MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES...

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 07-103

VERSUS SECTION “L” MAG. (5)

JAMES G. PERDIGAO VIOLATION: 18 USC 1341,

1344, 2314, 1957 & 2, 26

USC 7201 & 7206 (1)

MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

DUCES TECUM PURSUANT TO RULE 17(C)

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes defendant James

Perdigao who hereby moves the court pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c) to authorize the

issuance of the attached Subpoenas Duces Tecum to Adams and Reese, L.L.P., Robert J.

Guidry, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., commanding that they produce the items listed

on the subpoenas on or before November 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., for the reasons more

fully set forth in the attached memorandum in support of this motion. Defendant further

reserves the right to file additional motions regarding these matters based on the

government’s response and that of any respondent to the proposed subpoenas.

WESSEL & ASSOCIATES

A LAW CORPORATION

/s/ William F. Wessel

Case 2:07-cr-00103-EEF-ALC Document 137 Filed 09/25/2008 of 2

2

WILLIAM F. WESSEL (#8551) 127 Camp St.

New Orleans, LA 70130

Telephone (504) 568-1112

Facsimile (504) 568-1208

and

/s/ Charles F. Griffin

CHARLES GRIFFIN, ESQ.

(#06318) 802 S. Carrollton Avenue

New Orleans, Louisiana 70118

Telephone (504) 866-4046

Facsimile (504) 866-5633

ATTORNEYS FOR

DEFENDANT

JAMES PERDIGAO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2008 I electronically filed the above and

foregoing pleading with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send

a notice of electronic filing to counsel registered with the court for receipt of pleadings by

e-mail. I also certify that the foregoing and all attachments thereto have been served on

all counsel of record as well as upon Adams and Reese, L.L.P., Robert J. Guidry and

Pinnacle Entertainment, by facsimile, electronic mail and/or by depositing same in the

United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, this 25th day of September,

2008.


WILLIAM F. WESSEL (8551)

Case 2:07-cr-00103-EEF-ALC Document 137 Filed 09/25/2008 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 07-103

VERSUS SECTION “L” MAG. (5)

JAMES G. PERDIGAO VIOLATION: 18 USC 1341,

1344, 2314, 1957 & 2, 26

USC 7201 & 7206 (1)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

DUCES TECUM PURSUANT TO RULE 17(C)

This memorandum is respectfully submitted by defendant James Perdigao,

through undersigned counsel, in support of his motion to authorize the issuance of

Subpoenas Duces Tecum to Adams and Reese, L.L.P., Robert J. Guidry, and Pinnacle

Entertainment, Inc., commanding that they produce the items listed on the subpoenas on

or before November 7, 2008

Statement of the Case

Defendant is charged by the Superseding Indictment with, inter alia, mail fraud

relating to his billing practices while he was an attorney at the law firm of Adams and

Reese, L.L.P. Specifically, defendant is charged with billing practices which allegedly

defrauded the firm and various casino clients.

It is believed that the heart of the government’s case will be based upon the

testimony of firm lawyers and clients who will testify that they were “victimized” by the

Case 2:07-cr-00103-EEF-ALC Document 137-2 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8

2

defendant’s billing practices and entrepreneurial activities. At trial, defendant will show

that his billing practices and entrepreneurial activities were not only authorized but also

widespread throughout the firm.

Several of the document requests to Adams and Reese, L.L.P., as well as the

entirety of the document requests to Robert J. Guidry and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.,

focus squarely on the billing practices cited as wrongful and illegal conduct in the

Superseding Indictment. The subpoenaed records will establish the financial

arrangements and motives of the allegedly victimized firm and its clients and demonstrate

that defendant is being singled out and prosecuted for what were widespread and

authorized billing practices between the firm and its clients.

In addition to the document requests which deal with the firm’s billing practices

and entrepreneurial activities of its partners, the document requests to Adams and Reese,

L.L.P. also seek documents which will support defendant’s contention that the billing

dispute was “ginned up” as a means to undercut defendant’s efforts to report illegal and

unethical activites of the firm (including the firm’s obstruction of justice regarding

federal grand jury subpoenas dealing with Marc Morial and others, the bribery of Cong.

William Jefferson by Robert J. Guidry to illegally influence former U.S. Attorney Eddie

Jordan in the investigation and prosecution of former Governor Edwin Edwards, the

firm’s hiring of former politicians and masterminding their circumvention of the state’s

anti-corruption laws, etc.,) to the U.S. Attorney’s office. At trial the defendant will

establish that the firm made false reports to the federal authorities accusing the defendant

of engaging in prohibited entrepreneurial activities and of various billing irregularities,


3

even though firm management was aware of and had approved defendant’s

entrepreneurial activities and billing practices.

Not only did the reports fail to make any reference to their real motivation (i.e., to

destroy defendant’s credibility with regard to the firm’s obstruction of justice and other

illegal and unethical activities), the reports also failed to mention that many of the

claimed billing irregularities, such as the use of ghost hours, dummy or phantom

invoices, value-billing, transferring billable time to non-billable files, etc., were

permissible and pervasive throughout the firm. The reports also failed to disclose that

numerous partners in the firm engaged in similar entrepreneurial activities which were

closely intertwined with their practice of law with the firm. These entrepreneurial

activities included, inter alia, interests in riverboat casinos, slot machine distributorships,

consulting firms, oil and gas working interests, drilling partnerships, professional

baseball teams, professional hockey teams, professional soccer teams, film tax credit

brokerages, waste disposal facilities in the country of Angola (Africa), and numerous

other ventures.

The documents are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by the

exercise of due diligence as they are not obtainable by defense counsel through any other

means. While defense counsel has received some of the requested records from the

government in its Rule 16 disclosures to the extent that the government has copies in

their possession, defense counsel is aware that there are a substantial number of

additional documents responsive to the subpoena requests which have not been made

available to the defendant. The defense has no reason to believe that Adams and Reese,


4

L.L.P., Robert J. Guidry and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. will voluntarily produce these

documents to the defendant. These documents are voluminous and the defense cannot

properly prepare for trial without advance production and inspection of these documents

so that the failure to obtain the inspection may tend to unreasonably delay the

proceedings.

Law and Argument

Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part as

follows:

A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents,

data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to

produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in

evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their

attorneys to inspect all or part of them.

The right of an accused to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses and evidence

in his favor is guaranteed in federal trials by the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). The history of compulsory

process is the story of the development of the adversary process and the demise of the

inquisitorial method which was found not only unfair to the accused, but an inefficient

way of determining the truth. P. Weston, The Compulsory Process, 30 Mich.L.Rev. 71,

171 (Nov. 1974).

The United States Supreme Court has considered and approved the propriety of

employing the provision of Rule 17(c) for the early production of materials not

obtainable through Rule 16. Bowman Dairy Company v. United States, 341 U.S. 214

(1951).


5

“Any document or other materials, admissible as evidence . . . is subject to

subpoena” under Rule 17(c). Bowman Dairy, 71 S.Ct. at 679. Rule 16, which

severely restricts discovery in criminal cases, does not define outer limits of

materials available under a 17(c) subpoena, nor how wide the Rule 17(c) door will

open. Indeed, documents and materials possessed by the government but not

discoverable under Rule 16 can be reached by a Rule 17(c) subpoena – so long as

the documents and materials are evidentiary. Cf. Id, at 678.

United States v. Adritti, 955 F.2d 331, 346-47 (5th

Cir. 1992) (Goldberg, J., specially

concurring).

The moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant;

(2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of

due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production

and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend

to unreasonably delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is

not intended as a general “fishing expedition.” See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,

699-700 (1974).

In United States v. La Rouche Campaign, 841 F.2d 1176, 1180 (1st Cir. 1988), the

First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s order requiring production of documents because

the defendant met the threshold showing of “admissibility, relevancy and specificity.”

See also, United States v. Poindexter, 732 F. Supp. 135, 138 (D.D.C. 1990) (court

ordered disclosure of former President Reagan’s diaries after in camera review to

determine relevancy).

The defendant’s motion provides all the threshold requirements necessary for the

issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum the motion seeks. The documents are evidentiary

and relevant, and they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by the


6

exercise of due diligence. Additionally, the defendant cannot properly prepare for the

upcoming trial without the advanced production and inspection of these documents and,

therefore, the failure to obtain the inspection may tend to unreasonably delay and prolong

the trial of this case.

It should be noted that the defendant is making a specific request for documentation

known to exist, which is specifically relevant to the issues involved in this case. The

requested documents will demonstrate quite clearly that other partners in the firm who

are listed on the subpoena engaged in the same billing practices and profited personally

outside of their practice of law at the firm, specifically the senior partners who managed

and controlled the firm. This application is made in good faith and is not intended as a

general fishing expedition. The request is solely that the court require these documents

be produced to counsel before the date of trial so that counsel will have a fair opportunity

to review the documents and prepare for an orderly and professionally prepared

presentation to the court and jury at the trial. Although counsel can subpoena the

requested documents at trial, without seeking the permission of the court to do so,

receiving the documents at that late date will unnecessarily lengthen the proceedings and

may require a continuance so that the parties can review the documents thoroughly.

Finally, it must be emphasized that the records sought by the subpoenas duces

tecum are not protected by the attorney-client privilege and that the parties receiving the

subpoenas would have no lawful basis to resist disclosure of the information sought. By

making claims against the defendant for over-billing, both Robert Guidry and Pinnacle

Entertainment, Inc. have waived their confidentiality protections. Furthermore, it is well-


7

settled that the identity of a client or matters involving the receipt of fees from a client are

normally not within the attorney-client privilege. See, In re Grand Jury Proceedings

(Rabin), 896 F.2d 1267 (11th

Cir. 1990); In re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (MIA), 899

F.2d 1039 (11th

Cir. 1990); United States v. Leventhal, 961 F.2d 936 (11th

Cir. 1992).

The only know exception to this rule is the so-called “last link” doctrine, which applies

only where disclosure may be the link that could form the chain of testimony necessary to

convict that client of a federal crime. In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Slaughter, 694 F.2d

1258 (11th

Cir. 1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (MIA), supra. The doctrine

does not apply where the client is already known (and has already produced documents to

the government) or unless there is a basis for believing that the disclosure of the

information would be incriminating to the client. See, In re Grand Jury Proceedings

(Rabin), supra. Clearly these criteria do not apply here and, therefore, the materials

sought by these subpoenas are not privileged.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully moves the court to order the

issuance of the requested Rule 17(c) subpoenas and set a return date of November 7,

2008 at 10:00 a.m. for the return of the documents requested therein and for such other

relief as may be proper in the premises.

WESSEL & ASSOCIATES

A LAW CORPORATION



8

WILLIAM F. WESSEL (#8551) 127 Camp St.


Telephone (504) 568-1112

Facsimile (504) 568-1208

and

/s/ Charles F. Griffin

CHARLES GRIFFIN, ESQ.

(#06318) 802 S. Carrollton Avenue

New Orleans, Louisiana 70118

Telephone (504) 866-4046

Facsimile (504) 866-5633

ATTORNEYS FOR

DEFENDANT

JAMES PERDIGAO

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2008 I electronically filed the above and

foregoing pleading with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send

a notice of electronic filing to counsel registered with the court for receipt of pleadings by

e-mail. I also certify that the foregoing and all attachments thereto have been served on

all counsel of record as well as upon Adams and Reese, L.L.P., Robert J. Guidry and

Pinnacle Entertainment, by facsimile, electronic mail and/or by depositing same in the

United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid, this 25th day of September,

2008.


WILLIAM F. WESSEL (8551)


AO 89 (Rev. 7/95) Subpoena in a Criminal Case

United States District Court


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

SUBPOENA IN A CRIMINAL CASE

JAMES G. PERDIGAO

CASE NUMBER: 07-103 “L”(5)

TO: Adams and Reese, L.L.P.

Attn: Records Custodian

4500 One Shell Square


⌧ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date and time specified below,

or any subsequent place, date and time set by the court, testify in the above referenced case. This subpoena shall

remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court.

Place

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130

COURTROOM

C468

Judge Edon E. Fallon, Section “L”

DATE AND TIME :

November 7, 2008,

10:00 a.m.

⌧ YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s):

See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE OR CLERK OF COURT

DATE

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK

ATTORNEY’S NAME , ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER: William F. Wessel Wessel & Associates 127 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, 504-568-1112



PROOF OF SERVICE

RECEIVED

DATE

PLACE

BY SERVER

DATE PLACE

SERVED SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) FEES AND MILEAGE TENDERED TO WITNESS

� YES � NO AMOUNT $

_______________ SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)

TITLE

DECLARATION OF SERVER

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that are foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct.

Executed on _________________ __________________________________________

Date

Signature of Server

Address of Server

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


1

EXHIBIT A

Instructions and Definitions

1) The term “Firm” shall refer to Adams and Reese, L.L.P.

2) The term “document” shall mean the original and every non-identical copy of

any written, printed, non-printed, typed, photocopied, photographic, reproduced, and

graphic matter of any kind or character in your possession, under your control, or known

by you to exist, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any recorded

or stored information, however produced or reproduced, including drafts, affidavits,

agreements, contracts, diaries, calendars, notes, lists, desk pads, correspondence,

memoranda (whether internal or external), studies, reports, books, communications,

interim or preliminary drafts, journals and journal entries, ledgers and ledger entries,

entries in books of account, minutes and minute entries, printouts, records of meetings,

telephone and other conferences, conversations, statements, telegraphs, telexes, teletypes,

and work papers, printed copies of electronic mail, and information electronically stored

in computers and other data storage or processing equipment, and in magnetic and optical

and other electronic media, microfilm and microfiche, and every other medium from

which the information can be retrieved or printed or reduced to readable form through

proper programming, decoding, or processing, together with necessary instructions for

understanding, using, or reproducing same. The term “document” includes originals and

all non-identical copies of documents containing notes, notations, comments,

observations, remarks, underscoring, encircling, marks made for emphasis, highlighting

or attention.

3) The term “internal accounting records” shall mean invoices and other Firm

documents which relate to, record, describe or set forth statistics by client; matter lists;

client summaries; statistics by matter; trust account activity; matter details; matter

summaries; invoice summaries; invoice time details; invoice cost details; invoice ledger

details; life to date: hours worked, hours written down/up, worked amounts, amounts

billed (original value), amounts billed (actual value), realization ratios, fees received,

costs written down/up, and total fees received; total accounts receivable (including

accounts receivable fees, accounts receivable costs, other accounts receivable, and

accounts receivable unallocated); total write-offs (including fees written off, costs written

off, and other write-offs), and total unbilled (including unbilled hours, unbilled fees, and

unbilled costs).

4) Unless otherwise stated, the time period covered by the request is January 1,

1991 through September 30, 2004.


2

Document Requests

1) All internal accounting records for all matters in which Robert A. Vosbein, Sam

A. LeBlanc, Louis A. Wilson, Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Robert E. Couhig, Marc H. Morial,

Cheryl Teamer, Tim Coulon, Charles P. Adams, Jr., B. Jeffrey Brooks, Edwin C. Laizer,

Thomas G. O’Brien, Mark J. Spansel, or Martin A. Stern are designated as either the

Originating Timekeeper, Billing Timekeeper, or Supervising Timekeeper.

2) All internal accounting records relating to Client #33 (Robert J. Guidry, Harvey

Gulf International Marine, Inc.).

3) All internal accounting records relating to Client #6517 (Optimum E&P Waste

Solutions).

4) All documents and internal accounting records relating to any invoice billed on

the basis of hours worked in which a timekeeper receives a pro-ration of the collections

on such invoice which exceeds the amount worked by such timekeeper.

5) All documents and internal accounting records which relate to any invoice on

any matter which contains time entries for any timekeeper who did not actually spend the

time reflected on the invoice or which is commonly referred to as “ghost hours.”

a) All document which relate to the client’s agreement to such billing

practice on such matter.


any matter which contains one or more time entries for any timekeeper that such

timekeeper did not actually work.

a) All documents which relate to the client’s agreement to such billing



any matter in which the average billed rate for any timekeeper exceeds $1,000/hour.

a) All documents which relate to the client’s agreement to such billed rate

on such matter.


any matter which contains a dummy time entry.




3

9) All documents and internal accounting records which relate to any dummy

invoice on any matter.

10) All documents and internal accounting records which relate to any hourly fee

invoice on any matter which has a realization ratio in excess of 150%.



11) All documents and internal accounting records which relate to any timekeeper

with a realization ratio in excess of 150% on a monthly or yearly basis.

12) All checks drawn on any Firm trust account payable to any Firm attorney and

all documents and internal accounting records relating to such checks.

13) All checks drawn on any Firm trust account payable to any entity affiliated with

a Firm attorney or of which a Firm attorney is an agent and all documents and internal

accounting records relating to such checks.

14) All documents responsive to a federal grand jury subpoena received by the Firm

in May 2004 (seeking all records of payments, including but not limited to billing

records, for clients of Marc Morial) which were altered or modified by the Firm after

being served with said subpoena.

15) All documents which relate to traffic citations handled, received or for which

correspondence was issued by or through Firm attorney/Traffic Court Judge Ron Sholes

for Firm attorneys, employees and clients.

16) All documents which relate to traffic citations handled, received or for which

correspondence was issued by or through Firm attorney/Traffic Court Judge Pro Tempore

Donald C. Massey for Firm attorneys, employees and clients.

17) All documents which relate to Robert A. Vosbein’s participation in the

following entities or activities (including without limitation the written proposal to, and

prior approval of, the Managing Partner and any periodic disclosures of information

regarding his participation in such entities or activities):

a) Treasure Chest Casino, LLC

b) Wellstream Corp.

c) N.O. Associates Limited Partnership

d) James B. Lewis Oil Drilling Partnership

e) Offshore Gas Partners, L.C.

f) Prime Operating Drilling Partnership


4

g) Siegen Properties Limited Partnership

h) Silver Sands Offshore, LLC

i) Silver Sands-WC78, LLC

j) Silver Sands-Ship Shoal LLC

k) Silver Sands-High Island 198 LLC

l) Silver Sands-Sabine Pass LLC

m) Silver Sands-West Cameron 151 LLC

n) Silver Sands-Horelica LLC

o) Silver Sands-AGIP LLC

p) Silver Sands-West Cameron, LLC

q) Silver Sands-Mississippi LLC

r) VIP Ventures LLC

s) Silver Sands Oil Properties, L.L.C.

t) Cypress Park Townhomes

18) All documents which relate to Robert E. Couhig’s participation in the following

entities or activities (including without limitation the written proposal to, and prior

approval of, the Managing Partner and any periodic disclosures of information regarding

his participation in such entities or activities):

a) New Orleans Zephyrs Investment Group, LLC

b) New Orleans Zephyrs Management Company, Inc.

c) New Orleans Zephyrs Lease Company, LLC

d) Zephyrs Specialties, Inc.

e) Zephyrs Products, Inc.

f) Airline Place Catering Company, LLC

g) Airline Place Management Company, LLC

h) Louisiana Hockey Interests, LLC

i) N.O. Soccer Club, LLC

j) South Street Properties

k) VFI, a Louisiana partnership

l) Earl L’s, LLC

m) Couhig Services, LLC

n) Ramware Investment, LLC

o) Cityart, LLC

19) All documents which relate to Thomas G. O’Brien’s participation in the




a) Silver Sands Oil Properties, LLC.


5

20) All documents which relate to Sam A. LeBlanc III’s participation in the




a) Gulf Gaming Equipment, Inc.

b) VFI, a Louisiana partnership

c) Happy Shrimp Company, Inc.

d) Georgetown Management and Consulting, Inc.

21) All documents which relate to Louis A. Wilson’s participation in the following




a) Treasure Chest Casino, LLC

b) Gulf Gaming Equipment, Inc.

c) Happy Shrimp Company, Inc.

22) All documents which relate to Daniel K. Rester’s participation in the following




a) Air-Ten, Inc.

b) Magnum Energy Services, Inc.

c) Cinco de Mayo, Inc.

d) The Last Chapter, Inc.

23) All documents which relate to Donald C. Massey’s participation in the




a) DCM Holding, LLC

b) Secretarycentral.com, LLC

24) All documents which relate to Ronald J. Sholes’ participation in the following




a) LEESIMS, LLC

b) Ionique Records, Inc.


6

25) All documents which relate to the written proposal to, and prior approval of, the

Managing Partner, submitted by any Firm attorney to serve as a director or officer of any

entity.

26) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney serving as a director or officer

of any entity who did not submit a written proposal to, or obtain prior approval of, the

Managing Partner.


Managing Partner, submitted by any Firm attorney to serve as a fiduciary (including but

not limited to the position of administrator, executor, trustee, tutor, guardian, agent for

service of process, or similar agent or advisor).

28) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney serving as a fiduciary

(including but not limited to the position of administrator, executor, trustee, tutor,

guardian, agent for service of process, or similar agent or advisor) who did not submit a

written proposal to, or obtain prior approval of, the Managing Partner.


Managing Partner and any periodic disclosures of information, submitted by any Firm

attorney to engage in any business or entrepreneurial activity (including any effort to

make money outside of his or her practice of law at the Firm).

30) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney engaging in any business or

entrepreneurial activity (including any effort to make money outside of his or her practice

of law at the Firm) who did not submit a written proposal to, or obtain prior approval of,

the Managing Partner.

31) All documents which relate to the written proposal to, and prior approval of,

both the Chair of the Firm’s Ethics Committee and the Managing Partner submitted by

any Firm attorney to engage in any business transaction with a client (other than everyday

consumer transactions).

32) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney engaging in any business

transaction with a client (other than everyday consumer transactions) who did not submit

a written proposal to, or obtain prior approval of, both the Chair of the Firm’s Ethics

Committee and the Managing Partner.

33) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney soliciting investors to purchase

state film tax credits from Incentive Partners of America (or its predecessor Louisiana

Capital One).


7

34) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney’s investment in New Orleans

Zephyrs Investment Group, LLC.

35) All documents which relate to any Firm attorney soliciting investors for a

client’s interest.






V.


JAMES G. PERDIGAO


TO: Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.


3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1800

Las Vegas, NV 89169




Place



COURTROOM

C468


DATE AND TIME :

November 7, 2008,

10:00 a.m.


All invoices from Adams and Reese, L.L.P. to Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and/or any of its subsidiaries and all documents and records relating to payment of such invoices from January 1, 1991 through September 30, 2004. See also Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.


DATE

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK




PROOF OF SERVICE

RECEIVED

DATE

PLACE

BY SERVER

DATE PLACE




TITLE



Executed on _________________ __________________________________________

Date

Signature of Server

Address of Server







V.


JAMES G. PERDIGAO

CASE NUMBER: 07-103 “L”(5) TO: Robert Guidry

Harvey Gulf International Marine, Inc.

1901 Manhattan Blvd, Building H

Suite 200

Harvey, LA 70058




Place



COURTROOM

C468


DATE AND TIME :

November 7, 2008,

10:00 a.m.


All invoices from Adams and Reese, L.L.P. to Robert J. Guidry and/or Harvey Gulf International Marine, Inc. and all documents and records relating to payment of such invoices from January 1, 1991 through September 30, 2004. See also Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.


DATE

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK




PROOF OF SERVICE

RECEIVED

DATE

PLACE

BY SERVER

DATE PLACE




TITLE



Executed on _________________ __________________________________________

Date

Signature of Server

Address of Server







V.


JAMES G. PERDIGAO

CASE NUMBER: 07-103 “L”(5) TO: Robert Guidry

Harvey Gulf International Marine, Inc.

1901 Manhattan Blvd, Building H

Suite 200

Harvey, LA 70058




Place



COURTROOM

C468


DATE AND TIME :

November 7, 2008,

10:00 a.m.


All invoices from Adams and Reese, L.L.P. to Robert J. Guidry and/or Harvey Gulf International Marine, Inc. and all documents and records relating to payment of such invoices from January 1, 1991 through September 30, 2004. See also Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.


DATE

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK




PROOF OF SERVICE

RECEIVED

DATE

PLACE

BY SERVER

DATE PLACE




TITLE



Executed on _________________ __________________________________________

Date

Signature of Server

Address of Server







V.


JAMES G. PERDIGAO


TO: Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.


3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1800

Las Vegas, NV 89169




Place



COURTROOM

C468


DATE AND TIME :

November 7, 2008,

10:00 a.m.


All invoices from Adams and Reese, L.L.P. to Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and/or any of its subsidiaries and all documents and records relating to payment of such invoices from January 1, 1991 through September 30, 2004. See also Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.


DATE

(BY) DEPUTY CLERK




PROOF OF SERVICE

RECEIVED

DATE

PLACE

BY SERVER

DATE PLACE




TITLE



Executed on _________________ __________________________________________

Date

Signature of Server

Address of Server



MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES...

Documents

Transcript of MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES...