Pages 1 - 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before The Honorable William H. Alsup, Judge

TY CLEVENGER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
VS. ) NO. CV 17-02798-WHA
)
GREGORY P. DRESSER, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
)

San Francisco, California

Thursday, June 1, 2017

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff:
TY CLEVENGER
P.O. Box 20753
Brooklyn, NY 11202
BY: TY CLEVENGER, IN PRO SE

For Defendants:
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
BY: SUZANNE C. GRANDT, ESQUIRE

Reported By: Pamela A. Batalo, CSR No. 3593, RMR, FCRR

Official Reporter
 2

1 Thursday - June 1, 2017 8:16 a.m.

2 P R O C E E D I N G S

3 ---000---

4 THE CLERK: Calling CV 17-2798, Clevenger vs. Dresser,

5 et al.

6 Counsel please state your appearances.

7 MR. CLEVENGER: My name is Ty Clevenger. I am the

8 plaintiff pro se.

9 THE COURT: All right.

10 MS. GRANDT: Suzanne Grandt on behalf of the State Bar

11 of California, Gregory Dresser, Kimberly Kasreliovich, and

12 Staci Johns.

13 THE COURT: Your name?

14 MS. GRANDT: Suzanne Grandt.

15 THE COURT: Grandt?

16 MS. GRANDT: Grandt.

17 THE COURT: So help me out here. Give me the status

18 of the notice and proper service and all of that.

19 Let's start with your side, Ms. Grandt.

20 MS. GRANDT: Your Honor, I think, you know, we are

21 willing at this point to put aside the service issue. I was

22 just alerting the Court to the fact that plaintiff had not

23 complied in fact with the Court's order.

24 But as he points out, we did, you know, enter a Notice of

25 Appearance, and I'm ready to argue the merits of the

 3

1 preliminary injunction.

2 THE COURT: Let's hear the preliminary injunction

3 motion.

4 MR. CLEVENGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 I think it's pretty clear from the record already that

6 there is a First Amendment issue of some type.

7 I am a blogger. I'm an inactive member of the California

8 bar. I wrote a blog post about a California bar prosecutor who

9 withheld exculpatory evidence. I actually wrote several blog

10 posts about it.

11 I filed a grievance against that California bar

12 prosecutor. And in some cases, I emailed cases of that blog

13 post to all the officers and directors of the state bar, as

14 well as the chief trial counsel for the state bar.

15 The things that the state bar is alleging against me have

16 been known about since 2013. And I should say globally there

17 have been a lot of misrepresentations factually about what has

18 happened without any citations to the record.

19 And I had asked the California bar to wait and get with

20 the other bars and get your facts straight before you come in

21 slinging these arrows, and they have not done that. So

22 consequently, I have listed them --

23 THE COURT: What has the state bar done to you?

24 MR. CLEVENGER: Well, they've informed me they are

25 getting ready to proceed with disciplinary charges against me.

 4

1 THE COURT: Well, so what? You can defend yourself.

2 MR. CLEVENGER: That is correct, Your Honor. But

3 there is a strong exception to the case law for retaliatory

4 prosecution. It's First Amendment retaliation. If I can show

5 that the reason for these charges is based on my First

6 Amendment activities, then I have grounds for an injunction to

7 prevent that.

8 THE COURT: But what if they have grounds to -- what

9 are you trying to do to him? Disbar him?

10 MS. GRANDT: Your Honor, right now the state bar

11 prosecution has recommended disbarment based on his

12 disciplinary actions in Texas, as well as the federal bar

13 District of Columbia --

14 THE COURT: Educate me a minute about what real facts,

15 meaning not just your speculation, but what has Texas and

16 what -- what has happened elsewhere?

17 MS. GRANDT: Sure.

18 In Texas, plaintiff was reprimanded, and then in D.C., he

19 entered a settlement agreement to resign from the bar of the

20 District of Columbia, be suspended for 120 days prior to the

21 resignment --

22 THE COURT: That was done -- why did they do that?

23 MS. GRANDT: They did that based on many years of

24 filing frivolous motions, litigation, sanctions by various

25 federal court judges. It's summarized very nicely in many of

 5

1 the exhibits that plaintiff has attached.

2 And the D.C. settlement order is public. It details the

3 factual allegations underlying his discipline.

