Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 04-cv-1225-MSK-BNB (Consolidated with 04-cv-1226-MSK-BNB)

MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., an individual; and SEEME G. HASAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN SACHS 1998 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS 1999 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., a New York limited partnership; JOHN DOES 1-100, individual persons whose true identities are unknown; and LENDER PARTIES 1-100, business entities whose true identities are unknown, Defendants. T EN ME D F N A T ' P O I I N H A D E E D N S O P ST O T P A N IF ' T O T C MP L O L I T F S MO I N O O E Pa tf Mo o o Sp m e2,05 D c#9 ( t n) ses n re ln f ' t n f et br 320 ( o.15 " i " ,ek a odr i is i e Mo o ) compelling production of three categories of documents: (i) (ii) an neat vro o t " C !dt ae ou et a e a D psi ur c d e i fh A T" a bs dcm n m r d s eoio d e sn e a k tn Exhibit 47 (affixed to the Motion as Attachment B); "lda ad i le i s f ou etad t r a r l t tr s ie a r tn f avro o dcm n n o em t is h t nm td l f n sn s h ea " a a t " e a nr iA r m n ad r P m t is t "o n ai et s t Pr e h ge et n/ P M a r l o pt tln s r h t sp e s o ea " ei v o" for the 1998 and 1999 Exchange Funds; and a rt " g ruti t n frh i om t n hth N m d e nat w ie l o j ic i "o t n r ao t t a e D f dn tn o sf ao e f i a e e s redacted from the documents that they have produced.

(iii)

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 16

Pa tf Mo o ­ ln f ' t n which the Named Defendants show is founded upon numerous i is i misrepresentations and omissions about the discovery and court record ­ should be denied in its entirety for each of the following independent reasons: 1) The Motion violates Court orders limiting the scope and timing of allowable discovery; 2) The Motion is patently untimely; 3) The discovery sought is irrelevant to the only issue at hand and overly burdensome; and 4) Plaintiffs d ntn atm ead of " bu t prcl s fh Mo o bfr fi i1 i oif " etn cne aoth a i a o t d c r e tu r e t n e ein t i o lg . I. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE IT WAS FILED IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT-ORDERED DISCOVERY PERIOD, AND IS OTHERWISE UNTIMELY A. Prior Orders Preclude The Discovery Sought

On March 24, 2005, the Court set a two-day bench trial on the issue of arbitrability only for July 19-2,05ad tt e d cvr o a i us ecp a tt efr aito t 020,n is yd i oe f l s e "xetsoh noc b i fh a s y ls e e ly e a iao c ue" ts e ( o.13 " r 2 O dr . T eu n a o efr e t r t t n l ss ai u. D c#3 ( c 4 re ) h rl g l r fm dh bri a s Ma h ") i s ai e application of the automatic stay provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4w i i t n ot t N m d e nat oj t n D c#0)o , h h n u m o dh a e D f dn ' b co ( o.14 ta c r e e e s ei previous ruling (Doc. #95). As a result, plaintiffs are barred from seeking to discover the identities of other investors in the Exchange Funds. The Court subsequently reset the trial twice, oc t acm oa p i iscuslD c#1115 ad scn t e eas o a neo co m dt ln f 'one( o.#5,5)n a eod i bcue f e a tf m

1

Pa tf prot meet-and-confer certification does not reference any letter or email; any affidavit; or any ln f ' upr i is ed details that would satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement. The Named Defendants advise the Court that there was only one passing inquiry, on June 14, 2005 ­ u a l "o r at dcm n ­ which they responded on abot " g fre c d ou et to o d e s June 15, more than three months before plaintiffs filed their Motion. The two emails are included in Exhibit A. Pa tf cusl r f i u e aoth bs frh r at n o t ACT log at the deposition of Robert ln f ' onebi l n i d but ai o t e cos nh i is ey q r e s e d i e Mueller. Counsel for the Named Defendants explained the basis for redactions later that week and in the email attached as Exhibit A. Otherwise, th pre nvr i usd h o etot s fr i " ogt yh Motion. e a i ee d cs t t rw im o " lfsuh b t ts s e e h e ee e T e t n hu b dn d o p i isf l eo et confer. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37; D.C.COLO.LCivR h Mo o sol e ei fr ln f 'au t m eand i d e a tf i r 7.1(A).

