While it is true that 3ABN was forced to file a Motion for a Protection order on Dec 18, it is not true that this proves Pickle didn't engage in an end run around those issues just because his 3rd party subpoena was issued on Dec 12. As always he misrepresents the facts and leaves out much to make his false claims and justifications, and accuses others of lying while the only lies which can proven to be lies are his own.
As Simpson recounted:
To circumvent the discovery delays and limitations they encountered in this forum
as these issues worked their way to a conclusion, Defendants served at least six third party
subpoenas seeking more or less the same information as was requested from the
Plaintiffs. (See Mag. Judge Hillman’s order , Doc. 106 at p. 2). The information they
sought in other courts was largely information that they could have obtained directly
from the Plaintiffs. For example, they sought Plaintiff Shelton’s personal bank records
dating back to 1998 from his bank. (See Subpoena on Mid-Country Bank, attached as
Exhibit 6 to Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They sought information on Shelton’s
royalties from the publication of his books directly from the publisher. (See Subpoena on
Remnant Publications, attached as Exhibit 3 to Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They
sought all financial and accounting records for both 3ABN and Shelton from their
accountants. (See Subpoena on Gray, Hunter, Stenn, LLP, attached as Exhibit 4 to
Kingsbury Affidavit, Doc. 76). They sought records regarding an employee who had
filed a charge of discrimination against 3ABN, which was later dismissed, directly from
the employee. (See Subpoena on Kathi Bottomley, attached as Exhibit 7, Doc. 76).
All of this information could have been obtained directly from the Plaintiffs by use
of authorization forms or otherwise, but Defendants sought to circumvent any limitations
that this Court might place on their factual foraging by using third party subpoenas issued
by other courts. Plaintiffs resisted the end-run around this Court, and participated in
motions to quash or limit the scope of the subpoenas in Minnesota and Illinois, in which
they persuaded the courts to transfer the issue of relevance to this Court for resolution.
(See Kingsbury Aff. ¶¶ 11, 16 and 17). [b]The Defendants thus greatly increased the
expense of the litigation for everybody, which was manifestly not necessary to the
litigation but rather to investigate every aspect of Plaintiffs’ activities throughout 3ABN’s
existence for purposes of reporting negative information to the public.[/b]
And also as Jerrie Hayes filed:
Two matters related to confidentiality and discovery have already been heard by the Massachusetts Court in this matter, including a motion for impoundment heard on May 10, 2007 and June 21, 2007 and a motion concerning production of electronically stored information (e-discovery motion) heard on August 9, 2007. [Hayes Aff., ¶ 5].
On November 29, 2007 and December 7, 2007, Defendant Pickle served written Requests for Production of Documents upon 3ABN and Danny Shelton, respectively. Defendants’ written Requests for Production specifically included the following demand: Request No. 38: From January 1, 1998, onward, for Plaintiff Shelton, D&L Publishing, DLS Publishing, or any DBA or corporation over which
you have exercised control (other than 3ABN), all financial statements and accounting records, all bank statements or records (including without limitation statements or records for any investment accounts, savings accounts, or insurance accounts, or any other accounts which give such detail as amount(s) deposited or withdrawn, or an ongoing statement of value), and all credit or charge account statements or record (including without limitation statements or records for any credit cards, charge cards, loans, mortgages, or collateral arrangements, or any other statements or records which give such detail as amount(s) withdrawn, purchase(s) or payment(s) made, or an ongoing statement of amount owed).
[Hayes Aff., Ex. C]. Around this same time,1 Defendant Pickle caused to issue four, third-party subpoenas, all of which sought, in whole or in part, Plaintiffs’ sensitive, confidential or proprietary business, financial and operational records. [Hayes Aff., Exs.D, E, F and G].
In direct response to defendant Pickle’s discovery efforts, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order on December 18, 2007, seeking to preclude discovery of 3ABN’s confidential donor information and seeking to preclude the disclosure, dissemination or publication of the parties’ confidential or proprietary financial, business and operational information to third-parties. [Hayes Aff., Ex. H]. Additionally, on January 9, 2008, Plaintiff Shelton served his responses to Pickle’s Requests for Production and specifically objected to Request No. 38 on the grounds that it sought information neither temporally nor substantively relevant to the underlying dispute and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that it sought highly confidential, personal financial information, and that it was unduly burdensome, harassing and embarrassing. [Hayes Aff., Ex. I]. Plaintiff Shelton refused to produce the temporally and substantively irrelevant documents sought by Pickle and would agree to produce relevant, nonprivileged documents only upon the parties’ execution of a mutual confidentiality agreement or the Court’s issuance of a protective order. Id. Though the parties have engaged in discussions concerning that discovery dispute, the matter has not been heard by the Court in the underlying action, nor has the issue of the relevance or confidentiality of Plaintiff Shelton’s personal financial records been resolved. [Hayes Aff., ¶ 10].
