VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: CL20002178
vs. GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH Defendant
PLAINTIFF’S MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER AND PLEA IN BAR COMES NOW plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti and files this memo in response to defendant Grace Episcopal Church’s demurrer and plea in bar; the response is consolidated in the interest of judicial economy.
HISTORY This action arises from a related series of cases now before this court, including Bonetti v. Malm. In the latter case, which is, inter alia, an action for abuse of process, defendant Malm included in his pleadings an email previously unseen by plaintiff. That email, which falsely contends that plaintiff embezzled from a previous employer, is the subject of this case. Most notably, the email in question was squarely within the purview of discovery in previous litigation between the parties, which consisted of a request by Mr. Malm for a protection from abuse order against the instant plaintiff. Among defendant’s allegations was his claim that plaintiff had threatened him in various blog postings. Mr. Malm also expressly sought to include his employer, Grace Episcopal Church, in the protective order. During the litigation referenced above, Mr. Malm was asked to produce all emails and other correspondence between himself and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia that referenced plaintiff or his underlying claims in the matter. (Exhibit 1) The email in question was never produced, and in related litigation Mr. Malm continues to try to evade and object to plaintiff’s requests for an explanation as to the church’s failure to produce the email during discovery. Plaintiff first learned of the email, apparently obtained from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, when Mr. Malm included it in filings with this court in a separate case, in an apparent effort to impugn plaintiff’s veracity. Plaintiff immediately filed this action against Grace Episcopal Church, which is the organization that employed Mr.
1