Gerry Armstrong--Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings 04-23-1984 Case No. C 420153

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Defendant.

MARY SUE HUBBARD,

Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. C 420153

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Monday, April 23, 1984

Pages 328 through 392, incl.

APPEARANCES: (See next page.)

NANCY L. HARRIS, CSR #644
Official Reporter

i

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff
and Intervenor:

LITT & STORMER
BY: BARRETT S. LITT
Paramount Plaza
3550 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90010
(213) 386-4303
-and-
BARRETT S. LITT
BY: MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
The Oviatt Building
617 South Olive Street
Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90014
(213) 623-7511

For the Plaintiff
Only:

PETERSON & BRYNAN
BY: JOHN G. PETERSON
8530 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 407
Beverly Hills, California 90211
(213) 659-9965

For the Defendant:

CONTOS & BUNCH
BY: MICHAEL J. FLYNN and
JULIA DRAGOJEVIC
5855 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Suite 400
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(213) 716-9400

328

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, APRIL 203, 1984; 1:35 P.M.

---o---

THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel.

MR. LITT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Here we are again.

Mr. Litt, I guess the ball is in your court.

MR. LITT: I think it is, Your honor.

Your Honor, we have some motions to make to the

court and the ruling then will affect the outcome of

where we go from there, so let me start with those.

The court is aware that at least as we view it,

the defenses which have been asserted by the defendant in

this case were not part of the file at the time we came

into the court, and the court has made some indications that

it sees a distinction between the equitable claims and the

damages claims, so before we went further we wanted to make

a suggestion to the court which we felt could potentially

limit the nature of these proceeding without prejudicing

either side in light of the defenses which have been permitted,

and that is that we would request at this time that the damages

claims be severed from the equitable claim. That the damages

case, which now as we view it essentially overlaps the counter

claim and relates to the same issues, be reconsolidated with

the counter claim and that we try at this time only the claim

for the right to possession of the documents which hopefully

can be a trial of a limited scope and one for which we feel

329

we have been prepared.

This would be our initial request, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, what is the defense position on that?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may I have a moment?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this comes as a complete surprise

to us, and if we could perhaps adjourn for five minutes.

It is such a complete surprise and a complete shift from

the entire direction of the case that frankly I am at a little

bit of a loss.

My reaction is that we should go forward with

the case, jury waived, but I'd like to consult with

Mr. Armstrong.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. FLYNN: Just perhaps five minutes.

THE COURT: Okay, we will take a few minutes.

(Recess. )

THE COURT: We are back in session.

MR. FLYNN: It occurred to us almost immediately that

there is one fundamental underlying issue that permeates

the entire lawsuit with regard to the counter claim, and

that is the documents. The thrust of the counter claim,

if Your Honor reads it, is that Mr. Armstrong relied upon

all of the representations that were made in relationship

to Mr. Hubbard's background which he subsequently found to

be almost universally falsified when he went through the

documents. So, it strikes me that if we followed Mr. Litt's

suggestion, the whole case should be reconsolidated because

330

it would be impossible -- what essentially would happen in

potentially a case solely on the so-called equitable claims

is we would arrive at the conclusion that Judge Cole and

Judge Shimer, and I think another judge arrived at; namely,

that we just keep the documents in the court and preserve

then until the litigation is over or until other third party

litigants have a right to use them, until that issue was

determined.

So, it seems to me that there are fundamental issues

in the counter claim that go to the use of the documents,

and if they are going to try it, we might as well try the

whole thing together.

THE COURT: I am not sure I understand what your position

is. You object to it or what, or consent to it or stipulate

to it or what?

He's made a motion that the damages should be

severed from the equitable action and the case proceed only

on the equitable action, and that the action be reconsolidated

with the cross-complaint on the action for damages. I am

not sure what your position is on that motion.

MR. FLYNN: I object to the motion and I would suggest

that the appropriate procedure would be to reconsolidate

the entire case,

THE COURT: Well, I am not about to do that unless

the plaintiff were willing to stipulate to that. I don't

know what discovery would be required, what further law and

motion matters might have to be resolved.

But so far as the idea of severing the causes

331

of action for damages, by disposition is against that unless

the parties by stipulation felt that was the way they wanted

to mutually agree to try the matter. It seems to me that

we are here. The case has been put together by both sides

in a certain fashion and we are here for trial and we should

go ahead and try the case, I guess, as long as that is what

we are here to do.

So, I will deny the motion.

MR. LITT: In light of that ruling, Your Honor, this

was alluded to the other day and the court indicated some

of its tentative views on, but I don't want to explain it

further.

We are going to and we are moving for a substantial

continuance in the case, and I want to make clear to the

court why because I know the first words I will hear from

the other side of the table is that this is a tactic or

whatever.

Your Honor, this case was severed from the counter

claim. It was severed from the counter claim specifically

on the ground that the counter claim raised issues which

did not exist in this case, having to do with Mr. Armstrong's

allegations which essentially -- which allegations are

essentially the allegations that have now been put forward

by Mr. Armstrong is also his defense as to why he took the

documents.

After the matter was severed, the counter claim

was severed, the plaintiff moved to expedite the case. At

the time that this occurred, that that occurred, there was

332

no unclean hands defense in the case nor was there any defense

either in the case or that had been advanced by the defendant

along the lines of what has now been adopted at the urging

of the defendant as the scope of this matter.

Not only that, but every time the issue of unclean

hands had come up, the affirmative defense had been stricken

by the court, discovery was done on the basis of how we

understood the issues.

After the preliminary injunction was entered,

there was a motion to modify the preliminary injunction,

and there was a hearing twice on summary judgment. We have

provided the court the transcripts of the arguments at the

time of the summary judgment hearings. The court will see

from a review of that and can see from a review of the papers

that, while various facts were asserted by the defendant,

they could not connect it to any theory of the defense that

had been put forward, that it did not refer to any affirmative

defense as the basis of it that had been put forward.

The courts that addressed it did not address

it in the context of an affirmative defense in discussing

its relevance. In fact, in the argument Judge Shimer

specifically said to Miss Dragojevic, "What does that have

to do with this case?"

I raise all of this, the court is aware of our

view of what the correct standards should be. I am not trying

to get back into that. I am trying to explain to the court

that we did not and I think reasonably did not under the

circumstances and based upon the pleadings in the case prepare

333

a case of the nature and scope of the case that is now before

the court. We feel that we have been prejudiced. I will

tell the court that I took on behalf of Mrs. Hubbard three

days of deposition testimony of Mr. Armstrong. At no time

did I even try to explore these issues because the issues

as framed were narrow. It was fully recognized that all

of those issues would have to be addressed at some point

in the litigation between Mr. Armstrong and the church, but

it was not at issue and it was not even dealt with in our

depositions.

We did not advance discovery on these issues,

and I believe that the record shows that it was reasonable

on our part, given how the pleadings were framed and given

what had been permitted to be in the case that we conduct

ourselves in this case. We wanted to get in particular to

the issue of the equitable claim. The documents are very

important to us. They are private documents. We want them

back and we are now in a position where we feel that we are

at an enormous disadvantage if we are to proceed immediately

with a trial of the issues as they have now been defined

in the case.

There is further discovery that we would want

to do. There are further depositions of Mr. Armstrong that

we would want to take. There are claims that have nothing

to do with Mr. Armstrong that are now at issue in the case.

The case has now become a case concerning whether -- the

whole issue really of whether Scientology is a fraud, the

allegation of that, and whether L. Ron Hubbard is a fraud.

334

There has been no discovery on those issues. There has been

no probing of those issues. There has been no preparation

on our part of those issues and we researched the law

thoroughly.

We believe that we were conscientious about it.

We found no case permitting the type of defense that is being

discussed here. That defense was not articulated in any

of the defendant's papers prior to the time of the opposition

to the motions in limine, and we feel that a substantial

continuance that allows us to do some further discovery,

if we have to, we don't think it is proper, but if we have

to, we will litigate the case and we will litigate it on

these issues, and we believe that we will prevail on the

issues, but we also believe that we are at a substantial

disadvantage if we have to do that without having had notice

of what the defenses are and what the issues are and having

to try the case without such preparation.

On that basis without at this point trying to

specify the full length of the continuance, we are requesting

a continuance of some months. That would allow us to prepare

that and have the case come to trial and have us be ready

to try the case, so that at least the parties are in an equal

position with respect to knowing what the issues are.

I have nothing further on that question.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, we oppose the motion. There

have been several occasions where Mr. Litt has suggested

to the court that the original answer did not assert the

335

defenses that we are now asserting, and I would submit if

the court read pages 3, 4, 5 in the affirmative defenses

in the original answer, you will see that all of the defenses,

particularly the ". . . consistent pattern of fraud perpetrated

by Hubbard through his agent, the plaintiff, upon members

of the Church . . ." was asserted on page 3.

That the public had "an interest in said materials

and documents in order to reveal the falsity of numerous

representations uniformly made in writing by Hubbard and the

plaintiff" as on page 3 of the very original answer.

As Your Honor knows, the defense of unclean hands

has been asserted all along and, in fact, the plaintiff has

filed extensive memoranda relating to the unclean hands defense

trying to have it stricken all along.

Additionally, there have been five days of

deposition testimony of Mr. Armstrong in this case and by

this plaintiff there have been 13 days of deposition testimony

because what they have done is they have chosen to depose

him in every case they could depose him in, which I suggest

is solely for the purpose of pressuring him.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, I am going to object to that.

