The above docs reveal a few interesting things. First, the court has issued a tentative ruling as to Diskeeper's Motion to Strike Godelman's requested injunctive relief--denying their motion. The court asked that both sides brief the Court on the question of whether it would be proper to address the question of injunctive relief at this stage of the litigation, in light of a few specific cases the Court mentions. So these documents are each side's brief.
The Court's tentative ruling ends by stating:
Because the propriety of the injunction is appears to be a factual determination, it is not appropriate to strike the prayer for injunctive relief at this stage of the proceedings.
This is pretty much what I said December 20 on my blog:
While Diskeeper's argument may actually have some merit and may ultimately succeed at trial, a motion to strike will likely be viewed by the Court as an improper procedural tool to confront this particular argument. Diskeeper will eventually be permitted to make their argument, but not at this stage of the litigation.
Tomorrow there is a hearing where the Court will presumably finalize its tentative ruling. After reading both sides' briefs, I can't imagine it will change its mind. Assuming that happens, the Court will then hopefully goose this thing to trial where the real fun can begin.
The questions raised by Scientology's motion to strike are actually pretty interesting, and I'll try to post about this in depth but probably won't get to until this weekend as the next few days are busy.
One especially interesting thing is that Diskeeper's motion makes a claim I've not yet seen, that there are two versions of Hubbard Management Technology--one religious and one secular. Up to now I can only recall Scientology and Scientologists claiming that HMT was always secular. I think it may have been a mistake to claim this because it begs further explanation--perhaps Craig Jensen can be asked at trial to distinguish the religious and secular elements of HMT.
The problem, of course, is that none of it seems religious to anyone holding a monotheistic view of religion, such as possible jurors. A concept such as the thetan seems, on the surface, to be more religious than "mass" but Hubbard didn't really distinguish between the secular and religious himself--he pretty much pulled everything out of his ass and thought it was all gold. Neither concepts, as expressed by Hubbard, have any scientific validity and must be accepted on faith--and must therefore be considered religious for the purposes here.