The instant Subpoena was signed and issued by the Clerk of this Court on December 12, 2007 to MidCountry Bank, a non-party to the underlying litigation. [Hayes Aff., Ex. J]. MidCountry confirmed that it received the subpoena on January 18, 2008. [Hayes Aff., ¶ 12]. The Subpoena, in an Exhibit A attachment strikingly similar to Defendant Pickle’s Request for Production No. 38, demands that MidCountry produce to Defendant Pickle, by February 10, 2008, bank statements from 1998 onward for accounts owned by Shelton, D&L Publishing, and DLS Publishing. [Hayes Aff., Ex. J].
The confidentiality and protection of private or trademark and propriatory information was an issue from day one in the lawsuit. Pickle knows that very well.
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/
07/20/2007 18 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. [by](Pucci, John)
(Entered:07/202007):
Page 1 of 7
Having been unable to secure agreement as to the contents and information for a Joint 26(f) Report, the parties are filing separate Rule 26(f) reports. This report is submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs 3ABN and Danny Shelton.
pp 2-3 of 7
Despite the filing of the instant action, Pickle and Joy’s campaign of orchestrated disparagement continues. Plaintiffs anticipate the instant case will require considerable discovery, as Pickle and Joy’s defamation and trademark infringement are ongoing, and that there will be numerous, contentious discovery disputes. Defendants have already stated their intention to refuse Plaintiffs original-source access to electronically stored information, they have already challenged Plaintiffs’ right to discoverable information based on an alleged “reporter’s privilege,” and they have already raised an allegation that Plaintiffs have engaged in the destruction of evidence, yet refused to provide Plaintiffs with supporting information that Plaintiffs would need to investigate the charge.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ concerns about Defendants using the pleadings in this matter, both as a forum to disparage Plaintiffs and as a source of material Defendants will mischaracterize, editorialize, sensationalize and publish to misinform the public, have come to fruition since the lifting of the impoundment order. In fact, since the Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Impoundment, Defendants have directed visitors to the infringing “Save3ABN” website to the Court’s PACER system, clearly evidencing their intent to use this Court’s own document repository and the pleadings and submissions contained therein, as a platform to continue publishing defamatory and derogatory statements about the Plaintiffs. Thus,
Plaintiffs’ also anticipate the case will require substantial attention to the protection of various discovery materials and case submissions.
Page 4 of 7:
(c) Discovery Limitations
...
Plaintiff proposes a Stipulated Protective
Order (proposed Order attached hereto)
to govern discovery
07/20/2007 19 First JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 (d) by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.(Heal, Laird)
(Entered: 07/20/2007):
Defendants reassert their constitutional right pursuant to the US Constitution and the First Amendment thereto to continue to investigate and to report on the conduct of the Plaintiffs. Further, by their written statements the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel clearly intended the filing of this action to result in the silence of the press and as such would be a misuse of process pursuant to the Defendants’ right to freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech inherent in the US Constitution. Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs’ proposed STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY is a contempt of the Honorable Court and a veiled effort to impound discovery grossly violating the clear order of the court as the Plaintiffs continue their efforts to sidestep local rule 7(a) in an effort to avoid full disclosure to the contributing public.
Affidavit of Jerrie Hayes case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 46:
3. In November of 2007, Defendant Pickle, now represented pro se, attempted to
informally obtain discovery in the case, including the informal scheduling of depositions
and the informal inspection of documents described in Plaintiffs' 26(a)(l) Initial
Disclosures. Understanding Pickle was represented pro se, Plaintiff and counsel
on their behalf made every effort to reasonably accommodate Pickle's informal requests.
4. When Pickle insisted on learning the date of 3ABN's January Board meeting, for
the purpose of scheduling Board member depositions at or near the time of the meeting, I
informed Pickle that such a schedule would be logistically and procedurally inappropriate
and I asked him to provide me with a list of deponents and proposed dates for their
deposition. When Pickle insisted on obtaining the date of the January Board meeting, I
ended efforts to informally schedule those depositions.
5. When Pickle insisted on informally inspecting, reviewing and copying Plaintiffs'
highly sensitive trade secret, financial and business information, Plaintiffs refused to
informally provide that information without a mutually negotiated Confidentiality
Agreement in Place. Defendent Pickle refused to acknowledge the sensitive nature
of the confidential information and refused outright to attempt to negotiate a mutually
agreement Confidentiality Order.
Letters between JH and Bob Pickle referred to above are dated
Nov 2007, and include the following:
(and can be accessed here in full:
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... doc-37.htm)
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 37-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 24 of 39
November 20, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE/ U.S. MAIL
Mr. Robert Pickle
1354 County Highway 21
Halstad, MN 56548
Re: Three Angels BroadcastingNetwork,Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton vs.
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle
Court Docket No.07-40098-FDS
Our File No.24,681-D-002
Dear Mr. Pickle:
I am in receipt of your correspondence of November 16 and 19, 2007 and I write in
response thereto.
