preserved for litigation. See Jenkins v. Woody, No. 3:15cv355, 2017 WL 362475, at *12, *14
(E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2017). Under this Rule,
a movant must satisfy four threshold requirements before a court decides if any spoliation sanction is appropriate: (1) ESI should have been preserved; (2) ESI was lost; (3) the loss was due to a party's failure to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI; and (4) the ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 327 F.R.D. 96, 104 (E.D. Va. 2018). Rule 37(e)’s
threshold elements mirror the traditional three-part test for spoliation, which requires the moving
to party to show:
(1) [T]he party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or altered; (2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a “culpable state of mind”; and (3) the evidence that was destroyed or altered was “relevant” to the claims or defenses of the party that sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence, to the extent that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the lost evidence would have supported the claims or defenses of the party that sought it. Walker v. Owens, No. 7:13cv425, 2016 WL 320998, at *2 n.3 (W.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2016) (quoting
Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009)); see Steves & Sons,
37

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 38 of 42 Pageid#: 15632
327 F.R.D. at 104 (“This analysis is similar to the Rule 37(e) framework, as it asks whether the
responsible party had a duty to preserve, and breached that duty by failing to take reasonable
steps to preserve.”). “[A]ny level of fault, whether it is bad faith, willfulness, gross negligence, or ordinary negligence”15 satisfies the culpability element, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
Kolon Indus., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 469, 497 (E.D. Va. 2011), whereas “the nuanced, fact-
specific differences among these states of mind become significant in determining” any
appropriate remedy or sanction for spoliation, Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 529. See Vodusek v.
Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiffs ask the Court to instruct the jury that “Kline chose to intentionally withhold his
documents, and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact, including that Kline
chose to withhold such documents because he was aware that such documents contained
evidence that Kline conspired to plan racially-motivated violence at Unite the Right.” Pls.’ 3d
Mot. for Sanctions 24. An adverse inference helps “level[] the evidentiary playing field” when an
adversary’s “intentional conduct contributes to the loss or destruction of evidence” the movant
could have used to support its case. Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156. Rule 37(e) allows the court or a
jury to “presume the [lost] information was unfavorable” to the responsible party “only upon
finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another of the information’s use in the
15 Negligence is a lack of due care, the failure to exercise the level of care expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under like circumstances.” In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liability Litig., 299 F.R.D. 502, 519 (S.D. W. Va. 2014). “Gross negligence is the same as ordinary negligence, except in degree.” Id. “In contrast, willfulness and bad faith require ‘intentional, purposeful, or deliberate conduct,’” id. (quoting Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 530), undertaken with the knowledge that the evidence was relevant to some issue in the anticipated litigation, see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450. “The fundamental element of bad faith spoliation is advantage-seeking behavior by the party with superior access to information necessary for the proper administration of justice.” In re Ethicon, 299 F.R.D. at 519 (quoting Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 645 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Willfulness requires a slightly lesser showing “that the actor intended to destroy the evidence,” Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 530, when he or she “knew the evidence was relevant to some issue” in anticipated litigation, see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450.
38

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 39 of 42 Pageid#: 15633
litigation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2)(A)–(B). Fourth Circuit precedent similarly requires a finding that the responsible party “acted either willfully or in bad faith in failing to preserve relevant evidence” before the court may impose an adverse inference against that party. Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 181 (citing Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450–51).
Finally, Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions are appropriate. Kline can still defend himself at trial if he wants to, and the Court can narrowly tailor its sanctions to minimize any “spillover” effect on Defendants who did not disobey discovery orders. See Peltz v. Moretti, 292 F. App’x 475, 477–78 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that the district court cannot deem facts established against defendant who did not disobey a discovery order). Further, more severe claim-dispositive sanctions such as default judgment, which Plaintiffs have not requested, would be unfair to Plaintiffs in these circumstances. Kline would be out of the case, and Plaintiffs still would not have information they believe necessary to prove their conspiracy claims against the remaining Defendants.
*** Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ third motion for sanctions against Defendant Elliott Kline (a.k.a. Eli Mosley), ECF No. 601, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. The following facts, listed in Appendix A to Plaintiffs’ Motion, will be taken as established against Defendant Kline for purposes of the action: a. Defendant Kline was a member of Identity Evropa from April 2017 through at least August 2017 (app. A § I ¶ 1); b. Defendant Kline was one of the leaders of Identity Evropa from April 2017 through at least August 2017 (id. ¶ 2);
39

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 40 of 42 Pageid#: 15634
c. Defendant Kline entered into an agreement with one or more coconspirators to plan the Unite the Right event that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 3);
d. Defendant Kline entered into an agreement with one or more coconspirators to engage in racially-motivated violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11, 2017 (id. ¶ 4);
e. Defendant Kline entered into an agreement with one or more coconspirators to engage in racially-motivated violence at the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 5);
f. Defendant Kline was motivated by animus against racial minorities, Jewish people, and their supporters when conspiring to engage in acts of intimidation and violence on August 11 and 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia (id. ¶ 6);
g. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Kline and intended by him that coconspirators would commit acts of racially-motivated violence and intimidation at the torchlight event in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11, 2017 (id. ¶ 7);
h. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Kline and intended by him that coconspirators would commit acts of racially-motivated violence and intimidation at the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 8);
i. Defendant Kline attended the torchlight march on August 11, 2017 (id. ¶ 11, cl. 1);
40

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 41 of 42 Pageid#: 15635
j. Defendant Kline attended the Unite the Right event on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 12, cl. 1); and
k. After the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017, Defendant Kline ratified the racially-motivated violence at the event (id. ¶ 13).
2. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for a court order taking as established the proposed facts that: a. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Kline and intended by him that a coconspirator would engage in racially-motivated violence by intentionally driving a car into a crowd of counter-protestors on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 9); b. Defendant Kline committed multiple overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy he entered into to commit racially-motivated violence at the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 10); c. Defendant Kline committed acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the conspiracy at the torchlight march on August 11, 2017 (id. ¶ 11, cl. 2); and d. Defendant Kline committed acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the conspiracy at the Unite the Right event on August 12, 2017 (id. ¶ 12, cl. 2).
The italicized language either is not supported by the record, see id. ¶ 9, or is too vague to justify the requested evidentiary sanction, see id. ¶ 10; id. 11, cl. 2; id. ¶ 12, cl. 2. Plaintiffs may
41

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 910 Filed 11/30/20 Page 42 of 42 Pageid#: 15636
resubmit for the Court’s consideration proposed findings that Kline committed specific overt acts or acts of intimidation and violence in furtherance of the agreement to commit racially-motivated violence.
3. All documents from the social media accounts listed in Appendix A to Plaintiffs’ Motion (§ II ¶¶ 1–16) will be presumed “authentic,” subject to rebuttal by any Defendant, for purposes of Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
4. Plaintiffs’ request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Elliott Kline (a.k.a. Eli Mosley) is GRANTED subject to the presiding District Judge’s final approval. Plaintiffs should submit their proposed language to the presiding District Judge in their proposed jury instructions.
IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: November 30, 2020
Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
42

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 1 of 24 Pageid#: 16000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

ELIZABETH SINES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER, et al., Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions Against

Defendant Robert ‘Azzmador’ Ray and for an Order Directing Ray to Show Cause Why He

Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court.” ECF No. 750 (“Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions”)

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)); see Pretrial Order ¶ 13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)),

ECF No. 101. Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that Ray disobeyed a discovery order directing him

to produce certain documents and information, Order of May 18, 2020, ECF No. 728, and to

“instruct the jury that Ray chose to intentionally withhold his documents and that the jury may

draw adverse inferences from that fact, including that Ray chose to withhold such documents

because he was aware that such documents contained evidence that Ray conspired to plan

racially motivated violence at [the] Unite the Right” rally in August 2017. Pls.’ Mot. for Evid.

Sanctions 1; see generally id. at 2–4. Ray, who is representing himself, ECF No. 583, did not

respond within fourteen days. Accordingly, I consider Plaintiffs’ nondispositive motion to be

unopposed and can resolve it without another hearing. Pretrial Order ¶ 7; Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b);

W.D. Va. Civ. R. 11(b); see Order Finding Robert Azzmador Ray in Civil Contempt ¶ 16 (“Ray

did not appear at the contempt hearing on September 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. ET, as ordered.”),

ECF No. 877 (Sept. 16, 2020) (Moon, J.) (“Ray Contempt Order”). Plaintiffs’ request for a

permissive adverse-inference instruction will be granted subject to the presiding District Judge’s

