in contempt

Transcription

in contempt

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:9289
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN TRUDEAU,
Defendant,
THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC J. LANE,
PC,
Respondent,
GIN USA INC.,
Respondent,
KT RADIO NETWORK INC.,
Respondent,
WEBSITE SOLUTIONS USA INC.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
) Case No. 03-C-3904
)
) Hon. Robert W. Gettleman
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC LANE,
GIN USA, WEBSITE SOLUTIONS USA, AND KT RADIO NETWORK IN CONTEMPT
[FILED UNDER SEAL]
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to FRCP 45(e) and the Court’s inherent power, the Federal Trade Commission
(“FTC”) moves to hold The Law Offices of Marc Lane (“Lane”) and the Trudeau-Affiliated
Entities (GIN USA, Website Solutions USA (“WSU”) and KT Radio Network (“KTRN”)) in
contempt of this Court’s Orders that they comply with their subpoenas “forthwith.” See Order
(Mar. 7, 2013) (DE580); Order (Mar. 6, 2013) (DE578) (the “Orders”). The subpoenas required
Lane to produce payment information, and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to produce both
30(b)(6) designees and financial records. Lane produced some documents, but withholds bills
and account numbers – including the account number associated with Trudeau’s previously
undisclosed Swiss bank account. PXG:1.1 Accordingly, the FTC asks the Court to hold Lane in
contempt, and order him to comply fully within twenty-four hours.
Lane apparently formed the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities as part of an “asset protection”
scheme designed to keep Trudeau’s assets “protected” from the Court’s June 2, 2010 order to
pay. Thus, not coincidentally, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have approached the Court’s
recent discovery orders with the same contumacious bent as Trudeau himself. After failing to
respond “forthwith,” as the Court ordered, Trudeau’s companies eventually produced certain
documents last week (nineteen days after the Court’s March 6 Order, and months after they first
received subpoenas). They still refuse to produce designees in accordance with subpoenas and
Court Orders that require witnesses to appear in this District. Specifically, they will not produce
designees unless the FTC agrees that they may appear “by ISDN connection or some other video
conferencing transmittal” (rather than appear personally). See PXG:2. Accordingly, the FTC
asks that the Court hold the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities in contempt and, as a contempt sanction:
(1) order that WSU and KTRN’s owner (Trudeau’s wife, Nataliya Babenko), and GIN USA’s
1
We abbreviate citations to the FTC’s exhibits and attachments as “PX_:_.” To
minimize redundancy, the FTC refers to the exhibits supporting to the prior motion to compel
and continues the lettering and numbering therein.
sole officer (also Babenko) appear for an in-Court deposition; and (2) provide further relief
necessary for the FTC to take the Court-ordered 30(b)(6) depositions.2
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
Trudeau Controls WSU, KTRN, and GIN USA
The evidence that Trudeau controls the “Global Information Network” and the various
associated entities is overwhelming:

Trudeau’s counsel and “asset protection” planner (Lane) formed WSU, KTRN,
and GIN USA. See PXA:6.

WSU, KTRN, and GIN USA are located at the same Westmont address as
Trudeau’s other businesses (130 Quail Ridge Drive). See id. Even under
Trudeau’s own exceptionally dubious version of events, he either is or was an
owner or officer of fifteen other entities located at 130 Quail Ridge Drive. See
Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013) (DE535) at Item 6.

Trudeau’s wife, Babenko, is the nominee owner or officer of each TrudeauAffiliated Entity. Babenko owns WSU and KTRN, see Trudeau’s Opp. to
Contempt Motion (Sept. 25, 2012) (DE508) (“Trudeau Opp.”) at 5, and she is
also named as GIN USA’s President, Treasurer, and Secretary.

WSU has contributed enormous sums toward Trudeau’s legal bills –
$869,703.92 – and apparently transferred $486,461.81 to Trudeau. PXG:3.

Trudeau admits that he founded the Global Information Network. See FTC
Contempt Opening Br. (July 13, 2012) (DE481) at 9-11. He also serves as its
chief spokesperson. See id. at 8.

As one Ohio judge explained, “[t]he FTC’s evidence indicating that Trudeau is
a ‘founder’ and ‘council’ member of GIN who exercises control over GIN
remains unrebutted.” FTC v. Trudeau, No. 1:12-mc-022, 2012 WL 6100472, *5
(N.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2012) (emphasis added).

As another Ohio judge wrote, “[t]he record evidence suggests that [the TrudeauAffiliated Entities] are not business pursuits created totally independent from
Trudeau, but may have been created to evade the contempt sanction and conceal
Trudeau’s assets.” FTC v. GIN USA, No. 5:12MC35, 2012 WL 5463829, *5 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 8, 2012) (emphasis added).
2
The FTC seeks enhanced discovery as a sanction (rather than a monetary award)
because any money the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities pay is really from Trudeau and, thus,
rightfully belongs to the consumers Trudeau injured. As discussed further below, the FTC also
asks that the Court set the 30(b)(6) deposition dates and, to the extent Babenko is unable to
testify regarding certain noticed 30(b)(6) topics, the FTC asks that the Court order the TrudeauAffiliated Entities to disclose immediately who will appear on their behalf (and on which topics).
2

Trudeau funded the $2 million escrow account with GIN money. Specifically, the
$2 million came from GIN USA, which received the money from WSU, which
itself received the money from GIN USA’s Nevis-based parent entity, GIN FDN.
See FTC Contempt Reply (Oct. 15, 2012) (DE517) (“Reply”) at 12 n. 16. A
Belize asset protection vehicle, APC Trading Ltd. (“APC”), owns GIN FDN.
PXG:4 at 3 (signature page).

Trudeau’s wife – Babenko – is APC’s sole director. See id. In short, this means
that Babenko nominally owns all of the domestic and foreign entities associated
with the Global Information Network. Trudeau married Babenko shortly before
the original 2008 judgment, PX1:C, and Lane orchestrated the creation of each
foreign and domestic GIN-related entity after the original 2008 judgment.

In addition to owning GIN USA and GIN FDN, APC’s Swiss subsidiary (Website
Solutions Switzerland (“WSS”)) employs Trudeau. See Reply (DE517) at 3 n.3.
Put differently, this means that – through APC and WSS – Babenko employs
Trudeau.

Beginning in 2009, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities made every dollar of nearly
$3 million in payments to American Express for Trudeau’s credit card bills. See
id. at 8-9.

Until recently, Trudeau lived in an expensive suburban home and enjoyed the
services of two personal chefs and a butler – all at KTRN’s expense. See id. In
fact, since 2010, KTRN paid more than $500,000 to rent Trudeau’s suburban
home. PXG:5. It also appears that KTRN and WSU are paying for Trudeau’s
Zurich residence, but the FTC cannot determine this definitively without taking
depositions covering the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ financial records.
The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have battled discovery to hide facts like these, which
make Trudeau’s control over them obvious.
B.
The Discovery at Issue Here
Beginning in December 2012, the FTC served the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities with
subpoenas seeking corporate testimony and financial documents. PXA:8-10. On the TrudeauAffiliated Entities’ behalf, Lane objected to the subpoenas’ document requests. PXA:7. With
respect to 30(b)(6) testimony, the FTC offered thirteen dates to both Lane and Winston & Strawn
(“Winston”), but received no response. See Omnibus Motion (Jan. 18, 2013) (DE538-1) at 6-7
(summarizing attempts to obtain deposition dates). Accordingly, the FTC moved to compel the
Trudeau Affiliated Entities to comply with their subpoenas. See id.
Also in December 2012, the FTC served Lane and Winston with identical subpoenas
seeking payment records. In relevant part, the subpoenas sought “all documents” of any sort
3
“evidencing payment received or promised, or the source of payment received or promised.”
PXG:6 (emphasis added); PXA14. After Lane and Winston asserted myriad frivolous
objections, the FTC moved to compel them to comply. See Omnibus Motion (DE538-1).
C.
The Court’s Discovery Orders
On March 6, 2013, the Court rejected the various objections that Winston, Lane and
WSU asserted. See DE578 at 3 (characterizing the attorneys’ arguments as “about as valid as the
misrepresentations on Trudeau’s contemptuous infomercials”). The attorneys, WSU, KTRN,
and GIN USA all made essentially identical arguments, and the Court rejected the GIN
USA/KTRN objections on the following day. See DE580. Thus, the Court granted the FTC’s
motions and ordered Winston, Lane, and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to comply “forthwith.”
DE578 (emphasis added); DE580 (emphasis added).
D.
The Document Productions From Lane and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities
No one complied “forthwith.”3 After multiple communications between counsel
regarding the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ production, they eventually produced documents
nineteen days after the Court’s March 6 Order.4
Winston responded eight days after the Court’s Order. Winston redacted its production,
but disclosed account numbers (“the source of payment[s] received,” PXG:6 at 7) and monthly
invoices revealing amounts Trudeau had paid or promised to pay (“payment[s] received or
promised,” id.). See, e.g., PXG:7. After the Court ordered Trudeau to compensate consumers in
3
See, e.g., Dickerman v. N. Trust Co., 176 U.S. 181, 193 (1900) (stating that “forthwith”
indicates “as soon as by reasonable exertion, confined to the objection, it may be accomplished. .
. . It varies, of course, with every particular case. In matters of practice and pleading it is
usually construed, and sometimes defined by rule of court, as within twenty-four hours.”)
(quotation and citation omitted). Although courts give “forthwith” slightly varying definitions,
“immediately” is the most common. See, e.g., United States v. L.M.K., 149 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th
Cir. 1998) (“‘Forthwith’ means ‘with dispatch’ or ‘immediately.’”) (quotation omitted). To the
FTC’s knowledge, no court has ever defined “forthwith” to afford more time than is actually
necessary to complete the task ordered. Cf. State v. Elisondo, 757 P.2d 675, 689 (Idaho 1988)
(“Forthwith means forthwith, not tomorrow, and not when convenient.”).
4
The production includes primarily printouts of accounting reports and bank statements
that could not have taken more than a few hours to compile.
4
2010, see Order (June 2, 2010) (DE371), Trudeau paid Winston more than $1.7 million. PXB ¶
4. Trudeau paid Winston primarily with funds from WSU and International Pool Tour (“IPT”).
See id. at ¶ 5. In fact, six months after IPT had paid Winston (in total) $829,901, id. at ¶ 5,
Winston wrote:
Trudeau does own International Pool Tour (“IPT”), but that company is on the
verge of bankruptcy and has no assets that can be liquidated or turned over to the
FTC. There is no evidence to the contrary.
PXG17, Contempt Opp. (Sept. 25, 2012) at 5 n.2 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).5
Lane responded after Winston. Specifically, Lane produced a confusing jumble of
twenty-four heavily-redacted retainer agreements along with various (also heavily-redacted)
checks and wire records.6 The redactions are so significant that it is often impossible to tell
which retainer applies to which client. See, e.g., PXG:9. Additionally, and notwithstanding the
document request’s express language, see PXG:6 at 7, Lane also withheld “bookkeeping
documents,” “financial statements,” and “other financial records” necessary to connect the
payments he received to work he did for any particular person or entity (although such
documents indisputably are documents that “evidenc[e] payment[s] received or promised”).
Most significantly, Lane redacted account numbers from checks and wire records, and he
withheld invoices completely. When the FTC raised these issues with Winston (in its capacity as
Lane’s counsel), Winston defended Lane’s omissions.7 According to Winston, Lane may redact
5
Winston received funds from IPT most recently in late March 2012. PXG8. In any
event, to support the above-quoted representation, Winston cited IPT’s tax return from the
previous year (2010), which purportedly “list[ed] current liabilities at over $14 million, with
assets of only $4 million.” See Opp. at 5 n.2. However one characterizes the tax return, it is
clear beyond any doubt that – long after this Court’s June 2010 order to pay – IPT had assets that
Trudeau used to pay Winston’s bill, which means that IPT had assets that Trudeau could have
used to comply with this Court’s order to pay.
6
GIN USA and WSU paid Lane at least $500,000 after the Court’s order to pay.
PXG:14-15.
7
Two months ago, the Court expressed substantial skepticism regarding whether Winston
should represent Lane, but Winston assured the Court that it considered and resolved possible
conflicts. See PXG:16 at 13:1-11, 14:15-22. To the extent that Winston’s conduct makes Lane’s
noncompliance more obvious or renders Winston unable to defend Lane credibly, Trudeau’s
lawyers created this circumstance. They cannot rely on self-created ethical entanglements to
delay or frustrate this proceeding further.
5
from responsive documents anything (even nonprivileged information) except the dollar amount
he received and the “source.” See PXG:10. And, as Winston explained it, “source” (to Lane)
means who sent the money, not where it came from. For example, with respect to a responsive
document reflecting a wire from a previously-undisclosed Swiss account,8 Winston writes: “in
LANE_000176, the document states that there was a wire from Kevin Mark Trudeau in the
amount of $18,846.41. As a result, the FTC has information regarding the amount of payment
received and the source (Mr. Trudeau).” See id.
Winston also contends (incorrectly) that “redaction may be appropriate” in accordance
with the subpoena’s instructions regarding sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”).
See id. Finally, Winston asserts that invoices do not contain responsive information because they
“may or may not have been paid,” and even if Trudeau did pay an invoice, producing it “would
be duplicative” of checks and other information. See id. Winston does not attempt to reconcile
its production – which includes account numbers and invoices – with Lane’s, which does not.
E.
The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ Refusal To Produce 30(b)(6) Designees
In accordance with the Court’s Orders enforcing the 30(b)(6) subpoenas to the TrudeauAffiliated Entities and ordering them to comply “forthwith,” the FTC proposed six potential
deposition dates. PXG:11. In response, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities suggested that they
would agree to certain of these dates, but only if the FTC agreed to take the depositions “by
ISDN connection or some other video conferencing transmittal.” PXG:2. Suffice it to say, the
FTC declined this condition (which neither the subpoenas nor the Court’s Orders contain). The
Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have not provided alternative dates. See PX:G:12 (“[Y]ou are correct
that I have not yet provided dates for the corporate depositions[.]”). Additionally, despite
repeated requests from January to the present, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities refuse to disclose
who will appear at their depositions (and on which noticed 30(b)(6) topics).
8
Among dozens of omissions and inaccuracies, Trudeau’s “sworn” financial statement
did not disclose this account. PXG18 at 5, Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013).
6
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
This Court has inherent power to enforce its orders through civil contempt. See, e.g.,
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709,
737 (7th Cir. 1999). Additionally, FRCP 45(e) grants the Court authority to “hold in contempt a
person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena.” A party
is in contempt when (1) the order sets forth an unambiguous command; (2) the command is
violated; (3) the party has not substantially complied; and (4) the party has not taken “reasonable
and diligent” steps to comply. FTC v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2009).
IV.
ARGUMENT
A.
Lane Is in Contempt Because He Withheld Account Numbers and Invoices.
The Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena to Lane is unambiguous, as is the subpoena
itself. Lane’s position – that he may redact account numbers because the transferring account is
not the “source” of the payment – grossly misinterprets the subpoena. First, Lane’s original
objection included only boilerplate and he did not raise any concern about the language now at
issue. PXA:7. Through Winston, Lane filed an extensive brief opposing the FTC’s motion to
compel, but – again – he never contended that the subpoena contained any ambiguity (and it does
not). See Lane Opp. (Feb. 13, 2013) (DE556). Second, read in any context, but especially one in
which a party is looking for assets, the “source” of a payment includes where it came from, not
merely who caused it to be sent.
Third, any debate over what constitutes a “source” is irrelevant because the subpoena
requires Lane to produce “all documents” reflecting nonprivileged responsive information, as
opposed to only the responsive information itself. PXG6 at 7 (no. 2). The subpoena – which the
Court enforced – expressly provides: “If only a part of a responsive document is privileged, all
non-privileged parts must be submitted [to the FTC].” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Account
numbers are not privileged. And there is no doubt that the documents from which Lane redacted
account numbers are responsive (Lane produced them). In short, neither the subpoena nor the
Court’s Order gives Lane authority to redact nonprivileged information from otherwise
7
responsive documents.9 For this reason as well, when he redacted account numbers, Lane
violated the Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena.
Fourth, Lane asserts that redacting account numbers “may be appropriate” in accordance
with the subpoena’s instructions regarding sensitive PII. PXG:10. In reality, the instructions
provide that, if a document contains sensitive PII, such as an “account number,” the responding
party should “contact us first before sending those materials to discuss ways to protect such
information during production or whether it would be appropriate to redact the sensitive
information.” PXG:6 at 4. The instructions do not authorize Lane to redact account numbers
without the FTC’s consent, and – given this subpoena’s purpose – the FTC would not have
consented even if Lane had asked (and he did not). Finally, the fact that Winston produced
account numbers resolves any possible doubt that Lane’s theory is yet another attempt to protect
Trudeau’s assets rather than comply.
Winston also produced invoices, which Lane’s identical subpoena covers as well.
Through Winston, however, Lane argues that invoices may not reflect “payments received”
because Trudeau may not have paid an invoice. But the subpoena also covers “payments
promised.” PXG:6 at 5 (no. 2). When Trudeau, Babenko, Suneil Sant, or one of Trudeau’s other
associates executed Lane’s engagement agreements, they committed (promised) to pay the
invoiced amounts. See, e.g., PXG:9 at 10 (signatory “guarantee[d] payment of all amount due”;
9
Lane is not entitled to redact from responsive documents other information that – in
Lane’s opinion – is nonresponsive or irrelevant. See, e.g., ArcelorMittal Cleveland Inc. v. Jewell
Coke Co., L.P., No. 1:10-CV-2010, 2010 WL 5230862, *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2010) (“The
Court is not persuaded that Jewell is entitled to redact information in its document production
that it believes is irrelevant or non-responsive to ArcelorMittal’s documents requests. Indeed, the
language of Rule 34 discusses production of ‘documents,’ rather than paragraphs or sentences.”)
(citation omitted); HR Techn., Inc. v. Imura Int’l U.S.A., Inc., No. 08–2220, 2010 WL 4792388,
*5 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010) (“The Court agrees with the reasoning of courts that have rejected
such redactions by parties.”); Orion Power Midwest, L.P. v. Am. Coal Sales Co., No. 2:05-cv555, 2008 WL 4462301, *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2008) (holding that “[t]here is no express or
implied support” in the FRCP for allowing “a party [to] scrub responsive documents of
nonresponsive information”). When courts have permitted a responding party to redact
irrelevant information, usually they have done so only after a finding that the information is
irrelevant. See, e.g., Beauchem v. Rockford Prods. Corp., No. 01 C 50134, 2002 WL 1870050,
*2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2002) (mag. op.) (allowing redactions only after conducting a “thorough in
camera review” to determine that the information was irrelevant).
8
Lane would “issue periodic statements for fees and costs incurred, which are due upon receipt”);
id. at 13 (identical language); id. at 4 (client “agree[s] to pay” Lane’s hourly rates, and Lane
“will issue periodic statements for fees and costs incurred”); id. at 7 (identical language).
Accordingly, invoices evidence payments Lane’s clients promised to make, and the Court’s
Order obligated Lane to produce them.10
Because Lane has withheld important information that the Court’s Order enforcing the
subpoena required that he produce, Lane violated that Order. Lane withheld an extensive
amount of relevant information, which means that Lane did not “substantially comply.” See
Trudeau, 579 F.3d at 763. And Lane certainly made no “reasonable and diligent” effort to
comply, see id.; instead, he deployed an untenably narrow interpretation of the subpoena that
renders his production evasive and incomplete. Accordingly, Lane is in contempt.
B.
The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities Are in Contempt Because They Will Not
Provide 30(b)(6) Deposition Dates Unconditionally.
There is no basis for the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ position that the FTC must agree to
take their depositions “by ISDN connection or some other video conferencing transmittal” rather
than appear personally. See PXG:2. The Court ordered the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to
10
Invoices are particularly important because Lane’s production fails to comply with the
Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena in at least two additional respects. First, some of Lane’s
engagement agreements establish security retainers, which Lane apparently charged against as
his firm performed work. See, e.g., PXG:13 at 2; id. at 4. Along with “true retainers” and
“security retainers” (pursuant to which the retainer remains the client’s property until work is
performed), Illinois recognizes “advance payment retainers” (pursuant to which the payment
becomes the lawyer’s property immediately). See Dowling v. Chi. Options Assocs., 875 N.E.2d
1012, 1022 (Ill. 2007). Under Dowling, at least two (and probably more) of Lane’s heavilyredacted engagement agreements do not create “advance payment retainers” because they do not
“use that term [‘advance payment retainer’],” and they do not “clearly state that the funds
become the property of the lawyer when paid and that they will not be held in a client trust
account.” Id.; see PXG:13. Because Lane’s security retainers belong to the client, Lane did not
receive payment until he performed work, which means that some sort of financial statement
reflecting that work – like an invoice – is necessary to determine what payments Lane received.
Second, although the subpoena expressly covers “bookkeeping documents,” “financial
statements,” and “other financial documents” that reflect “payments received,” PXG:6 at 7 (no.
2), Lane produced no documents that enable the FTC to match particular wires or checks to work
for a particular client (like Trudeau). Invoices might suffice but, in any event, Lane must have
records that apply payments to particular clients and matters. Such documents reflect payments
received, which means the Court’s Order obligated Lane to produce them. Lane wrongly
withheld these documents to make his production as difficult to understand as possible.
9
comply with their deposition subpoenas, which require these Westmont-based entities to appear
in Chicago. Neither the FRCP, the subpoenas themselves, nor the Court’s Orders enforcing
those subpoenas give the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities some sort of “videoconference option.”11 If
the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities wanted to raise this issue, they had to do so through their
subpoena objections or the extensive briefing they submitted when opposing the FTC’s motion
to compel.
Instead, they have refused to accept dates for their Court-ordered depositions unless the
FTC agrees to a new condition they manufactured last week. Refusing to appear in accordance
with the subpoenas violates the Court’s Orders enforcing those subpoenas and, therefore, the
Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have not “substantially complied.” Nor does their “video
conferencing transmittal” condition constitute a “reasonable and diligent” effort to comply.
Accordingly, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities are in contempt.
V.
CONCLUSION
Because the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities violated this Court’s Orders requiring that they
comply with their 30(b)(6) deposition subpoenas, the FTC asks that the Court hold them in
contempt and, as a contempt sanction, order that WSU and KTRN’s owner (Babenko), and GIN
USA’s sole officer (also Babenko) appear for an in-Court deposition. Additionally, the FTC asks
that the Court set the 30(b)(6) deposition dates and, to the extent Babenko is unable to testify
regarding certain noticed 30(b)(6) topics, the FTC asks that the Court also order the TrudeauAffiliated Entities to disclose immediately who will appear on their behalf (and on which topics).
Lane also violated this Court’s order enforcing the subpoena. The FTC asks the Court to
hold Lane in contempt, and order him to comply fully within twenty-four hours.
11
Cf. SEC v. Symbol Techs., Inc., No. CV-04-2276, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18140, at *9*10 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010) (denying motion for reconsideration; court had entered default
judgment against defendant in Sweden who offered to appear for his deposition via
videoconference, but would not appear in New York).
10
Dated: April 1, 2013
Respectfully Submitted,
David O’Toole ([email protected])
Federal Trade Commission
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825
Chicago, Illinois 60603-5001
Phone: (312) 960-5601
Fax: (312) 960-5600
/s/ Jonathan Cohen
Michael Mora ([email protected])
Jonathan Cohen ([email protected])
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B
Washington, DC 20580
Phone: 202-326-3373; -2551
Fax: 202-326-2558
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jonathan Cohen, hereby certify that on April 1, 2013, I caused to be served true copies
of the foregoing to the Court. I further certify that, on April 1, 2013, appropriately redacted
versions of the foregoing will be served by electronic means to:
Kimball Richard Anderson
[email protected]
Thomas Lee Kirsch, II
[email protected]
Katherine E. Croswell
[email protected]
Daniel J. Donnellon
[email protected]
Kenjiro D. LeCroix
[email protected]
/s/ Jonathan Cohen
Jonathan Cohen ([email protected])
Attorney for Plaintiff
12
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 635-1 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 1 of 67 PageID #:9302

in contempt

Transcription

Similar documents

Event Poster

Devour - Roto Grip

// liVE it loUD liVE it loUD \\

your tax return and save a tree.

Fulking - Travel Log Lewes

map - SET

4th of July Community Festival and Fireworks Show

FOR SALE 5 Acres - Southern Warren County

$1,766,160 - Round Top Real Estate

Church Lane, Skirlaugh, East Yorkshire, HU11 5EU