­

John T_ Reed' opposition to Russ Whitney' second motion to postpone his testifying under oath UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., a Florida Corporation, and RUSS WHITNEY, an individual, vs. JOHN T. REED, an individual, Case No. 2:04-cv-00395-FTM-DNF (LAG) Defendant. DEFENDANT'S SECOND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO POSTPONE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DEPOSITIONS AND MEDIATION Defendant, John T. Reed, pro se files this DEFENDANT'S SECOND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO POSTPONE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT as follows: 1. On Monday, June 6, 2005, DEFENDANT JOHN T. REED (REED) received an email from Plaintiffs' counsel Christopher Sharp asking REED to agree to a continuance of at least a month of the evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 15, 2005. (Exhibit A) 2. This is the second time Plaintiffs have requested a continuance of the evidentiary hearing scheduled in response to their motion for an emergency preliminary injunction. 3. REED sent a responding email to Sharp (Exhibit A) that made the following points. 4. Rothstein Rosenfeldt is a 23-person law firm. That size has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that the absence of a particular lawyer does not affect the litigation the way it does in a one-person law firm. 5. Thus far, at least four Rothstein lawyers have claimed to be working on this case: Scott Rothstein, Christina Kitterman, Shawn Birken, and Christopher Sharp. In the last year or two, virtually all of Reed's contacts have been with Christina Kitterman. She has also signed virtually all legal filings in that time frame. Mr. Rothstein has had little to say during that time. 6. REED is a pro se. This is not the trial. It is merely a two-hour hearing on a motion for an emergency preliminary injunction. Since the complaint also seeks a permanent injunction and trial is October 4, 2005, the present motion would only have a four-month effect at most. The notion that only a team of four lawyers led by the managing partner of a 23-person firm is up to the task of opposing a pro se in such a low stakes hearing is not credible. 7. Mr. Rothstein's illness first became known on May 9, 2005 when it was used as a basis for requesting the continuance that rescheduled the May 13, 2005 evidentiary hearing to June 15, 2005. Given their knowledge of Mr. Rothstein's illness at that time, the Rothstein firm should have made contingency plans for handling the present June 15, 2005 hearing in the event of Mr. Rothstein's inability to attend. In other words, they had a month's notice to plan how to cover this two-hour hearing in the perhaps likely event of Mr. Rothstein's being indisposed. 8. In January, a hearing was scheduled in a Lee County case by Whitney Information Network, Inc. against REED on REED's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. Christina Kitterman got that hearing continued on the grounds that she had a death in her family. However, when the hearing was finally held in March, a previously unheard from lawyer named Shawn Birken was at the hearing, not Christina Kitterman. No explanation was ever given as to why Mr. Birken or Mr. Rothstein could not have handled the hearing as

