Andrew H. Wilson WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO 115 Sansome Street Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 391-3900 Thomas M. Small Janet Kobrin SMALL, LARKIN, & KIDDE 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90024-3945 (310) 209-4400 Helena K. Kobrin 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 (213) 960-1933 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. C95-20091 RMW California non-profit corporation; ) and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a ) PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO California non-profit corporation, ) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ) CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON Plaintiffs, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) vs ) ) NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION ) DATE: To be determined SERVICES, INC., a Delaware ) TIME: To be determined corporation; DENNIS ERLICH, an ) CTRM: Hon. Ronald M. individual; and TOM KLEMESRUD, an ) Whyte individual, dba CLEARWOOD DATA ) SERVICES, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________) On March 14, 1995, plaintiffs sent a letter to the Court expressing their disagreement with the request of counsel for defendant Dennis Erlich for a continuance of the hearing on the order to show cause re: contempt set by the court for March 17, 1995. Mr. Erlich's attorney has now filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court continue the hearing, in spite of the reasons expressed by plaintiffs for disagreeing with continuance. Plaintiffs oppose such a continuance for the following reasons, some of which are set forth in their earlier letter: 1. The declaration of Mr. Erlich's attorney, Carla Oakley, states that the partner on the case, Mr. Harold McElhinny, has a trial starting next on March 21, 1995, and has been unable to become involved in this case yet. His trial is four days after the hearing is set, and is not a conflict with the hearing. Mr. McElhinny's lack of involvement in this case to this date also demonstrates that he is not indispensable in the handling of the hearing. Morrison & Foerster has many attorneys, including Ms. Oakley, who can handle the hearing for Mr. Erlich. 2. Contrary to Ms. Oakley's representations, the issues related to the contempt motion are not complex, they are simple. Mr. Erlich has already admitted in both his posting and his subsequent letter to the Court that he intentionally posted the infringing material, which was explicitly covered by the TRO. The Court obviously recognized this fact when it not only granted plaintiffs' ex parte application to shorten time, but ordered Mr. Erlich to show cause at the accelerated hearing as to why he should not be held in contempt. All that remains is to determine at sanctions should be ordered for Mr. Erlich's conduct. 3. The contempt occurred on February 26, 1995. The motion was filed on February 28, 1995. Plaintiffs submit that there should be no further delay in hearing the order to show cause, and there is no reason for such delay. 4. Mr. Erlich's representation to the Court that he will not publish further materials of Mr. Hubbard or copyrighted materials of the Church of Scientology until after the hearing on the contempt OSC or the end of April, whichever occurs first, is insufficient as a remedy for the violation he has already committed. Mr. Erlich has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted--his violation was committed five days after he had an explicit conversation with the Court at the February 21 hearing and was warned to be careful about what he did. For these reasons, the contempt hearing should remain on calendar for March 17, and the ex parte application should be denied. Dated: March 15, 1995 Respectfully submitted, Andrew H. Wilson WILSON, RYAN & CAMPILONGO Thomas M. Small Janet A. Kobrin SMALL, LARKIN & KIDDE -and- Helena K. Kobrin /s/[Helena K. Kobrin] Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.