Okay, I am good with going forward with his deposition now, that wasn’t the issue. What I saw was we were bringing up his trying to steal a contract from CSSS in the motion and I don’t recall that from Darnella’s deposition with Larry. So that is what I meant by showing our hand. Lisa N. Wolford CSSS.NET President & CEO SDVOSB, 8(a)/SDB & WOB 202-639-5101 DC Office 402-393-8059 ext 145 From: Kevin Duff [mailto:kduff@rddlaw.net] Lisa, Other than perhaps the fact that he switched sides in this case, which they clearly know about, Darnella already previewed the lines of inquiry that are the subject of the motion. However, an alternative path is to hold off on the motion and attempt to get Carver to show up for the completion of his deposition. I am comfortable with this approach if this is the consensus. If he shows, we can decide after that whether to move forward with a motion to compel him to answer the questions he refused to answer. One potential downside with that approach is that the Court may be reluctant to grant such a motion if it means he would need to appear for a third time to be deposed. On the other hand, he might agree to show up and may answer our questions without the need for the motion. If we pursue this path and he refuses to appear for the completion of his deposition, then we can proceed with the motion to compel. One issue that may come up is that Theresa Johnson has made some noise in the past about there only being five minutes left in the deposition. This comes from the misplaced notion that the deposition was a discovery deposition, which is limited to three hours under Illinois rules; in fact, this was an evidence deposition, which is not limited by the three hour rule. If Carver appears but fails to remain for the completion of his evidence deposition on the notion that there is a three hour limit, we can make a record that we will move to compel and will ask for fees and costs. There is another consideration as well, which is that there is a possibility that Larry Carver may show up in person at trial, despite having sat for an evidence deposition. This is difficult to predict. My bet is that the plaintiff will want him there in person. I also suspect that his ego and animus toward you will drive him to want to be there in person. Also, to answer you last question, we would plan to proceed with the deposition at Haytham’s office in Virginia. Kevin From: Wolford Lisa [mailto:lisa@csss.net] John, Haytham and Kevin - In this we show many of our cards related to Larry. Which is sure to make him nervous but also give him time to think up other lies. Is that necessary. Keeping the element of surprise on our side will put him off his game when he is giving his deposition. I doubt he will be willing to travel to Chicago. Are you offering him the opportunity to do it in Haytham and Neal's office in VA? You are more likely to get compliance that way. From: John Murray [mailto:jmurray@rddlaw.net] Lisa, Bill, and Haytham: Attached please find our Motion to Compel Larry Carver to finish his deposition. Please review and let us know your comments. Thanks. Regards, John E. Murray, Esq. Associate Attorney Rachlis Durham Duff & Adler, LLC 542 South Dearborn Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60605 Office: (312) 733-3950 Direct: (312) 275-0338 Mobile: (810) 824-7197 Fax: (312) 733-3952 Email: jmurray@rddlaw.net Firm website: www.rddlaw.net RACHLIS DURHAM DUFF & ADLER, LLC E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This transmission may be: (1) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. |
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature