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

CWT PARTIES’ REPLY IN 

FURTHER SUPPORT OF 

CONTEMPT MOTION

And related claims.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 11
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

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................ 1

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 5

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 11
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

Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, 

and Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) submit this brief reply, along with the 

Reply Declaration of Joshua Wurtzel, to Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.’s and Beus Gilbert 

PLLC’s Response to CWT Parties’ Amended Motion for an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 

No. 140).

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Contrary to its representations to this Court, Wilenchik still has not complied with 

the subpoena served on it and this Court’s April 9, 2018 order. This Court should thus 

hold it, and Beus Gilbert, in contempt, and continue to sanction Wilenchik until it fully 

complies.

ARGUMENT

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 to the 

Wurtzel Reply Declaration as Exhibit A.

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 to the Wurtzel 

Reply Declaration as Exhibit B.

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 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 11
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-

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 

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. 

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.” 

Wurtzel Reply Decl. Ex. C. 

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.

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. Id. ¶ 7. This missing information is 

reflected in Appendix A to this reply, which we shared with Wilenchik by e-mail on May 

24, 2019.

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. Id. ¶ 8. This missing 

information is also reflected in Appendix A.

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. Id. ¶ 9. 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. Id. Copies of the pages 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 4 of 11
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-

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

information is provided are attached to the Wurtzel Declaration as Exhibit D. The specific 

payments at issue are highlighted.

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. Id. ¶ 10. But Wilenchik told us that it could not answer 

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

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. 

Id. ¶ 11. 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. Id. ¶ 12. 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. Id. ¶ 13; see Ultimate Creations, Inc. v. McMahon, 2009 WL 10673613, 

at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2009) (party’s bank records were in its possession, custody, or 

control, because party “needs only to log onto his online bank account and print the 

responsive documents from each bank’s website or otherwise arrange with each bank to 

obtain these records”).

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 5 of 11
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-

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. 

Wurtzel Reply Decl. ¶ 14. Without giving any detail or explaining why we were wrong, 

Wilenchik continued to insist that it had produced all responsive documents. Id. ¶ 15. And 

one attorney at Wilenchik even demanded that we stop e-mailing it. Id. 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. Id. ¶ 16. A copy of this e-mail chain is attached 

to the Wurtzel Reply Declaration as Exhibit E. 

Thus, while Wilenchik has repeatedly insisted that it has fully complied with the 

subpoena and the Court’s April 9 order, it has concededly failed to make even a minimal 

effort to determine whether these payments—which it knows it got for a “Danzik” 

matter—were from Wyo Tech or Inductance. So until Wilenchik either (1) produces 

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

these payments were for, or (2) confirms that none of these payments came from Wyo 

Tech or Inductance, Wilenchik has failed to comply with the subpoena and this Court’s 

April 9 order.

Fourth, Wilenchik still continues to withhold documents showing payments to it 

from Inductance. Indeed, attached to the Wurtzel Reply Declaration 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. Id. ¶ 17. While 

Wilenchik did produce documents showing a $100,000 payment from Inductance on 

January 14, 2019, it is not clear this is the same payment—and even if it is, as shown in 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 6 of 11
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-

Appendix A, Wilenchik has not produced any documents showing the source account for 

this payment. Id. ¶ 18.

Thus, the evidence shows that Wilenchik continues to withhold responsive 

documents. And even after this Court issued its May 16, 2019 order granting the CWT 

Parties’ motion for an order to show cause (Dkt. No. 136), Wilenchik still failed to collect 

or review its own bank records to provide missing information that it was required to 

produce under the subpoena and the Court’s April 9 order. Therefore, Wilenchik’s claim 

that it has fully complied with the subpoena and this Court’s April 9 order is false, and so 

contempt sanctions are necessary to coerce its compliance.

CONCLUSION

This Court should (1) hold Wilenchik and Beus Gilbert in civil contempt; (2) order

them to pay the CWT Parties’ legal fees incurred in making its original and amended 

motions for an order to show cause, and in preparing this reply brief and in participating 

in the May 29, 2019 show-cause hearing; and (3) order them to pay the CWT Parties $500 

per day from April 27 through the date they fully comply with this Court’s April 9 order 

by producing all documents requested by the subpoenas, which would be through May 17, 

2019 for Beus Gilbert, and which has not yet occurred for Wilenchik.1

 1 Though not part of this motion, this Court should be aware that the CWT Parties also 

intend to seek relief against Wyo Tech for its failure, in accordance with this Court’s May 

1, 2019 order (Dkt. No. 128), to produce all documents responsive to the document 

requests the CWT Parties served on it and to fully answer the interrogatories the CWT 

Parties served on it. Indeed, after blowing this Court’s May 15, 2019 production deadline 

by a day for its document production and two days for its interrogatory responses, Wyo 

Tech’s document production is missing many documents we know it should have. And 

even worse, though this Court held that Wyo Tech “forfeited or waived its objections” to 

the CWT Parties’ interrogatories—including objections based on overbreadth—and had to 

respond substantively by May 15 (id.), Wyo Tech still refused to answer an interrogatory 

on the ground that, aside from a minimal, pithy response, “[d]ue to the immense 

overbreadth of this interrogatory, Wyo Tech has not been able to prepare a detailed 

response to it”; and further responded to other interrogatories—sometimes without even 

providing a minimal, pithy answer—that responsive information is “still being compiled.” 

