1

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF DORCHESTER ) FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) The Protestant Episcopal Church In The ) Diocese Of South Carolina; The Trustees of ) Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013 The Protestant Episcopal Church in South ) Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; ) et al., ) )

PLAINTIFFS, ) PLAINTIFFS REPONSE TO THE ) EPISCOPAL CHURCH’S MOTION v. ) FOR CONTINUANCE ) The Episcopal Church (a/k/a, The ) Protestant Episcopal Church in the ) United States of America); The Episcopal ) Church in South Carolina ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) )

This case was commenced on January 4, 2013. It is scheduled for trial on July 7, 2014.

In it’s third attempt for a continuance, The Episcopal Church’s (“TEC”) motion gives the false

impression that they are being overrun with supplemental discovery responses and proposed

stipulations of facts and that they have not had enough time to take 30(b)(6) depositions of the

Plaintiff Parishes. These recent developments, it is argued, have deprived TEC and its co-

defendant, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (“TECSC”), a reasonable time to prepare for

trial. If the Defendants feel rushed and deprived of adequate time to prepare, it is the result of

the gamesmanship inherent in the strategy they have pursued since the start of this case.

A. Chronology of the Defendants’ Detours

The Defendants’ initial attempt to avoid the jurisdiction of this court was by improvidently

removing this case to federal court on April 3, 2013. That attempt to evade state court

jurisdiction was defeated when District Judge Weston Houck remanded the case on June 10,

2

2013.

In an additional effort to preempt, in effect, state court jurisdiction on the issues, the

Defendants engineered a related suit, Rt. Rev. Charles G. vonRosenberg vs. Rt. Rev. Mark J.

Lawrence, et al, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-587-CWH, and filed in federal district court on March

5, 2013. The district court dismissed that case. Significantly, in doing so, Judge Houck called

out the defendants plan made through the vonRosenberg action:

[P]rocedural fencing . . . exists when “a party has raced to federal court in an effort to get certain issues that are already pending before the state courts resolved first in a more favorable forum . . . . “ Bishop vonRosenberg’s claim seeks the same relief as TEC’s counterclaim in the state action. In addition, the desired relief here directly conflicts with a state court ordered temporary injunction with which Bishop vonRosenberg has been twice-served with notice before filing this action. These facts alone suggest procedural fencing, given that Bishop vonRosenberg filed this action with full knowledge that service mark control and the Diocese’s legal status as a whole were already at issue before the state court.

Dist. Court Or., August 23, 2013 (citation omitted).1

Jurisdiction in the instant case returned to this Court on June 10, 2013. Although written

discovery had been commenced in March, defendants’ improvident removal had already delayed

responses by four months. Yet with still over a year left to do discovery, Defendants did not

pursue what they now say is required to prepare their case; once again a product of their own

strategy.

After conducting a status conference with the parties, this Court entered its first

Scheduling Order on July 19, 2013. Pursuant to that Scheduling Order, written discovery was to

be completed by October 10, 2013, with depositions completed by February 7, 2014. Defendants

took only a single deposition during that time: the deposition of Canon George I. Chassey was

completed on September 10, 2013.

1 An appeal of that dismissal is pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

3

Having waited until December 2013 to express an interest in taking many other

depositions, defendants declined the opportunity when the Plaintiffs went to extraordinary

lengths to make more than 100 people available for deposition before the February 7, 2104

deadline. See Correspondence of Alan Runyan dated December 9, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 1).

Then, on December 17, 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to extend the July 19, 2013

scheduling order. Defendants maintained in that motion that they had identified a “long list of

possible deponents, currently exceeding one hundred individuals.” Defs. Mot. for Continuance, 2

(May 21, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 2). By the time the motion was heard on December 30,

2013, they conceded that, “we will not be taking that many depositions.” Transcr. of Hearing p.

102 (Dec. 30, 2013) (attached as Exhibit 3).

At that hearing, after the Court stated that a two-week trial term would be sought in July,

counsel for the parties were instructed to reach an agreement on an amended scheduling order.

They did so. The product of that agreement was the Amended Scheduling Order dated January

7, 2014. See Transcr. of Hearing p 95-101 (Dec. 30, 2013) (detailing the agreement of counsel to

that timetable).

Yet, despite representing at the conclusion of that December 30, 2013 hearing that, like

plaintiffs, the defendants were going to begin issuing deposition notices immediately and

coordinate their scheduling, they did not do so. The Plaintiffs issued deposition notices and

sought scheduling cooperation. See Letter of Alan Runyan (Jan. 8, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 4);

see also Letter of Alan Runyan (March 18, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 5). The Defendants,

instead, responded on January 13, 2014, with a notice of appeal of the Court’s adverse ruling on

a discovery motion. Simultaneously, the Defendants took the position that all discovery and all

depositions of any sort in the case was stayed. Twice the Plaintiffs sought to engage in discovery

4

and twice the defendants refused going so far as to threaten Plaintiffs with contempt for noticing

depositions. See Def. TECSC’s Notice and Mot. to Quash Subpoenas and Hold Them in

Contempt of Court (March 31, 2014); Def. TECSC’s Notice and Mot. for Immediate Hearing

(Apr. 8, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 6). Defendants’ obvious goal was delay. The Court of

Appeals issued a one paragraph order dated March 18, 2014, finding the obvious: a discovery

order is not immediately appealable, and dismissing the appeal outright. Yet, Defendants

strategy of delay continued as they sought a rehearing of that Order. The South Carolina

Supreme Court took jurisdiction of the appeal and denied the petition for rehearing remitting the

case on May 7, 2014. The Defendants had now successfully delayed deposition discovery (theirs

and plaintiffs) for over a year.

On May 13, 2014, another status conference was held. The Court advised the parties that

discovery should resume without delay by consent. The Defendants served a list of “possible”

trial witnesses and noticed 30(b)(6) deposition of all parish plaintiffs on May 23, 2014 setting a

week of depositions from June 9-13, 2014 with 34 topics to be covered. On June 4, 2014,

Defendants disclosed for the first time expert witnesses they intended to call at trial even though

discovery requests had been outstanding for more than a year seeking expert witness

information.

Plaintiffs began serving notices of deposition on May 13, 2014, now the third set of

deposition notices Plaintiffs served. The first defense witness in this case was deposed on May

28, 2014. The Defendants began serving deposition notices May 20, 2014 taking their first

deposition May 30, 2014.

During the week of June 2, 2014, eight depositions were taken, including two parish

30(b)(6) depositions on June 6. TEC cancelled the next 34 parish 30(b)(6) depositions on June 7,

5

2014 citing the objections submitted by Plaintiffs and the result of the first two 30(b)(6)

depositions. Email of Timothy Lewis (June 7, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 7). Other depositions

continued the week of June 9, 2014 when 24 depositions were taken. Three defense expert

witnesses were deposed the week of June 16. Almost two weeks after it cancellation of the

30(b)(6) depositions, on June 19, 2014 TEC filed a motion to compel based on the first two

parish depositions and the objections served on behalf of all parish plaintiffs. At a June 25, 2014

hearing, the Court asked and TEC agreed to narrow the scope of its 30(b)(6) notice. Then, in a

June 30, 2014 letter, TEC essentially informed the court they could not narrow the topics listed

because they were all important.

Together the Defendants have filed five motions for a continuance, or motions to

reconsider denials, since May 21, 2014 including the present motion. Defendants successful

delay strategy has now produced its logical fruit: compression of the time to prepare for trial.

B. Recent Discovery Responses to TEC and TECSC

Plaintiffs have served supplemental discovery responses, including documents on the

Defendants since May 7, 2014 in their continuing obligation under SCRCP, Rule 26. TEC

claims Plaintiffs have served 6,800 pages since the beginning of June. Of the approximately

81,000 pages of document discovery Plaintiffs have produced 74,288 pages before September

20, 2013. The newly produced documents comprise approximately 8% of the total documents

produced by the all Plaintiffs.

Of this 8%, 3,907 pages was from one Parish Plaintiff who discovered meeting minutes

from 1987 until 2009 in the possession of church members. The other 37 plaintiffs

supplemented with 2,900 pages of discovery, many of which are public records, deeds, and

statutes.

6

In comparison, Defendants’ supplemental productions since May 16, 2014 constitute

53% (10,120 pages of 19,263 total pages) of their total production.2

C. Proposed Stipulations and the Apparent Need for 30(b)(6) depositions

The concept of submitting proposed stipulations was first discussed with the Defendants

in 2013 in an effort to streamline the trial of this case. In fact, TEC recognized that.3 But, the

proposed stipulations are not a surprise to the Defendants since it was agreed on May 14, 2014

that:

To make the presentation of evidence easier during the trial, both for counsel and the Court, we discussed preparing and agreeing to stipulations. Specifically, we would like to prepare stipulations relating to the Parishes' property ownerships and corporate matters. We agreed that admitted stipulations of undisputed facts, is a mutual goal and that we will work together to prepare and agree upon stipulations. This, of course, is an agreement in principal since no stipulations have been prepared or provided to any opposing counsel. Letter of Henrietta Golding (May 20, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 8). The proposed

stipulations include exhibits that include South Carolina acts and statutes, deeds and titles to real

property, articles of incorporation, and other corporate acts of the Plaintiffs. Well over half of all

the documents attached to the stipulations are public records. These documents are either public

records or have been produced to the Defendants. Their existence is not, and should not, be a

surprise to the Defendants.

TEC now claims it needs the 30(b)(6) depositions, which it cancelled, to properly

evaluate the proposed stipulations submitted by the Parish Plaintiffs. Had it taken the other 34

that it cancelled, it could have assessed and evaluated the facts set forth in the proposed

2 TEC: 745 pages out of 2,816 pages or 36% of their total production; TECSC: 8,968 pages out of 16,784 pages for 53% of their total production. 3 “Stipulations of fact with attached exhibits could, therefore, significantly decrease trial time, saving the Court and all parties unnecessary time and expense, while also providing the Court with a clearer presentation of the facts for resolution of the case.” TEC Notice of Mot. and Mot. for Continuance and Request for Expedited Hearing, 2 (June 30, 2014).

7

stipulations.

D. Defendants have had adequate time to prepare the case, they have not been deprived of a reasonable time to prepare

As detailed in the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendants May 21, 2014 Motion for a

Continuance, the time period between the remand of this case from the District Court on June 10,

2013 and the Defendants’ appeal to the SC Court of Appeals on January 13, 2014, is seven

months; the time between the remittitur of the case on May 7, 2014 and the trial date of July 7,

2014 is two months. Thus even with the Defendants’ excursion to federal court and their

interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Defendants will have nevertheless had nine

months to prepare the case. If they have failed to do so, they have no one to blame but

themselves.

The Defendants motion gives the impression that the Court knew the Defendants would

appeal, asserts that the case was stayed, thus causing them to be “trapped” into a the July trial

date timetable. This allegation is ludicrous. In fact, in their December 17, 2013 motion to

amend the scheduling order, the Defendants did not inform the court of an expected appeal.

Instead, while the Defendants asked for a ruling on the pending motions before taking

depositions, Defendants represented that they would begin discovery immediately thereafter:

We believe it would be appropriate to plan to begin depositions two weeks after the Court issues such rulings, thereby allowing TECSC time to properly notice and serve subpoenas, including subpoenas duces tecum, and to review the documents produced prior to taking their depositions, and to take necessary action and prepare appropriate deposition questions in light of the Court’s rulings.

Defs.’ Mot. for Continuance p. 3 (May 21, 2014). A review of the 108 page transcript of

the December 30, 2013 status conference and hearing on that motion likewise reveals that the

word “appeal” was never uttered. The Court granted the Defendants’ motion; the scheduling

8

order was amended, by agreement. And then, within a matter of days, Defendants noticed their

appeal. To contend that it was the Defendants who were somehow trapped or tricked is an

affront to the integrity of the judicial system.

Even more striking is the Defendants complete disregard for the Court’s two scheduling

orders regarding the taking of depositions. Defendants failed to notice one deposition during the

first scheduling orde’s deposition window between October 11, 2013 through February 7, 2014.

See Sched. Or. (July 19, 2013) (attached as Exhibit 9). After the court granted the Defendants

motion to amend the scheduling order on December 30, 2013, and the parties agreed to the

timetable, the Defendants failed to take one deposition during the second deposition window,

December 30, 2013 through May 2, 2014, in that Order. See Amend. Sched. Or. (Jan. 9, 2014)

(attached as Exhibit 10). The Defendants decided not to take depositions during these seven

months even though the Plaintiffs offered the Defendants every opportunity to depose their

witnesses.

E. Defendants are the architects of their “due process”

The United States Supreme Court has stated that “[t]here are no mechanical tests for

deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. The answer

must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented

to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.” Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84

S.Ct. 841, 850, 11 L.Ed.2d 921, 931 (1964) (citing Nilva v. United States, 352 U.S. 385, 77 S.Ct.

431, 1 L.Ed.2d 415 (1957); Torres v. United States, 270 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1959); cf. United

States v. Arlen, 252 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1957)) (emphasis added); Lee v. Winston, 717 F.2d 888,

896 (4th Cir. 1983) aff'd, 470 U.S. 753, 105 S. Ct. 1611, 84 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1985).

“To justify a continuance, the moving party must show not only the absence of some

9

material evidence, but also due diligence on his part to obtain it.” Hundley ex rel. Hundley v.

Rite Aid of S. Carolina, Inc., 339 S.C. 285, 305, 529 S.E.2d 45, 56 (Ct. App. 2000). When a

court signs a scheduling order and sets a day-certain trial, there are certain responsibilities that

the parties and their counsel assume which makes it “incumbent upon them to lay aside other

business, and give priority in their preparation to that which they have asked the court to

prioritize.” Id., at 305-06. In ruling upon a motion for continuance, “the court must determine

the merits of the moving party's argument, which entails an evaluation of credibility. Certainly a

documented history within the case of discovery delay and abuse by a party may be properly

considered when evaluating the credibility of that party's claim of surprise and prejudice.” Id. at

306.

The Court of Appeals opinion in Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid of S. Carolina, Inc.,

339 S.C. 285, 529 S.E.2d 45 (Ct. App. 2000), is directly on point and should determine the

merits of TEC’s motion. In Hundley, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts denial of

Defendants multiple continuance motions finding that the Defendants claims that the late

completion of discovery and changes in the Plaintiffs theory of the case did not prejudice the

Defendants defense. The Court found that an analysis of “[t]he pretrial proceedings, particularly

the course of discovery, provide important information which is integral to the trial court's

rulings and to this Court's disposition of this issue.” Id. at 300. In reviewing multiple discovery

abuses during the pre-trial proceedings, including not producing witnesses noticed for

deposition, the Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the continuance

while finding the Defendant’s position was of their own. Id. at 300-311; see State v. Register,

323 S.C. 471, 476 S.E.2d 153 (1996) (where parties knew in September that case was set for trial

in January and full discovery had been afforded from September forward, the fact that

10

defendant's counsel waited until the middle of December to investigate the evidence did not

warrant a continuance and no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's denial of the motion for a

continuance was found); McKissick v. J.F. Cleckley & Co., 325 S.C. 327, 479 S.E.2d 67

(Ct.App.1996) (where plaintiff informed defendant of significant change in medical condition,

court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for continuance three weeks

before trial, even though case was very complex and difficult); Grant v. Grant, 288 S.C. 86, 340

S.E.2d 791 (Ct.App.1986) (trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying request for a

continuance where new counsel conceded case file was fairly well prepared, he sought a

continuance primarily to interview witnesses, and there was nothing in the record to explain why

witnesses were not interviewed or could not have been interviewed during the six day period

following the commencement of his employment).

TEC is the architect of the position in which they presently find themselves. A position of

allegedly not being prepared for trial because of their own strategy, asserting now a violation of

their due process right to adequately prepare for trial. A party cannot create a violation of its due

process rights through its own actions.

F. Conclusion

The defendants’ conduct is sanctionable. They have willfully misused the judicial system

to secure delay by casting blame on the Court and the Plaintiffs for the logical outcome of their

ill devised strategy. If they lack time to prepare, it is not time they are due. By their own hand,

they are where they are not by the hands of the Court nor those of the Plaintiffs. The Motion for

a Continuance should be denied.

July 2, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Car · a, a South Carolina Corporate Body:

By: (!__. C. Alan Runyan, sq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444

Henrietta U. Golding, Esq. McNAIR LAW FIRM P.O. Box336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 (843) 444-1107

Charles H. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 1084 Orangeburg, SC 29116-1084 (803) 534-5218

David Cox, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 (843) 722-3400

Thomas C. Davis, Esq. HARVEY & BATTEY, PA 1001 Craven Street Beaufort, SC 29901 (843) 524-3109

Christ St. Paul's Episcopal Church I. Keith McCarty, Esq. McCARTY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 30055

11

12

Charleston, SC 29417 (843) 793-1272 Holy Trinity Episcopal Church William A. Scott, Esq. ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, SC 29407 (843) 556-5656 St. James’ Church, James Island, S.C. Mark Evans, Esquire 147 Wappoo Creek Drive., Ste. 202 Charleston, SC 29412

(843) 762-6640 The Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Radcliffeboro David B. Marvel, Esq. PRENNER MARVEL, P.A. 636 King Street Charleston, SC 29403 (843) 722-7250 David L. DeVane, Esq. 110 N. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 (843) 285-7100 The Church Of The Good Shepherd, Charleston, SC John Furman Wall, III 140 Wando Reach Court Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 408-3433

Vestry and Church-Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of Christ Church Allan P. Sloan, III, Esq. Joseph C. Wilson IV, Esq. PIERCE, HERNS, SLOAN & WILSON 321 East Bay Street; P.O. Box 22437 Charleston, SC 29413 (843) 722-7733 Edward P. Guerard, Jr., Esq. 1106 Port Harbor Court

13

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 852-4530 All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc. C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY 319 South Irby Street, P.O. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29501 (843) 662-9008 The Church Of The Holy Cross C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY 319 South Irby Street, P.O. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29501 (843) 662-9008 St. Bartholomews Episcopal Church C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY 319 S. Irby Street, P.O. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29502 (843) 656-4429 St. John’s Episcopal Church of Florence, S.C. Lawrence B. Orr, Esq. ORR ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC P. O. Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503 Saunders M. Bridges, Jr., Esq. AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & SALEBY P.O. Drawer 1931 181 E. Evans Street, Suite 409 Florence, SC 29503 (843) 669-8787 St. Matthews Church Lawrence B. Orr, Esq. ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN 504 South Coit Street, P.O. Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503-2527 (843) 667-6613

Church Of The Holy Comforter

14

Thornwell F. Sowell, Esq. Bess J. DuRant, Esq. SOWELL GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC. P.O. Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 (803) 929-1400 The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. Matthew Francis M. Mack, Esq. 656 Fort Motte Road Saint Matthews, SC 29135 (803) 414-4138 Church Of The Redeemer Robert R. Horger, Esq. HORGER, BARNWELL & REID, LLP P.O. Drawer 329 1459 Amelia Street Orangeburg, SC 29115 (803) 531-3000

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church of Conway

Robert S. Shelton, Esq. THE BELLAMY LAW FIRM 1000 29th Avenue Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 448-2400 The Church Of The Resurrection, Surfside William A. Bryan, Esq. BRYAN & HAAR P.O. Box 14860 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 (843) 238-3461 The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of Prince George Winyah Harry A. Oxner, Esq. OXNER & STACY 235 Church Street Georgetown, SC 29940 (843) 527-8020 Trinity Church of Myrtle Beach

15

Susan MacDonald, Esq. Jim Lehman, Esq. NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP BNC Bank Corporate Center, Suite 300 3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 448-3500 Saint Luke’s Church, Hilton Head Henrietta U. Golding, Esq. McNAIR LAW FIRM P.O. Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 (843) 444-1107 The Vestry and Wardens Of St. Paul’s Church, Summerville Brandt Shelbourne, Esq. Hope Lumpkin, Esq. SHELBOURNE LAW FIRM 131 E. Richardson Avenue Summerville, SC 29483 (843) 871-2210 St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc. Stephen S. McKenzie, Esq. COFFEY, CHANDLER & KENT, P.A. 8 South Brooks Street Manning, SC 29102 (803) 435-8847 Trinity Episcopal Church, Pinopolis John B. Williams, Esquire WILLIAMS & HULST, LLC 209 East Main Street Moncks Corner, SC 29461 (843) 761-8232 St. Paul’s Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc. Harry Easterling, Jr., Esq. 116 North Liberty Street Bennettsville, SC 29512 (843) 479-2878

St. Andrews Church – Mt. Pleasant and The St. Andrews Church – Mt. Pleasant Land Trust

16

George J. Kefalos, Esquire Oana D. Johnson, Esquire GEORGE J. KEFALOS, P.A. 46A State Street Charleston, SC 29401 (843) 722-6612 Stephen Spitz, Esquire P.O. Box 535 Charleston, SC 29402 Christ the King, Waccamaw Harry A. Oxner, Esq. OXNER & STACY 235 Church Street Georgetown, SC 29440 (843) 527-8020 Church Of The Cross, Inc. and Church Of The Cross Declaration of Trust C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 St. Davids Church C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 Harry Easterling, Jr., Esq. 116 North Liberty Street Bennettsville, SC 29512 (843) 479-2878 The Church Of Our Saviour, Of The Diocese Of South Carolina C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN

17

2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 The Protestant Episcopal Church, Of The Parish Of St. Philip, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 G. Mark Phillips, Esq. NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP Liberty Center, Suite 600 151 Meeting Street Charleston, SC 29401-2239 (843) 720-4383 W. Foster Gaillard, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 (843) 722-3400

The Protestant Episcopal Church, The Parish Of St. Michael, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina and St. Michael’s Church Declaration Of Trust

C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 Henry Grimball, Esquire WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 (843) 722-3400

The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. Helena And The Parish Church Of St.

18

Helena Trust C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444

The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Jude’s Church of Walterboro

C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 Trinity Episcopal Church, Edisto Island C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. John’s, Charleston County C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444 Old St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church

Andy Lacour, Esq. Clawson & Staubes, LLC 126 Stevens Farms Drive, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29492 (843) 619-0366

The Church Of The Epiphany (Episcopal) C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Andrew S. Platte, Esq. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN

19

2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902 (803) 943-4444

Exhibit 1

SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2015 BOUNDARY STREET SUITE 239

BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA 29902 (803) 943-4444

C. ALAN RUNYAN ARUNYAN@SPEIGHTSRUNYAN.COM

Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., Esquire Hellman, Yates & Tisdale 145 King Street; Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29401

December 9, 2013

FACSIMILE (843) 1522-0142

RE: The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al. Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013

Dear Tom:

We have reviewed the list of depositions you wish take. While we are concerned that your list includes many people that will shed no light on the only relevant issues under the All Saints decision, we nevertheless intend to try to accommodate TECSC's wishes, believing it to be a good faith attempt to only discover material within the scope of Rule 26 SCRCP. Therefore, we are willing to forego the ten days' notice required to us and will begin producing deponents under the following generic schedule with their names and times to follow:

Starting Monday, December 16, 2013 we will produce four people per day at the offices of Nelson, Mullins in Charleston. We believe that three hours per person is a reasonable duration (except for persons such as Jim Lewis, Mark Lawrence, etc.) and we will produce two people simultaneously. We will produce them for every weekday excluding December 24, 25 and January 1 until they are concluded. They will be available to commence at 9:00AM, which should allow in each conference room one deposition from 9-12, an hour for lunch and the next deposition from 1-4.

We will be sending the deponents' schedule shortly. We have tried to keep them in the order in which you requested.

CAR/els Enclosure(s)

cc: All Counsel of Record

Exhibit2

STATE Of SOUTH CAROLINA

COUN1Y OF DORCHESTER

THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE EPISCOPAL CHURC~ ET AL.,

Defendants.

TO~ ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CaseNo.: 2013-CP-18-00013

TECSC'S NOTICE AND MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

'PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thatDef'endant the Episcopal Church mSouth Carolina

("TECSCj~ will move· before the Honorable Diane S. Goodstein of the First Judici.al Circuit in

Dorchester County, on the tenth (1 O~ day after service or as soon thereafter as counsel may be

heard, to amend the Scheduling Order.1 The grounds for this motion are as follows:

As Your Honor stated during the status conference on.July 11, 2013~ the Scheduling

Order deadlines were hopeful aiid would be extended as necessary as the case developed.

TECSC has diligently complied with the deadlines to dat.e. For the reasons ~ed below,

however, TECSC will require additional time to complete depositions beyond the approaching

current deadHne of February 7, 2014.

Thirty-Nine parties have· sued TECSC in this litigatio~ which the Cowt designated as

complex. The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains over a hundred pages of allegations involving

many acts undertaken by many different people over the course of many years. In support of

1 TEC has authorized us to inforin the Courtthat it supports this tnotion.

l

their claims, the Plaintiffs have produced a huge volume of materi8Is t&at TECSC is still

diligently reviewing. The scope of the Plaintiffs' claims and production has naturally led

TECSC to identify an equally long list of possible deponents, currently exceeding one hundred

individuals. TECSC believes that each of these depositions may be important, although it will

certainly, attempt to curtail the list if possible as the depositions proceed, depending on the

deposition testimony elicited.

Our goal is to conduct these depositions In a manner consistent with other co~lex

designated cases and the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that procedure, we will

notice necessary depositions in due course at the appropriate time. Generally, we plan to start

with the leaders, various committee members, and 30(b)(6) representatives for the Diocese and

the Trustees and finish with the leaders and 30(b X 6) representatives of each of the Parishes.

Some of the depositions will of course take longer than others. Assuming the depositions move

quickly and we are indeed able to narrow the list of deponents as we proceed, we believe no less

than six weeks will be necessary for TECSC to depose the group of deponents involving the

Diocese and the Trustees and another: six weeks will be necessary for the group of deponents

involving the Parishes.

Before setting a starting date to begin those twelve weeks of depositions, however,

TECSC requests that the Court role on several pending motions, which will undoubtedly affect

ibe questions that we plan to ask. at the depositions, as well as the documents we subpoena duces

tecwn. Such pending motions include TECSC's motion to join additional parties and TECSC's

motion for reconsideration to compel production of certain attorney client documents for which

the privilege belongs or is Shared by TECSC~ Until the Court makes rulings on those motions,

which involve substantW rights, it would be prejudicial to require TECSC to proceed with the

2

•.·

depositions. We believe it would be appropriate to plan to begin depositions two weeks after the

Court issues such rulings, thereby allowing TECSC time to properly notice and serve subpoenas,

includfug subpoenas duces tecum, and tQ review the documents produced prior to taking their

depositions, and to take necessary action and prepare appropriate deposition questions in light of

the Court's rulings.

The Plaintiffs have objected to this request for a reasonable extension despite ~ing

unable to articulate any prejudice that they will suffer. Indeed, the Plaintiffs' interests are

currently protected by the Court's Temporary Injunction Order, which the Court decided not to

vacate upon TECSC's motion.

We are mindful of the Court's need and desire to efficiently manage this case and

proceed toward trial Our reasons for requesting more time are legitimate and universally

accepted in this type of complex litigation. We certainly do not have any intent to simply delay

the case;. To the contrary, TECSC anxiously awaits a trial and final decision lifting the

temporary injunction against it and restoring its control of the Diocese's property. Every day

that passes TECSC suffers from unauthori7.ed spending of the Diocese's assets and harmful

misappropriation of the Diocese's names and marks.

To be clear, the proposed timefiame only accounts for the depositions that TECSC plans

to take. The Plaintiffs have not advised TECSC of their plans to take depositions"' if any. To the

extent that the Plaintiffs may notice any depositions of their own, the proposed schedule may

have to be expanded to account for that extra time.

TECSC also requests that Scheduling Order be supplemented ta provide that upon the

completion of initial depositions, the parties shall name all fact and expert witnesses for trial, and

the Court shall thereafter set a schedule for completion of their depositions, as needed, at that

time.

WHEREFORE, TECSC respectfully requests that the Court amend the Scheduling Order

to provide no less than twelve weeks for TECSC to take depositions (plus any time that may be

needed for the Plaintiffs to take depositions) to begin two weeks after the Court mies upon all

outstanding motions, and to further provide that upon the completion of initial depositions, the

parties shall name all fact and expert witnesses for trial, and the Comt shall thereafter set a

schedule for completion of their depositions, as needed, _at that time ..

Dated: December 17, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

I'

Jt , .. ,,,,,,,q'. ~

Thomas S. Tisdale (S.C. Ber#: 005584) Jason S. Smith (S.C. Bar#: 80700) HELLMAN YATES & TISDALE, PA King & Queen Building 145 King Street, Suite 102 Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Telephone: (843) 266-9099 Facsimile: (843) 266-9188 tst@hellmanyates.com js@hellmanyates.com

Counsel for Defendant The Episcopal Church i11 South Carolina -

4

" STATE OF soum CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

) FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRq.JIT. COUNTY OF DORCHESTER )

) THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL ) Case No.: 2013-CP-18-00013 CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF ) SOUTII CAROLIN~ ET AL., )

) Plaintiffs, ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

) v •. · )

) THE EPISCOPAL CHURC~ ET AL., )

) Defendants. )

This is to certify that a cppy of the foregoing, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina's

(''TECSC") Notice and Motion to Amend the SCheduling Order bas been served upon the following

counsel of record by electronic mail and U;S. first-class mail on this, the 17th day ofDecember 2013, as

shown below.

SAUNDERS M. BRIDGES, JR., ESQ. AITORNEY FOR PLA./NTIFF ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF FLORENCE, S.C. Aileen Bridges Elliott Tyler & Saleby Post Office Drawer 1931 Florence, S.C. 29503 (843) 669-8787

WILLIAM A BRYAN, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CHl.fRCH OF THE RF.SURRECT/ON, SURFSIDE Bcyan&Haar Post Office Box 14860 Surfside Beach, S.C. 29587 (843) 238-3461

C. PIERCE CAMPBELL, ESQ. A7TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS ALL SAINTS PROTFSl'ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC.,· CHURCH OF THE HOLY CROSS; AND ST. BARTHOLOMEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH Turner, Padg~ Graham & Laney Post Office Box 5478 Florence, S.C. 29501 (843) 662-9008

DAVID SPENCE co~ ESQ. A.ITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH JN THE DIOCF.SE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTEST.A.NT EPISCOPAL CHURCH JN THE DIOC&SE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP Post Office Box 999 Charleston, s.c. 29402 (843) 722-3400

THOMAS CHRISTIAN DA VIS, ESQ. A'ITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CHRIST ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH Harvey & Battey, PA 100 l Craven Street Beaufort, S.C. 29901 (843) 524-3109

DA V1D L. DEVANE, ESQ. A.7TORNEY FOR PL41NTIFF TH.E CHURCH OF ST. LUKE AND ST., PA.UL, RA.DCUFFBORO 110 N. Main Street Swmnerville, S.C. 29483 (843) 285-7100

BESS JONES DURANT, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF THE HOLY COMFORTER Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC Post Office Box· 11449 Columbia, S.C. 29211 (803) 929-1400

HARRY R. EASTERLING, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAIN11FFS ST. DAVID'S CHURCH AND ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BENNE1TSVILLE, INC. Post Office Drawer 655 Bennettsville, S.C. 29512-0655 (843) 479-2878

JOHN G. FRAMPTON, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THE VFSJ'RY AND WARDENS-OF ST. PA.UL 'S CHURCH, SUMMERYILLE Chellis & Frampton Post Office Box 430 SUlJllllerville,S.C.29483 (843) 871-7765

W; FOSTER GAILLARD, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THE PRQTFSl'A.NT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF THE PA.RISH OF SAINT PHJLJP, JN CHARLFSfON, IN THE STATE OF SOUJ'H CAROLINA Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP Post Office Box 999 Charleston, S.C. 29402 (843) 722-3400

HENRIETIA U. GOLDING, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCF.SE OF SOUI11 CAROLINA..; SAINT LUKE'S CHURCH. HILTON HEAD; A.ND THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCF.SE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. McNair Law Firm Post Office Box 336 Myrtle Beach, S.C. 29578 (843) 444-1107

HENRY E. GRIMBALL, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLA.INTIFF THE PROTFSl'A.NT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. THE PARISH OF SAINT MICHAEL, IN CHARLESTON. IN THE STA.TE OF SOUJ'H CAROLINA. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,.LLP Post Office Box 999. Charleston, S.C. 29402 (843) 722-3400

EDWARD P. GUERARD, JR., ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF VESTRY AND CHURCH-WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE P,,tRJSJ/ OF CHRIST CHURCH Post Office Box 31924 Charleston, s.c. 29417 (843) 852-4530

ROBERT R. HORGER, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLA.INTIFF CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER Horger, Barnwell & Reid, LLP P.O. Drawer 329 Orangeburg,S.C.29116 (803) 531-3000

3

DANA D. JOHNSON, ESQ. AITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ST. ANDREWS CHURCH-M1'. PLEASANT AND THE ST. ANDREWS CHURCH­MT. PLEASANT LAND TRUST George J. Kefalos, P.A. 46A State Street Cbarleston, S.C. 29401 (843) 722-6612

GEORGE J. KEF ALOS, ESQ. A7TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ST. ANDREWS CHURCH-MT. PLeASA.NT AND THE ST. ANDREWS CHURCH­MI'. PLEA.SANT LA.ND TRUST George J. Kefalos, P.A. 46A State Street Charleston, S.C. 29401 (843) 722-6612

ALBERT A. LACOUR, ill, ESQ. A.7TORNEY FOR OLD SA.INT ANDREWS PA.RJSH CllURCH Clawson & Staubes 126 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200 Charleston, S.C. 29492

JAMES KENT LEHMAN, ESQ. A.ITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRINITY CHURCH OF MYRTLE BEACH Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Post Office Box 11070 Columbia, S.C. 29211 (803) 799-2000

E. HOPE LUMPKIN, ESQ. AlTORNEY FOR PLAJNTJ.FF THE VESTRY AND WARDENS OF ST. PAUL'S Cl/URCH, SUMMERVILLE Shelboume Law Firm 131 East Richardson Avenue SlllD.Ulerville,S.C.29483 (843) 871-2210

SUSAN PARDUE MACDONALD, ESQ . .AITORNEY FOR PLAJJ(J'JFF TRINITYCllURCH OF.MYRTLE BEACH Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Post Office Bo~ 3939 Myrtle Beacl4 S.C. 29578 (843) 448-3500

4

t

I I

I I I

I i

FRANCIS MARION MACK, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THE YFSTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF ST. MA1THEW Richardson, Plowden & Robinson, P.A. 1900 Barnwell Street Columbia, s.c. 29201 (803) 576-3717

DAVID B. MARVEL, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLA.INTIFF TJfE CHlJRCH OF ST. LUKE AND ST., PAUL, J«DCUFFBORO Prenner Marvel, P.A. 636 King Street Charleston, S.C. 29403 (843) 722-7250

I. KEIIB MCCAR'IY, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CHRIST ST, PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH McCarty Law Firm, LLC Post Office Box 30055 Charleston, s.c. 29417 (843) 793-1272

STEVEN SMITH MCKENZIE, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE CHURCI! OF THE EPIPHANY (EPISCOPAL) AND ST. MA1THJA.$ EPISCOPAL CHURCH, INC. Coffey, Chandler & Kent, P.A. 2 North Brook Street Manning, S.C. 29102 (803) 435-8847

LAWRENCE B. O~ ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PUINTIFFS ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF FLORENCE, S.C. AND SAINT MA1THEWS CHURCH Orr Elmore & Ervin, LLC Post Office Box 2527 Florence, S.C. 29503 (843) 667-6613

HARRY A. OXNER, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CHRIST THE KING, WACCAMAW AND THE VF.STRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE P.4RISH OF PRINCE GWRGE WINYAH Oxner & Stacy 235 Church Street Georgetown, S.C. 29940 (843) 527-8020

5

j I

G. MARK PlilLLIPS, ESQ. ATI'ORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE PARISH OF SAINT PH/UP, IN CHARLFSI'ON. IN THE STA.TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Post Office Box 1806 Charleston, S,C. 29402

ANDREWS. PLA TIE, ESQ~ A.ITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE CHURCH OF OUR SAY/OUR OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.; CHURCH OF 111E CROSS, INC. A.ND CHURCH OF THE CROSS DECLARA.170N OF TRUST; THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE PARISH OF SA.INT MICHAEL, JN CHARLESTON. IN THE STA.TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. A.ND SA.INT MICHAEL'S CHURCH DECLARATION OF TRUST; THE PROTFSI'ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE PARISH OF SAINT PHJUP, IN CHARLESTON. IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLIN.A; ST. DAYJD'S CHURCH; THE YESTRY A.ND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF ST. HELENA AND THE PARISH CHURCH OF ST. HELENA TRUST; THE VESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF ST. JUDE'S CHURCH OF WALTERBORO; TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, EDISTO ISLAND; AND YF.STRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PA.RISH OF ST. JOHN'S CHARLESTON COUNTY Speights & Runyan 2015 Boundary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, S.C. 29902 (803) 943-4444

C. ALAN RUNYAN, ESQ. A.ITORNEY FOR PLA.IN17FFS THE CHURCH OF OUR SA.YJOUR OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE CHURCH OF ST. LUKE AND ST., PAUL, RADCUFFBORO; CHURCH OF THE CROSS, INC. AND CHURCH.OF THE CROSS DECLARATION OF TRUST; THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE P.tRISH OF SAINT MICHAEL, IN CHARLESTON. IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND SAINT MICHAEL'S CHURCH DECLARATION OF TR.UST; THE PROTFSl'ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, THE PARISH OF SAINT PHIUP, JN CHARLESI'ON, IN THE STA.TE OF SOUTH CA.ROUNA,· THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ST. DA YJD'S CHURCH; TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, EDISTO ISLAND; THE YFSl'RY A.ND CHURCH WARDENS OF ST. JlJDE'S CHURCH OF WALTERBORO; THE YESTRY AND CHURCH WARDENS OF me EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PARISH OF ST. HELENA A.ND THE.PAR/SH CHURCH OF ST. HELENA TRUST; AND VESTRY AND CHURClf WARDENS OF THE EP.ISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE PA.RISH OF ST. JOHN'S CHARLFSI'ON COUNTY Speights & Runyan 2015 BolDldary Street, Suite 239 Beaufort, s.c. 29902 (803) 943-4444

WILLIAMA. SCOIT,ESQ~ . ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE CHUR.CH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD. CHARLFSFON. S;C. A.ND HOLY TRJNITYEPISCOPAL CHURCH Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, PC 115 St. Andrews Boulevard Charleston, S.C. 29407 (843) 556-5656

6

PETER BRANDT SHELBOURNE, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF THE VFSTRY AN11 WARDENS OF ST., PAUL'S C/fURCH, SUMMERVILLE Shelbourne Law Fjrm 131 East Richardson Avenue Summerville, S.C 29483 (843) 871-2210

ROBERTS. SHELTON, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ST. PA.UL 'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF CONWAY The Bellamy Law Finn Post Office Box 357 Myrtle Beach, S.C. 29578 (843) 448-2400

ALLAN POE SLOAN, m, ESQ, A'JTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF YFSTRY AND CHJJRCH-WA.RDENS OF THE EPJSCOPA.1. CHURCH OF THlt PARISH OF CHRJSl'CHURCH Pierce, Hems, Sloan & Wilson, LLC Post Office Box 22437 Charleston, S.C. 29413 (843) 722-7733

THORNWELL F. SOWELL, Ill, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF THE HOLY COMFORTER Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC Post Office Box 11449 Columbia, S.C. 29211 (803) 929-1400

DANEJ.SO'WINSKI,ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF HOLY TRINITY EPISCOPAJ. CHURCH Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, s.c. 29407 (843) 556-5656

STEPHEN A. SPITZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ST. ANDREWS. CHURCH-MT. PLEASANT AND THE ST. ANDREWS CHURCH­MT. PLEASANT LAND TRUST 1134 Clearspring Drive Charleston. S.C. 29412

JOHN FURMAN WALL, ill, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLA.INTJFF CHURCH OF' THE GOOD SHEPRERD 140 Wando Reach Court Mt. Pleasant, S.C., 29464

7

CHARLES H. WILLIAMS, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS THE PROTFSJ'ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. A.ND THE TRUSTEE:S OF THE PROTFSl'ANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOU111 CAROLINA., A SOUTH CAROLINA CORPORA.TE BODY Williams & Williams Post Office Box I 084 Orangeburg, s.c. 29116-1084 (803) 534-5218

JOHN B. WILLIAMS, ESQ. A.1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRIJVJTY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PJNOfOL/S Williams & Hulst, LLC Post Office Box 1288 Moncks. Corner, S.C. 2946l (843) 761-8232

JOSEPH C. WILSON IV,, ESQ. A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF YFSJ'RY AND CHURCH-WARDENS OF THE EPISCOPAL C1fURCH OF Tl(E PARISH OF CHRIST CHURCH Pierce, Hems, Sloan & Wtlson, LLC Post Office Box 22437 Charleston, s.c. 29413 (843) 722-7733

~ei . · · ·· ~ ~-·,· . _: ·· .

8

Exhibit3

1 STAIB OF SOUTH CAROLINA)

2 COORT OF Cil1YDN PLEAS

3 COUNTY OF OORCHESTER

4

5 TI.IE PROIESTANT EPISCOPAL) CHURCH IN TI.IE DICCESE OF)

6 SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL. , )

7 PLAINTIFFS I )

8 v. TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

13--a>-18-00013

9 TI.IE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, ET. AL.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DEFENDANTS.

Decerrib=r 30, 2013 Saint George, South Carolina

BEFORE:

TI.IE HONORABLE DIANE S. GCODSIBIN, JULGE

A P P E A RAN C E S:

C. ALAN RUNYAN, ESQ. ANDREW S. PLATIB, ESQ. HENRIETTA U. GOLDIN3, ESQ. HARRY A. OXNER, ESQ. WILLIAM A. BRYAN, ESQ. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

ALLAN R. HOLMES I ESQ. THCl1AS S. TISDALE, ESQ. JASCN S. SMITH, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants

FRANCES BAKIS-RAY, RPR Circuit Court Re:pJrter Typed for M=lissa Singletary

1

INDEX

:MJtion to add parties

Page

3

:MJtion to reconsider order of discovery 50 denying attorney/client privilege

M3.tters involving discovery

:MJtions by Mr. Platte

:MJtion to extend discovery

Ruling on rrotion to add parties

Scheduling dates

Scheduling of phone conference

56

79

89

90

98

105

2

1 helpful. We haven't seen - we have not seen such

2 an order.

3 THE COURT: I'm very sorry atout that

4 recause we signed it and sent it a long ti.Ire ago and

5 but we log everything when I send it so I'll look at

6 that date in just a :m:::rrent.

7 Now, discovery. I know there's sare

8 concern atout discovery, and I have reviewed my

9 schedule and I cannot find -- here's what I'm trying

10 to do. I'm trying to find two weeks together that

11 will dovetail into a chambers week that will allow

12 for two weeks, and then if we need a third week we

13 can have it; if not, it's not catmitted in -- I can

14 continue to work on other things. And what I've

15 done is, I've written court administration 'cause

16 the schedule for the second half of the hearing has

17 not been released. I'm asking them for a ti.Ire in

18 July so that's where that is. So I know that -- I

19 know certainly the plaintiff wanted to proceed

20 earlier, and I just -- it's just I can't shorten it

21 anywhere. I was hoping to do it, to re able to do

22 that in M3.y, actually in April, and it just will not

23 work. So it looks -- I'm writing court

24 administration and asking them specifically for ti.Ire

25 in July so. With that in mind just sort of by

95

1 default I'm getting rrore tine so, and everytxx:ly that

2 wanted to go vacation in July -- I'm gonna go ahead

3 and do, I'm gonna confirm it as soon as I get a

4 date, but that's what I requesting frcm court

5 administration -- so y'all need to revarrp. Y'all

6 want to do that now? So you got it? Yeah?

7 MR. OXNER: Gcx:x::i job.

8 THE COURT: I think so too. And what I' 11

9 do - why don't we do this? Why don't you all rreet

10 and confirm now with your schedules. I'm gonna

11 leave and let you rreet and do whatever you want to

12 do. And I actually will get court administration on

13 EnBil, see if I can get our schedule online just say

14 that I really need this assistance. Even if I --

15 one of the weeks is a nonjury week which I will

16 take. And just, one of the rrornings I teach a new

1 7 judges school so that one rrorning we just wouldn't

18 have court but that's okay, we can rrake that up. So

19 let rre get you that and y'all confer and I'll l:::e

20 rack. All right.

21 (WHEREUPON, a recess was taken frcm the

22 proceedings . )

23 THE COURT: Say what? Not good? All

24 right.

25 MS. GOWING: Your Honor --

96

1 THE COURT: In response to the order it

2 was signed on Novemter the 8th, and it was mailed,

3 Mr-. Runyan.

4 MR. RUNYAN: I guess I plead guilty. I

5 don't --

6 THE COURT: Okay.

7 MR. RUNYAN: I don't know.

8 THE COURT: lm.yway, you want to hear ---

9 MR. TISDALE: You need a copy of it?

10 MR. RUNYAN: I do.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Here are copies.

12 MR. TISDALE: Thank you very ITTlch.

13 THE COURT: Md if you bring rre back --

14 and check if you don't have it, then what I'll do is

15 I'll sign another one.

16 MR. RUNYAN: Can we agree today is the

17 service date?

18 MR. TISDALE: Can we agree on the record

19 that today is the service date for this?

20 THE COURT: Sure.

21 MR. TISDALE: On the record just so we' re

22 protected on that.

23 THE COURT: You' re protected.. I' 11 sign

24 it nun pro tune.

25 MR. TISDALE: Yes, rra' am, this is a copy

97

1 and it can :te agreed and on the record that we've

2 teen served with it this date, that's all we need.

3 THE COURT: Okay, that sounds good. And

4 what I'll do is - and then every1::xx:ly will say,

5 well, we didn't get one so.

6 .MR. TISDAIE: I've given him two copies.

7 THE COURT: I'll re-sign the original and

8 give it rack so she's got an original.

9 MS. GOLDING: We'll take it. We'll rreke

10 sure it's sent to everyone.

11 THE COURT: Post it on the website, yay.

12 Okay, now scheduling.

13 MS. GOLDING: Yes, ma'am. We have

14 partially agreed, Your Honor, and I'm gonna go

15 rackwards as our discussion was . Vile' ve agreed to

16 end discovery IYB.y 2, 2014.

1 7 THE COURT: IYB.y?

18 MS. GOLDING: IYB.y 2, 2014. And this is of

19 course it's premised upon the July trial date.

20 THE COURT: Yes.

21 MS. GOLDING: We've also agreed to

22 exchange witness lists and exhibit lists for trial

23 by June 5. We've agreed to present trial briefs to

24 the Court by June 5, but that the trial briefs will

25 not re exchanged. We will follow the federal rule.

98

1 THE COURT: Okay.

2 MS. GOLDING: We have not agreed as to

3 when we should ccnplete identifying witnesses. The

4 plaintiffs would respectfully request that the

5 parties ccnplete identifying all witnesses by

6 January 15, 2014. And we say "all witnesses" we

7 rrean expert witnesses as well, if in fact, there are

8 any experts in this case. We believe that because

9 of the representations that have been nade to the

10 Court previously as to the number of depositions and

11 the fact that this lawsuit now is getting close to a

12 year old, it's been going on for over a year, that

13 all the parties should have been able to identify

14 the issues and identify their witnesses by now. And

15 we believe that will be appropriate to have that,

16 the cut-off date for identifying all witnesses by

17 January 15th, and that's where we are in this

18 agreerrent.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MR. TISDALE: Your Honor, it's not a

21 serious disagreerrent; it's just binding. I don't

22 know what the big rush is. We have a duty to update

23 it anyway if we find people we don't know about,

24 like in the case of discovery, taking of

25 depositions. So unless there's sare nagic reason

99

1 about January 15th which is only about two weeks

2 fran now, I would suggest February 15th just to te

3 certain we have everything carplete.

4 THE COURT: Only tecause it gives you only

5 90 days to do deI=Qsitions.

6 MR. TISDALE: No, I rrean to identify

7 witnesses.

8 THE COURT: I know that; but if you do

9 February 15th, that's February, 1'13.rch, April, M3.y.

10 MR. TISDALE: Uh-huh.

11 THE COURT: And. you' re ending in M3.y.

12 That's 90 days.

13 MR. TISDALE: I just thought January 15th

14 we did was a bit early.

15 THE COURT: I understand.

16 MR. TISDALE: We got a duty to keep

17 supplerrenting anyway for things we don't know.

18 THE COURT: I understand. Well, I'll just

19 pick a day. And I'm gonna say, all right, everyb:xly

20 takes, everyb:xly is gonna probably take the rrajority

21 of the week at a low slower pace so everyb:xly te

22 rack 6th of January; but they'll te rested and

23 revved. So two weeks after the 6th of January will

24 te plenty of tirre, whenever that is. 6 and 7 is 13,

25 that's 21st. I was thinking the 21st. 21st, 5:00.

100

1 Okay, and that gives you, just as you say, you can

2 supplerrent if you need to and that way you can start

3 on your discovery. Y'all need to start on your

4 depositions to get this done.

5 MR. TISDALE: And we understand that

6 excludes expert witnesses as well?

7

8

9 know ---

10

11

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. TISDALE: I rrean, that's what, you

THE COURT: Yes, include that.

MR. TISDALE: I would no.rrrally wait until

12 later by if that's what they want, that's what we'll

13 do.

14

15

THE COURT: Absolutely. What else?

MS. GOLDING: Nothing other than we

16 anticipate starting depositions irmEdiately.

17

18

19

20

21

THE COURT:

MR. RUNYAN:

MS. GOLDING:

MR. RUNYAN:

MS. GOLDING:

Yeah.

Ten days' notice.

You say ten days' notice?

That's the rule.

Well, we're gonna start

22 sending out deposition notices irrrrediately. I hope

23 that the other side, the other defendants do as

24 well, Your Honor.

25 MR. TISDALE: Well, we' re going to do that

101

1 too, and we would offer to confer to ITBke it

2 convenient if possible for everyl::xxiy on the

3 schedules.

4 MS. GOLDING: And we've atterrpted to do

5 that. We are ccmnitted to bringing people into as

6 we - Mr'. Runyan has sent a letter to Mr'. Tisdale

7 and Mr'. Hol.rres, that we' re ccmnitted to bring the

8 people into Charleston. We' 11 have the depositions

9 taken up at a local law firm and that we're ready to

10 go day after day after day, Your Honor, because

11 simply Mr'. Tisdale says he's going to take a hundred

12 plus depositions. We don't need to take January and

13 not take any depositions.

14 MR. TISDALE: Your Honor, with all due

15 respect, I have said to Mr'. Runyan just this rrorning

16 that we will not be taking that rrany depositions and

17

18 THE COURT: You kind of get tored at sare

19 point, don't you think?

20 MR. TISDALE: Very. And so, what I am

21 proposing is we work out the schedule in a

22 reasonable way. We got plenty of tirre, and we just

23 do it so nob:xiy is hurt by the schedule.

24 MR. HOLMES: I always like to work things

25 out but we're not going to let tirre go by. So we're

102

1 gonna start on our process within the pericd of the

2 rules sim.lltaneously trying to work with schedules

3 to rrake it work right.

4 THE COURT: Let rre say this to you, I urge

5 you -- and this has worked well ref ore - I urge you

6 to, while I know you feel you rru.Ist send the

7 deposition notice and through the nail to the

8 individual to whan it is directed, I do urge you to

9 post them on the website instead of sending nail out

10 to everylxx:iy. That will sort of train everylxx:iy, rre

11 included, to take a look at the website and see

12 what's up. And sare it's a wonderful use of the

13 website, when it was done refore it was terrific

14 recause even though your, you know, and I'm really

15 focusing on the folks - while your parish nay not

16 specifically re involved in a deposition you might

1 7 like to know that. You might like to know that this

18 particular parish's deposition are reing taken and

19 for sare reason you might have a reason you want to

20 go to that one, or you think it's similarly situated

21 or not, or you're lx>red and you want to hang out and

22 you want to go, you know, whatever. It's a

23 wonderful way to save postage and keep everylxx:iy

24 involved. I urge y'all to do that to use the

25 posting of your deposition notices on that website.

103

1 It worked like a charm tefore and it really has a

2 way of letting everybcdy know that it's happening

3 and that really does encourage everybcdy to sort of

4 get into, get into the discovery mxie. It really is

5 a wonderful tool so I urge everybcdy to do that.

6 MR. HOLMES: I just want to make one tjling

7 clear so I don't have to care back here on a IT'Otion

8 for protective order. We are a srrall law firm. We

9 got until Ixlay 2nd to do these depositions. The

10 scheduling proposal that was suhnitted earlier had

11 us taking depositions all day long at sareb:x:iy

12 else's law firm for what, two weeks or three, I

13 can't rerranter, four, whatever. That' s not

14 reasonable with a deposition deadline of M3.y 2nd. I

15 rrean, I think we can take them, we should care

16 together on sare kind of schedule to do them. but

17 the idea of imrobilizing a lawyer fran doing

18 anything else for any extended period of tine is

19 just not consistent with what the rules intend.

20 That's what I understand they're proposing to admit.

21 MR. BRYAN: Between the cocounsel fran the

22 other side, their 2500 lawyers, George Walker has -

23 I can't rerranter --

24 MR. TISDALE: George Walker is not

25 involved.

104

1 .MR. BRYAN: Well, they're still on record.

2 .MR. TISDALE: Well, they need to get

3 relieved recause they're not involved.

4 .MR. BRYAN: M3.yre you should take care of

5 that.

6 .MR. TISDAI.E: I will.

7 .MR. RUNYAN: There are two lawyers in

8 South Carolina that represent my client. These are

9 the two, and we don't intend to spend every day of

10 the next rronth or two in depositions on this case.

11 I think that's crazy.

12 .MR. BRYAN: Well, I don't tend to notice

13 very rrany so you would re the one to notice.

14 .MR. RUNYAN: Well then if I get the notice

15 for my deposition I can notice them at your

16 schedule, but I'm not going to notice them all in

17

18

19

20

two weeks.

.MR. BRYAN:

THE COURT:

.MR. RUNYAN:

I've said all I need to say.

Okay.

Whatever .

21 .MR. TISDALE: And we've got twice as rrany

22 lawyers as Alan.

23 .MR. HOLMES: That's right.

24 .MR. RUNYAN: I'm sorry, I just haven't had

25 lunch. I think it's getting rre irritated. I saw a

105

1 cake back there.

2 TIIE COURT: You can have sore.

3 Okay. Anything else? Nope, nope, nope?

4 All right, do we have a schedule for phone

5 conferences? Yes, no, rrayre?

6 m. TISDALE: Yeah. One thing that we

7 didn't cover but we didn't have a chance to cover

8 that on the schedule.

9 TIIE COURT: Sure.

10 m. TISDALE: We file dispositive rrotions

11 by what date? Alan, you got any idea on that or you

12 just want to leave it open for now?

13 m. RUNYAN: I don't know that there needs

14 to re a deadline on that. I don It --

15 m. TISDALE: We' 11 propose one later.

16 m. RUNYAN: If trial briefs are due the

17 6th, it's whenever.

18 m. TISDALE: We' 11 propose one later.

19 TIIE COURT: Okay.

20 m. HOLMES: I recarrrend it recause it

21 gives the court tirre to consider them. If we wait

22 until day refore trial to file dispositive rrotions

23 then -

24 THE COURT: I will tell you that the rest

25 practice is that it's all done and everything that

106

1 you're gonna do, everything that you're gonna file

2 is done 30 days in advance. And that gives you 30

3 days to prepare things and get your stuff done so.

4 MR. TISDALE: Well, why don't - can we

5 agree then we file the dispositive ITOtions 30 days

6 refore trial date, will that suit?

7 THE COURT: I think that's great, and that

8 way they can re heard a couple of weeks out and -

9 MR. TISDALE: Right.

10 THE COURT: --you'll know where you are.

11 MR. TISDALE: Right.

12 THE COURT: All right. Now, okay. All

13 right, unless telephone conference is - that we

14 have scheduled is January the 10th at 10:00, and

15 that is the last one that is scheduled. And what I

16 will do retween now and January the 10th is I will

17 propose an updated one, and I'll notify you of the

18 UfX]ates by January the 10th. As we get closer

19 they'll prob3bly be a little ITOre frequent. I had

20 hoped to get our scheduler on the phone, she won't

21 re here until tarorrow but I'm gonna impress UfOn

22 her to put a tine in July, and she'll either laugh

23 or she'll help me so I'll let you know.

24 MR. TISDALE: Thank you, Judge.

25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.

107

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

3

4

5

6

STAIB OF sourn CAROLINA) )

COUNTY OF FIDRENCE )

7 I, FRAOCES BAKIS-RAY, Registered

8 Professional Reporter (RPR), court reporter for the

9 State of South Carolina, Twelfth Judicial Circuit,

10 do hereby certify that the foregoing proceeding was

11 transcril:ed for Melissa Singletary through

12 canputer-aided transcription; that the foregoing

13 transcript contains a true record of the proceedings

14 to the best of my ability.

15 I further certify that I am neither

16 counsel for, nor related.to nor employed by any of

17 the parties connected to the action, nor am I

18 financially interested in the action.

19 Witness my hand at Florence, South

20 Carolina, this 1st day of Feb.r:uary, 2014.

21

22

23

24

25

FRAOCES BAKIS-RAY, RPR

108

Exhibit4

C. ALAN RUNYAN ARU NYAN@SPEIGHTSRUNYAN.COM

David Booth Beers, Esq. Mary E. Kostel, Esq. Goodwin Procter 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

Allan R. Holmes Timothy Lewis Gibbs & Holmes l 7 l Church Street, Suite 110 Charleston, SC 29401

Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., Esquire Hellman, Yates & Tisdale 145 King Stre~t; Suite I 02 Charleston, SC 2940 I

SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2015 BOUNDARY STREET SUITE 239

BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA 29902 (803) 943-4444

January 8, 2014

RE: The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al.; Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013

Dear Mary, Allan and Tom:

FACSIMILE !843) 522-0142

I enclose notices of deposition for the following people: Bp. VonRosenberg, Melinda Lucka, Callie Walpole, Robert Black, Barbara Mann, Bp. John Buchanan, Jim Taylor, Michael Wright, Holly Behre, Lonnie Hamilton, III, Steve Skardon, Bp. Katharine Schori, and Bp. Dorsey Henderson. These have also been posted on the deposition calendar on the website.

We will work with the witnesses and counsel to the extent there are significant conflicts. To the extent such conflicts exist, we are prepared to discuss a postponement to a date certain. Such a discussion and any agreed postponement need to occur before the noticed date.

