DOCUMENT 800

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
7/2/2019 8:58 PM
03-CV-2018-900017.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

LEIGH CORFMAN, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.: CV-2018-900017
)
ROY MOORE, and )
JUDGE ROY MOORE FOR US SENATE, )
Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO

COMPEL ROY S. MOORE TO RECONVENE DEPOSITION

COMES NOW, Roy S. Moore and files this objection to the Supplemental Motion

to Compel Roy S. Moore to Reconvene Deposition and offers as follows:

1. Leigh Corfman continues her defiance of this Court’s directions; to complete the

deposition of Roy S. Moore within the parameters of this court’s instructions. As

the Court clearly stated six months ago at the January 4 hearing: “I think

everybody agrees to that, is to respond to the questions that weren’t respond[ed] to

at the time and not open up a new deposition [but] go ahead and finish this one.”

Hr’g Tc. of Jan. 11, 2019, at 46:15-23 (emphasis added). Leigh Corfman was

further instructed by this court to provide testimony under oath. Four months ago,

Corfman’s counsel promised to “promptly make Ms. Corfman available for

deposition.” Hr’g Tc. of Mar. 4, 2019, at 10:15-16. We are still waiting. The

charade Leigh Corfman has created surrounding the polygraph is just her latest

delaying tactic to avoid testifying under oath. THREE independent polygraph

1
 DOCUMENT 800

examiners in the State of Alabama have opined that Judge Moore successfully

passed the December 17, 2017 exam.

2. This lawsuit is devolving into the theatre of the absurd with plaintiff’s counsel in

the vanguard. The recent motion about Judge Moore’s 2017 polygraph exam (Doc.

784) is posturing at its finest lacking all probative value. “The results of a

polygraph test are inadmissible because they lack any probative value.” Smith v.

State, 157 So. 3d 1007, 1015 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). Because a motion to

compel testimony about inadmissible evidence is pointless, one can only speculate

as to the plaintiff’s motive in so burdening the Court. Lest we forget, this is a

defamation case. Judge Moore’s statement in the election-suit affidavit is

immunized from liability by an absolute litigation privilege. Even were the

privilege found not to apply, his simple denial of calling Corfman’s accusations

“false and malicious” is not actionable.

3. This irrelevant polygraph sideshow is a publicity stunt by the plaintiff to seek to

undermine Judge Moore’s credibility through the expedient of hiring a competing

expert to discredit the examiner’s findings of innocence. Sure enough, the very

day Corfman filed her polygraph motion a story appeared on Al.com echoing her

attack on the credibility of the polygraph exam replete with a statement from her

attorney. Mission accomplished! Paul Gattis, Roy Moore ‘likely failed’ polygraph

test, Corfman says, (AL.com July 1, 2019).1 Nonetheless, the fact remains that all

such opinions are inadmissible and thus irrelevant. Corfman may delight in her

1
https://www.al.com/news/2019/07/roy-moore-likely-failed-polygraph-test-corfman-says.html.
2
 DOCUMENT 800

effort to discredit Judge Moore in the court of public opinion, but that posturing is

of dubious value in furthering the alleged purpose of this lawsuit—to prove a

defamation case.

4. Corfman continues her “pick and choose” style of pleading half-truths using this

Court as an avenue to the media. Mr. Moore disclosed to the polygraph examiner

that he had never met the women who made accusations of sexual misconduct. In

his report the examiner stated the following:

During the pre-test interview … [t]he subject stated that he has never
assaulted a juvenile, and he does not know Leigh Corfman, Beverly
Young Nelson, or Tina Johnson. The subject believes that he met
Tina one time, but he does not remember her. In any event, the
subject claims that he never had any sexual involvement with any of
the women and never assaulted any of the women in any manner.

Deposition of Clyde Wolfe, Pl. Ex. 6, Bates No. 000004. When asked during the

polygraph exam: “Have you told me the whole truth about this matter?” Judge

Moore responded “Yes.” The polygraph indicated that he was telling the truth.

However, any information tending to vindicate Judge Moore is summarily

dismissed, denied, and mischaracterized so that the media will continue to act as a

vehicle for the Plaintiff’s political defamation.

5. Corfman’s gambit to avoid testifying by making continuous motions to expand the

scope of Judge Moore’s deposition is not only contrary to this Court’s explicit

instructions but also serves the purpose of draining Judge Moore’s limited

resources by stretching this case out indefinitely. Her first motion to expand Judge

Moore’s deposition, filed March 19, 2019 (Doc. 676) effectively suspended the

3
 DOCUMENT 800

forward movement of this case pending the Court’s ruling on the motion. Now she

is adding to that motion additional meritless and in this case irrelevant requests to

redepose Judge Moore. Last month Judge Moore filed a full refutation of the

original motion to expand. Doc. 777 (June 5, 2019).

6. Judge Moore respectfully requests that this Court deny the meritless “expansion”

motions filed by Leigh Corfman and instead enforce its two previous decisions:

(1) allow Judge Moore to complete his deposition within the limited scope as

previously instructed and (2) order Leigh Corfman to provide testimony under

oath.

Respectfully submitted on this the 2nd day of July, 2019.

/s/Melissa L. Isaak ____________

Melissa L. Isaak (ISA 007)
Attorney for Roy S. Moore
The Isaak Law Firm
PO Box 4894
Montgomery, AL 36103
334-262-8200

4
 DOCUMENT 800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel
of record by filing the same via the Alabama E-Filing system on this the 2nd day of July,
2019 and upon counsel at the following addresses:

/s/Melissa L. Isaak_________________
Melissa L. Isaak (ISA 007)

Neil Roman, Esq.

nroman@Cov.com

Clara Shin, Esq.

cshin@Cov.com

Megan L. Rodgers, Esq.

mrodgers@cov.com

Daniel W. Cho, Esq.

dwcho@cov.com

Harlan I. Prater, Esq.

hprater@lightfootlaw.com

Melody Eagan, Esq.

meagan@lightfootlaw.com

Jeffrey Doss, Esq.

jdoss@lightfootlaw.com