Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
EXHIBIT A
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
Declaration are from my personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I
could and would testify as follows.
2.
I am a citizen and resident of New York, and intend to remain there. I was born
in 1940. I have lived, studied and worked in New York State my entire adult life.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
hand-held laser bar code scanners now ubiquitous in consumer retail stores and other
applications. I co-founded Symbol Technologies in 1973 on Long Island, New York; Symbol
was a leader in handheld laser bar code scanning devices and related technologies. Symbol was
acquired by Motorola Corporation in 2007.
10.
In July 2008, I suffered a severe, debilitating stroke and required brain surgery. I
In or around November 2010, David raised the idea of forming a company jointly
owned by myself and him (or an entity owned by him) called Swartz Management Company.
Davids idea was for me, through Swartz Management Company, to assist a Texas company
named Geotag Inc. with its intellectual property issues. My advisors and I evaluated whether to
enter into co-ownership with such a venture, but ultimately I decided against becoming affiliated
with Geotag, and rejected the opportunity. I did not agree to join a company with David, and I
did not give him permission to use my name in a company I did not own or control. I considered
the matter closed after that.
14.
I learned in November 2011 that David was using my name in the company called
Swartz IP Services Group Inc. (SIP). Both Mr. King and I instructed David to remove my
name from the company.
15.
I never
participated in SIPs management. I never controlled any accounts belonging to SIP at any
financial institution or contributed any capital to SIP. I never used SIPs offices, equipment or
employees for any purpose. I never signed a document on SIPs behalf. When I learned that SIP
was doing business using my name in November 2011, I asked Bergstein to change its name.
16.
I never discussed SIPs business with Albert Hallac or Jeffrey Hallac. Although
Jeffrey Hallac asked me to invest in the Wimbledon Fund in March and April 2012, I declined to
make any investment in Wimbledon, directly or indirectly.
17.
I never received payment from Cascade Technologies Corp., a company that had
I declined to make any investment in the ClearSky Power & Technology Fund.
19.
Integrated Administration. The payment was under a consulting agreement I entered into with
that company, and was compensation for services I had performed for services years earlier. I
received another $20,000 from the same company in May 2013. Those were the only payments I
received from Integrated Administration.
EXHIBIT B
Requesting Party,
v.
JAMES P. KING,
16 MISC 140
Responding Party.
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE WIMBLEDON FUND, SPC (CLASS TT),
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
I am a counsel for Defendant Jerome Swartz and Non-Party James P. King, of the
firm Moulton, Wilson & Arney, LLP. The statements in this Declaration are from my personal,
firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify as follows.
2.
Plaintiff The Wimbledon Fund, SPC (Class TT) (the Fund) has moved to
consolidate the Bergstein case (in which Dr. Swartz is also a defendant) with Case No. 2:15-cv-
06633-CAS-AJW, also pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. A true and correct copy of the minutes of the Scheduling Conference is attached as
Exhibit 1. According to those minutes, that case is set for a jury trial beginning October 24,
2017.
4.
A true and correct copy of Non-Party James P. Kings amended responses and
objections to the Funds subpoena, served April 18, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 2.
5.
individuals and entities. Based on the records in the case, including but not limited to Dr.
Swartzs declaration, the business relationship between Dr. Swartz and Bergstein began in
2007nine years ago. I am also aware that Dr. Swartz is involved in a divorce lawsuit in New
York state court which is set for trial this summer, and that Mr. King has been heavily involved
in gathering documents for that proceeding as well. In my opinion, and based on my experience
with discovery in this and other cases, it will reasonably take four to six weeks for Mr. King to
gather the additional Bergstein documents from his files, forward the documents to me for
review, and for our firm to prepare the documents for production to the Fund and the other
parties.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed April 19, 2016, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Lance C. Arney
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:15-cv-06633-CAS-AJW
Case 1:16-mc-00140-P1
Document
Document
123 7-2
FiledFiled
03/28/16
04/19/16
PagePage
1 of 15 ofPage
15 ID #:5810
CV15-6633-CAS(AJWx)
Title
Date
Connie Lee
Lisa Gonzalez
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Tape No.
James Walker
Rebecca Wester
Patrick McGarrigle
Patricia Glaser
Richard Buckner
Tracey Hom
Proceedings:
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Hearing held and counsel are present. The Court confers with counsel and
schedules the following dates:
Request for leave to file amended pleadings or to add parties: April 25, 2016;
Settlement Completion Cutoff: July 28, 2017;
Factual Discovery Cut-off: March 31, 2017;
Last Day to File Motions: September 9, 2017;
Exchange of Expert Reports Cut-off: July 25, 2017;
Exchange of Rebuttal Reports Cut-off: August 24, 2017;
Expert Discovery Cut-off: September 20, 2017;
Status Conference re: Settlement (11:00 A.M.): August 14, 2017;
Pretrial Conference/Hearing on Motions in Limine (11:00 A.M.): October 2, 2017; and
Jury Trial (9:30 A.M.): October 24, 2017.
Motions in limine shall be noticed for the same date and time of the Pretrial Conference,
and filed 28 days prior thereto. Motions in limine/oppositions shall not exceed five (5)
pages in length and no replies will be accepted.
00
Initials of Preparer
19
CL
cc: ADR
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 2
Requesting Party,
v.
JAMES P. KING,
16 MISC 140
Responding Party.
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE WIMBLEDON FUND, SPC (CLASS TT),
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
King objects to each request for production to the extent it seeks documents
protected from disclosure by any privilege or other protective doctrine, including, but not limited
to, the attorney client privilege, the work product doctrine, the trial preparation materials
!
!
1
!
obligations on King beyond those required or allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.
King objects to the time and place of the requested production. Documents will
be produced in response to this subpoena through Kings counsel, on or before May 31, 2016.
4.
Instructions is incorporated into each of the subsequent responses set forth herein. No response
is intended to be a waiver of these objections. Additional specific objections made in response to
a particular request are not intended to, and do not, waive these General Objections and
Objections to Definitions.
5.
King objects to the form requested for the production of electronically stored
information as unduly burdensome. King does not have access to Relativity or Concordance.
Any electronically stored information produced by King will be produced in a reasonably usable
form.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1.
All documents and communications exchanged between you and Swartz concerning or
relating to Bergstein, Jam, Grunfeld, SIP, Swartz Management Company, the Fund, Weston,
!
!
2
!
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) SIP.
!
!
3
!
RESPONSE:
None.
7.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) SIP.
RESPONSE:
None.
8.
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Swartz
Management Company.
RESPONSE:
None.
9.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Swartz Management Company.
RESPONSE:
None.
10.
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Bergstein.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
11.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Bergstein.
RESPONSE:
King will produce non-privileged responsive documents.
12.
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Bergsteins
ventures, as used in paragraph 11 of Swartzs declaration filed as Doc. No. 55-3 in the Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
!
!
4
!
13.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Bergsteins ventures, as used in
paragraph 11 of Swartzs declaration filed as Doc. No. 55-3 in the Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
King will produce non-privileged responsive documents.
14.
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Cascade.
RESPONSE:
None.
15.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Cascade.
RESPONSE:
None.
16.
All agreements between: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Integrated.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
17.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to monetary transactions
involving: (i) Swartz and/or The Swartz Foundation; and (ii) Cascade.
RESPONSE:
None.
18.
All non-privileged documents and communications concerning or relating to
investigations of Bergstein, Jam, and/or Grunfeld performed by individuals retained by Swartz
and/or Swartzs family members.
RESPONSE:
None.
19.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to Bergstein.
!
!
5
!
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
20.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to SIP.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
21.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to Swartz
Management Company.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
22.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to Integrated.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
23.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to Cascade.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
24.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to Weston.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
25.
All non-privileged documents and communications between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or Shanah Swartz-Gordon concerning or relating to the Fund.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
!
!
6
!
26.
All engagement contracts and/or retainer agreements between: (i) you; and (ii) Howard
Gordon, David Hennes, and/or their respective law firms reflecting your agreement to
engagement either one or both of them as your legal counsel for any purpose.
RESPONSE:
None.
27.
All engagement contracts and/or retainer agreements between: (i) Swartz; and (ii)
Howard Gordon, David Hennes, and/or their respective law firms reflecting Swartzs agreement
to engage either one or both of them as his legal counsel for any purpose.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
28.
All documents and communications concerning or relating to meetings between Swartz
and Eugene Scher.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
29.
The most recent agreement between you and Swartz concerning or relating to the
accounting and/or advisory services provided by you to Swartz.
RESPONSE:
None.
30.
The most recent agreement between you and The Swartz Foundation concerning or
relating to the accounting and/or advisory services provided by you to The Swartz Foundation.
RESPONSE:
None.
31.
To the extent that they are not responsive to the preceding categories of documents to be
produced, any additional, non-privileged documents and communications concerning or relating
to SIP, Bergstein, Jam, Grunfeld, Swartz Management Company, the Fund, Weston, GeoTag,
Cascade, ClearSky, Integrated, and/or the Breach-of-Contract Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
King will produce responsive documents.
!
!
7
!
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Cynthia R. Levin Moulton_____________
Cynthia R. Levin Moulton
State Bar No. 12253450
800 Taft Street
Houston, Texas 77019
Telephone: (713) 353-6699
Telecopier: (713) 353-6698
Email: cmoulton@moultonwilsonarney.com
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR
DEFENDANT JEROME SWARTZ
AND NON-PARTY JAMES P. KING
Of Counsel:
Moulton, Wilson & Arney, L.L.P.
Lance C. Arney
State Bar No. 00796137
800 Taft Street
Houston, Texas 77019
Telephone : (713) 353-6699
Telecopier: (713) 353-6698
Email: larney@moultonwilsonarney.com
!
!
8
!
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served
by email on the following counsel of record on April 18, 2016.
COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
James W. Walker
Justin S. Levy
2515 McKinney Ave., Suite 1350
Dallas, Texas 75201
jwalker@coleschotz.com
jlevy@coleschotz.com
GLASER
WEIL
FINK
HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO, LLP
G. Jill Basinger
Richard Buckner
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
jbasinger@glaserweil.com
rbuckner@glaserweil.com
!
!
9
!