2

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 16

scheduling conflict (Doc. #194). However, the Court has never lifted or modified the stay of discovery entered on March 24. In connection with the trial scheduled for July 19-20, 2005, the Court set July 8, 2005 as the deadline for the completion of depositions and July 12, 2005 as the date for the parties to exchange exhibit and witness lists and deposition designations. (Doc. #147 at 9:24-10:2; #149.) O Jn 2,05o p i ism t nt C uteet tadttSp m e2-22, 2005, n ue 220,n ln f ' o o, e orr th r la o et br 1 a tf i h s ei e e ad l r et dal e fr eoios n tasb i i so t sm nm e o dy n a o e th ed nso dpsi adr lum s o t " e a e u br f as s s e i tn i sn h precedin t nwy ceu d er g ( o.11 This order required discovery to gh e lshdl ha n. D c#5. e e i " ) conclude by September 12 and the parties to exchange witness and exhibit lists and deposition designations by September 14, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the Named Defendants filed their motion regarding the deposition o K t en so . D c#8. O Sp m e 120,ln f fe a Mo o F r f a l Ekl ( o.10 n et br ,05p i isid " t n o he a ) e a tf l i Po cv O drsei tpeeth dpsi o MsEklo Sp m e1,05o rt t e re ek go r nt eoio f . so n et br 220,n ei " n v e tn a e grounds that the deposition was untimely udrh C ut d cvr shdl ( o.12 ne t ors i oe ceu . D c#8. e ' s y e ) T iC utl w dh Ekldpsi ad ei p i ism t nruling that the h orao e t so eoio n dn d ln f ' o o, s l e a tn e a tf i discovery cutoff was September 12, 2005. (Doc. #188.) On September 14, 2005, the parties exchanged exhibit and witness lists and deposition ds nt n frr l usatoh C ut Jn 2,05 ceu n O dr O Sp m e ei aoso ta pr ntt orsue 220 Shdl g re n et br g i i, u e ' i . e 16, 2005, the Court, sua sponte, rescheduled the two-day bench trial on arbitrability to November 9-10, 2005, due to a conflict o t C ut cl dr ( o.14 The Court did not extend nh ors a na D c#9.) e ' e . or re-set any discovery deadlines. There has been no order issued, or requested, further extending or resetting the discovery cutoff date of September 12, 2005.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 4 of 16

B.

This Motion Was Filed Four Months After Plaintiffs Received The Discovery Responses To Which The Motion Purportedly Is Addressed

O A r 2,05p i ise e t i"it eO It rgt i ad it eus n pi 020,ln f sr d h r Fr St fn r a r s n Fr R qet l a tf v e s eo oe s For Production Of Documents To The Goldman Sachs Defendants In Respect Of Alleged A b r i A r m n"T e a e D f dn t e r pne o Ma 2,05asrn, riao ge et h N m d e nat i l e odd n y 020,s t g tt n e . e sm y s ei among other things, objections to any discovery except as allowed by the March 24 Order. Importantly, the Named Defendants then objected to any request for discovery pertaining to other investors. On May 25-2,05p i isnpc d h N m d e nat poue dcm n 720,ln f i et t a e D f dn ' rdcd ou et a tf s e e e s s and received their copy set of these materials. The production included numerous pages of documents redacted for confidential and other information not relevant to the issue of arbitrability for trial.2 The vast majority of the redacted information concerns the identities and other personal information of potential and actual investors (other than the Hasans) in the various Exchange Funds. The redactions were clearly marked on the documents and the nature of the redacted information is readily apparent. Exhibit B hereto includes a sample of such pages as actually produced. The information concerning the Hasans is not redacted. These redactions are consistent with the orders of the Court limiting the scope of discovery. T e a e D f dn ' rdco a onl e aeat vro o D psi h N m d e nat pout n l i u d r c d e i f eoio e s i s cd d e sn tn E h i 7 p i isAt h et )t " C ! dt ae ou ete ting to the Hasans. xi t (ln f ' tcm nB, e A T" a bs dcm nr a b 4 a tf a h a l Pa tf Mo o seso o pltpout n neat . A " C !dt ae u m r ln f ' t n ek t cm ei rdco ur c d ( n A T" a bs sm a i is i s i d e a y references at least some meetings and communications between the investor and the professional team servicing him.)
2

The production on May 25-27 totaled 2,470 pages, of which 1,528 show redactions.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 5 of 16

Thus, as of May 25-27, 2005, plaintiffs were aware that the Named Defendants had not produced information pertaining to other investors and had made redactions, the very matters they now challenge by their Motion.3 C. In These Circumstances, Case Law Compels Denial of the Motion In Its Entirety

Thus, plaintiffs waited four months to bring their Motion, and did not file it until after the court-ordered close of discovery and the court-ordered deadline for exchange of trial exhibits. The Motion provides no explanation of any kind ­ certainly none constituting good cause or excusable neglect ­ the delay. The Motion should be denied for that reason alone. See, e.g., for Miller v. Automobile Club of New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1098, 1116-119 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming finding by magistrate judgehtln fs o o tcm ead o o fracos e t p i i'm t no o pln m t n o snt n w r a a tf i i i e untimely because, among other reasons, the discovery cutoff date had passed); Buttler v. Benson, 193 F.R.D. 664, 666 (D. Colo. 2000) (motion to compel denied due to delay where plaintiff failed to seek further assistance of the court to obtain production of the documents during d cvr o ep i w y e ae oe n a a ya a et j g'odro i t m t n i oe rxln h h w id n ad hl er f rh u e retfeh o o s y a t f s t e d s l e i to compel) (Boland, J.); Continental Indus. v. Integrated Logistics Solutions, LLC, 211 F.R.D. 442, 444 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (motion to compel production of documents filed six months after discovery cutoff and three weeks before trial was untimely); Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F ..2,2 ( . e.99 (ln fs motion to compel filed after the discovery deadline . D 6062 D N v19)p i i' R a tf
3

Pa tf Mo o a o aso r eta lp i isoi nl rt d cvr r us o w i t Mo o i ln f ' t n l f ltpe nf r ln f ' r i w ie i oe e et n h hh i is i s i s iy a tf g a tn s y q s c e t ns i bsd n t oj t n t r o Pa tf nr t e os o frnt c, ety o t C uth N m d ae ad h b cosh e . ln f ' a av de nt o i a ei n f frh ort a e e ei et i is r i , sn d i e e D f dn ' bet n o ee ae ptso w yhy hu b overruled. To take just one example: plaintiffs e nat oj i s rvn tm to hw h t sol e e s co t e d present a fragment of Interrogatory No. 4, which on its face shows how objectionable it is: the interrogatory asks for " f tad i u s ne ... o any dcm n r an t t Pa tf i et e in either of the Exchange all a s n c cm t cs f c r a ou et e t go h ln f 'n s nt s li e i is v m F ns ( t n 3 (m hs add T eeusip i y b coalbod n ie vn bcuets o ud. Mo o ¶)E pai de. h r ets ln oj t nb ra ad r l at eas iint " i s ) q a l ei y re , limited to the issue of the arbitration agreement, but goes to the merits o p i isE cag F n c i s Similar f ln f ' xhne ud lm . a tf a objections hold true for the other cited requests.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 6 of 16

denied when he gave no reason for the delay); 8 A WRIGHT, MILLER & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CIVIL 2D § 2285 n.16.1 (1994 & Supp. 2005)" t m v g a y ( fh oi pr I e n t has unduly delayed, the court ma cnl ehth m t n tcm e iut e .. y oc d t t o o [ o pl s n m l" u a e i o ] i y) II. P A N IF ' E U S F RT EU R D C E " C ! D T B S L I T F S R Q E T O H N E A T D A T" A A A E VIOLATES THE MARCH 24 ORDER; THE REDACTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ARBITRABILITY T eitt r us dn ln f ' t nso a ur at cp o t " C ! h fsim e et ip i isMo o ifrn ne c d oy fh A T" r e q e a tf i d e e dt aeD pE .7p i isAt h et ) B tln f m k n so i w a ov a bs ( e. x4,ln f ' tcm nB. u p i is ae o hwn ht eer a a tf a a tf g s that the redacted material comes within allowable discovery under the March 24 Order. It does not. As produced, the document is redacted for information unrelated to the arbitration agreement. To be sure, as the Motion notes at page 3, the " C !dcm nr a so h H sn' A T" ou ete t tt aas le e investments through the Houston office. But plaintiffs fail to advise the Court that the Hasans made numerous investments through the Goldman Sachs Houston office in addition to the investments they made in the Exchange Funds; that the Hasans actively traded arcane derivatives and securities in technology companies through their account at Goldman Sachs; and that the Hasans have brought a separate arbitration action through the AAA for losses they allegedly suffered trading these technology securities in their account during the period 1999-2003 (when most investors lost money in technology stocks). Information relating to these other aspects of the relationship with the Hasans is simply not discoverable in this proceeding, which is limited slyo riaito p i isE cag F n c i s o lta t b i f ln f ' xhne ud lm . e b r ly a tf a What is more, plaintiffs never made any effort to establish by depositions or other d cvr t tn o t r at i om t nn h " C !dt aese vn tt i u o i oe h ay fh e c d n r ao it A T" a bs ir eatoh s e f s y a e d e f i e a l es

6

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 7 of 16

arbitrability. Plaintiffs took six depositions of current or former employees of the Named Defendants. They never even asked that an unr at cp o t " C ! dt ae e ruh e c d oy fh A T" a bs b bogt d e e a to any of the depositions, as they did for two other redacted documents, so the witness (or counsel) could be questioned (or asked) about the general nature of the matters redacted.4 Pa tf Mo o ( ¶ asserts that the Named Defendants have provided no ln f ' t n a 6) i is i t ep nt n o t " C !dt aeeat n. hts ro if s. th dpsi sn xl ao frh A T" a bs r cos T aas t n sa e A t eoio i a i e a d i ei l e tn New York in early June 2005, counsel for the Named Defendants advised plaintiffs that the redactions removed information irrelevant to the issues for trial on arbitrability, consistent with previous orders. Counsel confirmed this explanation by email on June 15, 2005. (Exhibit A.) None of the redacted matter is otherwise responsive information withheld on claim of attorneycetr ig o w r poutPa tfm d n fr ei u y but " C !dt ae lnpi l e r ok rdc ln f ae o ut rn i aoth A T" a bs i ve . i is h qr e a redactions after receiving this explanation. I sot h m t i r at f mt " C !dt aesr l atoh a iait n hr t a r le c d r h A T" a bs iie vnt t r t b i , e ea d e o e a re e b r ly issue and its discovery therefore is barred by the March 24 Order. III. P A N IF ' E U S F RD C ME T R L T N T T O S N SO L I TF S R Q E T O O U N S E A I G O H U A D F O H R" O E T A I V S O S V O A E T EMA C 2 O D R T E P T N IL N E T R " I L T S H R H 4 R E AND SEEKS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND UNDULY BURDENSOME I b t ti ao o Jde r gr Ma h 4 t o d cvr r an to e n la v li fug K i e s r 2 s y f i oe e t go t r a n o tn e ' c a s y li h i et snh E cag F nsad i otn m n o o t C ut odrp i is n s rit xhne ud,n wt u ay et n fh ors re ln f ' v o e h i e ' , a tf

4

B cn at tln f 'eus df s cuslruh ur at vros f eoio E h i 4 ad 2 y ot s ap i isr et e ne onebogt ne c d e i o D psin xi t 9 n 5 r , a tf q , e d e sn t bs to the depositions plaintiffs set for September 8-9, 2005, in New York City, for possible reference by defense cusln/ te i eswt u w i r Pa tf cuslnu e aoths ur at dcm n dr g onead rh wt s i ot a e ln f 'onei i d but e ne c d ou et ui o n , h v . i is qr e d e s n p i isr u e ea i t n f a Gg o A Mr i i s eoio,e ne oneav e p i is ln f 'e m d xm n i o G r i i t . g o dpsi df s cusldi d ln f that a tf s ao y l. G l' tn e s a tf the investor names and addresses had been redacted from Deposition Exhibits 49 and 52; that the intended addressees of Exhibits 49 and 52 (these drafts were not approved for mailing and were not sent) were different; and that both intended addressees were clients of the Houston office. (Giglio Tr. pp. 206-207 (Exhibit C).)

7

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 8 of 16

Mo o iimn.i nvr e s ses rdco o "lda ad i l versions of t nnt o() ee hl s ek pout n fa r tn f a i e i t e i l f n documents and other materials that allegedly transmitted the Partnership Agreements and/or P M m t iso o n ai et snh 19 E cag F n o t 19 E cag F n. P a r ltpt tln s rit 98 xhne ud rh 99 xhne ud ea ei v o e e " (Motion at p. 7.)5 This request should be denied because it violates the March 24 Order, as the discovery sought is irrelevant ­ both as a matter of law and of fact ­ because it is manifestly overbroad and and burdensome. A. T e eus d ou ns o crig P t t ln etr" r Irl a t h R q et D cmetC nenn " oe i Ivs s A e re vn e na o e As A Matter Of Law

T t et th Mo o te tj ty ln f ' u aeu r usfrnom t n o h x nt e e e t nr sou i p i isot gose eto i r ao i i sf a tf r q f i about thousands of persons other than the plaintiffs, plaintiffs begin by suggesting that it sm hwr a so spoel"ri li u it s rcei ­ o eo e t ta upsd c ta s enh poed g whether plaintiffs received le y ic " s i n the PPMs and Forms of Limited Partnership Agreements. (Motion ¶7.) Plaintiffs go on to claim that this discovery is somehow needed because the Named Defendants allegedly have failed to poue n "ou eto o em t is rdc ay dcm n r t r a r lsuggesting the transmission of any of the Partnership s h ea A r m n tt H sn" n "n t t oy r t rv ec t th P M frh 19 ge et oh aas ad aye i n o o eei neh t P o t 99 e s e sm h d a e e E cag F n w setoh H sn" n lerle ( t n 8 T ee s ros r xhne ud a sn tt aas ut ya a r Mo o ¶. hs as t n a e i s t. i ) ei e patently false. The Named Defendants have produced, among other things, Deposition Exhibit 11A, the oi nlon sbc p o bol fr ln f 'net etn h 19 F n, h h nl e a r i bud usr t n ok to p i isi s nit 99 udw i i u s ga ii e a tf v m e c cd 10-pg sco tl "usr t n gem n ad net et er eti s w i bt ae et nie S bc p o A r etn Ivs n R pe n t n, h h o i td ii e m s ao " c h
5

Plaintiffs purportedly seek such documents pursuant to their Request No. 7, which was served April 20 and objected to on May 20 as calling for documents beyond the scope of allo ald cvr udrh C ut Ma h w b i oe net ors r e s y e ' c 24 order.

8

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 9 of 16

H sn cm le,i e,n hd o r e. E h iD)Pa tf o n oes dcm n aas o p t s ndad a nt i d (xi t . ln f ' w fr i ou et ed g az b i is nc expert (whose report and deposition plaintiffs previously urged this Court to delay or prevent) hs o cni e t f d g o df dn 'xe : htln f ' ad ri ad a nw ofm dh i i s f e nat epr t p i ishnw in n r enn e s t a a tf tg indentations are found on the key pages of this Agreement. For example, at pages 32 and 34 ­ w i btpre'oes ea i rar p i isni u b hdn 99 the Hasans h h o a i fr i xm n s ge ln f i s t l a i 19 ­ c h ts nc e e a tf d p a y represented and warranted that they received, read, understood, and agreed to the 1999 PPM and Form of Limited Partnership Agreement for the 1999 Fund. Indeed, Dr. Hasan admitted at his deposition that when he signed and had notarized the subscription, he had before him page 32, in whic h ep clako l gd r e tf cp o t [r a Pae etMe oadm h e xliy cnwe e " ci o a oy fh Pi t l m n it d e p e ve c ] mr u, n a w la a oy fh F r o Lm t Pr e h A r m n " Mak aa T.0: s e s cp o t om f i id a nr i ge et ( l H sn r35 9 l e e t sp e . i 1 306:19 (Exhibit E).) Similar findings by both document experts show that Dr. Hasan made identical representations and warranties that he received, read, understood, and agreed to the PPM and Lm t Pr e h A r m n icnet n i t 19 F n. "usr t n gem n i id a nr i ge etn onco wt h 98 ud ( bc p o A r et e t sp e i h e S ii e ad net et er eti s D pE .0 (xi t Vacca Rpt. at pp. 2-3 (Exhibit G); n Ivs nR pe n t n, e. x1A E h iF); m s ao " b Doherty Rpt. at p. 3 (Exhibit H); Doherty Tr. 91:24-93:6 (Exhibit I).)6 These exhibits conclusively establish as a matter of law that the Hasans received and accepted the PPMs and Limited Partnership Agreements. An investor who represents and warrants in a subscription agreement to having received, read, and understood such offering

6

Initially, Dr. Hasan had claimed, in an affidavit and in sworn testimony at the March 8, 2005 hearing, that in 1998 and 1999, he received only the signature pages of the subscription booklets for the Exchange Funds. But the reports ad eoios f o pre'oes dcm nepr r dr h t t oy a e A d owt n f dy n dpsi o bt a i fr i ou etxe se e d i e i n f s. n s, i i ae as tn h ts nc t n e s sm l h w a eh o n xe 'r ot a pea dD . aa fe a cr c d a iai( o.11 ako l g g f r i w eprse rw s r r , rH sn id "or t " fdv D c#9)cnwe i he t s t p pe l ee f t dn received additional pages from the subscription booklets as well.

9

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 10 of 16

materials is bound by his representation and may not contest it. Zobrist v. Coal-X, Inc., 708 F.2d 1511 (10th Cir. 1983); DaPuzzo v. Globalvest Mgmt. Co., L.P., 263 F. Supp. 2d 714, 733-34 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); C eh e l e s c.. soE g n SiO nrMu IsAs . hsi Pa As svWet f nl d h w es t n. s n r c o a p . ' (Luxembourg), 815 F. Supp. 593, 597 (E.D.N.Y. 1993); Silas La Bier v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 177 A.D.2d 767, 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (limited partner bound by representation in subscription agreement that he had read prospectus). Gvn ln f 'eay oc s eer eti s n w r n e,n c i s y i p i isl l cnl i r e n t n ad a atsay lm b e a tf g l u v p s ao r i a plaintiffs that they did not rece eh P M'ad om o Lm t Pr e h A r m n i i t P s n F r s f i id a nr i ge et s v e e t sp e s no longer an issue of arbitrability (or anything else) in this matter. Therefore, any discovery prot lr an tt " se o t r e tr o-receipt of the PPM or Form of Limited upr dy e t go h i u" fh e i o nn e li e s e cp Partnership Agreement must be denied because it has now become irrelevant as a matter of law. 7 B. T e ou ns o crig te " oet ln etr" r As Irl a t h D cmetC nenn O hr P t i Ivs s A e l re vn na o o e As A Matter Of Fact ­ vn n e Pa tf Mi ersne V ri O E e U dr l nis s peet es n f i f' r d o The Record

Even it H sn'ee tr o-r e tfh P M'w rl ay e vn p i is fh aasr i o nn e i o t P s e e l r eat ln f ' e cp cp e e g l l , a tf Motion does not establish factual relevance for their request for documents concerning other "o n ai et s Ide,ln f 'f rt c a sm sm l c of relevance simply pt tln s r" nedp i ise oto r t o e e b ne ei v o. a tf f ee a misrepresents the record. Limitations of space permit citation of only a few examples: First,ln f asrt t . i it ti t t e d not sn"h P M tD . p i is s th MrGg oe ie h h "i a tf e a l sf d a d ed t P o r e Hasan. This is, at best, a misleading half-truth. Mr. Giglio testified that the PPMs and Executive

7

It should be noted, furthermore, that the Named Defendants produced a wealth of other material demonstrating the f sy f ln f 's ro t th N m d e natf l t poue ayet oy r t r v ec tate a i o p i isas t nh t a e D f dn ae o rdc "n t i n o o eei nehth lt a tf ei a e e s id sm h d P M frh 19 F n w setoh H sn" n lerle F r xm l D . aa am td tidpsin P o t 99 ud a sntt aas ut ya a r o ea p , rH sn d ie ah eoio e e i s t. e t s t that he had, in 1998 and 1999, the Executive Summaries for each of the PPMs. Two witnesses (Mr. Giglio and Ms. Angeloni) testified that the PPMs and Executive Summaries were sent together to potential investors. (Giglio Tr. 97:25-98:9 (Exhibit C); Angeloni Tr. 22:16-22; 46:20-47:7 (Exhibit J).)

10

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 11 of 16

Summaries were rubber-banded together and sent to investors, including Dr. Hasan. Mr. Giglio further testified that he was involved in the preparation of a letter dated September 18, 1998 to Dr. Hasan (plaintiffs' tcm nC D pE .6, h h a t cvreefr a i t At h et ; e. x3)w i w sh oelt ow r n h a c e tr dg e 19 P M ad xct e u m r (lt at l snsm dy le . . i i "int 98 P n E eu v S m a aee c ay eto e asa r MrGg o d o i y tr u l t) l d sn"h P M adh E eu v S m ayo rH sn nynh snehte int ed t P n t xct e u m r tD . aa olit es t h d o e e i e a d personally stuff the envelope and put it in the mail: as he testified, the support members of his team performed such clerical functions. While Dr. Hasan denies that the PPM was included with the letter, the claim is belied by the evidence that the letter shw "nl ue ad hth o s ec sr " n t t o , a e Hasans produced from their files a 1998 PPM and a 1998 Executive Summary (Dr. Hasan admitted he received the latter as an enclosure with the letter dated September 18 (Malik Hasan Tr. 100:20-102:5 (Exhibit E))). Second, plaintiffs mislead the Court about the drafts of the September cover letter r et b C m lne At h etDad t p i isMo o a sces e r tee e c d y o p ac. tcm n j e i a s n E o ln f ' t n r ucs v da lt s a tf i e i f tr sb ie b t 01em( i i sem frprvl yh C m lne ea m ni um td yh 4 t t e a Gg o t )o apoab t o p ac D pr etn l' a e i t H ut frr s iao t 19 P M ad xct e u m r tt icet Pa tf os n o t nm tlfh 98 P n E eu v S m a oh rln . ln f ' o a t e i y e i s i is At h et w s fr o cvreet t a ntprvd o sni " ok t ( tcm nD a aom foelt h w s o apoe fred g B ols i.e., a tr a n e" PPMs). Plaintiffs try to conjure up suspicions because the original ink handwriting on rejected Attachment D has not been located. (Motion ¶11.) The Compliance Department at the Houston office retained a copy for its files, which has been produced. The Named Defendants have not located the original ink version, but there is no evidence that the document has been misplaced or destroyed since Hasan first announced his claim (six years later), and plaintiffs have not shown ay r ui f mhv g nyh cp. nedj te rfi t s t np i is n pe d er ai olt oy Ide, sbf ein h Mo o,ln f ' j c o n e u o lg i i a tf

11

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 12 of 16

counsel claimed that production of only a copy was suspicious because Mr. Giglio allegedly testified that the Compliance Department kept the originals of such documents. In fact, Giglio testified to exactly the opposite. Compare email dated September 15, 2005 from p i is ln f ' a tf counsel with the response email from the undersigned counsel, which quotes the actual Giglio testimony (Exhibit K). A t p i isAt h et w se c d y o p ac fr s t fr a of i f r ln f ' tcm nD a r et b C m lneo ueo ow r f r g e a tf a j e i d en documents, the 041 team prepared and propoe p i isAt h et frh proe T a sd ln f ' tcm nE o t s ups. ht a tf a i draft was approved with one more word change ­ e t n fh w r "i icn y dli o t od s n i t . eo e g f a l" Pa tf At h et , h h a sn tH snip i isAt h et wtt tn ln f ' tcm n C w i w seto aa, ln f ' tcm n E i h oe i is a c s a tf a h a word deleted. While pln f c i t ttapa "ohmt t tcm nCw sn ne t b sn a tf lm h i"per tt i is a a s e h At h et a i edd o e et a a t to prospects who were not to receive a 1998 PPM (Motion ¶12), there is no testimony to support t s lm Iia asro m nf t e b p i iscusln iirefuted by the evidence. h c i . ts n s t n aua u d y ln f 'onead ts i a ei cr a tf At the March 8 hearing, the Named Defendants produced hearing exhibit 35, in the form that the documents appeared in the Compliance Department files. A copy of the spreadsheet (Dep. Ex. 51) listing PPM recipients was stapled withh to r tee (ln f ' tcm n Dad t w da lt sPa tf At h et n e f tr i is a s E) ­ thus showing what was rejected and what was approved for mailing the 1998 PPMs by the 041 team to those who were to receive them. Dr. Hasan was to receive a PPM, as the spreadsheet shows.8

8

Notably, plaintiffs do not attach to their Motion ­ thereby further misrepresent the drafting history ­ and an unsigned copy of Attachment D addressed to Hasan, which was marked as Deposition Exhibit 88, and which specifically refers to enclosure of the PPM (Exhibit L). This version was not sent because it was not approved (as p i isAt h et so s B th ereda t H snt f asnt h a At h et ( h h e r ln f ' tcm n D hw ) ut s a i r to aa, ei leto i s tcm n C w i r e a tf a . i lr f h n m a c fs t "nl ue)adh S bc p o A r m n eeu d n nt i d y rH sn l r r u p i is o ec sr ,n t usr t n ge etxct ad o r e b D . aa c a y e t ln f ' o " e ii e e az e l f e a tf sget n Mo o ¶1 t t . i i set oy a iay a f s. nedt s v ec t n t so i t ugso ( t n 1)h MrGg o t i n w sn n w y a e Ide, iei neu sh ptg i i a l ' sm l h d r e lh

12

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 13 of 16

In short, plaintiffs try to manufacture relevance only by misrepresenting the record. I t edhw vree ip i isasros e a t e af e a et y ol nh n,o ee vnf ln f 's t n w r l a n ta vl , e w u e , a tf ei e lk c u h d nts b s r eac. h aeel "up i s " se p i isa e t 9 ­ of the oet lh e vne T e lgd ssio " i u" ln f r s a¶¶ ai l l y cu s a tf i 14 Motion is the drafting history related to the draft and final cover letters that the 041 team in Houston pooe tue i H sn n t tem s t rnet s A t ptn t ipclr rpsdo s wt aa adh t 'o ei s r f r u i h r eu a h a a h v o . e tg e i (and false) spin on this history, plaintiffs asri Pr r h 4ht[n refrh H sn t s tn a ga 1 t " ] odro t aaso e a p a i e f r ades t N m d e nat c i s" e aashu b pr ie tr i ad a l dr "h a e D f dn 'lm ,t H sn sol e e tdo e e n iy s e e s a h d mt vw copy any other drafts and final versions of documents or other materials that allegedly transmitted the Partnership Agreement and the PPM materials to potential investors in the 1998 Exchange Fund and the 1999 Exchange Fund."Pa tf hw vrd ntvn eit ln f ,o ee o o ee bg o i is , n show how the drafting history of a cover letter by the 041 team in Houston for their investors in 1998 opens up discovery for all Goldman Sachs representatives from all offices in both 1998 and 1999. The request is thus patently overbroad and irrelevant.9 C. Pa tf R q et o D cmetC nenn " oet ln etr" s l nis eusF r ou ns o crig P t i Ivs s I i f' na o Unfairly Burdensome

Pa tf r usntn icm le ie vn tt i u frr liia o nu ln f 'e etool s o p tyr l ato h s eo ta ts l udl i is q y e l re es i; s y burdensome. Plaintiffs know the following from discovery: Invoices produced during discovery show that printing firms engaged by the Funds printed at least 4,000 PPMs for the 1998 Fund and 4,200 PPMs for the 1999 Fund, for distribution to potential investors. The PPMs were then
on Dr. Hasan, who denies receiving a PPM, notwithstanding his representation and warranty that he did receive it. The charge of falsity is properly directed only against Dr. Hasan. 9 Pa tfm s ai lr e ta G l a Scse p t fr da lt ,pa n yo r t cni eh ln f ied g e ro " o m n ah t le o a r tee apr t t t o ov c t i is l n y f d m a" f tr el y n e Court to open up discovery broadly to all potential investors and all offices. What Mr. Giglio testified is that the " m le w s r a dn 98 the 041 team in Houston for use with t tem s t p t a pe r i 19 by e a" pe h t 'investors. (Giglio Tr. 181:17a a 22; 186:12-20 (Exhibit C).)

13

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 14 of 16

distributed to the various Goldman Sachs offices for forwarding to prospective investors. There are approximately 400-500 actual investors in each of the 1998 and 1999 Funds. In each year Goldman Sachs sent PPMs for these Funds to a far greater number of potential investors. Investment professionals from the various offices were responsible for determining the manner and method of forwarding the PPMs to their prospective investors, including whether any cover letter would be used and what it would say in forwarding the PPMs, subject to review by the appropriate compliance officer. The 041 team in Houston serviced the Hasans at relevant times. Plaintiffs have not shown that the communications from other investment professionals to other potential investors r a i ay a tt i u o p i isa iao ar m n wtt N m d e nat I e t n n w yo h s e f ln f 'r t t n ge et i h a e D f dn . f le es a tf b r i e s h e e s granted, the request would require a search of many offices and files of persons that had no involvement with Hasan, throughout the United States and elsewhere, for mailings to thousands of prospective investors 6-7 years ago. No such search is necessary or reasonable; nor could such a search even be performed and accomplished before the November 9-10 trial.10 IV. P A N IF ' T O T C MP LP O U T O O AR D C I N L I T F S MO I N O O E R D C I N F E A TO " O " SU P E E E T DA DWI H U ME I L G I NRCDNE N T O T RT The request (item no. (iii)) in the Motion for a log of all information redacted from the produced documents is without merit. Plaintiffs do not cite any legal authority for that request. Plaintiffs were asked to provide such legal authority in June 2005 (Exhibit A); they failed to

10

Plaintiffs suggest that such production is appropriate because the Named Defendants voluntarily produced D psi E h i 4 (ln f ' tcm n D ad 2 p i isAt h et ) ( t n 5 A pr t t eoio xi t 9 p i isAt h et ) n 5 (ln f ' tcm n E. Mo o ¶. pa n yh tn bs a tf a a tf a i ) el e argument is waiver, although it is not stated to be such. There has been no waiver and no attempt to manipulate the record by selective production. Discovery has shown the following: Deposition Exhibits 49 and 52 were produced in redacted form (to protect the identities of the other investors) because these draft communications served as " oe "o t pea t n f lter to Hasan in September 1998, as explained above. These matters were m dl frh r r i o ae s e p ao t explained at the hearing on March 8, 2005 and at the deposition of Mr. Giglio.

14

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 15 of 16

provide it then and now. The Named Defendants are not aware of any specific legal authority requiring such a log. Further, the nature of the information that was redacted is apparent from the face of the documents produced (Exhibit B), as is the justification for the redaction (lack of relevancy), which was confirmed by email on June 15, 2005 (Exhibit A). The examples included in Exhibit B show that the information redacted refers to the identities and investment particulars of numerous other persons. None of this information is in any way relevant to the arbitration agreement between the parties. CONCLUSION Pa tf Mo o solb dn d ntete . ln f ' t n hu e ei i i n r y i is i d e s it DATED: October 17, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bruce Featherstone Bruce A. Featherstone Matthew D. Collins FEATHERSTONE DESISTO LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 626-7100 Facsimile: (303) 626-7101 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Max Gitter Nancy I. Ruskin CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

15

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 198

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on October 17, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing THE N ME D F N A T ' P O I I NT P A N IF ' T O T C MP Lwith A D E E D N S O P ST O O L I T F S MO I N O O E the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Glenn W. Merrick SENN VISCIANO KIRSCHENBAUM MERRICK P.C. [email protected]

/s/ Bruce Featherstone Bruce A. Featherstone FEATHERSTONE DESISTO LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 626-7100 Facsimile: (303) 626-7101 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE NAMED DEFENDANTS