decrescenzo v scientology csi evidentiary objections to cartwright declaration reply (mar 2013)

7/30/2019 DeCrescenzo v Scientology CSI Evidentiary Objections to Cartwright Declaration Reply (Mar 2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decrescenzo-v-scientology-csi-evidentiary-objections-to-cartwright-declaration 1/17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

id .

KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGER LLP

Bert H . Deixler (70614)bdeixler@kbki rm . com

Nicholas F. Daum (236155)ndaum@kbkfirm. com

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725Los Angeles, California 90067

Facsimiled 310:5562705

RABINOWITZ , BOUDIN , STANDARD , MAR Q / f £013KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, LLP John A

. Cj&Eric M . Lieberman (pro hac vice) _ " "ÿClerk

45 Broadway, Suite 1700 y~"Wm ixdeputyNew York, NY 10006 A R0f INS0FTTelephon e : 212.254.1111Facsim ile : 212.674 .4614

Attorneys for Church of Scientology International

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAL IFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES , CENTRAL DISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL , a corporate entity,REL IGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ,

previously sued herein as Doe No. 1, aCalifornia Corporation, and DOES 2-20 , .

Defendants.

Case No . BC411018

Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. RonaldSohigian , Dept . 41

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL,S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF ,S EVIDENT IARY

OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARAT ION

OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ,S

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ,S MOTION

TO COM PEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING

SANCTIONS

Date : M arch 6,2013

Time : 1:30 p.m.Judge : Hon. Ronald SohigianDept.: 41

Action Filed: April 2 , 2009FSC: April 15, 2013Trial Date: April 22, 2013

128983.1

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARAT ION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TO

PLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28endall Brill

Klieger.LLP

100 Santa Monica Blvd .ite 1725

s Angeles, CA 90067

Introduction

Plaintiff has interpo sed multiple boilerplate objections to the declaration of Allan

Cartwright submitted in opposition to plaintiffs motion to compel, just as plaintiff did to the

simultaneously-filed declaration of Warren McShane. As with her objections to the declaration of

Mr . McShane, each of plaintiffs objections is m isplaced; sometimes stunning ly so , as many of the

relevant objections have no foundation whatsoever in the Evidence Code (for example, "vague

"

and "

assumes facts not in evidence"

are not proper objections to the testimony of a declarant in a

sworn declaration) . The Court should simply overrule these objections in their entirety .

Mr . Cartwright has been a clergymember of the Chu rch of Scientology since 1982, a

member of the Scientology religious organization known as the

"Sea Organization" and has had

prior responsibil ity for training ministers . Declaration of Allan Cartwright 2. He currently

serves as legal director for the Chu rch of Scientology International ("CSI"), and was personally

involved in collecting documents and in compiling the privilege log at issue in plaintiffs motion

to compel . Id . at 3 . Most of his declaration simply describes, based on his personal knowledge ,

the privilege log created by CSI that is at issue in plaintiff s motion to compel . In add ition , based

on Mr. Cartwright's experience as a clergyman and Scientology practitioner, and experience with

the Sea Organization, he has offered testimony concerning the auditing practices within the Sea

Organization that applied to the plaintiff .

Nonetheless, plaintiff objects to essentially every statement in Mr . Cartwright's declaration

on the basis that there is somehow a lack of "foundation" or "personal knowledge" for Mr.

Cartwright,s discussion of the privilege log. This assertion is simply without basis-the

foundation for Mr . Cartwright,s statements are explicitly set forth in the declaration , and include

his role as the legal director for CSI and his long-time se rvice as a Scientology clergyperson.

Cartwright Decl . ÿ2-3 . Mr. Cartwright has specifically testified to his personal knowledge of

these issues, and plaintiff offers no basis for believing that Mr. Cartwright lacks personal

knowledge of the relevant issues. Id . at 1-3, 5-8 . To the extent that Mr . Cartwright offers

opinion testimony about the Sea Organization or about the practice of Scientology more generally,

128983.1 1CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOG Y RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF 'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

0 23

24

O 25

4*

s 2«

iv 27

"r

* , l'

28endal l Bril l

KliegerLLP

100 Santa Monica Blvd .

ite 1725

s Angeles , CA 90067

such is either admissible lay opinion, or admissible expert opinion given Mr. Cartwright,

s

extensive knowledge of Scientology scripture and practice. E.C. § 801.

