Does anyone else see the violation in the rules of civil proceedure in the second paragraph? Keith Henson Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 LAW OFHCES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN 10 Almaden Blvd., Ste. 535 San Jose, CA 95113-2332 (408) 292-760 Samuel D. Rosen PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 399 Park Avenue, Thirty-first floor New York, NY 100224697 (212) 318-6000 Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546 MOXON & KOBRIN 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 4874468 Eric M. Lieberman RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C. 740 Broadway, Fifth Floor New YkNY (212) 2o5r4~1111 10003 Attorneys lor Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CASE NO. C96-20271 RMW (EAI) a California non-profit corporation, PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER Plaintiff, PRESERVING CIPRIANO (DAY OF THE CHILD) DOCUMENTS AND vs. REQUEST TO STRIKE EXHIBITS TO HENSON'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60(b) MOTION H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, Date: N/A Defendant. Time: N/A Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") is at a loss to understand the Ex Parte Request for Order Preserving Cipriano (Day of the Child) Documents filed by defendant H. Keith Henson. From what RTC can piece together in this filing, it appears that a law firm in Los Angeles is holding papers allegedly owned by Mr. Cipriano of Los Angeles that were given to Graham Berry of Los Angeles, and there is some dispute about the papers pending before a state court in Los Angeles. RTC is not a party to that Los Angeles proceeding, has no interest in it, and can only wonder why Henson would address his motion to this Court, rather than the court in Los Angeles. Indeed, Henson's own papers reveal that the Court in Los Angeles is scheduled to hear the motion on May 3, 2000. RTC is also at a loss to understand why Henson has filed three inches of exhibits in reply to RTC's Opposition to Henson's Rule 60(b) Motion, including a new declaration by Graham Berry. RTC's Opposition to the 60(b) Motion was premised on legal arguments. No factual rebuttal was needed to respond to those arguments. It was therefore improper for Henson to file these multiple exhibits, including Exhibits AA to FF, filed on April 24, 2000, as well as his Exhibit GG filed on April 25, in reply. Furthermore, these exhibits, including the new declaration, are nothing more than an opportunity for Henson and Graham Berry to libel attorneys Kendrick Moxon and Samuel Rosen under the protection of the litigation privilege. RTC therefore includes here its request to strike Henson's reply exhibits (rather than burden the Court with yet another separate filing). RTC notes that, beyond the prior instances of this Court striking Henson's filings, the Ninth Circuit has granted three motions to strike filings of improper exhibits by Henson in his appeal herein. For the reasons set forth herein, RTC submits that the Court should deny Henson's Ex Parte Request and should strike the exhibits filed by Henson in support of the reply on his Rule 60(b) Motion. DATED: May 2, 2000 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN Thomas R. Hogan Attorney5 for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER