Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 29th 09, 09:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Leigh Declaration In Support of Ex Parte Motion

DECLARATION OF G. WHITNEY LEIGH IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION BY SUSAN
POLGAR TO STAY DECISION ON HER MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PENDING TRANSFER TO
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
OR DECISION ON MOTION TO COMPEL

I, G. WHITNEY LEIGH, declare and state as follows:

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California
and am a
partner in the law firm of Gonzalez & Leigh, LLP, counsel for Susan
Polgar in this case. The matters set forth herein are within my personal
knowledge and if called and sworn as a witness, I could competently
testify thereto.

2. Attached as Exhibit A is an August 20, 2009 letter from Whitney Leigh
to Karl Kronenberger and Kristina Velarde.

3. Attached as Exhibit B is a September 4, 2009 letter from Matthew
Schultz to Karl Kronenberger.

4. Attached as Exhibit C is a September 23, 2009 letter from Matthew
Schultz to Karl Kronenberger.

5. Attached as Exhibit D is a September 25, 2009 letter from Matt
Springman to Karl Kronenberger.

6. Despite repeatedly requesting (in Exhibits A-D above) all recordings,
transcripts, minutes, and evidence relevant to plaintiffs' claims that
the USCF ratified the actions of the Executive Board, revoked the
memberships of Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, and plaintiffs' counsel's
firms potential conflicts of interest in this litigation, plaintiffs
have not substantively responded.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
September 28, 2009 at San Francisco, California

_/s/ G. Whitney Leigh

Exhibit A

United States of America Chess frederation v. Susan Polgar
USDC, Northern District of California Court Case No. 3:08-cv-05126-MHP

Dear Karl and Kristina:

I write concerning Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to File Surreply and
Proposed Consolidated Surreply in Opposition to Defendant Polgar's
Motion [sic] for Summary Judgment and Motion to Disqualify Counsel
[Docket Entry No. 183], and the supporting Declaration of Bill Hall
A) Comprehensive Ratification by USCF Board of Delegates of All Acts of
USCF Executive Board, B), Expulsion of Susan Polgar from the U.S. Chess
Federation and C) Denial of Susan Polgar's Indemnification Requests, in
Response to Civil Minute Order Dated April 13, 2009 [Docket Entry No.
182] (emphasis in original) (hereinafter "plaintiffs' proposed surreply
briefs").
In their proposed surreply briefs, plaintiffs contend that the during
the 2009 Board of Delegates' meeting, the Delegates ratified various
acts alleged to have been committed by plaintiffs in Ms. Polgar's
motions for summary judgment and to disqualify. Plaintiffs purport to
summarize "new evidence" "reflecting the authorizations and later
ratifications of the USCF relating to the-case at hand". See Hall
Declaration in support of plaintiffs' after-the-fact authorization
briefs, Docket Entry No. 182, at p.1. Plaintiffs seek leave for
permission to submit these papers in response to the Court's April 13,
2009 order to produce all records supporting the USCF's authorization of
this lawsuit. Id.
Plaintiffs' proposed surreply briefs purport to summarize multiple
hearings and "workshops" that occurred during the 2009 meeting, but do
not provide any of the recordings of the hearings, transcripts, or many
of the relevant documents. Instead, plaintiffs have merely submitted
another declaration from Bill Hall — who already has repeatedly perjured
himself in these proceedings — and selected documents that plaintiffs
apparently would like the Court to consider. This is not adequate, since
plaintiffs possess recordings of all of these hearings and meetings but
have not produced them to the Court or Ms. Polgar.
Since plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider its submission in
connection with the hearing scheduled for September 14, 2009, it is
imperative that all such recordings be produced to Ms. Polgar
immediately. We therefore request that plaintiffs produce to Ms. Polgar,
no later than the close of business Wednesday, August 26, 2009, the
following documents and materials:
1. A complete copy of all records and recordings of records of any
meetings of the USCF's Executive Board between April 12, 2009 and the
present, including all written votes, electronic communications
(including, but not limited to emails and text messages) and recordings
reflecting any such meetings (including, but not limited to, the
so-called "Legal Workshop").
2. A complete copy of all documents, communications, materials and
recordings concerning any meetings during which plaintiffs contend the
Delegates were informed of any action by the Executive Board that
plaintiffs contend the Delegates ratified during the 2009 Delegates
Meeting (including, but not limited to, the so-called "Legal Workshop").
3. A complete copy of all documents, communications, materials and
recordings concerning any meetings during which plaintiffs contend the
Delegates consented to any action by the Executive Board that plaintiffs
contend the Delegates ratified during the 2009 Delegates Meeting
(including, but not limited to, the so-called "Legal Workshop").
4. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings that
plaintiffs contend gave Ms. Polgar notice of the Executive Board's
motion to revoke her membership in the USCF.
5. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings submitted
by any party in support of plaintiffs' motion to revoke Ms. Polgar's
membership in the USCF.
6. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings that
plaintiffs contend constitute or relate to the Delegates' disclosure of
conflicts of interest presented by Karl Kronenberger and/or Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP's representation of the USCF in these proceedings.
7. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings that
plaintiffs contend constitute or relate to the Delegates' waiver of
conflicts of interest presented by Karl Kronenberger and/or Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP's representation of the USCF in these proceedings.
8. A complete copy of all documents, materials, and recordings
reflecting any statements made by members of the Executive Board to any
Delegates or members of the USCF during the 2009 Delegates' Meeting
relating to Susan Polgar or Paul Truong.
9. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings that
plaintiffs contend constitute or relate to the Delegates' waiver of
conflicts of interest presented by Karl Kronenberger and/or Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP's representation of the USCF in these proceedings.
10. A complete copy of all documents, materials and recordings relating
to the purported ratification by the USCF Delegates of the revocation of
Susan Polgar's membership in the USCF, the Executive Board's decisions
or actions prior to the 2009 Delegate's meeting, Susan Polgar's request
for indemnification and/or the USCF's representation by Karl
Kronenberger or Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP.
11. A privilege log listing any documents, materials or recordings
responsive to the preceding eight categories of requested documents,
materials and recordings that plaintiffs contend may be withheld on the
grounds of privilege, together with an identification of the subject
matter of the item withheld, the author and recipient(s), if any, and
the specific privilege asserted.
As stated above, we request that you provide this information no later
than August 26, 2009. We also request that you confirm your agreement to
provide these materials by that date no later than the close of
business, Friday, August 21, 2009. To the extent that you contend that
you need additional time to produce the requested materials, please
specify the materials you can timely produce, and when any remaining
responsive materials will be produced. To the extent that you contend
that you are not obligated to produce any of the materials requested
above, please state so expressly, no later than Friday, August 21, 2009.
Very truly yours,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP
t
G. Whitney Leigh

Exhibit B

VIA U.S. MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108-4707
United States of America Chess Federation v. Susan Polgar
USDC, Northern District of California Court Case No. 3:08-cv-05126-MHP
Dear Mr. Kronenberger:
This letter is in response to your September 4, 2009 letter to my
colleague, Whitney Leigh.
First, a review of the documents provided with your letter today
(USCF000653- USCF001114) reveals that they do not include the documents
listed in Mr. Leigh's August 20th and 28th letters to you, identified in
Ms. Polgar's document requests, and required by the Court's April 13,
2009 Order.
Plaintiffs and cross-defendants continue to withhold the key documents
relevant to the purported "ratification" and waiver of conflicts that
plaintiffs claim occurred during the August 2009 Board of Delegates'
Meeting. To take the most obvious example, your production omits all
meetings minutes, recordings, or transcripts of the August 7th Executive
Board Meeting or the August 8th Board of Delegates Meeting from which
Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong were excluded. Incredibly, you included a
partial transcript of one portion of the August 8th meeting: the portion
which Ms. Polgar was allowed to attend, in which Mr. Leigh gave a brief
presentation. You omitted transcripts or recordings of any other
portions of August 7th and 8th meetings from the production. You also
failed to produce any recording or transcript of the July 6th Executive
Board Meeting in which Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants purported to
"revoke" Ms. Polgar's membership.
You state that the USCF and cross-defendants' production of these
documents is "not yet due." That is incorrect. The USCF and
cross-defendants have been under an obligation to produce these
documents pursuant to the Court's April 13, 2009 Order for some time.
They have also been under an obligation to product them pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require them to supplement their
responses to previous discovery requests, as well as supplement their
disclosure of documents upon which they plan to rely as a claim or a
defense. Plaintiffs and cross-defendants themselves put all documents,
transcripts, or recordings of these meetings at issue when they offered
a declaration by Bill Hall purporting to "summarize" what happened
during these meetings to the Court.
Please confirm in writing whether the USCF and cross-defendants have
produced all documents in their possession listed in Mr. Leigh's letters
and required by the Federal Rules and the Court's April 13, 2009 Order.
Please confirm in writing that there are no recordings or transcripts of
the July 6th, August 7th or 8th meetings available. If that is not the
case, please confirm in writing when the USCF and cross-defendants will
produce these documents and/or recordings. If the USCF and
cross-defendants are withholding any of the documents listed in Mr.
Leigh's letters and required by the Court's April 13, 2009 Order, please
confirm in writing when you are going to specify which ones they are
withholding and the basis for withholding them. In short, tell us
whether (i) the production is complete and (ii) if not, when it will be.
Please do so by the close of business today.
Second, you assert that either Mr. Leigh, Ms. Polgar, or Mr. Truong were
in possession of "most" of the documents you provided to us today, and
that if they were not, they were "most likely physically present at such
session." The issue is not the scope of what you chose to provide us
with today, but what Ms. Polgar has repeatedly requested, what the
Federal Rules require, and what the Court has ordered the USCF and
cross- defendants to produce. Essentially, it appears that you have made
a highly selective production of the relevant, discoverable documents
that the USCF and cross-defendants are already under an obligation to
produce, and only produced documents which you yourself claim are
useless to Ms. Polgar because she already has them. Even if your
assertion in this regard were true, the USCF and cross-defendants would
remain in violation of the Court's April 13, 2009 Order and the Federal
Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Third, your September 4th letter suggests that Mr. Leigh and Ms. Polgar
have been able to attend recent Executive Board meetings and have access
the recordings, transcripts, and notes of these meetings. As you are
well aware, the USCF has for some time refused to notify Ms. Polgar or
Mr. Truong of meetings held by the USCF Executive Board, nor allowed
them to attend such meetings, nor allowed them access to transcripts of
such meetings. As we have repeatedly explained, this directly violates
the USCF's own bylaws, not to mention your professional duties to the
USCF as an organizational client, or the USCF's, cross-defendants', and
your own fiduciary duties to Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong as elected
Executive Board members of the USCF. If it is really your position that
Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong were either "physically present" or have "had
access" to the transcripts of all of the meetings of the Executive Board
since April 12, 2009, then identify the specific meetings for which you
make this claim, and any meetings for which you admit that they were barred.
Fourth, you repeatedly cite the USCF's production in other litigation
matters. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, production by Texas
counsel in another litigation does not excuse lack of production in this
action in which you are counsel. If you believe differently, show us any
authority that supports such a position.
Fifth, you claim that Ms. Polgar "has full access to the USCF BINFO
system." This is incorrect. As you know, neither Ms. Polgar nor Mr.
Truong has ever had access to relevant documents stored in the
"confidential" BINFO folder at
binfo .confidential.org. You know this—Ms. Polgar has served outstanding
document requests seeking production of relevant documents in this
folder; the USCF and cross- defendants have refused to provide them; and
Ms. Polgar has raised plaintiffs' failure to produce these documents in
previous letters to the Court.
Moreover, as to the non-confidential BINFO system at ,
Ms. Polgar deactivated her USCF forum account early in 2007; Mr. Truong
has not used his USCF forum account since September 2007; and, since the
USCF and cross-defendants wrongfully expelled Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong
from USCF membership in express violation of the USCF bylaws, Ms. Polgar
nor Mr. Truong do not have access to the USCF BINFO system.
Sixth, you state that Ms. Polgar has not produced a privilege log. I
note that this is the first time that you have requested a privilege log
in this litigation. Ms. Polgar will do so.
Finally, I take it that your request for a privilege log, coupled with
your production today, means that you are no longer taking the position
expressed in your September 1st email to Mr. Leigh that you created an
automatic stay of all discovery in this case by filing a motion to
dismiss. Please notify us immediately if you are, in fact, still taking
this position. If you are, please provide us with authority that filing
a motion to dismiss in federal court under C.C.P. 425.16 creates an
automatic blanket discovery stay of all discovery requests and
outstanding court orders.
Best regards,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP

Exhibit C


VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108-4707
United States of America Chess Federation v. Susan Polgar
USDC, Northern District of California Court Case No. 3:08-cv-05126-MHP
Karl:
This letter follows my letter to you on September 4, 2009 and our
discussion during our in-person meeting Monday evening, September 21,
2009, concerning plaintiffs' production of all documents relating to the
August 2009. Board of Delegates meeting. During our meeting, you
expressed "frustration" with Ms. Polgar's contention that plaintiffs
have not turned over relevant documents that we have requested and the
court has ordered be turned over. This letter summarizes what you said
during our meeting and follows up regarding the specifics of what you
either admitted plaintiffs still had not produced or were not going to
produce. Because you asked for very clear and specific questions, we
have endeavored to ask them.
I. Documents That Remain In Plaintiffs' Possession, Custody, or Control.
You stated that plaintiffs have previously produced to Ms. Polgar in
this litigation every document, audio or video file within plaintiffs'
possession, custody, or control that documents or records any portion of
the August 2009 Board of Delegates' meeting, with one exception: three
"disks" containing audio recordings of three "meetings" of the Executive
Board and/or Board of Delegates.
Please immediately tell us in writing by the close of business today,
September 23, 2009 if any portion of the above description is not
entirely true and, if that is the case, state with specificity which
part of it is not true.
Second, as we stated in the meeting on Monday, Ms. Polgar agrees to
designate all portions of these three remaining audio files
"confidential" pending further specific designations by you at an
agreed-upon later time. With this agreement, please immediately provide
these disks and any transcriptions of these disks to us by close of
business today, Wednesday, September 22nd. As you know, the Court has
scheduled a hearing on Ms. Polgar's motion to disqualify for Monday,
September 28, 2009. Plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider their
"summary" of the events recorded in these discs (the August 2009
Delegate meeting proceedings) as evidence in connection with that
motion. It is imperative that these discs immediately be produced. When
you produce them, you need to state in writing that all portions of
these audio files have been produced.
If you refuse to do immediately turn over any portion of these disks by
the close of business today, September 23rd, then please inform us by
the close of business today, September 23rd, (i) the specific portion of
these files which you are not turning over; (ii) every basis for
plaintiffs' continued refusal to turn over the portion of these files;
(iii) when we can expect plaintiffs to turn them over to Ms. Polgar;
(iv) the date and time of the meetings at issue and (iv) the specific
people who attended or were present (either telephonically or in person)
during the meetings at issue.
Third, you stated that the only reason that plaintiffs have not turned
over these three "disks" of these three "meetings" is that you were
reviewing them for "confidentiality" designations. Please immediately
identify by close of business today, Wednesday, September 23"I how long
your firm has had these audio files in its possession and how long these
records are. Please further explain any basis whatsoever that you
contend would justify withholding these discs from disclosure in this case.
H. The Alleged Lack Of Audio or Video Recordings.
During our meeting, you stated that not every meeting during the Board
of Delegates' August 2009 meeting was recorded.
First, when we asked, you stated that there were no recordings made of
the Delegates' "deliberations." Please identify (i) the specific times
and dates when these "deliberations" took place and (ii) the specific
individuals present at any time during these "deliberations." Please do
so by no later than the close of business Thursday, September 23rd. If
you cannot do so by that date, explain specifically why in writing by
that date.
Second, when we asked if there were other meetings in which no recording
was made, you stated that you were "unsure." Please immediately identify
every other meeting that took place during the August 2009 Board of
Delegates' Meeting that were not recorded. Please do so by the close of
business Thursday, September 23111.
Third, when we asked why these meetings were not recorded and who
ordered them not to be recorded, you were unable to answer with
specificity. Please confirm the specific individuals who ordered that
these meetings not be recorded and the specific bylaws which allow such
meetings not to be recorded. Please do so by the close of business
Thursday, September 2311.
III. "Every piece of information produced to the delegates."
During our meeting, you repeatedly stated that plaintiffs had given to
Ms. Polgar "every piece of information produced" to the delegates. We
interpret this to mean that plaintiffs have produced to Ms. Polgar (i)
every piece of paper given to the Delegates at any time prior to or
after their vote by any employee, attorney, or agent of the USCF or any
committee of the USCF relating to this litigation, the Texas Action, or
your firm; (ii) every piece of paper shown to the Delegates—i.e., any
slideshows, PowerPoint presentations, ect. during the Board of
Delegates' meeting or before relating to this litigation or the Texas
Action, or your firm; and (iii) every recording of any verbal statements
made to the Delegates during the meetings.
Please confirm by close of business today, September 23, 2009 that
plaintiffs have, in fact, produced to Ms. Polgar every such document
listed in proceeding paragraph. If plaintiffs have not, identify with
specificity what documents out of this list have not been produced, and
when Ms. Polgar can expect plaintiffs to produce them. If you are
refusing to produce them, state the specific reasons why.
IV. Blanket Assertions of Privilege And Further Delays Are Not Options.
We note that blanket assertions of "privilege" with respect to these
documents are not sufficient responses to any of our questions
concerning plaintiffs' production or conduct during the meetings. First,
this privilege has been waived with respect to communications between
the Executive Board and counsel for USCF concerning the ratification.
Second, even if it had not been waived, the privilege could not possibly
cover every such document listed above. Finally, if you are holding
anything back on the basis of attorney-client privilege that was used,
referenced, or discussed during the August 2009 Board of Delegates
meeting, identify the document with specificity via a privilege log by
close of business today, September 23, 2009.
We also note that you have repeatedly evinced a keen interest in
delaying the pending motion to disqualify your firm (as well as the
motion to compel and the motion for summary judgment) for some time.
This letter in no way provides any justification to you or plaintiffs to
seek a further delay in rulings on the motion to disquali& or the other
motions. Plaintiffs, not Ms. Polgar, have the burden of proving that the
purported "ratifications" by the Board of Delegates of the numerous
direct and ongoing conflicts of interest and the other violations of the
rules of professional conduct by you currently has any legal effect
(other than to expose you and your clients to further liability).
Plaintiffs' failure to turn over these documents does not mean they can
further delay a hearing on these issues; rather, it is only one more
reason that they have failed to meet their burden.
We also note that your allegation of a "discovery stay' as justification
for failing to produce any of the documents listed in this letter is
also not going to be sufficient. First, there is no such stay of any
kind, and you have yet to produce any authority to suggest that a party
can create a blanket stay of discovery in federal court by filing an
Anti¬SLAPP motion as I requested in my previous letter to you. Second—as
you yourself have pointed out—even under your own theory of this "stay,"
it only applies to Ms. Polgar's counter-claims. As the Court has
recognized, and as you have recognized, the purported "ratification" at
the 2009 Board of Delegates meeting is directly relevant to Ms. Polgar's
ultra vices defense against plaintiffs' claims.
Finally, I remind you that you and plaintiffs are under a court order to
turn over these documents to Ms. Polgar. If you and/or plaintiffs have
failed to turn over these documents, then immediately do so, or at least
confirm in writing what documents you are withholding and on what basis.
Further delay will only make matters worse for both you and your clients. -
Best regards,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP


Exhibit D

September 25, 2009

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE LLP 150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108-4707
United States of America Chess Federation v. Susan Polgar
USDC, Northern District of California Court Case No. 3:08-cv-05126-MHP
Karl:
I write to address several representations you made at the September 21,
2009 in- person meet and confer at your offices, which was recorded. A
portion of that meeting addressed the USCF's production of recordings of
USCF Executive Board meetings that occurred between August 6 and 10—the
substance of which are relevant to the plaintiffs' claims that the USCF
"ratified" the ultra vires lawsuit against Susan Polgar, your firms'
conflict of interest and other violations of the California Rules of
Professional Conduct, and the Board's improper revocation of Susan
Polgar's and Paul Truong's membership.
At the meet and confer you represented that you have produced all audio
recordings in plaintiffs' and counter-defendants' possession of
Executive Board meetings that occurred between those dates, and that the
only recordings that you have not yet produced to Ms. Polgar are of
meetings at which Whitney Leigh was present. We have again reviewed the
audio files you produced on September 4, 2009 (USCF00653-1114) and
identified three Executive Board meetings that appear to have been
recorded: (i) Thursday, August 6, (ii) Sunday, August 9, and (iii)
Monday, August 10, 2009.
First, it is our understanding that the Executive Board also met on
August 7th and excluded Ms. Polgar and her counsel from this meeting.
You have not provided a recording of this meeting. Please confirm in
writing by the close of business today whether the USCF held a meeting
on August 7, 2009, and whether that meeting was recorded as it was
required to be under the Federation's bylaws. If the meeting was
recorded, please immediately provide that recording to Ms Polgar by the
close of business today.
Second, as you noted during our latest meet-and-confer, Ms. Polgar does
not know every meeting that took place and therefore cannot be certain
that plaintiffs have produced recordings of these meetings. Thus, in
addition to confirming or denying whether the Executive Board, in fact,
met on August 7, please provide the dates and times of all meetings
(both Executive Board meetings and Board of Delegates meetings), which
took place between August 6-12, including each meeting from which Ms.
Polgar and her counsel were excluded; as well as whether those meetings
were recorded or transcribed. We have asked you to provide Ms. Polgar
with this information repeatedly since the August meetings. You have
consistently refused to provide this information. Please do so immediately.
Third, you stated during our meet and confer that meetings (some you
called "deliberations") were not recorded. We have asked you to be more
specific twice now about these meetings. You have refused. We again ask
you to please tell us what other meetings between the Executive Board
and/or the Board of Delegates (you can call them "deliberations" if you
like) were not recorded, when they took place and who was present during
these meetings.
Fourth, we have repeatedly asked you to tell us who ordered that theSe
meetings not be recorded and why. You have yet to tell us this
information. It is obviously relevant. Please tell us who ordered the
ban on recordings and their reasons for doing so.
Fifth, you admitted during our meet and confer that you are in
possession of additional recordings which you are "reviewing." As we
have repeatedly informed you, there is no legal basis for you to
withhold these recordings. We asked you to provide them to us twice this
week. Please provide them to us immediately. If you contend that there
is a legal basis for withholding these recordings please provide us with
any statutes or case law on which you base your failure to produce this
material. Time to "review" the material is not a legal basis.
* *•
Relatedly, you have, over several months now, established a pattern of
failing to participate in discovery in this case—providing evasive,
self-serving answers to straight-forward questions at the September 21
in-person meet and confer does not constitute good-faith participation
under the Federal Rules. With that in mind, we do not expect you start
now. However, because we take our duty to our client seriously, we must
ask you, again, to provide responses to two—among several (see for
example my July 17 letter to you) outstanding discovery issues that Ms
Polgar has
raised multiple times.
First, in your response Ms. Polgar's interrogatory No. 3 which sought
all facts supporting plaintiffs' allegation that "Polgar...and her
co-conspirator Alexander, used a stolen password to surreptitiously
access the email account of Hough...over 100 times during the course of
eight months." Your response asserts, in part, that "documents produced
to Polgar demonstrate that Polgar instructed Alexander to gain
unauthorized access to an email account of USCF Executive Board member."
As I explained both in my May 5 and July 17 letters, Rule 33(d) and
corresponding case law requires you to identify the "documents" that you
are purportedly relying on with specificity. If you contend that you
have, already produced those documents to Ms. Polgar, please identify
the bates numbers, of those documents. If you have not produced them, do
so immediately. If you refuse to do so by the close of business on
Monday, September 28, 2009, we will seek relief from the Court.
Second, on May 18, 2009 Ms. Polgar sent you an interrogatory asking you
to provide information on any insurance policy which might provide
coverage for damages, claims, or actions that have arisen or may arise
out of your firm's representation of the plaintiffs in this matter. You
have simply refused to respond to this interrogatory. Your belligerent
refusal to respond to properly issued discovery is sanctionable. If you
do not provide a response to this interrogatory, without objections (you
have waived any ostensible objections that you may have had) by the
close of business on Monday, September 28, 2009, we will seek relief
from the Court.
Sincerely,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP
Lq
Matt Springrkan/
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 03:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Leigh Declaration In Support of Ex Parte Motion

In reading through Mr. Leigh's declaration and his letter exhibits,
several things pop out.

1. Mr. Leigh decries the failure of USCF to provide copies of its
conflicts of interest agreement. Surely, Mr. Leigh knows that such
agreements are privileged and not discoverable.

2. Polgar and Truong have never been excluded from a USCF EB meeting.
The have been no-shows on several occasions. In one instance the USCF
had paid $300 for a conference call line for them to use, which they did
not and for which the USCF still had to pay.

3. Polgar and Truong were asked to participate in a conference call
meeting to vote on proposed revocation of their memberships, that
decision going to the EB meeting in Indianapolis. The decision to not
participate was theirs alone.

4. The notice for the August 6th EB meeting was in Chess Life. Polgar
and Truong simply failed to appear.

5. There was no August 7th EB meeting other than the one at which they
appeared.

6. It is my understanding that transcripts of the Friday EB meeting and
the appeal to the delegates meeting have been provided to Mr. Leigh. The
Legal Issues Meeting/Workshop has a tape of it that is available and
which, IIRC, Mr. Leigh has referenced in one of his submissions to the
court.

7. Mr. Leigh alleges that there have been secret EB meeting excluding
Polgar and Truong, but produces no evidence to support such an assertion.
  #3   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 04:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Leigh Declaration In Support of Ex Parte Motion

On Sep 30, 10:57*am, MrVidmar wrote:
In reading through Mr. Leigh's declaration and his letter exhibits,
several things pop out.

1. Mr. Leigh decries the failure of USCF to provide copies of its
conflicts of interest agreement. Surely, Mr. Leigh knows that such
agreements are privileged and not discoverable.

2. Polgar and Truong have never been excluded from a USCF EB meeting.
The have been no-shows on several occasions. In one instance the USCF
had paid $300 for a conference call line for them to use, which they did
not and for which the USCF still had to pay.

3. Polgar and Truong were asked to participate in a conference call
meeting to vote on proposed revocation of their memberships, that
decision going to the EB meeting in Indianapolis. The decision to not
participate was theirs alone.

4. The notice for the August 6th EB meeting was in Chess Life. Polgar
and Truong simply failed to appear.

5. There was no August 7th EB meeting other than the one at which they
appeared.

6. It is my understanding that transcripts of the Friday EB meeting and
the appeal to the delegates meeting have been provided to Mr. Leigh. The
Legal Issues Meeting/Workshop has a tape of it that is available and
which, IIRC, Mr. Leigh has referenced in one of his submissions to the
court.

7. Mr. Leigh alleges that there have been secret EB meeting excluding
Polgar and Truong, but produces no evidence to support such an assertion.


What a shyster...probably has a real low billing rate...cliche you
get what you pay for (assuming they paid him)
Reply
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
Mt. Leigh Says, "Oops." MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 August 6th 09 12:04 PM
Mt. Leigh Says, "Oops." MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 August 6th 09 12:04 PM
Defendants' Motion Crystal Tech DVD MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 June 19th 09 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM.

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