Redacted Motion To Compel and Redacted Exhibits

FPCFromClipboardUntitled
This is the html version of the file

https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us/WebMomCacheDir/vol1319000
004F3.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as
we crawl the web.
Page 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION - Commerce and
Complex Litigation Center
Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh,
Plaintiff,
V.
No. GD-09-016892
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan
Mortgage Acquisition Corp., J.P. Morgan
Mortgage Acceptance Corporation I,
Chase Home Finance L.L.C., Chase
Mortgage Finance Corporation, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Moody's Corporation,
Moody's Investors Service, Inc., The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and Fitch,
Inc.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance
Page 1
with the Court's October 17, 2013 Order
REDACTED VERSION
Plaintiff,
V.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan
Moody's Investors Service, Inc., and The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,
Defendants.
No. GD-09-016893
Served on behalf of Plaintiff.
Counsel of record for this Party:
Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr. (PA ID No. 15910)
Justin T. Romano (PA ID No. 307879)
Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC
The Waterfront Building
200 First Avenue, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 261-2393
Fax: (412) 261-2110
David W. Beehler (pro hac vice)
Janet C. Evans (pro hac vice)
Page 2
Randall Tietjen (pro hac vice)
Stacey P. Slaughter (pro hac vice)
Page 2
Bruce D. Manning (pro hac vice)
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 349-8500
Fax: (612) 339-4181
Page 3
Plaintiff,
V.
No. GD-09-016892
Page 3
Inc.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
V:
Defendants.
No. GD-09-016893
NOTICE OF PRESENTATION
TO: All Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the within Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel
Compliance with the Court's October 17, 2013 Order [and
response to JPMorgan's
motion to vacate or amend the October 17, 2013 Order and for
a Protective Order]
against JPMorgan Securities L.L.C., and JPMorgan Chase &
Co. will be presented to
Page 4
Page 4
Judge R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. on December 6, 2013 during the
2:00 p.m. add-on list in
Courtroom 818 of the City-County Building, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15219, or as soon
thereafter as meets the convenience of the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: ii/OPI44r 2 2CV3
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CREST L.L.P.
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue
Tel: (612) 349-8500
Fax: (612) 339-4181
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
Tel: (412) 261-2393
Page 5
Fax: (412) 261-2110
Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
2
Page 5
No. GD-09-016892
Plaintiff,
V.
Inc.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
v.
Page 6
Defendants.
No. GD-09-016893
Plaintiff's REDACTED Motion to Compel Compliance with
the Court's
October 17, 2013 Order
[and response to JPMorgan's motion to vacate or amend the
October 17, 2013 Order and for a Protective Order]
Plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh ("Pittsburgh
FHLB"), by and
through its undersigned counsel, will present the within
Motion to Compel Compliance
with the Court's October 17, 2013 Order:
3
Page 6
Introduction
1.
JPMorgan has refused to comply with this Court's October 17,
2013 Order,
which required JPMorgan to produce the draft complaint it
Page 7
received from the
Department of Justice. JPMorgan wants to revisit the
arguments that it previously
made as to whether the draft complaint is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence arguments that this Court has
already rejected. JPMorgan also
now attempts to stand in the shoes of the U.S. government and
argues that the policy
favoring settlements should hide the draft complaint from
view. But the Department of
Justice, which authored the draft complaint and provided it to
JPMorgan, has explicitly
stated to Pittsburgh FHLB's General Counsel, Dana Yealy,
that it will not intervene in
this motion to argue that the draft complaint should not be
disclosed. (Mr. Yealy has
submitted an affidavit to that effect with this motion). Public
policy the interests of
full disclosure and transparency demands just the opposite
of what JPMorgan seeks.
The circumstances of this motion therefore lead to one obvious
question what is
JPMorgan trying to hide?
Pittsburgh FHLB granted an extension of time for the
production of the draft
Page 8
complaint to accommodate the DOJ's interest in resolving its
claims with
JPMorgan.
2.
At the status conference on October 17, 2013, arguments were
held on the
motion of Pittsburgh FHLB to compel the production of the
documents that JPMorgan
produced to the DOJ. Counsel for JPMorgan argued that the
negotiations with the DOJ
involved unrelated trusts. To determine whether the documents
produced to the DOJ
might be relevant, the Court ordered, as an interim step, that
JPMorgan produce the
draft complaint that had been mentioned in the press. Counsel
for JPMorgan stated
that they were not aware of the existence of any such draft
complaint, but the Court
ordered JPMorgan to produce it by November 6, or advise that
it did not exist.
4
Page 7
3.
On November 1, Pittsburgh FHLB's general counsel, Dana
Yealy, received
a call from a DOJ attorney involved in the DOJ's investigation
Page 9
and potential action
against JPMorgan. (Yealy Affidavit 411 2.) The DOJ attorney
cautioned Mr. Yealy not to
reveal the content of the call to anyone. (Yealy Affidavit if 3.)
4.
Following that call, that same day, Mr. Yealy received a phone
call from
JPMorgan's in-house counsel, Alyssa Kelman, indicating that
she understood that
Pittsburgh FHLB would agree to an extension of time for the
complaint until November 15, 2013. (Yealy Affidavit 11 4.)
5.
Then, on November 14, Mr. Yealy received another call
this time from a
DOJ attorney in Washington D.C. in charge of the negotiations
with JPMorgan, and the
person who ultimately signed the settlement agreement with
JPMorgan on behalf of the
United States. That attorney explained that the DOJ and
JPMorgan were very close to
finalizing their settlement negotiations, and it would mean
everything to him if
Pittsburgh FHLB granted another week extension for the
complaint. The DOJ attorney stated explicitly that if Pittsburgh
Page 10
FHLB would grant this
additional extension, the DOJ would not intervene to urge this
Court to vacate its order.
Pittsburgh FHLB agreed to grant the DOJ this
accommodation, by extending the time
for production of the draft complaint to November 22, 2013.
(Yealy Affidavit If 5.)
6.
On Tuesday, November 19, the settlement with JPMorgan was
publicly
announced. (Yealy Affidavit 411 6.)
7.
