IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECH

                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

              FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA




RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a          )
California non-profit corporation;      )  Case No. C-95-20091
and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS INC., a         )
California non-profit organization,     )
                                        )
                         Plaintiffs,    )
                                        )  ORDER SETTING
                v.                      )  HEARING DATES
                                        )
NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION            )
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corp.;       )
DENNIS ERLICH, an individual; and       )
TOM KLEMESRUD, an individual, dba       )
CLEARWOOD DATA SERVICES,                )
                                        )
                         Defendants.    )
                                        )
________________________________________) 



     The court has received numerous ex-parte applications and
responses to them. 

     Plaintiffs have applied for an early hearing date for a
renewed motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants
Netcom and Klemensrud.  The essence of the request is that the
lack of an injunction facilitates defendant Erlich's ability to
violate the existing TRO against him.  A contempt hearing for
defendant Erlich's alleged violation of the TRO is currently set
for March 17, 1995. 

     Defendant Netcom filed a motion to dismiss on March 13, 1995
and set it for hearing on April 14, 1995.  Defendant Netcom
objects to a hearing date on a renewed preliminary injunction
request that is before the hearing date on its motion to dismiss. 
Defendant Erlich has filed an ex-parte request for extensions of
various deadlines on the basis that he just obtained counsel and
that the case involves complex issues.  Plaintiffs particularly
object to the postponement of the scheduled contempt hearing. 

     Defendant Klemesrud has written to the court suggesting the
vacation of all dates and the holding of a status conference.  He
is waiting for a response to the tender of his defense to his
insurance carrier.  He also suggests that the court consolidate
plaintiffs' new preliminary injunction request with a trial on the
merits. 

     Upon consideration of the parties' concerns, and upon good
cause shown, the court makes the following order: 


     1.   All currently scheduled hearing dates are vacated. 

     2.   A case management conference is set for April 7, 1995 at
10:30 a.m. 

     3.   At the case management conference the court will set  

          a.   the hearing on plaintiff's application to have
defendant Erlich held in contempt for violating the court's TRO;  

          b.   the hearing on defendant Netcom's motion to
dismiss;  

          c.   the hearing on plaintiff's renewed application for
a preliminary injunction;  

          d.   trial, pretrial conference, and discovery cut-offs;
and 

          e.   any other matters needing scheduling. 

     4.   Pending the case management conference the court's
current restraining order remains in effect.  If defendant Erlich
violates this order, plaintiffs may immediately request that the
court set a contempt hearing.  Since defendant Erlich has now
obtained counsel and has promised through counsel that if a
continuance were allowed "he would agree not to publish any of Mr.
Ron Hubbard's writings, or copyright-registered writings of the
Church of Scientology, until the contempt hearing or the end of
April, whichever occurs first," the court is satisfied that a
continuance of the contempt hearing is appropriate with the
protection of the ability to schedule an earlier hearing, if a
violation occurs. 

     5.   The dates for defendant Erlich to respond to the first
amended complaint and to respond to the Court's February 21, 1995
oral order are extended to April 14, 1995.  If the parties cannot
reach an agreement upon a protective order with respect to
disclosure of the documents seized from defendant Erlich so that
counsel for defendant Erlich can inspect and copy them, they are
to submit to the court forthwith their respective proposals. 

     6.   The parties are to meet and confer before the case
management conference with respect to consolidating the currently
pending proceedings into an early trial on the merits.  It would
appear that such a procedure would reduce the time, expense, and
delay to all concerned and enable an early resolution of what
appear to be sensitive issues to all parties.    

DATE: [3/16/95]


                         /s/
                        RONALD M. WHYTE
                    U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE