decrescenzo v. scientology: plaintiff status conference

8/13/2019 DeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Plaintiff Status Conference

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-plaintiff-status-conference 1/84

: <l

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORIGINALases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-3 1 . Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION

JOHN P . BLUMBERG, ESQ . (SBN 70200 )

SINDEE M . SMOLOWITZ , ESQ . (SBN 123237 )

444 W . OCEAN BLVD. , SUITE 1500

LONG BEACH , CA 908 02

TELEPHONE : (562 ) 437-0403

TELECOPIER : (562 ) 432-0107

METZGER LAW GROUP

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

RAPHAEL METZGER , ESQ . (SBN 116020 )

KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ . (SBN 2513 64 )

401 E . OCEAN BLVD . , SUITE 800

LONG BEACH , CA 90802-4966

TELEPHONE : (562 ) 437-4499

TELECOPIER : (562 ) 436-1561

FILED ÿntfofLÿsSÿ

NOV 04 2013

John A . Clai Executive O icer/Cle is

Attorneys for PlaintiffLAURA ANN DECRESCENZO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO , aka

LAURA A . DIECKMAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL , a corporate

entity, AND DOES 1-20 ,

Defendants .

CASE NO . BC411018

Assigned to the Honorable

Ronald M . Sohigian , Dept . 41

PLAINTIFF S STATUS CONFERENCESTATEMENT

DATE : November 12 , 2013

TIME: 8:30 a.m .

DEPT : 41

PLAINTIFF S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT



0) ain

o ÿuÿ . ID wk x en K

I°,SV - H

N U- N

N fv

(0 (0in -

u * >ÿ

u u y ÿ21

1 J

oto J

CC

lii

. W N

UJ 2

-J UJ

< 1 DL

<a :

o

o <0

Z CO 10° , , 2r U1 ÿ

< t (VIK 3 OO </> «00. - OK Q ®

O (K _.

°*25 UJ K< ÿo 3 t

Q -j ID < Z 0

ÿ o < -' r£ *, # o u

w

. < 13

. u z

: - °,O -I

*

O (ft2 u

*S3Sx - J >

O j- < Z

H O 2 uZ - u -- t S,:X

n _i 2 O

S ig,

£ < 5..0< *- > 2f 2 2 -

.<'- UJ tJ :

Z S VU J 2 .a tO o

° 5 < \u > z <

2 o Uu u -

u - i5 iJp k, ,a »U H 3-<< a: W .ui 0 0ÿ-0. I- i

.O jQ

i

ÿU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

M:\vWCases \9527\CASEMGMTA2013-10-31 . Status Conference Statement-rev.wpd

TO THE HONORABLE COURT :

Plaintiff hereby subm its the following Status Conference Statement in advance of the

hearing scheduled in this matter on November 12 , 2013 .

1. PLAINTIFF ,S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE S 17200 CLAIM

The Court previously ordered that Plaintiffs Business & Professions Code § 17200

would be tried separately as a bench trial before a jury trial on plaintiffs other claims.

Concurrently with the filing of this Status Conference Statement, plaintiff is filing a dism issal

of her Business & Professions Code § 17200 claim, such that there is no need for a separate

bench trial of this claim .

2. SEVERANCE OF THE TRIAL

On January 13, 2012 , this Court granted defendants' motion to bifurcate and ordered

that prior to a jury trial, the Court would conduct a bench trial regarding the issue of equitable

estoppel . Since that time, the Court denied defendants,

Joint Motion for Summary Judgment

regarding the issue of equitable estoppel, and has reviewed in detail the types of evidence and

issues that must be considered with respect to equitable estoppel in this case .

Since plaintiff s entire background and experience in the Church of Scientology is

relevant to equitable estoppel, plaintiff proposes that the Court conduct a single trial in this

case, wherein the Court will decide the issue of equitable estoppel and a jury wil l decide all

other issues . Plaintiff s counsel believes that this is the most eficient and economical way for

all parties and Court to conduct a trial of this case, because the overlap of witnesses and

evidence for purposes of equitable estoppel and Plaintiffs liabil ity claims is substantial .

//

// 1 LA INTIFF S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F:\wÿses\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-31 - Status Conference Statement-rev.wpd

Plaintiffs counsel estimates that a trial on just the issue of equitable estoppel will take

3 to 4 weeks to complete, and that the evidence presented will span more than 25 years in time

Additionally, most of the evidence that is relevant to equitable estoppel is also relevant to

plaintiffs liability claims and the same w itnesses and evidence w ill be used to prove both

equitable estoppel and plaintiffs liability claims. It does not make sense for plaintiff to cal

witnesses to testify to the same things twice (once to the court and once to the jury). It also is

not practical for plaintiff to have to testify twice about her extensive history in the Church of

Scientology, particularly as these subjects are deeply and painfully emotional for Plaintiff .

Indeed , Plaintiff will present the following evidence regarding both the issues of equitable

estoppel and her liability claims, and the time that it will take to present this evidence is

substantial and overlapping:

Issue Equitable Estoppel L iabil ity Case

Plaintiffs General

Background in Scientology .

(E hibit A - PlaintiffsSeparate Statement ofUndisputed Material Facts,Nos . 3-8)

Plaintiff: 2-3 hours for

direct


d irect

W itness A : 1-2 hours for

direct


direct

W itness B : 1-2 hours fordirect

W itness B : 1-2 hours fordirect

W itness C : 1-2 hours for

direct


direct

Plaintiffs Controlled

Communications with Family .

(Exhibit A - Nos . 9-40 )


d irect


direct


direct

W itness A: 1-2 hours for

d irect


direct


direct

Life History Questionnairesand Information Collection .

(Exhibit A -Nos . 41-43)


d irect


direct

W itness E : 1-2 hours for

direct


direct

W itness I: 1-2 hours for

direct


direct

2




t

1

2

3 ÿ

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F:\WPcases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-3 1 - Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

W itness J : 1-2 hours for

direct


d irect

The schedule in the Sea Org.

(Exhibit A - Nos . 44-47)


d irect


d irect


direct


direct

W itness H : 1-2 hours for

direct


direct

Plaintiff s compensation.

(Exhibit A - No. 48)


d irect


d irect

W itness K : Vi hour to 1

hour for direct

W itness K : V2 hour to 1

hour for direct

Plaintiffs schooling.

(Exhibit A - Nos. 49-52)


d irect


direct

W itness K : V2 to 1 hour

for direct

W itness K : V* to 1 hour for

direct

Plaintiff s abil ity to leave theSea Org.

(Exhibit A - Nos. 53-68)


direct


direct

W itness E : 1- 2 hours for

direct

W itness E : 1- 2 hours for

direct

W itness F : 1-2 hours for

direct

W itness F : 1-2 hours for

direct

W itness G : 1-2 hours for

direct


direct


direct


direct

Witness I: 1-2 hours for

direct


direct


direct


direct

Forced abortions.



direct


direct


direct


d irect

W itness J : A to 1 hour for

direct

W itness J : A to 1 hour for

direct

W itness L : 1-2 hours for

d irect


d irect

3




I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F:WÿKases\9527\CASEMGMT\2013-10-3 1 - Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

Rehabil itation Project Force .

(Exhibit A - Nos . 72-79 )


direct


direct


d irect


direct


d irect

W itness L : 1-2 hours fordirect

Plaintiffs Departure from theSea Organization andDocuments Presented UponLeaving.

(Exhibit A - Nos . 80-97)


direct


direct

W itness D : A to 1 hou r

for direct

W itness D : iA to 1 hour for

direct


direct


direct

Fears Over Filing a Lawsuit.



direct


direct

W itness G : A hour to 1

hour for direct


hour for direct

W itness H : A hour to 1

hour for direct


hour for direct

W itness K : A hour to 1

hour for direct


hou r for direct

Fears Over Filing a Lawsuit .



direct


direct


hour for direct


hour for direct


hour for direct


hour for direct

Witness K : A hour to 1

hour for direct


hour for direct

Events Leading Up to theFiling of Plaintiff s Lawsuit .



direct


direct

W itness B : 1-2 hours for

direct

W itness B : 1-2 hours for

d irect

W itness C : A hour to 1

hour for direct

W itness C : A hour to 1 hour

for direct

W itness D : A hour to 1

hour for direct

W itness D : A hour to 1

hour for direct

The Psycho logical Impact ofPlaintiff s Experiences .(Exhibit A - Nos . 135-137)

Witness M : 6-8 hours for

direct

W itness M : 6-8 hours for

direct

4




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FAK fase s\9527\C AS EM GMTV2013-10-31 . Status Conference Statement -rev.wpd

Plaintiffs counsel recognizes that there are Constitutional issues in this case, and that

there may be some evidence that the Court will hear with respect to the issue of equitable

estoppel that the Court will not adm it for purposes of plaintiffs underlying causes of action .

However, the Court can still conduct a single trial by simply excusing the jury when it is

necessary for the Court to hear evidence that it decides should not be heard by the jury. This

would be much more efficient than trying the case in two separate ph ases in which much of the

same evidence would have to be presented twice .

3. TRIAL SCHEDUL ING

Plaintiff proposes a trial date in January 2015 .

Additionally, given the Constitutional and complex issues in this case, plaintiff

anticipates that there wil l be a significant number of motions in limine to be filed. Therefore

plaintiff proposes that the Court set hearing dates for the motions in lim ine approximately 3

months prior to the trial date, that the Court schedule the hearings on the motions in limine to

occur over the course of 3-5 days, and that the Court set a briefing schedule for the motions inc

lim ine .

DATED : November 4, 2013 METZGER LAW GROUP

A Professional Law Corporation

RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ.

KATHRYN SALDANA , ESQ .Attorneys for Plaintiff,LAURA ANN DECRESCENZO

5
