Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 555

DECLARATION signed by Alexander H. Southwell re 553 MOTION for Discovery filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN)(Snyder, Orin)

EXHIBIT LL

In
 the
 Gibson
 Dunn
 email,
 dated
 8/31/12,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 makes
 many
 new

and
 some
 repeated
 claims,
 describing
 numerous
 documents
 he
 believes
 I
 am

withholding
 or
 have
 “produced”
 for
 the
 first
 Gme
 on
 8/30/12.

 Mr.
 Southwell

is
 demonstrably
 wrong.

In
 his
 paragraph
 1
 (email
 dated
 8/31/12)
 Mr.
 Southwell
 states,
 “We

acknowledge
 receipt
 of
 this
 producGon
 which,
 yet
 again,
 contains
 addiGonal

documents
 that
 neither
 you
 nor
 Mr.
 Stewart
 previously
 produced
 to

Defendants.”

Mr.
 Southwell
 conGnues,
 “Screenshots
 of
 the
 August
 30
 YouSendIt

producGons
 are
 aNached.

 All
 files
 you
 and
 Mr.
 Stewart
 previously
 produced

to
 Defendants
 in
 October
 2011
 and
 July
 and
 August
 2012
 were
 clearly

detailed
 in
 Defendants’
 August
 27,
 2012
 leNer
 to
 you.

 Merely
 by
 way
 of

example,
 new
 files
 not
 previously
 produced
 but
 contained
 in
 your
 August
 30

producGon
 include,
 but
 are
 not
 limited
 to,
 IMG_0805.JPG,
 IMG_0810.JPG,

and
 IMG_0816.JPG.

 AddiGonally,
 many
 of
 the
 pages
 of
 the
 various
 PDF

documents
 you
 produced
 had
 never
 been
 previously
 produced
 to

Defendants,
 such
 as
 the
 locaGon
 map
 of
 Mr.
 Stewart’s
 sampling
 from
 the

SpecificaGons
 Document.

 See
 DOC083012A.pdf
 at
 33-­‐42.

 A
 complete
 lisGng

of
 the
 new
 items
 that
 were
 not
 previously
 produced
 in
 any
 prior
 producGon,

which
 were
 produced
 for
 the
 first
 Gme
 on
 August
 30,
 is
 below.”
Mr.
 Southwell
 then
 provides
 the
 full
 list
 of
 files
 which
 he
 Gtles,
 “List
 of
 Items

Produced
 on
 August
 30,
 2012
 for
 the
 First
 Time”.
Following
 is
 his
 list:
IMG_0805.JPG
IMG_0806.JPG
IMG_0807.JPG
IMG_0808.JPG
IMG_0809.JPG
IMG_0810.JPG
IMG_0811.JPG
IMG_0812.jpg

IMG_0813.jpg
IMG_0815.jpg
IMG_0816.JPG
IMG_0817.JPG
IMG_0818.JPG
IMG_0819.JPG
IMG_0820.JPG
IMG_0821.jpg
IMG_0822.jpg
IMG_0823.JPG
IMG_0824.JPG
IMG_0826.JPG
IMG_0827.JPG
IMG_0828.JPG
IMG_0829.JPG
IMG_0830.JPG
IMG_0831.JPG
IMG_0832.JPG
IMG_0833.JPG
IMG_0847.JPG

DOC070312.pdf
 (all
 pages)
DOC083012.pdf
 (all
 pages)
DOC083012A.pdf
 (pages
 1-­‐12,
 33-­‐43,
 49-­‐55)
Not
 only
 is
 Mr.
 Southwell
 again
 wrong
 regarding
 whether
 I
 have
 previously

provided
 Gibson
 Dunn
 or
 himself
 with
 those
 image
 files,
 in
 some
 instances

he
 is
 doubly
 wrong
 in
 that
 they
 have
 been
 provided
 repeatedly.

 Duplicates

of
 the
 submissions
 made
 to
 Gibson
 Dunn
 or
 Mr.
 Southwell
 have
 been

maintained
 by
 me,
 clearly
 showing
 the
 previous
 submissions
 of
 these

supposed
 never
 received
 or
 newly
 received
 files.

Following
 is
 Mr
 Southwell’s
 list
 of
 items
 supposedly
 produced
 for
 the
 “first

Gme”
 on
 8/30/12
 along
 with
 my
 descriptor
 indicaGng
 when,
 in
 fact,
 Gibson

Dunn
 or
 Mr.
 Southwell
 was
 first
 provided
 those
 images:

1. IMG_0805.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 Gibson
 Dunn
 (GD)
 6/13/12
 leNer
2. IMG_0806.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
3. IMG_0807.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
4. IMG_0808.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
5. IMG_0809.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
6. IMG_0810.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
7. IMG_0811.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
8. IMG_0812.jpg
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer
9. IMG_0813.jpg
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in
 response

to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

10. IMG_0815.jpg
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

11. IMG_0816.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

12. IMG_0817.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

13. IMG_0818.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

14. IMG_0819.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

15. IMG_0820.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

16. IMG_0821.jpg
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

17. IMG_0822.jpg
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

18. IMG_0823.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

19. IMG_0824.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

20. IMG_0826.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

21. IMG_0827.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

22. IMG_0828.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

23. IMG_0829.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

24. IMG_0830.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

25. IMG_0831.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

26. IMG_0832.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

27. IMG_0833.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

28. IMG_0847.JPG
 -­‐
 image
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July
 2012
 in

response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

29. DOC070312.pdf
 (all
 pages)
 -­‐
 images
 provided
 at
 the
 beginning
 of
 July

2012
 in
 response
 to
 GD
 6/13/12
 leNer

30. DOC083012.pdf
 (all
 pages)
 -­‐
 images
 provided
 8/30/12
 in
 response
 to
 GD

8/30/12
 email

31. DOC083012A.pdf
 (pages
 1-­‐12,
 33-­‐43,
 49-­‐55)
 -­‐
 images
 provided
 8/30/12

in
 response
 to
 GD
 8/30/12
 email
For
 item
 numbers
 1-­‐29,
 Gibson
 Dunn
 and
 Mr.
 Southwell
 only
 first
 requested

that
 material
 just
 prior
 to
 my
 deposiGon
 (July
 11,
 2012).

 Their
 first
 request

came
 in
 the
 form
 of
 a
 leNer
 from
 them
 dated
 6/13/12.

 Once
 their
 request

was
 clarified,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 sent
 an
 email,
 dated
 7/3/12,
 outlining
 specific

items
 they
 were
 asking
 for
 prior
 to
 my
 deposiGon.

 In
 that
 email,
 they

requested
 the
 following:
“Next,
 as
 you
 know,
 you
 indicated
 in
 your
 June
 22,
 2012
 email
 that

PlainGff
 would
 provide
 certain
 of
 the
 materials
 idenGfied
 in
 our
 June

13,
 2012
 leNer
 related
 to
 the
 upcoming
 deposiGons
 of
 PlainGff’s

document
 examiners.

 Specifically,
 you
 stated
 that
 Larry
 Stewart
 will

provide
 everything
 requested
 in
 our
 June
 13th
 leNer
 with
 the

excepGon
 of
 the
 informaGon
 on
 his
 library
 of
 standards,
 owing
 to

concerns
 about
 proprietary
 business
 or
 manufacturer
 informaGon.

 To

be
 clear,
 we
 are
 not
 seeking
 any
 proprietary
 informaGon.

 Rather,
 we

are
 seeking
 sufficient
 informaGon
 to
 understand
 and
 evaluate
 Mr.

Stewart’s
 opinion,
 which
 is
 parGcularly
 important
 given
 that
 this

porGon
 of
 his
 opinion
 is
 so
 sparse.

 For
 instance,
 a
 directory
 or
 index

that
 demonstrates
 the
 quanGty
 of
 toners
 in
 the
 library
 and
 lists
 the

names
 or
 idenGfiers
 of
 the
 various
 toners
 might
 suffice.

 We
 are
 not

seeking
 proprietary
 or
 sensiGve
 informaGon
 that
 might
 be
 guarded
 by

manufacturers,
 such
 as
 formulas
 of
 compaGble
 printers.

 Please

explain
 what
 you
 can
 provide
 in
 this
 regard
 and
 what
 specific

restricGons
 you
 believe
 are
 in
 place.

Given
 the
 approaching
 deposiGon
 dates,
 please
 produce
 these

Stewart
 and
 Rantanen
 materials
 (the
 requested
 Stewart
 materials

other
 than
 the
 “library”
 materials
 and
 all
 non-­‐proprietary
 materials

about
 the
 “library”
 plus
 the
 Rantanen
 material),
 and
 your
 explanaGon

about
 the
 restricGons
 with
 respect
 to
 the
 “library,”
 by
 today,
 July
 3,

2012,
 at
 8:00
 p.m.

 Defendants
 reserve
 all
 rights
 with
 respect
 to

Ceglia’s
 failure
 to
 produce
 these
 documents
 sufficiently
 in
 advance
 of

Ceglia’s
 experts’
 deposiGons,
 including
 conGnuing
 the
 deposiGon
 afer

full
 producGon
 of
 the
 relevant
 documents
 and
 moving
 for
 appropriate

sancGons.”
Mr.
 Southwell
 received
 all
 of
 his
 requested
 items
 in
 my
 7/3/12
 response.

That
 response
 was
 8
 days
 prior
 to
 my
 deposiGon.

Item
 nos.
 30
 and
 31
 were
 provided
 to
 Gibson
 Dunn
 on
 more
 than
 one

occasion.

 Gibson
 Dunn
 has
 been
 provided
 files
 responsive
 to
 the
 Court

Order
 (10/25/11)
 along
 with
 addiGonal
 files
 on
 06/13/12
 based
 on
 their

request
 for
 new
 materials.

 In
 addiGon,
 Gibson
 Dunn
 was
 provided
 files
 they

said
 they
 hadn't
 received
 at
 the
 07/11/12
 deposiGon
 (These
 files
 were

provided
 on-­‐site
 at
 the
 deposiGon
 and
 given
 directly
 to
 Gibson
 Dunn).

 Next,

based
 on
 their
 repeated
 inference
 that
 they
 hadn't
 received
 all
 of
 the

material
 requested,
 I
 resubmiNed
 the
 previously
 provided
 material
 on

08/23/12.

 Due
 to
 their
 conGnued
 insistence
 that
 they
 hadn't
 been
 provided

all
 of
 the
 requested
 files,
 on
 8/30/12
 I
 provided
 a
 file
 where
 I
 photocopied
 all

printed
 documents
 responsive
 to
 the
 Court
 and
 defendants
 requests
 and

provided
 pdf's
 of
 those
 along
 with
 all
 of
 the
 image
 files.

 This
 material
 was
 all

previously
 provided
 (actually
 on
 mulGple
 occasions),
 but
 to
 be
 certain,
 I

provided
 everything
 again.

 This
 resulted
 in
 approximately
 1.322
 GB
 of
 image

and
 pdf
 files.

The
 following
 day
 (8/31/12)
 Mr.
 Southwell
 made
 a
 new
 demand
 for

disclosure.

 In
 that
 Gibson
 Dunn
 email,
 dated
 8/31/12,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 makes

many
 incorrect
 statements.

 Not
 only,
 as
 I
 have
 previously
 shown,
 is
 he

incorrect
 about
 never
 receiving
 the
 31
 listed
 files,
 the
 remaining
 demands

are
 also
 demonstrably
 false.
In
 his
 second
 paragraph,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 begins
 with
 the
 following:
“Notwithstanding
 your
 belated
 producGon
 of
 those
 new

documents,
 ....”
There
 has
 been
 no
 “belated
 producGon
 of
 documents”
 on
 my
 part.

 As

shown
 clearly
 with
 my
 earlier
 lisGng,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 has
 received
 all
 of
 the

documents,
 either
 prior
 to
 or
 at
 the
 Gme
 of
 my
 deposiGon.

As
 a
 summary:
First,

 I
 responded
 appropriately
 to
 the
 Court
 Order
 (10/25/11)
 where
 I

provided
 all
 of
 the
 requested
 materials.

Next,

 I
 responded
 to
 Mr.
 Southwell’s
 new
 and
 further
 request
 for

materials
 8
 days
 prior
 (7/3/12)
 to
 my
 deposiGon
 (7/11/12).

Then,
 at
 my
 deposiGon,
 Gibson
 Dunn
 looked
 through
 material
 I
 had
 in

my
 possession
 and
 declared
 that
 they
 had
 not
 received
 some
 of
 the

documents.

 Although,
 I
 was
 certain
 that
 I
 had
 provided
 them
 the

material
 previously,
 I
 gave
 them
 the
 material
 again,
 at
 that
 Gme,
 to

photocopy.

Since
 then,
 Mr.
 Southwell
 has
 repeated
 claims
 insisGng
 that
 he
 has
 not

been
 provided
 the
 files.

 On
 8/23/12,
 I
 provided
 a
 copy
 of
 all
 previously

submiNed
 documents
 and
 files
 as
 requested
 through
 the
 Court
 Order,

and
 then
 later
 by
 either
 Gibson
 Dunn
 or
 Mr.
 Southwell.

Next,
 on
 8/30/12,
 as
 an
 over
 abundance
 of
 cauGon,
 I
 provided
 image

files
 of
 absolutely
 everything
 in
 my
 file.

Then,
 that
 was
 followed
 with
 Mr.
 Southwell’s
 current
 (8/31/12)

demand
 indicaGng
 he
 just
 received
 certain
 images
 and
 files
 for
 the
 first

Gme
 and
 that
 he
 has
 sGll
 has
 not
 received
 certain
 files,
 at
 all.

 Mr.

Southwell
 is
 demonstrably
 and
 fallaciously
 wrong.

In
 paragraph
 2
 of
 Mr.
 Southwell’s
 8/31/12
 demand,
 he
 conGnues
 with:
“...you
 sGll
 have
 not
 produced
 any
 evidence
 documenGng
 any
 ink

sampling
 that
 Mr.
 Stewart
 conducted
 on
 July
 25,
 2011.

 Nor
 have
 you

produced
 the
 second
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”
 that
 Mr.
 Stewart
 used
 on

July
 25,
 2011.

 That
 worksheet
 reflects
 Mr.
 Stewart’s
 inventory
 of
 the

contents
 of
 Vials
 11-­‐18,
 in
 which
 he
 placed
 paper
 and
 toner
 samples
 at

the
 inspecGon.

 You
 have
 produced
 only
 the
 first
 “ TLC
 Worksheet

Form”
 dated
 July
 25,
 2011,
 documenGng
 the
 contents
 of
 Mr.
 Stewart’s

Vials
 1-­‐10,
 and
 another
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”
 dated
 July
 29,
 2011,

documenGng
 the
 rows
 of
 Mr.
 Stewart’s
 TLC
 Plate
 #1,
 on
 which
 he

conducted
 toner
 analysis.

 Neither
 of
 these
 two
 “ TLC
 Worksheet

Forms”
 is
 the
 second
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”

 used
 on
 July
 25,
 2011,

which,
 again,
 Mr.
 Stewart
 can
 clearly
 be
 seen
 filling
 out
 on
 the

videotape
 of
 the
 inspecGon.”
Following,
 I
 will
 break
 down
 those
 remaining
 statements
 Mr.
 Southwell
 has

made
 in
 his
 current
 email,
 along
 with
 my
 response:
1. “...you
 sGll
 have
 not
 produced
 any
 evidence
 documenGng
 any
 ink

sampling
 that
 Mr.
 Stewart
 conducted
 on
 July
 25,
 2011.”

I
 have
 provided
 (on
 mulGple
 occasions)
 all
 TLC
 worksheets,
 handwriNen

notes,
 along
 with
 scans
 and
 photocopies
 of
 the
 Work
 For
 Hire
 Contract

showing
 locaGons
 of
 areas
 where
 I
 removed
 samples.

 There
 is
 nothing
 else
 I

can
 provide.
2. “Nor
 have
 you
 produced
 the
 second
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”
 that
 Mr.

Stewart
 used
 on
 July
 25,
 2011.

 That
 worksheet
 reflects
 Mr.

Stewart’s
 inventory
 of
 the
 contents
 of
 Vials
 11-­‐18,
 in
 which
 he

placed
 paper
 and
 toner
 samples
 at
 the
 inspecGon.

 You
 have

produced
 only
 the
 first
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”
 dated
 July
 25,
 2011,

documenGng
 the
 contents
 of
 Mr.
 Stewart’s
 Vials
 1-­‐10,
 and
 another

“TLC
 Worksheet
 Form”
 dated
 July
 29,
 2011,
 documenGng
 the
 rows

of
 Mr.
 Stewart’s
 TLC
 Plate
 #1,
 on
 which
 he
 conducted
 toner
 analysis.

Neither
 of
 these
 two
 “ TLC
 Worksheet
 Forms”
 is
 the
 second
 “ TLC

Worksheet
 Form”

 used
 on
 July
 25,
 2011,
 which,
 again,
 Mr.
 Stewart

can
 clearly
 be
 seen
 filling
 out
 on
 the
 videotape
 of
 the
 inspecGon.”
In
 my
 8/30/12
 response,
 I
 stated:

“As
 informaGon,
 pgs
 13
 and
 18
 of
 55
 from
 the
 file
 named,

"doc083012a.pdf"
 are
 the
 two
 worksheets.

 Pg
 20
 of
 the
 same
 file
 is
 a

page
 of
 handwriNen
 notes
 describing
 the
 sampling
 of
 the
 WFH

document.

 Pgs
 21-­‐42
 of
 the
 same
 file
 show
 "before
 and
 afer"

sampling
 pictures
 as
 well
 as
 locaGons
 of
 sampling
 areas.

 I
 sGll
 am

maintaining
 the
 untested
 samples
 in
 case
 they
 are
 needed.”
Mr.
 Southwell
 fails
 to
 note
 that
 there
 are
 two
 dates
 shown
 on
 one
 of
 the
 TLC

Worksheet
 Forms
 (the
 one
 Mr.
 Southwell
 describes
 as
 being
 dated
 July
 29,

2011).

 The
 second
 date
 on
 that
 worksheet
 is
 “7/25/11.”

 As
 seen
 at
 the
 top

of
 that
 worksheet,
 I
 placed
 handwriNen
 notes
 indicaGng
 “11-­‐07-­‐100
 7/29/11

PLUGS
 TAKEN
 FROM
 THOSE
 REMOVED
 7/25/11
 LFS”.

 The
 beginning
 porGon

of
 that
 entry
 (11-­‐07-­‐100)
 represents
 an
 internal
 case
 file
 number
 that
 would

have
 been
 created
 afer
 returning
 to
 my
 laboratory
 and
 prior
 to
 beginning

any
 analysis.

 As
 easily
 seen
 on
 the
 image,
 there
 are
 mulGple
 pens
 and
 inks

used
 in
 the
 compleGon
 of
 that
 form.

 That
 is
 because
 the
 form
 was
 filled
 out

on
 mulGple
 dates.

 In
 my
 facility,
 I
 maintain
 notes
 and
 worksheets
 and
 add
 to

or
 create
 new
 ones
 as
 new
 data
 or
 changes
 in
 situaGons
 require,
 e.g.
 if
 some

of
 the
 material
 is
 tested
 or
 transferred
 to
 a
 different
 facility,
 etc.

As
 Mr.
 Southwell
 insists
 that
 I
 created
 two
 worksheets
 on
 7/25/11,
 and
 I

have
 2
 worksheets
 with
 a
 date
 of
 7/25/11,
 I
 can
 only
 assume
 that
 the
 2

worksheets
 provided
 to
 Mr.
 Southwell
 represent
 the
 2
 worksheets
 he
 is

speaking
 of.

 There
 is
 no
 addiGonal
 or
 3rd
 worksheet
 outlining
 an

“inventory”
 of
 the
 contents
 of
 vials
 11
 through
 18.

 Instead,
 I
 have
 scans
 and

photocopies
 of
 the
 Work
 For
 Hire
 Contract
 and
 SpecificaGons
 Contract

showing
 locaGons
 of
 sampling.

 These
 were
 all
 provided
 to
 Mr.
 Southwell.

Although
 I
 don’t
 recall
 making
 a
 mistake
 on
 the
 handwriNen
 pages
 I
 created

on
 7/25/11,
 that
 is
 always
 a
 possibility.

 If
 that
 happened,
 it
 is
 possible
 that
 I

started
 a
 form
 over.

 But
 that
 is
 not
 my
 recollecGon.
TLC
 Worksheet
 forms
 are
 generally
 created
 for
 a
 reason.

 In
 this
 case,
 I

described
 my
 destrucGve
 sampling
 via
 handwriNen
 notes
 as
 well
 as
 locaGon

maps.

 TLC
 Worksheet
 Forms
 were
 created
 when
 I
 began
 outlining
 my
 plans

for
 tesGng
 of
 the
 toner
 and
 paper.

 That
 explains
 why
 only
 some
 of
 the
 vials

are
 described
 on
 those
 forms,
 simply
 because
 only
 some
 of
 the
 material
 has

been
 tested,
 to
 date.

 The
 untested
 items
 remain
 in
 my
 possession
 in
 case

future
 tesGng
 is
 requested.

I
 believe
 I
 have
 followed
 the
 Court
 Order,
 as
 well
 as
 provided
 for
 all
 of
 the

reasonable
 demands
 of
 the
 defendants
 counsel.

 There
 has
 been
 no

purposeful
 destrucGon
 of
 materials
 or
 files.

 In
 fact,
 the
 untested
 material

awaits.

 That
 way,
 if
 addiGonal
 tests
 become
 necessary
 to
 answer
 quesGons

regarding
 the
 ink,
 paper
 or
 toner
 from
 the
 Work
 For
 Hire
 Contract,
 we
 are

prepared
 to
 provide
 them.