Brief in Opposition - ECF 694 - & Exhibits

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 694 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 16 Pageid#: 9909
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Charlottesville Division
ELIZABETH SINES, SETH WISPELWEY,

MARISSA BLAIR, APRIL MUÑIZ, MAR-
CUS MARTIN, NATALIE ROMERO, CHEL-
SEA ALVARADO, JOHN DOE, and
THOMAS BAKER,
P
Plaintiffs,
v.
JASON KESSLER, RICHARD SPENCER,

CHRISTOPHER CANTWELL, JAMES
ALEX FIELDS, JR., VANGUARD AMER-
ICA, ANDREW ANGLIN, MOONBASE
HOLDINGS, LLC, ROBERT “AZZMADOR”
RAY, NATHAN DAMIGO, ELLIOTT
KLINE a/k/a ELI MOSLEY, IDENTITY Civil Action No. :17-cv-00072-NKM
EVROPA, MATTHEW HEIMBACH, MAT-
THEW PARROTT a/k/a DAVID MATTHEW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PARROTT, TRADITIONALIST WORKER
PARTY, MICHAEL HILL, MICHAEL
TUBBS, LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH, JEFF
SCHOEP, NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVE-
MENT, NATIONALIST FRONT, AUGUS-
TUS SOL INVICTUS, FRATERNAL ORDER
OF THE ALT-KNIGHTS, LOYAL WHITE
KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, and
EAST COAST KNIGHTS OF THE KU
KLUX KLAN a/k/a EAST COAST KNIGHTS
Defendants.
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

FROM DEFENDANT JEFF SCHOEP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………….…………...iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT…………………………………….………………..1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...…………………………………….………………1
ARGUMENT …….…………………………………………………………………..5
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………8
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Malin v. Hospira, Inc.

762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir. 2014) ………………………………….…………4, 5
Malin v. Hospira, Inc.

No. 13-2433 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2014) ……………………………………….……5
Schrag v. Dinges,
150 F.R.D. 664 (1993) ………………………………………………….……….5
Walker v. Carter,
12-CV-5384 (ALC)(RLE), (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015) ...……………….….……5
Henson v. Turn, Inc.,

No. 15-cv-01497-JSW (LB), 2018 WL 5281629, (N.D. Cal Oct. 22, 2018) ....…7
Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.,

No. 3:17-cv-30162-MGM, (D. Mass. July 22, 2019) ……………….…………..7
In re Honza,
242 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. App. 2008) .………………………………………...7
In re Ford Motor Co.,

345 F.3d 1315, 1316-17 (11th Cir.2003) ………….…………………………….7
Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.,

No. 3:17-cv-30162-MGM, (D. Mass. July 22, 2019) ….…………………….…8
Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC,

No. 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM, (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019) ….…………...……8
Carlson v. Jerousek,
68 N.E.3d 520, 530-31 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) …………………….……………… 8
In re Estate of O'Hare ,
2015 IL App (2d) 140073, 393 Ill.Dec. 598, …………………….……….……..8
Estate of O'Hare v. Pulchalski,

34 N.E.3d 1126 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) ……………………………..……………..8
In re Ford Motor Co.,

345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) ..………………………………….…………….7
iii
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) .…………………………………………………………7, 8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) ….…………………………………………………………...8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) ……..……………………………………………………….…..8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) …………………………………………………………...8
28 U.S. Code § 1927 ………………………………………………………………….5
Model R. of Prof’l Conduct Rule 3.3 ...………………………………………………4
iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Defendant Jeff Schoep, by and through counsel, respectfully submits this brief in
opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery. Despite knowing that the key
facts in this case are hotly disputed, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery reads
as though Plaintiffs have already proven the essential elements of their case. While
Plaintiffs’ motions are impressively thick and filled with attachments, it does not
place the factual content and the subject discovery requests and responses in their full
context. In their motion, Plaintiffs’ assumptions and opinions are presented as
circumstantial facts in an attempt to gain favor with the court. An examination of the
circumstances surrounding this motion demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ motion and the
relief sought is unwarranted and unnecessary.
It is Defendant Schoep's position that he has complied with the discovery order to
the full extent of his ability to do so. Plaintiffs' claims that the defendant’s “conduct in
this litigation reflects a pattern and practice of resistance, recalcitrance, and outright
defiance of Court orders” and refusal to participate in discovery is not accurate. (See
Pls’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Jeff Schoep, March 27, 2020, ECF
689). Mr. Schoep has repeatedly done everything in an effort to comply with the
Plaintiffs’ overly broad and endless discovery requests.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
While discovery in this matter has not progressed as smoothly as either side
would have anticipated, this is not solely the responsibility of Defendant Schoep. On
March 1, 2019, Defendant Schoep explained to the Court that his former counsel,
Attorney James Kolenich, was given authorization in December 2018 to sign for the
third-party discovery vendor (“Vendor”). At that same time, Mr. Schoep disclosed to
former counsel that his phone had accidentally fallen in the toilet and he did not know
5
the extent of the water damage. Mr. Schoep produced this same phone to the Vendor
for discovery. On February 16, 2019, Mr. Kolenich asked the Vendor to remove Jeff
Schoep’s name from the discovery docu-sign agreement. It was Mr. Kolenich’s claim
to the Vendor that he no longer represented Defendant Schoep in this litigation. See
Pls’ Mot. For Rule 37 Sanctions Against Def. Jeff Schoep, Feb. 27, 2019, Exhibit 9,
ECF No. 432-9. Mr. Kolenich was still Defendant Schoep’s counsel of record on
February 16, 2019. It was not until February 17, 2019 that Defendant Schoep
contacted Mr. Kolenich in order to terminate his services. In response, Mr. Kolenich
stated that Mr. Schoep had until February 20, 2019 to respond and if there was no
response then he would formally withdraw his services at that time. (See Exhibit 1)
Even if Mr. Kolenich felt that he had been unfairly discharged, he still had a
professional responsibility to disclose to the defendant that he had declined to give
authorization to the Vendor. It was not until Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the Motion for
Rule 37 Sanctions Against Def. Jeff Schoep, Feb. 27 2019, (ECF No. 439) that Mr.
Schoep had any knowledge his former counsel had refused to give authorization to the
Vendor. During the March 1, 2019 telephonic hearing Defendant Schoep made it clear
he was willing to cooperate with discovery requests. See Hr’g Tr., March 1, 2019,
ECF No. 441. Since the hearing in March 2019, Defendant Schoep has done
everything within his control to be in compliance with the Court and his discovery
obligations.
The Plaintiffs’ motion claims that there were “more than 22,000 files collected
from Schoep’s computer and accounts that hit on agreed-upon search terms”(See Pls.’
Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. Jeff Schoep at 4 ¶ 2, March 27, 2020, ECF No. 689).
This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts. According to the Vendor, only 3,044 of
those 22,000 collected documents hit on agreed-upon search terms. (See Exhibit 2)
6
Until January 28, 2020, the Vendor had only released 680 of those 3,044 documents
for defense counsel’s review. Defendant Schoep’s emails and laptop were the only
electronically stored information (“ESI”) the Vendor had collected and released in the
Vendor workspace for defense counsel’s review. On August 18, 2019 defense counsel
contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Bloch, inquiring on how to submit the reviewed
documents imaged by the vendor to the Plaintiffs. In a response to defense counsel on
Mr. Bloch wrote:
We typically send and receive documents from the defendants in an

electronic format. We can arrange for our vendor, Epiq, to send you a
link with instructions on how to upload the documents electronically to
Epiq. There should be no cost associated with this. Please let us know
promptly whether you’d like us to make those arrangements.
(August 21, 2019 Email Correspondence from Mr.Bloch to Mr. ReBrook,