Plaintiffs remaining objections can and should be disposed of quickly, as they are largely

without basis in the Evidence Code . For example , plaintiff , as she did in her objections to Mr .

McShane,s declaration , raises many objections that simply have no basis whatsoever; for example,

objecting to the admissibility of declaration testimony as "vague,

"

or objecting to "hearsay" when

there is no out-of-court statement at issue.

Finally, as with the objections to the declaration of Warren McShane, there is a

constitu tional component to the issues raised by these objections. Federal and state constitutional

law establishes that a religious organization may establish the rules of its own religion, and that

the assertion by a religious organization of its own rules of faith and ecclesiastical rule is binding

upon a court. As the United States Supreme Court recently explained in Hosanna-Tabor

Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch . v . E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct . 694, 704 (2012), "whenever the

questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom , or law have been decided by the

highest of [the] church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must

accept such decisions as final, and as bind ing on them." (quoting Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679,

20 L .Ed. 666 (1872); Kedroff v . Saint Nicho las Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North

America , 344 U.S . 94 , 116 (1952) (religious organizations have the "power to decide for

themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith

and doctrine ."). To the extent that plaintiffs objections ask the Court to determine a matter of

internal religious doctrine (such as determining , for example, whether an asse rtion made by Mr .

Cartwright on behalf of the Church about a given Scientology doctrine is accurate, or is

"speculation"), sustaining the objections, and thus preventing the Church from establishing its

own final authority on matters of its own theology and religious practice, would itself violate the

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1, Sec tion 4 of the

California Constitution .

128983. 1 2

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPO NSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF"S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fd.

However, there is no need for the Court to consider those issues at all , as the objections

themselves are so obviously improper .

A detailed response to each of the evidentiary objections follows.

Objection Number 1:

"I have been a member of the clergy of several churches of Scientology since 1974. My

main post responsibility before 1982 was the training of Church ministers and overseeing staff and

parishioners'

study of the Scientology Scripture." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright , Paragraph 2,

Page 1, Lines 5-7).

Grounds for Objection 1:

Lack foundation and vague as to deponent's history with Scientology prior to 1974; vague

and ambiguous as to the use of the term "overseeing staff and parishioners

"

study of Scientology

Scripture.

Response to Objection 1;

The statement does not lack foundation-it relates, based on personal experience, the

declarant's extensive experience as a clergymember of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 702.

"Vague and ambiguous" is not a proper objection to the admission of a declarant,s statement into

evidence-it is, at best, an objection proper to the form of a question when soliciting oral

testimony. Moreover, there is nothing vague or ambiguous about the declarant's description of his

own prior experience and responsibilities.

To the extent that sustaining the objection would require the Court to determine a matter of

internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with , or otherwise improperly burden ,

the exercise of the Scientology religion , it is improper under the First Amendment to the United

States Consti tution and the California Constitution .

Objection Number 2 ;

"In 1982 I became a full time member of the clergy when I joined Scientology's religious

order called the Sea Organization. Since then I have worked in several different positions

128983.1 3

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EV IDENT IARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d.

regarding legal matters for churches of Scientology. In 2006,1 assumed the po sition of Legal

Director for CSI." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 3 , Page 1, Lines 8-11) .

Grounds for Objection 2 ;

Lacks foundation and vague and ambiguous regarding the "several different po sitions

regarding legal matters"

held by deponent . Lacks foundation and vague and ambiguous as to the

meaning of the term "

Legal Director for CSI".

Response to Objection 2 ;

The statement does not lack foundation-it relates, based , on personal experience, the

declarant,s extensive experience as a clergymember of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 702.

"Vague and ambiguous" is not a proper objection to the admission of a declarant,s statement into

evidence-it is, at best, an objection proper to the form of a question when soliciting oral

testimony. Moreover, there is nothing vague or ambiguous about the declarant,s description of his

own prior experience and responsibilities, or the title of his post .


internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with, or otherwise improperly burden,

the exercise of the Scientology religion, it is improper under the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution and the California Constitution .

Objection Number 3 :

"In her declaration dated February 7, 2013, Ms. DeCrescenzo claims that she was told (by

whom is not identified) and understoo d that '

anyone who was senior to [her] within CSI would be

permitted to review the contents of her auditing folder regardless of whether or not they were an

auditor . This assertion is not true and is contrary to Ms. DeCrescenzo 's prior testimony. In her

deposition , Ms. DeCrescenzo testified that she reported a particularly sensitive personal incident to

'

the auditor that was auditing me, Chris Swan son., (Mr . Kris Swanson is identified in CSI's

privilege log as "

KS" reflecting the correct spelling of his first name.)

Q. And then after you reported this to Chris Swanson what

128983.1 4

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF,S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



-

J

i' :)

hJ

0

i

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

endalj Brill Klieger LLP

100 Santa Monica Blvd.ite 1725

s Angeles. CA 90067

happened next?

A. Nothing .. . It was like an auditing session so it was considered confidential

priest/penitent privileged information .

A true and correct copy of this excerpt from her deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit A .

I attended Ms. DeCrescenzo's deposition and can personally attest that this transcript, which Ms .

DeCrescenzo has also sign ed and authenticated , is accurate." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright,

Paragraph 4 , Page 1, Lines 12-24)."

Grounds for Objection 3 :

Lacks foundation; misstates prior testimony; irrelevant.

Response to Ob jection 3 :

The statement does not lack foundation-it describes, based on the declarant's personal

experience as a clergymember of the Scientology religion and personal attendance at the plaintiffs

deposition, Scientology practice and deposition testimony given under oath at a deposition the

declarant attended. E.C. § 702. The reference is to an excerpt from the signed and authenticated

deposition transcript. The statement cannot conceivably "misstate prior testimony" as the prior

testimony at issue is simply an excerpt of statements from the deposition transcript of the plaintiff ,

a transcript the plaintiff herself has attested to as correct . Such testimony of an adverse party is

plainly adm iss ible. CCP § 2025.620(b). That the plaintiff has personally testified that auditing

sessions were considered "con fidential priest/penitent privileged information" is directly relevant

to her current contention that such commun ications were not privileged information.


internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with , or otherwise improperly burden,

the exercise of the Scientology religion, it is imp roper under the First Amendment to the United



"In addition , I can state, from my own personal experience - having been an executive in

Scientology churches for over 30 years, and having supervised dozens of staff as my juniors, that I

128983.1

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOG Y RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF,S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ,S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



endal l Bril l

Klieger LLP

100 Santa Mon ica Blvd .uite 1725

s Angeles, CA 90067

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

have never looked in the auditing files of any of them. In fact, it has never ever even occurred to

me to do so , as this is simply not something that any Scientologist - executive or not- would do."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 5, Page 1 , Lines 25-27, Page 2 , Lines 1-2) .

Grounds for Objection 4 ;

Lacks foundation; speculation.

Response to Ob jection 4 ;

The statement does not lack foundation-it relates, based on personal experience

specifically described in the statement, his personal knowledge as to the treatment of auditing files

w ithin as to the declarant's extensive experience as a clergymember of the Scientology religion.

E.C . § 702. To the extent it offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly admissible (based

upon the declarant's experience as a clergyperson within the Church of Scientology) as lay

opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800 . Alternately, the statement is

admissible as expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence given in his

declaration-is a clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion, and his testimony is both based

on his special knowledge, skill , experience, training , and education, and is likely to assist the trier

of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801.




States Consti tution and the California Constitution .

Objection Number 5 ;

"The documents that CSI has withheld rom production on the basis of the clergy- penitent

privilege are documents contained in the'

aud iting ' folder of Ms. DeCrescenzo. The bulk of these

documents are made up of records or notations from auditing sessions. When a document from the

auditing folder is referred to as '

con fidential communication in spiritual counseling session

between LD and her clergyman ...,' the document is precisely a record or notation of an auditing

session, and nothing else . These records or notes of auditing sessions are prepared , under

128983.1 6CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF,S EV IDENTIARY OBJECT IONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TOPLAINT IFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCT IONS



M

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28endall Bril l

Klieger. LLP100 Santa Mon ica Blvd .

ite 1725

s Angeles , CA 9006 7

Scientology doctrine, on standardized forms; and the preparation of such notes by the auditor is

itself a critical part of the aud iting process, as cod ified under Scientology Scripture." (Declaration

of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 6, Page 2 , Lines 3-10).


Lacks foundation as to personal knowledge ; secondary evidence and hearsay as to

"cod ified Scientology scripture.

"



declarant,s own personal knowledg e of the documents withheld from production and the relevant

auditing records. E.C. § 702. To the extent it offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly

admissible (based upon the declarant,

s experience as a clergyperson within the Church of

Scientology) as lay opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800 . Alternately,

the statement is admissible as expert testimony , as the declarant-based on his own evidence

given in his declaration-is a clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is

both based on his special knowledge, skill , experience , training , and education, and is likely to

assist the trier of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801.

The statement is not hearsay-it relates the declarant,s personal knowledge of the

Scientology religion and the relevant Scientology scripture . The "secondary evidence" rule does

not apply as the declarant is describing the practices of the Scientology religion itself, not

attempting to prove the content of a writing . Moreover , even if the second ary evidence rule

applied , the statement is admissible under E.C . § 1523(c)(2), as the relevant writing is not closely

related to the controlling issues , and under E .C . § 1523(d), as the statement is summarizing "the

general result of [Scientology doctrine as a] who le" and it would be inexpedient for the Court to

examine Scientology scripture in general .

To the extent that sustaining the objection would requ ire the Court to determine a matter of


128983.1

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENT IARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF 'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


States Consti tution and the Cali fornia Constitution .


"In addition to do cuments withheld that are simply records or notation s of communications

between Ms . DeCrescenzo and an auditor, CSI has also withheld documents that ref lect

communications between a Case Supervisor and auditor concerning Ms. DeCrescenzo'

s

communication in session and upcoming auditing sessions for Ms. DeCrescenzo. These records

are required under Church doctrine to be maintained as strictly con fidential within a parishioner'

s

aud iting fi le . Such documents specifically describe or refer to communications made in previous

auditing sessions by Ms. DeCrescenzo , and, as such, they also reflect con fidential aud iting

communications made by Ms . DeCrescenzo in the auditing process. These communications

between the auditor and the CIS regarding Ms. DeCrescenzo 's aud iting were clearly described in

CSI's privilege log." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 7, Page 2, Lines 11-20) .


Lacks foundation as to personal knowledge; secondary evidence and hearsay as to "Church

doctrine;" hearsay; misstates contents of privilege log .



declarant's own personal knowledge of the documents withheld from production and the relevant

aud iting records. E.C . § 702 . To the extent it offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly

admissible (based upon the declarant's experience as a clergyperson within the Church of

Scientology) as lay opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact. E.C . § 800 . Alternately,

the statement is admissible as expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence

given in his declaration-is a clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is

both based on his special knowledge, skill, experience, training , and education, and is likely to

ass ist the trier of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C . § 801.

128983.1 8

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ,S OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fd .

The statement is not hearsay-it relates the declarant's personal knowledge of the

Scientology religion and the relevant Scientology scripture. The "secondary evidence" rule does

not apply as the declarant is describing the practices of the Scientology religion itself , not

attempting to prove the content of a writing . Moreover, even if the secondary evidence rule

applied, the statement is admissible under E.C. § 1523(c)(2), as the relevant writing is not closely

related to the controlling issues, and under E.C. § 1523(d), as the statement is summarizing "the

general result of [Scientology doctrine as a] whole"

and it would be inexpedient for the Cou rt to

examine Scientology scripture in general . The statement does not inaccurately describe the

privilege log , and in any event that is not a proper evidentiary objection.


internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with, or otherwise improperly burden,


States Constitution and the Cali fornia Constitution .


"

Each penitential communication described in the privilege log was disclosed exclusively

to a sing le Scientology clergy person, who, under the discipline and practice of Scientology, was

authorized to hear such communications, and had an obligation under Scientology tenets to keep

them confidential . The aud iting file includes records of confidential communications Ms.

DeCrescenzo made to Scientology clergy persons with formal titles of Examiner and Director of

Processing concerning her spiritual progress, which also remain secret and are kept exclusively in

the aud iting file . As explained in the Declaration of Warren McShane, an Examiner is a trained

auditor who , as required by Scientology Scripture, meets with the parishioner in a private room

immediately following every auditing sess ion. The parishioner has the opportun ity to

communicate to the Examiner, in confidence, about his auditing session or anything else he wishes

to originate . The Examiner writes down the parishioner's communications, and this document then

goes into the auditing folder . The Director of Processing is also a trained auditor who , under the

direction of the Case Supervisor, mee ts with the parishioner for confidential communications

128983.1 9CHURCH OF SCIENT OLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF 'S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT,S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d .

regarding the parishioner'

s spiritual condition or progress. Interviews with the Director of

Processing are always conducted in a con fidential setting , and the notes of the parishioner's

communication are always placed into the auditing folder, and nowhere else as described in

Scientology Scripture." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 8 , Page 2, Lines 21-27, Page

3, Lines 1-10) .

Ground s for Objection 7:

Lacks foundation; lacks personal knowledge; m isstates contents of privilege log; assumes

facts not in evidence; specu lation.

Response to Objection 7:


declarant,s own personal knowledge of the documents withheld from production and the nature of

the relevant auditing records. E.C. § 702. The declarant is a Scientology clergyman who is

personally involved in the compiling and logging of such records. The statement is also not

speculative . To the extent it offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly adm issible (based

upon the declarant,

s experience as a clergyperson within the Church of Scientology) as lay

opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800. Alternately, the statement is

admissible as expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence given in his

declaration-is a clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is both based

on his special knowledge , skill, experience, training , and education , and is likely to assist the trier

of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801 .

"

Assumes facts not in evidence" is an objection to a form of a question designed to solicit

oral testimony, not an objection to the adm issibil ity of evidence . The statement does not

inaccurately describe the privilege log, and in any event that is not a proper evidentiary objection.


internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with, or otherwise improperly bu rden,


States Constitution and the California Consti tution .

128983.1 ]Q

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPP ORT OF DEFENDANT,S OPP OSITION TOPLAINTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

KS.


"Laura DeCrescenzo was a member of the Sea Org from 1991 through 2004, and the vast

majority of the auditing which she received was during tho se years when she was in the Sea Org

as a staff member of CSI . There were approximately 500 members of the Sea Org working along

with Ms. DeCrescenzo at our Los Angeles facility . A high percentage of these dedicated staff are

clergymen, and , based upon our review of the auditing file, at different times different clergymen

acted as auditors or Case Supervisors for Ms. DeCrescenzo. As reflected in the privilege log , there

are 42 files of her auditing , which took place over a thirteen-year period in both Los Angeles and

Albuqu erque, with Ms. DeCrescenzo sometimes receiving auditing on a daily basis. It is therefore

not unu sual that she had a large number of auditors and Case Supervisors during this time period."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 9 , Page 3 , Lines 11-20) .

Ground s for Objection 8 :

Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledge; speculation; assumes facts not in evidence ;

hearsay; irrelevant; improper argument .

Response to Objection 8 :


declarant,s own personal knowledg e of the Sea Organization, the Los Angeles facilities thereof,

and the relevant auditing records, which simply describe the auditing that took place over a

thirteen year period. E.C. § 702. To the extent it offers a description of Ms. DeCrescenzo's time

in the Sea Organization , such relation of fact is based upon the declarant,s knowledg e of the

relevant record (and is, in fact, uncontroverted and confirmed by the Complaint in the matter and

Ms. DeCrescenzo's prior testimony). The statement is not speculation. To the extent the

statement offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly admissible (based upon the

declarant,s experience as a clergyperson within the Church of Scientology) as lay opinion

testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800 . Alternately, the statement is admissible as

expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence given in his declaration-is a

clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is both based on his special

128983.1

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ,S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCT IONS



h)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28endall Brill

Klieger.LLP100 Santa Monica Blvd .ite 1725

s Angeles , CA 90067

knowledge, skill , experience, training , and education , and is likely to assist the trier of fact as to

the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801.

"Assumes facts not in evidence" is an objection to a form of a question design ed to solicit

oral testimony, not an objection to the admissibil ity of evidence . The statement is no t hearsay-it

relates the declarant,

s personal knowledge of the Scientology religion and the relevant Scientology

scripture, and there is no out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The

statement is not irrelevant, as it goes directly to the plaintiffs argument that there is something

improper in the number of clergymen who conducted audits of her, and it is not argumentative-it

simply relates the declarant's personal knowledge and opinion.






"

In almost all cases , Ms. DeCrescenzo's auditors and Case Supervisors have been

identified by name in the privilege log , and , as noted above, in all such cases the relevant auditors

or Case Supervisors were trained clergymen within Scientology doctrine . However, as all records

written by an auditor during or just after an auditing session are handwritten, it sometimes occurs

that the auditor does not clearly print his name (or om its to record it at all). In compiling CSI's

privilege log , when we encountered this situation, it was noted on the log that the auditor's name

was illegible. However, since the format for auditing reports is uniform throughout the

Scientology world (as requ ired by our Scripture), it is clear to any trained Scientologist what the

record of an auditing session looks like . Therefore, in putting together the privilege log , we were

able to determine which documents were aud iting records, even if we were unable to identify the

auditor ." (Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 10 , Page 3 , Lines 11-20, Page 4 , Lines 1-4).

128983.112

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO TH E

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



[»£

endall Brill

Klieÿgr LLP100 Santa Mon ica Blvd .

ite 1725

Angeles , CA 90067

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ground s for Obiection 9:

Lacks foundation; lack of personal knowledge ; speculation; misstates contents of privilege

log ; vague; hearsay; irrelevant .

Response to Ob iection 9 :


relevant auditing records and the manner in which the privilege log was created , along with the

basis for the claim of privilege , along with information known to the declarant as a Scientology

clergyman. E.C. § 702. To the extent the statement offers opinion testimony, such testimony is

plainly admissible (based upon the declarant's experience as a clergyperson within the Church of

Scientology) as lay opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800 . Alternately,

the statement is admissible as expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence

given in his declaration-is a clergyp erson exp ert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is

both based on his special knowledge, skill , experience, training, and education , and is likely to

assist the trier of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801.

The statement does not inaccurately describe the privilege log , and in any event that is not

a proper evidentiary objection. The statement is not hearsay-it relates the declarant,s personal

knowledge of the Scientology religion, the privilege log , and the relevant Scientology scripture,

and there is no out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted . The statement is

not irrelevant, as it goes directly to contentions about the privilege log . "Vagueness" is not a

proper evidentiary objection.


internal religious doctrine, or would improperly interfere with, or otherwise improperly bu rden,


States Constitution and the California Consti tution .

128983.113

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ,S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

<d .

Objection Number 10:

"

Based on the Court's most recent ruling on the plaintiffs motion to compel, CSI has not

withheld from production every document found within the Plaintiffs auditing file . Rather, when

a document was found within the plaintiffs auditing file that was not a record of a confidential

commun ication between plaintiff and a clergyman or a confidential communication between the

auditor and Case Supervisor that would disclose communications made in the course of plaintiffs

aud iting that do cument was produced."

(Declaration of Allan Cartwright, Paragraph 11, Page 4 ,

Lines 5-10).


Lacks foundation; hearsay; speculation; assumes facts no t in evidence; improper legal

conclusion; misstate contents of produced documents .



relevant auditing records and the manner in which the privilege log was created , along with the

documents that were withheld. E.C. § 702. There is nothing speculative about the statement . To

the extent the statement offers opinion testimony, such testimony is plainly admissible (based

upon the declarant,

s experience as a clergyperson within the Chu rch of Scientology) as lay

opinion testimony that is helpful to the trier of fact . E.C. § 800 . Alternately, the statement is

adm issible as expert testimony, as the declarant-based on his own evidence given in his

declaration-is a clergyperson expert in the Scientology religion , and his testimony is both based

on his special knowledge , skill, experience, training, and education , and is likely to assist the trier

of fact as to the structure of the Scientology religion. E.C. § 801.

"

Assumes facts not in evidence" is an objection to a form of a question designed to solicit

oral testimony, not an objection to the admissibility of evidence . The statement does not

inaccurately describe the produced documents , and in any event that is not a proper evidentiary

objection. The statement is not hearsay-it relates the declarant,

s personal knowledg e of the

document production and the privilege log , and there is no out of court statement offered for the

128983.1 ÿ4

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EV IDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF ,S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INATING SANCTIONS



fO

H-

en da ll Bril l

Klieger LLP

100 Santa Monica Blvd.

ite 1725

s Ang eles , CA 90067

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

truth of the matter asserted. The statement is not irrelevant, as it goes directly to contentions about

the privilege log. No legal conclusion whatsoever is stated.


internal religious do ctrine, or would improperly interfere with, or otherwise improperly burden,


States Constitution and the Cali fornia Constitution .

Dated: March 4, 2013 KENDALL BRILL & K&IEGER LLP

By :

N icholas F . Daum

Attorneys for Church of Scientology International

128983.1 15

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RESPONSE TO PLA INTIFF,S EVIDENT IARY OBJECTIONS TO THE

DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 'S OPPOSITION TOPLA INTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERM INAT ING SANCTIONS



r.-i(

P

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28Kendall Brill& Klie

.ger LLP

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA , COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - Laura Ann DeCrescenzo v.

Church of Scientology International, et al. - BC 411018

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 10100 SantaMonica Blvd., Suite 1725 , Los Angeles, California 90067 .

On March 4, 2013,1 served the original of the following document(s) described asCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL ,S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF ,S

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF ALLAN CARTWRIGHT

SUBM ITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ,S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ,S

MOTION TO COMPEL OR FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS the interested parties inthis action as follows:

Raphael Metzger, Esq.Kathryn Saldana, Esq.METZGER LAW GROUP

401 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste . 800Lone Beach , California 90802

BY PERSONAL SERVICE : I caused the docum ent(s) to be delivered by hand (via FirstLegal Services) to the offices of each interested party at the add ress indicated above or on theattached service list.; AND

Also on March 4, 2013,1 served true copies of the document described above on theinterested parties in this action as follows :

Robert E. Mangels, Esq.Matthew D . Hinks, Esq.JEFF

ER MAN

GEL

S BUTLE

R & M IT

CH

ELL

LLP

1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067

John P . Blumberg , Esq.Sindee M . Smolowitz , Esq.

BLUMBERG LAW CORPORATION44 4 W . Ocean Blvd., Suite 150 0

Long Beach, California 90802

BY MAIL : I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelopeparty at the address indicated above or on the attached service list . Ifor collection and mailing , following our ordinary business practicesKendall Brill & Klieger LLP,s practice for collecting and processingOn the same day that the correspond ence is placed for collection andordinary course of bu siness with the United States Postal Service, in

po stage fully prepaid.

addressed to each interested

placed each such envelopeI am readily familiar with

correspondence for mailing .mailing , it is deposited in the

a sealed envelope with

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that theforego ing is true and correct .

Executed on March 4, 2013 , at Los Angeles, California.

N ellv C . Preca

(Type or Print Name)

109745.1 1

decrescenzo v scientology csi evidentiary objections to cartwright declaration reply (mar 2013)

Documents