He was named by a witness in each of those cases, by

Mr. Flynn who is his lawyer in those cases, and now to say

in not only issues related to this case but for other things,

and it is just improper to constantly make these allegations.

There is no basis for it.

THE COURT: Okay, relax, gentlemen. Relax.

MR. FLYNN: I take strong issue. In most of those

336

cases there has been no witness list prepared in any event,

but he has been deposed for 13 days.

Every item of his life has been meticulously

discovered in connection with those 13 days, including the

doctors he went to when he was 15 and 16 years old because

I have attended many of these depositions.

The plaintiff has taken a great deal of discovery

in this case and has been fully aware of the fact all the

way along, particularly as the facts relate to the unclean

hands defense. Now, the unclean hands defense is basically

simple. It has to do with the fact that they used unlawful

means to steal photographs back from Mr. Armstrong which

they did. It was an intentional act, fully within the scope

of their knowledge. Therefore, there is very little discovery

that is needed. They are the ones who know precisely what

they did.

With regard to the consummation of the biography,

they took Mr. Garrison's deposition and we submit that the

attempt to consummate the biography, even given their knowledge

of the false background of L, Ron Hubbard would also be or

result in the invocation of the doctrine of unclean hands.

They are fully versed because of those issues, because they

took the deposition of Garrison. They have possession of

all of the documents, so they are fully versed with regard

to everything that is in the documents.

With regard to the assaults on Mr. Armstrong,

police reports were filed. They were perpetrated by agents

of the plaintiff. They were intentional acts and because

337

they were intentional acts, they were all within the purview

of the knowledge of the plaintiff, and further they were

even intending to get costs for the private investigation

services of some of these people who assaulted Mr. Armstrong

during the course of this case, which Judge Cole took note

of.

I submit, Your Honor, that when you come into

a lawsuit and you inform the court that you are ready to

try the issues in the lawsuit, and when the issues are as

extensively briefed as were briefed in the motions in limine,

then it is simply somewhat of a mythical claim to say that

they are now unprepared to go forward.

Your Honor has basically spent five days reviewing

several feet high of material which would suggest, in itself,

that they have given extensive preparation to all of the

issues in the lawsuit, and there is some degree of expertise

required on the part of a plaintiff when he undertakes a

lawsuit to anticipate what the issues will be, and I submit

that they have known from the beginning what the issues are

in this lawsuit. We have put a great deal of time in. The

court has put a great deal of time in. The case is ready

to go forward, and I think the motion should be denied.

THE COURT: Well, of course, it is --

MR. LITT: before the court rules, I don't want --

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. LITT: The only affirmative defense -- the

affirmative defenses that Mr. Flynn referred to, one is unclean

hands. That was stricken.

338

One is laches. That was stricken.

One is standing. That we are perfectly prepared

to deal with.

One is privacy, whether they are private. That

we are perfectly prepared to deal with.

One, is it against public policy and in violation

of the defendant in intervention's rights under the First

Amendment to prevent him from disclosing or disseminating

information. Nothing about what we have been talking about.

Those were the affirmative defenses, plus our

complaint. Those framed the issues and the unclean hands

was out.

I believe that the representations that we have

made that we reasonably did not have notice that there was

a charge that they were entitled to do this on claims of

fraud is not in the case. At least, as we understood it,

and that furthermore our research did not find any cases

that permitted this issue even to be raised except in the

context of public disclosure of private facts, which is

not our allegations.

So, I believe we are correct in saying that as

we understood the issues and as they were framed by the

pleadings, the issues that have not been identified, we were

not on notice of. We are not, therefore, saying that they

can't be tried. We are simply saying that we should have

the opportunity to prepare for them.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know. It seems to me that

we may be attaching too much significance to labels here

339

rather than to substance. The issue is whether you are really

prepared under the facts that you are aware of.

The court has refined its thinking a little bit.

I think that the -- notwithstanding that you have a cause

of action phrased in terms of invasion of privacy, it has

to always be an unreasonable invasion of privacy before it

is actionable. What is reasonable is going to depend, to

some extent, on the circumstances so that is something that

should have been anticipated, evaluation of what is reasonable

and what is unreasonable.

Certainly, we have the fact that Mr. Armstrong

is an agent, was an agent of different people and he always

contended that, and he always contended that is the reason,

I gather, that he had for delivering this matter to the

attorneys involved. It is not, I don't believe, the contention

that he went public in the sense that he went to Time Magazine

or some other agency and publicized these matters, and he

has asserted apparently that he believed it was necessary,

assertion of his defenses to the actions being taken against

him by the Church of Scientology or its agents.

Now, without going into whether or not that is

true, it seems to me that that is essentially the defense

he has asserted all along, and it seems to me that is within

the ambit of his First Amendment rights to discuss these

matters with his attorney and the Restatement says an

assertion of a superior interest to that of -- in other words,

to the interest of the party whose privacy is being invaded,

and I think if what he says is true, that he would be perfectly

340

justified in delivering these materials to his counsel,

assuming what counsel has represented to be true is true.

So I don't think that this goes that much beyond any of the

issues that have been framed.

So far as the unclean hands, I have already

indicated that would only be considered by the court as an

affirmative defense on the equitable causes of action, and

you were ready to go forward with those.

I think that when you come to court for trial,

you have to anticipate that you are not going to prevail

on some of your motions, some of your thinking, that you

have to anticipate all of the possible direction that the

case is going to take, and I just don't feel that it is fair

to have the defense, and I don't think it is fair to the

taxpayers of the community to invest a week of a trial

department's time and then throw it all out the window.

Certainly I don't really know what the technical

problems will be as they develop, but at least at this

particular point in time, I am going to deny the motion for

continuance.

MR. LITT: Well, Your Honor, the continuance that I

was just asking for was for a substantial continuance, and

if the court is not prepared to do that, then we would ask

for a brief continuance and I will explain what we would

like to be able to have happen.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. LITT: In the period of time of that brief

continuance, we would like that the defendant -- we received

341

a list of documents. This is the first thing that comes

close to being an itemization of the documents that they

seek to admit. When we discuss those more, the court will

still see that we do not have notice of even what documents

are being asserted by the defendant.

We would like a document by document itemization

of each document that is asserted by them as -- that they

intend to introduce into evidence. The rules of the court

require that the exhibits be identified. In the exhibit

list that was exchanged between the parties, the exhibit

list contained the following notation: "Documents under

seal"; something to that effect.

There are eight to ten thousand pages of materials

under seal. That is not an identification of the documents.

This list begins to get to that issue, but it does not do

any more than begin to get at that issue. So that is the

first thing we believe that there should be in the way that

an exhibit list is normally exchanged and prepared, a specified

exchange of documents list which lets us know precisely what

documents are being asserted.

Secondly, we then believe that the court should

follow a certain procedure which is -- we cited to the court

in our original papers the case of United States versus Hubbard

that discussed the issue of a document by document review,

not only for purposes of admissibility but also in balancing

the privacy interests against the needs of a party to make

use of the material, and it is our view, at least, that the

court should still engage in such a process on a document

342

by document basis which can obviously only happen after there

has been an opportunity to do that, That is the first thing

which we feel should happen in the course of a short

continuance.

The second thing which we feel should happen

is that we should have the opportunity to take at least certain

depositions, and we will be prepared to do it within a day,

if necessary, but there are certain witnesses who have been

identified by the defense whose depositions have not been

taken who we had no reasonable notice of, and we would like

the opportunity to take the depositions of four people for

at least a day each. We will run them simultaneously, if

necessary.

We would like those witnesses to be provided

by the defense and give us the opportunity to at least see

what it is that these people have to say on the issues in

this case.

I will just give the court one example. The

name of Laurel Sullivan has been thrown around quite a bit

by Mr. Flynn. I, in fact, knew that Miss Sullivan, because

she was Mr. Armstrong's senior, was a relevant issue in this

case and I made an effort to see if I could get any cooperation

from Miss Sullivan in having her deposition taken, and through

an intermediary made the inquiry of whether I could get access

to her address or her telephone number. Miss Sullivan's

position was that she was not going to be a witness in this

case. She did not want to be contacted by the church.

I spoke with her briefly on the telephone, but

343

she would not make herself available for deposition. We

have had consistent claims made against us of harassing people,

so I, in a discussion with Mr. Peterson and the church,

instructed that there be no effort to contact her in light

of the intentions that she had expressed.

I now find that the is voluntarily coming into

the jurisdiction because I understand she does not live in

California, is not subject to California subpoena power to

be a witness.

Now, all of that is fine, She is entitled to

appear and be a witness for Mr. Armstrong. I don't have

any objection to her being a witness for Mr. Armstrong, but

I do think we should be entitled to take her deposition.

There are other people whose names we were not

aware of as even having to do with the issues in this case.

For instance, the name Bill Franks has been thrown around

a great deal. I know who Mr. Franks is. I know the position

that he held. We made absolutely no effort to contact

Mr. Franks in the context of this case, so we would just

like to be able to designate by tomorrow morning four

witnesses. We are not asking for all 50 or anything, but

four witnesses who will be provided by the defense with the

opportunity to take a deposition of each of them.

That deposition will be solely a discovery

deposition and not a deposition for use at trial.