October 18, 2019, ECF No. 575-3)
Arrangements were made for the Epiq system and 113 non-privileged documents
were uploaded to Epiq on September 18, 2019. (See Exhibit 3) It was not until
October 17, 2019 that defense counsel learned these responsive documents would
automatically be produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel by the Vendor after being reviewed
and coded in the Vendor workspace. Vendor released responsive documents to
Plaintiffs’ counsel eight days later.
On January 28, 2020, collected documents from Mr. Schoep’s VK account and
the NSM website released for review by defense counsel. (See Exhibit 4) Over 2,000
documents were then reviewed and produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Again the
Plaintiffs attest that they “have not yet seen these documents.” reasonably inferring
that defense counsel has not produced said documents. (See Pls.’ Mot. To Compel
Disc. From Def. Jeff Schoep at 5 ¶ 2, March 27, 2019, ECF No. 689) According to the
Vendor, these documents were released to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 18, 2020.
(See Ex. 5)
7
In a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on March 17, 2020, it was also explained that the
vast majority of Mr. Schoep’s discovery was indeed non-responsive. However, in an
effort to prove this fact many of the previously coded documents were re-coded and
produced to the Plaintiffs’ on March 18, 2020. (See Exhibit 5) Defendant Schoep
simply cannot produce that which does not exist.
Plaintiffs state that while Defendant Schoep was producing a “mere trickle of
non-responsive documents” they became aware that he (Defendant Schoep) was
“simultaneously sitting on a trove of other responsive and discoverable material”
(Pls.’ Mot. To Compel Disc. From Def. Jeff Schoep at 5 ¶ 3, March 27, 2020, ECF
No. 689). According to the Plaintiffs’ motion, this information was gathered during
the deposition of Burt Colucci on December 10, 2019. (See Tr. Of Dep. of Burt
Colucci, Dec. 10, 2019, ECF No. 674-5) However, nowhere in Colucci’s deposition
does he state that Defendant Schoep personally is in possession of such responsive
and discoverable material. For example, Plaintiffs stated when Colucci was asked
what topics were discussed between himself and Defendant Schoep from Mr.
Schoep’s “new phone”, Colucci testified that he and the defendant “discussed
everything pretty much….It’s too lengthy to mention everything, but we’ve spoken at
great length about this.” (See Pls.’ Mot. to Compel Disc. from Def. Jeff Schoep at 6 ¶
1, March 27, 2020, ECF No. 689; Tr. Dep. Burt Colucci at 25-26, Dec. 10, 2019, ECF
No. 674-5) When read in context, however, the quoted answers are not in reference to
Mr. Schoep’s new phone. On the contrary, Plaintiffs’ question was simply, “Did you
and Mr. Schoep ever speak about this litigation?” and “What exactly did you speak
with Mr. Schoep about with regard to this litigation?”Id. 26-27. The Plaintiffs’
question does not ask if Mr. Colucci and Defendant Schoep had conversations
concerning this litigation or Unite The Right (“UTR”) on Mr. Schoep’s new phone.
8
Plaintiffs blatantly misrepresent deposition testimony by omitting the entire context of
questions asked and answers given in hopes that the Court will not verify its accuracy.
When asked when the last time Colucci spoke with Mr. Schoep regarding the
litigation, Colucci replied, “It’s been a while. It’s been less and less frequent. Some -
whenever the --whenever he went to the other side and started speaking about anti-
racist stuff it became --it was less frequent at that point, and to this day -- and at this
point, I’d say nonexistent.” Id. at 29. When asked if he thought that Defendant
Schoep’s “shift” was genuine, Colucci replied, “I believe it is.” Id. 52.
Throughout Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery opinions and assumptions
are presented with selective fact-finding in hopes that the Court will not check the
record in its entire context.1 In an attempt to deliberately mislead the Court, Plaintiffs
repeatedly “rely on speculation and a misrepresentation of deposition testimony.”
Schrag v. Dinges, 150 F.R.D. 664 (1993). The Plaintiffs’ “presentation of the
evidence” is “nothing more than selectively quoting deposition language it likes and
ignoring deposition language it does not like.” Malin v. Hospira, Inc., 762 F.3d 552,
564 (7th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs are only able to support their claims by cutting and
pasting selective testimony to fit their narrative.2 A similar approach was strongly
criticized by the Seventh Circuit Court in Malin v. Hospira, Inc., No. 13-2433 (7th Cir.
Aug. 7, 2014). Like the defendant in Malin, Plaintiffs seem to have “based its
1
The presenting of false statements of fact, misrepresenting facts, and not taking reasonable
remedial measures to correct the same violates both the Virginia and ABA Model R. of Prof’l
Conduct. Rule 3.3, Candor Toward The Tribunal, provides in relevant part that: (a) A lawyer
shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; . . .(3)
offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and
comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures. “These
misrepresentations of the record did not comport with parties' duty of candor to the courts”
Malin v. Hospira, Inc., 762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir. 2014)
2
Plaintiffs present personal opinions and assumptions as material fact in an effort corroborate
their version of events.
9
litigation strategy on the hope” the Court will oversee their scheme. Malin v. Hospira,
Inc., 762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir. 2014).3
Colucci’s deposition consists primarily of him giving uncertain answers or stating
that he does not know the answer to the questions, and Plaintiffs’ counsel asking
Colucci to give his personal opinion. Plaintiffs’ counsel resorts to confirmation bias
by only presenting "cherry-picked isolated phrases" of Colucci's testimony in an effort
to not only persuade public opinion, but to dupe the Court into assisting them with
their harassment of Mr. Schoep. Malin v. Hospira, Inc., 762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir.
2014).4
ARGUMENT
This is yet another example of Plaintiffs' desire to use discovery as an opportunity
for gamesmanship rather than obtaining relevant and discoverable information to
support this case. The Motion was prepared in this manner to waste the time of
Defendant Schoep and his counsel as part of Plaintiffs' on-going efforts to harass Mr.
Schoep. Plaintiffs’ own counsel, Roberta Kaplan, stated that the primary objective of
this litigation is to put a financial burden on the defendants:
The point is not to make the 10 plaintiffs rich, Kaplan said. It’s to create a
disincentive for anyone to carry out the violence again.
“One point of this case is to make it clear to anyone considering this, if you do
that, there will be very large judgments against you that will follow you until they
are paid,” she said, noting that it is unlikely plaintiffs will be able to collect, in
part because some of the defendants are in hiding and others are broke.
This Jewish lawyer wants to break the back of the violent white nationalist movement,
Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraph Agency, June 17, 2019,
3
“Litigants who take this approach often (and we hope almost always) find that they have
misjudged the court.”Malin v. Hospira, Inc., 762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir. 2014) .
4
Under Section 1927 of the United States Code, Title 28, "any attorney or other person
admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States . . . who so multiplies the
proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy
personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such
conduct." Walker v. Carter, 12-CV-5384 (ALC)(RLE), at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015)
10
https://www.jta.org/2019/06/17/united-states/this-jewish-lawyer-wants-to-break-the-
back-of-violent-white-nationalists (last visited Apr 1, 2020). (See Exhibit 6)
Plaintiffs and their associated financial supporters, Integrity First for America
and Amy Spitalnick, spend a significant amount of effort to demonize Mr. Schoep and
inflame the Court. Ms. Spitalnick and IFA continue to exploit this litigation in efforts
to gain continued financial support for Plaintiffs and discredit Mr. Schoep’s counter-
extremism work. (See Exhibit 7) With the bottomless financial pockets of Integrity
First for America, the Plaintiffs are using their economic advantage in this court like a
bully would push around a weaker child in a schoolyard. (See Exhibit 8)
Plaintiffs should be precluded from engaging in this harassing form of discovery,
which is likely targeted against Defendant Schoep due to his former life as a Nazi and
"commander" of the National Socialist Movement ("NSM"). In March of 2019, Mr.
Schoep retired from the NSM, however, this was not to evade such frivolous civil
litigation as the Plaintiffs suggest.5 Defendant Schoep not only retired from the NSM,
but renounced white nationalism in its entirety and speaks out against the hateful
ideology he once espoused. Since August of 2019, Mr. Schoep has been actively
speaking out against antisemitism, racism, and violence. In October of 2019, Mr.
Schoep spoke at iCare4all’s International Symposium on Radicalization and
Extremism in Ankara, Turkey, which was sponsored by the European Union; and was
a panelist for the California Legislative Assembly Select Committee on the State of
Hate. Mr. Schoep was also a panelist for New America’s discussion on combating
extremism and domestic terrorism with Parallel Networks, which was featured on C-
Span. He has worked with the Simon Wiesenthal Center as well as other organizations
5
Pls.’ Motion to Compel Disc. from Defendant National Socialist Movement, March 11,
2020, ECF No. 674, claim that Schoep attempted to transfer control of NSM specifically and
only in an attempt to avoid this litigation. This is a purely speculative assumption with no
factual supporting evidence. Opinions do not constitute as fact. Defendant Schoep is named
defendant personally in this litigation and transfer of his old organization would have had no
bearing on his status as a personal defendant.
11
committed to promoting peace and engaging with others in the hopes that they might
disengage from all forms of extremism. (See Exhibit 9) In addition to speaking out
against extremism, Mr. Schoep also helps other extremists to disengage and
deradicalize. This is not just a ploy or a stalling tactic to avoid discovery obligations
in this litigation. Defendant Schoep has and continues fulfill his discovery obligations
to the best of his ability. Plaintiffs are convinced that the defendant is withholding
some relevant and discoverable evidence, refusing to even entertain the possibility
that Mr. Schoep was not part of any alleged conspiracy.
Plaintiffs have propounded extensive, intrusive, and harassing discovery requests
upon Defendant Schoep that go beyond the scope of what may arguably be relevant
and discoverable information in this matter. The extent of this harassing and
overbroad discovery is massive. Be that as it may, Defendant Schoep has agreed to
have his new phone imaged by the Vendor in a good faith effort to prove there is no
relevant or discoverable evidence pertaining to this litigation.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties "may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Discovery rules do not grant the Plaintiffs’ free access
to Defendant Schoep’s collected ESI regardless of relevance, privilege or
confidentiality.6 Plaintiffs’ request that the Court “order the Vendor to produce
immediately to Plaintiffs, without opportunity for Schoep’s review or review by his
counsel, every document from his new phone that hits on a search term” (See Pls.’
Mot. to Compel Dis. From Def. Jeff Schoep, Mar. 27, 2020, ECF No. 689) "threatens
to sweep in documents, and information that are not [remotely] relevant to the issues
6
In re Honza, 242 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. App. 2008) (“In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315,
1316-17 (11th Cir.2003) (orig.proceeding) (finding district court's order granting plaintiff
"unlimited, direct access to Ford's databases" to be an abuse of discretion). ”)
12
in the case, such as … private text messages, e-mails, contact lists, and photographs."
Henson v. Turn, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01497-JSW (LB), 2018 WL 5281629, at *5
(N.D. Cal Oct. 22, 2018), Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:17-
cv-30162-MGM, at *5 (D. Mass. July 22, 2019) Defendant Schoep’s new line of
work requires the utmost discretion and privacy as he works with individuals who are
disengaging and leaving extremism. Private and privileged information that would not
even be considered potentially responsive are contained on Mr. Schoep’s new phone.
In addition, Plaintiffs have also “failed to propose a means of restricting access to the
phone's contents in a manner that would protect” Defendant Schoep’s “private and
privileged information” Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:17-
cv-30162-MGM, at *10-11 (D. Mass. July 22, 2019). The request that the Vendor be
ordered to produce immediately to the Plaintiffs, without opportunity for Mr.
Schoep’s review or review by defense counsel, every document which hits on a search
term7, suggests that the Plaintiffs seek “broad and unfettered access” to the contents
on Mr. Schoep’s phone. Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:17-
cv-30162-MGM, at *11 (D. Mass. July 22, 2019) The mere filing of a lawsuit does
not entitle a plaintiff to unfettered access to a defendant's personal, financial,
commercial, proprietary or confidential information. “A party need not, under Rule 34,
produce privileged or attorney work product material.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.010, et
seq.” Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC, Member Case: 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM, at
*6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019).
CONCLUSION
7
Carlson v. Jerousek, 68 N.E.3d 520, 530-31 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (“ Although relevant
(discoverable) information is defined broadly to encompass not only admissible information
but also information calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information (In re
Estate of O'Hare , 2015 IL App (2d) 140073, ¶ 14, 393 Ill.Dec. 598, 34 N.E.3d 1126), this
definition is not intended as an invitation to invent attenuated chains of possible relevancy.”)
13
In accordance with the order of this court, all credentials (or other information)
within Defendant Schoep’s control was produced to the Vendor along with devices
ordered by the court. Despite the strident protestations of Plaintiffs’ counsel,
Defendant Schoep in this matter has not engaged in any willful conduct that would
justify the relief requested. Although Plaintiffs’ request reasonable expenses,
attorneys’ fees and other costs they claim was incurred in bringing this motion, Fed.
R .Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) provides in relevant part that sanctions are not appropriate
where: (ii) “the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified” or (iii) “other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Here both of these precluding conditions apply.
Accordingly, Defendant Schoep requests that (1) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel Discovery be denied, (2) Mr. Schoep be awarded his costs and reasonable
attorney fees associated with having to respond to this motion; and (3) the Court
impose sanctions on Plaintiffs for their misuse of the discovery process and
harassment of Defendant Schoep.
Dated: April 1, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ W. Edward ReBrook, IV

W. Edward ReBrook, IV (VSB 84719)
The ReBrook Law Office
6013 Clerkenwell Court
Burke, VA 22015
Mobile: 571.215.9006
Email: Edward@ReBrookLaw.com
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 1, 2020, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court through the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to:
David E. Mills (pro hac vice)

Roberta A. Kaplan (pro hac vice) Joshua M. Siegel (VSB 73416)
Julie E. Fink (pro hac vice) COOLEY LLP
Gabrielle E. Tenzer (pro hac vice) 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Michael L. Bloch (pro hac vice) Suite 700
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP Washington, DC 20004
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 Telephone: (202) 842-7800
New York, NY 10118 Fax: (202) 842-7899
Telephone: (212) 763-0883 dmills@cooley.com
rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com jsiegel@cooley.com
jfink@kaplanhecker.com
gtenzer@kaplanhecker.com J. Benjamin Rottenborn (VSB 84796)
mbloch@kaplanhecker.com WOODS ROGERS PLC
10 South Jefferson St., Suite 1400
Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice) Roanoke, VA 24011
Jessica E. Phillips (pro hac vice) Telephone: (540) 983-7600
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice) Fax: (540) 983-7711
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP brottenborn@woodsrogers.com
1401 New York Avenue, NW Counsel for Plaintiffs
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Elmer Woodard
Fax: (202) 237-6131 5661 US Hwy 29
kdunn@bsfllp.com Blairs, VA 24527
jphillips@bsfllp.com isuecrooks@comcast.net
wisaacson@bsfllp.com James E. Kolenich
Kolenich Law Office
Yotam Barkai (pro hac vice) 9435 Waterstone Blvd. #140
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Cincinnati, OH 45249
55 Hudson Yards jek318@gmail.com
New York, NY 10001 Counsel for Defendants Jason Kessler,
Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Nathan Damigo, Identity Europa, Inc.
Fax: (212) 446-2350 (Identity Evropa), Matthew Parrott, and
ybarkai@bsfllp.com Traditionalist Worker Party
Alan Levine (pro hac vice) John A. DiNucci

Philip Bowman (pro hac vice) Law Office of John A. DiNucci
COOLEY LLP 8180 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1150
55 Hudson Yards McLean, VA 22102
New York, NY 10001 dinuccilaw@outlook.com
Telephone: (212) 479-6260 Counsel for Defendant Richard Spencer
Fax: (212) 479-6275
alevine@cooley.com
pbowman@cooley.com
15
Justin Saunders Gravatt

David L. Campbell
Duane, Hauck, Davis & Gravatt, P.C.
100 West Franklin Street, Suite 100
Richmond, VA 23220
jgravatt@dhdglaw.com
dcampbell@dhdglaw.com
Counsel for Defendant James A. Fields, Jr.
Bryan Jones
106 W. South St., Suite 211
Charlottesville, VA 22902
bryan@bjoneslegal.com
Counsel for Defendants Michael Hill,
Michael Tubbs, and League of the South
I further hereby certify that on April 1, 2020, I also served the following non-ECF
participants, via electronic mail, as follows:
Christopher Cantwell
christopher.cantwell@gmail.com
Vanguard America
c/o Dillon Hopper
dillon_hopper@protonmail.com
Robert Azzmador Ray

azzmador@gmail.com
Elliott Kline a/k/a Eli Mosley

eli.f.mosley@gmail.com
deplorabletruth@gmail.com
Matthew Heimbach
matthew.w.heimbach@gmail.com
/s/ W. Edward ReBrook, IV
W. Edward ReBrook, IV (VSB 84719)

Burke, VA 22015
Mobile: 571.215.9006
Email: Edward@ReBrookLaw.com
16
Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 694-1 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 4 Pageid#: 9925
EXHIBIT 1
Received: Sunday, February 17, 2019 6:11 AM
From: Jeff Schoep jeffschoep@gmail.com
To: James Kolenich jek318@gmail.com
James,
I have filed the below attached document with the court, and am no longer in need of your services for the attached case. I am also requesting
my file and all legal documents you have in regards to my case, This should include any correspondence between the attorneys or documents
exchanged as evidence between both parties. This email will serve as my written request for the aforementioned documents. Please send
them to me in a timely manner.
In regards to your question about the filing to the court by James Stern on behalf of the NSM, yes I have granted him the authority to make the
filing, and he is now representing the NSM. .
I would still like to proceed with the other case against the City of Charlottesville at this time.
Respectfully,
Jeff Schoep
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Furthermore, the NSM is not responsible for the content of this
e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the NSM's views or opinions. Access to this email by anyone other than
the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution,
retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this mail in error,
please destroy the copy in your possession and notify: commander@newsaxon.org
1 of 1 3/29/2020, 5:26 PM
From: James Kolenich <jek318@gmail.com>

Date: February 18, 2019 at 2:07:11 PM EST
To: Jeff Schoep <jeffschoep@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: release
Jeff:
Thank you for this response. Your position creates several problems: 1) A corporation cannot represent itself in Court, it must appear
through a licensed attorney. Mr. Stern does not seem to be a licensed attorney and is certainly not licensed in Virginia. He therefore cannot
represent NSM in Court. 2) Mr. Stern does seem to be the new owner of NSM as of January 2019 and I therefore require his authorization to
do anything on NSM's behalf. 3) Mr. Stern's recent pleading in Court is sufficient to establish that Mr. Woodard and myself have been fired on
the Sines case. You are mistaken to believe that we would continue on one case but no the other. This is because how you fare in the Sines
case directly affects your chances in the offensive lawsuit against Charlottesville. For the same reason we will not represent NSM while you
represent yourself individually. Even if Mr. Woodard and I would agree to do this, which we do not, it would not affect your financial
obligations which are past due.
Therefore, please decide whether or not Mr. Woodard and I are your attorneys as to both matters. If we are, then I require that Mr. Stern so
advise me or authorize me to continue to deal with you as NSM authorized rep, and that your pending invoices be paid in full no later than the
close of business Wednesday February 20th, 2019. If you are unable to to meet this requirement said fact will constitute your firing of Mr.
Woodard and myself on all matters and we will formally withdraw at that time.
Jim Kolenich
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 6:11 AM Jeff Schoep <jeffschoep@gmail.com> wrote:
James,
I have filed the below attached document with the court, and am no longer in need of your services for the attached case. I am also
requesting my file and all legal documents you have in regards to my case, This should include any correspondence between the attorneys
or documents exchanged as evidence between both parties. This email will serve as my written request for the aforementioned documents.
Please send them to me in a timely manner.
In regards to your question about the filing to the court by James Stern on behalf of the NSM, yes I have granted him the authority to make
the filing, and he is now representing the NSM. .
I would still like to proceed with the other case against the City of Charlottesville at this time.
Respectfully,
Jeff Schoep
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. Furthermore, the NSM is not responsible for the content of this
e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the NSM's views or opinions. Access to this email by anyone other
than the intended addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying,
distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this mail in error, please destroy the copy in your possession and notify: commander@newsaxon.org
--
James E. Kolenich
Kolenich Law Office
1 of 2 3/29/2020, 5:23 PM
9435 Waterstone Blvd. #140
Cincinnati, OH 45249
513-444-2150
513-297-6065(fax)
513-324-0905 (cell)
2 of 2 3/29/2020, 5:23 PM
Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 694-2 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 14 Pageid#:
9929
EXHIBIT 2
SINKS-02678_Staging 9930
Search Terms Report

Report Name: 2019.05.10_Schoep REMOVED Searchable Set: Schoep_Jeff
Results Summary
Documents in Total documents with Total documents with Total documents
searchable set hits hits, including Family without hits
22,419 3,044 3,091 19,328
Report Generated: 3/27/2020 4:33:04 PM Page 1 of 13

Search Terms Report

Terms Summary
Term Documents with hits Documents with hits, Unique hits
including Family
((((Unity w/3 "and") w/3 0 0 0

Security) w/3 for) w/3
America)
(((League w/3 of) w/3 78 87 0

the) w/3 South)
(((Rebel w/3 Brigade) 0 0 0

w/3 of) w/3 Knights)
((Brion w/3 Keith) w/3 0 0 0

Baker)
((Charlottesville w/3 1 2 0
Police) w/3 Department)
((East w/3 Coast) w/3 28 34 0

Knights)
((Everett w/3 Nick) w/3 0 0 0

Case)
((James w/3 Alex) w/3 4 6 0

Fields)
((Loyal w/3 White) w/3 83 89 0

Knights)
((National w/3 Park) w/3 0 0 0

Service)
((National w/3 Socialist) 2,039 2,083 342

w/3 Movement)
((Rise w/3 Above) w/3 0 0 0

Movement)
((Stefani w/3 Gunter) 0 0 0

w/3 Hopkins)
((Tactical w/3 American) 0 0 0

w/3 Patriots)
((Traditionalist w/3 35 42 0
Worker) w/3 Party)
((Unite w/3 the) w/3 36 47 0

Right)
((united w/5 church) w/5 0 0 0

christ)
A11 2 3 1
A12 2 2 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Aaron w/3 VA 0 0 0
Ajax* 2 2 0
AK w/3 Lane 1 1 0
Al w/3 Thomas 1 2 0
Albion 7 7 0
Alex w/3 Fields 4 6 0
Allison w/3 Peirce 0 0 0
Alt w/3 Knights 8 10 0
AltRightVA 0 0 0
Americana* 12 12 0
Andrea w/3 Owens 0 0 0
Anglin 11 12 0
Anthime 0 0 0
Antifa 172 178 2
April w/3 Muniz 6 8 0
Armed 249 250 0
Arrest* 389 406 1
Atomwaffen 1 1 0
Augustus 10 11 0
Azzmador 10 14 0
Bait 11 11 0
Baked w/3 Alaska 0 0 0
bakedalaska 0 0 0
Baker 19 19 2
Balcaitis 0 0 0
baton 1 1 0
Battaglia 0 0 0
Beat 146 162 3
Ben w/3 Garland 0 0 0

SINKS-02678_Staging9933
Search Terms Report


including Family
Benjamin w/3 Garland 0 0 0
Black 629 662 21
Blast 62 62 0
BLM 41 41 0
Boechat 0 0 0
Boman 0 0 0
Bomb 96 107 0
Brad w/3 Griffin 0 0 0
Brathovd 0 0 0
Brian w/3 Lambert 0 0 0
Burn 68 78 1
Caerulus* 0 0 0
Cantwell 13 17 0
car w/3 attack 0 0 0
car w/3 hit 1 1 0
Cesar w/3 Hess 0 0 0
Challenger 1 2 0
Chapman 6 7 0
Charles w/3 Myers 0 0 0
Charlottesville 113 135 1
Charlottesville w/3 2.0 0 0 0
Chef w/3 Goyardee 0 0 0
ChefGoyardee* 0 0 0
Chelsea w/3 Alvarado 6 8 0
Chesny 0 0 0
city w/3 council 54 56 0
Cole 5 5 1
Cole w/3 Harris 0 0 0
Colton 2 2 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Colton w/3 Merwin 0 0 0
Commander w/3 Hunt 0 0 0
Conviction 40 40 0
Corcoran 0 0 0
Cormier 0 0 0
Counterprotest 4 4 0
CPD 1 1 0
Crockett 8 8 0
Custalow 0 0 0
cville 5 5 0
Daley 1 1 0
Damigo 12 16 0
Danny w/3 Wolf 0 0 0
date(06/17) 0 0 0
date(07/08) 0 0 0
date(08/11) 0 0 0
date(08/12) 0 0 0
date(08/13) 0 0 0
date(Aug* 11) 0 0 0
date(Aug* 12) 0 0 0
date(Aug* 13) 0 0 0
date(July 8) 0 0 0
date(June 17) 0 0 0
David w/3 Duke 26 26 0
Derek w/3 Davis 0 0 0
DeusVolt* 0 0 0
Dickinson 0 0 0
Dillon w/3 Hopper 9 9 0
Dillon1488 3 6 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Discord 15 20 0
Dodge 11 12 1
Duke 58 58 1
Dustin w/3 Owens 0 0 0
Eli w/3 Mosely 2 3 0
Eli w/3 Mosley 8 8 0
Eliot w/3 Kline 0 0 0
Elizabeth w/3 Sines 21 28 0
Elliot w/3 Kline 7 9 0
Emancipation 2 3 0
Enoch 35 37 0
Entwisle 0 0 0
Erica 0 0 0
Erica w/3 Alduino 0 0 0
Erika 3 3 0
Ethnostate 2 2 0
Europa 17 32 0
Evan w/3 McLaren 0 0 0
Evan w/3 Thomas 0 0 0
Evropa 15 25 0
Fag 34 34 0
Fashy w/3 Haircut 3 6 0
Fields 197 204 109
Fight 640 667 27
Firearm 48 50 0
first w/3 baptist 0 0 0
FOAK 0 0 0
Fraternal w/3 Order 12 18 0
Frisbadli 0 0 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Gillen 0 0 0
Gionet 0 0 0
Goldstein w/3 Riots 0 0 0
GoyMeetsWorld 0 0 0
Gun 163 165 1
Hamblen 0 0 0
Hannah w/3 Pearce 6 8 0
heather w/3 heyer 3 3 0
Heimbach 74 81 1
Heimdulf* 0 0 0
Heinz* 13 13 0
helmets 19 20 0
Herrenvolk* 1 1 0
Hess 85 96 4
Higgs 0 0 0
HiptotheJQ 0 0 0
Horton 13 13 0
HueTheHand 0 0 0
Hunter w/3 Wallace 0 0 0
Identity w/3 Evropa 15 25 0
IE 139 145 47
intimidat* 87 91 0
Invictus 14 27 0
Irizarry 0 0 0
Jack w/3 Pierce 0 0 0
Jackson w/3 Park 0 0 0
James w/3 Fields 14 20 0
Jason 127 137 2
Jaymi w/3 Danielle 0 0 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Jefferson w/3 0 0 0
monument
jefferson w/3 st* 9 10 0
Jefferson w/3 Statue 0 0 0
Jew 258 271 5
JJ w/3 Power 0 0 0
Johnny w/3 O’Malley 0 0 0
Joyce w/3 Bennett 0 0 0
Justice w/3 Park 0 0 0
Kathleen w/3 Snyder 0 0 0
Kawzcynski 0 0 0
Kike 7 7 0
Kill 210 218 2
KKK 117 139 0
Klan 183 199 1
Kleve 1 1 0
Kline 9 11 0
Knife 55 55 2
Knives 33 33 1
Krist* 62 78 3
Kurt 16 26 1
Kyle w/3 Chapman 6 7 0
Kyle w/3 Rogers 0 0 0
Lafayette 8 8 0
Laube 0 0 0
Lawrence w/3 TX 0 0 0
Lee w/3 Park 10 11 0
lighter w/3 fluid 0 0 0
Lightfoot w/3 Militia 0 0 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Linden 1 1 0
Lolyouwish 0 0 0
LOS 178 179 10
Ludovici w/3 Alibi 0 0 0
Luis w/3 Bellino 0 0 0
LWK 33 33 0
mace* 32 33 0
Maclmay 0 0 0
Maddimension 0 0 0
Mahler 1 1 0
ManWithTheHand 0 0 0
Marcus w/3 Liebowitz 0 0 0
Marcus w/3 Martin 6 8 0
Marie 26 27 1
Marissa w/3 Blair 5 6 0
Markus w/3 Anthony 0 0 0
Matthewheimbach 1 2 0
Maurice w/3 Jones 0 0 0
McCarthy 0 0 0
McCormick w/3 Foley 0 0 0
mcguffey w/3 park 0 0 0
McInnes 0 0 0
McIntire 0 0 0
McLaren 0 0 0
McPherson 0 0 0
Merwin 0 0 0
Metropolitan w/3 Police 0 0 0
Michael w/3 Hill 58 63 0
Miselis 1 1 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Moonbase w/3 Holdings 12 18 0
Mosley 35 45 1
Mothersbaugh 0 0 0
Mrozek 0 0 0
nameless w/3 field 0 0 0
Nat* w/3 Damigo 10 14 0
Natalie w/3 Romero 6 8 0
Nationalist w/3 Front 82 94 1
Nazi 379 411 33
New w/3 Byzantium 0 0 0
Newberry 0 0 0
NF 100 107 1
Nigger 64 75 2
NPS 3 3 1
NSM 1,796 1,848 93
Paramilitary 10 11 0
Parrot* 26 32 0
Parrott 14 18 0
Patrick w/3 Little 2 2 0
Patrick w/3 Palmer 0 0 0
Patriot w/3 Front 0 0 0
Peinovich 6 8 0
Phillip-TX 0 0 0
Pistolis 0 0 0
Proud w/3 Boys 1 1 0
Punch 43 43 2
queenarchitect 0 0 0
Race w/3 War 28 44 0
racis* 393 419 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Radical w/3 Agenda 2 2 0
Radicalagenda 4 8 0
RaHoWa 15 15 1
Rally 707 746 8
RAM 45 46 32
RCO w/3 Nick 0 0 0
Reinhard w/3 wolff 0 0 0
Richard 103 115 5
Richard w/3 Preston 0 0 0
Richard w/3 Spencer 7 9 0
Robert w/3 Ray 8 11 0
Roche 1 1 0
Rotunda 0 0 0
Rousseau 0 0 0
Ruiz 1 1 1
Run w/3 over 4 4 0
Rundo 0 0 0
Sacco 7 7 0
SaintCharles 0 0 0
Salazar 0 0 0
Seth w/3 Wispelwey 7 9 0
Shane w/3 Long 0 0 0
Sheehy 0 0 0
Shield 81 87 8
Shoot 60 60 0
Shyne 0 0 0
Silasreynolds 0 0 0
Sines 55 67 10
Snuffer 0 0 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
Spencer 10 12 0
Spray 56 60 0
St. w/3 Paul* 16 16 0
Stab 8 19 1
Stankard 0 0 0
Starsia 0 0 0
Statue 18 19 0
Stickman 0 0 0
Stormer 4 5 0
SURJ 0 0 0
tear w/3 gas* 25 26 0
the w/3 lawn 1 1 0
Thebigkk 0 0 0
Thewizardofthorntonpar 0 0 0
k
Thomas w/10 Rousseau 0 0 0
thomas w/3 jefferson 8 8 0
Thomas w/3 Ryan 0 0 0
Tibor 0 0 0
torch* 61 65 0
Trained w/3 fighters 0 0 0
Treadstone 0 0 0
Trial 106 121 3
Trigger 12 12 1
Troutman 0 0 0
Tscags88 0 0 0
Tubbs 22 27 1
TWP 40 46 1
Tyrone 0 0 0

Search Terms Report


including Family
unitetheright 1 2 0
UTR 5 7 0
Vandal 14 22 0
Vanguard 70 79 0
Vasillios* 0 0 0
Vets 8 8 0
Vitco 0 0 0
Volkisch w/3 Soldar 0 0 0
Von Diez 0 0 0
Wade w/3 Garrett 0 0 0
Warlock 0 0 0
weapon* 222 237 0
Wendy w/3 Lewis 0 0 0
White w/3 nation* 371 392 1
White w/3 supremac* 68 70 1
White-PowerStroke 3 6 0
Wyatt 1 1 0
Zyniker 0 0 0

Exhibit 3
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
9955
EXHIBIT 6
9956
I BOIES
SCHILLER
曬 I FLEXNER
JESSICA E. PHILLIPS
jphillips@bsfllp.com
202-237-2727
VIA EMAIL
March 11,2020
Mr. W. Edward ReBrook, Esq.

Burke, VA 22015
edward@rebrooklaw.com
RE: Sines et al. v. Kessler et al., No. 3:17-cv-00072-NKM (W.D. Va.)
Dear Mr. ReBrook:
I write regarding the document production that you made on October 25, 2019, on behalf of
Defendant Jeff Schoep.
As you know, in its order of November 27, 2019, the Court ordered that, no later than
February 5, 2020, “Each Defendant shall produce any nonprivileged responsive ESI, along with a
privilege log folly explaining why any responsive ESI was withheld, to Plaintiffs’ counselECF No.
579 (emphasis added).
As reflected in the third-party discovery vendor5s report dated February 25, 2020, the
vendor imaged and collected 22,419 files from Mr. Schoep’s devices and social media accounts.
2,542 of these files (from Mr. Schoep’s laptop computer, email accounts, website, and VK account)
hit on the agreed-upon search terms.
Despite the large number of presumptively responsive documents, Mr. Schoep5s production
included only 100 documents from Mr. Schoep’s laptop and email accounts, including
commander@newsaxon.org and jeffschoep@gmail.com. Of those 100 documents, a large portion
comprised public filings and correspondence in this case, as well as numerous irrelevant documents
(including birthday announcements, Google news alerts, Reason.com newsletters, and
advertisements). Approximately half of Mr. Schoep5s
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards. New York. NY 100011 (t) 212.446.2300 丨(f) 212.446.2350 | www.bsfllp.com
2
BSF
9957

March 11，2020
Page 2 of 3
production comprised non-viewable files, with filename extensions “.bin,” “.pak,” and “.log,” that
contained no substance. However, a review of other Defendants5 productions reveals numerous
emails sent to and from Mr. Schoep at commander@newsaxon.org that Mr； Schoep should have
produced, including at least 300 emails exchanged with Defendant Matthew Heimbach (including
emails discussing Unite the Right), six emails exchanged with Defendant Jason Kessler (including
emails discussing Unite the Right), approximately 20 emails exchanged with Defendant Matthew
Parrott, and several emails exchanged with Dillon Hopper of Vanguard America.
Furthermore, Mr. Schoep’s production contained no documents from the NSM88.org

website and VK account that Mr. Schoep disclosed, both of which contain responsive documents.
For example, on March 2, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Mr. Schoep posted on VK a plainly responsive
message to followers regarding what he characterized as “an ongoing, frivolous lawsuit stemming
from events that occurred at the Unite the Right Rally in August, 2017.” The fall/winter 2017 issue
of the “NSM Magazine” posted on NSM’s website contains a similarly clearly responsive
"Charlottesville Unite the Right Report” describing NSM’s involvement in the events of August
2017.
In light of the high number of presumptively responsive documents as well as the known
responsive documents that Mr. Schoep has not produced, and the small size and non-substantive
nature of Mr. Schoep’s production, we request that you answer the following questions so that
Plaintiffs may determine whether to seek relief from the Court::
1. With respect to the more than 2,400 documents that hit on search terms but that you
did not produce, please state whether you have withheld those documents because
they were privileged or because you decided that they were non-responsive
although they hit on search terms.
2. To the extent that you have withheld any documents on the grounds of privilege,
you are required to provide Plaintiffs with a privilege log, as ordered by the Court in
its November 27, 2019, order, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Please confirm whether you have withheld
any documents as privileged.
3. Please clarify the nature of the non-viewable files ending in “.bin,” “.pak,” and
“.log ， ” including explaining what type of file they are and whether they are
associated with particular software, and produce replacement versions that are
readable in a standard text editor or image viewer.
In addition, we reiterate our request, which we made at the deposition of Burt Colucci on
December 10, 2019，and again by email on December 11, 2019, that you provide Mr. Schoep’s new
phone to the third-party discovery vendor. Mr. Colucci testified
3
9958

March 11,2020
Page 3 of 3
at his deposition that Mr. Schoep had exchanged text messages with Mr. Colucci on this new phone.
You previously refused to produce this phone because, as you stated in your email dated December
17，2019，Mr. Schoep5 s new phone “was obtained well after Charlottesville and therefore would not
contain any potentially relevant information in regards to this litigation?9 However, Plaintiffs9 First
Set of Requests for Production of Documents explicitly request “[a 】 ll Documents and
Communications concerning the Eventswhere “Events” are defined to mean the occurrences and
activities described in the Complaint, as well as ‘‘[a]ll Documents concerning and all
Communications concerning or with any Plaintiff or Defendant (other than You) named in the
Amended Complaint, and any other Person who attended, planned or was involved in the Events55
(emphasis added). Requests for Production Nos. 1，6. Therefore, any communications Mr. Schoep
possesses with Mr. Colucci, regardless of their date, are relevant and responsive to Plaintiffs *
requests. Furthermore, you are required to supplement your responses in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(e). We therefore request that you immediately produce Mr. Schoep5s new phone to the
vendor.
Please provide your responses as requested above by Wednesday, March 18, 2020. If we do
not hear from you，we intend to seek relief from the Court. Plaintiffs reserve all rights.
jphillips@bsfllp.com
202-237-2727
4
9959
6013 Clerkenwell Court • Burke • VA • 22015 • 571.215.9006 • www.rebrooklaw.com
MARCH 17, 2020

VIA EMAIL
JESSICA E. PHILLIPS
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 NEW YORK AVE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
JPHILLIPS@B SFLLP.C OM
202-237-2727
RE: Sines et al. v. Kessler et al., No. 3:17-cv-00072-NKM (W.D. Va.)
Dear Ms. Phillips:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding Mr. Schoep’s document production that was
made on October 25, 2019. The VK and NSM88.org website documents were not produced at that time
because the third-party discovery vendor had not yet released either of those production batches for
review. The website and VK account were released on January 28, 2020 as you may see for yourself in
the email attached to this letter.
With respect to the more than 2,400 documents that hit on search terms and were not produced:
● The third-party discovery vendor (iDS) collected 164 documents that hit on search terms
from commander@newsaxon.org email address. Majority of the documents that hit
search terms are completely non-responsive to this civil suit. None of these collected
emails were any correspondence between my client, Mr. Schoep, and Defendant
Heimbach. As for the email exchanges to which you are referring to between my client
and the other defendants, Mr. Schoep does not possess any copies of such emails, nor
were any collected by iDS.
iDS collected 211 documents that hit search terms from my client’s personal email:
jeffschoep@gmail.com . This was my client’s personal email address to which he
communicated with his attorney, his family and used only for personal non-NSM related
business. Majority of these emails were completely non responsive, even though they hit
on one or more of the overly broad search terms. Many of these correspondences that
were collected include veterinarian correspondence, family pictures, and correspondence
5
9960
with family concerning private family matters. This also includes correspondence that
was kept between my client and his now deceased mother regarding her chemo
treatments during her battle with cancer. These matters are private and definitely non
responsive to this lawsuit, even if the documents hit on search terms. The search terms
are overly broad and include “Schoep”, so of course almost every email is going to hit on
a search term because as you already know Schoep is my client’s last name. It would
most definitely be included in at least one of the email fields (To, From, Signature, etc).
As you may review for yourself, due to the overly broad scope of the search terms, even
non-responsive documents were collected for production.
My client is very OCD and meticulous about making sure his email is clear of clutter.
Any email correspondence that was saved was done so only because it was important
regarding family or business. Mr. Schoep is very organized in this manner and had he
known there would have been a lawsuit to which any of this supposed correspondence
would have been needed then he would have made sure to keep such documents, if they
ever existed.
Many of these documents collected by the third-party vendor are non-responsive, the
search terms are so overly broad that literally ANYTHING could hit a search term. As of
this point my client has gone back through and re-coded many of the non-responsive
documents to responsive for production so that you may see this for yourself. According
to iDS the new production batch of old data will produce 382 documents which were
previously coded as “Non Responsive”. It was our understanding that only documents
pertaining to this case, Sines v Kessler, were to be included in the “Responsive”
document production. You will also see that from the NSM88.org website, all 2,146
documents collected, all have been coded as “Responsive” and should have been
produced by the third-party discovery vendor for your review. Out of all 2,146
documents from the website only a handful are in actuality “Responsive” to this case.
However, in our efforts to prove our cooperation, we have coded all as “Responsive” and
have asked that iDS produce ALL of these documents for your own review.
● Approximately 60 documents have been withheld due to privilege. As per Fed R C P

26(b)(5) I have attached the Privilege Log also.
● “Please clarify the nature of the non-viewable files ending in ‘.bin’ ‘.pak’ and ‘.log’
including explaining what type of file they are and whether they are associated with
particular software, and produce replacement versions that are readable in a standard text
editor or image viewer”
○ As for the non-viewable files ending in “bin” “pak” and “log” - all of these files
were retrieved from Mr. Schoep’s laptop. These files are regular random
computer application files. We have no idea what software these are related to
etcetera. Majority of the items from Mr. Schoep’s laptop are just various standard
programs such as Adobe, Microsoft Windows, Open Office, and the like. If you
6
9961
ask a computer tech they will tell you the same. There isn’t anything special
regarding these miscellaneous files. These were simply marked as “Responsive”
so that Plaintiffs counsel could review for themselves what the overly broad
search criteria produced.
As stated previously, my client’s new phone was obtained well after Charlottesville and therefore
would not contain any potentially relevant information in regards to this litigation. There is no need for
Mr. Schoep to produce his new phone as there is absolutely nothing relevant or “potentially” responsive
in regards to this litigation contained on the device.
Sincerely,
W. EDWARD REBROOK, IV, ESQ

ATTORNEY & COUNSELLOR A T LAW
EDWARD@R EBROOKLAW.C OM
7
9962
From: Barbara Bibas <bbibas@idsinc.com>

Date: January 28, 2020 at 12:17:33 PST
To: "rebrooklaw@gmail.com" <rebrooklaw@gmail.com>
Cc: iDS_SINKS-02678 <ids_sinks-02678@idsinc.com>
Subject: Sines vs. Kessler
Mr. ReBrook,
Mr. Schoep’s VK files have been loaded into Relativity and are ready for your review. There are 396
documents including family. We’ve created a saved search for you which will return those documents.
The link to that search is:
https://relativity1.idiscoverysolutions.com/Relativity/go?id=2983772-6428917
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Barbara
----
Barbara Bibas
Discovery Services Consultant
iDiscovery Solutions
535 Anton Blvd., Suite 860
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Direct: 714.581.4822
Mobile: 949.929.1518
iDS is a proud Chambers and Partners Band 2 Ranked eDiscovery provider!

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/12788/2817/editorial/58/1#22770855_editorial
INFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any

attachments) is intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It
may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected
from disclosure by applicable law. Any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying,
exporting or other use of this communication or any attached document(s) other than for
the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without prior written permission
from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed
copies of this communication and any attached documents.
8
9963
From: Barbara Bibas <bbibas@idsinc.com>

Date: January 28, 2020 at 16:49:45 PST
To: "rebrooklaw@gmail.com" <rebrooklaw@gmail.com>
Cc: iDS_SINKS-02678 <ids_sinks-02678@idsinc.com>
Subject: Sines vs. Kessler
Mr. ReBrook,
Mr. Schoep’s NSM88.ORG website files have been loaded into Relativity and are ready for your review.
There are 2,146 documents including family. We’ve created a saved search for you which will return
those documents. The link to that search is:
https://relativity1.idiscoverysolutions.com/Relativity/go?id=2983772-6428925.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Barbara
----
Barbara Bibas
Discovery Services Consultant
iDiscovery Solutions
535 Anton Blvd., Suite 860
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Direct: 714.581.4822
Mobile: 949.929.1518
iDS is a proud Chambers and Partners Band 2 Ranked eDiscovery provider!

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/12788/2817/editorial/58/1#22770855_editorial
INFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any

attachments) is intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It
may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected
from disclosure by applicable law. Any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying,
exporting or other use of this communication or any attached document(s) other than for
the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without prior written permission
from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the
9
9964
sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed
copies of this communication and any attached documents.
As Per iDS:
Date Released for

Collection Type Account Collection Date Review
Laptop 5/13/2019 5/30/2019
Email commander@newsaxon.org 5/10/2019 5/30/2019
Email jeffschoep@gmail.com 5/10/2019 5/30/2019
Website spectra (NSM88.ORG - 11/11/2019 1/28/2020

nsm88.org/cpanel
VKontakte (VK) commander@newsaxon.org 6/19/2019 1/28/2020
10
9965
EXHIBIT 7
9966
9967
9968
9969
March 13, 2020
Integrity First for America
Sent via Certified USPS Mail and Electronic Mail
Re: Notice to Cease and Desist
Dear Integrity First for America:
It has come to my attention that you have made a defamatory and false statement about me. The
following false statement(s) was made: "neo-Nazi Jeff Schoep...claims he's left the white supremacist
movement. But testimony from the current NSM leader demonstrates he's continued to participate in their
hateful activities." For examples, refer to Exhibit A to this letter.
The statement(s) was written in a tweet by the official Twitter account of Integrity First for
America, @IntegrityForUSA, at 12:25PM on March 12, 2020, and is willfully misleading and without
merit. I left the white supremacist movement in March of 2019 and I have not continued to “participate”
in the NSM’s “hateful activities”. Since August of 2019, I have been speaking out publicly against the
movement, hate, racism, extremism and anti-Semitism. I have credible sources to prove that my
departure from white supremacy is true and that I am actively speaking out against the hateful ideology.
The false and libelous statement(s) that your organization made is reckless and highly defamatory
, and has caused me to suffer:
● Reputational Harm
● Harm to my character and reputation
Page 1 of 4
9970
● Economic harm
I do not wish any harm to Integrity First for America despite the harm your organization’s
statement(s) has caused and is continuing to cause me. As such I hereby demand the following from
Integrity First for America:
● immediately cease and desist from making any and all false statements against me within 7 days
of the date of this letter
● remove all defamatory statement(s) and contents from Twitter, and/or your website, all social
media accounts, any and all publications
● publish a retraction to the false statement(s)
● issue a public apology,
● notify me in writing when these tasks have been completed.
I am hopeful that this unfortunate situation can be resolved without legal action. If you are in
agreement, please let me know that you assent to my terms within seven ("7") days of your receipt of this
letter. If you refuse, I may have no choice but to seek redress in a court of law, at which point I may also
seek punitive damages, reimbursement of court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and interest.
Please contact me directly with any questions; I can be reached by phone at 313.671.2583 or by
e-mail at Jeff@jeffschoep.com. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jeff Schoep
Page 2 of 4
9971
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 4
9972
Page 4 of 4
9973
March 13, 2020
Amy Spitalnick
Sent via USPS Certified Mail and Electronic Mail
Dear Ms. Spitalnick:
It has come to my attention that you have made a defamatory, libelous, and false statement about
me. The following false statement(s) was made: "Neo-Nazi Jeff Schoep has been on a media tour
claiming he’s left the movement. To put it politely, that's garbage." For examples, refer to Exhibit A to
this letter.
The statement(s) was written in a tweet from your official Twitter account @amyspitalnick, on
March 11, 2020 at 8:19PM and is willfully misleading, without merit and libel. I am not a “neo-Nazi”. I
left the white supremacist movement fully and completely in March of 2019. Since August of 2019, I
have been speaking out publicly against the movement, hate, racism, extremism and anti-Semitism. I have
credible resources to prove that my departure from white supremacy is true and that I am actively
speaking out against the hateful ideology.
The false and libelous statement(s) that you made is reckless and highly defamatory, and has
caused me to suffer:
● Economic harm
I do not wish any harm to you despite the harm your defamatory and slanderous statement(s) has
caused and is continuing to cause me. As such I hereby demand the following from you:
Page 1 of 4
9974
of the date of this letter,
● remove all defamatory statement(s) and contents from Twitter, and/or all websites, all social
agreement, please let me know that you assent to my terms within seven ("7") days of your receipt of
this letter. If you refuse, I may have no choice but to seek redress in a court of law, at which point I may
also seek punitive damages, reimbursement of court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and interest.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schoep
Page 2 of 4
9975
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 4
9976
Page 4 of 4
9977
RICHARD D. EMERY
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP DIANE L. HOUK
ANDREW G. CELLI, JR.
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON FRICK
JONATHAN S. ABADY 600 FIFTH AVENUE AT ROCKEFELLER CENTER DAVID LEBOWITZ
EARL S. WARD 10TH FLOOR DOUGLAS E. LIEB
ILANN M. MAAZEL NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020 ALANNA KAUFMAN
HAL R. LIEBERMAN EMMA L. FREEMAN
DANIEL J. KORNSTEIN DAVID BERMAN
O. ANDREW F. WILSON TEL: (212) 763-5000 HARVEY PRAGER
ELIZABETH S. SAYLOR FAX: (212) 763-5001 SCOUT KATOVICH
KATHERINE ROSENFELD www.ecbalaw.com NICK BOURLAND
DEBRA L. GREENBERGER ANDREW K. JONDAHL
ZOE SALZMAN
SAM SHAPIRO
March 19, 2020
Via Email
Jeff Schoep
jeff@jeffschoep.com
Re: Amy Spitalnick & Integrity First for America
Dear Mr. Schoep:
This firm represents Amy Spitalnick and Integrity First for America (“IFA”), and we
write in response to your March 13, 2020 letters. Neither Ms. Spitalnick nor IFA will be
intimidated by your baseless threats. Nor will they delete their tweets, none of which are
defamatory, and all of which are true.
Ms. Spitalnick and IFA have the absolute right to publicize the evidence demonstrating
that your claim to have severed ties with the National Socialist Movement (“NSM”) is not
genuine. As their tweets specifically explain, this evidence includes sworn testimony from the
current NSM leader connecting you to the organization. Far from being defamatory, the tweets
about which you complain are in fact true. They are also protected speech that cannot serve as
the basis for a claim of defamation.
Your letters are nothing more than a transparent attempt to harass and intimidate the
people who are working to hold you and your organization accountable for the violence
perpetrated in Charlottesville. Cease your threatening tactics immediately, or we will be forced
to take legal action.
The Evidence Is Clear: You Are Still Connected to NSM and the Alt-Right
Your letters assert that Ms. Spitalnick’s and IFA’s tweets falsely accuse you of
maintaining connections to NSM and the alt-right. But the evidence is clear: you are still
connected to NSM and the alt-right. Burt Colucci, NSM’s current leader, testified under oath
that you tried to protect Mr. Colucci and NSM from infiltration by a federal informant, that your
girlfriend is still a member of NSM, and that she also maintains the NSM website. Your own
racist screeds on Twitter and other online platforms from within months of your alleged
9978
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
Page 2
conversion, all of which invoke extremist language, confirm Mr. Colucci’s testimony as
described in the publicly filed briefs. You are plainly still involved with NSM and the alt-right.
In New York, as in every other jurisdiction in the nation, a statement cannot be both true
and defamatory: falsity is the sine qua non of a defamation claim. Thus, a claim of defamation
that is grounded in a statement that is substantially true is “legally insufficient and should be
dismissed.” Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., a division of NBCUniversal
Media, LLC, 864 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal citations and alterations omitted); accord
Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 28, 34 (1st Dep’t 2014) (defamation claim “must
be dismissed” where “based on substantially true statements”); PBM Prod., LLC v. Mead
Johnson Nutrition Co., 678 F. Supp. 2d 390, 400 (E.D. Va. 2009) (“Truth is a complete defense
to a defamation claim.”).
In short: a suit against Ms. Spitalnick and/or IFA would be both baseless and subject to
sanction.
The Tweets Are Protected Speech
1. The IFA Tweets Are Not Defamatory
The IFA’s tweets are not defamatory: (i) because they are true; and (ii) because they are
protected speech under New York law.
A. The IFA’s Tweets Are True
Neither of the IFA tweets about which you complain contain false statements of fact.
The first IFA tweet (from 12:25 p.m. on March 12, 2020) states that “testimony from the current
NSM leader demonstrates that [you have] continued to participate in their hateful activities.”
The second IFA tweet (from 12:28 p.m. on March 12, 2020) states “Schoep even tried to transfer
control of NSM as our lawsuit heated up, in an attempt to ‘save [his] *ss.’”1
You cannot seriously challenge the truth of either statement. The first includes citations
to the current NSM leader’s deposition testimony, which establishes your continued connection
to NSM. The statement in the tweet merely points out that such testimony exists, something that
you cannot deny. Similarly, the second tweet includes quotes from a phone call in which you
discussed transferring control of NSM to somehow limit or escape your legal exposure. You do
not (and cannot) claim that the call did not take place.
The IFA tweets do nothing more than report on the existence of events—a deposition and
a phone call—that you do not and cannot deny took place. As such, they are true—and not
defamatory.
1
The second IFA tweet also states that you and NSM “both continue to flout court orders.” Your failure to
mention this statement in your letter demonstrates that you acknowledge its truth.
9979
Page 3
B. The IFA’s Tweets Are Protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege
The IFA tweets are protected for a second, independent reason as well: they accurately
and fairly report what was said in a judicial proceeding. Section 74 of the New York Civil
Rights Law creates an absolute statutory privilege for such reports.
Section 74 bars a defamation action “for the publication of a fair and true report of any
judicial proceeding.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74; see also Holy Spirit Ass’n for the Unification
of World Christianity v. N.Y. Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63, 67 (1979) (“it is enough that the
substance of the article be substantially accurate” for the privilege to apply and a defamation
case to be barred). Section 74 applies where documents filed in a judicial proceeding “form the
basis for each of the contested statements” and where the “statements essentially summarize or
restate the allegations” in the filed documents. Wexler v. Allegion (UK) Ltd., 374 F. Supp. 3d
302, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 74’s protection “also
extends to the release of background material with regard to the case, so long as the statement is
a substantially accurate description.” Fishof v. Abady, 280 A.D.2d 417, 417-18 (1st Dep’t 2001)
(internal citations omitted).
Both IFA tweets are fully protected by Section 74. The first IFA tweet is almost a
verbatim quote from a publicly-filed brief. The tweet makes that clear by including a screenshot
of the brief itself. The second tweet likewise reports what was contained in a publicly-filed brief;
it too includes a screenshot of the referenced brief.
Your apparent disagreement with the “allegations contained in the [brief] does not affect
whether the statement[s] [are] a fair and true report of the allegations [they] paraphrase[].” Biro
v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Section 74 bars defamation claim
based on statement that was a “nearly direct quote” from a publicly filed affidavit). All that
matters for the application of Section 74 is that a writing is “a substantially accurate rendering of
what was said” in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether what was said in the proceeding is
true. Zappin v. NYP Holdings, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 8838 (KPF), 2018 WL 1474414, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 26, 2018).
The IFA’s tweets accurately report what occurred in a judicial proceeding—a proceeding
to which you are a party. Thus, they are protected under Section 74 and immune from suit.
2. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Not Defamatory
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is protected because it expresses an opinion based on a set of

disclosed facts. And like the IFA tweets, it too is a fair report of a judicial proceeding and thus
immune from suit under Section 74 of the New York Civil Rights Law.
A. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Protected Opinion
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is a statement of pure opinion based on disclosed facts—

deposition testimony from the current NSM leader—rendered in the context of a heated public
debate about your continued connection to the alt-right. As such, it is not defamatory as a matter
of law.
9980
Page 4
“It is a settled rule that expressions of an opinion, false or not, libelous or not, are
constitutionally protected and may not be the subject of private damage actions.” Steinhilber v.
Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 286 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Millus v.
Newsday, Inc., 89 N.Y.2d 840, 842 (1996). Courts draw a distinction between “assertions of
opinion that imply a basis in facts not disclosed to the reader or listener, often termed mixed
opinion, which are actionable, and statements of opinion accompanied by a recitation of the facts
on which they are based or statements that do not imply the existence of undisclosed underlying
facts, referred to as pure opinion, which are not actionable.” Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr.,
430 F. Supp. 2d 279, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted); see
also Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1997) (A statement of opinion is not actionable
if it “either discloses the facts on which it is based or does not imply the existence of undisclosed
facts.”); Germain v. M & T Bank Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 506, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (A statement
is one of “pure opinion,” and therefore non-actionable, if it “is accompanied by a recitation of the
facts upon which it is based or does not imply that it is based on undisclosed facts.”).
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is an expression of pure opinion. Ms. Spitalnick opines that your
claims about leaving the movement are “garbage.” She bases her opinion on the deposition
testimony of the current NSM leader, as described in public court filings that are expressly cited
and included in her tweet. Like any expression of pure opinion, it is not actionable because it is
“a proffered hypothesis that is offered after a full recitation of the facts.” Gross v. New York
Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 154, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1168 (1993).
In addition, the heated debate surrounding your continued connection to the alt-right
makes clear that Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet can reasonably be read only as expressing an opinion.
The context in which a statement is made is vital to determining whether it is a statement of fact
or opinion. See, e g., Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat. Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v.
Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 286 (1974) (“rhetorical hyperbole” and “expression[s] of [] contempt” in
the context of a labor dispute found not to be defamatory); Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass’n v.
Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970) (“rhetorical hyperbole” delivered in a public debate found not to
be defamatory). “Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of
opinion, and thus be privileged, when made in public debate . . . or other circumstances in which
an audience may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.” Frechtman v.
Gutterman, 115 A.D.3d 102, 106 (1st Dep’t 2014) (internal alterations and quotation marks
omitted).
Online statements are especially imbued, by virtue of the medium itself, with the
character of opinion. “Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such as
newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a ‘freewheeling, anything-
goes writing style.’” Sandals Resorts Int’l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32, 43 (1st Dep’t
2011); see also Matter of Konig v. WordPress.com, 112 A.D.3d 936, 937 (2d Dep’t 2013)
(reasonable reader would believe that statements made on an Internet blog during sharply
contested election generally referencing “downright criminal actions” were opinion, “not a
factual accusation of criminal conduct”). Consequently, “New York courts have consistently
protected statements made in online forums as statements of opinion rather than fact.” Bellavia
Blatt & Crossett, P.C. v. Kel & Partners LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 287, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
(collecting cases).
9981
Page 5
Since your alleged disassociation from NSM, a debate has been raging online over
whether your supposedly-reformed views are, or are not, genuine. Journalists, researchers, and
others have written articles and posted statements disputing your claim to have ceded control of
NSM, and questioning the motives surrounding your purported change of heart.2
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet describing your claimed conversion as “garbage” must be

understood within that context, and it is “no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet,”
Greenbelt, 398 U.S. at 14 (1970), delivered in the course of that heated public debate. It is
“construable only as an ‘expression[] of disagreement’ or ‘expression of contempt toward [an]
adversary.’” Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468, 528 (W.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Schnare
v. Ziessow, 104 F. App’x 847, 852-53 (4th Cir. 2004)). Because “[t]he average listener would
certainly understand [the tweet] to be rhetorical hyperbole expressing [Ms. Spitalnick’s] opinion
of [your] character, the [tweet is] not actionable.” Zysk v. Fid. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 14 A.D.3d
609, 610 (2d Dep’t 2005).
B. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is also protected by Section 74 of the New York Civil Rights Law.
Like the IFA tweets, Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is a fair report of what was said in a publicly-filed
brief. The brief—which is pictured in Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet—states that you “have continued to
participate in NSM’s activities, even as [you] claim[] to have left the white-supremacist
movement.” Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet repeats that allegation, albeit with slightly different wording.
The wording, however, is immaterial: “A fair and true report admits of some liberality; the
exact words of every proceeding need not be given if the substance be substantially stated.”
Holy Spirit Ass’n for Unification of World Christianity v. N.Y. Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63, 67
(1979). The substance of Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet comes directly from the publicly-filed brief she
references. Her tweet is therefore protected under Section 74.
You Have Not Been Damaged
Finally, your purported defamation claim suffers from another fatal flaw: the absence of
provable damages. No defamation claim lies where there are no special damages—i.e., “the loss
of something having economic or pecuniary value.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 434-
35 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Your letters include only conclusory statements
that you have been harmed; these are insufficient to support a defamation claim. See Demirovic
v. Ortega, No. 15 Civ. 327, 2016 WL 11472745, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016) (“Mere
conclusory statements that the claimant was disparaged by false statements are insufficient to
state a defamation claim.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).3
2
See, e.g., https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/09/11/jeff-schoep-sheds-neo-nazi-past-stays-loyal-
lawyers-maneuvers; https://twitter.com/nickmartin/status/1166035475804483585;
https://twitter.com/KELLYWEILL/status/1159113313659363329.
3
Nor can you allege defamation per se. The tweets (which, again, are not defamatory) do not fall into any of
the recognized categories of statements that constitute defamation per se. They do not charge you with a serious
crime, injure you in your trade, business or profession, claim you have a loathsome disease, or impute unchastity to
a woman. Liberman, 80 N.Y.2d at 435. You therefore have no defamation claim.
9982
Page 6
Conclusion
Please do not communicate with Ms. Spitalnick or IFA again. Any further
communications on this subject should be directed to this firm. Your letter to Ms. Spitalnick,
which includes an address that the internet suggests was once associated with her, is nothing
more than a thinly-veiled threat, and you should be advised that it has been reported to law
enforcement. You are trying to frighten Ms. Spitalnick by showing her you think you know
where she lives—but your tactics will not work. Neither Ms. Spitalnick nor IFA will be silenced.
They will continue to work to hold you and your fellow extremists responsible for what you have
done.
On behalf of both IFA and Ms. Spitalnick, we reserve all rights.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Andrew G. Celli, Jr.

Samuel Shapiro
9965
EXHIBIT 7
9966
9967
9968
9969
March 13, 2020
Integrity First for America
Sent via Certified USPS Mail and Electronic Mail
Dear Integrity First for America:
It has come to my attention that you have made a defamatory and false statement about me. The
following false statement(s) was made: "neo-Nazi Jeff Schoep...claims he's left the white supremacist
movement. But testimony from the current NSM leader demonstrates he's continued to participate in their
hateful activities." For examples, refer to Exhibit A to this letter.
The statement(s) was written in a tweet by the official Twitter account of Integrity First for
America, @IntegrityForUSA, at 12:25PM on March 12, 2020, and is willfully misleading and without
merit. I left the white supremacist movement in March of 2019 and I have not continued to “participate”
in the NSM’s “hateful activities”. Since August of 2019, I have been speaking out publicly against the
movement, hate, racism, extremism and anti-Semitism. I have credible sources to prove that my
departure from white supremacy is true and that I am actively speaking out against the hateful ideology.
The false and libelous statement(s) that your organization made is reckless and highly defamatory
, and has caused me to suffer:
Page 1 of 4
9970
● Economic harm
I do not wish any harm to Integrity First for America despite the harm your organization’s
statement(s) has caused and is continuing to cause me. As such I hereby demand the following from
Integrity First for America:
of the date of this letter
● remove all defamatory statement(s) and contents from Twitter, and/or your website, all social
agreement, please let me know that you assent to my terms within seven ("7") days of your receipt of this
letter. If you refuse, I may have no choice but to seek redress in a court of law, at which point I may also
seek punitive damages, reimbursement of court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and interest.

Sincerely,
Jeff Schoep
Page 2 of 4
9971
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 4
9972
Page 4 of 4
9973
March 13, 2020
Amy Spitalnick
Sent via USPS Certified Mail and Electronic Mail
Dear Ms. Spitalnick:
It has come to my attention that you have made a defamatory, libelous, and false statement about
me. The following false statement(s) was made: "Neo-Nazi Jeff Schoep has been on a media tour
claiming he’s left the movement. To put it politely, that's garbage." For examples, refer to Exhibit A to
this letter.
The statement(s) was written in a tweet from your official Twitter account @amyspitalnick, on
March 11, 2020 at 8:19PM and is willfully misleading, without merit and libel. I am not a “neo-Nazi”. I
left the white supremacist movement fully and completely in March of 2019. Since August of 2019, I
have been speaking out publicly against the movement, hate, racism, extremism and anti-Semitism. I have
credible resources to prove that my departure from white supremacy is true and that I am actively
speaking out against the hateful ideology.
The false and libelous statement(s) that you made is reckless and highly defamatory, and has
caused me to suffer:
● Economic harm
I do not wish any harm to you despite the harm your defamatory and slanderous statement(s) has
caused and is continuing to cause me. As such I hereby demand the following from you:
Page 1 of 4
9974
of the date of this letter,
● remove all defamatory statement(s) and contents from Twitter, and/or all websites, all social
agreement, please let me know that you assent to my terms within seven ("7") days of your receipt of
this letter. If you refuse, I may have no choice but to seek redress in a court of law, at which point I may
also seek punitive damages, reimbursement of court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and interest.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schoep
Page 2 of 4
9975
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 4
9976
Page 4 of 4
9977
RICHARD D. EMERY
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP DIANE L. HOUK
ANDREW G. CELLI, JR.
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON FRICK
JONATHAN S. ABADY 600 FIFTH AVENUE AT ROCKEFELLER CENTER DAVID LEBOWITZ
EARL S. WARD 10TH FLOOR DOUGLAS E. LIEB
ILANN M. MAAZEL NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020 ALANNA KAUFMAN
HAL R. LIEBERMAN EMMA L. FREEMAN
DANIEL J. KORNSTEIN DAVID BERMAN
O. ANDREW F. WILSON TEL: (212) 763-5000 HARVEY PRAGER
ELIZABETH S. SAYLOR FAX: (212) 763-5001 SCOUT KATOVICH
KATHERINE ROSENFELD www.ecbalaw.com NICK BOURLAND
DEBRA L. GREENBERGER ANDREW K. JONDAHL
ZOE SALZMAN
SAM SHAPIRO
March 19, 2020
Via Email
Jeff Schoep
jeff@jeffschoep.com
Re: Amy Spitalnick & Integrity First for America
Dear Mr. Schoep:
This firm represents Amy Spitalnick and Integrity First for America (“IFA”), and we
write in response to your March 13, 2020 letters. Neither Ms. Spitalnick nor IFA will be
intimidated by your baseless threats. Nor will they delete their tweets, none of which are
defamatory, and all of which are true.
Ms. Spitalnick and IFA have the absolute right to publicize the evidence demonstrating
that your claim to have severed ties with the National Socialist Movement (“NSM”) is not
genuine. As their tweets specifically explain, this evidence includes sworn testimony from the
current NSM leader connecting you to the organization. Far from being defamatory, the tweets
about which you complain are in fact true. They are also protected speech that cannot serve as
the basis for a claim of defamation.
Your letters are nothing more than a transparent attempt to harass and intimidate the
people who are working to hold you and your organization accountable for the violence
perpetrated in Charlottesville. Cease your threatening tactics immediately, or we will be forced
to take legal action.
The Evidence Is Clear: You Are Still Connected to NSM and the Alt-Right
Your letters assert that Ms. Spitalnick’s and IFA’s tweets falsely accuse you of
maintaining connections to NSM and the alt-right. But the evidence is clear: you are still
connected to NSM and the alt-right. Burt Colucci, NSM’s current leader, testified under oath
that you tried to protect Mr. Colucci and NSM from infiltration by a federal informant, that your
girlfriend is still a member of NSM, and that she also maintains the NSM website. Your own
racist screeds on Twitter and other online platforms from within months of your alleged
9978
Page 2
conversion, all of which invoke extremist language, confirm Mr. Colucci’s testimony as
described in the publicly filed briefs. You are plainly still involved with NSM and the alt-right.
In New York, as in every other jurisdiction in the nation, a statement cannot be both true
and defamatory: falsity is the sine qua non of a defamation claim. Thus, a claim of defamation
that is grounded in a statement that is substantially true is “legally insufficient and should be
dismissed.” Tannerite Sports, LLC v. NBCUniversal News Grp., a division of NBCUniversal
Media, LLC, 864 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal citations and alterations omitted); accord
Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 28, 34 (1st Dep’t 2014) (defamation claim “must
be dismissed” where “based on substantially true statements”); PBM Prod., LLC v. Mead
Johnson Nutrition Co., 678 F. Supp. 2d 390, 400 (E.D. Va. 2009) (“Truth is a complete defense
to a defamation claim.”).
In short: a suit against Ms. Spitalnick and/or IFA would be both baseless and subject to
sanction.
The Tweets Are Protected Speech
1. The IFA Tweets Are Not Defamatory
The IFA’s tweets are not defamatory: (i) because they are true; and (ii) because they are
protected speech under New York law.
A. The IFA’s Tweets Are True
Neither of the IFA tweets about which you complain contain false statements of fact.
The first IFA tweet (from 12:25 p.m. on March 12, 2020) states that “testimony from the current
NSM leader demonstrates that [you have] continued to participate in their hateful activities.”
The second IFA tweet (from 12:28 p.m. on March 12, 2020) states “Schoep even tried to transfer
control of NSM as our lawsuit heated up, in an attempt to ‘save [his] *ss.’”1
You cannot seriously challenge the truth of either statement. The first includes citations
to the current NSM leader’s deposition testimony, which establishes your continued connection
to NSM. The statement in the tweet merely points out that such testimony exists, something that
you cannot deny. Similarly, the second tweet includes quotes from a phone call in which you
discussed transferring control of NSM to somehow limit or escape your legal exposure. You do
not (and cannot) claim that the call did not take place.
The IFA tweets do nothing more than report on the existence of events—a deposition and
a phone call—that you do not and cannot deny took place. As such, they are true—and not
defamatory.
1
The second IFA tweet also states that you and NSM “both continue to flout court orders.” Your failure to
mention this statement in your letter demonstrates that you acknowledge its truth.
9979
Page 3
B. The IFA’s Tweets Are Protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege
The IFA tweets are protected for a second, independent reason as well: they accurately
and fairly report what was said in a judicial proceeding. Section 74 of the New York Civil
Rights Law creates an absolute statutory privilege for such reports.
Section 74 bars a defamation action “for the publication of a fair and true report of any
judicial proceeding.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 74; see also Holy Spirit Ass’n for the Unification
of World Christianity v. N.Y. Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63, 67 (1979) (“it is enough that the
substance of the article be substantially accurate” for the privilege to apply and a defamation
case to be barred). Section 74 applies where documents filed in a judicial proceeding “form the
basis for each of the contested statements” and where the “statements essentially summarize or
restate the allegations” in the filed documents. Wexler v. Allegion (UK) Ltd., 374 F. Supp. 3d
302, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 74’s protection “also
extends to the release of background material with regard to the case, so long as the statement is
a substantially accurate description.” Fishof v. Abady, 280 A.D.2d 417, 417-18 (1st Dep’t 2001)
(internal citations omitted).
Both IFA tweets are fully protected by Section 74. The first IFA tweet is almost a
verbatim quote from a publicly-filed brief. The tweet makes that clear by including a screenshot
of the brief itself. The second tweet likewise reports what was contained in a publicly-filed brief;
it too includes a screenshot of the referenced brief.
Your apparent disagreement with the “allegations contained in the [brief] does not affect
whether the statement[s] [are] a fair and true report of the allegations [they] paraphrase[].” Biro
v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Section 74 bars defamation claim
based on statement that was a “nearly direct quote” from a publicly filed affidavit). All that
matters for the application of Section 74 is that a writing is “a substantially accurate rendering of
what was said” in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether what was said in the proceeding is
true. Zappin v. NYP Holdings, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 8838 (KPF), 2018 WL 1474414, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 26, 2018).
The IFA’s tweets accurately report what occurred in a judicial proceeding—a proceeding
to which you are a party. Thus, they are protected under Section 74 and immune from suit.
2. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Not Defamatory
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is protected because it expresses an opinion based on a set of

disclosed facts. And like the IFA tweets, it too is a fair report of a judicial proceeding and thus
immune from suit under Section 74 of the New York Civil Rights Law.
A. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Protected Opinion
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is a statement of pure opinion based on disclosed facts—

deposition testimony from the current NSM leader—rendered in the context of a heated public
debate about your continued connection to the alt-right. As such, it is not defamatory as a matter
of law.
9980
Page 4
“It is a settled rule that expressions of an opinion, false or not, libelous or not, are
constitutionally protected and may not be the subject of private damage actions.” Steinhilber v.
Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 286 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Millus v.
Newsday, Inc., 89 N.Y.2d 840, 842 (1996). Courts draw a distinction between “assertions of
opinion that imply a basis in facts not disclosed to the reader or listener, often termed mixed
opinion, which are actionable, and statements of opinion accompanied by a recitation of the facts
on which they are based or statements that do not imply the existence of undisclosed underlying
facts, referred to as pure opinion, which are not actionable.” Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Ctr.,
430 F. Supp. 2d 279, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted); see
also Levin v. McPhee, 119 F.3d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1997) (A statement of opinion is not actionable
if it “either discloses the facts on which it is based or does not imply the existence of undisclosed
facts.”); Germain v. M & T Bank Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 506, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (A statement
is one of “pure opinion,” and therefore non-actionable, if it “is accompanied by a recitation of the
facts upon which it is based or does not imply that it is based on undisclosed facts.”).
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is an expression of pure opinion. Ms. Spitalnick opines that your
claims about leaving the movement are “garbage.” She bases her opinion on the deposition
testimony of the current NSM leader, as described in public court filings that are expressly cited
and included in her tweet. Like any expression of pure opinion, it is not actionable because it is
“a proffered hypothesis that is offered after a full recitation of the facts.” Gross v. New York
Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 154, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1168 (1993).
In addition, the heated debate surrounding your continued connection to the alt-right
makes clear that Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet can reasonably be read only as expressing an opinion.
The context in which a statement is made is vital to determining whether it is a statement of fact
or opinion. See, e g., Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat. Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v.
Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 286 (1974) (“rhetorical hyperbole” and “expression[s] of [] contempt” in
the context of a labor dispute found not to be defamatory); Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass’n v.
Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970) (“rhetorical hyperbole” delivered in a public debate found not to
be defamatory). “Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of statements of
opinion, and thus be privileged, when made in public debate . . . or other circumstances in which
an audience may anticipate the use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.” Frechtman v.
Gutterman, 115 A.D.3d 102, 106 (1st Dep’t 2014) (internal alterations and quotation marks
omitted).
Online statements are especially imbued, by virtue of the medium itself, with the
character of opinion. “Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such as
newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a ‘freewheeling, anything-
goes writing style.’” Sandals Resorts Int’l Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 86 A.D.3d 32, 43 (1st Dep’t
2011); see also Matter of Konig v. WordPress.com, 112 A.D.3d 936, 937 (2d Dep’t 2013)
(reasonable reader would believe that statements made on an Internet blog during sharply
contested election generally referencing “downright criminal actions” were opinion, “not a
factual accusation of criminal conduct”). Consequently, “New York courts have consistently
protected statements made in online forums as statements of opinion rather than fact.” Bellavia
Blatt & Crossett, P.C. v. Kel & Partners LLC, 151 F. Supp. 3d 287, 295 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
(collecting cases).
9981
Page 5
Since your alleged disassociation from NSM, a debate has been raging online over
whether your supposedly-reformed views are, or are not, genuine. Journalists, researchers, and
others have written articles and posted statements disputing your claim to have ceded control of
NSM, and questioning the motives surrounding your purported change of heart.2
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet describing your claimed conversion as “garbage” must be

understood within that context, and it is “no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet,”
Greenbelt, 398 U.S. at 14 (1970), delivered in the course of that heated public debate. It is
“construable only as an ‘expression[] of disagreement’ or ‘expression of contempt toward [an]
adversary.’” Edwards v. Schwartz, 378 F. Supp. 3d 468, 528 (W.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Schnare
v. Ziessow, 104 F. App’x 847, 852-53 (4th Cir. 2004)). Because “[t]he average listener would
certainly understand [the tweet] to be rhetorical hyperbole expressing [Ms. Spitalnick’s] opinion
of [your] character, the [tweet is] not actionable.” Zysk v. Fid. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 14 A.D.3d
609, 610 (2d Dep’t 2005).
B. Ms. Spitalnick’s Tweet Is Protected by the Fair Reporting Privilege
Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is also protected by Section 74 of the New York Civil Rights Law.
Like the IFA tweets, Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet is a fair report of what was said in a publicly-filed
brief. The brief—which is pictured in Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet—states that you “have continued to
participate in NSM’s activities, even as [you] claim[] to have left the white-supremacist
movement.” Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet repeats that allegation, albeit with slightly different wording.
The wording, however, is immaterial: “A fair and true report admits of some liberality; the
exact words of every proceeding need not be given if the substance be substantially stated.”
Holy Spirit Ass’n for Unification of World Christianity v. N.Y. Times Co., 49 N.Y.2d 63, 67
(1979). The substance of Ms. Spitalnick’s tweet comes directly from the publicly-filed brief she
references. Her tweet is therefore protected under Section 74.
You Have Not Been Damaged
Finally, your purported defamation claim suffers from another fatal flaw: the absence of
provable damages. No defamation claim lies where there are no special damages—i.e., “the loss
of something having economic or pecuniary value.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 434-
35 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Your letters include only conclusory statements
that you have been harmed; these are insufficient to support a defamation claim. See Demirovic
v. Ortega, No. 15 Civ. 327, 2016 WL 11472745, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016) (“Mere
conclusory statements that the claimant was disparaged by false statements are insufficient to
state a defamation claim.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).3
2
See, e.g., https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/09/11/jeff-schoep-sheds-neo-nazi-past-stays-loyal-
lawyers-maneuvers; https://twitter.com/nickmartin/status/1166035475804483585;
https://twitter.com/KELLYWEILL/status/1159113313659363329.
3
Nor can you allege defamation per se. The tweets (which, again, are not defamatory) do not fall into any of
the recognized categories of statements that constitute defamation per se. They do not charge you with a serious
crime, injure you in your trade, business or profession, claim you have a loathsome disease, or impute unchastity to
a woman. Liberman, 80 N.Y.2d at 435. You therefore have no defamation claim.
9982
Page 6
Conclusion
Please do not communicate with Ms. Spitalnick or IFA again. Any further
communications on this subject should be directed to this firm. Your letter to Ms. Spitalnick,
which includes an address that the internet suggests was once associated with her, is nothing
more than a thinly-veiled threat, and you should be advised that it has been reported to law
enforcement. You are trying to frighten Ms. Spitalnick by showing her you think you know
where she lives—but your tactics will not work. Neither Ms. Spitalnick nor IFA will be silenced.
They will continue to work to hold you and your fellow extremists responsible for what you have
done.
On behalf of both IFA and Ms. Spitalnick, we reserve all rights.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Andrew G. Celli, Jr.

Samuel Shapiro
2
For Immediate Release:

October 12, 2017
Contact:
646-518-8190
press@integrityfirstforamerica.org
Integrity First for America (IFA) Funds Major Lawsuit Against Hate Groups
Involved In Charlottesville
New York, NY (Oct. 12, 2017)—A lawsuit filed in federal court in Charlottesville
states that neo-Nazis and white supremacists terrorized and harmed residents of
Charlottesville, Virginia during the violent marches of August 11-12, 2017, violating
the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and various other
statutes.
The suit was filed by residents of Charlottesville, including a Christian minister,

University of Virginia students, and others who were injured as a result of events
planned and executed by neo-Nazis and white supremacists during the weekend of
August 11-12. Two of the plaintiffs had their legs broken when the car driven by
defendant James Alex Fields crashed into civilians.
Defendants include over twenty-five prominent white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and

hate groups that planned and executed the events of August 11-12. Among the
individual defendants are Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, Christopher Cantwell, and
James Alex Fields Jr., who was charged with the murder of 32-year-old Heather
Heyer. The League of the South and the Traditionalist Worker Party are two of the
hate groups named as defendants.
Plaintiffs are represented by nationally-renowned attorneys Robbie Kaplan and Karen

Dunn. Kaplan is best known for defeating the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
before the U.S. Supreme Court with her client Edith Windsor. She is the founding
partner of Kaplan & Company, LLP. Dunn is an experienced trial attorney who
served as a federal prosecutor in Virginia. She is a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP. This is the first time that Kaplan and Dunn have worked together.
According to the complaint, the defendants “conspired to plan, promote, and carry out
the violent events in Charlottesville....[T]hey have joined together for the purpose of
inciting violence and instilling fear.” The suit states, “the violence in Charlottesville
was no accident.”
The case is a project of Integrity First for America (IFA), a new nonprofit
organization dedicated to defending democratic norms and ensuring equal rights for
every American. The case was filed Thursday morning in the United States District
Court, Western District of Virginia.
IFA Board Chair Monica Graham said, “We cannot in this country normalize the acts
of racists and Nazis. Dr. Nathan Rutsein said, ‘Prejudice is an emotional commitment
to ignorance.’ Americans are better than that.”
3
“IFA is proud to be working with Robbie Kaplan and Karen Dunn to bring this
historic case on behalf of the people of Charlottesville,” said Executive Director
Ambia Harper. “IFA was founded to protect our democracy through public awareness
and litigation. This is our first lawsuit. In the months ahead, we will continue to use
the laws on the books to strengthen longstanding principles of our democracy.”
“Hate groups are a growing and real threat to our democracy,” said IFA
Communications Director Brett Edkins. “This isn’t about politics. This isn’t about left
and right. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are traitors to our most basic values.
What they did in Charlottesville was domestic terrorism, plain and simple.”
For more information about IFA, visit www.integrityfirstforamerica.org.
###
For any press inquiries, please contact Brett Edkins at

press@integrityfirstforamerica.org or (646) 518-8190.
https://www.integrityfirstforamerica.org/newsroom/ifa-funds-major-lawsuit-against-hate-
groups-involved-charlottesville
4
5
6
EXHIBIT 9
Jeﬀ Schoep | C‐SPAN.org https://www.c‐span.org/person/?123343
CHECK
Find C-SPAN
1 of 2 4/1/2020, 7:44 PM

Brief in Opposition - ECF 694 - &amp; Exhibits

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Brief in Opposition - ECF 694 - &amp; Exhibits

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 3:17-cv-00072-NKM-JCH Document 694 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 16 Pageid#: 9909

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ELIZABETH SINES, SETH WISPELWEY,

JASON KESSLER, RICHARD SPENCER,

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...…………………………………….………………1

Malin v. Hospira, Inc.

Malin v. Hospira, Inc.

Henson v. Turn, Inc.,

Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.,

In re Ford Motor Co.,

Hardy v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.,

Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC,

Estate of O'Hare v. Pulchalski,

In re Ford Motor Co.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) .…………………………………………………………7, 8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) ….…………………………………………………………...8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) ……..……………………………………………………….…..8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) …………………………………………………………...8

28 U.S. Code § 1927 ………………………………………………………………….5

Model R. of Prof’l Conduct Rule 3.3 ...………………………………………………4

context. In their motion, Plaintiffs’ assumptions and opinions are presented as

relief sought is unwarranted and unnecessary.

Plaintiffs’ overly broad and endless discovery requests.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

professional responsibility to disclose to the defendant that he had declined to give

This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts. According to the Vendor, only 3,044 of

documents imaged by the vendor to the Plaintiffs. In a response to defense counsel on

Mr. Bloch wrote:

We typically send and receive documents from the defendants in an

(August 21, 2019 Email Correspondence from Mr.Bloch to Mr. ReBrook,

automatically be produced to Plaintiffs’ counsel by the Vendor after being reviewed

and coded in the Vendor workspace. Vendor released responsive documents to

Plaintiffs’ counsel eight days later.

vast majority of Mr. Schoep’s discovery was indeed non-responsive. However, in an

simply cannot produce that which does not exist.

non-responsive documents” they became aware that he (Defendant Schoep) was

“simultaneously sitting on a trove of other responsive and discoverable material”

does he state that Defendant Schoep personally is in possession of such responsive

Plaintiffs blatantly misrepresent deposition testimony by omitting the entire context of

Throughout Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery opinions and assumptions

repeatedly “rely on speculation and a misrepresentation of deposition testimony.”

Inc., 762 F.3d 552, 564 (7th Cir. 2014).3

Colucci’s deposition consists primarily of him giving uncertain answers or stating

by only presenting "cherry-picked isolated phrases" of Colucci's testimony in an effort

This is yet another example of Plaintiffs' desire to use discovery as an opportunity

for gamesmanship rather than obtaining relevant and discoverable information to

this litigation is to put a financial burden on the defendants:

bully would push around a weaker child in a schoolyard. (See Exhibit 8)

Plaintiffs should be precluded from engaging in this harassing form of discovery,

"commander" of the National Socialist Movement ("NSM"). In March of 2019, Mr.

Schoep spoke at iCare4all’s International Symposium on Radicalization and

that Mr. Schoep was not part of any alleged conspiracy.

Plaintiffs have propounded extensive, intrusive, and harassing discovery requests

overbroad discovery is massive. Be that as it may, Defendant Schoep has agreed to

relevant or discoverable evidence pertaining to this litigation.

to Defendant Schoep’s collected ESI regardless of relevance, privilege or

immediately to Plaintiffs, without opportunity for Schoep’s review or review by his

Henson v. Turn, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01497-JSW (LB), 2018 WL 5281629, at *5

ordered to produce immediately to the Plaintiffs, without opportunity for Mr.

not entitle a plaintiff to unfettered access to a defendant's personal, financial,

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), Code of Civil Procedure § 2018.010, et

seq.” Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC, Member Case: 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM, at

*6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019).

Brief in Opposition - ECF 694 - & Exhibits

Brief in Opposition - ECF 694 - & Exhibits

28 U.S. Code § 1927 ………………………………………………………………….5