273 P Submission of 159, 160 & 180

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00126-RC
JAMES RISEN, ET AL.,
The Honorable Rudolph Contreras
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE THE COURTS ORDER OF JUNE 20, 2016
Plaintiff, Dennis Montgomery, hereby notifies the Court of his compliance with its Order
of June 20, 2016. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the unsealed document from ECF 159.1 Attached as
Exhibit 2 is the unsealed document from ECF 160. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the unsealed
document from ECF 180. If Plaintiff has misunderstood the documents to be filed on the public
record, he is ready to comply with any subsequent Court Order.
Dated June 20, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
Klayman Law Firm
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800
Email: leklayman@gmail.com

1
In its June 7, 2016 Order, the Court correctly concluded that ECF documents 156 and 159
are identical. Therefore, pursuant to this Courts June 20, 2016 Order, Plaintiff is only filing ECF
documents 159, 160, and 180 attached as exhibits.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this June 20, 2016 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Notice was filed and served with the Court through the Courts Electronic Case Filing system,
and will be delivered electronically to all counsel for the Defendants who have entered an
appearance in this case through the ECF system, including:
Laura R. Handman
Lisa B. Zycherman
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20006-3401
Email: laurahandman@dwt.com
Email: lisazycherman@dwt.com
Attorneys for Defendants
/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.
Klayman Law Firm
D.C. Bar No. 334581
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (310) 595-0800
Email: leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 26
Case
Case1:16-cv-00126-RC
1:16-cv-00126-RC Document
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 12 of
of 626
f
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO UR T

FOR TH E SO U TH ERN DISTRIC T O F FLO RIDA
CA SE N O .:15-cv-20782-M alinez-Goodm an
DEN N IS M ONTG OM ERY ,
Plaintiff,
FILED b
D,
C.
0C1'22 2215
RISEN ,ET A L.
D efendants.
s'
rEvEN M . LARIMORE
CLER
K Lls ossT c'
r
s o cfFLA - MI
XMI
PLAINTIFF'S M O TIO N FO R LEA VE TO FILE UN DER SEAL
PlaintiffDennisMontgomeryherebymoves,pursuanttoRule5.4(b)oftheLocalRules
forthe U .S.D istrictCourtforthe Southern D istrictofFlorida,forleave to file the attached
sensitivedocuments(Exhibit1)underseal.
On October 19,2015,M agistrate Judge Jonathan Goodm an issued the follow ing
order:
Plaintiffshall,byOctober20,2015,fileaNoticeofFilingonCM/ECF,attaching
a11 communicatlons between Plaintiff (and/or Plaintiffs counsel) and the FBl
and/orAssistantUnited StatesAttorney Deborah Curtisconcerninj the turning

over of the software and the efforts to retrieve it from the FBI, lncluding alI
com m unications in response to FBl GeneralCounselJam es Baker's request for
additional information that the Courtw as copied on from Septem ber 8, 2015
(ECF No.1261.A1lofthese communicationsshallbe turned overto defense

counselasw ell,even ifPlaintiffattem ptsto file the docum entsunderseal.
See DocketNo.l54 - PostD iscovery H earing A dm inistrative Order.
W ith fullreservation ofallrights,in accordance with M agistrate Judge G oodm an's
Order,thesubjectcommunicationshavealreadybeenprovidedtoDefendants'counseland
M agistrate Judge Goodm an. Plaintiffisrespectfully requesting thattheentirety ofthese
docum entsbe placed underseal. The docum entsatissue are sensitive fora num berofreasons.
Case
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 23 of
of 626
First,these are com m unicationsbetw een Plaintiff scounseland the FederalBureau of
lnvestigation (:tFBl''),aswellastheU.S.Attorney'sOffice,regarding anongoing criminal

investigation by the FBI. The FB1and the U .S.Attorney have both stated theirdesire thatthe
crim inalm atterunderinvestigation and this law suitinvolving Plaintiffbe keptseparate. Plaintiff
isconcerned thatany ongoing working relationship and cooperation betw een Plaintiffand the
FBlwillbe putatrisk ifthe com m unicationsare released on the public record, and thatthis
crim inalinvestigation w illbe comprom ised.
ln addition,these com m unications fallunderthe work-productdoctrine and should not
respectfully be disclosed publicly in thislaw suit. These com m unicationsw ere m ade specifically
between Plaintiff scounseland theFBlin regardsto an ongoing crim inalinvestigation in which

Plaintiff'scounselisrepresenting Plaintiff. Plaintiff snegotiationswith the FBlbegan overa
yearago,w ellbefore thislaw suitw aseverfiled.
Finally,the com m unicationsw ith the FBlcontain a roadm ap to finding sensitive
inform ation contained on hard drivesthatare now in possession ofthe FBI. TheFBIisstillin
the process ofdeterm ining w hetherany ofthe docum entsand/orsoftware thatm ay existon these
hard drivesis classified. lnform ation thatleadsto the finding ofpotentially classified
infonnation should notbe given to the public forpossible revelationsofnationalsecrets, as set
forth in Exhibit2.
W ith allthese issuessurrounding the docum entsatissue,Plaintiffrespectfully requests
thatallofthe docum entsattached asExhibit 1be placed underseal.
Case
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 34 of
of 626
1
These docum entshave additionally been designated asconfidentialasprovided in page 4
ofM agistrateJudge Goodm an'sProtectiveOrderConcerning ConfidentialInformation (Docket
No.89).MagistrateJudgeGoodman'sOrderProvides:
Any party in thisA ction orany third party to whom a subpoena is issued in this
Action (aEproducing Pal4y''lmay designateany materialthatitproduces

(including,butnotlimitedto,exhibits,documents,andthings;answersto
interrogatories;responsesto requestsforadm issions,responsesto requestsfor
production;and declarations,affidavits,and deposition testim ony ortranscripts,
including theinformationcontained therein whetherinnoteorsummary form)as

lconfidential''only ifthe m aterialcontainsinform ation thatisproprietary or
unduly sensitive to the Producing Party and isnotothenvise in the public dom ain.
DocketNo.89--ProtectiveOrderConcerning Confidentiallnformation (Emphasis

added).
Particularlyinlightofaletter/objectionofJusticeDepartmentCounselfortheCentral
lntelligenceAgency(ttClA'')justobtainedyesterdaybyPlaintiff,afterPlaintiffrequestedit
from Defendants'counselafterPlaintifflearned ofityesterday,outofan abundance ofcaution
Plaintiffism oving to have the com m unicationsatissue placed under seal. Thisletter,w hich is
anobjectionfrom theCIA overDefendants'subpoenastotheC1A andcertainpersonnel,isselfexplanatoly asitunderscoresthe sensitive nature ofthese docum entsata m inim um ,and sets
forth the D epartm entofJustice'sand the CIA 'sposition thatthe software atissue in thislaw suit
isnotrelevantunderthecircumstancesofthiscase,amongothercompellingobjections.Exhibit
Plaintiffrequeststo have thesedocum entsplaced undersealin perpetuity oruntilsuch

time thatPlaintiffisno longerinvolved w ith com m unicationswith the FBIregarding an ongoing
criminalinvestigation,andtheU.S.JusticeDepartmentinconjunctionwiththeFBldecides
whetherornotto bring prosecutionsagainstthese personswho PlaintiffM ontgom ery,as a
governm entwitness,hasprovided inform ation show ing thattheN ationalSecurity Agency and/or
Case
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 45 of
of 626
CentralIntelligenceAgencyillegallysurveilledmillionsofAmericansincludingjudges,
congressmen,senators,andotherswithoutprobablecause.Thesubjectdocumentsshould
respectfully befiled undersealso asnotto, ata m inim um ,com prom ise an on-going crim inal
investigation. Accordingly,exceptionalcircum stancesand good cause havebeen shown.
Consistentw ith this,as in the case of Washington Postv. Robinson,935 F.2d 282,290
(D.C.Cir.1991)thesefactspresentanextraordinarysituationandacompellinggovenzmental
interestwhichjustifythesealingoftheinformationuntil(l)thesubstantialrisktothepersonal
safety ofcooperating individuals;and(2)thegovernmentrepresentsthatitcancontinueits
criminalinvestigationwithoutsubstantialriskthatitwouldbejeopardized.
Plaintiffsoughtconsentforthism otion from D efendants. D efendants do notgrant
consentto thism otion.
Plaintifffully respectsthe decisions ofM agistrate Judge G oodm an and com pliesw ith his
ordersto fullextentpossible while stillattem pting to protecthisow n interestsin thiscom plex

and sensitive issue. lfM agistrate Judge Goodm an deniesPlaintiff srequestto file these
docum entsunderseal,Plaintiffrequeststhata stay ofthe Orderbe putin place untilsuch tim e
thatPlaintiffwithallduespeedhastheopportunitytotimelyfileanobjectionwiththepresiding
judgeandsuchtimethattheobjectionisheardanddecidedbyhim.
W H EREFORE,forthe foregoing reasons,Plaintiffrespectfully requeststhatleave be
granted forhim to file the sensitive docum entsthathave been attached asExhibit1 underseal.
Dated:October2l,2015
Case
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 56 of
of 626
Respectfully subm itted,
trr Y
lla
FL
JQOZIX sSq
.
Law Firm
No.246220
7 50 W Palmetto Park Rd.

