court document: Gatekeeper Order version #3

20190508.1201.amended.order.v02

====== Conversion using MS Word: some may not be accurate ==============

NORTH CAROLINA                              IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

DISTRICT COURT DIVISION

PITT COUNTY                             0 1                              FILE 13-CVD-398

PITT CO , C.S,C

HUNTER GRODNER( V MERLIN)

AMENDED ORDER vs.

ANDREZEJ (ANDREW) GRODNER, Defendant.

THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned District Court Judge, assigned to hear this matter, at the March 7, 2019 Family Court session of the Pitt County District Court;

And having reviewed the record and taken judicial notice of the prior Orders entered in this cause, received evidence and statements, and heard the arguments on behalf of the parties, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and enters the following Order:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                The undersigned has been specially assigned to hear this matter based on an email and statements of the Defendant which resulted in the recusal of the assigned Pitt County Judge.

2.                The undersigned came into this court this day without any knowledge of, or prior relationship of any kind with, the parties or the attorneys who appeared in this matter.

3.                The Plaintiff was not present but was represented by her attorney of record, Jeffrey L. Miller, and based upon the record, he has been the Plaintiffs attorney since the commencement of this action; the Defendant appeared Pro Se and represented himself; And Anna M. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of a court administrator and state employee, Megan Hartzog, who was subpoenaed by the Defendant.

4.                This matter is properly before the Court for hearing on Defendant's announced

Motion and Request to Continue, and his "Verified Motion for a New Trial, Motion for Summary Judgement and Motion To Remove Plaintiffs Counsel (filed 27 December 2018)," together with the Plaintiffs "Motion to Modify and Limit Defendant's Communications with Plaintiffs attorney (filed 28 November 2018)," "Objection, Motion to Strike, Motion to Summarily Deny and Dismiss, Motion for Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Motion for Pre-filing

Restraint and Gatekeeper Order (filed 1 1 January 2019)," and "Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Attorney Fees(filed 28 February 2019)."

5.                The Plaintiff, Hunter Summerlin, is a resident of Nash County, North Carolina.

6.                The Defendant, Andrew Grodner is a resident of Pitt County, North Carolina. He is an economics professor at East Carolina University.

7.                The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on June 12, 2010, separated on February 13, 2013, and were divorced on May 15, 2014 in Pitt County file #14-CVD-699.

8.                There was one (1) child born of the parties' marriage, namely: LUCAS H.GRODNER, born August 3, 2011.

9.                Pursuant to an Order entered on January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted primary physical custody of the parties' minor child with final decision-making authority, subject to a specified schedule for the Defendant's secondary custody and visitation.

10.            Pursuant to that Order entered on January 9, 2015, the Defendant was required to provide child support for the parties' child.

11.            The January 9, 2015 Order made findings related to of some significant behavioral and conduct issues on the part of the Defendant during his marriage to Plaintiff, and during the course of the scheduled hearings in this matter.

12.            That on January 30, 2015, Defendant's then attorney of record, Teresa D. Bryant, filed a

Motion for Reconsideration and Relief concerning the 9 January 2015 Order which sought to have this Court reconsider the portion of its Order granting the Plaintiff final decision-making authority.

13.            That on February 4, 2015, Defendant's attorney, Teresa D. Bryant, filed a Motion to Withdraw as Defendant's counsel and the Defendant objected to her withdrawal.

14.            That on February 1 1, 2015, Attorney Larry Economos filed a Limited Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Defendant in "post-judgment matters subsequent to the entry of the January 19, 2015 custody order in this cause, including but not limited to the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief, but excluding representing Defendant in regard to Plaintiffs reserved attorney's fees issue."

15.            That Attorney Economos did not appear nor participate in any court matters, did not file any documents on behalf of the Defendant and upon his request was allowed to withdraw as counsel for Defendant.

16.            That on February 1 9, 2015, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion of the

Defendant's Attorney, Teresa D. Bryant, requesting that she be permitted to withdraw as Defendant's attorney in this matter. Attorney Bryant asserted that the Defendant was uncooperative and made it difficult for her to represent him, and the Defendant indicated that he did not desire for his attorney to withdraw.

17.            Defendant and Attorney Bryant made an agreement in open court wherein the Honorable W. Brian Desoto entered an Order which relieved Ms. Bryant of any further responsibility or duty with regards to this case except for the pending equitable distribution trial; and the Defendant was ordered to cooperate fully with Ms. Bryant and follow her instructions.

18.            That on December 22, 2015, Defendant's Attorney, Teresa D. Bryant, filed another

Motion to Withdraw stating there was "no way possible that she can continue to represent [Defendant] as a result of his actions and behavior" and because the Defendant desired her to represent him in a manner "which would be a violation of her ethical, professional, and moral standards. "

19.            That on December 22, 2015, the Defendant, Pro Se, filed an "Amended Motion for Reconsideration and Relief' of the January 9, 2015 child custody and child support Order.

20.            That on January 12, 2016, the Defendant filed his "Objection to Motion to

Withdraw" with an attached transcript of the February 19, 2015 hearing before Judge DeSoto.

21.            That Attorney Bryant's second Motion to Withdraw was conducted on January 19, 2016.

22.            Following the hearing, the Court orally announced on the record and in open Court that Attorney Bryant was allowed to withdraw and she was relieved as Defendant's attorney in this matter.

23.            The Plaintiffs attorney was present and did not object to the Motion to Withdraw.

24.            However, because of the Defendant's past behavior, Plaintiffs attorney made clear to Defendant and the Court that he desired limited communication and in the form of e-mail or writings only.

25.            The written Order was signed and filed on 13 December 13, 2016 allowing Attorney Bryant's withdrawal effective January 19, 2016 as Defendant's attorney.

25.           The Court made specific findings in the Order justifying the allowance of Attorney Bryant's withdrawal as Defendant's counsel, to wit:

a.                 The Defendant had continued to engage in behavior inconsistent with and disruptive of Attorney Bryant's efforts to act as his attorney.

b.                Attorney Bryant was required to prohibit him from coming to her office.

c.                 She was no longer comfortable being in the same room with him. d. Defendant was abusive in terms of the number and content of his e-mails to Attorney Bryant, forcing her to prohibit calls and e-mails from him.

e.               Attorney Bryant came to believe Mr. Grodner had improper motives in recording their meetings.

f.                Defendant had transcribed recordings of their meetings and placed it in the public record.

g.              Attorney Bryant was concerned about the level of conflict with Defendant such that she might be required to obtain a restraining Order.

h.              Defendant had not cooperated with Attorney Bryant as required by Judge DeSoto's Order, and she remained concerned that the Defendant desired hereto engage in improper conduct in her handling of his case.

i.                The Order also specified that the Defendant was to have no direct contact with Plaintiffs attorney and that his direct communication was to be by email only.

j.                The Defendant was specifically ordered and instructed that his email communications were to be concisely related to the case and were not be abusive in content or in quantity.

26.           The hearing on the Defendant's pending motions for reconsideration was held on

December 14, 2016. The Defendant appeared Pro Se and represented himself at that hearing.

27.           Initially Defendant argued with the court about his motions to continue. After the Court advised the Defendant that his motions to continue were denied, he kept inquiring of the Court and arguing with the Court about the matter.

28.           Defendant continued to argue about his "rights" and his desires regarding the records notwithstanding the Court's continued effort to have him focus on and argue the merits of the allegations in his motions for reconsideration.

29.           The Defendant has exhibited similar conduct with this Court during this hearing.

30.           On January 12, 2017, an Order was entered denying the Defendant's motions for reconsideration and the Defendant appealed the 12 that Order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and that Court affirmed the District Court's Order.

31.           The Defendant petitioned for discretionary review and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided whether to grant review in the matter. The issues now before this Court involve interlocutory matters unconnected to the pending appeal.

31.           The Plaintiffs attorney directed Defendant to cease his email communications and to communicate only by regular mail because of problems with the Defendant's direct e-mail communications with him, which Mr. Miller alleged to be abusive, harassing, and excessive and the Defendant declined to do so, contending that he was required to do so pursuant to a previous Order of the Court that had authorized him to communicate by e-mail after Attorney Bryant's withdrawal in 2016.

32.           Because Defendant failed to cease the e-mail communications as requested by Plaintiffs attorney, he informed the Defendant of his intent to deliver the e-mails to law enforcement for appropriate action and as a result, on October 12, 2018 the Defendant filed a Motion to Remove Opposing Counsel alleging that Mr. Miller violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by stating to Defendant in an e-mail "If you send me another text or e-mail communication I plan to contact law enforcement. Any further communications with me should be in writing in the form of a letter or formal court document" and later stating "I am delivering your text messages to law enforcement. I am also reminding you to stop texting or emailing me."

33.           The Defendant alleged these statements were false because the December 13, 2016 Order explicitly provided for direct communication with Mr. Miller by e-mail only and were statements of "material fact" because of Plaintiffs attorney's unwillingness to comply with the December 13, 2016 Order and that made it impossible for him to abide by any Court Order in the case.

34.           The Defendant has mailed communications to Mr. Miller via the U. Postal Service. He is able to communicate with Mr. Miller about this case by means of regular mail .Mr. Miller has not objected to relevant, court-related mailings from the Defendant through the U.S. Postal Service.

35.           That on October 1 8, 2018, the Defendant served a Notice of Deposition on Jeffrey L. Miller seeking an oral deposition of Mr. Miller to be taken in Wilson, North Carolina on November 1, 2018.

36.           Mr. Miller is the Plaintiffs attorney of record, a resident of Pitt County, North Carolina and is not a party in this action. The Notice also requested Mr. Miller to produce privileged documents at the deposition.

37.           That In addition to the deposition Notice, Defendant served Mr. Miller with a subpoena issued by a Deputy Clerk on October 18, 2018 commanding Mr. Miller to appear in Wilson, North Carolina and to produce documents.

38.           That on October 26, 2018, Mr. Miller filed and served his Objection to the Deposition and subpoena and a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Mr. Miller alleged as grounds in support of his Objection and Motion to Quash, inter alia, that he was not subject to deposition in Wilson, North Carolina pursuant to Rule 30(b)(l) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, that the subpoena was unreasonable, burdensome, and oppressive and subjected Mr. Miller to an undue burden and expense; and, that the deposition Notice and subpoena sought production of documents which were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Miller requested that his objection be sustained, that the subpoena be quashed, and that the Defendant be taxed with attorney's fees and costs.

39.           That on November 2, 2018 the Defendant filed and served his "Verified Motion for

Summary Judgment or in alternative, Motion to Compel Discovery." Attached to the

verified Motion were the Motion to Remove Opposing Counsel, copies of e-mails sent by Defendant on October 15, 2018 and October 18, 2018, the Notice of Deposition and subpoena served on Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller's Objection and Motion to Quash, and a proposed Order granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

40.           In his verified Motion, the Defendant alleged as "material facts" the Communication Terms of the December 13, 2016 Order and Mr. Miller's refusal to communicate via e-mail and "threatening the Defendant with 'law enforcement' " if he continued his e-mail communications. Defendant contended he was entitled to a summary judgment granting the removal of Jeffrey Miller as Plaintiffs attorney because there was no issue of material fact that Mr. Miller had violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and because his conduct prevented the parties from communicating with each other.

41.           That on November 14, 2018 a hearing was held on the Defendant's motions seeking To remove Mr. Miller as Plaintiffs attorney and/or to compel discovery, and on the Plaintiffs attorney and Plaintiffs attorney's objections and motion to quash the Defendant's noticed deposition and subpoena.

42.           That on December 1 7, 2018 the Court entered its Order from the November 14, 2018 hearing in which it denied the Defendant's Motion to Remove the Plaintiffs attorney, denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment removal of Plaintiffs attorney, sustained and allowed Plaintiff's Objection and Motion to Quash the deposition and Defendant's subpoena, denied the Defendant's motion to compel discovery, and reserved ruling and held open the Plaintiffs request for attorney fees to be paid by Defendant.

43.           That in the December 17, 2018 Order the Court made the following specific Findings of Fact as follows:

a.       The Defendant has shown no basis in law or fact for this Court's removal of Jeffrey L. Miller as the Plaintiffs attorney.

b.      The motions filed by the Defendant and allegations are wholly frivolous and insufficient on their face to support or require the requested relief.

c.       The Motions are without factual or legal merit or support.

d.      There is no showing or evidence that Mr. Miller has violated Rule 4. I of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or that such a violation would require or authorize this Court to summarily remove him as the Plaintiff's chosen attorney.

e.       The Defendant's Motions seeking a summary judgment or an Order for the removal of Mr. Miller as Plaintiffs attorney should be and are properly denied.

44.           That Defendant filed a Motion on December 27, 2018 pursuant to Rule 59 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure requesting "a new trial" on his November 2, 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment to Remove Opposing Counsel which had been previously been ruled on in the December 1 7, 2018 Order of the Court that addressed the same issues raised by the Defendant in the November 14, 2018 hearing.

45.           The Order denying Defendant's motions seeking to remove Plaintiffs attorney is an interlocutory Order. The law is well established that such interlocutory Orders are not the proper subject of, and are not properly challenged by, a Rule 59 motion for a new trial.

46.           The Defendant's "Verified Rule 59 Motion..." is frivolous, without merit, non justiciable, and it is not supported by the well-established law. Plaintiffs counsel filed a response to the Motion that put Defendant on notice that the Defendant's Rule 59 motion was frivolous and unsupported by law, but Defendant persisted and pursued his motion, and he desired to present it to this Court notwithstanding such prior notice.

47.           That the Defendant sent an email to Kay Brown, a Pitt County Family Court administrator, Connie Bland, , an assistant clerk of court, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Miller's legal assistant, Sandra Worthington on November 16, 2018 .

48.           That in the email the Defendant advised Ms. Brown and Ms. Bland to communicate to Judge Braddy that he was going to file a Motion to Recuse Judge Braddy, and that if Judge Braddy didn't "do it on his own...he will only have himself to blame because now he knows what is coming." Defendant stated that if Judge Braddy had any reservations about what Defendant might write about his conduct, he should familiarize himself with what the Defendant wrote in his Petition for Discretionary Review in which he represented how the Court of Appeals Chief Judge McGee and Associate Judge Murphy "lied and acted unethically which, if rejected by NC Supreme Court, will result in a Complaint to the Judicial Standards Commission.'

49.           That the Defendant cited his personal "blogspot" on an internet site as a reference. The Defendant further contended the following:

a.       That Judge Braddy recited "lies" that Mr. Miller is saying.

b.      That Judge Braddy "may actually not be able to read and understand COA opinions and NC Statutes.

c.       That Mr. Miller will never tell Judge Braddy the truth.

d.      That Mr. Miller "mercilessly took advantage of Judge Braddy's inability to comprehend the law for his personal gain without any regard of the consequences for Judge Braddy."

e.       That Defendant could not expect Judge Braddy "to uphold the law since he cannot comprehend it."

f.        That Defendant was "sorry that Motion to Recuse (and what follows) will be embarrassing for him."

50.           That as a consequence of the Defendant's November 16, 2018 email, Judge Braddy filed a copy of the email in the record of this action, and was scheduled for hearing on January 7, 2019 before Judge Lee Teague on the issue of Judge Braddy's recusal as raised by the Defendant.

51.           The parties were given notice of the hearing. Mr. Miller did not in any manner

Cause or precipitate the hearing. The Defendant's conduct was the sole reason for the hearing and for Judge Teague's ultimate decision about Judge Braddy's recusal.

52.           That on December 27, 2018, the Defendant issued subpoenas for the January 7, 2019 hearing, including a subpoena for Judge Braddy, Jeffrey Miller, Eric Summerlin, and Hunter Summerlin to appear and testify at the January 7, 2019 hearing on the issue of Judge Braddy's recusal.

53.           That on January 2, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel filed an Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Attorney Fees, and Motion for Rule 1 1 Sanctions in opposition to the subpoenas served on Eric Summerlin, Hunter Summerlin, and Jeffrey Miller.

54. That due to the Defendant issuing a subpoena for a judicial official, Anna Davis, Assistant Attorney General, was assigned to represent Judge Braddy.

55.            That on January 4, 2019, Defendant issued another Notice of Deposition and Subpoena on Jeffrey L. Miller for a deposition seeking to compel Mr. Miller to appear and testify at a deposition on January 18, 2019 in the Pitt County Clerk's office. The subpoena indicated the purpose of the deposition was related to the Plaintiffs November 28, 2018 Motion to Modify and Limit Defendant's Communications.

56.            That during the weekend of January 5, 2019, the Defendant sent an email withdrawing the four subpoenas he had issued for January 7, 2019; and, at 8:06 a.m. on the morning of the hearing scheduled on the issue created by Defendant's email and statements, Defendant went to the Pitt County Courthouse and filed with the Clerk's office written notices of his withdrawal of the subpoenas issued.

57.            The hearing on the issue of the Defendant's November 16, 2018 email demands and statements about Judge Braddy was heard as scheduled on January 7,2019.

58.            The Defendant had been at the courthouse earlier that morning but did not appear for the hearing.

59.            That because Anna Davis, Assistant Attorney General, had not received notice of the Defendant's withdrawal of the subpoena for Judge Braddy, she appeared in Court and was present for the hearing and had filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena served on Judge Braddy.

60.            That Mr. Miller appeared in court on behalf of the Summerlins and as attorney for Plaintiff.

61.            The Honorable Lee Teague conducted a hearing and entered his Order on 8 January 2019. In the Order, Judge Teague made specific findings about the Defendant's conduct and derogatory statements about Judge Braddy, the Clerk of Court staff, Mr. Miller and the District Court judiciary and staff, which Defendant publishes in his internet public blog. In his communications, Defendant accused the Family Court staff of being dishonest, and claimed the Court accepted Mr. Miller's lies as the truth.

62.            In his 8 January 2019 Order, Judge Teague found that Defendant was the one who

Actively created the perception of a bias against him, and that Judge Braddy did not have a bias. However, because of the Defendant's conduct and statements, and out of an abundance of caution to avoid even the suspicion or appearance of bias, Judge Teague ordered that Judge Braddy was allowed to recuse himself from further proceedings in this case. Nothing in the Order suggested or supported any contention that Mr. Miller or any person other than the Defendant was responsible for the recusal of Judge Braddy.

63.            In reference to the recusal Order, on 1 1 January 2019, Defendant authored one of his numerous false and derogatory emails proclaiming "Chief Pitt County Judge Braddy brutally removed from a case for Jeffrey L. Miller's misconduct." The email was sent to Megan Hartzog, Kay Brown, Sandra Worthington, Connie Bland, Debra Toomey, NancyRay, Patricia Perkins,

Sandra Ruffin, Sarah Page, Vonda Hausle, Yari Carreno, Jeff Miller, Larry Economos, Teresa Bryant, Matthew Jackson, Jay Audino, and Luella Crane. The false statement was made by the Defendant notwithstanding his knowledge and the Court's findings of the true facts surrounding the recusal of Judge Braddy, which the Defendant alone caused by his own misconduct.

64.            That on January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs counsel filed an Objection, Motion to Quash, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Attorney Fees in opposition to Defendant's January 4, 2019 notice of deposition and subpoena.

65.            That on February 25, 2019, Defendant issued another subpoena to Jeffrey Miller to Appear and testify at this hearing on March 7, 2019 and to produce "any materials" supporting email statements concerning an unrelated 1982 case, Cannon v. Miller.

66.            That on February 28, 2019,Mr. Miller filed an Objection, Motion to Quash, and Motion for Attorney fees concerning the subpoena.

67.            That because of the circumstances created by Defendant and his statements about the judicial and court staff of Pitt County, the undersigned was assigned to hear this matter as an outof-district Judge with no prior connections to the case, the parties, or the attorney

68.            This matter is properly before the Court for hearing. At the outset of the case, the Defendant requested that the hearing be continued. The basis for the request was that Mr. Miller is a liar and that the Defendant cannot get a fair hearing as long as Mr. Miller is the attorney for the Plaintiff. There is no merit to the Defendant's request and his Motion to Continue should be denied

69.            That during this hearing the Defendant repeatedly called Mr. Miller a "liar", accused Mr. Miller of lying, and accused Mr. Miller of lying to the Court. The premise of his Rule 59 new trial motion was that he could not get a fair trial and that he would be prejudiced because Mr. Miller was a liar and the Court accepted his "lies." The Defendant made a similar argument in his Motions before the Court at the November 14, 2018 hearing when he sought to have Mr. Miller removed and his Motions were denied by the Order entered December 1 7, 2018.

70.            The Defendant has prepared and filed documents with the North Carolina Appel late Courts accusing the entire panel of the Court of Appeals of having made intentional misrepresentations for the knowing purpose of rendering a miscarriage ofjustice, calling Judge Murphy corrupt and accusing him of making a false statement with the assistance of Chief Judge McGee, stating Judge Murphy intentionally made multiple false statements, and that Chief

Judge McGee willfully promoted Judge Murphy's false statements and misrepresentations.

71.            That notwithstanding the facially improper, unsupported, and frivolous Rule 59

Motion for a New Trial concerning an interlocutory Order, this Court attempted to give the Defendant some leeway and to indulge his efforts by trying to have him focus on his request of the Court in a structured and understandable manner.

