26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004

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

schlamstone.com

Jeffrey M. Eilender

Partner

jeilender@schlamstone.com

February 25, 2019

BY ECF

The Honorable Dominic W. Lanza

United States District Court

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 621

401 West Washington Street, SPC 46

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Re: Wells Fargo Bank v. Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv04140-DWL

Dear Judge Lanza:

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

Corporation, and Jean Noelting (the “CWT Parties”) in this action. In accordance with 

paragraph nine of this Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 79), we write jointly with 

counsel for Defendant Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC—Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. 

(“Wilenchik”)—to raise a dispute concerning Wilenchik’s refusal to produce documents in 

accordance with the subpoena we served on it, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. 

Also in accordance with paragraph nine of this Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 

79) and Rule 7.2(j) of the Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Arizona, counsel for the CWT Parties and Wilenchik jointly certify that after personal 

consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to satisfactorily resolve 

this matter.

The CWT Parties’ Position

On February 11, 2019, we served Wilenchik with the attached subpoena, which seeks 

documents sufficient to show all payments—including date, amount, and source account—

made to Wilenchik by Wyo Tech and Inductance Energy Corporation (another Danzik-related 

entity formed using Wyo Tech money), as well as documents sufficient to show the clients on 

whose behalf and matters for which these payments were made. Wilenchik refused to produce 

documents in accordance with this subpoena, claiming they are not relevant. But Wilenchik is 

wrong, and should be ordered to produce responsive documents.

As this Court knows, the sole issue in this case is whether Dennis Danzik—a judgment debtor 

of the CWT Parties—has an interest in the disputed funds, which are now held by the Clerk of 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 16
The Honorable Dominic W. Lanza

February 22, 2019

Page 2 of 5

Court pending resolution of this case. And though, when the CWT Parties restrained them, the 

disputed funds were held in an account in Wyo Tech’s name, Wyo Tech previously used its 

funds to pay thousands of dollars of Danzik’s and his cronies’ legal expenses in cases in 

which Wyo Tech had no interest. 

Thus, the CWT Parties are entitled to discover how much Wyo Tech paid in Danzik’s and his 

cronies’ legal fees and for what matters, because the more money Wyo Tech paid for 

Danzik’s and his cronies’ legal fees—especially in matters in which Wyo Tech has no 

interest—the more probable it is that Danzik has an interest in the disputed funds. See 

Bingham v. Zolt, 231 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1996) (bank account in name of 

nondebtor may be restrained when judgment debtor “regularly has used another’s bank 

account” as a “source for payment of the debtor’s expenses”).

And while Wilenchik has argued that Wyo Tech’s payment of legal fees for Danzik does not 

automatically mean that Wyo Tech’s money belongs to Danzik, this is a merits argument that 

affects only the weight of this evidence—not its discoverability. Indeed, Wilenchik argues 

below that “discovery on this issue now does nothing to save the invalidity of the Restraining 

Notice [the CWT Parties] issued.” But this position directly contradicts this Court’s holding in 

its order denying Wells Fargo’s summary judgment motion that the CWT Parties are “entitled 

to conduct discovery to dispute Wyo Tech’s factual claims.” Dkt. No. 94 at 12-13.

Further, just weeks before we restrained the disputed funds, Danzik’s daughter wrote a 

$25,000 check from Wyo Tech’s account for the “opening” of an Inductance account. And 

after we restrained Wyo Tech’s account, Inductance began paying tens of thousands of dollars 

of Danzik’s legal fees. Thus, if Inductance is paying Danzik’s or his cronies’ legal fees using 

money derived in part from Wyo Tech, it makes it more probable that Danzik has an interest 

in the disputed Wyo Tech funds—and merely diverted those funds (and future funds he 

acquired) to Inductance to continue paying his expenses after the CWT Parties restrained Wyo 

Tech’s account.

Thus, the documents sought by this subpoena are relevant, and this Court should order 

Wilenchik to produce documents in accordance with it. Wilenchik’s arguments about the 

appropriateness of a restraining notice are not relevant to this narrow discovery dispute.

Further, the CWT Parties also served an identical subpoena on Wyo Tech’s other counsel, 

Beus Gilbert PLLC. Beus Gilbert has not objected to or otherwise responded to this subpoena 

outside of this joint letter. But for the same reasons Wilenchik should be ordered to produce 

documents in accordance with the subpoena, Beus Gilbert should as well.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 16
The Honorable Dominic W. Lanza

February 22, 2019

Page 3 of 5

Wilenchik’s Position

The CWT Parties miss the point entirely; a Restraining Notice’s validity rises or falls 

on the information known at the time of issuance. Moreover, the CWT Parties ignore and 

misconstrue the law they cite and the simple fact that a Restraining Notice is not valid if it is 

premised upon a theory of alter ego which has not already been adjudicated prior to the issuance 

of such a Restraining Notice. Finally, IEC is not a party to this litigation and any information 

sought is irrelevant and beyond the scope of discovery.

Judgment Creditors and their Counsels defense of their actions must be done based on 

the evidence they claim to have had in their possession at the time they issued the wrongful 

restraining notice and failed to comply with Arizona’s garnishment statute. Indeed, Pursuant 

to CPLR § 5222 a restraining notice is valid if, at time of service, the person served knows or 

has reason to believe that he is indebted to judgment debtor. 

The CWT Parties subpoena only seeks to discover whether money was paid for the 

benefit of Dennis Danzik. There is not a single allegation that Dennis Danzik or RDX (the only 

judgment debtors) ever placed any of their own monies in any account nor would the subpoena 

ever discover any such information. Significantly, evidence of payment for the benefit of 

another is not sufficient to issue a Restraining Notice and is therefore entirely irrelevant:

Significantly, while Judgment Creditors claim that evidence of payments being 

made from a third-party account on behalf of a Judgment Debtor is sufficient to 

allow a restraint of all third-party funds, what Judgment Creditors and their 

Counsel conveniently omit is that in both cases, the salient issue, was that the 

Judgment Debtor had deposited assets in the account, and was dissipating those 

assets. Zolt, 231 A.D.2d 479 (the Court found the restraining notice to be 

properly issued because “Deposition testimony and documentation indicated 

that defendant Zolt’s personal funds were deposited in his wife’s account”). 

Indeed, the case that is relied upon by the Court in Zolt explicitly states that the 

“regular” payment of personal expenses is insufficient on its own, but rather, 

there must also be evidence that the account “functioned as ‘recipients’ of his 

personal assets.” ERA Mgt. v. Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, 199 A.D.2d 

179 (1993). No evidence has been shown or produced that would establish that 

Judgment Debtors deposited any funds in the Wyo Tech account or that any of 

the Judgment Debtors drew any moneys from the account.

[Doc. 72 at fn. 1]. Rather than contest this, the CWT Parties Response blindly cited the same 

cases discussed by Wyo Tech. Tellingly, even the CWT Parties own citations belie their

contention. [Doc. 88 at 14:19 – 24 (“see also Bingham v. Zolt, 231 A.D.2d 479, 479 (N.Y. 

App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1996) (restraining notice properly issued when evidence showed that 

‘judgment debtor ha[d] regularly used another’s bank account as a ‘recipient’ of the debtor’s 

personal assets or as a source for payment of the debtor’s expenses,’ including using funds 

from this account to ‘pay his legal expenses’)” (emphasis added); id. at 14:24 – 27 (“ERA Mgt., 

Inc. v Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, 199 A.D.2d 179, 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 

1993) (bank accounts belonging to non-debtor entities were properly restraining when evidence 

showed that accounts were ‘regularly used to pay [debtor’s] personal expenses’ and functioned 

as ‘“recipients” of his personal assets’)” (emphasis added)).

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 16
The Honorable Dominic W. Lanza

February 22, 2019

Page 4 of 5

That is, these cases stand for the simple proposition that a judgment debtor cannot

transfer his funds into an account of another to pay his own expenses and avoid collection 

because the transfer of the funds to the account does not transmute the funds into those of the 

account holder. Similarly, non-judgment debtor funds transferred into a non-judgment debtor 

account are not transmuted into judgment debtor funds. Indeed, the funds cannot become 

judgment debtor funds unless and until specific funds are paid to the judgment debtor—the very 

reason why the proper action would have been to garnish Wyo Tech, not Wells Fargo.

In any event, the CWT Parties’ contention that payment alone is sufficient is entirely 

absurd. Simply because a paycheck comes from the Federal Government does not make all 

funds of the United States the funds of that employee. Indeed, even in a more nefarious situation 

funds in an account are not, and cannot be transmuted simply by payment alone. Whether some 

funds were paid out of an account, gifted from an account, or stolen1therefrom does not change 

the ownership interest in the remaining funds or create a reasonable basis to seize the account. 

As we can all hopefully agree, if Party A gratuitously pays a small sum toward Party B’s legal 

expenses for whatever reasons, Party B does not thereby become an owner of all of Party A’s 

assets and funds. Again, as Wyo Tech has conceded, if the Judgment Creditors wish to garnish 

Wyo Tech relating to future payments to Judgment Debtors or debts owed to them, they would 

have been within their rights.

In reality, the CWT Parties are through this subpoena attempting to bolster an entirely 

unavailing argument that Wyo Tech is somehow an alter ego of Dennis Danzik or RDX. 

However, discovery on this issue now does nothing to save the invalidity of the Restraining 

Notice they issued. New York has specifically and explicitly stated that a Restraining Notice 

based upon a theory of alter ego is invalid unless there is a ruling from a Court prior to the 

issuance of the Restraining Notice that the company is indeed an alter ego of the debtor:

The other cases cited by the plaintiff are equally inapposite. In both Bingham v. 

Zolt, 231 A.D.2d 479, 647 N.Y.S.2d 220 (App.Div.1996), and ERA Mgmt., Inc. 

v. Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, 199 A.D.2d 179, 605 N.Y.S.2d 91 

(App.Div.1993), the court found that restraining notices were properly issued 

against bank accounts held in the name of third parties, but where the plaintiffs 

had shown evidence that the accounts held the assets of the judgment debtor. 

... They do not support the proposition that the assets of third parties may be 

restrained in anticipation of a finding that those third parties are alter egos or 

hold assets of alleged alter egos of the judgment debtor. Such a conclusion is 

not only unsupported by the text of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222 or any of the cases 

cited by the plaintiff, but would also pose significant due process problems.

JSC Foreign Econ. Ass’n Technostroyexport v. Int’l Dev. & Trade Servs., Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 

366, 392–93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (emphasis added). As is clear, even under New York law, the 

 

1 By analogy, a thief does not obtain title to stolen funds, let alone the remaining funds that 

were not stolen. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Peoria Ginning Co., 27 Ariz. 145, 152, 

231 P. 415, 417 (1924) (“A thief or finder acquires no rights whatever to the goods, capable of 

ripening into title”). Similarly, if the CWT Parties and their Counsel’s contention were correct, 

the crime of embezzlement could not exist, as the act of embezzling would necessarily thereby 

transmute ownership rights to the embezzler.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 16
The Honorable Dominic W. Lanza

February 22, 2019

Page 5 of 5

restraint of the third party funds here on a proposed theory of alter ego through the use of a § 

5222 restraining notice—as is the case here—is not allowed by New York law and constitutes 

a clear and knowing violation of due process.

Finally, the portion of the subpoena related to non-party IEC is entirely irrelevant to this 

matter. In fact, the CWT Parties have separately attempted to wrongfully restrain the funds in 

IEC’s accounts at Bank of the West. This is the exact issue raised in the emergency motion 

filed in this matter [Doc 98] which Wyo Tech incorporates by this reference.

These same objections apply with equal force to the subpoena sent to the Beus law firm.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Eilender

cc: All counsel of record (by ECF)

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 16
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 16
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To:

(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)

u Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following 

documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the

material:

Place: Date and Time:

u Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or 

other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party

may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

Place: Date and Time:

The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;

Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to

respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

OR

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature

The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)

, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:

Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the

inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before

it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).

 District of Arizona

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

2:17-cv-04140-DWL

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, et al.

Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.

2810 North Third Street, Phoenix Arizona 85004

✔

See attached Appendix A

Ryan Rapp & Underwood, P.L.C.

3200 N. Central Ave, Suite 2250

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 02/25/2019 5:00 pm

02/09/2019

CWT Canada II

Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, Jean Noelting

Joshua Wurtzel, Schlam Stone, 26 Broadway, New York, NY 10004; jwurtzel@schlamstone.com; (212) 344-5400

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 7 of 16
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)

I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .

u I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:

on (date) ; or

u I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.

Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also 

tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of

$ .

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

2:17-cv-04140-DWL

0.00

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 8 of 16
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)

(c) Place of Compliance.

 (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a

person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:

 (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or

regularly transacts business in person; or

 (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly

transacts business in person, if the person

 (i) is a party or a party’s officer; or

 (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial

expense.

 (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:

 (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or

tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is

employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and

 (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.

(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.

 (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney

responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps

to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the

subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must

enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include

lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who

fails to comply.

 (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to

permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of

production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition,

hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible

things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated

in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or

sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to

producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.

The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for

compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,

the following rules apply:

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party

may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an

order compelling production or inspection.

 (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the

order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from

significant expense resulting from compliance.

 (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where

compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:

 (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits

specified in Rule 45(c);

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no

exception or waiver applies; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a

subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on

motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research,

development, or commercial information; or

(ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does

not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s

study that was not requested by a party.

(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances

described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or

modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified

conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be

otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.

 (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These

procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored

information:

(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents

must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or

must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.

If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored

information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in

which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The

person responding need not produce the same electronically stored

information in more than one form.

(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person

responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information

from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because

of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective

order, the person responding must show that the information is not

reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is

made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the

requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule

26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.

(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information

under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation

material must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and

(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or

tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself

privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.

(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a

subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as

trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party

that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being

notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified

information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information

until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the

information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly

present the information under seal to the court for the district where

compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who

produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is

resolved.

(g) Contempt.

The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a

motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person

who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the

subpoena or an order related to it.

For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 9 of 16
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 

APPENDIX A 

DEFINITIONS 

1. “All” means all or any, and “any” means all or any.

2. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as 

necessary to bring within the scope of these requests all responses that might otherwise be 

construed to be outside of its scope. 

3. “Communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, 

ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). 

4. “DAS” means Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC.

5. “Document” or “documents” means all enumerated items in Rule 

34(a)(1)(A) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, including Electronically-Stored 

Information, as defined below. A draft or non-identical copy of any document, whether 

due to the addition of marginalia or other change, is a separate document within the 

meaning of this term. When the electronic and hard copy versions of any document are 

separate documents under this definition, both the electronic and hard copy versions 

should be produced. 

6. “Electronically-Stored Information” or “ESI” includes, but is not limited to, 

the following: 

a. information or data that is generated, received, processed, or recorded 

by computers or other electronic devices, including, but not limited to, communications 

over a Bloomberg Terminal, electronic mail, text messages, instant message service 

messages, Social Media Posts, and voicemail; 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 10 of 16
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 

b. files, information, or data saved on backup tapes or hard drives; 

c. internal or external web sites; 

d. output resulting from the use of any software program, including, but 

not limited to, word processing documents, spreadsheets, database files, charts, graphs and 

outlines, electronic mail, instant messenger (or similar programs), bulletin board 

programs, operating systems, source code, PRF files, PRC files, batch files, ASCII files, 

and all miscellaneous media on which they reside regardless of whether this electronic 

data exists in an active file, a deleted file, or file fragment; and 

e. activity listings of electronic mail receipts or transmittals; and any 

and all items stored on computer memories, hard disks, floppy disks, CD-ROM, magnetic 

tape, microfiche, or on any other media for digital data storage, or transmittal, including, 

but not limited to, personal digital assistants (e.g., iPhone, iPad), hand-held wireless 

devices (e.g., BlackBerrys), or similar devices, and file folder tabs, or containers and 

labels appended to, or relating to, any physical storage device associated with each 

original or copy of all documents in these requests. 

7. “Include” or “including” denotes a portion of a larger whole, and is used 

without limitation. 

8. “Inductance” means Inductance Energy Corporation.

9. “Person” means any natural person or any business, legal, or governmental 

entity, or association. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 11 of 16
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 

10. “Relating to” means in whole or in part, concerning, constituting, 

containing, evidencing, referring to, discussing, dealing with, describing, reflecting, or 

pertaining to in any way whatsoever. 

11. “RDX” means RDX Technologies Corporation.

12. “Social Media Posts” means any message—whether in the form of words or 

graphics—made using a website, application, program, or software that allows the user to 

share a message with one or more other persons, regardless of the number of persons (if 

any) with whom that message is actually shared and regardless of whether that message 

may be accessed by the public. For the avoidance of doubt, “Social Media Posts” does not 

include communications over a Bloomberg Terminal, electronic mail, text messages, 

instant message service messages, or voicemail. 

13. “Solverdi” means Solverdi Worldwide Corporation.

14. “Wyo Tech” means Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC.

15. “You” or “Your” means Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. The relevant time period to which each request refers is January 1, 2016 

through the date of production. 

2. The past tense form shall be construed to include the present tense, and vice 

versa, whenever such a dual construction will serve to bring within the scope of a request 

any response that would otherwise not be within its scope. 

3. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and vice versa. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 12 of 16
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 

4. Each category of documents in these requests extends to any and all 

documents in Your possession, custody, or control. A document shall be deemed to be in 

Your possession, custody, or control if it is in Your physical custody, or if it is in the 

physical custody of any other person and You (a) own such document in whole or in part; 

or (b) have a right by contract, statute, or otherwise to use, inspect, examine, or copy such 

document; or (c) have an understanding, express or implied, that You may use, inspect, 

examine, or copy such document; or (d) as a practical matter, have been able to use, 

inspect, examine, or copy such document. Such documents shall include, but are not 

limited to, documents that are in the custody of any of Your attorneys, representatives, or 

other agents. 

5. All requests for the production of documents shall be construed to include 

any additional documents responsive to these requests that are discovered or produced 

after the date of production. 

6. All documents should be produced in the order in which they appear in the 

files of the producing party, organized by source, and should contain a clear indication of 

where each document ends and the next begins. Documents maintained in a file folder or 

binder should be preceded by the file folder or binder label, if one exists, and should 

contain a clear indication of where the file folder or binder begins and ends. All 

attachments to a document should be produced with the document. A unique bates number 

should be affixed to each page. 

7. All documents, including documents that originated in electronic form or in 

hard copy form, should be produced electronically in pdf format. Each individual 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 13 of 16
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 

document should be produced as its own pdf. Each pdf should be labeled with the bates 

number of the first page of that document. 

8. Metadata, including, but not limited to, bates number, custodian, author, 

to/from/cc/bcc, subject, sent date, and file date, that can be extracted from a document 

shall be produced for that document, to the extent already in existence and reasonably 

accessible or available. 

9. If You object to the production of any document or tangible thing within the 

scope of the requests, You must fully set forth your objections in writing, provide a list of 

all such documents and tangible things being withheld, and state the following for each 

such document or tangible thing: (i) the designated bates number, if any; (ii) the type of 

document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (iii) the general subject matter of the document; 

(iv) the date of the document; (v) the location and custodian of the document; and (vi) the 

author of the document, the addressee of the document, any other recipients shown in the 

document, and, when not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and 

recipients to each other. 

10. If any document that You are requested to produce or identify was at one 

time in existence, but has been lost, discarded, or destroyed, identify in writing each 

document and provide the following information: (a) the date or approximate date it was 

lost, discarded, or destroyed; (b) the circumstances and manner in which it was lost, 

discarded, or destroyed; (c) the reason or reasons for disposing of the document (if 

discarded or destroyed); (d) the identity of all persons authorizing the document and 

having knowledge of the document; (e) the identity of the persons who lost, discarded, or 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 14 of 16
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 

destroyed the document; (f) the identity of any persons having knowledge of the contents 

of the document; and (g) a detailed summary of the nature and contents of the document, 

including the author(s) of the document(s), the name of the person(s) to whom the 

document(s) was (were) delivered or addressed, including indicated or blind copy 

recipients, the date of the document(s), and a description of the subject matter, including 

any attachment or appendices, and the number of pages. 

11. If You object in whole or in part to any request based on a claim of 

privilege, provide a list of the documents being withheld and for each such document: 

(a) state the nature of the privilege which is being claimed and, if the privilege is governed 

by state law, which state’s privilege rule is being invoked; and (b) provide a description of 

the document, including (i) the designated bates number, if any; (ii) the type of document, 

e.g., letter or memorandum; (iii) the general subject matter of the document; (iv) the date 

of the document; (v) the location and custodian of the document; and (vi) the author of the 

document, the addressee of the document, any other recipients shown in the document, 

and, when not apparent, the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each 

other. 

12. If any of these documents cannot be produced in full, You are requested to 

produce them to the fullest extent possible, specifying clearly the reasons for Your 

inability to produce the remainder and stating any information, knowledge, or belief You 

have concerning the unproduced portion. 

13. The specificity of any request shall not be construed to limit the generality 

or reach of any other request. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 15 of 16
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 

DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 

1. Documents sufficient to show all payments—including date, amount, and 

source account—made to You by Wyo Tech.

2. Documents sufficient to show all payments—including date, amount, and 

source account—made to You by Inductance.

3. Documents sufficient to show the client(s) on whose behalf the payments in 

Request Nos. 1 and 2 above were made.

4. Documents sufficient to show the matter(s) for which the payments in 

Request Nos. 1 and 2 above were made.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 101 Filed 02/25/19 Page 16 of 16