1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 2 of 24 Pageid#: 16001
final approval. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 42, ECF No. 910. Their request for another order directing Ray to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, see ECF Nos. 848, 877, will be denied. Plaintiffs may file a petition setting out their reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by Ray’s failure to obey the May 18, 2020 discovery order, ECF No. 728. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
I. The Legal Framework Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the district court where an action is pending broad discretion to impose sanctions whenever “a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). See Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Munoz, 924 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Rule 37(b)(2)(A) allows a district court to impose a sanction when a party fails to comply with a discovery order, and the court has broad discretion in fashioning its sanction when it does so.”). “The rule’s language clearly requires two things as conditions precedent to engaging the gears of the rule’s sanction machinery: a court order must be in effect, and then must be violated, before . . . sanctions can be imposed.” R.W. Int’l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Carriage Hill Mgmt., LLC v. Bos. Lobster Feast, Inc., No. GJH-17-2208, 2018 WL 3329588, at *5 (D. Md. July 6, 2018); Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 518–20 (D. Md. 2010). “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently” when a court order is violated, Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 (1980), “both as a matter of justice in the individual case and ‘to deter others who might be tempted to similar conduct,’” Lee v. Max Int’l, 638 F.3d 1318, 1320 (10th Cir. 2011) (Gorsuch, J.) (brackets omitted) (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976)). See Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34. Available sanctions include
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 3 of 24 Pageid#: 16002
orders deeming certain facts established, permitting or requiring an adverse inference, and entering default judgment against the disobedient party. Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “contains two standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion” in choosing what substantive sanctions to impose. Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (requiring courts to order the disobedient party, its attorney, or both to pay reasonable expenses caused by the party’s failure to obey a discovery order, unless the failure was substantially justified or awarding expenses would be unfair). “First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” Ins. Corp. of Ir., 456 U.S. at 707 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). The Fourth Circuit has “developed a four-part test for a district court to use when” making this determination.1 Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc); see S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The court must consider: “(1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective.” S. States Rack & Fixture, 318 F.3d at 597; see Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 784 F. App’x 118, 123–24 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). Some sanctions,
1 The Fourth Circuit has not clearly defined the movant’s burden of proof on a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b). Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Anta (China) Co., Ltd., No. 1:17cv1458, 2018 WL 7488924, at *11 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018), adopted by 2019 WL 969572, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2019); Glynn v. EDO Corp., Civ. No. 07-1660, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2010). “However, proving misconduct by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, as opposed to by a mere preponderance, certainly suffices,” Glynn, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2, especially when the sanction imposed does not result in dismissal or default judgment against the disobedient party, see Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp’t of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504–05 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, the result is the same under either standard because Plaintiffs produced clear and convincing evidence that Ray intentionally withheld requested discovery knowing that it was relevant to an issue in the case.
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 4 of 24 Pageid#: 16003
including an adverse inference, require the court to find that the disobedient party acted willfully or in bad faith. Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172, 181 (D. Md. 2008) (citing Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450–51 (4th Cir. 2004)).
II. Background2 On August 11–12, 2017, the “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1; see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7. These rallies are now known as “Unite the Right.” Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”— rather, they allege that Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1–2. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” the District Court has held the remaining Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that certain Defendants, Ray included, “formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 1; see id. at 31.
* Plaintiffs allege that Ray is a neo-Nasi who lives in Texas. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 27. In 2017, Ray and co-Defendant Andrew Anglin ran the Daily Stormer, a website they describe “‘as a hardcore front for the conversion of masses into a pro-white, Anti-Semitic ideology,’ to ‘sell global white supremacy,’ and to ‘make a racist army.’” Id. ¶ 25 (alterations omitted); see id.
2 This section summarizes certain factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 557. “While the Court does not repeatedly state ‘Plaintiffs allege that Defendant X did Y,’ this summary should not be taken as the Court’s endorsement of one version of the facts.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 3 (July 8, 2018), ECF No. 335.
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 5 of 24 Pageid#: 16004
¶ 27. Ray wrote and published articles for the Daily Stormer. He also led the “Dallas Fort Worth Stormer Book Club,” one of many local Daily Stormer groups across the country. Id. ¶ 27; see id. ¶ 25 (“Stormers have formed local chapters, called ‘Stormer Book Clubs,’ as part of Anglin’s plan to ‘build an invisible empire.’”); id. ¶ 92. (“Ray told Vanguard members in July 2017, ‘You don’t think the [Daily Stormer Book Clubs] have anything to do with books, do you? . . . Think boots, not books.’”). See generally Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 29–30.
Unite the Right featured prominently on the Daily Stormer website. Staff produced their own poster advertising the event, urging followers to “Join Azzmador and The Daily Stormer” in Charlottesville on August 12 “to end Jewish influence in America.” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 90; see also id. ¶ 91 (“Using Daily Stormer’s website, Defendants Anglin and Ray commanded the Daily Stormer community to attend (‘You must make it there!’).”). Anglin and Ray told Daily Stormer readers,
We need to do everything we can to get as many people to attend this rally as possible. . . . There is a rising nationalist movement in America and it is not going away. Having thousands of nationalists come out for this rally will put the fear of god into the hearts and minds of our enemies. Id. ¶ 91. Two articles posted on the Daily Stormer website instructed followers to bring tiki torches, pepper spray, flag poles, flags, and shields. Ray later shared a link to one of those articles, “Charlottesville: Why You Must Attend and What to Bring and Not to Bring!,” on the social media platform “Discord.” Id. ¶ 115. He also wrote on Discord that he’d “be there gassing these people” and his “guys will be ready with lots of nifty equipment.” Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 6, ECF No. 673. Ray and Anglin “established ‘meet ups’ and chat rooms” on the Daily Stormer’s website for rally attendees to “use throughout the weekend to coordinate their actions” once they were in Charlottesville. Id. ¶ 83. See generally Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 30.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 6 of 24 Pageid#: 16005
Ray and other Defendants organized a “secret” torchlight march through the University of Virginia’s grounds on the night of Friday, August 11, 2017. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 142–43. A message on the Daily Stormer website told rally attendees they were “required” to have tiki torches for a “torchlight ceremony,” and instructed them to buy tiki torches and oil before coming to Charlottesville. Id. ¶ 145. “These torches were supposed to invoke the Ku Klux Klan’s and Nazi’s similar use of torches” to terrorize their victims. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 9 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 150); see Second Am. Compl. ¶ 149. As night fell on August 11, Ray and roughly “300 [other] neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 152, “marched two-by-two up the Lawn, around the Rotunda, and towards a Thomas Jefferson statue on the far side of the Rotunda,” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 9 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 159, 169). See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 149, 151–52, 158. They chanted racist slogans, “barked like dogs[,] and performed Nazi salutes.” See id. ¶¶ 160–61. During the march, Ray stated,
We are stepping off the Internet in a big way. . . . We have been organizing on the Internet. And so now they are coming out. We have greatly outnumbered the antiwhite, anti-American filth. At some point we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever . . . you ain’t seen nothing yet. Id. ¶ 87. He explained that they held the torchlight march because, “Our country is being usurped by a foreign tribe[] called the Jews. We are going to stop it.” Id. ¶ 149. Ray and others gave orders to marchers, “telling them to get in specific formations and assigning people either to march with a torch or on the side as ‘security.’” Id. ¶ 156. See generally Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 30–31. While the march was supposed to be secret, about thirty counter-protesters, including two remaining Plaintiffs, reached the Jefferson statue before the marchers. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 155, 163–66. “The counter-protestors linked arms and surrounded the statue, facing away
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 7 of 24 Pageid#: 16006
from it.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 9 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 164); see Second Am. Compl. ¶ 163. Marchers charged towards the counter-protestors, trapping them where they stood. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 165, 172. They kicked and punched the counterprotestors and, using their burning tiki torches as weapons, beat individuals onto the ground. Id. ¶ 167. At one point, “Ray shouted, ‘The heat here is nothing compared to what you’re going to get in the ovens!’” Id. ¶ 168. He later proclaimed that the marchers “went through [the protestors] like shit through a goose!” Id. ¶ 167. See generally Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 30–31.
Most of the remaining Defendants, including Ray, attended the main “Unite the Right” rally on Saturday, August 12. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 186. Ray carried a banner that read “Gas the kikes, race war now!” Id. ¶ 201. He also brought a “personal cameraman” with him to Charlottesville to record and broadcast the rally via a livestream on the Daily Stormer’s website. Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 4; see Second Am. Compl. ¶ 201; Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel Ex. 6, Azzmador, The Battle of Charlottesville Full Video!, Daily Stormer (Aug. 19, 2017), ECF No. 673-6. By 11:22 a.m., local law enforcement declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to leave the small downtown park where the rally was supposed to be held. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 222. Ray went to nearby McIntire Park with several other Defendants. Id. ¶ 225. About an hour later, Daily Stormer told readers to “go to McIntire Park now,” to “find Azzmador” or two other organizers, and to “not separate once [they were] behind one of these three men.” Id. ¶ 226 (emphasis omitted). The same day, Ray told a reporter, “We’re showing . . . this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country. This country was built by our forefathers. It was sustained by us. It’s going to remain our country.” Id. ¶ 225. On an episode of
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 8 of 24 Pageid#: 16007
the Daily Stormer’s podcast, “The Krypto Report,” Ray celebrated what happed in
Charlottesville as a success for the white-supremist movement. Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 7–8.
**
In June 2018, a grand jury sitting in Albemarle County indicted Ray on one count of
maliciously releasing a gas during the August 11 torchlight march. See Pls.’ Mot. for Evid.
Sanctions Ex. E, Docket, Commonwealth v. Ray, No. CR-18-597 (Albemarle Cir. Ct. filed June
4, 2018), ECF No. 750-5. As of March 2021, Ray was listed as a fugitive in state court records.
Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 4.
III. Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. Ray was personally served
with a summons and copy of the Complaint at a residential address in Frankston, Texas on
November 2. ECF No. 107. On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs served their Corrected First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on Ray through his thencounsel, Jim Kolenich, Esq.3 Those requests sought “information and materials directly relevant
to the claims and defenses in this case,” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29, ECF No. 539,
including copies of any “emails, text messages, recordings, or social media content related to the
3 Ray was one of several Defendants who retained Mr. Kolenich to represent them in this matter beginning on December 1, 2017. ECF No. 131. In October 2019, I allowed Mr. Kolenich and his local cocounsel to withdraw from representing Ray because Ray had not been available by phone or email for most of the litigation and counsel had not been able to contact him at all for more than six weeks. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 583; Kolenich & Woodard Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw 1, ECF No. 530; see also Order of Oct. 22, 2018 (denying first request to withdraw), ECF No. 364; Order of Sept. 19, 2019 (denying second request), ECF No. 558. At the same time, I warned Ray that he was “proceeding pro se and, unless and until new counsel enters an appearance on his behalf,” he was “solely responsible for conducting his defense in accordance with all rules, court orders, and deadlines in this case.” Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2. I also gave him an additional fourteen days, or until November 12, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Id. at 1; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Ray has not filed any responsive pleading in this case since July 2018. ECF No. 343 (joint answer to first amended complaint); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 9 of 24 Pageid#: 16008
preparation, planning, transportation to, or coordination for” the August 11–12 events and information identifying “all means of communications used to discuss the events, as well as the specific electronic devices used for such communications,” id. at 12 (cleaned up). Ray’s proper responses or objections were due by February 26, 2018. Id. at 12 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)).
In mid-March 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed me that “they had ‘had not received any written responses to [their] requests for documents or [their] interrogatories from any of the defendants,’ and ‘none of the defendants had produced a single document.’” Id. (quoting Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call, at 10, ECF No. 282). On March 26, I issued an Order denying another pro se Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and giving Ray (and others) another twenty-one days to properly answer, respond, or object to Plaintiffs’ first written discovery requests. Order of Mar. 26, 2018, at 3, ECF No. 287. Mr. Kolenich emailed Ray’s sworn responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 18, 2018. See Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions Against Defs. Kline & Heimbach Ex. 2, Def. Ray’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 2–6, ECF No. 488-2. Ray listed one email account, one cell phone, and five social media accounts that he used to communicate about Unite the Right. Id. at 2–3. His answers to each of Plaintiffs’ eight detailed requests for documents were all the same: “None.” See id. at 3–5.
That October, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Permit Inspection of Imaging of Electronic Devices. ECF No. 354 (“Pls.’ Mot. to Compel ESI”). Plaintiffs argued that imaging by a neutral third-party vendor was warranted “because Defendants’ document production ha[d] been inadequate—indeed, nearly non-existent—in response to Plaintiffs’ multiple attempts over the past five months to facilitate the discovery process” and “several Defendants ha[d] openly admitted that they intend[ed] to delete” nonprivileged ESI relevant to
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 10 of 24 Pageid#: 16009
the case. Pls.’ Mot. to Compel ESI 9–10. Ray asserted that he could not afford to pay a thirdparty vendor to image his devices. See Defs. Cantwell & Ray’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Compel ESI Attach. 1, Decl. of Robert Ray, ECF No. 367-1.
On November 9, 2018, I held a hearing on the motion to compel ESI. See Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel ESI, ECF No. 385. Plaintiffs and Defendants who appeared by counsel, including Ray, mostly resolved their disagreements over the proposed ESI protocol. I agreed that “ordering the parties to submit their electronic devices to a third-party vendor for imaging [was] necessary and appropriate to manage discovery in this action.” Order of Nov. 13, 2018, at 1, ECF No. 379. As I explained at the hearing, Plaintiffs had waited almost ten months for Defendants to produce the requested documents, Tr. of Hr’g on Pls.’ Mot. to Compel ESI 8 (“[T]hese discovery requests were issued in January; now it is November. And [that] is a significant delay.”), and there were still concerns that “some relevant information may have been lost,” id. at 27.
The Court entered the parties’ “Stipulation and Order for the Imaging, Preservation, and Production of Documents” on November 19, 2018. See Stip. & Order 1–16, ECF No. 383. This Order binds Ray and sixteen other Defendants and was put in place specifically to help them “collect and preserve” ESI from identified social media accounts and “electronic devices that is potentially relevant to this litigation and/or responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests” served on January 25, 2018. Id. at 2 (punctuation altered). Plaintiffs agreed to front the costs of imaging and collecting this ESI, at least for the time being, to keep the case moving forward. The Order gave each Defendant twenty-eight days—i.e., until December 17, 2018—to “make available to the Third Party Discovery Vendor for imaging and collection any Electronic Devices or Social Media Account” credentials identified on the Defendant’s sworn Certification form. Id. at 8. Ray submitted his certification form on January 22, 2019. See Order of May 18, 2020, at 2. He
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 11 of 24 Pageid#: 16010
identified as the devices and accounts with potentially relevant information one cell phone, two computers, and four previously undisclosed social media accounts. See Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 9 (Discord, Gab.ai, Krypto Report podcast, Twitter). Ray eventually gave the Vendor one cell phone, one computer, and credentials to one email account. Id.
On Monday, March 4, 2019, I ordered Ray and other Defendants bound by the Stipulation & Order to give their electronic devices and social media account credentials to the third-party discovery vendor by the end of that workweek. Order of Mar. 4, 2019, at 2. Ray told the Vendor that he did not remember the credentials for most of his accounts, including the Daily Stormer’s online comment section. Two weeks later, Ray’s (now former) attorney stated on the record, “it can’t be right that [Ray] doesn’t have Daily Stormer pass codes for the media” because he uses the comment section “on a daily basis” for his job. Tr. of Mar. 18, 2019 Mot. Hr’g 12–13, ECF No. 455. Mr. Kolenich also assured the Court that Ray would send his second computer to the vendor as soon as he got the first one back from them. Id. Plaintiffs’ records show that FedEx delivered Ray’s first computer to a residential address in Frankston, Texas on March 14, 2019. See Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 11. Although Ray apparently claimed that he sent his second laptop to the Vendor sometime that spring, the Vendor never received it and Ray never provided any tracking information. See id.; Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. C (May 2020 emails from the Vendor asking Ray to ship and provide tracking information for a second laptop and mobile device, and noting that “[t]he last communication [the Vendor] had directly with Mr. Kolenich regarding Mr. Ray’s documents or devices dates back to September 11, 2019”), ECF No. 750-3.
In August 2019, I granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 37 sanctions against three other Defendants who had also failed to comply with my discovery orders. See Mem. Op. of
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 12 of 24 Pageid#: 16011
Aug. 9, 2019, at 22–27, 29–30. I denied Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse-inference instruction and other evidentiary sanctions against those Defendants because at that point in the litigation the Court still had the option of “issuing one more very specific discovery order[,] this time under threat of arrest and detention[,]” to help Plaintiffs “‘get the information that [they were] entitled to’ and clearly still wanted.” Id. at 27 (quoting Tr. of June 3, 2019 Hr’g on Pls.’ Mots. for Sanctions 18, ECF No. 504)); see also id. at 33–35. Moreover, all three Defendants had recently stated on the record that they intended to comply with the Court’s rules and orders, including orders directing each Defendant to appear and participate in good faith at a deposition by Plaintiffs’ counsel devoted exclusively to that Defendant’s conduct in pretrial discovery. Id. at 27–29; see id. at 34 (“The Court will also have a better sense of Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse-inference instruction after counsel has deposed each Defendant . . . about what steps, if any, he took to preserve potentially relevant evidence.”). But, I also recognized that “the Court will likely have run out of options other than to impose significant evidentiary sanctions” against any of these Defendants who did “not follow through” on his promises. Id. at 35; see also id. at 34 (“Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions—including the adverse inference and an order deeming some of their proposed facts established—would be available, and certainly could be appropriate in this case, if [Defendants] . . . fail to produce the discovery from this point forward.”); See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 31–39 (granting most of Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions, including a permissive adverse-inference instruction, against one pro se Defendant).
That October, I held another status conference with the parties to discuss Ray’s and other Defendants’ outstanding discovery obligations and to set a timeline for the parties to complete pretrial discovery. Disc. Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 582. On October 28, I issued an
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 13 of 24 Pageid#: 16012
order giving each Defendant seven days to contact the Vendor “to determine what specific information, if any, the Vendor need[ed] to access that Defendant’s identified social media accounts and [electronic] devices.” Id. at 2. Additionally, each Defendant had fourteen days to “give the Vendor the last known credentials used to access the identified social media accounts, regardless of whether the Defendant currently has access to the platform, or whether an account is active, inactive, or inaccessible.” Id. The same day, I issued a separate order granting Mr. Kolenich’s third motion to withdraw as Ray’s attorney in this matter. The order warned Ray that he was “proceeding pro se and, unless and until new counsel enters an appearance on his behalf,” he was “solely responsible for conducting his defense in accordance with all rules, court orders, and deadlines in this case.” Order of Oct. 28, 2019, at 2. I also gave Ray fourteen additional days to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Id. at 1. He never responded.
Ray had until 5:00 p.m. EST on February 5, 2020, to give Plaintiffs’ counsel “all discoverable material” responsive to their interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Order of Nov. 27, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 597. On March 11, Plaintiffs filed their first motion to compel against Ray, asserting that he still had not produced his second laptop or credentials for his Daily Stormer, Discord, Gab, Krypto Report, and Twitter accounts—even though he used some of those social media platforms as recently as February 6, 2020. See Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 9–13; id. Ex. 15, TKR Live: State of the Union Special, The Krypto Report (Feb. 6, 2020), ECF No. 673-15. Plaintiffs had “also discovered from documents in [Ray’s] own production and from other Defendants’ documents” that Ray failed to disclose “a second cell phone” that he used on August 12, 2017, a Skype account, and two Twitter handles that likely contained relevant ESI. Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel 12–13. Plaintiffs asked the Court to issue an
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 14 of 24 Pageid#: 16013
order (1) compelling Ray to produce these devices and account credentials to the Vendor, and (2) instructing the Vendor to give directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel, “without the opportunity for Ray’s review,” every document collected from his imaged “devices and accounts that hits on any search term” the parties previously agreed upon. Id. at 17. Ray did not respond. See Order of May 18, 2020, at 1, ECF No. 728.
I granted Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety. Id. at 3–6. The Court had already held that Plaintiffs were entitled to the requested material because it was directly relevant to their surviving claims and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the parties’ relative access to such information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and most Defendants’ (including Ray’s) apparent inability to locate and produce responsive documents and electronic information. Id. at 3 (citing ECF Nos. 379, 539). The Court also had ordered Ray many times to provide or permit discovery of the same material within his control by deadlines repeatedly extended. Id. (citing ECF Nos. 288, 383, 440, 539, 582, 597). Yet, it had been Ray’s consistent “practice from the very beginning to ignore outright the court’s orders or to submit chaotically and defectively to them.” Id. (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 94 (4th Cir. 1989)). “Clearly, Ray’s ‘track-record of failing to fulfil his discovery obligations in a timely manner . . . ma[de] him [especially] ill-suited to participate in a discovery process that is predicated upon one’s prompt and good faith compliance with discovery obligations.’” Id. (quoting Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 3, ECF No. 638). The case needed to move forward.
Accordingly, I gave Ray one more chance to make good his discovery obligations. First, I instructed Plaintiffs’ counsel to send Ray a blank copy of the ESI Certification form, which they could “modify . . . to request specific information consistent with this Order.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 15 of 24 Pageid#: 16014
sent a copy of the modified form to Ray’s email address of record later that afternoon.4 See Pls.’
Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. B, ECF No. 750-2, at 2. Second, I explained in detail the steps that
Ray needed to take and gave him specific deadlines to complete those tasks. Order of May 18,
2020, at 4–5.5 Finally, I warned Ray that “his failure to fully comply with this Order may result
in the Court imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and/or directing Ray to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.” Id. at 6
(emphasis omitted). Ray missed those deadlines. See Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 2–3.
4 Ray’s email address, which is the same one he used to communicate about UTR and this litigation in 2017–2018, has been on file with the Court since at least November 2018, and was provided by Ray’s then-attorney before he withdrew representation. See Ray Contempt Order 6 n.2 (“Ray had actual as well as constructive notice [of] these Orders and deposition notices which were sent to him at this email address, as well as on account of their being filed on the public docket in this action.”); Staff Notes of Nov. 14, 2018; Oct. 3, 2019; and Oct. 25, 2019. The Clerk’s Office has advised that emails sent to Ray at this address have not been returned as undeliverable. See Ray Contempt Order 6 n.2; Staff Note of May 18, 2020. 5 More specifically, I gave Ray through May 22, 2020, to complete and return to the Vendor and Plaintiffs’ counsel a new Certification form that: (a) identified all Social Media Accounts, as defined in ¶ 2(xi) of the Stipulation & Order and regardless of whether Ray had already disclosed them (e.g., Daily Stormer website, Krypto Report podcast, Gab.ai, Twitter), that may contain potentially relevant documents or files, including ESI such as video or audio recordings, photographs or digital images, and private or public messages, posts, and comments; (b) listed the complete and accurate last known credentials that Ray used to access each identified Social Media Account, regardless of whether Ray currently had access to the platform or whether an account was active, inactive, or inaccessible; (c) for any Social Media Account for which Ray could not remember or otherwise access such credentials, contained a statement describing all the steps Ray took to recover the information and stating why he was not successful; (d) identified all Electronic Devices, as defined in ¶ 2(vi) of the Stipulation & Order and regardless of whether Ray already identified them (e.g., second laptop), that he possessed from January 1, 2017 to May 18, 2020, that may contain potentially relevant documents, files, or ESI such as video or audio recordings, photographs or digital images, and text messages; and (e) was signed by Ray under penalty of perjury certifying that the information contained therein was true, correct, and complete to the best of his knowledge after he made a reasonable effort to search for and produce all requested information. Id. ¶ 3(a)–(e). I also gave him through May 26, 2020, to send to the Vendor all identified Electronic Devices that the Vendor had not yet received from Ray or his former attorneys, including the second laptop that Ray identified on his sworn Certification form in January 2019 and a second cell phone that Ray failed to identify in his previous discovery responses. Id. ¶ 4 (“Ray shall promptly provide any tracking information to the Vendor and to Plaintiffs’ counsel.”). The Order instructed the Vendor, on or before June 8, 2020, to “provide directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel any and all ESI collected from Ray’s social media accounts and devices that contain the agreed-upon search terms within the applicable date range.” Id. ¶ 5 (citing Order of Jan. 22, 2020, at 2).
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 16 of 24 Pageid#: 16015
On May 7, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Ray to ask about his availability for an oral deposition in June. See Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Ex. B, ECF No. 803-2. When counsel did not hear back by June 5, they emailed Ray again to tell him that they would pick a date to depose him before the upcoming July 17 deadline and circulate a notice of his deposition. Id. Ex. C, ECF No. 803-3. On June 8, Plaintiffs properly noticed Ray’s deposition to be held by videoconference beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET on July 13, 2020. See Ray Contempt Order 2; Order of July 23, 2020, at 1, ECF No. 814; Pls.’ Second Mot. to Compel Ex., ECF No. 803-5; Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). Ray did not appear.
On July 22, Plaintiffs served Ray with a revised notice rescheduling his video deposition for July 29, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. ET. See Ray Contempt Order 2 (citing ECF Nos. 818, 818-1). The next day, I granted Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel, ECF No. 803, and issued an order directing Ray to appear by videoconference for his deposition on July 29, 2020. See Order of July 23, 2020, at 1.6 I also warned Ray that the Court expected him to “appear and participate in good faith” at this deposition and “his failure to comply with this Order may result in a bench warrant being issued for his arrest and the United States Marshal taking him into custody and transporting him to this judicial district to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.” Id. at 1 (emphasis omitted). Again, Ray did not appear at his video deposition, and he did not tell Plaintiffs’ counsel beforehand that he did not plan to attend. Show Cause Order 1, ECF No. 848 (Aug. 27, 2020).
On August 27, Judge Moon issued yet another order directing Ray to appear by video for his deposition, which had been rescheduled for 9:30 a.m. ET on September 14, 2020. Id. at 3. Judge Moon also ordered Ray to appear before him by video at 2:00 p.m. on September 14 to
6 I also ordered Ray to reimburse Plaintiffs’ reasonable fees and expenses caused by his failure to attend the July 13 deposition. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)).
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 17 of 24 Pageid#: 16016
show cause why Ray should not be held in contempt of court for violating my July 23 Order compelling his attendance at the July 29 deposition. Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order provided step-by-step instructions (with clear deadlines) for Ray to participate in both his deposition and the contempt hearing, and invited the parties to offer argument or evidence as to “whether Ray should be adjudged in contempt of court, and regarding any appropriate sanction(s) to compel [his] compliance with court orders.” Id.; see id. at 2–4; Ray Contempt Order 3–4; Order of Sept. 3, 2020, ECF No. 861. Judge Moon warned Ray that his failure to comply with the Order could result in the Court “issuing a bench warrant directing the United States Marshal’s Service to arrest Ray and to transport him to Charlottesville, and to hold him in custody until he purges himself of contempt.” Show Cause Order 4.
Neither the Court nor Plaintiffs’ counsel ever heard from Ray, and he did not appear for either video proceeding on September 14. See Ray Contempt Order 1, 4. Thus, “[b]ecause Ray ha[d] repeatedly ignored and continue[d] to ignore court orders in this case,” Judge Moon found him in contempt of court. Id.; see also id. at 6 n.2 (finding by clear and convincing evidence that “Ray had actual as well constructive knowledge” of the Court’s orders and Plaintiffs’ three deposition notices, which were sent to him at his email address of record and “filed on the public docket in this action”). “In view of Ray’s continued refusal to comply” with court orders, id. at 8, trying to enforce Plaintiffs’ diligent efforts “to get discovery to which they are entitled,” id. at 7, Judge Moon found that issuing a bench warrant for Ray’s arrest was the least severe tool left to secure Ray’s full compliance. See id. at 7–8. Indeed, I had already imposed “monetary sanctions to no effect.” Id. at 8. This Court issued an arrest warrant on September 16, 2020. As of today, “Ray is still absent from this case and proceeding in total disregard of court orders.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(b).
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 18 of 24 Pageid#: 16017
IV. Discussion Plaintiffs ask the Court to give the jury a permissive adverse-inference instruction grounded in Ray’s failure to comply with my May 18, 2020 Order compelling him to produce relevant information and documents going to the heart of Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims against him. Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 1; see also Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1, 25, 32. More specifically, they ask the Court to “instruct the jury that Ray chose to intentionally withhold his documents and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact, including that Ray chose to withhold such documents because he was aware that such documents contained evidence that Ray conspired to plan racially motivated violence at Unite the Right.” Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 1. Ray did not oppose this request.
* Ray violated my May 18, 2020 Order directing him to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials within his possession or control. Thus, there is no question the Court should sanction Ray under Rule 37 “both as a matter of justice” in this case “and ‘to deter others who might be tempted to similar conduct,’” Lee, 638 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643). Accord Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 30–31 (pro se Defendant’s pattern of “stonewalling and ignoring the Court’s orders over the previous eighteen months” was “misconduct [that] must obviously be deterred lest any other litigant think he or she can behave this way in federal court”); Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31–32 (“‘It is important that [anyone] contemplating this type of tactic understand’ that he cannot avoid discovery in federal litigation—and especially not in response to a court order.” (quoting Progressive Minerals v. Rashid, No. 5:07cv108, 2009 WL 2761295, at *4 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 28, 2009))).
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 19 of 24 Pageid#: 16018
I must decide what sanction or sanctions are “just” based on all the facts in this case and the claims at issue in the May 18 discovery order. See Ins. Corp. of Ir., 456 U.S. at 707 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)); S. New England Tele. Co. v. Global NAPs, Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court is free to consider the full record in the case in order to select the appropriate sanction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This requires me to consider whether Ray violated that Order in bad faith, the kind and degree of prejudice that Ray’s noncompliance caused Plaintiffs, and whether alternative, less drastic sanctions would provide an effective remedy. S. States Rack & Fixture, 318 F.3d at 597. Additionally, because Plaintiffs seek an adverse-inference instruction, they must show Ray knew these materials were relevant to some issue in the case and intentionally failed to produce them. Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450 (explaining that a court may impose “an adverse inference against a party whose intentional conduct causes not just the destruction of evidence, . . . but also against one who fails to preserve or produce evidence” relevant to the movant’s case); Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 155–56 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that a party’s decision to withhold documents or witness testimony “that naturally would have elucidated a fact at issue” may justify an adverse inference). “[S]uch an inference cannot be drawn merely from his negligent” failure to produce discovery. Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450.
** “‘Ordinary defendants must participate in the ordinary process of litigation,’ Mayfield v. Butler Snow LLP, 3:17cv514, 2017 WL 5616017, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 21, 2017), even if they do not want to.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31. They cannot pick which discovery requests they respond to, see Order of May 18, 2020, at 2–5, refuse to acknowledge opposing counsel’s efforts to obtain the discovery to which their client is entitled, see Ray Contempt Order 7, or
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 20 of 24 Pageid#: 16019
ignore court orders directing them “to provide or permit discovery ‘of the same material within [their] control,’” Order of May 18, 2020, at 3 (quoting Lee, 638 F.3d at 1321). This Court warned Ray that it took pretrial discovery “very seriously,” Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call 24, ECF No. 282, and that he would be sanctioned if he did not comply with its orders, ECF Nos. 728, 814, 848. “Ray had actual and constructive knowledge” of the written orders because the Court sent them to his email address of record, and they were not returned as undeliverable. Ray Contempt Order 6 & n.2. Yet, he “made no effort to acknowledge [his] obligations.” Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App’x 294, 302 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs also produced evidence showing Ray was active on email and social media—even commenting about this litigation—while at the same time failing to participate in discovery and other pretrial proceedings. See Pls.’ First Mot. to Compel Ex. 7; id. Ex. 15. “On these facts, [I] cannot interpret [Ray’s] continued disregard for” this Court and its orders “as anything other than bad faith.” Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302 (finding bad faith where the “record reflect[ed] a pattern of noncompliance,” including that the “district court was repeatedly compelled to admonish” sanctioned defendants “even after it warned them that it was going to take pretrial process ‘very seriously’” and defendants “made no effort to acknowledge their obligations”); see, e.g., Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 640, 643 (district court did not abuse discretion in finding “flagrant” bad faith “[a]fter seventeen months where crucial interrogatories remained substantially unanswered despite numerous extensions granted at the eleventh hour and, in many instances, beyond the eleventh hour” and the court’s repeated warnings that the party’s failure to provide certain information could result in Rule 37 sanctions); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Advanfort Co., No. 1:18cv1421, 2019 WL 3366103, at *8 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2019) (“In the Fourth Circuit, bad faith includes willful conduct, where the party ‘clearly should have
20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 21 of 24 Pageid#: 16020
understood his duty to the court’ but nonetheless ‘deliberately disregarded’ it.” (quoting Rabb v. Amatex Corp., 769 F.2d 996, 1000 (4th Cir. 1985)); cf. In re Derivium Capital, 372 B.R. 777, 784–86 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2007) (finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith where, despite being given “a clear and fair warning that he must fulfill” discovery obligations or face “drastic” Rule 37 sanctions, plaintiff failed to respond to court-ordered discovery and “did not offer substantial excuses” for his noncompliance); accord Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29–31 (finding that two other pro se Defendants acted in bad faith by stonewalling Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, failing to acknowledge “the Court’s and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s repeated efforts to contact them,” and ignoring or not fully responding to discovery orders).
Ray’s “repeated and ongoing discovery misconduct” throughout this litigation, including his failure to comply with the May 18 order, “resulted in significant procedural . . . prejudice,” First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., Civ. No. MJG-12-1133, 2014 WL 1652550, at *19 (D. Md. Apr. 22, 2014), to Plaintiffs’ ability to resolve their claims in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner, Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 33. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 35; Ray Contempt Order 7. “For a long time, [Plaintiffs] have had to deal with unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and disregard for both their proper discovery requests and this Court’s many orders trying to enforce them.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 33 (citing Diamond v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., No. 6:12cv57, 2014 WL 1404563, at *5–6 (W.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2014)). And their attorneys have expended time and resources “well beyond that which [are] expected of a party to secure” discovery to which it is clearly entitled. Ray Contempt Order 7; see also Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 31.
Ray’s refusal to produce materials that he admitted under oath contain potentially relevant information, and which this Court repeatedly found discoverable under Rule 26(b), has
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 22 of 24 Pageid#: 16021
also harmed Plaintiffs’ substantive ability to prove their conspiracy claim against him. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 35. “[D]iscovery was especially critical in this case because it is inherently difficult to prove a conspiracy.” Id. “Even in criminal prosecutions, ‘a conspiracy is usually proven by circumstantial evidence’ such as ‘a defendant’s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, the defendant’s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy.’” Id. at 36 (quoting United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up)). Thus, Plaintiffs reasonably sought “myriad communications, documents, and ESI” that could “help them prove that ‘each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 32 (quoting Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 21). Ray’s failure to comply with the May 18 order (and others) directing him to produce those materials potentially leaves an evidentiary gap justifying an “appropriately tailored sanction” against him, Doug’s Word Clocks.com Pty Ltd. v. Princess Int’l, 323 F.R.D. 167, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 36.
A permissive adverse-inference instruction helps “level[] the evidentiary playing field” at trial by allowing the jury to presume missing evidence was unfavorable to a party who, knowing it was relevant to some issue in the case, intentionally lost, destroyed, or otherwise failed to produce the evidence. Voduesk, 71 F.3d at 156; see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450. In August 2019, I found that an adverse inference “certainly could be appropriate in this case” if three other pro se Defendants, who had recently expressed their intent to comply with the court’s discovery orders, “fail[ed] to produce the discovery from this point forward.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 34; see First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., No. Civ. No. MJG-12-1133, 2013 WL 5797381, at *14 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2013). But, I delayed imposing this sanction against any Defendant until
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 23 of 24 Pageid#: 16022
Plaintiffs could depose him about what steps, if any, he took to preserve potentially evidence. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 31–33, 37–39. I later found that one Defendant’s “failure to produce much of the requested discovery, or to give believable [deposition] answers why the discovery did not exist,” id. at 35, warranted a permissive adverse-inference instruction at trial. See id. at 37–39.
Here, Plaintiffs did not get to ask Ray such questions under oath because, despite having “actual and constructive knowledge” that he was required to appear and participate in good faith, Ray failed to attend three properly noticed depositions upon oral examination by Plaintiffs’ counsel. Ray Contempt Order 6–7. Again, I “cannot interpret [Ray’s] continued disregard” for this Court and its orders “as anything other than bad faith.” Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302. On this record, Ray’s decision to withhold materials and testimony that “naturally would have elucidated a fact at issue permits an inference” that he knew giving this information to Plaintiffs “would have exposed facts unfavorable” to him or his case. Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156; see Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 179 (“The reason relevance [of missing evidence] is presumed following a showing of intentional or willful conduct is because of the logical inference that, when a party acts in bad faith, he demonstrates fear that the evidence will expose relevant, unfavorable facts.” (citing Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156)).
Finally, sanctions less severe than a permissive adverse-inference instruction would not be effective in this situation. I already imposed “monetary sanctions to no effect,” Ray Contempt Order 8, and Ray has demonstrated that he will not obey this Court’s orders even under threat of civil contempt, arrest, and detention. See id. at 2, 6–8; Show Cause Order 1, 4; Order of July 23, 2020, at 1; Pls.’ Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 4 (“Given that Ray has been a ‘fugitive’ from criminal charges for nearly two years now, there is every reason to doubt that the possibility of contempt
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 933 Filed 03/25/21 Page 24 of 24 Pageid#: 16023
would do anything to alter his behavior in this case, including causing him to participate in the discovery process.” (emphasis added)). A permissive adverse-inference instruction also will allow Ray to “defend himself at trial if he wants to” and will not have an impermissible “spillover” effect on any Defendant who did not disobey a discovery order. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 39.
*** Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions Against Defendant Robert ‘Azzmador’ Ray and for an Order Directing Ray to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court,” ECF No. 750, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Robert “Azzmador” Ray is GRANTED subject to the presiding District Judge’s final approval. Plaintiffs should submit their proposed language to the presiding District Judge in their proposed jury instructions.
2. Plaintiffs’ request for an order directing Ray to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating the May 18, 2020 discovery order, ECF No. 728, is DENIED without prejudice.
3. Plaintiffs may file a petition setting out their reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by Ray’s failure to obey the May 18, 2020 discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).
It is so ORDERED. ENTER: March 24, 2021
Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
24