Suite 15-287
B oca R aton,FL 33433
(310)595-0800
leklayman@ gmail.com
Attorney forPlaintiff
'
Case
Document273-1
159 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 67 of
of 626
CERTIFIG TE OF SERW CE
IH ER EBY CERTIFY thaton this21Stday ofOctober, 2015,atrue and correctcopy of
theforegoingtcaseNo.15-cv-20782)wasfiledviaCM/ECFandsenzeduponthefollowing:
Sanford LewisBohrer
Brian Toth
I-lolland & Knight,LLP
Suite3000
701 BrickellA ve
M iam i,FL 33131
Email:sbohrer@bklam com
Email:brian.toth@hklam com
Laura R .H andm an
M ieah Ratner
D avis W rightTrem aine LLP
1919 Perm sylvania Ave.,N .W .,Suite S00
W ashington D .C.20006-3401
Email:latlrahandman@ dwt.com
Email:MicahRatner@ dwtcom
/
J
1
.,z
7 .e'
L ! r alrm an, Esq.
Exhibit 1
CasePursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
273-1 Order
FiledConcerning
06/20/16Confidential
Page 9Information
of 26 (Docket No. 89).
Designated as Confidential
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's Protective
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
06/20/16 Confidential
Page 10Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 11Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 12Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 13Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 14Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 15Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 16Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 17Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 18Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 19Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 20Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Case Pursuant
1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Page 21Information
to Magistrate Judge
Goodman's 273-1
ProtectiveFiled
Order Concerning
Exhibit 2

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
Mailing Address
Delivery Address
Post Office Box 883
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044 Washington, D.C. 20530
Raphael O. Gomez
Senior Trial Counsel
Telephone: (202) 514-1318

Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
Email:
raphael.gomez@usdoj.gov
October 16, 2015
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Laura R. Handman, Esq.
Re:
Montgomery v. Risen, C.A. No. 15-cv-20782 (S.D. Fla.)
Dear Ms. Handman:

On October 2, 2015, counsel for defendants in the above-referenced action notified the
Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA'') that pursuant to 32 C.F.R. Part 1905 (CIAs Touhy
regulations), (d)efendants seek discovery from the [CIA], its components, and its current and
former employees. Ratner Declaration at 1. You also stated that pursuant to 32 C.F.R.
1905.4(d), you offered the declaration of defendants attorney Micah J. Ratner as a statement
regarding the scope and relevance of the requested discovery. Id. Further, as part of your
Touhy request, you served subpoenas for documents and testimony from CIA employees upon
the CIA. As you are aware, the CIA is not a party to this action, in which plaintiff brings a libel
action against author James Risen, his publisher HMH, and its holding company HMHC arising
from statements in Chapter 2 ("Chapter") of his book, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and the
Endless War. Id. at 1-2.
CIAs Touhy regulations prohibit its employees from either producing documents or
testifying without prior authorization from the proper agency official. See 32 C.F.R. 1905.3.
As set forth in its Touhy regulations, in determining whether information can be produced in
response to your requests, CIA officials will consider a number of factors in reaching a decision,
including, but not limited to: whether production is appropriate in light of any relevant privilege;
whether production is appropriate under the applicable rules of discovery; whether disclosure
would violate a statute; whether disclosure would be inconsistent with the statutory responsibility
of the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and methods; and whether disclosure
would reveal classified information. 32 C.F.R. 1905.4(c).
Your requests are currently under consideration by the CIA. As of the date of this letter,
however, a determination has not yet been made as to whether any of the information you are
seeking can be produced, and therefore no production of documents or deposition testimony on
the designated dates may take place. See id.
In the meantime, while your subpoenas for documents and testimony are being made
pursuant to the CIAs Touhy regulations, assuming, arguendo, that Rule 45 applies to your
request, the CIA preserves the following additional objections to the requests:
1. As stated above, your Touhy subpoena requests for documents and testimony are under
consideration by the CIA and as a determination has not yet been made as to whether any
of the information you are seeking can be produced, no production of documents or
deposition testimony on the designated dates may take place. See 32 C.F.R. 1905.3(a).
2. The CIA objects to the requests to the extent any response would risk or require the
disclosure of any classified national security information or other privileged U.S.
Government information. To the extent a response to the requests would do so, no
response is required or will be provided. In addition, none of the objections set forth
herein should be construed to confirm or deny that the CIA maintains or has maintained
the information being sought in the request, and discussed in this response, or any
statement or allegation in the request or in Chapter 2 of Pay Any Price: Greed, Power,
and the Endless War.
3. As set forth more specifically below, your requests violate Rules 26 and 45 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 45(d)(1), (d)(3), on the grounds, inter
alia, that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative and
duplicative, and fail to describe the information sought with reasonable particularity, and
to the extent they call for the production of privileged information. Compliance with
these requests will impose substantial burdens that will detract from the mission of the
CIA.
4. The CIA specifically objects to your deposition requests on the ground that they are
overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, and fail to
describe the information sought with reasonable particularity. The request seeks to
depose 4 current or former CIA employees concerning at least 12 topic areas.
Depositions of current or former CIA officials in third party litigation impose substantial
burdens on the CIAs mission in light of the need to ensure that any U.S. Government
information is authorized for disclosure and that any classified national security
information is not disclosed. Again without confirming or denying any allegation or
statement, you seek to depose several current or former high-ranking agency officials on
an extraordinarily broad range of topics and matters in which the CIA was allegedly
involved, going back over a decade. Your deposition requests are also unreasonably
cumulative [and] duplicative, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), in that many of the
topics on which you seek deposition testimony are covered in your requests for agency
documents.
5. The CIA also specifically objects to your document requests on the ground that they are
describe the information sought with reasonable particularity, and to the extent they call
for the production of classified national security or other privileged information. In
particular, many of the requests seek information that would be expected to be
2
substantially duplicative of information contained in and cited by defendants in officially

released public reports. See, Defs. Mot. Dismiss at 36, ECF No. 25.
6. The document requests also seek information that is otherwise available from sources that
are more convenient, less burdensome, and/or less expensive. Defendants are currently
seeking the same information and material in the instant action from plaintiff. For
example, defendants seek a copy of Mr. Montgomerys software from the CIA when it
currently has obtained a court order in the instant action for production of such software
from plaintiff. See Post Discovery Hearing Order dated August 22, 2015, ECF No. 107.
7. The subpoena "fails to allow reasonable time for compliance." Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(3)(A)(i). The subpoena was served on October 2, 2015, and requests production of
documents by October 21, 2015. Given the breadth of the subpoena, 12 working days
does not even come close to providing sufficient time for CIA to ascertain whether and to
what extent the CIA can provide any response to the request.
8. You have not satisfied your burden of establishing that the requested information is
relevant to [your clients] defenses. For example, you assert that the testimony sought is
needed to support your clients defenses in this action, including information essential to
answering questions that are central to the element of falsity in Montgomery's libel
claim. Ratner Declaration at 3. The validity of these defenses turns, however, on what
the defendants knew or should have known at the time of the challenged statements, not
on what the government knew. See, Don King Prods. v. Walt Disney Co., 40 So. 3d 40,
43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (in the context of defamation, actual malice is
defined as knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. [citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, (1964)]); in
assessing reckless disregard, the court found that a showing of reckless disregard
requires sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. (quoting the Supreme
Court in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). As a result, your requests are
also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the
burden and expense of providing the requested testimony would outweigh its likely
benefit in the underlying action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (b)(2)(C)(iii).
The foregoing objections are not exclusive, and the CIA reserves the right to assert further
objections in response to the subpoenas requesting documents and testimony as appropriate,
including, but not limited to, privileges and protections such as the attorney-client privilege, the
work product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and the need to withhold classified
information.
* * *
For all these reasons, CIA objects to the subpoenas and has not authorized the production
of the requested documents or deposition testimony at the date, time, and place specified on the
subpoenas. You will be advised once the CIA has made a final decision on your requests
pursuant to its Touhy regulations.
Sincerely,
/s/
Raphael O. Gomez
Case
Document273-2
160 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 12 of
of 514
IN UNITED STA TES DISTRIC T C O URT

FO R TH E SO UTH ERN DISTRICT O F FLO R IDA
CA SE N O .:15-cv-20782-M adinez-Goodm an
DENN IS M ON TG OM ERY ,
FILED by
Plaintiff,
D.C.
22T 22 2215
RISEN ,ET AL.
STEVEN M .LARIMORE
CLERK u.s DI
sT cT.
k.D.ofFLA -MIAMI
D efendants.
/
PLA INTIFF'S SEC ON D M O TIO N FOR LEAV E TO FILE UND ER SEAL
PlaintiffDennisM ontgomeryherebymoves,pursuanttoRule5.4(b)oftheLocalRules
forthe U .S.D istrictCoul'tforthe Southern DistrictofFlorida,forleave to filethe attached
sensitivedocuments(Exhibit1)underseal.
On October 19,2015,M agistrate Judge Jonathan Goodm an issued the follow ing
order:
Plaintiffshall,by October 2l,20l5,send the FBI,via em ailto A ssistantGeneral
Counsel Schwartz, a comprehensive set of instructions (the best available to

Plaintifg asto how to pinpointthe soflwareamidstthemassiveamountofdat'z
thatw as turned over to the FBI.If Plaintiff cannot tellthe FBI exactly how to
identify the software,then he shallso state in the em ail.Copies ofthatem ailshall
befiledwith theCourt(publicly)on CM /ECF byOctober22,2015.

See DocketN o.154 - PostD iscovery H earing A dm inistrative Order.
W ith fullreservation ofal1rights,in accordance w ith M agistrate Judge Goodm an's
Order,thesubjectinstructionshavealreadybeenprovidedtoDefendants'counseland
M agistrate Judge Goodm an. Plaintiffisrespectfully requesting thatthe instructions sentto the
FBl(Exhibit1)beplacedunderseal.
Case
Document273-2
160 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 23 of
of 514
The instructionsto the FB1contain a roadm ap to finding sensitive inform ation contained
on hard drivesthatare now in possession ofthe FBI. The FBIis stillin theprocessof
determ ining whetherany ofthe docum ents and/or softwarethatm ay existon these hard drivesis
classified. lnform ation thatleadsto the finding ofpotentially classified inform ation should not
be given to the public forpossible revelationsofnationalsecurity secrets,assetforth in Exhibit
2.
Given thisissue surrounding these instructions,Plaintiffrespectfully requeststhatthe

docum entsattached asExhibit 1beplaced underseal.
These docum entshave additionally been designated asconfidentialasprovided in page 4
ofM agistrateJudgeGoodman'sProtectiveOrderConcerning ContsdentialInformation(Docket

No.89).M agistrateJudge Goodman'sOrderProvides:
A ny party in thisAction orany third party to w hom a subpoena isissued in this
Action(a:dproducingPart/'lmaydesignateanymaterialthatitproduces
(including,butnotlimitedto,exhibits,documents,andthings;answersto
interrogatories,responsesto requests foradm issions'
,responsesto requests for
production;and declarations,affidavits,and deposition testim ony ortranscripts,
includingtheinformation containedthereinwhetherinnoteorsumm ary form)as

tconfidential''only ifthem aterialcontains inform ation thatisproprietary or
unduly sensitive to the Producing Pal'ty and isnotothelw ise in thepublic dom ain.
DocketNo.89 --ProtectiveOrderConcerning ConfidentialInformation (Emphasis

added).
Particularlyinlightofaletter/objectionofJusticeDepartmentCounselfortheCentral
IntelligenceAgency(ttClA'')justobtainedyesterdaybyPlaintiff,aflerPlaintiffrequestedit
from Defendants'counselafterPlaintifflearned ofityesterday,outofan abundance ofcaution
Plaintiffism oving to have the com m unications atissueplaced underseal. This letter,which is
anobjectionfrom theClA overDefendants'subpoenastotheC1A andcertainpersonnel,isself-
Case
Document273-2
160 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 34 of
of 514
explanatory,asitunderscoresthe sensitive nature ofthese docum entsata m inim um ,and sets
forth the D epartm entofJustice'sand the ClA 'sposition thatthe softwareatissue in thislaw suit
isnotrelevantunderthe facts,law ,and circum stancesofthiscase,am ong othercom pelling
objections.Exhibit2.
Plaintiffrequests to have these docum entsplaced undersealin perpetuity oruntilsuch
tim e thatPlaintiffisno longer involved w ith com m unicationsw ith the FBlregarding an ongoing
criminalinvestigation,andtheU.S.JusticeDepartmentinconjunctionwiththeFBldecides
whetherornotto bring prosecutionsagainstthese personswho PlaintiffM ontgom ery,asa
governm entw itness,hasprovided inform ation show ing thatthe N ationalSecurity A gency and/or
CentrallntelligenceAgencyillegallysurveilledmillionsofAmericansincludingjudges,
congressmen,senators,andotherswithoutprobablecause.Thesubjectdocumentsshould
respectfully be filed undersealso asnotto,atam inim um ,com prom ise an on-going crim inal
investigation. A ccordingly,exceptionalcircum stancesand good cause have been show n.
Consistentw ith this,asin the case of W ashington Postv.Robinson,935 F.2d 282,290
(D.C.Cir.1991)thesefactspresentanextraordinarysituationandacompellinggovernmental
interestwhichjustifythesealingoftheinformationuntil(1)thesubstantialrisktothepersonal
safety ofcooperating individuals;and(2)thegovernmentrepresentsthatitcancontinueits
criminalinvestigationwithoutsubstantialriskthatitwouldbejeopardized.
Plaintiffsoughtconsentforthism otion from Defendants. Defendantsdo notgrant
consentto thismotion.
Plaintifffully respectsthe decisionsofM agistrate Judge Goodm an and com pliesw ith his
ordersto fullextentpossible w hile stillatlem pting to protecthisown and the government's
Case
Document273-2
160 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 45 of
of 514
interestsin tlzism atter. IfM agistzateJudge Goodm an derlies Plaintiff'srequestto filethese

docum entsunderseal,Plaintiffrequeststhata s< y ofthe Orderbe putin placetmtilsuch thne
thatPlaintiffwithal1duespeedhmstheopportunitytotimelytqleanobjection%4ththepresiding
judgeandsuchtimethattheobjectionisheardanddecidedbyhim.
W HEQFTORE,fortheforegoingreasons,Plaim iffrespectfullyrequeststhatleavebe
granted forhip to file the sensitive docum entsthathavebeen a'
dached asExhibit 1 lm derseal.
Dated:O ctober22,2015
ectfully s m itted,
La 'K laym an,Esq.

aym an Law Firm
L Bm'N o.246220
7050 %'Palm etto Park Rd.

Suite 15-287
Booa Raton,FL 33433
(310)595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Case
Document273-2
160 Filed
Filed 10/22/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 56 of
of 514
CERTIFIG TE O F SERW CE
1H EREBY CERTIFY thaton this22nd day ofOctober,2015,atnze and correctcopy of
theforegoing(CaseNo.15-cv-20782)wasSledviaCM/ECFandserveduponthefollowing:
Sanford LewisBohrer
Brian T0th
H olland & Knight,LLP
Suite 3000
701BrickellA ve
M inm i7FL 33131
Email:sbollrer@hklam com
Email:brian.toth@hklaw.com
Laura R.H andm an
M icah Ratner
DavisW rightTrem aine LLP
1919 Pelm sylvmlia Ave.,N .W .,Suite 800
W ashington D.C.20006-3401
Email:laurahandman@dnrt.com
Email:M icahRatner@dw-t.com
L
yf
!
'Klaym an,Esq.
Exhibit 1
Designated as Confidential Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Goodman's Protective Order Concerning Confidential Information (Docket No. 89).
Exhibit 2

Civil Division
Mailing Address
Delivery Address
Post Office Box 883
Raphael O. Gomez
Telephone: (202) 514-1318

Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
Email:
October 16, 2015

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Re:
Dear Ms. Handman:

CIA.
documents.
2

information.
* * *
Sincerely,
/s/
Raphael O. Gomez
Case
Document273-3
180 Filed
Filed 11/17/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 12 of
of 491
IN UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT CO U RT

FOR TH E SOU THERN DISTR ICT O F FLO RIDA
FILED b/.
-.
N2k 17 2015
CA SE N O.:15-cv-20782-M alinez-Goodm an
DEN NIS M ON TGOM ERY ,
D.C.
STEVEN M .LARIMORE
CLERK u s ols'
r.cT.
s.D ofFLA - MIAMI
Plaintiff,
RISEN ,ET A L.
D efendants.
PLA IN TIFF'S M O TIO N FO R LEAV E TO FILE UNDER SEA L
PlaintiffDennisMontgomeryherebymoves,pursuanttoRule5.4(b)oftheLocalRules
forthe U .S.D istrictCourtforthe Southern D istrictofFlorida,forleaveto filethe atlached
sensitive docum entsunderseal.Plaintiffhaspreviously subm itted hisM em orandum in
OppositiontoDefendants'Memorandum inSupportofMotionforSanctions(DocketNo.178)
andismoving tore-filetheM emorandum withtheincluded sensitivedocuments(labeled as
Exhibit5totheM emorandum)undersealasawholefortheCourt'seaseofreview and

convenience.ExhibitA .
Plaintiffisrespectfully requesting thathiscorrespondencew ith the FederalBureau of
lnvestigation (:tFB1''),includingany instructionssenttotheFBl(included asExhibit5tothe

