DeCrescenzo v Scientology Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration (Feb 2013)

7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration (Feb 2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-plaintiff-evidentiary-objections-to-cartwright-declaration 1/9

#fSI

5o?S1 . (0 B): x n i-

3ÿ- is n uN £ ® vD l £ 0in - t-"

u * >w u y |ztis

o it o g

o:u

.0N

r<l uj 2

j u

i 0.

<X

o

o to

Z CO (00 «C u *< t NK 3 O

O W «tL . OK Q ®

O K <

° 5 Z5 H «< d O

1 ° Sÿf<

Z 2 O

iSx

}" ° u

< - Oo -i

n0

0 MZ u

3§_

) 1

. < Z

*- < K ~0 2

U2 - U -- t r v

0 j z 0Sj°

5<So< H > Z

f Z 2 <K tj y

II;!0.> 2 <Vv 2 0 0w W r .y'

ÿ < "p * n. "0 H 3 <*e«"

K 0 U -<L h 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A:\WP\CasTlwz7\D ISC -MOT\INSP -DEM.MTC\2013-02-26 . Objections to Caitwright Ded

BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION

JOHN P . BLUMBERG , ESQ . (SBN 70200 )

SINDEE M . SMOLOWITZ , ESQ . (SBN 123237

444 W. OCEAN BLVD. , SUITE 1500

LONG BEACH , CA 90802TELEPHONE : (562 ) 437-0403

TELECOPIER : (562 ) 432-0107

METZGER LAW GROUP

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

RAPHAEL METZGER , ESQ . (SBN 116020 )

KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ . (SBN 251364 )

401 E . OCEAN BLVD. , SUITE 800

LONG BEACH , CA 90802-4966TELEPHONE : (562 ) 437-4499

TELECOPIER : (562 ) 436-1561

Attorneys for PlaintiffLAURA ANN DECRESCENZO

FILED

FEB 27 2013

John A . Clarke . Executive Officer/C

nv ÿ

Raul sanchez

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO , akaLAURA A. DIECKMAN ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL , a corporate

entity, AND DOES 1-20 ,

Defendants .

CASE NO . BC41101 8

Assigned to the HonorableRonald M. Sohigian , Dept . 41

PLAINTIFF'S

EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION

OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

DATE

TIME

DEPT

March 6 , 2013

1: 30 p.m .

41

[Filed Concurrently withPlaintiff' s Reply to Opposition toMotion to Compel; Plaintiff's

Objections to the Declaration ofWarren McShane ; [Proposed] Order ReDeclaration of Warren McShane;

[Proposed] Order Re Objections to

Declaration of Allan Cartwright]

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLAN

CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO

PLA INTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS



h in £f S oo !D u*T ii> «x n

9 « ct

0

ÿ « u

io a £ om -

ÿ h i5

5

U U l

Z K

0 ÿ

a

Id

u.

«ON

U Uo 2

t jo liJ

5 <

j a .

<

tc

o

_ o »

Z (0 (D0

„«

Eh ?< E cmK 3 O"

(A CO

. OQ 0)a

oCLK

°

SI5 u a<dO

-13 sj

2 U< .

i-iilXo u

0 <

I- (Qw

< oUl z

r- o

O J

0 mu u

«S3S

2 < f- -t u U

z

- U l -

= .- s x« -I Z 0

S.gH

5<Jo< H > 2K Z Z <t- U Ul

Z I ft-

"

* 2 ÿ!o - < 20 > 2 <X 2 ° "UW -ÿu.S uP IL W,5 *.= <

S u2a. k 0 o

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

W *cJ&ÿ\

:\WP \Cas!BR 71OlSCÿ'niNSP -DEM.MTC \20»M 2-26 - Object ions to Cartwight De

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS O

RECORD :

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff hereby objects to the Declaration of Al

Cartwright submitted by Defendant, Church of Scientology Internationa l ("CSI"), in supp

of CSI'

s Opposition to Plaintiff s Motion to Compel or For Term inating Sanctions, and reque

the Court sustain Plaintiffs objections to said evidence.

Objection Number 1

"

I have been a member of the clergy of several churches of Scientology sin

1974. My main post responsibility before 1982 was the training of Church ministers a

overseeing staff and parishioners,

study of the Scientology Scripture." (Declaration of Al

Cartwright, Paragraph 2 , Page 1 , Lines 5-7) .

Grounds for Objection: Lack foundation and vague as to deponent,s histo

with Scientology prior to 1974 ; vague and ambiguous as to the use of the term "

overseeing st

and parishioners"

study of Scientology Scripture .

Objection Number 2"

In 1982 I became a full time member of the clergy when I joined Scientolog

religious order called the Sea Organization. Since then I have worked in several differ

positions regarding lega l matters for churches of Scientology. In 2006,1 assumed the posit

of Legal Director for CSI."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 3 , Page 1 , Lines

11) .

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation and vague and ambiguous regard

the "several different positions regarding legal matters" held by deponent . Lacks foundat

and vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of the term"

Legal Director for CSI" .

//

//

2

PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLAN


PLAINTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F:\WFXaÿlÿ\O ISC-MO "niNSP -DEM .MTC\2013-02-26 ÿObjections to Cartwright DeObjection Number 3

"

In her declaration dated February 7,2013 , Ms. DeCrescenzo claims that she w

told (by whom is not identified) and understood that 'anyone who was senior to [her], w ith

CSI would be permitted to review the contents of her auditing folder regardless of whether

not they were an auditor. This assertion is not true and is contrary to Ms. DeCrescenzo"

s pr

testimony. In her deposition , Ms. DeCrescenzo testified that she reported a particu la

sensitive personal incident to '

the auditor that was auditing me, Chris Swanson.' (Mr . K

Swanson is identified in CSI,s privilege log as "KS" reflecting the correct spelling of his fi

name .)

Q . And then ater you reported this to Chris Swanson what

happened next?A

. Nothing ... . It was like an auditing session so it was consideredconfidential priest/penitent privileged information.

"

A true and correct copy of this excerpt from her deposition is attached hereto as Exh ibit A

attended M s. DeCrescenzo"s deposition and can personally attest that this transcript, which M

DeCrescenzo has also signed and authenticated , is accurate." (Declaration of Allan Cartwrig

Paragraph 4 , Page 1, Lines 12-24) .

Ground s for Objection: Lacks foundation; m isstates prior testimony; irreleva

Objection Number 4

"

In add ition, I can state from my own personal experience - having been

executive in Scientology churches for over 30 years, and having supervised dozens of staff

my juniors, that I have never looked in the auditing files of any of them . In fact, it has nev

ever even occurred to me to do so , as this is simply not someth ing that any Scientologis

executive or not - would do ."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwrigh t, Paragraph 5 , Page 1, Lines 2

27 , Page 2, Lines 1-2).

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation; speculation.

3



PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS



li ÿ 5 s

Sol s3 , i0 uiJ X C| K

<J h

- ÿ S yN fN ® Vio to £ ow - ÿ-~

u t »u u y 5Ztl$

o ÿ 0 ii " , u

£Lii

UN

l\ lI LU 3E

-J UJ

<, I l

.

<<r

o

_ o ®

z CO (00 , , fiEh ?< c «_ 3 O

O « «0. .

OCC Q o

O £C <°5l5 W «< sj O'

° 3f <2 : u

~ < -- U I

u u

0 <. Lir* «

«

< 0Id Z

- 0O -I<*

%W

l yu*

J"

g P i 22 < i- -

2 5 oz r w -= tix

ft -I 2 0

S .0 -t < s Q< H > 2JZZ

h u y

Id 2 <J°.o K

al K j uo, - < 2

u . > z <

, Z O uu

, ui -

2 O < Up « a . w0

,

H 3 <

<" * U .«s : o U 20. H 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wm caifc

7OISC-M0m$P-0EM.MTC\20l 3-02-26 - Objections to Ca rtwight De

Objection Number 5

"

The documents that CSI has withheld from production on the basis of

clergy- penitent privilege are documents contained in the '

auditing,

folder of M s. DeCrescen

The bulk of these documents are made up of records or notations from auditing sessions. Wh

a document from the auditing folder is referred to as '

confidential communication in spirit

counseling session between LD and her clergyman ...,'

the document is precisely a record

notation of an auditing session , and nothing else . These records or notes of auditing sessio

are prepared, under Scientology doctrine, on standardized forms , and the preparation of su

notes by the auditor is itself a critical part of the auditing process, as codified under Scientolo

Scripture." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 6 , Page 2 , Lines 3-10).

