Você está na página 1de 6

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,


ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
______________________________________________/
This Document Relates To:
ATS ACTIONS
08-80465-CIV-MARRA
10-80652-CIV-MARRA
11-80404-CIV-MARRA
11-80405-CIV-MARRA
13-80146-CIV-MARRA
______________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT CHIQUITAS OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
In its Opposition to the Motion made by the "New Jersey" plaintiffs' counsel to
supplement their Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non
Conveniens, R. 1039, 1018, 741, Chiquita attaches the Fifth Amended Objections and
Responses of Terry Collingsworth to Chiquita's Special Set of Interrogatories, as Exhibit
A. R. 1039-2.
Before the filing of this discovery response yesterday, counsel for the undersigned
plaintiffs was unaware of how Mr. Collingsworth had responded to Chiquita's
interrogatories about witness payments in this case. Collingsworth's disclosures reveal
new information relevant to the Motion made by Mr. Simons and other "New Jersey"
counsel, for the Court to sanction me for having Colombian attorney Alex Alberto

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 2 of 6

Morales attend the deposition of Jesus Ignacio Roldan, R. 968, and to my Opposition and
Cross Motion for an Order to Supplement Production of "Crime-Fraud" Documents. R.
970, 971.1
In his Objections and Responses, Mr. Collingsworth discloses that he has had
discussions with numerous potential witnesses in this case about paying them. R. 1039-2.
According to Collingsworth, these witnesses asked Collingsworth for money, but
Collingsworth didn't pay them. However, as in the Drummond and Dole cases, it's more
likely to have been Collingsworth who proposed the bribes.
I.

Collingsworth's Dealings with Raul Hasbun.


Collingsworth portrays Raul Hasbun as repeatedly demanding money for his

cooperation, beginning with a demand for $200,000 US, id. at 11 and increasing over
time to $250,000. Id. at 12. According to Collingsworth, he had to pay an intermediary,
Jarley Maya Sanchez, various amounts of money in order to even meet with Hasbun. R.
1039-2 at 9.
I have met with Hasbun personally on three occasions, as described in my
Declaration, see R. 771 at 8-9. He has never asked me for money, and I have never had
to pay anyone for access to him.

Hasbun denied Collingsworth's allegations when

deposed in the Dole case, which was voluntarily withdrawn with prejudice after the Dole

Our only comment on the merits of the NJ motion is this. We agued that the majority of the "common
issue witnesses" are in the United States, and named most of them, see R 819 at 13 n 17, and that mass tort
cases are resolved through mechanisms like bellwhether trials. Id. Chiquita's plan to conduct 6,000 trials,
with an "unreasonably low" number of five witnesses per case, would be impossible anywhere. Mr. Evans'
analysis is interesting and his support is appreciated. However, it is of minimal probative value and should
have little impact on the various factors weighed. We already submitted the report Truth Behind Bars, as
Exhibit 3 to R 819, which shows that most of the important paramilitary commanders are imprisoned in the
United States. In addition, "document review" of Chiquita's corporate records would be done in English in
the United States. Finally, the fact that Mr. Roldan suggested in his deposition that we ask Raul Hasbun
about Chiquita's payments, rather than him, is hardly new evidence. We were left wondering why he was
called as a witness, and what he was expected to say.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 3 of 6

court's attention had turned to witness payments and spoliation of evidence. "Recently
the Court awarded Dole tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions for the plaintiffs and
their counsels 'misuse of the discovery process' and separately ordered discovery into
witness payment issues and a forensic investigation of plaintiffs counsels laptops and
other electronic devices. Rather than defend themselves against Doles claims that
plaintiffs counsel paid for fabricated testimony and engaged in other serious witness
tampering, plaintiffs and their counsel chose instead to abandon their false allegations
and dismiss the case with prejudice."2
Mr. Hasbun is clearly a fact witness in this case. According to an interview with
Semana Magazine, Hasbun is facing a 400 year sentence if he does not cooperate with the
prosecutors of the Comisin de Justicia y Paz, and is expected to be released sometime
this year.3 One of Collingsworth's frivolous legal defenses to witness bribery, in the Dole
case as well, has been to deputize fact witnesses as experts. "Quite simply, this almost
comedic response is an uncreditable and insufficient rebuttal designed to prevent the
application of the crime-fraud exception to certain categories of discovery sought in this
case." See Memorandum Opinion and Order of 12/7/15 in Drummond v. Collingsworth,
R. 417 in 11-cv-3695 (NDAL), at 2.
When Collingsworth asked another Dole witness, Adolfo Enrique Guevara
Cantillo, whether he had been paid or otherwise compensated for his testimony, Mr.
Guevara responded that he refused to meet with Collingsworth's partner, Ivan Otero
Mendoza, and stated that he had a text message on his blackberry stating that if he helped
2

Dole press release March 8, 2016, online at


http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160308006820/en/Case-Dole-FoodCompany%C2%A0Alleging-Paramilitary%C2%A0Payments-Colombia-Dismissed
3
See El hombre que fue el cerebro de la paraeconoma, Revista Semana, 3/31/2012, previously translated
into English and filed as Exhibit 10 to R. 819.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 4 of 6

Collingsworth in the case against Dole, Collingsworth would help him. See R. 50-2 in
15-cv-506 (NDAL), dated 2/1/2016, at 70-74. "He offered me money so that I could
involve or incriminate Dole in something that I cannot attest to or that I cannot prove and
notobdy -- and, in fact, nobody can prove. It cannot be proven. Because my commander,
Commander 40, never -- never -- had any type of meeting that dealt with matters
regarding his command with any front commander, and much less so with people of
lower ranks." Id. at 73. Throughout his Fifth Amended Objections and Responses, R.
1039-2, Collingsworth reiterates his plan to use the same witnesses against both Chiquita
and Dole. Id. at 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13.
II.

Collingsworth's dealings with Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo.


Similarly, Collingsworth claims that Jose Gregorio Mangones Lugo asked him for

money "on at least one occasion" in 2008, and again "in approximately 2013 or 2014" to
pay for his daughter's education. Id. at 12. The Court in Dole found Mangones to be
"inherently unreliable," and what little we know of the "script" of his testimony for this
case is obviously not true. I complained about the use Mr. Mangones to the other
plaintiffs' counsel via the google groups listserve, "chiquita-ats-all," shortly before I was
removed. I also complained to bar counsel in DC, NY and FL about Mr. Mangones at the
time. Collingsworth has even claimed that Dole was offering money to Mangones to
testify in their favor, in at least one email to this group, and to a reporter named William
Moore.
III.

Collingsworth's dealings with Jairo Alfonso Samper Cantillo and Edgar


Ariel Cordoba Trujillo.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 5 of 6

In addition to his discussions with Raul Emilio Hasbun Mendoza and Jose
Gregorio Mangones Lugo, Collingsworth now admits having similar discussions about
paying two other paramilitaries:
[A]t a meeting with the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs in Modelo prison in
Barranquilla, Colombia, sometime in February 2012, Jairo Alfonso Samper
Cantillo, alias "Lucho," inquired of the undersigned Plaintiffs' counsel whether it
was possible for Plaintiffs to provide him with $50,000 in financial assistance and
security if he testified about Chiquita and Dole's collaboration with him and other
members of the AUC.
Id. at 10.
Additionally, at a meeting with the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs in a prison
in Cartagena, Colombia, sometime in February 2012, Edgar Ariel Cordoba
Trujillo, alias "57," inquired of the undersigned Plaintiffs' counsel whether it was
possible for Plaintiffs to provide him with $50,000 in financial assistance and
security if he testified about Chiquita and Dole's collaboration with him and other
members of the AUC.
Id. at 11. I have never heard of either of these individuals before, but they fit the mold of
Collingsworth's multipurpose witnesses.
In light of the RICO conspiracy and modus operandi observed in the Drummond
and Dole cases, it is more likely that Collingsworth or one of his agents approached these
individuals, than vice versa. With the exception of Raul Hasbun - who is a real fact
witness in this case - the plaintiffs represented herein object to the use of these tainted
witnesses.
Conclusion
The full extent of the RICO conspiracy, as it applies to this case, is still unknown
to the Court and to all parties. Regardless of whether the Court considers the additional
evidence presented by Mr. Evans of George Washington University, it should find that
there is enough evidence in the public record to support the application of the crime-fraud

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1040 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/26/2016 Page 6 of 6

exception to the attorney work product doctrine. For this reason, the Court should order
Mr. Scarola to produce to the undersigned plaintiffs copies of whatever he produces to
Drummond.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
____________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar 42107
Counsel for Does 1-144
1-976, 1-677, 1-254, 1-88
PO Box 46213
Denver CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com

March 26, 2016

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 26th day of March, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant Chiquitas Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Leave to Supplement the Record with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which
will send notification of such filing to all persons entitled to receive such notices.

/s/ Paul Wolf


____________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107

Você também pode gostar