Julian Robertson, who managed his Tiger hedge fund from $23 billion down to $6 billion in 2000, has refused court ordered discovery for a mental exam regarding his frivolous lawsuit against Al Martin Raw.com, Conspiracy Planet.com et al.
His attorney Richard Marooney of King & Spalding has responded by stonewalling the request for "All documents authenticating Julian Robertson's most recent medical/physical exam records, as well as mental health exam (mental component) certifying his ability to understand the lawsuit undertaken against defendants, as well as a list of all prescribed medications attributable to plaintiff during the last 3 years".
Marooney writes "In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designedto harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claimor defense of any party."
Defendants maintain that the mental status of 73-year old Julian "We Are in a Market I Don't Understand" Robertson is not irrelevant.
It should be noted that the Wall Street Journal wrote that "[Robertson's] friends and colleagues had been kidding him: 'What kind of medication are you on?'"
Robertson's non-response is telling.
The complete text of the non-response (with no signature by plaintiff Julian Robertons) follows:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Index No. 05CV7046(LAP)
JOHN DOE a/k/a AL MARTIN,
URIDOWBENKO,
CONSPIRACY DIGEST L.L.C. and NATIONAL
LIBERTY PRESS L.L.C.,
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR. TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 33.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr. hereby objects and responds to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories dated April 24, 2006 (the "Interrogatories") as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that Defendants continue to disregard the Court's Orders compelling them to respond to Plaintiff's document requests and interrogatories served on October 14, 2005. It is highly inappropriate for Defendants to serve their own discovery in light of their willful refusal to respond to Plaintiff's discovery that has been outstanding for over seven months.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to be propounded on behalf of all defendants instead of only Mr. Downbenko. Defendant Al Martin has defaulted
and no one has appeared in this action on his behalf. Defendants Conspiracy Digest L.L.C. and National Liberty Press L.L.C. may only appear in this action through counsel, and no counsel has appeared on their behalf. Thus, the Interrogatories may only be propounded on behalf of individual defendant Uri Dowbenko.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are designed to harass Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require plaintiff to disclose any information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require the disclosure of information not in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Plaintiff to disclose any information that is confidential trade, business or personal data, or other nonpublic, confidential or proprietary information.
8. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek cumulative or duplicative information.
9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose obligations greater than those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
10. Plaintiff's responses to the Interrogatories are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, all objections as to the relevance, materiality and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the responses, or the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation. Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules and all applicable laws. Plaintiffs responses to the Interrogatories are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, Plaintiff's right to rely upon other facts, witnesses and documents at any trial or pre-trial proceeding in this action.
11. The objections and responses set forth below are based upon information now available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement or clarify the objections or responses set forth herein.
12. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing objections into each and every response and/or objection, and into each and every amendment, supplement or modification to these responses hereinafter provided. Plaintiff does not intend to waive any general objection response to any specific interrogatory propounded.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
13. Plaintiff objects to the "Definitions and Instructions" section of the Interrogatories to the extent that any definition is beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
14. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 3 in the "Instructions" section as overbroad to the extent that it seeks information from a time period not relevant to this lawsuit.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1
How and when did plaintiff Julian Robertson become aware of the subscriber-only satirical column written by Al Martin and published on Al Martin Raw.com subscriber-only website on May 30, 2005? Who or what was the source for plaintiff's receipt of Al Martin's column parodying plaintiff's CNBC interview with Ron Insana?
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the grounds that it grossly mischaracterizes the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit (the "Article"). As is plain from the face of the Article, the Article was neither "satirical" nor a "parody." Nor was access to the Article limited only to subscribers of www.almartinraw.com. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds that the Article and/or the content of the Article was republished by dozens of websites immediately following the publication of the Article by Defendants on www.almartinraw.com and www.conspiracyplanet.com. The content of the Article and the Article itself was rapidly and widely disseminated through the New York financial community via electronic and verbal communications. The Article was brought to the attention of Plaintiff and/or his representatives by multiple sources in the New York financial services community shortly after the initial publication of the Article by defendants.
Interrogatory No. 2
How many lawsuits has plaintiff Julian Robertson filed against other publications for alleged "defamation" and/or other reasons? Please state case number and court order and/ or resolutions of case(s).
