UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 13-20610-CIV-ALTONAGA/Simonton

LARRY E. KLAYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J UDICIAL WATCH, INC.,

Defendant.
_____________________________/

DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE
WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant J udicial Watch, Inc. (J udicial Watch), through undersigned counsel, moves
this Court for an Order in Limine precluding Plaintiff Larry Klayman (Klayman) from
presenting comment, argument, testimony, or evidence of alleged monetary losses or, in the
alternative, precluding plaintiff from presenting comment, argument, testimony, or evidence of
alleged monetary losses of monetary losses beyond what has been produced in discovery.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Facts
Klayman asserts claims for Defamation, Defamation by Implication, Tortious
Interference with a Contract, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a result of an
alleged comment that he had been convicted of a crime of not paying a large amount of child
support. Klayman asserts that it was known that he intended to file a legal action in the State of
Florida challenging the placement of Barack Obama on the ballot for the 2012 primary and
presidential election. Amended Complaint [D.E. 5, 14].
Klayman specifically alleges at paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint:
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 1 of 7

PDFaid.Com
#1 Pdf Solutions
Plaintiff Klayman was engaged in a contractual agreement with citizen and voter
of Florida to engage in legal representation of Democrat and voter Michael Voeltz
in a challenge to Barack Hussein Obamas placement on the 2012 Florida
Presidential Preference Primary as well as a 2012 Florida General Election.

Klayman further alleges, Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the
contractual relationship between Plaintiff Klayman and his client by spreading per se defamatory
statements about him and attempting to ruin his reputation. Amended Complaint [D.E. 5, 14].
Despite these allegations, Klayman has failed to produce evidence of a contractual
relationship with Michael Voeltz. There was not a formal contract with any person or entity.
See Klayman Depo., p. 111, lines 13 through 25. The relevant portions of Klaymans deposition
are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In discovery, Klayman produced a copy of the email attached
hereto as Exhibit 2, dated February 8, 2012 from Mr. Klayman to George Miller. The email
outlines proposed legal services. According to Mr. Klayman, Mr. Miller is part of a group of
individuals who are funding my effort in my private capacity as a private lawyer to represent
Michael Voeltz in an eligibility lawsuit in Florida concerning President Obama. See Klayman
Depo., p. 8, lines 18 through 22. Mr. Miller lives in Ventura County, California. See Klayman
Depo., p. 9, line 1. During his deposition, Klayman also referenced Pamela Barnett as an
individual who was part of a group raising money for the lawsuit. See Klayman Depo., p. 8, lines
23 through 24. Ms. Barnett also resides in Southern California. See Klayman Depo., p. 9, lines
5 through 8. Klayman did, in fact, file suit in Florida on behalf of Michael Voeltz challenging
Obamas candidacy. See Klayman Depo., p. 84, lines 22 through 24.
J udicial Watch attempted to ascertain the amount of Klaymans alleged damages through
written discovery served on December 12, 2013 and answered by Klayman on J anuary 24, 2014.
Please see Exhibit 3. The following is the text of Interrogatory No. 5 and the response
1
:

1
The response is also discussed at pages 145 through 149 of Klaymans deposition.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 2 of 7

5. Please state each item of damage that you claim, whether as an affirmative
claim or as a setoff, and include in your answer: the count or defense to which the
item of damage relates; the category into which each item of damage falls, i.e.
general damages, special or consequential damages (such as lost profits), interest,
and any other relevant categories; the factual basis for each item of damages; and
an explanation of how you computed each item of damages, including any
mathematical formula used.
Response:

Plaintiff objects to the interrogatory insofar as it calls for information or
documents, the production of which would be unreasonably broad, burdensome,
and/or oppressive.

Subject to and without waiving the objections, any such relevant documents in the
possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff will be produced at a mutually
agreeable time and place for inspection and copying subject to a confidential
protective order.

Any such relevant answer to this interrogatory is more suited to a narrative
response at Plaintiffs deposition.

During his deposition, Klayman stated, Im only claiming in terms of monetary damages
what I lost with regard to the Voeltz case. See Klayman Depo., p. 119, lines 15 through 17.
Klayman stated that he was out several hundred thousand dollars. See Klayman Depo., p. 119,
lines 19 through 20. Klayman acknowledged that he produced limited documentation. Klayman
acknowledged that the only documents he produced were documents indicating that a bill in the
amount of $16,084.55 was unpaid. See Klayman Depo., p. 147, lines 17 through 24.
2

A copy of the allegedly unpaid bill was marked as Exhibit 27 for the purposes of
Klaymans deposition and a copy of the bill is attached hereto to as Exhibit 5. The BILLING
STATEMENT is issued in the name of Klayman Law Firm, with a Washington DC address.
The Klayman Law Firm is a d/b/a and not a legal entity. See Klayman Depo., p. 148, line 24
through p. 149 line 3. The statement indicates that it is FOR SERVICES RENDERED to

2
J udicial Watch also served a timely Request for Production of Documents seeking the same information. See
Exhibit 4.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 3 of 7

George Miller, Sam Sewell, ObamaBallontChallenge,com, Article II Super PAC and the
Constitution Action Fund . . .
This bill for $16,084.55 was allegedly not paid. Klayman stopped keeping time records
and stopped billing because he knew that he was not going to be paid. See Klayman Depo., p.
119, line 11 through p. 122, line 7. Without any supporting documentation whatsoever,
Klayman claims that he incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid legal fees. See
Klayman Depo., p. 119, line 11 through p. 122, line 7.
Klayman has not identified an expert who will testify regarding the alleged
reasonableness and necessity of his legal fees. The deadline for the identification of expert
witnesses was J anuary 3, 2014.
II. Law and Argument
During the discovery phase of this lawsuit, Klayman failed to produce documents
establishing his right to the allegedly unpaid legal fees. J udicial Watch submits that it would be
unfair and prejudicial to allow Klayman to bring the alleged unpaid legal fees to the attention of
the jury.
First and foremost, the vague and ambiguous claim for fees contravenes well-established
Florida law. [I]t is well settled that the testimony of an expert witness concerning a reasonable
attorneys fee is necessary to us support the establishment of the fee. Crittenden Orange
Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So.2d 351, 352-53 (Fla. 1987). ([E]xpert witness testimony is
necessary to prove the amount of attorneys fees to be awarded as damages. Snider v. Snider,
375 So.2d 591, 592 (Fla. 3
rd
DCA 1979)).
An award of attorneys fees requires competent and substantial evidence. (citation
omitted). Competent evidence includes invoices, records and other information detailing the
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 4 of 7

services performed as well as the testimony from the attorney in support of the fee. Brewer
Solovsky, 945 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4
th
DCA 2006). Florida courts have emphasized the
importance of keeping accurate and current records of work done and time spent on a case,
particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee. Florida Patients
Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985).
Klayman has not identified an expert to testify regarding the alleged unpaid legal fees and
expenses. See Declaration of Douglas J. Kress attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Without an expert
witness, Klayman cannot meet his evidentiary burden.
All that the plaintiff has produced regarding his damages is one bill in the amount of
$16,084.55 that was issued from a d/b/a to individuals other than the client. While the plaintiff
claims that his legal services were valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, he has presented
absolutely no corroborating evidence of those legal services. If such evidence exists, it should
have been timely presented to J udicial Watch, so that J udicial Watch could timely evaluate and
investigate the claim.
J udicial Watch believes it would be highly prejudicial and unfair to present comment,
argument, testimony, or evidence regarding these alleged attorneys fees. J udicial Watch asked
for information regarding damages in discovery. If competent evidence exists, J udicial Watch
was entitled to the production of the evidence through discovery. Plaintiff produced only limited
information indicating that Klayman: did not enter into a contract with Michael Voeltz as alleged
in the Amended Complaint; entered into, at most, a quasi-contract with individuals other than
Michael Voeltz; issued a bill, which was unpaid, to individuals other than Michael Voeltz; and
kept no time records of the alleged legal services.
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 5 of 7

Accordingly, J udicial Watch submits that Klayman should not be permitted to present
comment, argument, testimony, or evidence regarding his alleged monetary losses.
III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, J udicial Watch respectfully request that this Court enter an
order in limine precluding from presenting comment, argument, testimony, or evidence of
alleged monetary losses. Alternatively, J udicial Watch request that this Court enter an order in
limine precluding Klayman from presenting comment, argument, testimony, or evidence of
alleged monetary losses other than the previously produced bill in the amount of $16,084.55.



CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
Undersigned counsel certifies that he attempted to resolve this issue with Plaintiff prior to
filing this motion. Counsel for J udicial Watch spoke to Plaintiff by telephone and exchanged
email communication. Counsel for Defendant was unable to resolve this issue despite good faith
efforts.

Dated: April 7, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

SCHWED KAHLE & KRESS, P.A.
11410 North J og Road, Suite 100
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Telephone: (561) 694-0070
Facsimile: (561) 694-0057

/s/ Douglas J . Kress__________________________
Douglas J . Kress, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0061146
Email: dkress@schwedpa.com
Attorneys for Defendant Judicial Watch, Inc.


Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 6 of 7

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner
specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in
some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive
electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Douglas J . Kress_________________________
Douglas J . Kress, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0061146


SERVICE LIST

LARRY KLAYMAN, ESQ.
2520 Coral Way, Suite 2027
Miami, FL 33145
Telephone: (310) 595-0800
Email: leklayman@gmail.com

VIA CM/ECF
Case 1:13-cv-20610-CMA Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2014 Page 7 of 7