The third problem is, Your Honor, that in light

of the court's ruling that it is going to permit documents

to be entered, we now intend, and this is under maintaining

344

our general objection that none of these documents should

be introduced, but we do not intend to fight this case with

one hand tied behind our backs. We are going to designate

documents from among the sealed documents of our own which

will conclusively establish the fallaciousness of this defense,

which will conclusively establish how private these materials

are, which will conclusively establish that sending them

to Mr. Flynn has no reasonable relationship to any allegations

which were made by Mr. Armstrong, and we intend to designate

such exhibits and present them, and would need the time to

do that.

The courts should understand that my approach

to these documents has been to as little as possible go through

them. I feel like a voyeur when I read those documents.

I don't think they are anybody's business, and we have tried

in the context of representing our clients not to further

intrude on their privacy, and we hoped that this trial could

be tried in that way, but it appears it cannot. But we now

feel that we need the opportunity to spend some time putting

together some documents that we intend to introduce.

The court has permitted Mr. Armstrong to make

an issue of reasonableness of Mr. Armstrong's conduct under

certain circumstances. We believe that requires that we

also present evidence of the reasonableness of the church's

conduct and the church's state of mind with respect to various

things which we did not think was relevant under the theory

of the case which we believe casts the issues and frames

the relevant evidence in the case.

345

We can do all of this, Your Honor, in a period

of two weeks or even less, if necessary. We are not asking

for a long continuance. We are not asking that it be

transferred out of this court. This court can take a short

cause matter or some other trials in the interim.

I have already explained the circumstances showing

why we did not feel that we were prepared to put the case

on and try the case in the way that it is now going to be

tried, and we feel that it is reasonable that we have a brief

continuance and that we have some order with respect to

discovery along the lines that I have requested, and that

in that time it will be difficult, but that we can be fully

prepared to try the case on the issues that are now before

the court.

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, I would like to be heard

on that matter if I might.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Peterson.

MR. PETERSON: In reviewing the case as it stands today,

as we are supposed to try the case, I really honestly feel

that it is my client who stands to suffer the most. The

defenses, as they are now defined, actually, in effect, will

put my client on trial. The jury's state of mind regarding

the church, jury's state of mind regarding his interpretation

of what Fair Game means, could mean toward him, would mean

in the context of other facts, seems to all de possibly

relevant in this case.

These are issues, as Mr. Litt has explained to

the court and that we had no idea would become a part of

346

this case when the case was severed and Your Honor was talking

about judicial economy, I agree with you entirely. It was

severed to try the very narrow issues of the conversion and

invasion of privacy and the breach of fiduciary duty.

All of the issues that will come in that Gerry,

his state of mind, the harassment of Gerry -- that claim

is in his counter claim. That is why no discovery was done

regarding Gerry's state of mind, regarding any of the harassive

allegations, Fair Game. None of that discovery was done

because it was always anticipated that will be a part of

the counter claim and it may well be.

Something the court should bear in mind is why

Mr. Litt has suggested that this case, the damages' part

go back to the other cases. That will all be litigated if

we litigate Gerry's state of mind, the harassive acts

that Gerry Armstrong alleges. It will all be relitigated again

in another two month trial three years from now.

So, there really isn't a lot of judicial economy

in sending the damages claim off to the counter claim and

just trying a good, clean equitable case on neutral principles

of law with no First Amendment implications and all of that,

but again that's already been argued.

But another problem, too, that I face, and I

think it is sort of a trial tactic by Mr. Flynn which has

caused me and my client a lot of concern over this weekend

is that when we first started the trial, we went into chambers

with Your Honor and Mr. Flynn spent 45 minutes with a bunch

of unsupported allegations, some vague, unsupported harangue

347

against my client, the church, against L. Ron Hubbard, various

things, talking about grand juries, fraud, the whole thing.

My client was told about it. I said, "Don't

worry. The judge isn't the man who will be trying the case.

It will be the jury."

Again on Thursday Mr. Flynn went through and

I took notes, four pages of allegations against L. Ron Hubbard,

including taking $250 million from the church and putting

it in a Lichtenstein bank account; that Mary Sue was stripped

of her post by L. Ron Hubbard. That every Scientologist

witness in this court will have been trained to lie. Wide

variety of unsupported allegations.

But I told my client, "Don't worry. His Honor

can put that all out of his mind because it will be a jury

that will be listening to this case."

So, after Mr, Flynn was able to put all of these

unsupported allegations in front of this court, he drops

the jury demand and wants Your Honor, having heard all of

this information, to try this case. My client was very upset

at that thought.

I said, "Well, we can have a jury."

But he said, "Wait a minute. You said we didn't

want a jury."

We had waived a jury. We weren't interested

in trying our religion in front of 12 people. We wanted

a sophisticated jurist, a judge, to listen to the evidence

and to try this case. So, there was a very serious question

put to me by my client of whether Your Honor could actually

348

try this case.

Now, I have assured them and I would like Your

Honor maybe to state, and I think you can put all of the

wild, unsupported allegations out of your mind. But I think

it presents a problem that there is a possibility that this

case should be transferred, but again I am not asking. I

am not moving to disqualify Your Honor, but I think it is

something that should be borne in mind about this case.

But what Mr. Litt said is entirely true. My

client, the Church of Scientology, now must defend this case

based upon what Gerry had in his mind regarding what the

church had done, What it could do. What it has done to

other people throughout the world, and we have to prepare

a case now since last Friday when these rulings were made

allowing these defenses.

Miss Dragojevic indicated that 21 of the 50

witnesses had never, never appeared in any of the discovery.

We will hear these witnesses' testimony for the first time

when they are sitting there. That is no way to prepare for

a trial.

You had mentioned well, the facts have been going

around and we know the facts and the legal issues, the legal

areas that you pushed the facts into. That isn't important.

But it is very important. We have to try the case on what

the law is. We don't want to get new facts from that witness

stand while we are trying the case and trying to pigeonhole

those facts into legal theories that we just heard about

last Friday, so any client, the church, is in a very severe

349

disadvantage, Your Honor, and I think that at the very least

we need two weeks to analyze these new defenses that just

came up on Friday and Thursday, we need some chance to do

a limited amount of discovery, and we could be ready to try

this case.

THE COURT: Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, at the outset I'd simply like

to read into the record the portion of the very first answer

that was filed in this action. On page 3 the following

defense is raised:

"Defendant states that Hubbard

had absolute control of all plaintiffs'

accounts, that plaintiff acted as the agent

of Hubbard and that any and all of his

activities were not conducted for the plaintiff

but rather for Hubbard. Defendant denies that

any and all materials collected or maintained

by him in said project are the personal property

of plaintiff, but rather states that said

materials constitute his property or the

property of Omar V. Garrison. Defendant further

states that the materials and documents

collected by him in said project in many

respects reveal a consistent pattern of fraud

perpetrated by Hubbard through his agent,

the plaintiff, upon members of the Church of

Scientology and the public at large. Defendant

asserts that the membership of the Church of

350

Scientology and the general public have an

interest in said materials and documents in

order to reveal the falsity of numerous

representations uniformly made in writing by

Hubbard and the plaintiff."

That should put to rest the issue of whether

or not the defendant knew what the basic defense was in this

case. That is the very first answer that was filed.

With regard to the request for continuance for

two weeks, the defendant objects but with regard to the

itemization of the documents, the plaintiff is prepared to

spend a day going through the documents that are relevant

and segregating those documents so that either the court

or the plaintiff in intervention can see specifically what

documents are involved.

As far as the designation of documents by

Mr. Litt, they have had the documents in their possession

throughout the period of this litigation. They have also

come into the court, I understand from Miss Dragojevic, on

numerous occasions and itemized and catalogued every document.

So, with regard to what documents they intended to introduce

in evidence to show an invasion, I submit that when they

filed the suit and made a claim for invasion of privacy and

then filed a readiness to go to trial, they had access to

all the documents and should have known specifically at that

time what documents they intended to use.

With regard to Mr. Litt's statement that he felt

like a voyeur if he looked at the documents, well, I simply

351

suggest to the court that these documents were all given

to an author, Omar Garrison, to write a biography that was

going to be disseminated all over the world about this man

based upon these documents.

We would agree that a continuance perhaps until

Wednesday morning so that each document can, be itemized is

appropriate.

With regard to a continuance to reopen discovery,

we strenuously object to that. The plaintiff has taken

numerous depositions and, in fact, this individual Laurel

Sullivan that has been brought up, her name was placed, I

understand from Miss Dragojevic, in interrogatories and answers

to interrogatories some time ago. We ourselves until fairly

recently did not have any particular access to Laurel Sullivan.

Contrary to what Mr. Litt represented to the court, she is

not appearing voluntarily. She's been subpoenaed.

Mr. Litt failed to inform the court that he had

a two hour taped conversation with Laurel Sullivan in which

they went over, from what she tells me, every aspect of the

case and this was approximately a year ago.

She also tells me that he subsequently sent a

memoranda to her, some four to five pages long, where

Mr. Litt suggested what the full extent of her testimony

or evidence would be regarding the case.

So, with regard to reopening discovery, we think

that that is completely inappropriate. The itemization of

documents, perhaps a one day continuance for that, can be

done for both sides. We have no objection to that.

352

With regard to Mr. Peterson's statements that

they did not know about the Fair Game Doctrine and as to

how it vas applied to Mr. Armstrong, just the two volumes

that we have checked of testimony on the summary of testimony

at page 85, Volume 1, Mr. Armstrong was interrogated with

regard to the Fair Game Doctrine and things that were done

to him.

