MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS REPLY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DECLARE CERTAIN
MATTERS ADMITTED, AND PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO STRIKE
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Plaintiffs Reply
Regarding Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Seek Discovery Sanctions and Plaintiffs Motion To
Declare Certain Matters Admitted, and Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion to Strike.
He states the following:
I.
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OFFERED NO REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD
NOT GRANT MR. WALKERS MOTION TO DECLARE CERTAIN MATTERS
ADMITTED
1.

As an initial matter, the Defendants claim that they have complied with

discovery in a timely fashion is false. Mr. Walker mailed his requests for admissions, his
interrogatories, and his request for the production of documents to the Defendants on June 23,
2016, and as this Court knows, service is complete upon mailing. Md. R. 1-321(a). Thus,
their responses were due thirty days from that datei.e. July 23, 2017.

2.

The Defendants admit that they served Mr. Walker on July 27, 2016. That would

be four days after the deadline. They did not serve Mr. Walker in a timely manner.
3.

Therefore, contrary to what the Defendants seem to think, this does not moot Mr.

Walkers Motion to Declare Certain Matters Admitted (Dkt. No. 191). Maryland Rule 2-424(c)
provides for its remedies for both insufficient and untimely answers. The remedies sought in that
Motion to Declare Certain Matters Admitted are still available.1
4.

Since the Defendants have offered no other grounds for opposition to Mr.

Walkers Motion to Declare Certain Matters Admitted, that motion should be granted.
II.
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OFFERED NO REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD
NOT GRANT MR. WALKERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK DISCOVERY
SANCTIONS
5.

Turning to the issue of Mr. Walkers motion for leave to seek discovery sanctions

(Dkt. No. 190), the Defendants claim that they have complied with discovery, but they have not.
Putting aside the problem of timeliness, their responses were wholly inappropriate. Mr. Walker
will not make a full presentation of all the ways that the Defendants have failed to appropriately
comply, but he has attached a copy of their answers to interrogatories as exhibits to two motions
for summary judgment, filed simultaneously with this motion.2 Not only do the Defendants
make ridiculous assertions of privilege, but when they purport to answer the interrogatories they
do so improperly. For instance, interrogatory 25 reads as follows:
Identify the name, address, phone number, position and title of each person that you
intend to call as a fact witness in this action, identifying the subject matter of each

Further, Mr. Walker will, if leave is granted, file a supplement to that motion and his motion to
compel describing how their belated answers are improper as well.
2
See Exhibits 2 and 3, to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Tetyana
Kimberlin and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Brett
Kimberlin, filed simultaneously with this document.
2

persons intended testimony. Plaintiff will object at trial to the testimony of any fact
witness not identified herein.
The entirety of the Defendants answer is as follows:
Brett, Tetyana, Kelsie, Carolyn Kimberlin, William Hoge, Mary Du Bravo aka Karen
Walker, and Kathy Knight. They will testify regarding Plaintiffs stalking, harassment,
and obsession with Defendants and other matters.
As this Court will notice, none of the addresses, phone numbers, positions, or titles of any of
these persons are listed as the interrogatory required, and in three cases, the Defendants dont
bother to give a witness last name. This is but one example of how the Defendants have serially
failed to meet their obligations in relation to discovery.
6.

To resolve this kind of bad faith non-compliance, this Court might prefer to

employ the sanctions provided under Md. R. 2-433 (a)(1)-(3), such as:
(1)

An order that the matters sought to be discovered, or any other designated facts
shall be taken to be established for the purpose of the action in accordance with
the claim of the party obtaining the order;

(2)

An order refusing to allow the failing party to support or oppose designated

claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters
in evidence; or

(3)

An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceeding

until the discovery is provided, or dismissing the action or any part thereof, or
entering a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all
relief sought by the moving party against the failing party if the court is satisfied
that it has personal jurisdiction over that party.

Rather than going through a series of motions to compel, this Court might prefer to take the more
efficient route of declaring certain matters established, cutting off certain claims and defenses, or
even granting a default judgment in Mr. Walkers favor. After all, one of ordinary incentives for
failure to comply with discovery is the expectation that such harsh sanctions might be applied.
Mr. Walker can say from experience that seeking discovery from Mr. Kimberlin is a bit like
pulling teeth, and extending the process is likely to result in a great deal of aggravation on Mr.
3

Walkers and this Courts part. It might be greatly preferable simply to sanction the Defendants
lack of compliance.
III.
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OFFERED NO VALID REASON TO STRIKE ANY OF
MR. WALKERS FILING
7.

The Defendants also claim that these documents should be stricken because Mr.

Walker identifies Kelsie Kimberlin in his filings (Dkt. No. 198). However, her name is not a
secret, nor is it a secret that she is the daughter of Tetyana Kimberlin or that Tetyana Kimberlin
is married to Brett Kimberlin. That information has appeared in the Washington Post. See
Exhibit A. Indeed, Tetyana Kimberlin herself named her daughter in her charges against Mr.
Walker, an Application for Statement of Charges is a public document.
8.

Further, as a practical matter, there is just no way to keep her name out of this

case any longer as we go through motions for summary judgment. One is again tempted to ask:
what did the Defendants expect to happen, here? Did they think that Mr. Walker could be
charged and convicted for the online harassment of a minor without that minors name being
before the public (again)?
9.

That being said, Mr. Walker has never named Kelsie Kimberlin on his internet

postings, redacts her name when he uploads public documents on document-sharing services like
Scribd, and he doesnt anticipate doing otherwise in the future. He typically only refers to her as
K. Kimberlin, or as Tetyana Kimberlins eldest daughter. This is not because it is illegal to use
her name, but because Mr. Walker firmly believes that Kelsie Kimberlin should be shielded from
as much of the fallout from their parents unlawful conduct as practical.
10.

Further, the Defendants complaint that Mr. Walker has filed all 844 Requests for

Admissions into the Court record, imagining nefarious motives for doing so. In fact, it was

required by Md. R. 2-424(c) which states that [a] motion challenging the sufficiency of an
answer or objection shall set forth (1) the request, (2) the answer or objection, and (3) the reasons
why the answer or objection is insufficient. In other words, Mr. Walker was required to include
those Requests for Admissions in some form.
11.

For all of these reasons, the Defendants have offered no valid reason why such

documents should be stricken and, therefore, their motion should be denied.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant
Mr. Walkers Motion to Declare Certain Matters Admitted (Dkt. No. 191), grant Mr. Walkers
motion for leave to seek discovery sanctions (Dkt. No. 190), deny the Defendants motion to
strike (Dkt. No. 198) and that this Court grant any other relief that is just and equitable.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.

Va Bar# 48882
P.O. Box 3075
Manassas, Virginia 20108
AaronJW72@gmail.com
(703) 216-0455
(no fax)

VERIFICATION
I, Aaron Walker, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the
foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and that any
exhibits attached thereto are true and correct copies of the original.

Dated:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the
day of
, 2016, I served copies of this
document on Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.
In accordance with the Courts order of March 10, 2016 (Dkt. No. 111), I have performed such
service by certified mail and will file the green card when it is returned to me.

MARYLAND:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

AARON WALKER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 398855-V

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants

ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE

Upon consideration of the Defendants Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 198) and Mr. Walkers
opposition thereto, it is this _________ day of __________________, 2016, hereby
ORDERED that the Defendants motion to strike is hereby DENIED.

Hon. Michael D. Mason

Judge, Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County