As to the 26(a)(1) documents, all materials held by Siegel, Brill are duplicates of the
materials held by Plaintiffs and by Massachusetts counsel. You may perform an in-person
inspection at any of the three locations, but it would not be necessary to do an inspection at more
than one. All Plaintiffs' 26(a)(1) materials are in hard-copy, paper form. Not including the
printed pages of the various websites upon which statements about Plaintiffs have been
published-all of which are publicly available and would undoubtedly be less expensive for you
to access and print yourself than to obtain as copies from our offices-the total volume of
26(a)(1) materials is less than 500 pages. These materials, however, include extremely sensitive
and confidential business information and will not be disclosed by Plaintiffs without a protective
order in place.
Plaintiffs circulated a proposed protective order as part of their proposed 26(f) Report.
Please review it and let me know if you are in agreement as to its terms and will stipulate to it
governing this case. If not, we will need to negotiate a mutually agreeable protective and
confidentialityorder prior to your inspection of and prior to Plaintiffs' disclosureof the materials
at issue. Please let me know if you no longer have a copy of Plaintiffs' proposed Protective
Order and I will forward another for your review.
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 37-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 27 of 39
JERRIEM.HAYES
*** *** ****
j****@****
November 28, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE / U.S. MAIL
Mr. Robert Pickle
1354 County Highway 21
Halstad, MN 56548
Re: Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton vs.
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle
Court Docket No. 07-40098-FDS
Our File No. 24,681-D-002
Dear Mr. Pickle:
I am writing in response to your correspondence of November 21, 2007.
First, the only plaintiffs in this case are Danny Shelton and 3ABN, which is an Illinois
non-profit corporation. 3ABN’s Board Members are not “litigants against” you. To the extent
any Board Member has knowledge of the facts and circumstances underlying the Complaint or
your Answer thereto, they may be witnesses in the case, and potentially subject to deposition, but
they are decidedly not parties to this lawsuit.
Second, as I have previously stated, the dates of 3ABN Board Meetings are irrelevant and
not necessary to the scheduling of the various depositions in this matter. I do not intend to
disclose to you the dates and times of my client’s private board meetings and you need not repeat
your request for the information. Since it appears you will not provide me with the names and
proposed dates and locations of the Board Members you wish to depose, I will discontinue my
efforts to facilitate the informal scheduling of those depositions and will simply await your
formal Depositions Notices.
Third, Plaintiffs will not authorize either the inspection or production of the extremely
sensitive, confidential business and commercial information which constitutes the bulk of their
26(a)(1) disclosures without a Protective Order in place that maintains the confidentiality of that
information. If you are unwilling to agree to the terms of the Protective Order that Plaintiffs
have already proposed and are unwilling to alternatively negotiate an otherwise mutually
agreeable Protective Order, Plaintiffs will await the Court’s ruling on the Protective Order that
was submitted to it as part of Plaintiffs’ 26(f) Report. There is no need to appear at my office for document inspection on December 7,2007, or to discuss any details concerning copying of
materials, unless this matter has been resolved.
Finally, as Plaintiffs have been granted relief from the automatic stay in Joy’s bankruptcy
matter, I will take your last correspondence as written authorization that facsimile service upon
you may be made through Mr. Joy’s facsimile (*** ** ****) and will send all future facsimiles
to you at that number until notified otherwise.
Sincerely,
JMH/cg
Case 0:08-mc-00007-RHK-AJB Document 4 Filed 02/07/2008 Page 3 of 4
Affidavit of Jerrie Hayes
8. Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed Protective Order to govern the production of
documents and information in the underlying case. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Protective Order and Proposed Order, accompanied by the Affidavit of Danny
Shelton in support thereof, are attached hereto as Exhibit H.
9. On January 9, 2008, Plaintiff Shelton responded to Defendant Pickle’s Request
for Production of Documents and specifically objected to the demand for bank account
information in Request No. 38 on the grounds that it was irrelevant, sought highly
personal and confidential information and was unduly burdensome, harassing and
embarrassing. A true and correct copy of page 19 of Plaintiff Shelton’s Response to
Defendant Pickle’s Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
10. Plaintiffs have engaged in discussions with Defendants regarding the discovery
dispute concerning Request for Production No. 38, but the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts has yet to hear the matter. The parties have been thus
far unable to resolve the issues of relevance or confidentiality in relation to Plaintiff
Shelton’s personal financial records.
11. Defendant Pickle caused the clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota to issue a subpoena duces tecum, dated December 12, 2007, to nonparty
MidCountry Bank, demanding production by February 10, 2008 of bank records
from 1998 onward for Danny Shelton, D&L Publishing, DLS Publishing and Crossbridge
Music, Inc. A true and correct copy of the subpoena duces tecum is attached hereto as
Exhibit J.
DS response to Pickle/Joy request for his bank records
- Pickle Joy discovery request and Danny Shelton's response
On