Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 1 of 26

Exhibit A

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 2 of 26

SUBPOENA

Wniteb ~tatti) (tOtltI of §ebrral (tlainti)
Evprerppn Tr:icline, 1.1.(;, hy :ind through
Glei:n Ntissrlorf :ind (;1 :illdinp StruID on

behalf of GN i:nuestments, TT.r., Partners

other than the Tax Matters Partner,
VS.

Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
SUBPOENA

No.

06-123T

THE UNITED STATES

To: Laura Fields

c/o Stuart J. llassin
55'5- 4th Street, NW'--Room 7203

-wsnington, D. c. LUUur
1. YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specitìed below to testify in the above-captioned case.

Place ofTestim()J1Y:~~_._._.......__,__
Date and

2. YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above-captioned case.

PlaceofDepositioli: Stuart J.~assin, 555 4th Street, NW, Room 7203, Washington, D.C.

Date'a~d . March 20 20or'atTO:ÓO a.ID. _n....___. 20001
3. YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of

the following documents or objects at the

place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

Place: See attached notice.
4. YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of

~..--~,~.,.-._--the following premises at the date and time speeiHed below.

Date and Time: __.....__._.__._.'_....____.._..._____.._....~___..~______._____.........__

Date and

Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more
officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, mid may set fOlth,f1 ;Ch person

de:dgnated: thcljatter' on which thc person wil testify. .. ,.. -L~~S ç".,. ~ th. ~.
. SUING OFFICER SIGNATURE ND . (INDICA ¡ IF ATiURNEY FO AINTlFF OR DEFENDANT) 6." .

_...£J. ".- 3ftl,i- A.. ~ ..D/\TE
PLACE

David D. Aughtry, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., 34th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303
ISSUiÑÜ-ÕFFICER'S NA~nfA-r)i)ju;SS:Al::iD-pii()NE-NUNfBER .~~____.~__.__'L____..._______m~~~_'_.__....~~_".~.__~ ( 404 ) 659 -14 i 0

ÑOTE-:ïfth~-pî;;e o-t traveT¡s';nore th;;iOo;;;iî~~-(by the sh()nes¡u~;-ai-~e¡¡i;of i;;î;~fi fml~tIi..pI3C~~~.h~~~.tr~~..~;bp~:;'ñ;iS ser'¡Cdòriiile-piãëe
of the depositiüii is more than i 00 miles ¡rom the place where the deponent resides, is employed, or transacts business in person, the persn sCI'yed may

regard the eommand as optional unless there is alläched to the i;ubpoena311 ()der ofthe court requiring his/her appcanince notwithstanding the distance ofiraveL III any ~yent, response to the subpoena will entitle the person to the fees ai~t mileage "lIowed by Ia\\:ci~~ UB.e. §1821)

PROOF OF SERVICE

-~'~'--~~
SERVED

SERVED ON (PRINT NAME)

MANNER OF SERVICE

z

.; i:
Ii

EXHIBIT
A
I

of
L l

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA
~

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 3 of 26

o Fees tënèletèd fo! Mcday'såifßdåIl'c:ad roìle.ageållowed by la'iv,(Feèsand mileage need

subpMna isissuedÐu hel1alf(tf,tIelÎ'tiitMStat0$Qran Qffcer -or a~MyUie.rç'f)
HECLAR nON OFSE~VlCE

not he teiidered i;vheii the

t de.care\lderpetj¡iltyo!,~i;WM!Iile.¡.tqt.1;iW~òftl,e Unittd States of Atreic~ that t11e fQtegniitg infonnationcolttaine.iiìtM-PrOOfóf$t.cvice

1sthils nridcortct

Bx~ted on:
DATE
SllNATIRE ÙF ~'ERVER

AÒDRESS OF SERVER

RCFG45,. .
or triaL.

(c) -ll'teoollnl,Ì'rerlPlîs..~bh't$!t~ItlJ$~ OJ Apayonlláitmey~!:wr itiidssu¡uceanserviten(,a$Ubpôenisp;iU tae rnòitliblc$tejJsto ll\ÍDid -itnJiQ~lis-ùl)d\le lnen

or expeii ona pesOit~bj~tb;tts.~bÌ, Thecouit shallenforcet1iîs dut and illse upon tbepart Of attorney appropriate sanccon¡wfi~timaYltititlÛë, -bA. ~."dtliinitedto, losteal1ingsiiifa ~Sõl;õle attnmeYs fee.. . _' . . ilihrl:øhD.Úhisllutyan

(iì(A.) A p~n -c~MtöJ)rouCJiidpermit ínspectiona~dCOpY~øfd~i,ßed books, pape,d9Cnil;1iPti.ngìbl~tIj.ôgsor
inspectiOiQfpreniisesJ)t/d'Ïiti! _iiPHmii~ ~tUìpiacenfptoductiÔÌ,bdnsptiol'.unless còmtÍànde(Hoappearfordèn$¡ìioii~riìl8
tn) Subject 1'ap(llÎgniph~tl2) dftI$.ruíe, a pèrsncorhmanded tDproduooal1d perntiiinspecion andCnpyîiig l1ay,wiililn 14dâ.) atter