We are in the process of preparing a list of Wyo Tech’s deficiencies in its document 

production and interrogatory responses. We will then share that list with Wyo Tech, and 

absent immediate resolution, expect to seek relief before this Court. At the same time, we 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 7 of 11
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-

Dated:May 28, 2019

Phoenix, Arizona

Respectfully submitted,

RYAN RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.

By: /s/ Henk Taylor (016321)

J. Henk Taylor (016321)

3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 1600

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 280-1000

Facsimile: (602) 265-1495

E-Mail: htaylor@rrulaw.com

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP

Jeffrey M. Eilender (admitted pro hac 

 vice)

Bradley J. Nash (admitted pro hac vice)

Joshua Wurtzel (admitted pro hac vice)

26 Broadway

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (212) 344-5400

Facsimile: (212) 34407677

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

 also expect to move to compel responses by several Wyo-Tech-related nonparties who 

have failed to respond to subpoenas we served on them.

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 8 of 11
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

-7-

ORIGINAL e-filed and COPIES

e-mailed this 28th day of May

2019 as follows:

Dennis I. Wilenchik

WILENCHIK & BARTNESS P.C.

2810 North Third Street

Phoenix, AZ 85004

E-Mail: diw@wb-law.com

Leo R. Beus

BEUS GILBERT PLLC

701 North 44th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85008

E-Mail: lbeus@beusgilbert.com

Attorneys for Wyo Tech Investment 

Group, LLC

/s/ Henk Taylor

Henk Taylor

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 9 of 11
APPENDIX A

Date Payor Source Account Amount Client Matter

May 22, 2017

(WYOTECH00004629)

Wyo Tech

(WYOTECH00004629)

NOT GIVEN $10,000

(WYOTECH00004629)

Ker, Carrigan, DAS, 

Elizabeth Danzik

(WB000012—says July 31)

Ker/Carrigan

(WB000012—says July 

31)

Nov. 30, 2017

(WYOTECH00004631)

Inductance

(WYOTECH00004631)

Inductance Act. 

No. 9245

(WYOTECH00004631)

$100,000

(WYOTECH00004631)

NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN

Dec. 15, 2017

(WB000001, 

WB000009)

Inductance

(WB000001, 

WB000009)

NOT GIVEN

$100,000

(WB000001, 

WB000009)

Danzik/ADV CWT

(WB000009)

Danzik/ADV 

CWT

(WB000009)

Jan. 22, 2018

(WB000002, 

WB000009, 

WYOTECH00004632)

Inductance

(WB000002, 

WB000009, 

WYOTECH00004632)

Inductance Act. 

No. 9245

(WYOTECH00004632)

$100,000

(WB000002, 

WB000009, 

WYOTECH00004632)

Danzik/ADV CWT

(WB000009)

Danzik/ADV 

CWT

(WB000009)

Apr. 9, 2018

(WYOTECH00004633)

Inductance

(WYOTECH00004633)

Inductance Act. 

No. 9245

(WYOTECH00004633)

$100,000

(WYOTECH00004633)

NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN

Aug. 7, 2018

(WYOTECH00004634)

Inductance

(WYOTECH00004634)

Inductance Act. 

No. 9245

(WYOTECH00004634)

$25,000

(WYOTECH00004634)

Wyo Tech

(WB000003)

Wyo 

Tech/Wells 

Fargo

(WB000007—says Aug. 

31)

Aug. 21, 2018

(WYOTECH00004635)

Inductance

(WYOTECH00004635)

Inductance Act. 

No. 9245

(WYOTECH00004635)

$100,000

(WYOTECH00004635)

NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 10 of 11
APPENDIX A

Sept. 17, 2018

(WB000004, 

WB000011)

Inductance

(WB000004, 

WB000011)

NOT GIVEN $100,000

(WB000004)

Wyo Tech

(WB000011)

Wyo 

Tech/Wells 

Fargo

(WB000011)

Jan. 14, 2019

(WB000005, 

WB000011)

Inductance

(WB000005, 

WB000011)

NOT GIVEN

$100,000

(WB000005, 

WB000011)

Wyo Tech

(WB000011)

Wyo Tech

(WB000011) 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 153 Filed 05/29/19 Page 11 of 11