Nevertheless, JPMorgan did not produce the draft complaint
and on
Friday, November 22, requested another extension of time for
its production.
Pittsburgh FHLB declined to grant an additional extension,
and later that day, at about
9:00 p.m., JPMorgan served a motion to vacate or amend the
October 17, 2013 order and
set a hearing date for January 10, 2014. (Yealy Affidavit If 7.)
8.
Pittsburgh FHLB has brought its own motion to compel
compliance with
the Court's order because it cannot wait until January 10, 2014
(the date set by
Page 11
5
Page 8
JPMorgan for its motion to vacate) to have this issue resolved.
The Court has
established the end of February 2014 as the deadline for the
completion of depositions
and Pittsburgh FHLB has been working to meet that deadline.
If the draft complaint
reveals that there are relevant documents produced by
JPMorgan to the DOJ or
witnesses whose testimony may be relevant in this case, then
those documents need to
be produced and the witnesses identified sooner, rather than
later, so that the parties
can meet the end-of-February deadline. Resolution of this
issue in January 2014 is too
late to allow meaningful production and review of any
additional documents.
Production of the draft complaint is reasonably calculated to
lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
9.
JPMorgan makes two contradictory arguments about what the
draft
complaint might show. On the one hand, it argues that the
DOJ's claims are not
Page 12
relevant to these proceedings and then on the other hand it
argues that the Statement of
Facts accompanying the DOJ's Settlement Agreementfacts
to which JPMorgan has
admittedmake the production of the draft complaint
unnecessary. The first argument
merely repeats what JPMorgan argued on October 17, 2013,
and neither the first nor the
second argument is persuasive. In fact, the DOJ's Settlement
Agreement and Statement
of Facts give even more reason to believe that the draft
complaint will lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
10. The Settlement Agreement makes plain that the claims of
the United
States (and the other settling parties) against JPMorgan do
relate to the trusts at issue
before this Court. The Settlement Agreement provides for
releases of claims by the
settling parties arising out of "Covered Conduct." "Covered
Conduct" is defined as the
// creation, pooling, structuring, packaging, marketing,
underwriting, sale or issuance by
JPMorgan . . of the RMBS . . . identified in Annex 3." (Yealy
Affidavit Ex. A.) In Annex
3, each of the JPMorgan deals at issue in the litigation before
Page 13
this Court is identified:
6
Page 9
JPMMT 2006-A4, JPMMT 2006-S2, JPMMT 2007-A5,
JPMMT 2007-A6, CMFT 2007-A3,
and INDX 2006-AR29. (Yealy Affidavit Ex. C.) In other
words, the conduct and the
deals that are at issue in the cases before this Court are
covered by the DOJ's settlement
with JPMorgan.
11.
In her affidavit, Alyssa Kelman, JPMorgan's Assistant General
Counsel,
does not provide the Court with the entire Settlement
Agreement which reflects this fact
nor does she mention this fact, much less attach Annex 3.
Similarly, nowhere in the 19-
page motion filed by JPMorgan does it mention this fact.
Instead, JPMorgan and Ms.
Kelman suggest that the settlement involved only 10 unrelated
trusts. That is simply
not true. JPMorgan's conduct with respect to the trusts at issue
here is expressly
identified as "Covered Conduct." (Although the settling parties
to the DOJ's settlement
apparently will or have received compensation from JPMorgan
Page 14
for the "Covered
Conduct," Pittsburgh FHLB has not.)
12.
The DOJ's Statement of Facts also makes it plain that the draft
complaint
is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The Statement
of Facts is remarkably consistent with the facts that Pittsburgh
FHLB has discovered in
this litigation. The Statement of Facts recites that between
2005 and 2007, JPMorgan
securitized mortgage loans and sold the resulting RMBS to
investors, and failed to
disclose to investors that the loans were not issued in
accordance with the originator's
underwriting standards. (Yealy Affidavit Ex. B.) This is
exactly what Pittsburgh FHLB
alleges in its complaints against JPMorgan.
13.
In addition, the Statement of Facts describes JPMorgan's "due
diligence"
process for deals backed by subprime and Alt-A loans, which
is the same process that
JPMorgan used on the deals that are at issue in this case.
JPMorgan admits to the
following:
Page 15
Through that due diligence process, JPMorgan employees
were informed
by due diligence vendors that a number of the loans included
in at least
7
Page 10
some of the loan pools that it purchased and subsequently
securitized did
not comply with the originators' underwriting guidelines, and,
in the
vendors' judgment, did not have sufficient compensating
factors, and that
a number of the properties securing the loans had appraised
values that
were higher than the values derived in due diligence testing
from
automated valuation models, broker price opinions or other
valuation due
diligence methods.
(Yealy Affidavit Ex. B.) While it is certainly helpful that
JPMorgan has admitted to this
conduct, the Statement of Facts is quite general and does not
refer to any particular
employees, documents, or events that support this factual
statement. The draft
complaint likely does so.
Page 16
14.
The Statement of Facts also includes this description of a deal
involving
many "stated-income" loans:
In one instance, JPMorgan's due diligence revealed that
several pools
from a single third-party originator contained numerous stated
income
loans (i.e., loans originated without written proof of the
borrower's
income) where the vendor had concluded that borrowers had
overstated
their incomes. Initially, due diligence employees and at least
two
JPMorgan managers decided that these pools should be
reviewed in their
entirety, and all unreasonable stated income loans eliminated
before the
pools were purchased. After the originator of the loan pools
objected,
JPMorgan Managing Directors in due diligence, trading, and
sales met
with representatives of the originator to discuss the loans, then
agreed to
purchase two loan pools without reviewing those loan pools in
their
Page 17
entirety as JPMorgan due diligence employees and managers
had
previously decided; waived a number of the stated income
loans into the
pools; purchased the pools; and subsequently securitized
hundreds of
millions of dollars of loans from those pools into one security.
In addition,
JPMorgan obtained an agreement from the originator to extend
contractual repurchase rights for early payment defaults for an
additional
three months.
(Yealy Affidavit Ex. B.)
15.
All of the JPMorgan trusts at issue here also contained many
"stated-
income" loans, and Pittsburgh FHLB has discovered facts
which show significant
concern on the part of JPMorgan employees about material
misrepresentations
8
Page 11
regarding borrowers' reported income levels, and about the
performance of certain
stated income loan programs. The Statement of Facts does not
provide any details about
Page 18
the originator, the vendor, the loan program, or the employees
involved. The draft
complaint may do so. And even if those facts relate to a
different trust or a different
program, the knowledge of the employees would certainly be
relevant to Pittsburgh
FHLB's claim of fraud, and would support Pittsburgh FHLB's
position that JPMorgan's
conduct with respect to the trusts at issue in this case was not
unique, but rather was
part of a pattern of fraudulent conduct, involving its entire
mortgage platform and
related companies, which should be deterred by an award of
punitive damages.
16.
The lack of specificity in the Statement of Facts has led others
to question
what it was the DOJ actually found in its investigation that
caused JPMorgan to pay $13
billion. Gretchen Morgenson, writing in the New York Times
on November 23, 2013
found the Statement of Facts unsatisfying:
Eager to see what the Justice investigation had found, I
consulted the
statement of facts that accompanied the settlement and that
JPMorgan had
Page 19
to acknowledge. There, I reckoned, would be some juicy, new
evidence of
the bank's mortgage misdeeds "uncovered" by assiduous
investigators
armed with subpoena power and other government might.
Perusing the 11-page document, I quickly saw that I'd
reckoned wrong.
Much of it was the same-old-same-old, a not-very-lively
description of a
corrupted Wall Street mortgage factory, based largely on some
facts that
have been in the public domain for years.
In other words, although it took the Justice Department more
than five
years to pursue a major bank for its role in the mortgage
mania, the
investigation seems to have unearthed material that, by and
large, could
have been dug up with a spoon.
(Ex. A, attached.)
17.
Given the DOJ's desire not to have the draft complaint become
public
until after the settlement was reached, and given JPMorgan's
apparent deep desire to
prevent it from ever seeing the light of day, it would not be at
Page 20
all surprising if the draft
9
Page 12
complaint is a much more detailed account of JPMorgan's
fraudulent conduct, and as
such, far more enlightening than the Statement of Facts.
JPMorgan cannot make the policy arguments that belong to
the U.S.
government, and in any event, the public policy of promoting
settlements will
not be harmed by the production of the draft complaint.
18.
Pittsburgh FHLB has plainly shown that the draft complaint is
reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that
the DOJ's Statement of
Facts does not serve as a substitute for the draft complaint. But
JPMorgan still argues
that the production of the draft complaint would offend the
policy of promoting
settlements, and resorts to the laws of other states in support of
this argument. The
laws of other states are not controlling regarding this specific
discovery dispute in
Pennsylvania state court nor, in this context, is federal law. For
this issue, the only law
Page 21
that is relevant is Pennsylvania law, and particularly the rule of
civil procedure that
allows discovery of materials that are reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1(b)("It is not ground for
objection that the
information sought [in discovery] will be inadmissible at the
trial if the information
sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.").
In addition, a substantial body of persuasive authority holds
that "neither public policy
concerns over the confidentiality of settlement agreements nor
limits on the
admissibility of settlement materials at trial necessarily
prohibits the disclosure of
settlement documents during the discovery process." 6-26
Moore's Federal Practice -
Civil 26.42. But even if the laws of other states were
controlling on this Court, the
production of the draft complaint would not make settlements
in this case, or in other
cases, less likely.
19. Several important facts make this situation different than
the fact patterns
in virtually every case cited by JPMorgan:
Page 22
10
Page 13
a. First, the settlement between the DOJ and JPMorgan has
been
completed. Pittsburgh FHLB granted the extensions on the
production of the
draft complaint to accommodate the DOrs concerns that
disclosure of the draft
complaint may interfere with its negotiations. But now that the
settlement is
completed, those concerns are gone. This is not like a situation
where one party
is attempting to use information it learned in settlement
negotiations to its
advantage at trial. The DOJ and JPMorgan have settled; there
will be no trial of
the United States' claims.
b. Second, the draft complaint is not a statement of
compromise or
confession by JPMorgan made during settlement negotiations
that is now going
to be used against it. The draft complaint is the work of the
DOJ, and
presumably is based on its review of the thousands of
documents that JPMorgan
produced to it, the witnesses it interviewed, and experts it
Page 23
consulted. Pittsburgh
FHLB fully expects JPMorgan to deny the allegations of the
draft complaint.
c. Third, the draft complaint may have been work product at
one time, but
that work product privilege was waived when the document
was produced to
JPMorgan. See Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 583 Pa. 208, 219
(Pa. 2005) ("[T]he work
product doctrine is not absolute but, rather, is a qualified
privilege that may be
waived.").
d. Fourth, the confidentiality agreement under which
JPMorgan received
the document was an agreement made for the benefit of the
DOJ. The DOJ
wanted JPMorgan to use the draft complaint solely to evaluate
settlement. The
settlement has been completed and the DOJ has now advised
Pittsburgh FHLB
that it will not intervene and will not urge the Court to prohibit
disclosure of the
document.
11
Page 14
e. Fifth, a confidentiality agreement between parties does not
Page 24
prevent a
court from ordering production of a document that is
reasonably likely to lead to
the production of admissible evidence. See, e.g., Thermal
Design, Inc. v. Guardian
Bid. Prods., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 437, 438-39 (E.D. Wis. 2010)
("the Court agrees with
the cases which find that there is no federal privilege
preventing the discovery of
settlement agreements and related documents"). The court is
not bound by the
parties' private agreements.
f. Sixth, although the draft complaint was part of the
negotiations between
the DOJ and JPMorgan, Rule 408 deals only with the
admissibility of evidence at
trial, and does not prohibit the discovery of settlement
communications that may
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g., Small
v. Nobel Biocare USA,
LLC, 808 F. Supp. 2d 584, 586-87 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding
that a settlement
agreement was discoverable, rejecting a heightened showing
of relevance, and
ordering its production). Pittsburgh FHLB has no intention of
attempting to offer
Page 25
the draft complaint into evidence at trial. It wants the draft
complaint to
determine whether there are witnesses or documents that are
relevant to the
proof of its claims.