service Qfthe8ubp(lnaarbt:0retl~ti~s~dfiedforeo01pliánce ¡huch tiiu_e is les than 14 day:; atler ser"ici;ser..elìponthcparyor
attorneydes,gmitiidin îh~sií~ena,"'tìtltobjcctiontoinspection or copyingof,my or all of the dt:sÎglJa¡edn1Jterialsor(l.f~eJltê¡$ès. If objection i~Íliade,the:pá(ÍYs.Fj~gtIe8llii1oeriashàll ntlt beentitied toìnspectand copythernátenals or inspect thc,premisesciiceptpmsuant tu all orderQf the court. If onjc(,tioii!iASheenmadc, theparty scn-ingthesubpØöna irny, upon noiice to the ix:L¡on -ciinnandcd to prnduce, move at any iime fòr an ()dert¡tntnpel t!ëpr(ldoetion. Such an arder to cOI1¡iel production

shall protect any pcrson who .is no: apàrt or £In officer of a piuty from s¡gl¡¡tiPlte*pet1eJ~ltÌQg from the inspectÎon and copying 'Çummiinde-d.

(3)(1\) On timely moJion, fiicconrtslilquash orniodify the su bpoemi ifit
(I) faBs to !!UoWteâso!1!lb)e Ijin fførCOhïpìane.e;

(Ii) requires a iieTson ivbois IJØtàPar)'ot an. (llfcer of a pM)' to traYelJo a place more than 100 miles from tM place where that person
resides, is Cn¡PlllYeQOÌ' règ.iorly tmnsattsbusíness in persolt, except thiil, ~llbjec 10 the provisions of clause (c)(~)(H)(iî) ofth.is ni!c, such

a person may iriurdqrt9 .a!thdliiil.bit¡mlIanded to iravel from any suèhpIie, pr
and nø excepti(Jt or waiver applies, or (lv) 8ubjet-lS a pet.Ori toun\l burden. (D) If a subpoena (I) tl'quìrcs disclosnre ora trde se'ei orothcj' coofidentia.1 research, deve,loprneni, or c-miiercialinformiitiof),or (ii) i-'quires.dscIÓsireof an\lfllailiedeKp~rt''S opillÌon or information nM d~scribing sped /ìc events or occtircnces iJldispute and
rcs\lliingjiornthec~cjj'sstJdyinilii(Jtatiile request of any party, or
(iii) requìresa persOr\thoisfiotll.p:tf(¡Ì' an omcer of a party Îo Ìlcur substantial expense to travel more than lOO miles 10 iittend trial, the court Ulay, tnPrgtçctil .._~~IJ~j~1 l",òraffe¡ted by the s-illpoènli, quash or moditYtlle ¡.-ubpO!na _or, if thepiiìiiw~Øsêbehalft)le subpoena is issued sJi~';'lll$ûb'Stiáì'nee fodhe testilllOny or material tIt cannot tx ot1Il.'n..;se,met wíthoi undUe hatds~ipanti llSSlncs that tliepèrsQt)tawlinmBléiibpøe i$li¡idrCle!l \vill berel1sonably t'ompensartd,lhe court may (ii) rcquîrL'Sd¡scl(~sureofprivìlegeQT other protected matter

specified conditions,
((i) Duties

order app¡al1niee tlrpTOductiuhônlyupt1l

iii R~poildtJ,l(¡.S'b,ìi~a,
usual c~ùtSeMbiisìncssol'shãn

(1) A per90nrkoDilrilii~dt~~rÒpindUee_dòclmelltsshaii prodiicetlêlillily are kept in the

Qrglnizc and label thentØCOirelPÓbd "1ththcca/(goñes in the demiid
the claim shaH be made expressly aiid sball be Slpported by

(2) When il1ftmnatidÍlsut¡titttu 'á$llJ:pdèltl ìswitlíbeld on a Claim that it i¡¡privilegoo Or Siibj eet to protection as trial prepartion i:terials,

that is suffcient tQcll_åbli:Jhedèiandiiig pårtiicontes the claini

a descriptiou ofthe í1âIUrc o£the documents, ooninunicatioiis,or tllÎìlgs nöl prôdUt.J

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 4 of 26

Exhibit B

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 5 of 26

SUBPOENA

tØnittb ~tatts \tomt of $elJerar ((faints
Evergreen Trading, LLC, by and through Glenn Nussdort and Claudine ~trum on behalf of GN Investments, LLC, Partners other than the Tax Matters Partner,
VS.

Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
SUBPOENA

No. Jl::l2.3._

THE Ull/ITED STATES

To: Horace Howells
d Q ..tuart J. Bas~in

_-5..Ath Street, NW RoQ.203
1. YOUARE COMMANDED to appear

Place ofTestimoJ1Y:_._~..__ Date and Time:__. _
at the place, date, and till.e specified below to testify

Washington, D. C. 20001

in

the above--aptioned case.

2. YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date,

and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition

iii the above-captioned case.

Placeo(DeposiÙoil..Stuart J. B_~~.~.'!n, 5~5 4th Sti:~~t.-,ßW, Room _~..?03, Washington, D.C. f)aleandTìme. Marcn_21.~ 2007 at lO:OO ~'II:,__..____...._.__ 20001
3. YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and per1litinspection aiid copying of

place, date, and tìmespecífied below (list documents orobjecls):

the following documents or ob.Îects at the

Date and Time:__~__.._, _......_..____....______.....__
4. YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection òfthe foJhnving premises at the date and time speeífìed below.

Place: See attached notice. ____.___

Dale and
Any organization not a party to this suit that is suapoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate Olle or more
offi.cers, directors, ormanagiii¥ agents, or otberperso~s wliocol1sent to testify O!) its beJi~l.f, and may Set forth, for eacb person .

diiigiiuted, the matters on which the-person will testif. ~. ~r~"~ .i~~ ~--¿¡-,,.~. _ i.
ttING Üf~lCER S GNA TU :, AND T E (INOICA1 ~ ATlOgy FOR l. . FF OR DEFEND/\Nij-#~L
David D~ Aught.ELJJ1__r~_~_i,~tree Street, N._~_~_?_34th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303 ¡SSurNG OFFICER'S NAME, ADt)R13SS, AND PHONE NUMBER----------..--C4 04 ) 659- 1 4 1 0
ÑOTE -=ifth; pJa-;-~ftnivel is ~õr~ than Too niìlcs (by the shorte;¡ûsuãT¡;-;m:~ ofÚã'~--Ì)froll theí)i~~t.\~ì;e¡:e.\h;Slibp-;lf~T~ serVe¿Corit~tle place

ofthe deposítiori Îs more than i 00 miles from the place where tltc deponent resides, is employed, or transacts business in person, the person served may
regard the comiiand as optionalul1less there is attached to the subpoena an order of/he court requiiing hisllu:ir appeanulCt' notwithstanding the distance

oftravcl In ariL£venL rcsponse to the subpoena will entitle the person to the tb_t: and mileage allowed by 1l~~£28 U.S.c. §1821)

PROOF OF SERVICE
D1\ TE

PLACE

,SFRVED _..____..,__,._____..
SERVED ON (f'HINT NAMEì

._"~~----~
MANNER OF SERVICE

z

-

EXHIBIT
B

j
I

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA
o Fees tendered Jor Mê sub .' oèna is issuoo

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 6 of 26

day's

átf1dâl1ce :ad itiÌle.ageâlloweq t,y låw,(F~ard mileage need 'Or

not be tender~d wheti the

oIl belwrlf(lftle l,IDti;-d..tate$(Jfan offcer

a ~m?the.rçøf

DECLAR nON OFSBltVICE
ldeclarew:¡ler j)balt)'

is thi-taÍlcoIÍL
Ex~ted ~m:
-DA'TE

()fptiJ))ildtrtQti.lils

()ftht: UnitødSties of AÍIecli~Jh.~t the foregoing infonnafioncohtained.iiitheProofóf$ervjce

$lGNATUiÜ~ OF SER'VER

AODRÊSS OF SF..VER

RCFC4S.
(e)lì'Qtelion~l'perlo~$'.8qbj~tt/toSpbPijll.aS~ (1) A P¡iror l'.n'áttm~ resJlliíbieforint'issUílUl:eandservic~'ot,a$U,Pn;$b¡iU tâ reiiònablc stejJstolivøid.illl1~Ì(.i~.undllë lnden
orexeii on ~ ptònSnlijÇettøtlati¡b~, 1'courtshil. eiforcfbîsauiiditsçuponthpay or

appropnate sancioni'wlií~bllfjntJilûe, bi:iJi~ i)6tlimitedto; lostCatin:gaj(fã ~i.Dlea&orneys fee.

attnmeyÎnhreihöØhÎsi!tityîù

~~(AJ A PtilIcøtnedtol)fOOui:andperiiit inspetion andcQpY~9fd(Ji~eâ boksl pa¡i,dpcinttit9tlingblctlÎ.for
in~lleciønQfpre¡nise ~iiQtàp¡,i.b.iit\~attIìPlacofpfQilct()llòt'!ÚSptítròiíuoless coindedtoappent:fòtdepØSîtiQ!t i~.i1g

QrttiaL
(l)SubJet't t9pafâgraph(tf)(Z)ciflhis,rue, Ii pèwncol1miuided 10

produteandpi;t inspectjonande(ipyingmay,w¡fhin J4dãysalter
Pary

serice ofthesulmoena. ~r ~e'f0fet1e tiititspcltledf6tcQn\PlianCtJfimAAtie i¡ le tJ;in .14 daysatler sen.ice,serveVPPn the altornèy ii~gnarodin the:su~er~'fjtlÌ1o/jectioDtoiuspÙon or copýin~of;lY tlraU of

Or

objectíoii iShl$de, thc'plll' seJÝligtlie stbt¡òeiia s1iâll Ml betiiiiiJOO toiil'te'C'ànd ~opytiie mátedals or inspect ihcrpremfsese.xcepi púrsuant
to an order of the court,li o/~eGtio.lbasbecnmade, tbeparty seing.thesiibppenamilY,tlpOO notice move at any time for an ordcrtn tOn:pel tbeprodu(;ion. Such an order to coinpel production

the designated nllltedalsorQttliepreses. If

to the peroocOllUiiandedto produce,

shall protect any person wbo is OOr a part or !Iì officer of apaity from si8ilìtlçantexpeLì.se~siiliQg from theinspecrion and copfing ,-oniniade-d. (3)(A) Oi timely motion, the courlshaIlqimsl ormodi.iy the subpoena ifit
(i) faiis to AUôw re3Stn(i~ie tiine Jlitc.ottîp.lìance;
(ii) requitesa person wliois PQtilpaPt an offcer of a pilrt to traVelJoJi place more than WO miles from tlie pl~ce Wheretbatpcr¡on re,ides, isemplbyedor regnkli1y ttàisàtisbusincss in perwn, excepttlit, ~llbjedto t:e provisions of clause (c)(3XW(ii) of this role, such

a pernOn m:iy inord!)r to. ;itttthdtral .bnoo1Ml1ded to travel froin any su~hplJe, or (Ii) requires disclosure .of prvíl~ed or other protected mattL1'an.d no exCetÎo¡i or waiver applies, or (ív) subjllts a pets.on. to unueburoc.'1,

