LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 22nd 09, 03:11 AM posted to,,alt.chess
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Polgar Letter to Judge Patel and USCF Response

Polgar Letter:

Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel
United States District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Courtroom 15, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States of America Chess Federation v. Susan Polgar
USDC, Northern District of California Court Case No. 3:08-cv-05126-MHP
Dear Judge Patel:
Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order No. 6, Susan Polgar regretfully
requests a second "emergency teleconference" in this proceeding.' On
Friday, September 18, 2009 at 5:17 p.m., paralegal Sumeena Birdi of
Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP purported to notice (via email) a subpoena in
this action on the U.S. Secret Service to be served today, September
21g. Ms. Polgar immediately objected to the "weekend subpoena," but
plaintiffs have refused to withdraw the notice. The subpoena is improper
for the following reasons.
First, it plainly violates the notice requirements required by Rules 5
and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Less than one business
day is ridiculous, unnecessary,2 and the reason Ms. Polgar has
been•orced to request this teleconference.
Second, this Court wisely ordered no further discovery be issued until
the motion to disqualify is decided. See 8/10/09 Tr. at 5:16-20;
8:12-20. The subpoena directly violates this order.
Third, on April 13, 2009, this Court ordered the plaintiffs to turn over
documents demonstrating their authorization to bring this lawsuit. See
Docket No. 91, at 16:4-9, 13:9-15, 48:8-13. Ms. Polgar has also had
discovery requests on this issue outstanding since April 2009. Yet,
Plaintiffs have contended (without authority) that "discovery is stayed"
pending their "Anti-SLAPP" motion and on that ground have refused to
respond such documents. See Docket No. 196. The "weekend subpoena" is
another in a long line of efforts by plaintiffs to use court procedures
as a one-way discovery mechanism in defiance of express statutory
provisions and court orders.3
Fourth, Plaintiffs have taken every opportunity to delay the Court's
ruling on the pending Motion to Disqualify and Motion for Summary
Judgment. This last-minute subpoena has all the trappings of another
such effort at delay. Plaintiffs had more than ample time to seek this
discovery but completely failed to do so. Ms. Polgar seeks a full and
fair consideration of this case on an even playing field. This subpoena
violates the Federal Rules, this Court's orders, and Plaintiffs' own
position on discovery. Accordingly, Ms. Polgar respectfully requests
that the Court address these issues at a teleconference as soon as is
practicable for the Court.
Very truly yours, GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP
/s/ G. Whitney Leigh G. Whitney Leigh
Two Shaw Alley
3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA
TEL 415-512-2000
:a 415-542-2001 1 This first arose under similar circumstances. See
Docket No. 66 at 7:3- 8:1 (addressing "collusive" subpoenas served by
Kronenberger on himself two days before the hearing on the motion to
'Obviously, plaintiffs had ample opportunity to serve this subpoena
before the stay of further discovery, or, thereafter, through a request
to lift the stay.
3 After Ms. Polgar notified plaintiffs that she would seek an emergency
teleconference with the Court, plaintiffs threatened to raise
"additional [discovery] issues" in a letter to the Court. Plaintiffs
never raised such issues with Ms. Polgar in any discovery conference or
meet-and-confer correspondence.

USCF Response:

Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel
U.S District Court, N. D. California 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

U.S. Chess Federation v. Polgar, et. al., Case No. 3:08-C V-05126-MHP

Dear Judge Patel:

This letter addresses three discovery issues that cannot be resolved
between the parties.

Subpoena to the Secret Service (Un-Served). The USCF has provided notice
to Polgar and Alexander of a proposed subpoena that the USCF would like
to serve on the U.S. Secret Service. The subpoena requests mirror image
copies of Alexander’s hard drives, which were seized pursuant to a
criminal search warrant by the Secret Service, and plaintiffs are
seeking information related to the criminal allegations concerning
Gregory Alexander’s unauthorized access and identity theft, as detailed
in his indictment.

The stay of discovery in this case, due to the counter-defendants’
anti-SLAPP motion, only applies to discovery related to the SLAPP
counterclaims. The subpoena seeks information unrelated to Polgar’s
SLAPP claims of abuse of process and breach of fiduciary duty, and thus,
the subpoena is proper. If, however, the Court finds that the stay
prohibits the subpoena, the USCF requests leave to serve the
subpoena under Code Civ. Proc. 425.16(g), or else there is a possibility
that the evidence could be deleted or otherwise made permanently
unavailable to the USCF. The USCF will not serve this subpoena without
further instruction from the Court.

Polgar failed to meet and confer before filing her letter, under Local
Rules 1-5(n) and 37-1.

Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests. The USCF served Plaintiffs’
Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production
on Polgar in July 2009. These requests sought all correspondence and
documents relating to Alexander’s representation by criminal defense
counsel, Seth Chazin, and payment to Seth Chazin. On Aug 21, 2009,
Polgar objected to the requests without providing any legally sufficient
reason. Polgar has asserted that she “barely knows” Alexander and had
little communication him. Polgar cannot now refuse to produce
information of her getting an attorney for Alexander and, on information
and belief, paying for Alexander’s criminal defense counsel. Counsel
have personally met and conferred on this matter.

Violations of the Court’s “No Contact” Order. On July 17, 2009,
Magistrate Trumbull ordered that Alexander have no contact with Polgar.
*Since then, Alexander has attempted to make contact with Polgar through
an intermediary, Sevan Muradian.* Further, Polgar’s counsel continues to
send email correspondence to Alexander. Alexander and Polgar should not
be able to coordinate to “get their stories straight,” after they have
been ordered to have no contact. The USCF seeks an order prohibiting
counsel for Polgar from having any contact with Alexander. Counsel have
personally met and conferred on this matter. [emphasis in bold added]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Karl S. Kronenberger Karl S. Kronenberger
Brian Lafferty
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar (Chess Politics) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar (Chess General) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] (Chess Politics) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] (Chess General) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.

About Us

"It's about Chess"


Copyright © 2017