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 20002206
MALM’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER COMES NOW the Defendant, ROBERT H. MALM, by counsel, and files this, his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order regarding the Discovery Requests served upon the Plaintiff, ERIC J. BONETTI. In a prior motion for a Protective Order regarding discovery, Defendant MALM requested 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, and these blogs have been the root of this litigation since 2015. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that it violated his First Amendment Rights, and when the Protective Order was granted, BONETTI filed an Interlocutory Appeal and has also filed a Motion for Emergency Stay and Injunctive Relief. BONETTI now hypocritically files this motion for a Protective Order. Notwithstanding the hypocrisy, Defendant MALM does not oppose the Motion for a Protective Order in the form entered for the Defendant, provided that it is imposed upon
the Plaintiff with regard to his responses to discovery and that he is ordered to answer all the discovery fully and completely without exception.. Defendant MALM opposes the BONETTI motion for the following reasons: 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. However, Defendant MALM is entitled to full and complete answers and discovery r3eesponses. 1. In paragraph a of the BONETTI motion, BONETTI objects to discovery of information regarding his family and alleged blogging by family members including his mother. This information is relevant since BONETTI alleges that he does not know his family members, and accuses the Defendant of perjury for using the word “siblings” because he has no living siblings. However, please see Exhibit 1 attached which is the obituary of BONETTI’s mother. He is not mentioned in the Obituary and there are step brothers and sisters ( ie. Siblings) who are. Defendant is entitled to have this information presented and these issues investigated, since there is a question as to the actual author of the various blogs and the respective sites. 2. In paragraph b of BONETTI’S motion, Plaintiff objects to discovery requests related to his medical condition and for the production of medical records. However,
BONETTI alleges in his Amended Complaint, that Mr. Malm’s Actions Caused Plaintiff Profound Emotional Distress.( See the Amended Complaint, p.12, paragraph heading, and starting at Par.56. Accordingly, Mr. Bonetti has put his mental and physical condition in issue and has therefore waived medical privilege. (See VA Code § 8.01-399.) The remaining sections of the BONETTI motion: c, d and e, all have relevance as they address the allegations that Plaintiff has made in his Amended Complaint, and relate usage of different blogs. For example, who paid for some blogs under potential fictitious names. 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 Code § 8.01-399 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 ROBERT H. MALM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 3, 2021 a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Protective Order was emailed, to: ERIC J. BONETTI Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane #203 Fairfax, VA 22030 Eric.bonetti@me.com Plaintiff
_____________________________ Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire CYRON & MILLER LLP 100 N. Pitt Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3134 Counsel for Defendant
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ERIC J. BONETTI Plaintiff v. REVEREND ROBERT HILLER MALM Defendant.
} } } } } } } } }
Case No.: CL 20002206
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF COMES NOW PLAINTIFF Eric J. Bonetti in the above matter and files this reply brief. The are several issues with Defendant’s response. Among them, Defendant asks that Plaintiff answer all discovery fully. That is a disingenuous request, in that it conveniently overlooks Defendant’s dilatory and evasive discovery responses, including one in which he states that he cannot explain why he lied in an email to Bishop Shannon Johnston on the basis that he doesn’t have a copy of the email—despite that fact that defense counsel has a copy of the email.1 Nor did this court grant Plaintiff’s request to compel discovery on this and similar evasive responses, which Plaintiff respectfully avers was error on the part of this court. Moreover, as Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendant’s discovery request, Defendant may not assume that Plaintiff will mimic his conduct with similarly evasive responses.
Defendant also fails in his duty of candor to the court. Specifically, he tells the court that Plaintiff’s actions have been to no avail. Yet the Pennsylvania lawsuit is as yet undecided, and there can be little dispute that Defendant attempted to “pull a fast one” on the Pennsylvania courts when he attempted to subpoena Plaintiff’s mother without prior leave of court, as expressly required by Pennsylvania RCP
1 Plaintiff has forwarded a copy of the email to defense counsel with a request to provide it to his client, such that
Mr. Malm might meet his obligation to update his discovery responses. Several weeks have passed, and yet no response has been received.
1930.5. More importantly, there is now a criminal investigation pending into Mr. Malm’s perjury before the Massachusetts courts, in which he falsely told the courts that he did not commit perjury before this court. Yet it is indisputable that Malm lied and that the lie was material, for he claimed it as the basis for his assertion that Ms. Yahner’s blog actually was that of the Defendant. The fact that Mr. Malm now faces a criminal investigation into his perjury should be cause for all parties to examine carefully his conduct, both in the prior proceedings, and in those now before the court. Moreover, it sidesteps an important issue, which was that nothing in Ms. Yahner’s blog was threatening, Defendant’s lies to the contrary. Similarly, the Massachusetts litigation is just getting under way, and the courts appear very receptive to the notion that Mr. Malm committed perjury and should be held accountable. Thus, to claim that the proceedings are “to no avail” is a false and misleading statement of fact, actionable under Rule 3.3 as a failure of Mr. Cyron’s duty of candor to the tribunal. As to Defendant’s other claims, questions like the details of Ms. Yahner’s funeral arrangements are by definition vexatious and harassing, not to mention unprofessional. Nor are Ms. Yahner’s husband’s adult children, most of whom Plaintiff has never met, and whom became in-laws when Plaintiff was an adult, by any reasonable definition siblings. Similarly, even if arguendo Ms. Yahner’s blog was threatening — and no rational actor would conclude that it was — neither Plaintiff nor Ms. Yahner have done anything to waive their First Amendment rights, including to anonymity. In that regard, the case law is clear, which is that Defendant carries the burden of showing a need to invade that constitutional right. Bald assertions and conclusions statements by the Defendant, devoid of supporting evidence, are simply inadequate.
For these reasons, Plaintiff again asks that the Court compel discovery on the part of the defendant or grant an interlocutory appeal, that it issue a protective order as to Defendant’s vexatious and oppressive discovery requests, and that it grant all such other relief as it may be appropriate. Signed this 3rd day of September, 2021. Eric J. Bonetti Pro Se Plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 703-973-4984 Eric.bonetti@protonmail.com Certificate of Service Plaintiff certifies that he has served a copy of this motion on defense counsel this 3rd day of September per the following: Craig D. Roswell, Esquire (VSB No.: 33901) Matthew J. Youssef, Esquire (VSB No.: 85339) NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 783 –6357 (410) 783 –6452 cdroswell@nilesbarton.com mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Defendant, Grace Episcopal Church and Episcopal Diocese of Virginia Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire (VSB No. 12220) CYRON & MILLER LLP 100 N. Pitt St., Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-299-0600 703-299-0603 (fax) wcyron@cyronmiller.com Counsel for Defendant, Robert H. Malm