(ß) If a subpoena
(i) H.'''uir.s dÎscJosureofa trnde sticrct or other

cOlifidel1iaJ resenreJi, deyeJopment,orcommercialilifòrmatio¡),:oi
any plly, or

(íi)~uiresdiscióS\re ofan'1aiiiedexperl'lI opinion or ¡j)foi'mtion nÒfdèscbing sped/ic events or occlirences iii dispute and
resii/tingtkiiii the expeWs s!udyinne.!lot atthertll1est of

(ili) reauiresa persoiü\iho is notapal''Or an oflctr ofa partyto Ìhcùr substantial expense to tmvel more tiian i Ü(Jmi!tslo nttciid trial,

the court may, toprqteç.'tii~nri$pN()tIQ))r affeçted nythe SÚnP(¡èná,quas ormotythe j¡ubpoenaor, ifihep¡iyjj)'W.lsébeha/fthe
subpoena is issued sÍioWSl\substiiìhièefurtletestiinony (Lr material thtcounll be olhenviscllt without uD.duehardsliipand assures

that tlieper&ont( wliPlUtlt!!ppøelll\ Îsapìlré¡led .will hereasnnbly c()ßÍpeniti,loooourt may ordèr appeimince orpronètionØIJyupon
specified ooDditiQls,
t-d) Duties

in Rtlpøiidniglll.Stb)ø~ii
th!:yare

(1) . A persolltßOÍdìrtg~dl;~bp~lilOp~dUeedOCUínCntiShaJl prod\lcef/en as

orgánizc and labl them.t(ooo'eSpond 'Wththe'ea~g()riesin the deiad. (2) \Vhen JlIfunna¡¡)llsu~jectIOå$lIbpöeiiaìs,,'¡tliheld on a doitn thaI it ispriv.ilèged or-subject to protection as trial prepamtion materials, the cJiii m sliall be, made cxpressJy iiud shal. be S\ppced by II description ofthe ilt¡re of the documents, conunnJcatioiis, ottlìi1gs nOI prOduced
that is sufficent toel¡¡ib1e thedèIÜiitling pil to contest the chiini

kept in (be usual eøllt~'6Jhlljnèssol'still

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 7 of 26

Exhibit C

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 8 of 26

SUBPOENA

Ilniteb ~tatti) (tourt of §ebrral (tlainti)
E-l.ergreen Trading, T,T.C, by :itt through

Glenn Nussdorf and Claudine Strum on behalf of GN Investments, LLC, Partners other than the Tax Matters Partner

~. Plaintiffs,
Defendant.

No. ..6:- 1 21T

THE UlvlTED STATES

SUBPOENA
To: Donna Young c70 Stuart J. Bassin

555 4th Street, NW, Rorn03
---Washington, D.C. 20001
1. YOU ARE COMMANDl3D to appear al tiie place, dale. and tÌrriespecifiedbelow to testify in the above~captíoned case.

2. YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above-captioned case.

Place ofTesttmoiiy:__~_ Date and Time: '_~__"_.____

P/aceofDcposìton: Dale andStuart J '___:B;3~~.:t.i_~.~55 4th S~E~~E-~,~W, Room .!~03, Washington, D.C. . March 20 2007 at 2: 30 .m 20001
3. YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the ft)llowing documents or objects at the place, date, and timç specified below (list documents or objects):

Place: See attached notice. _____

Date and Time:._______.,_.___...___._,__~___~~.__,____._.._.___,_____.._.._

4. YOU ARE COMMANDED to pennit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specifìed below.

Date and
/\ny organí:t.ation not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may Set forth, fÒr each persoii

d. osign,ted. the ffttc~ which the Zoo wull..rtf1. ~

officers, directors, or managing agents, or

ISSUING OFFICER SIGNA'llRI~, AND lfLE (INDICATE IF A TroRNI~Ñl~W'DEFE ANT ~ ¡I,.

-~-i ~- Al ~,,¿ h. ~-l~..~.... . /#- ~.. ~ '07
David D. Aught--, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., 34th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303

ï.EsuiÑÛ"õ'FÏCER'S NAME,ADDRESS-;ÃND.P"iI6NE1-iUMBER..--.-------......-. - ..._--~ (404) 659- 1410

NOTE-=îTtÍi~pli~-Uftravel is ;;rethan TÕÕ-;;;¡ks (by the s!iortesí i;~;;;;¡;;~ns ofï;;;~;i) from tliepiãc¡~~h~re"tÍi~'Sibp¡~-ia isserved, or ¡(the pI;¡~~ of the deposition is more than J on miles ¡rom the place where the deponent n..'Sides, is employed, or traris¡icts business in perSOn, the person served may regard the cOllnliliid as optional unless there is attached to the subPOena an order of the court requiring his:1ier appcaltllce nOh,ithstaridirig the distance o(travel. In any !-vent, response to the subpoena wil~ entitle the person to the fees and mileage ¡il!owed by law. (28 U.S.c. §182l)

PROOF OF SERVICE
SERVED -'~---~-"- DATE
PLACE

SBR VED ON (PRINT NAME)

MANNER OF sERvrcìi---'

z
¡

"
.;

EXHIBIT
C

i
I

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA
~
o Fees tentlered fùr OI1 day's átfel1dàheeald

Document 19-2
inÌlcage

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 9 of 26
not be tendered whel1 the

allowed by law. (Fees and mileage need

sub"öciia is issue,d on behalf oftle Hhitt;-d8tatescifan offc-er -or a :6ncihi;r~f.

DECLARA nON OF SERVICE

I dec1areaiQer penaltyorpe¡jwyui:Qert.t,JIi\Ysoftlie United Si¡ites of AmeriCa that the fc¡regoÎi¡g informtion contained ,inlhePl-OOfofSe,rvce

is ttilè aridcortt.
Ex=uted on:
DATE
SIGNA 1URE OF SERVER

AnDRESS OF SERVER

RCfÇ45.
(C) Prot.e-èl'uDofPers-ÕJs'..llbjtttto StibpQJ1as-,

(1 A piiry oraiàtimeyreiisible fortlidssu;ice andsc.rvice ora subpomt.shall ta reilSonllble stepsîoavoidifu¡lQsil1g uiidllê burdim
or expense on a person $Ibject tothíitSlhpiì, The-curt shall eíforce.tbîsdiity and Ùlseupon th

appropriate sanction. wlíeli rnyinèluùe, bJlt is nôtlimited to.losteaming8l\(l a i-sòl'ble attorneys fee.
(2)(A) A perncomindedto flrouCl ~ndpemit inspection and

pa or atmlJcyinbreeh ò.(llislliityîù
appi"for

cøpYllrøfdesisned books, pape,dncinpnj$ntm.gÎblß'tI.llÎ~ or
desition, l¡....US

mSJ)cctíon Qfpremisesnçen¡)tap¡jfup,effllt tlìplace ofptoductìòh or insptitÎònunless eommnded to

orírial.
(B) Subject to paragrph (d)(2) .öfths,rtìÍc; II pèrsn commanded to

däys alter service oftlie subpoea orb~fo~ethe tilDspedfied for cOiltpliaicelf such liiiie is less th;in 14 dilysatler s"'ìe~ seivenpòn thë'Paryor attorney desìgnatedin tlesuPpeíawrìtÌobjecti~n to

produCe andpcrniil inspecion and cnpying n:iy,,,~lh¡n J4

objection is imide. thcpariy serving-the S\bfoena shall nótbc entitled toin.-;.ectandcopythc mátenals or inspe.ct thç,premisesexcet put-suant

inspection or copyin,gofiiny mall ofthedesigtiatedIDltÔ¡¡s!)ro.fthePreises. If

10 an order of the court, If dbjcctionbasbçenniade, tbcpiirty serving thesubpØèna may, npòn notice Ie¡ the petsnncòinmal)dedto pwdiice, aD ordedl) tOn:pel toe prodction. Such an order to compel prodiiction shall protect any person wbois flota party or nn officer ofa paity from sígnificaitexpellSprelting from the inspection nndcopyingcominandc.d. (3)('\) On timely moiÍon, me courtshallquash or modify the subpoemi ifit
move at any iime for

(i) làils to allow reaso!lab,letiìnçforCûI)!plìance;

(ii) requites a person w!iois.uota)patyor ao(lffcer of a pàrt to traveltoa plnce uiorc than ioo miles from thcpJacç wherethatPcron
resides, is cmployedor règulm-iy tmnsat'sbusine&s in person, except tliat, subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(iii) of

a person mtiy in order to .attend tnaIbeCòmmanded to trnvd fWlll any suchplJe, or
(íii) requires disclosure .of privileged or other protected ßk~ttr'Tand no exception or waiver applies, e¡r (h') subjeçts a person to undue burden. (B) If a mibpoena

this rule, such

(i) rl'(uires discloStlfC ofa trade seret or othl'r confidentinl reseach. development, or commercial inlormntion, or (ii) n,-quires disc.lóS\rt of:n ull!aÎlIé! expert's opinion or ilifomiafÍon not describing specífic events or iiccurrencesin dispute and resulting from the expe¡;lsstudyinide notat the n1a\le:t of

any party, or

(ii) requires a person'who is fitllpártòran offcer ofa P¡irly/o incur substantial èxpense to travel more ihanlUOmilestQuttel1d triii!.
the court iiay. to pIltec.1 a .Piiii sPii)llt(o"or affected !;y the subpoena. quasli or modíty the subpoena subpoena is _issued shows asubtial

or, iftbepiiiiiw.høsebeialf'te

ñee fortbetestiinoiiy or material that cannot be otherwi semel without un.due liArdsbipand 8SSlues

that tlcperson to whpm theSùpoenii ísa¡ldressed wìl be reasonably compensated. the

court mayordcr appearoeeorpr,jtlOtIQnly upon

specified conditions.
(d) Duties in Responding 10

SJb,oêDå.

(1) A persotir(:ondin$t'l:St~pa~róp1'cedocûmentsshall prodl.lce them as

organize and labelthemtocotTcspond with tJie.cateQñes in the demand.
the claim shall be made expressly and sb;illbe supported by

they are kepi in the usuiil ÇõutoJ'bu!inessorSln

(2) When Jnfunllation suj)jecttoastlbpòena isv.itliheld on a claim tliat it ispnvilegoo or subject to proection as trial prepartion materials, a description oftbe I1a!ure of the documents. commiinicatioiis, ortlliiigs ñói produce

that is suflcient to enable tlie demanding pi!ioconteslthe c1àini

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 10 of 26

Exhibit D

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 11 of 26

U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
Facsimile No. (202) 307-2504

Trial Attorney: Stuart). Bassin
Attorney's Direct Line: (202) 307-6418
Attorney's e-mail: Sturt.) Bassin(!usdoj .gov

Please reply to: Offce of Civil Litigation Post Offce Box 403 Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

EJO'C :DDG: SJBassin:kjm

154-2430 CMN: 2006102442

March 5, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
David D. Aughtry, Esq. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White,

Wiliams & Marin
191 Peachtree S1., N.E.
Ninth Floor

Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404/659-1410

Fax: 404/659-1852

Re: Evergreen Trading, LLC, et al v. United States Fed. Cl. No. 06-123 T
Dear Mr. Aughtry:

Earlier today, we received subpoenas for the depositions of

three past and present Service

employees-Laura Fields, Horace Howells, and Donna Young. These subpoenas raise two related issues which we wish to address with you.
First, as these subpoenas seek testimony of past and present Service employees regarding their offcial duties, Treas. Reg. § 301.9000-1 governs their proposed testimony, While it is the responsibility of the Service to prepare the testimonial authorization for the depositions, the Service cannot proceed without knowing the topics you propose to address in the noticed depositions. To date, our e-mail exchanges have indicated that the only topic you wish to address
with these witnesses is the "substance of 6." Please advise us promptly if the development of

Treas. Reg. §§1.752-6T and 1.752-

you are seeking a broader testimonial authorization, specifically identifying the subjects you wish added to the testimonial authorization.

Second, if the only topic you wish to address in the proposed depositions is the the development of Treas. Reg. §§1.752-6T and 1.752-6," as the e-mail exchanges suggest, we question the propriety of the proposed depositions. The precedent uniformly holds that testimony from the drafters of regulations regarding the drafting of regulations or their construction is not relevant or admissible. See e.g., Honeywell v. United States, 661 F .2d 182 (C1. Cl. 1981), and Siddell v Commissioner, 225 F ,3d 103, 111 (1 sl Cir. 2000). Likewise, the deliberative process and executive privileges protect information about pre-decisional
"substance of

ei

Z

EXHIBIT
D

!

i ~

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 12 of 26

-2-

discussions of proposed regulations from disclosure, See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v.
United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 38, 47-50 (1958). We, therefore, believe that the law would support
fiing of a motion for protective order to prevent taking of these depositions.

Before we fie such a discovery motion, however, we are consulting with you to determine whether this dispute can be resolved without the Cour's intervention. Perhaps you can identify some proposed topic for the deposition that would be proper. Alternatively, you could identify any legal authority which indicates that such discovery is both relevant and not privileged, Conversely, if plaintiffs cannot identify some proper topic for the noticed depositions, our present intention is to move for a protective order.
In view of the existing discovery schedule, we want to resolve these questions promptly. We, therefore, ask that you respond to the issues presented by this letter by no later than Monday, March 12. After that date, we may proceed to fiing ofa motion for protective order.

If

questions arise, please call Stuart Bassin at 202-307-6418.
Sincerely yours,

EILEEN 1. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General Tax Division

By: J;
DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief Féderal Claims Section Court of

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 13 of 26

U.S. Department of Justice
Tax Division
Facsimile No. (202) 307-2504

Trial Attorney: Stuart). Bassin
Attorney's Direct Line: (202) 307-6418 Attorney's e-mail: StuTt..Bassin((usdoj.gov

Please Teply to: Offce of Civil Litigation Post Offce Box 403
Ben FrankUn Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

EJO' C:DDG:SJBassin:kjm 154-2430

CMN: 2006102442
March 5, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
David D. Aughtry, Esq. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White,

Willams & Marin
191 Peachtree St., N.E.
Ninth Floor

Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404/659-1410
Fax: 404/659- 1 852

Re: Evergreen Trading, LLC, et al v. United States Fed. Cl. No. 06-123 T
Dear Mr. Aughtry:

Earlier today, we received subpoenas for the depositions of

three past and present Service

employees-Laura Fields, Horace Howells, and Donna Young. These subpoenas raise two related issues which we wish to address with you.
First, as these subpoenas seek testimony of past and present Service employees regarding their offcial duties, Treas. Reg. § 301.9000-1 governs their proposed testimony. While it is the responsibility of the Service to prepare the testimonial authorization for the depositions, the Service cannot proceed without knowing the topics you propose to address in the noticed depositions. To date, our e-mail exchanges have indicated that the only topic you wish to address
with these witnesses is the "substance of the development of Treas. Reg. § § 1. 752-6T and 1. 7 52-

you are seeking a broader testimonial authorization, specifically identifying the subjects you wish added to the testimonial authorization.
6." Please advise us promptly if

Second, if the only topic you wish to address in the proposed depositions is the Treas. Reg. §§1.752-6T and 1.752-6," as the e-mail exchanges "substance of the development of suggest, we question the propriety of the proposed depositions. The precedent uniformly holds that testimony from the drafters of regulations regarding the drafting of regulations or their construction is not relevant or admissible. See e.g., Honeywell v. United States, 661 F .2d 182 (Ct. Cl. 1981), and Siddell v Commissioner, 225 F.3d 103, 111 (151 Cif. 2000). Likewise, the deliberative process and executive privileges protect information about pre-decisional

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 14 of 26

-2discussions of

proposed regulations from disclosure. See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v.

United States, 141 Ct. CL 38,47-50 (1958). We, therefore, believe that the law would support

fiing of a motion for protective order to prevent taking of these depositions.
Before we file such a discovery motion, however, we are consulting with you to determine whether this dispute can be resolved without the Court's intervention. Perhaps you can identify some proposed topic for the deposition that would be proper. Alternatively, you could identify any legal authority which indicates that such discovery is both relevant and not privileged. Conversely, if plaintiffs canot identify some proper topic for the noticed depositions, our present intention is to move for a protective order. the existing discovery schedule, we want to resolve these questions promptly. We, therefore, ask that you respond to the issues presented by this letter by no later than Monday, March 12. After that date, we may proceed to filing ofa motion for protective order.
In view of

If questions arise, please call Stuart Bassin at 202-307-6418.
Sincerely yours,

By: J¡

EILEEN J. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General Tax Division

DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief Federal Claims Section Court of

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

U.s. Department of Justice
Tax Division

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 15 of 26

Please reply to: Court of Federal Claims Section
Facsimile No. (202) 514-9440
P.O. Box 26

Trial Attorney: Attorney's Direct Line: (202)

Ben Franklin Swtion

Washington, D.C. 20044

LCA:MLS:

154TELEFAX TO:

RECIPIENT i S NAM:
AGENCY /FIRM:

David Auqhtrv Linda Paine
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka

TELEFAX NUER:
TELEFAX FROM:

404/659-1852

713/658-2553

SENDER i S NAM:

STUART J. BASSIN

SECTION:

COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SECTION
Tax Division, Department of Justice
P.O. Box 26, Ben Franklin Post Office

Washinqton, D.C. 20044
TELEPHONE NUBER:
(202) 307-6418 (202) 307-2504

TELEFAX NUER:
CASE:

Evergreen Trading v. United States

INSTRUCTIONS TO RECIPIENT:
(Number of pages including this cover sheet) :

U~/ U~/ ZUU' ia: UZ ~AA

~vvi
Document 19-2 Filed 03/13/2007 Page 16 of 26
* * *** * ** * *** * * * ** *** *

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

*** TX REPORT ***
* * **** ** * *** * * * ** * ** *

TRANSMISSION OK
TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL
SUBADDRESS

0409

914046591852

CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T
PGS . SENT

03/05 14: 01
00' 27
3
OK

RESULT

u;ii U::i ZUU, 1.4: u;i l'AA

ig UU-l

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

** ** * * ** **** ** * ** *** *

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 17 of 26

*** TX REPORT ***
**** * * * * * * ** ** * ** ** * *

TRANSMISSION OK
TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL
SUBADDRESS

0410

917136582553
03/05 14: 02
00' 27
3
OK

CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T
PGS . SENT

RESULT

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 18 of 26

Exhibit E

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 19 of 26

Office of Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service

memorandum

date: March 12, 2007

to: Laura Fields
Senior Attorney (Passthroughs and Special

Industry)

Washington, DC '" ;1
from:

Curt G. Wilson du;~/(!~ . -Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special

Industry)

subject: Testimony Authorization for Laura Fields In re: Evergreen Trading, LLC et al v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 06-123
The Government has been served with a subpoena for your appearance and deposition testimony in connection with the above-captioned matter in your official capacity as a Senior Attorney, Offce of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industry), Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. The deposition is scheduled to take place at 555 4th Street (Judiciary Center Building), N.W., Room

7203, Washington, D.C. 20001, on March 20, 2007, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Pursuant to Delegation Order 11-2, 26 C.F.R. § 301.9000-1, you are not authorized to give testimony in response to the subpoena seeking infonnation pertaining to the vagueness, invalidity, abandonment or inconsistent application of drafting of or Treasury Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. The denial of authorization is based on the grounds that the requested material is privileged, irrelevant to the matter before the court or not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible evidence pertaining to the request for background file documents for Treasury Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. Your interpretation of the Helmer case, whether during drafting of the regulations, before, or at the present time is irrelevant. The institutional position of the Internal Revenue Service was published in the regulations. To the extent that you expressed personal views during the development of the IRS's position, such information is not an expression of the institutional views of the IRS and is protected by the deliberative process privilege. Your testimony as to who else may have participated in the drafting of the regulations is unnecessary because a full list of the parties involved in the drafting and reviewing of the regulations is provided in the descriptions of the documents being withheld in the various executive privilege declarations executed by Margo L. Stevens, the Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure and Privacy Law), the Commissioner's delegated officer to assert the executive privilege' pertaining to the identi~1 subject matter in Jade Trading v. United States, No. 03-2164 (Fed. CI.) and Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States,

i ,¡ E

- EXHIBIT :w .;

j
II

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 20 of 26

2

5:04-CV-278 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 19, 2006) (order upholding government's assertion of deliberative process privilege).

If you are required to appear at the scheduled time for the deposition, you wil be accompanied by counsel for the Government. You are advised to follow the guidance of Government's counseL.

You may provide a copy of this document to petitionets counsel if so requested.
Inquiries concerning this matter may be directed to Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure & Privacy Law) Philp Lindenmuth at (202) 622-4560. or Department of Justice Senior Litigation Counsel Stuart Bassin at (202) 307-6418.

cc: Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 21 of 26

Exhibit F

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 22 of 26

Office of Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service

memorandum

date: March 12, 2007

to: Donna Marie Young
Senior Attorney (Passthroughs and Special

Industry)

Washington, DC
from: Curt G. Wilson
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special

Industry)

subject: Testimony Authorization for Donna Marie Young In re: Evergreen Trading, LLC et al v. United States, Fed. CI. No. 06-123
The Government has been served with a subpoena for your appearance and deposition testimony in connection with the above-captioned matter in your offcial capacity as a Special Counsel, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industry), Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. The deposition is scheduled to take place at 555 4th Street (Judiciary Center Building), N.W., Room 7203, Washington, D.C. 20001, on March 20, 2007, beginning at 2:30 pm.

Pursuant to Delegation Order 11-2,26 C.F.R. § 301.9000-1, you are not authorized to give testimony in response to the subpoena seeking information pertaining to the drafting of or vagueness, invalidity, abandonment or inconsistent application of Treasury Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. The denial of authorization is based on the grounds that the requested material is privileged, irrelevant to the matter

before the court or not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible evidence
pertaining to the request for background file documents for Treasury Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. Your interpretation of the Helmer case, whether during drafting of the regulations, before, or at the present time is irrelevant. The institutional position of the Internal Revenue Service was published in the regulations, To the extent that you expressed personal views during the development of the IRS's position, such information is not an expression of the institutional views of the IRS and is protected by the deliberative process privilege. Your testimony as to who else may have participated in the drafting of the regulations is unnecessary because a full list of the parties involved in the drafting and reviewing of the regulations is provided in the descriptions of the documents being withheld in the various executive privilege declarations executed by Margo L. Stevens, the Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure and Privacy Law), the Commissioner's delegated officer to assert the executive privilege pertaining to the identical subject matter in Jade Trading v. United States, No. 03-2164 (Fed. CI.) and Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States,

- EXHIBIT :i .;
i ¡ F

I

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 23 of 26

2

5:04-CV-278 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 19,2006) (order upholding government's assertion of deliberative process privilege).
If you are required to appear at the scheduled time for the deposition, you wil be accompanied by counsel for the Government. You are advised to follow the guidance

of Government's counseL.
You maý provide a copy of this document to petitioner's counsel if so requested.
Inquiries concerning this matter may be directed to Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure & Privacy Law) ,Philp Lindenmuth at (202) 622-4560, or Department of Justice Senior Litigation Counsel Stuart Bassin at (202) 307-6418.

cc: Offce of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 24 of 26

Exhibit G

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 25 of 26

~~~.l wow

L ~ ~.~
OFFICE OF

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

CHIEF COUNSEL

March 12, 2007

Horace W. Howells, Esq.
3045 Ordway Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008
Re: Testimony Authonzation for Horace W. Howells In re: Evergreen Trading, LLC v. States, Fed. CI. No. 06-123T
Dear Mr. Howells:

The Government was served with a subpoena for your appearance for deposition testimony and production of documents in connection with the above-captioned matter

as a former attorney in the Offce of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, D.C. The deposition is scheduled to take place at 555 4th Street (Judiciary Center Building), Room 7203, Washington, D.C. 20001, on March 21,2007, to begin at
10:00 a.m.
Pursuant

to Delegation Order 11-2, 26 C.F.R. § 301.9000-1, you are not authorized to

give testimony in response to the subpoena seeking information pertaining to the drafting of or vagueness, invalidity, abandonment or inconsistent application of Treasury

Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. The denial of authorization is based on the
grounds that the requested material is privileged, irrelevant to the matter before the court or not reasonably calculated to lead to any admissible evidence pertaining to the request for background file documents for Treasury Regulations 1.701-2, 1.701-2T or 1.752-6T. Your interpretation of the Helmer case, whether during drafting of the regulations, before, or at the present time is irrelevant. The institutional position of the Internal Revenue Service was published in the regulations. To the extent that you expressed personal views during the development of the IRS's position, such information is not an expression of the institutional views of the IRS and is protected by

the deliberative process privilege. Your testimony as to who else may have participated
list of the parties involved in the drafting and reviewing of the regulations is provided in the descriptions of the documents being withheld in the various executive privilege declarations executed by Margo L Stevens, the Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure and Privacy Law), the Commissioner's delegated officer to assert the executive privilege pertaining to the identical subject matter in Jade Trading v. United States, No. 03-2164 (Fed. CI.) and Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States, 5:04-CV-278 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 19,2006) (order upholding government's assertion of deliberative process
in the drafting of the regulations is unnecessary because a full

privilege ).

~ EXHIBIT 8 .f G
!i

I

Case 1:06-cv-00123-FMA

Document 19-2

Filed 03/13/2007

Page 26 of 26

It is our understanding that you do not have any documents relating to the drafting of

the regulations to produce, and do not have any documents responsive to Requests for
Production 1-6.

If you are required to appear at the scheduled time for the deposition, you wil be accompanied by counsel for the Government You are advised to follow the guidance

of Government's counseL.
You may provide a copy of this document to petitioner's counsel if so requested.
Inquiries concerning this matter may be directed to Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel (Disclosure & Privacy Law) Philp Lindenmuth at (202) 622-4560, or Department of Justice Senior Litigation Counsel Stuart Bassin at (202) 307-6418.

Sincerely,

Curt G. Wilson Deputy Associate Chief Counsel
Passthroughs and Special

Industry

Macro Fonn (Rev. 6/1999)

Depament of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service