4 Frankly, what happened was D.C. had entered the settlement

5 agreement in November. The state bar was notified of that in

6 December by the plaintiff, and they continued the case. They

7 had stopped the case from 2013 pending the outcome of the other

8 two disciplinary proceedings, and now that the D.C. order is

9 out, the state bar has duly and appropriately continued their

10 investigation and filed a Notice of Intent to bring

11 disciplinary charges against plaintiff --

12 THE COURT: You mean the State Bar of California.

13 MS. GRANDT: The State Bar of California, yes.

14 Right now they simply notified plaintiff that they

15 intended to file charges, and he has now filed this lawsuit.

16 THE COURT: But if they do -- if he is prosecuted by

17 the state bar, is he still allowed to continue practicing in

18 court and so forth until the end of that?

19 MS. GRANDT: Yes, correct -- well, he's inactive right

20 now in California, but nothing happens until there is a final

21 order by the Supreme Court of California.

22 THE COURT: He is inactive now?

23 MS. GRANDT: He is inactive right now.

24 THE COURT: Well, why can't you just go ahead and

25 litigate to the end and find out if you win or lose, and maybe
 6

1 you'll win on the merits, and this will all be moot?

2 MR. CLEVENGER: Your Honor, because as the cases I've

3 cited indicate, the prosecution itself is an irreparable harm

4 if you are being prosecuted for First Amendment activities.

5 And if I may, Your Honor, there is a serious factual

6 misrepresentation that has just been made again.

7 THE COURT: What is that?

8 MR. CLEVENGER: She said this began in 2013 and then

9 they stopped while the D.C. -- Texas and D.C. cases were

10 proceeding. That is absolutely not true.

11 What happened was in 2013, I did ask them to wait until

12 the Texas proceedings were finished. Everything that

13 happened -- and this is another misrepresentation. Everything

14 that happened in the Texas proceedings and the D.C. proceedings

15 were the same. They covered the same factual incidents.

16 THE COURT: What was it? What did you allegedly do

17 wrong down there?

18 MR. CLEVENGER: I was accused of filing frivolous

19 cases in Texas and in D.C.

20 The Texas bar dropped all claims that I filed frivolous

21 cases. The only thing that I was reprimanded for was because I

22 filed a case in Houston that was closely related to a case that

23 I had filed in Waco, Texas while the Waco, Texas case was

24 pending. That's the only thing --

25 THE COURT: Well, that's a big no-no, don't you think?

 7

1 MR. CLEVENGER: I do, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Lawyers don't do stuff like that.

3 MR. CLEVENGER: I could offer the background

4 explanation, but that's not -- the point I think, Your Honor,

5 is that, yes, I was reprimanded. And in 2014, I sent the

6 California bar the final order from the Texas case, and they

7 did nothing.

8 At that point, the D.C. case was not even pending. So

9 this idea that we were waiting for both cases, absolutely

10 untrue.

11 THE COURT: Well, so what? So what? Maybe they

12 should have -- maybe the State Bar of California should have

13 moved sooner, but in the meantime, you've gotten the benefit of

14 their inaction. Why have you been prejudiced from their delay?

15 MR. CLEVENGER: This goes to the retaliatory motive,

16 Your Honor.

17 The point I'm making is that in 2014, they didn't want to

18 do anything about this. They waited until I started blogging

19 about Cydney Batchelor, the bar prosecutor, and then they

20 resurrected all this stuff, opened new cases.

21 This was not a continuation of the earlier case. They

22 opened new cases after I had been blogging about Cydney

23 Batchelor and then resurrected all the old stuff that they had

24 known about for four years or three and a half.

25 THE COURT: What do you say to that?

 8

1 MS. GRANDT: Your Honor, there is absolutely no --

2 there is no allegations or any factual allegations to

3 demonstrate at all that the state bar acted with any sort of

4 retaliatory animus. In fact, the evidence -- the

5 allegations --

6 THE COURT: I just heard it. What do you mean there

7 is no allegation? I just heard --

8 MS. GRANDT: All right. Well, essentially the

9 allegations actually demonstrate that the state bar acted

10 expediently after learning about the D.C. court's order to

11 effectively bring disciplinary charges based on that order.

12 They are bringing essentially what is reciprocal discipline

13 here.