On Volume 2, page 193, he was again interrogated

with regard to the Fair Game Doctrine and what was done to

him.

With regard to wild and unsupported allegations,

I submit to the court that everything I have said is absolutely

true. They are not wild nor are they unsupported. Whether

they are relevant remains to be seen in terms of the evidence

that will be introduced, and that is basically our position.

THE COURT: Well, of course, there is, I suppose any

litigant is concerned about whether a judge is going to be

able to put aside what people say and try to decide the case

fairly. That is the normal situation.

But I think the lawyers are trained,

notwithstanding what they hear other lawyers say or what

they hear other people talk about, most lawyers don't have

any real problem with setting aside these impressions and

deciding cases that were submitted to them on evidence.

That is my reaction. I have been trying cases for 16 years

as a judge, involved in trials day by day for 15 years before

that, and I have no problem in my own mind separating what

I hear from what actually is evidence in a lawsuit,

353

notwithstanding the charges and counter charges, and this

is something that happens in nearly every case that comes

before a court; charges and counter charges, lots of hyperbole

and rhetoric and so forth, but when the chips are down, the

cases are decided on the evidence that is presented to the

court under oath. That is the way it is and that is the

way it should be.

I think in reality judges are less likely to

be swayed by some emotional appeals and rhetoric than some

trial juries are likely to be swayed, but be that as it may,

I don't see that there would be any basis for the court to

disqualify itself.

If the case is going to be a court trial, I don't

have any particular indisposition to allowing a reasonable

continuance if there actually is a bona fide need for some

further designation of exhibits or perhaps depositions of

witnesses if this is really something that is necessary.

I don't see that two weeks is required.

What witnesses do you have in mind? You have

indicated Miss Erickson.

MR. LITT: Laurel Sullivan.

THE COURT: Or Sullivan.

MR. LITT: She will be one. I will tell you quite

honestly we are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

How I would like to handle this is that one,

the defendant tell us who the anticipated witnesses are.

There is a 50 person witness list. We haven't the faintest

idea who they seriously intend to call.

354

Mr. Flynn at one point said how do we know until

we hear the case. Well, in part that may be true, but our

trial brief sets forth in large part the elements of our

case and the facts that we intend to prove. So, I think

that the defense can clearly tell us at least the people

that they know they intend to call based on what has been

presented to them.

There are at least two I can think of at this

point, which is Mr. Franks and Miss Sullivan. Mr. Franks,

depending on what testimony he may have to give, there may

be attorney-client privilege issues which have to be litigated

by the court. Mr. Franks was the executive director

international of the Church of Scientology of California.

It appears that he has divulged to Mr. Flynn

the substance of conversations that he had with attorneys

for the church at various times when he was acting as a

representative of the church. I don't know if he intends

to come in and rely on such information or not in any

testimony, but if so, I make this statement based upon the

fact that in another case where Mr. Franks was designated

as a witness in which a plaintiff represented by Mr. Flynn

is suing the church, that this information did come to light

and that that issue has not yet been resolved in that lawsuit.

As to other potential witnesses, I don't know,

Your Honor, quite honestly who they seriously intend to call

off of this list. If we could get an agreement that the

defendant has to specify the people that they presently know

that they will call as defense witnesses, we can then look

355

at that and make the assessment, in particular, we could

do that if there was even a generalized offer of proof as

to the subject matter of the testimony of the individuals

involved.

The court must understand that we are still not

sure exactly what issues we are trying even now, Some of

the allegations made by Mr. Flynn we still think are clearly

beyond the pale of anything in this lawsuit, but we are not

quite certain. So if there could be an offer of proof by

the defense, and we could look at that, then have a bona fide

witness list of the people that they intend to call. I am

not trying to limit their ability to call other witnesses,

but at least a good faith representation, then I think that

we would be in a position to say and to make specific requests

of the court.

If the court isn't inclined to give that, then

I would ask until tomorrow morning to designate the people.

I mentioned four people just because it seemed a reasonable

figure that wasn't getting out of hand. As Miss Dragojevic

said there are 21 people on their witness list who have

never been named in discovery in this case by her own admission,

so we would suggest that procedure then, Your Honor, and

we could then tell the court exactly who we feel we would

need. But the two names I mentioned are clearly two such

people.

MR. PETERSON: One other point, Your Honor. The access

to the documents at the present time is limited by court

order of Judge Olson that we can only see them two days a

356

week, Julia, and you have to give 24 hours' notice, and you

can only be there for three hours at a time or there is some

set of rules which I don't think we can get in now.

THE COURT: Let's put it this way. We could make some

order to amend that so far as that goes. That is not any

problem. My order would supercede Olson's.

MR. LITT: There is a third name I have which is Jim

Dincalci, D-i-n-c-a-l-c-i, who is on the witness list of

the defendant and whose deposition we would like to take.

THE COURT: Do you definitely propose to call these

three people, Mr. Flynn?

MR. FLYNN: Laurel Sullivan will certainly be called.

However, we submit that her name was on the witness list

in interrogatories all along. Mr. Litt, as I said, had a

two hour taped telephone conversation with her and is fully

apprised of everything she intends to testify about.

MR. LITT: I don't think the conversation was taped.

I did have a conversation with her.

MR. FLYNN: She informed me that it was taped.

MR. LITT: Maybe it was.

MR. FLYNN: That the initial part of it was taped and

then she asked and Mr. Litt said he did have a tape recording

going, and then she asked --

MR. LITT: That is false. This is false. I never

taped anyone without their consent.

I don't recall whether there was a tape recording,

but if there was a tape recording, she consented to it and

her voice was not recorded without her consent for one moment

357

and, Your Honor, I really would like this to stop.

THE COURT: Well, do you know whether or not you have

any kind of a tape recording, counsel, of this conversation

that you had?

MR. LITT: I can check with my associate to see. I

am virtually positive that we did not tape the call because

we did a file memorandum based on notes, and we would have

done a transcript had we taped it, and I know we didn't do

a transcript so I can tell the court that we did not tape

the conversation.

Whether there was some portion of it taped is

what I cannot say without absolute certainty, but no portion

was taped without her consent, if any portion was taped,

which I doubt.

THE COURT: I will accept that.

MR. FLYNN: All I can tell the court is Mr. Litt called

her once. The conversation lasted approximately five minutes.

She asked if it was being taped. He said it was.

THE COURT: Well, this is what she told you.

MR. FLYNN: This is what she told me. She called him

back half an hour after that.

He told at the beginning of the conversation

that the first conversation was taped and they then went

on for two hours and then he sent her a five or six page

memo about what was in the conversation. That is all I can

tell the court.

Now, Laurel Sullivan will definitely be called

as a witness. She was Mr. Armstrong's senior.

358

THE COURT: Okay, you don't need to go into that.

Can she be made available for deposition here?

Is she out of the state now or she is coming in or she is

here?

MR. FLYNN: No, that was another misstatement. She

is now a resident of California and working and living in

the State of California.

THE COURT: Can she be made available for deposition?

Is she local?

MR. FLYNN: I can consult with her and I can do my

best to make her available as soon as possible which I will

do.

MR. LITT: Wait, Your Honor. I would like the court --

I guarantee the court that if the court enters an order that

in order for the defense to call her she make herself

available, she will be made available. If it is a question

of asking Miss Sullivan whether she wishes to make herself

available, I can tell the court what her answer will be.

She is cooperating with the defense. That is fine, but then

the defense should have to cooperate and should have the

incentive to cooperate and the witness should have the

incentive to cooperate.

THE COURT: I don't have any problem with that, counsel.

MR. FLYNN: So I will do my best, Your Honor.

In the last several weeks I have learned quite

a bit about her involvement in this case, specifically with

regard to the fundamental issues of the shredding, the

biography project --

359

MR. PETERSON: Your Honor, you are now the trier of

fact in this case. I think you should hear this testimony

from the lips of the witnesses and not Mr. Flynn's distorted

view.

MR. FLYNN: I thought they wanted an offer of proof.

THE COURT: Yes, he wanted an offer of proof.

MR. LITT: Well, is this an offer of proof?

MR. FLYNN: This is basically what I was going to call

the witness for.

MR. LITT: Okay. As long as it is an offer of proof,

fine.

MR. PETERSON: Categorize it as an offer of proof.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, with regard to the shredding,

the biography project, her supervision of Mr. Armstrong,

the permission of Armstrong to give the documents to Garrison,

the fact that the contract was specifically silent on the

issue of what Garrison could do with the documents and was

specifically made so, the fact that she was subsequently

declared and she was offered to have that Declare suspended

if she would testify cooperatively, the fact that she worked

for L. Ron Hubbard, that Gerry Armstrong worked for L. Ron

Hubbard, that there were extensive discussions of those

particular facts because they were informed and it was agreed

that it they worked for the church while working for Hubbard,

it would be illegal. So it was always agreed upon throughout

this project that both Miss Sullivan and Gerald Armstrong

worked for Mr. Hubbard.

360

In fact, Mr. Hubbard told her that. There will

be direct testimony that Hubbard instructed her that she

was his personal employee as was Armstrong, and the fact

that Mr. Armstrong brought the box of documents to her, told

her that they were headed for the shredder and what should

we do with them. That is basically her testimony.

With regard to Mr. Franks, it simply involved

this entire shredding operation. He was the head of the

church at the time. The reliance on Hubbard's background,

the fact that the entire church revolved around L. Ron Hubbard,

relied upon his background, That all the orders came directly

down from Hubbard if that becomes an issue.

Mr. Dincalci, the fact that Mr. Dincalci was

the actual owner of the photographs that were taken from

Mr. Armstrong, stolen from Mr. Armstrong by church employees

which goes to the unclean hands defense.

With regard to those witnesses, that is it.

But I submit, Your Honor, that a continuance

for more than a day or two where we have already been at

this for over a week is something that the court should

seriously consider with regard to the imposition on the

defense. The plaintiff has known throughout this litigation

exactly who these people are and, in fact, because of the

nature of the way the plaintiff operates, it has extensive

files --

THE COURT: Well, be that as it may, is there somebody

else that you --

MR. PETERSON: He hasn't designated the witnesses.

361

MR. LITT: Your Honor, once we get beyond those three

witnesses, I have examined the defendant's witness list and

I cannot quite honestly tell what is hype and what is real

in these other witnesses. I mean, the three I named I could

sort of make an assessment.

I assume that Joyce Armstrong is a serious witness.

Is Omar Garrison -- his deposition has been taken. I don't

know if he is going to come in live for the defendant.

MR. FLYNN: We intend to call him.

MR. LITT: He is not willing to make himself available

to us live.

But then there is just a list here, Your Honor;

John Nelson, Vicky Livingston, David Mayo. I am familiar

with many of these people. I am also familiar with the fact

that from what I know about them, they don't really know

anything about this case and I just can't tell who he intends

to call and who he doesn't.

At this time do you know who you are going to

call?

MR. FLYNN: I don't know, Your Honor. I anticipate,

based upon the evidence that I know, that a directed verdict,

as I have previously submitted to the court, will probably

be appropriate on virtually every count, and the simple fact

of the matter if the documents were given to a journalist,

I think that is probably the predominant fact in the case.

I believe we will be entitled to a directed verdict, and

I simply do not want, contrary to Mr. Litt's representation,

to expand the case bigger than need be.

362

However, if allegations are made by either

Mrs. Hubbard or representatives of the church with regard

to certain documents, the nature of the privacy interests

of Mrs. Hubbard or L. Ron Hubbard, then we will have to expand

on those issues. But at the present time, I simply don't

know.

THE COURT: What if we try the plaintiffs' case; I

don't know what the posture of the case will be then. If

it goes then to the defense and then he can identify these

witnesses and maybe take a short break at that time.

MR. LITT: What we would ask then, Your Honor, is that

these three witnesses appear to be serious witnesses by

Mr. Flynn. One of the points I was making earlier is we

feel that we have to recast, to a certain extent, our own

case to deal with the reasonableness of our conduct in the

affirmative suit itself. We would like the opportunity to

take at least three witnesses who can be identified by

Mr. Flynn, and then after we rest our case, if there are

witnesses who we can demonstrate to the court we didn't have

reasonable opportunity to examine, that question can be dealt

with at that time. If necessary, we are prepared to work

weekends to do depositions or whatever is required. We are

not trying to slow anything down, so the procedure that we

would propose is that we have the opportunity to take these

three depositions with the opening at the end of our case

when Mr. Flynn can perhaps and after there's been a ruling

on a directed verdict, which we don't expect him to win,

and if Mr, Flynn has additional witnesses, that he can inform

363

us and the court at that time, and we can then take up any

issues at that time before the court.

THE COURT: How long will it take to depose these three

people? It doesn't sound like it is all that complicated.

MR. FLYNN: Franks is in New York.

THE COURT: When is he going to come out here?

MR. FLYNN: He is a cooperative witness and he was

going to come out voluntarily, but the present status of

the situation is I have told him I don't know --

THE COURT: I am not going to have him come out here

specially -- if it gets to that, then you can have some time

to take his deposition.

MR. LITT: That is fine.

Miss Sullivan, Mr. Flynn says, is here. I didn't

know that, and I believe that Mr. Dincalci lives in the area,

so for the two of them, I presume that should not be a problem.

Miss Sullivan's deposition, I would expect, would take a

full day.

Mr. Dincalci, if he is only being called on the

photograph issue, I don't expect would take a lengthy period

of time. I don't know for sure if the offer of proof is

limited to that. I'd just like to get that clear.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, apparently Mr. Dincalci is

only going to be limited to that one fact.

I would also bring to the attention of the court,

if we are now going to reopen discovery, we have tried from

the outset to take the deposition of David Miscavige. He,

we believe, is the principal party in all of this litigation.

364

He runs the church. He works for L. Ron aubbard, and we

have sought to depose him since the beginning of the case,

and he's never been made available. He communicates on a

daily basis with Sherman Lenske, an attorney here in

Los Angeles, who at one point, maybe he still does, had an

appearance in this action.

If they are going to take the deposition of Laurel

Sullivan and I am going to make her available, I submit,

Your Honor, that we should be able to take the deposition

of David Miscavige with regard to the following points:

If Mr. Miscavige tells the truth, he will testify

that L. Ron Hubbard has known from day one about

Mr. Armstrong's involvement with the biography project.

That he was getting regular reports throughout the biography

project through Mr. Miscavige. That he has been informed

on a daily basis of everything that's occurred in this lawsuit

which goes to his availability as a witness, his privacy

interests, and virtually every issue that permeates the case.

If they are going to depose Laurel Sullivan and

we are going to make Laurel available, I submit to the court

that they should make David Miscavige available for a one

day deposition.

MR. LITT: David Miscavige is not going to be called

as a witness by us. We have no power whatsoever over David

Miscavige. David Miscavige is not an officer or director

or employee or managing agent of the Church of Scientology

of California or of Mrs. Hubbard, and we simply have no ability

to produce him.

365

Obviously if we were using him as a witness,

he would have to be made available. I have no quarrel with

that if he was voluntarily cooperating with us to be a witness,

which as far as I know he wouldn't know anything about this

in any event. It is an inconceivable request.

It is the same as the request that they made

for us to produce Mr. Hubbard. We have no ability to produce

Mr. Hubbard. There are a whole lot of people we have no

ability to produce. All you can do in a case if you are

going to use someone, then the other side should have the

opportunity to use them. That is the most we can do.

MR. PETERSON: This is an obvious red herring. The

simple point is Laurel Sullivan is going to be his witness.

If he wishes to withdraw Laurel Sullivan as his witness,

then we won't take her deposition.

But Mr. Miscavige is not going to be our witness

and he has no knowledge of these facts.

THE COURT: Well, if he is not an officer or director

of the corporation, if he has some other informal role, I

don't know what it is. It seems to me that it doesn't sound

like he is that percipient to facts that are in issue here.

At this time without prejudice to renewing it

later, I will deny that request.

How much time are you going to need to check

the exhibits down here? I assume we can make an order that

they will be made available to you, all counsel.

MR. LITT: Here is what I think, What I would propose

on the exhibits, Your Honor, is that the defense have a day

366

down there and then we have a day down there after we get

their list, and the reason I say that is one, I want to correct

one misstatement of fact. We do not have by any means all

the documents that are under seal.

Mr. Armstrong took two or three thousand originals

which, by his own testimony, he didn't copy before he took

them and they are under seal in the court and there are no

copies available to us whatsoever.

What we need to do is we need to see what documents

they intend to introduce. We then need to go to the materials

because there may be related documents in order to put certain

things in context that we need to use, and we essentially

need at least a full day to do that after we get their

documents list.

Then, in addition, of course, as we have indicated,

there are documents that we intend to introduce which we

have not yet determined, which I think can be determined

by -- well, we really need to go down and look through the

materials that are not available to us as well, so I think

we could determine that by Thursday and we could have looked

at their documents by Thursday.

If tomorrow they go through the documents and

first thing Wednesday morning or like 9:00 a.m. Wednesday

morning have a list to us, that we can then go through them,

I would say, by Thursday we could know, have reviewed those

documents, know where we stand on these documents as well

as identify what other documents we would intend to introduce

and provide that list to them.

367

I don't know how the court wants to handle the

issue of rulings on admissibility of documents, and there

are other issues related to the documents.

THE COURT: That can be done in due course. If it

is going to be a court trial, there is no real big problem.

It seems to me we deal with it on an ad hoc basis as each

exhibit comes up.

MR. FLYNN: I suggest we take the depositions on the

weekend, one deposition now being of Laurel Sullivan.

MR. LITT: And Mr. Dincalci.

MR. FLYNN: but that is only limited to the photographs.

That can be done on the weekend at the same time.

On the document issue I think we should simply

both go down tomorrow. We will designate the ones we want.

They can segregate the ones they want. Ours are not

that much. We have given them the list this morning.

The Naval documents are voluminous and we will

refer to them as one packet because the only way we can prove

the substance of our claims is to look at the entire Naval

record. There isn't one document you can look at.

MR. LITT: I can go through in terms of some suggestions

I have.

THE COURT: Well, I would think in order to make this

more logical, the thing to do, I think you should go down

there and make a list and premark your exhibits; Plaintiff's

1, 2, 3 or whatever and Defendant's A, B, C and so forth,

and that will save us some time as well and make just a general

brief description of what it is so the clerk will have it

368

ahead of time, also.