M emorandum)beplacedunderseal.TheinstructionstotheFB1contain aroadmap to finding
sensitive inform ation contained on hard drivesthatare now in possession ofthe FBI.
Plaintiffrequeststo have these docum entsplaced under seal.The U .S.Justice
DepartmentinconjunctionwiththeFBIareinthemidstofanongoingcriminalinvestigationto
Case
Document273-3
180 Filed
Filed 11/17/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 23 of
of 491
determ inew hetlzerornotto bring prosecutionsagainstthese personsw ho PlaintiffM ontgom ery,

asa governm entw itness,hasprovided inform ation show ing thatthe N ationalSecurity Agency
and/orCentrallntelligence A gency illegally surveilled m illions ofAm ericans including a chief
justice,judges,congressmen,senators,andotherswithoutprobablecause.Thesubject
docum entsshould respectfully be filed undersealso asnotto,ata m inim um ,com prom isean ongoing crim inalinvestigation and nationalsecurity.A ccordingly,exceptionalcircum stancesand
good causehave been shown.
These docum ents have additionally been designated asconfidentialasprovided in page 4
ofM agistrateJudge Goodman'sProtectiveOrderConcerning Confidentiallnformation (Docket
No.89).M agistrateJudgeGoodman'sOrderProvides:
Any party in this Action or any third party to w hom a subpoena is issued in this
Action (a ttproducing Pa14y''l may designate any material that it produces

(including, but not limited to, exhibits, documents, and things'
, answers to
interrogatories;responses to requests for adm issions; responses to requests for
production; and declarations,aftsdavits,and deposition testim ony or transcripts,
including the inform ation contained therein whetherin note orsumm ary form)as
Etconfidential'' only if the m aterial contains information that is proprietary or
unduly sensitive to the Producing Pal'ty and isnotothenvise in the public dom ain.
DocketNo.89--ProtectiveOrderConcerningConfidentialInformation(Emphasisadded).
Consistentw ith this,asin the case of Washington Postv.Robinson,935 F.2d 282,290
(D.C.Cir.1991)thesefactspresentan extraordinary situationand acompellinggovernmental
interestwhichjustifythesealingoftheinformationuntil(l)thesubsuntialrisktothepersonal
safetyofcooperatingindividuals;and(2)thegovernmentrepresentsthatitcancontinueits
crim inalinvestigation,w hich hasnationalsecurity im plications,withoutsubstantialrisk thatit
wouldbejeopardized.
Case
Document273-3
180 Filed
Filed 11/17/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 34 of
of 491
Plaintiffsoughtconsentforthism otion from Defendants.Defendantsdo notgrant
consentto thism otion because they dem anded to seethedocum entsbefore they are filed under
seal. Thisw ould be inappropriate assetfol4h in the em ailcorrespondence. See ExhibitB -
Em ailsofN ovem ber l7,20l5 betw een Plaintiffs counseland D efclzdants'counsel.

W HEREFORE,forthe foregoing reasons,Plaintiffrespectfully requeststhatleave be
granted forhim to file the sensitive docum entsthathave been attached asExhibitA underseal.
Dated:Novem ber 17,2015
Respectfully subm itted,
/
t3 h'- k;tcfko +0+ tziwfuj ks a cae.
tArl'y Klaym an,Esq.
K laym an Law Firm
FL BarNo.246220
7050 W Palm etto Park Rd.
Suite 15-287
B oca Raton,FL 33433
(310)595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Case
Document273-3
180 Filed
Filed 11/17/15
06/20/16 Page
Page 45 of
of 491
CERTIFICATE O F SERW CE
lHEREBY CERTIFY thaton this l7th day ofN ovem ber,20l5,atrue and correctcopy
oftheforegoing (CaseNo.15-cv-20782)wasfiledby hand withtheU.S.DistrictCourtforthe

Southern D istrictofFlorida and served via U .S.M ailupon the follow ing:
Sanford Lew is Bohrer

B rian Toth
H olland & Knight,LLP
Suite 3000
701BrickellAve
M iam i,FL 33131
Email:sbohrer@ hklaw.com
Email:brian.toth@ hklaw.com
Laura R.H andman
M icah Ratner
DavisW rightTrem aine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave.,N .W .,Suite 800
W ashington D .C.20006-3401
Email:laurahandman@dwt.com
Email:M icahRatner@ dwt.com
$7 aw w-wcto zkr t-cx.wwj W-!c

Larry K laym an,Esq.
rvxvao
Exhibit A
Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 7 of 91
Page 1 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-20782-JEM
v.
JAMES RISEN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Plaintiff Dennis Montgomery respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in Response
and Opposition to Defendants Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Sanctions.
I.
INTRODUCTION
In light of the Defendants motions utter lack of merit and improper purpose, its denial
should be compounded by a corresponding levy of sanctions and costs against Defendants James
Risen, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Company, and their counsel. Defendants have used both the threat of filing this type of motion,
not as a means to filter an alleged and unmeritorious claim of spoliation by Plaintiff
Montgomery, but as a heavy-handed, bullying tactic intended to intimidate Plaintiff Montgomery
into withdrawing his legitimate claims in an evolving and uncharted area of law with regard to
the investigation of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the alleged software at issue.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Defendants James Risen, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, and
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Company defamed Plaintiff Montgomery published a book, Pay
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 8 of 91
Page 2 of 18
Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War (Pay Any Price) in Florida, nationally, and
internationally which unequivocally and maliciously claims that Plaintiff Montgomery
committed one of the most elaborate and dangerous hoaxes in American history. Here are
a few excerpts of the outrageous and false allegations the Defendants widely published:
Montgomery was the maestro behind what many current and former U.S. officials
and others familiar with the case now believe was one of the most elaborate and
dangerous hoaxes in American history, a ruse that was so successful that it
nearly convinced the Bush administration to order fighter jets to start
shooting down commercial airliners filled with passengers over the Atlantic.
Once it was over, once the fever broke and government officials realized that
they had been taken in by a grand illusion, they did absolutely nothing about
it. The Central Intelligence Agency buried the whole insane episode and
acted like it had never happened. The Pentagon just kept working with
Montgomery. Justice Department lawyers fanned out across the country to
try to block any information about Montgomery and his schemes from
becoming public, invoking the state secrets privilege in public, a series of civil
lawsuits involving Montgomery. It was as if everyone in Washington was
afraid to admit that the Emperor of the War on Terror had no clothes.
***
Consider the example of Dennis Montgomery. He provides a perfect case study
to explain how during the war on terror greed and ambition have been married to
unlimited rivers of cash to create a climate in which someone who has been
accused of being a con artist was able to create a rogue intelligence operation with
little or no adult supervision. Crazy became the new normal in the war on terror,
and the original objectives of the war got lost in the process.
***
A former medical technician, a self-styled computer software expert with no
experience whatsoever in national security affairs, Dennis Montgomery almost
singlehandedly prompted President Bush to ground a series of international
commercial flights based on what now appears to have been an elaborate hoax.
Even after it appeared that Montgomery had pulled off a scheme of amazing
scope, he still had die-hard supporters in the government who steadfastly
refused to believe the evidence suggesting that Montgomery was a fake, and
who rejected the notion that the super-secret computer software that he
foisted on the Pentagon and CIA was anything other than Americas
salvation.
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 9 of 91
Page 3 of 18
Pay Any Price at pp. 31 to 33 (emphasis added). This defamation has caused severe damage to
Plaintiff Montgomery, who is terminally ill, bed-ridden and recently hospitalized, with a
worsening brain aneurism that could prove fatal at any moment.
By making Plaintiff Montgomery the whipping boy and primary focus of Defendant
Risens book and indeed the chapter on Plaintiff is titled, The Emperor of the War on Terror
Defendants were able to sell a vast number of books based on unsubstantiated, sensational
charges. They did this by falsely claiming that Defendant Risen had access to confidential
sources and information from the government and therefore his book was special. At the very
beginning of Pay Any Price, Defendant Risen and his publishers tout:
[m]any people have criticized the use of anonymous sources. Yet all reported
know that the very best stories the most important, the most sensitive rely on
them. This book would not be possible without the cooperation of many current
and former government officials and other individuals who were willing to
discuss sensitive matters only on the condition of anonymity.
See Exhibit 7.
However, at Defendant Risens deposition, Plaintiffs counsel confirmed that Defendant
Risen did not have access to confidential sources or information and that he essentially made
the whole thing up. This set forth on the record and is confirmed in Defendants Motion to
Dismiss [Dkt. # 25 at pp. 7-10] wherein the Defendants claim that the case should be dismissed
on the basis on previously published public information. The Court does not need to analyze and
weigh anything else.
In short, Defendants did not have access to any alleged software in writing and
publishing their defamatory book, Pay Any Price. Predictably, Defense counsel tries to create a
Catch-22 by demanding software that Plaintiff Montgomery, upon reflection, does not believe
he has had during the time leading up to and during the pendency of this case. Based on my
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 10 of 91
Page 4 of 18
personal knowledge and belief, upon searching my memory, I do not believe that I have had
access to any of the subject software . . . Exhibit 1.
In addition, it is clear from communications generated by the U.S. Department of Justice
and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that even if such software existed, it could not be
produced to the Defendants since the government would consider it classified. For instance, in a
letter of October 16, 2015 in response to Defendants discovery subpoenas served on the CIA
and its officials, Raphael O. Gomez writes:
You have not satisfied your burden of establishing that the requested information
is relevant to [your clients] defenses. For example, you assert that the testimony
sought is needed to support your clients defenses in this action, including
information essential to answering questions that are central to the element of
falsity in Montgomery's libel claim. Ratner Declaration at 3. The validity of
these defenses turns, however, on what the defendants knew or should have
known at the time of the challenged statements, not on what the government
knew. See, Don King Prods. v. Walt Disney Co., 40 So. 3d 40, 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 4th Dist. 2010) (in the context of defamation, actual malice is defined as
knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. [citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80,
(1964)]); in assessing reckless disregard, the court found that a showing of
reckless disregard requires sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the
defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id.
(quoting the Supreme Court in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968).
As a result, your requests are also not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, and the burden and expense of providing the
requested testimony would outweigh its likely benefit in the underlying action.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (b)(2)(C)(iii).
See Exhibit 2.
In addition, Mr. Gomez states, [t]he CIA objects to the requests to the extent any response
would risk or require the disclosure of any classified national security information or other
privileged U.S. Government information. Id.
In a subsequent letter of November 13, 2015, the CIA itself states to Defendants counsel:
We are in receipt of your October 2, 2015 subpoenas to the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) seeking the production of CIA documents and electronically
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 11 of 91
Page 5 of 18
stored information, as well as the testimony of four current or former CIA

officials. For the reasons set forth below, the CIA declines to authorize CIA
employees, current or former, to testify or produce information related to or based
upon materials contained in the files of the CIA in connection with the abovereferenced matter. In addition, the CIA declines to search its records for
information that might be responsive to your demand, except for the information
discussed below.
***
The CIA conducted a search of its records and did not locate a copy of
Montgomerys software, including but not limited to video compression software
or noise filtering software Montgomery allegedly used to detect hidden Al Qaeda
messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts.
***
Second, the CIA is a clandestine intelligence service and most of our
information is classified. Even if the CIA were to devote Agency resources to
searching for records that might pertain to your private lawsuit, responsive
records (if there were any) would almost certainly be classified or otherwise
privileged from disclosure and hence unavailable to you. The disclosure or
production of classified information or records, including any
acknowledgement that such information or records exist, would violate the
Executive Order governing classified information and CIAs statutory
responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods, 32 C.F.R.
1905.4(c)(3)(ii), and reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the
national security.
Consistent with the above, the CIA will not, in response to demands from litigants
in a private lawsuit, confirm or deny details concerning tis intelligence operations
as reflected in media reports or publications, particularly when those reports are
based in part on anonymous sources, non-official disclosures, or unauthorized
disclosures. Responding to demands for information in private litigation in the
wake of such media reports, including where individuals who wrote the reports
were subsequently sued by private parties, would impose unreasonable burdens
on the Agency to frequently address media allegations concerning its mission in
third-party discovery.
Third, and for the same reasons outlines above, your demand for the testimony of
four current or former employees of the Agency is also denied. As a general
matter, the CIA cannot make current or former employees available for
depositions or testimony whenever a demand for information arises particularly
in litigation to which the CIA is not a party because to do so would unduly
interfere with the conduct of CIAs mission.
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 12 of 91
Page 6 of 18
Current and former senior CIA officials and employees acquire a wide range of
classified national security information as part of the performance of their official
duties, and the time and resources involved in preparing them for depositions,
identifying and limiting any testimony at their depositions in order to avoid the
disclosure of classified information, and reviewing the resulting transcripts, would
impose a significant and unreasonable burden on CIA resources. Again, this is
especially true in litigation between private parties involving a private dispute,
where the matters at issue have been prompted by publications concerning alleged
CIA activities based on non-official disclosures and anonymous sources.
See Exhibit 3 (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, in the face of his failing health, Plaintiff Montgomery has made a timely,
good faith effort to assist the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Justice, with whom he has an
immunity agreement and has agreed to assist in locating any such software, if it exists. Exhibit 4.
These good faith efforts have been detailed and supported in Plaintiffs Objections [Dkts # 125,
143, 144, 164], of Magistrate Judge Goodmans Orders of August 22, 2015, September 15, 2015,
and October 19, 2015, the content of which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition,
Plaintiff Montgomery has continued to diligently communicate with the FBI since these
objections were filed to attempt to narrow the scope of the FBIs search to find any such
software if it is contained on the 600 million pages and other materials comprising the 47 hard
drives which Plaintiff turned over to the FBI (as he felt compelled to do and as he has been
trying to do for years). Attached is his correspondence, which underscores Plaintiff
Montgomerys good faith effort as a government whistleblower and material government witness
to what appears to be massive criminal wrongdoing by rogue high officials in the CIA and other
intelligence agencies in harvesting the financial and other records of the Chief Justice, other
justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, lower court judges and magistrates, congressmen, senators,
prominent businessmen and anyone who these rogue officials view as a threat or even
controversial or in a position in power, such that targeted individuals and entities can be
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 13 of 91
Page 7 of 18
influenced that is, potentially coerced into doing what they want. See Exhibit 5. Indeed,
Plaintiff Montgomery also maintains that this harvesting was used to influence the presidential
elections of 2008 and 2012. In short, Plaintiff Montgomery does not believe has had the software
on reflection, but if he did, he is making every concerted effort to have the FBI find it in the huge
amount of material he produced, despite his fragile and failing health.
It is important to recognize that Plaintiff Montgomery, as the record reflects, began
cooperating with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice long before this case was filed. He
did so as a patriot and not to save his own skin, particularly since he is terminally ill.
Finally it is clear that the FBI, if it should find any such software, would have to do a
classification review, as General Counsel James Baker has stated in prior correspondence. See
Exhibit 11. Indeed, Plaintiffs counsel has been dealing with the highest levels of the FBI that
is, Director James B. Comey through his General Counsel, James Baker. The Honorable Royce
C. Lamberth of the U.S District Court of the District of Columbia had initiated and furthered this
liaison and has played a crucial role in allowing Plaintiff Montgomery to come forward as a
whistleblower and material government witness after may years of trying to do so.
For all these reasons, Plaintiff Montgomery continues to work with the FBI to locate the
software, if it exists, see Exhibit 5, and should not fall victim to Defendants strategy of
demanding disingenuously that this case should be dismissed based on alleged software which
Defendant Risen did not depend on, have access to, and which the U.S. Department of Justice
and CIA assert is classified and off limits in any event.1
Contrary to Defendants false assertions, no court has ever previously found unequivocally that
any software is not classified. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Nevada
District) ruled that (1) the data, documents, intellectual property, tangible objects, and personal
property at issue in this case belong to Montgomery, (2) the government did not address whether
the information was classified adequately to support that claim, (3) the U.S. Government was
1
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 14 of 91
Page 8 of 18
required to return it all to Montgomery, and (4) the U.S. Government had deceived that court.
Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust v. eTreppid Technologies, LLC, Warren
Trepp and the U.S. Department of Defense, Case Nos. 3:06-CV-00056-PMP-VPC and 3:06CV-00145-PMP-VPC, Order, Judge Philip M. Pro, March 19,2007, and In the Matter of the
Search of: The Residence Located at 12720 Buckthorne Lane, Reno, Nevada, and Storage Units
136, 140, 141, 142 and 143, Double R Storage, 888 Madestro Drive, Reno, Nevada, Case Nos.
3:06-CV-0263-PMP-VPC and 3:06-MJ-00023-VPC, Order, Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke,
November 28, 2006 (referred to as Nevada Orders).
In the Nevada District, Judge Philip M. Pro upheld the order of the Magistrate Judge on
March 19, 2007, finding no error. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, issued a detailed order
November 28, 2006, in relation to the U.S. Governments search warrant and illegal search and
seizure of Montgomerys records, information, and property. Magistrate Judge Cooke ordered
the Government to return to Montgomery the items that had been taken.
Magistrate Judge Cooke noted in dicta that the government simply did not pursue the
issue as to whether Montgomerys records and documents are classified. Id., page 13:24 14:4.
The government dropped the argument in the case, and therefore Magistrate Cooke did not rule
on the issue.
Magistrate Judge Cookes ruling was based on her finding that the government affidavit
used to justify the search warrant was false and misleading and condemned the governments
callous disregard for Montgomerys rights. Magistrate Judge Cooke explained the problem on
pages 30:25 31:3 of her November 28, 2006, Order:
SA West blindly relied on the documents, sworn statements, and evidence
supplied by eTreppid, and he never appeared to question whether he had become
an agent, not for the Government, but for private interests engaged in litigation
valued in millions of dollars. The litigation that has ensued based upon the seizure
of Montgomery's property is a cautionary tale to heed the admonition that trade
secrets litigation is best left to the civil forum.
***
And Magistrate Cooke further concluded on page 29:20 30:2 of her Order:
The over-arching concern in this proceeding is that SA West became an unwitting
pawn in a civil dispute, and as a result of his inexperience and lack of training, he
prepared search warrant affidavits that are riddled with incorrect statements,
edited documents, and uncorroborated conclusions, which caused this court to
exercise its formidable power to authorize the government to search
Montgomery's home and storage units.
Thus, Defendants and their counsels allegations that prior courts have found any
software not to be classified are misleading if not outright false.
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
178 Entered
273-3onFiled
FLSD06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 15 of 91
Page 9 of 18
III.
ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard for a Party Seeking Sanctions for Spoliation and a Party Seeking
the Extreme Remedy of Dismissal Because of an Alleged Violation of Court
Orders
The party seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence bears the burden of proof. Comm.
Long Trading Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36031 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15,
2013). Where a party seeking case-dispositive sanctions, such as a dismissal, the complained of
conduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Brian Am. LLC Equip.
Lease Litig., 977 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1293 n.6 (S.D. Fla. 2013). The clear and convincing
evidence standard has been described as evidence that place[s] in the ultimate factfinder an
abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are highly probable. Colorado v. New
Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984). But, such severe sanctions should be resorted to only if
noncompliance is due to willful or bad faith disregard of court orders and the court finds lesser
sanctions would not suffice. Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777
F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985).
Sanctions are a drastic remedy reserved for only the most extraordinary circumstances.
See e.g., E. Gluck Corp. v. Rothenhaus, 252 F.R.D. 175, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). As such, a motion
for sanctions cannot be used to emphasize the merits of a partys position, to exact an unjust
settlement, [or] to intimidate an adversary into withdrawing contentions that are fairly
debatable, see Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. B.R. Starnes Co. of
Florida, 827 F.2d 1454, 1458 (11th Cir. 1987), which is precisely what Defendants attempt to do
with their motion.
1. Defendants Spoliation Claim Fails As a Matter of Law Because Defendants
Fall Drastically Short of Proving the Necessary Elements of Spoliation.
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-1 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
16 of 91Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 1
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-1 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
17 of 91Page 2 of 2
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-2 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
18 of 91Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 2
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-2 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
19 of 91Page 2 of 5
Civil Division
Mailing Address
Delivery Address
Post Office Box 883
Raphael O. Gomez
Telephone: (202) 514-1318

Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
Email:
October 16, 2015

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Re:
Dear Ms. Handman:

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-2 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
20 of 91Page 3 of 5
CIA.
documents.
2
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-2 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
21 of 91Page 4 of 5

information.
* * *
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-2 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
22 of 91Page 5 of 5
Sincerely,
/s/
Raphael O. Gomez
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-3 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
23 of 91Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-3 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
24 of 91Page 2 of 4
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-3 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
25 of 91Page 3 of 4
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-3 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
26 of 91Page 4 of 4
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 27 ofPage
91 10 of 18
Spoliation is the destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence. In re

Complaint of Boston Boat III, L.L.C., 2015 WL 5156561, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2015). To
obtain the extreme remedy of sanctions for spoliation, Defendants must show that: (1) the
missing evidence existed at one time; (2) alleged spoliator had a duty to preserve the
evidence; (3) the evidence was crucial to the movant being able to prove its prima facie case
or defense; and (4) the spoliator acted in bad faith. Id. at *3. Defendants fail to meet any of
these four elements.
First, Plaintiff Montgomery did not allege in the Amended Complaint that he was in
custody, possession or control of the alleged software at the time this case was contemplated and
filed. Indeed, Plaintiff Montgomery filed an affidavit stating as much: Based on my personal
knowledge and belief, upon searching my memory, I do not believe that I have had access
to any of the subject software . . . See Exhibit 1 (emphasis added). There have been no
intentional misrepresentations, as Defendants counsel tactically argues.
Second, even if Plaintiff Montgomery had a duty to preserve the alleged software which
he did not, especially under the circumstances first, he never claimed that it was in his custody,
possession or control and therefore he would not have been able to preserve that which does not
exist in his possession; and, second, because of his ongoing attempts to turn over the
information, data and hard drives to the FBI, Plaintiff Montgomery did not have a duty to
preserve any potentially classified information that was subject of continuous talks and
concomitant actions with the FBI in turning it over to them. Indeed, Plaintiff Montgomery
attempted to turn over the information, data and hard drives to the FBI since May of 2013, two
years before this case was contemplated or filed.
10
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 28 ofPage
91 11 of 18
Generally, identifying when a plaintiff should preserve documents and other evidence
involves two questions: (1) when does the duty to preserve evidence attach, and (2) what must be
preserved. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Concerning
when, once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, a plaintiff may have a duty to preserve
evidence. Pension Committee v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 466
(S.D.N.Y 2010). Regarding what, parties are advised to retain all relevant documents in
existence at the time the duty to preserve attaches. Zubalake, 220 F.R.D. at 218. However,
following the logic above, what to preserve does not attach unless when the duty to preserve is
unequivocal.
A partys duty to preserve evidence relating to a particular issue does not arise simply
because litigation has been filed. See Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc.,
736 F. Supp. 2d 1317, 1326-27 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Silhan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d
1303, 1309 n.8 (N.D. Fla. 2002) (It is essentially impossible for everyone . . . to hold onto every
piece of potential evidence just because there is a possibility that litigation may arise sometime
in the future. It is unreasonable to view the concept of duty on such a broad scale.).
Third, [t]o prevail on [their] motion for spoliation sanctions, [the Defendants] must
demonstrate that [they are] unable to prove [their] underlying action owing to the unavailability
of the [allegedly spoliated] evidence. Corporate Fin., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 0520595-CIV, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84540 at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006). Indeed, [s]poliation
actions typically involve the destruction of evidence that is absolutely crucial to the action.
Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1360 (S.D.
Fla. 2001).
11
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 29 ofPage
91 12 of 18
Here, no one establishes the fact that the software is not relevant or necessary to
Defendants underlying defense claim better than the U.S. Department of Justice itself.
You have not satisfied your burden of establishing that the requested information
is relevant to [your clients] defenses . . . you assert that the testimony sought is
needed to support your clients defenses in this action, including information
essential to answering questions that are central to the element of falsity in
Montgomery's libel claim. The validity of these defenses turns, however, on
what the defendants knew or should have known at the time of the challenged
statements, not on what the government knew . . . See, Don King Prods. v. Walt
Disney Co., 40 So. 3d 40, 43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (in the context of
defamation, actual malice is defined as knowledge that the statement was false or
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not . . . in assessing reckless
disregard, the court found that a showing of reckless disregard requires
sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained
serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id . . . As a result, your requests
are also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and the burden and expense of providing the requested testimony
would outweigh its likely benefit in the underlying action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1), (b)(2)(C)(iii).
And the CIA has stated unequivocally that any such software is classified even if it currently
exists and cannot be made available to Defendants and their counsel. See Exhibit 2.
Fourth, even if Defendants could satisfy all three elements of spoliation which they
cannot the motion would remain subject to denial because there is no evidence of bad faith. A
partys failure to preserve evidence rises to the level of sanctionable spoliation only where the
absence of that evidence is predicated on bad faith, such as were a party purposely tamper[s]
with the evidence. Bashir v. AMTRAK, 119 F.3d 929, 931 (11th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).
Mere negligence in losing or destroying evidence is insufficient to justify an adverse inference
instruction for spoliation. Id. Even grossly negligent discovery conduct does not justify a
spoliation sanction. Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp., 2009 WL 982460 at *7 (declining
sanctions even though a partys performance in fulfilling discovery obligations was clearly
egregious and even though the partys discovery failings resulted from the grossly negligent
12
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 30 ofPage
91 13 of 18
oversights of counsel). Indeed, district courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit regularly deny sanction requests even when there is an indisputable destruction of
evidence, which is not present here in any event. See Socas v. Northwestern Mu. Life Ins. Co.,
No. 07-20336, 2010 WL 3894142 (S.D. Sept. 30, 2010) (denying motion to dismiss and other
sanctions when a doctor negligently failed to suspend her ordinary policy of purging inactive
patient files after learning the information in those files was relevant to her disability claim).
2. Plaintiff Montgomery Did Not Violate Court Orders
Plaintiff Montgomery did not violate Court orders. First, Plaintiff Montgomery timely
objected to Magistrate Judge Goodmans August 22, 2015 Order and October 19, 2015 Order,
see [Dkts. 125, 164 which are incorporated herein by reference]. The objections before the
Honorable Jose E. Martinez remain pending, and a stay has been requested pending disposition
of the later objections. [Dkt# 164]. Second, Plaintiff is still communicating with the FBI in good
faith, despite his belief, upon reflection, that he did not have the software at issue in the
information and hard drives he turned over to the FBI. Third, Magistrate Judge Goodman has
ruled that someone cannot produce that which he or she does not have in his or her possession.
. . . [B]ut the issue is I cannot get blood out of a stone. I cannot now order Mr. Montgomery to
turn over the software, can I? Because he does not have it. See Exhibit 6. See also Exhibit 9
(The Court: Okay. So in this situation [regarding a thumb drive of Eric Lichtblau] youre
claiming the Defendant, Mr. Risen and his counsel, have said unequivocally on the record to a
Federal Magistrate Judge, we have turned over all documents. So I have to accept that as face
value, just like I accepted at face value your statements of certain categories that you turned over
all the documents.).
13
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 31 ofPage
91 14 of 18
Tellingly, when Plaintiffs counsel suggested a joint motion for a modest extension of
discovery of one month to give the FBI which is inundated with terrorist threats and the email
investigation of Hillary Clinton as well as the serious criminal investigation resulting from
Plaintiff Montgomerys whistleblowing more time to locate any software and confirm that it is
classified, if it exists, defense counsel predictably refused, as they do not want the FBI to locate
it. See Exhibit 8.2 For the FBI to do so would undercut Defendants tactical and non-meritorious
attempt to try to get this case dismissed through sanctions.
Even if Plaintiff Montgomery violated a court order, which he clearly did not, the courts
of the Eleventh Circuit have a strong preference for a determination on the merits of a dispute.
See Beck v. Bassett, 204 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2000) (reversing lower courts entry of a default
judgment for discovery violations); see also Bernal v. All American Investment Realty, Inc., 479
F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650 (11th Cir. 1984) (reversing
lower court for reinstatement of appellants counterclaim since the lower court made no findings
that appellants failure to produce the documents was due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault).
B. Plaintiff Montgomery Did Not Act in Bad Faith
To demonstrate that Plaintiff Montgomery destroyed or concealed evidence in bad faith,
the Defendants must establish all of the following four factors: (1) evidence once existed that
could fairly be supposed to have been material to the proof or defense of a claim at issue in the
case; (2) the spoliating party engaged in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost; (3) the
spoliating party did so while it knew or should have known of its duty to preserve the evidence,
and (4) the affirmative act causing the loss cannot be credibly explained as not involving bad
A one-month extension for discovery would not even necessitate that any pre-trial or trial dates
be pushed back. But Defendants and their counsel do not want to be cooperative, as it would
undercut their strategy which is not meritorious.
14
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 32 ofPage
91 15 of 18
faith by the reason proffered by the spoliator. Calixto v. Watson Bowman Acme Corp., 2009
WL 3823390 at *16 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2009).
First, the Defendants cannot show that any material documents existed in the first place.
Even if the software did exist at one time, Plaintiff Montgomery, upon reflection, was not in
possession of it at the time this action commenced. See Exhibit 1. Defendants fail to meet the
first element of bad faith.
Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiff Montgomery destroyed or engaged
in an affirmative act causing the evidence to be lost. To the contrary, Plaintiff Montgomery
made provisions with the FBI at the time he was required to turn over the 47 hard drives to
retrieve what might be requested in discovery in this case. See Exhibit 10. Defendants fail to
meet the second element of bad faith. See Bank of New York v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanzania
Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 152 (S.D.Y.Y. 1997) (Under ordinary circumstances, a partys good faith
averment that the items sought simply do not exist, or are not in his possession, custody or
control, should resolve the issue of failure of production . . .).
Third, Plaintiff Montgomery, as stated throughout this proceeding, has tried to turn over
his documentation and hard drives to the FBI and other government law enforcement authorities
and congressional investigative committees for years long before this action commenced. In
doing so, he had no duty to preserve evidence, if it exists, for opposing counsel. In addition, even
if Plaintiff Montgomery knew or should have known that some of the material he turned over to
the FBI is subject to a pending litigation and therefore a litigation hold, it is not a dispositive
issue in the Eleventh Circuit. The failure to timely place a litigation hold is often viewed as
merely negligent and insufficient to justify spoliation sanctions. Managed Care Solutions, 736
F. Supp. 2d at 1328; see also Southeastern Mech. Servs., 2009 WL 2242395 at *3-4 (declining to
15
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 33 ofPage
91 16 of 18
impose sanctions even after concluding that Plaintiffs failure to adhere to a litigation hold was
baffling). Defendants fail to meet the third element of bad faith. Moreover, Plaintiff and his
counsel took steps to ensure that any electronic or other information Plaintiff Montgomery
turned over to the FBI as by law he was required to do so as a whistleblower and material
government witness and generally could be retrieved, most notably any alleged software at
issue, if it exists. See Affidavits of Larry Klayman and Dina James, attached as Exhibit 10.
Fourth, since there is no affirmative act causing any loss, it cannot be credibly explained
as not involving bad faith.
Simply put, Defendants have not come close to their burden of establishing bad faith on
the part of Plaintiff Montgomery. As set forth by the U.S. Department of Justice and the CIA,
any such software is classified and cannot be produced in any event. See Exhibits 2, 3.
C. Plaintiff Is Entitled To Attorneys Fees and Costs
Defendants brought this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Rule 37
provides that [i]f the motion is denied, the court . . . must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party [] who opposed
the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorneys fees.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). Because the Defendants have moved under Rule 37 and this motion
should be denied, the Court should award Plaintiff attorneys fees and their reasonable expenses.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In this case, Defendants and their counsels latest salvo is part and parcel to their having
disparaged and attacked Plaintiff Montgomery and his claims from the outset, threatening
sanctions and lodging malicious and sanctimonious personal attacks against his failing health.
This is inappropriate and Defendants motion should be denied.
16
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 34 ofPage
91 17 of 18
Dated: November 16, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman
Klayman Law Firm
FL Bar No. 246220
7050 W Palmetto Park Rd.
Suite 15-287
Boca Raton, FL 33433
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
17
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178 Entered
273-3
on FLSD
Filed 06/20/16
Docket 11/16/2015
Page 35 ofPage
91 18 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of November, 2015, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing was served via email and U.S. Mail upon the following:
Sanford Lewis Bohrer
Brian Toth
Holland & Knight, LLP
Suite 3000
701 Brickell Ave
Miami, FL 33131
Email: sbohrer@hklaw.com
Email: brian.toth@hklaw.com
Laura R. Handman
Micah Ratner
Email: laurahandman@dwt.com
Email: MicahRatner@dwt.com
Attorneys for Defendants
/s/ Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, Esq.
18
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-4 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
36 of 91Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 4
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-4 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
37 of 91Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-4 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
38 of 91Page 3 of 3