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 3
Regarding the years 2000-2005, what sources of income did plaintiff Julian Robertson have and where were they derived from?
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 4
Please identify the investors of Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Asset Management, Julian Robertson and any other companies controlled by plaintiff, and state the amount of revenue or income received by plaintiff from such investments. Also please include the time when investors entered into plaintiff's investment program and when the investors left the program.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 5
Please identify the total revenues and income derived by plaintiff from Tiger Management and Morgan Creek Management, as well as his business in New Zealand, but not limited to wineries, golf courses, real estate development as well as other investments, showing income allegedly lost due to Al Martin's column of May 30, 2005.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 6
Over the past 2 years, how much time has plaintiff devoted to financial management and how much time was devoted to other endeavors?
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 7
Please list all real properties owned by plaintiff Julian Robertson, singularly and by entirety (wife and children) inside and outside of the United States, as well as all real properties held in trust by plaintiff as donor, grantor, trustee and/ or beneficiary.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 8
Please list plaintiff's fee management structure with Tiger Management and Morgan Creek Management, and any and all fee structure changes for plaintiff's management of Tiger, Morgan Creek, et al., including the dates of the changes.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
Interrogatory No. 9
With respect to each and every one of the foregoing Interrogatories and the subparts thereof, please:
(a) identify each person from whom information was obtained to answer each Interrogatory;
(b) identify each person(s) who gathered the information used in preparing your answer to these Interrogatories;
(c) identify the person who prepared and/or participated in the preparation of the answer to each Interrogatory;
(d) identify the person(s) having responsibility for verifying the accuracy of your answers to these Interrogatories;
(e) identify the documents and records consulted to obtain such information; and
(f) where no information or only partial information is given in such an answer, a description of the efforts made to locate information needed for such an answer.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party, and calls for information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.
Dated: New York, New York May 30, 2006
KING & SPALDING LLP
By:.
Richard T. Marooney 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR.,
Plaintiff
-against-
Index No. 05CV7046(LAP)
JOHN DOE a/k/a AL MARTIN,
URIDOWBENKO,
CONSPIRACY DIGEST L.L.C. and NATIONAL
LIBERTY PRESS L.L.C.,
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF PLAINTIFF
JULIAN H. ROBERTSON, JR. TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr. hereby objects and responds to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and Things dated April 24, 2006 (the "Document Request") as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
The following General Objections and Responses apply to each individual Request in the Document Request, whether or not such Objections and Responses are repeated below in response to each individual Request.
1. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request on the grounds that Defendants continue to disregard the Court's Order compelling them to respond to Plaintiff's document requests and interrogatories served on October 14, 2005. It is highly inappropriate for Defendants to serve their own discovery in light of their willful refusal to respond to Plaintiff's discovery that has been outstanding for over seven months.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to be propounded on behalf of all defendants instead of only Mr. Downbenko. Defendant Al Martin has defaulted and no one has appeared in this action on his behalf. Defendants Conspiracy Digest L.L.C. and National Liberty Press L.L.C. may only appear in this action through counsel, and no counsel has appeared on their behalf. Thus, the Interrogatories may only be propounded on behalf of individual defendant Uri Dowbenko.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Document Requests to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or not relevant to the claim and defense of any party.
4. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it is designed to harass Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it purports to call for the production of documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity. In the event that material subject to the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity is produced inadvertently, such inadvertent production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, law, rule or immunity with respect to such document (or the contents thereof) and such documents shall be returned promptly to Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that the Document Request, and the Definitions and Instructions contained therein, purport to impose obligations greater than those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
7. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential trade, business or personal data, or other nonpublic, confidential or proprietary information.
8. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it contains individual Requests that are cumulative or duplicative of other Requests, or seeks information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive.
9. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it calls for the production of publicly available information on the ground that compliance would be unduly burdensome and that Defendants have no reason for requiring Plaintiff to assume the burden of producing such documents.
10. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks the production of multiple identical copies of the same document.
11. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents that are not in the custody, possession, or control of Plaintiff.
12. Plaintiff's responses to the Document Request are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather preserving and intending to preserve, all objections as to the competence, relevance, materiality and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the documents, or the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation.
13. A response or objection to an individual Request does not necessarily mean that any documents exist or are in the possession of Plaintiff that are responsive to that specific individual Request.
14. The objections and responses set forth below are based upon information now available to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement or clarify the objections or responses set forth herein.
15. Plaintiff incorporates the forgoing objections into each and every response and/or objection to requests, and into each and every amendment, supplement or modification to these responses hereinafter provided to Plaintiff's specific requests. Plaintiff does not intend to waive any general objection response to any specific request propounded.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
16. Plaintiff objects to the "Definitions and Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that any definition is beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
17. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 1 of the "Definitions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to include any entities that are not parties to this action and not within the control or agency of the Plaintiff.
18. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 3 of the "Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to request documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
19. Plaintiff objects to Paragraph 9 of the "Instructions" section of the Document Request to the extent that it purports to request documents outside of the relevant time frame for this litigation.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Request No. 1
All documents sufficient to show affirmative proof of residency, citizenship and other information asserting the true residence of Julian H. Robertson including, but not limited to, documents reflecting Julian Robertson's birth certificate, home address, place of employment, bank accounts, ownership of real property and social security number, as well as certified photocopies of driver's license(s) and all pages of last issued passport(s), voter registration card, tax returns from any and all countries wherein he pays taxes, including applicable employment forms and documents authenticating plaintiff's residence.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.
Request No. 2
All documents showing real estate property taxes from 2000 till present in the United States and New Zealand.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.
Request No. 3
All documents authenticating Julian Robertson's most recent medical/ physical exam records, as well as mental health exam (mental component) certifying his ability to understand the lawsuit undertaken against defendants, as well as a list of all prescribed medications attributable to plaintiff during the last 3 years.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.
Request No. 4
All email and other correspondence between Julian Robertson and his investors in which they ridiculed him or threatened to pull their investments out of his investment scheme(s) and hedge funds because of Al Martin's satirical column, as well as a list of all investors who removed their investments from Robertson's management due to the Al Martin parody interview column of May 30, 2005, in which said investors reference Al Martin's column as a reason for removing their investments from Robertson's management.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 4 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, grossly mischaracterizes the May 30, 2005 article as a "satirical column" when, in fact, it was not, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection,
Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiff's damages.
Request No. 5
All pay stubs, IRS 1099 forms for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and other documents relating to subscribers and/or investors to Julian Robertson's hedge funds and other investments managed by Julian Robertson, to show decrease in income due to Al Martin's satirical column of May 30, 2005.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 5 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, intentionally designed to harass Mr. Robertson, and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiffs damages.
Request No. 6
All corporate filings, including annual reports, articles of incorporation, secretary of state filings financial statements and financial information relating to Julian Robertson, Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Management and any other companies that plaintiff controlled, including, but not limited to, documents reflecting the revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, and capital structure of the plaintiff, as well as other investment corporations plaintiff has a position of director, corporate officer, senior management and or advisor in companies inside and/or outside of the United States.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 6 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party.
Request No. 7
Subscription and/or customer lists showing the identities and residences of investors of Tiger Management, Morgan Creek Asset Management and any other companies plaintiff has controlled, who pulled their assets out of Julian Robertson managed asset pools, investment companies and/or hedge funds.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will search for and produce at the appropriate time during discovery relevant, non-privileged communications concerning the May 30, 2005 article that is the subject of this lawsuit, as well as relevant, non-privileged documents relating to Plaintiff's damages.
Request No. 8
Photocopies in your possession of all articles and interviews of and by plaintiff Julian Robertson, as published by newspapers, financial business journals, etc., as well as copies of all speeches, lectures, seminars given by plaintiff.
Response
In addition to the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff objects to Request No. 8 on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and calls for information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party. Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiff will produce at the appropriate time during discovery a copy of Plaintiff's interview with Ron Insana that is the subject of the May 30, 2005 defamatory article published by defendants.
Dated: New York, New York May 30, 2006
KING & SPALDING
By:.
Richard T. Marooney 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff Julian H. Robertson, Jr.
No comments:
Post a Comment