Pretty crazy, apparently.
Today, Rossi filed a Motion for Sanctions, claiming witness tampering.
(For the complete list of Motion documents, see Rossi v. Darden docket and case files entries for 3/19/2017)
Defendants, through their agents, are tampering with witnesses and/or otherwise harassing individuals in abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff, Dr. Andrea Rossi, may currently be under consideration by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for a Nobel Prize related to his E-Cat technology – the same technology that is the subject matter of the present lawsuit. Defendants in this case have known this fact for some time, even sharing this information with their investors/potential investors (See Ex. 1).
Exhibit 1 is an email from Darden to a Tom Sloan covering the Lugano test considerations. It’s frank, and very consistent with my understanding of how Darden was thinking about Rossi. Many details are given. This, however, would not establish that IH would have any present understanding of Rossi being considered for the Nobel Prize. Darden anticipates a possible problem with the Lugano test, the IR camera calibration.
During times relevant to the matters in this action, several professors from accredited universities throughout Europe, including Dr. Giuseppe Levi and Dr. Bo Hoistad, had previously tested Dr. Rossi’s technology, and co-authored a report validating its efficacy (See Ex. 2, the “Lugano Report”). Defendants not only dispute the efficacy of the technology, but also, by extension, the Lugano Report – and this is a pivotal issue for Defendants’ case
The Lugano report was already in evidence as IH Exhibit 14. While the “efficacy of the technology” is an issue in the case, it is not pivotal.
Defendants and/or their agents, including but not limited to Dewey Weaver and Uzi Sha (and upon information and belief, their purported attorney, Zalli Jaffe), have harassed, threatened and attempted to bribe these professors into withdrawing their support of the Lugano Report – all in an attempt to damage the reputation of Dr. Rossi, make less likely his ability to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize, and materially impact the evidence introduced in the present case. Such harassment and threats are abusive, made in bad faith, and are quite possibly criminal in nature.
So, what is shown as “harassment and threats”? What evidence is to be introduced that would be compromised? Evidence that a reactor worked at Lugano, if it existed — the Lugano report has been seriously discredited, independently of anything IH has done — would not bear on whether or not the Rossi reactors passed an alleged Guaranteed Performance Test in Doral in 2015-2016.
Plaintiffs request that this Motion be filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.4, as further publicity regarding this matter may further harm Dr. Rossi’s chances of receiving the Nobel Prize.
This was denied.
On April 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the above-styled action. The Complaint pertained, generally, to Andrea Rossi’s invention of the low energy nuclear reactor popularly known as the “Energy Catalyzer” or “E-Cat”, and the Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs Eighty Nine Million Dollars ($89,000,000.00) for the successful testing of the same pursuant to a License Agreement. Defendants’ defenses and counterclaims are premised on their claim that the E-Cat technology does not work, and that Plaintiffs have provided no proof that it does. The Lugano Report is indisputably just the sort of proof Defendants disclaim.
This is not an accurate statement of what the Defendants claim. The technology could “work” — under some conditions — and it would have no effect on the IH defenses and counterclaims. Rossi does not point to a specific claim.
The Lugano Report, and its distinguished group of Professors/signatories, provides tremendous evidence directly in opposition to Defendants’ defenses and counterclaims.
How this would be so is not shown. The primary issue in Rossi v. Darden is whether or not the Doral operation was a “Guaranteed Performance Test” and, if it was, whether or not the “reactors” performed as required in that to trigger the $89 million payment. IH has given, as one of several possibilities, that the technology does not work. That is the foundation of neither their defense nor of their counterclaims.
Defendants, knowing full well the problems that the Lugano Report and its Professors pose to their case, have engaged in efforts to discredit it and them. On October 14, 2016, the Defendants propounded their Second Request for Production to Plaintiffs wherein Defendants requested “[a]ll Communications between [Plaintiffs] and “Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjorn Hartman, Bo Hoistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegner and/or Hanno Essen.” Plaintiffs objected to the request, in part, on the grounds that
Defendants would reasonably suspect undue influence by Rossi on the scientists, and, as a holder of a License to the technology, were and remain critically interested in the scientific facts of the Lugano test. As well, they are engaged in supporting low-energy nuclear reaction research and the Rossi claims have had an impact on the field; if those claims are fraudulent and the Lugano test was in error, as it very much appears to have been, these are important to address for reasons that have little to do with the lawsuit, and everything to do with Industrial Heat’s routine business.