We will also, of course, have to make some

arrangements with the clerk's office for getting those matters

up here. I don't know. I haven't talked to anybody

downstairs. I understand they want to talk to me, but I

know what they are going to tell me. They are going to be

complaining about the situation and the costs that may be

involved and so forth, but I have been putting that off.

I don't want to get to talking to them or be influenced by

them on this thing. Anything they tell me, they can tell

you, too,

MR. LITT: We do not particularly care to be down there

going through the documents because we will be taking certain

people with us who have familiarity with Mr. Hubbard's

archives, who can help us to put things in context, with

the defendant and his lawyers present. So we would suggest

that that be done for obvious reasons on different days.

That the defense mark their exhibits tomorrow

down there and provide us with a detailed list, and then

we will do the same the following day, and on Thursday provide

them a list.

THE COURT: Well, why don't I just recess the trial

and start it on Monday, the 30th, as a court trial?

MR. LITT: That is acceptable.

THE COURT: I know Mr. Flynn is out here from the East

Coast, but if it is going to be a court trial, it is going

to be a lot shorter than a jury trial.

MR. FLYNN: My client has also lived with this and

369

he has had to drop his employment in order to defend the

case. His wife has basically dropped her employment.

THE COURT: We are still going to try to get the case

moving. It seems to me if you go down and premark your

exhibits and the plaintiff can premark his exhibits. You

can set up these depositions Thursday and Friday and do

whatever else you have to do, and then we will be ready

to go on Monday, the 30th, and we can get something to keep

us busy the next four days.

MR. LITT: May I make a couple of other inquiries?

The depositions, is it possible -- I am concerned about having

transcripts prepared which is some difficulty.

Does Mr. Flynn know whether or not either of

his witnesses are not working and therefore could be available

on Friday?

MR. FLYNN: I will have to check with her, Your Honor.

I have no idea. I know she is working full time. I believe

the whole case is an imposition on her. I am going to ask

her to voluntarily appear.

THE COURT: Maybe she'd do it on a Saturday to avoid

losing work.

MR. LITT: Yes, if she is working, then we will do

it on Saturday.

MR. FLYNN: Or in the alternative, if he will pay her

day's wages.

THE COURT: You can check with him. You have a better

chance of getting a transcript --

MR. LITT: Yes, I think we'd be prepared to do that,

370

but I'd have to check with the client.

MR. PETERSON: Also Your Honor, Mr. Flynn has indicated

that Miss Sullivan is under subpoena by his office. If he

contacts her and she is not willing to appear for this

deposition on her own, that he give us her address to allow

us to subpoena her.

MR. FLYNN: I will do everything in my power to produce

her because the address is a very sensitive issue.

THE COURT: I can understand. Considering the emotions

involved in the case, we won't get involved in that. You

make her available.

You tell her if she doesn't do it that way, then

you will have to take some other steps to see that she gives

her deposition.

MR. LITT: There are a couple of other questions that

I have.

THE COURT: Let me think in terms for the moment of

the kind of order we are going to need to give you people

access to these records. I assume we will just make an order

that the defendant, Mr. Armstrong, and his counsel, I assume,

will have access to the records in the clerk's office between

8:00 and 5:00 tomorrow.

THE CLERK: I don't recall now what the original order

was.

MR. LITT: There is now an order that says Tuesdays

and Fridays, 9:00 to 3:00 on 24 hours' notice.

THE COURT: Well, tomorrow is Tuesday. Will 9:00 to

3:00 give you enough time?

371

MR. FLYNN: I think so, Your Honor,

THE COURT: And it is now 3:00. Is that enough time?

Is that enough notice?

THE CLERK: I am sure that is okay.

THE COURT: And how much time do you want? Do you

want Wednesday from 9:00 to 3:00?

MR. LITT: Wednesday from 9:00 to 4:00 and we would

like, because we may need to do some follow-up, we will give

the list on Thursday, but we'd like Thursday morning also

if we need it. I will tell you that Mr. Nuttke, while a very

nice man, if the order doesn't say it, we will have to come

back and have it say it.

THE COURT: Wednesday 9:00 to 4:00 and Thursday 9:00

through 12:00.

Where do you want to exchange these lists? Is

there some neutral ground?

MR. LITT: We would ask that there be hand delivery

to us by 9:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, if that can be arranged

or 9:30 a.m. Wednesday morning by hand delivery, however

they want to deliver it by hand. We will hand deliver by

noon Thursday -- 1:30.

MR. FLYNN: That is fine,

THE COURT: I guess that is neutral ground.

MR. LITT: Now, Your Honor, there is a matter that

we never reached because we reserved it.

THE COURT: We have been going for a long time. For

the reporter's benefit, if it is going to be at all lengthy,

we will take a recess.

372

MR. LITT: Well, I think the things I am going to raise

might take another 10 to 15 minutes.

THE COURT: All right, we will take a recess.

(Recess.)

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I have just a couple of

questions.

THE COURT: All right, we are back in session.

MR. FLYNN: We'd like permission for Mrs. Armstrong

to come into the room where the documents are so she can

basically work in a secretarial capacity to make notes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. FLYNN: And if possible, we'd like to go in from

9:00 to 5:00 rather than 9:00 to 3:00.

THE COURT: How about 8:30 to 4:30?

MR. FLYNN: Okay, 8:30 to 4:30, and Friday morning

from 9:00 to 12:00.

THE COURT: Friday morning 9:00 to 12:00.

THE CLERK: They are not open until 9:00.

THE COURT: Okay, 9:00 to 5:00 tomorrow and Friday

9:00 to 12:00.

MR. FLYNN: Mr. Dincalci is working in San Francisco,

so apparently we are unable to produce him.

MR. LITT: Does that mean he is living in San Francisco

or comes down on the weekends or what do we have here?

MR. FLYNN; I understand he is up in San Francisco,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you can renew your request at the

conclusion of the plaintiff's case, and then if he is going

373

to come down here, maybe you can get -- it is a very limited

subject that he is going to testify about anyway.

MR. FLYNN: That he owned the photographs that were

taken.

MR. LITT: It appears so.

THE COURT: Well, you may rethink your decision as

to whether you want to depose him then.

MR. LITT: All right. As long as it is understood

that before he testifies we will have the opportunity in

some form, then we are not insisting that it be this week.

I am not saying that we will demand the opportunity,

depending on what happens. We just want to know that we

have the opportunity.

MR. FLYNN: And I assume that Laurel Sullivan is going

to be limited to one day?

THE COURT: Yes. As long as it is a good faith effort

to submit the deposition. As long as you don't spend all

day arguing between counsel.

You can save your argument for when you come

back to court.

MR. LITT: I understand.

What I wanted to move to at this point, and the

court may want to defer this issue, but I wanted to raise

it is that there are questions that were raised in our original

motion in limine regarding the documents concerning their

being sealed, their being subjected to discovery. There

is, as the court may be aware, a present order that there

is a requirement for a Special Master, procedure for the

374

discovery of any documents in this case in which various

issues can be asserted. While the court has ruled that it

is going to permit them in this case, the question of whether

they would be discoverable in other cases is a separate issue.

The issue here goes to Mr. Armstrong's state of mind. The

issue in other cases goes to factual issues and allegations

in support of plaintiff's complaint. We just want it to

be clear one, that the order which I believe was an order

of Judge Cole that set up a discovery procedure remains in

effect for all documents.

THE COURT: Well, I am not interfering at this time

with Judge Cole's order as it may relate to other cases.

At the same time, I assume that we are trying the equitable

issues along with the legal issues all at the same time,

and the court will have to make some orders that may bear

upon that in the course of whatever it does on this case,

and so --

MR. LITT: That is fine. I understand.

MR. PETERSON: Also, since Mrs. Armstrong is going

in, that she also be bound by the court's order of

nondissemination of any of the information or documents.

THE COURT: Yes, I would make that order, that if she

goes in there, it is on condition that she not disclose

anything that is therein except in court or to counsel.

MR. FLYNN: That is not the order as I understand it.

MR. LITT: That she abide by the order.

THE COURT: I assume that is the order. What is the

order?

375

MR. FLYNN: Anyone is free to talk about the contents.

MR. LITT: No.

MR. PETERSON: No.

THE COURT: It seems to one that she is going in there

for a limited purpose, and that is acting in a secretarial

type capacity, and that is that she will be foreclosed from

discussing anything that is disclosed there except with counsel

and with her husband and in open court. But she is not to

disclose otherwise without further order of court.

MR. LITT: We would also like -- Mr. Flynn has not

had access to these documents, assuming that the court is

now allowing him to go into them, we also would like an order

that requires that he has seen these materials under seal.

He may not disclose the materials or the contents of the

materials for any purpose outside of the use in this

proceeding. That is the order that exists presently with

respect to counsel.

THE COURT: I don't have any problem with that, at

least until the court decides what to do with these exhibits.

It seems to me at this point we are talking about this case.

He obviously is involved in a myriad of other

cases involving, I guess you and Mr. Peterson, and it seems

to me that at least until we have resolved the issues in

this case, that probably any examinations will be limited

to your use in this case, Mr. Flynn.

MR. FLYNN: I essentially have no quarrel with that.

The problem that I do have is that I am involved

in other litigation. I am intimately familiar with the

376

documents. I am intimately familiar with Hubbard's background,

and I deal with co-counsel all over the country and I speak

on these issues.

In fact, in connection with one speech a contempt

action was brought against me. My right of free speech to

speak about Hubbard is something that the First Amendment

guarantees me.

The realistic problem for me is that if the court

enters an order, at some subsequent point in the future if

I say anything, a contempt action will be brought against

me. That is the history of what this organization has done,

so in terms of the language of the court's order, that could

be very significant because I already know what is in the

documents. I have been speaking about them for four years

in front of courts, legislative bodies and et cetera. To

curtail that right would be curtailing something I have been

doing for four years.

I will make a good faith representation to the

court that pending this litigation, I don't have any present

intention to go out and speak about the contents. With regard

to discussions with other lawyers, I have those on a daily

basis. What I don't intend to do is go into the court, look

at the documents and then go out and speak about them. I

already know what is in there, but I just don't want a

contempt action brought against me in the future because

of the technical language of the order.

MR. LITT: It is not a question of technical language.

It is one of the problems that we raised as to why we felt

377

Mr. Flynn should not be provided access to the documents

in which he says it is impossible for me to sort these out,

and it is unfair if he is going to be given access to these,

and the court will see that these are private documents,

and he is being permitted access to them for this case, it

is Mr. Flynn's obligation to either be able to say that he

will be capable of following standard orders that it be used

for only purposes of this case, the information that he learns

and the contents that he learns, and that it not be

disseminated for purposes of any other case, and it is unfair

to us for Mr. Flynn to say, "Well, I know so much that it

is impossible for me to say that. Therefore, I will go in

and intrude on your privacy. I will go through all of these

documents," and then he will say, "I don't know whether I

was using that or not."

That is not fair.

THE COURT: Well, that would be true in an ordinary

situation, but here we have a situation where these matters

were already delivered to him.

MR. LITT: He says that he doesn't recall what those

documents said and what he learned from those materials.

He is now going to go back to them and he has made speeches,

in essence, what has happened is that Mr. Armstrong tells

him what is in the materials and then he has given speeches

about them.

Now we are not asking for anything unreasonable,

but the order that we are asking for is a standard order

under the circumstances. Mr. Flynn is a plaintiff against

378

Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Flynn represents enumerable parties in

litigation who are seeking these documents with Mr. Flynn

or associates of his representing these parties.

The court, in order to protect the privacy of

the documents, the court has set up a procedure to insure

that their privacy is maintained and it is not fair. We

did not create this situation.

We believe that we were the victims of this

situation, and it is reasonable for us to request that he

be bound by the same order that any other counsel in his

position would be bound by, and if Mr. Flynn cannot do that,

then I think the onus is on him to either be able to do it

or to suggest that somebody who can do it handle this aspect

of the case.

That was what we suggested originally and he

opposed that, and the court has ruled on that and we are

not reraising that. The order that would normally be entered

in this respect, which I think is clear, applies to Mr. Flynn

just as it would to any other counsel.

MR. FLYNN: I think I can obviate the problem. I will

agree that I won't quote or disseminate any material from

any documents presently under seal unless they are already

in the public record.

MR. LITT: No. The public record doesn't solve it

because we are moving -- that is the next item I was going

to get into.

THE COURT: I don't know what is in the public record.

MR. FLYNN: Well, that at least protects me because

379

if a contempt action is brought against me, then I can say

it is in the public record.

THE COURT: But if it is put in the public record by

you, then we are sort of hoisted by our own --

If it has been put in the public record by someone

other than you, but if it is put in the public record by

you --

MR. FLYNN: Well, the public record, there seems to

be some misconception. The public record predated

Mr. Armstrong leaving the church. We collected many documents

prior to Mr. Armstrong ever leaving the church.

MR. LITT: Very few of these, very, very few.

THE COURT: Well, I will accept the representation

by Mr. Flynn that he is not going to do anything of an untoward

nature that would violate the theory and the principles of

what we are trying to deal with here. He is subject to the

protective order.

At the same time, there are some things that

I cannot make an order against. I can't order somebody to

do the impossible, and he is not to -- during the pendency

of these proceedings until further order discuss or disseminate

to other people, other than people like his client or in

court here, matters contained in the sealed records which

were not in the public domain before Mr. Armstrong first

went to Mr. Flynn or Miss Dragojevic, her firm. Anything

that might have been in the public record before then is

nothing I have a right to do anything about.

MR. LITT: The next part of this same general issue,

380

Your Honor, has to do with the question of the conditions

under which any documents among the sealed documents are

admitted into evidence.

We would ask that, and I don't know if the court

wants to resolve this now or wait until we begin the trial

or what or wait until the first document comes in, so I will

just raise it and you can tell me.

We made a series of requests, the first of which

was that any documents introduced into evidence shall be

placed under the seal of the court when they are admitted

into evidence. It is obvious, I think, that if what happens

in the course of this trial is that Mr. Armstrong and his

counsel are able to utilize the processes of this court and

the existence of this trial to introduce the materials, which

are private which is the whole gravamen of the case, into

evidence publicly, that the whole purpose of the case will

have been completely undermined. It is standard in trade

secret cases and in other confidentiality cases that the

procedure we are requesting be followed, and we would ask

that it be followed here. It is critical to the protection

of the privacy of these materials.

THE COURT: Well, I haven't got the impression that the

defendant intends to do that. They have indicated there

are only certain documents out of this massive collection

that they intend to use.

MR. LITT: They are private documents that they intend

to use.

THE COURT: Okay. The point is they haven't said that

381

they intended to use all of them. They want to use a select

group, and the court will deal with it on an ad hoc basis

as far as that is concerned. My disposition is that basically

this is a public procedure, a trial, and matters which are

of relevance and are material are to be made a part of

the public record.

Now, if there is something that for some peculiar

reason or some extraordinary situation that there is something

that specially is a problem about, I will be glad to consider

it and make the possibility of further orders, but my basic

reaction is that this is a public courtroom. It is paid

for by the taxpayers. I don't know what is in these documents.

If it is something that strikes me as being something that

shouldn't be bruited about, I will give consideration to

it certainly, but because you put a characterization on this

as being private writings, that could encompass a lot of

things, many of which would be harmless and neutral and matters

on which there is going to be testimony about here in

the record, which is a public record, so I don't know. I will

have to deal with it on an ad hoc basis, counsel.

MR. LITT: I don't know how the court wants to deal

with it. When all the documents are marked, does the court

want to review them at that time or -- I am very concerned

about this, Your Honor.

I really feel that the whole purpose of this

proceeding and the reason that this proceeding was brought

will have been totally viciated if the documents which we

will establish Mr. Armstrong had no right to take and no

382

right to give to anyone, and he did so, then they were brought

to the court and now, in effect -- let me obviate your problem.

He is going to give you a list by Wednesday of what he wants and

you are going to give him a list on Thursday, whatever.

You come into court on Monday. We will have

to get these exhibits here and there are some that you want

me to review. All of them you want me to review I can do

that. That is no big problem.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

The next question, Your Honor, and again I don't

know if the court wants to deal with this now or wait, is

that when we serve our supplemental exhibit list, there may

be as a result or the rulings of the court and the way that

the case will be restructured some additional witnesses that

we will list. I do not expect it to be many, two or three,

because we feel we have to address certain issues which we

previously didn't feel, and we will serve that on the defendant

as well on Thursday if that is acceptable.

MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if there are going to be

additional witnesses here, I am in the position of dependant,

and I have had to make an offer of proof as to what my

witnesses are going to say when I don't even know what

plaintiff's case is going to be. I think I should be entitled

to know now and be afforded the same opportunity to take

their deposition if that becomes a necessity. I think if

Mr. Litt has an idea of who these people are, he should tell

me.

THE COURT: Who do you intend to call?

383

MR. LITT: I am not certain that it will be anybody

additional, Your Honor.

We will be glad to provide the names by Thursday

and anybody that we use we will make available for deposition

if they want the deposition. I don't have any problem with

that.

THE COURT: Make it known to counsel on Thursday and

try to work something out with them if there is somebody

you want to call.

MR. LITT: The next item, Your Honor, and again this

may be an issue that best waits is that in the pretrial

identified exhibits if there can be stipulations as to

authenticity on various matters, it can save, I think,

everybody's time. In the formal setting between counsel

before the case we were not able to make much headway on

that issue.

There are various items. There is a settlement

agreement between Mr. Garrison and the publisher of the book.

There is the contract between Mr. Garrison and the publisher

of the book.

There is the letter from Mr. Hubbard which the

court read the other day which we have a handwriting and

fingerprint expert to testify about it and authenticate.

I don't believe it has ever been examined by experts for

the defendant, and I would suggest at some point for both

sides that we establish a procedure whereby we see what

stipulations can be had with respect to authenticity. That

would shorten the trial. Otherwise, we would call three

384

witnesses to authenticate the letter from Mr. Hubbard.

We are perfectly prepared to do it, but I think

it is unnecessary. But I think there may be other things.

I just wanted to raise that and see if the court or counsel --

THE COURT: Can you tell me about any of those exhibits?

MR. FLYNN: As to the settlement agreement, we will

stipulate to it and the contract with Garrison we will

stipulate to.

The letter from Hubbard we won't.

THE COURT: Are there any other documents, Mr. Litt,

that you are planning on introducing at this time on your

case in chief?

MR. LITT: Yes, Your Honor. If I can just have a moment,

I will find my list. There are a series of documents, most

of which I don't believe are -- there are the bills from

the investigation firm which we intend to introduce into

evidence to show the investigation expenses related to finding

out whether Mr. Armstrong had documents to which he was not

entitled.

We are obviously not asking for stipulations

to admissibility on relevance grounds, just foundational

grounds.

THE COURT: Well, I understand that you are probably

going to have to put somebody on to testify that they paid

them.

MR. LITT: We can. Every exhibit we have we can

authenticate, Your Honor.

We have a series of documents. I don't think

385

most of them are in issue. There was an exchange of letter

between Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Peterson in which Mr. Peterson

wrote to Mr. Armstrong concerning whether he had any documents.

Mr. Armstrong responded to him. We intend to introduce those

into evidence.

There are board minutes from the Church of

Scientology. They have been listed out.

There are various receipts signed by Mr. Armstrong

related to purchases he made for which moneys were provided

to him, purchasing materials for the archives which demonstrate

that he was, in fact, an agent of, an employee of the Church

of Scientology of California. They are all listed. We can

present foundational evidence on all of this.

THE COURT: You can cross-examine him on all of this

as far as that goes.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Flynn has been provided with a list

of these exhibits. Maybe in the next day or two he can look

at them and let us know by the end of the week if there are

any that he can stipulate to and if not, we will present

evidence.

MR. FLYNN: That is fine, and the same would go

reciprocally.

MR. PETERSON: And we would do the same with his witness

list.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. LITT: Now, there are certain documents under seal,

Your Honor, which we, at least, which we will want to deal

with in advance. For instance, the materials which the court

386

ruled the other day were privileged are on the list of

documents that Mr. Flynn submitted today. I suppose we can

deal with that again, but certain things, at least, relate

to privileged matters.

THE COURT: You mean those tapes?

MR. LITT: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, of course, that I suppose won't come

up until the defendant's side of the case; will it?

MR. LITT: I don't know whether they may intend to

use any of these in cross-examination or not, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: It may, Your Honor, for the following reason:

A major issue in the case is who Armstrong worked for.

We will be bringing up through cross-examination

of the plaintiffs' witnesses, depending on who they put on,

what we consider to be fairly strong evidence that he worked

for Hubbard. The tapes virtually conclusively proved that

everyone worked for Hubbard. There are statements made on

the tapes --

THE COURT: You don't need to go into that. The question

merely is if you are going to be using them, then you should

be prepared to demonstrate that there is no privilege attached

to them. Maybe the facts are undisputed that they were given

to him with the thought that they were blank tapes. I don't

know whether that is going to be developed or not.

Then it is a question of who was present and

what the purposes of this meeting were, and obviously there

were attorneys present; whether that causes a waiver of the

privilege, I am not sure.

387

MR. FLYNN: We will be prepared to go into that.

THE COURT: Do you have any briefs on that? I think

the plaintiff does.

MR. LITT: Your Honor, in our motion in limine we briefed

the issue extensively as to the attachment of the privilege.

We did not extensively brief the waiver issue.

The court indicated the other day that a waiver

has to be a knowing and intelligent waiver and by

Mr. Armstrong's testimony, there was no knowing waiver.

We can brief the issue further.

I am not prepared to argue it now.

THE COURT: I'd rather look it over and let counsel

have a chance to maybe see if he has anything to submit on

the issue.

MR. FLYNN: We intend to brief it, Your Honor.

There is one case which seems to be pretty much

on point which I can give you the cite on.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FLYNN: Morley versus McFarlane, and it is at

647 Pacific 2d 1215.

THE COURT: Got an official California reporter?

MR. FLYNN: It is a Colorado Supreme Court case.

THE COURT: Well, I don't have that.

MR. FLYNN: Oh, I can leave you a copy of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LITT: If a copy gets left, I would appreciate

if I am provided a copy, also.

MR. FLYNN: I will have to Xerox it, Your Honor.

388

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LITT: And on the question of access, could the

order for access for us say that counsel and any three people

who we designate as people who need access for purposes of

the case? I am not sure who we are going to bring in, and

again Mr. Nuttke is a bit of a stickler.

THE COURT: How much room do they have down there?

MR. LITT: They have room for that many people.

THE COURT: All right, counsel and three people.

MR. LITT: The other matters, and again I can take

them up later, there is some deposition testimony that we

intend to introduce. We intend to introduce substantial

portions from Mr. Armstrong's deposition.

We also intend to introduce at least one other

deposition, and on that deposition there are objections that

we have to various cross-examination. I don't know exactly

how the court wants to handle it. We can provide marked

copies of the deposition indicating what we intend to introduce

and indicating the portions of any other examination that

we object to or we can have it read in and deal with it.

I just don't know how the court would like to handle it.

THE COURT: I am not sure it is going to be a whole

deposition that you are going to read or just a few questions

and answers.

MR. LITT: It is not the whole deposition, but it is

a substantial part of a deposition. I would say that it

probably comes to 40 or 50 pages of a hundred page deposition.

THE COURT: Then I think the best way to handle it

389

is have one of you ask the questions and let Mr. Peterson

read the answers from the witness stand, and if you have

got a copy of it, I will follow and rule on the objections

as they are made.

MR. LITT: That is fine, and the last thing that we

wanted to state to the court is that in light of the rulings

that have been made and especially in light of the fact there

has been an issue about harassment is that one of the

determinations that has been made is that I will not after

today and in the course of the trial act on behalf of both

Mrs. Hubbard and the church. Mr. Peterson will act on behalf

of the church. I will act on behalf of Mrs. Hubbard, and

the reason for that is that by the defendant's own allegations,

there is no claim of any harassment by Mrs. Hubbard, and

since the court is considering these and we are now in a

position where potential defenses against one party may not

be applicable against, the other, we felt that the case should

be reordered at this point, so we will continue to work

together. We don't intend to duplicate efforts, but I did

want to indicate --

THE COURT: All right, then, you are withdrawing as

counsel for the church and Mr. Peterson -- are you attorney

of record?

MR. PETERSON: I am attorney of record, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All Right.

MR. LITT: It is no problem. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. FLYNN: There is one other point, Your Honor.

Apparently from what Miss Dragojevic tells me in order to

390

separate the exhibits from the boxes they are presently in,

which we are going to have to do to mark them and segregate

them, we need permission from the court to put them in a

separate box.

THE COURT: Well, that is fine with me. I will be

glad to make an order that any exhibits that are being

premarked by either side can be separated from the bulk of

the exhibits so that they can be brought up here in due course

eventually and not the whole bunch being brought up here.

MR. LITT: In doing that, Your Honor, we would like

as each exhibit is removed that it be indicated what box

it came from because some materials came from Miss Dragojevic's

office. Some materials came from Mr. Flynn's office, and

we don't want to get them mixed up in terms of any proof

in the case.

THE COURT: In the way they are now, how are they

identified? I don't know.

MR. LITT: They are in boxes that they were sent in,

so there were two boxes sent by Contos & Bunch and those

have address labels on them "Contos & Bunch." And then there

were three boxes sent by the Law Offices of Michael J. Flynn,

and those are in boxes marked with the address label of

Mr. Flynn, so that the boxes that they are in are what they

arrived in and they are self-identifying as to where they

came from.

THE COURT: I guess when you identify them, you can

put "CB" or "MF" or something like that beside them. Just

use the initials "CB" in addition to the description of the

391

exhibit.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Before you gentlemen run away and counsel,

it has been brought to my attention by the clerk that

Mr. Armstrong lodged a certain letter from Mary Sue Hubbard

to L. Ron Hubbard. Apparently it was in a sealed condition.

THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And is it separate and apart from these

other five boxes?

THE CLERK: I believe it was there, but nobody has

ever opened it. They said Judge Olson deferred it to the

trial court.

THE COURT: Is this something that either side wants

to use in this case?

MR. LITT: We want to take a look at it. It is a letter

identified by Mr. Armstrong. It is a letter of Mrs. Hubbard.

It is a letter he took to Mr. Flynn in 1982.

His description of it is that it is a particularly

personal letter. We have always intended not to use the

letter because of its private nature. I am not certain that

we are going to maintain that position, and therefore we

probably want to look at it.

Mr. Flynn has already seen it. I have never

seen it. Mr. Armstrong returned that after the order of

the court was entered, and so we do want the order to say

that we have the right to have it opened so we can examine

the letter.

THE COURT: It is all right with me. Apparently written

392

by your client. I would think she might remember what was

in it.

MR. LITT: It is a letter from 1953.

THE COURT: Oh, 31 years old.

MR. PETERSON: There is a lot of this stuff that is

that old.

THE COURT: The letter may be opened by counsel. So

be it.

MR. LITT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, then we will recess these

proceedings until Monday, the 30th, and let's go forward

at that time.

MR. LITT: Will that be at 9:00 a.m.?

THE COURT: 9:00 a.m., yes, indeed.

(At 3:40 p.m. an adjournment was taken

until Monday, April 30, 1984, at

9:00 a.m.)

392-A

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 57 HON. PAUL G. BRECKENRIDGE, JR., JUDGE

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Defendant.

MARY SUE HUBBARD,

Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. C 420153

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)
) ss
)

I, Nancy L. Harris, Official Reporter of the Superior

Court of the State of California, for the County of

Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages

328 through 392, comprise a full, true, and correct transcript

of the proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on

Monday, April 23, 1984.

Dated this 30th day of April, 1984.

/s/ Nancy L. Harris, CSR #644
Official Reporter

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §