Exhibit 7

Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 12 FILED

2018 Mar-16 PM 02:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Claudia Balcero Giraldo, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:09-cv-1041-RDP
)
Drummond Company, Inc. et al., )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION RELATING TO

LETTERS ROGATORY TESTIMONY

Defendants, Drummond Company, Inc., Drummond Ltd., Mike Tracy and Augusto

Jiménez, through the undersigned counsel, file this emergency motion requesting that this Court

issue notice to Colombian authorities that this proceeding is over and that the letters rogatory

testimony of OSCAR DAVID PEREZ BERTEL (alias “YUCA”), currently scheduled for March

21, 2018, are withdrawn. Defendants also respectfully request that this Court withdraw all other

pending letters rogatory issued in this matter.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Nearly six years ago, on March 23, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an opposed motion

asking this Court to issue letters rogatory for several witnesses, including alias “Yuca.” Doc. 337.

This motion was filed more than a year after the deadline for seeking the issuance of letters

rogatory, Doc. 133, and Defendants opposed it. See Doc. 341 generally. This Court granted the

motion in part, finding “it makes sense now that any testimony pursuant to letters rogatory should

be completed by the discovery cut off date.” Doc. 357 (emphasis in original). However, the

Court cautioned the parties that “the court will not extend the discovery deadline in this case in

{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 2 of 12

the event that testimony from these nine late-issued letters rogatory is not completed by June 29,

2012 [the discovery deadline].” Id. (emphasis in original). This case was ultimately dismissed by

this Court on summary judgment. See Docs. 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 & 464. That judgment

was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 8, 2015, Doc. 490, and the United

States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 29, 2016. Doc. 497.

During the pendency of this case, Drummond filed two lawsuits against Plaintiffs’ counsel

captioned Drummond Company, Inc. v. Terrence P. Collingsworth, et al., 2:11-cv-3695-RDP

(N.D. Ala.) (the “Defamation case”) and Drummond Company, Inc., et al. v. Terrence P.

Collingsworth, et al., 2:15-cv-00506-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (the “RICO case”). As this Court is aware,

discovery in those cases has focused almost exclusively on the scope, nature and extent of

payments to witnesses by Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer, as well as litigating the validity

of Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer’s claims of privilege over documents and communications

relating to those payments. On December 7, 2015, this Court found that the crime-fraud exception

applied to both Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer based on a prima facie case of witness

bribery, suborning perjury and fraud on the court. Defamation Doc. 417. Both cases are stayed

pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit which

relates to the application of the crime-fraud exception to Conrad & Scherer. See Defamation Doc.

500.

On February 21, 2018 – nearly two years after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in this

matter – Terrence P. Collingsworth emailed Defendants’ counsel stating as follows:

Dear Tony and Trey,

Attached please find a recently-issued notice that David Perez Bertel, alias
“Yuca,” will be brought by the Colombian authorities to the court in Barranquilla
on March 21, 2018 for his Letters Rogatory hearing. The notice is associated with
the Balcero case. Given Drummond’s position, which I maintain is false, that I

2
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 3 of 12

made some sort of payments to Yuca, I assume Drummond would be anxious to

take Yuca’s testimony under oath.

I understand that Yuca is due to be released in the near future, so this may
be our last opportunity to get his testimony. My experience has been that, regardless
of the applicable legal procedures, Colombian authorities can do little, if anything,
to compel a person not in their custody to appear and provide testimony.

Let me know if you will agree that we will take Yuca’s deposition to
preserve his testimony for use in any future proceeding between the parties. Note
that I am checking to see if the court can move the date to sometime in April to
accommodate a conflict I have in late March. Regardless of whether Drummond
attends, I plan to take Yuca’s sworn testimony to, among other things, determine
his knowledge of Drummond’s coordinated relationship with the AUC to secure
the Drummond rail line. I also believe he will be able to identify additional
witnesses to Drummond’s collaboration with the AUC.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Terry Collingsworth

Ex. 1 (Feb. 21, 2018 Collingsworth e-mail w/ attachment).

Drummond responded to Mr. Collingsworth, objecting to any attempt to take testimony in

a now closed case. Drummond has advised the Colombian court of the dismissal of the case, and

has provided the dismissal orders. However, Drummond has been informed by its Colombian

counsel that the Colombian court requires a statement from this Court to the effect that the letters

rogatory were issued from a now closed case and do not need to be acted upon. Drummond also

recently learned that Mr. Collingsworth has informed Colombian authorities that it would be

impossible for him to comply with the current date and has requested the Colombian court to move

the Yuca testimony to another date, signifying his intent to take the testimony despite Drummond’s

objection.

3
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 4 of 12

LEGAL ARGUMENT

I. Drummond Requests This Court to Withdraw The Letters Rogatory At Issue.

When Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer asked this Court to issue letters rogatory for

Yuca, they did so with the express purpose of obtaining trial testimony for use in this case. See

Doc. 337 (Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory) at 2 (arguing that “this

trial testimony will be completed before or during trial in this case”). This Court allowed the letters

rogatory to issue, but specifically stated that it would not allow the testimony to be taken after June

29, 2012, the discovery cutoff in this case: “Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Issuance of Additional

Letters Rogatory to Take Testimony (Doc. #337) is GRANTED IN PART. However, the parties

are cautioned that, absent either the agreement of the parties or the showing of extraordinary good

cause, the court will not extend the discovery deadline in this case in the event that testimony

from these nine late-issued letters rogatory is not completed by June 29, 2012.” Doc. 357 at 5.

Not only did the express condition set forth in this Court’s April 26, 2012 not occur (the

testimony was not completed by June 29, 2012), but the entire basis for Plaintiffs’ request – to

obtain “trial testimony” for use in this case – no longer exists. This case was dismissed more than

four and half years ago, that judgment was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals more

than two and half years ago, Doc. 490, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari more

than two years ago. Doc. 497.

Drummond therefore respectfully requests that this Court withdraw all outstanding letters

rogatory, including those relating to Yuca, as the judicial proceeding from which they were issued

is no longer pending. See Zyware, Inc. v. Middlegate, Inc., No. 96 CIV. 2348 (SHS), 1997 WL

685336, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 1997) (denying plaintiff’s motion for issuance of letters rogatory

4
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 5 of 12

as moot in light of the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment);

Wilcox v. Fenn, No. 1:08-CV-20 (WLS), 2009 WL 10673373, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2009)

(same); Benson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 3:14-CV-2694-M-BK, 2014 WL 5682269, at

*4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2014) (same); Frederick v. Hillyer, 82 F. Supp. 3d 435, 443 (D.D.C. 2015)

(same); A.I.C. Ltd. v. Mapco Petroleum Inc., 711 F. Supp. 1230, 1243 (D. Del.), aff’d, 888 F.2d

1378 (3d Cir. 1989) (same). See also Convertino v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 07-13842,

2011 WL 13206192, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2011) (motion to compel deposition of a third

party witness mooted by the dismissal of the action); In re City of El Paso, Tex., 887 F.2d 1103,

1106 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“The availability of discovery subpoenas ... is now moot. There is no

pending trial in which such discovery can be used.”); SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-20, No. 12 CIV.

3925 SAS, 2012 WL 2034631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2012) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims and

sua sponte quashing “any subpoena that may be outstanding” and directing the plaintiff to “send

of copy of this order within 24 hours of its issuance to any and every internet service provider who

has been served with a subpoena”); Harter v. Iowa Grain Co., No. 98-7108, 1998 WL 796131, at

*1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 28, 1998) (“[D]uring the pendency of the appeal, the Illinois district court has

decided the merits of the action. Because there is no pending proceeding in which the discovery

can be used, the validity of the subpoena presents no live case or controversy, and the appeal has

become moot.”).1

1
This Court has statutory authority to grant the relief Drummond seeks under the All Writs
Act, which provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a). It also possesses the inherent authority to
do so. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379-80, 114 S. Ct. 1673,
1676 (1994) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S. Ct. 2123 (1991), United States
v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32 (1812) and 13 C. Wright, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §
3523 (1984)) (recognizing that a court has jurisdiction and the inherent authority to “manage
proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees”).

5
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 6 of 12

II. Allowing Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer To Take Letters Rogatory
Testimony For Use In Other Proceedings Is Improper, Violates This Court’s Stay
Orders and Would be Extremely Prejudicial to Drummond.

Based on his February 21, 2018 email, Collingsworth appears to believe that Yuca’s

testimony should still be taken for use in other proceedings. See Ex. 1 (Feb. 21, 2018 e-mail) (“Let

me know if you will agree that we will take Yuca’s deposition to preserve his testimony for use in

any future proceeding between the parties.”). For several reasons, this is improper.

First, this proceeding is now over, and Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer have

exhausted every appellate remedy at their disposal. As explained above in Section I, any

outstanding letters rogatory issued in this proceeding should be withdrawn. Drummond’s research

uncovered no authority for the proposition that letters rogatory can properly be executed years

after the conclusion of the proceeding from which they issued so that the testimony may be used

in another “future” proceeding.

Second, Collingsworth’s stated intention to utilize Yuca’s testimony in other proceedings

appears to refer to the Defamation and RICO cases presently pending before this Court.2 At

Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer’s request, however, this Court stayed those cases pending

the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling on Conrad & Scherer’s crime-fraud appeal:

MR. PAULK: I would say, Judge, if we’re not going to stop everything, then, yes,
we would agree that’s one issue –

THE COURT: Well, I’m trying to ask you all should we just stop everything. I hate
it. I mean, it’s a very inefficient way. It’s the way Europe litigates its cases where
you might have an appeal that stays the case in the trial court and it goes up to the
trial court and there’s all sorts of rulings and then it comes back down, and then the
next thing you know there’s another interlocutory appeal that goes up and the next
thing you know cases take seven, eight years to complete.

2
This is despite the fact that the letters rogatory list of questions is tailored to this case.
See Doc. 337-2 (Plaintiffs’ Proposed Letters Rogatory relating to Yuca) at 4-6.

6
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 7 of 12

MR. PAULK: And we are sensitive to that and we know that the Court is not thrilled
that this case has been pending for now five or six years.

THE COURT: Every bit of five.

MR. PAULK: That’s correct. That being said, the crime-fraud issue, I think as
Drummond has acknowledged and argued before the Court, is the most important
issue in the case. We couldn’t even get mediation started, discussions about
mediation started, in light of the crime-fraud issues that remained outstanding. We
now know that the Eleventh Circuit is going to hold oral argument. So although we
don’t have a date, we now have at least a milestone that we know is coming. There
is an end in sight. We know what the next steps are on appeal. And given the
importance of the crime-fraud issue to this case, to Drummond’s evaluation and
even settlement possibilities in this case, we firmly believe that this could be a
juncture where it makes sense just to put the brakes on the case - -

[ . . .]

THE COURT: Now, I do think there are discovery issues in the RICO action that
are affected by this that in good faith I ought to respect the Eleventh Circuit and not
let you go forward with any type of discovery in the RICO action that would bear
upon crime-fraud here. Right?

MR. PAULK: We would agree, yes, sir.

Defamation Doc. 502 (Oct. 17, 2016 Hearing Transcript) at 9:25-11:4; 11:21-12:5. Shortly after

this hearing, this Court entered an order staying the Defamation case in its entirety. Doc. 500 (Oct.

17, 2016 Text Order) (“For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing with the parties

conducted on October 17, 2016, the court ORDERS that this case is STAYED.”).

Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer similarly requested that discovery in the RICO case

be stayed pending the outcome of the pending Eleventh Circuit appeal:

MR. PAULK: . . . [O]ur position is that we should basically stay discovery in this
case until we’ve heard from the Eleventh Circuit, and would include that motion
for protective order as part of the stay.

THE COURT: Again, I don’t think that’s required, but I do think it’s prudent
because there’s probably going to be some – it’s going to be hard in some areas to
determine where to draw the proper line as to what discovery can be done now in

7
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 8 of 12

light of this order entered by the Eleventh Circuit which assumes jurisdiction over
the entire scope of the appeal.

I’m still at a loss as to exactly what the implications are, and I don’t think the panel
really explained what it viewed the implications of that to be. But being on the safe
side, there’s no harm if we’re going to have to hold off on some things just to call
a time-out on discovery until we get a ruling back, and then figure out where we
are once the Eleventh Circuit is a little more clear about how it’s going to direct the
band from here.

RICO Doc. 130 (Jan. 12, 2017 Hearing Transcript) at 4:19-5:12.

Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer cannot now ignore this Court’s stays in the

Defamation and RICO cases by obtaining testimony with the apparent purpose of utilizing it in

those proceedings, especially in light of the fact that those stays were entered at their request. See

Ulysse v. Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, 617 F. App’x 951, 954 (11th Cir. 2015) (neither

parties nor their counsel can disregard court orders).3

Third, allowing Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer to take letters rogatory testimony

from Yuca would be extremely prejudicial to Drummond. As Conrad & Scherer acknowledged,

this Court’s crime-fraud ruling is “the most important issue” in the Defamation and RICO cases.

Defamation Doc. 502 (Oct. 17, 2016 Hearing Transcript) at 10:18. This Court has also recognized

that “Drummond has presented sufficient evidence that, if believed by a trier of fact, would cause

a reasonable person to find that Defendants’ witness payments were not for security, but rather

3
Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer have not requested that any letters rogatory be
issued in either the RICO or Defamation case, despite ample opportunity to do so. Penaloza, et
al. v. Drummond Company, Inc., et al., 2:13-cv-00393-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (“Penaloza”), the fourth
case filed against Drummond by Mr. Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer alleging that
Drummond collaborated with Colombian paramilitaries, is presently pending before this Court
after being affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part with instructions by the Eleventh
Circuit. See Penaloza Docs. 67 & 67-1. Penaloza is at the 12(b) stage, and therefore no discovery
has taken place, no letters rogatory have been requested, and none have issued. This Court
previously expressed concern regarding Mr. Collingsworth’s continued ability to appear as counsel
of record in that proceeding. See Defamation Doc. 502 (Oct. 17, 2016 Hearing Transcript) at 16:1-
12.

8
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 9 of 12

were intended to operate (or, for that matter, actually operated) as bribes. . . . There must now be

an avenue for Drummond to discover documents and testimony that relate to the crimes and frauds

alleged in this case.” Defamation Doc. 417 (Dec. 7, 2015 Mem. Op.) at 45.

Although it was not known at the time of the crime-fraud hearing in the Defamation case,

Drummond has since discovered overwhelming evidence that Yuca – like the other witnesses that

testified against Drummond in this case – was paid by Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer in

exchange for false testimony against Drummond. See Defamation Doc. 422. Between December

29, 2009 and February 9, 2011, Yuca testified four times before Colombian authorities. He denied

any knowledge of any agreements between Drummond and the AUC. Id. at 5; see also Defamation

Doc. 355-1 at 38-39. Shortly after this Court issued its crime-fraud opinion, it came to light that

“Yuca demanded to be paid $2,200 before signing his declaration” against Drummond in this case.

Id. at 1. See also Ex. 2 (June 15, 2012 Leete Memorandum to Collingsworth) (“Y[uca] will not

sign his declaration until he gets security $$, which still hasn’t arrived (the extra $2200

monthly).”). As Drummond previously set forth in exacting detail, “it appears monthly payments

of $2,200 have been sent to him through Ivan Otero which may be ongoing as of [December 17,

2015].” Id. at 1. See also id. at 5-9.4

Notably, Lorraine Leete’s memorandum to Collingsworth also stated that “Iv[an Otero]

should have permission from prison by Monday or Tuesday, 6/18 or 19 to take depos, but Iv[an]

needs $2700 USD for logistics from INPEC and for keeping Yuca from being transferred.” Ex. 2.

4
As this Court will recall, Ivan Otero served as a conduit for Collingsworth and Conrad &
Scherer’s payments to other witnesses, including El Tigre, Samario and Jaime Blanco. See id. at
9; see also Defamation Doc. 417 at 22-26 (setting forth the evidence of payments to Jaime Blanco,
El Tigre and Samario through Otero, and finding that “again, it is hard to imagine a set of facts
that could more clearly establish the first prong of the prima facie case for applying the crime-
fraud exception to allegations of witness bribery and suborning perjury.”).

9
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 10 of 12

In other words, it appears that Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer were discussing payments to

Colombian authorities to secure Yuca’s appearance at a deposition in this case.

After receiving Drummond’s supplemental filing regarding Yuca and its supporting

exhibits, see Doc. 429, this Court held

In light of recently discovered information that Oscar David Perez Bertel (“Yuca”)
may have received security payments in Balcero contrary to direct testimony from
Terrence Collingsworth at the September 2015 crime/fraud exception hearing (Doc.
#429) and elsewhere, the parties are DIRECTED to work with the Special Master
in developing a plan for addressing the potential discoverability of documents
related to payments to Yuca. Following the conclusion of that process, the Special
Master SHALL file a Report and Recommendation with the court addressing the
discoverability of those documents as well as a recommendation on whether the
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #417) of December 7, 2015 should be
supplemented such that the Eleventh Circuit has all relevant information necessary
to make a ruling on the interlocutory appeal.

