You are on page 1of 16

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - x
Dennis L. Montgomery,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:16-cv-00126-RC

James Risen, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt


Publishing Co., et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - x
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Courts February 3, 2016 Order, ECF No. 257, the parties met and
conferred on February 11, 2016, and provide the following joint status report:
1. Each partys summary and assessment of:
a. The history of this litigation to date, including any related actions.
i. Plaintiff
As set forth in the Amended Complaint, Defendants James Risen, Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company (HMHPC), and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company
(HMHC), have published vicious, highly defamatory statements, both in their book Pay Any
Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War, and on television and radio, which have severely
damaged, if not totally destroyed, the reputation and financial ability of Plaintiff, Dennis
Montgomery, to earn a living. Suffering from an acute brain aneurism, and destitute with huge
medical and hospital bills, he brought this action to not only clear his name, but to become
financially whole such that he can have the means to tend to his failing health and the family he
may have to leave behind. At the first status conference, the Honorable Jose Martinez thus

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 16

understood that the case needed to be tried before a jury of Plaintiffs peers at the earliest
practicable date, particularly after defense counsel callously denigrated Mr. Montgomerys
medical condition.
Now, almost a year into the case, and at the last minute, Defendants belatedly move for
summary judgment, incredibly having bothered to only take one deposition, of Mr. Montgomery
himself, and on the last day of the pretrial order designated defectively an expert witness, in
violation of the Local Rules of this Court. [Dkt # 143]. In so doing, Defendants disingenuously
named an expert who does not even have a security clearance to analyze the alleged software,
which they say is crucial to defend the case. Indeed, as argued at the recent hearing before
Magistrate Judge Goodman, and as he himself recognized, this case concerns much more than
allegations that the software, which Mr. Montgomery developed and which was sold to the
government by his employers, did not work. See Transcript of Hearing of January 5, 2016 (Jan.
6 Transcript) at pgs. 138-142, Exhibit 1. Importantly, the majority of the defamatory statements
have nothing to do with the software or whether it worked in whole or part, as Magistrate Judge
Goodman has recognized. Id. The Defendants have only one real defense to their outrageous
conduct; that Mr. Montgomery did not produce his software for analysis by their bogus expert.
But Mr. Montgomery could not do so, even if he had it in his possession, as it is highly
classified, as confirmed in the context of this case by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
and its counsel the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Montgomery is currently a government
witness in an on-going FBI criminal investigation concerning the widespread mass surveillance
of judges, congressmen and other high level persons by the intelligence agencies and any
classified software was required to be turned over to the FBI under immunity agreements.
Exhibits 2, 3 to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 16

For example, at page 32 of Pay Any Price, Defendant James Risen writes:
Montgomery was the maestro behind what many current
and former U.S. officials and others familiar with the case now
believe was one of the most elaborate and dangerous hoaxes in
American history, a ruse that was so successful that it nearly
convinced the Bush administration to order fighter jets to start
shooting down commercial airliners filled with passengers over the
Atlantic. Once it was over, once the fever broke and government
officials realized that they had been taken in by a grand illusion,
they did absolutely nothing about it. The Central Intelligence
Agency buried the whole insane episode and acted like it had never
happened. The Pentagon jus kept working with Montgomery.
Justice Department lawyers fanned out across the country to try to
block any information about Montgomery and his schemes from
becoming public, invoking the state secrets privilege in a series of
civil lawsuits involving Montgomery.
That Risen and the Defendant publishers would trash Mr. Montgomery by publishing that
he was the maestro behind what many current and former U.S. officials and others
familiar with the case now believe was one of the most elaborate and dangerous hoaxes in
American history, a ruse that was so successful that it nearly convinced the Bush
administration to order fighter jets to start shooting down commercial airliners filled with
passengers over the Atlantic[,] goes far beyond anything that had been written about
Montgomery in so-called prior publications. In fact, Risen having been thrown out the door by
his original publisher, Simon & Schuster because he could not back up his false and misleading
claims, had to peddle his defamatory book elsewhere. This occurred because, without
maliciously manufacturing sensational facts about Montgomery as The Emperor of the War on
Terror, which is the title of the Chapter 2 of Pay Any Price, which became the centerpiece of
Pay Any Price, the book would not sell. For this reason alone, Simon & Schuster summarily
rejected publication of an author who it had coveted in the past.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 16

Shamelessly undaunted by the rejection, Risen, through his book agent Tina Bennett,
approached Defendants HMHPC and HMHC, and ironically, after falsely calling Montgomery a
con, Defendant Risen conned these publishers to publish his book. Not even bothering to factcheck Risens grossly exaggerated story (nor later issue a correction when Plaintiffs counsel
asked HMHPC and HMHC to do so pursuant to Florida Statute 770.01, see Plaintiffs
Statement of Disputed Material Facts (PSDMF) to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants
Summary Judgment Motion at 3, 105, Exhibit 4, and without any named sources that would
corroborate that Mr. Montgomery had perpetrated the biggest hoax in American history such that
the president could order civilian airliners to be shot down, HMHPC and HMHC greedily
published Pay Any Price hoping that the sensational but unsubstantiated story would sell large
amounts of books in Florida one its biggest markets where it also resides and elsewhere.
PSDMF at 72, Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The depositions of Risen and the Defendant publishers HMHPC and HMHC which Mr.
Montgomerys counsel took show that Risen could not or would not name more than three
sources that he actually spoke with about Mr. Montgomery. None of these so-called sources
provided credible information about Risens wild, unsubstantiated claims that Mr. Montgomery
has perpetrated the biggest hoax in American history. Nor, as set forth below, can this be gleaned
from any prior publications. And, even had there been prior publications to this effect,
Defendants never bothered to use due diligence to corroborate statements in publications such as
the highly respected literary disgrace of Playboy Magazine, a pornographic rag. Nor do
Defendants claimed reliance on public documents carry the day for them. None of these socalled public documents state that Mr. Montgomery committed the biggest hoax in American

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 16

history such that President Bush gave authority to order the shoot down of civilian planes. In
fact, the bottom line is that no one was killed or even harmed, and there is evidence that the
president himself was never even told of this claimed hoax. Nor has Mr. Montgomery ever been
indicted or prosecuted for his falsely claimed fraud which could have, according to Defendants,
resulted in death to many persons. And, the government never even asked Mr. Montgomery or
his employers for reimbursement of what it spent to acquire the dis-encryption technology. In
short, and to use an old phrase by Vice President Walter Mondale when he ran for the presidency
against Governor Ronald Reagan, where is the beef? This is no beef, only a lot of pork in a
book that ironically itself has no clothes that is, verifiable facts as observed by the first
publisher Simon & Schuster to back up this make-believe fiction. Risen and the rest of the
Defendants simply cannot cover up their sensationalized hoax by putting lipstick on a pig.
Thus, Defendants argument that the so-called Fair Reporting Doctrine protects them, fails
miserably.
Mr. Montgomery is not a public figure, as Defendants incorrectly argue. Plaintiff, who to
this day holds a top secret security clearance (if there was fraud it would have been revoked),
was undercover for the governments intelligence agencies and did not seek public recognition
for the work he did in dis-encrypting terrorist messages following the tragedy of September 11,
2001. Thus, mere negligent publication of the defamatory statements by Defendants is the legal
frame of reference for these defamatory publications. And, even if Mr. Montgomery is found to
be a limited public figure, as Defendants strain to argue, as set forth below there is plenty of
actual malice involved in their publications, as set forth in detail below.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 6 of 16

In sum, Defendants belated Motion for Summary Judgment must be summarily denied
as the facts at issue are at a minimum controverted, and this case should proceed to trial, if
possible, on the respectfully requested previously set deadlines of the the transferor court.
Finally Plaintiff Montgomery is a government witness in an on-going criminal
investigation concerning the harvesting of telephonic metadata, internet communications and
other confidential materials of justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, other
judges, congressmen and senators and other prominent persons. This investigation, being run out
of the General Counsels office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), by Director James
Comey and General Counsel James Baker, is on-going, as set forth in the outstanding pleadings.
Plaintiff and his counsel had met with the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of this Court, who put
them in contact with General Counsel James Baker of the FBI, which facilitated this on-going
criminal investigation. General Counsel Baker then briefed Director Comey and field agents
were then assigned to conduct the criminal investigation and work with Assistant U.S. Attorney
Deborah Curtis of the Washington, D.C. United States Attorneys Office, who negotiated two
immunity agreements with Plaintiff and his counsel.
ii. Defendants
A year ago, Plaintiff Dennis Montgomery brought this libel action against Pulitzer Prizewinning author James Risen, and his publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.
(HMH), and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company, improperly sued as HMH Holdings, Inc.,
concerning a chapter in the book Pay Any Price: Greed Power, and Endless War, published in
October 2014. ECF No. 1. On April 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss or transfer this
action, ECF No. 25; that motion became moot when Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ECF

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 7 of 16

No. 44. On May 15, Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss or transfer, ECF No. 52, which
was fully briefed on June 11, ECF No. 77.
Without a ruling from the district court on these threshold issues, discovery commenced
and closed November 19, 2015. The discovery process was overseen by Magistrate Judge
Goodman, who issued several orders on the parties discovery motions including a series of
orders related to and granting Defendants motions to compel Plaintiff to produce the critical
evidence in this case Mr. Montgomerys software. Discovery proceedings culminated in a
four-plus hour hearing January 5, 2016, on Defendants motion for sanctions for Plaintiffs
failure to produce the software. ECF No. 215, Minute Entry; ECF No. 230, Jan. 5, 2016 Hrg Tr.
Defendants submitted their motion for summary judgment on December 14, 2015, the
deadline for dispositive motions. On the eve of submitting their reply brief in support of their
motion, the Southern District of Florida granted Defendants motion for transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1404(a), and transferred this case to the District of Columbia. ECF No. 247.
There are currently three, fully-briefed, dispositive motions pending before the Court
including: (1) Defendants motion for summary judgment; (2) Defendants motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) Defendants motion for sanctions for dismissal or other relief.
Defendants request oral argument on each of these dispositive motions, and resolution of the
motions before any further proceedings in this action particularly before any pretrial
proceedings urged by the Plaintiff.
Although Plaintiffs counsel often claims Mr. Montgomery could die at any moment, all
medical records produced in this case suggest Plaintiffs condition is stable. See, e.g., ECF No.
100, Defs. Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order 12-13. Montgomery was diagnosed with an
aneurysm in 2011, and sustained a stroke in May 2014, but the medical records he submitted to

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 8 of 16

the Court confirm that his condition continues to be stable. ECF No. 256-1. Indeed, on August
20, 2015, Montgomery appeared in Miami for a deposition in this libel case, having rejected
Defendants offer to take his deposition in Seattle, near where he lives. See ECF No. 119.
As recently as February 10, 2016, Mr. Montgomery, through counsel, informed the
Nevada court that he remained too ill to appear in criminal proceedings against him for alleged
felony theft, drawing and passing a check without sufficient funds with intent to defraud, and
other related charges. Nevada v. Montgomery, Case No. C-10-268764-1, Clark Cty., Nev. Dist,
Ct. If, as he claims, he has remained too ill for nearly two years to stand trial in Nevada, there is
all the more reason for this Court to act on the dispositive motions pending in this proceeding
where early resolution of libel cases is encouraged to avoid a chilling effect on speech involving,
as here, matters of such public concern. See ECF No. 201, Summ. J. Mot. 15. If the Court in
fact disposes of the case further to the motions, then not only will Defendants be spared the
further, chilling effect on speech but Mr. Montgomery will be spared the unnecessary travels and
participation in what would be a vigorously contested trial.
Accordingly, the Court should rule on Defendants pending dispositive motions before
setting any pretrial proceedings or setting a trial date. The Southern District of Florida had set a
two-week trial schedule to begin March 21, 2016 a schedule that cannot be met before
resolution of the parties pending motions. This case, which the parties have already mediated
per court order, has not and will not settle. See ECF No. 231, Mediation Report.
b. Any impending events or proceedings that may effect the course of this
litigation.
i. Plaintiff
The Court has listed the pending motions, with the exception of a motion for protective
order with regard to a deposition of a third party witness Istvan Burgyan. In addition, Plaintiff
8

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 9 of 16

will be requesting leave to file a surreply to correct certain misstatements of law and fact, and
respond to some new argument, in Defendants reply to their motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff also requests oral argument on the pending motions. This will aid the Court in
coming up to speed on this case, which was only recently transferred to it.
Defendants have misstated the status of their below comment; based on past history and
other factors, it is clear that the government does not intend to pursue prosecution of Plaintiff.
Moreover, Defendants outrageous statement is irrelevant and is intended only to prejudice this
Court against Plaintiff.
ii. Defendants
Plaintiff is next scheduled to appear in his criminal prosecution in Clark County, Nevada
on May 11, 2016. Nevada v. Montgomery, Case No. C-10-268764-1, Clark Cty., Nev. Dist, Ct.
c. Which motions and issues remain pending before the Court.
i. Plaintiff
See above.
ii. Defendants
Summary Judgment. Defendants timely moved for summary judgment on all claims on
the grounds that (1) Plaintiffs deliberate failure to produce the software at the heart of his claim
compels the conclusion that he cannot meet his burden to prove falsity as a matter of law; (2)
even if Plaintiff could carry his burden to prove falsity, as a limited-purpose public figure, he has
not and cannot put forth concrete, affirmative evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to
find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Defendants published with actual malice, i.e., with
knowledge of falsity or serious doubts as to the truth of the challenged statements; (3) the
statements Plaintiff challenges are non-actionable expressions of opinion and rhetorical

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 10 of 16

hyperbole, not verifiable statements of fact; (4) the Amended Complaint is barred by the fair
report privilege; and (5) Plaintiffs other tort claims are barred for the same reasons as the libel
claims and because he cannot prove the elements of those claims. ECF No. 201, Summ. J. Mot.;
ECF No. 202, Defs. Statement of Material Facts; ECF No. 203, Decl. of James Risen; ECF No.
204, Decl. of Laura Handman; ECF No. 250, Reply to Opp. to Summ. J. Mot.; ECF No. 251,
Defs. Reply to Pl.s Additional Material Disputed Facts.
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. As indicated, infra at subpart e, Defendants argument
that the Southern District of Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Risen, was
an improper venue and an inconvenient forum, has been mooted by the transfer of this case to the
District of Columbia. Defendants had also moved for a stay of discovery pending resolution of
their motion to dismiss or transfer, which was denied by the Florida court. ECF No. 55, Mot. for
Stay of Discovery; ECF NO. 76, Reply in Support of Mot. for Stay of Discovery; ECF No. 93,
Notice of Suppl. Auth. Re Mot. to Stay Discovery; ECF. No. 130, Paperless Order denying Mot.
to Stay Discovery. The remainder of Defendants motion to dismiss remains pending, see ECF
No. 247, Order Granting Mot. to Transfer 4, and the Court may dismiss Plaintiffs amended
complaint, in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff fails to plead a plausible
claim for defamation or other related torts. Defendants motion asserts three of the four grounds
for dismissal as their motion for summary judgment i.e., opinion, fair report, no actual malice
but under the different standard of failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
rather than the standard of no genuine material facts in dispute required for summary judgment.
ECF No. 52, Mot. to Dismiss III.D; ECF No. 77, Reply to Pl.s Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss II.D.
Motion for Sanctions. Defendants seek sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff has
violated three court orders and spoliated what could be the most important evidence in the

10

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 11 of 16

entire case, ECF No. 122, Stay Order 6, the software central to Plaintiffs burden to prove
falsity in this libel claim, which the Southern District of Florida and previous courts have
determined is not classified, see ECF No. 250, Defs. Reply to Opp. to Summ. J. Mot. 12-14.
ECF No. 166, Mot. for Sanctions; ECF No. 184, Reply in Support of Mot. for Sanctions; ECF
No. 191, Order Scheduling Hrg on Defs. Spoliation Sanctions Mot.; ECF. No. 196, Defs.
Supp. Auth.; ECF No. 209, Defs. Suppl. Mem. on Defs. Spoliation Sanctions Mot.; ECF No.
212, Pl.s Suppl. Mem. on Defs. Spoliation Sanctions Mot. Magistrate Judge Goodman held a
nearly four and a half hour hearing on Defendants motion on January 5, 2016, and thereafter
issued an administrative order seeking additional information and authorities from the parties,
with which each party timely complied. ECF No. 217, Post-Sanction Hearing Admin. Order;
ECF No. 226, Pl.s List of Authorities Pursuant to Order of Jan. 6, 2016; ECF No. 227, Defs.
Notice of Filing of Tr. of Montgomery Dep.; ECF No. 228, Pl.s Notice of Filing Related to
Alleged Software; ECF. No. 299, Defs. Notice of Conventional Filing (of DVDs of
Montgomery Dep.); ECF No. 230, Tr. of Jan. 5, 2016 Hearing; ECF No., 232, Defs. List of
Authorities Pursuant to Order of Jan. 6, 2016. Accordingly, Defendants motion for dismissal
sanctions, or alternatively preclusion of evidence, is fully-briefed and pending for the court.
Sealing Motions. Each party has submitted various motions to seal documents marked
confidential during discovery. Plaintiffs pending motions to seal include ECF No. 156; ECF
No. 159; ECF No. 160; ECF No. 180; ECF No. 236. Defendants pending motions to seal
include ECF No. 210; ECF No. 239; ECF No. 253.
Plaintiffs Objections to Magistrate Goodmans Orders. There also remains pending
several objections lodged by Plaintiff to orders issued by Magistrate Goodman related to
discovery matters. ECF No. 125, Pl.s Objection to Portions of Order of Aug. 22, 2015; ECF

11

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 12 of 16

No. 140, Defs. Opp. to Pl.s Objection to Portions of the Magistrate Judges Aug. 22, 2015
Order; ECF No. 143, Pl.s Objection to Limited Portions of Magistrate Judges Post-Discovery
Hearing Order; ECF No. 144, Pl.s Supp. to Objection to Limited Portions of Magistrate Judges
Post-Discovery Hearing Order; ECF No. 164, Pl.s Objection to Magistrate Judges Oct. 19,
2015 Order and Request to Stay; ECF No. 176, Defs. Opp. to Pl.s Objection to magistrate
Judges Oct. 19, 2015 Order; ECF No. 188, Pl.s Suppl. to Objections to Magistrate Judges
Orders Concerning Software
Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff identified Istvan Burgyan, Plaintiffs son-in-law
and former co-worker, a Washington State resident, as a trial witness. Defendants sought to
serve Mr. Burgyan with a subpoena duces tecum to appear for deposition. Mr. Burgyan evaded
service several times, and then once served on November 5, 2015, waited three days before his
deposition was to take place and the close of discovery to object to the subpoena. Defendants
moved to compel Mr. Burgyans compliance with the subpoena. Montgomery v. Risen, No. 15cv-1922 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2015). At a hearing on February 3, 2016, the Western District of
Washington granted Defendants motion to compel, ordered the deposition to take place within
30 days, and denied Mr. Montgomerys request to certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal. Id.
(ECF No. 16.) Defendants and Mr. Burgyan have scheduled his deposition for March 1, 2016
after Mr. Burgyan denied being available at earlier requested dates in February. On the eve of
the hearing on Defendants motion to compel, Plaintiff moved this Court for a protective order
that the deposition of Istvan Burgyan not proceed. ECF No. 255. Defendants will submit a
brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion in the ordinary course.

12

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 13 of 16

d. Whether any party seeks to withdraw any pending motions.


i. Plaintiff
Plaintiff does not seek to withdraw any pending motions.
ii. Defendants
Defendants do not seek to withdraw any pending motions.
e. Whether, due to any intervening events, any pending motions have
become moot, have become subsumed by other motions, or require
additional briefings.
i. Plaintiff
As set forth above, Plaintiff asserts that a surreply to Defendants reply to their motion
for summary judgment is necessary to correct certain misstatements of fact and law and to
address some new argument put forth by them, as well as to address Defendants continuing ad
hominem attacks on him.
ii. Defendants
Defendants do not seek to withdraw their Motion to Dismiss, but can confirm that the
arguments in their motion that the Southern District of Florida lacks personal jurisdiction, is
the improper venue, and is an inconvenient forum have been mooted by the transfer of this case
to the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 52, Mot. to Dismiss III.A. To the extent the motion
to dismiss tracks the summary judgment motion, the court can deem it subsumed by the
subsequent summary judgment motion.
In addition, Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 255, has been mooted by
the February 3, 2016 Order of Judge Robart granting Defendants Motion to Compel the
deposition and document production. Montgomery v. Risen, No. 15-cv-1922 (W.D. Wash. Feb.

13

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 14 of 16

3, 2016) (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff has refused to withdraw his Motion for a Protective Order and,
accordingly, Defendants will submit a brief in opposition in the ordinary course.
If, as indicated above, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a surreply, Defendants will oppose in
due course.
f. Whether any pending motions should be consolidated.
i. Plaintiff
Plaintiffs position is that the motions and related pleadings concerning the alleged
software and the summary judgment motion should NOT be consolidated. However the Court is
requested to read Plaintiffs reasons for not being able to produce the alleged software as the CIA
and its counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice has advised that any such software is classified
and not relevant to this case in any event, and thus the CIA refuses to produce any such software.
To produce any such software in Plaintiffs case could subject him to criminal prosecution and as
set forth above and as recognized by Magistrate Judge Goodman of the transferor court, this case
concerns much more than what Defendants disingenuously claim it does.
ii. Defendants
The parties sealing motions may be consolidated and taken up by the Court together with
the motions to which they apply. Thus, Plaintiffs motions to seal communications between
Plaintiff, and/or Plaintiffs counsel and the FBI concerning the turning over of Montgomerys
software and the efforts to retrieve it from the FBI, ECF No. 156, ECF No. 159, ECF No. 160,
ECF No. 180, can be considered with Defendants motion for sanctions. ECF No. 166.
The parties motions to seal documents marked confidential by non-parties, pursuant to
their Protective Order, in conjunction with summary judgment briefing, ECF No. 210, ECF No.

14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 15 of 16

236, ECF No. 239, ECF No. 253, can likewise be considered with Defendants pending motion
for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs objections to Magistrate Goodmans orders, which all relate to Plaintiffs
failure to produce the software at issue in this case, can be consolidated with Defendants motion
for sanctions and the parties briefing and supplemental filings related to that motion.
g. The order in which the Court should address the pending motions.
i. Plaintiff
Plaintiff has no position on the order in which the Court addresses the pending motions.
ii. Defendants
Defendants seek a ruling first on their motion for sanctions because it seeks dismissal of
Plaintiffs claims or, alternatively, the preclusion of evidence offered by Plaintiff that his
software exists or that it works or ever worked. Such a ruling will have significant implications
for the resolution of Defendants summary judgment motion and any proceedings going forward.
2.

A joint proposed schedule to govern further proceedings in this case:


a. Plaintiff

Plaintiff advocates adhering to and adopting the pre-trial schedule set by the Honorable
Jose Martinez of the transferor court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
particularly in light of Plaintiffs poor health and deteriorating and potentially terminable health
condition. See attached doctors letters and evaluations. In addition, this case was inexplicably
transferred to this Court on the apparent basis of forum non-conveniens after 12 months of
intensive pre-trial litigation and the close of discovery and Plaintiff thus relied on the expedited
trial date, at great time and expense, in litigating this case with all due speed given his health.
Plaintiff is a destitute individual and lacks the huge resources of Defendants, whose net worth is

15

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 258 Filed 02/17/16 Page 16 of 16

in the billions collectively. Defendants counsels recitation of Plaintiffs health is false and
offensive, and this was one of the reasons the transferor court accelerated the trial date given the
heavy dockets in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. At the first status
conference, lead counsel for the Defendants callously misstated the gravity of Plaintiffs failing
health, and she later taunted him about his health at deposition. These matters are set forth in the
pleadings now pending before this Court.
b. Defendants
Defendants propose that the pretrial conference be scheduled following the Courts
rulings on the outstanding dispositive motions. The Court should schedule pretrial motions and a
trial date at the pretrial conference.

Dated:

February 17, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman Esq. (Bar No. 334581)
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


By:
/s/ Laura R. Handman
Laura R. Handman (Bar No. 444386)
Lisa B. Zycherman (Bar No. 495277)
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-4200
Facsimile: (202) 973-4499
laurahandman@dwt.com
lisazycherman@dwt.com
Counsel for Defendants

16