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation as to personal knowledge; second

evidence and hearsay as to "

codified Scientology scripture."

Objection Number 6

"

In add ition to documents withheld that are simply records or notations

communications between Ms . DeCrescenzo and an auditor, CSI has also withheld docume

that reflect communications between a Case Supervisor and auditor concerning M

DeCrescenzo,s commun ication in session and upcom ing auditing sessions for M

DeCrescenzo. These records are required under Chu rch doctrine to be maintained as stric

confidential within a parishioner,

s auditing file . Such documents specifically describe or re

to communications made in previous aud iting sessions by Ms. DeCrescenzo , and , as such, th

also reflect confidential auditing communications made by Ms . DeCrescenzo in the audit

process. These communication s between the auditor and the CIS regarding Ms. DeCrescenz

aud iting were clearly described in CSI"

s privilege log."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwrig

Paragraph 7, Page 2, Lines 11-20) .

Grounds for Objection : Lacks foundation as to personal knowledge; second

evidence and hearsay as to "

Chu rch doctrine;" hearsay; m isstates contents of privilege log

//

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLANCARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF#S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS



5S?8i i « i

jsr0h

tl U10 n

N

IM N - y

«i a3 !5 oIt - H

u!Sh|Z K <L ?

o b. 0 5

tt

UJ

b.

O N

Suiy 2L .

c - >O u

5 <

J Q.

<CC

o

ÿo to

Z fOB2W5Set ACC 3 O

eu - oa o ®

O 5 <°2 z5 b jIk< ÿP

Z Z o

£5 *Sou

S°2

g«°

? < Ua

. ui z

< - Oo J1

0 10z Id

x 2 -j ">O H < Z2 < »- -

U M U2 - Id _-t £ X

n J Z °

S.o/

ÿ < - Q< .- > ZK Z Z <I- UJ Id

Z s ft-

"

W 2 4 u

S > 2 < ?E 0 0

W l

0 , u

,5 i- 3 <'< k y £k o u 2ihO fl

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F :\WWCasHIB27\DISC-MOT\INSP-OEM .MTC \2013-02-26 - Objections to Cartwight Dec

Objection Number 7

"

Each penitentia l comm unication described in the privilege log was disclos

exclusively to a single Scientology clergy person , who , under the discipline and practice

Scientology, was authorized to hear such communications, and had an obligation und

Scientology tenets to keep them confidential. The auditing file includes records of confident

communication s Ms. DeCrescenzo made to Scientology clergy person s with formal titles

Exam iner and Director of Processing concerning her spiritual progress, which also rema

secret and are kept exclusively in the aud iting file . As explained in the Declaration of Warr

McShane , an Exam iner is a trained auditor who, as required by Scientology Scripture, me

with the parishioner in a private room immediately following every auditing session . T

parishioner has the opportunity to communicate to the Examiner, in confidence, about

aud iting session or anything else he wishes to originate . The Exam iner writes down t

parishioner"

s commun ications, and this docum ent then goes into the aud iting folder . T

Director of Processing is also a trained aud itor who , under the direction of the Case Supervis

meets with the parishioner for confidential communications regarding the parishioner,

s spiritu

condition or progress. Interviews with the Director of Processing are always conducted in

confidential setting , and the notes of the parishioner

"

s communication are always placed inthe auditing folder, and nowhere else as described in Scientology Scripture ." (Declaration

Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 8, Page 2, Lines 21-27 , Page 3, Lines 1-10) .

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation; lacks personal knowledge;miss ta

contents of privilege log; assum es facts not in evidence ; speculation.

Objection Number 8

"

Laura DeCrescenzo was a member of the Sea Org from 1991 through 2004 , a

the vast majority of the auditing which she received was during those years when she was

the Sea Org as a staff member ofCSI . There were approximately 500 members of the Sea O

working along with Ms. DeCrescenzo at our Los Angeles facility . A high percentage of the

dedicated staff are clergymen , and , based upon ou r review of the auditing file, at different tim

5


CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS



® $ ® 2

!???ÿ . 10 »

«e«S

- * s yN h J X<o to !! oin - t-

z a Q. JOM »

I j U

a

LtJ

.

15N

u 2

- l U J

I D

.

<a .

o

_ o <0

Z co wO ,. a

< - nEE 3 O

0 in aL . o

AS Q ®

0 a <" S z5 u K< ÿ0J3 ii

iSiil"-

Sgai 0 < * £2«

? < «* w z< - °

,

o -iÿ4

0 »

! y

Sp* 2y < h -0 Z M

z;u -- t X x- -J 2 0

Sf <?o<>->zJ z Z <u u

u i 4 au 7 , u

u > l;z <z-o uU Ut >;-

y **< UP ÿ0 . Wu (JO << K ,u uto"!Q. h- 0 Q

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F:\WP\Ca3BB527\DISC -MOTMNS P-QEM .MTC\2013-02-26 - Objections to Catwright Oecl

different clergymen acted as auditors or Case Supervisors for Ms. DeCrescenzo . As reflect

in the privilege log , there are 42 files of her auditing , which took place over a thirteen-ye

period in both Los Angeles and Albuquerque, with Ms. DeCrescenzo sometimes receivin

auditing on a daily basis. It is therefore not unusual that she had a large number of auditors an

Case Supervisors during this time period ." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph

Page 3 , Lines 11-20) .

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledg

speculation ; assumes facts not in evidence ; hearsay; irrelevant; improper argument .

Objection Number 9

"

In almost all cases, Ms . DeCrescenzo ,s auditors and Case Supervisors have be

identified by name in the privilege log , and, as noted above, in all such cases the releva

auditors or Case Supervisors were trained clergymen within Scientology doctrine. Howeve

as all records written by an auditor during or just after an auditing session are handwritten ,

sometimes occurs that the aud itor does not clearly print his name (or om its to record it at al

In compiling CSI"s privilege log , when we encountered this situation , it was noted on the l

that the auditor,s name was illegible. However, since the format for auditing reports is unifor

throughout the Scientology world (as required by ou r Scripture), it is clear to any train

Scientologist what the record of an auditing session looks like . Therefore, in putting togeth

the privilege log , we were able to determ ine which documents were auditing records, even

we were unable to identify the auditor."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 10 , Pa

3, L ines 11-20, Page 4, Lines 1-4) .

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledg

speculation ; m isstates contents of privilege log; vague ; hearsay; irrelevant .

Objection Number 10

"

Based on the Court,s most recent ruling on the plaintiffs motion to compel , C

has not withheld from production every document found within the Plaintiffs auditing fi

6






® K in 2

1

ÿ xfie- N

iO w

n £* o- H

N (J'o -

10 o £ oin - i-

uKy?

z a d. i0 f - o >

IjU

UJ Ldy su.

o

o o

Z CO wO A

c Ul <r!< t N£E 3 OO W «Q. -

O

K Q ®

O K <°Ss> Li K5 J oJ ° ÿ

zzoo < -

gj o ue H m2 w? < o

UJ z

< - oo J

0 mz u

0 I J 3;2 jt°5£ -K O Z u

?Es

< I- >K 2 Zt- U bi

Ul 2 « j K

.« 2 -«lg>z <

2 0 Uu -

t u

h * i WI'b H 3 <l< K u [jj10«!(L h 0 Q

lid

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F :\WP\cdH R7\DISOM0TMNSP -0EM.MTa2013 -02-26 - Objections to Catwright Decl

Rather, when a document was found within the plaintiffs auditing file that was not a record o

a confidential communication between plaintiff and a clergyman or a confidenti

communication between the auditor and Case Supervisor that would disclose communication

made in the course of plaintiff s auditing that document was produced." (Declaration of A lla

Cartwright, Paragraph 11, Page 4, L ines 5-10).

Grounds for Objection: Lacks foundation ; hearsay; speculation; assumes fac

not in evidence; improper legal conclusion; misstate contents of produced documents.

DATE: February 27 , 2013 METZGER LAW GROUPA Professional Law Corporation

KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ.

Attorneys for PlaintiffLAURA ANN DECRESCENZO


CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'

S OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCT IONS



0 ) h 5in

I

tt 00 u

q»-

<0 tiX n h

n0ht

a

0* h

5<0

77)

N

in

u

X

0

£-,

1-

u

LJ

Ul

tt

Id iz K CL 30 U. 0 JXj

uCL j Id

IdoJ

-J>-

Id

Id h

t-

o

o to

CO COIII §h

CLLU

.

0 N

ui2

f

CL

<ce

5:nk 3 o

O vi <0£L . OItQ®

0K<

> Ul X

h °

j83z o< .

5 ui Io o

o <Ul

0)Ui

< OUl z

< - 0

o -I

0 (AZ U0 z

I-

<

13 2

Its

u

X

0

--'a

« . x

a - ? P

u

5 2& 2H

2

U 2

I °J ao

u

b] uu

0

S G> 2

2 <Id u

u

>152 0 U

< ya. <"

D <

. K U U

K o U 2o. >- o a

h

O H

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FAWP\CaHi527\D ISC-MOTMNSP-OEM .MTC\2013-02-26 . Objections to CarWightDed

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA , COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles , State of CaliforniaI am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action . M

business address is 401 East Ocean Blvd. , #800 , Long Beach , CA 90802 .

On February 27 , 2013 , I served the foregoing document , describeas: PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLA

CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION T

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS on th

parties to this action as follows :

_ (BY MAIL) I caused copies of such document , enclosed isealed envelopes , to be deposited in the mail at Long Beach , Californwith postage thereon fully prepaid to the persons and addresses indicateon the attached list . I am "readily familiar" with the firm,s practice ocollecting and processing correspondence for mailing . It is deposited witU.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of businessI am aware that on motion of any party served , service is presumed invaliif the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one daafter the date of deposit for mailing set forth in this affidavit .

_ (BY FACSIMILE) I served the foregoing document by faxintrue copies thereof from facsimile number (562) 436-1561 , to the facsiminumbers indicated on the attached list. Said document was transmitted b

facsimile transmission , which was reported complete and without error .

_ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered suc

document by hand to the firms listed on the attached list where personaservice is indicated.

_ (BY E-MAIL ) I delivered such document by electronic ma

to the firms listed on the attached list.

(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL ) I caused such document to b

delivered to the firms indicated on the attached list by Express Mail o

by another express service carrier , by placing the document in an envelopdesignated by the carrier and addressed as indicated on the attached liswith the delivery fees provided for , and depositing same in a box ofacility regularly maintained by that carrier or by delivering same to authorized courier or driver authorized by the carrier to receivdocuments .

X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawof the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on February 27 , 2013 , at Long Beach , California .

Susan"*

M. ÿSimpson,,Declarant

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENT IARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLAN





F ;\WWC asSBw27\DISC -MOTMNSP-OEW .MTC\2013-02-26 - Objecions to Cartwright Ded

SERVICE LIST

(DeCrescenzo v. Church of Scientology, Case No . BC411018 )

-oQo-

Bert H. Deixler , Esq .

Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP

10100 Santa Monica Blvd. , Suite 172 5

Los Angeles , CA 90067

(Church of Scientology International)

Matthew D . Hinks , Esq .

Jeffer , Mangels , Butler & Mitchell

1900 Avenue of the Stars , 7th Floor

Los Angeles , CA 90067-4308

(Religious Technology Center )

{Updated Augus t 23 , 2012 jlp j

9

PLAINTIFF,S EVIDENT IARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLAN


DeCrescenzo v Scientology Plaintiff Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration (Feb 2013)

Documents