montgomery v risen # 111 w exhibits

8/20/2019 Montgomery v Risen # 111 w Exhibits

1/114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 15-cv-20782-MARTINEZ/GOODMAN

DENNIS MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES RISEN et al.,

Defendants. ________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Sanford L. [email protected]

Brian W. Toth

[email protected]

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 374-8500Fax: (305) 789-7799

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Laura R. Handman (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]

Micah J. Ratner (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel.: (202) 973-4200Fax: (202) 973-4499

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2015 Page 1 of 9


2/114

I. INTRODUCTION

In April 2015, Plaintiff, citing his health, asked the Court to fast-track this action. The

Court obliged, and placed this case on the short end of the Expedited Track. Given Plaintiff’s

request and his stated desire to resolve this action quickly, one would have expected Plaintiff

readily to produce relevant, non-privileged information requested in discovery. Plaintiff did not

do so. Instead, he opted to withhold critical information and to serve, in Judge Goodman’s

words, “a remarkable series of responses that [he] ha[s] never seen before,” given the

“exceptions, and caveats, and carve-outs, and qualifications.” Ex. A: Hr’g Tr. 49:19–21, Aug.

21, 2015; see also id. 50:1–3 (“[The] general format of responding … violates the discovery

rules applicable in this case.”). It is thanks only to Judge Goodman’s August 22 ruling, ECF No.

107—a ruling that, for reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Modify, ECF No. 100, took

time to obtain—that Plaintiff is finally required to produce critical discovery that Defendants

requested months ago.

The result of all this means Defendants cannot fully and fairly defend themselves by

September 16—the discovery-completion date. Since August 22, Plaintiff has produced

additional documents. But he has not produced all of them. And it is unknown if and when he

will produce the most critical piece of discovery Defendants have sought—the software that lies

at the heart of Plaintiff’s case. Moreover, Defendants must review all new discovery and

determine if other investigation based on it—such as expert review of the software and continued

deposition of Plaintiff about the software—will be required. Complicating matters further,

Plaintiff, on August 28, unilaterally noticed six depositions to occur during the last two weeks of

the discovery period, including on the days of the Jewish New Year. Even if these depositions

1



3/114

were to proceed as noticed, preparing for and participating in them further impedes Defendants’

ability to defend this action within the existing deadlines.1

For these reasons, good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order. Defendants seek a

two-month extension of the discovery-completion date, a corresponding extension of the

dispositive-motion deadline, and a continuance of the trial date, which—if the Court were to

deny the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, ECF No. 52—would provide the parties and the Court,

respectively, sufficient time to brief and decide dispositive motions. The request is a modest

one: taking the case off the Expedited Track and placing it on the shorter end of the Standard

Track applicable to trials of this expected length (estimated by all parties to last seven to ten

days), particularly given the number of witnesses who may be called to testify at trial.2 It would

remedy the two-month delay in this action caused by Plaintiff’s objections to producing

discovery. And it would prevent the prejudice that Defendants would suffer if forced to defend

this case under the existing schedule. The Court should grant Defendants Motion to Modify.

II. ARGUMENT

Below, Defendants will first address the August 21 hearing before Judge Goodman and

the August 22 order that he entered. Then they will discuss Plaintiff’s response in opposition to

the Motion to Modify. Last, Defendants will state why modification is warranted.

A. The August 21 Hearing and August 22 Order

On August 21 Judge Goodman held a hearing on the adequacy of Plaintiff’s responses

and objections to Defendants’ discovery requests, which Plaintiff served, in amended form, on

1 Today, as required by Judge Goodman’s discovery procedures, see ECF No. 48, Defendants’counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel about their objections to these depositions,

and they will timely notice these objections for a hearing before Judge Goodman.

2 Each of Plaintiff and Defendants listed 50 or more witnesses on their witness lists exchanged

on August 12, 2015 as required by the Scheduling Order.

2



4/114

July 15.3 At the hearing, which occurred the day after Defendants’ counsel deposed Plaintiff,

Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed what Plaintiff testified about at his deposition—that on August 18

or August 19, Plaintiff, without seeking leave of court or informing Defendants, turned over to

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to the Department of Justice what he claimed was the

one and only copy of the software that Defendants have since June 1 requested from Plaintiff in

this action. Judge Goodman “agree[d] with [Defendants] that the software is highly relevant for

the case.” Hr’g Tr. 32:23–24. And so Judge Goodman “order[ed] Mr. Montgomery to turn over

that software and to take advantage of his right of continued access to nonclassified

information.” Id. 79:24–80:1. On August 22, in a written order, Judge Goodman ordered

Plaintiff to “use his self-described right of continued access to non-classified information (in

relation to his turning over the subject software to the FBI) and produce the software to

Defendants.” Post-Discovery Hearing Order ¶ 6, ECF No. 107.4

Judge Goodman’s order extended beyond just the software. He also ordered Plaintiff to

produce additional discovery that Defendants had sought—among other things, “bank records

indicating the location of the bank where Plaintiff’s social security payments for disability are

directly deposited,” id. ¶ 1, “all responsive documents from 2003 to the present that he has in his

custody or control, including, but not limited to, bank records, 1099 forms, W2 forms, etc.,” id. ¶

2, “all medical records that have not yet been produced from April 2014 through the present,” id.

¶ 3, and “all documents concerning” Defendants’ request for production number 7 about

communications with persons who know about the software and of its location, “which would

3Plaintiff first served his responses and objections to Defendants’ discovery requests on July 1.

4Plaintiff’s counsel has informed the general counsel of the FBI and an Assistant U.S. Attorney

of this directive. See Letter from Larry E. Klayman to James A. Baker and Deborah Curtis (Aug.

26, 2015), ECF No. 108-1.

3



5/114

now include documents related to the disclosure and production of the subject software to the

FBI,” id. ¶ 5.

Plaintiff must comply with these rulings by or before September 4. See id. ¶¶ 2–3.

However, as Judge Goodman recognized, there are “practical difficulties in quickly obtaining the

software, given the fact that Mr. Montgomery did not keep a copy.” Hr’g Tr. 80:13–15. And,

during a meet-and-confer phone conversation between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’

counsel today, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would be objecting to paragraph 5 of Judge

Goodman’s order. Thus, it is unclear when Plaintiff will actually be able to produce a copy of

the software (and other important information relating to it) so that, among other things,

Defendants’ expert, if necessary, can analyze the software.

In regard to the request that Plaintiff produce all the tests the government performed that,

he claimed, validated the software (Request No. 9), Judge Goodman also ordered Plaintiff to

either identify the Bates number of the tests he said he had produced or produce the test(s) by

August 28, 2015. Post-Discovery Hearing Order ¶ 4. Plaintiff did not cite any Bates number for

previously produced documents but, instead, produced—for the first time—one report of a test

the government performed in June 2003 on one type of software. This late production may

require follow-up deposition questions to Plaintiff as well as third-party and expert discovery.

B. Plaintiff provides no reason not to grant the Motion to Modify

Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the Motion to Modify, ECF No. 105, filed a few

hours before the hearing before Judge Goodman but which Judge Goodman had already

reviewed, Hr’g Tr. 4:14–5:2, provides no reason not to grant the Motion to Modify. Without

citing any evidence of his own, Plaintiff essentially just disagreed with the factual assertions

underlying Defendants’ request. For example, Plaintiff stated he could not “produce top-secret,

4



6/114

classified information” such as the software, because it is “classified information that even

Plaintiff’s counsel has not and cannot review.” Pl.’s Resp. 1. But Plaintiff cited nothing to show

that such information (including the software) is, in fact, classified—an assertion that, at any

rate, the U.S. government has not made and courts have rejected. See Defs.’ Pre-Hr’g Mem. 2–

3, ECF No. 94.5 Plaintiff also stated he had produced “roughly 30,000 pages of documents …

including but not limited to thousands of pages of health records.” Pl.’s Resp. 2. But he had not

(and still has not) produced all relevant documents until ordered by Judge Goodman—

conveniently after his deposition. At any rate, again to use Judge Goodman’s words, “so what?

If you produce 50,000 documents and you still have 45,000 documents that you have not

produced, I am not particularly impressed by the 50,000 number.” Hr’g Tr. 25:7–10. And

Plaintiff contends he has produced “letters from government sources … which he legally was

able to do.” Pl.’s Resp. 2. But this, too, is just an unsupported assertion; Plaintiff has come forth

with no authority showing what he legally can or cannot produce.6 At bottom, Plaintiff has

essentially asked the Court to take him at his word when he says that he has completely

cooperated in discovery to the extent he legally can. Judge Goodman’s order directing Plaintiff

to produce more documents and information (including the software at the core of this case)

refutes that plea, and Defendants are entitled to verify Plaintiff’s assertions through discovery.

Shifting focus, Plaintiff does at least cite the good-cause standard set forth in Sosa v.

Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998), which “precludes modification unless

5 Judge Goodman: “I read that opinion where the court concluded that the software was not

classified and ordered Montgomery to turn it over. And when he refused to do it, the judge held

him in contempt and he, ultimately, entered into a consent and later filed for bankruptcy. So Iam aware of that history.” Hr’g Tr. 30:18–23.

6 The Department of Justice lawyers who have appeared in the court cases involving Plaintiff’s

software in Nevada, California, and Arizona have been notified of the discovery dispute in this

case and, to date, have chosen not to appear. See Defs.’ Pre-Hr’g Mem. 3 & n.16.

5



7/114

the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” But he

addresses none of Defendants’ arguments about why that standard is met in this case. Instead,

Plaintiff resorts to accusing Defendants of heartlessly trying “to drag this case out with the

potential that Plaintiff will be either severely debilitated or die by the time of trial.” Pl.’s Resp.

3. Defendants have done no such thing, but Plaintiff appears to use his health as an excuse for

his convenience. Plaintiff has cited his health to a Nevada criminal court judge as recently as the

day before his deposition in this case in Miami as the reason he could not appear to defend the

criminal prosecution in Nevada, pending since 2010, for passing bad checks to casinos. His

criminal defense counsel told the Nevada court on August 19, 2015, that Montgomery is “not

able to travel” and “[he]’s up in Washington State in the Seattle area right now, recovering.” Ex.

B: State of Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-26874; Tr. 2:17–19 (Nev. D. Ct. Clark Cty., Aug. 19,

2015). In fact, Montgomery was not in Washington on August 19; he had already traveled from

Washington to Florida on August 16 and appeared for his deposition in Miami on August 20, the

day after his counsel told the Nevada judge he was too ill to travel.7

Nothing that Plaintiff put forth in his response should give this Court pause about

modestly modifying the Scheduling Order.

C. The Scheduling Order should be modified

As things stand, all discovery must be completed by September 16; all dispositive

motions are due by September 21; and trial is scheduled to begin November 30. See ECF No.

48. This is not enough time within which Defendants can defend the case adequately and fairly.

The modest modification of the Scheduling Order that Defendants are requesting would remedy

7 Plaintiff rejected Defendants’ offers to take his deposition in Seattle, rather than Miami, and to

put off his deposition in the event Judge Goodman ordered further discovery—which the Judgedid the next day—to avoid having to appear a second time for deposition. Hr’g Tr. 71:1–2, 15–

21; Pl.’s Resp. 3–4.

6



8/114

to the best extent possible the discovery log-jam caused by Plaintiff’s (now-overruled)

objections. It would allow Defendants to receive and analyze the additional discovery produced

by Plaintiff, and to determine what other discovery based thereon would be needed. It would

give the government a reasonable amount of time to produce the software to Defendants, and for

Defendants’ expert, if necessary, to analyze it and to prepare a report. It would permit remaining

depositions to be prepared for and conducted in an orderly fashion. And it would provide, if

necessary, sufficient time for preparing, filing, and deciding any dispositive motions.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein and in the Motion to Modify, the Court should modify the

Scheduling Order as follows: (a) extend the discovery-completion date until November 20; (b)

extend the dispositive-motion deadline for December 4; (c) schedule calendar call for April 5,

2016, for the two-week trial calendar beginning April 18, 2016; and (d) modify all other

deadlines accordingly.8

Dated: August 31, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

s/Brian W. Toth

Sanford L. BohrerFlorida Bar No. 160643

[email protected]

Brian W. Toth

Florida Bar No. 57708 [email protected]

HOLLAND & K NIGHT LLP701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 374-8500

8Because Defendants’ counsel deposed Plaintiff on August 20, Defendants’ request for a hearing

for August 17 or August 18 is now moot.

7



9/114

Fax: (305) 789-7799

– and –

Laura R. Handman (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]

Micah J. Ratner (admitted pro hac vice)[email protected]

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel.: (202) 973-4200

Fax: (202) 973-4499

Counsel for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 31, 2015, I filed this document with the Clerk of Court using

CM/ECF, which will serve this document on all counsel of record.

s/Brian W. Toth

8



10/114

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 111-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2015 Page 1 of 9


11/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 15-cv-20782-JEM

DENNI S L. MONTGOMERY, ) ) )

Pl ai nt i f f , )v. )

) August 21, 2015 J AMES RI SEN, et al . , )

)

)Def endant s. ) Pages 1 - 97 _________________________/

DI SCOVERY HEARI NG PROCEEDI NGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE J ONATHAN GOODMANUNI TED STATES, MAGI STRATE J UDGE

APPEARANCES:

On behal f of t he Pl ai nt i f f :

KLAYMAN LAW FI RM2520 Coral Way,Sui t e 2027,

Mi ami , FL 33145BY: LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ESQ.BY: DI NA J AMES, PARALEGAL



12/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES CONTI NUED:

On behal f of t he Def endant : Davi s Wr i ght & Tremai ne

1919 Pennsyl vani a Avenue, NWSui t e 800,Washi ngton, DC 20006BY: LAURA R. HANDMAN, ESQ.BY: BRI AN W. TOTH, ESQ.

Tr anscr i bed By: Bonni e J oy Lewi s, R. P. R.7001 SW13 St r eetPembroke Pi nes, FL 33023954- 985- 8875

casel awr pt g@gmai l . com



13/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

3

( Ther eupon, t he f ol l owi ng pr oceedi ng was hel d: )

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: U. S. Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Sout her n Di st r i ct of Fl or i da i s now i n sessi on. The Honor abl e

J onat han Goodman presi di ng; Case Number 15- 27082- cv- Mar t i nez.Denni s Mont gomery versus J ames Ri sen, et al .

THE COURT: Good af t ernoon, f ol ks.

Let ' s have appear ances, st ar t i ng f i r st wi t h t he

Pl ai nt i f f .

MR. KLAYMAN: Lar r y Kl ayman, counsel f or Mr .

Mont gomery, wi t h my par al egal , Mi ss Di na J ames; D- I - N- A.MS. HANDMAN: Laur a Handman, counsel f or t he

def endant , wi t h Davi s Wr i ght Tremai ne. And wi t h me - -

MR. TOTH: Br i an Toth f or t he def ense as wel l .

THE COURT: Thank you, f ol ks. Pl ease be seated.

So I am st ar t i ng a hear i ng now and i t i s f i ve

mi nut es bef ore the schedul ed 3: 30 st art , but we may need t ot ake a br eak i n t he mi ddl e t o deal wi t h a cr i mi nal mat t er t hat

was l ef t over f r om t he 1: 30 cal endar . I t shoul d not t ake t oo

l ong t o addr ess t hat mat t er once t he Marshal Ser vi ce br i ngs i n

t he mi ss i ng def endant . I was expect i ng t hat t hat woul d happen

al r eady, but i t has not happened.

So we are her e on a di scover y hear i ng. And I knowf r om a f i l i ng t hat Mr . Kl ayman made thi s af t er noon wi t h anot her

mot i on, whi ch i s not bef or e me, a r esponse t o ext end cert ai n

deadl i nes, but i n t hat r esponse f i l ed t oday, Mr . Kl ayman gave



14/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

4

not i ce t hat Mr . Mont gomer y' s deposi t i on was t aken yest er day,

correct?

MS. HANDMAN: Yes, Your Honor .

THE COURT: And t hat was a f ul l seven- hourdeposi t i on?

MS. HANDMAN: Yes, Your Honor .

THE COURT: And I woul d assume t hat t he deposi t i on

was t aken i n Mi ami and t hat woul d expl ai n why al l t he

out - of - t own l awyer s ar e her e t oday, cor r ect ?

MR. KLAYMAN: Cor r ect , Your Honor . THE COURT: So I under st and t hat t her e are several

di scover y i ssues.

And I have t o t el l you t hat I r ead al l t he paper s

and you al l submi t t ed a memorandumand I r ead Mr . Kl ayman' s

submi ssi on, al bei t not one di r ect l y i n r esponse t o t hi s

di scover y i ssue, but i n r esponse t o t he Def endant ' s r equest t oextend cer t ai n deadl i nes.

And I am summar i zi ng her e and basi cal l y, i n t hi s

submi ssi on t oday t hat Mr . Kl ayman t ook t he posi t i on t hat I have

pr ovi ded al l t he di scover y. The Def endant s know t hat I have

pr ovi ded al l t he di scover y. They knew i t at t he t i me t hat t hey

f i l ed t hei r di scover y hear i ng.And i n ef f ect , Mr . Kl ayman i s accusi ng t he

Def endant s of act i ng i n bad f ai t h of conj ur i ng up a non

exi st ence i l l usor y di scover y di sput e because accor di ng t o Mr .



15/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

5

Kl ayman, my God, hi s cl i ent has t ur ned over massi ve amount s of

mater i al and the Def endant s ar e si mpl y harassi ng hi m.

I s t hat a f ai r st at ement , Mr . Kl ayman, of your

f i l i ngs t oday?MR. KLAYMAN: I t i s not qui t e t hat s t r ong, Your

Honor . I t may be st r ong f r om t i me t o t i me. We pr ovi ded al l

t he i nf or mat i on t hat i s r equi r ed. Ther e was a deposi t i on f or

seven hour s yest erday. Mr . Mont gomery was i n gr eat di scomf ort

and pai n.

And some day perhaps you mi ght want t o l ook at t hevi deo of t hat and he sat f or seven hour s. And t hey wer e abl e

t o ask f ol l owup quest i ons f or t he document s t hat we pr ovi ded.

Let me gi ve you one exampl e. I ncome t ax r eturns

where t hey want ed t o know why cer t ai n year s were not avai l abl e

and he answered t hose quest i ons wi t h regard to why t hey had

been not avai l abl e. We bel i eve t hat ever yt hi ng has beensat i s f i ed.

The onl y i ssue t hat has been out st andi ng her e i s

t he i ssue of Mr . Mont gomer y' s sof t war e. We bel i eve t hat t hat

sof t war e i s l i kel y cl assi f i ed. For t he l ast year , Mr .

Mont gomery has, f or more t han a year , has been comi ng f orward

as a whi st l ebl ower t o t he NSA, t he CI A, t he Depart ment ofDef ense, t he FBI , and the Depar t ment of J ust i ce and ot her

agenci es, i ncl udi ng Congr ess i n t r yi ng t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on

t o t he FBI so t hey coul d l ook at i t . Because one of t he t hi ngs



16/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

6

t hat he has t hat i s not par t of t hi s l awsui t , i s what appear s

t o be unconst i t ut i onal sur vei l l ance on hundr eds of mi l l i ons of

Amer i can ci t i zens, i ncl udi ng f eder al j udges.

So t hat has been t ur ned over t o t he FBI . The FBIi s det er mi ni ng whet her or not t he sof t war e i s cl assi f i ed or

not , but i n any event , what has been al l eged i n t he pl eadi ngs.

And I have copi es by the Def endant s i n t hei r Mot i on t o Di smi ss

t hat t hey have sai d t o t hi s Cour t t hi s case can be di smi ssed

because al l you need t o r el y on i s publ i c i nf or mat i on and t hat

was avai l abl e i n cour t document s and i n t est i mony bef oreCongr ess and you don' t need any i nf ormat i on f r omt he

government .

And i n f act , when I deposed Mr . Ri sen a whi l e

back, he conf i r med t hat he di d not have access t o government

cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on. So i t ' s a noni ssue, t he sof t war e,

because they have sai d i t r i ght up f r ont t hat t hey ar e notr el yi ng on any government i nf or mat i on.

And of cour se, we now know - - i t has been i n t he

news l at el y and we ar e not t r yi ng t o sensat i onal i ze anythi ng

her e, but t he sensi t i vi t y of t ur ni ng cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on

over t o a pr i vat e sour ce. Even Mr s. Cl i nt on i s i n some

di f f i cul t y t hese days f or t hat and you j ust can' t do i t . Sot he FBI has t hat and i s anal yzi ng t he nat ur e of t hat

i nf or mat i on.

THE COURT: The FBI has t he sof t ware?



17/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

7

MR. KLAYMAN: They have t he sof t ware, yes.

THE COURT: How di d t hey get i t ?

MR. KLAYMAN: Because Mr . Mont gomery provi ded i t

t o t hem. THE COURT: When?

MR. KLAYMAN: He pr ovi ded i t t o t hemt hr ee days

ago. I t has been i n t he pr ocess t o pr ovi de t hat t o t hem and he

pr ovi ded t hem a l ot of ot her i nf or mat i on t oo, whi ch t hey ar e

l ooki ng at because i t i s cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on and he i s a

whi st l ebl ower . THE COURT: Fol ks, excuse me, I t hi nk I saw t he

Def endant t her e. So I am goi ng t o ask you t o st ep back,

pl ease, and al l ow t he Def endant t o come i n and we wi l l l et t he

pr osecut or and t he Publ i c Def ender ' s Of f i ce t ake t hei r pl aces.

MR. Kl ayman: Leave our papers her e?

THE COURT: You can l eave t hem t her e, but i t ' s upt o you.

MR. KLAYMAN: I j ust put t hem her e so i t i s not i n

anybody' s way.

( Recess. )

THE COURT: Mi chael , do you need t o cal l t hi s case

back on the recor d or we ar e al r eady t here? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We' r e back on t he r ecor d i n

Case Number 15- CV- 20782.

THE COURT: Mr . Kl ayman, you were expl ai ni ng t o me



18/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

8

sor t of an update on what has been happeni ng wi t h the

di scover y. And i n par t i cul ar , you wer e t el l i ng me about t he

sof t war e whi ch you and your cl i ent have r epeat edl y asser t ed i n

t hi s case i s l i kel y conf i dent i al , or possi bl y conf i dent i al , orsomet hi ng l i ke t hat as i f .

MR. KLAYMAN: Cor r ect .

THE COURT: And you di d ment i on t o me t hree days

ago ei t her you had or Mr . Mont gomery submi t t ed t he sof t ware so

t he FBI so t he FBI coul d conf i r m one way or t he ot her i f t he

sof t war e cont ai ned cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on; i s t hat cor r ect ?MR. KLAYMAN: That i s corr ect .

THE COURT: And so when t hi s sof t war e was t urned

over t hr ee days ago, di d ei t her you, or Mr . Mont gomer y, keep a

copy, or you j ust gave t he sof t war e?

MR. KLAYMAN: We j ust gave i t t o t hem.

THE COURT: No copi es?MR. KLAYMAN: I t was j ust t he sof t ware and

r el at i ve t o t hi s case t he sof t war e i s i ncl uded.

THE COURT: And what el se di d you t urn over

besi des t he sof t war e? For exampl e, wer e t her e r epor t s

anal yzi ng t he sof t war e?

MR. KLAYMAN: I don' t know because I never l ook ati t mysel f . I don' t want t o l ook at i t . I t ' s not my pr ovi nce.

THE COURT: Do you have a f eel gener al l y by way of

a descr i pt i on of what was t ur ned over , ot her t han t he sof t war e



19/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

9

i t sel f ? You t ol d me t hat t he sof t war e was onl y par t of t he

mat er i al s t ur ned over .

MR. KLAYMAN: I ' m sor r y, Your Honor .

THE COURT: What ot her cat egor y of - -MR. KLAYMAN: General l y speaki ng, and t hi s i s a

mat t er of some conf i dent i al i t y as wel l because t her e' s an

i nvest i gat i on goi ng on by t he FBI , but gener al l y speaki ng, t he

par t t hat i s publ i c i s t hat my cl i ent , Mr . Mont gomer y, who was

obvi ousl y wr i t t en up i n Mr . Ri sen' s book as bei ng an ef f ect i ve

f r anchi se of t he abi l i t y t o anal yze dat a, t hi s encrypt ed dat aof t er r or i st s doi ng busi ness, so t o speak, al l t he over t he

wor l d i n al j azeer a and ot her wi se.

He has i nf ormat i on t hat gover nment agenci es, much

l i ke happened wi t h NSA and Edwar d Snowden and ot hers have been

doi ng massi ve sur vei l l ance on Amer i can ci t i zens, i ncl udi ng

f ederal j udges, magi st r at es, members of Congr ess and ot hers andoper at i ng i l l egal l y her e i n t he Uni t ed St at es, CI A.

THE COURT: I t hi nk I di d a bad j ob of aski ng my

quest i on, si r . So I am goi ng t o t r y i t agai n - -

MR. KLAYMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: - - wi t h my quest i on.

I am not aski ng you t o l aunch i nt o an ar gument ,whi ch qui t e f r ankl y, i s what you ar e doi ng. I do not need a

l ot of r het or i c. Her e i s my quest i on, Mr . Kl ayman.

MR. KLAYMAN: Sur e.



20/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

10

THE COURT: What el se besi des t he sof t ware,

i t sel f , was t ur ned over t o t he FBI t hr ee days ago?

I ' m f ol l owi ng up on your comment t hat t he sof t war e

was onl y par t of t he i nf or mat i on t ur ned over t o t he FBI . Sonat ur al l y, i n my mi nd I am sayi ng t o mysel f , gee, I wonder what

el se was t ur ned over t o t he FBI besi de t he sof t war e.

That ' s t he i nf or mat i on I am l ooki ng f or . Tel l me

i n f act ual f or mat t he descr i pt i on of t he ot her i nf or mat i on

t ur ned over besi des the sof t war e. Pl ease do i t wi t hout

r het or i c and argument .MR. KLAYMAN: I was t r yi ng t o be as pr eci se as

possi bl e based on what i s publ i cal l y known at t hi s t i me. I t ,

basi cal l y, i s evi dence of mass sur vei l l ance of Amer i can

ci t i zens .

THE COURT: That ' s r eal l y not what I was l ooki ng

f o r .MR. KLAYMAN: I t i ncl udes cr edi t card numbers,

banki ng i nf or mat i on, names of mi l l i ons of Amer i cans.

THE COURT: That i s st i l l not what I am l ooki ng

f or . Let me do a bet t er j ob.

Si mpl y sor t of a summary concl usi on. So i s the

t ype of ot her i nf or mat i on e- mai l s, memos, phone recor ds,r egul ar ol d pr i nt ed document s, dat a basi s? I mean, what i s i t ?

You j ust t ol d me i t i s evi dence of mass survei l l ance.

MR. KLAYMAN: I t woul d i ncl ude - -



21/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

11

THE COURT: What exact l y was t urned over?

MR. KLAYMAN: I t woul d i ncl ude what you j ust

l i st ed.

THE COURT: And anyt hi ng el se?MR. KLAYMAN: Not t hat I know of . I have never

l ooked at t he i nf or mat i on.

THE COURT: And who act ual l y t urned i t over, you

or Mr . Mont gomery?

MR. KLAYMAN: Mr . Mont gomer y.

THE COURT: Di d you par t i ci pat e?MR. KLAYMAN: I was pr esent .

THE COURT: We ar e goi ng t o r eal l y have a l ong

hear i ng i f you cont i nue t o cl i p me of f bef or e I f i ni sh my

quest i on. Maybe you wer e goi ng t o corr ect l y guess at what I

was goi ng t o ask, but you r eal l y need t o l et me f i ni sh aski ng

t he quest i on.MR. KLAYMAN: Sur e.

THE COURT: So di d you par t i ci pat e f or t he

ar r angement s f or t ur ni ng over t hi s mat er i al ?

Because I am guessi ng, j ust a guess, t hat Mr .

Mont gomery di dn' t j ust show up at t he FBI headquar t er s i n

Washi ngt on, D. C. , knock on t he door and say, her e, pr obabl ysomet hi ng had t o happen bef or e t hat . Am I r i ght ?


THE COURT: Okay. So t el l me about t he



22/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

12

ar r angement s t hat l ed up t o the tur ni ng over of t hi s mat er i al

t hr ee days ago.

MR. KLAYMAN: The ar r angement s wer e made t hrough a

f eder al J udge i n Washi ngt on, D. C. Lamber t h, U. S. Cour t f or t heDi st r i ct of Col umbi a who had cont acted t he FBI because of

i nf ormat i on t hat Mr . Mont gomery had.

And meet i ngs were hel d wi t h t he general counsel of

t he FBI worki ng under t he aegi s of FBI di r ect or J ames Comey.

And consequent l y, as a r esul t of t hat , t he i nf or mat i on was

t ur ned over . THE COURT: Al l r i ght . And how was i t t hat a

di st r i ct cour t j udge i n Washi ngt on, D. C. was i nvol ved i n t hi s

si t uat i on? I s t her e a l awsui t pendi ng t her e?

MR. KLAYMAN: There i s no l awsui t .

I appr oached t hat j udge because I know t hat j udge

and I have had cases i n f r ont of t hat j udge. I know hi m t o bean ext r emel y r eput abl e and honest per son wi t h gr eat i nt egr i t y.

THE COURT: So when you say you approached t he

j udge, di d you f i l e somet hi ng i n cour t ? Di d you j ust show up

i n hi s chambers? I mean, how di d t hi s happen?

MR. KLAYMAN: Long bef ore t hi s case was f i l ed, we

appr oached the j udge i n Washi ngt on and sai d how coul d we gett hi s i nf ormat i on t o the government because Mr . Mont gomery i s a

whi st l ebl ower and no one has want ed t o l i st en t o hi m so f ar .

THE COURT: And so when you made t hi s approach t o



23/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

13

t he j udge, and t he name of t he j udge agai n i s?

MR. KLAYMAN: Royce C. Lambert h.

THE COURT: Ri ght . And so, bef or e t hi s l awsui t

was f i l ed agai nst Mr . Ri sen and ot her def endant s, you cont act ed J udge Lamber t h?


THE COURT: And when you di d t hat was i t i n t he

f orm of a pl eadi ng? Di d you j ust show up i n hi s chambers? How

was t hat done?

MR. KLAYMAN: We met wi t h hi m i n chamber s. THE COURT: I n chamber s?

MR. KLAYMAN: Yes, wi t h Mr . Mont gomer y.

THE COURT: And t hen, am I cor r ect i n

underst andi ng t hat at some poi nt , J udge Lambert h ordered you t o

t ur n over t hat mat er i al t o t he FBI ?

MR. KLAYMAN: No. We asked hi m f or hi s assi st anceon how we coul d come f orward wi t h t hat i nf ormat i on because we

t hought i t shoul d be i n t he gover nment ' s hands bei ng t hat i t i s

hi ghl y sensi t i ve, t hat i t i s cl assi f i ed and even he was not

abl e t o l ook at i t .

I di dn' t l ook at i t . Nobody l ooked at i t , but we

want ed t o come f orward and because Mr . Mont gomery, l ong bef orehe became my cl i ent had been t r yi ng, as I ment i oned ear l i er , t o

come f orward as a whi st l ebl ower t o var i ous gover nment agenci es

and nobody want ed t o l i st en t o hi m.



24/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

14

THE COURT: So t hi s l awsui t was f i l ed

appr oxi matel y when? Let me see. Maybe I have i t on my - -

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Februar y 24t h, Your Honor .

THE COURT: Of t hi s year? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes.

THE COURT: So when was i t t hat you approached

J udge Lamber t h?

MR. KLAYMAN: Oct ober of l ast year , appr oxi matel y.

I coul d go back and check. I do not have t he exact date.

THE COURT: Al l r i ght . And so what , ul t i mat el y,happened wi t h J udge Lamber t h, whi ch l ed to t he tur ni ng over of

t he sof t war e and t he i nf or mat i on t o t he FBI t hr ee days ago?

You t ol d me t hat he di d not ent er an order , cor r ect ?


THE COURT: Okay. So what di d he do? Di d he pat

you on the back and say, Mr . Kl ayman, sounds l i ke a good i deat o me, go t o i t ? Di d he i ssue some ki nd of an ex par t e

document ? Di d he cont act t he FBI and say I t hi nk i t wi l l be a

good i dea f or you t o r ecei ve t hi s i nf or mat i on?

MR. KLAYMAN: No.

THE COURT: What exact l y happened? Because I have

t o t el l you t hat i t sounds somewhat unort hodox t o me.MR. KLAYMAN: I t i s unor t hodox because t hi s has

never been done bef ore. We have never been i n t hi s si t uat i on.

I t r ust J udge Lambert h and I had a number of cases



25/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

15

bef or e hi m i n t he 1990s and af t er t hat was al l over I got t o

know hi m bet t er . I di dn' t have any cases wi t h hi m. And

consequent l y, he ar r anged because we needed t o get t hi s t o the

hi ghest l evel s of t he FBI and al so t o t he hi ghest l evel spot ent i al l y, of t he J ust i ce Depar t ment , t hi s i nf or mat i on.

So he ar r anged f or meet i ngs wi t h the general

counsel of t he FBI , J ames Baker , who t hen f aci l i t at ed br i ngi ng

i n agent s, FBI agent s, t o acqui r e t hi s i nf or mat i on t o col l ect

i t and t hat ' s how i t occur r ed.

THE COURT: Al l r i ght . And what , ul t i mat el y, l edt o t he t ur ni ng over t hr ee days ago of t he i nf or mat i on? Di d t he

FBI general counsel cont act you or Mr . Mont gomery and say,

okay, now i s t he day, t ur n i t over ? Di d t hey di r ect you t o

t ur n i t over ? Di d t hey gi ve you t he oppor t uni t y i f you want ed

t o but you wer e not r equi r ed t o? How exact l y di d t hat unf ol d?

MR. KLAYMAN: Wel l , what unf ol ded, we had t hemeet i ngs. And t he general counsel of t he FBI J ames Baker , who

wor ks di r ect l y under t he di r ect or J ames Comey, f aci l i t at ed

br i ngi ng i n a t eam of agent s t o t ur n i t over . And assi st ant

U. S. at t or ney of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a t o super vi se that and

her name i s Deborah Cur t i s.

So we' ve had - - we tur ned i t over t o bot h t he FBIand the J ust i ce Depar t ment .

THE COURT: J oi nt l y?

MR. KLAYMAN: J oi nt l y.



26/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

16

THE COURT: Two copi es, one f or t he FBI and one

f or t he J ust i ce Depar t ment ?


THE COURT: And was t hi s done act ual l y at t he FBIheadquar t er s i n Washi ngt on, or di d some agent vi si t your cl i ent

at hi s home or r esi dence, or some ot her pl ace, and i t was

t ur ned over t her e?

MR. KLAYMAN: I t was done at FBI headquar t ers here

i n Mi ami , i n Mi r amar .

THE COURT: And you and Mr . Mont gomery went t her ei n per son?

MR. KLAYMAN: Corr ect . Al ong wi t h Mi ss J ames.

THE COURT: And bef ore t hi s happened, gi ven t hat

t he Def endant s i n thi s case had been r epeat edl y seeki ng thi s

par t i cul ar sof t war e and t her e was l i t i gat i on over t he

di scover abi l i t y and l i t i gat i on and ar gument s r ai sed about t hesecret nat ur e, or al l eged secret nat ur e, or cl assi f i ed nat ur e

of t hi s mat er i al , di d you gi ve the Def endant s i n t hi s case

advanced not i ce t hat you were goi ng t o be t ur ni ng over t hi s

mat er i al t o t he FBI ?

MR. KLAYMAN: We di d not because t hi s was not

somet hi ng t hat was done wi t h t he conf i dent i al i t y, t he cl oak ofconf i dent i al i t y, but we di d ar r ange, Your Honor , wi t h t he FBI

t hat we do have cont i nui ng access . Mr . Mont gomery has

cont i nui ng access t o document at i on whi ch i s not cl assi f i ed, or



27/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

17

ot her wi se sensi t i ve and pr i vi l eged wi t h r egar d t o t he

government .

So i f t her e i s anythi ng t hat we need f r om what was

t ur ned over , i t i s st i l l accessi bl e t o Mr . Mont gomer y. THE COURT: So I mean, t hi s ar r angement t hat you

j ust expl ai ned t o me, especi al l y t hi s cont i nui ng access, i s

t her e a wr i t t en document out l i ni ng Mr . Mont gomer y' s r i ght s t o

t hi s i nf or mat i on, a memorandum of underst andi ng, an agr eement ,

a cont r act , somet hi ng?

MR. KLAYMAN: Ther e i s a document t hat waspr oduced. I t ' s a l et t er pr epar ed by t he U. S. at t or ney on

behal f of t he J ust i ce Depar t ment , whi ch says t hat , i n ef f ect ,

Mr . Mont gomer y has i mmuni t y f or t ur ni ng t hi s over i n t erms of

t he document at i on.

THE COURT: Wel l , t hat i s a l i t t l e bi t di f f erent

t han sayi ng he has cont i nui ng access.MR. KLAYMAN: Wel l , t hi s i s an agr eement t hat we

do have. Okay. I t coul d be f or anyt hi ng t hat i s not

cl assi f i ed.

THE COURT: So he has, accor di ng t o you,

cont i nui ng access t o noncl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on?

MR. KLAYMAN: Cor r ect , whi ch has yet t o bedetermi ned.

THE COURT: I under st and, but he woul dn' t have

cont i nui ng access t o cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on.



28/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

18

MR. KLAYMAN: I woul d assume t hat ' s t he case. I

don' t t hi nk anybody shoul d have access t o that .

THE COURT: And how l ong di d you ant i ci pat e i t

wi l l t ake f or t he FBI t o deter mi ne one way or t he ot her t owhet her any of t he i nf or mat i on, i ncl udi ng t he sof t war e i s, i n

f act , cl assi f i ed?

MR. KLAYMAN: Bef ore I answer t hat , l et me add one

ot her t hi ng, whi ch I t hi nk i s i mpor t ant , i s t hat Mr . Mont gomer y

wi l l have a t op secr et cl ear ance, an SAP cl ear ance, S- A- P and I

bel i eve t hat he st i l l has t op secr et cl ear ance and i t was neverr evoked.

I n order t o r evoke i t you have t o have a hear i ng

and no such hear i ng ever t ook pl ace. And i n f act , he t est i f i ed

t o t hat yest er day at deposi t i on. I i nst r uct ed hi m at t he

deposi t i on, when he was gi vi ng answer s, t o be car ef ul not t o

r eveal anyt hi ng whi ch may bel ong t o t he government .And what was t he l ast quest i on, Your Honor ? I

apol ogi ze.

THE COURT: I t mi ght have been t he previ ous

quest i on. I had asked you i s t here some document t hat

memor i al i zes Mr . Mont gomery' s cont i nui ng access t o

noncl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on whi ch was t ur ned over t o t he FBI ? Your r esponse was r eal l y a nonresponse.

MR. KLAYMAN: Yes, t her e i s - -

THE COURT: You have t o l et me f i ni sh.



29/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

19

MR. KLAYMAN: I ' m sor r y.

THE COURT: Your r esponse was he has i mmuni t y

pur suant t o a l et t er dr af t ed by t he assi st ant U. S. at t or ney.

And my response was, wel l , t her e i s a di f f erence bet weeni mmuni t y f or t ur ni ng over i nf or mat i on and havi ng cont i nui ng

access.

So t he quest i on i s, i s t her e a document , a l et t er ,

a memo, or anyt hi ng el se memor i al i zi ng your comment t o me t hat

Mr . Mont gomer y has cont i nui ng access t o noncl assi f i ed

i nf or mat i on, whi ch was t ur ned over t o t he FBI ?MR. KLAYMAN: There i s no such document , but t her e

i s an agr eement between us whi ch was ent ered i nt o dur i ng the

meet i ngs i f t hat woul d be t he case.

And i t i s my under st andi ng, t o answer your

quest i on, because now I r emember ed what your l ast quest i on was

i s t hat t he FBI i s movi ng wi t h gr eat speed on t hi s because Mr .Mont gomer y i s ser i ousl y i l l and he may not l i ve. And t hat ' s

one of t he r easons, Your Honor , we oppose any post ponement . He

may not l i ve at t he t i me of any t r i al . He may not be al i ve.

THE COURT: So I under st and t he gener al r esponse

t hat t he FBI wi l l be movi ng wi t h al l due di l i gence, wi t h

al acri t y, wi t h ef f i ci ency, et cet er a, but t hose ar e j ustgener al adj ect i ves. I t doesn' t r eal l y gi ve me an i dea. Ar e we

t al ki ng about a week, a mont h, si x mont hs, t wo years? What do

you t hi nk?



30/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

20

MR. KLAYMAN: Wel l we have t o get some f eedback on

t hat because t hey haven' t had an opport uni t y to go t hr ough i t

yet . Ther e are a number of hard dr i ves t hat were t ur ned over .

THE COURT: And i s t hi s af t ernoon, r i ght her e i ncour t , t he f i r st t i me t hat t he Def ense i s l ear ni ng t hat Mr .

Mont gomery t ur ned over t he sof t ware that t hey' ve been seeki ng

f or mont hs t o the FBI , or di d t hey know about i t bef or e thi s

hear i ng?

MR. KLAYMAN: He t est i f i ed about i t yest er day, Mr .

Montgomer y. THE COURT: Wel l , I ' m guess i ng t hat counsel may

have asked some of t he same quest i ons t hat I asked and perhaps

di f f er ent l y and per haps addi t i onal ones.

Al l r i ght . So l et me j ust hear f r om t he Def ense

f or a mi nut e.

MR. KLAYMAN: May I j ust add one l ast t hi ng here? THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KLAYMAN: I f poss i bl e. The r eason t hat t he

sof t war e i s not r el evant t o t hi s mat t er - - and I have a copy of

t he Mot i ons t o Di smi ss t hat ar e st i l l pendi ng by t he Def endant

i f Your Honor woul d l i ke a copy of i t - - i s t hat t hey ar gued

t hat t hey don' t need gover nment i nf or mat i on f or t hi s case to bedeci ded. That everythi ng t hat Mr . Ri sen publ i shed was based

upon i nf or mat i on t hat was out i n t he publ i c domai n i n t est i mony

bef or e Congr ess, or pr i or ar t i cl es wr i t t en by Pl ayboy Magazi ne



31/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

21

- - i f you can bel i eve t hat - - and ot her s about Mr . Mont gomer y,

but t hey di dn' t have access t o gover nment i nf or mat i on because,

you know, we made r ef erence t o t he f act t hat he may have had

unaut hor i zed access t o cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on and t hey deni edt hat .

And when I t ook Mr . Ri sen' s deposi t i on - - and I

al so have t he deposi t i on pages and I can ci t e t hem t o Your

Honor - - he conf i r med t hat he di d not have access t o cl assi f i ed

i nf or mat i on. So consequent l y, i t ' s not r el evant what i s on

t hi s sof t war e, whi ch i s bel i eved t o be cl assi f i ed because henever r el i ed on t hat and doesn' t want t o rel y on t hat .

As Your Honor may know, Mr . Ri sen was i nvol ved i n

a ver y cont r over si al case wi t h an i ndi vi dual by the name of

J ef f er y Ster l i ng, who was i ndi ct ed by t he J ust i ce Depar t ment

f or havi ng one cl assi f i ed e- mai l . And Mr . Ri sen was, hi msel f ,

he got t o t he edge of bei ng i ndi ct ed hi msel f f or havi ng accesst o t hat .

The government di d not proceed wi t h t hat case,

pr esumabl y because t hey di d not want t o reveal t he cl assi f i ed

nat ur e of what he had got t en f r om Mr . St er l i ng. So t hey

dr opped t he char ges j ust i n the l ast f ew mont hs.

So Mr . Ri sen i s ver y car ef ul t o say, at hi sdeposi t i on, t hat he di d not have access t o cl assi f i ed

i nf or mat i on. He equi vocat ed a l ot , but i n t he end i f you l ook

at t he t est i mony, i t i s cl ear t hat he di d not and i t i s



32/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

22

conf i r med by t he Mot i on t o Di smi ss. I n t he f i r st t en pages of

t he Mot i on t o Di smi ss, t he Def endant s are ar gui ng t hat t her e' s

no need f or cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on, Your Honor . J udge

Mar t i nez, you can di smi ss t hi s based upon a pr i vi l ege t hat t hi swas al l done f r om publ i c i nf or mat i on t hat has al r eady been

pr oduced. That ' s t he basi s of Chapt er Two of t hi s book. So i t

i s not even r el evant .

THE COURT: I s t her e cl ai ms i n t hi s def amat i on

case t hat Mr . Ri sen, i n hi s book, publ i shed t he poi nt t hat your

cl i ent basi cal l y bamboozl ed the gover nment by sel l i ng def ect i vesof t war e? I sn' t t hat , basi cal l y, one of t he mai n cl ai ms?

MR. KLAYMAN: I woul dn' t say t hat ' s t he mai n

cl ai m.

THE COURT: That ' s one of t he maj or cl ai ms?

MR. KLAYMAN: I t ' s a cl ai m.

THE COURT: Okay. I n or der t o def end agai nst t hatcl ai m woul dn' t t he par t i es need t o know whet her t he sof t war e i n

f act wor ked or not ? I sn' t t hat a cri t i cal par t ei t her i n your

case- i n- chi ef or t hei r def ense case?

MR. KLAYMAN: That ' s not what t hey' r e r est i ng

t hei r def ense case on. And t hat ' s what I ' m sayi ng i s t hat t hey

sai d t hat t hi s case shoul d be deci ded, Your Honor .And t hey ar e unequi vocal about t hat based on

t est i mony bef or e Congr ess by i ndi vi dual s l i ke Br ennan of t he

CI A wi t h r egar d t o ot her t hi ngs t hat wer e avai l abl e i n ot her



33/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

23

cour t document s and you don' t even get t o that poi nt .

So what we bel i eve, and Your Honor asked me t he

quest i on at t he out set , we' r e accusi ng t hem of bad f ai t h. I ' m

not accusi ng t hem of bad f ai t h. I ' m accusi ng t hem of bei ngdef ense l awyer s.

Def ense l awyer s, I was a def ense l awyer mysel f ,

ci vi l and cri mi nal . I was a pr osecut or f or t he J ust i ce

Depar t ment and a def ense l awyer at t he same t i me. I hel ped

br eak up AT&T. So I know what compl ex l i t i gat i on i s about .

They' r e usi ng t hi s as a f ul cr um, a wedge, t o t r yt o get t hi s case del ayed. That i s t hei r i nt ent i on. And what I

am sayi ng i s t hat t her e i s no need t o del ay t he case. The FBI

i s anal yzi ng t hi s r i ght now. Ther e i s t i me t o compl et e

di scover y. And i n any event , we can' t put t he t r i al of f

because t he Def endant may be dead.

We appr oached J udge Mar t i nez on t hat ver y f i r stst atus conf erence mont hs ago and t hat ' s why he set us so

qui ckl y f or t r i al . I am not accusi ng t hem of anyt hi ng. I am

sayi ng t hey' r e doi ng t hei r j ob as def ense l awyer s. Thi s i s not

an or di nar y case.

I t pot ent i al l y i s a case whi ch i nvol ves, not i n

par t of t he al l egat i ons of t hi s case, but t he ot her st uf f t hatMr . Mont gomery has deal s wi t h a massi ve br each of i ndi vi dual

pr i vacy thr oughout t he Uni t ed St at es and t hat has not hi ng t o do

wi t h t hi s case.



34/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

24

THE COURT: So l et ' s assume t hat Mr . Ri sen based

hi s book onl y on publ i c i nf or mat i on.

I f t hat publ i shed i nf or mat i on i ncl uded t he

concl usi on t hat t he sof t war e i s bogus and di d not wor k, even i fhe got t hat i nf or mat i on publ i cal l y, t he key f act i n t he case

woul d be i f t hat ' s t r ut h was t he sof t war e bogus or not ?

So I do not r eal l y see whet her i t mat t er s.

Whet her or not t he i nf or mat i on t hat Mr . Ri sen r el i ed upon i s

publ i c, or pr i vat e, or conf i dent i al , or sensi t i ve, or

cl assi f i ed. One of t he cl ai ms i s t hat t he Def ense commi t t eddef amat i on, Mr . Ri sen and t he publ i shi ng company, cr eat ed

def amat i on by f al sel y publ i shi ng t he al l egat i on t hat your

cl i ent sol d bogus sof t war e, t hat di d not wor k, t o t he

government .

And t hen, as par t of your case- i n- chi ef , t o

demonst r at e t he f al si t y of t hat st at ement t hey have t o pr ovet hat t he sof t war e, i n f act , di d wor k. And as par t of t he

def ense case whet her or not i t was t hei r bur den or not , t hey' r e

goi ng t o t r y t o show t hat t he sof t ware di d not wor k. So t o me

t hat i s st i l l a rel evant i ssue.

Expl ai n t o me why - -

MR. KLAYMAN: Based on t he f act s of t hi s case, Your Honor , t hat woul d r espect f ul l y not be a way t hat t hey

woul d go about def endi ng t hemsel ves, I woul d t hi nk, and know.

One of t he t hi ngs t hat came out i n deposi t i on and i n t he



35/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

25

document at i on - - because we had produced al r eady about over

40, 000 document s t o the Def endant s.

THE COURT: Excuse me f or i nter r upt i ng.

By the way, I amnever , ever i mpr essed by thatar gument . Lawyer s t el l me t hose t hi ngs al l t he t i me. They say

J udge, I produced 35, 000 document s. I produced a mi l l i on

document s. And my r esponse i s, so what ?

I f you pr oduce 50, 000 document s and you st i l l have

45, 000 document s t hat you have not pr oduced, I amnot

part i cul ar l y i mpr essed by t he 50, 000 number. Ther e i s 50, 000document s, but t here' s one document t hat you di d not pr oduce

and t hat i s the smoki ng gun document . I am not par t i cul ar l y

i mpr essed t hat you produced t he 50, 000 document s i f you are

wi t hhol di ng the one most i mport ant document .

So by way of backgr ound, you have t o t el l me how

many document s - -MR. KLAYMAN: I t ' s t he qual i t y.

THE COURT: That t o me i s not r eal l y a cr i t i cal

poi nt .

MR. KLAYMAN: What i ' m t r yi ng t o say i s my

underst andi ng i s f r omMr . Mont gomery t hat we have pr oduced

ever ythi ng except t he sof t war e. THE COURT: I am goi ng t o hear f r om t he Def ense,

but I am goi ng t o say, Mr . Kl ayman, t hat t he Def ense i s goi ng

t o, one hundr ed per cent , di sagr ee wi t h you.



36/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

MR. KLAYMAN: Of cour se.

THE COURT: I am goi ng t o t el l you t hat r i ght now.

MR. KLAYMAN: Of cour se, but l et me f i ni sh t he

poi nt , i f I may? THE COURT: Sur e.

MR. KLAYMAN: Duri ng t he cour se of Mr . Ri sen

wr i t i ng the book, he cont act ed Mr . Mont gomery and he sai d t hi s

i s what I amwr i t i ng. Do you want t o comment ?

Thi s i s i n t he deposi t i on yest erday. Of course i t

i s under seal , okay, but t hi s par t i s not r eal l y conf i dent i al .I n any event , we' r e not goi ng t o cl ai m t hat . And he demanded

t hat he woul d not cor r ect what he was wr i t i ng and he woul d not

wr i t e i t as Mr . Mont gomery saw i t , t hat he di d not i n any way

def r aud t he government , or do the gr eat est hoax i n Amer i can

hi st or y. That ' s i n t he book, okay.

And I mi ght add that Mr . Mont gomery i s si ck andMr . Mont gomer y r eal l y can' t def end hi msel f . He i s not payi ng

me l egal f ees. And we bel i eve t hat Ri sen knew t hat he coul d

use Mr . Mont gomery as a l aunchi ng pad f or hi s book t hat t he

government , as a whol e, had mi sused al l t hi s money i n the war

agai nst t er r or .

Mr . Ri sen does not l i ke t he gover nment . He di dnot l i ke Geor ge W. Bush. He was sel l i ng t hi s book on t he basi s

t hat t he gover nment has wast ed al l t hi s money. Mr . Mont gomery

was, of cour se, t he f ocus . So he says t o Mr . Mont gomery,



37/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

27

ei t her you gi ve me cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on or I ' m goi ng t o wr i t e

t hi s. And Mr . Mont gomer y says t o hi m, I can' t gi ve you

cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on. That woul d be a cr i me.

Ri sen was doi ng t he same t hi ng t hat he was doi ngt o J ef f er y St er l i ng. I n ef f ect, he was ext or t i ng Mr .

Mont gomer y t o gi ve hi m cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on and Mr .

Mont gomer y di d the r i ght t hi ng.

I mi ght add that Mr . Mont gomery, you know, has

done t he r i ght t hi ng her e. He i s not i n Russi a l i ke Edwar d

Snowden. He i s her e. He i s cooper at i ng wi t h t he U. S.Government . And I can appr eci ate t hat as a f or mer J ust i ce

Depar t ment l awyer . I f eel t hat t her e i s a gr eat et hi cal

r esponsi bi l i t y, not j ust t o cour t s, but al so t o t he Amer i can

peopl e t o come f or war d wi t h t hi s.

The bot t om l i ne i s t hi s, and t hi s i s why I say

t hi s, i s t hat Mr . Ri sen, i n ef f ect , acknowl edged t hat he di dnot have cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on and di d not r el y on i t and he

made t hi s st uf f up out of whol e cl ot h. And unl ess Mr .

Mont gomery was goi ng t o br eak the l aw and commi t a cr i me t hat

he was goi ng t o def ame my cl i ent .

THE COURT: Mr . Kl ayman, I am goi ng t o t ake a

guess t hat t he Def ense i s goi ng t o t ake def ensi ve i ssue wi t hyour al l egat i ons t hat i n t hi s deposi t i on Mr . Ri sen admi t t ed t o,

quot e, maki ng t hi s up out of whol e cl ot h.

MR. KLAYMAN: No, t hat ' s my charact er i zat i on.



38/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

28

THE COURT: I t hi nk you j ust sai d Ri sen admi t t ed

t hat i n hi s deposi t i on.

MR. KLAYMAN: Ef f ect i vel y, I sai d.

THE COURT: Wel l , t hat ' s how I i nter pret ed i t .And as soon as I hear d t hat I sai d, oh, my gosh, t hat woul d be

ast oundi ng and basi cal l y - -

MR. KLAYMAN: Mr . Ri sen i s a hi ghl y i nt el l i gent

man and no one doubt s t hat , but Mr . Ri sen has got t en hi msel f

i nt o t r oubl e i n t he past .

As I sai d, he al most got i ndi ct ed r ecent l y overt he J ef f er y St er l i ng af f ai r . And Mr . Mont gomer y was not goi ng

t o be t ur ni ng over cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on t o hi m on t hr eat t hat

i f he di dn' t t hi s i s what Ri sen was goi ng t o publ i sh.

So i t i s our posi t i on, our f i r m posi t i on, t hat

t hi s i nf or mat i on i s not r el evant . I am not accusi ng Def ense

counsel of bad f ai t h or doi ng what Def ense counsel do. Youknow, r egr et t abl y - -

THE COURT: Not j ust Def ense counsel .

I t i s what l awyers do. They make argument s

whet her you ar e a Pl ai nt i f f ' s l awyer or a Def ense l awyer . I

have seen Pl ai nt i f f ' s l awyer s t ake pl ent y of di si ngenuous

posi t i ons. And I t hi nk Def ense l awyer s ar e not any more or anyl ess di si ngenuous than Pl ai nt i f f ' s l awyer s.

I mean, Amer i can l awyers, when t hey do what t hey

do because t hey t hi nk t hey need t o do i t t o zeal ousl y advocate



39/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

29

on behal f of t hei r cl i ent , but Mr . Kl ayman, you' ve spoken f or

qui t e a l ong t i me and I am goi ng t o gi ve you mor e t i me, but I

am goi ng t o shi f t t o t he Def ense.

Have a seat .MR. KLAYMAN: Sur e.

THE COURT: Fi r st of al l , Counsel - -

MS. HANDMAN: Yes, Your Honor . Ni ce t o see you i n

per son.

THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thanks f or t hat .

So pl ease expl ai n t o me whether t he sof t ware i sr el evant and expl ai n t o Mr . Kl ayman t hat t he sof t war e i s not

r el evant because Mr . Ri sen sai d t hat he di d not r el y at al l f or

hi s book upon cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on, but i nst ead r el i ed onl y

on t hi ngs i n t he publ i c domai n.

So f i r st , ar med wi t h t hat f act , i s he cont endi ng

t hat t he sof t war e i s r el evant ; yes or no?MS. HANDMAN: Yes, i t i s cr i t i cal l y r el evant .

THE COURT: Why?

MS. HANDMAN: Because as Your Honor cor r ect l y

poi nt ed out , our Mot i on t o Di smi ss di d not addr ess one cr i t i cal

def ense, whi ch i s t hat Pl ai nt i f f has t he bur den, actual l y, of

showi ng t hat what we wr ot e was subst ant i al l y f al se.And you ar e absol ut el y r i ght , Your Honor , t hat t he

crux of t he cl ai m i s t hat he cl ai ms t hat we f al sel y sai d t hat

he was sel l i ng bogus sof t war e t o t he Uni t ed St at es. And t hat



40/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

30

i s t he cl ai m, as Mr . Kl ayman qui t e cor r ect l y says, al l t hi s

deal about mass survei l l ance and t he NSA, t hat ' s another case

t hat Mr . Kl ayman has. I t has not hi ng t o do wi t h t hi s case.

And the sof t ware, we have hi r ed a sof t ware exper tt o anal yze whet her t hi s sof t war e, t he sof t war e that was par t of

t hat i n 2003, t he company he was wi t h i n 2003. And t hen,

subsequent l y, i n 2006 and 2007 and 2008, whether t hat sof t ware

wor ks or not .

And we f ound out f or t he f i r st t i me yest er day t hat

he had gi ven i t t o t he FBI . He di d not gi ve us t hi s st or y t hatwe' ve hear d t oday about J udge Lambert h, who I know wel l , t oo,

and goi ng t o t he FBI , et cet er a.

He j ust sai d t hat he t ur ned i t over t o t he FBI and

he di d not keep a copy of hi s own sof t war e. Not wi t hst andi ng

t hat he knew we were seeki ng t he sof t ware. That was shocki ng,

t o say t he l east . And t hi s i s sof t war e t hat i s al so, f i r st ofal l , t he subj ect of t he pr i or pr oceedi ngs i n Nevada.

THE COURT: Ri ght . I r ead t hat opi ni on wher e t he

cour t concl uded t hat t he sof t war e was not cl assi f i ed and

ordered Mr . Mont gomery t o t ur n i t over . And when he r ef used t o

do i t , t he j udge hel d hi m i n cont empt and he, ul t i mat el y,

ent er ed i nt o a consent and l at er f i l ed f or bankrupt cy. So I amawar e of t hat hi st or y.

MS. HANDMAN: And t hat ' s even Mr . Kl ayman r ecount s

i n t he case i n t he suppl ement al f i l i ng t hat we made on Monday



41/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

31

i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t . He says that t he Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct

of Nevada has al r eady rul ed t hat t he data document s,

i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y, t angi bl e obj ect s, and per sonal pr oper t y

at i ssue i n t hi s case. Thi s was the case bef or e Ar pai o, J udgeAr pai o, bel onged t o Denni s Mont gomery. None of i t was

cl assi f i ed.

THE COURT: I don' t t hi nk i t i s Ar pai o. I t hi nk

i t i s - -

MS. HANDMAN: I t i s J udge Snow who made - - and

J udge Snow or der ed t hat some of t he document s t hat Mr .Mont gomery had gi ven to t he Mar i copa Sher i f f ' s Depart ment be

handed over t o t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce.

We have not i f i ed, as Mr . Kl ayman knows and as we

put i n our paper s, we not i f i ed t he l awyer s i n t he DOJ who

par t i ci pat ed i n t he Nevada pr oceedi ngs t hat ent er ed i nt o t he

pr ot ect i ve or der i n t he Nevada pr oceedi ngs t hat havepar t i ci pat ed i n t he Ar pai o pr oceedi ngs.

And we not i f i ed t hem about what we had r equest ed

and what was t he Pl ai nt i f f s' r esponse sayi ng i t was cl assi f i ed,

t hat t hi s hear i ng was goi ng on, t hat t he deposi t i on was

yest erday. And t hey have chosen not t o appear and onl y the

gover nment can asser t t he st at e' s secr et s pr i vi l eged.And I don' t even know wher e t o begi n on some of

what Mr . Kl ayman has sai d about Mr . Ri sen. I j ust want t o be

ver y cl ear . He was never under i ndi ct ment or i ndi ct ment



42/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

32

t hr eat ened. He was par t of a weak i nvest i gat i ve pr osecut i on

and t he government had t al ked about seeki ng hi s t est i mony. He

had assert ed t he r epor t er ' s pr i vi l ege. The gover nment ,

ul t i mat el y, di d not cal l hi m as a wi t ness. So i t di dn' t comet o a head, but t her e was never any quest i on of cr i mi nal i t y by

Mr . Ri sen i n t hat case.

THE COURT: Let ' s t al k f or a mi nut e about

pr act i cal i t y. I know t her e ar e ot her categor i es of document s

and i nf or mat i on t hat you' r e seeki ng.

MS. HANDMAN: Ri ght . THE COURT: But r i ght now, l et ' s j ust t al k about

t he sof t war e.

MS. HANDMAN: Cor r ect .

THE COURT: Because t hat , t o me, seems t o be a

cr i t i cal part of t he case.

Mr . Mont gomer y, as par t of hi s case- i n- chi ef , weneed t o demonst r at e t he subst ant i al f al si t y of t he cl ai m i n t he

book t hat t he sof t war e di d not wor k.

And al t hough you mi ght not be under a burden t o

pr ove i t t he ot her way, as Def ense l awyer s you cer t ai nl y woul d

want t o f i nd out f act ual l y whet her t he sof t ware wor ked or not ,

whet her i t was bogus or not .So I agr ee wi t h you t hat t he sof t war e i s hi ghl y

r el evant f or t he case. Al l r i ght . Fi ne, but now we have t hi s

si gni f i cant devel opment t hat t he sof t war e i s no l onger i n Mr .



43/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

33

Mont gomer y' s possessi on. He t ur ned i t over t o t he FBI .

Apparent l y, accor di ng t o thi s process , whi ch has been under way

f or many, many mont hs bef ore the l awsui t was even f i l ed and di d

not keep a copy.So t hi s comes up a l ot of t i mes i n di scover y

di sput es, not i n t hi s par t i cul ar way, but t he i ssue i s I cannot

get bl ood out of a st one. I cannot now order Mr . Mont gomery t o

t ur n over t he sof t war e, can I ? Because he does not have i t .

So what woul d you have me do now, vi s- a- vi s t hi s

sof t war e that your exper t want ed t o eval uat e t o see whet her i tworked or not ?

MS. HANDMAN: Wel l , f i r st of al l , i t i s uncl ear t o

me why t hi s sof t war e woul d be part of t he whi st l ebl ower case

about government survei l l ance, whi ch even Mr . Kl ayman says i s

not par t of our case.

But assumi ng, t aki ng at f ace val ue what Mr .Mont gomery has sai d and Mr . Kl ayman has sai d today, f i r st of

al l , Mr . Kl ayman sai d t hat Mr . Mont gomer y ret ai ns access t o the

sof t war e.

THE COURT: Act ual l y, what he sai d was, he r et ai ns

access t o t he noncl assi f i ed sof t war e, but t hat agr eement i s

nowher e memor i al i zed i n wr i t i ng and i s some sor t of or alunder st andi ng t hat he has wi t h ei t her t he AUSA or t he J ust i ce

Depar t ment , but t hat i s hi s under st andi ng of hi s cl i ent ' s

r i ght s.



44/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

34

MS. HANDMAN: I mean, t hi s i s hi s sof t ware. So i t

i s uncl ear t o me exact l y why i t woul d i nvol ve any cl assi f i ed

i nf or mat i on t o begi n wi t h.

But even so, you know, we coul d pr oceed and we arepl anni ng t o pr oceed on a number of i ssues t o obt ai n f r om t he

government what Mr . Mont gomery has r ef used t o produce.

For exampl e, he pl eads over and over i n

decl arat i ons and amended compl ai nt s t hat t here are government

t est s val i dat i ng hi s sof t war e. He has not pr oduced t hose and

t hat , obvi ousl y, i s al so cr i t i cal t o t hi s whol e s i t uat i on.And yes, we r el i ed on t hat . What we r el i ed on was

f i l ed j udi ci al pl eadi ngs t hat had i nt er vi ews wi t h f or mer

empl oyees t hat sai d t hat he had t hese t est s i n f r ont of t he

gover nment i n or der t o pr et end t hat t he sof t war e, t he vi sual

r ecogni t i on sof t war e, wor ked.

THE COURT: I ' m sor r y, Counsel . You are sor t of doi ng what Mr . Kl ayman di d.

MS. HANDMAN: I apol ogi ze.

THE COURT: You are ki nd of l aunchi ng i nto

argument and rhet or i c and you are not merel y addr essi ng my

quest i on. So l et me f ocus your at t ent i on on t hi s.

MS. HANDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: What r el i ef woul d you l i ke me t o gi ve

you now, vi s- a- vi s, t he sof t war e? I know you want i t . I know

you have been aski ng f or i t . I know you want your exper t t o



45/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

35

eval uat e i t .

So i n ef f ect , al t hough i n my cases you cannot f i l e

a Mot i on t o Compel . You si mpl y f i l e a di scover y hear i ng

not i ce, but i n r eal i t y you ar e seeki ng an or der compel l i ng t hepr oduct i on.

MS. HANDMAN: Cor r ect .

THE COURT: The probl em i s based on what we j ust

hear d, and apparent l y based on Mr . Mont gomery' s t est i mony

yest er day, t hat he no l onger has t he sof t war e.

So I am si t t i ng up her e sayi ng, I can onl y beasked t o pr ovi de cer t ai n r el i ef . So t el l me what you woul d

l i ke me t o do. I f you had your dr ut her s, your wi sh l i st , woul d

you have me order Mr . Mont gomery t o pr oduce the sof t war e

knowi ng t hat he does not have i t and i t i s i n t he possessi on of

t he FBI ?

Do you want me to ent er an order r equi r i ng t he FBIt o t ur n i t over t o you? I mean, t el l me, pr act i cal l y speaki ng,

ar e what do you want me t o do?

MS. HANDMAN: Wel l , f i r st of al l , I woul d

i ni t i al l y suggest t hat you do or der Mr . Mont gomer y t o pr oduce

t he sof t war e.

THE COURT: That ' s sor t of a meani ngl ess order .MS. HANDMAN: Wel l , except t hat he does have

access t o have hi m seek access t o hi s own sof t war e f r om t he FBI

and pr oduce i t t o us i f i ndeed t hat i s, i n f act , what has



46/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

36

happened.

Secondar i l y, you coul d ask us t o not i f y or you

coul d or der us t o not i f y the peopl e we have not i f i ed and t el l

t hem about what i s bei ng sai d her e. THE COURT: Whi ch peopl e i s t hat ?

MS. HANDMAN: He sai d t he t wo DOJ l awyer s who have

been i nvol ved i n past deal i ngs wi t h Mr . Mont gomery i n Nevada

and i n Ar i zona.

THE COURT: Ar e t hese t he same government l awyers

who are i nvol ved i n t hi s J udge Lamber t h ar r anged t ur nover ofsof t war e t o t he FBI ?

I t sounds l i ke we ar e t al ki ng about a di f f er ent

l awyer . I t sounds l i ke Mr . Kl ayman was t al ki ng about a l ocal

AUSA i n t he D. C. of f i ce of t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce and not

t o the two DOJ l awyer s t hat appear ed i n Nevada.

MS. HANDMAN: The DOJ l awyer s t hat ar e i n t hespeci al pr ogr ams br anch of t he DOJ and they have appear ed i n

t he Ar i zona case and i n t he Nevada case. And t hey at t ended,

f or exampl e, a deposi t i on t hat Mr . Mont gomery gave i n one of

t hese l i t i gat i ons t o ensur e t hat cl assi f i ed i nf or mat i on wasn' t

r eveal ed.

I f you want t o or der us t o not i f y them or t he FBIt hat t hi s i s par t of t hi s pr oceedi ng and we ar e seeki ng access

t o i t , I woul d be happy t o do t hat . As I sai d, I have al r eady

not i f i ed t hem of t he basi c - - and I wi l l t el l you why thi s does



47/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

37

come as somet hi ng of a shock.

Mr . Kl ayman f i l ed, i n a l awsui t t hat he has

agai nst t he Obama Admi ni st r at i on i nvol vi ng NSA sur vei l l ance a

not i ce bef or e a di f f er ent f eder al j udge i n D. C. , J udge Leon,aski ng hi m i f Mr . Mont gomer y coul d come and appear and t est i f y

i n camera ex par t e about t he NSA survei l l ance.

Thi s was f i l ed af t er Mr . Kl ayman says he

appr oached J udge Lamber t h. So as f ar as I know, J udge Leon had

not r ul ed on t hat l ast I l ooked and Mr . Kl ayman may know i f

t her e has been any f ur t her r ul i ngs. And i n t hat t he J ust i ceDepar t ment di d appear and opposed t he request .

So ther e ar e DOJ l awyer s al r eady i nvol ved i n some

of t hese aspect s of t hi s. And I am happy t o br i ng t hem, you

know, gi ve t hem not i ce because as I sai d, t he f act t hat he

t ur ned over t he onl y copy he had of hi s own sof t ware to the FBI

t wo days ago, t hr ee days ago, was news t o us. And I suspect i twi l l be somewhat news t o t he J ust i ce Depar t ment .

THE COURT: Wel l , you don' t need me t o r equi r e you

t o cont act t he DOJ . You can cer t ai nl y do t hat on your own,

r i ght ?

MS. HANDMAN: I can and I have and I wi l l send

t hem t hi s t r anscri pt . But I do t hi nk, Your Honor , or der i ng Mr .Mont gomery t o pr oduce i t because, honest l y, I woul d be - - wher e

he had an obl i gat i on t o retai n a copy of hi s sof t war e whi l e i t

was under subpoena here, I t hi nk Your Honor shoul d order i t and



48/114

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

38

or der hi m t o seek i t f r om whoever he gave i t over t o.

So t hat woul d be my pr act i cal sol ut i on f or t hat

and t hat i s onl y j ust sor t of t he begi nni ng of t he quest i ons, I

t hi nk, t hat ar e r ai sed her e. THE COURT: Let me i nter r upt f or a mi nut e.

So Mr . Kl ayman, i f I wer e to ent er an or der

r equi r i ng Mr . Mont gomer y t o take advant age of hi s r i ght of

access t o t he mat er i al s t hat he t ur ned over t o the FBI , why

coul dn' t he si mpl y say gi ve me back my sof t ware, or gi ve me a

copy of my sof t ware so I coul d pr oduce i t t o t he Def endant s i nt hi s l awsui t ?

MR. KLAYMAN: Not wi t hst andi ng my ot her ar gument s

t hat i s somet hi ng t hat coul d be done, Your Honor. But l et me

j ust cor r ect t he r ecor d her e because t her e were mi sst at ement s

t hat wer e made, hopef ul l y i nadver t ent .

Number one, t he number one nat i onal secur i t yl awyer i n t he Uni t ed St at es f or t he J ust i ce Depar t ment i s t he

person t hat Mr . Mont gomery was deal i ng wi t h, Debor ah Cur t i s.

She has won every award at t he J ust i ce Depart ment .

THE COURT: I s she i n t he J ust i ce Depar t ment or i s

she at t he U. S. At t or ney' s Of f i ce.

MR. KLAYMAN: She' s i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. They, and t he East er n Di st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, handl e most of t he

t er r or i sm cases i n t he Uni t ed St at es. She' s t he number one

J ust i ce Depar t ment l awyer . Thi s guy, Mr . Gomez, i s i n t he



49/114

1

2

3

45

6

montgomery v risen # 111 w exhibits

Documents