Doc. 433 (Jan. 7, 2016 Order) at ¶ 5.5

There is evidence suggesting Yuca was paid in exchange for false testimony against

Drummond. However, the vast majority of the evidence on this issue is being withheld on claims

of privilege. Although Drummond expects that the court will ultimately order the production of

this evidence to Drummond, Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer have to date steadfastly refused

to produce documents relating to payments to Yuca or their procurement of his testimony against

Drummond. For obvious reasons, Drummond would be severely prejudiced if it were now forced

to take his testimony. See In re Amtrak “Sunset Limited”' Train Crash in Bayou Canot, AL on

Sept. 22, 1993, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (S.D. Ala.), aff’d sub nom. In re Amtrak, 29 F. App’x 575

(11th Cir. 2001) (defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose information

5
In April 2016, the Special Master in the Defamation case found that the crime-fraud
exception applied to Yuca based upon the crimes of witness bribery and suborning perjury. See
Defamation Doc. 468 (Apr. 22, 2016 Report & Recommendation) at ¶¶ 28-33. This Court
subsequently administratively terminated this Report & Recommendation in accordance with the
stay entered in the Defamation case. Defamation Doc. 501 (Oct. 24, 2016 Text Order).

10
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 11 of 12

relating to his health history and criminal record because, inter alia, it deprived the defendants of

the opportunity to fully cross examine the plaintiff’s expert at his deposition which was to be used

at trial). Drummond should not be forced to take what may amount to trial testimony until it has

been provided all of the evidence needed to cross examine him.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court issue an order affirming that this case

is over, withdrawing all outstanding letters rogatory, and directing the parties to provide copies of

the order to the appropriate Colombian authorities.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ H. Thomas Wells, III

William Anthony Davis, III (ASB-5657-D65W)
H. Thomas Wells, III (ASB-4318-H62W)
Benjamin T. Presley (ASB-0136-I71P)
STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
P.O. Box 59812
Birmingham, AL 35259
(205) 868-6000
fax: (205) 868-6099

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 16, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.

International Rights Advocates
621 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

Christian A. Levesque
1301 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 350
Washington, DC 20036
William R. Scherer, Esq.
Conrad & Scherer, LLP
633 South Federal Highway
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

11
{B2802966}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499 Filed 03/16/18 Page 12 of 12

Eric J. Hager, Esq.

Conrad & Scherer, LLP
Avenida República de El Salvador 500 e Irlanda
Edificio Siglo XXI, PH Oficina W
Quito, Ecuador
/s/ H. Thomas Wells, III
H. Thomas Wells, III (ASB-4318-H62W)

12
{B2802966}
Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 499-2 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 3 FILED
2018 Mar-16 PM 02:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Exhibit 2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM
Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP
Document 1080-7
Document
Entered
499-2 onFiled
FLSD 03/16/18
Docket 04/27/2016
Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM
Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP
Document 1080-7
Document
Entered
499-2 onFiled
FLSD 03/16/18
Docket 04/27/2016
Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 7 FILED
2018 Mar-28 PM 05:19
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Claudia Balcero Giraldo, et al., )

)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:09-cv-1041-RDP
)
Drummond Company, Inc. et al., )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR

EMERGENCY MOTION RELATING TO LETTERS ROGATORY TESTIMONY

Defendants, Drummond Company, Inc., Drummond Ltd., Mike Tracy and Augusto

Jiménez, through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to this Court’s March 20, 2018 Text Order

(Doc. 501), file this reply in support of their Emergency Motion Relating to Letters Rogatory

Testimony (Doc. 499).

INTRODUCTION

Yuca’s letters rogatory testimony apparently went forward on March 21, 2018, despite this

Court’s clear orders that it should not, Doc. 501 (March 20, 2018 Text Order); see also Doc. 502-

1 (Mar. 19, 2018 Hrg. Tr.) at 7:23-6. Drummond was not present for Yuca’s testimony. Doc. 506.

Apparently, neither was Mr. Collingsworth or any other representative of the Plaintiffs. Doc. 508.

Notwithstanding this fact, Mr. Collingsworth claims that he should be allowed to “seek to

re-schedule the Yuca hearing,” and that this Court should “re-designate the Yuca Letters Rogatory

as applicable to the Melo case and permit the testimony to be taken” at some later, undefined date.

Mr. Collingsworth does not cite a single piece of authority authorizing this bizarre procedure or

{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 2 of 7

the extraordinary relief he seeks. His opposition also completely ignores the surrounding,

undisputed facts that make this proposition plainly untenable.

ARGUMENT

I. MR. COLLINGSWORTH OFFERED NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT

LETTERS ROGATORY ISSUED FROM A CLOSED CASE CAN BE ACTED UPON.

Mr. Collingsworth does not even acknowledge, much less address, either the legal authority

cited in Drummond’s motion or this Court’s prior order in this case, all of which compel the

conclusion that the pending letters rogatory in this case should be withdrawn. See Doc. 499 at 4-

5 (gathering cases for the proposition that letters rogatory should be withdrawn or mooted once

the underlying proceeding from which they were issued is closed); see also Doc. 357 (Apr. 26,

2012 Order) at 5 (issuing letters rogatory for Yuca and other individuals but stating that “absent

either the agreement of the parties or the showing of extraordinary good cause, the court will not

extend the discovery deadline in this case in the event that testimony from these nine late-issued

letters rogatory is not completed by June 29, 2012.”). He also “concede[s] that the captioned

Balcero case is closed so that, technically, no new testimony can be taken in this case.” Doc. 505

at 7.

He nevertheless asks that this Court “re-designate the Yuca Letters Rogatory as applicable

to the Melo case and permit the testimony to be taken” at some later date, provided that the

Colombian court is willing to acquiesce to Collingsworth’s request that this letters rogatory

testimony be retaken. Doc. 505 at 10. Mr. Collingsworth cites no authority for such a proposition,

and Drummond’s research is yet to uncover any case or statute that contemplates “re-designating”

letters rogatory issued in a closed case as applicable to another case. Furthermore, no discovery

can be sought in the Melo case because it has not proceeded past the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

stage, and the parties have not conducted a Rule 26(f) parties’ planning meeting. See Fed. R. Civ.

2
{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 3 of 7

P. 26(d)(1) (“[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred

as required by Rule 26(f)”) (emphasis added).1

Drummond also notes that Mr. Collingsworth has repeatedly represented to this Court that

the only pending letters rogatory relate to Oscar David Perez Bertel (alias “Yuca”) and Jose

Aristides Peinado Martinez (“Peinado”). See Doc. 505 at 2-3, 7. That assertion is puzzling, as

Mr. Collingsworth’s motion requesting that letters rogatory issue for these two individuals

1
The Defendants moved to dismiss Melo, and this Court received extensive briefing on
those motions. Melo Docs. 33, 33-1, 34, 35, 36, 36-1, 37, 38, 43 & 44. On February 4, 2014, this
Court administratively terminated the motions to dismiss and stayed the case pending the Eleventh
Circuit’s decisions in Baloco and Balcero. Melo Doc. 45 at 1. Once the Eleventh Circuit rendered
those decisions, this Court issued a show-cause order directing the parties to brief whether the
Melo case should be dismissed. Melo Doc. 51. The Defendants responded, arguing that the claims
should be dismissed both under the authority of the Eleventh Circuit’s decisions in Baloco and
Balcero, as well as the additional grounds for dismissal argued in Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Melo Doc. 52. This Court ultimately dismissed the suit, and the Plaintiffs appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the ATS claims, but remanded with
instructions that such dismissal was to be without prejudice, because the dismissal is based on a
lack of jurisdiction. Penaloza v. Drummond Co., Inc., 662 F. App’x 673, 678 (11th Cir. 2016).
The Eleventh Circuit also affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the TVPA claims against “the
three corporate defendants.” Id. With respect to the TVPA claims against the two individual
defendants and the Colombian law wrongful death claims, the Eleventh Circuit found that such
claims were not decided in the prior Baloco and Balcero decisions, and the dismissal of those
claims should be considered in the first instance by this Court. Id. at 679-81. The Eleventh Circuit
recognized that the “Defendants argued both before the district court and on appeal that” the
complaint failed to meet Balcero’s “standard for aiding and abetting liability and command
responsibility doctrine liability under the TVPA,” and that “[w]hile this may be so, the district
court failed to discuss this issue at all.” Id. at 679. The Eleventh Circuit made clear: “We
acknowledge that the district court may consider itself to have already decided this issue on the
Defendants’ proffered basis, and we do not intend to suggest that the district court erred on
the merits or is generally obligated to state the reasons for its decision. In this case, however,
‘appellate review would benefit from reasoned deliberation by the district court.’” Id. at 680 n.2
(emphasis added). Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the Defendants had argued
“a plausible basis to affirm” the dismissal of the Colombian wrongful death claims, but that such
arguments should be considered in the first instance by this Court. Id. at 680 (“As with Count
Three, the Defendants argue a plausible basis to affirm. As with Count Three, it is unclear whether
the district court dismissed on the Defendants’ articulated basis. As with Count Three, we decline
to address this complicated issue in the first instance on appeal.”).

3
{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 4 of 7

included requests for letters rogatory for a total of 7 witnesses. See Doc. 337. This Court’s April

26, 2012 Order issued letters rogatory with respect to all of these witnesses, as well as an eighth

witness. See Doc. 357 (Apr. 26, 2016 Mem. Op.) at 1 & 5. To avoid confusion, Drummond

respectfully requests that this Court withdraw all pending letters rogatory, not just the letters

rogatory relating to Yuca and Peinado. Attached hereto for the Court’s consideration as Exhibit 1

is a sample Order issued by a California federal court withdrawing letters rogatory in a closed case,

as well as a Notice filed by a litigant notifying the California court of compliance with that Order.

II. COLLINGSWORTH HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO SEEK LETTERS ROGATORY IN THE

CASES THAT ARE PENDING.

The RICO, Melo, and Defamation cases have been pending in this Court for more than 3,

5, and 6 years, respectively.2 Mr. Collingsworth, however, has made no effort to seek letters

rogatory testimony in any of those cases. To the extent he now seeks to obtain and utilize letters

rogatory testimony in those cases, Mr. Collingsworth should be required to follow an orderly

process to seek such testimony, just like every other litigant.

Following an orderly process is critically important here because there is substantial

evidence that numerous witnesses – including Yuca – were bribed by Mr. Collingsworth and

Conrad & Scherer in exchange for false testimony against Drummond. See Doc. 499 at Section

III; see also Defamation Doc. 417 (Crime-Fraud Opinion); Doc. 499 at 10 n.5 (noting that the

Special Master found an unrebutted, prima face case of witness bribery and suborning perjury with

respect to Yuca). Notwithstanding this evidence, Mr. Collingsworth claims that Drummond

2
This refers to Drummond Company, Inc. v. Terrence P. Collingsworth, et al., 2:11-cv-
3695-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (the “Defamation case”), Drummond Company, Inc., et al. v. Terrence P.
Collingsworth, et al., 2:15-cv-00506-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (the “RICO case”), and Penaloza, et al. v.
Drummond Company, Inc., et al., 2:13-cv-00393-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (the “Melo case” or the
“Penaloza case”).

4
{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 5 of 7

“should have been elated” to take Yuca’s testimony because it “will move us closer to the truth in

these cases.” Doc. 505 at 3 & 9.

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, Yuca testified at least four times before the Colombian Fiscalia

and denied any knowledge of who planned the murders of the Drummond union leaders, and

denied any knowledge of any agreements between Drummond and the AUC. See Defamation

Doc. 422 at 5. In 2012, after being approached by Mr. Collingsworth’s team, Yuca provided a

declaration for use in this case testifying to the exact opposite. Id. Accordingly, Yuca has

indisputably perjured himself and Drummond has no expectation that taking testimony from this

person will lead anyone closer to the truth.

Additionally, less than two weeks before Yuca signed the declaration for Mr.

Collingsworth, Lorraine Leete3 met with Ivan Otero, and then sent a memo to Collingsworth

regarding that meeting which stated that Yuca would not sign his declaration unless he was paid

$2,200 per month. Id. Thereafter, the monthly payments to Ivan Otero increased by exactly

$2,200, from $2,700 to $4,900. Id. Drummond only learned of Yuca’s demand for payment

because it was discovered by another party in another case—Drummond had been told repeatedly

that Yuca had never been paid and had never even requested any assistance. Id. at 1-4.4

Lorraine Leete was a member of Mr. Collingsworth’s team who communicated regularly
3

with Ivan Otero, drafted witness declarations, and delivered payments to witnesses. See
Defamation Doc. 283 at n.7.
4
Indeed, this is another reason to reject Mr. Collingsworth’s request that the previously
issued letters rogatory simply be “re-designated” for some other case. The letters rogatory for
Yuca (and the other witnesses) were accompanied by a list of questions that were formulated
before Drummond knew of the substantial payments to witnesses made by Mr. Collingsworth and
Conrad & Scherer. See Doc. 508 at ¶ 3. The list of questions for Yuca that were presumably asked
by the Colombian judge last week did not include any questions about whether Yuca had asked
for or received anything of value from the Plaintiffs or their counsel.

5
{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 6 of 7

For obvious reasons, taking Yuca’s testimony (or any other witness’s testimony) before

Drummond obtains full discovery of the scope, nature and extent of Mr. Collingsworth and Conrad

& Scherer’s witness payments, as well as their communications with or regarding those witnesses,

would be extraordinarily prejudicial Drummond.5

For this additional reason, requiring Mr. Collingsworth to follow the process for issuing

and executing upon letters rogatory testimony in the proceedings in which they are to be used is

crucial, as it will allow Drummond to fully develop the evidence needed to cross examine those

witnesses before their trial testimony is taken. See Doc. 357 (Apr. 26, 2012 Mem. Op.) at 5 (stating

that the letters rogatory process should give the Defendants “a full and fair opportunity for

Defendants to participate, pose their own questions, and cross examine”); In re Amtrak “Sunset

Limited” Train Crash in Bayou Canot, AL on Sept. 22, 1993, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (S.D.

Ala.), aff’d sub nom. In re Amtrak, 29 F. App’x 575 (11th Cir. 2001) (defendants were prejudiced

by the plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose information relating to his health history and criminal

record because, inter alia, it deprived the defendants of the opportunity to fully cross examine the

plaintiff’s expert at his deposition which was to be used at trial); Defamation Doc. 417 (Crime-

5
Exhibit 2 to Drummond’s emergency motion is a memorandum to Mr. Collingsworth
from Lorraine Leete dated June 15, 2012. See Doc. 499-2. In that memo, Ms. Leete unequivocally
told Mr. Collingsworth that “Y[uca] will not sign declaration until he gets security $$, which still
hasn’t arrived (the extra $2200 monthly).” Id. In his opposition, Mr. Collingsworth insinuates
that Drummond improperly attached this document as an exhibit. Doc. 505 at 3 (asserting that this
June 15, 2012 Memorandum was “improperly filed to the public as it is designated as ‘Highly
Confidential’ under the Protective Order.”). That document has been in the public record in both
California state court and the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida for nearly
two years. In fact, Doc. 499-2 is a copy of Docket Entry 1080-7 as it currently exists on the United
States District Court for Southern District of Florida’s docket in In re Chiquita Brands (MDL),
Case No. 0:08-md-01916 (S.D. Fla.). Notably, Mr. Collingsworth unsuccessfully attempted to
seal this document in the California state court proceeding.

6
{B2813285}
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 511 Filed 03/28/18 Page 7 of 7

Fraud Op.) at 45 (“There must now be an avenue for Drummond to discover documents and

testimony that relate to the crimes and frauds alleged in this case.”).

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court issue an order affirming that this case

is over, withdrawing all outstanding letters rogatory, and directing the parties to provide copies of

the order to the appropriate Colombian authorities.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ H. Thomas Wells, III

William Anthony Davis, III (ASB-5657-D65W)
H. Thomas Wells, III (ASB-4318-H62W)
Benjamin T. Presley (ASB-0136-I71P)
STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
P.O. Box 59812
Birmingham, AL 35259
(205) 868-6000
fax: (205) 868-6099

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 28, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.

International Rights Advocates
621 Maryland Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20002

I further certify that I sent an electronic copy of the filed version of this document and its
exhibits to the following via e-mail:
William T. Paulk
Spotswood Sansom & Sansbury LLC
1819 5th Avenue North
Suite 1050
Birmingham, AL 35203
wpaulk@spotswoodllc.com

/s/ H. Thomas Wells, III

H. Thomas Wells, III (ASB-4318-H62W)

7
{B2813285}
Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 13 FILED
2018 Mar-21 PM 04:28
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

Exhibit 1
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 2 of 13 1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
2 SOUTHERN DIVISION
3

4 JANE DOE, et al., *

5 Plaintiffs, * 2:09-cv-1041-RDP
6 vs. * March 19, 2018
11:30 a.m.
7 DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC., *
Birmingham, Alabama
8 Defendant. *
9
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13

14 For the Plaintiffs: Terrence P. Collingsworth

(via telephone)
15

16
For the Defendant: William Anthony Davis, III
17 (via telephone) William H. Jeffress, Jr.
H. Thomas Wells, III
18 Benjamin T. Presley
19

20 Court Reporter: Leah S. Turner, RMR, CRR

21

22

23

24

25
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 3 of 13 2

1 This cause came to be heard and was heard on the

19th day of March 2018, before the Honorable R. David Proctor,
2 United States District Judge, holding court for United States
District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Southern
3 Division, in Birmingham, Alabama.
4 Proceedings continued as follows:
5 P R O C E E D I N G S
6 THE COURT: Good morning. Who do I have on the
7 phone call with me?
8 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Terry Collingsworth, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Collingsworth. Who else?
10 MR. DAVIS: Tony Davis, Trey Wells, and Ben Presley.
11 MR. JEFFRESS: And Bill Jeffress in Washington.
12 THE COURT: On behalf of Drummond?
13 MR. JEFFRESS: Yes.
14 THE COURT: And who else?
15 MR. PAULK: William Paulk is here for Conrad &
16 Scherer.
17 THE COURT: Hello, Mr. Paulk. And this doesn't
18 directly involve you, but I think I indicated that I was happy
19 to have you listen in to the extent it might involve you. So
20 we will see.
21 MR. PAULK: Thank you, and I appreciate that.
22 THE COURT: You're welcome. I guess I'll --
23 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Your Honor, can I tell you one
24 fact, please, before we begin? I've been in Vermont. I've
25 not even read whatever Drummond filed. The hearing at issue
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 4 of 13 3

1 in Colombia, as I told them would happen, is going to be moved

2 to the end of April, so we don't have an emergency hearing
3 needed today, and I would request that I get a couple of days
4 to read what they filed, file a response, and if Your Honor
5 would still like a hearing scheduled --
6 THE COURT: Oh, I think we can accommodate you.
7 That doesn't mean I won't ask a couple of questions of you
8 today. But if we end up needing a hearing, I will be more
9 than happy to hold an in-person hearing here in Birmingham.
10 Just so we understand, though, this is the end of March, the
11 19th of March, and even something in April that would involve
12 them having to go to South America, I don't think we're going
13 to wait until the day before to take it up. So I understand
14 why they would be concerned.
15 So let me ask this. What exactly have you done in
16 South America involving letters rogatory?
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Absolutely nothing. We received
18 that hearing notice that is a leftover from the older case.
19 We just received it. As soon as I received it, I forwarded it
20 on to Drummond, and Drummond accused me of having some
21 bad [inaudible] -- and I think this has important information
22 about Drummond. So why don't we just -- regardless of the
23 technicalities, why don't we take just this up. That was my
24 communication to them. But I forwarded it the day that I
25 received it.
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 5 of 13 4

1 THE COURT: Help me understand the process down in

2 South America. How did this hearing come about and what was
3 the filing that the hearing relates to?
4 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: There was a letters rogatory
5 filed in the Balcero case. That was years ago. And it was
6 never acted upon by the Colombian court. My calculation is
7 some clerk found it in a dusty corner and said, oh, we never
8 issued this, so they did it on their own.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: I have had no contact with
11 anyone down there about the hearing or the witness. This came
12 as a surprise to me. But I thought it would be an opportunity
13 to get close to the truth of what we're trying to get at.
14 THE COURT: Well, the problem is I think you're
15 trying to get to the truth in a closed case.
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: There's no dispute of that, Your
17 Honor, but I've been a bit taken aback by the immediate
18 reaction to this important witness, of let's shut that down,
19 you can't possibly hear what this guy has to say. If Drummond
20 agreed -- [inaudible] fine with us going down there. Now we
21 are before you to decide if I can still do it.
22 THE COURT: Well, the other problem, though, is that
23 you're -- to the extent you're wanting to preserve this
24 testimony in another case that is currently pending in this
25 court, you and the law firm that you used to work for have
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 6 of 13 5

1 requested a stay of all proceedings, and so we've been sitting

2 around for coming up on two years, if my math is right,
3 waiting for the Eleventh Circuit to resolve an interlocutory
4 appeal taken that as I understand it at least you asserted --
5 you and/or the law firm asserted in the Eleventh Circuit they
6 should review the entire order. And, therefore, we all agreed
7 in a previous on-the-record conference that the only thing we
8 could possibly do at this time is stand down on all discovery
9 because the plaintiff, Drummond, would be entitled to get that
10 discovery going forward, and I'm not going to let them get it
11 until the Eleventh Circuit rules, and I think the Eleventh
12 Circuit has said that they're not entitled to get it until
13 they rule.
14 Tell me why this wouldn't violate the stay that you
15 and the law firm yourselves asked for and sought in the
16 Eleventh Circuit.
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Well, Your Honor, the Melo case,
18 which is the plaintiff's case, is still pending before you.
19 It came back from the Eleventh Circuit. There's no stay in
20 that case.
21 THE COURT: No, look, the two are connected, and
22 absolutely there's a stay in that case. You haven't tried to
23 accomplish any discovery in that case, have you?
24 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No, Your Honor. I think there
25 has been no action taken on the merits in the late-issued
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 7 of 13 6

1 case --
2 THE COURT: Well, because all of this is related to
3 the same ball of string. If you are paying witnesses in cases
4 down there in order to secure their testimony, and, therefore,
5 are not entitled to seek the protections of work product or
6 attorney/client privilege with respect to discovery that they
7 would want to undertake in that case and the other cases, then
8 that's one thing. I so ruled that they would be entitled to
9 that discovery. You and the law firm took separate
10 interlocutory appeals of that order. Yours was denied, but
11 the law firm's was granted in part on a vicarious alternative
12 finding that I made. When was the oral argument in that case?
13 MR. WELLS: I think it was January of last year,
14 Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: So 14 months ago?
16 MR. WELLS: Right about there.
17 THE COURT: And I don't think any of us know what's
18 going on inside the inner sanctum of the Eleventh Circuit in
19 terms of why it has taken 14 months to get an opinion out
20 after oral argument, but, meanwhile, we are waiting.
21 I guess my concern is I don't like delaying my own
22 litigation. I like getting things done in a timely and
23 orderly way, but oral argument came how many months after the
24 appeal was granted?
25 MR. WELLS: This is Trey Wells, Your Honor. I think
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 8 of 13 7

1 the appeal was roughly March of --

2 THE COURT: 2016?
3 MR. WELLS: Right.
4 THE COURT: So we've been waiting two years or
5 thereabout, and we have not had anything done in two years. I
6 understand the serendipity, if in fact that's what occurred,
7 of the authorities in Colombia finally waking up to the fact
8 that they had a letters rogatory that was filed -- when? How
9 many years ago?
10 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: At least three, Your Honor. I
11 don't have the paper in front of me, but at least three.
12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Five.
13 THE COURT: More like four or five, because these
14 cases were dismissed, went to the Eleventh Circuit, were
15 affirmed, and then cert was denied, right?
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: That's correct.
17 THE COURT: So that has taken a while. So here is
18 what I'm going to say.
19 Mr. Collingsworth, I'm going to give you an
20 opportunity to read over what they have and to present
21 something in writing to me, and then I think I will hold a
22 hearing on it here in Birmingham, if that's what you want.
23 Having said that, no one is doing anything to do any
24 discovery until I rule on this motion. So consider this an
25 interim order saying that the case is closed and no discovery
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 9 of 13 8

1 is going to be conducted in a closed case, and the other cases

2 are stayed either directly or indirectly because it would have
3 been unfair to you to let them do discovery of you in any of
4 those cases which they would have sought to do until the
5 Eleventh Circuit gets its say, finally, with respect to that
6 order.
7 Now, it may be that there are some compelling
8 circumstances you can present to me when you have a chance to
9 review the motion for emergency stay and responding to it. If
10 so, we will have a hearing, we will address those, everybody
11 will get their say, and we will see where we are.
12 But the status quo is no discovery is conducted
13 until I say so.
14 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Your Honor, I don't want to
15 prolong this. The only fact that I could possibly -- is
16 that I did not initiate this letters rogatory hearing being
17 set at this time [inaudible], so I would say that that's a
18 little different than saying I am trying to conduct discovery,
19 because I didn't --
20 THE COURT: No, no, I'm not saying that. What I am
21 saying, though, is you won't be doing any discovery until I
22 say so, whether it's an opportunity that you never thought you
23 were going to get, whether it's the Colombian authorities
24 inexplicably deciding at this last hour and well beyond the
25 last hour to permit the discovery, or whether it's somebody
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 10 of 13 9

1 that you don't know and don't have any control of engineering
2 things in Colombia. I don't know what the answer is.
3 But what I do know is this: There won't be any
4 discovery in a closed case or any stayed cases until I say so,
5 but I will have an open ear to you, to the extent you want to
6 argue that we should do the discovery.
7 But what I'm going to ask you to do is put your
8 arguments in writing. You asked for more time. I didn't
9 suggest that, but it makes sense to me. And then we will have
10 a hearing to see what we should we do, if anything, going
11 forward.
12 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Okay, Your Honor. And I mention
13 an inadvertent [inaudible] -- fairly minor -- that I hope you
14 can address [inaudible] within the schedule, but I will file
15 something within a few days, if that's okay with you.
16 THE COURT: How many days do you think you need?
17 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Today is Monday. Can I have
18 until the end of Wednesday?
19 THE COURT: Yes. I'll tell you what. I'm going to
20 give you a little bit more time than you asked for. Just have
21 it in by the end of the week.
22 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Thank you, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: I'm sitting with the Eleventh Circuit
24 this week. I won't be mentioning anything about this case to
25 them, but I will be attending the other cases, so I won't have
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 11 of 13 10

1 a chance to look at it until Monday at the earliest. And we

2 will say that you get that in by Friday.
3 To the extent Drummond wants to reply, let's do so
4 by the following Wednesday. Will that give Drummond enough
5 time to reply?
6 MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Okay. But to be clear, no one does
8 anything until you get an order from me. In other words, we
9 are just preserving the status quo until you get an order from
10 me.
11 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: Understood.
12 THE COURT: All right. Anybody have any heartburn
13 or concern with that interim relief?
14 MR. WELLS: No, Your Honor.
15 MR. DAVIS: No, Your Honor.
16 MR. COLLINGSWORTH: No, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: And the law firm feels like they have
18 had notice and an opportunity to at least listen?
19 MR. PAULK: Yes, sir, we do. Thank you.
20 THE COURT: I take it you would prefer that no one
21 violate the stay?
22 MR. PAULK: That's correct, Your Honor. Our
23 position is just that, that the stay should be in place. As I
24 said in my email this morning, we have purposefully not taken
25 a position on whether or not it should go forward if there are
 Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 12 of 13 11

1 extraordinary circumstances that would justify it going

2 forward. I think Mr. Collingsworth is going to address that.
3 And obviously if the Court allowed it to go forward for
4 purposes of either case that the law firm is involved in, we
5 would want to be involved in that process. But, priority
6 number one, keeping the stay in place.
7 THE COURT: And to be clear, Drummond has asked for
8 two separate items of relief, at least: First, that the stay
9 continue and that no letters rogatory discovery take place
10 down in Colombia until the stay is lifted; and, second, they
11 have asked the Court to withdraw the letters rogatory. And I
12 think the law firm ought to have an opportunity to weigh in on
13 that if they choose to do so.
14 So I will say that if you wish to weigh in on that,
15 you should do so by Friday as well.
16 MR. PAULK: Thank you.
17 THE COURT: All right. If there's nothing else, I
18 will wish you a good week.
19 (End of proceedings.)
20

21

22

23

24

25
Case 2:09-cv-01041-RDP Document 502-1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 13 of 13

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript

in the above-styled cause is true and accurate.

Leah S. Turner, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter