Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5 PIERRE RAYGOT et al
6 Plaintiff,
*FOR COURT USE ONLY*
7
And
8 Case No. 17CV31269
SCOTT PACK et al Division 275
9
10 Respondent,
11
For Plaintiff:
12
HENRY BASKERVILLE
13
14
For Defendant:
15
MAX STICH
16
PHILIP ALEXANDER GOIRAN
17
18
19
The matter came on for hearing on May 4, 2018, before the
20
HONORABLE ROSS B.H. BUCHANAN, Judge of the District Court, and
21
the following FTR proceedings were had.
22
23
24
25
Transcribing Solutions, LLC
1624 Market St. #202-90925
Denver, CO. 80202
720-389-9420
2
1 MAY 4, 2018
2 HEARING
8 please?
10 Plaintiffs.
13 MR. STICH: Good morning Your Honor. Max Stich and Alex
21 order, it’s actually reverse order in which they were filed, the
1 wanted to get you in here promptly after that. Let me, I’m a
2 little frustrated for reasons I’m sure are clear to you, that we
8 THE COURT: Mr. Saenz’s criminal case was set for trial,
9 oddly enough the very same day, of October 22nd. And, I’m, I’m
11 were they aware that he had a civil case set that same day?
17 the facts to be. The judge in Arapahoe County just said, this is
18 the date your trial is set and gave him a setting slip, and
20 this case was set first and, and the criminal case was set
21 second.
25 THE COURT: Well, but you, you know that there’s this
4
2 counsel directly?
7 this Chief Justice directive that requires that the, the trial
8 judges talk to one another and try to resolve such matters which
13 mean, I hope you understand why I feel kind of, for a lack of a
20 your trial date, they write it down on a setting slip and they
25 there.
5
3 like we’re having now, or if it was, you’re set for October 20th,
6 Pack is. The last we were together he was supposed to start trial
7 April 9th and then there was some reference in the motions that
11 motion, his criminal trial was set on April 9th and it was
13 by July. I think it’s set for two weeks to begin on June 11th,
14 2018.
19 him.
23 contact with.
24 THE COURT: All right. So, let me ask you this, is there
5 come in and - -
7 if he needs it - -
13 t-shirt.
18 that the trial date is going to be kept, it’s this trial date. I
20 that are, you know, planning on being flown in. The District
21 Attorney has given all of its exhibit lists and we have our Rule
23 It’s four day trial weeks and it’s set for three weeks at this
10 mean, or?
11 MR. KAPLAN: No, no, I’m just saying that Mr. Steinberg
18 THE COURT: Have, has the Scott Pack, I’m sorry, we just
24 separately. There hasn’t been, there was no need to ask for, for
1 that’s how it’s been set. It was one superseding indictment with
9 imagine, but - -
11 I said it, the way I, yeah, I mean trials get continued for the
13 there was a trial date that I’ve been involved in that I believe
15 date.
22 get a very quick trial date for this type of case, with the
2 course, that’s from the time they decided to indict it, not from
19 working through some complaints that the Plaintiff has about the
24 received any documents back. And, that the Plaintiff has set Ms.
1 the only deposition set. I will tell the Court, since you’ve
4 because we’d like to encourage you to continue this case and stay
7 We’ve, we’ve had chats about deposing them, they’re not American
9 deposed, there’s two Plaintiffs and so for, but again, that’s not
11 you at this hearing to stay all discovery until after Mr. Saenz’s
14 we could tell you what the status of his criminal case is, if for
17 whether to set the case for trial and begin discovery, or if the
18 case has gone and it’s completed and the 5th Amendment is no
19 longer an issue, we could set the case for trial and have
23 to that?
2 Thailand, or?
13 the country.
19 The, cumulatively - -
23 responding.
2 Scott, and I’m not begrudging them for doing that. I’m not
10 that I’d like to get into more, but I sent them a discovery
12 gotten repeated emails, oh, I’ll get it to you tomorrow, I’ll get
15 I’m sure that, I don’t mean to speak badly of them, I suspect the
17 getting jerked around here, pardon my French. And, and that’s the
20 said, and I’m not trying to harass her. The reason we want some
24 alleged that’s false and I’d like to ask her about it. Again,
25 we’ve, we’ve tried to set that deposition multiple times and it’s
13
1 been pushed off into early June. It’s, I feel like I’m getting
2 the run around here, and I’ve tried to work with Counsel, I mean,
4 the deadlines on those passed and I never even heard from them.
8 problem, we’ve got, we’ve got a trial date in October. And, and
9 then January 30th came and went and they gave me nothing. And they
10 said, oh, we need a couple of more days, even though that was
13 when they were on vacation, but, okay. And, and again, it’s just
17 our trial date wasn’t until October and so it’s not the end of
19 sitting here today and, as I said, I’ve gotten 79 pages from, you
20 know - -
24 assert.
2 Obviously, I’ve heard his side of that and I assume there’ve been
13 and Mr. Saenz. Mr. Baskerville said, I would like you to take my
17 discovery.
18 THE COURT: You mean other than Mr. Saenz and Mr. Pack?
20 and I’m not even sure of this, would be Mr. Pack. And so, that
21 has been a, a constant concern for Mr. Pack. I think Mr. Kaplan
22 may be able to speak to that. And then, Michael Pack, we have not
2 concerned - -
4 yet to be disclosed at this point that you know are not there?
12 send it over, or if you want to come over and look at it, that’s
13 fine too. And then, there was the, the other issue was - -
15 - -
18 point tell you exactly the contents, but I told Mr. Baskerville I
19 would turn it over. The bigger issue is the privilege log, just
22 position that the documents that, that he was asking of Mr. Saenz
23 and Mr. Pack would need to be disclosed and then reviewed, and I
1 morning what he’s really looking for are all the documents that
2 would be in the possession of the two entities who are also under
7 misunderstanding that. These are entities that Mr. Scott and Mr.
16 didn’t want to dogpile him and send him documents and he’s going
17 to say, Alex, or, you know, Mr. Goiran, what’s this, you’re not
23 of Harmony and Green and, at this point I don’t know who could
25 Pack.
17
2 MR. GOIRAN: Again, I could say Mr. Pack, but there were
13 to give you the names. I know there was a Kyle Cobb (phonetic),
16 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you something, are the two
18 MR. GOIRAN: Yes, oh, oh no, Mr. Cobb (phonetic) and Mr.
22 respond to discovery?
5 know that he did have a stake in HGCO. Whether he has any of the
7 so.
10 discovery.
14 - -
16 Go ahead.
18 sitting down, but I appreciate that. The other owners, the two
23 MR. KAPLAN: The entity has been sued, correct. And, Mr.
24 Pack and Mr. Saenz have their 5th Amendment rights, they’re both,
1 participating. And the, and, and HGCO is only Mr. Pack. Harmony
2 and Green does have, I believe, two other owners and they’re
5 got a Plaintiff who has gone out and, and, and threatened people
9 Hysteria has been created where people are scared, and people are
12 Raygots. And so, people want to stay away from this company,
13 like, like - -
16 worried about this as well, that this civil case is being used as
20 criminal case.
22 absurd accusation?
23 THE COURT: You can, but, so, but I guess what I’m, I
25 nature of the beast. I’m not sure that there’s a heck of a lot I
20
1 can do about it in terms of, you know, and we talked about this
2 the last time we were together, you know? That there’s sort of
3 extremes that you could go in this case. You could say, we’re
4 going to stay the civil case until all of the criminal cases are
5 done, and it is not inconceivable that that would mean you’d put
16 otherwise. But, you know, the, sort of the incidental effect that
17 the civil case has on the criminal case, I’m not sure I can
21 on hold indefinitely.
3 about the 5 year, 10 year, indefinite stay. But, what we know now
4 is that, from Mr. Kaplan, that Scott Pack has a firm trial date
5 and then Mr. Saenz, I don’t know how firm his date is, we just
6 know that it’s been set and it’s been set out. But, I mean, I
7 guess I’m just, we’re just asking for this first step through
17 discovery requests and our hands are tied, are, are you telling
19 companies work or worked, and said, what the documents are, they
25 and - -
22
4 MR. STICH: And, we have not been able to reach him. Mr.
8 course we’re not here for a discovery dispute, this wasn’t set
20 you know, I mean. But, no one is willing to touch the case and if
22 the ability to do that, and he knows the answers that he’s going
23 to get. They take the 5th, they take the 5th, and they take the
24 5th. And, once that 5th Amendment no longer applies, as this Court
25 has already ruled, then our clients are happy to answer the
23
1 questions without that 5th Amendment privilege. But, while the 5th
3 THE COURT: All right. So, let me, let me hear from Mr.
4 Baskerville.
6 absurd accusation that I’m some sort of foil for the prosecution
11 than I may have emailed them our filed second amended complaint
12 after, at one point. But, I’ve never provided them anything from
13 discovery - -
16 that.
21 I said - -
9 they said he’s fully responded and that’s not true. They provided
11 fact and wrong in law. I laid that out in my letter I sent them
17 discovery, the case law is very clear that they can be defaulted.
22 ex-employees, they can certainly speak to Mr. Pack and Mr. Saenz
23 who they said that they speak to on a regular basis. They could
1 came from. I’m just trying to figure out what happened here. And,
3 about ways that we can get around this issue that I can
5 want him to verify interrogatory responses and I’m not asking for
7 my interrogatories. And - -
9 on the larger picture are there other areas of discovery that you
15 deposing?
18 deposition. And then, there, there are some others, this Mr. Cole
4 Pack or Rudy Saenz. All that I said is, that they sent, Counsel
5 sent me a letter that said, Rudy and Scott are going to invoke
6 their 5th Amendment privilege. And I said, that’s fine, but can
9 did it, fine, and I haven’t objected to what they’re doing. I’d
13 same time this fraud scheme was developing and, and Scott Pack
19 third parties, too. But, I’ve been trying to see if I could get
21 party discovery, rather than just blanket the City of Denver with
22 subpoenas.
23 THE COURT: Yeah. Let me ask you this, do you have any,
2 Ponzi scheme. You know, when it’s General Motors and big
4 this, but are you satisfied there’s a lot of paper out there that
12 And, I guess I’m just wondering, are you, based on what you know
17 business for more than a year. I’m surprised that they don’t have
19 they have some box with 800 documents in it, including prior
24 They just told me today and, and they told Your Honor that
18 too much and I said fine. When I looked at the documents they did
21 Baskerville straightaway.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Let me, let me ask both sides this
1 based on what I’ve heard from Mr. Kaplan. But, and let’s say
3 something like that, how much after that, after the outcome of
4 those trials would it take to get this case, get what remains of
5 the discovery in this case ready and this case ready for trial?
8 that’s out there. And, and how much of it can be addressed before
17 that I’m able to get all the third party discovery done before
18 then and, then after their trials, that they actually participate
20 think it’ll take six months certainly. Now, they may have
25 would take after then, I don’t think it would take more than a
30
1 couple of months.
2 THE COURT: Okay, how about from the defense side? And,
5 in part and, you know, appellate issues and you want to pursue
6 appeals and all of that sort of thing. But, setting that to one
7 side, and just in terms of the work to get the case ready, how
9 trial?
12 the trial, you know, one to two months after that, have, have the
14 you know, up, up, up close to trial and, you know, working on
20 know, people who are not indicted or entities that are not
21 indicted. Do you have any reason why you can’t be pursuing that
22 discovery during the, during the, you know, pending the trial of
25 depositions?
31
2 he means, but the one example I’ve heard is Ms. Saenz. And, and I
6 think that during the pendency of the criminal cases he’s going
21 the, and the, you know, I don’t want to say threats but, for lack
22 of a better term, the threats that he made. And so, I mean, so,
24 anything stop him from doing third party discovery? I guess, no.
25 I guess no, nothing stops him from doing that. I think it would
32
2 over. But, I can’t look at you with a straight face and say, if
4 can do it. I don’t see how that, I don’t see how that would stop,
6 you know - -
14 their clients.
17 assumption on that.
19 that, obviously you have discretion to stay, but you have to stay
23 I can assure, I’ve, I’ve spoken to Mr. Cobb’s (phonetic), and Ms.
1 if they do, then okay, they have the right to do that. But, that
2 doesn’t mean that we should just sit on our hands for the next
6 there’s no reason why we can’t take his deposition. The same with
8 would argue, Your Honor, that the current status quo doesn’t need
10 privilege which they have done. We can argue about whether or not
12 or not, and, you know, if we can’t resolve that then we can come
13 back to you. I’m not, I can assure you that I’m not pushing to
14 get discovery from Scott Pack or from Rudy Saenz right now. And
15 so, I think it’s better to, if Your Honor intends to move the
16 trial, okay, we can move the trial and let discovery continue in
24 I find that there is good cause to continue, it’s not cause that
25 I like and it’s cause that I sure would’ve liked to have seen
34
5 conflicted with this civil case and should have done something
6 about it, at the very least suggest that the criminal trial judge
7 get on the phone with me so we could talk about it. But, that
8 didn’t occur, and the fact of the matter is that we can’t expect
9 Mr. Saenz to be in two places at one time. And, the, the criminal
10 matter has to take precedence over the civil matter in the sense
16 there is good cause to continue the trial date in this case. But,
21 trial date.
1 an inconvenient date and then scheduling over it, then saying oh,
2 by the way, that date needs to be moved. And, I’m not suggesting
11 trial?
15 but yeah.
4 have a trial the week before that, a five day trial, and back to
15 week in February?
21 THE COURT: All right. So, we’ll continue the case until
1 or?
4 Here’s, here’s what we do, and you tell me whether you think this
5 fits your case. I don’t know enough about your case to say, but
6 what we normally do is, 30 days out you get a call from Audrey
7 and she basically says, is the case still going to trial and do
10 days out, Counsel typically come in and there’s a lot of, I don’t
11 know, I haven’t decided that, we’re not sure of that, blah, blah,
13 on things quite that far out. If it’s less than two weeks, then
14 it’s too late in the process, because you don’t have time to
17 to call 30 days ahead of time and then set something within the
18 third or fourth week out from trial. That’s kind of the MO,
19 right?
23 THE COURT: Yeah, and, and what Miranda was pointing out
4 in February and, you know, we’re, some weeks we’re four deep with
7 you, as we get closer, most of those cases will go away and we’ll
11 out we typically have a lot of flexibility and can set it, you
21 so.
23 demand.
3 grant a stay. And, the reasons are that, and this is difficult, I
4 understand it, I’m not pretending that it’s easy and everybody
6 realize that, you know, all of the Defendants in this case are
7 under indictment and that there are at least other people with
16 running with as much paper as, as they will have had by that time
20 parties that can, that are not afraid to cooperate with civil
23 HGCO, Harmony and Green, LLC, and SMP Properties, LLC all have an
25 that, to the extent that they aren’t doing that because people
40
2 needs to work through that and figure out a way to respond on the
4 jeopardy under the 5th Amendment. I don’t know what that means in
5 this particular case and exactly how to do that, but I think it’s
7 you know, three entities. All right, that, that’s the order on
8 that motion.
10 quick issues - -
14 your case management order we are very specific, like with dates,
25 THE COURT: Okay. So, today’s the 4th, I’ll give you
41
2 MR. STICH: All right, and then, then the second issue,
4 staying the entire case and the Court has agreed to not stay the
5 entire case, and we have your ear right now, I would like to get
7 is that the Plaintiffs are not in this country. I’ve asked Mr.
10 if it’s not stayed, I’m going to want to set them. And, Mr.
15 that deposition, we would, we, Mr. Pack can’t be, as you’ve said
22 country.
1 criminal case?
4 you know, we’ll make him available. I don’t know if he’s made his
5 travel plans yet. I can tell you one thing, that, as I said, I
9 trial, I suspect that we’re going to hear about that, and, and
16 depose their witness a week before the witness hits the stand?
23 going to have some motion practice if that’s what they try to do.
3 the trial time, I, I think that makes sense. Now, you know, I, I
4 think it just has to, you know, kind of come down to what makes
7 during the deposition and he does have the right, I’m not, I’m
9 that, then it has to be at a time when the trial is not going on.
10 So, the, you know, Mr. Raygot, one or the other, or both, to the
13 week after. I’m not going to order at this point that it be done
15 logical. Why don’t the two of you try to work out a schedule that
16 makes sense? I realize that, I realize that, you know, that there
19 Counsel and Mr. Saenz’s criminal Counsel which the prosecutor may
20 wish to point out at some point. But, you know, that’s just one
22 parallel proceedings that I can’t help very much. So, I think you
23 need to see when your clients are available, what their travel
24 plans are and plan around it as best you can. And obviously
25 they’ve chosen the jurisdiction, so, you know, they, they filed
44
4 And, I was the one who suggested that we take Pierre’s deposition
9 suggesting that, I don’t know what his travel plans are yet, so
11 makes more sense and would be a lot less problematic for the, in
13 before.
16 or the other.
2 understanding what the Court’s saying, if I set the depo for next
3 week I’m not going to get it, I’ve got to work with him - -
6 both understand probably when I want it and when he wants it, and
7 all that.
11 to expect that you cooperate and that you not simply be focused
18 again over the last two days, in the time that I’ve had to give
20 respect to both of them. So, I’m just going to make oral rulings
21 on these. The first is, HGCO, LLC’s and Harmony and Green LLC’s
22 motion to dismiss filed November 28th has been fully briefed. I’m
23 going to deny that motion. The standard, as you all know is,
25 case on its face. This, the allegations are that the, pardon me,
46
8 think all of the other grounds stated are simply things that need
15 that this motion is a much closer question and yet I’m still
21 benefited from them, and I think that, without going into great
23 him, I believe they’ve been adequately pled and they are, the
2 discovery. But, for the time being I’m going to deny both of
8 THE COURT: All right. All right, very good. We’ll look
9 to see, look for that updated case management order in one week.
10 Good luck and again, give us a call if you have discovery issues
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
1 CERTIFICATE
8 Colorado.
10
11 Joyce K. Burgess
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25