Weisel Ross Question

United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind, et al. Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW (D.D.C.)

EXHIBIT D

Declaration of Paul D. Scott in Support of Relator’s Motion to Compel Responses to Relator’s First Sets of Requests for Production of Documents

to Defendants Thomas Weisel and Ross Investments, Inc.

Case 1:10-cv-00976-RLW Document 160-6 Filed 04/09/14 of 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. FLOYD LANDIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAILWIND SPORTS CORPORATION, et al.

Defendants.

)) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

DEFENDANT ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

TO RELATOR’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC.

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local

Civil Rule 26.2 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

Defendant Ross Investments, Inc. (“Ross Investments”) hereby serves its responses and

objections to Relator’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Ross

Investments, Inc., dated December 22, 2013 (the “Requests”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Relator’s Second Amended Complaint for Violations of Federal False Claims Act

(Dkt. No. 42) is devoid of factual allegations connecting Ross Investments to the subject matter

of this action. Nevertheless, Relator has served on Ross Investments 94 requests for the

production of documents. These 94 requests are virtually identical to the 95 requests for the

production of documents that Relator served on defendant Thomas W. Weisel. As set forth in

Defendant Thomas W. Weisel’s Responses and Objections to Relator’s First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents to Defendant Thomas Weisel, served simultaneously herewith,

Mr. Weisel has agreed to produce, after entry of a suitable confidentiality order and at a date and

time mutually agreeable to Relator and Mr. Weisel, all of the documents that Mr. Weisel


-2-

produced to the U.S. Department of Justice in response to the subpoena duces tecum served on

him by the U.S. Postal Service Office of the Inspector General, dated November 4, 2010. Those

documents, which total nearly 136,000 pages, were produced after Mr. Weisel and/or his

attorneys conducted a reasonable search for documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum.

Documents concerning Ross Investments in connection with the subject matter of this action, if

any, are included within those documents. As set forth below in response to specific Requests,

Ross Investments will produce additional relevant, non-objectionable, non-privileged documents

that are responsive to the Requests and that are within Ross Investments’ possession, custody, or

control, should any such documents or information be located after a reasonable search.

2. Ross Investments’ general objections (“General Objections”) to the Requests are

set forth below. The General Objections shall be deemed continuing and, to avoid the necessity

of restating in full each objection, the General Objections are incorporated in full within each

response where applicable as if fully set forth in such response. The assertion of additional,

specific objections to certain Requests shall not be construed as a waiver of any applicable

General Objection to such Requests.

3. The following responses (“Responses”) are based on Ross Investments’

knowledge, information, and belief at this time, and are complete to the best of Ross

Investments’ knowledge at this time. Furthermore, these Responses were prepared based on

Ross Investments’ good faith interpretation and understanding of the Requests and are subject to

correction for inadvertent errors or omissions, if any.

4. Ross Investments’ General Objections and any specific objection to the Requests

do not concede the admissibility, relevancy, originality, truth, accuracy, completeness, or

authenticity of any document produced by him. Ross Investments reserves the right to challenge


-3-

the relevancy, competency, materiality, authenticity and admissibility of the information

provided by him. Moreover, Ross Investments reserves the right to supplement or amend the

Responses at any time prior to trial or as otherwise permitted by applicable law, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure or the rules of this Court, but, except as provided in Rule 26(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ross Investments assumes no obligation to voluntarily

supplement or amend the Responses to reflect information, evidence, documents, or things

discovered following service of these Responses.

5. Ross Investments’ Responses to each and every Request are without waiver or

limitation of its right to object on grounds of competency, relevancy, privilege, materiality,

confidentiality, authenticity, or admissibility of evidence for any purpose, or any other ground

for objection to the use of any information or documents provided or referred to in these

Responses, in discovery or in any proceeding, or at a trial of this or any other action. Ross

Investments’ Responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, and for no other purpose,

and are provided subject to that limitation.

6. To the extent that any Request seeks documents that are also sought by or

identified pursuant to any other Request, Ross Investments declines to produce or identify

multiple copies of such documents. Each document produced or identified pursuant to any

Request is also produced pursuant to every other Request to which it is or may be responsive.

Any and all documents will be produced at a mutually agreeable date and time only after

sufficient time to conduct a reasonable search and inquiry.

7. Ross Investments’ Response to a particular Request to produce documents or

provide information is not an admission that any such documents or information exist. Where

Ross Investments undertakes to conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents, Ross


-4-

Investments represents only that it will produce – subject to all objections raised herein or

hereafter – relevant, non-objectionable, non-privileged documents that are responsive to the

Requests and that are within Ross Investments’ possession, custody, or control, should any such

documents or information be located after a reasonable search.

8. Ross Investments provides these Responses subject to all appropriate objections

that may be made later in this action, including, but not limited to, objections concerning

competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, which would require the

exclusion of any information, document, or thing produced in response to the Requests. Ross

Investments reserves the right to interpose any such objection at the time of a later deposition,

hearing, or trial.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Ross Investments objects to the Requests and the Definitions and Instructions to

the extent that they seek to impose any obligation on Ross Investments exceeding those imposed

by applicable law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the rules of this Court. Ross

Investments will construe and respond to the Requests in accordance with its obligations under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of this Court.

2. Ross Investments objects to each and every Request on the ground and to the

extent that it seeks documents and information that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3. Ross Investments objects to each and every Request on the ground and to the

extent that it assumes facts that are not in evidence or are subject to dispute. Ross Investments’

response to any such Request is not intended to be construed, and shall not be construed, to

reflect its agreement to any such assumed fact or facts.


-5-

4. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek documents

or information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product

doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity. By producing documents and information in

response to these Requests, Ross Investments neither intends to waive nor shall be deemed to

have waived the attorney-client privilege, the protections of the attorney work product doctrine,

or any other applicable privilege or immunity.

5. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, or unreasonably duplicative, and to the extent that

they seek documents or information not relevant to Relator’s claims in this action.

6. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they are unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative.

7. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek private,

privileged, and confidential commercial, financial, and/or proprietary business information.

Documents containing any such information will only be produced subject to the protections of a

suitable confidentiality order.

8. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require

anything beyond a reasonable search for documents, including to the extent that they seek the

production of documents maintained on backup tapes or similar archived media, or in other

locations that are not readily accessible, on the ground that it would be unduly burdensome for

Ross Investments to search for and produce such documents. In responding to the Requests,

Ross Investments will search – to the extent it has not already done so – its files covering a

reasonable time period and, where appropriate, using reasonable search terms.


-6-

9. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information

or documents already in the possession of Relator or to which Relator has or had access.

10. Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek the

production of documents that are not currently within its possession, custody, or control.

Without limiting the foregoing objection, Ross Investments objects to the Requests to the extent

that they seek documents in the possession, custody, or control of its attorneys, advisors, agents,

representatives, employees, or other person or entities acting on its behalf or under its control.

11. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “COMMUNICATION” on

the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the

Requests unduly burdensome. Ross Investments further objects to the extent that the definition

purports to impose obligations on Ross Investments that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court.

12. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “CSE” on the grounds that

it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly

burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands that the term

“CSE” refers to Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and any d/b/a thereof.

13. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “DOCUMENT” to the

extent that the definition is overly broad, would make compliance with the Requests unduly

burdensome, and purports to require the production of documents or information neither relevant

to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Ross Investments will interpret the word “DOCUMENT” in a manner

consistent with Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ordinary

meaning of the term.


-7-

14. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “DOPING” on the grounds

that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests

unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands that the

term “DOPING” refers to the use of prohibited substances or prohibited methods to increase

performance in bicycle racing.

15. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “IDENTIFY” to the extent

that it purports to impose obligations on him that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court.

16. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “ROSS INVESTMENTS,

INC.” on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance

with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments

understands that the term “ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC.” refers to Thomas Weisel Investment

Management, Inc., Ross Investments, Inc., and any d/b/a thereof.

17. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “TAILWIND” on the

grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the

Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands

that the term “TAILWIND” refers to Montgomery Sports, Inc.; TWP Sports, Inc.; Tailwind

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

Furst and Partners, LLC; Disson Furst & Partners, LLC; DFP Cycling, LLC; Tailwind Cycling,

LLC; and any d/b/a thereof.

18. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “THOMAS WEISEL

PARTNERS” on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make

compliance with the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross


-8-

Investments understands that the term “THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS” refers to Thomas

Weisel Partners, LLP; Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC; Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.;

Thomas Weisel Global Growth Partners; Thomas Weisel Capital Partners; Tailwind Capital; and

Tailwind Capital Partners; and any d/b/a thereof.

19. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “UCI” on the grounds that it

is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests unduly

burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands that the term

“UCI” refers to the Union Cycliste Internationale.

20. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “U.S. INVESTIGATION”

on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with

the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments

understands that the term U.S. INVESTIGATION refers to the investigation of Relator’s claims

and allegations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal Service Office of the

Inspector General during the 2010 to 2013 period and the investigation of Lance Armstrong by

the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California during the 2010 to 2012 period.

21. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “USADA” on the grounds

that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the Requests


term “USADA” refers to the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

22. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “U.S. POSTAL SERVICE”

on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with

the Requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments

understands that the term “U.S. POSTAL SERVICE” refers to the United States Postal Service.


-9-

23. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “USPS TEAM” on the

grounds that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these

requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands

that the term “USPS TEAM” refers to the cycling team that was sponsored by the U.S. Postal

Service pursuant to the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS during the 1995 to 2004 period.

24. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the term “WADA” on the grounds

that it is overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these requests


term “WADA” refers to the World Anti-Doping Agency.

25. Ross Investments objects to the definition of the terms “YOU/YOUR” on the

grounds that they are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with the

requests unduly burdensome. For purposes of these Responses, Ross Investments understands

that the terms “YOU/YOUR” refer to defendant Ross Investments, Inc.

26. Ross Investments objects to Instruction No. 1 to the extent that it purports to

impose obligations on him that are not required under Rules 26 or 34 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court. Particularly, Ross

Investments objects to Instruction No. 1 to the extent that it calls for the production of documents

that are not within its possession, custody, or control.



Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court.

28. Ross Investments objects to Instruction No. 5 to the extent that it requires him to

prepare and provide a privilege log containing information that differs from, adds to, or is


-10-

otherwise inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the rules

of this Court.



Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rule 26.2 of the rules of this Court.

30. Ross Investments objects to Instruction No. 9 on the grounds that it is overly

broad, vague, and ambiguous, and would make compliance with these Requests unduly

burdensome.

31. Ross Investments objects to Instruction No. 10 to the extent that it does not

include a reasonable time limitation and seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


impose an obligation on him that is not required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or

the rules of this Court.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

In addition to the General Objections stated above, which are all hereby

incorporated into each and every response and objection set forth below, Ross Investments

responds and objects to the specific Requests as follows:

REQUEST NO. 1:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, including, but not limited to, any DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in response to any subpoena or other request for DOCUMENTS, in the same format as provided to the United States, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.


-11-

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:

In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Ross Investments states that it

has not provided any documents in response to the U.S. INVESTIGATION.

REQUEST NO. 2:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to USADA RELATING TO the USADA INVESTIGATION, in the same format as provided to USADA, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.


Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, Ross

Investments states that it has not provided any documents to USADA relating to the USADA

Investigation.

REQUEST NO. 3:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided to UCI RELATING TO any investigation or inquiry by UCI, in the same format as provided to UCI, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.



Investments states that it has not provided any documents to the UCI in connection with any

investigation or inquiry by the UCI.

REQUEST NO. 4:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU have provided in connection with any investigation or inquiry into DOPING by any entity or person – other than the United States, USADA, or UCI – in the same format as provided to such entity or person, and with the same Bates numbering or any other numbering, if applicable.


-12-


In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Ross Investments states that it

has not provided any documents to any entity or person in connection with such entity or

person’s investigation or inquiry into doping.

REQUEST NO. 5:

ALL of your responses to discovery in any civil or administrative proceeding RELATING TO allegations of DOPING by Armstrong or the USPS TEAM.



Investments states that it has not provided any responses to any discovery in any civil or

administrative proceeding relating to allegations of doping by Armstrong or the USPS Team.

REQUEST NO. 6:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any inquiry or investigation RELATING TO Lance Armstrong or the USPS TEAM by the United States, USADA, USA Cycling or UCI.


In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Ross Investments objects to this

Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome,

particularly insofar as it fails to define the terms “inquiry” or “investigation” and seeks

communications relating to any inquiry or investigation of the USPS Team (regardless whether

such inquiry or investigation concerned doping) as such communications are neither relevant to

the claims or defenses of any party to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Ross Investments further objects to this Request to the extent


-13-

that it seeks the production of documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other privilege or immunity.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ross Investments will

produce, after entry of a suitable confidentiality order and at a mutually agreeable date and time,

non-privileged documents, if any, that are responsive to this Request, concern the subject matter

of this action, were not already produced by Mr. Weisel and that Ross Investments is able to

locate after a reasonable search.

REQUEST NO. 7:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any other person or entity RELATING TO any investigation of DOPING in cycling, including, but not limited to, the following: the U.S. INVESTIGATION; the USADA INVESTIGATION; any investigation or inquiry associated with the UCI or any related commission or organization; the French investigation into the use of Actovegin by the USPS Team in 2000; the Italian criminal investigation into Michelle Ferrari; the investigation into L’Equipe’s allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France; the Festina affair in 1998; and Operation Puerto in 2006.




particularly insofar as it fails to define the terms “inquiry” or “investigation” and seeks

information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this action nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ross Investments further

objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents protected from

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other

privilege or immunity.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Ross Investments states

that he has not provided any documents to any entity or person in connection with such entity or


-14-

person’s investigation or inquiry into doping. Ross Investments will produce, after entry of a

suitable confidentiality order and at a mutually agreeable date and time, non-privileged

documents, if any, that are responsive to this Request, concern the subject matter of this action,

were not already produced by Mr. Weisel and that Ross Investments is able to locate after a

reasonable search.

REQUEST NO. 8:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any person or entity RELATING TO any allegations in books, news articles or other media outlets regarding DOPING by Lance Armstrong or the USPS Team.




particularly insofar as it seeks the production of documents that are neither relevant to the claims

or defenses of any party to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Ross Investments further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks

the production of documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege,

the attorney work product doctrine or any other privilege or immunity.






REQUEST NO. 9:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, DOPING, or this case.


-15-



Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly insofar as it

fails to define “this case” and seeks the production of all documents relating to “DOPING”

(regardless whether they concern the USPS TEAM or even bicycle racing). Ross Investments

further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents protected

from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other







REQUEST NO. 10:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS or DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any alleged failure by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM to comply with testing for DOPING or evading testing for DOPING.



Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.





-16-



REQUEST NO. 11:

ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO denials of DOPING by TAILWIND, the USPS TEAM or any of the riders on the team.









REQUEST NO. 12:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any positive, potentially positive, or abnormal test results for DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM.








-17-



REQUEST NO. 13:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS preserved on an audio or video recording, in which any part of the COMMUNICATION relates to DOPING.



Investments states that it does not have any documents responsive to Request No. 13 within its

possession, custody, or control.

REQUEST NO. 14:

ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of any type between YOU, or any entity controlled by YOU, and any of the other DEFENDANTS.



Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks the production of

documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this action nor

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.







-18-

REQUEST NO. 15:

ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between Lance Armstrong and any entity other than TAILWIND which operated a cycling team.






objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of documents not within its







REQUEST NO. 16:

ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS, which referred to or RELATED TO the USPS Team, Lance Armstrong or cycling, between any person or entity who was a sponsor of the USPS TEAM and any of the following: TAILWIND, ANY OF THE CSE RELATED ENTITIES, Tailwind Capital Partners, Thomas Weisel Partners, YOU, Livestrong, Thomas Weisel, Johan Bruyneel, William Stapleton or Bart Knaggs.



Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome and

seeks the production of documents that are neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party

to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


-19-






REQUEST NO. 17:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrong’s rider contracts with TAILWIND.













REQUEST NO. 18:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including, but not limited to, all executed copies, drafts, amendments, novations, modifications, extensions, exhibits thereto, and any correspondence or other COMMUNICATIONS relating thereto.


-20-













REQUEST NO. 19:

ALL of TAILWIND’s WRITTEN CONTRACTS with any entities other than the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE RELATING TO sponsorship of the USPS TEAM, including, but not limited to, executed copies of such agreements.











-21-




REQUEST NO. 20:

ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS of TAILWIND, or any rider on the USPS TEAM, or any sponsor of the USPS TEAM which contain a morals clause or a reference to DOPING, including, but not limited do, any sponsorship or promotion agreements.





to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ross

Investments further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of

documents not within its possession, custody, or control.






REQUEST NO. 21:

ALL WRITTEN CONTRACTS between TAILWIND and its riders.






-22-









REQUEST NO. 22:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING to any cancellations of, or any other changes to, any sponsor agreement RELATING TO DOPING by Lance Armstrong or DOPING by any other rider for TAILWIND.














-23-

REQUEST NO. 23:

ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO claims for payment to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS.













REQUEST NO. 24:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TAILWIND’s receipt of payments from the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS.









-24-






REQUEST NO. 25:

ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, articles of organization, amended articles of organization, operating agreements, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of TAILWIND from 1987 through December 31, 2007.





reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Request seeks

documents from a 17-and-one-half-year period (1987 to June 2004) that is outside of the statute

of limitations applicable to Relator’s claims (and from a 13-and-one-half-year period (1987 to

June 2000) that is outside the statute of limitations applicable even to the United States’ claims

against defendants other than Ross Investments). Ross Investments further objects to this

Request on the ground that it seeks the production of documents not within its possession,

custody, or control.







-25-

REQUEST NO. 26:

ALL filings with any state government entity or the Securities and Exchange Commission by TAILWIND from 1987 through the present.

















REQUEST NO. 27:

The DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of TAILWIND’s shares to its shareholders or partners.





-26-



Investments also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks the production of documents

not within its possession, custody, or control.






REQUEST NO. 28:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to YOU.














-27-

REQUEST NO. 29:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the sale of TAILWIND shares to Thomas Weisel, Lance Armstrong, William Stapleton, Bart Knaggs, or CSE.













REQUEST NO. 30:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the ownership interests in TAILWIND from 1987 through the date of its dissolution.









-28-










REQUEST NO. 31:

DOCUMENTS that show the officers, directors, employees and agents of TAILWIND from 1987 through the present.















-29-




REQUEST NO. 32:

ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS held by any shareholder, officer, director, employee or agent of TAILWIND, from January 1, 1999 through the present.








REQUEST NO. 33:

ALL DOCUMENTS that show the ownership interests in Montgomery Securities held by any shareholder, officer, director or employee of TAILWIND, from 1987 through the date Montgomery Securities ceased to exist.





reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Relator alleges in his

complaint that Montgomery Securities ceased to exist at the latest in 1999 (Dkt. No. 42, ¶ 7);

accordingly, any documents responsive to this Request concern a time period that is outside of


-30-

any applicable statute of limitations. Ross Investments further objects to this Request on the

ground that it seeks the production of documents not within its possession, custody, or control.






REQUEST NO. 34:

ALL board minutes of TAILWIND from January 1, 1987 through December 31, 2007.
















-31-



REQUEST NO. 35:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing what the assets of Tailwind Sports Corporation were upon its dissolution and how such assets were distributed.













REQUEST NO. 36:

ALL annual or other periodic financial statements (including balance sheets and profit and loss statements) for TAILWIND from 1995 through the present.







-32-

documents from a nine-and-one-half-year period (1995 to June 2004) that is outside of the statute

of limitations applicable to Relator’s claims (and from a five-and-one-half-year period (1995 to










REQUEST NO. 37:

ALL Private Placement Memoranda issued by TAILWIND from 1995 through the present.













-33-






REQUEST NO. 38:

TAILWIND’s federal and state income tax returns from 1995 through the present.











custody, or control. Moreover, Ross Investments objects to this Request to the extent that it

seeks information that would constitute an invasion of the informational and autonomy rights to

privacy protected by Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and as articulated by the

California Supreme Court in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994).





-34-



REQUEST NO. 39:

The General Ledger(s) or any other accounting records showing the funds flowing into and out of TAILWIND from 1995 through 2007.










Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly the phrase “showing the funds

flowing into and out of.” Ross Investments also objects to this Request on the ground that it

seeks the production of documents not within its possession, custody, or control.






REQUEST NO. 40:

ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING to the capitalization or undercapitalization of TAILWIND.


-35-






objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous insofar as the terms

“capitalization” and “undercapitalization” are undefined. Ross Investments also objects to this








REQUEST NO. 41:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the dissolution of TAILWIND and the distribution of its assets to shareholders.









-36-






REQUEST NO. 42:

ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. by Montgomery Securities to Thomas Weisel or any entity affiliated with Thomas Weisel.











REQUEST NO. 43:

ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the sale of stock of Montgomery Sports, Inc. to Tailwind Sports, LLC.






-37-









REQUEST NO. 44:

ALL DOCUMENTS used to accomplish the merger of Tailwind Sports, LLC into Tailwind Sports Corporation.














-38-

REQUEST NO. 45:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments by others (including, but not limited to, Thomas Weisel) for the debts or expenses or any other obligation of TAILWIND.






Investments further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not

within its possession, custody, or control.






REQUEST NO. 46:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO diversion of TAILWIND’s funds or assets to non-corporate uses, including but not limited to the following: payments for non-business related expenses to shareholders, officers, directors, employees or their families or any business entities in which they held an interest.







-39-








REQUEST NO. 47:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel, or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to YOU, Johan Bruyneel, to Lance Armstrong, or to any other rider on the USPS TEAM.














-40-

REQUEST NO. 48:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any loans by YOU, Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to TAILWIND, Johan Bruyneel, Lance Armstrong, or any rider on the USPS TEAM.











REQUEST NO. 49:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing any payments or transfers of funds from Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS, or any account controlled in whole or in part by Thomas Weisel, to TAILWIND.









-41-




REQUEST NO. 50:

ANY DOCUMENTS showing the location of TAILWIND’s office space between 1995 and 2007, including but not limited to any space occupied by TAILWIND in the offices of Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners.


















-42-

REQUEST NO. 51:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of and/or the price paid for any office space occupied by TAILWIND at Montgomery Securities or Thomas Weisel Partners, including, but not limited to, any lease documents or other DOCUMENTS which show the rental rates for such space from one year prior to the date that TAILWIND occupied the space to one year after TAILWIND vacated the space.













REQUEST NO. 52:

ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS or Robert W. Baird by Hein Verbruggen, by any entity owned or controlled by Hein Verbruggen, or by any relative of Hein Verbruggen.







-43-

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not within its possession,










REQUEST NO. 53:

ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any funds managed by or deposited with THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS for the benefit of any individual currently or formerly affiliated with UCI or USA CYCLING (or for any entity which such individual owns or controls).












-44-






REQUEST NO. 54:

ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO payments by Thomas Weisel or THOMAS WEISEL PARTNERS to the UCI OR any person affiliated with the UCI.













REQUEST NO. 55:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Thomas Weisel’s change in position from President to Chairman of TAILWIND.


-45-













REQUEST NO. 56:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, William Stapleton or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND.












-46-



REQUEST NO. 57:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the transaction or decision by which CSE, William Stapleton or Bart Knaggs took on management responsibilities at TAILWIND.













REQUEST NO. 58:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any DEFENDANT’s involvement in the submission of claims for payment to, or the receipt of payments from, the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.






-47-









REQUEST NO. 59:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether claims for payments were copied to any DEFENDANT or showing they were otherwise made aware of any claim for payment submitted by TAILWIND to the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.














-48-

REQUEST NO. 60:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT received copies of the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS or was made aware of the terms thereof













REQUEST NO. 61:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was aware of any positive or inconclusive DOPING testing results by any rider on the USPS TEAM









-49-






REQUEST NO. 62:

ALL DOCUMENTS showing whether any DEFENDANT was copied on or was otherwise made aware of the terms of Lance Armstrong’s rider contract, or the rider contract of any rider on the USPS TEAM.













REQUEST NO. 63:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY DEFENDANT’S contention that the United States or the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE knew or should have known of DOPING on the USPS TEAM.


-50-













REQUEST NO. 64:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE response of the UNITED STATES to allegations of DOPING by Lance Armstrong or any other rider on the USPS TEAM.



request on the ground that it seeks the production of documents not within its possession,








-51-

REQUEST NO. 65:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the value of what the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE received under the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS, including but not limited to any valuations, audits, or marketing analyses.










REQUEST NO. 66:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the damages suffered by the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM.









-52-



REQUEST NO. 67:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contention that the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE was not damaged as a result of DOPING by the USPS TEAM, Lance Armstrong, or any other member of the USPS TEAM.










REQUEST NO. 68:

ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO Floyd Landis.






objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks the production of documents that are protected




-53-






REQUEST NO. 69:

ALL DOCUMENTS that contradict the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case.



Request on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome.






REQUEST NO. 70:

ALL DOCUMENTS upon which YOU rely to deny the allegations of the United States or the relator in their respective complaints against YOU in this case.






objects to this Request on the ground that discovery in this action has just commenced;


-54-

documents may be produced by other parties in this action that Ross Investments may rely on to

deny the allegations made by Relator in this action. Moreover, Ross Investments objects to this

Request on the ground that it incorrectly assumes that the United States has filed a complaint

against Ross Investments. Ross Investments is mentioned nowhere in the complaint filed in this

action by the United States.






REQUEST NO. 71:

ALL DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO this case.













-55-



REQUEST NO. 72:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO DOPING, the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case with any persons affiliated with the news media as well as any DOCUMENTS related thereto.











REQUEST NO. 73:

ALL DOCUMENTS that YOU may use to support any affirmative defenses YOU have against the allegations of the United States or the relator in this case.



Request on the ground that it is premature at this stage of the action, when the parties have just

begun discovery, when Ross Investments has not yet answered Relator’s Second Amended

Complaint, and when Ross Investments does not yet know which documents it may rely upon in

support of any affirmative defense in this action.


-56-






REQUEST NO. 74:

ALL privilege logs RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or any claims or litigation against YOU RELATING TO DOPING.



Investments states that it has never prepared or provided a privilege log relating to the

U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION or any claims or litigation against it

related to doping, of which there are none other than this action by Relator.

REQUEST NO. 75:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS relating to any investigation YOU have conducted relating to the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case, including, but not limited to, any video-taping, audio recording, or any other forms of surveillance or background investigation.










-57-






REQUEST NO. 76:

ALL DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO ANY statements, transcripts, declarations, interviews or summaries of interviews of any persons RELATING TO the U.S. INVESTIGATION, the USADA INVESTIGATION, or this case.















-58-

REQUEST NO. 77:

ALL contracts between YOU, on the one hand, and any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the other hand, including, but not limited to, any engagement letters, retainer agreements, or other agreements describing any services to be provided to YOU.











REQUEST NO. 78:

ALL DOCUMENTS that describe the nature of the services any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES have provided for YOU from 1995 through the present.





to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This

Request seeks documents from a nine-and-one-half-year period (1995 to June 2004) that is

outside of the statute of limitations applicable to Relator’s claims (and from a five-and-one-half-


-59-

year period (1995 to June 2000) that is outside the statute of limitations applicable even to the

United States’ claims against defendants other than Ross Investments).






REQUEST NO. 79:

ALL DOCUMENTS establishing or evidencing an attorney-client relationship between William Stapleton OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, AND Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present.
















-60-



REQUEST NO. 80:

ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing the lack of an attorney-client relationship between William Stapleton OR the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong, on the other, at any point between 1995 and the present.

















REQUEST NO. 81:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO William Stapleton’s authorization or lack of authorization to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present.


-61-

















REQUEST NO. 82:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Lance Armstrong’s knowledge or lack thereof that William Stapleton was inactive or unauthorized to practice law at any point between 1995 and the present.







-62-








REQUEST NO. 83:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO whether or not William Stapleton was acting as Lance Armstrong’s attorney.














-63-

REQUEST NO. 84:

ALL contracts between any of the CSE RELATED ENTITIES, on the one hand, and Lance Armstrong, on the other, including, but not limited to, any engagement letters, retainer agreements, or other agreements describing any services to be provided to Lance Armstrong.













REQUEST NO. 85:

ALL COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and ANY of the following people or entities:

a. Lance Armstrong b. Johan Bruyneel c. William Stapleton d. Bart Knaggs e. CSE f. the United States Postal Service or any current or former employee or agent of the United States Postal Service g. Mark Gorski h. Dan Osipow i. Jim Ochowicz j. Emma O’Reilly k. Geert Duffeleer


-64-

l. Laurenzo Lapage m. Edward ‘Eddie B’ Borysewicz n. Johnny Weltz o. Stephanie McIlvain p. Laura Hundley q. Dr. Pedro Celaya r. Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral s. Dr. Michele Ferrari t. Dr. Jose Aramendi u. Dr. Dag Van Elsland v. Dr. Eufemeniano Fuentes w. Dr. Herman Falsetti x. Jose “Pepe” Marti y. Philippe Maire z. Hein Verbruggen aa. Pat McQuaid bb. Emile Vrijman cc. Philippe Verbiest dd. Sylvia Shenk ee. Dr. Mario Zorzoli ff. Steve Johnson gg. Floyd Landis












-65-

REQUEST NO. 86:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO payments to Johan Bruyneel or to Johan Bruyneel Sports Management by TAILWIND or by any other DEFENDANT from 1999 through the present.













REQUEST NO. 87:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in your Initial Disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.








-66-

REQUEST NO. 88:

ALL DOCUMENTS YOU IDENTIFY in response to ANY interrogatories in this case.



Request on the ground that it is premature as Ross Investments has not responded to any

interrogatories in this action.

REQUEST NO. 89:

ALL articles of incorporation, amended articles of incorporation, bylaws, amended bylaws, and shareholder registers of ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC.






Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, after entry of a

suitable confidentiality order and at a mutually agreeable date and time, Ross Investments will

produce non-privileged documents, if any that are responsive to this Request, concern the subject

matter of this action and that Ross Investments is able to locate after a reasonable search.

REQUEST NO. 90:

ALL filings with the California Secretary of State, the Delaware Secretary of State, or the Securities and Exchange Commission by ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. from 1995 through the present.


-67-









against defendants other than Ross Investments).





REQUEST NO. 91:

ALL DOCUMENTS that show the officers, directors, employees and agents of ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. from the creation of the entity through the present (or through the dissolution of the entity, if applicable).









-68-

produce documents sufficient to show the officers, directors and employees of Ross Investments,

Inc. (n/k/a Thomas Weisel Investment Management, Inc.).

REQUEST NO. 92:

ALL DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the ownership interests in ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. from 1995 through the present.














REQUEST NO. 93:

ALL board minutes from 1995 through the present of ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC.






-69-










REQUEST NO. 94:

ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the transaction(s) by which ROSS INVESTMENTS, INC. acquired ANY stock of TAILWIND, including, but not limited to, the DOCUMENTS by which the acquisition of stock was accomplished.


In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Defendant objects to this Request

on the ground In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Ross Investments objects to this





-70-





Dated: January 24, 2014

/s/ Robert A. Sacks Robert A. Sacks (D.D.C. Bar No. MI0069) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-6600 Facsimile: (310) 712-8800

/s/ Brendan P. Cullen Brendan P. Cullen (admitted pro hac vice) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 461-5600 Facsimile: (650) 461-5700

/s/ Christopher M. Viapiano Christopher M. Viapiano (D.C. Bar No. 500771) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 Facsimile: (202) 956-7056 Attorneys for Defendants Thomas W. Weisel and Ross Investments, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Christopher M. Viapiano, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct

copy of the foregoing Defendant Ross Investments, Inc.’s Responses and Objections to

Relator’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Ross

Investments, Inc. to be served via e-mail on this 24th day of January 2014 on the

following counsel:

Paul D. Scott Lani Anne Remick Jon L. Praed LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-1212 Facsimile: (415) 981-1215 Counsel for Relator Floyd Landis Darrell C. Valdez Mercedeh Momeni U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-2834 Robert E. Chandler U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Fraud Section 601 D Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-4678 David M. Finkelstein U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Fraud Section 601 D. Street, N.W., Room 9605 Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel for Plaintiff United States of America

Marc S. HarrisVicki Kirkland SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (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. Keker Elliot R. Peters R. James Slaughter Sharif E. Jacob Tia Sherringham KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Robert D. Luskin PATTON BOGGS, LLP 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 457-6190 Facsimile: (202) 457-6315 Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong


-2-

Blair G. Brown Rachel Cotton ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1829 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 Counsel for Defendants Tailwind Sports Corporation and Tailwind Sports LLC

Thomas E. Zeno Rebecca A. Worthington SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 626-6600 Facsimile: (202) 626-6780 Counsel for Defendant Johan Bruyneel

/s/ Christopher M. Viapiano Christopher M. Viapiano


Weisel Ross Question

Documents

Transcript of Weisel Ross Question