14 They were notified of various acts of misconduct in the

15 D.C. order of three different violations --

16 THE COURT: Do you have any notes in your file or

17 something that would indicate if I allow discovery that in fact

18 this has been prompted by --

19 MS. GRANDT: No. There is nothing. It's actually

20 extremely clear from the years of egregious misconduct that

21 plaintiff has engaged in that the state bar is bringing

22 disciplinary charges. That is in the record, if you look at

23 the exhibits.

24 THE COURT: What do you think is the most egregious

25 thing that he has done that would warrant --

 9

1 MS. GRANDT: He has been sanctioned by three different

2 federal courts. His client, Mr. Robertson, had been charged

3 and then a jury found him liable for seven million dollars for

4 basically stealing money from an elderly man.

5 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Wait. Mr. --

6 MS. GRANDT: Mr. Robertson, who he represented. And

7 then he filed frivolous litigation in the bankruptcy court to

8 halt that money from being given to that man.

9 He was sanctioned -- he was actually enjoined in the

10 federal court of D.C. for actually filing anymore litigation

11 because of his continuous frivolous filings.

12 THE COURT: Wait. Let's pause on that one.

13 As we speak, is there an order in the --

14 MS. GRANDT: Yes.

15 THE COURT: -- D.C. court --

16 MR. CLEVENGER: No, there is not.

17 MS. GRANDT: June 25, 2012 Chief Justice Lamberth

18 ordered both Mr. Clevenger and his client from filing matters

19 in the bankruptcy court related to this D.C. matter in which

20 Mr. Robertson had been found to have defrauded an elderly man

21 out of seven million dollars.

22 He was sanctioned by a bankruptcy court, Judge Teel, for

23 $10,000 each for knowingly and in bad faith advancing frivolous

24 arguments in the bankruptcy case.

25 It's laid out very nicely --

 10

1 THE COURT: Where can I find that in all this --

2 MS. GRANDT: Sure. It is -- the D.C. court order -- I

3 believe it's Exhibit -- Exhibit 22.

4 THE COURT: I don't have any of that here.

5 MS. GRANDT: I can give it to you. I have a binder.

6 This is the D.C. -- November 30th, 2016, D.C. court order.

7 THE COURT: Just hand it up.

8 MS. GRANDT: Yes.

9 And that kind of summarizes his conduct, which is the

10 reason the State Bar brought disciplinary charges against him.

11 THE COURT: Let's see. "Ty Clevenger, Respondent.

12 Member of bar" -- November 30, 2016.

13 So at the very end, after reciting a bunch of bad acts by

14 Mr. Clevenger, it says, "Respondent, Ty Clevenger, be hereby

15 suspended from practicing law in the U.S. District Court for

16 120 days; hereby fined $5,000. Letter of resignation from the

17 bar of this Court takes effect" -- I don't understand.

18 So that means that you've resigned from the bar of that

19 court permanently or what?

20 MR. CLEVENGER: I did, Your Honor. And that was a

21 negotiated settlement, and I can depose the prosecutor, if

22 necessary, who will testify we negotiated that so it would not

23 be a resignation in lieu of disbarment.

24 I told him flat out after what I had witnessed in the D.C.

25 federal courts, I never wanted to practice there again, and I

 11

1 would gladly resign. And, frankly, I feel the same way about

2 California.

3 THE COURT: Well, that would make it a lot easier on

4 me. Why don't you just give up?

5 MR. CLEVENGER: Great point, Your Honor. They won't

6 let me. That's a great point.

7 I offered them the exact same in D.C. minus the $5,000

8 fine. I said I have been inactive in California for almost 10

9 years. Don't want to practice there. I will gladly take a

10 suspension and resign from the State Bar of California.

11 They said no, they want to drag me through the whole

12 disbarment process, Your Honor. And that is some of the best

13 evidence of retaliatory animus.

14 If they are truly interested in trying to protect the

15 California bar -- they're not going to get me kicked out of

16 Texas. All these things have already been covered in Texas,

17 and I got a reprimand. This is now the third time that I'm

18 being tried on the same allegations, and they did not bring --

19 I should --

20 THE COURT: But, you -- no, no, no. Look, this thing

21 is pretty definitive in D.C. They found you guilty of a lot of

22 bad things. So why doesn't California have the right to say,

23 "You did it there; reciprocal; we're going to move against

24 you"? That happens all the time, doesn't it?

