Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05357/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05357-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NEAL M. DOUGLAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, _______________________________

REESE M. JONES, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK, AG a corporation, et al.

Defendants /

NO. C 03-04518 JW

NO. C 04-05357 JW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART UNITED STATES'

MOTION FOR STAY;

VACATING ORDER TO

CONSOLIDATE

I. INTRODUCTION

Neal and Christine Douglas (“Douglases”) brought an action against the United States of

America (“Government”) seeking a refund of more than $14 million of individual income taxes paid

for the 2000 tax year (“Douglas”). The Government counterclaimed alleging, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

§6662(h), that the Douglases owe an accuracy-related penalty in the amount of over $5.7 million. In

a separate case, Plaintiff Reese M. Jones (“Jones”) brought an action against Deutsche Bank, AG

and Deutsche Bank Securities (“Deutsche Bank”); Chenery Associates, Chenery Associates, Inc.,

Chenery Management, Inc., Chenery Services, Inc. and Chenery Capital, Inc. (collectively

“Chenery”), and numerous other individuals and corporations (all defendants in the Jones case

collectively “Deutsche Bank et al.”) for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §1962, or in the alternative, for violation of the 1934

Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 (“Jones”). Both cases involve a tax shelter, Custom Adjustable

Rate Debt Structure (“CARDS”). Presently before the Court is the Government’s Motion for Stay of

Depositions, Trial and Other Activity (Except Document Discovery) Pending Completion of Stein

Criminal Tax Shelter Case in S.D.N.Y. (“Motion to Stay”) for both Douglas and Jones. This Court

finds it appropriate, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), to take the Government’s motion under

submission, without oral argument, for a decision based upon the parties’ papers. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court GRANTS the Government's Motion to Stay as to Douglas and DENIES the

Government's Motion to Stay as to Jones.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Douglas Case

Neal Douglas (“Douglas”) engaged in a CARDS transaction in December 2000 when he

purchased from Marylebone Financial Trading, LLC (“Marylebone”) a promissory note of EURO

(“E”) 12,447,520 made by Deutsche Bank. The promissory note was originally acquired by

Marylebone using money from a loan of E83,223,102 they received from Deutsche Bank. (First

Am. Compl. (“Douglas FAC”) ¶¶ 14-16, Douglas Docket Item No.11.) As consideration, Douglas

assumed joint liability with Marylebone for payment of the entire loan Deutsche Bank gave

Marylebone. (Douglas FAC ¶ 18.) The Douglases immediately sold the promissory note and

claimed a cost basis of 100 percent of Marylebone’s original loan instead of the 15 percent that the

note was worth for their individual income tax return for tax year 2000, resulting in a $68,251,902

short-term capital loss deduction. (Douglas FAC ¶¶ 15-16 & 22; Joint Case Management Statement

(“CMS”) at 2, Douglas Docket Item No. 20.) 

On January 14, 2002, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released Announcement 2002-2

(2002-2 I.R.B. 304) titled “Disclosure Initiative for Certain Transactions Resulting in Waiver of

Certain Penalties Under Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Disclosure Initiative”).” The

Disclosure Initiative encouraged tax payers to disclose their tax treatment of tax shelters for which,

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

if filed prior to April 2003, applicable accuracy-related penalties could be waived. (Decl. of Neal

Douglas in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Douglas Decl.”) ¶ 4 and attached as Ex. A,

Douglas Docket Item No. 61.) On February 15, 2003, the Douglases filed an amended tax return

reflecting an amended capital gain for the tax year 2000 and submitted a payment of $14, 454, 664

on the adjusted cost basis of the promissory note. Subsequently, the Douglases filed a second

amended tax return on March 26, 2003 asserting the tax basis reported in the original tax return was

correct and requested a refund. (Douglas FAC ¶¶ 23-24.)

The Government counterclaims against the Douglases alleging they owe penalties of

$5,727,474 (plus interest) under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(h), or in the alternative, $2,863,737 (plus interest)

under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a). (First Am. Answer and Countercl. by United States of America

(“Douglas FAA”) ¶¶ 28-30, Douglas Docket Item No. 19.) The Government argues that the

Disclosure Initiative waiver does not apply in cases of fraud. (Decl. of Christopher Kliefoth in

Supp. of Pls. Neal and Christine Douglas’s Opp. to United States’ Mot. for Stay of Deps., Trial and

Other Activity (Except Doc. Disc.) Pending Completion of Stein Criminal Tax Shelter Case in

S.D.N.Y. (“Kliefoth Decl.”) ¶ 26, Douglas Docket Item No. 60; Disclosure Initiative attached to

Douglas Decl. as Ex. A.)

B. The Jones Case

Jones brought suit against Deutsche Bank, et al., for their role in promoting numerous tax

strategies, including CARDS, and inducing Jones to utilize those strategies under the premise that

they were lawful. (First Am. Compl. for Violation of RICO, or in the Alternative, Securities Fraud 

(“Jones FAC”) ¶¶ 22, 29-30, Jones Docket Item No. 6.) Allegedly at the advice of Chenery and

other defendants, Jones filed a Disclosure Initiative for amnesty for tax years 2000 and 2001 causing

Jones to be audited for those years by the IRS. He also filed a disclosure amnesty with the Franchise

Tax Board of the State of California. According to Jones, Deutsche Bank, et al.’s activities resulted

in his owing back state taxes for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and his having to pay more than $2.4 million

in taxes and interest. (Jones FAC ¶ 53.) Jones also owes back federal taxes in the amount of

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

$5,253,495.46 (amount is disputed) which the IRS has demanded that Jones pay in one lump sum

and filed liens against his property. (Decl. of William M. Lukens in Supp. of Mem. in Opp. to

United States’ Mot. for Stay of Deps., Trial and Other Activity (“Lukens Decl.”) ¶ 4, Jones Docket

Item No. 193; Joint Status Report (“Status Report”) at 4, Jones Docket Item No. 204.) The

Government also maintains that because the Jones’ proposed $105,000 installment plan is

insufficient, the Government intends to continue collection proceedings. (Status Report at 3.) 

C. The Stein Case

The Government has been engaged in criminal investigation of CARDS focusing on whether

the 30 year loans are bona fide or sham loans, the loan documentation is fraudulent, the transactions

have no legitimate business purposes and whether the involvements of foreign third parties were

legitimate arms length participants in the transactions. (Decl. of Shirah Neiman (“Neiman Decl.”) ¶

3, Douglas Docket Item No. 52.) The investigation has revealed that roughly 62 CARDS

transactions were conducted between 1999 and 2002, generating $1.8 billion in tax losses. Deutsche

Bank has been implicated in 23 transactions and Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank (“HVB”) in 29. 

(Neiman Decl. ¶ 2.) 

The case of United States v. Stein, et al., Indictment No. S1 05 Cr. 888 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

(“Stein”), focuses on four tax shelters known as FLIP, OPIS, BLIPS and SOS and its variants and

encompasses the conduct of a number of defendants including Raymond J. Ruble (“Ruble”) of the

law firm Brown & Wood and its successor Sidley Austin Brown & Wood (collectively “SABW”)

and Deutsche Bank, who were also involved in the Douglas and Jones CARDS transactions. 

(Neiman Decl. ¶ 4 and attached as Ex. A.) The Stein case is scheduled to go to trial on September

11, 2006 and projected to end by the end of January 2007. (Neiman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 14.)

HVB has entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States v. HVB, Information

No. 06 Cr. 162 (AKH)(S.D.N.Y.) (Deferred Prosecution Agreement, attached to Neiman Decl. as

Ex. B.), in which it has admitted its illegal participation in several tax shelters including CARDS. 

Dominick DeGiorgio (“DeGiorgio”), an HVB official, has pled guilty and admitted his role in

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

leading HVB’s participation in fraudulent tax shelters. United States v. DeGiorgio, Information No.

05 Cr. 853 (BSJ) (S.D.N.Y.). (Attached to Neiman Decl. as Ex. C.)

Additional individuals and entities are under investigation in the Stein case for their

involvement in CARDS that were also involved in Douglas and Jones, such as Deutsche Bank and

its current and former employees. (Neiman Decl. ¶ 5.) 

III. STANDARDS

The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome

of criminal proceedings. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.

1989); Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied,

449 U.S. 993 (1980). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved,

[simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our

jurisprudence.” Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to

stay such action.’” Id. at 1375 (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27). 

The decision to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be

made “in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.” 

Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means the decision maker should consider “the extent to which [a

party’s] fifth amendment right is implicated,” id., and whether denial of the stay would “extend

criminal discovery beyond the limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) (“Rule

16(b)”),” potentially prejudicing one party’s case by exposing their theory in advance. Dresser, 628

F.2d at 1376. “Other factors a court should consider will vary according to the case itself, but

generally will include: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this

litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the

burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the

convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources;

(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the

pending civil and criminal litigation.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903. See also Keating v. Office of

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-325 (9th Cir. 1995) (same).

IV. DISCUSSION

In situations involving a parallel criminal proceeding the court has discretion to stay a civil

proceeding if it is in the “interest of justice.” Kordel 397 U.S. at 12 n.27. Thus, evaluation of the

Government’s Motion to Stay, involves balancing the interests of 1) plaintiffs, 2) defendants, 3)

judicial efficiency, 4) nonparties and 5) the public. Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903.

A. Plaintiffs’ Interests

1. The Douglas Case

In their original opposition to the Government’s Motion to Stay, the Douglases objected only

to staying discovery and resolution of the counterclaims the Government filed against them for civil

penalties and interest under 26 USC §6662(h). Since then, the Douglases have stipulated to a stay

with carved-out exceptions. (Stipulated Request for Order of Stay of Depositions, Trial and Other

Activity (Except Document Discovery and Certain Deposition Discovery), Request for Ruling on

Possible Additional Carve-Out During Pendency of Stay (“Stipulation”), Douglas Docket Item No.

69.) The remaining objection is regarding discovery on the issue of whether the Douglases’ filed a

qualified amended return. (Stipulation at 7.) 

The Douglases’ argument that granting the stay will cause prejudice measured in attorney

bills and the amount of time litigating the issue is moot since a stay would cease most activity until

the conclusion of the Stein trial. (Pls Neal and Christine Douglas’s Opp. to United States’ Mot. for

Stay of Deps., Trial and Other Activity (Except Doc. Disc.) Pending Completion of Stein Criminal

Tax Shelter Case in S.D.N.Y. (“Douglas Opp.”) at 15, Douglas Docket Item No. 59.) Additionally,

based on the nature of Douglas and its links to the Stein case, staying the proceeding will potentially

allow both sides to make use of materials in the Stein case to narrow the issues, saving in attorney

time and costs. Since the Government has already agreed to freeze collection of the penalty and the

results of the Stein case may in fact benefit the Douglases, the Douglases do not have a strong

interest in proceeding with their case. 

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Government alleges that since Jones has a judgment against Stars Holding Co. for

$22,934,520.84 that he is attempting to collect on, he has enough money to pay the IRS. (United

States’ Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Stay Pending Related Criminal Trial (“US Reply”) at 11

n.8, Douglas Docket Item No. 65.) However, the Government submits no affidavits or declarations

in support of this statement.

7

2. The Jones Case

For Jones, however, there is no freeze against collecting his back taxes amounting to over $5

million and the IRS has issued liens on Jones’ property. Such actions are negatively impacting

Jones’ credit, affecting his ongoing business ventures and his ability to pay the taxes owed. (Lukens

Decl. ¶ 4; Status Report at 4.) Additionally, the IRS refuses to accept Jones’ proposed $105,000

installment plan. Id. Thus, Jones has a substantial interest in proceeding in a timely fashion because

a judgment in his favor would assist him in paying the back taxes Deutsche Bank, et al. are allegedly

responsible for.1

 Furthermore, Jones has already made payments toward his back taxes amounting

to over $400,000 on the proposed installment plan and states that he will continue to do so until all

taxes are paid. (Lukens Decl ¶ 4.) Since Jones has shown he has been attempting to cooperate with

the IRS and making payments, the Government’s concern in protecting itself “by pursuing collection

of these agreed-upon liabilities, including filing a notice of federal tax lien” is unfounded. Based on

the substantial interest Jones has in pursuing these proceedings, the first factor is heavily in his

favor.

B. The Defendant’s Interest

1. The Douglas Case

In order for the Government to develop a complete defense against the Douglases’ suit and

their penalty counterclaim, the Government needs to demonstrate that the Douglases’ tax return was

fraudulently filed and therefore is not a qualified amended return. (Disclosure Initiative, attached to

Douglas Decl. as Ex. A.) To do so, the Government claims they would need to depose several

individuals including Ruble, other attorneys at SABW, former and current Deutsche Bank

employees and DeGiorgio. All of those individuals either will or potentially could be called to

testify in the Stein criminal trial or are currently under criminal investigation. Although the

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Douglas case indirectly involves one promoter and other taxpayers who engaged in

CARDS to shelter their income. There appears to be a coalition of certain individuals involved in

marketing, structuring, and implementing CARDS that have helped finance the Douglases’ case by

contributing to a CARDS litigation fund. (Decl. of William M. Lukens in Supp. of Reply on Mot. to

Consolidate Actions and attachments Ex. A-E, Docket Item No. 40; See Neiman Decl. ¶ 11.)

8

Government argues they require information in the Stein case to prepare effective examinations, this

is unpersuasive. Just because the information gathered in Stein would benefit the Government does

not automatically entitle it, as any other civil litigant, to that information. See Belford Strategies

Inv. Fund, LLC. v. United States, 2005 WL 3278597, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2005). 

Yet, allowing depositions of these individuals to move forward does cause another source of

concern that some witnesses under investigation will potentially invoke their Fifth Amendment

right, frustrating the discovery process. For example, the Government might want to depose

defendants indicted in the Stein case such as Ruble, who are likely to invoke their Fifth Amendment

right considering the impending criminal trial. This would directly impact the Government’s ability

to prove their counterclaim and defend themselves against the Douglases’ suit.

 Additionally, allowing the depositions could give an unfair preview of the Government’s

evidence, theories and strategies, prejudicing the Stein case. (Neiman Decl. ¶ 6.) For example,

deposing an important cooperating Government witness, could give the Stein defendants an unfair

glimpse of what the Government’s evidence is, allowing them to tailor their strategy, theory of the

case, and testimony accordingly. (Neiman Decl. ¶ 7.) The criminal rules of civil procedure have

stricter guidelines than those for civil cases and criminal defendants should not be allowed to use a

civil case to gain pertinent premature access to evidence and information. See Dresser, 628 F.2d at

1376. This is especially applicable in this case, given the allegations of the close connections

between the Douglases and the defendants in the Stein case.2

 Thus, this factor favors staying

Douglas.

2. The Jones Case

Although the Defendants in Jones could have an interest in staying the case due to the

criminal investigations being conducted against them and for the sake of efficiency, Deutsche Bank

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

et al. did not file any papers indicating their position. Therefore, this factor neither supports nor

weighs against the stay.

C. Judicial Efficiency

The third factor requires the Court to consider the impact a stay would have on judicial

efficiency. Because facts disclosed during the Stein trial may shed light on Douglas and Jones, it is

in the interest of judicial efficiency to stay both cases. Douglas, Jones, and Stein involve similar

players and overlapping transactions. Testimony presented in Stein will potentially narrow the

issues lessening the likelihood of disputes. (Neiman Decl. ¶ 13.) Since “the criminal case may later

streamline discovery in the civil case,” Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC, 269 F. Supp. 2d. 6, 9 (D.

Conn. 2002), this factor weighs in favor of a stay.

D. Nonparty Interests

1. The Douglas Case

Because the parties in Stein overlap with the potential third party deponents in Douglas, it is

also in their interest to stay this action. The grand jury investigation of CARDS is ongoing and

Deutsche Bank and its current and former employees are still under investigation for their

participation in numerous tax shelters. If they were subpoenaed for deposition, they could invoke

their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination resulting in additional burdens on the

witnesses since it may require further appearances plus the cost of counsel. Moreover, the results of

the Stein trial could narrow down the list of deponents, saving some witnesses the time and cost of

appearing at all. Therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of staying Douglas.

2. The Jones Case

The reasoning above in regards to the third party interests in Douglas is also applicable to

Jones since the parties in Stein also overlap with the third parties in Jones. Furthermore, the

Government is a third party to the Jones case and the concern in exposing the Government’s Stein

case is equally applicable to Jones. As such, this factor favors staying Jones.

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

E. Public Interest

The public has an interest in “ensuring that the criminal process is not subverted" by ongoing

civil cases. Bridgeport Harbour, 269 F. Supp. 2d at 10 (quoting Rosenthal v. Giuliani, 2001 WL

121944 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2001)). Although there is some interest in a speedy resolution of a

plaintiff’s claim, it “pales in comparison to the public interest as a whole,” Ashworth v. Albers

Medical, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 527, 532, (S.D. W. Va. 2005) in unraveling a criminal scheme that

potentially has defrauded the Government of $1.8 billion in taxes. Accordingly, this factor is in

favor of a stay.

F. Balancing of Interests

1. The Douglas Case

Because the Douglases do not have a strong interest in proceeding with their case while the

Government does have a strong interest in a stay, this Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion for

Stay of deposition discovery on the question of whether the Douglases filed a qualified amended

return. In light of the stay, the Government shall file and serve a statement on January 31, 2007

updating the Court of the status of the Stein case. If the Stein case is resolved prior to January 31,

2007, the Government shall file and serve a statement so notifying the Court and the Douglases.

2. The Jones Case

Although three of the five factors weigh in favor of the Government’s motion, the heavy

burden on Jones that would result is too substantial to warrant a stay at this time. Unlike the

Douglases, the Government is still attempting to collect taxes from Jones and has filed liens against

his property. Additionally, since the Government is not a party to this suit, they have a lesser

interest in staying Jones than Douglas. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to

Stay Jones. However, because the Court recognizes the Government’s interest, the Government

may address their concerns on a deposition-by-deposition basis with Magistrate Judge Seeborg. 

Additionally, the Government may file for a protective order to protect any interests they may have

in specific depositions.

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED in PART and

DENIED in PART. Since Jones is proceeding while Douglas is being stayed, the Court hereby

VACATES its August 12, 2005 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to

Consolidate (Docket Item No. 132 in Jones; Docket Item No. 46 in Douglas). 

Dated: July 17, 2006

03cv4518stay

 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christopher Kliefoth ckliefoth@mwe.com

Cynthia Lewis Stier cynthia.stier@usdoj.gov

Daniel E. Alberti dalberti@mwe.com

Emily J. Kingston Emily.Kingston@usdoj.gov

Goud Maragani Goud.P.Maragani@usdoj.gov

Jay R. Weill jay.weill@usdoj.gov

Joseph A Sergi joseph.a.sergi@usdoj.gov

Marika Lancaster Marika.E.Lancaster@usdoj.gov

Mark Hunter Churchill mchurchill@mwe.com

William Carl Hankla w.carl.hankla@usdoj.gov

William M. Lukens wlukens@lukenslaw.com

Dated: Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: 

Snooki Puli

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-05357-JW Document 206 Filed 07/17/06 Page 12 of 12