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 24 Pageid#: 16030

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

ELIZABETH SINES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER, et al., Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00072

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Renewed Motion for Sanctions Against

Defendant Vanguard America.” ECF No. 713 (“Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions”); see

Pretrial Order ¶ 13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)), ECF No. 101. Plaintiffs ask the Court to

instruct the jury that Defendant Vanguard America (“Vanguard”) intentionally withheld

discoverable documents “and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact,”

including that Vanguard’s agents “chose to withhold such documents because [they were] aware

that such documents contained evidence that Defendant Vanguard conspired to plan racially-

motivated violence at the Unite the Right” rallies in August 2017. See Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for

Evid. Sanctions 5.1 Vanguard did not respond within the time allowed. Accordingly, I consider

Plaintiffs’ motion to be unopposed, Pretrial Order ¶ 7, and can resolve it without holding another

hearing, see ECF No. 504; Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); W.D. Va. Civ. R. 11(b). Plaintiffs’ request for a

permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Vanguard America will be granted

1 Pinpoint citations to documents electronically filed on the case docket, except for transcripts of court proceedings and depositions, typically use the header page numbers generated by CM/ECF. Pinpoint citations to transcripts use the number printed on the upper right-hand corner of the cited page.
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 24 Pageid#: 16031
subject to the presiding District Judge’s final approval.2 See Mem. Op. & Order of Mar. 24,
2021, at 24, ECF No. 933; Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 42, ECF No. 910.
I. The Legal Framework
“Litigants come to court to have their problems solved” in a fair, efficient, and orderly
forum. See Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 86 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are a set of written rules that “for all practical
purposes, and with few exceptions, . . . control the procedure in all civil actions in the United
States District Courts.” 4 Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1011
(4th ed. 2013); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 81. “They should be construed, administered, and employed
by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. And, although “litigation is not a game,” Bintliff v.
United States, 462 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1972), federal courts do expect that everyone will play
by the same rules on as level a field as is reasonably possible, see McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993). “Lawyers and litigants who decide that they will play by rules of their own
invention will find that the game cannot be won.” Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 663
2 Plaintiffs’ original motion for evidentiary sanctions against Vanguard America, ECF No. 465 (Apr. 11, 2019), sought an adverse inference as well as a court order deeming their proposed facts established and certain documents authentic for purposes of this action. In the summer of 2019, I took those requests under advisement, ECF No. 508, because they were premature. See generally Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29–35, ECF No. 539; Order of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 540. Plaintiffs’ pending motion expressly renews their request for an adverse inference, but, unlike their renewed motion for evidentiary sanctions against another Defendant, it does not mention their prior requests for a court order deeming any facts established or documents authentic for purposes of the action. Compare Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 5, 16–25, with Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Against Def. Elliott Kline 4, 20–25 (renewing requests for all three sanctions), ECF No. 601 (Dec. 6, 2019), and Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 39–42 (granting in part Plaintiffs’ request to deem proposed facts established as to Kline, imposing a rebuttable presumption that documents believed to be from Kline’s identified social media accounts are authentic for purposes of this action, and allowing a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Kline subject to the presiding District Judge’s final approval). Accordingly, this Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses only Plaintiffs’ renewed request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Vanguard America. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 3 n.4.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 3 of 24 Pageid#: 16032
(7th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 26–42 (imposing evidentiary sanctions against pro se Defendant who violated multiple discovery orders and failed to preserve relevant evidence); Mem. Op. of May 26, 2020, at 1–7, 23–28 (ordering Vanguard America to pay Plaintiffs $16,243.33 for expenses and attorney’s fees caused by Vanguard’s failure to obey multiple discovery orders), ECF No. 538.
Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery in most civil cases. See Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs., 253 F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Md. 2008). They are rooted in “the unshakable foundation” that “[o]ur adversary system for the resolution of disputes . . . . [is] directed with unwavering effort to what, in good faith, is believed to be true on matters material to the disposition,” United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1993). See Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 526 (D. Md. 2010; Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “The basic philosophy” driving discovery today is “that prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged.” 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2001 (3d ed. 2002); accord Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) (“The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.”). “Discovery, in other words, is not a one-way proposition. It is available in all types of cases at the behest of any party, individual or corporate, plaintiff or defendant.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. “To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever [relevant] facts he has in his possession.” Id.; see Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209 (W.D. Va. 2016).
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 4 of 24 Pageid#: 16033
Rules 26 through 36 provide specific devices or procedures—such as interrogatories,
document requests, and depositions—for one party to obtain discoverable information from
another. See Pruitt v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:15cv1310, 2016 WL 7033972, at *2 (D. Md. Dec.
2, 2016). Courts rely “in large part on the good faith and diligence of counsel and the parties in
abiding by these rules and conducting themselves and their judicial business honestly.” Metro.
Opera Ass’n, 212 F.R.D. at 181. When they do not, Rule 37 provides one mechanism for a federal court to compel compliance or to sanction an unacceptable failure to follow the rules.3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)–(f). Plaintiffs ask the Court to sanction Vanguard’s misconduct under Rule
37(b)(2) and (e). See Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 2, 5, 16–25.
Rule 37(b)(2) grants the district court where an action is pending broad discretion to
impose sanctions whenever “a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent . . . fails to
obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). See Law Funder,
L.L.C. v. Munoz, 924 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 2019). “The rule’s language clearly requires two
things as conditions precedent to engaging the gears of the rule’s sanction machinery: a court
order must be in effect, and then must be violated, before . . . sanctions can be imposed.” R.W.
Int’l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 15 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Carriage Hill Mgmt.,
LLC v. Bos. Lobster Feast, Inc., No. GJH-17-2208, 2018 WL 3329588, at *5 (D. Md. July 6,
3 Federal courts also have inherent power to sanction conduct that offends the legal process, including a party’s “fail[ure] to preserve or produce” discoverable information for another’s use in litigation. Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2004); see Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494, 497–99 (D. Md. 2000) (discussing both sources of the court’s authority). In this case, Rule 37 provides an adequate framework for sanctioning Vanguard America’s refusal to produce discoverable materials as ordered, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), and failure to preserve electronically stored information that should have been saved for Plaintiffs’ use in the litigation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 2, 5, 16–25 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (e)). See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991) (“[W]hen there is bad-faith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than [its] inherent power. But if in the informed discretion of the court, neither [a] statute or the Rules are up to the task, the court may safely rely on its inherent power.”).
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 5 of 24 Pageid#: 16034
2018); Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 518–20. Subsection (b)(2)(A) in turn “contains two
standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion” in choosing
what substantive sanction(s) to impose.4 Ins. Corp. of Ir. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,
456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982). “First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be
specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide
discovery.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). The Fourth Circuit has “developed a four-
part test for a district court to use when” making this determination.5 Belk v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc); see S. States Rack &
Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir. 2003). The court must
consider: “(1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice
that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of
non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective.” S. States
4 Substantive sanctions include orders deeming certain facts established, permitting or requiring an adverse inference, and entering default judgment against the disobedient party. Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 533–34. “Instead of or in addition to” any orders issued under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), “the court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to obey a discovery order], unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). I previously ordered Vanguard America to pay Plaintiffs $16,243.33 in reasonable attorney’s fees caused by Hopper’s failure to obey multiple discovery orders. Order of May 26, 2020, ECF No. 539. 5 The Fourth Circuit has not clearly defined the movant’s burden of proof on a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b). Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Anta (China) Co., Ltd., No. 1:17cv1458, 2018 WL 7488924, at *11 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018), adopted by 2019 WL 969572, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2019); Glynn v. EDO Corp., Civ. No. 07-1660, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2010). “However, proving misconduct by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, as opposed to by a mere preponderance, certainly suffices,” Glynn, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2, especially when the sanction imposed does not result in dismissal or default judgment against the disobedient party, see Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp’t of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504–05 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, the result is the same under either standard because Plaintiffs produced clear and convincing evidence that Hopper intentionally disregarded multiple court orders compelling him to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials within Vanguard’s possession or control. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 6 n.5, 26, 28–31; see, e.g., Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 22, Messages from D. Hopper to V. Mackey (VM: “How’s the civil suit going?” DM: “Lol dude it’s literal fucking chaos. . . . But that’s fine. I’ve been dragging my feet with their bullshit so much that they’re literally starting to run low on [m]oney. . . . I completely disregarded that lawsuit shit until about 6 months ago.”) (Oct. 26, 2019), ECF No. 716-7.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 6 of 24 Pageid#: 16035
Rack & Fixture, 318 F.3d at 597; see Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 784 F. App’x 118, 123–24 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)). Some sanctions, including an adverse inference, require the court to find that the disobedient party acted willfully or in bad faith. Sampson v. City of Cambridge, 251 F.R.D. 172, 181 (D. Md. 2008) (citing Hodge v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446, 450–51 (4th Cir. 2004)).
Rule 37(e) provides the legal framework for evaluating claims that a party failed to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”) for another’s use in litigation. See Jenkins v. Woody, No. 3:15cv355, 2017 WL 362475, at *12, *14 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2017). Under this subsection,
a movant must satisfy four threshold requirements before a court decides if any spoliation sanction is appropriate: (1) ESI should have been preserved; (2) ESI was lost; (3) the loss was due to a party’s failure to take reasonable steps to preserve the ESI; and (4) the ESI cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 327 F.R.D. 96, 104 (E.D. Va. 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). While “Rule 37(e) displaces reliance” on the traditional spoliation framework where the lost information was stored electronically, “it is grounded in the common law ‘duty to preserve relevant information when litigation is reasonably foreseeable.’” Johns v. Gwinn, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, ---, 2020 WL 7138635, at *5 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2020) (Moon, J.) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment); accord Steves & Sons., 327 F.R.D. at 104 (“This [traditional spoliation] analysis is similar to the Rule 37(e) framework, as it asks whether the responsible party had a duty to preserve, and breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve.”). “Thus, whether ESI should have been preserved . . . under Rule 37(e) turns chiefly on two questions underlying the duty to preserve: 1) whether the party should have reasonably anticipated litigation, and 2) whether the party reasonably should have known that the
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 7 of 24 Pageid#: 16036
evidence at issue might be relevant to such litigation.” Johns, 2020 WL 7138635, at *5 (citing Steves & Sons, 327 F.R.D. at 105).
If the movant makes this threshold showing, the “court must then consider whether the movant has established one of two options that would permit imposing sanctions.” Knight v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 3d 837, 845 (S.D. W. Va. 2018); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1)–(2). “First ‘upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, [the court] may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.’” Thompson v. Clarke, No. 7:11cv111, 2019 WL 4039634, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2019) (Moon, J.) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1)). “Generally, courts find prejudice when spoliation compromises” the other party’s “ability to present its case” using relevant evidence. Knight, 323 F. Supp. 3d at 845 (noting that Rule 37(e)(1) does not define the term “prejudice,” but that “determining whether prejudice exists given a set of facts ‘necessarily [requires] an evaluation of the information’s importance in the litigation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment)); see Thompson, 2019 WL 4039634, at *5–6 (“In the spoliation context, a party must establish relevance by offering probative evidence, not the hyperbole of argument, that the lost materials were likely to have been favorable to its case. . . . The lack of relevance translates into a lack of prejudice.” (cleaned up)). “Second, and ‘only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation,’ the court may presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party who lost it, instruct the jury that it may or must so presume, or dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.” Thompson, 2019 WL 4039634, at *3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2)).
II. Background6
6 This section summarizes certain factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 557. “While the Court does not repeatedly state ‘Plaintiffs allege that Defendant X did Y,’ this summary
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 8 of 24 Pageid#: 16037
On August 11–12, 2017, the “Defendants in this lawsuit, including the Ku Klux Klan, various neo-Nazi organizations, and associated white supremacists, held rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia. Violence erupted.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1; see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7. These rallies are now known as “Unite the Right.” Plaintiffs, several residents who were injured that weekend, contend that “this violence was no accident”— rather, they allege that Defendants “conspir[ed] to engage in violence against racial minorities and their supporters” in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and related state laws. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 1–2. “While ultimate resolution of what happened at the rallies awaits another day,” the District Court has held the remaining Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that certain Defendants, Vanguard America included, “formed a conspiracy to commit the racial violence that led to the Plaintiffs’ varied injuries.” Id. at 1; see id. at 27–29.
* Vanguard America is a white nationalist group with twelve chapters across the country. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 24 (alleging that Vanguard is an “unincorporated association” subject to suit under Virginia Code § 8.01-15). Plaintiffs contend that Vanguard played a key role in planning the rallies and that the group’s leaders actively communicated with co-Defendants and others before, during, and after these events. Most of that activity occurred online. For example, Defendants Jason Kessler and Elliott Kline (a.k.a. Eli Mosley) “used an online platform called ‘Discord’ for planning. This ‘invite only’ platform allowed Defendants and their chosen invitees to engage in private conversations during the lead up to the events.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots.
should not be taken as the Court’s endorsement of one version of the facts.” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 3 (July 9, 2018), ECF No. 335.
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 9 of 24 Pageid#: 16038
to Dismiss Am. Compl. 7 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71–73); see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 70–74. Kline and Kessler “moderated and managed Discord,” while Vanguard and others actively participated on the platform. Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 7; see Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 72, 76. “Conversation on Discord included mundane planning details, racist ‘jokes,’ and concrete threats of violence,” Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 8, including running over counter-protestors marching in the streets, id. at 42–43.
Vanguard America also had its own Discord server where its representatives helped plan the rallies and encouraged members to attend. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113–14. Vanguard leaders Dillon Hopper and Thomas Ryan Rousseau posted on Discord under their respective screen names, “White-PowerStroke” and “Thomas Ryan.” See Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 10, D. Hopper Dep. Tr. 30–32, 90, 62–63, 187–88, 193 (Aug. 13, 2019), ECF No. 716-1; id. Ex. 12, T. Rousseau Dep. Tr. 76, 244 (Oct. 16, 2019), ECF No. 716-2. Rousseau urged Vanguard “members to contact him directly if they planned to attend the ‘Unite the Right’ event and if they wanted to travel together in a ‘hate bus,’ saying: ‘This event is a **BIG DEAL** and offers a chance to link up Vanguard Guys from across the nation.’ He also issued orders on the proper Vanguard uniform for the event,” khaki pants and white polo shirts, which another Vanguard member described as “‘a good fighting uniform.’” Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 114–15. Rousseau knew some people would carry concealed weapons at the event. He noted that openly carrying a knife was not illegal in Virginia, but told his followers that “it looks really dumb to carry an open large knife so we’re not doing that.” Id. ¶ 114. In June 2017, Hopper asked other users on Discord’s “Charlottesville 2.0” planning server, “You guys want me to get some shields.” Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 3, Dillon Hopper (White-PowerStroke(Dillon)#6190), Discord (June 16, 2017, 1:09 AM). Vanguard made twenty extra shields so its members would
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 10 of 24 Pageid#: 16039
be prepared to “remove whoever is in [their] way.” See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 190. Hopper played some role in creating the shields. Hopper Dep. Tr. 193. He also “threw in [his] two cents” on other plans, id. at 90, but he did not come to Charlottesville for Unite the Right, id. at 188. But see Letter from D. Hopper to J. Hoppe 2 (“I wasn’t involved in any planning for the Unite the Right rally. . . . I was never even at the event, nor was I in any way part of the planning or organization of the rally.”) (June 24, 2019), ECF No. 509.
Many of Vanguard America’s members, including Defendant James Fields, attended the August 12 rally wearing matching uniforms and armed with large shields bearing the group’s logo. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 153, 196. At the time, “Rousseau would have been the senior guy in charge of Vanguard, so he would have been the [group’s] head representative” on the ground in Charlottesville. Hopper Dep. Tr. 207; see also id. at 30–32 (testifying that Rousseau “took over” Vanguard from Hopper in June 2017). That morning, Vanguard’s members led the march to the park “chanting ‘Blood and soil!’” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 197. That afternoon, Fields intentionally drove his Dodge Challenger into a group of counter-protesters, killing one person and injuring several Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 23. Within hours, Rousseau posted a message on Discord telling Vanguard’s followers that he was “safe, with a dozen or so guys hanging out at a hotel sharing stories of the day.” Id. ¶ 270. Other Vanguard members posted memes celebrating Fields’s conduct, including “a picture of Plaintiff Martin flying through the air with the caption ‘Can’t Dodge This.’” Id. ¶ 266. Another member “wrote: ‘I don’t think we should hand out shields anymore []everyone. . . . We should hand out Dodge Challengers instead.’” Id. (capitalization corrected). A third member wrote that Unite the Right “was the biggest victory for our movement history. It was glorious. . . . We gave many people shields, we
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 11 of 24 Pageid#: 16040
fought and shed blood for our people today.” Pls.’ First Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 21, ECF No. 465-21.
III. Procedural History Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2017. ECF No. 1. Vanguard America was served with a summons and copy of the complaint through its representative “Dillon Ulysses Hopper a/k/a Dillon Irizarry, authorized to accept,” at a residential street address on November 17. ECF No. 157. Hopper reached out to James Kolenich, Esq., and personally hired the Ohiobased attorney to represent Vanguard in this matter.7 Hopper Dep. Tr. 93. Mr. Kolenich entered his appearance in December 2017. ECF No. 131. On January 25, 2018, Plaintiffs served their Corrected First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories on Vanguard America through Mr. Kolenich. Those requests sought “information and materials directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case,” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29, including copies of any “emails, text messages, recordings, or social media content related to the preparation, planning, transportation to, or coordination for” the August 11–12 events and information identifying “all means of communications used to discuss the events, as well as the specific electronic devices used for such communications,” id. at 12 (cleaned up). Vanguard’s proper responses or objections were due by February 26. Id. at 12 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)). Mr. Kolenich emailed Vanguard’s responses, signed under oath by Hopper on the entity’s behalf, to Plaintiffs’ counsel
7 In June 2019, I allowed Mr. Kolenich and his local co-counsel to withdraw from representing Vanguard primarily because Hopper, who had been acting as Vanguard’s authorized agent in this litigation, stopped communicating with them. See Order of June 3, 2019, at 1, ECF No. 497. At the same time, I warned Vanguard that it could “appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel,” and that Hopper could not represent the entity because he is not a licensed attorney. Id. at 2 (quoting Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202–03 (1993)). Accordingly, I directed Vanguard to retain a licensed attorney and ensure that the attorney entered his or her appearance on or before June 25, 2019. Id. Vanguard still has not complied with that order.
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 12 of 24 Pageid#: 16041
on April 18, 2018. Id. at 14; see Order of Mar. 26, 2018, ECF No. 287. Hopper’s responses were vague, evasive, and materially incomplete. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 2, 14–15, 20, 26; see, e.g., Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 9, Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 2–4, ECF No. 713-9; Hopper Dep. Tr. 103–11, 114–16, 122, 126, 136, 162–63, 175, 205–06. He also admitted that he took “no special steps” to preserve any potentially relevant responsive materials within Vanguard’s possession, custody, or control. See Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 4.
Vanguard America’s discovery misconduct in this case over the next eighteen months is well documented. See generally Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 1–2, 12–20, 22–24, 26, 29–31 (April 2018 to July 2019). In short, Hopper, acting in his capacity as Vanguard’s officer or managing agent, disobeyed numerous court orders to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials within Vanguard’s control “while the litigation slowed and everyone else’s costs piled up.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 29; see also Mem. Op. of May 26, 2020, at 2 n.2. The first order, given at my initial conference call with the parties on March 16, 2018, was an oral directive that I expected everyone on the call, Vanguard’s counsel included, “to preserve any potentially relevant evidence” and that I took their “obligation to preserve this evidence very seriously,” Tr. of Mar. 16, 2018 Conf. Call 24, ECF No. 282. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 4 n.3, 12–13; Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 2–3, 10–11. The others were written orders setting out clear step-by-step instructions how Vanguard could “make good [its] discovery obligation” by deadlines repeatedly extended, Lee, 638 F.3d at 1321. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 11; see Order to Def. Vanguard Am., ECF No. 517 (July 3, 2019); Order of Mar. 4, 2019, ECF No. 440; Stip. & Order, ECF No. 383 (Nov. 19, 2018); Order of Nov. 13, 2018, ECF No. 379. In July 2019, Hopper confirmed on the record that he had “received each of the Orders,
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 13 of 24 Pageid#: 16042
discovery requests, and Stored Communications Act (‘SCA’) consent forms that explain[ed] Vanguard America’s outstanding discovery obligations.” Order to Def. Vanguard Am. 1. Yet, his “consistent ‘practice from the very beginning’” of this litigation was “‘to ignore outright the court’s orders or submit chaotically and defectively to them.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30 (quoting Mut. Fed. Savs. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 94 (4th Cir. 1989)).
That August, I found that Hopper acted in bad faith by stonewalling and ignoring the Court’s orders over the previous eighteen months—and that such misconduct must obviously be deterred lest anyone else think he or she can behave this way in federal court. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 4, 29–32. I also found that Vanguard’s “repeated and ongoing misconduct so far ha[d] caused significant procedural prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to resolve their claims in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.” Id. at 33 (cleaned up). Plaintiffs expended enormous resources dealing with Vanguard’s “unacceptable delays, obfuscations, and disregard for both their proper discovery requests and this Court’s many orders trying to enforce them.” Id. But, “we [were] not yet to the point” where Plaintiffs could not “‘present evidence essential to [their] underlying claim’” against the group. Id. (quoting Pls.’ Mot. for Sanctions Against Def. Vanguard Am. 21, ECF No. 465); see also id. at 26, 32–33. Written discovery was still open, the parties were conducting oral depositions, and the trial date had been continued indefinitely. See id. at 16, 34. Moreover, Hopper recently assured the Court and Plaintiffs that he understood Vanguard’s discovery obligations and he intended to comply with the Court’s orders going forward. Id. at 27–29, 34– 35; see also Letter from D. Hopper to J. Hoppe 1, 3 (apologizing for the time that he “may have wasted in these last several weeks or months by overlooking” the case or letting it “slip from [his] memory,” asserting he did not intend or want “to be blatantly belligerent or contentious” towards the Court or its orders, and promising to “work as diligently as possible” to “comply with all orders” going forward). In my view, “production was preferable to evidentiary sanctions
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 14 of 24 Pageid#: 16043
at th[at] point in the litigation.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 26. I would also have a better sense of Plaintiffs’ request for an adverse-inference instruction against Vanguard after counsel deposed Hopper and Rousseau about what steps, if any, they took to preserve potentially relevant evidence. Id. at 34–35; see also Order of Sept. 6, 2019 (giving Plaintiffs leave to depose Rousseau, in his capacity as Vanguard’s authorized representative, about “his and Vanguard America’s conduct in pretrial discovery, including their efforts to preserve any documents, information, or materials that are potentially relevant to this litigation”), ECF No. 553. But, I recognized that “the Court will likely have run out of options other than to impose significant evidentiary sanctions” if Vanguard did “not follow through” on its promises. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 35; see also id. at 34 (“Plaintiffs’ requested evidentiary sanctions—including the adverse inference and an order deeming some of their proposed facts established—would be available, and certainly could be appropriate in this case, if . . . Vanguard America fail[s] to produce the discovery from this point forward.”).
** Hopper sat for his court-ordered deposition on August 13, 2019. He confirmed that he led Vanguard America from at least April through June 2017 and that he controlled Vanguard’s Discord servers or channels during this time. Hopper Dep. Tr. 30, 32, 43. He did not remember what the servers were called, however. See, e.g., id. at 32 (“Oh, goodness. I can’t remember the exact name. It was probably something like Vanguard something. I have no idea.”); id. at 43 (“No, I can’t remember any of the server names.”). In April 2017, Hopper appointed Rousseau to moderate many of the Discord channels because Rousseau “knew what he was doing” and was “very intelligent.” Id. at 30. Rousseau admitted that he was Vanguard’s “social media manager” and “online content producer” during the relevant time. Id. at 26; see also id. at 41, 47, 72, 123.
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 15 of 24 Pageid#: 16044
He did not remember any of the group’s online usernames or accounts. See generally id. at 40– 41, 72, 76, 87–88. Sometime after UTR, Rousseau threw away his desktop computer that stored the log-in information for Vanguard’s email accounts. Id. at 46–47, 72. The computer was not backed up anywhere. Id. at 47.
Hopper testified that he accepted service of process on Vanguard America’s behalf in November 2017. See Hopper Dep. Tr. 30, 92. He also confirmed that Mr. Kolenich told him that he needed to collect and produce documents, including ESI, responsive to Plaintiffs’ first set of written discovery requests. Id. at 101, 105. Hopper insisted that he was “confused,” id. at 104, and never understood the requests, but he did not say whether he ever asked Mr. Kolenich for help, see id. at 104–07, 116, 122, 136. Hopper also made conflicting statements about whether he tried to identify or contact other Vanguard officers who might have responsive materials in their possession. See id. at 107. On one hand, Hopper admitted that he did not tell Mr. Kolenich about Thomas Rousseau until April 2019, and he made no effort to contact Rousseau or other group leaders about the lawsuit. See id. at 101, 103–04, 107, 111. On the other, Hopper testified that he tried many times to contact Rousseau, but Rousseau never acknowledged Hopper’s calls, texts messages, or online messages.8 Id. at 107–08. Hopper could not produce the messages during his deposition, id., but he promised Plaintiffs’ counsel that he would send his current phone to the Vendor for imaging within the week, id. at 216–17. Hopper waited another five months to submit his phone, Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 14; see id. Ex. 17, Letter from A. Levine to D. Hopper (Dec. 9, 2019), ECF No. 716-3; id. Ex. 25, Email from K. Kim to D. Roy (Jan. 24, 2020), ECF No. 713-25, because, in his words, he’d “been dragging [his] feet . . . so much,” id.
8 Rousseau later testified that he had not discussed the lawsuit with Hopper and he did not remember receiving any calls or messages from him. See Rousseau Dep. Tr. 26.
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 16 of 24 Pageid#: 16045
Ex. 22 (Oct. 26, 2019).9 The Vendor could not collect any relevant ESI from Hopper’s electronic
devices. Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 9, 14.
Shortly after Unite the Right, Rousseau started to worry that he or Vanguard might face
legal consequences for their involvement in the rallies. See Rousseau Dep. Tr. 244, 247. On
August 14, 2017, he mentioned in a Discord post that “[l]egally, we have been in contact with . .
. folks with legal experience, and we’re fine.” Id. Rousseau later testified that he sought advice
from “an attorney on Discord” two days after UTR because “people were making claims and [he] was worried.” Id.10 On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs served Rousseau with a subpoena to
produce categories of relevant documents in this case. See id. at 76–78. Rousseau contacted the
attorney on Discord whom he “was working with at the time” for “suggestions on what to do”
about the subpoena. Id. at 77–80. The attorney ghostwrote a “Motion to Quash Subpoena” and
“brief in support of a motion to quash and movant’s objections,” id. at 78–79, which Rousseau
mailed to “the civil process, LLC people,” id. at 77. He also sent the response to Plaintiffs’
attorney at one, possibly two, email address(es) listed on the subpoena, but “it got returned to
sender, and [he] wasn’t sure after that.” See id. at 77–79. Apparently, Rousseau objected that it
would be “unduly burdensome and very expensive” for him to comply with the subpoena
9 Hopper also sent messages warning one pro se Defendant “to tread lightly,” Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 19, Text Messages from D. Hopper to E. Kline (Oct. 18, 2019), ECF No. 716-4, and telling another individual that Plaintiffs’ counsel was “trying to pull you into” some “[d]iscovery bullshit,” id. Ex. 24, Message from D. Hopper to T. Hovator (Oct. 18, 2019). Hopper was on a conference call with the Court and the parties in this case when he sent those messages. See id.; Min. Entry of Oct. 18, 2019, ECF No. 579. 10 Rousseau testified that this person reached out to him on social media “at some point in time” and asked if he “wanted to work together” on “networking and activism.” Id.; see also id. at 80 (testifying that the person contacted Rousseau sometime before November 2018 because “he believed in the same things” and “wanted to help” with Rousseau’s “activism networking”). Rousseau “never knew his real name,” where he lived, which law firm he worked for, or even if he was a lawyer. Id. at 80 (“Q. Do you know if he was a lawyer? A. Well, he said he was and he seems to be, you know, credible enough. Just trusted him.”).
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 17 of 24 Pageid#: 16046
because he did not remember some relevant information or no longer had access to the requested documents. See generally id. at 87–88, 92–93. Rousseau did not take any steps to preserve information relevant to this litigation. On the contrary, he testified that he “usually” set up social media applications “so that messages [automatically] delete after a while of existing on the platform.” Id. at 30–31 (“Q. Is that every app you use, you set up that way? A. The ones that I can.”); see also id. at 230 (noting that relevant ESI could “have gotten swept away in something . . . like the automatic server deletions”). Rousseau managed Vanguard’s social media presence on Twitter, Discord, and possibly Gab.ai. See id. at 31, 40–41, 47, 57, 88, 123. In December 2019, the attorney who represented Rousseau in his deposition told Plaintiffs’ counsel that he had not heard from Rousseau since late November. See Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 34, Email from B. Gleason to M. Bloch et al. (Dec. 18, 2019, 4:55 PM), ECF No. 713-34, at 2–3. The attorney had reached out to Rousseau several times, but it was just “radio silence on his end.” Id. at 2.
IV. Discussion Plaintiffs ask the Court to give the jury a permissive adverse-inference instruction grounded in Hopper’s and Rousseau’s failure to preserve and produce documents going to the heart of Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims against Vanguard America. More specifically, they ask the Court to instruct the jury that Vanguard intentionally withheld discoverable documents “and that the jury may draw adverse inferences from that fact,” including that Vanguard’s agents “chose to withhold such documents because [they were] aware that such documents contained evidence that Defendant Vanguard conspired to plan racially-motivated violence at the Unite the Right” rallies in August 2017. See Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions 5. Vanguard did not oppose this request.
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 18 of 24 Pageid#: 16047
* A permissive adverse-inference instruction helps “level[] the evidentiary playing field” at trial by allowing the jury to presume missing evidence was unfavorable to a party who, knowing it was relevant to some issue in the case, intentionally lost, destroyed, or otherwise failed to produce the evidence. Voduesk v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 71 F.3d 148, 156 (4th Cir. 1995); see Hodge, 360 F.3d at 450. In August 2019, I found that an adverse inference “certainly could be appropriate in this case” if Vanguard “fail[ed] to produce the discovery from this point forward.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 34; see First Mariner Bank v. Resolution Law Grp., No. Civ. No. MJG-12-1133, 2013 WL 5797381, at *14 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2013). But, I delayed imposing that sanction until Plaintiffs could depose Vanguard’s officers about what steps, if any, they took to preserve potentially relevant evidence. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 31–33, 37–39. The officers’ statements, as well as their “continued disregard for th[is] Court and its orders” to provide or permit discovery of relevant materials within their control, Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31, leaves no doubt that a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Vanguard is warranted under either Rule 37(b)(2) or Rule 37(e). See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 37–39. First, Vanguard had a duty to preserve the requested ESI and other materials when they were lost or destroyed. See Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 4 n.3, 12–13; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). The duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence “arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.” Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001). “The broad contours of the duty to preserve are relatively clear,” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 217 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), and flow logically from a civil litigant’s
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 19 of 24 Pageid#: 16048
obligation to disclose and produce discoverable material relevant to any party’s claim or defense after a complaint is filed, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 469, 496 (E.D. Va. 2011) (noting that a party that “anticipates litigation” must “preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, . . . is reasonably likely to be requested during discovery”). See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 33(a)(2), 34(a)(1), 37(a)–(e). Once that duty is triggered, the party must “implement a ‘litigation hold’ to ensure the preservation,” Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 511 (D. Md. 2009), of materials that the party knows or should know are, “or could be, relevant to the parties’ dispute,” Blue Sky Travel & Tours LLC v. Al Tayyar, 606 F. App’x 689, 698 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 282 (4th Cir. 2013)). The hold should “encompass[] any documents or tangible items authored or made by individuals likely to have discoverable information,” Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506, 510 (D. Md. 2005), even if those individuals are not party to the litigation, see Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. at 218 (“[T]he duty to preserve extends to those employees likely to have relevant information—the ‘key players’ in the case.”). Moreover, “[i]f a party cannot fulfill this duty to preserve because he does not own or control the evidence, he still has an obligation to give the opposing party notice of access to the evidence or of the possible destruction of the evidence if the party anticipates litigation involving that evidence.” Silvestri, 271 F.3d at 591.
Vanguard America’s duty to preserve potentially relevant ESI and other materials arose, at the absolute latest, when Hopper was served with a summons and copy of Plaintiffs’ complaint on November 17, 2017. Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 251 F.R.D. 191, 197 (D.S.C. 2008). Yet, Hopper took “no special steps” to preserve these materials—even though Vanguard’s attorney told him to do so—and he made little, if any, effort to identify other “key players” within Vanguard’s
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 20 of 24 Pageid#: 16049
leadership who might have discoverable information. See Def. Vanguard Am.’s Resps. to Pls.’ First Interrogs. & Reqs. for Prod. of Docs. 4; Hopper Dep. Tr. 101, 103–05, 107–08, 111; Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 22; cf. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 37 (“Kline’s admission that he did not even try to preserve any relevant information—despite the fact his attorneys told him to do so—warrants an adverse-inference instruction under either Rule 37(e)(2) or the traditional ‘spoliation’ standard.”). Rousseau continued to use the “automatic server deletion[]” function on social media applications and did not back up the desktop computer that stored the log-in information for Vanguard’s email accounts before he threw it away. Rousseau Dep. Tr. 30–31, 46–47, 72, 230; cf. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 12 (Kline “never took any steps to preserve [relevant] information, such as backing up his emails or the contents of his phones”). Hopper and Rousseau both testified that they could not recall basic details about Vanguard’s social media accounts from the relevant time, even though they personally created or controlled those accounts. See Hopper Dep. Tr. 30, 32, 43; Rousseau Dep. Tr. 40–41, 72, 76, 87–88. Thus, the ESI and other relevant materials were lost—and cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37—because Vanguard did not make a “reasonable and good-faith effort” to “identify, locate, and maintain” them. Victor Stanley, 269 F.R.D. at 522 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, Vanguard America’s failure to preserve and produce materials that its agents have admitted under oath contain potentially relevant information, and which this Court repeatedly said are discoverable under Rule 26(b), has harmed Plaintiffs’ substantive ability to prove their conspiracy claim against the entity. See Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 35. “[D]iscovery was especially critical in this case because it is inherently difficult to prove a conspiracy.” Id. “Even in criminal prosecutions, ‘a conspiracy is usually proven by
20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 21 of 24 Pageid#: 16050
circumstantial evidence’ such as ‘a defendant’s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, the defendant’s attitude and conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy.’” Id. at 36 (quoting United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 226 (4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up)). Thus, Plaintiffs reasonably sought “myriad communications, documents, and ESI” that could “help them prove that ‘each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific coconspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the August 11th and 12th events.’” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 32 (quoting Mem. Op. on Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss Am. Compl. 21). Hopper and Rousseau’s failure to preserve and produce those materials potentially leaves an evidentiary gap justifying an “appropriately tailored sanction” against Vanguard, Doug’s Word Clocks.com Pty Ltd. v. Princess Int’l, 323 F.R.D. 167, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Cf. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 35–39 (pro se Defendant’s “failure to produce much of the requested discovery, or to give believable [deposition] answers why the discovery did not exist,” warranted a permissive adverse-inference instruction at trial).
Third, an adverse inference is appropriate because Vanguard’s agents “acted with the intent to deprive [Plaintiffs] of the information’s use in th[is] litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). In August 2019, I found that Hopper acted in bad faith by stonewalling and ignoring the Court’s discovery orders over the previous eighteen months even though, unlike other Defendants, there was “no indication” that Hopper had “acted out on social media” when he should have been participating in discovery. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 30–31; see Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 640, 643 (1976) (district court did not abuse discretion in finding “flagrant” bad faith “[a]fter seventeen months where crucial interrogatories remained substantially unanswered despite numerous extensions granted at the eleventh hour and, in many instances, beyond the eleventh hour” and the court’s repeated warnings that the party’s failure to
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 22 of 24 Pageid#: 16051
provide certain information could result in Rule 37 sanctions); Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Acord, 459 F. App’x 294, 302 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding bad faith where the “record reflect[ed] a pattern of noncompliance,” including that the “district court was repeatedly compelled to admonish” sanctioned defendants “even after it warned them that it was going to take pretrial process ‘very seriously’” and defendants “made no effort to acknowledge their obligations”). We now know that Hopper did discuss the litigation online and, contrary to his representations to this Court in June 2019, Hopper did not simply “overlook[] or let[] slip from [his] memory,” Letter from D. Hopper to J. Hoppe 1, Vanguard America’s discovery obligations. Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 2 (noting that Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 37 sanctions against Vanguard and two individuals was “well taken” because those Defendants had “continually failed to fulfil even their most basic obligations to this Court, their counsel, and the other parties to this case”); see, e.g., Pls.’ Renewed Mot. for Evid. Sanctions Ex. 20, Text Messages from D. Hopper to E. Kline (Oct. 19, 2019), ECF No. 716-5; id. Ex. 21, Messages from D. Hopper to N. Higgerston (Oct. 3, 2019), ECF No. 716-6; id. Ex. 24, Messages from D. Hopper to T. Hovator (June 7, June 28, Aug. 13, Aug. 14, and Oct. 18, 2019), ECF No. 716-9. Instead, Hopper “completely disregarded th[is] lawsuit” for nearly two years and continued “dragging [his] feet,” id. Ex. 22, even after promising that he would “work as diligently as possible” to “comply with all orders” going forward, Letter from D. Hopper to J. Hoppe 2. Rousseau’s evasive deposition testimony and halfhearted response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena shows that he “‘manifested an identical posture of resistance,’ Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302, and indifference to Vanguard America’s obligations.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31. Cf. Mem. Op. & Order of Nov. 30, 2020, at 32– 33 (“Kline did not follow through. In fact, Kline responded to two federal judges’ patient indulgence with broken promises, halfhearted steps towards compliance, and countless sworn
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 23 of 24 Pageid#: 16052
statements that were evasive, internally inconsistent, or simply not believable.” (quotation marks omitted)). Again, I “cannot interpret [Vanguard’s] continued disregard” for this Court and its orders “as anything other than bad faith.” Mem. Op. of Aug. 9, 2019, at 31 (quoting Young Again Prods., 459 F. App’x at 302). On this record, Hopper’s and Rousseau’s failure to preserve and produce materials that “naturally would have elucidated a fact at issue permits an inference” that they knew giving such information to Plaintiffs “would have exposed facts unfavorable” to Vanguard or its case. Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156; see Sampson, 251 F.R.D. at 179 (“The reason relevance [of missing evidence] is presumed following a showing of intentional or willful conduct is because of the logical inference that, when a party acts in bad faith, he demonstrates fear that the evidence will expose relevant, unfavorable facts.” (citing Vodusek, 71 F.3d at 156)).
Finally, sanctions less severe than a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Vanguard America would not be effective in this situation. I already awarded $16,243.33 in attorney’s fees “to sanction [Vanguard] for the procedural prejudice—namely evasiveness, delay, and obfuscation—[Hopper] caused Plaintiffs’ ability to develop their case in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner.” Mem. Op. & Order Nov. 30, 2020, at 35 (cleaned up); see Mem. Op. of May 2020, at 1–7, 23–28. Hopper and Rousseau still failed to produce much of Plaintiffs’ requested discovery, and they did not always “give believable answers why [other] discovery did not exist.” Mem. Op. & Order Nov. 30, 2020, at 35; see, e.g., id. at 18 (“Judge Moon found incredible Kline’s assertion that he did not know how to fully and completely respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Vanguard America clearly is unwilling to obey this Court’s orders even under threat of severe Rule 37 sanctions. Cf. Mem. Op. & Order of Mar. 24, 2021, at 23–24 (finding that sanctions less severe than a permissive adverse-inference instruction would not be effective against individual defendant where “I already imposed monetary
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 936 Filed 03/30/21 Page 24 of 24 Pageid#: 16053
sanctions to no effect” and the defendant had “demonstrated that he will not obey this Court’s orders even under threat of civil contempt, arrest, and detention”).
V. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Vanguard America,” ECF No. 713, is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request for a permissive adverse-inference instruction against Defendant Vanguard America is hereby GRANTED subject to the presiding District Judge’s final approval. Plaintiffs should submit their proposed language to the presiding District Judge in their proposed jury instructions. IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: March 30, 2021 Joel C. Hoppe U.S. Magistrate Judge
24

 
 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 16076

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

ELIZABETH SINES, et al.,
v. JASON KESSLER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00072 MEMORANDUM OPINION JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

This opinion principally addresses whether Plaintiffs’ experts (two sociologists who study white supremacy in the United States) can testify to a jury that groups in the white supremacist movement have developed and often employ “double-speak” or “just joking” strategies, which afford its adherents plausible deniability when conveying certain racist or violent messages. As Plaintiffs’ experts describe it, outsiders would only hear an innocuous comment or think the speaker was making a tasteless joke, while those “in the know” would understand the hidden meaning. Plaintiffs are asserting that Defendants are individuals and groups that organized and conspired to commit racial violence at the “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville on August 11 and 12, 2017. Plaintiffs’ experts intend to testify that certain communications between Defendants and online comments they made were consistent with those strategies.
Defendants Jason Kessler, Nathan Damigo, Matthew Parrott, Identity Evropa, and Traditionalist Workers Party (“Movant-Defendants”), have filed a motion to exclude such testimony. See Dkt. 826. In their view, that type of expert testimony would intrude upon the jury’s province to determine their credibility and would violate case law prohibiting expert
1

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 26 Pageid#: 16077
testimony characterizing a fact witness as a liar. Movant-Defendants further argue that such testimony would improperly tell the jury what result to reach.
Movant-Defendants raise several other arguments. They challenge Plaintiffs’ experts’ description of a “white supremacist movement,” with common traits including glorifying and normalizing violence. They argue that, by using that phrase, Plaintiffs are trying to build into expert witness testimony an improper shortcut to Plaintiffs’ burden to prove an actual conspiracy amongst Defendants. Movant-Defendants also argue that allowing this testimony would be unfairly prejudicial.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ proposed expert testimony is proper. Expert testimony has long been allowed to explain to a jury the meaning of coded language. Plaintiffs’ experts’ intended testimony about “double-speak” and “just joking” strategies are akin to coded language meant to deceive outside groups about the meaning of conversations among those seeking to engage in illegal or violent conduct. Moreover, the experts’ testimony is also grounded in numerous specific examples, and it fits well within the types of specialized knowledge that courts have regularly found helpful to a jury. While Movant-Defendants’ position is not entirely without force in the abstract, on this record and considering the parties’ arguments, there is little indication that the experts’ testimony will stray into improper characterizations or subjects. For these reasons and the reasons that follow, the Court has denied the motion. See Dkt. 937. Defendants may later raise specific objections when the experts testify at trial.
Background Kathleen Blee is a Professor of Sociology and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences and the College of General Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. Dkt. 832-2 at 1 (Blee and
2

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 26 Pageid#: 16078
Simi expert report). Professor Blee “specializes in social movements, including racist/antiSemitic and right-wing movements, racial violence, and microsociology.” Id. Professor Peter Simi is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Chapman University. Id. He has “studied extremist groups and violence for more than 20 years, conducting interviews and observation with a range of violent gangs and political extremists.” Id.
Plaintiffs retained Blee and Simi as expert witnesses, “to apply [their] expertise in the characteristics of the historical white supremacist movement to [their] examination of the materials in this case.” Id. They were retained to “analyze whether the Defendants utilized the tools and tactics of the white supremacist movement in planning and implementing the events on August 11-12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia.” Id. As Plaintiffs’ counsel describe it, Blee and Simi drew upon their research and scholarship “to describe a distinct white supremacist culture that, throughout its lengthy history, has informed the (often coded) language, tactics, and symbols of those who are immersed in that culture.” Dkt. 871 at 3. Then, using a social-science methodology, Blee and Simi “compared the distinctive features of that well-defined culture to the language, tactics, and symbols of Defendants” leading up to Unite the Right. Id.
Based upon their experience and analysis and as described in their 60-plus page expert report, Blee and Simi reached the following conclusions: (1) “[t]he white supremacist movement (WSM) in the United States has consistently utilized, supported, and glorified violence as a strategy to promote its message and secure white supremacy,” (2) “Defendants were active in and knowledgeable about the culture and networks of the WSM prior to [Unite the Right],” (3) Unite the Right “was organized to promote the agenda of the WSM,” (4) “[t]o organize [Unite the Right], Defendants used the cultural symbols, rituals, slogans, language, and references to historical figures that are the hallmarks of the WSM,” (5) “Defendants shaped and made use of
3

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 26 Pageid#: 16079
WSM culture and networks to recruit participants and to plan and execute [Unite the Right],” and (6) “[t]he coordinated race-based violence facilitated and committed by Defendants at [Unite the Right] is emblematic of WSM tactics.” Id. at 2. In Blee and Simi’s view, Defendants’ conduct planning Unite the Right “quite plainly followed the playbook of the WSM.” Id. at 63. They further concluded that “Defendants utilized WSM tactics, principally the reliance on racial animus as a motivator, the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals, and a coordinated strategy to obfuscate their aims through the use of “double-speak,” “front-stage/back-stage behavior, and a discrete and new-age communication platform.” Id.
At first, Movant-Defendants sought to exclude Blee and Simi’s report “in [its] entirety,” and to preclude them from testifying at all. Dkt. 826 at 1, 3. However, in their reply and later at oral argument, Movant-Defendants narrowed their position. Instead, they sought only to limit Blee and Simi’s testimony in certain respects. Dkt. 880.1 Movant-Defendants’ briefs offered little description of those portions of the expert testimony they found objectionable.2 Then, at oral argument, counsel for Movant-Defendants listed numerous excerpts from Blee and Simi’s expert report he found objectionable. Dkt. 916 at 5–9 (Dec. 12, 2020 Hr’g Tr.). Although the Court offered Movant-Defendants’ counsel the opportunity to submit a later memorandum further articulating the bases for their objections to specific portions of the report, id. at 14, 41– 42, they never availed themselves of the opportunity.
1 In addition, Movant-Defendants had originally sought to exclude testimony from two other experts proposed by Plaintiffs. Dkt. 826. However, in their reply brief, Movant-Defendants withdrew their objections to the other experts. Dkt. 880.
2 See, e.g., Dkt. 880 at 2 & n.2 (arguing that “it would literally require a page by page analysis to specify each objectionable section of the report,” and noting that they “intend[e]d to rely on oral argument for this purpose”).
4

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 26 Pageid#: 16080
The issues Movant-Defendants do not challenge and thus that are conceded for purposes
of this motion are significant. For instance, they do not object to: x Blee and Simi’s expert qualifications.3 x The methodology Blee and Simi employed in reaching their conclusions, or its reliability.4
x Testimony that includes “[t]he presentation of data from the record and even some historical data that’s not necessarily in the record in this case” but that “puts the Defendants’ comments and their activities into historical context.”5
x Testimony about “a historical review of white supremacist language and similarities of Defendants[’] rhetoric and processes with those historical examples.”6
x Testimony “using [Defendants’] own words and showing how it ties in with some of the groups that they are talking about in the past ….”7
Neither do (nor can) Movant-Defendants dispute that courts have long found admissible expert
testimony that explains the meaning of coded language to a jury. Id. at 11. While counsel for
Movant-Defendants initially argued for a distinction between admitting such testimony in the
drug-trafficking context, counsel agreed that “double-speak” is not unique to drug trafficking but
is “commonplace in all sorts of situations.” Id. at 12–13.
3 Dkt. 916 at 4 (explaining that Movant-Defendants were not “attacking … the qualifications of the experts”).
4 Id. (explaining that they were not “attacking, as such, the methodology that [Blee and Simi] employed in reaching their conclusions”); see also id. at 15 (“As Mr. Kolenich notes, there’s no objection to reliability or qualifications or methodology.”).
5 Id. at 4. 6 Dkt. 880 at 2; see also Dkt. 916 at 13 (“This historical review of white racial rhetoric and the fact that the instant defendants borrowed wholesale some of those phrases, we’re not objecting to that.”). 7 Dkt. 916 at 13.
5

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 26 Pageid#: 16081
Notwithstanding such concessions, Movant-Defendants have raised several arguments to limit Blee and Simi’s anticipated testimony.
First, Movant-Defendants challenge Blee and Simi’s anticipated testimony that groups in the white supremacist movement engage in “double-speak,” “just joking” or “front-stage/backstage” strategies, as well as their testimony that a Defendant’s or witness’s communications in this case are consistent with such strategies. Second, Movant-Defendants challenge Blee and Simi’s use of the term “white supremacist movement,” as well as certain testimony regarding core characteristics of groups within that movement. Third, Movant-Defendants argue that Blee and Simi’s testimony improperly attempts to opine on witness credibility, as well as on ultimate issues in dispute.
Applicable Law Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony. Rule 702 provides that A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the
case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Under Rule 702 and pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 789 (1993), the district courts have a “gatekeeping role” so that
6

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 26 Pageid#: 16082
they may exclude unreliable expert testimony from the jury’s consideration.8 These principles apply to all proposed expert witnesses with specialized knowledge, and not just those based on scientific knowledge. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999). Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702 “if it involves specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, and is both reliable and relevant.” United States v. Young, 916 F.3d 368, 379 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 889–92). There is no requirement that the party seeking to introduce expert testimony “‘prove’ anything to the court before the testimony in question can be admitted,” although, “[a]s in all questions of admissibility, the proffering party must come forward with evidence from which the court can determine that the proffered testimony is properly admissible.” Maryland Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780, 783 (4th Cir. 1998).9
District courts must be mindful of “two guiding, sometimes competing, principles” when considering whether to allow expert testimony. Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999). First, “Rule 702 was intended to liberalize the introduction of relevant expert evidence.” Id. However, courts also must be cognizant that “[b]ecause expert witnesses have the potential to be both powerful and quite misleading,” testimony that “has a greater potential to mislead than to enlighten should be excluded.” Id.
8 See also Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note (2000 amends.) (explaining that the Rule 702 amendment “affirms the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and provides some general standards that the trial court must use to assess the reliability and helpfulness of proffered expert testimony”).
9 See also Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note (2000 amends.) (explaining that “the admissibility of all expert testimony is governed by the principles of Rule 104(a),” and that, “[u]nder that Rule, the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence”).
7

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 26 Pageid#: 16083
A district court’s gatekeeping role “is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system,” and therefore “the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 825, 835 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 892 F.3d 624, 631 (4th Cir. 2018)) (cleaned up); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note (2000 amends.) (“A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.”).
Several other rules of evidence are relevant. Rule 403 provides that: “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. In this context, “unfair prejudice” means “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis,” such as “an emotional one.” Fed. R. Evid. 403, advisory committee’s note (1972 proposed rules). The “mere fact that the evidence will damage the defendant’s case is not enough—the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial, and the unfair prejudice must substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 341 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005), relevant part of prior opinion reinstated, 405 F.3d 1034 (4th Cir. 2005); accord United States v. Grimmond, 137 F.3d 823, 833 (4th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “[e]vidence that is highly probative invariably will be prejudicial to the defense,” but that Rule 403 only excludes “unfair” prejudice).
Lastly, under Fed. R. Evid. 704(a), “[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” The touchstone for expert evidence like lay evidence is that it
8

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 26 Pageid#: 16084
should be admitted “when helpful to the trier of fact.” Fed. R. Evid. 704, advisory committee’s note (1972 proposed rules).
Analysis 1. “Double-Speak” Testimony Movant-Defendants first seek to preclude Blee and Simi from testifying that the “white supremacist movement” or “WSM,” utilizes strategies of “double-speak,” “front-stage/backstage behavior” or other methods of deniability. See Dkt. 916 at 6–8, 10. Blee and Simi describe “double-speak” as “a strategy intended to simultaneously reveal and conceal meaning embedded in words and to create plausible deniability for ideas or actions that would attract legal or social sanctions.” Dkt. 832-2 at 11. In this context, as Blee and Simi describe it, it is a “method of conveying white supremacist beliefs and intentions to those within the WSM culture while sending an innocuous meaning to outsiders.” Id. Blee and Simi cite examples of coded words, expressions, or symbols associated with white supremacist groups that have this function. For instance, certain images that refer to pre-Christian Nordic religions may appear innocuous to outsiders but are “associated with sectors of white supremacism that adopt traditions of ancient Aryan spirituality.” Id. They also cite the much more recent example of “Pepe,” the “anthropomorphic frog meme,” which on white supremacist communication forums is used “repeatedly to signify the ideas of racism and anti-Semitism,” though “outside of white supremacism, Pepe lacks those connotations.” Id. at 11–12. However, Blee and Simi state that white supremacist groups’ strategy of utilizing “double-speak” goes beyond the use of “symbols” to include “rebranding,” “optics,” and related recruitment efforts. Id. at 12–13. In their view, certain organizations’ names like Identity Evropa (IE, now American Identity Movement) and Patriot Front have “intentionally and strategically
9

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 26 Pageid#: 16085
branded to appear to outsiders as fundamentally different from traditional white supremacist organizations to reduce stigma and appeal to mainstream populations.” Id. at 13. Blee and Simi also describe how this strategy is meant to assist with recruitment, such as National Socialist Movement’s decision to ban public displays of swastikas, or Identity Evropa’s attempt to target potential college-age recruits with images of professional-looking IE members in business suits. Id. In Blee and Simi’s view, these types of “cosmetic overhaul[s]” and “rebranding” attempts are meant “to conceal from outsiders the WSM’s continuing promotion—largely in cultural arenas and events restricted to insiders—of the racial and religious hatred associated with earlier white supremacist groups,” and “to conceal the WSM’s advocacy of violence.” Id.
They further describe social science research on language that has “identified how the tactic of joking can be used as a form of double-speak to deny culpability,” and conclude that the WSM utilizes this and other strategies of deniability. Id. at 26–28; id. at 28 (“White supremacists intend these jokes to be obvious to those in the WSM and obscure to those outside the movement.”).10 Blee and Simi further draw upon numerous examples in the record, and conclude that Defendants’ communications exhibited their “familiar[ity] with the concept of doublespeak” and “front-stage,” “back-stage behavior,” and that they “frequently used cultural themes, graphics, symbols, and code words that are widely understood by those immersed in the white supremacist culture to convey a meaning to insiders that differs from its surface meaning.” Id. at 41; see also id. at 41–47.
10 Relatedly, Blee and Simi describe “front-stage,” “back-stage” behavior as a strategy whereby people “present themselves differently when they are seeking to make an impression on others than they do in private.” Dkt. 832-2 at 13–14. They assert that the WSM utilizes this strategy to “push[ ] adherents to infiltrate mainstream society by selectively limiting overt displays of their allegiance to white supremacism.” Id. at 13.
10

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 26 Pageid#: 16086
Movant-Defendants have challenged aspects of Blee and Simi’s testimony. See Dkt. 916 at 6–8, 10. They object to expert testimony that the WSM and certain Defendants employed a strategy of engaging in “double-speak” to: “create plausible deniability for ideas or actions that would attract legal or social sanctions,” “conceal the WSM’s advocacy of violence,” and “create deception about the ideological and strategic direction of WSM groups and networks.” Id. at 6–7 (challenge); Dkt. 832-2 at 11–13 (corresponding sections of report). And they object to Blee and Simi’s testimony that new “social media and Internet platforms allowed white supremacists a level of anonymity that facilitated their ability to recruit and communicate among members and interested individuals while evading detection.” Dkt. 916 at 6; Dkt. 832-2 at 10. In addition, Movant-Defendants also object to portions of the report addressing how WSM “utilizes strategies of deniability,” Dkt. 832-2 at 26 (capitalization omitted), including testimony that, for “insiders to the WSM,” the “claim ‘I was only joking’ is not actually true but meant to provide a defense against any challenges.” Id. at 26–27; see also Dkt. 916 at 7–8.
Movant-Defendants argue that Blee and Simi’s opinions are merely an improper “attempt to opine on another’s credibility and to tell the jury what result it should reach,” and to “tell the jury what they are supposed to think about” Defendants’ words. Dkt. 826 at 3; Dkt. 916 at 8. Accordingly, in Movant-Defendants’ view, if they were to deny “planning violence on Discord or anywhere else,” or assert “that they reasonably believed people were joking when using certain rhetoric,” they argue that Blee and Simi’s testimony would improperly tell the jury that “Defendants’ denials of a conspiracy or pre-existing violent plan are, more or less, scientifically established to be not credible.” Id. Thus, Movant-Defendants argue that such testimony “violates the legal prohibition on telling the jury what to think and opining on witness credibility.” Id.; see also Dkt. 880 at 3 (arguing that such testimony would improperly convey to the jury that
11

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 26 Pageid#: 16087
“Defendants are lying” when “they offer alternate and legally innocent explanations of the same rhetoric …”). Finally, Movant-Defendants contend that such testimony is “unfairly prejudicial.” Dkt. 826 at 3.
Courts routinely admit expert testimony explaining the meaning of complex, obscure, or coded language to juries. See, e.g., Smith, 919 F.3d at 832, 836–38 (affirming admission of expert testimony explaining communications of the Baltimore street and prison gang, Black Guerilla Family, which mostly “took place in code—an assortment of slang, nicknames, and substituted words meant to prevent an outside listener from deciphering their meaning”); United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir. 2009) (allowing expert testimony when it could “help the jury understand exchanges that might otherwise appear nonsensical or impenetrable”). Indeed, the advisory committee notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that when those participating in a drug deal “regularly use code words to conceal the nature of their activities,” expert testimony applying “extensive experience to analyze the meaning of the conversations” is testimony that “should be admitted.” Fed. R. Evid. 702, advisory committee’s note (2000 amends).
Expert testimony is also allowed when it provides the jury background on the history, structure, leaders, or operations of an unfamiliar organization or subculture, as that information often can further situate communications and other relevant evidence into context. See, e.g., United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 130–31 (4th Cir. 2014) (affirming admission of expert testimony about the “meaning and context of various words and phrases used by the defendants which are commonly used by persons practicing extreme Islam,” the “structure and leadership of groups adhering to the principles of Islamic extremism,” and “the manner and means employed by extremist Islamic groups to recruit individuals and the process of radicalization which occurs
12

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 13 of 26 Pageid#: 16088
within such groups”); Hammoud, 381 F.3d at 337–38 (affirming admission of expert testimony about the structure, funding, and leaders of Hizballah, and “explain[ing] the significance of Hammoud’s contact with those leaders”); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 936 (2d Cir. 1993) (explaining that expert testimony is appropriate “to help explain the operation, structure, membership, and terminology of organized crime families”).
Such expert testimony is regularly admitted because it is often not only helpful but necessary for jurors to have an informed understanding of language. The Fourth Circuit has explained that expert interpretations of “gang and drug communications,” for example, can be based on “years of investigatory experience and exposure” to many such conversations, and the expert may apply that experience “much like how foreign-language experts, such as Spanish interpreters, apply their training and experience to analyze the meaning of conversations.” Smith, 919 F.3d at 836.
Lastly, myriad cases have allowed the admission of expert testimony to describe the meaning of white supremacist symbols, names, groups, or coded language, when such evidence was relevant to the issues at trial. See, e.g., Young, 916 F.3d at 379–80 (affirming admission of expert testimony regarding “white separatists and the neo-Nazi movement,” and on the “historical backgrounds of and connection between Nazism and militant Islamism,” when “the evidence in this case was complicated, touching by necessity on a wide variety of ideas, terms, people, and organizations connected to radical Islam, as well as white supremacism”) (internal quotation marks omitted); People v. Lindberg, 190 P.3d 664, 697–701 (Cal. 2008) (finding expert testimony relevant for jurors who “might not have understood that symbols often associated with Nazis [ ] adorned some of the items found in defendant’s bedroom,” “[n]or would the jurors likely have recognized the names of the white supremacist leaders … noted in
13

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 14 of 26 Pageid#: 16089
the items seized”). Indeed, “[n]umerous decisions in federal and [ ] state cases also have upheld the admission of expert testimony to explain the culture and beliefs of White supremacy groups and gangs and to interpret tattoos, symbols, and graffiti associated with these groups when such evidence was relevant to the issues at trial.” Id. (citing decisions from the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and various state courts). These principles supply the framework for MovantDefendants’ evidentiary challenges.
This authority establishes that expert testimony is admissible where it would help the jury understand hidden unlawful or violent meanings that underlie innocent-sounding language, and to provide the context and basis for the expert’s interpretation, so that the jury can weigh the alternative interpretations. And that is what Plaintiffs’ experts seek to do here. See, e.g., Smith, 919 F.3d at 830, 832, 836 (affirming admission of gang expert testimony interpreting conversations that “took place in code,” including that the phrase “special light” meant an “authorization used by gang members … to kill another person”); Johnson, 587 F.3d at 634 (affirming admission of gang testimony that defendants’ use of “seemingly innocuous terms” used in these calls like “tickets” and “T-shirts” were actually “code” for narcotics). Offering an alternative interpretation for language defendants used is the very point of such expert testimony. The fact that Plaintiffs’ experts’ interpretation may be different from Defendants’ does not render it improper. Nor have Movant-Defendants challenged Blee and Simi’s methodology or its reliability in how they reached their broader conclusions about the white supremacist movement’s use of “double-speak” strategies, or as used by specific Defendants here. Moreover, the testimony Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to introduce is not the same thing as trying to introduce expert testimony that a fact witness lied in their testimony. Plaintiffs’ counsel was unequivocal at
14

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 15 of 26 Pageid#: 16090
oral argument that Blee and Simi “are absolutely not going to say that any witness is lying,” Dkt. 916 at 14, and the Court intends to hold them to that representation.
Movant-Defendants challenge Blee and Simi’s anticipated testimony that “Defendants utilized double-speak when planning and organizing Unite the Right” Dkt. 916 at 8; Dkt. 832-2 at 41 (capitalization omitted). They contend that such testimony is irrelevant because it posits that Defendants organized an “a priori plan to perpetuate violence and then cover it up.” Dkt. 916 at 8. However, Movant-Defendants argue that the complaint does not mention any “preexisting plan to cover up the plan.” Id. Not so. In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged just that—that Defendants conspired to perpetuate violence at Unite the Right and used various means to communicate those plans to co-conspirators, and that substantial efforts were made to shield those plans from public scrutiny and maintain plausible deniability to outsiders.
For example, in the complaint Plaintiffs described Defendants’ use of public means of communication in organizing Unite the Right, including on the most prominent social media sites. E.g., Dkt. 557 (Second Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 67, 85, 86. However, the complaint also includes details about numerous Defendants’ use of a non-public, “invite only” group on the social media platform Discord “as a tool to promote, coordinate, and organize the Unite the Right ‘rally,’ and as a means to communicate and coordinate violent and illegal activities ‘in secret’ during the actual events of that weekend.” Id. ¶¶ 71–80. Indeed, following discovery, it appears that certain Defendants even exercised caution among the wide, non-public Discord audience and sought to ensure that Discord users “keep their most extreme ideas and feelings off the platform” and save them for yet more surreptitious means of communication, such as “burner phones.” Dkt. 832-2 at 45–46. Even still, the complaint includes “countless exhortations to violence” in the nonpublic Discord group. Dkt. 557 ¶ 96 (citing examples).
15

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 16 of 26 Pageid#: 16091
The complaint also includes allegations that certain Defendants’ references to “selfdefense” were merely a “false narrative” and “pretext for violence.” Dkt. 557 ¶¶ 103–04, 111. And it includes examples of certain Defendants’ purportedly joking references to violence and racial violence. Id. ¶¶ 109–10, 115, 135. The complaint also describes how Defendant Kessler, when planning Unite the Right, sought to use the Confederate flag and other “confederate iconography” which they believed provided the “best optics” for recruitment. Id. ¶¶ 121–22. And Plaintiffs have brought numerous claims, including their claim that Defendants conspired to engage in violence and intimidation, and to violate the rights of Plaintiffs, black and Jewish people, and their supporters at Unite the Right. Id. ¶¶ 335–43. Movant-Defendants simply cannot credibly claim that such testimony is irrelevant to the issues raised in the complaint, or that they were not on notice that Plaintiffs raised such claims and were entitled to prove them to a jury with documents, fact, or expert witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a) (expert testimony must help the jury “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”). Indeed, at argument Movant-Defendants’ counsel even acknowledged that the complaint need not have expressly alleged a “preexisting plan to cover up the plan,” as “that’s sort of implicit in conspiracy.” Dkt. 916 at 8.
Nor do Blee and Simi opine on these “double-speak” and “just joking” strategies in a vacuum. See Smith, 919 F.3d at 837 (“An expert’s methodology cannot be applied in a factual vacuum. Thus, an expert in code or language must consider the context surrounding the language in determining the appropriate interpretation.”). Beyond providing context drawn from history and common white supremacist tropes, e.g., Dkt. 832-2 at 11–14, 26–29, Blee and Simi cite numerous, specific communications and directives from Unite the Right organizers that tracked or exemplified such strategies.
16

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 17 of 26 Pageid#: 16092
For example, Defendant Andrew Anglin, founder and editor of the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer (for whom Defendant Robert “Azzmador” Ray was a writer) prepared a “Style Guide” for The Daily Stormer writers which instructed that: “[t]he tone of the site should be light,” and cautioned, “[m]ost people are not comfortable with material that comes across as vitriolic, raging, nonironic hatred.” Dkt. 832-2 at 41–42. The Style Guide further instructed that “[t]he unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not. There should also be a conscious awareness of mocking stereotypes of hateful racists. … This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes …” Id. at 42. Notably, the complaint quotes at length a post from The Daily Stormer which calls on supporters to “win this struggle and secure the existence of our people and future for white children. It is our destiny. Next stop: Charlottesville, VA. Final stop: Auschwitz. See ya there, faggots.” Dkt. 557 at 29–30 (emphasis in original). In addition, Blee and Simi cite an excerpt from a May 2017 podcast in which Ray explained that humor is “a great icebreaker for people who are amenable to our ideas” and “a lot more effective than just being super serious all the time.” Dkt. 832-2 at 42–43. Ray noted that this tactic “really keeps our opponents off balance, because they can’t tell, they can never be certain, what things we’re absolutely serious about, and what things we’re joking about.” Id. at 43.
Blee and Simi also cite an exchange between Defendants Jason Kessler and Matthew Heimbach planning Unite the Right, in which Kessler wrote that a KKK event in Charlottesville the prior month will “hurt the overall pro-white message,” and sought to “convince them to come in plainclothes” to Unite the Right; he also wanted to “make sure everyone knows not to bring [N]azi or [K]lan iconography to the rally? … I don’t want any swastikas or [Nazi] salutes at the event.” Id. at 45. Blee and Simi wrote that in this exchange, Kessler “demonstrated his awareness
17

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 18 of 26 Pageid#: 16093
of the importance of ‘optics’ at [Unite the Right],” and that such requests were “consistent with the documented efforts of some WSM groups to rebrand themselves in recent years as closer to the political mainstream to attract new recruits while retaining their allegiance to the core beliefs and practices of white supremacism.” Id. Movant-Defendants do not argue that these or other examples lack necessary context, and the Court finds they do at this juncture. Though, to be sure, at trial Plaintiffs must introduce sufficient factual context for particular examples of “doublespeak” about which Blee and Simi will be called to testify so that a jury can weigh their methodology and interpretation of Defendants’ words.11 See Smith, 919 F.3d at 837 (noting what constituted necessary context for expert’s interpretation of intercepted calls).
Blee and Simi’s challenged testimony is undoubtedly relevant and helpful to a jury considering the merit of Plaintiffs’ claims on these facts. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired to engage in racially motivated violence at the Unite the Right events, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). One element Plaintiffs will need to prove at trial to prevail on their § 1985(3) conspiracy claim is that Defendants were motivated by racial animus. Sines v. Kessler, 324 F. Supp. 3d 765, 780 (W.D. Va. 2018); A Soc’y Without A Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff will further need to prove that each Defendant entered into an agreement with a specific co-conspirator to engage in racially motivated violence at the Unite the Right events. Sines, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 784. Blee and Simi’s testimony on purposeful “doublespeak,” “just joking” and “front-stage/back-stage” strategies employed by these and other white
11 Providing necessary context does not mean that Blee and Simi need, or should, be the focal point or conduit for Plaintiffs’ evidentiary case. The more an expert witness becomes “more like a summary of the facts than an aide in understanding them,” or “transforms into the hub of the case,” the greater the risk that the expert will stray beyond permissible “specialized knowledge” allowable under Rule 702. See United States v. Rios, 830 F.3d 430, 414 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
18

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 19 of 26 Pageid#: 16094
supremacist groups—which among other things they describe can serve a recruiting function— are relevant to the facts of this case and will be helpful to a jury. Specifically, such testimony will help a jury to determine whether Defendants’ actions were motivated by racial animus, or whether they entered into agreements with specific co-conspirators to commit racially motivated violence at Unite the Right.
Nor can the Court conclude that this evidence is “unfairly prejudicial” to Defendants, in that it would prompt an “undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis” such as “an emotional one.” Fed. R. Evid. 403, advisory committee’s note (1972 proposed rules). This evidence is relevant, and the fact that it is relevant and probative of Plaintiffs’ claims may cause some prejudice to Defendants, but that is not the same thing as “unfair prejudice.” Grimmond, 137 F.3d at 833. Moreover, to the extent there is any prejudice at all, the Court cannot conclude that undue prejudice would “substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” Hammoud, 381 F.3d at 341.
To be clear, Defendants will have the opportunity on cross examination to test the experts’ methodology on these issues and its application to the facts of this case. Defendants also will be able to present their own narratives and explanations regarding any material statements or communications. And the jury will be able to weigh the evidence. Cf. Johnson, 587 F.3d at 636 (writing that the expert “conceded during cross-examination that there were some conversations in which the word ‘tickets’ was actually being used in its normal sense,” rather than as code for narcotics). However, given Rule 702’s intent to “liberalize the introduction of relevant expert evidence,” Westberry, 178 F.3d at 261, and finding such expert evidence relevant here, and considering the substantial authority from the Fourth Circuit and elsewhere finding materially similar testimony admissible, the Court has rejected Movant-Defendants’ evidentiary challenge.
19

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 20 of 26 Pageid#: 16095
2. White Supremacist Movement Testimony Movant-Defendants argue that Blee and Simi should not be able to testify using “the phraseology ‘White Supremacist Movement.’” Dkt. 916 at 5. In Movant-Defendants’ view, the term “white supremacist movement” improperly “implies organization and implies conspiracy,” and that is “the subject at issue.” Id. Rather, they want Blee and Simi to “stick with what is commonly found in academic treatises,” be it the terms “racist, extremist,” or “what they call themselves, Nazis,” etc. Id. Movant-Defendants also object to Blee and Simi’s anticipated testimony regarding certain traits, methods, or characteristics shared by various white supremacist groups. Dkt. 916 at 5–6. Movant-Defendants challenge Blee and Simi’s anticipated testimony that (1) while WSM “branches” have “somewhat differing ideological emphases,” “all embrace and have defended violence as a tactic to achieve a society in which the white race is completely dominant,” Dkt. 832-2 at 7; (2) “the WSM is coordinated primarily through a common culture that sustains a shared set of interpretations and norms of behavior,” including violence, id.; (3) “[t]he organizational structure of the WSM is decentralized, but the movement’s culture is integrated with substantial agreement on core ideas and goals which allows the WSM to reinforce norms of violence and more general codes of conduct,” id. at 10; and (4) that “[t]he WSM is characterized by the use of violence,” id. at 14; see also id. at 14–25. Indeed, Movant-Defendants object to the entirety of the section of the expert report entitled “[t]he WSM is characterized by the use of violence,” id. at 14, with the notable “exception of the historical review contained therein,” Dkt. 916 at 7. But most of that section of the report is “historical review” of white supremacist groups’ use of and advocacy for racial
20

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 21 of 26 Pageid#: 16096
violence, although some of that is more recent. Id. at 14–25. It is therefore unclear what precisely Movant-Defendants object to in this regard.
To be clear, Blee and Simi have not coined a new phrase by describing and referring to the “white supremacist movement.” Courts including the Fourth Circuit have long referred to the “white supremacist movement” or “white supremacy movement.”12 Movant-Defendants do not specify whether, in their view, Blee and Simi should be precluded from using this term because it is irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial, or both. Regardless, the Court finds that the experts’ use of the term and challenged statements related thereto are all relevant and would be helpful to a jury, and that their admission would not work any unfair prejudice against Defendants.
Again, Plaintiffs will have to prove, among other things, that Defendants were motivated by racial animus, and that Defendants entered into an agreement with one or more specific coconspirators to engage in racially motivated violence at the Unite the Right events. See Sines, 324 F. Supp. 3d at 780, 784; A Soc’y Without A Name, 6555 F.3d at 346. Blee and Simi’s challenged expert testimony on these issues is “specialized knowledge” that will be useful to a jury considering whether Plaintiffs have proven these elements of their claims on these facts. For example, Blee and Simi intend to testify about different “branches” of the “modern WSM,” and—after discussing relevant history (which is not objected to)—the branches’ embrace of
12 See United States v. Miller, 849 F.2d 607, at *1 (4th Cir. 1988) (unpublished, per curiam) (“The indictment charges that the appellants Miller and Jackson conspired with their codefendants … to steal military weapons, explosives, and equipment from the United States to be used by a group within the White Supremacist Movement, known as the Carolina Knights of the [KKK] and its successor, the White Patriot Party in connection with the maintenance, training, and equipping of a paramilitary armed force to further the goals of the White Supremacist Movement.”); Person v. Miller, 854 F.2d 656, 665 (4th Cir. 1988) (rejecting argument that “no black citizen could ever serve as an impartial juror in an action involving a white supremacist, group or individual, as a party,” and holding no basis to impute “bias to all those groups or individuals offended by the white supremacy movement”).
21

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 22 of 26 Pageid#: 16097
violent tactics to secure a society with a dominant white race. Dkt. 832-2, at 7–8, 14–25. Such testimony will assist a jury with valuable historical background and specialized knowledge about connections or dissimilarities between these groups’ ideologies, and their track record(s) of committing, inciting, or glorifying violence. The Court further concludes this testimony will be of assistance to a jury considering whether Defendants were motivated by racial animus and conspired to commit racially motivated violence, or whether, for example, they were merely expressing political or social views.
Moreover, that Plaintiffs would seek to introduce expert testimony addressing certain common beliefs, strategies, and violent tactics of various white supremacist groups is not only unsurprising but would also be uniquely helpful evidence to a jury in a conspiracy case that involves ten white supremacist organizations and fourteen individuals as defendants. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ case is that Defendants engaged in a coordinated effort to organize “a plethora of white supremacist groups” to take part in and ultimately commit racial violence at the Unite the Right events. Sines, 324 F.3d at 784. The Fourth Circuit has affirmed the admission of expert testimony that “assisted the jury by providing context for the historical backgrounds of and connection between Nazism and militant Islamism,” where the evidence was “complicated, touching by necessity on a wide variety of ideas, terms, people, and organizations.” Young, 916 F.3d at 381. The trial in this case will also involve a “wide variety of ideas, terms, people, and organizations,” and the Court concludes that the anticipated expert testimony by Blee and Simi on the “historical backgrounds of and connection between” branches of the white supremacist movement, will be relevant and useful to a jury. See id.
The Court further concludes that this challenged testimony would not be “unfairly prejudicial” to Defendants, such as would cause an “undue tendency to suggest a decision on an
22

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 23 of 26 Pageid#: 16098
improper basis.” Fed. R. Evid. 403 & advisory committee’s note (1972 proposed rules). To be sure, this case is about whether Defendants conspired to commit and sought to organize racial violence at the Unite the Right rally. Plaintiffs are asserting that Defendants are white supremacists. This challenged expert testimony would, among other things, describe the historical context for and common characteristics of groups in the white supremacist movement. While those positions would be unpopular to many, there is no “unfair prejudice” because that is what this case is about, and what Plaintiffs need to prove to make their case. See Hassan, 742 F.3d at 132 (“Although linking the appellants to extremist jihadist groups was undoubtedly prejudicial, it would not unfairly so. Indeed, the charges that were lodged against the appellants meant that the prosecution would necessarily seek to establish that link.”). Even if the challenged expert evidence would create unfair prejudice—and there is none—its existence does not substantially outweigh its probative value.
The Court sees little cause for concern at this point that Plaintiffs’ experts will, as Movant-Defendants believe, try to use this testimony as a shortcut to proof of actual evidence of a conspiracy. Plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly have stated that Blee and Simi will not testify to whether there was a conspiracy, or whether any Defendant entered into a conspiracy. See, e.g., Dkt. 871 at 18 (writing that Simi and Blee will not “offer any opinions about the existence of the alleged conspiracy”); Dkt. 916 at 14 (“So just to be very clear about what the experts will not testify to, they will not opine on whether or not there is a conspiracy.”). Moreover, throughout the expert report, Blee and Simi acknowledge differences among the groups that comprise the white supremacist movement. E.g., Dkt. 832-2 at 7 (explaining that the “modern WSM” is “often described in terms of its four historical branches,” which “have differing ideological emphases”); id. at 8 (“Periodic efforts to unify the WSM through umbrella groups have rarely been successful
23

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 24 of 26 Pageid#: 16099
for long.”); id. at 9 (“The WSM—now as in the past—is highly decentralized.”). To the extent Blee and Simi offer testimony regarding certain “core characteristics” of the white supremacist movement or commonalities between the groups, Defendants will be able to test those assertions and the application of Blee and Simi’s methodologies through cross examination, or introduction of contrary evidence. In any event, when the Court solicits proposed jury instructions from the parties before trial, the parties will be able to state their positions as to proper instructions for the jury on the elements of conspiracy, the burden of proof, and jurors’ purview to assign the weight to be afforded the testimony of both expert and fact witnesses.
Movant-Defendants’ motion to exclude Blee and Simi’s testimony in this regard therefore has been denied.
3. Challenge that Experts Seek to Improperly Opine on Witness Credibility, or Testify as to Any Ultimate Issues
Lastly, the Court finds no merit to Movant-Defendants’ argument that Blee and Simi’s expert testimony improperly weighs Defendants’ credibility or seeks to opine on ultimate issues in the case. See Dkt. 826 at 3; Dkt. 880 at 3; Dkt. 916 at 8; Dkt. 832-2 at 57–58 (challenged examples from report).
The Court has already described how Blee and Simi’s testimony regarding the meaning of coded or obscure language and symbols, and testimony regarding white supremacist groups’ use of “double-speak,” “just joking,” or “front-stage/back-stage” strategies are admissible. If Blee and Simi seek to testify applying their social-science methodology to describe those strategies, and to further opine on whether certain of Defendants’ communications were consistent with those strategies—assuming proper context is given and Defendants have the opportunity to test those interpretations and offer contrary evidence—that testimony is admissible. That is not improperly weighing in on any Defendant’s or witness’s credibility,
24

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 25 of 26 Pageid#: 16100
which is within the jury’s sole purview. It is offering an interpretation of their language, based on specialized knowledge and a testable methodology. The fact that any Defendant or witness may have a different explanation from the experts does not make the expert testimony improper. Moreover, this case is far afield of the cases upon which Movant-Defendants rely for their credibility argument. See United States v. Cecil, 836 F.2d 1431, 1441–43 (4th Cir. 1988) (holding that “an opinion on the credibility of a witness by a psychiatrist is not allowable”).
In any event, Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged that their experts “will not opine on any defendant or witness’ credibility,” and that “[t]hey are absolutely not going to say that any witness is lying.” Dkt. 916 at 14. Plaintiffs’ counsel also clearly stated that their experts “will not opine on whether or not there is a conspiracy,” and “they will not opine on what any particular defendant intended.” Id. And they will not “state any sort of legal conclusion.” Id. at 15. For these reasons, and with those limitations in mind acknowledged by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court rejects Movant-Defendants’ arguments that Blee and Simi’s should be precluded from testifying or their testimony limited because it would improperly weigh on witness credibility or state a legal conclusion.
* * * That the Court will allow Plaintiffs to offer Blee and Simi’s proffered expert testimony (with the limits discussed above) does not mean it will be presented to the jury unassailable and unchallenged. As “safeguards” upon introduction of this as with any other expert testimony, Defendants certainly shall be afforded the “traditional and appropriate means” of challenging expert testimony, including by “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596. Moreover, at a later date and after soliciting input from the parties, the Court intends to give detailed instructions to
25

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 941 Filed 04/15/21 Page 26 of 26 Pageid#: 16101
the jury about how it is to consider expert testimony, including that it is the jury’s role to determine the weight afforded to each expert’s testimony, and that the jury are “the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves” for all witnesses— both fact and expert. Because the Court has found no basis in Movant-Defendants’ arguments to preclude or limit Blee and Simi’s proffered expert testimony, the Court has denied their motion to exclude, Dkt. 826. See Dkt. 937. This does not preclude Defendants from later raising specific objections in the course of the experts’ testimony.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to the parties. Entered this 15th day of April, 2021.
26

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division

04/20/2018

ELIZABETH SINES et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER et al., Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:17cv00072

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

)

)

By: Joel C. Hoppe

)

United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on two motions filed by Defendant Michael Enoch

Peinovich. First, Peinovich asks the Court to “quash the subpoenas [P]laintiffs have served, or

intend to serve, on Twitter, Inc., Go[D]addy.com, LLC, Cloudflare, LLC, and Hatreon,” which

are not parties to this civil action, “and [to issue] a protective order.” Mot. to Quash Plaintiffs’

Subpoenas, ECF No. 226. Second, Peinovich “moves to require [P]laintiffs’ full compliance”

with Rules 45(a)(4) and (b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, to

quash the subpoenas mentioned in his first motion. Mot. to Require Pls.’ Full Compliance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, ECF No. 229 (“Rule 45 Mot.”). The motions have been fully briefed, ECF

Nos. 226-1, 249, 255, and are ripe for review.

Peinovich, appearing pro se, challenges subpoenas for the production of documents and

electronically stored information (“ESI”) that Plaintiffs issued to Twitter, Inc.; GoDaddy.com,

LLC; Cloudflare, LLC; and Hatreon, in an effort “to gather evidence related to Defendants’ and

their co-conspirators’ coordination of and planning for” events underlying the civil action

pending in this Court. Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 2, ECF No. 249. Peinovich specifically objects

to the requests that GoDaddy.com and Cloudflare produce “traffic logs to the websites

dailystormer.com, altright.com[,] and therightstuff.biz for the dates of August 1 to August 19,

2017,” because he contends that the logs will contain “personally identifiable information such

1 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 7 Pageid#: 2081

as IP and MAC addresses” about “hundreds of thousands of private citizens who have done nothing more than visit a website.” Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 2–3, ECF No. 226-1; see Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash Ex. B, at 7–8 (GoDaddy.com), ECF No. 226-3; id. Ex. C, at 7–8 (Cloudflare), ECF No. 226-4. He also broadly alleges that the subpoenas seek “huge amounts of information,” Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Rule 45 Mot. 1, ECF No. 229, that “cannot possibly help the [P]laintiffs’ case” and “would irreparably harm Peinovich, the companies that were subpoenaed, hundreds of thousands of private internet users, and the cause of free speech itself” if disclosed in pretrial discovery. Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 5; see Def.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mots. 3–5, 7, ECF No. 255. A. Motion to Quash & For Protective Order
The Court must address two preliminary issues before it may consider this motion on the merits. First, Plaintiffs object that Peinovich should not have filed the motion in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia because each subpoena directs the target company to produce the information at a location outside this judicial district, and a “motion to quash may only be made in ‘the district where compliance is required.’” Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. at 4 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)). Rule 45 does give “the court for the district where compliance is required,” and not the litigation court from which a subpoena must issue, primary authority over disputes about subpoenas directed at nonparties located within the compliance court’s territorial jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)–(g) (2017); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f), advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment; United States ex rel. Ortiz v. Mt. Sinai Hosp., 169 F. Supp. 3d 538, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Ellis v. Arrowood Indem. Co., No. 2:14mc146, 2014 WL 4365273, at *2 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 2, 2014). However, Rule 26 also provides that “[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where
2 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 7 Pageid#: 2082

the action is pending,” and that the litigation “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect [the] party . . . from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). While Peinovich labeled his filing “a motion to quash . . . pursuant to” Rule 45, he also repeatedly asks the Court “for a protective order” quashing the subpoenas on the ground that Plaintiffs’ “overbroad” requests for “irrelevant” documents and ESI impose an undue burden on himself and others. Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 3, 5; see also Def.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mots. 1, 5–7; Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 4 n.2, 6–7. Accordingly, the Court will consider this motion under Rule 26(c), and not under Rule 45(d). Cf. Sirpal v. Fengrong Wang, Civil No. WDQ-12-0365, 2012 WL 2880565, at *4 n.12 (D. Md. July 12, 2012) (“[T]he Court could consider the [plaintiff’s] motion [to quash a third-party subpoena] as one for a protective order, and consider the Rule 26 factors, including relevance, in deciding the motion.”).
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Peinovich lacks standing to challenge the subpoenas because they do not seek discovery from him personally and Peinovich “does not even attempt to show” a personal stake in the requested information. Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 5. Peinovich concedes that Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are not directed to him, but asserts that he “has a personal right and privilege with respect to the subject matter of the subpoenas.” Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 3. “Ordinarily, a party does not have standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a nonparty unless the party claims some personal right or privilege in the information sought by the subpoena.” United States v. Idema, 118 F. App’x 740, 744 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The district courts in this circuit have held that the party “need only have some personal right or privilege in the information sought to have standing to challenge a subpoena to a third party,” even if the claimed interest is “minimal or exceedingly small.” Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does
3 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 7 Pageid#: 2083

1–108, No. DKC 11-3007, 2012 WL 669055, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2012) (quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases).
Peinovich argues that he has a personal right to protect “the privacy and security” of unnamed individuals who visit his podcast website, therightstuff.biz, because his “reputation and ability to earn a living” will be “irreparably damage[d]” if those visitors “no longer feel they can browse” the website’s “politically controversial” content without fear that their “personally identifiable information” will be disclosed in litigation. Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 2–3; see also Def.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mots. 3–5. This rationale is too tenuous to support a finding that Peinovich has any protected interest in whatever information Twitter, GoDaddy.com, Cloudflare, and Hatreon have about persons other than Peinovich himself. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion that the subpoenas seek only “information [about] unnamed non-parties,” Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 6 n.4, the Court finds that portions of all four subpoenas request ESI about Peinovich’s (or his podcast’s) online presence and activity, including non-public information such as direct messages and deleted content. See Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 2–4; Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash Ex. A, at 4–5, 8–9 (Twitter), ECF No. 226-2; id. Ex. B, at 4, 7–8 (GoDaddy.com); id. Ex. C, at 4, 7–9 (Cloudflare); id. Ex. D, at 4–5, 8 (Hatreon), ECF No. 226-5. These specific requests show that Peinovich claims some personal right in the information held by these companies and that, as a result, he has “standing to quash or modify [the] subpoenas on the grounds that [they] require[] disclosing potentially privileged or otherwise protected matter.” CineTel Films, Inc. v. Does 1–1,052, 853 F. Supp. 2d 545, 554–55 (D. Md. 2012) (citing Third Degree Films, 2012 WL 669055, at *2). Accordingly, the Court can resolve this motion on the merits.
4 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of 7 Pageid#: 2084

Rule 26 allows “[a] party . . . from whom discovery is sought” to move for a protective order, and the rule authorizes the court, “for good cause” shown, to issue such an “order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “To obtain a protective order under Rule 26(c), the party resisting discovery must establish that the information sought is covered by the rule and that [the party] will be harmed by disclosure.” In re Wilson, 149 F.3d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1998). Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” element further requires the resisting party to “present a ‘particular and specific demonstration of fact[]’ as to why a protective order should issue,” Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natanzon, 240 F.R.D. 200, 202 (D. Md. 2006) (quoting 8A Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2035 (2d ed. 1994)), taking into account that the requesting party generally is entitled to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Terwilliger v. York Int’l Corp., 176 F.R.D. 214, 217 (W.D. Va. 1997) (noting that the federal rules “favor broad pretrial discovery” and “have been interpreted to allow maximum discovery” within certain well-defined boundaries).
Plaintiffs argue that Peinovich has not shown the subpoenas impose an undue burden because they do not seek discovery from Peinovich personally and they request information about matters that are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. See Pls.’ Br. in Opp’n to Mots. 2–4, 6–7. Peinovich counters that the alleged risk of “[h]arm to [his] vocation and business is manifestly an ‘undue burden.’ So too is [the] disclosure to Plaintiffs of information having no legitimate bearing on this case.” Def.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mots. 5 (citing Singletary v. Sterling Transp. Co., 289 F.R.D. 237, 241 (E.D. Va. 2012)); see also Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Quash 3–5. Plaintiffs have the better argument on the record currently before the Court.
5 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 7 Pageid#: 2085

First, Peinovich “cannot claim any hardship, let alone undue hardship,” because he has “no obligation to produce any information under the subpoenas issued” to Twitter, GoDaddy.com, Cloudflare, and Hatreon. Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Smith, 274 F.R.D. 334, 338 (D.D.C. 2011). Furthermore, he has not made any specific showing of undue hardship that will be wrought by compliance with the subpoena. The alleged risk of harm to Peinovich’s reputation or online business, for example, is too speculative to show good cause why the Court should quash any of the subpoenas. Cf. Baron Fin. Corp., 240 F.R.D. at 202 (noting that Rule 26(c)’s “good cause requirement creates a rather high hurdle” for the party resisting discovery, and that the party “may not rely upon stereotyped or conclusory statements” to meet its burden (quotation marks omitted)). Second, while Peinovich is correct that the “undue burden category ‘encompasses situations where the subpoena seeks information irrelevant to the case,’” Singletary, 289 F.R.D. at 241 (quoting Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App’x 805, 812 n. 7 (4th Cir. 2012)), he has failed to show that any of the subpoenas are overbroad or irrelevant. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are limited in scope to particular topics, persons, and entities related to the alleged events underlying this lawsuit and seek documents or ESI covering a relatively short period. Accordingly, Peinovich’s request for protective order and Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas, ECF No. 226, is hereby DENIED. B. Rule 45 Motion
Peinovich asserts that Plaintiffs violated Rule 45(a)(4) and (b)(4) “with respect to the subpoenas they apparently recently served” on Twitter, GoDaddy.com, Cloudflare, and Hatreon because they failed to provide adequate notice and “critical information” about whether, and if so, on whom, the subpoenas were actually served. Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Rule 45 Mot. 1–2. Documents attached to Peinovich’s motion show that Plaintiffs complied with their obligations
6 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 6 of 7 Pageid#: 2086

under Rule 45(a)(4) by serving “a notice and a copy of the subpoena” on Defendant Peinovich before attempting to serve any challenged subpoena “on the person to whom it is directed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4); see Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Rule 45 Mot. Exs., ECF Nos. 229-1 to 229-3. Rule 45(b)(4) requires proof of service only “when necessary,” such as to support a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or to hold a nonparty in contempt of court, and Peinovich “has shown no need for proof of service” in this case. Plastic the Movie Ltd. v. Doe, No. 3:15cv385, 2015 WL 12856114, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2015); see Fed. R. Civ. 45(b)(4), (d)(2), (g). Accordingly, Peinovich’s Motion to Require Plaintiffs’ Full Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, ECF No. 229, is hereby DENIED.
It is so ORDERED. The Clerk shall deliver a copy of this Order to the parties.
ENTER: April 20, 2018
Joel C. Hoppe United States Magistrate Judge
7 Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 304 Filed 04/20/18 Page 7 of 7 Pageid#: 2087