Bonetti v. Malm: Perjuring priest Bob Malm tries to keep his discovery responses secret

V I R G I N I A: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI,

: : : : : : : : : :

Plaintiff, v.

ROBERT H. MALM, Defendant.

Case No. CL 2020-06480

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COME NOW the Defendant, ROBERT H. MALM, by counsel, moving for a Protective Order regarding Discovery given to the Plaintiff, ERIC J. BONETTI. Defendant requests that Discovery be had upon conditions of confidentiality, restricting the parties from publishing the Defendant’s information or documents on Plaintiff’s or any third party’s blog or online email platforms or forums, Aid blogs have been the root of this litigation since 2015.

This matter arises from a dispute that resulted in a two-year Protective Order against the current Plaintiff that expired in January of 2020. The Protective Order was issued in part to protect Defendant and his family from Plaintiff’s relentless and offensive blogging. The Plaintiff has brought numerous new claims against the Defendant and his family members, Grace Episcopal Church and its members to no avail. Now Plaintiff has initiated this current proceeding, but as the parties conduct Discovery Defendant requests that confidentiality protections be implemented to bar Plaintiff from using information he obtains to further harass the Defendant.

1. A Protective Order is reasonably necessary to protect the movant from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. V.S.C.R. 4:1(c).

2. The burden is on the Defendant to show “good cause” for the Protective Order and that it is necessary. Id. “Good cause” depends upon the circumstances of the individual case, and a finding of its existence lies largely in the discretion of the court. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.).

3. As stated above, the dispute between the parties is a tired one. The Plaintiff was already enjoined from his harassment of the Defendant for two years.

4. In the original Protective Order, which was much more comprehensive, Plaintiff’s online activities met the good cause burden.

5. Here, Plaintiff has continued his online activity and poses a serious risk to the Defendant if he is allowed to publish information obtained in Discovery on his and other forums.

For the reasons stated, Defendant moves for an Confidentiality Order limiting the use of the Discovery produced and referred to in the Discovery in accordance with desired Confidentiality, such that Plaintiff cannot publish the Defendant’s information received or referred to or included in Discovery without agreement or further order of the court..

MEMORANDUM OF LAW Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(c).

Respectfully Submitted, ROBERT H. MALM

By Counsel

_____________________________ Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire CYRON & MILLER LLP

100 N. Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3134 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 7, 2020 a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Protective Order was emailed, to: ERIC J. BONETTI Pro Se Plaintif 4129 Fountainside Lane #203 Fairfax, VA 22030 Eric.bonetti@me.com Plaintif

_____________________________ Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire CYRON & MILLER LLP 100 N. Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3134 Counsel for Defendant