CAUSE NO. C2013-1082B Montour RaTHBUN, IN Tue District Court PLAINTIFF v. 207™ JUDICIAL DisTRICT DAVID MISCAVIGE, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, ‘STEVEN GREGORY SLOAT, MONTY DRAKE, Dave LuBOW a/k/a DAVID J. LABOW, AND ED BRYAN, DEFENDANTS Comat County, TEXAS LD Lo Oh Le Lh Ls oh PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST CSI, CARTWRIGHT, MISCAVIGE; AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ABUSE SANCTIONS AGAINST CSI, MISCAVIGE, AND RTC TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff Monique Rathbun, and files this Motion for Contempt Against Defendant Church of Scientology International (“CSI”), Allan Cartwright (Legal Director of CSN), and Defendant Miscavige; and Motion for Sanctions against CSI, Miscavige, and Religious Technology Center (“RTC”). These Defendants have engaged in a pattern of intentional abuse of the discovery process, and CSI together with Cartwright and Miscavige have disobeyed and/or caused CSI to disobey a direct order from this Court. Plaintiff therefore seeks sanctions for discovery abuse against CSI, Miscavige, and RTC pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215.1, 215.2, and 215.3, and Plaintiff moves for CSI, RTC, Cartwright, and Miscavige to be held in contempt and appropriately sanctioned for refusing to comply with this Court’s January 14, 2014 Order. In support of this motion, Mrs. Rathbun shows the Court as follows:BACKGROUND FACTS 1. Captain David Miscavige and RTC have filed special appearances objecting to personal jurisdiction over them in Texas. In support of their motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, they filed sworn declarations from David Miscavige of RTC, Warren MeShane of RTC, and Allen Cartwright of CSI. They have made blanket denials that Miscavige and RTC have any meaningful connection to the facts of this specific case (specific jurisdiction) or to the State of Texas in general (general jurisdiction). Under Texas jurisdictional law, to succeed on their jurisdictional challenge, Miscavige and RTC must negate all bases of personal jurisdiction alleged by Mrs. Rathbun. 2. Mrs. Rathbun’s position is that Miscavige and RTC have directed and controlled extensive investigations and “dirty tricks” operations in Texas, including the multi-year harassment of the Rathbuns that is the basis of this lawsuit. She has filed numerous sworn declarations that provide detailed, circumstantial evidence that Captain Miscavige, from his position as the commanding officer of the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”), personally controls such operations. His loyal subordinates in the Sea Org run the various Scientology corporations. In particular, Sea Org members in CSI’s Office of Special Affairs OSA”) carry out ;, such as the Rathbuns. Miscavige’s directives against perceived enei 3. In response to the Defendants’ claim that there are no facts tying them to Texas, the Court granted leave for Mrs. Rathbun to conduct discovery to obtain direct evidence of the Defendants’ involvement in Texas. She has attempted through depositions and document requests to obtain direct evidence of the Defendants’ activities. She has been met with obstruction, evasion, spoliation of evidence, and outright perjury. The Defendants’ pattern of discovery abuse is intentional and merits sanctions to secure their compliance with the rules, Mes, Rathbun’s Motion for Contempt age 2punish their misbehavior, and deter other litigants from violating the rules. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215; and Chrysler Corp. v. Blackmon, 841 S.W.2d 844, 849 (Tex. 1992). 4. Additionally, on January 14, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Continuance and Discovery on Anti-SLAPP Issues (the “Order”), In the Order, CSI (and the other Anti-SLAPP Movants) were commanded to produce to Plaintiff four specific categories of information by January 27, 2014. CSI failed to comply with the Order by: (1) failing to produce all responsive information on time; (2) failing to seek leave of court for additional time to produce data; (3) failing to produce data in a format that was reasonably accessible to Plaintiff, (4) substantially altering, deleting, and destroying portions of video and audio data prior to production; and (5) making a frivolous, bad-faith confidentiality designation of “Attomeys’ Eyes Only” under the Confidentiality And Protective Order herein. The disobedience of CSI occurred in the presence of the Court and was evidenced by the video clips (exhibits 9 and 10) admitted into evidence at the February 3, 2014 hearing before this Court. As a result, Plaintiff contends that a show cause order is not necessary. To the extent the court determines a show cause order is necessary, Plaintiff asks that a show cause order be entered commanding CSI, RTC, Cartwright, and Miscavige to appear in person in Court and show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Because Cartwright and Miscavige participated in or encouraged the violation of this Court’s order, it is appropriate and necessary to find them in contempt as well. See Ex Parte Chamber, 898 8.W. 24 257 (Tex. 1995) ARGUMENTS AUTHORITIES Abuse of the Discovery Process & Violation of the Court’s Order S.A court holds inherent power to issue orders and control proceedings in a manner that preserves the integrity of the court and ensures justice. Tex. Gov't Code § 21.001(a) & (b). Mrs, Rathbun’s Motion for Contempt Page 3