Monique Rathbun v Scientology Motion to Compel and for Continuance

8/13/2019 Monique Rathbun v Scientology Motion to Compel and for Continuance

1/7

CAUSE NO. C-2013-1082BMONIQUE RATHBUN v DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, AND MONTY DRAKE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT2 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

MRS. RATHBUN S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FORCONTINUANCE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE HEARING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Monique Rathbun, and files her motion to compel and for

continuance, and in support thereof, shows the Court as follows:MOTION TO COMPEL

I Two defendants, David Miscavige and Religious Technology Center ( RTC ),have filed special appearances to challenge the personal jurisdiction of Texas courts over them.They based their claim of insufficient Texas contacts on the affidavits/declarations of DavidMiscavige and Warren McShane of RTC. In response, Mrs. Rathbun promptly noticed thedepositions of several defendants (including David Miscavige) and moved to continue the specialappearance hearing. The Court granted a continuance to allow for jurisdictional discovery. Thedefendants objected to the deposition of David Miscavige. The Court then suggested anincremental approach to the jurisdictional discovery, and requested that the parties agree on an

initial discovery plan. After completion of the initial discovery, any party requiring additional

Motion to Compel nd Continuance of Special Appearance Hearing Page 1


2/7

discovery could request such from the Court. In order to allow for adequate preparation on theimportant jurisdictional issues, Mrs. Rathbun seeks additional discovery, as discussed below.Deposition o David Miscavige

I am visible and I testify - Capt. David Miscavige2 Captain David Miscavige has filed a sworn declaration with his blanket denial of

involvement with the facts of this case, or with the State ofTexas in general (except for one visitto open a Scientology facility in Dallas). In contrast, Mrs. Rathbun has filed the affidavit of herhusband, who worked closely with Capt. Miscavige. Mr Rathbun' s affidavit disputes Capt.Miscavige's declaration, and provides evidence that Capt. Miscavige had significant contactswith the State of Texas and that he secretly micromanages Scientology operations such as theoperation made the basis of this suit. The Defendants objected to Mrs. Rathbun' s initial requestfor the deposition of Capt. Miscavige, and suggested that the evidence sought from Capt.Miscavige could be obtained by taking the depositions of corporate representatives of Church ofScientology International ( CSI ) and RTC. Those depositions have now been taken, and thecorporate representatives demonstrated very little direct or indirect knowledge of Capt.Miscavige's activities.

3 Allan Cartwright, CSI's Director of Legal Affairs, testified that he works in anoffice in Los Angeles. Capt. Miscavige has a little-used office on a different floor in the sameLos Angeles building. Capt. Miscavige's office is not staffed full time, and Mr. Cartwright

rarely sees, speaks, or communicates with Capt. Miscavige. In fact, Mr. Cartwright could noteven say where Capt. Miscavige's principal office is located. Other than blanket denials of Capt.Miscavige's involvement in Scientology's day-to-day affairs, Mr. Cartwright could offer nospecifics concerning Capt. Miscavige's activities.



3/7

4 Warren McShane's lack of personal knowledge of Capt. Miscavige's activitieswas even more remarkable than that ofMr. Cartwright. Although Mr. Mc Shane is the President,CEO, and Inspector General ofRTC, and Capt. Miscavige is Chairman of the Board ofDirectorsofRTC, their lack of personal interaction is significant. They work in the same building, but ondifferent floors. They see each other sporadically when Capt. Miscavige is not traveling. Capt.Miscavige travels often, however. For example, in late November, 2013, Mr. McShane testifiedin deposition that Capt. Miscavige has been in Florida since March of this year. During that time(approximately 8 months), Mr. Mc Shane has seen Capt. Miscavige once, he has had twotelephone conversations with him, he has attended an undetermined number of conference callswith him, and he has received no email or text messages from him.

5 Neither Mr. Cartwright nor Mr. McShane are in a position to testify reliablyconcerning Capt. Miscavige's involvement or lack of involvement in Texas activities. OnlyCapt. Miscavige can testify as to his involvement in the particular facts and circumstances of thiscase, or in Texas generally. Capt. Miscavige is seeking dismissal of this suit against him, and hehas the burden of proving the alleged lack of urisdiction over him. t would be procedurally andsubstantively unfair to make Mrs. Rathbun respond to this motion without being able to questionhis factual basis for the motion. As Capt. Miscavige proclaimed in his sworn declaration in thefederal case ofFishman et l v Church ofScientology International I am visible and I testify.There is nothing inappropriate about having him testify concerning his activities relating to this

case and to his claim that this Court has no jurisdiction over him.

Motion to Compel nd Continuanceof Special Appearance Hearing Page 3


4/7

Production o Documents

IF IT ISN'T WRITTEN, IT ISN'T TRUE. - L. Ron Hubbard

6 Scientology's fixed corporate policy requires a zealous commitment to thecreation and preservation of records. Scientology corporate policy is found in HCO PolicyLetters. All Scientology corporate staff are taught I f it is not in an HCO Policy Letter it is notpolicy. ( HCO Policy Letter, 3/5/65) This policy discourages phone calls because they leave norecord of what was said. (HCO Policy Letter, 5/26/65). Written methods of communication arepreferred, because [t]hen we can find out what happened. Id.). According to corporate policy,when the telephone must be used, keep very close notes of any phone call so others can seewhat was said. (HCO Policy Letter, 11/15/74). All orders given by Scientology executives mustbe in writing. (HCO Policy Letter, 5/1/65). In fact, if an executive fails to put his order inwriting, his subordinate may report this breach of policy to the Ethics Office. (HCO PolicyOrder, 5/1/65).

7 CSI, RTC, and Capt. Miscavige have responded to Mrs. Rathbun's documentrequests with a flurry of objections, evasions, and a paltry sampling of carefully selecteddocuments. The responses and the documents actually produced will be offered into evidence atthe hearing on this motion. The Defendants' operation against Mrs. Rathbun and her husband hasbeen conducted for nearly five years, involving dozens of agents, and hundreds of thousands ofdollars, and they have not produced one operational document. They have produced nooperational emails, orders, reports, photographs, videotapes, memos, telephone notes, telephonerecords, travel records, etc. Instead, they have produced mostly documents created to obscuretheir true involvement in this Texas operation. The Defendants should be ordered by the Court to

Motion to Compel and Continuance of Special Appearance Hearing Page


5/7

make a full and complete production of documents before Mrs. Rathbun must respond to theirchallenge to the jurisdiction ofTexas.

MOTION FOR CONTINU NCE

8 The inadequacy of the Defendants' production of witnesses and documents in theinitial phase of incremental discovery requires that Capt. Miscavige appear for deposition, andthat full and complete document production be made before the Defendants' special appearanceis heard. The trial court may permit a continuance so that the opposing party may obtainnecessary discovery.

PR YERWHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff prays that these motions be

granted, that Capt. David Miscavige be ordered to appear for deposition, and that the Defendantsbe ordered to make full and complete production of documents, and for such and further relief towhich she may be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

ay JeffrState Bar Number 1A Dannette MitchellState Bar Number 240390612631 Bulverde Road, Suite 105Bulverde, TX 78163(830) 438-8935(830) 438-4958 (Facsimile)rjeffrev @ sjmlawyers comdmit hell i il s jml wvers com



6/7

THE WIEGAND LAW FIRM P.C.Marc F. WiegandState Bar No. 21431300434 N. Loop 1604 West, Suite 2201San Antonio, Texas 78232(210) 998-3289marc(uhviegandlawfirm.com

PULMAN CAPPUCCIO PULLEN BENSON, LLP\Elliott S. CappuccioState Bar No. 240084192161 N.W. Military Hwy., 400San Antonio, Texas 78213(210) 222-9494(210) 892-1610 (Facsimile)ecappucciouimulm anlaw com

ATTORNEYS FORMONIQUE RATHBUNCERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwardvia f csimile to the following z ~ of record in this cause in accordance with the Texas RulesofCivil Procedure on this the day ofDecember, 2013:Lamont A. JeffersonHA YNES BOONE, LLP112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1200San Antonio, Texas 78205-1540J Iris GibsonHA YNES BOONE, LLP600 Congress Ave. , Suite 1300Austin, Texas 78701Les J. Strieber IIIDA VIS CEDILLO MENDOZA , INCMcCombs Plaza, Suite 500755 E. Mulberry AvenueSan Antonio, Texas 78212George H Spencer, Jr.Clemens & Spencer112 E Pecan St., Suite 1300San Antonio, Texas 78205-153 l

Via Facsimile (210) 554-0413




Motion to Compel and Continuance of Special ppearance Hearing Page 6


7/7

Jonathan H. HullREAGAN BURRUS401 Main Plaza, Suite 200New Braunfels, Texas 781300 Paul DunaganSARLES OUIMET370 Founders Square900 Jackson StreetDallas, Texas 75202Bert H. DeixlerKENDALL BRILL KLEIGER LLP10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles, CA 90067

Via Facsimile 830) 625-4433

Via csimile 214) 573-6306

Via csimile 310) 556-2705

Stephanie S. Bascon Via Facsimile 830) 221-3441LAW OFFICE OF STEPHANIE S. BASCON PLLC297 W. San Antonio St.New Braunfels, TX 78130Steve WingardSCOTT DOUGLASS MCCONNICO LLP600 Congress A venue, Suite 1500Austin, TX 78701-3234

Via Facsimile 512) 474-0731