Rossi shows an excerpt from a discovery hearing that is irrelevant, in fact, to the claims he is making. IH was not prohibited from communicating with the scientists.
Plaintiffs have only recently learned that, throughout this pending litigation, the Defendants and/or their agents have repeatedly harassed the Professors in an effort to (1) jeopardize Dr. Rossi’s Nobel Prize nomination; (2) to materially impact the merits of this action; and to (3) coerce the Professors to withdraw their conclusions formalized in the Lugano Report.
What is shown?
I. Coercion of Dr. Giuseppe Levi
During the course of the last year, Dr. Giuseppe Levi has received numerous communications from known representatives of Defendants. These representatives, offered to bribe Dr. Levi to withdraw his support of the Lugano Report. Additional details and additional instances of such harassment of Dr. Levi are provided in the Declaration of Dr. Giuseppe Levi (Ex. 4).
On four (4) occasions, certain individuals from Israel have contacted me directly or indirectly to speak to me about the Lugano Report. It is my conclusion that their intention was to offer me money if I would agree to recant my support therefor.
Levi’s account of the meeting is heavy with suspicion and innuendo. He met with Uzi Sha. There are apparently photographs of Uzi Sha, demonstrating that he’s Jewish.
Rossi connects Uzi Sha with IH through an email sent by Darden to Zalli and Uzi Sha, February 23. 2016.
Darden had provided Uzi Sha personal contact information for individuals associated with this litigation on at least one occasion. (See Ex. 5.) On information and belief, Defendant Darden and/or the other Defendants similarly provided Uzi Sha with Dr. Levi’s name and/or personal information, and Uzi Sha’s harassment of Dr. Levi has been undertaken on behalf, and under the direction, of the Defendants. Relatedly, in the same e-mail in which Darden communicates with Uzi Sha, he also communicates with an individual named Zalli Jaffe. Defendants claim that communications with Zalli Jaffe fall under the attorney-client privilege, as they claim that Zalli Jaffe is an attorney in Israel who provided legal services to Defendants. Israel is not a territory covered by the License Agreement between the parties.
The persons whose contact information was provided were Fabiani, Rossi, Penon, and Colette Sauer, legal assistant to Johnson.
However, Industrial Heat is heavily involved in world-wide research into low-energy nuclear reactions. If Uzi Sha is as he described himself to Levi, it would not be in the least surprising or sinister if there were some contact between them, or even more, cooperation. Rossi characterizes the contact as an attempt to bribe Levi, however, that contact began in May, 2016. That someone interested in LENR would contact Levi is simply unsurprising. Levi reports that he thought Uzi Sha was trying to bribe him, but Sha had only asked if he would write a report,. and apparently offered to pay him for that.
It would not have been necessary for IH to provide Levi’s phone number, as he actually points out, it is easy to find it. Levi claims in his declaration that none of the questions asked about the Lugano report “had any scientific basis or varied from the unscientific attacks made in the blog posts.”
Now we know that Levi is bonkers himself. There are real questions about the Lugano report. While there are occasional “unscientific attacks” from pseudoskeptics, there are many questions raised — in blogs! — about problems with the Lugano report, and Levi has essentially stonewalled them. That failure to respond very much takes the Lugano report out of the realm of science.
Threats to Dr. Bo Hoistad
On February 15, 2017, Defendants’ agent, Dewey Weaver, sent Dr. Bo Hoistad a threatening e-mail, which, in essence, attempts to blackmail and/or otherwise coerce all the Professors into changing their opinions and conclusions (See Ex. 6).
Exhibit 6 is a set of mails quoting other mails. The original mail is from Dewey Weaver to Bo Hoistad, February 15, 2017. It is not threatening. It discloses some recently uncovered facts or claims.
Bo forwarded the mail to Levi. He doesn’t seem to be upset or to complain about being threatened. Levi then forwarded the mail to Rossi, calling it “disgusting.” However, the mail simply raised a possible fact that could explain why the calibration at Lugano was so far off. There is a real scientific issue.
Rossi then pulls in some transcription from the Dewey Weaver deposition about this. It’s ripped out of context. There is no smoking gun. To convert this to a threat, Rossi claims:
The implication, of course, is that these new findings will damage the reputations of not only the Professors themselves, but also, significantly, the Universities at which they work.
Actually, having issued a scientific report, insisting it is correct while stonewalling scientific critique, could indeed damage their reputations. However, this is all irrelevant to the lawsuit. These were not likely to be called at all as witnesses. None of Rossi’s claims depend on the Lugano report being valid, and no IH claims depend on it being invalid. The report is mentioned, that’s about it.
Finally, Weaver testified that he had e-mail communications with Professor Hanno Essen, another of the Lugano Professors. As of the date of this filing, these e-mails have not been produced to Plaintiffs, despite requests for such. Plaintiffs suspect that Weaver has made similar threats to Professor Essen
Complaints about discovery process don’t belong in motions like this.
Basically, IH is involved with LENR and is going to be in communication with scientists investigating LENR. Rossi is attempting with this motion to stop IH from talking with any of these people. Essen and Hoistad are not complaining, and have not filed any “declarations,” this is all Levi, who has long been very, very involved with Rossi.
This is an appalling motion, based on evidence that is little more than a chain of suspicions.
I am not certain that every aspect of this will be rejected, but the pleadings of IH are not going to be struck; cases cited appear to relate to fabricated evidence, not to vague insinuations as seen in the exhibits. What is possible is some additional discovery as requested, but with disclosure in camera to verify privilege — or to deny it.
There is no evidence presented that Uzi Sha is an agent for IH, nor is any actual improper behavior by Sha shown, beyond possibly some cluelessness. Dewey Weaver is, of course, working for IH, but the allegations against Dewey Weaver were thin and, to me, did not appear to be improper in any way. I’d like to have the same conversation with Hoistad and Essen (especially the latter).
In my view, there was nothing wrong with Hoistad forwarding the mail to Levi, to ask about it. Levi’s comments, though, were … the word he used: disgusting. This is a scientist?
I start to wonder: did Levi know that the material analyzed was not from the main reactor body? Someone insisted on the defective procedures they used, was that Levi? There are some more details about how the Lugano test was run in the Darden email.
I expect this Motion for Sanctions will be denied; it is possible, though, that there could be a hearing.
Meanwhile, the publication of all this may bring the matter of the “Swedish professors” to a head.
Update on case activity, 3/17/2017
As of yesterday, there has been no response from Judge Altonaga on the Motion for Sanctions described above. What we have are these documents:
03/13/2017 0168.0_IH_Hearing_Notice 3/14 adding JMP bank record issue
03/14/2017 0169.0 (no document) PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Discovery Hearing held on 3/14/2017. Total time in court: 1 hour(s). Attorney Appearance(s): Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Christopher Martin Lomax, John William Annesser, II and Robert Bernstein. (Digital 15:01:04) (cg1)
03/15/2017 0171.0 Hearing transcript (doc not available yet)
TRANSCRIPT of Discovery Hearing Proceedings held on 3/9/17 before Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan, 1-48 pages, Court Reporter: Bonnie J. Lewis, 305-523-5635. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/4/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/14/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Designation Access Form)(hh)
03/15/2017 0172.0_IH_notice per Magistrate request in hearing 3/14.
== 0172.1_Proposed_order (covers more issues than DE 170)
03/16/2017 0173.0_Discovery_Order as proposed DE 172.1.
== 0174.1_Proposed order re Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions against Defendants, Cherokee Investment Partners and IPH International, B.V. for Failure to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6).
03/16/2017 0175.0 (Presumed, no document) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions against Defendants, Cherokee Investment Partners and IPH International, B.V. for Failure to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6)
03/16/2017 0176.0 Order (no document) 10:17 PM ORDER denying 174 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA)
There was the usual knee-jerk Planet Rossi misreading of documents on LENR Forum, corrected by others. The main one was reading 167.1, the Rossi proposed order implementing severe sanctions, as if the Judge had issued the order. It’s clear that this wasn’t understood, because if that Order had been issued as writ, the case would have been over, everything Rossi had asked for in his complaint, still standing after the original Motion to Dismiss whacked half of it, would have been granted through a motion for default judgment for failure to respond. “Mere monetary damages” would not have been enough, the very foundations of the American republic would have been at stake, etc? Because of what amounts to an informative email to Bo Hoistad, personal contact with Levi from a possibly independent agent, and a pile of suspicions? Really? In places, Planet Rossi is crazier than Rossi himself.
Now Rossi has a new Motion for Sanctions, and also filed a motion to seal, based at least in part on material being exhibited from IH-affiliated depositions marked Confidential. The Motion itself is hidden and may have been deleted. Altonaga, personally, after 10 PM, entered a denial of the Motion to Seal, but no Order document was published, so, unlike before, we don’t know if she denied confidentiality, as she had before. So we do not know if we will see this Rossi Motion, or if we do, it may be redacted. From the proposed Order, the motion is titled:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions against Defendants, Cherokee Investment Partners and IPH International, B.V. for Failure to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6)
… (b) Notice of the Deposition; Other Formal Requirements.
… (6) Notice or Subpoena Directed to an Organization. In its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. A subpoena must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to make this designation. The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. This paragraph (6) does not preclude a deposition by any other procedure allowed by these rules.
I find it very difficult to imagine that these depositions were both actually made and violated this rule. There is extensive discussion of this rule on-line. The main issue that seems to create possible controversy is an attempt to correct testimony in the deposition. However, such an attempt is not necessarily a violation of the rule, and the possible “penalty” is simply that a Court may choose to ignore the correction (i.e., it may note it, but ordinarily the original testimony will not be removed and may be used for impeachment of testimony or other measures.)
With DE 173, the Magistrate ordered as proposed by IH, where IH was requested, in a hearing, to prepare an order. As has previously happened, the Magistrate signing this was ordering compliance by a date that was before the signature, but compliance had actually been ordered in the hearing, this is only a formalization for the record. Again, Planet Rossi flies off the handle, one of the speculations has been that the Magistrate and Pace are in cahoots. This is all normal process. When a new Order comes out of a hearing, a judge may request that the order be prepared by the attorney requesting it. In this case, the order was “mixed,” i.e., it did address some requests by Rossi, not denying them, necessarily, but formalizing an agreement with IH to provide certain specific documents. However, other Rossi requests or objections were denied. My sense is that the judge will request this “service” of the attorney most favored by the results. It would be galling to be asked to draft an unfavorable order! If an attorney took advantage of this to state the Order improperly, I’d expect a reprimand would be in order, and the Judge would not sign it without correcting it. This order is remarkable in that it has a footnote written by Pace, a “clarification” that may have created more confusion than it resolved. It is basically dicta, of no specific consequence, unless Rossi did not or has not provided his personal tax returns, in which case the matter will be taken back to the Magistrate.
Second Update on case activity, 3/17/2017
Rossi filed the Motion for Sanctions.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanction against Defendants, Cherokee Investment Partners and IPH International, B.V. for Failure to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6)
Plaintiffs request Defendants be prohibited from offering testimony and evidence on the issues for which they failed to properly prepare their corporate representatives pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).
When I saw from the proposed Order that this was for noncompliance with Rule 30(b)(6) I googled the rule. I put a copy of the rule above. However I also saw legal advice on this.
When your company gets sued, the “discovery” process of exchanging evidence begins. One discovery method full of peril is the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Unlike a deposition of an individual, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is noticed to the company itself, and designates specific topics on which the company must be prepared to answer questions. Because the company must prepare a witness (or witnesses) to testify on these topics that may encompass broad timeframes, complicated processes, and the knowledge of many current and former employees, the potential pitfalls in preparing witnesses to testify are many.
Among the most important decisions the company and its counsel must make is who to produce to testify on a designated topic. The choices are many–almost limitless under the rule–and usually, the company selects an employee who is most knowledgeable about the case and the topic on which testimony is sought.
You may want to rethink that choice.
Presumably, the party noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition has designated specific topics they want to explore, and feel that a prepared company representative is the fastest and/or least expensive way to obtain the information. This is a good bet when the company is large and written interrogatory answers don’t provide enough information about who knows what. But since the company is legally bound by the 30(b)(6) deponent’s testimony, it may be a good idea to select someone whose knowledge of case-relevant information is limited to his preparation for the 30(b)(6) topics on which he will testify.
Why does it matter? After all, the noticing party can only inquire about the topics designated in their 30(b)(6) notice, right? Unfortunately, this is most likely not true. […]
In summary, producing a witness with the minimum level of knowledge may be the best way to ensure that the company meets its obligation under the rules while minimizing the risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential, irrelevant or sensitive information. Someone with limited or no knowledge apart from the noticed topics is less likely to testify to anything that could later haunt you. Your attorney should work through the strategy and options when helping your company select the right deponent under the circumstances presented by your case.
This document, Practice Tips and Developments in
Handling 30(B)(6) Depositions, addresses the other side of the issue, strenuously. There are possible procedural pitfalls.
So what actually happened? It is not clear to me why it was necessary to depose the corporations. Darden and Vaughn, the officers who would have direct knowledge, were deposed individually. The rule was designed for large corporations, apparently, having a corporation designate a representative, or series of representatives, who would then be briefed on the issues designated in the documents establishing the deposition. As far as I can tell, the corporate representative’s knowledge would be redundant to that provided by Darden and Vaughn. IPH is essentially a shell, apparently, used to hold intellectual property.
So, procedure. First:
0179.1_Exhibit_1 Rossi Notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions
0179.2_Exhibit_2 Cherokee Objections to Plaintiff’s notice, agrees to respond to certain questions.
0179.3_Exhibit_3 Amended notice of taking videotaped depositions, adds new issues
0179.4_Exhibit_4 Industrial Heat Objections to Notice
0179.5_Exhibit_5 IPH Objections to Notice
0179.6_Exhibit_6 Deposition of Vaughn
0179.7_Exhibit_7 Deposition of Fogelman for IPH
From the Motion:
The three corporate defendants in this case – Cherokee, IPH and IH – all are owned and controlled by Defendant Thomas Darden (“Darden”). Darden has first-hand knowledge of virtually all of the areas of inquiry identified in Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notices. Instead of appearing as the corporate representative for Cherokee and IPH, Darden instead chose Slocum Fogelman to do so. The reason for doing so is obvious: Darden did not want to subject himself to multiple seven-hour depositions,
Actually, that’s an obvious reason but not the only one.
… and intended to deprive Plaintiffs of the ability to obtain additional information about the Defendants’ claims and defenses at issue.
Information that would be best known to Darden, who was deposed just previously. Any information possessed by Fogelman would have come from Darden or Vaughn, and IH was the actual operating entity.
Furthermore, Darden made no attempt to instruct or otherwise inform Fogelman as to the facts and circumstances related to the areas of inquiry, leaving Fogelman with no ability to provide substantive responses to Plaintiffs’ questions.
Apparently cherry-picked excerpts have been taken from the depositions, but what is shown does not clearly support this claim. Fogelman was badgered by Chaiken and Annesser, who repeatedly asked questions. The Cherokee claim is that IH was not an investment of theirs, and so a Cherokee representative would not necessarily have knowledge of details about what Chaiken and Annesser asked.
IH, IPH, and Cherokee had objected to the overbroad nature of the questions or issues. It appears that instead of resolving disagreements over what was proper, by taking the disagreement to the Magistrate, Rossi argued to the contrary and then went ahead with the depositions.
It is common, apparently, for corporate representatives to be ones without much general knowledge of the matters. They are briefed by the corporation on the issues that have been set for deposition, and the corporation is responsible for their testimony. Chaiken and Annesser asked questions on small details that would be known neither to Cherokee, qua Cherokee, not to IPH, qua IPH.
Because a single list of questions or issues was provided for all deponents, my sense is that it is adequate if one of the deponents is informed and responds.
So what were the questions?
From Exhibit 1
AREAS OF INQUIRY FOR THE CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES OF CHEROKEE,
INUDSTRIAL [sic] HEAT, LLC AND IPH, INTERNATIONAL, B.V.
1. All contract negotiations between the parties to this lawsuit, including but not limited to the License Agreement and amendments thereto, the Term Sheet, and any other agreements.
2. All sources of funds to be used to pay the full amounts contemplated by the License Agreement.
3. All communications between the parties pertaining to the Guaranteed Performance Test.
4 All communications between the parties pertaining to the ERV for the Guaranteed Performance Test.
5. All communications between the parties pertaining to the protocols for the Guaranteed Performance Test.
6. All communications between the parties pertaining to problems or issues with the Guaranteed Performance Test.
7. All internal communications (including those with employees or independent contractors retained by you) pertaining to the Guaranteed Performance Test, including but not limited to those pertaining to:
a. the ERV for the Guaranteed Performance Test,
b. the protocols for the Guaranteed Performance Test, and
c. problems or issues with the Guaranteed Performance Test.
8. All communications with investors pertaining to: Rossi, Leonardo, E-Cat and E-CAT technology, and/or the Guaranteed Performance Test.
9. All internal communications pertaining to investor communications regarding Rossi, Leonardo, E-Cat and E-CAT technology, and/or the Guaranteed Performance Test.
10. All communications with Brillouin Energy pertaining to: Rossi, Leonardo, E-Cat and ECAT technology, and/or the Guaranteed Performance Test.
11. All communications with Fred Zeopfl pertaining to: Rossi, Leonardo, E-Cat and E-CAT technology, the Guaranteed Performance Test, and/or the facility in Doral being used for testing the E-CAT technology.
12. All communications with any employee of the State of Florida pertaining to: Rossi, Leonardo, E-Cat and E-CAT technology, the Guaranteed Performance Test, and/or the facility in Doral being used for testing the E-CAT technology.
13. All attempts to replicate any of Plaintiffs’ claimed E-Cat testing results.
14. All patent applications filed that incorporate, expand upon or otherwise relate to Plaintiffs’ E-Cat technology, including but not limited to WIPO Patent Application number WO 2015/127263 A2 filed on August 27, 2015.
15. Your claims that Plaintiffs disclosed the E-Cat IP without prior consent, including to (a) the scientists who prepared the Lugano Report and (b) Norman Cook.
16. All communications with Henry Johnson and J.M. Products, Inc.
17. All due diligence performed by you pertaining to:
a. Andrea Rossi
b. E-Cat technology
c. Fabio Penon
d. United States Quantum Leap, LLC
e. Fulvio Fabiani
f. Henry Johnson
g. J.M. Products, Inc.
18. Your claims that Plaintiffs have breached the License Agreement.
19. Your claims that Plaintiffs have fraudulently induced you to enter into the Term Sheet.
20. Your claims that Plaintiffs have violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
21. Your affirmative defenses filed in this case.
22. Any and all evidence which forms the basis for your good faith belief that Plaintiffs have not paid their taxes as you have alleged.
Most of these questions would not pertain to the business of IPH, nor of Cherokee. Essentially, these corporations would have nothing to say that was independent of IH. IPH is wholly-owned by IH; Cherokee is an independent corporation not engaged in LENR research.
I also notice how the Questions incorporate Rossi assumptions, his leading language, that treats as fact what he has claimed but not proven. That may be normal, though.
Cherokee’s objection agreed to prepare a witness to testify about
topics 1-14, 16, and 17. My comment: the preparation, for questions that don’t pertain to Cherokee, might consist of pointing out that Cherokee has no information on these topics. Some of these issues are very broad, and redundant.
Then there were more issues added in the amendment, Exhibit 3.
SUPPLEMENTAL AREAS OF INQUIRY
23. The source of all IH and IPH operating funds to pay or fund employees, contractors, consultants, or other individuals performing work for or on behalf of IH and IPH.
24. All services provided for or on behalf of IH and IPH.
25. Your knowledge of the facts used to support the affirmative defenses in this case.
26. Your knowledge of test protocol proposed or utilized by IH for operation, test, and or replication attempt, including but not limited to, test protocols performed in Ferraro, Italy; Lugano, Switzerland; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Doral, Florida.
27. Any alterations or proposed alterations to any test protocol, proposed test protocol, or procedure for the testing of the E-Cat or related E-Cat IP.
I see no reason why the IPH/Cherokee representative should be briefed on most questions. It’s all redundant to Vaughn and Darden, both of which were deposed individually, and Vaughn as the corporate representative of IH.
Reading the Fogelman deposition for Cherokee, Rossi was fishing. And when Fogelman doesn’t toss him a fish, Rossi files a Motion for Sanctions. The questions were asking things that the corporation he represented would not know, as a matter of corporate business. He does answer questions that were in the list.
This Motion for Sanctions is appalling. If there is still necessary disclosure, that would be a matter to take to the Magistrate, as the disagreements should probably have been taken. However, my sense is that there is a desire here to harass Darden and Vaughn. The corporate depositions, each would have taken a full day, with counsel at hour rate, probably. They would be redundant, simply another shot at asking the same questions, and clearly Rossi disliked that Darden and Vaughn named a different person, Fogelman, who appears to be involved with Cherokee. Rossi was asking many questions that nobody at Cherokee would know about, other than Darden and Vaughn.