Public policy demands that the draft complaint be produced
without any
confidentiality restrictions.
20.
The most important public policy at issue here is transparency
what did
the DOJ actually learn about JPMorgan's conduct which
caused JPMorgan to pay $13
billion? The Statement of Facts does not answer this question.
As the New York Times
article states, these facts have been known for some time. The
draft complaint most
likely provides a rich source of detailed facts about
JPMorgan's conduct that have not
yet been made public. And those facts should be made public,
not only to aid private
litigants such as Pittsburgh FHLB in the pursuit of their
claims, but also to inform the
12
Page 15
public of the basis for the DOJ's settlement. The government
Page 26
has made it clear that it
supports transparency. A DOJ attorney explicitly stated to Mr.
Yealy that the DOJ
would not intervene here to prevent the production of the draft
complaint. Moreover,
just recently President Obama and Attorney General Holder
directed federal agencies to
apply a presumption of openness and not to withhold
information requested under the
Freedom Of Information Act. See
http: / webcache.googleusercontent.com/ search?q=cache:iB0
9kILb9UJ:www.foia.gov
/faq.html+&cd=6&h1=en&ct=c1nk&gl=us. In addition, it is
common for a federal
agency to disclose its draft complaint in connection with a
settlement or consent decree,
to allow the public to understand the basis for the settlement.
See e.g. Nielsen Holdings
N. V., a Corporation and Aribtron Inc., a Corporation;
Analysis of Agreement Containing
Consent Order To Aid Public Comment, a proceeding before
the Federal Trade
Commission. 78 FR 59690 (September 13, 2013).
21.
For public policy reasons, the draft complaint should be
produced
Page 27
without any confidentiality restrictions. It should be a public
document.
JPMor an has also not corn 'lied with the Court's order
22.
Finally, pursuant to this Court's October 17 order, JPMorgan
informed
Pittsburgh FHLB on October 24, 2013:
13
Page 16
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILT ER 8.r CIRESI L.L.P.
(
23. On the same date and in response to JPMorgan's
communication,
Pittsburgh FHLB responded:
As of this
writing, JPMorgan has not responded. JPMorgan is
substantially in non-compliance
with this portion of the Court's October 17 Order with respect
to
Conclusion
The draft complaint is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of
admissible evidence and public policy demands that the draft
complaint be produced,
without any confidentiality restriction. Accordingly, Pittsburgh
FHLB respectfully
Page 28
requests that this Court issue an order that compels JPMorgan
to act in compliance with
its October 17 Order regarding the DOJ's draft complaint and
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: trGUO-kbat 26? 201S
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue
Tel: (612) 349-8500
Fax: (612) 339-4181
14
Page 17
DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
Tel: (412) 261-2393
Fax: (412) 261-2110
Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
Page 29
15
Page 18
84379782.1
Plaintiff,
v.
Chase & Co., Moodys Corporation,
Moodys Investors Service, Inc., The
Inc.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Plaintiff,
v.
Chase & Co., Moodys Corporation,
Moodys Investors Service, Inc., and The
Page 30
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION Commerce and
No. GD-09-016892
CIVIL DIVISION Commerce and
No. GD-09-016893
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of December, upon consideration of
Plaintiff Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburghs Motion to Compel
Compliance with the Courts
October 17, 2013 Order, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that
Page 19
84379782.1
Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Securities,
Inc. shall comply with this
Courts ruling of October 17, 2013 by producing the draft
complaint by the Department
of Justice and the name of the confidential informant
referenced by the Department of
Justice no later than Monday, December 9, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Page 31
___________________, J
Page 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on WO V 24' ,2013, the undersigned
caused to be served
a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's
REDACTED Motion to Compel
Compliance with the Court's October 17, 2013 Order via
electronic mail on:
* Samuel W. Braver, Esq.
[email protected]
* Deborah A. Little, Esq.
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Corp., J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance
Corporation I, Chase Home
Finance L.L.C., Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation, and JP
Morgan Chase &
Co. in GD-09-16892 and GD-09-16893
A. Robert Pietrzak, Esq.
[email protected]
Dorothy J. Spenner, Esq.
[email protected]
Joseph Karim Aoun, Esq.
[email protected]
Page 32
Tom A. Paskowitz, Esq.
[email protected]
Kenneth B. Meyer, Esq.
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Corp., J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance
Corporation I, Chase Home
Finance L.L.C., Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation, and JP
Morgan Chase &
Co. in GD-09-16892
Robert F. Serb, Esq.
[email protected]
Jeremy Stamelman, Esq.
[email protected]
Lauren M. Sager, Esq.
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendants J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
in GD-09-16893
Mark A. Willard, Esq.
[email protected]
Joshua M. Rubins, Esq.
[email protected]
James J. Coster, Esq.
[email protected]
Page 33
James Regan, Esq.
[email protected]
Nathan Berkebile, Esq.
[email protected]
M. J. Williams, Esq.
[email protected]
Mario Aieta, Esq.
[email protected]
Jennifer P. McArdle, Esq.
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendants Moody's Corporation and Moody's
Investors Service,
Inc. in GD-09-16892, GD-09-16893
* Walter P. DeForest, Esq.
[email protected]
Floyd Abrams, Esq.
[email protected]
Susan Buckley, Esq.
[email protected]
Tammy L. Roy, Esq.
[email protected]
16
Page 21
Whitney Morgan Smith, Esq.
S. Penny Windle, Esq.
Etienne Barg-Townsend, Esq.
Page 34
Elizabeth Cusack, Esq.
David R. Owen, Esq.
Philip V. Tisne, Esq.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
in GD-09-16892, GD-09-16893
* Elizabeth Collura, Esq.
Martin Flumenbaum, Esq.
Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq.
Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, Esq.
Timothy J. Holland, Esq.
Christopher L. Filburn, Esq.
Erin E. White, Esq.
Luke X. Flynn-Fitzsimmons, Esq.
Donna Ioffredo, Esq.
Mark S. Silver, Esq.
Katherine H. Stella, Esq.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Page 35
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defendant Fitch, Inc.
in GD-09-16892
* indicates local counsel
dill,hte_-. tfifde/if
By:
84386031.1
17
Page 22
EXHIBIT A
Page 23
November 23, 2013
$13 Billion, Yes, but What Took So Long?
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
After weeks of pre-deal chatter about its $13 billion settlement
with JPMorgan Chase, the Justice
Department finally nailed it down last week. And for the first
time, the department provided a
Page 36
glimpse of the investigatory findings upon which the
settlement was based.
Without a doubt, Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general,
said in a statement, the conduct
uncovered in this investigation helped sow the seeds of the
mortgage meltdown.
Eager to see what the Justice investigation had found, I
consulted the statement of facts that
accompanied the settlement and that JPMorgan had to
acknowledge. There, I reckoned, would be
some juicy, new evidence of the banks mortgage misdeeds
uncovered by assiduous
investigators armed with subpoena power and other
government might.
Perusing the 11-page document, I quickly saw that Id
reckoned wrong. Much of it was the same-
old-same-old, a not-very-lively description of a corrupted Wall
Street mortgage factory, based
largely on some facts that have been in the public domain for
years.
In other words, although it took the Justice Department more
than five years to pursue a major
bank for its role in the mortgage mania, the investigation
seems to have unearthed material that,
by and large, could have been dug up with a spoon.
The facts here are all stuff we knew years ago, said Kurt
Page 37
Eggert, a professor at the Chapman
University law school who testified about mortgage woes
before the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission in 2010. So you have to ask, Why has it taken
so long to hold a bank accountable?
A good question. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department
did not return a phone call seeking
comment.
Of course, the government is to be commended for taking
action. Expectations had gotten so low
for the Justice Department that I cant help but be a little
pleased that theyve done something,
said Jeff Connaughton, author of The Payoff: Why Wall
Street Always Wins, who was chief of
staff to Ted Kaufman, a former Democratic senator from
Delaware. Yes, its thin and weak, but
its also the first time in five years they havent completely
rolled over.
Still, the meager set of facts cited by the government is
surprising. And when you compare the
Justice Departments statement with some of the meaty
lawsuits that have been filed against
banks by investors and some state securities regulators, its
thin gruel indeed.
Page 1 of 3
$13 Billion, Yes, but What Took So Long? - NYTimes.com
Page 38
11/25/2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/business/13-billion-from-
jpmorgan-chase-yes-but-w...
Page 24
The earlier suits, for example, are brimming with facts, figures
and telling accounts from former
bank insiders turned confidential witnesses. A case brought
against Morgan Stanley more than
three years ago by Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts
attorney general, was especially revelatory
and damning in its details. For example, when a mortgage
originator threatened to take its
business elsewhere after Morgan Stanley questioned the
quality of its loans, the bank quickly
capitulated and accepted the loans. Morgan Stanley paid $102
million to settle that one state
complaint in June 2010.
Among the many private lawsuits is one filed in January 2012
by Dexia, a European bank that lost
money on mortgage securities. That case, like the Justice
Department matter, was aimed at
JPMorgan as well as its Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual
units.
Reading the Dexia suit alongside the Justice Departments fact
statement is an interesting
exercise. For example, lawyers for Dexia cited 23 confidential
Page 39
witnesses in their complaint. By
contrast, the Justice Department cited one unnamed former
employee in its account.
Then theres the surprisingly narrow breadth of the securities
scrutinized by the Justice
Department. While the Dexia case reviewed 53 different
securitizations underwritten and sold by
JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and WaMu, the government
examined only 10. By the way, six of the 10
troubled mortgage pools cited by Justice also figured in the
Dexia case.
The 10 securities examined by the Justice Department totaled
$10.28 billion. That might sound
like a lot, but its a drop in the $325 billion flood of mortgage
securities packaged and sold by Bear
Stearns, WaMu and JPMorgan Chase from 2005 to 2007.
Among the few figures cited by the Justice Department were
those from due-diligence reports
provided to JPMorgan by outside firms examining mortgages
that were destined for
securitization. These reports were supposed to be a
quality-control mechanism so underwriters
could be assured that they were selling investors the kinds of
loans they expected. But in actuality,
banks often ignored the analyses.
In its statement of facts, the Justice Department highlighted
Page 40
one such report covering all of 2006
and the first half of 2007. It said the report showed that more
than 6,000 of the loans purchased
by JPMorgan in that period had not met the underwriting
standards promised to investors. Yet,
the department said, the bank accepted 3,238 of those loans for
use in its pools.
These are disturbing figures, but they arent new. Although the
Justice Department doesnt
identify where it got them, they appear to have come from a
report provided to the crisis inquiry
commission more than three years ago. The report has been
available on the Internet since then.
Page 2 of 3
11/25/2013
Page 25
The facts emerged at a commission hearing in Sacramento on
Sept. 23, 2010, in testimony by two
officials from Clayton Holdings, a major due-diligence firm.
D. Keith Johnson, a former president
of the firm, was one of them, and his presentation was
explosive.
Providing private data from a Clayton report, he showed how
Page 41
over a dozen institutions
disregarded the problems identified by the due-diligence firm.
The institutions accepted
thousands of loans that should have been rejected for use in
the securities sold to investors.
Its hard to analyze whether the $13 billion is a good deal for
the government or for JPMorgan.
Theres nothing wrong, of course, with the government
recycling well-known facts to drag a bank
that behaved badly to the negotiating table. Had the Justice
Department aggressively investigated
the banks practices using its full array of powers, who knows
how much more it could have
generated?
Byron S. Georgiou, a lawyer and former member of the crisis
commission who runs Georgiou
Enterprises, said he was glad the commissions findings
helped the Justice Department pursue
JPMorgan.
It is much better late than never that the Justice Department
has extracted from JPMorgan
Chase the largest financial penalty ever paid by any
private-sector entity to any government
anywhere in the world, Mr. Georgiou said. I look forward to
the conclusion of more such
prosecutions of the many other financial institutions that
Page 42
remain at large, and are just as
deserving to be held accountable to the American people for
their knowing, deliberate
deceptions.
Page 3 of 3
11/25/2013
Page 26
EXHIBIT B
Page 27
Filed under Seal:
Portions of this transcript are redacted
pursuant to Protective Order
Page 28
From:
Sntnnw. Domihv I.
To:
Fvms Ian* f
Cc:
-.:-..-
'
-
'.: .-
_
Page 43
Subject:
FMLB Pittsburgh v. If Morgan et al,Ca* No. GD-09-16S92
and FHLB Pittsburgh v. J? Morgan al, CaseNo.
GD-M-16S93
Date:
Thursday, October 24. 2013 12:46:12 PM
Jan:
Best regards,
Dorothy
Doiolhy J. Spenner
Sidlcy Austin LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York. NY 10019
Phone: (212) 839-7375
Fa*. (212)839-5599
([email protected]
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S.
Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any
penalties that may be imposed on such
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, ifany
such tax advice is used or referred
Page 44
to by other partiesin promoting, marketing or recommending
any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be
construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s)
or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based
on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
******x***************************************
****************
a*******************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information
that is privileged or confidential.
If you are notthe intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
and anyattachments and notify us
immediately.
Page 29
EXHIBIT C
Page 30
Filed under Seal:
Portions of this transcript are redacted
Page 31
1
2
Page 45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Janeen E. Ellsworth, RPR (412) 350-5414
1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Page 46
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-----
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
OF PITTSBURGH,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JPMORGAN SECURITIES
INC., JPMORGAN MORTGAGE
ACQUISITION CORP.,
JPMORGAN MORTGAGE
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
I, CHASE HOME FINANCE
LLC, JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., MOODY'S
CORPORATION, MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.,
THE MCGRAW-HILL
COMPANIES, INC., and
FITCH, INC.,
Defendants.
------------------
OF PITTSBURGH,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JPMORGAN SECURITIES
Page 47
INC., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., MOODY'S
AND THE MCGRAW-HILL
COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants.
------------------
CIVIL DIVISION
PROCEEDING:
MOTIONS &
STATUS CONFERENCE
DATE:
OCTOBER 17, 2013
------------------
GD NO. 2009-016892
------------------
GD NO. 2009-016893
-------------------
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
Page 48
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
OF PITTSBURGH,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
THE MCGRAW-HILL
Page 49
COMPANIES, INC., FITCH,
INC., MOODY'S
CORPORATION, and MOODY'S
Defendants.
------------------
OF PITTSBURGH,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES
CORPORATION, COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS, INC., CWALT,
INC., CWMBS, INC.,
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
THE McGRAW-HILL
COMPANIES, INC., and
FITCH, INC.,
Defendants.
GD NO. 2009-017818
------------------
GD NO. 2009-018482
-----
Page 50
BEFORE: HONORABLE R. STANTON WETTICK, JR.
-----
Reproduction of this transcript, in whole or in part, is
governed by the PA Rules of Judicial Administration and
applicable local rules, and shall not be employed for any
official capacity.
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Page 51
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff, FHLB:
Janet C. Evans, Esq.
Randall Tietjen, Esq.
Justin T. Romano, Esq.
William H. Manning, Esq.
Damien A. Riehl, Esq.
For Defendant, JPMorgan:
Dorothy J. Spenner, Esq.
Tom Paskowitz, Esq.
Jeremy Stamelman, Esq.
Deborah A. Little, Esq.
Samuel W. Braver, Esq.
For Defendant, Fitch:
Christopher L. Filburn, Esq.
Julia Mason Wood, Esq.
Elizabeth F. Collura, Esq.
For Defendant, McGraw-Hill: Tammy L. Roy, Esq.
Page 52
Jacqueline A. Koscelnik, Esq.
For Defendant, Moody's:
James Regan, Esq.
James J. Coster, Esq.
For Defendant, Countrywide: John J. Falvey, Jr., Esq.
Sharon L. Rusnak, Esq.
Aleksandra Sasha Williams, Esq.
-----
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page 53
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
P R O C E E D I N G
(12:24 p.m., Counsel present before the Court.)
- - -
THE COURT: I do believe I brought another
file, so I will be back, because we're not dealing
with whether silicon can cause cancer.
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Brief pause in proceedings.)
(12:28 p.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. We'll try again. Be
seated.
Now, we're starting with the rating
agency's motion, and there's some 10,000 documents;
is that right?
MS. WOOD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And they're all
Page 54
protected -- they're all SARs reports?
MS. WOOD: They're all -- they are on a
log that Plaintiff has prepared of all documents
that are subject to the bank examiner privilege.
THE COURT: Okay. That's what I meant.
Yes, I'm sorry.
MS. WOOD: Yes.
THE COURT: So the Plaintiffs want to take
the position that there's no cause shown for any
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Page 55
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
There are some letters rogatory, I think, both from
Countrywide and the rating agencies.
MS. ROY: Standard & Poor's, yes.
MS. EVANS: So if we could proceed, I'd
like to talk through the couple of motions to compel
that were on today.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. EVANS: Are you all right with that?
Okay.
This is the original that I am filing on
the motion to compel for receipt of documents
produced to the Department of Justice.
(Counsel and the Court exchange documents.)
This is against JPMorgan.
In August, Your Honor, of this year,
Page 56
JPMorgan announced that, in an SEC filing, that the
Department of Justice was conducting civil and
criminal investigations relating to its MBS matters
activities. Appended to that motion at Tab B is Page
204 of that disclosure, which discloses -- JPMorgan
discloses that there are parallel investigations.
This is up on the right-hand top.
THE COURT: Okay. And what's the
discovery issue?
MS. EVANS: What we would like is all of
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 57
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
the documents that were produced in connection with
the DOJ investigation. In September of this year,
the Department of Justice indicated that it was
ready to serve a complaint.
My understanding, from public
information -- whether it's accurate or not -- is
the complaint did go to JPMorgan. It's not public.
We don't have it.
JPMorgan entered into settlement
negotiations right away -- it's been in the
newspaper -- for about $11 billion, is the number
that was discussed. The last I know, only from
public statements or publicly available information,
is that Jamie Dimon was involved in the talks and
Page 58
they are stalled on some points.
THE COURT: Okay. So, what are you asking
for?
MS. EVANS: The documents that were
provided to the Department of Justice in connection
with the civil and criminal investigation into the
mortgage backed securities.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. EVANS: It's the same time frame, too,
Your Honor, and the allegations reported in the
press are the same.
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page 59
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
MR. PASKOWITZ: So, the motion here is
asking for documents produced to the Department of
Justice.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. PASKOWITZ: And there's no --
critically, what Ms. Evans has failed to do is
create any sort of connection between any of the
investigations that may or may not be going on and
this case.
But I think, to put the motion in context
that Your Honor's aware, we have been in front of
Your Honor, you know, several times in the last year
since Special Master Patricia Dodge made her
Page 60
findings that recommended to Your Honor that no
further electronic searches should be performed by
the JPMorgan Defendants.
THE COURT: No more what?
MR. PASKOWITZ: Electronic searches,
discovery searches should be performed by the
JPMorgan Defendants. Your Honor ordered that
recommendation.
THE COURT: Okay. But about these changed
circumstances?
MR. PASKOWITZ: I don't believe there are
any changed circumstances. I think that what's
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Page 61
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
happening here is, faced with that order and unable
to give any further discovery, given the position
that we are in discovery, discovery's been going on
since January of 2011. We're approaching the cutoff
for depositions in February of 2014. They have
taken our -- have noticed all but maybe one or two
of the depositions they're allowed to take of us.
We're sort of at the very end of discovery here.
What they're trying to do with these
motions -- and you can see from the agenda in front
of you -- they're going to be asking for documents
that were produced to the government, completely
Page 62
unrelated investigations. They're going to be
asking for documents from non-custodians produced in
litigations that have nothing to do with this, and
they may be asking for other things; I'm not sure.
But, just to finish my thought here, what
they're doing is essentially trying to, you know, do
an end-run. And, yes, Your Honor's order, which was
back from December that, you know, electronic
discovery of JPMorgan should be done, now we should
be moving towards depositions. We should be moving
towards the ends of this case.
MS. EVANS: Your Honor --
MR. PASKOWITZ: But I'm not even nearly
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Page 63
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
finished. If you want to let me continue -- sorry,
just want to make sure we don't talk over each other
for the court reporter's benefit.
So now they're requesting what may or may
not -- I don't think she has put it in any sort of
context on what actually she's asking for here.
She's attached to her motion an article from the
Wall Street Journal that references some kind of
investigations. She's attached a disclosure from
JPMorgan in an SEC filing that says that there's a
notice from the civil division, from the civil
Page 64
division of the DOJ, that there is some kind of
conclusion related to nonprime loans. And I think
you've probably come to understand the difference
between sort of the prime mortgage business and the
nonprime mortgage business, that there's a bit of a
difference.
The disclosure that she's attached to the
motion makes it very clear that the only finding
that's referenced anywhere relates to the nonprime
business that JPMorgan -- not the prime business
that's at issue in this case. There are five
offerings, all prime, so I think it's very
important.
Your Honor addressed this issue earlier in
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Page 65
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
the year, in the March order that related to S&P,
and there, you ordered S&P to produce documents that
had been produced to the DOJ because FHLB referenced
Your Honor to a complaint filed by the government
against S&P, an actual complaint that contained
hundreds of specific allegations that, to quote from
Your Honor, that were, quote, "very similar to the
allegations in the complaint filed in this
litigation."
And so Your Honor's finding was based on
Page 66
the fact that those allegations appeared to be
based, you know, on the very same documents that
FHLB sought, so there was a very specific nexus.
THE COURT: They're saying there's a
linkage that doesn't exist here.
MR. PASKOWITZ: It's completely lacking.
MS. EVANS: Not completely lacking, Your
Honor. Looking first to the Tab A in the Wall
Street Journal article, in particular, dated
September 30th, 2013, on the second page of that
article, half the way down, "The Justice Department
lawyers are emboldened by documents uncovered in the
course of their investigation that point to JPMorgan
knowingly pedalling mortgage backed securities whose
underlying loans were of lesser quality than pitched
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 67
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
to the investors, according to people familiar..."
That is precisely --
THE COURT: But isn't that --
MS. EVANS: That's precisely our
allegation.
MR. PASKOWITZ: Absolutely. And --
THE COURT: There's been no complaint; is
that right?
MR. PASKOWITZ: Yes.
Page 68
MS. EVANS: There is a complaint.
THE COURT: It hasn't been filed?
MS. EVANS: That's correct, because of the
settlement talks. We don't have the complaint.
MR. PASKOWITZ: Whether it has been or has
not been filed, I think, is completely up to
speculation up to this point. You could infer that
it's not been filed because there's no basis for it
to be filed.
MS. EVANS: I don't think that's what
they're talking about.
MR. PASKOWITZ: I don't think any of us
knows, which is the problem.
MS. EVANS: It goes on to say in the Wall
Street Journal article that, "...among the documents
is an e-mail from a bank employee warning her
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 69
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
superiors that they were vastly overstating the
quality of the mortgages being bundled into the
securities."
MR. PASKOWITZ: Again, hearsay.
MS. EVANS: Pardon me. I was kind enough
not to interrupt you. I appreciate the courtesy.
What we have developed in our case is
exactly -- this is exactly it. This is -- they are
Page 70
looking into the RMBS business, which means all
loans; prime, subprime.
THE COURT: So, what are you asking with
respect to the two people?
MS. EVANS: What we would like is the
documents that they produced pursuant to the
subpoenas from the Department of Justice. Now --
THE COURT: Well, what's that have to do
with two people?
MS. EVANS: That should -- if it does not
include the e-mail, then we do want the identity of
the individual who warned her supervisor that they
were vastly overstating the quality of the mortgages
they bundled into securities.
THE COURT: That you believe JPMorgan can
identify that employee?
MS. EVANS: Yeah, I do. This has been a
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 71
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
two-year investigation. It started out from the
Obama administration. We have known that there have
been these subpoenas, and now the Justice Department
has decided that it is doing both civil and criminal
investigation into its entire MBS activities.
That's JPMorgan's own disclosure. It's not just to
subprime or Alt A or different kinds of securities.
Page 72
Importantly, I don't know what Ms. Dailey
has to do -- Ms. Dailey. Our Special Master; not
Ms. Dailey.
MS. SPENNER: Ms. Dodge.
MS. EVANS: Dodge. She was deciding
whether they were using any more search terms. They
don't have to do anything. All they have had to do
is download the documents, whatever they were, that
they gave to the Department of Justice and deliver
them to us.
That's very similar to what S&P did. We
would simply agree, as we did in the S&P DOJ
documents, that we will treat them highly
confidential so you don't have to go through and
delay. We are getting towards the end. I am very
excited about that.
THE COURT: Now, there is a -- you believe
there's a draft of a complaint that JPMorgan has?
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Page 73
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
MS. EVANS: I do. All I can tell you is I
read it in publications.
MR. PASKOWITZ: That's our main problem
with this whole motion, is that what FHLB is
currently asking us is to vastly expand the record
in this case when we're a couple months away from
Page 74
the close of discovery, based on a newspaper
article.
THE COURT: Well, I think they could ask
you, if there is a draft of a complaint, to turn
that over.
MR. PASKOWITZ: Whether there is or is
not, I do not know.
THE COURT: If there is.
MR. PASKOWITZ: My concern, I would put on
the record, my concern there in the S&P context,
whether there was a filed complaint that the
government was willing to stand behind, I think you
have a very different situation than a draft
complaint that they may have turned over to JPMorgan
as part of a negotiation.
I think there's a very different factual
record there that exists and different implications
that can arise.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to, for the
Page 45
100
1
time being, let you get any drafts of a complaint
2
and the name of that employee, if they have it.
3
Page 75
MR. PASKOWITZ: I -- okay. I think we
4
have to sort of explore whether there's any issues
5
turning that over from the government. I don't know
6
if there are or are not. If a complaint has been
7
shared, whether there are any concerns from the
8
government's standpoint as to turning that over, I
9
just don't know sitting here today.
10
THE COURT: Well, you have the draft?
11
MR. PASKOWITZ: I do not know that we do.
12
MS. SPENNER: Says the Wall Street
13
Journal. I have no idea.
14
THE COURT: The claim is, you have the
15
draft.
16
Page 76
MR. PASKOWITZ: The --
17
MS. SPENNER: Their claim.
18
THE COURT: Okay. So that, to the extent
19
that you have it, you turn it over.
20
MS. SPENNER: I can --
21
MS. EVANS: And the name of the employee?
22
MS. SPENNER: I can tell you right now
23
that, because we have looked into this, that",
24
25
Janeen E. Ellsworth. RPR (412) 350-5414
Page 46
101
1
2
THE COURT: Well, you'll just answer it.
3
MS. SPENNER: Say that -- say exactly what
4
Page 77
I just said?
5
THE COURT: In your answer.
6
MR. PASKOWITZ: In our answer.
7
THE COURT: 'Tell us who the employee is
8
referred to in the Wall Street Journal.' sm.
9
10
MS. EVANS: May I request the information
11
in ten days, Your Honor?
12
MR. PASKOWITZ: The complaint, again,
13
because we'll have to explore this issue --
14
THE COURT: I'll give you twenty days.
15
MR. PASKOWITZ: Thank you.
16
MS. EVANS: Thank you, Your Honor.
17
The next motion, that is kind of a double
Page 78
18
motion, this is for William King's documents
19
produced in another piece of litigation, and that is
20
in the FHFA case against JPMorgan.
21
He is a named Defendant. His name is
22
William King. I do want to share with you and tell
23
you something of who he is.
24
(Indicating)
25
Here's -- here is an organizational chart
Janeen E. Ellsworth. RPR (412) 350-5414
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 79
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Janeen E. Ellsworth, RPR, do hereby certify that
the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in
the notes taken by me on the hearing of the herein
cause, and that this is a true and correct transcript
of the same.
________________________________
Page 80
Janeen E. Ellsworth, RPR
Official Court Reporter
________________________________
Date
The foregoing record of the proceedings upon
the hearing of the herein cause is hereby approved and
directed to be filed.
________________________________
Page 48
EXHIBIT D
Page 49
Filed under Seal:
Portions ofthis transcript are redacted
Page 50
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Fvar-^
lamt r
Pa^nwir?. Tom A : isiamHinangilwnndiinn.fRm: Minmn/i
WiIMm H : Ratrrtt Wi.fc
Kalhi-nn
RE: FHLB Pittsburgh v. JP Morgan et al. Case No.
Page 81
GD-09-16892 and FHLB Pittsburgh v. IP Morgan et al. Case
No. GD-09-16893
Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:36:20 PM
Dorothy
Thank you.
Regards, Jan
Janet C. Evans
Partner
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.
000 LaSallG Avenue | 2800 LaSalle Plaza | Minneapolis, MN
55402
Direct 612 349 8734 | Fax 612 339 4181
tcevfrPsigTkmc com Inywwrhmc.com
From: Spenner, Dorothy J. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:46 PM
To: Evans, Janet C.
Cc: Paskowitz, Tom A.; [email protected]
Subject: FHLB Pittsburghv. JP Morgan et al. Case No.
GD-09-16892 and FHLB Pittsburgh v. JP Morgan et al, Case
No.GD-09-16893
Jan:
Best regards,
Dorothy
Dorothy J. Spenner
SidleyAustinLLP
787 Seventh Avenue
Page 82
New York, NY 10019
Phone:(212)839-7375
Fax:(212)839-5599
iKl'ennei'.r-nllrvconi
^unm^wa
IRSCircular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certainU.S.
Treasury regulations, we inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax
advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot lo
used, byany taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties
that may be imposed on such
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, if any
such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketingor recommending
any partnership or other entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be
construed as written in connection
with the promotion or marketing byothers of the transaetion(s)
or matter(s) addressed in this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based
on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information
that is privilegedor confidential.
Page 83
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

Page 84

Redacted Motion To Compel and Redacted Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redacted Motion To Compel and Redacted Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPCFromClipboardUntitled

This is the html version of the file

You might also like