72.            The Court frequently asked him direct questions and gave him direct instructions. That the Defendant evaded the Court's efforts and generally refused to follow the Court's instructions.

73.            He attempted to argue with and question the Court, and he was frequently non responsive in his statements. He complained about the Court interrupting him when the Court attempted to have him focus on the relevant matters.

74.            This Court reviewed the documents presented by Defendant and found that other than The Defendant's persistent personal statement that Mr. Miller was a liar, the Defendant presented no evidence to support his statements or claims or to support to any entitlement to any form of relief.

75.            The exhibits presented by Defendant do not prove that Mr. Miller made any false representations or statements to this or any other Court. This Court finds there is nothing in the evidence presented, or otherwise, to substantiate the Defendant's personal speculations, feelings, statements or claims. In Exhibit 6 introduced by the Defendant in support of his claims, Mr. Miller clearly and succinctly stated he had not lied about anything, that he did not have ex parte contact with Judge Teague, and that Judge Teague did not receive a message from him with regard to the hearing and Order for the recusal of Judge Galen Braddy. Defendant stated he believed there were deleted e-mails, that Megan Hartzog deleted emails, and that he believed Mr. Miller urged or caused ex parte contacts and misbehavior by Ms. Hartzog. When asked by this Court for any substantive evidence of such a serious claim, Defendant admitted he had none. The Court finds Defendant's perceptions and belief to be unique to himself and not supported by any credible evidence presented to this Court. There is no evidence that Mr. Miller lied to anyone or had ex parte contact with Judge Teague. The evidence indicates and the Court finds that Mr. Miller did not lie or make misrepresentations to the Court and he did not have ex parte contact with Judge Teague and further that the Defendant is not credible.

76.            That the Defendant did not present any relevant fact, item of evidence, or Rational argument that in any manner would have supported a proper Rule 59 Motion.

77.            There is no legitimate factual support or basis for the Defendant's Rule 59 motion premised on any claim that Mr. Miller lied, or otherwise.

78.            That the Defendant's Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial should be denied as being unsupported, unauthorized, frivolous, non-justiciable, and wholly lacking in merit.

79.            That the Motion is not well-grounded in fact, and it is not warranted by existing law or any good faith argument related to existing law. The Motion has been interposed for an improper purpose which appears to be to harass and needlessly increase the costs of this litigation.

80.            That in a text message sent to the Plaintiff in 2017, Defendant told her he had planned To make matters long and extended and that his costs were no longer important because he did not have a lawyer and was representing himself. He has needlessly and purposely increased the costs of this litigation.

81.            That this Court quashed the subpoena issued to Megan Hartzog upon the Motion of The Assistant Attorney General and a separate Order has been entered on that matter.

82.            That the Defendant has issued numerous subpoenas to Jeffrey L. Miller, attorney for The Plaintiff.

83.            Attorney Miller has filed an objection and motion to quash as to each subpoena, with a request for attorney fees.

84.            There has been no showing of any particularized need or relevant evidence that might justify or require the subpoenaed testimony of Mr. Miller.

85.            Attorney Miller and this Court have advised the Defendant that he should pursue any grievances or personal issues with Mr. Miller as a lawyer in a different forum and in a different manner, but Defendant disagreed and chose to argue with the Court. Defendant's subpoenas are unreasonable and oppressive, are interfering with the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Miller and his client, the Plaintiff, and have created a needless increase in the costs of this litigation.

86.            The subpoenas violate Rule 1 1 as they are a documents prepared by and issued in this action on behalf of Defendant Plaintiffs counsel's objection and motion to quash the subpoena should be allowed.

86.           That the Defendant has engaged in frequent and repeated email communications with Mr. Miller and with court staff. Mr. Miller has repeatedly advised and requested Defendant to cease his email communications with him. The Defendant's emails are harassing and abusive in nature, frequency, and content. The volume of emails is excessive in that during this hearing Mr. Miller presented a stack of emails to the court approximately one foot in height that he had received from the Defendant from the period of December 2018 through the date of this hearing.

87.           The Defendant believes he has a right to engage in unnecessary and abusive email communications with Mr. Miller. The Court's order allowing Attorney Bryant to withdraw as Defendant's attorney directed the Defendant to make such email contact concisely related to the case and to refrain from any abusive emails in content or in quantity.

88.           That at approximately 12:30 p.m. on 7 March 2019, this Court in open court granted Mr. Miller's motion to limit Defendant's communications, and it specifically directed and instructed the Defendant to cease his email communications with Mr. Miller.

89.           That it is clear to this Court that the Defendant has engaged in repeated conduct that is disruptive to the orderly and efficient administration ofjustice and that his emails and filings with the Court are abusive, frivolous, and disturbing.

90.           He has violated Rule 1 1 and is subject to sanctions and an assessment of reasonable Attorney's fees for his conduct in his filings and his subpoenas.

91.           That In order to consolidate the Plaintiff's and her counsel's several requests and entitlements to attorney fees, and because there remains an unresolved matter still pending determination by the North Carolina Supreme Court in which additional attorney fees may be awarded, the award of costs and attorney's fees associated therewith haave not yet been determined..

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter

2.                The Defendant's motion to continue is without merit and should be denied.

3.                The Defendant's Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial is wholly without merit, frivolous, non justiciable, unsupported by facts or law and it should be dismissed and sanctioned.

4.                The Defendant's subpoenas of Plaintiffs counsel are unreasonable, burdensome, and oppressive and should be quashed.

5.                That there is no basis in fact or law to justify removing Plaintiff's attorney in this action and therefore the motion should be denied.

6.                That the Plaintiffs motion for a restraint and limitation on the Defendant's conduct and communications has merit, is justified, and should be allowed.

7.                The Defendant's court filings, his emails and other communications with Plaintiffs

attorney, Clerks and other Court staff of Pitt County Court System should be modified, restrained and limited.

8.                The Plaintiff's Motion to modify and limit Defendant's contacts and communications and to stop Defendant's email communications has merit, is reasonable, necessary and should be allowed.

9.                The Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Clerk Staff and Other Members of the court system are entitled to a Gatekeeper Order as a sanction against Defendant in that the Defendant has abused his privileges of communications and court filings by his frivolous, non-justiciable, harassing, abusive, and costly conduct; And in this action, a Gatekeeper Order is an appropriate and necessary sanction and it is reasonable under the circumstances.

10.            The Defendant has violated the requirements of Rule I I and he should be sanctioned.

l l . The Plaintiff's and her counsel's entitlement to reasonable attorney fees and costs should be deferred and determined by this Court at a later date.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

l. Defendant's Motion to Continue is DENIED.

2.   Defendant's Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.

3.   Defendant's Motion To Remove Plaintiffs Attorney is DENIED.

4.   Plaintiffs and her counsel's Motion to limit the Defendant's communications is ALLOWED.

5.   Plaintiff's and her counsel's Objection and Motion to Quash the Defendant's subpoena are ALLOWED.

6.   That the Defendant be sanctioned for violating Rule 11.

7.   That upon the Plaintiff's request, the issue of the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs to be awarded Plaintiff and her counsel are deferred for later determination.

8.   That effective 12:30 p.m. on March 7, 2019, and pursuant to the expressed

instructions, directions, and Order rendered in open Court in the Defendant's presence, the Defendant shall cease, and he is ordered restrained from, sending or transmitting, or causing to be transmitted or sent, any emails or text communications to any of the following:

a.   The Plaintiff and her husband Eric Summerlin;

b.   Plaintiffs attorney, Jeffrey L. Miller, his office, and any member of his office or staff;

c.   Any District Court Judge;

d.   Any employee, administrator, or staff of the District Court of Pitt County;

e.   Any clerk or office member or employee of the Pitt County Clerk's Office.

9.   That hereafter, any communications, service of documents, or filings by Defendant with any of the above-named entities shall be by regular mail, UPS, or Federal Express delivery, and shall be subject to the certification and review provisions of the gatekeeper order sanction; And further that any and all documents filed her shall be reviewed and approved by a licensed attorney in the state of North Carolina prior to said documents being filed or served upon the opposing party.

10.                       That the Defendant shall not go about or upon Plaintiffs attorney's office or residential premises.

11.                       The Defendant is restrained from any direct communication or contact with Plaintiffs counsel outside of the courtroom or except as permitted with an attorney's certification as set forth in the gatekeeper provision set forth herein.

Entered March 7, 2019; Signed this              —day of April 2019.

Judge Presiding

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order has been served in the following manner by depositing a copy in the United States mail in a properly addressed, postpaid envelope to:

JEFFREY L MILLER

2510 E. 10th Street

GREENVILLE, NC 27858

ANDRZEJ GRODNER

PO Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

This the 9th day of                                       May2019.