We remain willing to work with you to schedule those persons that you wish to take from the plaintiffs.

CAR(jps Enclosure(s) cc: All Counsel of Record

i' C. Alan Runyan

Exhibit 5

C.-ALAN RUNYAN ARUl\IYAN .. Pll:IGHTSRUNYAN.COM

David Booth Beers, Esq. Mary E. Kostel, Esq. Goodwin Procter 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

Allan R. Holmes Timothy Lewis Gibbs & Holmes 171 Church Street, Sui~ 110 Charleston, SC 29401

Thomas $. Tisdale, Jr.7 Esquire Hellman, Yates & Tisdale 145 King Street; Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29401

SPBIGJITS 8c RUNYAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2019 BOUNDARY STREET SUITE 239

BEAUFORT, SOUTH CAROLINA 28902 _(803)84~

March 18, 2014 ,.AC81M1LE (84311122-0142

RE: Th8 Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Car.olina, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al.; Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013

Dear .Mary, Allan and 'Tom:

I enclose notices of deposition for the following people: Bp. VonRosenberg, Melinda Lucka, Callie Walpole, Robert Black, Barbara Mann, Bp. John Buchanan, Jim Taylor, Michael Wright, Holly Behre, Lonnie Hamilton, Ill, Steve Skardon, Bp. Katharine Schori, and Bp. Dorsey Henderson. These have also been posted on the deposition calendar on the website.

CAR/jps Enclosure(s) cc: All Counsel of Record

F. Truett Nettles~ Il

:w ~

Exhibit6

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

) ) J ) )

The Protestant Episcopal Church In The ) Diocese Of South Carolina; The Trustees of ) The Protestant Episcopal Church in South ) Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body, ) ~~ )

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

The Episcopal Church (a/k/a, The Protestant Epjscopal Church in the United States of America); The .Episcopal Church in South Carolina;

DEFENDANTS.

TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

) ) } ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No.: 2013-CP-18-00013

TECSC'S NOTICE AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO HOLD THEM IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

("TECSC"), will move before the Honorable Diane S. ~in of the First Judicial Circuit in

Dorchester County; on the tenth (1 O~ day after service or as soon thereafter as counsel may be·

heard, to quash subpoenas issued by two of the Plaintiffs, The Protestant Episcopal Church In

The -Diocese of South Carolina and The Trustees Of The I_>rotestant Episcopal Church In South

Carolina, and to hold them ih contempt of court. The grounds for this motion are as follows:

As the Plaintiffs know: an appeal is pending; the Court of Appeals has not issued a

remittitur and this Court lacks jurisdiction over all matters aff~ted by the appeal pursuant t.9

Rules 205, 221,_240, and 241, SCACR; this Court has already ruled that the stay should not be

lifted for the p~se of proceeding with discovery or other matters in the scheduling order,; and

the Plaintiffs' redundant second motion to lift the stay for that exact same purpose was served

1.

I ·1

I

f

I I I I I I

only days ago. and has not yet been heard. In .disregard and contempt for all of the above, The

Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina and The Trustees OfThe

Protestant Episcopal Church In South Carolina have tecently noticed many depositions starting

as early as next week, and their counsel have issued many sUbpoenas, wrongfully &busing their

powers as officers of this Court in matters for which this Court lacks jurisdiction and has

declined to lift the stay.

WHEREFORE, respectfully, TECSC requests that the subpoenas issued by The

Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina and The Trustees Of The

Protestant Episcopal Church In South Carolina be quashed and that they be held in contempt of

this Court and that appropriate sanctions be imposed upon their counsel

Dated: March 311 2014 Respectfully submitted,

- ... - ·--Thomas S. Tisdale (S.C. Bar#: 005584) Jason S. Smith (S.C. Bar#: 80700) HELLMAN YA TES & TISDALE, PA 105 Broad Street, Third Floor Charleston, South Carolina 29401 Telephone: (843) 266-9099 Facsintlle: (843)266-9188 tst@hellmanyates.com js@hellmanyates.com

Counsel for Defendant The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

2

STA TE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

) ) ) ) )

The Protestant Episcopal Church In The ) Diocese Of South Carolina; The Trustees of ) The Protestant Episcopal Church in South ) Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body, ) et al., )

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

The Episcopal Church {a/k/a, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America); The Episcopal Church in South Carolina,

DEFENDANTS.

TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No.: 2013-CP-18-00013

TECSC'S NOTICE AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

{"TECSC"), moves the Honorable Diane S. Goodstein of the First Judicial Circuit in Dorchester

County for an immediate hearing or dispositive order regarding TECSC's motion to quash

subpoenas issued by two of the Plaintiffs, The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of

South Carolina and The Trustees Of The Protestant Episcopal Church In South Carolina, and to

hold them in contempt of court. The grounds for this motion are as follows:

In disregard of appellate procedure and in contempt of the orders of this Court and the

appellate courts, counsel for two of the Plaintiffs, acting as officers of this Court, have

unlawfully issued and served subpoenas requiring witnesses to appear and be deposed as soon as

this Friday, April 11, 2014. This abuse of process constitutes a pattern of misconduct and

wrongful intimidation of those witnesses and has caused TECSC to incur unnecessary costs and

l

fees. Respectfully, this Court should take immediate action to remedy this wrongful conduct,

which should include sanctions. S~ Ill re Ai! Cmsh ~ CbarlQne_. NQ~ Carnlin8: .QJ1Jpl_y i.

J99.4. 982 F.Supp. 1092, 1101 (D.S.C. 1997)("An attorney issues a subpoena under his

authority as an officer of the court. To knowingly abuse that power is an affront to the fair

and impartial administration of justice and is subject to sanctions under the inherent

power of the court.") (emphasis added); Rule 45, SCRCP ("Anattomey as officer of the court

may also issue and sign a subpoena on behalf of a court in which the attorney is authorized to

practice.").

Plaintiffs' counsel is well aware of the procedural history leading up to this motion.

On January 13, 2014, TECSC filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals of this

Court's order entered on November 18, 2013 and its order denying reconsideration entered on

December 31, 2013.

On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the Court of

Appeals. TECSC filed a return to that motion on January 24, 2014.

On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to this Court requesting a ruling that the

case is not stayed by the pending appeal and that discovery should proceed and that they should

be authorized to issue subpoenas and depose witnesses. TECSC opposed this request in a letter

to this Court dated January 16, 2014. These letters are attached as Exhibits A and B to this

motion.

On January 17, 2014, this Court held a status conference by phone and ruled that the

notice of appeal stayed the action and that the parties should not proceed with any matters

affected by the appeal, including the discovery and subpoena issues discussed in the Plaintiffs'

aforementioned letter.

2

On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion in the South Carolina Supreme Court to

certify the appeal for review. TECSC did not oppose that motion.

On March 18, 2014, a non-final order dismissing the appeal was entered by an individual

judge of the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 2400}, SCACR.

Importantly, th.at order did not cause the Court of Appeals to issue a remittitur to th.is

Court. and the Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction over all matters affected by the appeal,

pursuant to Rules 205, 221, 240, and 241, SCACR. $~ .L_~cast~r v, G®r&~P@Cifi.c <X>q>,, 742

S.E.2d 867, 868, 403 S.C. 136, 137 (2013) ("Pursuant to Rule 205, SCACR, upon the service of

a notice of appeal, the appellate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal, with the

exception of matters not affected by the appeal. The appellate court retains jurisdiction until the

remittitur is sent to the lower court."); le\. ("In the case at hand, the remittitur has not been sent to

the circuit court because Georgia-Pacific has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and Del Webb

has sought an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Rule 221, SCACR.

Therefore, the trial court cannot take action as contemplated by the parties unless the case is

remanded to that court."); Ti~ v! Oak.cts, 398 S.C. 245, 254-256, 728 S.E.2d 45, 50-51 (Ct.

App. 2012).

ln disregard of the above appellate procedure, on March 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs served

TECSC's counsel with subpoenas for the depositions of a dozen witnesses, including Steve

Skardon, Holly Behre, Robert Black, John C. Buchanan, Lonnie Hamilton, ill, Dorsey

Henderson, Melinda Lucka, Barbara Mann. Katherine Jefferts Schori, James E. Taylor, Charles

G. vonRosenberg, Callie Walpole, and Michael Wright. These subpoenas are attached as Exhibit

C to th.is motion.

3

On March 25, 2014, TECSC filed a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeals,

pursuant to Rule 22l(a).

On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion in this Court for an order lifting the stay

and directing the resumption of discovery. TECSC filed an opposition the next day on March

28, 2014. This Court has not scheduled a hearing or ruled on this motion.

On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiffs served TECSC's counsel with a subpoena for the

deposition of George Heam on April 11, 2014. Plaintiffs also served George Hearn with that

subpoena. This subpoena, together with the aforementioned subpoenas, is also attached as

Exhibit C to this motion.

On March 31, 2014, TECSC filed a motion to quash the aforementioned subpoenas

issued by the Plaintiffs and to hold them in contempt and to impose appropriate sanctions upon

their counsel for wrongfully abusing their powers as officers of this Court in matters for which

this Court lacks jurisdiction and has declined to lift the stay.

On April 4, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed

motion to certify the appeal for review, pursuant to Rule 204(j).

On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs served Steve Skardon with a subpoena by process server.

As of the filing of this motion, George Hearn's deposition is only three days away and

the Plaintiffs insist on pushing forward, despite their knowledge that: an appeal is pending which

is now before the South Carolina Supreme Court; a remittitur has not been issued and this Court

lacks jurisdiction over all matters affected by the appeal pursuant to Rules 205, 221, 240, and

241, SCACR; this Court has already ruled that the case was stayed because of the appeal and that

the stay should not be lifted for the purpose of proceeding with discovery and issuing subpoenas;

4

I I I !

I j I

! '

and the Plaintiffs' redundant second motion to lift the stay for that exact same purpose has not

yet been heard.

WHEREFORE, respectfully, TECSC requests an immediate hearing or dispositive order

on its motion to quash the subpoenas issued by The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese

of South Carolina and The Trustees Of The Protestant Episcopal Church In South Carolina and

to hold th.em in contempt of this Court and to impose appropriate sanctions upon their counsel.

Dated: April 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

~

Thomas S. Tisdale (S.C. Bar#: 005584) Jason S. Smith (S.C. Bar#: 80700) HELLMAN YA TES & TISDALE, PA 105 Broad Street, Third Floor Charleston, South Carolina 2940 I Telephone: (843) 266-9099 Facsimile: (843) 266-9188 tst@hellmanyates.com js@hellmanyates.com

Counsel for Defendant The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

5

Exhibit 7

Tuesday, July 1, 2014at11:06:52 PM Eastern Daylight lime

Subject: RE: 30(b)(6) Deposition locations and Dial in numbers; Diocese of SC, et al v. TEC, et al.

Date:

From:

To:

All-

Saturday, June 7, 2014at12:03:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Timothy Lewis

Timothy Lewis, Janice Swofford, tst@hellmanyates.com, mkostel@goodwinprocter.com, dbeers@goodwinprocter.com, Allan Holmes, js@hellmanyates.com, andrea.st.amand@hotmail.com, abailey@mcnair.net, Alacour@Clawsonandstaubes.com, aplatte@speightsrunyan.com, arunyan@speightsrunyan.com, bdurant@sowellgray.com, Bill.scott@rtt-law.com, BillBryan@bryanandhaar.net, brandt@shelbournelaw.com, bsowell@sowellgray.com, caustin@hbrllp.com, chipsloan@phsm.net, chwilliams@williamsattys.com, ckoerner@mcnair.net, dane.sowinski@rtt-law.com, dave@prennermarvel.com, david@attorneyscharleston.com, dcarmichael@sowellgray.com, DCox@wcsr.com, deniseking@sc.rr.com, erl@orrfirm.com, eshepherd@speightsrunyan.com, FGaillard@wcsr.com, FMMack@windstream.net, gandelaw@bellsouth.net, george@kefaloslaw.com, hgolding@mcnair.net, hgrimball@wcsr.com, Hope@shelbournelaw.com, IKeithMcCarty@gmail.com, jbw@williamsandhulst.com, joewilson@phsm.net, lbo@orrfirm.com, linda@bryanandhaar.net, mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com, MBrant@hbrllp.com, mevans14@bellsouth.net, mitch.brown@nelsonmullins.com, njh@williamsandhulst.com, oana@kefaloslaw.com, office@kefaloslaw.com, oxhat@aol.com, PCampbell@TurnerPadget.com, rhorger@hbrllp.com, rshelton@bellamylaw.com, sc.spitz@prodigy.net, sherrymanning@phswlaw.com, smbjr@aikenbridges.com, Steve@cckmlaw.com, susan.macdonald@nelsonmullins.com, tdavis@harveyandbattey.com, tguerardjr@gmail.com, walljohn@bellsouth.net, Mark E. Feldmann, Paul G. Beers

Given the pendency of plaintiffs' broad objections to the Episcopal Church's notices of the~e depositions, and in the light of the first two such depositions taken today, the Episcopal Church is hereby withdrawing all such outstanding 30(b)(6) deposition notices. The depositions in the schedule attached in the below email will, therefore, not go forward.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Timothy Lewis Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 1:22 PM To: Timothy Lewis; 'Janice Swofford'; 'tst@hellmanyates.com'; 'mkostel@goodwinprocter.com'; 'dbeers@goodwinprocter.com'; Allan Holmes; 'js@hellmanyates.com'; 'andrea.st.amand@hotmail.com'; 'abailey@mcnair.net'; 'Alacour@Clawsonandstaubes.com'; 'aplatte@speightsrunyan.com'; 'arunyan@speightsrunyan.com'; 'bdurant@sowellgray.com'; 'Bill.scott@rtt-law.com'; 'BillBryan@bryanandhaar.net'; 'brandt@shelboumelaw.com'; 'bsowell@sowellgray.com'; 'caustin@hbrllp.com'; 'chipsloan@phsm.net'; 'chwilliams@williamsattys.com'; 'ckoemer@mcnair.net'; 'dane.sowinski@rtt-law.com'; 'dave@prennermarvel.com'; 'david@attomeyscharleston.com'; 'dcarmichael@sowellgray.com'; 'DCox@wcsr.com'; 'deniseking@sc.rr.com'; 'erl@orrfirm.com'; 'eshepherd@speightsrunyan.com'; 'FGaillard@wcsr.com'; 'FMMack@windstream.net'; 'gandelaw@bellsouth.net'; 'george@kefaloslaw.com'; 'hgolding@mcnair.net'; 'hgrimball@wcsr.com'; 'Hope@shelboumelaw.com'; 'IKeithMcCarty@gmail.com'; 'jbw@williamsandhulst.com'; 'joewilson@phsm.net'; 'lbo@orrfirm.com'; 'linda@bryanandhaar.net'; 'mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com'; 'MBrant@hbrllp.com'; 'mevans14@bellsouth.net'; 'mitch.brown@nelsonmullins.com'; 'njh@williamsandhulst.com'; 'oana@kefaloslaw.com'; 'office@kefaloslaw.com'; 'oxhat@aol.com'; 'PCampbell@TumerPadget.com'; 'rhorger@hbrllp.com';

Page 1 of3

'rshelton@bellamylaw.com'; 'sc.spitz@prodigy.net'; 'sherrymanning@phswlaw.com'; 'smbjr@aikenbridges.com'; 'Steve@cckmlaw.com'; 'susan.macdonald@nelsonmullins.com'; 'tdavis@harveyandbattey.com'; 'tguerardjr@gmail.com'; 'walljohn@bellsouth.net'; 'Mark E. Feldmann'; 'Paul G. Beers' Subject: RE: 30(b)(6) Deposition locations and Dial in numbers; Diocese of SC, et al v. TEC, et al.

Please find an updated version of the document I sent earlier today. Note that we are now only missing the location for St. Mattew's, Fort Motte.

Let me know if anyone has any trouble calling in at 1:30 or otherwise.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Timothy Lewis Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:52 AM To: 'Janice Swofford'; tst@hellmaovates.com; m!sostel@ooociwinprocter.com; dbeers@g90dwinorocter.com; Allan Holmes; is@hellmanyates.com; andrea.st.amand@hotmail.com; abailey@mcnajr.net; Alacoyr@C!aw50naodstaubes.com; aplatte@soejghtsrunvan.com; arunyan@soelghtsrynyan.com; bdyrant@sowellgrav.com; B!ll.scott@rtt-law.com; B!l!Brvan@brvanandhaar.net; brandt@sbelboymelaw.com; b50wel!@sawellgrav.com; caustin@hbdlp.com; ctJ!pslqan@ohsm.net; chwllllams@wllllamsattvs.com; ckoeroer@mQJair.net; dane.50w!nskj@rtt-law.com; dave@prennermarvet.com; day!d@attorneyscharleston.com; dcaanjctJael@sowellarav.com; oeox@wcsr;com; denlsekiOQ@sc.rr.com; ed@orrfirm.com; eshepherd@spelqhtsruoyan.com; FGall!ard@westcom; FMMack@wjndstream.net; gandelaw@bellsouth.net: george@kefaloslaw.com; hgo!djng@mcnalr.net; hqdmball@wcsr.com; Hope@shelbournelaw.com; IKelthMcCartv@gmajl.com; jbw@williamsandhulst.com; joewj!son@phsm.net; lbo@orrfian.com; lioda@brvanandhaar.net; mark.phil!ios@nel50nmullins.com; MBrant@hbrllp.com; mevans14@bellsouth.net; mjtch.brown@nel50nmyl!ins.com; njh@willlamsamlhylst.com; qana@kefaloslaw.com; office@kefaloslaw.com; oxhat@aol.com; ecamQbell@TurnerPadget.com; rhoraer@hbdlp.com; rsheltoo@bellamylaw.com; sc.spitz@prodjgy.net; sberrymannjng@phswlaw.com; smbir@aikenbrjdges.com; Steve@cclsmlaw.com; sysan.macdooa!d@ne!50nmu!Uos.com; tc:lavjs@harveyaodbattev.com; tguerardjr@gmail.CQO}; walliohn@bellsoyth.net; Mark E. Feldmann; Paul G. Beers Cc: Timothy Lewis Subject: 30(b)(6) Deposition locations and Dial in numbers; Diocese of SC, et al v. TEC, et al.

All -

Please find the attached document that contains the physical location of the 30{b)(6) deponents for this afternoon and next week. The call In number for each individual deposition is listed below the location in bold for each parish. If you wish to participate, please dial in to that number and enter the "participant pin" at the time of the deposition. A court reporter will be at each location and will have the dial in information as well for the defending attorney and deponent.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns on this.

**Note that we have not yet received the location for the representative of St. Matthew's, Fort Motte; Our Saviour; and St. Paul's, Bennettsville.

Thanks,

Tim

Page 2 of3

Timothy 0. Lewis Associate Attorney Gibbs & Holmes 17i Church St Suite 110 Charleston, SC 29401 843-722-0033

GI:B:BSI& H~OLMES ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Page 3 of3

Exhibit 8

May 20, 2014

VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION

Thomas S. Tisdale Hellman Yates & Tisdale King & Queen Building 145 King Street, Suite 102 Charleston, South Carolina 29401

MCNAIR ATTORNEYS

Re: The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, a/k/a The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America; and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina Civil Action No.: 2013-CP-18-00013

Dear Tom:

Please accept this letter as the Plaintiffs' response to the various topics we discussed during our meeting on Wednesday May 14, 2014. My meeting notes indicate we discussed seven major topics. The following are the topics we discussed, as well as the Plaintiffs' position to each topic:

I. Jury/Non-Jury. You opened our meeting with the first question being as to whether the Plaintiffs want a jury or non-jury trial. I inquired as to the Defendants' preference and it was that the trial be non-jury. We agree to a non-jury trial and will waive our requests for a jury trial in light of Defendants' position.

2. Opening Statements. We discussed that there is no need for opening statements since this will be a non-jury trial. Upon reflection, we believe that opening statements may be useful before Judge Goodstein. However, if Judge Goodstein does not see the need, then we would not insist on opening statements.

3. Depositions of the Parishes. You inquired as to whether the Plaintiffs would object to TECSC taking Parish depositions by telephone and whether attorneys can attend depositions by telephone. The reason for this request is to facilitate the noticing and the taking of depositions by the Defendants, as well as easing the travel demands of Washington counsel. We agree that taking and attending depositions by telephone would make the process easier for many attorneys and therefore, we have no basic objection; however, our agreement can be withdrawn in the event abusive tactics are attempted which I do not believe will occur. I then inquired as to the number of Parish depositions you intended to take and you responded that at this time that has not been determined. Based on your comments, I left the meeting with an understanding that you do not intend to take depositions of all the Parishes. I reiterated a statement I made to you last October, at a Court hearing in St. George, when I stated that the Parishes are available to have their

KENTUCKY LEXINGTON I NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE I SOUTH CAROLINA BLUFFTON CHARLESTON COLUMBIA GREENVILLE HILTON HEAD MYRTLE BEACH PAWLE YS ISLAND

Thomas S. Tisdale May 20, 2014 Page2 MCNAIR

ATTORNEYS

depositions taken, even on reasonably short notice and this continues to be our position. You stated that you would be preparing a list of the Parishes to be deposed with proposed times and this should be prepared and sent soon.

4. Authenticity of the Plaintiff Diocese Printed Journals. The question you presented was whether we would object to the authenticity of any Journals in the history of the Plaintiff Diocese. We, of course, will need to see the actual copy or copies you are referring to, but if it is genuine copy of an existing Journal, then certainly there will be no objection.

5. Revisions to existing Scheduling Order. You stated that neither you, nor the attorneys for TEC, will agree to any revisions to the existing Amended Scheduling Order. Nevertheless, you stated that we can proceed with taking depositions and we agreed to communicate with each other as to scheduling of depositions and to be cognizant of attorneys' schedules.

6. Case In Chief Witnesses. You stated that TECSC will provide its case in chief witness list by Wednesday, May 21, 2014 and TEC by Friday, May 23, 2014. You stated that these will set forth expert witnesses and one or two may be designated as fact witnesses, as well as expert witnesses. Further, you reserve the right to supplement the witness lists based upon the discovery of new information in any deposition. As you know, the Plaintiffs previously provided the Defendants with their case in chief witnesses but may likewise supplement that list.

7. Stipulations. To make the presentation of evidence easier during the trial, both for counsel and the Court, we discussed preparing and agreeing to stipulations. Specifically, we would like to prepare stipulations relating to the Parishes' property ownerships and corporate matters. We agreed that admitted stipulations of undisputed facts, is a mutual goal and that we will work together to prepare and agree upon stipulations. This, of course, is an agreement in principal since no stipulations have been prepared or provided to any opposing counsel.

In conclusion, we will work together to schedule depositions between now and the end of June. The Plaintiffs sent notices for two depositions with the deposition of Bishop vonRosenberg being held on May 28, 2014 and the deposition of John Buchanan being held on May 27, 2014. 1 In like manner, the Defendants will be presenting a list of deponents with proposed dates and times.

I believe that this letter accurately sets forth the topics we discussed on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 and the Plaintiffs' responses.

1 According to David Beers' May 19th email, it appears that Bishop Buchanan's deposition is now set for Thursday, June 5, 2014.

Thomas S. Tisdale May 20, 2014 Page 3

Sincerely,

McNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A.

Henrietta U. Golding

HUG: ck

cc: Counsel of Record (via email)

MCNAIR ATTORNEYS

Exhibit 9

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DORCHESTER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FORM4

JUDGMENT IN A CML CASE CASE NUMBER 2013CP1800013

Protestant Episcopal Christ St. Paul's Episcopal Church In The Diocese Of

Episcopal Church Protestant Epis.Ch. in Church the US of America

South Carolina Church Of The Cross, Inc Church Of The Holy Episcopal Church in and Church Of The Cross Comforter South Carolina ~

...,, Declaration -c> - r-'-"' Church Of The Redeemer Saint Luke's Church, Hilton ~¢')~ ~

~ qO

Head Ci"> , • St. John's Episcopal St. Matthias Episcopal ~i;s:::.:.:: I ";fl tf'J • r.> -:~ £!:) ... Church Of Florence, S. C. Church, Inc (r\

1""1-r1 '7' 0 Church Of St. Luke and St. :;J - .. :t.I ~ 1:;:;>

c-; ~:: :. -;e Paul, Radcliffeboro 0(.- · :· ':E ~ - -· .•

PLAINTIFF(S) DEF~NT(~ rJ

Submitted by: Andrew Spencer Platte 2015 Boundary St. Ste. -<. .....-239 Beaufort, SC 29902 Attorney for: ~ Plaintiff 0 Defendant

0 Self-Re_Qresented Litig_ant DISPOSITION TYPE (CHECK ONE)

0 JURY VERDICT. This action came before the court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and a verdict rendered.

0 DECISION BY THE COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision rendered. 0 See Puge 2 for additional infonuation. _ ; _

0 ACTION DISMISSED (CHECK REASON); 0 Rule l2(b), SCRCP; 0 Rule~~a),SCRC~(\'ol. ~onsuit): 0 Rule 43(k), SCRCP{Settled); 0 Other: :~! · '.7'

D ACTION STRICKEN (CHECK REASON>: 0 Rule40(j) SCRCP; 0 Bankruptcy; f';.l ~. ·',· !"" _, r 1' ..:i - • 0 Binding arbitration, subject to right to restore to confinn. vacate or D Other: ,..,_. , • ' 1

modify arbitration award; 1-;.

0 DISPOSITION OF APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT (CHECK APPLICABLE BOX): ~;:; ~ . ,

0 Affirmed; 0 Reversed; 0 Remanded; 0 Other: ...., ' __ !

NOTE: ATI"ORNEYS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING LOWER COURT, TRIBUNAL, OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT RULING IN THIS APPEAL.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 181 See attached order; (fonnal order to follow) 0 Statement of Judgment by the Court:

ORDER INFORMATION This order 0 ends ~ does not end the case.

Additional Information for the Clerk: --------------------------------

INFORMATION FOR THE JUDGMENT INDEX Complete this section below when the judgment affects title to real or personal property or if any amount should be enrolled. there i.s no_ju<!_g_ment information, indicate "NIA" in one of the boxes below.

Judgment in Favor of Judgment Against Judgment Amount To be Enrolled _iList nam~below)_ J.List naml!i.& below} (List amount(s) below)

If applicable, describe the property, including tax map information and address, referenced in the order:

The judgment information above has been provided by the submitting party. Disputes concern mg the amounts contamed in this fonn may be addressed by way of motion pursuant to the SC Rules of Civil Procedure. Amounts to be computed CPFORM4Cm SCCA SCRCP Form 4C (Revised J/2013}

If

such as interest or additional taxable costs not available at the time the form and final order are submitted to the judge may be provided to the clerk. Note: Title abstractors and researchers should refer to the official court order for judgment details.

2112 Diane S,.Goodstein Circuit Court Judge Judge Code

For Clerk of Court Office Use Only

This judgment was entered on 7-24-2013, and a copy mailed first class or placed in the appropriate attorney's box on17-24-2013, to attorneys of record or to parties (when appearing prose) as follows:

Andrew Spencer Platte 2015 Boundary SL Ste. 239 Beaufort, SC29902 Henrietta U. Golding PO Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Charles H. Williams PO Box 1084 Orangeburg, SC 291161084 David Spence Cox PO Box 999 Charleston1 SC 29402 Ivon Keith McCarty 1212 Wappoo Road PO Box 30055 Charleston, SC 29417 Thornwell F. Sowell Ill PO Box 11449 Columbia. SC 29211 Bess Jones DuRant PO Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 Robert R. Horger PO Drawer 329 Orangeburg, SC 29116 Lawrence B. Orr PO Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503

ATTORNEY(S) FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S)

Court Reporter

Thomas S. Tisdale Jr. 145 King Street Suite 102 Charleston, SC2940I Jason S. Smith 145 King Street, Suite I 02 Charleston, SC 29401 Mary E Kostel Goodwin Procter Lip 90 I New York Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20001 David Booth Beers Goodwin Procter Lip 90 I New York Avenue N.W. Washington, DC20001 Palmer C Hamilton Jones Walker Lip 254 State Street Mobile, AL 36603 George A LeMaistre Jr. Jones Walker Lip 254 State Street Mobile, AL 36603

ATTORNEY(S) FOR THE DEFENDANT(S)

Cheryl Graham - Clerk of Court

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DECISION BY THE COURT AS REFERENCED ON PAGE I.

This action came to trial or hearing before the court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision rendered.

CPFORM4Cm SCCA SCRCP Fonn 4C (Revised Jno 13)

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

) ) ) )

The Protestant Episcopal Church In The ) Diocese Of South Carolina; The Trustees of ) The Protestant Episcopal Church in South ) Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; ) AIJ Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc.;) Christ St. Paul's Episcopal Church; Christ ) The King, Waccamaw; Church Of The ) Cross, Inc. and Church Of The Cross ) Declaration Of Trust; Church Of The ) Holy Comforter; Church of the Redeemer; ) Holy Trinity Episcopal Church; Saint ) Luke's Church, Hilton Head; Saint ) Matthews Church; St. Andrews Church-Mt. ) Pleasant and The SL Andrews Church-Mt. ) Pleasant Land Trust; St. Bartholomews Episcopal Church; St. Davids Church; St. James' Church, James Island. S.C.; St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S.C.; St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc.; St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc.; St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Conway; The Church Of St. Luke and St. Paul, Radcliffeboro; The Church Of Our Saviour Of The Diocese of South Carolina; The Church Of The Epiphany (Episcopal); The Church Of The Good Shepherd, Charleston, SC; The Church Of The Holy Cross; The Church Of The Resurrection,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Surfside; The Protestant Episcopal Church, ) Of The Parish Of Saint Philip, In Charleston,) In The State Of South Carolina; The ) Protestant Episcopal Church, The Parish Of ) Saint Michael, In Charleston, In The State ) Of South Carolina and St. Michael's Church) Declaration Of Trust; The Vestry and ) Church Wardens Of St. Jude's Church Of ) Walterboro; The Vestry and Church ) Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The ) Parish Of Prince George Winyah; The ) Vestry And Church Wardens Of The ) Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. ) Helena and The Parish Church of St. Helena )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

......

l ,'.) . .

, .. : r

Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013

SCHEDULING ORDER

-·-

!

' I I I I

Trust; The Vestry and Church Wardens Of ) The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. ) Matthew; The Vestry and Wardens Of St. ) Paul's Church, Summerville; Trinity Church) of Myrtle Beach; Trinity Episcopal Church; ) Trinity Episcopal Church, Pinopolis; Vestry ) and Church-Wardens Of The Episcopal ) Church Of The Parish Of Christ Church; ) Vestry and Church Wardens Of The ) Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. ) John's, Charleston County )

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

The Episcopal Church (a/k/a, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America); The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

DEFENDANT.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

The Court held a status conference on July 11, 2013 at the Dorchester County

Courthouse. Appearing and speaking on behalf of plaintiffs, who were also represented at the

status conference by their respective, separate counsel, were C. Alan Runyan, Esq., Speights &

Runyan, Henrietta U. Golding, Esq., McNair Law Firm and Charles H. Williams, Esq., Williams

& Williams, Attorneys. Appearing for the Defendants were Tl10mas S. Tisdale, Esq., and Jason

Smith, Esq., Hellman, Yates & Tisdale. Also present for the defendant, The Episcopal Church

("TEC"), were David Beers, Goodwin and Proctor, and Mary Kostel, TEC. The Court heard the

parties' respective positions on the establishment of a scheduling order.

The following schedule is established for this case:

1. Any additional response Plaintiffs wish to file to the Defendant TEC's motion to

amend to join additional counterclaim defendants is due on or before July 22, 2013. Defendant's

reply is due on or before ten (10) days after receipt of Plaintiffs' additional response.

2. Responses to the presently outstanding discovery (Interrogatories, Requests for

Production and Requests for Admission) shall be mailed on or before August 15, 2013. All

subsequent discovery requests shall be completed within the applicable periods as determined by

the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. All written discovery shall be completed by October 10, 2013. Discovery by oral

depositions shall be completed on or before February 7, 2014.

4. The Court contemplates and the parties agree that there will be created some form

of electronic service and storage mechanism with the assistance of Court Administration to allow

for the electronic posting of notices, discovery responses and materials to the end that document

transfer and retrieval process be simplified and made accessible to all counsel with appropriate

security. A11drew Platte, Esq, Speights & Runyan and Jason Smith, Esq., Hellman, Yates &

Tisdale shall be the contact persons for further development and implementation of this system.

5. Status conferences will be held on August 9, 2013 and September 13, 2013 at

11:00 by telephone and on October 11, 2013 at 11:00 am in person. Motions relating to

discovery can be heard anytime according to the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. All

other pending motions, which have been properly noticed and for whlch both parties have had

sufficient time to prepare oral arguments, will be heard on October 11, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ~~

Circuit Court Judge First Judicial Circuit

_7_-l_J....____, 2013

Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, et al. vs. The Episcopal Church (a/k/a Protestant Episcopal Church in the

United States of America

Andrew Spencer Platte C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Speights & Runyan 2015 Boundary Street Suite 239 Beaufort, SC 29902

2013-CP-18-00013

ATTORNEY MAILING LIST

Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church Jn The Diocese of South Carolina,· and The Trustees of the Protest an/ Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; Church Of The Cross, Inc. and Church Of The Cross Declaration of Trust; St; David's Church; The Church Of Our Saviour, Of The Diocese Of South Carolina; The Protesta11l Episcopal Church, Of The Parish Of St. Philip, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina; The Pro1esta11t Episcopal Church, The Parish Of St. Michael, In Charleston, In The Stale of South Carolina and St. Michael's Church Declaration Of Trust; The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. Helena; The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Jude's Church of Walterboro; Trinity Episcopal Church, Edisto Island; Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. John's, Charleston County

Henrietta U. Golding / McNair Law Firm P.O. Box336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; Saint Luke's Church, Hilton Head

Charles H. Williams Williams & Williams / P.O. Box 1084 Orangeburg, SC 29116-1084 A~~~ . The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina. a South Carolina Corporate Body

C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. / TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY 319 South Irby Street P.O. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29501 Attornev for: All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc.; The Church of the Holy Cross; St. Bartholomews Episcopal Church

As of 6/12/13 l

Ivon Keith McCarty / 1212 Wappoo Road P.O. Box 30055 Charleston, SC 29417 Allornev for: 111e Protestam Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina,· and the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body;

Harry A. Oxner, Esq. ,,-­OXNER & ST ACY 235 Church Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Attorney {or: The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of Prince George Winyah; Christ the King. Waccamaw

Thornwell F. Sowell, Esq,/ Bess J. DuRant, Esq. SOWELL GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC. P.O. Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 Attorney for: Church Of The Holy Comforter

--­Robert R. Horger HORGER, BARNWELL & REID, LLP P.O. Drawer 329 1459 Amelia Street Orangeburg, SC 29115 Altornevs for: Church Of The Redeemer

Lawrence B. Orr, Esq. -­ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN 504 South Coit Street, P.O. Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503-2527 Attorneys {or: Saint Matthews Church; St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S.C.

Harry Easterling, Jr., Esq • ./ 116 North Liberty Street Bennettsville, SC 29512 Attorneys {or: St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc.; St. Davids Church

Bonum S. Wilson, Ill, Esq. / WILSON & HEYWARD, LLC P.O. Box 13177 Charleston, SC 29422 Attornevs for : St. James' Church, James Island, S.C.

As of 6/12/13 2

Saunders M. Bridges, Jr., Esq. ,...... AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & SALEEBY P.O. Drawer 1931 181 E. Evans Street, Suite 409 Florence, SC 29503 Attornevs for: St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S. C.

Stephen S. McKenzie, Esq. _... COFFEY, CHANDLER & KENT, P.A. 2 N. Brook Street Manning, SC 29102 Attornevs for: St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc; The Church Of The Epiphany (Episcopal)

Robert S. Shelton, Esq. v THE BELLAMY LAW FIRM 1000 291

& Avenue Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Attorneys for: St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Conway

Bill Scott, Esq. r ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, SC 29407 Attornevs {or: The Church Of The Good Shepherd, Charleston, SC

William A. Bryan, Esq. ..-' BRYAN&HAAR P.O. Box 14860 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 Attorneys [or: The Church Of The Resurrection, Surfside

Francis M. Mack, Esq. / RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 1900 Barnwell Street Columbia, SC 29201 Attornevs for: The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopa/Church Of The Parish Of St. Matthews Church

P. Brandt Shelbourne .,/ SHELBOURNE LAW FIRM 131 E. Richardson Ave. Summerville, SC 29483 Attorneys for: The Vestry and Wardens OfSt. Paul'sChwch, Summerville

As of 6/12/13 3

Susan MacDonald / Jim Lehman / NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP BNC Bank Corporate Center, Suite 300 3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Allorneys for: Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach

Allan P. Sloan, Ill, Esq. v Joseph C. Wilson IV, Esq. PIERCE, HERNS, SLOAN & WILSON 321 East Bay Street; P.O. Box 22437 Charleston, SC 29413

Edward P. Guerard, Jr., Esq. 1106 Port Harbor Court _./ Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Attorneys for: Vestry and Church-Wardens Of The Episcopa/Church Of The Parish Oj'Christ Church

David B. Marvel, Esq . ./ PRENNER MARVEL, P.A. 636 King Street Charleston, SC 29403

David L. DeVane, Esq. ,,., 110 N. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 Allorneys {or: The Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Paul, Radcliffeboro,

David Cox, Esq. v Henry Grimball, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402

Thomas A. Davis, Esq. / HARVEY & BATTEY, PA 1001 Craven Street Beaufort, SC 29901 Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church Jn The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body

As of 6/12/13 4

i i I I ! i I

G. Mark Phillips, Esq. V" NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP Liberty Center, Suite 600 151 Meeting Street Charleston, SC 29401-2239 Allornevs for: The Protestant Episcopal Church, Of The Parish OfSt. Philip, Jn Charleston, In The State of South Carolina

W. Foster Gaillard, Esq . ..,__. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP 5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 29402-0999 Attornevs for: The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Parish of St. Philips Church. in Charles/on, In the State of South Carolina

Bill Scott, Esq. V" ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, SC 29407 Attornevs for: Ho~y Trinity Episcopal Church

John B. Williams, Esq. / WILLIAMS & HULST, LLC 209 East Main Street Moncks Corner, SC 29461 Attorneys for: Trinity Episcopal Church. Pinopolis

George J. Kefalos, Esq. / Oana D. Johnson, Esq. GEORGE J. KEF ALOS, PA 46 A State Street Charleston, SC 29401

Stephen Spitz, Esq • ../ P.O. Box535 Charleston, SC 29402 Attorneys for: St. Andrews Church - Mt. Pleasant and the St. Andrews Church -Ml Pleasant land Trust

As of 6/12113 5

DEFENDANTS:

Thomas Tisdale --­Jason Smith 145 King Street, Suite 102 Charleston, SC 29401 Attornevs For: The Episcopal Church and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

David Booth Beers Mary E. Kostel v Goodwin Procter LLP 901 New York Avenue N. W. Washington, D.C. 20001 OfCozmsel Aflornevs for: The Episcopal Church

Palmer C. Hamilton .,./' George A. LeMaistre Jr. JONES WALKER LLP 254 State Street Mobile, AL 36603 Of Counsel Attorneys for: Episcopal Church of South Carolina

As of 6/12/13 6

Exhibit 10

' 'i I FORM4 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

JUDGMENT IN A CML CASE CASE NUMBER 2Q13CP1800013

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Protestant Episcopal Christ St. Paul's EplsCopal Church In The Diocese Of Church South Carolina Church Of The Cross, Inc Church Of The Holy and Church Of The Cross Comforter Declaradon Church Of The Redeemer

St. John's Episcopal Church Of Florence, S. C. Church Of St. Luke and St. Paul Radcllffeboro

Submitted b :

Saint Luke's Church, Hilton Head St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc

PLAINTIFF(S)

Episcopal Church

Episcopal Church in South Carolina

Protestant Epls.Ch. In the us or America

0 JURY VERDICT. This action came before the court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and a verdict rendered.

D D

DECISION BY THE COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision rendered. 0 Sec Pm 2 for additional jnfonnation. ACTION DISMISSED (CHECKREASOM: 0 Rule 12(b), SCRCP; 0 Rule 41(a), SCRCP (Vol. Nonsuit);

0 Rule 43(k), SCRCP (Settled); 0 Other:-------0 ACTION STRICKEN (CHICK MASQM: 0 Rule 40(j) SCRCP; 0 Bankruptcy;

0 Binding arbitration. sµbject to right to restore to confirm, vacate or 0 Other: --------­modify arbitration llward;

0 DISPOSITION OF APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT (CHECK APPLICABLE BOX): 0 Affirmed; 0 Reversed; 0 Remanded; D Other:

N01'E: AITORNEYS ARB RBSPONSIBLB FOR NOTIFYINO LOWER COURT, TRIBUNAL. OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OP 11iE CIRCUIT COURT RULING IN 11ilS APPEAL.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 181 See attached order; (formal order to follow) 'O Sta1ement of Judgment by the Court: ORDER INFORMATION

This order 0 enm 181 does not end the case. Additional Information for the Clerk: ----------------------------

INFORMATION FOR THE JUDGMENT INDEX Complete this section below when the Judgment affects title to real or personal property or If any amount should be enrolled. If there Is no Judament Information, Indicate ''NI A" In one of the boxes below.

Judpnent In Favor of Judpnent Aplnst Judament Amount To be Enrolled (List name_OO_ belo'!}_ (List name(q belowl_ (List amount(s) below)

If applicable, describe the property, including tax map information and address, referenced in the order:

The judgment information above has been provided by the submittmg party. Disputes concerning the amounts contained in this form may be addressed by way of motion pursuant to the SC Rules of Civil Procedure. Amounts to be computed such as interest or additional taxable costs not available at the time the form and final order are submitted to the judge CPFORM4Cm SCCA SCRCP Form 4C (Reviled 3/2013)

may be provided to the clerk. Note: Title abstracton and researchen should refer to the otDdal court orderufor f ·ft

judgment details.

Diane S. Goodstein 2112 1/9/2014 Circuit Court Jqdge

.I ' , JudP, Code .. - - · ·· :oate

For Clerk of Court Oftlce Use Only ·'

This judgment was entered on 1/!)/2014, and a copy mailed first clus or placed in the appropriate attorney's 1>9x on 1/!)/2014, to attorneys of recoi:d_,or to parties (when appearbig'pro se) as follows:

~-; ·~

SEE ATl'ACHED MAILING LIST

A 'ITORNEY.(S) Ff>!l THE PLAINTIFF(S)

- .1

Court Reporter :::~

ADDmONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DECISION BY Te;E COURT AS REFERENCED ON PAGE 1.

This action came to trial or hearing before the court. The issues have been tried or beard and a decision rendered.

'. 'l

I

CPR>RM4Cm SCCA SCRCP Form 4C (Revised 312013)

.,

f •

' I

·-

~-.

I

. .,

.,

...

. . . ,,..~

.... : .r

• J. I '

•. ... •• J

I •

,.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

) ) )

The Protestant Episc.opal Church In The ) Diocese Of South Carolina; The Trustees of) The Protestant Episcopal Church in South ) Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; ) et al., )

) PI.AINTIFFS, )

) v. )

) )

The Episcopal Church ( a/k/a, The Protestant ) Episc.opal Church in the United States of ) America; The Episcopal Church in ) South Carolina, )

) DEFENDANTS. )

IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASE NO.: 2013-CP-18-00013

By Motion dated December 17, 2013, the Defendant, The Episcopal Church in South

Carolina requested that this Court amend its Scheduling Order issued August 2, 2013. At the

motions' hearing on December 30, 2013, the Court stated its intent to schedule this case for trial

during the month of July 2014 subject to approval by Court Administration. Thereafter, the

Parties conferred with respect to amending the Scheduling Order and based upon the Parties'

representation to the Court, the August 2, 2013 Scheduling Order is hereby amended as follows:

1. The Parties shall disclose all witnesses anticipated to be called in their case in

chief, including any expert witnesses, no later than Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. The

Parties have a right to supplement if good cause exists.

2. All depositions must be concluded by Friday, May 2, 2014. Deposition will

begin immediately, notices will be subject to the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. In

lieu of mailing deposition notices to parties, deposition notices may be served via the virtual

Page 1 of2

courtroom by posting the notice, emailing the parties' attorney the posted notice, and posting the

deposition date on the deposition calendar provided on the site. Depositions of witnesses not

parties to this case or controlled by parties shall be served via .methods approved by the South

CaroJ-W' R~les of Civil. Procedure, but the notice and date. shall. be posted on the virtual .

courtipom.

- ' , 3. In preparation for trial, the Parties must exchange their witness list and exhibit list .:.

bY,~iine 5, 2014.

C,_) 4. The Parties must file with this Court trial .briefs no later than June 5, 20! 4. At the ! .

motions hearing on December 30, 2013, the attorneys present advised the Court that they hav.e

agreed not to exchange their trial briefs with opposing counsel and therefore no exchange is

required.

S. All pre-trial and/or dispositive motions must be filed with the Court at least 30

days prior to the first day of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

St. George, South Carolina ~ Dated: /- 2- ;\?/'

> ... •• .. l{J. .... !

~ _. . ~ . . .

f'

Page 2 of2

Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, et al. vs. The Episcopal Church (a/k/a Protestant Episcopal Church in the

Andrew Spencer Platte C. Alan Runyan, Esq. Speights & Runyan 2015 Boundary Street Sulte239 Beaufort, SC 29902

United States of America 2013·CP· 18-00013

ATIQRNEY MAILING LIST

Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; Church Of The Cross, Inc. and Church OfThe Cross Declaration of Trust; St; David's Church; The Church Of Our Saviour, O/The Diocese Of South Carolina; The Protestant Episcopal Church, Of The Parish Of St. Philip, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina; The Protestant Episcopal Church, The Parish Of St. Michae~ In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina and St. Michael's Church Declaration Of Trust; The Vestry and Church Wardens Of 11ae Episcopal Church OfThe Parish Of St. Helena; The Vestry and Church Wardens of St. Jude's C,hurch of Walterboro; Trinity Episcopal Church, Edisto Island; Vestry and Church Wardens Of'I'he Episcopal Church OfThe Parish Of St. John's, Charleston County

Henrietta U. Golding McNalr Law Firm P.O. Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body; Saint Luke's Church, HUton Head

Charles H. WDUams WllUams & WllUams P.O. Box 1084 Oranpburg, SC 29116-1084 Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina,· and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body

C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY 319 South Irby Street P.O. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29501 Attorney for: All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc.,· The Church of the Holy Cross; St. Bartholomews Episcopal Church

As of 10/25/2013 1

Ivon Keith McCarty 1212 Wappoo Road P.O. Box 30055 CbarJ~n, SC 29417 Attmjiey for: The ProtestanJ Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina; and the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Bodyi -

l ~

Han-y A. Omer, F.sq. OXNER & STACY 23! Church Street Georgetown, SC 29440 tfuornev for: TM Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of TM Parish Of Prince George Winyah; C~rist the King, Wcu:camaw

Thornwell F. So"'ell, E.tq. Bess J. DuRant, F.sq.

' ·'

SOWELL GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC. P.O. Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 Attorney for: Church Of The Holy Comforter

Robert R. Horpr HORGER, BARNWELL & REID, LLP P.O. Drawer 329 1459 Amelia Street Orangeburg, SC 29115 Attorneys foe: , Church Of The Redeemer

Lawrence B. Orr, Faq. ORR, ELMORE&: ERVIN

' I

504 South Coit Street, P.O. Box 2527 . ~ Florence, SC 29503-2527 Attorneys for: Saint Matthews Church; St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S.C.

Harry Easterling, Jr., Esq. 116 North Uberty Street Bennettsvflle,SC 29512 Attorneys for: St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc.; St. Davids Church

Mark Evans, Esq. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive Suite 202 Charleston, SC 29412 Attorneys for: St. James' Church, James Island. S.C.

As of 10/25/2013

, ' J

2

Saunden M. Bridges, Jr., &q. AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & SALEEBY P.O. Drawer 1931 181 E. Evans Street, Suite 409 ·1'

Florence, SC 29503 , Attomm for: St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S.C.

Stephen S. McKenzie, &q. COFFEY, CHANDLER & KENT, P.A. 2 N. Brook Street Manning, SC 29102 Attorneys for: St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc: The Church Of The Epiphany (Episcopal)

Robert S. Shelton, Esq. THE BELLAMY LAW FlRM 1000 "J.fj'J A venue Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Attorneys for: St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Conway .

John Furman Wall, DI 140 Wanclo Reach Court Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Attorneys for: The Church Of1'he Good Shepherd,Charleston, SC

William A. Bryan, Esq. BRYAN&HAAR P.O. Box 14860 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 Attorneys for: The Church Of 1'he Resurrection, Surfside

Francis M. Mack, Esq. RICHARDSON, PWWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 1900 Barnwell Street Columbia, SC 29201 Attorneys for:

.p

' . ,

~· . • I

....

,. l

l"' <4, j .... lt'.. '

; ..

, I 1 ~ I ' ..,

- .. (

The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The EpiscopalChurch OfThe Parish Of St. Matthews Church

P. Brandt Shelbourne SHELBOURNE LAW FIRM 131 E. Richardson Ave. Summerville, SC .29483 Aqorneys for:The Vestry and Wardens Of St. Paul'sChurch, Summerville

As of 1012512013

'

.· 3

Susan MacDonald Jim Lehman NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP BNC Bank Corporate Center, Suite 300 3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Attorneys for: Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach

Allan P. Sloan, m, Esq. Joseph C. Wilson IV, Esq. PIERCE, BERNS, SWAN & WILSON 321 East Bay Street; P.O. Box 22437 CbarleSton, SC . 29413

FAlward P. Guerard, Jr., Esq.· '~ 1106 Port Harbor Court Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Attornevs for: Vestry and Church-Wardens Of The EpiscopalChurch O/The Parish Of Christ Church

David B. Marvel, Esq. PRENNER MARVEL, P.A. 636 King Street Charleston, SC 29403

David L.DeVane;Esq. 110 N. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 Attorneys for: The Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Pau~ Radcliffeboro,

DaTkl Cox, E.tq.

r.

-1._ I ~· l

.1

Henry Grimball, Esq. · !··L

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE&: RICE,LLP. P.O.Boxm Charleston, SC 29402

Thomu A. Davis, Esq. ·· HARVEY & BA1TEY, PA 1001. Craven Street Beaufort, SC 29901 Attorneys for: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The' Trustees of the Protestanl Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body

\' •• • J~ !, f

• ~ "' ., r [ .~

As of 10/25/2013 4

G.~~ps, F.aq. NEDON; ~LINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP U~)>rSenter, S~te 600 151 _Meetlq Street . c..._,&ion;Sc 29401-2239 d~ ~M• An 'S..for.~

ihe~i-ttant Episcopal Church, Of1'he Parish Of St. Philip, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina

W. Foster Gaillard, Esq. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP 5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 29402-0999 Anomas for: 1'he Protestant Episcopal Church of the Parish of St. Philips Church, in Charleston, In fhe State of South Carolina

Bill Scott, EsqJDane J. Sowfnksl, Esq. ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, SC 29407 Attorneys for: Holy Trinity Episcopal Church

John B. Willlams, Esq. WILLIAMS & HULST, LLC 209 F.ast Main Street Moncks' Corner, SC 29461 Attqtneys for: Trinity Episcopal Church, Pinopolis

Georae J. Kefalos, Esq. 08Da D. Jobmon, Esq. GEORGEJ.KEFALOS,PA 46 A State Street Charleston, SC 29401

Stephen Spitz, Esq. P.O.Box535 Charleston, SC 29402 Attorneys for: St. Andrews Church - Mt. Pleasant and the St. Andrews Church -Mt Pleasant Land Trust

Andy Lacour Clawson & Staubes 126 Seven Farms Drive, Ste 200 Charleston, s.c. 29492 Aqomeyfor: The Vestries and Churchwardens of the Parish of St. Andrew

As of 10/25/2013 5

DEFENDANTS:

Thomas Tisdale Jason Smith 145 Klaa Street, SuJte 102 Charleston, SC 29401 Attorneys For.· The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

David Booth Beers Mary E. Kostel Goodwin Procter LLP 901 New York Avenue N. W. WasbJapon, D.C. 20001 Of Counsel A«omeys fori The Episcopal Church

Palmer C. Hamilton George A. LeMaistre Jr. JONES WALKER LLP 254 State Street Mobile, AL 36603 Qf CQWJSel Attorneys for: Episcopal Church of South Carolina

Allan Holmes Timothy O. Lewis GIBSON & HOLMES 171 Church Street Charleston, SC 29401 Attorneys for: The Episcopal Church

As of 10'2512013 6

ST ATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF DORCHESTER

) ) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

RE: The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al., Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013

PERSONALLY APPEARED before me Janice Swofford, who being duly sworn, deposes and

says: that she is employed in the office of Speights & Runyan, attorney for the Plaintiffs in the above-

referenced action; that she served and caused to be served the attached Plaintiffs Response to The

Episcopal Church's Motion for Continuance, Via email this 2°d day of July, 2014, addressed to all counsel

as shown on attached service list.

SERVICE LIST

DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS: The Episcopal Church and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina Thomas S. Tisdale, Esq. Jason S. Smith, Esq. Hellman, Yates & Tisdale 105 Broad Street, 3rd Floor Charleston, South Carolina 29401

The Episcopal Church David Booth Beers, Esq. Mary E. Kostel, Esq. Goodwin Procter 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

Allan R. Holmes Timothy Lewis Gibbs & Holmes 171 Church Street, Suite 110 Charleston, SC 29401

PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS:

The Protestant Episcopal Church In The Diocese of South Carolina; and The Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church of South Carolina, a South Carolina Corporate Body:

Henrietta U. Golding, Esq. McNAIR LAW FIRM P.O. Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 (843) 444-1107

Charles H. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 1084 Orangeburg, SC 29116-1084 (803) 534-5218

David Cox, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402

(843) 722-3400

Thomas C. Davis, Esq. HARVEY &BATTEY,PA 1001 Craven Street Beaufort, SC 29901 (843) 524-3109

All Saints Protestant Episcopal Church, Inc. St. Bartholomews Episcopal Church The Church of the Holy Cross C. Pierce Campbell, Esq. TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY 319 South Irby Street, P .0. Box 5478 Florence, SC 29501 (843) 662-9008

Christ St. Paul's Episcopal Church I. Keith McCarty, Esq. McCARTY LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 30055 Charleston, SC 29417 (843) 793-1272

Christ the King, Waccamaw The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of Prince George Winyah Harry A. Oxner, Esq. OXNER & STACY 235 Church Street Georgetown, SC 29440 (843) 527-8020

Church Of The Holy Comforter Thornwell F. Sowell, Esq. Bess J. DuRant, Esq. SOWELL GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC. P.O. Box 11449 Columbia, SC 29211 (803) 929-1400

Church Of The Redeemer Robert R. Horger, Esq. HORGER, BARNWELL & REID, LLP P.O. Drawer 329 1459 Amelia Street

Orangeburg, SC 29115 (803) 531-3000

Holy Trinity Episcopal Church Dane Sowinski, Esq. ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC 775 St. Andrews Blvd. Charleston, SC 29407 (843) 556-5656

The Church Of The Good Shepherd, Charleston, SC John Furman Wall, Esq. 140 Wando Reach Court Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 408-3433

St. Matthews Church St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence, S. C. Lawrence B. Orr, Esq. ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN 504 South Coit Street, P.O. Box 2527 Florence, SC 29503-2527 (843) 667-6613

St. Davids Church St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Bennettsville, Inc. Harry Easterling, Jr., Esq. 116 North Liberty Street Bennettsville, SC 29512 (843) 479-2878

St. James' Church, James Island, S. C. Mark Evans, Esquire 147 Wappoo Creek Drive., Ste. 202 Charleston, SC 29412 (843) 762-6640

St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Inc. Stephen S. McKenzie, Esquire Coffey, chandler & Kent, P.A. 8 South Brooks Street Manning, SC 29102 (803) 435-8915

St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Conway Robert S. Shelton, Esq.

THE BELLAMY LAW FIRM 1000 29th A venue Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 448-2400

The Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Radcliffeboro David B. Marvel, Esq. PRENNER MARVEL, P.A. 636 King Street Charleston, SC 29403 (843) 722-7250

David L. De Vane, Esq. 110 N. Main Street Summerville, SC 29483 (843) 285-7100

The Church Of The Resurrection, Surfside William A. Bryan, Esq. BRYAN&HAAR P.O. Box 14860 . Surfside Beach, SC 29587 (843) 238-3461

The Protestant Episcopal Church, Of The Parish Of St. Philip, In Charleston, In The State of South Carolina G. Mark Phillips, Esq. NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP Liberty Center, Suite 600 151 Meeting Street Charleston, SC 29401-2239 (843) 720-4383

W. Foster Gaillard, Esq. WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 (843) 722-3400

The Vestry and Church Wardens Of The Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of St. Matthew Francis M. Mack, Esq. 656 Fort Motte Road Saint Matthews, SC 29135 (803)-414-4138

The Vestry and Wardens Of St. Paul's Church, Summerville P. Brandt Shelbourne, Esq. Hope Lumpkin, Esq. Shelbourne Law Firm 131 E. Richardson A venue Summerville, SC 29483 (843) 871-2210

Trinity Church of Myrtle Beach Susan MacDonald, Esq. Jim Lehman, Esq. NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP BNC Bank Corporate Center, Suite 300 3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 (843) 448-3500

Vestry and Church-Wardens OfThe Episcopal Church Of The Parish Of Christ Church Allan P. Sloan, III, Esq. Joseph C. Wilson IV, Esq. PIERCE, BERNS, SLOAN & WILSON 321 East Bay Street; P.O. Box 22437 Charleston, SC 29413 (843) 722-7733

Edward P. Guerard, Jr., Esq. 1106 Port Harbor Court Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (843) 852-4530

Trinity Episcopal Church, Pinopolis John B. Williams, Esquire WILLIAMS & HULST, LLC 209 East Main Street Moncks Comer, SC 29461

' (843) 761-8232

St. Andrews Church - Mt. Pleasant and The St. Andrews Church - Mt. Pleasant Land Trust George J. Kefalos, Esquire Oana D. Johnson, Esquire GEORGE J. KEFALOS, P.A. 46A State Street Charleston, SC 29401 (843) 722-6612

Stephen Spitz, Esquire

1· • • I

P.O. Box 535 Charleston, SC 29402

The Protestant Episcopal Church, The Parish Of St. Michael, In Charleston, Jn The State of South Carolina and St. Michael's Church Declaration Of Trust Henry Grimball, Esquire WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP. P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 (843) 722-3400

St. Luke 's Church Henrietta U. Golding, Esq . McNAIR LAW FIRM P.O. Box 336 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 (843) 444-1107