25 MR. CLEVENGER: Yes. But it's not reciprocal. They

 12

1 want to take it a step further. And this goes -- one of the

2 points --

3 THE COURT: What further step are they trying to do?

4 MR. CLEVENGER: Pardon?

5 THE COURT: What do you mean a step further?

6 MR. CLEVENGER: They want to actually disbar me.

7 Rather than suspend me for 120 days and let me resign, like

8 D.C., they want to take it a step further.

9 THE COURT: But why don't they have the right to do

10 that?

11 MR. CLEVENGER: Because of the First Amendment

12 retaliation issue.

13 Your Honor, one of the cases I cited -- and I'm looking

14 for it right now -- indicates that I don't have to prove that

15 they couldn't convict me. I have to show that the reason

16 they're doing this is the grounds of First Amendment

17 retaliation.

18 THE COURT: Tell me again what it is that you did

19 under the First Amendment that they are retaliating against.

20 MR. CLEVENGER: I blogged about corruption in the

21 state bar. I distributed it to all the directors and officers,

22 and I filed a grievance against one of their prosecutors.

23 THE COURT: Do you practice out here?

24 MR. CLEVENGER: I don't.

25 THE COURT: Where do you practice?

 13

1 MR. CLEVENGER: I live -- mostly Texas.

2 THE COURT: Why are you even a member of --

3 inactive -- why are you even in California?

4 MR. CLEVENGER: I went to law school at Stanford, and

5 every year I write the $175 check. I wonder why I keep doing

6 it, and, frankly, I wish I hadn't this year.

7 THE COURT: If he just resigns from the state bar, is

8 that good enough for your purposes?

9 MS. GRANDT: Your Honor, that is something that he can

10 coordinate with our trial counsel's office, and that is

11 appropriate for the state bar to consider. It's not

12 appropriate for a federal court to interfere in state bar

13 disciplinary proceedings.

14 THE COURT: Why don't I let him take some discovery to

15 find out if this First Amendment thing is the real -- you over

16 there on the state bar side want me to just roll over and say

17 you win and take your word that there is no First Amendment

18 problem here, but I don't know that for sure.

19 MS. GRANDT: Because the plaintiff must allege facts

20 to demonstrate he engaged in a constitutional protected

21 activity, he was subject to adverse action that would chill an

22 ordinary person from engaging in that activity, and that there

23 was a substantial causal relationship between the protected

24 activity and the adverse action.

25 He has not alleged any facts to establish there was any

 14

1 relation between his blogging and the state bar action. He has

2 to allege that in the Complaint to make a prima facie case.

3 Here they found out about this action in D.C. in November

4 and then a few months later, they brought a Notice of

5 Discipline that lays out in detail all the allegations of

6 misconduct from Texas and D.C. I can give you the letter they

7 sent him and the letter they put forth for their preliminary

8 statement that details all the reasons they are bringing

9 discipline against him, and it's very clear -- they lay it out

10 quite nicely -- about why his misconduct --

11 THE COURT: Where is that laid out?

12 MS. GRANDT: This is the letter. I apologize. There

13 is a little bit of notes on it. This is the preliminary

14 statement that the state bar submitted to the judge.

15 THE COURT: Do I have this somewhere?

16 MS. GRANDT: This is an exhibit to

17 plaintiff's temporary restraining -- this is an exhibit to his

18 motion. It's Exhibit 32. It's on the record that plaintiff

19 filed.

20 This lays out the reasons he is bringing charges against

21 him.

22 THE COURT: So your point is that November is when the

23 D.C. court did its --

24 MS. GRANDT: Yes.

25 THE COURT: -- thing. And then you found out about it

 15

1 and began proceedings out here.

2 MS. GRANDT: Uh-huh.

3 THE COURT: And the blogs that he wrote have zero to

4 do with it?

5 MS. GRANDT: Correct. And he has to make some

6 allegation in the Complaint that there was some causal

7 connection, some but-for cause, and there is just not.

8 He just says he made a blog post in 2016, a year ago, and

9 for some reason, that caused them to bring disciplinary

10 charges, but when in fact there is voluminous evidence that he

11 attached to his motion that explains why he is being

12 disciplined. And the state bar has a reason --

13 THE COURT: Who made the decision to go after him at

14 the state bar? Greg Dresser?

15 MS. GRANDT: Greg Dresser is the interim chief trial

16 counsel.

17 THE COURT: I'm sorry?

18 MS. GRANDT: He is the interim chief trial counsel.

19 THE COURT: Is he the one who made the decision to go

20 after Mr. Clevenger?

21 MS. GRANDT: I'm not sure who made the decision. I

22 believe Greg -- he is a supervisor, so I assume he had final

23 say --

24 THE COURT: Who could he depose for two hours,

25 Mr. Clevenger, by deposition under oath?

 16

1 MS. GRANDT: Any of the named -- the named

2 plaintiffs -- but, Your Honor, the --

3 THE COURT: No. I want --

4 MS. GRANDT: Any of the named defendants. He could

5 depose Greg Dresser. He could depose the chief trial counsel's

6 office.

7 THE COURT: Wouldn't that be the easiest way to get to

8 the bottom of it?

9 MS. GRANDT: No, Your Honor, because he has to allege

10 facts in the Complaint to demonstrate a but-for causal

11 connection. In fact, he tried making the same exact argument

12 in D.C. in front of the D.C. courts that he was being

13 selectively prosecuted, and the Court rejected it.

14 That order is on PACER. I can give that to you. The

15 Court rejected it. He said he had not made colorable claim to

16 demonstrate any basis he was being selectively prosecuted or

17 retaliated against.

18 He tried to make the same argument in D.C. There is just

19 simply nothing in the Complaint to show that he is being at all

20 retaliated against except for his own statements that he

21 blogged. I think that is not enough under the case law.

22 MR. CLEVENGER: Your Honor, if I may, I'm sorry, but

23 things are just being made up on the fly here, just

24 fabricated --

25 THE COURT: You have zero proof that they -- that --

 17

1 you think you are such a great blogster I guess that they're

2 going to -- no. They're saying they do have a thing from the

3 D.C. Circuit that says you are thrown out of the practice of

4 law, and very shortly after that, they -- it makes sense to me

5 that they would have done exactly what they did in light of

6 what happened in D.C.

7 And so what is your proof that the First Amendment has got

8 a thing to do with this?

9 MR. CLEVENGER: Your Honor, if you believe what she

10 just said as testimony and discount everything I have said,

11 then I guess that's right.

12 THE COURT: Well, I'm discounting it because here is

13 actual proof from D.C. You have zero proof that something was

14 in their mind about the First Amendment.

15 MR. CLEVENGER: Your Honor, the time -- I can

16 establish this by circumstantial evidence.

17 Most of these cases -- First Amendment retaliation

18 typically is established by circumstantial evidence. I have

19 already laid out, contrary to what she said, that they knew

20 about all of this in 2013. They opened a case --

21 THE COURT: They could not know about D.C. until

22 November 30, 2016.

23 MR. CLEVENGER: They knew more about -- I actually

24 notified them earlier that that was pending so they did know

25 earlier.
 18

1 THE COURT: Pending is not final.

2 MR. CLEVENGER: I understand that, Your Honor. But

3 the point is the facts in D.C. are the same as the facts in

4 Texas. Texas reprimanded. Granted, D.C. took it a step

5 further.

6 I pointed this out on the record, the other courts where I

7 practice, such as the Southern District of Texas, have not

8 reciprocated the D.C. discipline. They said Texas only

9 reprimanded you and we're not going to do anything.

10 MS. GRANDT: Your Honor, if I may just add two quick

11 points.

12 One is that the exception for this injunction that is

13 retaliatory, animus, and First Amendment is extremely narrow.

14 It's extremely narrow. The Court in Younger discusses why

15 federal courts should not interfere with state proceedings.

16 Any argument he is making he can make in state bar court.

17 The state bar court has sufficient constitutional protections

18 that have been established by numerous cases in the Ninth

19 Circuit that will safeguard any rights, any arguments he

20 brings.

21 This is a typical state bar proceeding that needs to

22 proceed, and federal courts should just not be interfering in

23 it.

24 THE COURT: Can he subpoena witnesses at the state

25 bar?
 19

1 MS. GRANDT: Can he subpoena witnesses? Yes. He can

2 do that. He can bring all these arguments in state bar court.

3 There is no reason to be in federal court --

4 THE COURT: He could subpoena in the state bar court

5 all these people and find out if the blog post had anything to

6 do with it?

7 MS. GRANDT: Yes. And he can do that in state bar

8 court if he wants to. That is the proper venue to do it --

9 THE COURT: Why wouldn't your First Amendment rights

10 be protected in the state bar court?

11 MR. CLEVENGER: Frankly, I don't trust the state bar

12 court. I have cited case law saying I have the right to come

13 into federal court to protect my federal rights against

14 encroachment by retaliatory prosecution. I have cited numerous

15 cases in my motion, Your Honor.

16 MS. GRANDT: Those cases all represent extreme

17 circumstances when there was clear evidence such as a case he

18 cited where there was actual documents that it said, you know,

19 "we want to nail this guy," things like that.

20 Here there is actually evidence to the opposite to show

21 that the state bar was actually acting expediently and

22 appropriately after -- the basis for this discipline is the

23 final D.C. order. That is clear that they are acting solely

24 based on the final order of discipline in D.C.

25 MR. CLEVENGER: It's not clear.

 20

1 THE COURT: Wait. I want to make -- Ms. Grandt, I

2 want to make it very clear.

3 MS. GRANDT: Yes.

4 THE COURT: You're telling me that in the state bar

5 court, he will be allowed to subpoena Mr. Dresser and all the

6 other people that he wants to try to show that the whole thing

7 is cooked up in retaliation for the First Amendment blog posts?

8 MS. GRANDT: Correct. And there is case law that says

9 his a -- all his arguments are -- he can bring up in state bar

10 court.

11 THE COURT: Not just argument --

12 MS. GRANDT: No. He can subpoena, yes.

13 THE COURT: He can subpoena --

14 MS. GRANDT: Yes.

15 THE COURT: He can make those arguments, and some

16 judge is going to rule on it?

17 MS. GRANDT: Correct. They're an independent

18 judiciary from state bar court. And the California Supreme

19 Court has plenary authority over discipline in the State of

20 California, so any decisions made by the state bar court will

21 then be appealable to the California Supreme Court.

22 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clevenger, you get the

23 last word.

24 MR. CLEVENGER: I would argue it's not independent. I

25 have also pointed out how the state bar courts are funded by
 21

1 what they bring in in terms of fines.

2 But the bigger issue, Your Honor, there have been a series

3 of false representations this morning. The idea that I was

4 enjoined in D.C., that I was barred from filing documents.

5 Elsewhere she has -- first she said I abused the court system

6 for the last ten years. Now she has narrowed it down to eight

7 years. I defy her to find the eight years.

8 Your Honor, they are making things up on the fly. In

9 2013, they knew about this. Texas adjudicated it, dismissed

10 most of the stuff in D.C. when I showed that there were

11 improprieties in D.C. And gave me a reprimand. California

12 knew about that in 2014 and did absolutely nothing.

13 In 2016, D.C. decided to take a second bite at the apple,

14 which I guess is there prerogative. They dragged me into D.C.

15 Brought the same things up all over again. Went through the

16 dog-and-pony show. They did what they did. It is what it is.

17 The other courts are not reciprocating for a reason, and

18 that is because it was already adjudicated in Texas. The fact

19 that they didn't do anything --

20 THE COURT: By the way, the D.C. court is relying on a

21 lot of things that happened in D.C., not in Texas.

22 MR. CLEVENGER: But the D.C. stuff was also covered in

23 Texas, Your Honor. That's the point. It was covered in Texas.

24 And D.C. took a second bite at the apple. It's a dual

25 sovereign. I don't dispute that they could do that.

 22

1 My point, Your Honor -- and this goes to the First

2 Amendment retaliation. California has known about this for

3 years and did nothing until I started blogging about Cydney

4 Batchelor. That's the difference.

5 And they can try to say that -- you know, concoct all

6 these explanations, and they are truly making things up on the

7 fly, but those are the facts in the record.

8 They did nothing until I started blogging about Cydney

9 Batchelor.

10 THE COURT: All right. Here's the answer. I'm ruling

11 from the bench.

12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied. And the main

13 reason I'm denying it is because Ms. Grandt has represented to

14 me that plaintiff will be able to take all the discovery

15 necessary or that he wishes. He will have a fair opportunity

16 in the state bar court to subpoena appropriate people to show

17 that he's being retaliated against.

18 And if that turns out not to be true, you may come back

19 and see me and maybe we will give a preliminary injunction at

20 that point.

21 So motion denied. Thank you. Here are your documents

22 back.

23 (Proceedings adjourned at 8:40 a.m.)

24

25
1

3 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

4 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript

5 from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

7 DATE: Monday, June 5, 2017

9
_________________________________________
10 Pamela A. Batalo, CSR No. 3593, RMR, FCRR
U.S. Court Reporter
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25