EXHIBIT E 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-5 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 3
26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004

Main: 212 344-5400 Fax: 212 344-7677

schlamstone.com

Joshua Wurtzel

Associate

jwurtzel@schlamstone.com

July 10, 2019

BY OVERNIGHT FEDEX

Ms. Elizabeth J. Danzik

Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC

c/o Resident Agents Inc.

8 The Green, Suite R

Dover, Delaware 19901

Re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wyo Tech Inv. Grp., LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-4140-

DWL

Dear Ms. Danzik:

This firm represents Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery 

Corporation, and Jean Noelting in this action. This afternoon, through your counsel in a 

related federal action, we received DAS’s written response to the subpoena for documents we 

served on DAS on February 4, 2019, and we write to inform you that your response is 

insufficient and does not act to purge your civil contempt under the court’s June 27, 2019 

order in this action.

First, in response to most of our document requests, you state that DAS has no responsive 

documents beyond those we already received from you personally in a related federal action

and in response to an unidentified subpoena we served on Wells Fargo in late 2017. See

Response Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. But this is not an acceptable response. If DAS has documents 

responsive to these requests in its possession, custody, or control, it is required to produce 

them—regardless of whether it believes we already have copies of these documents. 

Second, you did not respond to our request for all contracts or agreements between DAS and 

Wyo Tech or Inductance. To the extent your response to Request No. 7 (which incorrectly 

characterizes this request as one for communications with Mr. Hinz)—in which you state that 

DAS has no responsive documents—was intended to be your response to this request, please 

confirm that there were no contracts between DAS and Wyo Tech or Inductance.

Third, you state that you are the “sole member” of DAS, but did not produce any documents 

showing this.

Fourth, you state that DAS has no documents concerning its operation, “including the

Persons that control [DAS] and [its] beneficial owners,” because “DAS ceased operations in 

SCH LAM STONE & DOLAN LLP 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-5 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 3
Ms. Elizabeth J. Danzik

Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC

July 10, 2019

Page 2 of 2

the late summer or [sic] 2017.” But even if DAS ceased operations, as long as it remains in 

existence (which it does), it must have documents showing who controls it and who its 

beneficial owners are. And it certainly must have these documents from before late-summer 

2017, when it was concededly still in operation.

Thus, for the reasons explained above, your written response is an unacceptable, disingenuous 

response to the subpoena that you ignored for over five months. And your continued refusal to 

produce responsive documents shows that you still fail to take this subpoena—and the court’s 

order holding DAS in civil contempt—seriously.

Unless you immediately produce all responsive documents in your possession, custody, or 

control, and pay us the court-ordered daily fine of $250 for every day of your noncompliance, 

we will seek further sanctions against you—including your arrest and imprisonment.

Sincerely,

Joshua Wurtzel

cc: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Esq. (by e-mail)

Bradley J. Nash, Esq. (by e-mail)

J. Henk Taylor, Esq. (by e-mail)

Dennis Wilenchik, Esq. (by e-mail)

Tyler Swensen, Esq. (by e-mail)

Chris Feasel, Esq. (by e-mail)

Victoria Stevens (by e-mail)

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 182-5 Filed 07/26/19 Page 3 of 3