originally scheduled in January. Plaintiffs' first reason for continuing the May 13, 2005 hearing was a schedule conflict with Shawn Birken, the most junior counsel working on the case and a counsel whose name REED had not ever heard before he was put forth as a reason for requesting a continuance. 9. Thus far, the Rothstein firm has cited a death, an illness, and a scheduling conflict as bases for continuances in their various suits against REED, despite having at least four lawyers assigned to the case. 10. Given the incidence of schedule conflicts in legal practice and the human incidence of family deaths, illnesses, and injuries, it may be that Plaintiffs claim four lawyers have been assigned to this case to produce an endless series of such reasons for continuing hearings, depositions, trials, and so forth. A 23-person law firm can and should operate in a fashion that enables the "show to go on" in spite of such events. 11. REED has no knowledge of the specifics of Rothstein's illness. However, REED notes that Plaintiffs have a distinct pattern of using abuse of process to harass, intimidate, and increase the legal costs of opponents, but Plaintiffs also have manifested in multiple lawsuits an extreme aversion to letting Plaintiff RUSS WHITNEY (WHITNEY) or WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. (WIN) testify under oath or provide any discovery. Upon information and belief, the hearing for which a continuance is now being sought for the second time would be the first time Plaintiff WHITNEY has testified under oath in this or any other recent litigation. Whatever the reason for the continuance, granting it would have the effect of letting WHITNEY escape, once again, giving testimony. Mr. Sharp's email to REED also requests a continuance of the scheduled deposition of WHITNEY and WIN. 12. This request also appears to be WHITNEY'S litigation pattern: as soon as the WHITNEY side has to provide discovery or testimony, the litigation comes to a screeching halt. This is what happened in the recent Matt Gagnon case (#03 CV 677-FTM-29-SPC), the ongoing Better Business Bureau [03-15947 CACE (09) Broward County] and Todd Dotson [0:2003cv62052 Altonag, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale] cases. When the Court stops granting continuances, Plaintiffs are likely do what they did in April in the Gagnon case: withdraw the suit. 13. Plaintiffs say they will pay REED's travel costs if this motion is granted. That is also what they said the last time they got a continuance. And it is what the Court ordered. But Plaintiffs never paid REED for the last continuance-caused travel expenses. MEMORANDUM OF LAW 14. As always, Plaintiffs claim "good cause" for this motion. But Plaintiffs have filed an extraordinary number of motions for enlargements and other delays in this litigation. These motions drain the Court's resources, harass REED, and increase his costs of litigation, and increase Plaintiffs' legal fees. In the last year or so, virtually every deadline imposed upon the Plaintiffs by the Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local Rules has been met with a motion from them for enlargement or continuance. 15. F.R.C.P. 1 says the Rules, ""¦shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." The cumulative effect of all the delays sought by plaintiffs is the exact opposite of the objective stated in Rule 1. The present emergency motion seeking still more delays should be denied for the reasons stated above. Wherefore Defendant moves this court to deny PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO POSTPONE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND DEPOSITIONS AND MEDIATION. Respectfully submitted, ___________ ___________________________ Date John T. Reed, Pro Se Defendant 342 Bryan Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Telephone: 925-820-6292 Fax: 925-820-1259 www.johntreed.com Exhibit A Email to Christopher Sharp in response to his email I have no knowledge of Mr. Rothstein' health. I wish him well in that regard. However, you are a 23-person law firm. Ms. Kitterman has been almost the only one working this case for the last year or more. Rothstein has been making only cameo appearances. In the Lee County case, Ms. Kitterman obtained a lengthy continuance because she could not attend the original January 24th hearing date due to a death in the family. Then, when the continued date in March arrived, she was not there anyway. Shawn Birken was. . So I see no connection between Mr. Rothstein' health and the current schedule. Furthermore, this is the same reason you sought the last continuance. Seems to me that your firm should have taken steps to handle this contingency when you had those indications in May that Mr. Rothstein' health might be a problem in June. . Statistically, I expect that a 23-person law firm could find an endless series of schedule conflicts and deaths and illnesses in the families of the firm' lawyers. Now you claim the lead counsel is ill. But your first request for a continuance in May was based on a schedule conflict of Shawn Birken, a lawyer who had never appeared previously in the case in the slightest way. . I also note that I am still a pro se. Your position that it takes now four lawyers, including the managing partner, to adequately oppose me in an evidentiary hearing pertaining to a preliminary injunction that would only have effect for the four months between now and trial in October makes little sense. . I oppose the motion. John T. Reed On 6/6/05 1:18 PM, "Christopher C. Sharp" wrote: Mr. Reed: I am contacting you to determine your position on an emergency motion to continue the June 15th hearing, which we are filing with the court tomorrow morning, along with our response to your recent emergency motion for protective order. We are seeking a continuance of not less than one month for the evidentiary hearing, based on a serious health matter involving Scott Rothstein. Since Mr. Rothstein is lead counsel for this matter, we are seeking a one month continuance so that he can deal with his current medical issues, or so that another attorney can get sufficiently up to speed on the file to take over as lead counsel. In order to minimize any inconvenience or expense to you, we have informed the court that we will reimburse you for any travel costs incurred as a result of the granting of our motion. Please let me know your position on the requested one month continuance once you have received this email, so that we can file the motion tomorrow morning. I am not prepared to discuss any other scheduling issues until the court rules on the motion for continuance. However, in our response to your motion for protective order, we will inform the court that we are no longer seeking deposition dates on June 8, 9 or 10, and we are prepared to postpone the mediation set for June 13th, until such time as Mr. Rothstein sufficiently recovers to participate in the case as lead counsel. I look forward to hearing from you. Christopher C. Sharp, Esq. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 300 Las Olas Place, Suite 860 300 S.E. 2nd Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 522-3456 Direct Line: (954) 315-7234 Fax: (954) 527-8663 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVELEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND DELETE THE MATERIAL FROM ANY COMPUTER. THANK YOU. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. and RUSS WHITNEY, an individual, Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:04-cv-00395-FTM-DNF (LAG) v. JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendant. _________________________________________/ DECLARATION OF SERVICE JOHN T. REED, under penalty of perjury hereby declares: On April 7, 2005, I served DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO SERVE THEIR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT by Federal Express on Christina Kitterman, 300 Las Olas Place, Suite 860, 300 S.E. Second Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 7, 2005. John T. Reed, pro se 342 Bryan Drive Alamo, CA 94507 925-820-6292, fax 925-820-1259 www.johntreed.com Copyright 2005 by John T. Reed John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, www.johntreed.com

Log in to comment
­