Letter Rogatory

5/20/2018 Letter Rogatory

1/37

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel.FLOYD LANDIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAILWIND SPORTS CORPORATION,et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)))))))))))

)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

RELATORS MOTIONFOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST

PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE

ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Relator Floyd Landis hereby moves for issuance of a Letter of Request pursuant to the

Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. The

purpose of the motion is to obtain documents from the Union Cycliste Internationale

(UCI), located in Aigle, Switzerland for potential use at trial or other proceedings in this

action. The motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities

and the proposed Letter of Request.

Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), counsel for relator has conferred with counsel for the United

States and for each of the defendants regarding relatorsintent to file the instant motion. The

United States consents to the motion. Defendant Lance Armstrong objects to the motion.

Defendants Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William Stapleton and Bart

Knaggs take no position on the motion.

Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 219 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 9


2/37

2

A proposed Order is submitted herewith.

Dated: September 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

__________ /s/________________Paul D. [email protected] State Bar No. 145975AdmittedPro Hac Vice

___________/s/________________Lani Anne [email protected]

California State Bar No. 189889U.S.D.C. No. PA0045Jon L. PraedU.S.D.C. No. 450764D.C. Bar No. 51665LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100San Francisco, California 94111Tel: (415) 981-1212Fax: (415) 981-1215

Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis



3/37

1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel.FLOYD LANDIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.___________________________________

)))))))))))

))

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

RELATORS MOTIONFOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST

PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE

ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

I. INTRODUCTION

Relator Floyd Landis hereby requests that the Court issue to the appropriate authority

in Switzerland a Letter of Request in the form attached seeking certified copies of documents

from the Union Cycliste Internationale(UCI),located in Aigle, Switzerland for potential

use at trial or other proceedings in this action. SeeProposed Letter of Request.

II. FACTS

Relator filed his Original Complaint in this False Claims Act matter on June 10, 2010

(Docket Entry (DE) No. 1), a First Amended Complaint on December 23, 2010 (DE No. 10),

and a Second Amended Complaint (SAC or Complaint) on February 22, 2013 (DE No. 42).

The Complaint names the following parties as defendants: Tailwind Sports Corporation,

Tailwind Sports, LLC, Montgomery Sports, Inc., Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings,

Inc., Thomas W. Weisel, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, William J. Stapleton, Barton B.

Knaggs, and Ross Investments, Inc. (collectively, Defendants).



4/37

2

The United States filed a Notice of Intervention in this action on February 22, 2013 as to

defendants Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Lance Armstrong and Johan

Bruyneel (collectively, the Intervened Defendants). DE No. 41.

The United States stated in its Notice of Intervention that it is not intervening at this

time with respect to William Stapleton, Barton Knaggs, Capital Sports and Entertainment

Holdings, Inc., and Thomas Weisel, and the United States has currently taken no position as to

intervention against defendants Montgomery Sports, Inc. and Ross Investments, Inc.

(collectively, the Non-Intervened Defendants). Id. The United States filed its own complaint

in the action against the Intervened Defendants on April 23, 2013. DE No. 44 (U.S.

Complaint). On June 19, 2014, the Court dismissed relators claims as to defendants Tailwind

Sports, LLC, Thomas Weisel, and Ross Investments, Inc. without prejudice. DE No. 174.

The UCI is the international governing body for the sport of cycling, SAC at 74, and is

headquartered in Aigle, Switzerland. See generallywww.uci.ch. The complaints of the United

States and relator both allege that the 1995 and 2000 Sponsorship Agreements governing the

United States Postal Service Professional Cycling Team (USPS Team)required compliance

with the UCIs rules, including rules prohibiting doping. U.S. Complaint at 16, 28; SAC at

36, 37, 74. In both complaints, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that their named defendants

violated UCIs rules and that they submitted, caused to be submitted, and conspired to submit

false claims to the United States in violation of the terms of the Sponsorship Agreements.

Plaintiffs further allege that their named defendants falsely denied and actively concealed their

doping.

As one example, the United States has alleged that defendant Armstrong used a banned

corticosteroid before the 1999 Tour de France and then provided a false, backdated prescription

to UCI to explain positive urine tests and to conceal his doping so as to avoid the loss of

sponsors, including the USPS. U.S. Complaint at 42. Relator has also presented evidence to

the Court indicating that defendant Weisel was aware of the 1999 positive test and the false

prescription. DE No. 107 and 107-4. Since the filing of the United Statescomplaint, defendant

Armstrong has reportedly stated that Hein Verbruggen, then the head of UCI, was complicit in



5/37

3

these events, saying that Verbruggen told him, This is a real problem for me, this is the

knockout punch for our sport . . . so weve got to come up with something. SeeDeclaration of

Paul D. Scott (Scott Decl.) at 2 & Ex. A thereto.

Relator also alleges that defendant Armstrong tested positive for EPO while winning the

Tour de Suisse in 2001 and that he and Mr. Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a

financial agreement with Mr. Hein Verbruggen, head of UCI at the time, to keep the positive test

hidden. SAC at 87. The UCI has reportedly admitted that Armstrong gave UCI $25,000 in

2002 and that an additional $100,000 was paid to UCI by Armstrong in or around 2007 as well.

SeeScott Decl. at 3 & Ex. B.

Relator has further alleged that Thomas Weisel Partners managed funds invested for Hein

Verbruggen between 2001-2004 when Verbruggen was President of UCI and that Jim Ochowicz

was the employee at Thomas Weisel Partners who handled the account. SAC at 138-41. In

addition, relator has alleged that Hein Verbruggen and UCI failed to enforce anti-doping rules

against Armstrong during the period relevant to the complaints, including 2001-2004, and that

Hein Verbruggen and UCI also exhibited strong bias against Mr. Landis in reaction to his

allegations of doping by Armstrong and the involvement of UCI. Id.at 142-43.

The documents sought from UCI in the Letter of Request are specific categories of

documents relevant to the allegations in this case. SeeProposed Letter of Request at Schedule

A (listing documents).

III. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE THE PROPOSED LETTER OF REQUEST.

This request is authorized under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence

Abroad in Civil Commercial Matters, opened for signature, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555,

T.I.A.S. No. 7444, reprinted in the notes section following 28 U.S.C. 1781 (the Hague

Evidence Convention). Article I of the Hague Evidence Convention provides that a judicial

authority of a signatory state may request the competent authority of another signatory state

to obtain evidence by means of a Letter of Request. See Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst,444 F.

Supp.2d 68, 82 n.8 (D.D.C. 2006) (Hague Evidence Convention provides for the taking of



6/37

4

evidence abroad, without recourse to consular or diplomatic channels, by means of letters of

request.).

Both the United States and Switzerland are signatories to the Hague Evidence

Convention. See In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, No. 04-MD-1616-JWL, 2010 WL

4963019 at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 1, 2010);see alsoObtaining Evidence, Embassy of the United

States, Bern, Switzerland (As of January 1, 1995, the Hague Convention on the Taking of

Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into effect for Switzerland. . . .

Under the convention, a judicial authority in the United States sends a letter of request to the

appropriate Swiss Central Authority in accordance with the convention.), available at:

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html(copy attached as Scott Decl., Ex. C).

Procedures under the Hague Convention are available whenever they will facilitate

the gathering of evidence by the means authorized in the Convention. Societe Nationale

Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,

482 U.S. 522, 541 (1987). When discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign

jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention, which encompasses principles

of international comity, is virtually compulsory. Tulip Computers Intl B.V. v. Dell

Computer Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 474 (D. Del. 2003) (quoting Orlich v. Helm Bros.,

Inc., 160 A.D.2d 135, 143, 560 N.Y.S. 2d 10 (1990));see alsoEstate of Klieman v.

Palestinian Authority, No. 04-1173 (PLF/JMF), 2012 WL 3960319 (D.D.C. August 23,

2012) (Facciola, J.) (issuing letter of request for production of documents in possession of

non-parties located in Israel and related depositions);Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian

Authority, 272 F.R.D. 253 (D.D.C. March 4, 2011) (Facciola, J.) (issuing letter of request for

depositions of non-parties located in Israel).

Here, plaintiffs seek evidence from the UCI, a non-party located in Switzerland.

Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Court to issue a Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague

Evidence Convention.

Article 3 of the Hague Evidence Convention describes the information that must be

included in a letter of request, including information about the lawsuit, the parties, and the

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.htmlhttp://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.htmlhttp://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html


7/37

5

evidence sought. Plaintiffs proposed Letter of Request addresses each of the required

elements, with reference to the corresponding provisions of Article 3. SeeProposed Letter of

Request.

In addition, Switzerland has issued certain reservations to the provisions of the Hague

Evidence Convention which impose additional requirements. See Switzerlands Declarations

and Reservations to the Hague Evidence Convention, available at

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=561&disp=resdn, copy

attached as Scott Decl., Ex. D (hereinafter Declarations and Reservations). Plaintiffs have

also met these requirements.

For example, Switzerland requires that requests be translated into the official

language of the applicable Swiss canton. SeeDeclarations and Reservations, re: Article 4

The UCI is located in Aigle, Switzerland, which is in the Canton of Vaud, where the official

language is French. Accordingly, plaintiffs proposed order submitted with this motion

provides that, upon approval by the Court of the Letter of Request, plaintiffs will have the

Letter translated into French prior to submission to the relevant Swiss authorities in the

Canton of Vaud.

Switzerland has also issued a reservation under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence

Convention as follows:

In accordance with Article 23, Switzerland declares that Letters of Request issued for

the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents will not be executed if:

a) the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question; or

b) a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were in

his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal; or

c) a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the

request for legal assistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping or at

his/her disposal; or

d) interests worthy of protection of the concerned persons are endangered.



8/37

6

SeeDeclarations and Reservations re: Article 23. Plaintiffs Letter of Request also complies

with this reservation, in that the documents requested are described with specificity and are

relevant to this action. SeeAerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 564 ("[T]he emerging view of

this exception to discovery [under Article 23] is that it applies only to requests that lack

sufficient specificity or that have not been reviewed for relevancy by the requesting court.")

(Blackmun, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citations omitted).

In any event, even if plaintiffs request werepotentially noncompliant with

Switzerlands Article 23reservation, that would not be grounds for this Court to decline to

issue the letter of request. Tulip Computers Intl B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 254 F. Supp.

2d at 475 (noting that, if plaintiffs requests were overly broad under receiving countrys

reservations to Article 23, [t]he Court is content that such officials will make the appropriate

determination under their own law).

Because the purpose of obtaining the records is for potential use at trial or other

proceedings in this action, Relator has also included a business records certification for

purposes of authenticating the foreign business records to be produced, in accordance with

Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(12). SeeProposed Letter of Request, Form A.

The Letter of Request includes a request that the appropriate document custodian(s) execute

the certification. See id.at Section 12.



9/37

7

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue the

attached Letter of Request. A proposed order is submitted herewith.

Dated: September 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

__________ /s/________________Paul D. [email protected] State Bar No. 145975AdmittedPro Hac Vice

___________/s/________________

Lani Anne [email protected] State Bar No. 189889U.S.D.C. No. PA0045Jon L. PraedU.S.D.C. No. 450764D.C. Bar No. 51665LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100San Francisco, California 94111Tel: (415) 981-1212

Fax: (415) 981-1215

Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis



10/37



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ex rel.FLOYD LANDIS,

Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.___________________________________

))

)))))))))))

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE

PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING

OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court)presents

its compliments to the Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud, Switzerland and requests assistance in

obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court.

This request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapter I of the Hague

Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial

Matters ("the Hague Convention"), to which both the United States and the Swiss Confederation

are party.

Specifically, the District Court requests assistance in obtaining authenticated documents

from non-party Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located in Aigle, Switzerland in the

Canton of Vaud. This Request is accompanied by a translation of the Request into French

(which is the official language in the Canton of Vaud).

Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 219-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 15


11/37

2

SECTION I

1. SENDER:

The Honorable Christopher R. CooperUnited States District Court JudgeThe United States District Court for the District of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001United States of America

2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF REQUESTED STATE:

Tribunal cantonal VaudDivision Entraide judiciairePalais de justice de l'Hermitage

Route du Signal 81014 Lausanne ADM cant VDSwitzerland

3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED:

Plaintiffs Legal Representatives:

Paul D. Scott, Esq.Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100, The Embarcadero

San Francisco, CA 94111Tel: (415) 981-1212Fax: (415) 981-1215

on behalf of:

The United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaUnited States of America

4. SPECIFICATION OF THE DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING

AUTHORITY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF

REQUEST.

Date: It is requested that the documents be transmitted within 45 days of UCIs receipt of theLetter of Request.

Reasons for Urgency: To ensure that the documents are received in a timely manner for use inthe civil proceedings described below.



12/37

3

SECTION II

IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED

APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION

REGARDING THE INSTANT REQUEST:

5. a. REQUESTING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (Article 3,a)

The Honorable Christopher R. CooperUnited States District Court JudgeThe United States District Court for the District of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001United States of America

b. TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF (Article 3,a):

Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, i.e.,

Tribunal cantonal VaudDivision Entraide judiciairePalais de justice de l'HermitageRoute du Signal 81014 Lausanne ADM cant VDSwitzerland

c. NAMES OF THE CASE AND ANY IDENTIFYING NUMBER

United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corporation, et al., No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRCUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. USA

6. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR

REPRESENTATIVES (Article 3,b):

a. Plaintiffs:

The United States of America

Represented by:The United States Department of JusticeSTUART F. DELERYActing Assistant Attorney GeneralRONALD C. MACHEN JR.United States AttorneyDANIEL F. VAN HORN

Relator Floyd Landis

Represented by:Paul D. ScottLani Anne RemickJon L. PraedLAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100San Francisco, California 94111



13/37

4

Assistant United States AttorneyDARRELL C. VALDEZMERCEDEH MOMENIAssistant United States AttorneysJudiciary Center Building

555 4th St., N.W., Civil DivisionWashington, D.C. 20530MICHAEL D. GRANSTONROBERT E. CHANDLERDAVID M. FINKELSTEINAttorneys, Department of JusticeCivil DivisionPost Office Box 261Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044

b. Defendants:

Lance Armstrong

Represented by:John KekerElliot R. PetersR. James SlaughterSharif E. JacobTia Alexander SherringhamKeker & Van Nest LLP

633 Battery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Robert LuskinPatton Boggs LLP2550 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037

Capital Sports Entertainment &

Holdings, Inc., Bill Stapleton & Barton

Knaggs

Represented by:Marc S. HarrisVicki KirklandScheper Kim & Harris LLPOne Bunker Hill

601 West Fifth Street, 12th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071

John Patrick PierceTHEMIS PLLC2305 Calvert Street, NWWashington, DC 20008

Johan Bruyneel

c/o Mike MorganLafone House

The LeathermarketWeston StreetSE1 [email protected]

Tailwind Sports Corporation and

Tailwind Sports, LLC

Formerly represented by:Blair G. BrownRachel CottonZuckerman Spaeder LLP1800 M Street, N. W., Suite 1000Washington, DC 20036-5807



14/37

5

Thomas W. Weisel and Ross

Investments, Inc.

Represented by:Robert A. SacksBrendan CullenChristopher M. ViapianoSullivan & Cromwell LLP1888 Century Park EastLos Angeles, California 90067-1725

7. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE

FACTS (Article 3,c):

a. Nature of the proceedings:The above-captioned action is a civil case brought by plaintiffs under the civil False

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq.,based on alleged false claims by defendants to the United

States in connection with a sponsorship agreement for the United States Postal Service cycling

team (the USPS Team).

b. Summary of complaint

Relator filed his Original Complaint in this False Claims Act matter on June 10, 2010, a

First Amended Complaint on December 23, 2010, and a Second Amended Complaint (SAC or

Complaint) on February 22, 2013. The Complaint names the following parties as defendants:

Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Montgomery Sports, Inc., Capital Sports

and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Thomas W. Weisel, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel,

William J. Stapleton, Barton B. Knaggs, and Ross Investments, Inc. (collectively, Defendants).

The United States filed a Notice of Intervention in this action on February 22, 2013 as to

defendants Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Lance Armstrong and Johan

Bruyneel (collectively, the Intervened Defendants). The United States stated in its Notice of

Intervention that it is not intervening at this time with respect to William Stapleton, Barton

Knaggs, Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and Thomas Weisel. The United

States has also not intervened to date against defendants Montgomery Sports, Inc. and Ross

Investments, Inc. (collectively, the Non-Intervened Defendants). The United States filed its



15/37

6

own complaint in the action against the Intervened Defendants on April 23, 2013. On June 19,

2014, the Court dismissed relators claims as to defendants Thomas Weisel and Ross

Investments, Inc. without prejudice, granting relator leave to amend his complaint with regard to

his allegations against those defendants. The Court also dismissed the allegations against the

entity Tailwind Sports, LLC, by agreement of the parties.

The UCI is the international governing body for the sport of cycling, and is headquartered

in Aigle, Switzerland. See generallywww.uci.ch. The complaints of the United States and

relator both allege that the 1995 and 2000 Sponsorship Agreements governing the United States

Postal Service Professional Cycling Team (USPS Team) required compliance with the UCIs

rules, including rules prohibiting doping. In both complaints, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that

their named defendants violated UCIs rules and that they submitted, caused to be submitted, and

conspired to submit false claims to the United States in violation of the terms of the Sponsorship

Agreements. Plaintiffs also allege that their named defendants falsely denied and actively

concealed their doping.

Relator Landis further alleges that UCI and its former president were involved in

concealing the doping scheme. He alleges that Mr. Armstrong made a financial arrangement

with the former head of UCI to keep a positive test hidden. He also alleges that Thomas Weisel

Partners managed funds for the former head of UCI between 2001 and 2004, during the period

that he was president of the organization. The UCI has reportedly acknowledged payments by

Mr. Armstrong of $25,000 in 2002 and $100,000 in 2007 but has denied wrongdoing.

c. Summary of defense

Mr. Armstrong has publicly admitted to the plaintiffs allegations regarding doping by

the USPS team but has denied liability. Capital Sports and Entertainment, William Stapleton

and Bart Knaggs have denied that they are liable for the allegations in the complaints.

8. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED OR OTHER JUDICIAL ACT TO BE

PERFORMED (Article 3,d):

a. Evidence to be obtained

The assistance requested of Switzerland consists of the following:



16/37

7

Obtaining certified copies of certain documents in the possession of non-party Union

Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located within the Canton of Vaud at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860

Aigle, Switzerland, Tel. +41 24 468 58 11, Fax +41 24 468 58 12,[email protected] requested

documents are described in the attached Schedule A.

b. Purpose of the evidence sought

The documents sought from UCI in this Letter of Request pertain to the allegations

described above. Accordingly, this Court respectfully requests that the UCI disclose the

documents described in Schedule A.

SECTION III

9. IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON TO BE EXAMINED (Article 3,e):

None.

10. QUESTIONS TO BE PUT TO THE PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED OR

STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE TO

BE EXAMINED (Article 3,f):

None.

11. DOCUMENTS OR OTHER PROPERTY TO BE INSPECTED (Article 3,g):

It is requested that certified true and correct copies of the documents or electronic records

described in the attached Schedule A be obtained from the Union Cycliste Internationale

(UCI), located at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860 Aigle, Switzerland, Tel. +41 24 468 58 11, Fax +41

24 468 58 12,[email protected].

12. ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON OATH OR

AFFIRMATION AND SPECIFIC FORM TO BE USED (Article 3,h):

It is requested that the relevant UCI document custodian with personal knowledge of the

matters set forth in the attached Form A please execute Form A and return it along with the

documents. In the event that the certification cannot be made in the specific manner requested, it

is respectfully requested that the certification be provided under oath or affirmation.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/37

8

13. SPECIAL METHODS OR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED (Article 3,i & 9):

Please see item 12 above.

14. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE

EXECUTION OF THE REQUEST AND IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANYPERSON TO BE NOTIFIED (Article 7).

Please send documents described on Schedule A, along with executed Form A to:

RelatorsLegal Representative:

Paul D. ScottLaw Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 981-1212Fax: (415) 981-1215

15. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL

PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE EXECUTION OF

THE LETTER OF REQUEST (Article 8):

None.

16. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE

EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN (Article 11,b).In responding to this Letter of Request, the UCI need not disclose documents and

electronic records which constitute confidential communications between the UCI and its

attorney that seek or provide legal advice, though this privilege may be waived if the

communication has been disclosed to third parties.

17. THE FEES AND COSTS INCURRED WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 OR UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF

THE CONVENTION WILL BE BORNE BY:

As this Request does not require a diplomatic officer or commissioner to take evidence,

and it does not require the use of experts or interpreters, it is understood pursuant to Article 14 of

the Hague Convention that this Request shall not give rise to any reimbursement of taxes or

costs . . . . It is further understood that Article 26 does not apply to this Request, because this



18/37

9

Request does not involve the taking of testimonial evidence or the service of process for the

attendance of a witness to provide testimony.

SECTION IV

This District Court expresses its gratitude to the judicial authorities of Switzerland for

their assistance under the terms of the Hague Evidence Convention.

Dated: ____________________________________UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[signature and seal]



19/37

10

SCHEDULE A

I. Definitions

The following definitions, whether or not capitalized, shall apply to each Request below:

COMMUNICATION-- The term "COMMUNICATION" means a transmittal of

information, or request for information, by DOCUMENT or otherwise and includes any

conversation in person, by telephone or by any other means, as well as any utterance heard by

another person whether in person, by telephone or otherwise.

DOCUMENT-- The term DOCUMENT refers to, means, and includes all written or

graphic matter or tangible things of every kind and description, however produced or

reproduced, in your actual or constructive possession, custody, or control, including but not

limited to all originals (or copies where originals are unobtainable or where the copies are not

identical to the originals) of correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, applications, claims,

policies of insurance, printed matter, contracts, agreements, proposals, bids, work papers,

statistical records, minutes, interoffice communications, studies, technical data, charts,

brochures, electronically stored information, computer data, computer discs, computer chips,

files, bulletins, reviews, compilations, sound recordings, films, photographs, videotapes, digitalrecordings, notes, calendars, appointment books, diaries, time-sheets, time logs, or papers, no

matter how described or denominated, and any drafts thereof. Different versions of the same

document, such as different copies of a written record bearing different handwritten notations,

are different documents within the meaning of the term as used. In case originals or original

non-identical copies are not available, the term "DOCUMENT" includes copies of originals or

copies of non-identical copies as the case may be.

RELATED TO or RELATING TO-- The terms RELATED TO and RELATING

TO mean discuss, describe, refer to, substantiate, evidence, contradict, or be in any way

logically or factually connected to the matter discussed.

TAILWINDThe term TAILWIND means Montgomery Sports, Inc., TWP Sports,

Inc., Tailwind Sports, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports Corp., Tailwind



20/37

11

Sports, Inc., Disson Furst and Partners, LLC, Disson Furst & Partners, LLC, DFP Cycling, LLC,

Tailwind Cycling, LLC and any other d/b/as of any of the foregoing entities, along with any

person or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to

employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents,

owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors

or successors in interest.

UCIThe term UCI means the Union Cycliste Internationale, along with any person

or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to

employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents,

branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest.

U.S. POSTAL SERVICEThe term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE means the United

States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on

its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys,

contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or

successors in interest.

USPS TEAMThe term USPS TEAM means the professional cycling team

sponsored by the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to be

acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors,

officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders,

assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest.

References to any individual refer to that individual, along with any person or entity

known to be acting or purporting to act on the individuals behalf, including but not limited to

employees, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, and agents.

II.

Documents to be produced:

1.

The Requests for Therapeutic Use exemptions submitted to UCI on behalf of Lance

Armstrong between January 1, 1995 and 2009.

2. The biological passports of Lance Armstrong submitted to UCI between January 1, 1995

and December 31, 2009.



21/37

12

3. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Lance Armstrong or his attorneys or other

representatives RELATING TO the following payments by Lance Armstrong to UCI:

the $25,000 paid in or around 2002; the $100,000 paid in or around 2007. The

COMMUNICATIONS to be produced should include the COMMUNICATIONS

requesting or offering the payments, transmitting the payments, and describing the

purpose of the payments.

4. Copies of the checks or other forms of payment used by Lance Armstrong or his

attorneys or other representatives in making the payments to UCI in 2002 and 2007.

5. The internal COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS at UCI RELATING TO Lance

Armstrongs payments to UCI in or around 2002 and 2007, including

COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS discussing the purpose of the payments and

how the funds were used.

6. The COMMUNICATIONS between TAILWIND and UCI RELATING to the bank

guarantees obtained by TAILWIND to ensure payment of Lance Armstrongs salary

between 1995 and 2004, including the COMMUNICATIONS by TAILWIND stating the

amount of Lance Armstrongs salary or the amount of the associated bank guarantees.

7. UCIs DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the positive test results associated with Lance

Armstrongs 1999 positive or suspicious test results for corticosteroids, including, but not

limited to, copies of the test results.

8. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and TAILWIND RELATING TO Lance

Armstrongs 1999positive or suspicious test results for corticosteroids.

9. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI, on the one hand, and TAILWIND, William

Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, concerning the positive or

suspicious doping test results of Lance Armstrong between 1995 and 2004, including

UCIs letters to TAILWIND informing TAILWIND or its attorneys or other

representatives of those results.

10.The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI, on the one hand, and TAILWIND, William

Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, concerning the positive or

suspicious doping test results of USPS Team riders other than Lance Armstrong between

1995 and 2004, including UCIs letters to TAILWIND informing TAILWIND or its

attorneys or other representatives of those results.



22/37

13

11.The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Lance Armstrong or any of his attorneys or

other representatives regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong

used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.


Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, regarding LEquipes

allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

13.The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes

allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.


Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, RELATING TO the report

prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance

Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

15.UCIs financial records and related DOCUMENTS showing the source of funds that UCI

used to pay for the report prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in

2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

16.

The report prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that

Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

17.Drafts of the Vrijman report regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance

Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France, including drafts prepared prior to

the final version of the report and drafts with comments or edits.

18.The COMMUNICATIONS between Jim Ochowicz and Hein Verbruggen between

January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2004 that concern Mr. Verbruggens financial

investments with Thomas Weisel Partners or any business entity affiliated with Thomas

Weisel.

19.The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and TAILWIND regarding any positive or

suspicious test results or adverse findings relating to the use of banned substances ormethods by any rider on the USPS TEAM between 1995 and 2004, including Lance

Armstrong.

20.The COMMUNICATIONS between Thomas Weisel and UCI between January 1, 1995

and the present.



23/37

14

21.The COMMUNICATIONS between Lance Armstrong and UCI between January 1, 1995

and the present, not including routine communications relating to negative drug tests.

22.The COMMUNICATIONS between William Stapleton and UCI between January 1,

1995 and the present.

23.

The COMMUNICATIONS between Bart Knaggs and UCI between January 1, 1995 and

the present.

24.The COMMUNICATIONS between Jim Ochowicz and UCI between January 1, 1995


25.The COMMUNICATIONS between Mark Gorski and UCI between January 1, 1995 and

December 31, 2004.

26.The COMMUNICATIONS between Johan Bruyneel and UCI between January 1, 1995




24/37

15

FORM A

1. My name is __________________________________________. I am over the

age of 18 and fully competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated herein are true and correct

and are based on my personal knowledge.

2. I am familiar with the records of Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located

within the Canton of Vaud at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860 Aigle, Switzerland.

3. Submitted herewith, collectively, are _____ [insert number of pages] pages of

records from said business, collected in response to the Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague

Convention of 18 MARCH 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial

Matters, received in connection with the case of United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports

Corporation, et al., No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC United States District Court for the District of

Columbia, Washington, D.C. USA.

4. These said pages of records are kept by UCI in the regular course of business.

5. It is the regular practice of UCI for an employee or representative with knowledge

of the act, event, incident, order, transaction, invoice, condition, photo, video recording, audio

recording, opinion, or diagnosis, to make the record, or to transmit information thereof to be

included in such record and by a person or persons

6. The said records were made at or near the time of occurrence of the matters set

forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of and a business duty to

record or transmit those matters.

7. The said records attached hereto are the originals or exact duplicates of the

originals.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Switzerland that the foregoing is true

and correct.

______________________________ ______________________________

Name Date



25/37

1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel.FLOYD LANDIS ,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)))))))))))

)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC

DECLARATION OF PAUL D. SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF

RELATORS MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST

PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF

EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

I, PAUL D. SCOTT, declare as follows:

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed by the State of California, and my firmthe Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C., is counsel for relator Floyd Landis. I am

admittedpro hac viceto practice before this Court in the above-titled action. I

provide this declaration in support of RelatorsMotion for Issuance of a Letter of

Request Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in

Civil or Commercial Matters.

2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of the news

article Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned, November 18, 2013, available at

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-

head-planned-tour-doping-cover-up. According to the article, Lance Armstrong

stated that Hein Verbruggen, then the head of UCI, was complicit in the cover-up of

defendants Armstrong use of a banned corticosteroid before the 1999 Tour de

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-head-planned-tour-doping-cover-uphttp://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-head-planned-tour-doping-cover-uphttp://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-head-planned-tour-doping-cover-uphttp://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-head-planned-tour-doping-cover-uphttp://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-head-planned-tour-doping-cover-up


26/37

2

France. Id. The article includes reference to a statement by Armstrong that Hein

just said, `This is a real problem for me; this is the knockout punch for our sport ... so

we've got to come up with something.' So we backdated the prescription." Id.

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct October 22, 2012

copy of a statement issued by UCI regarding two donations made to UCI by Lance

Armstrong in the amounts of $25,000 in May 2002 and $100,000 in January 2007.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Obtaining

Evidence, Embassy of the United States, Bern, Switzerland, available at:

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html, a website managed by the U.S.

Department of State.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of

Switzerlands Declarations and Reservations to the Hague Evidence Convention,

available at:http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=

561&disp=resdn a website managed by the Hague Conference on Private

International Law, an organization whose members include the United States and

Switzerland.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of September, 2014 in San

Francisco, California.

/s/ Paul D. ScottPAUL D. SCOTT

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.htmlhttp://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.htmlhttp://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html


27/37

ESPN.com:Endurance [Print without images]

Monday, November 18, 2013

Associated Press

Lance Armstrong claims former International Cycling Union president Hein Verbruggen instigated a

cover-up of his doping at the 1999 Tour de France.

Armstrong told Britain's Daily Mail newspaper in an interview published Monday that Verbruggen insisted

"we've got to come up with something" to explain his positive tests for a banned corticosteroid.

Cycling's governing body, the UCI, appeared to ignore its own anti-doping rules when it accepted

Armstrong's backdated prescription for a cream to treat saddle sores.

That allowed Armstrong to stay in the race, and he went on to win the first of his seven Tours, helping reviv

the sport after doping scandals wrecked the 1998 event.

"The real problem was, the sport was on life support," Armstrong said in the article. "And Hein just said,

`This is a real problem for me; this is the knockout punch for our sport ... so we've got to come up with

something.' So we backdated the prescription."

Though Armstrong has acknowledged the prescription excuse in a television interview with Oprah Winfrey

he had not previously linked Verbruggen or other UCI officials to a cover-up.

Verbruggen, who served as UCI president until 2005, did not respond to phone messages Monday.

The Dutch official, who is still listed by the UCI as its honorary president, has long denied any collusion wArmstrong despite widespread claims the American rider was protected.

Corticosteroids, which reduce inflammation, are banned unless the athlete has a therapeutic use exemption.

Armstrong and his manager, Johan Bruyneel, had signed the doping control document that he was not takin

any medication at the time, so under UCI rules, he should have been disqualified even if he later produced

prescription.

Verbruggen was granted honorary membership by the IOC in 2008 after 12 years' service and will complet

his duties as chairman of the Olympic Broadcasting Service after the Sochi Winter Games in February.

The IOC released a statement Monday, saying, "It is hard to give any credibility to the claims of a cyclist w

appears to have misled the world for decades."

"That said, the UCI is currently working on plans to investigate the matter more thoroughly and we await

proper considered outcomes," the Olympic governing body added.

Armstrong spoke out while the UCI is in the process of creating an independent commission that will

examine alleged official collusion, and he is expected to be the star witness.

Armstrong, who is seeking a reduction in his lifetime ban, told the Daily Mail that he would reveal details o

ESPN.com - Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=9995039

1 of 2 9/12/2



28/37

how the UCI operated.

"I have no loyalty toward them," he said. "In the proper forum I'll tell everyone what they want to know. I'm

not going to lie to protect these guys. I hate them. They threw me under the bus."

In October 2012, the UCI decided not to challenge a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency verdict to strip Armstrong o

his Tour titles and ban him for life. Verbruggen's successor, Pat McQuaid, said the disgraced rider deserved

be forgotten by the sport.

The UCI has been led since September by British official Brian Cookson, who defeated McQuaid in a

presidential election in which the Armstrong case and cycling's doping past were central issues.

In a statement Monday, the UCI said its commission would "invite individuals to provide evidence."

"We would urge all those involved to come forward and help the Commission in its work in the best interes

of the sport of cycling," the governing body said. "This investigation is essential to the well-being of cyclin

in fully understanding the doping culture of the past, the role of the UCI at that time and helping us all to

move forward to a clean and healthy future."

---

Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2508961/LANCE-ARMSTRONG-WORLD-

EXCLUSIVE-Drugs-cheat-meets-accuser-Emma-OReilly.html

ESPN.com - Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=9995039

2 of 2 9/12/2



29/37

Tour de Suisse samples and donations by Lance Armstrong to UCI

The 2001 Tour de Suisse samples

The UCI took, on its own accord, the initiative to have validated the sole urinary EPO test (asopposed to the combined blood and urine test that had been validated by the IOC in view ofthe Sydney Olympics) that was developed by the anti-doping laboratory of Paris. Thevalidation process was conducted by experts appointed by the IOC.

The UCI introduced the sole urinary EPO test in the Tour of Flanders on 8 April 2001. TheUCI was ahead of any other sports organisation for testing for EPO.

The UCI conducted 40 EPO tests at the Tour de Suisse of 19 28 June 2001. The urinesamples were analysed by the anti-doping laboratory of Lausanne.

The Lausanne laboratory had set as the criterion for a sample to be considered as positive

the presence of 80% or more of basic bands.

The laboratory reported all samples as negative, as none of them reached the threshold of80%. Yet three of these negative samples, belonging to different riders, were marked by thelaboratory as suspicious, which the laboratory did when the sample showed 70% or more ofbasic bands.

At that time the EPO test was only two months old, and there were no general criteria in thisrespect. Where the Lausanne laboratory applied a 80% threshold, the Paris laboratory, thathad developed the test, considered a sample as positive as from 85% instead of 80%. Lateron, in 2003 and 2004, it was discovered that urine samples could present a positive patternfor EPO, this is over 80%, without EPO being present ( a false positive), as a consequence

of bacterial degradation of the sample (the so-called active urine as shown in the case ofBernard Lagat in 2003) or a high concentration of proteins (the so-called effort urine asshown in the case of Rutger Beke in 2004). Nowadays the laboratories conduct additionaltests on the urine samples to exclude these possibilities, yet this was not the case in 2001when these phenomena were not known.

In any event in 2001 there was no way in which to consider samples of over 70% but lessthan 80% as positive. That there was no positive test is confirmed in USADAs decision onpages 52 and 144-145.

Note : on page 144 USADA refers to statements made by Dr. Saugy to Cyclingnews on May27, 2011. The corresponding article is not included in the supporting materials and no

reference is made to it in a footnote as is done with other sources that USADA used for itsdecision. What USADA does not quote in its decision is the following statement attributed toMr Saugy : But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could havebeen interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all withthat sole argument in front of a court. A more complete statement by Dr Saugy can befound here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/swiss-lab-director-says-he-found-no-positive-result-for-lance-armstrong/2011/05/27/AGy5CnCH_story.html

Therefore there was no positive test for EPO on the Tour de Suisse 2001, not for MrArmstrong, nor for any other rider that had participated in that race.

When considering samples with a result between 70% and 80% reference should also bemade to the case of rider Bo Hamburger, who was tested for EPO on 19 April 2001. The A



30/37

sample showed a result of 82.3% and was declared positive by the Lausanne laboratory.The B sample had been divided into two parts. One part resulted in a level of 82.4 % and theother part in a level of 78.6%. Both the Lausanne laboratory and the UCI considered theoverall test result as positive for EPO. The case was brought before CAS and CAS decidedthat the sample had to be considered as negative because the B sample did not confirm theA sample because one of the B samples did not attain the level of 80% laid down by thelaboratory itself for the A sample (CAS 2001/A/343 UCI v/Hamburger, 28 January 2002).

A copy of the laboratory reports was sent by the laboratory of Lausanne to the SwissOlympic Committee. If ever there would have been a positive test result, the Swiss OlympicCommittee would have been informed of that and would have noted that it had not beendealt with properly.

In addition, under the rules at that time, if there would have been a positive test thelaboratory was obligated to send a copy of the laboratory report to the IOC. Therefore if therehad been a positive test, the IOC would have known it.

In 2010 the UCI has asked all anti-doping laboratories to make a list of all positive results forEPO in cycling in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, it being understood that as from 2004WADA receives a copy of all laboratory reports. None of these positive results belonged toMr Armstrong.

In any case it is crystal clear that the UCI did not conceal a positive test, as there was nopositive test.

After the Tour de Suisse that ended on 28 June 2001 Mr Armstrong was tested ten timesduring the Tour de France of 2001, that started one week later, on 7 July 2001. MrArmstrong was tested ten times, of which five times for EPO. All samples were reported asnegative by the laboratory of Paris. A copy of each laboratory report was sent to the French

Anti-Doping Agency CPLD.

In total the UCI conducted 271 EPO tests in 2001. Nine riders were found positive.

The donations

As the UCI has stated many times there is no relationship between the testing of MrArmstrong and the two donations he made to the UCI. As indicated above, as there was nopositive test there was no test to conceal and no need for an incentive to attempt to have atest concealed.

If the donations that Mr Armstrong made to the UCI are mentioned in USADAs reasoneddecision, nowhere in that decision is Mr Armstrong accused of having bribed someone inorder to have covered up a test. Such bribe would have been an anti-doping rule violationindeed.

Mr Armstrong made a first donation of 25'000.- USD in May 2002. This donation wasreported to the UCI Anti-Doping Commission and to the then Council for the fight againstdoping, that managed the financing of UCIs fight against doping and comprisedrepresentatives of riders, teams and organisers. The donation was used for testing in thejunior category (17-18 years old).

Three years later, in the first half of 2005, the year in which he retired from the sport a firsttime, Mr Armstrong promised a donation of 100'000.- USD for the purchase of a new Sysmexblood analyzer that also counts reticulocytes. The UCI bought that Sysmex machine in July



31/37

2005 and paid it from its own funds as Mr Armstrong had not paid yet the amount that he hadpromised and the machine was needed for the fight against doping. Mr Armstrong wasreminded of his promise later in 2005 and in 2006. The amount was eventually paid inJanuary 2007, one and a half years after Mr Armstrong had retired from the sport.

Note : the statement on page 51-52 of the reasoned decision that Mr Armstrong offered at

least $ 100,000 in May 2002 is wrong and in contradiction with the press articles referred toin footnote 249. The donation of $ 100,000 was offered three years later, in 2005. It is alsoprecarious that USADA considers press articles as evidence for a decision that it deems to beon a par with an arbitral award. It is even more precarious that USADA did so without havingasked the position of the UCI.

Sysmex issued a press release dated 29 July 2005 in which it stated that Mr Armstrong hadfinanced a Sysmex for the UCI. However the donation promised by Mr Armstrong hadalready been made public by the UCI and was reported, inter alia, in Le Monde of 24 July2005.

The UCI has accepted these donations in good faith in order to finance its anti-doping

programme that was and still is very expensive. It is also clear now that it would have beenwiser not to have accepted them. In any event these donations as outlined above have hadno influence on the testing of Mr Armstrong by the UCI.



32/37

9/11/2014 Obtaining Evidence | Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerland

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html

4

OBTAINING EVIDENCE

Evidence may be obtained in Switzerland in two ways: under the Hague Convention on

the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters or by the letters rogatory

process. In addition, the Swiss penal code 271 provides that attorneys attempting to

take a deposition or serve process in Switzerland outside of these authorized methods

are subject to arrest on criminal charges.

The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial

Matters

As of January 1, 1995, the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil

or Commercial Matters entered into effect for Switzerland. The convention codifies thetaking of evidence on notice and commission and the compulsion of evidence pursuant

to a letter of request. Under the convention, a judicial authority in the United States

sends a letter of request to the appropriate Swiss Central Authority in accordance with

the convention. (See Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for a model letter of request.)

Central Authorities

Switzerland has 26 separate Central Authorities, one for each canton. A letter of

request should be addressed to the appropriate central authority in the official

language of that authority (i.e., French, German, or Italian; see the attached list of

Central Authorities for guidance on the appropriate language).

The documents establishing the execution of the Letter of Request will be returned by

the same means that the original request was sent.

Pre-trial Discovery

In a reservation made at the time of ratification of the treaty, Switzerland declared

that letters of request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of

documents will not be executed if:

therequest has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question;

or

a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were

in his/her possession or keeping are at his/her disposal; or

a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the

request for legal assistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping

or at his/her disposal; or

the valid interests of the person from whom evidence is requested may be

compromised.

Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerlan

http://bern.usembassy.gov/index.htmlhttp://bern.usembassy.gov/index.html


33/37

9/11/2014 Obtaining Evidence | Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerland

http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html

For information on Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, please refer to the separate

Judicial Assistance flyer on this topic. Please note that this information is only

applicable in civil or commercial cases. To obtain evidence in a criminal case in

Switzerland, please refer to the U.S.-Swiss Legal Assistance Treaty: The Treaty with

the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with related notes,

signed at Bern, May 25, 1973; entered into force January 23, 1977; 27 UST 2019;

TIAS 8302.

Taking of Evidence by Consular Officers

Voluntary depositions: Prior Swiss permission is required before consular officers can

take voluntary depositions from any party, regardless of nationality. This permission

must be obtained from the Swiss Department of Justice and police as follows: The

requesting party must send an official Hague Convention letter of request to the

appropriate Cantonal Central Authority requesting permission for a consular officer to

take the deposition. The Central Authority will forward the request to the Swiss Federal

Office for Police Matters. After permission is granted, parties involved in taking the

deposition (including the U.S. consular officer) must schedule a mutually convenient

time for the procedure. Unfortunately, space is very limited at the Embassy and

Consulate, which will make scheduling difficult. For further information on this processplease see the informational flyer provided by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice at

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/312_0/index.html#id-ni39-ni41-3 .

The U.S. Embassy, Consulate General and Consular Agency do not have trained legal

stenographers, typists or interpreters available. The party requiring the deposition may

want to provide their own. The fee for the services of a consular officer in taking

depositions is currently U.S. $235.00 per hour, or fraction thereof. A heavy workload

and small staff make it impossible for consular staff members to serve as

stenographers, typists or interpreters.

Taking of Evidence by an Appointed Commissioner: A commissioner may take

voluntary evidence if prior Swiss government approval is obtained (see above).

Please note: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of a

specific foreign country is provided for general information only. Questions involving

interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign counsel.

This site is managed by the U.S. Department of State. External links to other Intern

sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies

contained therein.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/312_0/index.html#id-ni39-ni41-3


34/37

9/11/2014 HCCH |

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=561&disp=resdn

Declarations Reservations

Articles: 1,2,4,8,15,16,17,23,

(Translation)"Re Article 11. With regard to Article 1, Switzerland takes the view that the Convention applies exclusively to the

Contracting States. Moreover, regarding the conclusions of the Special Commission which met in TheHague in April 1989, Switzerland believes that, whatever the opinion of the Contracting States on theexclusive application of the Convention, priority should in any event be given to the procedures providfor in the Convention regarding requests for the taking of evidence abroad.

Re Articles 2 and 242. In accordance with Article 35, first paragraph, Switzerland designates the cantonal authorities listedthe annex (see Authorities)as Central Authorities as referred to in Articles 2 and 24 of the ConventionRequests for the taking of evidence or the execution of any other judicial act may also be addressed to Federal Justice and Police Department in Bern, which will forward them to the appropriate CentralAuthority.

Re Article 4, second and third paragraphs3. In accordance with Articles 33 and 35, Switzerland declares, with regard to Article 4, second and th

paragraphs, that Letters of Request and any accompanying documents must be in the language of theauthority requested to execute them, i.e. in German, French or Italian, or accompanied by a translationinto one of these languages, depending on the part of Switzerland in which the documents are to beexecuted. The documents confirming execution will be drawn up in the official language of the requesauthority.

Re Article 84. In accordance with Article 35, second paragraph, Switzerland declares, with regard to Article 8, thatmembers of the judicial personnel of the requesting authority of another Contracting State may be presat the execution of a Letter of Request provided they have obtained prior authorization from theexecuting authority.

Re Articles 15, 16 and 175. In accordance with Article 35, Switzerland declares that evidence may be taken according to Article15, 16 and 17 subject to prior authorization by the Federal Justice and Police Department. A request foauthorization must be addressed to the Central Authority in the canton where the evidence is to be take

Re Article 23

6. In accordance with Article 23, Switzerland declares that Letters of Request issued for the purpose ofobtaining pre-trial discovery of documents will not be executed if:a) the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question; or

b) a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were in his/her possessionkeeping or at his/her disposal; orc) a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the request for legalassistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal; ord) interests worthy of protection of the concerned persons are endangered."



35/37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


UNITED STATES ex rel.LANDIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAILWIND SPORTS CORP., et al.

Defendants.

)))

)))))))))))))

Civil Action No. 10-00976 (CRC)

ECF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RELATORSMOTION

FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST PURSUANT TO

THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN

CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Upon consideration of the relators motion for issuance of a Letter of Request

pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial

Matters, the opposition and any reply thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion isGRANTED. It is further ORDEREDthat:

1. Upon entry of this Order, relator shall submit the proposed Letter of Request

to the Courts chambers in pdf format via email, for signature of two originals by the Court.

2. Upon the Courts signing of the Letter of Request, the Clerk of Court shall

provide the signed originals to counsel for the relator, who shall have the Letter of Request

translated into French and forwarded to the appropriate judicial authorities in Switzerland by the

most expeditious means available.

SIGNED:

________________ ____________________________

Date Christopher R. CooperUnited States District Judge



36/37

- 2 -

The following are entitled to be notified of the entry of this order:

Paul D. Scott

Lani Anne RemickJon L. Praed

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C.Pier 9, Suite 100San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 981-1212

Facsimile: (415) 981-1215

Counsel for Relator Floyd Landis

Darrell C. Valdez

Mercedeh Momeni

U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICEJudiciary Center Building

555 Fourth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530Telephone: (202) 252-2507

Robert E. Chandler

David M. Finkelstein

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICECivil Division, Fraud Section

P.O. Box 261

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 514-4678Counsel for Plaintiff United States

of America

Blair G. Brown

Rachel Cotton

ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000


Telephone: (202) 778-1829Facsimile: (202) 822-8106

Former Counsel for Defendant TailwindSports Corporation

Marc S. Harris

SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 613-4655Facsimile: (213) 613-4656

John Patrick Pierce

THEMIS PLLC

2305 Calvert Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20008

Telephone: (202) 567-2040

Facsimile: (202) 567-2051

Counsel for Defendants Capital Sports &

Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William J.Stapleton, and Barton B. Knaggs

John W. KekerElliot R. Peters

R. James Slaughter

Sharif E. Jacob

Tia SherringhamKEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, California 94111


Robert D. LuskinBenjamin D. Wood

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

2550 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037Telephone: (202) 457-6000

Facsimile: (202) 457-6315

Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong



37/37

- 3 -

Rebecca A. Worthington

Thomas E. Zeno

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300



Former Counsel for Defendant Johan

Bruyneel

Johan Bruyneel

c/o Mike Morgan

Lafone HouseThe Leathermarket

Weston Street

SE1 [email protected]


Letter Rogatory

Documents

Transcript of Letter Rogatory