This document is a joint summary by the plaintiff Floyd Landis and defendants Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William Stapleton, and Barton Knaggs outlining discovery issues related to the plaintiff's first set of requests for production and interrogatories. The parties outline their respective positions on several interrogatories and document requests where they disagree, including requests for information about individuals knowledgeable about doping, details of document searches, and documents related to services provided to Lance Armstrong. The parties could not reach agreement on the proper scope of several requests and interrogatories.
This document is a joint summary by the plaintiff Floyd Landis and defendants Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William Stapleton, and Barton Knaggs outlining discovery issues related to the plaintiff's first set of requests for production and interrogatories. The parties outline their respective positions on several interrogatories and document requests where they disagree, including requests for information about individuals knowledgeable about doping, details of document searches, and documents related to services provided to Lance Armstrong. The parties could not reach agreement on the proper scope of several requests and interrogatories.
This document is a joint summary by the plaintiff Floyd Landis and defendants Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William Stapleton, and Barton Knaggs outlining discovery issues related to the plaintiff's first set of requests for production and interrogatories. The parties outline their respective positions on several interrogatories and document requests where they disagree, including requests for information about individuals knowledgeable about doping, details of document searches, and documents related to services provided to Lance Armstrong. The parties could not reach agreement on the proper scope of several requests and interrogatories.
Telephonic Conference With Court Scheduled For September 5, 2014 2:00PM
JOINT SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY ISSUES BY RELATOR FLOYD LANDIS AND DEFENDANTS CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. (CSE), WILLIAM STAPLETON AND BARTON KNAGGS (COLLECTIVELY THE CSE DEFENDANTS) REGARDING RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1
1 In order to comply with the page limit set by the Court and still reasonably outline their respective positions on the outstanding issues, the parties have limited the argument portion of this submission to three pages, which excludes this cover page and the signature page. The interrogatories and responses thereto can be found at Exhibits A and B respectively. The requests for production and amended responses thereto can be found at Exhibits C and D. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 5 1
I. INTERROGATORIES TO CSE Relators Position - Interrogatory No. 1: CSE has refused to respond to this interrogatory which seeks information regarding persons knowledgeable about doping during the relevant period. See Exhibit B at p. 8-10. Relator has agreed to narrow the definition of YOU for this request, so CSE would only have to provide information from the current owners, officers, employees and agents of the company. CSEs Position - Interrogatory No. 1: In meet and confer discussions, Relator clarified that the Interrogatory requests CSEs current knowledge or belief as to individuals who knew or who CSE believes knew about doping at any point between January 1, 1995 and February 28, 2010. The Interrogatory requests speculative, irrelevant information. It essentially requests based on all the information in the public record that CSE guess who may have known about Armstrong or other riders doping almost 20 years ago. The information provided would illuminate nothing more than which individuals closely followed the press coverage of the Armstrong saga. CSE does not object to Relators amended definition of CSE. Relators Position - Interrogatory No. 9: Interrogatory No. 9 asks CSE to DESCRIBE each and every action YOU have taken, or directed be taken, to locate, maintain or preserve responsive DOCUMENTS . . . . Ex. B at 20-21. CSEs response provides no meaningful details regarding what files or records were searched or how they were searched. The CSE Defendants have also refused to disclose the search terms they are using to locate documents in response to relators document requests. See Ex. D at 4. 2
CSEs Position - Interrogatory No. 9: CSE responded to the Interrogatory by providing the details of its search for responsive documents, but Relator was unsatisfied with the level of detail provided. CSE believes its response to Interrogatory No. 9 is adequate.
2 See DeGeer v. Gillis, 755 F. Supp.2d 909, 929 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (responding party should have disclosed search terms and data custodians); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., 2013 WL 1942163 at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2103) (adopting same standard); In re: Porsche Cars North America, 2012 WL 4361430 at *7 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012) (defendants compelled to provide information regarding the steps they took to locate and produce responsive documents); Romero v. Allstate Insurance Co., 271 F.R.D. 96, 109-10 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (compelling parties to agree on search methodology for ESI) (citing, inter alia, Doe v. Dist. of Columbia, 230 F.R.D. 47, 56 (D.D.C. 2005)). Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 5 2
Similarly, Relator demands CSEs search terms to purportedly gauge whether the searches are reasonable. Relator has not stated any grounds to find CSEs searches unreasonable and has none. Relators counsel is merely seeking to further burden CSE and prolong already protracted discovery discussions. III. DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO THE CSE DEFENDANTS Relators Position - Request No. 69 seeks documents known by the CSE Defendants to contradict the plaintiffs allegations. The CSE Defendants declined to produce the documents. Relators Position - Request No. 70 seeks documents upon which the CSE Defendants rely to deny relators allegations against them. Defendants declined to produce the documents. CSEs Position - Request Nos. 69 & 70: As a practical matter the Requests are overbroad and impossible to search for. The CSE Defendants cannot comb through Relators 277-paragraph and the United States 93-paragraph complaints line-by-line and compare the allegations to each document they possess to determine if they conflict. Furthermore, documents responsive to these Requests are likely subsumed under the 275 other document requests Relator served on the CSE Defendants. Relators Position - Request No. 78 seeks documents that describe the nature of the services any of the CSE Defendants have provided for Lance Armstrong from 1995 through the present. This request is relevant to Armstrongs claims of attorney-client privilege with Stapleton. The CSE Defendants response excludes relevant responsive documents. Relators Position - Request No. 80 seeks documents showing the lack of an attorney-client relationship between Armstrong and the CSE Defendants. These documents are relevant, for Stapleton was not authorized to practice law during a substantial part of the period relevant to this case. Defendants response impermissibly narrows the request. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 5 3
CSEs Position - Request Nos. 78 & 80: Despite their vagueness, CSE endeavored to interpret the requests and agreed to produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters between the CSE Defendants and Armstrong, (2) all documents reflecting Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) all communications between Stapleton and Armstrong in which a party expressly states Stapleton was or was not acting as Armstrongs attorney. The documents CSE agreed to produce are adequate. Relators Position - Request No. 88 seeks documents identifying CSEs officers, directors, employees and agents. Relator is prepared to narrow the request to include all of CSEs officers and directors, plus employees who worked full or part-time for CSEs sports group. CSEs Position - Request No. 88: Given the nature of CSEs business, CSE has had many transient employees. CSE has agreed to produce documents sufficient to show the officers, directors, and full-time employees of CSEs sports group. Providing further information, if possible, would be highly burdensome and valueless. Relators Position - Request No. 89 seeks CSEs board minutes, which are likely to contain evidence relating to the allegations in the case. They are also relevant to relators piercing allegations, since the CSE Defendants have said they did not hold board meetings. Any formal or informal minutes should be provided. CSEs Position - Request No. 89: As CSE stated in its response to Relators Interrogatory No. 11, CSE has no formal board minutes. Relators Position - Request No. 92 seeks documents or communications relating to books relating to cycling or doping where the author or subject of the book, in whole or part, is one of the Defendants. Relator narrowed this request to exclude published books. Defendants amended response mischaracterizes the parties discussions on this point. CSEs Position - Request No. 92: During meet and confer correspondence, Relators position as to what was included in the Request continually changed. Given the lack of clarity, Stapleton and Knaggs cannot respond to the Request. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 5 4
Dated: September 4, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
__________ /s/________________ Paul D. Scott pdscott@lopds.com California State Bar No. 145975 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
___________/s/________________ Lani Anne Remick laremick@lopds.com California State Bar No. 189889 U.S.D.C. No. PA0045 Jon L. Praed U.S.D.C. No. 450764 D.C. Bar No. 51665 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 981-1212 Fax: (415) 981-1215
Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis /s/ John P. Pierce John P. Pierce (D.C. Bar No. 475101) THEMIS PLLC 2305 Calvert Street, NW Washington, DC 20008 (202) 567-2050 Telephone (202) 567-2051 Facsimile jpierce@themis.us.com
Marc S. Harris (pro hac vice) SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025 (213) 613-4655 Telephone (213) 613-4656 Facsimile mharris@scheperkim.com
Attorneys for Defendants Capital Sports & Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William J. Stapleton and Barton B. Knaggs
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 5
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al. Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.)
EXHIBIT A
JOINT SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY ISSUES BY RELATOR FLOYD LANDIS AND DEFENDANTS CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. (CSE), WILLIAM STAPLETON AND BARTON KNAGGS (COLLECTIVELY THE CSE DEFENDANTS) REGARDING RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 21 1
RELATORS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, relator Floyd Landis hereby propounds the following First Set of Interrogatories to the above- named defendant and requests that defendant respond in writing and under oath within 30 days. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS These Interrogatories shall be interpreted and answered, and any responsive materials shall be produced, in accordance with the following Definitions and Instructions. DEFINITIONS The following definitions, whether or not capitalized, shall apply to each Request below: 1. ALL -- The term ALL is intended to be construed in the broadest possible manner so as to include, but not be limited to, each and every. 2. AND / OR -- The words "AND" and "OR" shall mean "and/or." 3. ANY -- The term ANY means one or more. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 21 2
4. COMMUNICATION -- The term "COMMUNICATION" means a transmittal of information, or request for information, by DOCUMENT or otherwise and includes any conversation in person, by telephone or by any other means, as well as any utterance heard by another person whether in person, by telephone or otherwise. 5. CSE -- The term CSE means Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and any d/b/as thereof, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 6. CSE RELATED ENTITIES -- The term CSE RELATED ENTITIES means CSE, Capital Sports Ventures, and Capital Sports & Entertainment, Inc. 7. DEFENDANTS -- The term DEFENDANTS means TAILWIND, ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC., CSE, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, Thomas W. Weisel, William J. Stapleton and Barton B. Knaggs. 8. DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN, STATE, or IDENTIFY, when used in reference to any fact, occurrence, transaction, statement or other matter means to describe and identify with particularity the facts constituting such matter, providing the date, time, place, manner, and identity of the person(s) or entity(ies) involved. 9. DOCUMENT -- The term DOCUMENT refers to, means, and includes all written or graphic matter or tangible things of every kind and description, however produced or reproduced, in YOUR actual or constructive possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to all originals (or copies where originals are unobtainable or where the copies are not identical to the originals) of correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, applications, claims, policies of insurance, printed matter, contracts, agreements, proposals, bids, work papers, statistical records, minutes, interoffice communications, studies, technical data, charts, brochures, electronically stored information, computer data, computer discs, computer chips, files, bulletins, reviews, Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 21 3
compilations, sound recordings, films, photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, notes, calendars, appointment books, diaries, time-sheets, time logs, or papers, no matter how described or denominated, and any drafts thereof and includes all items encompassed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Different versions of the same document, such as different copies of a written record bearing different handwritten notations, are different documents within the meaning of the term as used. In case originals or original non- identical copies are not available, the term "DOCUMENT" includes copies of originals or copies of non-identical copies as the case may be. 10. DOPING -- The term DOPING means the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase athletic performance, including but not limited to EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, blood transfusions, and/or masking agents. 11. IDENTIFY -- The term IDENTIFY has the following meanings: a. When used in reference to a natural person, it means to state his full name; his last known residence; his present business address, business telephone number, and business position; and, if applicable, his past position and/or affiliation with any DEFENDANT or party to this lawsuit and the dates thereof. b. When referring to corporate or other entities, it shall mean to set forth: (a) the name; (b) present or last known address; (c) its principal place of business; and (d) the form or manner of its organization. Once a corporation or other entity has thus been identified, it shall be sufficient thereafter when identifying that corporation or other entity to state its full name. c. When used in reference to a COMMUNICATION, it means: i) If such COMMUNICATION was oral, to IDENTIFY the person speaking and the person spoken to, and to state the date and place of the COMMUNICATION and its substance; ii) if such COMMUNICATION was contained in a DOCUMENT, to IDENTIFY the DOCUMENT. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 21 4
d. When used in reference to a DOCUMENT, it means to state the type of DOCUMENT (e.g., letter, email, database, spreadsheet, etc.), describing it sufficiently (date, author, recipient(s)) for purposes of a request to produce or subpoena duces tecum. In lieu of identification of a DOCUMENT, the DOCUMENT may be provided or made available for inspection and copying. If any such DOCUMENT was, but is no longer in your possession, or subject to your control, please state what disposition was made of it. e. When used in reference to a written contract, it means to provide the parties to the contract, the date of the contract, a description of the nature and dollar value of the consideration exchanged by each party under the contract, and any modifications thereto. If any such contract was, but is no longer in your possession, or subject to your control, please state what disposition was made of it. 12. PERSON(S) -- The term "PERSON(S)" means any natural person, corporation, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, firm, or entity recognized in law, and shall include the owners, officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, assigns, predecessors, and successors of such "person." 13. RELATED TO or RELATING TO -- The terms RELATED TO and RELATING TO mean discuss, describe, refer to, substantiate, evidence, contradict, or be in any way logically or factually connected to the matter discussed. 14. ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. -- The term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. means Thomas Weisel Investment Management, Inc., Ross Investments, Inc., and any d/b/as thereof, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 15. SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS -- The term SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS means the October 1, 1995 agreement AND/OR the January 1, 2001 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 21 5
agreement between the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND TAILWIND, and any modifications, amendments, extensions, exhibits, or novations to such agreements. 16. TAILWIND The term TAILWIND means Montgomery Sports, Inc., TWP Sports, Inc., Tailwind Sports, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports Corp., Tailwind Sports, Inc., Disson Furst and Partners, LLC, Disson Furst & Partners, LLC, DFP Cycling, LLC, Tailwind Cycling, LLC and any other d/b/as of any of the foregoing entities, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 17. THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS The term THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS means Thomas Weisel Partners, or any of its subsidiaries, affiliates or related entities, including but not limited to Thomas Weisel Partners, LLP, Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., Thomas Weisel Global Growth Partners, Thomas Weisel Capital Partners, Tailwind Capital, and Tailwind Capital Partners. 18. UCI The term UCI means the Union Cycliste Internationale, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 19. U.S. INVESTIGATION The term U.S. INVESTIGATION means the United States investigation RELATING TO DOPING by the USPS TEAM, including any civil and criminal investigations undertaken by the United States, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration, or the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE Office of Inspector General. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 6 of 21 6
20. USADA The term USADA means the United States Anti-Doping Agency, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 21. USADA INVESTIGATION The term USADA INVESTIGATION means USADAs investigation RELATING TO DOPING by the USPS TEAM. 22. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE The term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE means the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 23. USPS TEAM The term USPS TEAM means the professional cycling team sponsored by the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 24. WADA The term WADA means the World Anti-Doping Agency, along with any person or entity known to YOU to have acted or purported to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 25. WRITTEN CONTRACT / ORAL CONTRACT - The term WRITTEN CONTRACT means an agreement between parties, the terms of which have been reduced to writing, including any modifications thereto. The term ORAL CONTRACT means an agreement between parties that is either partly in writing and partly dependent on spoken words or that is entirely dependent on spoken words, including any modifications thereto. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 7 of 21 7
26. YOU / YOUR - The terms "YOU" or "YOUR" means the party to whom discovery is addressed, along with any person or entity known by that party to have acted or purported to act on the partys behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. INSTRUCTIONS 1. In responding to these interrogatories, defendant is required to furnish all documents and information that are available to defendant, not merely such documents and information as the person(s) preparing the responses know of their own personal knowledge, including information in the possession of defendant's attorneys, employees, or other persons directly or indirectly employed by, or connected with defendant or defendants attorneys or consultants, or anyone acting on defendant's behalf or otherwise subject to defendant's control. In responding to these Interrogatories, defendant is required to make a diligent search of defendants records and of other documents and materials in his possession or the possession of defendants employees, attorneys, consultants, or other representatives. 2. Each interrogatory shall be construed to include information within the knowledge, possession or control of defendant, defendants attorneys, investigators, agents, owners, subsidiaries, officers, employees, or other representatives of the defendant and/or defendants attorneys, as of the date of the answers given to these interrogatories and any supplemental information, knowledge, data, documents or communication responsive to these interrogatories which is subsequently generated, obtained or discovered. 3. If the response to any interrogatory consists in whole or in part of an objection relating to or including burdensomeness, then with respect to such responses: a. Provide such information as can be ascertained without undue burden; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 8 of 21 8
b. State with particularity the basis for each such objection, including: (i) a description of the process or method required to obtain any fact responsive to the interrogatory; and (ii) the estimated costs and time required to obtain any fact responsive to the interrogatory; c. Describe the nature and extent of the documents or other source(s), if any, from which any fact responsive to the interrogatory can be obtained; and d. State whether the documents or other sources will be made available for inspection and copying. 4. If you claim privilege as a ground for not fully answering any interrogatory, describe the factual basis for said claim of privilege in sufficient detail so as to permit the court to adjudicate the validity of the claim. If the claim of privilege relates to identification of any document (including any electronically stored information), then state for each such document the following information:
a. The date of the document; b. The type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, note, etc.); c. The number of pages of the document; d. The author(s) of the document; e. ALL recipients of the document (whether or not listed in the document), including the address of each; f. The subject matter of the document; g. The number of each interrogatory to which the document is responsive; and h. The specific grounds for its non-production. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 9 of 21 9
5. If the response to any interrogatory consists, in whole or in part, of an objection(s), state with specificity the full objection(s) and the particularized basis for each said objection, and answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not subject to your objection, including producing any responsive document(s) (including any electronically stored information) not subject to your objection. 6. If an interrogatory calls for information which is known to exist but is in documents not in the possession or control of defendant, please IDENTIFY the person(s) who are, or are believed to be, in possession or control of such documents, and, if such documents were previously in possession or control of the defendant, state what disposition was made of the documents by defendant. 7. If, for any reason, any of the information requested in these interrogatories or any documents, electronically stored information, objects, or tangible things to be produced pursuant to these interrogatories have been destroyed, lost, overwritten, or otherwise disposed of, please describe such information, documents, electronically stored information, objects and/or tangible things and IDENTIFY for each category of information or category of documents, electronically stored information, objects or tangible things: a. The date the information or document, electronically stored information, object or tangible thing was lost, destroyed, overwritten or disposed of; b. ALL witnesses who have knowledge of the loss, destruction, overwriting or disposal; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 10 of 21 10
c. ALL documents which relate or refer to the loss, destruction, overwriting, or disposal of the document, electronically stored information, object or tangible thing. d. An explanation for why the information or document, electronically stored information, object or tangible thing was destroyed, lost, overwritten, or otherwise disposed of. 8. All documents produced in response to an interrogatory contained herein shall be segregated and labeled so as to identify to which interrogatory each such produced document responds, and, as to format shall be produced in accordance with the protocol agreed to by the parties in their Rule 26(f) Conference Report. 9. Unless otherwise stated, references in these requests to any business entity include the business entity, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 10. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific request, the time period covered by each request is January 1, 1995 through the present. 11. Whenever an interrogatory includes a request for a date or time period, if you cannot give the exact day, month and year, please give your best estimate thereof. 12. If YOU deem any definition, instruction or interrogatory to be in any way ambiguous, please describe as part of your answer any matters or terms deemed ambiguous and explain how you have interpreted the ambiguity in providing your answer. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 11 of 21 11
13. These interrogatories are continuing in character so as to require you to promptly amend or supplement your responses and any related document production if you obtain or discover further information or documents (including any electronically stored information) after providing your initial responses. INTERROGATORIES 1. (a) IDENTIFY ALL PERSONS (including but not limited to the PERSONS listed on Exhibit A) who YOU know or believe had knowledge, at ANY point between January 1, 1995 and February 28, 2010, of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY rider on the USPS TEAM. (b) For each PERSON listed in response to subpart (a), DESCRIBE ALL facts which form the basis for YOUR knowledge or belief that the PERSON had such knowledge of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY rider on the USPS TEAM. (c) For each PERSON listed in response to subpart (a), DESCRIBE ALL actions taken by that PERSON to assist Lance Armstrong or ANY other rider on the USPS TEAM with DOPING or concealing DOPING between January 1, 1995 and February 28, 2010. 2. IDENTIFY ALL written or oral statements (to the United States, to any other DEFENDANT, to any sponsor of the USPS TEAM, to a member of the press, or in public, in any legal proceeding, or under oath) by CSE, William Stapleton or Barton Knaggs denying DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY other rider on the USPS TEAM or by the USPS TEAM generally. 3. DESCRIBE ALL actions taken by YOU or ANY other DEFENDANT, between January 1, 1995 and the present, to discourage or deter ANY individual from Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 12 of 21 12
disclosing information or commenting publicly about DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY other rider on the USPS TEAM. 4. DESCRIBE ALL actions taken by YOU or ANY other DEFENDANT, between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2004, to investigate or prevent DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY other rider on the USPS TEAM. 5. IDENTIFY ALL current or former employees of the United States Government, including but not limited to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, who YOU contend knew or should have known, at ANY point prior to June 10, 2010, of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or ANY other members of the USPS TEAM while they rode for the team, including the basis for YOUR contention that each PERSON knew or should have known of the conduct. 6. IDENTIFY ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and Floyd Landis between January 1, 2002 and the present RELATING TO DOPING or to financial or contract matters. 7. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who disclosed the existence of this qui tam action or discussed this qui tam action with any PERSON with whom communication about this qui tam action was prohibited by the seal in this case, prior to the Courts unsealing order on February 22, 2013. 8. IDENTIFY any DOCUMENTS that are relevant or potentially relevant to this case that have been deleted, lost or destroyed, and for each and every DOCUMENT that YOU IDENTIFY, state the type of DOCUMENT, its subject matter, author and date and the circumstances in which it was deleted, lost or destroyed. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 13 of 21 13
9. DESCRIBE each and every action YOU have taken, or directed be taken, to locate, maintain or preserve DOCUMENTS that are relevant or potentially relevant to this case, including all locations that YOU searched for such DOCUMENTS (including hard copy les, servers, email systems, backup systems, hard drives, optical disks, databases, cellphones, cloud services, voice mail, third-party). 10. IDENTIFY ALL officers, directors and employees of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES (with the exception of temporary staff working solely on music events) whose services were terminated or constructively terminated by the CSE RELATED ENTITIES. 11. List ALL board meetings of each of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES between 1995 and 2007. Dated: July 2, 2014 ____________/s/________________ Paul D. Scott pdscott@lopds.com California State Bar No. 145975 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
____________/s/________________ Lani Anne Remick laremick@lopds.com California State Bar No. 189889 U.S.D.C. No. PA0045 Jon L. Praed U.S.D.C. No. 450764 D.C. Bar No. 51665 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 981-1212 Fax: (415) 981-1215
Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 14 of 21 14
EXHIBIT A Defendants Johan Bruyneel Thomas Weisel Bill Stapleton Bart Knaggs
Tailwind Dan Osipow Mark Gorski Emma OReilly Geert Duffeleer Laurenzo Lapage Edward 'Eddie B' Borysewicz Johnny Weltz
Tailwind Board Jody Gessow Terry Lee Joe Vittoria, Cindy Disson, Allen Furst Harvey Schiller John Bucksbaum John Burke Ward Woods Kenneth Barnett
Armstrong Chris Carmichael Michele Ferrari Kristin Armstrong Sheryl Crow Stephanie McIlvain Mark Higgins Mike Anderson Attorneys for Lance Armstrong (including Tim Herman, Sean Breen, Bryan Daly, Robert Luskin, Matthew Himsworth, Donald Manasse, Christina Charrier, Bournazel, John Keker, Elliot Peters, Sharif Jacobs, Mark Fabiani)
Doping Experts Edward Coyle Don Caitlin
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 15 of 21 15
TWP Boyd Fellows Matthew Barger Jim Ochowicz
CSE Laura Hundley Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Capital Sports and Entertainment, Inc. Capital Sports Ventures,
Medical Personnel Dr. Pedro Celaya Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral Jose Pepe Marti Dr. Jose Aramendi Dr. Dag Van Elsland Dr. Herman Falsetti
UCI Hein Verbruggen Pat McQuaid Emile Vrijman Philippe Verbiest Sylvia Shenk Dr. Mario Zorzoli
USA Cycling Steve Johnson Jim Ochowicz Jeff Garvey Mike Plant Matthew Barger Gerard Bisceglia David Tenner Steve Hess
USA Cycling Foundation Thomas Weisel Lance Armstrong Steve Johnson David Williams John Bucksbaum Doug Ellis Matthew Barger Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 16 of 21 16
Jeff Garvey Mark Bissell Tench Coxe Champions Club Robert L. Emery Michael Patterson Greg Penner Matthew Barger Boyd Fellows Skip Battle Jeff Garvey Rich Silverstein Mark Bissell Peter Grauer Bob Stapleton Michael Brooks Mick Heliman S. R. Walton John Bucksbaum Russell Hirsch Thomas Weisel Richard Cashin Jeff Jacobs David Williams Tench Coxe Thomas Kempner Benjamin Winslow Andrew Davis Terry Lee Priscilla Woods Bennett Dorrance Ed McCall Doug Ellis Rafael Ortiz
USADA Travis Tygart William Bock
WADA Dick Pound John Fahey
Livestrong Jeff Garvey John Korioth Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 17 of 21 17
Richard Rosenblatt
Floyd Landis Dr. Brent Kay Dr. Arnie Baker Wil Geoghegaan Paul Scott
Riders Betsy Andreu Frankie Andreu Christophe Bassons Tyler Hamilton Willy Voet Greg Lemond Cathy Lemond Filippo Simeoni Michael Barry Levi Leipheimer Steven Swart Christian Vande Velde Jonathan Vaughters Dave Zabriskie
Journalists David Walsh Alan English Paul Kimmage Pierre Ballester Reed Albergotti Vanessa OConnell
Other John Burke Andrew Messick Bjarne Riis Andy Riis Mark Holowesko
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 18 of 21 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing RELATORS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. was served on this 2nd day of July 2014 on the following counsel via electronic mail:
Counsel for Plaintiff the United States of America Robert E. Chandler, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, Fraud Section P. O. Box 261 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Robert.Chandler@usdoj.gov David.M.Finkelstein@usdoj.gov
Darrell Valdez Mercedeh Momeni U.S. Attorney's Office Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Mercedeh.Momeni@usdoj.gov Darrell.Valdez@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendant Tailwind Sports Corporation Blair G. Brown Rachel Cotton Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 1800 M Street, N. W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5807 bbrown@zuckerman.com rcotton@zuckerman.com
Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong Robert Luskin Benjamin Wood SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 robert.luskin@squirepb.com benjamin.wood@squirepb.com
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 19 of 21 19
John Keker Elliot R. Peters R. James Slaughter Sharif E. Jacob Tia Alexander Sherringham Keker & Van Nest LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 jkeker@kvn.com epeters@kvn.com rslaughter@kvn.com sjacob@kvn.com tsherringham@kvn.com
Counsel for Defendant J ohan Bruyneel Thomas Zeno Rebecca A. Worthington SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 rebecca.worthington@squirepb.com thomas.zeno@squirepb.com
Other service for Defendant J ohan Bruyneel Johan Bruyneel, c/o Mike Morgan Lafone House, The Leathermarket, Weston Street, SE1 3ER mike.morgan@morgansl.com
Counsel for Defendants CSE, William Stapleton and Barton Knaggs Marc S. Harris Vicki Kirkland Scheper Kim & Harris LLP One Bunker Hill 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 mharris@scheperkim.com vkirkland@scheperkim.com
John Patrick Pierce THEMIS PLLC 2305 Calvert Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 jpierce@themis.us.com
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 20 of 21 20
Counsel for Defendants Thomas W. Weisel and Ross I nvestments, I nc. Robert A. Sacks Brendan Cullen Christopher M. Viapiano Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067-1725 sacksr@sullcrom.com cullenb@sullcrom.com viapianoc@sullcrom.com
/s/ . Lani Anne Remick
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-1 Filed 09/04/14 Page 21 of 21
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al. Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.)
EXHIBIT B
JOINT SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY ISSUES BY RELATOR FLOYD LANDIS AND DEFENDANTS CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. (CSE), WILLIAM STAPLETON AND BARTON KNAGGS (COLLECTIVELY THE CSE DEFENDANTS) REGARDING RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 6 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 7 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 8 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 9 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 10 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 11 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 12 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 13 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 14 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 15 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 16 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 17 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 18 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 19 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 20 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 21 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 22 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 23 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 24 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 25 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 26 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 27 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 28 of 29 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-2 Filed 09/04/14 Page 29 of 29
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al. Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.)
EXHIBIT C
JOINT SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY ISSUES BY RELATOR FLOYD LANDIS AND DEFENDANTS CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. (CSE), WILLIAM STAPLETON AND BARTON KNAGGS (COLLECTIVELY THE CSE DEFENDANTS) REGARDING RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 21 1
RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM STAPLETON
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, relator Floyd Landis hereby requests that the above-named defendant respond in writing within 30 days to the following First Set of Requests for Production and that defendant make all responsive documents available for inspection and copying within 30 days at the Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C., Pier 9, Suite 100, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 94111. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS These Requests for Production shall be interpreted and answered, and responsive materials shall be produced, in accordance with the following Definitions and Instructions.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 21 2
DEFINITIONS The following definitions, whether or not capitalized, shall apply to each Request below: 1. ALL -- The term ALL is intended to be construed in the broadest possible manner so as to include, but not be limited to, each and every. 2. AND / OR -- The words "AND" and "OR" shall mean "and/or." 3. ANY -- The term ANY means one or more. 4. COMMUNICATION -- The term "COMMUNICATION" means a transmittal of information, or request for information, by DOCUMENT or otherwise and includes any conversation in person, by telephone or by any other means, as well as any utterance heard by another person whether in person, by telephone or otherwise. 5. CSE -- The term CSE means Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and any d/b/as thereof, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 6. CSE RELATED ENTITIES -- The term CSE RELATED ENTITIES means CSE, Capital Sports Ventures, and Capital Sports & Entertainment, Inc. 7. DEFENDANTS -- The term DEFENDANTS means TAILWIND, ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC., CSE, Lance Armstrong, J ohan Bruyneel, Thomas W. Weisel, William J . Stapleton and Barton B. Knaggs. 8. DOCUMENT -- The term DOCUMENT refers to, means, and includes all written or graphic matter or tangible things of every kind and description, however produced or reproduced, in YOUR actual or constructive possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to all originals (or copies where originals are unobtainable or where the copies are not identical to the originals) of correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, applications, claims, policies of insurance, printed matter, contracts, agreements, proposals, bids, work papers, statistical records, minutes, interoffice Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 21 3
communications, studies, technical data, charts, brochures, electronically stored information, computer data, computer discs, computer chips, files, bulletins, reviews, compilations, sound recordings, films, photographs, videotapes, digital recordings, notes, calendars, appointment books, diaries, time-sheets, time logs, or papers, no matter how described or denominated, and any drafts thereof and includes all items encompassed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Different versions of the same document, such as different copies of a written record bearing different handwritten notations, are different documents within the meaning of the term as used. In case originals or original non- identical copies are not available, the term "DOCUMENT" includes copies of originals or copies of non-identical copies as the case may be. 9. DOPING -- The term DOPING means the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase athletic performance, including but not limited to EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, blood transfusions, and/or masking agents. 10. IDENTIFY -- The term IDENTIFY has the following meanings: a. When used in reference to a natural person, it means to state his full name; his last known residence; his present business address, business telephone number, and business position; and, if applicable, his past position and/or affiliation with any DEFENDANT or party to this lawsuit and the dates thereof. b. When referring to corporate or other entities, it shall mean to set forth: (a) the name; (b) present or last known address; (c) its principal place of business; and (d) the form or manner of its organization. Once a corporation or other entity has thus been identified, it shall be sufficient thereafter when identifying that corporation or other entity to state its full name. c. When used in reference to a COMMUNICATION, it means: i) If such COMMUNICATION was oral, to IDENTIFY the person speaking and the person spoken to, and to state the date and place of the COMMUNICATION and its substance; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 21 4
ii) if such COMMUNICATION was contained in a DOCUMENT, to IDENTIFY the DOCUMENT. d. When used in reference to a DOCUMENT, it means to state the type of DOCUMENT (e.g., letter, email, database, spreadsheet, etc.), describing it sufficiently (date, author, recipient(s)) for purposes of a request to produce or subpoena duces tecum. In lieu of identification of a DOCUMENT, the DOCUMENT may be provided or made available for inspection and copying. If any such DOCUMENT was, but is no longer in your possession, or subject to your control, please state what disposition was made of it. e. When used in reference to a written contract, it means to provide the parties to the contract, the date of the contract, a description of the nature and dollar value of the consideration exchanged by each party under the contract, and any modifications thereto. If any such contract was, but is no longer in your possession, or subject to your control, please state what disposition was made of it. 11. RELATED TO or RELATING TO -- The terms RELATED TO and RELATING TO mean discuss, describe, refer to, substantiate, evidence, contradict, or be in any way logically or factually connected to the matter discussed. 12. ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. -- The term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. means Thomas Weisel Investment Management, Inc., Ross Investments, Inc., and any d/b/as thereof, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 13. SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS -- The term SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS means the October 1, 1995 agreement AND/OR the J anuary 1, 2001 agreement between the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND TAILWIND, and any modifications, amendments, extensions, exhibits, or novations to such agreements. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 21 5
14. TAILWIND The term TAILWIND means Montgomery Sports, Inc., TWP Sports, Inc., Tailwind Sports, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports Corp., Tailwind Sports, Inc., Disson Furst and Partners, LLC, Disson Furst & Partners, LLC, DFP Cycling, LLC, Tailwind Cycling, LLC and any other d/b/as of any of the foregoing entities, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 15. THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS The term THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS means Thomas Weisel Partners, or any of its subsidiaries, affiliates or related entities, including but not limited to Thomas Weisel Partners, LLP, Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., Thomas Weisel Global Growth Partners, Thomas Weisel Capital Partners, Tailwind Capital, and Tailwind Capital Partners. 16. UCI The term UCI means the Union Cycliste Internationale, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 17. U.S. INVESTIGATION The term U.S. INVESTIGATION means the United States investigation RELATING TO DOPING by the USPS TEAM, including any civil and criminal investigations undertaken by the United States, including but not limited to the Department of J ustice, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration, or the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE Office of Inspector General. 18. USADA The term USADA means the United States Anti-Doping Agency, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 6 of 21 6
contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 19. USADA INVESTIGATION The term USADA INVESTIGATION means USADAs investigation RELATING TO DOPING by the USPS TEAM. 20. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE The term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE means the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 21. USPS TEAM The term USPS TEAM means the professional cycling team sponsored by the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 22. WADA The term WADA means the World Anti-Doping Agency, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 23. WRITTEN CONTRACT / ORAL CONTRACT - The term WRITTEN CONTRACT means an agreement between parties, the terms of which have been reduced to writing, including any modifications thereto. The term ORAL CONTRACT means an agreement between parties that is either partly in writing and partly dependent on spoken words or that is entirely dependent on spoken words, including any modifications thereto. 24. YOU / YOUR - The terms "YOU" or "YOUR" means the party to whom discovery is addressed, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on the partys behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 7 of 21 7
attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. INSTRUCTIONS 1. In responding to these Requests for Production, defendant is required to furnish all documents and information that are available to defendant, not merely such documents and information as the person(s) preparing the responses know of their own personal knowledge, including information in the possession of defendant's attorneys, employees, or other persons directly or indirectly employed by, or connected with defendant or defendants attorneys or consultants, or anyone acting on defendant's behalf or otherwise subject to defendant's control. In responding to these requests for production of documents, defendant is required to make a diligent search of defendants records and of other documents and materials in his possession or the possession of defendants employees, attorneys, consultants, or other representatives. 2. Please produce the originals and all copies thereof if any copy is other than identical to the original, in the order called for in the categories listed below, identified by the category to which each document belongs, or, if applicable, in the manner kept in the ordinary course of business. 3. All documents shall be produced with all associated organizational information as kept in the ordinary course of business, such as file folders, dividers, and file labels. All documents which are responsive in whole or in part to any request shall be produced in full, including any appendices, attachments, and similar items. 4. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) shall be produced in accordance with the protocol agreed to by the parties. Any documents produced in paper form shall be Bates-numbered sequentially.
5. If any document (including any electronically stored information) responsive to this request is withheld from production, then state for each such document the following information, in a log produced on the response date: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 8 of 21 8
a. The date of the document; b. The type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, note, etc.); c. The number of pages of the document; d. The author(s) of the document; e. ALL recipients of the document (whether or not listed in the document), including the address of each; f. The subject matter of the document; g. The number of each request to which the document is responsive; and h. The specific grounds for its non-production. 6. If the response to any request consists, in whole or in part, of an objection(s), state with specificity the full objection(s) and the particularized basis for each said objection, and produce any responsive document(s) (including any electronically stored information) not subject to your objection. 7. If, for any reason, any of the documents, electronically stored information, objects, or tangible things to be produced pursuant to this request have been destroyed, lost, overwritten, or otherwise disposed of, please describe such documents, electronically stored information, objects or tangible things and IDENTIFY for each category of documents, electronically stored information, objects or tangible things: a. The date the document, electronically stored information, object or tangible thing was lost, destroyed, overwritten or disposed of; b. ALL witnesses who have knowledge of the loss, destruction, overwriting or disposal; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 9 of 21 9
c. ALL documents which relate or refer to the loss, destruction, overwriting, or disposal of the document, electronically stored information, object or tangible thing. d. An explanation for why the information was destroyed, lost, overwritten, or otherwise disposed of. 8. If you do not have any documents responsive to a request, your response to that request should state that you do not have any responsive documents. 9. Unless otherwise stated, references in these requests to any business entity include the business entity, along with any person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest. 10. Unless otherwise indicated in a specific request, the time period covered by each request is J anuary 1, 1995 through the present. 11. These requests are continuing in character so as to require you to promptly amend or supplement your responses and your production if you obtain or discover further documents (including any electronically stored information) after providing our initial responses.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, including, but not limited to, any DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to any subpoena or other request for DOCUMENTS, in the same format as provided to the United States, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 10 of 21 10
2. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to USADA RELATING TO the USADA INVESTIGATION, in the same format as provided to USADA, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.
3. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to UCI RELATING TO any investigation or inquiry by UCI, in the same format as provided to UCI, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.
4. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in connection with any investigation or inquiry into DOPING by any entity or person - other than the United States, USADA, or UCI - in the same format as provided to such entity or person, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.
5. ALL of your responses to discovery in any civil or administrative proceeding RELATING TO allegations of DOPING by Armstrong or the USPS TEAM.
6. ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any inquiry or investigation RELATING TO Lance Armstrong or the USPS TEAM by the United States, USADA, USA Cycling or UCI.
7. ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other person or entity RELATING TO any investigation of DOPING in cycling, including, but not limited to, the following: the U.S. INVESTIGATION; the USADA INVESTIGATION; any investigation or inquiry associated with the UCI or any related commission or organization; the French investigation into the use of Actovegin by the USPS Team in 2000; the Italian criminal investigation into Michelle Ferrari; the investigation into LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France; the Festina affair in 1998; and Operation Puerto in 2006.
8. ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any person or entity RELATING TO any allegations in books, news articles or other media outlets regarding DOPING by Lance Armstrong or the USPS Team.
9. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, DOPING, or this case.
10. ALL COMMUNICATIONS or DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any alleged failure by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM to comply with testing for DOPING or evading testing for DOPING.
11. ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO denials of DOPING by TAILWIND, the USPS TEAM or any of the riders on the team.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 11 of 21 11
12. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any positive, potentially positive, or abnormal test results for DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM.
13. ALL COMMUNICATIONS preserved on an audio or video recording, in which any part of the COMMUNICATION relates to DOPING.
14. ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of any type between YOU, or any entity controlled by YOU, and any of the other DEFENDANTS.
15. ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between Lance Armstrong and any entity other than TAILWIND which operated a cycling team.
16. ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS, which referred to or RELATED TO the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong or cycling, between any person or entity who was a sponsor of the USPS TEAM and any of the following: TAILWIND, ANY OF THE CSE RELATED ENTITIES, Tailwind Capital Partners, THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, ROSS INVESTMENTS, Thomas Weisel, Livestrong, J ohan Bruyneel, YOU or Bart Knaggs.
17. ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrongs rider contracts with TAILWIND.
18. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including, but not limited to, all executed copies, drafts, amendments, novations, modifications, extensions, exhibits thereto, and any correspondence or other COMMUNICATIONS relating thereto.
19. ALL of TAILWINDs WRITTEN CONTRACTS with any entities other than the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE RELATING TO sponsorship of the USPS TEAM, including, but not limited to, executed copies of such agreements.
20. ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of TAILWIND, or any rider on the USPS TEAM, or any sponsor of the USPS TEAM which contain a morals clause or a reference to DOPING, including, but not limited do, any sponsorship or promotion agreements.
21. ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between TAILWIND and its riders.
22. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to any cancellations of, or any other changes to, any sponsor agreement RELATING TO DOPING by Lance Armstrong or DOPING by any other rider for TAILWIND.
23. ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO claims for payment to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 12 of 21 12
AGREEMENTS, including but not limited to claims for payment for services provided by CSE, Knaggs, or YOU.
24. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TAILWINDs receipt of payments from the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS.
25. ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, articles of organization, amended articles of organization, operating agreements, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of TAILWIND from 1987 through December 31, 2007.
26. ALL filings with any state government entity or the Securities and Exchange Commission by TAILWIND from 1987 through the present.
27. The DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of TAILWINDs shares to its shareholders or partners.
28. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to YOU.
29. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to Thomas Weisel, J ohan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, Bart Knaggs, or CSE.
30. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the ownership interests in TAILWIND from 1987 through the date of its dissolution.
31. DOCUMENTS that show the officers, directors, employees and agents of TAILWIND from 1987 through the present.
32. ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS held by any shareholder, officer, director, employee or agent of TAILWIND, from J anuary 1, 1999 through the present.
33. ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in Montgomery Securities held by any shareholder, officer, director or employee of TAILWIND, from 1987 through the date Montgomery Securities ceased to exist.
34. ALL board minutes of TAILWIND from J anuary 1, 1987 through December 31, 2007.
35. ALL DOCUMENTS showing what the assets of Tailwind Sports Corporation were upon its dissolution and how such assets were distributed.
36. ALL annual or other periodic financial statements (including balance sheets and profit and loss statements) for TAILWIND from 1995 through the present.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 13 of 21 13
37. ALL Private Placement Memoranda issued by TAILWIND from 1995 through the present.
38. TAILWINDs federal and state income tax returns from 1995 through the present.
39. The General Ledger(s) or any other accounting records showing the funds flowing into and out of TAILWIND from 1995 through 2007.
40. ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING to the capitalization or undercapitalization of TAILWIND.
41. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the dissolution of TAILWIND and the distribution of its assets to shareholders.
42. ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. by Montgomery Securities to Thomas Weisel or any entity affiliated with him.
43. ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. to Tailwind Sports, LLC.
44. ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the merger of Tailwind Sports, LLC into Tailwind Sports Corporation.
45. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments by others (including, but not limited to, Thomas Weisel) for the debts or expenses or any other obligation of TAILWIND.
46. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO diversion of TAILWINDs funds or assets to non-corporate uses, including but not limited to the following: payments for non-business related expenses to shareholders, officers, directors, employees or their families or any business entities in which they held an interest.
47. ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel, or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to YOU, J ohan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, or to any other rider on the USPS TEAM.
48. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any loans by Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to TAILWIND, YOU, J ohan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, or any rider on the USPS TEAM.
49. ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to TAILWIND.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 14 of 21 14
50. ANY DOCUMENTS showing the location of TAILWINDs office space between 1995 and 2007, including but not limited to any space occupied by TAILWIND in the offices of Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners.
51. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of and/or the price paid for any office space occupied by TAILWIND at Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners, including, but not limited to, any lease documents or other DOCUMENTS which show the rental rates for such space from one year prior to the date that TAILWIND occupied the space to one year after TAILWIND vacated the space.
52. ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS or Robert W. Baird by Hein Verbruggen, by any entity owned or controlled by Hein Verbruggen, or by any relative of Hein Verbruggen.
53. ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds managed by or deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS for the benefit of any individual currently or formerly affiliated with UCI or USA CYCLING (or for any entity which such individual owns or controls).
54. ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO payments by Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to the UCI OR any person affiliated with the UCI.
55. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Thomas Weisels change in position from President to Chairman of TAILWIND.
56. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, YOU or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND.
57. ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, YOU or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND.
58. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any DEFENDANTs involvement in the submission of claims for payment to, or the receipt of payments from, the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
59. ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether claims for payments were copied to any DEFENDANT or showing they were otherwise made aware of any claim for payment submitted by TAILWIND to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
60. ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT received copies of the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS or was made aware of the terms thereof.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 15 of 21 15
61. ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was aware of any positive or inconclusive DOPING testing results by any rider on the USPS TEAM
62. ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was copied on or was otherwise made aware of the terms of Lance Armstrongs rider contract, or the rider contract of any rider on the USPS TEAM.
63. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY DEFENDANTS contention that the United States or the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE knew or should have known of DOPING on the USPS TEAM.
64. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE response of the UNITED STATES to allegations of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM.
65. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of what the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE received under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including but not limited to any valuations, audits, or marketing analyses.
66. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the damages suffered by the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM.
67. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contention that the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE was not damaged as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM.
68. ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO Floyd Landis.
69. ALL DOCUMENTS that contradict the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case.
70. ALL DOCUMENTS upon which YOU rely to deny the allegations of the United States or the relator in their respective complaints against YOU in this case.
71. ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO this case.
72. ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO DOPING, the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case with any persons affiliated with the news media as well as any DOCUMENTS related thereto.
73. ALL DOCUMENTS that YOU may use to support any affirmative defenses YOU have against the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 16 of 21 16
74. ALL privilege logs RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or any claims or litigation against YOU RELATING TO DOPING.
75. ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS relating to any investigation YOU have conducted relating to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case, including, but not limited to, any video-taping, audio recording, or any other forms of surveillance or background investigation.
76. ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO ANY statements, transcripts, declarations, interviews or summaries of interviews of any persons RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case.
77. ALL contracts between any YOU, on the one hand, and any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the other hand.
78. ALL DOCUMENTS that describe the nature of the services YOU or any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES have provided for Lance Armstrong from 1995 through the present.
79. ALL DOCUMENTS establishing or evidencing an attorney-client relationship between YOU OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, AND Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present.
80. ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing the lack of an attorney-client relationship between YOU OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present.
81. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR authorization or lack of authorization to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present.
82. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrongs knowledge or lack thereof that YOU were inactive or unauthorized to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present.
83. ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO whether or not YOU were acting as Lance Armstrongs attorney.
84. ALL contracts between YOU or any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong, on the other, including, but not limited to, any engagement letters, retainer agreements, or other agreements describing any services to be provided to Lance Armstrong.
85. ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 17 of 21 17
86. ALL filings with the California Secretary of State, the Delaware Secretary of State, or the Securities and Exchange Commission by the CSE RELATED ENTITIES from 1995 through the present.
87. DOCUMENTS that list the breakdown in ownership of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES at ANY or ALL points from 1995 through the present.
88. DOCUMENTS that list the officers, directors, employees and agents of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES at any or all points from 1995 through the present.
89. ALL board minutes from 1995 through the present of CSE.
90. ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and ANY of the following people or entities:
a. Lance Armstrong b. J ohan Bruyneel c. Thomas Weisel d. Barton Knaggs e. the United States Postal Service or any current or former employee or agent of the United States Postal Service f. Thomas Weisel Partners g. Mark Gorski h. Dan Osipow i. J im Ochowicz j. Emma OReilly k. Geert Duffeleer l. Laurenzo Lapage m. Edward 'Eddie B' Borysewicz n. J ohnny Weltz o. Stephanie McIlvain p. Laura Hundley q. Dr. Pedro Celaya r. Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral s. Dr. Michele Ferrari t. Dr. J ose Aramendi u. Dr. Dag Van Elsland v. Dr. Eufemeniano Fuentes w. Dr. Herman Falsetti x. J ose Pepe Marti y. Philippe Maire z. Hein Verbruggen aa. Pat McQuaid bb. Emile Vrijman cc. Philippe Verbiest Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 18 of 21 18
dd. Sylvia Shenk ee. Dr. Mario Zorzoli ff. Steve J ohnson gg. Floyd Landis
91. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments to J ohan Bruyneel or to J ohan Bruyneel Sports Management by TAILWIND or by any other DEFENDANT from 1999 through the present.
92. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any books RELATING TO cycling or DOPING, including any drafts or final copies of such books and any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO such books.
93. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in your Initial Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
94. ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in response to ANY interrogatories in this case.
Dated: J anuary 28, 2014 ____________/s/________________ Paul D. Scott pdscott@lopds.com California State Bar No. 145975 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
____________/s/________________ Lani Anne Remick laremick@lopds.com California State Bar No. 189889 U.S.D.C. No. PA0045 J on L. Praed U.S.D.C. No. 450764 D.C. Bar No. 51665 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 981-1212 Fax: (415) 981-1215
Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 19 of 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM STAPLETON was served on this 28th day of January 2014 on the following counsel via electronic mail:
Robert E. Chandler David M. Finkelstein U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division P. O. Box 261 601 D Street Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Robert.Chandler@usdoj.gov David.M.Finkelstein@usdoj.gov Matthew.C.Golojuch@usdoj.gov
Darrell Valdez Mercedeh Momeni U.S. Attorney's Office Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Mercedeh.Momeni@usdoj.gov Darrell.Valdez@usdoj.gov
Blair G. Brown Rachel Cotton Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 1800 M Street, N. W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5807 bbrown@Zuckerman.com rcotton@Zuckerman.com njidun@zuckerman.com
Robert Luskin Patton Boggs LLP 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 rluskin@pattonboggs.com
John Keker Elliot R. Peters R. James Slaughter Sharif E. Jacob Tia Alexander Sherringham Keker & Van Nest LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 JKeker@kvn.com EPeters@kvn.com RSlaughter@kvn.com SJacob@kvn.com Tsherringham@kvn.com APicar@kvn.com KBringola@kvn.com LHartz-Lewis@kvn.com efiling@kvn.com
Robert A. Sacks Brendan Cullen Christopher M. Viapiano Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067-1725 sacksr@sullcrom.com cullenb@sullcrom.com viapianoc@sullcrom.com pannattonit@sullcrom.com
John Patrick Pierce THEMIS PLLC 2305 Calvert Street, NW Washington, DC 20008 JPierce@themis.us.com
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 20 of 21
Marc S. Harris Vicki Kirkland Scheper Kim & Harris LLP One Bunker Hill 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 mharris@scheperkim.com vkirkland@scheperkim.com pdayton@scheperkim.com
Thomas Zeno Rebecca A. Worthington Squire Sanders (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Rebecca.Worthington@squiresanders.com Thomas.Zeno@squiresanders.com Lauren.Kuley@squiresanders.com Constance.Young@squiresanders.com
___________/s/__________________ Lani Anne Remick Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-3 Filed 09/04/14 Page 21 of 21
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al. Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.)
EXHIBIT D
JOINT SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY ISSUES BY RELATOR FLOYD LANDIS AND DEFENDANTS CAPITAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. (CSE), WILLIAM STAPLETON AND BARTON KNAGGS (COLLECTIVELY THE CSE DEFENDANTS) REGARDING RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 104
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. FLOYD LANDIS, Plaintiffs, v. TAILWIND SPORTS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC
DEFENDANT WILLIAM J. STAPLETONS AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO RELATORS FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Defendant William J. Stapleton (Stapleton) hereby serves his amended responses and objections to Relators First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated January 28, 2014. (the Requests). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Stapletons general objections (General Objections) to the Requests are set forth below. The General Objections shall be deemed continuing and, to avoid the necessity of restating in full each objection, the General Objections are incorporated in full within each response where applicable as if fully set forth in such response. The assertion of additional, specific objections to certain Requests shall not be construed as a waiver of any applicable General Objection to such Request. 2. The following responses (Responses) are based on Stapletons knowledge, information, and belief at this time, and are complete to the best of Stapletons knowledge at this time. Furthermore, these Responses were prepared based on Stapletons good faith interpretation Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 104
2 and understanding of the Requests and are subject to correction for inadvertent errors or omissions, if any. 3. Stapletons General Objections and any specific objection to the Requests do not concede the admissibility, relevancy, originality, truth, accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of any document produced by Stapleton. Stapleton reserves the right to challenge the relevancy, competency, materiality, authenticity and admissibility of the information provided by Stapleton. Moreover, Stapleton reserves the right to supplement or amend the Responses at any time prior to trial or as otherwise permitted by applicable law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the rules of this Court, but, except as provided in Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Stapleton assumes no obligation to voluntarily supplement or amend the Responses to reflect information, evidence, documents, or things discovered following service of these Responses. 4. Stapletons Responses to each and every Request are without waiver or limitation of his right to object on grounds of competency, relevancy, privilege, materiality, confidentiality, authenticity, or admissibility of evidence for any purpose, or any other ground for objection to the use of any information or documents provided or referred to in these Responses, in discovery or in any proceeding, or at a trial of this or any other action. Stapletons Responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, and for no other purpose, and are provided subject to that limitation. 5. To the extent that any Request seeks documents that are also sought by or identified pursuant to any other Request, Stapleton declines to produce or identify multiple copies of such documents. Each document produced or identified pursuant to any Request is also produced pursuant to every other Request to which it is or may be responsive. Any and all documents will be produced at a mutually agreeable date and time only after sufficient time to conduct a reasonable search and inquiry. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 104
3 6. Stapletons Response to a particular Request to produce documents or provide information is not an admission that any such documents or information exist. Where Stapleton undertakes to conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents, Stapleton represents only that Stapleton will produce subject to all objections raised herein or hereafter relevant, non- objectionable, non-privileged documents that are responsive to the Requests and that are within Stapletons possession, custody, or control, should any such documents or information be located after a reasonable search. 7. Stapleton provides these Responses subject to all appropriate objections that may be made later in this action, including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any information, document, or thing produced in response to the Requests. Stapleton reserves the right to interpose any such objection at the time of a later deposition, hearing, or trial. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek to impose any obligation on Stapleton exceeding those imposed by applicable law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the rules of this Court. Stapleton will construe and respond to the Requests in accordance with his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court. 2. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek documents and information that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests assume facts that are not in evidence or are subject to dispute. Stapletons response to any such Request is not Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 104
4 intended to be construed, and shall not be construed, to reflect Stapletons agreement to any such assumed fact or facts. 4. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek documents or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity. The inadvertent production of such documents and information in response to these Request is not intended to waive nor shall be deemed to have waived the attorney-client privilege, the protections of the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 5. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or unreasonably duplicative, and to the extent that they seek documents or information not relevant to Relators claims in this action. 6. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. 7. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek private, privileged, and confidential commercial, financial, and/or proprietary business information. Documents containing any such information will only be produced subject to the protections of a suitable confidentiality order. 8. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests purport to require anything beyond a reasonable search for documents, including to the extent that they seek the production of documents maintained on backup tapes or similar archived media, or in other locations that are not readily accessible, on the ground that it would be unduly burdensome for Stapleton to search for and produce such documents. In responding to the Requests, Stapleton will search to the extent he has not already done so his files covering a reasonable time period and, where appropriate, using reasonable search terms. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 104
5 9. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the production of materials that are publicly available, already in Relators possession, equally available to Stapleton and Relator, or obtained by Relator from other sources that can provide them more easily or with less burden or expense than Stapleton. 10. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek information or documents already in the possession of Relator or to which Relator has or had access. 11. Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents that are not currently within his possession, custody, or control. Without limiting the foregoing objection, Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek documents in the possession, custody, or control of his attorneys, advisors, agents, representatives, employees, or other person or entities acting on his behalf or under his control. Amended General Objection 11: Without limiting the foregoing objection, Stapleton objects to the Requests to the extent the Requests seek documents in the possession, custody, or control of his attorneys, advisors, agents, representatives, employees, or other persons or entities acting on his behalf or under his control, except to the extent the documents in the possession, custody, or control of such third parties are also in Knaggs possession, custody, or control as defined by applicable law. 12. Stapleton objects to the Requests on the grounds of burden and undue expense based on the excessive number of requests. 13. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term CSE on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term CSE refers to Capital Sports & Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and any d/b/a thereof. (CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION) Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 6 of 104
6 Amended General Objection 13: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term CSE on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term CSE refers to CSE, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION) 14. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term CSE RELATED ENTITIES on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome to the extent it incorporates the objectionable definition of the term CSE. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term CSE RELATED ENTITIES refers to Capital Sports & Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Capital Sports and Entertainment, Inc., and Capital Sports Ventures. (CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION) 15. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term DOPING on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term DOPING refers to the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase performance in bicycle racing. (DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended Definition of DOPING: Pursuant to the parties meet and confer discussions, the term DOPING refers to the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase performance in professional bicycle racing and includes the use of EPO, testosterone, corticosteroid, blood transfusions, and/or masking agents. Stapleton does not object to the definition of DOPING, as amended. 16. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term IDENTIFY to the extent that it purports to impose obligations on Stapleton that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 7 of 104
7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. (IDENTIFY DEFINITION OBJECTION) 17. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. refers to Thomas Weisel Investment Management, Inc., Ross Investments, Inc., and any d/b/a thereof. (ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 17: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. refers to Ross Investments, Inc., any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. DEFINITION OBJECTION) 18. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term TAILWIND on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term TAILWIND refers to Montgomery Sports, Inc.; TWP Sports, Inc.; Tailwind Sports, LLC; Tailwind Sports Corporation; Tailwind Sports Corp.; Tailwind Sports, Inc.; Disson Furst and Partners, LLC; Disson Furst & Partners, LLC; DFP Cycling, LLC; Tailwind Cycling, LLC; and any d/b/a thereof. (TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 18: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term TAILWIND on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 8 of 104
8 compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term TAILWIND refers to Tailwind, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION) 19. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS refers to Thomas Weisel Partners, LLP; Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC; Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.; Thomas Weisel Global Growth Partners; Thomas Weisel Capital Partners; Tailwind Capital; and Tailwind Capital Partners; and any d/b/a thereof. (THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION) 20. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term UCI on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term UCI refers to the Union Cycliste Internationale. (UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 20: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term UCI on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term UCI refers to UCI, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION) 21. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term U.S. INVESTIGATION on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term U.S. INVESTIGATION refers to the investigation of Relators claims and allegations by Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 9 of 104
9 the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal Service Office of the Inspector General during the 2010 to 2013 period and the investigation of Lance Armstrong by the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Central District of California during the 2010 to 2012 period. (U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION) 22. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term USADA on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term USADA refers to the United States Anti-Doping Agency. (USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 22: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term USADA on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term USADA refers to USADA, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION) 23. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term USADA INVESTIGATION on the grounds that is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, in particular because it contains no time limitation or details concerning the purported investigators or particular subject matter of the purported investigation. (USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION) 24. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE refers to the United States Postal Service. (U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION) Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 10 of 104
10 Amended General Objection 24: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE refers to the U.S. Postal Service, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION) 25. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term USPS TEAM on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term USPS TEAM refers to the cycling team that was sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service pursuant to the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS during the 1995 to 2004 period. (USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 25: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term USPS TEAM on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term USPS TEAM refers to the USPS Team, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION) 26. Stapleton objects to the definition of the term WADA on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term WADA refers to the World Anti-Doping Agency. (WADA DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 26: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term WADA on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 11 of 104
11 Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term WADA refers to WADA, any d/b/a thereof and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (WADA DEFINITION OBJECTION) 27. Stapleton objects to the definition of the terms YOU/YOUR on the grounds that they are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the terms YOU/YOUR refer to defendant Capital Sports & Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION) Amended General Objection 27: Stapleton objects to the definition of the term YOU on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Stapleton understands that the term YOU refers to Stapleton, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. (YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION) 28. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 1 to the extent that it purports to impose obligations on Stapleton that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. Particularly, Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 1 to the extent that it calls for the production of documents that are not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. 29. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 2 to the extent that it purports to impose obligations on Stapleton that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. Stapleton further objects to Instruction No. 2 to the extent that labeling documents to correspond to Relators categories Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 12 of 104
12 would be unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, especially to the extent documents are responsive to more than one category and/or to the extent that categorizing the documents requires the application of legal analysis or conclusions, which may require the disclosure of attorney work product. 30. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 5 to the extent that it requires Stapleton to prepare and provide a privilege log containing information that differs from, adds to, or is otherwise inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the rules of this Court. 31. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 7 to the extent that it purports to impose obligations on Stapleton that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. 32. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 8 to the extent that it purports to impose obligations on Stapleton that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. Stapleton reiterates that Stapletons Response to a particular Request to produce documents or provide information is not an admission that any such documents or information exist. 33. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 9 on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these Requests unduly burdensome. Amended Instruction No. 9: Unless otherwise stated, references in these requests to any business entity include the business entity, any d/b/a thereof, and individuals or other entities known to Stapleton to have acted or purported to act on behalf of such entities. Stapleton does not object to Instruction No. 9, as amended. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 13 of 104
13 34. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 10 to the extent that it does not include a reasonable time limitation and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 35. Stapleton objects to Instruction No. 11 to the extent that it purports to impose an obligation on Stapleton that is not required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the rules of this Court. SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS In addition to the General Objections stated above, which are all hereby incorporated into each and every response and objection set forth below, Stapleton responds and objects to the specific Requests as follows: REQUEST NO. 1: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, including, but not limited to, any DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to any subpoena or other request for DOCUMENTS, in the same format as provided to the United States, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overbroad to the extent it includes documents provided in response to any subpoena or other request for DOCUMENTS outside of the U.S. INVESTIGATION; and The term other request for DOCUMENTS is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 14 of 104
14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), Stapleton already produced a copy of the documents he produced to the United States in response to a subpoena pertaining to this action with his initial disclosures in this action. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce the subpoena pursuant to which he produced the above-referenced documents and accompanying certifications. REQUEST NO. 2: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to USADA RELATING TO the USADA INVESTIGATION, in the same format as provided to USADA, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; and USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton responds that he has not produced documents to USADA in connection with any investigation or inquiry, as Stapleton understands those terms, and therefore, has no documents that are responsive to the Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections and issues. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 2 that he discovers in his possession, Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 15 of 104
15 custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 3: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to UCI RELATING TO any investigation or inquiry by UCI, in the same format as provided to UCI, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular because it contains no time limitation; and The term any investigation or inquiry by UCI is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents that were provided to UCI in connection with any investigation or inquiry, as Stapleton understands those terms, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 3 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 16 of 104
16 REQUEST NO. 4: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in connection with any investigation or inquiry into DOPING by any entity or person - other than the United States, USADA, or UCI - in the same format as provided to such entity or person, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term any investigation or inquiry into DOPING is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome, particularly insofar as it fails to identify the recipient of any such documents. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in connection with any investigation or inquiry by any person or entity into DOPING by Armstrong or the USPS Team other than any investigation or inquiry by the United States, WADA, or UCI in the same format as provided to such entity or person, and with the same Bates numbering or any other number, if applicable Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 17 of 104
17 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 5: ALL of your responses to discovery in any civil or administrative proceeding RELATING TO allegations of DOPING by Armstrong or the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term any civil or administrative proceeding is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome, particularly insofar as it fails to identify the parties to any such civil or administrative proceeding and is not limited as to time or date. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 5 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 18 of 104
18 REQUEST NO. 6: ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any inquiry or investigation RELATING TO Lance Armstrong or the USPS TEAM by the United States, USADA, USA Cycling or UCI. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms any inquiry or investigation and USA Cycling are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome, particularly insofar as it fails to identify the parties to such communications and fails to specify the topic of any inquiry or investigation; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as it seeks communications relating to any inquiry or investigation regardless of whether such inquiry or investigation concerned doping; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 19 of 104
19 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any inquiry or investigation RELATING TO DOPING by Lance Armstrong or the USPS TEAM by the United States, USADA, USA Cycling, or UCI that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 7: ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other person or entity RELATING TO any investigation of DOPING in cycling, including, but not limited to, the following: the U.S. INVESTIGATION; the USADA INVESTIGATION; any investigation or inquiry associated with the UCI or any related commission or organization; the French investigation into the use of Actovegin by the USPS Team in 2000; the Italian criminal investigation into Michelle Ferrari; the investigation into LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France; the Festina affair in 1998; and Operation Puerto in 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms investigation, inquiry, and any related commission or organization are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 20 of 104
20 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other person or entity RELATING TO any investigation of DOPING in cycling, including, but not limited to, the following: the U.S. INVESTIGATION; the USADA INVESTIGATION; any investigation or inquiry associated with the UCI or any related commission or organization; the French investigation into the use of Actovegin by the USPS Team in 2000; the Italian criminal investigation into Michelle Ferrari; the investigation into LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France; the Festina affair in 1998 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. The phrase any related commission or organization includes the following: the organization responsible for the Vrijham Report in 2006, the UCI Independent Commission created in 2012, the Cycling Independent Reform Commission (CIRC) created in 2013, and the organization responsible for A Report on Corruption in the Leadership of the Union Cycliste Internationale (The Report), which has also been referred to in the media as The Dossier. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 21 of 104
21 REQUEST NO. 8: ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any person or entity RELATING TO any allegations in books, news articles or other media outlets regarding DOPING by Lance Armstrong or the USPS Team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms allegations and other media outlets are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any person or entity RELATING TO any allegations in books, news articles or web-based publications or television programs regarding DOPING by Lance Armstrong or the USPS Team that he discovers in his possession, Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 22 of 104
22 custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 9: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, DOPING, or this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term this case is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in that it seeks the production of all documents relating to DOPING regardless of whether they concern the USPS TEAM or even bicycle racing; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections.
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 23 of 104
23 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents referring to or mentioning the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, DOPING by any member of the USPS TEAM, or this case that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. The phrase this case refers to the instant civil action U.S. ex rel Landis v. Tailwind, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.). The term DOPING refers to the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase performance in professional bicycle racing and includes the use of EPO, testosterone, corticosteroid, blood transfusions and/or masking agents. REQUEST NO. 10: ALL COMMUNICATIONS or DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any alleged failure by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM to comply with testing for DOPING or evading testing for DOPING. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms failure to comply and evading testing are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular due to the use of RELATING TO in this context; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 24 of 104
24 The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 10 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 11: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO denials of DOPING by TAILWIND, the USPS TEAM or any of the riders on the team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term denials is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 25 of 104
25 The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular because it contains no time limitation; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular due to the use of RELATING TO in this context; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and despite Relators unwarranted allegations in its correspondence concerning Request No. 11 and without admitting them, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 11 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 12: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any positive, potentially positive, or abnormal test results for DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM OBJECTION; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody or control; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 26 of 104
26 The terms positive, potentially positive, and abnormal test results are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 13: ALL COMMUNICATIONS preserved on an audio or video recording, in which any part of the COMMUNICATION relates to DOPING. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly in that it seeks the production of all communications relating to DOPING regardless of whether they concern the USPS TEAM or even bicycle racing; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 27 of 104
27 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged COMMUNICATIONS preserved on an audio or video recording RELATING to DOPING by Armstrong of the USPS Team or DOPING in cycling in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 14: ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of any type between YOU, or any entity controlled by YOU, and any of the other DEFENDANTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 15: ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between Lance Armstrong and any entity other than TAILWIND which operated a cycling team. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 28 of 104
28 TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 16: ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS, which referred to or RELATED TO the USPS Team, Lance Armstrong or cycling, between any person or entity who was a sponsor of the USPS TEAM and any of the following: TAILWIND, ANY OF THE CSE RELATED ENTITIES, Tailwind Capital Partners, THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, Thomas Weisel, ROSS INVESTMENTS, Livestrong, Johan Bruyneel, YOU or Bart Knaggs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; ANY OF THE CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; ROSS INVESTMENTS DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms Tailwind Capital Partners, Livestrong, and sponsor of the USPS TEAM are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 29 of 104
29 The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 17: ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrongs rider contracts with TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term rider contracts is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 30 of 104
30 REQUEST NO. 18: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including, but not limited to, all executed copies, drafts, amendments, novations, modifications, extensions, exhibits thereto, and any correspondence or other COMMUNICATIONS relating thereto. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The terms drafts, novations, and modifications are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 19: ALL of TAILWINDs WRITTEN CONTRACTS with any entities other than the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE RELATING TO sponsorship of the USPS TEAM, including, but not limited to, executed copies of such agreements. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 31 of 104
31 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 20: ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of TAILWIND, or any rider on the USPS TEAM, or any sponsor of the USPS TEAM which contain a morals clause or a reference to DOPING, including, but not limited do, any sponsorship or promotion agreements. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms any sponsor of the USPS TEAM, morals clause, and sponsorship or promotion agreements are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular as it requests contracts between Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 32 of 104
32 sponsors of the USPS TEAM and other entities uninvolved with the claims in this lawsuit; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody or control; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 20 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 21: ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between TAILWIND and its riders. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term its riders is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 33 of 104
33 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 22: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to any cancellations of, or any other changes to, any sponsor agreement RELATING TO DOPING by Lance Armstrong or DOPING by any other rider for TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms cancellations of, other changes to, and sponsor agreement are is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody or control; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 34 of 104
34 The Request is vague, ambiguous, and nonsensical. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged DOCUMENTS RELATING to any cancellations of, or any other changes to, any sponsor agreement based upon DOPING by Lance Armstrong or DOPING by any other rider for TAILWIND for the time period prior to the filing of this lawsuit that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. To further clarify, this Request is meant to refer to instances where a sponsor agreement was cancelled or changed based on the sponsor becoming aware of DOPING or allegations of DOPING by Armstrong or another rider for Tailwind during the time period prior to the filing of this lawsuit. REQUEST NO. 23: ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO claims for payment to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including but not limited to claims for payment for services provided by CSE, Knaggs, or YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 35 of 104
35 The term claims for payment is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular due to the use of RELATING TO in this context; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapletons production will be limited to documents reflecting requests for payments, rather than RELATING TO the requests for payments. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections and issues. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged (1) DOCUMENTS reflecting requests for payments and (2) DOCUMENTS that indicate DEFENDANTS knew the claims were false, that DEFENDANTS acted with reckless disregard with regard to the truth of the claims, that DEFENDANTS were aware that DOPING by the USPS Team would make the claims false, and any statements regarding the fact that the claims were false, he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 24: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TAILWINDs receipt of payments from the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 36 of 104
36 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term receipt of payments is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular due to the use of RELATING TO in this context; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapletons production will be limited to documents reflecting the receipt of such payments, rather than RELATING TO the receipt of such payments. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections and issues. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged (1) DOCUMENTS reflecting the receipt of such payments and (2) DOCUMENTS that show the DEFENDANTS knew they were not or may not be entitled to payments, he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 25: ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, articles of organization, amended articles of organization, operating agreements, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of TAILWIND from 1987 through December 31, 2007. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 37 of 104
37 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 25 years ago and for a period of approximately 20 years; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 26: ALL filings with any state government entity or the Securities and Exchange Commission by TAILWIND from 1987 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 38 of 104
38 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 25 years ago and for a period of approximately 27 years. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 27: The DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of TAILWINDs shares to its shareholders or partners. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term used to accomplish is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations and nonsensical as used in the Request; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and nonsensical. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 39 of 104
39 In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 27 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. For the purpose of this Request, the phrase used to accomplish refers to those DOCUMENTS necessary for the subject transactions to have taken place, including, but not limited to, the buyout of Montgomery Sports, Inc. stock from Montgomery Securities, the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. (aka TWP Sports, Inc.) to Tailwind Sports LLC, the merger of Tailwind Sports LLC into Tailwind Sports Corporation, and the sale of stock of Tailwind Sports Corporation through private placements or otherwise. REQUEST NO. 28: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 40 of 104
40 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 29: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to Thomas Weisel, Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, Bart Knaggs, or CSE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 30: DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the ownership interests in TAILWIND from 1987 through the date of its dissolution. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 41 of 104
41 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms sufficient to show, ownership interests, and date of its dissolution are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 25 years ago and for a period of approximately 20 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 31: DOCUMENTS that show the officers, directors, employees and agents of TAILWIND from 1987 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 42 of 104
42 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms employees and agents are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 25 years ago and for a period of approximately 27 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 32: ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS held by any shareholder, officer, director, employee or agent of TAILWIND, from January 1, 1999 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 43 of 104
43 The terms employee and agent are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 15 years ago and for a period of approximately 15 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 33: ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in Montgomery Securities held by any shareholder, officer, director or employee of TAILWIND, from 1987 through the date Montgomery Securities ceased to exist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms employee and Montgomery Securities are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 15 years ago and for a period of approximately Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 44 of 104
44 15 years, as Relator alleges in his complaint that Montgomery Securities ceased to exist at the latest in 1999 (Dkt. No. 42, 7); and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 34: ALL board minutes of TAILWIND from January 1, 1987 through December 31, 2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from over 25 years ago and for a period of approximately 20 years; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 45 of 104
45 In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 35: ALL DOCUMENTS showing what the assets of Tailwind Sports Corporation were upon its dissolution and how such assets were distributed. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms assets, Tailwind Sports Corporation, and distributed are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 36: ALL annual or other periodic financial statements (including balance sheets and profit and loss statements) for TAILWIND from 1995 through the present. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 46 of 104
46 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms other periodic, financial statements, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from approximately 19 years ago and for a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 37: ALL Private Placement Memoranda issued by TAILWIND from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 47 of 104
47 TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms Private Placement Memoranda and issued by are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from approximately 19 years ago and for a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 38: TAILWINDs federal and state income tax returns from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 48 of 104
48 The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from approximately 19 years ago and for a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request subject to and after the entry of a suitable protective order. REQUEST NO. 39: The General Ledger(s) or any other accounting records showing the funds flowing into and out of TAILWIND from 1995 through 2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms General Ledger(s) and other accounting records, are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The phrase showing the funds flowing into and out of is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular in that it seeks documents from approximately 19 years ago and for a period of approximately 12 years; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 49 of 104
49 The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced REQUEST NO. 40: ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING to the capitalization or undercapitalization of TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms capitalization and undercapitalization are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 50 of 104
50 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 41: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the dissolution of TAILWIND and the distribution of its assets to shareholders. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The phrase distribution of its assets is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 51 of 104
51 REQUEST NO. 42: ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. by Montgomery Securities to Thomas Weisel or any entity affiliated with him. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms Montgomery Sports, Inc., Montgomery Securities, and any entity affiliated with him are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The phrase used to accomplish is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations and nonsensical as used in this Request; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 43: ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. to Tailwind Sports, LLC. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 52 of 104
52 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms Montgomery Sports, Inc. and Tailwind Sports, LLC are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The phrase used to accomplish is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations and nonsensical as used in this Request; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 44: ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the merger of Tailwind Sports, LLC into Tailwind Sports Corporation. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms Tailwind Sports, LLC and Tailwind Sports Corporation are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 53 of 104
53 The phrase used to accomplish is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations and nonsensical as used in this Request; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 45: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments by others (including, but not limited to, Thomas Weisel) for the debts or expenses or any other obligation of TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms others and any other obligation are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 54 of 104
54 included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 45 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 46: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO diversion of TAILWINDs funds or assets to non- corporate uses, including but not limited to the following: payments for non-business related expenses to shareholders, officers, directors, employees or their families or any business entities in which they held an interest. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms diversion, non-corporate uses, non-business related expenses, and business entities in which they held an interest are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 55 of 104
55 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 47: ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel, or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to YOU, Johan Bruyneel, to Lance Armstrong, or to any other rider on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term any account controlled in whole or in part is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and nonsensical to the extent it suggests Stapleton was a rider on the USPS TEAM; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 56 of 104
56 REQUEST NO. 48: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any loans by Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to TAILWIND, YOU, Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, or any rider on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and nonsensical to the extent it suggests Stapleton was a rider on the USPS TEAM; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 49: ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to TAILWIND. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 57 of 104
57 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular because it requests documents showing any payment or transfer of funds regardless of purpose; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 50: ANY DOCUMENTS showing the location of TAILWINDs office space between 1995 and 2007, including but not limited to any space occupied by TAILWIND in the offices of Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 58 of 104
58 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms Montgomery Securities, office space, and Thomas Weisel Partners are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it requests documents from approximately 17 years ago and from a period of 12 years; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 51: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of and/or the price paid for any office space occupied by TAILWIND at Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners, including, but not limited to, any lease documents or other DOCUMENTS which show the rental rates for such space from one year prior to the date that TAILWIND occupied the space to one year after TAILWIND vacated the space. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 59 of 104
59 The terms Montgomery Securities, Thomas Weisel Partners, and value of are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. REQUEST NO. 52: ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS or Robert W. Baird by Hein Verbruggen, by any entity owned or controlled by Hein Verbruggen, or by any relative of Hein Verbruggen. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular because it requests documents concerning deposits regardless of purpose; The terms any entity owned or controlled by Hein Verbruggen and any relative of Hein Vebruggen are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request potentially seeks information that would constitute an invasion of privacy; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 60 of 104
60 The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 52 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 53: ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds managed by or deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS for the benefit of any individual currently or formerly affiliated with UCI or USA CYCLING (or for any entity which such individual owns or controls). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; USA CYCLING DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular because it requests documents Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 61 of 104
61 concerning deposits regardless of purpose and fails to identify the relevant individual[s] currently or formerly affiliated with UCI or USA CYCLING or any entity such individuals own[] or control[]; The terms managed by, deposited with, for the benefit of, affiliated with, and controls are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request potentially seeks information that would constitute an invasion of privacy; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time or scope; The request seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney- client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 53 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 54: ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO payments by Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to the UCI OR any person affiliated with the UCI. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 62 of 104
62 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS DEFINITION OBJECTION; UCI DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular because it requests documents concerning payments regardless of purpose; The term affiliated with is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time or scope; The request seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney- client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 54 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 63 of 104
63 REQUEST NO. 55: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Thomas Weisels change in position from President to Chairman of TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term change in position is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 56: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, YOU or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 64 of 104
64 CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms transaction or decision, took on, and management responsibilities are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 57: ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, YOU or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 57: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 65 of 104
65 The terms transaction or decision, took on, and management responsibilities are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 58: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any DEFENDANTs involvement in the submission of claims for payment to, or the receipt of payments from, the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms involvement in and claims are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 66 of 104
66 Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 59: ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether claims for payments were copied to any DEFENDANT or showing they were otherwise made aware of any claim for payment submitted by TAILWIND to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms were copied to any DEFENDANT, were otherwise made aware, and claim are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 60: ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT received copies of the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS or was made aware of the terms thereof. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 67 of 104
67 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 60: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term was made aware is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 61: ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was aware of any positive or inconclusive DOPING testing results by any rider on the USPS TEAM RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 61: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 68 of 104
68 The terms positive and inconclusive are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 62: ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was copied on or was otherwise made aware of the terms of Lance Armstrongs rider contract, or the rider contract of any rider on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 62: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms was copied on, was otherwise made aware, and rider contract are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 69 of 104
69 REQUEST NO. 63: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY DEFENDANTS contention that the United States or the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE knew or should have known of DOPING on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms ANY DEFENDANTS contention and should have known are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce all communications with the U.S. Postal Service that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Stapleton reserves his right to supplement this response as discovery and investigation continue. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 70 of 104
70 REQUEST NO. 64: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE response of the UNITED STATES to allegations of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms UNITED STATES, and response of the UNITED STATES are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 64 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Stapleton reserves his right to supplement this response as discovery and investigation continue. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 71 of 104
71 REQUEST NO. 65: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of what the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE received under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including but not limited to any valuations, audits, or marketing analyses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms value, what the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE received, valuations, audits, and marketing analyses are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular due to the use of RELATING TO in this context; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapletons production will be limited to documents reflecting the value, rather than RELATING TO the value. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections and issues. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 66: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the damages suffered by the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 72 of 104
72 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM OBJECTION; The Request assumes facts for which there is no basis, namely that the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE has suffered any damages; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton represents that he has no documents responsive to this Request, as the U.S. Postal Service has suffered no damages in connection with the subject matter of this case. REQUEST NO. 67: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contention that the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE was not damaged as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 73 of 104
73 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFINITION OBJECTION; USPS TEAM DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 67 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Stapleton reserves his right to supplement this response as discovery and investigation continue. REQUEST NO. 68: ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO Floyd Landis. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular as it seeks documents or communications relating to Floyd Landis without any limitation on the subject matter of such documents or communications or any limitation on the applicable time period. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 74 of 104
74 In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents that refer to or mention Floyd Landis that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. In response to Relators counsels June 30, 2014 letter, Stapleton does not intend to exclude communications from his production in response to this Request. Further, Stapleton will also include any documents referencing Mr. Landis by his first name, last name, any nicknames known to Stapleton, and his email address to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 69: ALL DOCUMENTS that contradict the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 75 of 104
75 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69: As discussed extensively during meet and confer communications with Relators counsel, Stapleton cannot search for documents responsive to this Request, and therefore, cannot produce documents responsive to it. REQUEST NO. 70: ALL DOCUMENTS upon which YOU rely to deny the allegations of the United States or the relator in their respective complaints against YOU in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; The Request is premature as discovery in this action has just commenced and document may be produced by other parties or discovered subsequently by Stapleton upon which Stapleton may rely to deny the allegations made by Relator in this action; The Request assumes facts for which there is no basis, namely that the United States has filed a complaint against Stapleton; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 76 of 104
76 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: As discussed extensively during meet and confer communications with Relators counsel, Stapleton cannot search for documents responsive to this Request, and therefore, cannot produce documents responsive to it. REQUEST NO. 71: ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS referring to or mentioning this action he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. This action refers to U.S. ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv- 00976-RLW (D.D.C.). Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 77 of 104
77 REQUEST NO. 72: ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO DOPING, the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case with any persons affiliated with the news media as well as any DOCUMENTS related thereto. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 72 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 73: ALL DOCUMENTS that YOU may use to support any affirmative defenses YOU have against the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 78 of 104
78 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad; The Request is premature as discovery in this action has just begun, Stapleton has not yet answered Relators Second Amended Complaint, and Stapleton does not yet know which documents it may rely upon in support of any affirmative defense in this action; The Request assumes facts for which there is no basis, namely that the United States has filed a complaint against Stapleton; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73: The Request is premature as Stapleton has not yet filed an answer or asserted affirmative defenses in this case. Stapleton will produce documents responsive to this Request after he asserts affirmative defenses in this case. Stapleton reserves his right to supplement this response as discovery and investigation continue. REQUEST NO. 74: ALL privilege logs RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or any claims or litigation against YOU RELATING TO DOPING. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 79 of 104
79 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term any claims or litigation against YOU RELATING TO DOPING is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton represents that he has no documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 75: ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS relating to any investigation YOU have conducted relating to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case, including, but not limited to, any video-taping, audio recording, or any other forms of surveillance or background investigation. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 80 of 104
80 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms other forms of surveillance and background investigation are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The request seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney- client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 75 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 76: ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO ANY statements, transcripts, declarations, interviews or summaries of interviews of any persons RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 81 of 104
81 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 76: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: U.S. INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA DEFINITION OBJECTION; USADA INVESTIGATION DEFINITION OBJECTION; The terms statements and summaries of interviews are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The request seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney- client privilege and/or work product doctrine; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce non-privileged documents responsive to Request No. 76 that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. For purposes of this Request, the term statements refers to written statements by any of the DEFENDANTS, Relator, U.S. Postal Service, or any potential witnesses. The phrase summaries of interviews refers to written summaries of interviews of any of the DEFENDANTS, Relator, U.S. Postal Service, or any potential witness. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 82 of 104
82 REQUEST NO. 77: ALL contracts between YOU, on the one hand, and any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the other hand. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 77: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term contracts is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 78: ALL DOCUMENTS that describe the nature of the services YOU or any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES have provided for Lance Armstrong from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 83 of 104
83 CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term nature of the services is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 79: ALL DOCUMENTS establishing or evidencing an attorney-client relationship between YOU OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, AND Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 79: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 84 of 104
84 CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 80: ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing the lack of an attorney-client relationship between YOU OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 85 of 104
85 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 80: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request assumes facts for which there is no basis, namely that an attorney-client relationship did not exist; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 86 of 104
86 REQUEST NO. 81: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR authorization or lack of authorization to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 81: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The terms authorization, lack of authorization, and at any point are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 87 of 104
87 REQUEST NO. 82: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrongs knowledge or lack thereof that YOU were inactive or unauthorized to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 82: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 83: ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO whether or not YOU were acting as Lance Armstrongs attorney. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 83: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 88 of 104
88 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term acting as Lance Armstrongs attorney is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it is unlimited in time and scope; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. REQUEST NO. 84: ALL contracts between any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong , on the other, including, but not limited to, any engagement letters, retainer agreements, or other agreements describing any services to be provided to Lance Armstrong. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 89 of 104
89 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 84: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The term other agreements describing any services to be provided is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce (1) all contracts or engagement letters entered into between the CSE Defendants and Mr. Armstrong, (2) all documents that reflect or refer to Mr. Stapletons status with the Texas bar, and (3) any communications between Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Armstrong in which either party expressly stated that Mr. Stapleton either was or was not acting as Mr. Armstrongs attorney, that he discovers in his possession, custody, or control after a diligent search to the extent such documents exist and have not already been produced. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 90 of 104
90 REQUEST NO. 85: ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 85 Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 86: All filings with the California Secretary of State, the Delaware Secretary of State, or the Securities and Exchange Commission by the CSE RELATED ENTITIES from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 86: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 91 of 104
91 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; and The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 87: DOCUMENTS that list the breakdown in ownership of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES at any or all points from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 87: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; The terms breakdown in ownership and any or all points are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 92 of 104
92 The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. REQUEST NO. 88: DOCUMENTS that list the officers, directors, employees and agents of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES at any or all points from 1995 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 88: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE RELATED ENTITIES DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; The terms employees, agents, and any or all points are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 93 of 104
93 objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the officers and directors and full-time employees of CSEs sports group between 1995 and the present. REQUEST NO. 89: ALL board minutes from 1995 through the present of CSE. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 89: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: CSE DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request is unreasonable in scope and time, as it seeks documents from a period of approximately 19 years; and The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 94 of 104
94 AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce board minutes of CSE that have touched on the matter of doping or other allegations in this case. REQUEST NO. 90: ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and ANY of the following people or entities: a. Lance Armstrong b. Johan Bruyneel c. Thomas Weisel d. Barton Knaggs e. the United States Postal Service or any current or former employee or agent of the United States Postal Service f. Thomas Weisel Partners g. Mark Gorski h. Dan Osipow i. Jim Ochowicz j. Emma OReilly k. Geert Duffeleer l. Laurenzo Lapage m. Edward Eddie B Borysewicz n. Johnny Weltz o. Stephanie McIlvain p. Laura Hundley q. Dr. Pedro Celaya r. Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral s. Dr. Michele Ferrari t. Dr. Jose Aramendi u. Dr. Dag Van Elsland v. Dr. Eufemeniano Fuentes w. Dr. Herman Falsetti x. Jose Pepe Marti y. Philippe Maire z. Hein Verbruggen aa. Pat McQuaid bb. Emile Vrijman cc. Philippe Verbiest dd. Sylvia Shenk ee. Dr. Mario Zorzoli ff. Steve Johnson gg. Floyd Landis Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 95 of 104
95 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 90: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and The request potentially seeks the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton believes documents responsive to this Request, to the extent Stapleton is able to understand it, are included in the documents identified in his Response to Request No. 1, which have already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90: The parties have agreed to continue to meet and confer with respect to Request No. 90. Accordingly, the parties have agreed to a staged production of electronic documents based on custodians specified by Relators counsel. Relators counsel will use the list of personnel provided in response to Request No. 88 to identify custodians of interest. Once the custodians of interest have been provided, the parties will then confer regarding which persons from the list above are appropriate search terms for that particular custodian of interest. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 96 of 104
96 REQUEST NO. 91: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments to Johan Bruyneel or to Johan Bruyneel Sports Management by TAILWIND or by any other DEFENDANT from 1999 through the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 91: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: TAILWIND DEFINITION OBJECTION; The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The term Johan Bruyneel Sports Management is undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents he discovers after a diligent search that are responsive to this Request. REQUEST NO. 92: ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any books RELATING TO cycling or DOPING, including any drafts or final copies of such books and any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO such books. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 92: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: DOPING DEFINITION OBJECTION; Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 97 of 104
97 The Request is overly broad and burdensome in that it seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; The Request seeks the production of documents not within Stapletons possession, custody, or control; The terms any books, RELATING TO cycling, any drafts, final copies, and such books are undefined, vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and subject to varying interpretations; and The Request is unreasonable in time and scope, in particular because it contains no limitation as to time; and The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad, in particular because it calls for documents relating to any book ever written about cycling or doping in any sport. In light of the foregoing objections, Stapleton will not produce documents responsive to this Request. Stapleton is willing to meet and confer on the above-stated objections. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92: During meet and confer discussions, this Request was narrowed to include only unpublished copies of Lance Armstrongs books. Stapleton does not have any documents responsive to this Request. This Response is not intended to and does not address any amended version of this Request previously or currently proposed by Relators counsel during meet and confer discussions. REQUEST NO. 93: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in your Initial Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 98 of 104
98 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 93: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: YOU DEFINITION OBJECTION. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), Stapleton produced, rather than merely identified, his documents with his initial disclosures. Therefore, Stapleton has no documents responsive to this Request which have not already been produced. AMENDED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Stapleton will produce a copy of the insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. REQUEST NO. 94: ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in response to ANY interrogatories in this case. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 94: Stapleton incorporates by reference his General Objections set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Stapleton further specifically objects as follows: The Request on the ground that it is premature as Stapleton has not responded to any interrogatories in this action. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 99 of 104 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 100 of 104 Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 101 of 104
101 SERVICE LIST
VIA EMAIL ONLY Michael D. Granston Robert E. Chandler David M. Finkelstein U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Fraud Section P. O. Box 261 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 514-4678 Fax: (202) 514-0280 robert.chandler@usdoj.gov david.m.finkelstein@usdoj.gov Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America Darrel C. Valdez Mercedeh Momeni United States Attorneys Office 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 307-2843 darrell.valdez@usdoj.gov mercedeh.momeni@usdoj.gov Co-Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America Paul D. Scott Lani Anne Remick Jon L. Praed LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. The Embarcadero Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Tel: (415) 981-1212 Fax: (415) 981-1215 pdscott@lopds.com laremick@lopds.com jlpraed@lopds.com Counsel for Relator Floyd Landis Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 102 of 104
102 Robert D. Luskin Benjamin D. Wood SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Tel: (202) 457-6000 Fax: (202) 457-6315 robert.luskin@squirepb.com benjamin.wood@squirepb.com Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong John W. Keker Elliot R. Peters R. James Slaughter Sharif E. Jacob Tia Alexandra Sherringham KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 391-5400 Fax: (415) 397-7188 jkeker@kvn.com epeters@kvn.com rslaughter@kvn.com sjacob@kvn.com tsherringham@kvn.com Co-Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong Brendan P. Cullen SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel: (650) 461-5650 Fax: (650) 461-5700 cullenb@sullcrom.com Counsel for Defendants Thomas W. Weisel and Ross Investments, Inc. Robert A. Sacks SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 712-6600 Fax: (310) 712-8800 sacksr@sullcrom.com Co-Counsel for Defendants Thomas W. Weisel and Ross Investments, Inc. Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 103 of 104
103 Christopher M. Viapiano SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 956-7500 Fax: (202) 956-7056 viapianoc@sullcrom.com Co-Counsel for Defendants Thomas W. Weisel and Ross Investments, Inc. VIA EMAIL AND MAIL Johan Bruyneel c/o Mike Morgan Lafone House The Leathermarket 11-13 Weston Street Waterloo, London SE1 3ER mike.morgan@morgansl.com Defendant Johan Bruyneel, in Pro Per VIA MAIL ONLY Tailwind Sports Corp. 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 430 Austin, TX 78701
Tailwind Sports Corp. c/o National Registered Agents, Inc. 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101 Dover, DE 19904
Defendant Tailwind Sports Corp., in Pro Per Tailwind Sports LLC 5515 Security Lane, #1103 Rockville, Maryland 20852
Tailwind Sports LLC c/o Corporation Service Company 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808 Defendant Tailwind Sports LLC, in Pro Per
Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 215-4 Filed 09/04/14 Page 104 of 104
Lorraine E. White and David C. White, D/B/A White Surveying Company v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, 402 F.2d 145, 10th Cir. (1968)
George Saunders, Lacy L. Wilkinson and Grant Kindwall v. The Great Western Sugar Company, Great Western United Corporation, and The Colorado Milling & Elevator Company, 396 F.2d 794, 10th Cir. (1968)