Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 1 of 7

1 MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal Bar No. 171448

E-mail: whitem@sec.gov
2 PARIS A. WYNN, Cal. Bar No. 224428
E-mail: wynnp@sec.gov
3
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4 Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
5 Michele Wein Layne, Associate Regional Director
John M. McCoy III, Associate Regional Director
6 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036
7 Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile: (323) 965-3908
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF
COMMISSION,
13 Plaintiff,
14 vs.
15 MARCO GLISSON,
16 Defendant.
17
18
19
20 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION
21 TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS AND THE
22 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
23
24
25
26
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 2 of 7

1 In accordance with the Court’s January 11, 2011 Order, Plaintiff Securities
2 and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) instantly submits its Reply Brief In
3 Support Of Its Motion To Compel, which was filed on January 3, 2011, and which
4 sought an order of the Court: (1) compelling Defendant Marco Glisson and Non-
5 Party Thidarat Tungwongsathong to appear at their noticed depositions; (2)
6 produce the documents requested in the Commission’s November 4, 2010
7 document requests and November 1, 2010 subpoena; and (3) extending the
8 discovery cut-off from January 26, 2011 to February 9, 2011.
9 Depositions
10 On January 10, 2011, non-party Thidarat Tungwongsathong
11 (“Tungwongsathong”) appeared at the Commission’s Los Angeles offices for
12 deposition testimony. (Declaration of Paris A. Wynn (“Wynn Decl.”), ¶ 2.)
13 However, the Commission’s examination of Tungwongsathong was largely
14 thwarted by her counsel’s repeated instructions not to answer the Commission’s
15 questions. (Wynn Decl., ¶ 2) Specifically, on approximately 20 occasions, Mr.
16 Robert Bretz – counsel to non-party Tungwongsathong – instructed
17 Tungwongsathong not to answer questions asked by Commission staff during the
18 deposition. (Id.) The instructions precluded the Commission from (1) getting
19 answers to numerous specific questions; and (2) exploring broad areas of inquiry.
20 (Id.) In repeatedly instructing Tungwongsathong not to answer questions, Mr.
21 Bretz took the position that the pertinent questions and areas of inquiry were
22 beyond the scope of the Court’s October 29, 2010 order re-opening discovery.
23 (Id.) Upon receipt of the transcript from Tungwongsathong’s January 10, 2010
24 deposition, the Commission intends to seek an order of the Court compelling
25 Tungwongsathong to answer the questions that Bretz instructed her not to answer.
26 ///

1
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 3 of 7

1 On January 11, 2011, Defendant Marco Glisson (“Glisson”) appeared at the

2 Commission’s Los Angeles offices for deposition testimony. (Wynn Decl., ¶ 3)
3 However, the Commission’s examination of Glisson was largely thwarted by his
4 counsel’s repeated instructions not to answer the Commission’s questions. (Id.)
5 Specifically, on approximately 10 occasions, Mr. Bretz – counsel to Glisson –
6 instructed Glisson not to answer questions asked by Commission staff during the
7 deposition. (Id.) The instructions precluded the Commission from (1) getting
8 answers to numerous specific questions; and (2) exploring broad areas of inquiry.
9 (Id.) In repeatedly instructing Glisson not to answer questions, Mr. Bretz took the
10 position that such questions were beyond the scope of the Court’s October 29,
11 2010 order re-opening discovery. (Id.) Upon receipt and review of the transcript,
12 the Commission intends to seek an order of the Court compelling Glisson to
13 answer the questions that Mr. Bretz instructed him not to answer.
14 Documents
15 On January 10, 2011, Mr. Bretz provided the Commission with
16 approximately 340 pages of Glisson’s and/or Tungwongsathong’s emails. (Wynn
17 Decl., ¶ 4) On January 11, 2011, Mr. Bretz provided the Commission with an
18 additional 150 pages of Glisson’s and/or Tungwongsathong’s emails. (Id.)
19 Plainly, the Commission was afforded no meaningful opportunity to conduct a
20 review of such emails and examine either Glisson or Tungwongsathong on the
21 contents therein. (Id.) Hence, the Commission will require (1) additional time to
22 review these day-of-deposition productions, as well as (2) an opportunity to depose
23 Tungwongsathong and Glisson the contents of the late produced emails.
24 Additionally, the productions appear incomplete, as there are several categories of
25 documents – e.g., invoices from transfer agents, emails and financial records – that
26 are missing. (Id.) According to Glisson, the hard drive associated with his lap-top

2
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 4 of 7

1 computer “crashed” in late 2010. (Id.) Curiously, in August of 2007, in

2 connection with an SEC investigative subpoena for documents, Glisson claimed
3 that his laptop had been “stolen.” (Id.) Glisson’s repeated claims of “damaged”
4 and/or “stolen” laptops gives rise to the possibility that he is simply unwilling to
5 produce responsive documents.
6 Need For A Hearing
7 For two reasons, and as noted above, the Commission needs additional time
8 to depose Glisson and Tungwongsathong. First, due to the lateness of the
9 documents produced on January 10 and 11, 2011, the Commission was deprived of
10 any opportunity to meaningfully review such documents and then examine either
11 Tungwongsathong or Glisson on the matters raised therein. Second, the
12 Commission’s attempts to depose Glisson and Tungwongsathong were thwarted by
13 the numerous instructions not to answer that were given during the depositions.1
14 Should the Court wish to hear from counsel on the aforementioned matters, the
15 Commission is available on January 13, 2011, or any other day that is convenient
16 for the Court.
17 The Commission still seeks an emergency ruling on its request for an
18 extension of the discovery cut-off. In summary, due to the failure of Glisson and
19 Tungwongsathong to discharge their discovery obligations in a timely fashion, the
20 Commission requires additional time to conduct discovery, and requested such
21 additional time in its January 3, 2011 motion to compel. In view of the lateness of
22 the documents produced on January 10 and 11, 2011, as well as the repeated
23 instructions not to answer given at the January 10 and 11, 2011 depositions, the
24 Commission’s need for additional time to conduct discovery has become even
25
26 1 Upon receipt of the transcripts, the Commission will brief the issue of the
propriety of such instructions for the Court.

3
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 5 of 7

1 more acute subsequent to the filing of its January 3, 2011 motion to compel.
2 Should the court wish to hear from counsel prior to ruling on the Commission’s
3 request for an extension of the discovery cut-off, the Commission remains
4 available on January 13, 2011, or any other date that is convenient for the Court.
5 With respect to documents, the Commission no longer seeks an emergency
6 order of the Court, as it has concluded that further attempts to obtain relevant
7 documents from Glisson or Tungwongsathong would be futile and/or counter-
8 productive.
9
10 Date: January 12, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
11
12 /s/ Paris A. Wynn
Paris A. Wynn
13 Attorney for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 6 of 7

PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
2
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire
3 Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone No. (323) 965-3998; Facsimile No. (323) 965-3908.
4
On January 12, 2011, I caused to be served the document entitled REPLY BRIEF
5 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS AND THE PRODUCTION OF
6 DOCUMENTS on all the parties to this action addressed as stated on the attached
service list:
7
[ ] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for
8 collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of
9 correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with
the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
10
[ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed
11 envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los
12 Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
13 [ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a
facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of
14 Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage
paid.
15
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to
16 the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
17 [ ] UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: By placing in sealed envelope(s)
designated by United Parcel Service (“UPS”) with delivery fees paid or
18 provided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by UPS or
delivered to a UPS courier, at Los Angeles, California.
19
[ ] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail
20 to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
21 [X] E-FILING: By causing the document to be electronically filed via the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which effects electronic service on counsel who
22 are registered with the CM/ECF system.
23 [ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
25
26 Date: January 12, 2011 /s/ Paris A. Wynn
Paris A. Wynn
5
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46 Filed 01/12/11 Page 7 of 7

1 SEC v. MARCO GLISSON

United States District Court - District of Nevada
2 Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF
(LA-3028)
3
4 SERVICE LIST
5
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.
6 578 Washington Boulevard, Suite 843
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
7 Email: Rhbretzpc@aol.com
Attorney for Marco Glisson
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

6
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 1 of 9

1 MOLLY M. WHITE, Cal Bar No. 171448

E-mail: whitem@sec.gov
2 PARIS A. WYNN, Cal. Bar No. 224428
E-mail: wynnp@sec.gov
3
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4 Securities and Exchange Commission
Rosalind R. Tyson, Regional Director
5 Michele Wein Layne, Associate Regional Director
John M. McCoy III, Associate Regional Director
6 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90036
7 Telephone: (323) 965-3998
Facsimile: (323) 965-3908
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
12 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF
COMMISSION,
13 Plaintiff,
14 vs.
15 MARCO GLISSON,
16 Defendant.
17
18
DECLARATION OF PARIS A. WYNN
19
SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
20
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL
21
ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS AND THE
22
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
23
24
25
26
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 2 of 9

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Paris A. Wynn, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney in good standing and admitted to practice law in the
3 State of California and before this Court. I am employed by the Securities and
4 Exchange Commission (“Commission”) as an attorney in the Enforcement
5 Division in the Los Angeles Regional Office. I make this Declaration in Support
6 of the Commission’s Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion To Compel. I have
7 personal knowledge of the facts herein, except as otherwise noted.
8 2. On January 10, 2011, non-party Thidarat Tungwongsathong
9 (“Tungwongsathong”) appeared at the Commission’s Los Angeles offices for
10 deposition testimony. However, the Commission’s examination of
11 Tungwongsathong was largely thwarted by her counsel’s repeated instructions not
12 to answer the Commission’s questions. Specifically, on approximately 20
13 occasions, Mr. Robert Bretz – counsel to non-party Tungwongsathong – instructed
14 Tungwongsathong not to answer questions asked by Commission staff during the
15 deposition. In repeatedly instructing Tungwongsathong not to answer questions,
16 Mr. Bretz took the position that the pertinent questions and areas of inquiry were
17 beyond the scope of the Court’s October 29, 2010 order re-opening discovery.
18 3. On January 11, 2011, Defendant Marco Glisson (“Glisson”) appeared
19 at the Commission’s Los Angeles offices for deposition testimony. However, the
20 Commission’s examination of Glisson was largely thwarted by his counsel’s
21 repeated instructions not to answer the Commission’s questions. Specifically, on
22 approximately 10 occasions, Mr. Bretz – counsel to Glisson – instructed Glisson
23 not to answer questions asked by Commission staff during the deposition. The
24 instructions precluded the Commission from (1) getting answers to numerous
25 specific questions; and (2) exploring broad areas of inquiry. In repeatedly
26 instructing Glisson not to answer questions, Mr. Bretz took the position that such

1
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 3 of 9

1 questions were beyond the scope of the Court’s October 29, 2010 order re-opening
2 discovery.
3 4. On January 10, 2011, Mr. Bretz provided the Commission with
4 approximately 340 pages of Glisson’s and/or Tungwongsathong’s emails. On
5 January 11, 2011, Mr. Bretz provided the Commission with an additional 150
6 pages of Glisson’s and/or Tungwongsathong’s emails. Plainly, the Commission
7 was afforded no meaningful opportunity to conduct a review of such emails and
8 examine either Glisson or Tungwongsathong on the contents therein.
9 5. Additionally, the productions appear incomplete, as there are several
10 categories of documents – e.g., invoices from transfer agents, emails and financial
11 records – that are missing. When questioned regarding the existence of responsive
12 documents, Glisson claimed that the hard drive associated with his lap-top
13 computer “crashed” in late 2010. In August of 2007, in connection with an SEC
14 investigative subpoena for documents, Glisson similarly claimed that his laptop
15 had been “stolen.”
16 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of
17 Glisson August 20, 2007 investigative testimony before Commission staff.
18
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
20 the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12 day of January 2011 in Los
21 Angeles, California.
22
23
/s/ Paris A. Wynn
24 Paris A. Wynn
25
26

2
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 4 of 9

EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 7 of 9
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 8 of 9

PROOF OF SERVICE
1
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is:
2
[X] U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5670 Wilshire
3 Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90036-3648
Telephone No. (323) 965-3998; Facsimile No. (323) 965-3908.
4
On January 12, 2011, I caused to be served the document entitled
5 DECLARATION OF PARIS A. WYNN SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION
6 TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS AND THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS on all the parties to this action addressed as
7 stated on the attached service list:
8 [ ] OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for
collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am
9 readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with
10 the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
11 [ ] PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed
envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service.
12 Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los
Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.
13
[ ] EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility
14 regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express
Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage paid.
15
[ ] HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to
16 the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.
17 [ ] UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: By placing in sealed envelope(s)
designated by United Parcel Service (“UPS”) with delivery fees paid or
18 provided for, which I deposited in a facility regularly maintained by UPS or
delivered to a UPS courier, at Los Angeles, California.
19
[ ] ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail
20 to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.
21 [X] E-FILING: By causing the document to be electronically filed via the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which effects electronic service on counsel who
22 are registered with the CM/ECF system.
23 [ ] FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The
transmission was reported as complete and without error.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
25
26 Date: January 12, 2011 /s/ Paris A. Wynn
Paris A. Wynn

1
 Case 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF Document 46-1 Filed 01/12/11 Page 9 of 9

1 SEC v. MARCO GLISSON

United States District Court - District of Nevada
2 Case No. 2:09-cv-00104-LDG-GWF
(LA-3028)
3
4 SERVICE LIST
5
Robert H. Bretz, Esq.
6 578 Washington Boulevard, Suite 843
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
7 Email: Rhbretzpc@aol.com
Attorney for Marco Glisson
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26