3143094.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff / Relator,

- against -

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL

CORP.; BOEING; NuSTATS; COMPUTER

AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;

DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;

GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;

HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL

ARBASI; EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID

PARKS; DAVID SHARP; DANIELE

VENEZANO; JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR

WILLIAM; ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES,

INC.; ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN

CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.; SIMPSON

GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC.; S.K. GHOSH

ASSOCIATES, INC.; SKIDMORE, OWINGS &

MERRILL, LLP; TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.;

UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.;

WILL, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES,

INC.; AMERICAN AIRLINES; SILVERSTEIN

PROPERTIES; and UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Index No.:

07-CV-3314 (GBD)

REPLY DECLARATION OF

JASON HARRINGTON IN

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE

MOTION TO DISMISS OF

DEFENDANT GILSANZ

MURRAY STEFICEK LLP

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

JASON HARRINGTON, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of

the State of New York and the Southern District of New York, declares pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1746 and under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true and accurate:

1. I am associated with the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &

Dicker LLP, attorneys for defendant GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (“GMS”), and

based upon my analysis of our file in this matter I am familiar with the facts set forth herein.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 63 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
-2-

3143094.1

2. I respectfully submit this reply declaration in further support of GMS’s preanswer motion to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff/Relator Dr. Judy Wood (“Wood”),

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(h)(3), by joining, adopting and

incorporating the moving and reply papers submitted by co-defendants Simpson Gumpertz

& Heger, Inc. (“SGH”) and Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc. (“CAE”). The

moving papers were filed with this Court on February 28, 2008, and docketed as item

numbers 52-54 under this Court’s CM/ECF docket.

3. GMS joins, adopts and incorporates SGH and CAE’s motion on the same

grounds as contained therein, and further submits that the Complaint lacks sufficient

specificity attributable to GMS, as required by Rule 9(b). Wood’s opposition papers fail to

allege any specific record, statement or other information by or from GMS that evidences, or

even alleges, any fraud on GMS’s part. In fact, GMS is not even mentioned in the opposing

affidavits or affirmations, except that Plaintiff’s attorney perplexingly propounds in his

opposing declaration that a February 23, 2008 newspaper article somehow evidences that

GMS’ moving papers “may be lacking candor” simply because GMS volunteered at the

World Trade Center site, along with hundreds of other individuals and entities, immediately

following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. This gross implication deserves no further mention in

these reply papers, and should not be countenanced by this Court, but it further evidences

that Wood’s allegations, as against GMS, and the other defendants, amount solely to a

fishing expedition based upon conjecture and an alluded to “appearance of impropriety” -- at

best.

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 63 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
-3-

3143094.1

4. In essence, Wood’s claim is that, merely because defendants’ names were

mentioned in the NCSTAR1 report, issued by National Institute of Standards and

Technology, defendants must have committed some sort of fraud. Wood has made this

claim in broad, conclusory language as against GMS, and all defendants, but Wood has

failed to make any specific allegation of fraud as against GMS, or any other party. As a

result, Wood’s fishing expedition should not be tolerated by this Court, and her claims

should be summarily dismissed.

WHEREFORE, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP respectfully requests that this Court

grant its motion to dismiss, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems

just and appropriate.

Dated: New York, New York

March 5, 2008

Yours etc.,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: /s/ Jason Harrington

Jason Harrington (JH7273)

Attorneys for Defendant

Gilsanz Murray Steficek

150 East 42

nd

Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 490-3000 (p)

(212) 490-3038 (f)

To: All appearing parties via CM/ECF

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 63 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
-4-

3143094.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 5

th

day of March 2008, I electronically filed the REPLY

DECLARATION, on behalf of Defendant GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sends e-mail notification to appearing

parties.

In addition, I further certify that on the 5

th

day of March 2008, I caused the REPLY

DECLARATION, on behalf of Defendant GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP, to be

served via first class mail upon the following party:

JERRY V. LEAPHART & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attn: Jerry V. Leaphart, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Relator

8 West Street, Suite 203

Danbury, CT 06810

By: /s/ Jason Harrington

Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Document 63 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 4 of 4