Exhibit 5























Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-6 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
63 of 91Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 6
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-6 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
64 of 91Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-6 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
65 of 91Page 3 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-7 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
66 of 91Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 7
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-7 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
67 of 91Page 2 of 2
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-8 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
68 of 91Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 8
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-8 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
69 of 91Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-8 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
70 of 91Page 3 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-9 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
71 of 91Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 9
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-9 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
72 of 91Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-9 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket Page
11/16/2015
73 of 91Page 3 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-10 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
DocketPage
11/16/2015
74 of 91Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 10
Case
Case1:15-cv-20782-JEM
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
75 of 91
Page
Page1 2ofof6 7
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
76 of 91
Page
Page2 3ofof6 7
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
77 of 91
Page
Page3 4ofof6 7
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
78 of 91
Page
Page4 5ofof6 7
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
79 of 91
Page
Page5 6ofof6 7
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-10
127 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
80 of 91
Page
Page6 7ofof6 7
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
DocumentDocument
178-11 Entered
273-3 on
Filed
FLSD
06/20/16
DocketPage
11/16/2015
81 of 91Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 11
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-11
126 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
82 of 91
Page
Page1 2ofof4 5
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-11
126 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
83 of 91
Page
Page2 3ofof4 5
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-11
126 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
84 of 91
Page
Page3 4ofof4 5
Case
1:15-cv-20782-JEM
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC
Document
Document
Document
178-11
126 Entered
Entered
273-3onon
Filed
FLSD
FLSD
06/20/16
Docket
Docket09/09/2015
Page
11/16/2015
85 of 91
Page
Page4 5ofof4 5
Exhibit B
11/17/2015
Gmail-Montgomeryv.Risen,No.15-cv-20782
Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document
273-3 Filed 06/20/16 Page 87 of 91
Montgomeryv.Risen,No.15cv20782
NaveedMahboobian<nmahboobian@gmail.com>
Tue,Nov17,2015at10:52AM
To:"Handman,Laura"<laurahandman@dwt.com>,"Ratner,Micah"<MicahRatner@dwt.com>,"
<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>"<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>,Brian.Toth@hklaw.com
Cc:LarryKlayman<leklayman@gmail.com>,DinaJames<daj142182@gmail.com>
Dearcounsel:
AsindicatedinPlaintiff'smemoranduminoppositiontoDefendant'sMotionforSanctions,Mr.Klaymanwillbe
movingtheCourttofileExhibit5ofthememoranduminoppositionunderseal.
Pleaseletusknowimmediatelywhetheryouwillconsenttothefilingofthismotion.Ifwedonothearfromyou
withinthenexthalfhourMr.Klaymansaysthathewillassumethatyouwillagreewithhisfilingofthemotion.
Thankyou,
NaveedMahboobian
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e027b36078&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15116ca7d8b2b1a9&siml=15116ca7d8b2b1a9
1/1
11/17/2015
273-3 Filed 06/20/16 Page 88 of 91
Brian.Toth@hklaw.com<Brian.Toth@hklaw.com>
To:nmahboobian@gmail.com,laurahandman@dwt.com,MicahRatner@dwt.com,Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Cc:leklayman@gmail.com,daj142182@gmail.com
Naveed,
CouldyoupleaseforwardExhibit5sothatwemayreview?Pleasedontassumethatwellagree,andyou
maynotrepresenttothecourtthatwewillagree.
Regards,
BrianToth|H o llan d&Kn igh t

Associate
Holland&KnightLLP
701BrickellAvenue,Suite3300|Miami,FL33131
Phone305.789.7510|Fax305.789.7799
brian.toth@hklaw.com|www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Addtoaddressbook|Viewprofessionalbiography
From:NaveedMahboobian[mailto:nmahboobian@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November17,20151:52PM
To:Handman,Laura<laurahandman@dwt.com>;Ratner,Micah<MicahRatner@dwt.com>;
Bohrer,Sandy(MIAX27678)<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>;Toth,BrianW(MIAX27510)
<Brian.Toth@hklaw.com>
Cc:LarryKlayman<leklayman@gmail.com>;DinaJames<daj142182@gmail.com>
Subject:Montgomeryv.Risen,No.15cv20782
[Quotedtexthidden]
NOTE:Thise-mailisfromalawfirm,Holland&KnightLLP(H&K),andisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividual(s)to
whomitisaddressed.Ifyoubelieveyoureceivedthise-mailinerror,pleasenotifythesenderimmediately,deletethee-mail
fromyourcomputeranddonotcopyordiscloseittoanyoneelse.IfyouarenotanexistingclientofH&K,donotconstrue
anythinginthise-mailtomakeyouaclientunlessitcontainsaspecificstatementtothateffectanddonotdiscloseanything
toH&Kinreplythatyouexpectittoholdinconfidence.Ifyouproperlyreceivedthise-mailasaclient,co-counselorretained
expertofH&K,youshouldmaintainitscontentsinconfidenceinordertopreservetheattorney-clientorworkproductprivilege
thatmaybeavailabletoprotectconfidentiality.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e027b36078&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15116cca4edfcab8&siml=15116cca4edfcab8
1/2
11/17/2015
273-3 Filed 06/20/16 Page 89 of 91
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e027b36078&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15116cca4edfcab8&siml=15116cca4edfcab8
2/2
11/17/2015
273-3 Filed 06/20/16 Page 90 of 91
LarryKlayman<leklayman@gmail.com>
To:Brian.Toth@hklaw.com,"Ratner,Micah"<MicahRatner@dwt.com>,"Handman,Laura"
<laurahandman@dwt.com>,"<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>"<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>
Cc:DinaJames<daj142182@gmail.com>,NaveedMahboohian<nmahboobian@gmail.com>
Brian:
Itwouldbeinappropriatetoprovideyouwithexhibit5beforeitisfiledunderseal,asthecommunications
concernanon-goingcriminalinvestigationwithnationalsecurityimplications.Itwasinappropriateforyouto
previouslyplacethecommunicationswithAsst.GCoftheFBI(CivilDivision)onthepublicrecordgiventhatwe
haveamotiontosealpendingconcerningcommunicationswiththeFBIandUSAinthiscaseandshowsalack
ofrespectifnotconcernfornationalsecurity.
Iwillthereforerepresentthatyoudonotconsenttoourfilingexhibit5underseal.
Larry
----------Forwardedmessage---------From:<Brian.Toth@hklaw.com>
Date:Tue,Nov17,2015at10:54AM
Subject:RE:Montgomeryv.Risen,No.15-cv-20782
To:nmahboobian@gmail.com,laurahandman@dwt.com,MicahRatner@dwt.com,Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Cc:leklayman@gmail.com,daj142182@gmail.com
Naveed,
CouldyoupleaseforwardExhibit5sothatwemayreview?Pleasedontassumethatwellagree,andyou
maynotrepresenttothecourtthatwewillagree.
Regards,
BrianToth|H o llan d&Kn igh t

Associate
Holland&KnightLLP
701BrickellAvenue,Suite3300|Miami,FL33131
Phone305.789.7510|Fax305.789.7799
brian.toth@hklaw.com|www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Addtoaddressbook|Viewprofessionalbiography
From:NaveedMahboobian[mailto:nmahboobian@gmail.com]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e027b36078&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15116e70c333184e&dsqt=1&siml=15116e70c333184e
1/2
11/17/2015
273-3 Filed 06/20/16 Page 91 of 91
Sent:Tuesday,November17,20151:52PM
To:Handman,Laura<laurahandman@dwt.com>;Ratner,Micah<MicahRatner@dwt.com>;
Bohrer,Sandy(MIAX27678)<Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com>;Toth,BrianW(MIAX27510)
<Brian.Toth@hklaw.com>
Cc:LarryKlayman<leklayman@gmail.com>;DinaJames<daj142182@gmail.com>
Subject:Montgomeryv.Risen,No.15cv20782
Dearcounsel:
AsindicatedinPlaintiff'smemoranduminoppositiontoDefendant'sMotionforSanctions,Mr.Klayman
willbemovingtheCourttofileExhibit5ofthememoranduminoppositionunderseal.
Pleaseletusknowimmediatelywhetheryouwillconsenttothefilingofthismotion.Ifwedonothear
fromyouwithinthenexthalfhourMr.Klaymansaysthathewillassumethatyouwillagreewithhis
filingofthemotion.
Thankyou,
NaveedMahboobian
NOTE:Thise-mailisfromalawfirm,Holland&KnightLLP(H&K),andisintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividual(s)to
whomitisaddressed.Ifyoubelieveyoureceivedthise-mailinerror,pleasenotifythesenderimmediately,deletethee-mail
fromyourcomputeranddonotcopyordiscloseittoanyoneelse.IfyouarenotanexistingclientofH&K,donotconstrue
anythinginthise-mailtomakeyouaclientunlessitcontainsaspecificstatementtothateffectanddonotdiscloseanything
toH&Kinreplythatyouexpectittoholdinconfidence.Ifyouproperlyreceivedthise-mailasaclient,co-counselorretained
expertofH&K,youshouldmaintainitscontentsinconfidenceinordertopreservetheattorney-clientorworkproductprivilege
thatmaybeavailabletoprotectconfidentiality.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e027b36078&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15116e70c333184e&dsqt=1&siml=15116e70c333184e
2/2

273 P Submission of 159, 160 &amp; 180

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

273 P Submission of 159, 160 &amp; 180

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2

/s/ Larry Klayman

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 26

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO UR T

PLAINTIFF'S M O TIO N FO R LEA VE TO FILE UN DER SEAL

and/orAssistantUnited StatesAttorney Deborah Curtisconcerninj the turning

(ECF No.1261.A1lofthese communicationsshallbe turned overto defense

W ith fullreservation ofallrights,in accordance with M agistrate Judge G oodm an's

First,these are com m unicationsbetw een Plaintiff scounseland the FederalBureau of

lnvestigation (:tFBl''),aswellastheU.S.Attorney'sOffice,regarding anongoing criminal

between Plaintiff scounseland theFBlin regardsto an ongoing crim inalinvestigation in which

W ith allthese issuessurrounding the docum entsatissue,Plaintiffrespectfully requests

thatallofthe docum entsattached asExhibit 1be placed underseal.

These docum entshave additionally been designated asconfidentialasprovided in page 4

ofM agistrateJudge Goodm an'sProtectiveOrderConcerning ConfidentialInformation (Docket

Action (aEproducing Pal4y''lmay designateany materialthatitproduces

including theinformationcontained therein whetherinnoteorsummary form)as

DocketNo.89--ProtectiveOrderConcerning Confidentiallnformation (Emphasis

Plaintiffrequeststo have thesedocum entsplaced undersealin perpetuity oruntilsuch

ordersto fullextentpossible while stillattem pting to protecthisow n interestsin thiscom plex

Respectfully subm itted,

7 50 W Palmetto Park Rd.

L ! r alrm an, Esq.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 26

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 26

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 26

Telephone: (202) 514-1318

October 16, 2015

Montgomery v. Risen, C.A. No. 15-cv-20782 (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Ms. Handman:

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 26

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 26

substantially duplicative of information contained in and cited by defendants in officially

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 26

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 14

IN UNITED STA TES DISTRIC T C O URT

PLA INTIFF'S SEC ON D M O TIO N FOR LEAV E TO FILE UND ER SEAL

Counsel Schwartz, a comprehensive set of instructions (the best available to

befiledwith theCourt(publicly)on CM /ECF byOctober22,2015.

Given thisissue surrounding these instructions,Plaintiffrespectfully requeststhatthe

These docum entshave additionally been designated asconfidentialasprovided in page 4

ofM agistrateJudgeGoodman'sProtectiveOrderConcerning ContsdentialInformation(Docket

includingtheinformation containedthereinwhetherinnoteorsumm ary form)as

DocketNo.89 --ProtectiveOrderConcerning ConfidentialInformation (Emphasis

anobjectionfrom theClA overDefendants'subpoenastotheC1A andcertainpersonnel,isself-

explanatory,asitunderscoresthe sensitive nature ofthese docum entsata m inim um ,and sets

interestsin tlzism atter. IfM agistzateJudge Goodm an derlies Plaintiff'srequestto filethese

La 'K laym an,Esq.

7050 %'Palm etto Park Rd.

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 14

Telephone: (202) 514-1318

October 16, 2015

Montgomery v. Risen, C.A. No. 15-cv-20782 (S.D. Fla.)

Dear Ms. Handman:

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 14

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 14

substantially duplicative of information contained in and cited by defendants in officially

Case 1:16-cv-00126-RC Document 273-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 14

273 P Submission of 159, 160 & 180

273 P Submission of 159, 160 & 180