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 

 

J. Henk Taylor (016321) 

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C. 

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Telephone: (602) 280-1000 

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495 

Email: htaylor@rrulaw.com 

Jeffrey M. Eilender (admitted pro hac vice) 

Bradley J. Nash (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joshua Wurtzel (admitted pro hac vice) 

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP 

26 Broadway 

New York, New York 10004 

Telephone: (212) 344-5400 

Facsimile: (212) 344-7677 

E-Mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: bnash@schlamstone.com 

E-Mail: jwurtzel@schlamstone.com 

Attorneys for Defendants CWT Canada II Limited 

Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, and 

Jean Noelting 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, CWT 

Canada II Limited Partnership, Resources 

Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 2:17-CV-04140-DWL 

REPLY DECLARATION OF 

JOSHUA WURTZEL IN 

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE 

CWT PARTIES’ MOTION FOR 

CONTEMPT AGAINST 

NONPARTIES WILENCHIK & 

BARTNESS, P.C. AND BEUS 

GILBERT PLLC 

 And related claims. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 144 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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- 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, JOSHUA WURTZEL, declares, under the 

penalty of perjury, the following to be true and correct. 

1. I am an associate of Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, co-counsel with Ryan 

Rapp & Underwood, P.L.C. for Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, 

Resource Recovery Corporation, and Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) in 

this action. I submit this reply declaration in further support of the CWT Parties’ Motion 

for Contempt Against Nonparties Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. (“Wilenchik”) and Beus 

Gilbert PLLC (“Beus Gilbert”). Unless otherwise specified, the matters below are based 

on my personal knowledge, communications with other attorneys in my firm, and a 

review of my firm’s files. 

2. On May 17 and 21, 2019, Wilenchik produced additional documents

showing payments to it from Wyo Tech and Inductance, along with several redacted bills 

for various matters. Copies of all the documents Wilenchik produced since May 15, 

2019—when we filed our amended motion for an order to show cause—are attached as 

Exhibit A. 

3. Also on May 21, 2019, Wilenchik produced supplemental written responses 

to the CWT Parties’ subpoenas—which purport to identify the documents responsive to 

each request by bates number. Copies of these written responses are attached as Exhibit B. 

4. On May 22, 2019, Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert filed a Response to CWT 

Parties’ Amended Motion for an Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 140. In this response, 

Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert state that, “[a]s of May 22, 2019, Beus Gilbert has produced 

all 21 pages of responsive documents and W&B has produced 325 pages of responsive 

documents,” and that “[b]oth firms strongly believe that they are in full compliance with 

the Subpoenas, but will continue to search diligently for responsive documents out of an 

extreme abundance of caution.” Id. at 2. Wilenchik further states that, as of May 22, “all 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 144 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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- 

responsive documents” have “been produced,” and it has taken “all possible measures to 

ensure compliance with the Subpoenas.” Id. at 4. And Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert also 

argue that sanctions would not “motivate” them to “become in full compliance” with the 

subpoenas because “that ha[s] already happened.” Id. at 10. 

5. Further, in a May 23, 2019 e-mail, Wilenchik again reiterated that “both 

firms have complied with the subpoena and produced all documentation we are even 

aware of.” A copy of this e-mail is attached as Exhibit C. 

6. But these statements are again false. Wilenchik has not produced all 

documents in its possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the subpoena served 

on it. 

7. First, for at least four of the payments Wilenchik identified as coming from 

Inductance or Wyo Tech, Wilenchik has failed to produce documents showing the source 

account from which these payments were made. This missing information is reflected in 

Appendix A to our reply memorandum of points and authorities, which we shared with 

Wilenchik by e-mail on May 24, 2019. 

8. Second, for at least three of the payments Wilenchik identified as coming 

from Inductance or Wyo Tech, Wilenchik has failed to produce documents showing the 

clients on whose behalf or the matters for which these payments were made. This missing 

information is also reflected in Appendix A. 

9. Third, in its May 22 production, Wilenchik produced handwritten ledgers 

showing hundreds of thousands of dollars in “Danzik Retainer” payments, as well as other 

handwritten documents reflecting additional payments. But for many of these payments, 

Wilenchik did not produce source-account, client, or matter information—and we cannot 

even tell who made these payments to Wilenchik. Copies of the pages Wilenchik 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 144 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 5
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- 

produced showing “Danzik” payments to it for which no additional information is 

provided are attached as Exhibit D. The specific payments at issue are highlighted. 

10. On May 24, we had a meet and confer with Wilenchik, and asked who made 

these payments so we could determine whether (1) they were made by Wyo Tech or 

Inductance, in which case Wilenchik would be missing documents showing the source 

account of these payments and what client and matter these payments were for, or (2) they 

were made by a party other than Wyo Tech or Inductance, in which case nothing further 

would be required under the subpoena.But Wilenchik told us that it could not answer this 

question, because it did not know who made these payments to it. 

11. We then told Wilenchik that it needed to figure this out to determine 

whether it had fully complied with the subpoena and this Court’s April 9 order, since if 

these payments were made by Wyo Tech or Inductance, then Wilenchik is missing 

documents showing the source account of these payments and what client and matter 

these payments were for. 

12. We also explained that Wilenchik could easily figure this out by looking at 

its own bank records—which it could get online by setting up an online account or from 

the bank by requesting them—and reviewing the checks it deposited that correspond to 

these payments. 

13. But Wilenchik admitted that it had not tried to do this, admitted that it had 

not reviewed its own bank records for this information, and (erroneously) claimed that it 

had no obligation to collect or review its own bank records in response to the subpoena or 

April 9 order. 

14. Following the May 24 meet and confer, we sent a follow-up e-mail to 

Wilenchik explaining exactly what it is missing and how it could gather that missing 

information. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 144 Filed 05/28/19 Page 4 of 5
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- 

15. Without giving any detail or explaining why we were wrong, Wilenchik 

continued to insist that it had produced all responsive documents. And one attorney at 

Wilenchik even demanded that we stop e-mailing it. 

16. Wilenchik did agree to “ask for the checks as soon as we can if that helps as 

to what you are looking for,” but did not say by when this would be done, and continued 

to claim that it did not understand what information was missing from its production—

despite the chart we sent to it and our citation to the bates numbers of the pages of 

Wilenchik-produced documents showing unexplained “Danzik” payments. A copy of this 

e-mail chain is attached to the Wurtzel Reply Declaration as Exhibit E. 

17. Fourth, Wilenchik still continues to withhold documents showing payments 

to it from Inductance. Indeed, attached as Exhibit F is a copy of a December 13, 2018 

check from Inductance to Wilenchik for $100,000. Wilenchik did not produce this check 

or any other documents showing this payment. 

18. While Wilenchik did produce documents 

, it is not clear this is the same payment—and even if it is, 

as shown in Appendix A, Wilenchik has not produced any documents showing the source 

account for this payment. 

Dated: May 28, 2019 

 New York, New York 

 

 JOSHUA WURTZEL 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 144 Filed 05/28/19 Page 5 of 5