Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CRYSTAL AMAYA, BRAD CATES, BRIAN MOORE, AND KIM RONQUILLO, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 1:14-CV-00599-WJ-SMV SAM BREGMAN, MICHAEL CORWIN, JAMIE ESTRADA, ANISSA GALASSINI-FORD, JASON LOERA, and BRUCE WETHERBEE, Defendants, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PURSUANT T0 FED.R. C1V.P. 54(b) TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER DISMISSING ANISSA GALISSINE-FORD AS A DEFENDANT, TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL ORDER AS TO MS. FORD, AND TO REINSTATE AND REJOIN MS. FORD AS A PARTY DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE Pleintifls Crystal Amaya, Brad Cates, Brian Moore, and Kim Ronquillo, by and through {heir counsel, hereby submit their reply in support of Plaintfls’ motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 54) 0 reconsider the March 23, 2015 Order dismissing Anissa Galassini-Rord (Ms. Ford) asa defendant, to vacate the Order of dismissal, and to reinstate and rejoin Ms. Ford as a party defendant in this case, INTRODUCTION Ms, Ford's Response [ECF No. 431], similar to her Motion to Dismiss [ECF Nos, 66 and 70] and her responses toa subpoena [ECF No, 298, 301 and 361], largely ignores incriminatory texts aud emails she authored or received and attempts to deny and minimize her conduct and role in the disclosure, endeavor to disclose, use, and endeavor to use the stolen emails that included the Plaintiffs’ emails intercepted ftom the susana2010 domain, Evidence Plaintiffs are continuing to 1Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 15 ‘eceive from the Defendants, including Third and Fourth Amended Objections and Answers to Tnterrogatory No, 8 received April 13 and 15, 2016 from Mr. Estrada [ECF Nos. 432, 437, and Exhibits 1 and 2 hereto}, reveal that Ms, Ford had actual knowledge of Mr. Estrada's planned illegal conduct before he hijacked the domain and knew that Mr. Estrada had illegally taken control of the domain when she convinced him to diselose the stolen emails, including Plaintiffs? Stolen emails to other political opponents of Governor Martinez.! Furthe, it is now known that for a year after Mr. Estrada began to illegally sieal emails, he periodically shared the ftuits of his illegal conduct with Ms. Ford. The recent discovery responses by Mr. Estrada and the Post-lismissal information provided by Mr. Loera reveal that Ms. Ford's assertion that “Mr, strada hid the truth ofthe illegality of his interception from many, including Ms, Ford” [ECF No. 431 at 6) is false, Despite Ms. Ford's efforts to deny het unlawful conduct through a piecemeal eriticism of {he evidence developed after her dismissal, her own texts/emails and the totality ofthe evidence developed to date provides more than a sufficient basis forthe Court to conclude that Plaintists ‘more than adequately establish plausible claims against Ms, Ford for violation of the Blectronie Conununications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (CPA”), Additional information revealed by Mr, Fstrada after Plaintiffs fled their Rule 54(b) motion reinforeos the Plansibility of Plaintiffs claims agains! Ms. Ford for disclosing, endeavoring to disclose, using, or endeavoring to use the stolen emails, including the Plaintiff? stolen emails, To put it in terms derived from the eases cited by Ms. Ford, Plaintiffs’ new facts more than sufficiently “,,.nudge " Attached as Exhibit 3 is Mr, Fstrada’s Second Amended Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 8 served on February 17, 2016, A comparison of Hxhibit 3 with Exhibits 1 and 2 reveals the substantial and material evidence relating to Ms. Ford that Mr, Estrada withheld until April 2016. 2Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filled 04/27/16 Page 3 of 15 {their} claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Ms, Fords Response [ECF No. 431)at 4 (quoting Ridge at Redhawk, LLC v, Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir, 2007) (citing Bell Ad, Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 510 (2007)))?2 Ms. Ford’s Response does not defeat the Plaintiffs" arguments in support of reconsideration and vacation of the Order for dismissal, It is deficient in a number of respects, First, Ms. Ford fails to show that the post-dismissal information and documents provided by ‘fefendant Jason Loera and recently produced by Defendant Jamie Bsteada and Ms, Ford were available prior fo March 23, 2015. Second, Ms. Ford's arguments that there is no evidence that she possessed the requisite knowledge for violation of the ECPA is contradicted by the new facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the new facts, including Mr, Estrada’ Third and Fourth Amended Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 8 that he served on April 13 and 15, 2016. See Exhibits 1 and 2. Third, Ms. Ford too narrowly defines the seope of the conduct that can give rise to civil liability to exclude endeavor to use and endeavor to disclose Fourth, even if the scape of conduct that can give rise to civil ibility is as narrow as Ms. Ford asserts ie. Participation in the actual interception, use or disclosure), the new facts ancl reasonable inferences eee cece ° The Tenth Circuit has defined “plausibility” in a variety of ways, all emanating from Twombly and Ashcroft v. lgbal, 556 U.S, 662 (2009). See Chance v. Vandiver, 620 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (Oth Cit. 2015) (unpublished) (“An action fails to state a claim it the claim is not plausible. In ther words, the claim must contain enough facts that discovery might suggest an evidentiary basis {os the claim."); Lewis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 606 Fed. Appx. 896, $99 (10th Cir: 2015) (“A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff has pled “factual cont 356 USS. at 678)); Reed v, State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co., 324 Fed, Appx. 717, 719 (10th Cir, 2009) (“A claim is ‘plausible’ if the ‘[flactual allegations [are] enough to raise a right of relief above the speculative level.” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In the Court’s March 23, 2015 Opinion and Order dismissing the claims against Ms, Ford, the Court applied the “reasonable inference” definition of plausibility. See ECF No. 98 at 16-17- see also Brown vy. Montoya, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1294, 1297-98 (D.N.M. 2014) (same). Here, the new evidence obtained by Plaintiffs satisfies the plausibility requirement regardless of the definitional variation applied. 3Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 15 derived therefrom give rise to plausible claims based on her direct and active involvement in the Use and disclosure ofthe Plaintiffs” stolen private emails, Fifth, Ms, Ford attempts to spin critical evidence that supports the claim against her— Plaintiffs’ interpretation of those facts supports a plausible claim, Sixth, Ms. Ford simply ignores and makes no attempt to explain what appears to be false responses fo discovery based upon the new evidence produced by Me, Loera, which ‘warrants an adverse inference to be drawn against her? ARGUMENT 1 THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE NEW FACTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE, PRIOR TO MARCH 23, 2015, Contrary to Ms. Ford’s conclusory and superficial assertions, the evidence supporting the new facts was not available to Plaintiffs prior to March 23, 2015, Certain new facts have been disclosed for the first time within the past two weeks with Mr, Estrada’s service of his Amended Objections and Answers to Interrogatory No. 8. See Exhibits 1 and 2. ‘The communications between and among Defendants and Ms. Ford relating to her conduct in disclosing, endeavoring to disclose, using, and endeavoring to use the stolen emails, including Plaintiffs" stolen emails, was not a matter of public record, Although portions of Mr. Estrada’s illegal conduct was laid bare in filings in is criminal case, it appears, without explanation, that care was taken in those filings to not identify Ms. Ford or set forth the full extent of her conduct, ® Adverse inferences also may be drawn against Ms, Ford if, as she told Mr. Loota, she destroyed Sridence relating to her use, endeavor to use, disclosure, and endeavor to disclose, the Planes olen private emails. ‘Sec, e.g, Loera Declatation 4 19 [ECF No. 415-5] (“A few days after the FES raid on Mr, Estrada’s home in September 2012, Mr. Estrada and Ms, Ford asker cy meet me inBemalillo. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Estrada asked that we all ut our telephones Pui table and turn them off. “Mr. Estrada told us that he twice wiped his computer elegn, Mi, Ford told us that she buried her hard drives in her backyard. 1 told them that | Led wiped my SOL ae oueh Thad not"), Cf United States v. Harry, 927 B, Supp. 24 1185, 1236 (DMM. 2015) liscussion of spoliation elements necessary for adverse inference instruction, 4Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 15 ‘Asan example, in the papers filed concerning the Mr. Estrada’s sentencing, there are cryptic references to Mr. Estrada’s “confidant” but no identification of that “confidant” as Ms, Ford Other than the very limited communications between Mr, Fstrada and his “confidant” referenced in those papers, there was no reference to communications between Mr, Estrada’s “confidant” and ‘the other Defendants or the “confidant’s” role in the use and disclosure of the stolen emails, ‘The Court's Order of dismissal was March 23, 2015, ECF No. 98. Discovery in this case did not begin until July 2015, at which time Plaintiffs served discovery requests on Messt, Fstrada, Bregman, Corwin, and Wetherbee. [ECF Nos. 148 and 150] As evidenced by the filings inthe Court's docket, obtaining discovery from Defendants has been a tortuous process, But for Mr. Loera's decision to reject Mr. Bregman's counsel’s efforts to keep him from providing ‘0 Plaintiffs’ counsel information concerning his, the other Defendants’, and Ms. Ford's illegal concluct [ECE No. 415-5 423], and Mr. Estrada’s very recent amended answers to discovery that had been pending for eight months, Ms. Ford’s role in the the, disclosure and use of the stolen emails may have been defined only by the misleading characterizations in her motion to dismiss fand her false statements in response to a subpoena, See Argument § VI, infra: Other than Mr. Loera's October 28, 2015 Declaration [ECF No. 415-5] and documents that Plaintiffs were able to receive from Mr, Loera despite Mr. Bregman's efforts to stop him from providing that information, no real, meaningful discovery was obiained from the Defendants until after the ‘January 11, 2016 discovery hearing before Magistrate Judge Vidmar. Motions to compel are Pending against Defendants Corwin [ECF No. 435] and Wetherbee [ECF No. 438] and Plaintiffs are still awaiting documents from Defendant Bregman,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 15 twas not until Mr. Estrada served his Third and Fourth Amended Objections and Answers to Plains First Set of Intrrogatories in April 2016 that Mr. Estrada for the first time revealed communications with Ms. Ford thet support the previously stated reasonable inference that she ‘new in July 2011 that Mr. Estrada intended to and did illogally renew the susana2010 domain and ‘legally intercept emails sent o and from domain email addresses. See Argument § I, infia, ‘These new revelations, wen coupled with the new fact provided by Me, Loera that “in une [2012] [Ms. Ford] sent me the first damaging internal email that kicked off emailgate” [ECF No. 415-6 at 2] and that following that disclosure, Ms. Ford convinced Mr. Estrada to provide all of the stolen cmuils to Governor Martine’ political opponents [ECF No. 415-3 at PlaintiffsfromLoora 02680), ate more than sufficient to support this motion for reconsideration, H. MS. FORD'S ARGUMENTS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE POSSESSED THE REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE FOR VIOLATION OF THE ECPA 1S CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS AND REASONABLE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS. Relying on Thompson v. Dulaney, 970 F. 24 744 (10th Cit, 1992), Ms, Ford argues that to “establish civil liability, a plaintiff ...mmust demonstrate a greater degree of knowledge on the part of a defendant’ in that they must show that the defendant was aware thatthe information “used or * Although Me. Estrada has attempted to deflect attention from Ms. Ford and to minimize her role in the theft, disclosure, endeavor to disclose, use, and endeavor to use the stolen emails, information provided by Mr. Locra suggests that Mr, Estrada’s discovery responses do rot address the full extent of Ms. Ford’s conduct, “As an example, although Mr. Estrada appears to minimize Ms, Ford’s knowledge of how he took control of the domain, Mr, Loera stated in an email dated November 24, 2012, more than a year before this lawsuit was fled, that “[dJuting the meetings Anissa stated that the emails were from the Susan42010 domain whose registration had expired and was repurchased by Jamie Estrada with a fictitious name using a “throw away otedit card.” [ECE No. 415-6 at 2], Mr. Estrada may be minimizing Ms, Ford’s role because of Ms, Ford's and Mr. Corwin’s efforts (albeit unsuccessful) to obtain a commutation of his sentence, See, eg, Exhibit 4 (emails produced by Mr. Corwin on March 24, 2016) (redacted by Plaintsffs’ counsel to redact personal family medical information), 6Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 15 disclosed’ came from an intercepted communication, and... sufficient facts concerning the Cireumstances ofthe interception such thatthe defendant could... determine thatthe interception was prohibited.’” (ECF No. 431 at 4] (emphasis in original). Ms, Ford implicitly (fnot explicitly) denies that she knew thatthe emails were stolen [e.g. ECP No, 431 at 7 “Again, the Pisintffs assume that Ms, Ford knew the emails 1 have been stolen,”)]. Contrary to that denial, Mr. Estrada finally has now admitted that Ms. Ford was Mr. Bstrada’s confidant referenced in the United States’ Sentencing Memorandum. Further, Mr. Estrada's amended discovery responses, coupled with the information provided by Mr, Loera, establish that Ms. Ford knew “sufficient facts concemning the circumstances of the interception such that [she] could ... determine that the interception was prohibited.” Although the evidence now available to Plaintiffs stil limited by the difficultics in obtaining discovery ftom Defendants and Ms. Ford, the facts known to Ms. Ford ‘hat demonstrate she knew or had reason to know tha interception ofthe emails was illegal and Why she wanted (o talk to a “eyber erime attorney” before she “came out” concerning the stolen emails [ECF No. 415-3 at Plaintiffstroml.oera 02680], include: July 19-20, 2011 Ms, Ford and Mr, Estrada talk by telephone conceming the susana2010 domain. They discuss the fact that representatives of Governor Martinez’ administration are looking for the “GoDaddy Password fo the susana2010.com domain.” Exhibit at 6-72, During the calls between Ms. Ford and Mr. Estrada, Mr. Estrada tells Ms. Ford about the history of the domain. {dat 7-8. They also discuss issues they each had and have with Governor Martinez’ administration and use of the domain. id, at 8-9, On July 20, 2011, Mr. Estrada posted on his Facebook wall: “Beware the snakes who stab you in the back, and then call you out of thin air, all because they apparently want something from you.” Ms. Ford responded to Defendant Estrada’s post by writing on the wall: “Lack of knowledge and disorganization on their part, does not constitute an emergency on your ° The referenced page numbers are those at the bottom of the Exhibit page. 7Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 15 part.” FAC 34. Coupled With the new evidence, this post now corroborates the timing of Ms. Ford’s conversations with Mr, Estrada concerning the domain, including that Mr. Estrada intended to renew the domain using a fictitious name and “throw away credit card” at a time that representatives of Govemor Martinez’ administration were looking to renew the domain, In the following days in July 2011, Mr. Estrada “had a conversation with ‘Ms. Ford about the domain.” Exhibit 2 at 9. Mr. Estrada states that “{his] recollection is that I suggested to [Ms. Ford] that it might be funny if I renewed the domain since it appeared that the Martinez. campaign did not want it anymore.” Mr. Estrada states that “by reviving the domain, I presumed that I would Keep it out of the hands of Martinez. and McClesky, as well as gain insight into how they were using the domain. Around this time, Ford and I suspected wrongdoing in the Martinez administration, which had been fueled by information Ford received from a former staffer and political appointee. T knew I would not be able to retrieve any messages that people with susana2010.com accounts had already received, but I thought that if revived the domain, I might be able to receive messages sent to the susana2010.com email accounts after T revived the domain.” Exhibit 2 at 9-10, Although Mr. Estrada does not provide the full detail of his discussions with Ms. Ford prior to renewing the domain, it is reasonable to infer that Mz. Estrada discussed with Ms. Ford how he would “gain insight into how they were using the domain” by reviewing intercepted emails, Further, although Mr. Estrada states that he did not tell Ms. Ford in July 2011 the method that he used to acquire the domain [Fixhibit 2 at 10], he acknowledges that he did tel! her, but “[does] not remember when I told Ford how I revived the domain after it expired....”. Exhibit 2 at 14.© Mr, Loera stated that during his first meetings with Ms. Ford, Ms, Ford told him that “the emails were from the susana2010 domain whose registration had expired and was repurchased by Jamie Estrada with a fictitious name using a ‘throw away credit card” ~information that Ms. Ford only would have received from Mr. Fstrada [ECF No, 415-6 at 2], Mr. Estrada states that “[a}fter suecessfully reviving the domain, I sent an email to Ford from the susana2010,com email address that Susana ‘Martinez once used. Ford responded.” Exhibit 2 at 10. An unredacted copy of that email that reveals Ms. Ford as the recipient was produced by Mr. Estrada on April 20, 2016, Exhibit 5 (with April 20, 2016 dropbox “recollection” also appears to be stated in a manner that is less damaging to Ms. Ford than the facts otherwise suggest. 8Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 15 email from Mr. Estrada’s counsel's office), From July 2011 until June 2012, Ms, Ford and Mr. Estrada were the only Persons who knew that Mr. Estrada “had taken control over the susana2010.com domain.” Exhibit 2 at 10. From July 2011 through June 2012, Mr. Estrada and Ms. Ford periodically discussed intercepted emails. id. (“After I revived the email addresses, I only told Ford about particular emails when I chose to,”), Plaintiffs are not required to prove their claim against Ms, Ford at the pleading stage — Plaintiffs only need to set forth facts necessary to establish a plausible claim. The facts Plaintifis have developed following the dismissal of Ms. Ford more than undermine her denials and false discovery responses and more than plausibly establish that she knew or had reason to know that Mr. Bstrada had no lawful right to intercept emails from the susana2010 domain and send them to Ms. Ford and that she knew that the emails sent to her and that she disclosed and/or caused Mr. Estrada to disclose to Mr. Loera and Bregman were illegally intercepted. M1, MS. FORD TOO NARROWLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF POTENTIAL CIVIL, LIABILITY. Astecognized by the Defendants’ motion secking a judgment on the pleadings with respect ‘o Plaintifs’ claims that Defendants successfully endeavored to use and disclose the stolen emails inviolation ofthe BCPA [FCF No, 403] and Plaintiffs’ response [ECF No. 418}, both filed before Ms, Ford responded to Plaintfis” Rule 54(b) motion [ECF No. 431], Plaintiff" claims against Ms. Ford include claims that she, to, successfully endeavored to use and disclose the Plaintiffs" stolen Private emails. Based on the new evidence set forth inthe Plaintffs' Motion [EC No, 415] and herein, including the evidence relating 1o Ms, Ford’s knowledge of illegality addressed in Argument § Il, supra, Plaintifis have established a plausible elaim that Ms. Ford both sucessfully eneleavored to use and disclose the stolen emails in violation of the ECPA. For the reasons set 9Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 10 of 15 forth in Plaintiffs” Response to the Defendants’ “endeavor” motion [ECF No. 418], Plaintifis should be allowed to proceed with those direct claims against Ms. Ford, TV, EVEN If POTENTIAL LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO ACTUAL USE OR DISCLOSURE, THE NEW FACTS SUPPORT A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM, Ms. Ford characterizes the Plaintiffs’ new facts as follows: Plaintiffs’ “facts” do tell a story: a story about Jamie Estrada, sentenced to nearly a year in federal prison for stealing the emails at issue here; about Jason Locra, hired by Sam Bregman to research the emails; about various Political actors seeking to turn Mr, Estrada’s cache of stolen emails to their own benefit. They do not show that Ms. Ford violated the Act, ECE No. 413 at 13. Contrary to Ms. Ford's characterization and her claimed lack of involvement in the use and disclosure of any stolen emails, the new facts do show that Ms, Ford knowingly Violated the BCPA. Despite the effort by Defendants fo prevent Plaintiffs from discovering the fall extent of Defendants’ and Ms. Ford’s involvement in the use and disclosure of Plaintiffs? stolen private emails, Plaintifis have gathered sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against Ms, Ford. Itisteadily apparent that Plaintiffs’ emails were used and disclosed as a direct result of Ms. Ford’s conduct. The new facts are more than sufficient to lead the Court to conclude “that discovery might suggest [additional] evidentiary basis for the claim, See Chance, 620 Fed, Appx. at 679.7 ” Ms. Fordis critical ofthat fact that Plaintiffs have not yet taken Ms. Ford's deposition. EFCNo, 431 n1 at 14. Based on Ms. Ford’s false statements in response to a subpoena and the delay until April 2016 of Mr. Bstrada’s amended discovery responses, it appeats that Ms, Ford’s deposition prior fo Plaintiffs obtaining discovery from the other Defendants would have been less then productive. Plaintiffs will await full discovery responses from the Defendants before taking depositions. Ms. Ford’s failure to produce her documents which establish certain of her answers to discovery to be false provides a real-time lesson as to the need for the production of documents ‘from all Defendants and Ms, Ford before their depositions. Plaintiffs also will seck to ob ina copy of Ms. Ford’s Grand Jury testimony. Hir'g Tr.10:24-11:6, Feb, 26, 2016 [ECF No. 433]. 10Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 11 of 15 V. MS. FORD ATTEMPTS TO SPIN INTO INNOCENT CONDUCT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS A CLAIM AGAINST HER ~ PLAINTIRFS? INTERPRETATION OF THOSE FACTS SUPPORT A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM. Ms. Ford attempts to spin into innocent conduct evidence that supports a claim against her However, those facts support and establish a plausible claim. For example, Ms. Ford argues that her efforts to convince Mr. Estrada to disclose the stolen em: to Mr, Bregman and Mr, Loera show that “Mr. Loera was just using Ms, Ford to pressure Mr. Estrada into giving him the Password so he can get the emails himself.” ECF No, 43] at 14. However, the facts set forth in Mr. Loera's recounting of “emailgate” show that it was Ms, Ford who introduced Mr. Estrada and his eache of stolen emails to Messrs, Bregman andl Loera and “in June [2012] [Ms, Ford] sent [Me T-oera] the first damaging internal email that kicked off emailgate” [ECF No. 415-6 at 2]. Ms. Ford was not being “used” by Messrs. Bregman and Loera ~ fueled by a blinding hatred that is revealed through her texts produced by Mr. Loera, she was using the other Defendants to disclose and use the stolen emails to inflict as much harm to Governor Martinez as possible. See, eg, BCE No. 415-3 at [Plaintiffs from-oera06832] (Ms, Ford to Mr. Loeta [09/01/2012 10:52:45]: “we r going to ake this bitch down! I fucking HATE her.”), With knowledge that the emails were illegally stolen, Ms, Ford actively and directly violated the Plaintifiy’ privacy tights the ECPA was enacted to protect. * See, Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 48 (1 1972), "Ms. Ford attempis to deflet her statement of hatred for Governor Martinez and her pride in being, part of the political team that used and disclosed the stolen emails by arguing that her hetred for Governor Martinez only began in Soptembor 2012 and that the texts are unrelated to stolen emails find Governor Martinez. {BCE No. 431 at 9-10). However, Mr, Loera’s reference to “stretching ber spanks fo the limit” to which Ms. Ford responded “Iahakbal! So glad to have met guys! shows Ms, Ford’s familiarity with the stolen emails. The “spanks” reference refers to stolen confirmation emails generated from an obviously outdated online profile when the Governor Placed an undergarment order on the Spanx.com website. Mr, Corwin falsely told investigators {hut similar confirmation emails showed that Governor Martinez used the domain after mid 201], 1Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 12 of 15 VL. MS. FORD DOES NOT ADDRESS HER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY THAT ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY MR. LOERA, Absent from Ms. Ford's response is any effort to explain her responses to discovery that tre contradicted by the new evidence Mr. Loera produced. Subpoena Request No, 10 requested Ms. Ford to “[p}roduce any and all documents (texts, emails and voice mils) describing or concerning your efforts to convince Jamie Fstrada or others to disseminate stolen emails,” [ECF No, 298 at 6] In response, Ms. Ford stated: “Answer: Ms. Ford made no efforts to convince ‘Jamie Estrada or others to disseminate stolen emails and accordingly has no documents responsive to this request.” 1d. To the extent thatthe Court determines that this response vias false, the i Court should draw an adverse inference against her. See, e.g, Leonel & Noel Corp. v. Cent. Beer Imp. & Exp. Inc., 2012. US. Dist, LEXIS 10706, *10-11 (N.D. Il, Jan. 30, 2012) (“The Court reaffirms its decision to give an instruction that permitted, but did not require, the jury to draw an aadvorse inference from Gregory Skaggs’ false statement in response to discovery requests . ‘s see also, n.3, supra (Adverse inferences also may be drawn against Ms. Ford if, as she told Mr. Locta, she destroyed evidence relating to the Plaintiffs" stolen private emails.) CONCLUSION For the reasons and on the grounds set forth in Plaintiffs" Motion and hesein, Plaintifis? respectfully submit that their Rule $4(b) motion should be granted, the Order dismissing Ms, Ford 8a defendant should be vacated, and Ms, Ford should be reinstated as a defendant in this action, ‘See ECF No. 450-3. However, Mr. Corwin and Ms. Ford knew those statements to be false because the confirmation emails were sent after the domain was hijacked by Mr, Estrade, afer Mr Estrada took control ofall @susana2010 “dead email addresses,” and after Mr. Estrada received all “emails being sent to the dead email addresses.” See, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 2 at 10, Even assuming Ms. Ford’s assertions are somehow correct, these text messages support the conclusion Raat Ms. Tord was motivated by her hatred of Govemor Martinez to be indifferent to violating the BCPA with respect fo Plaintiffs" stolen private emails, 12Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 13 of 15 DATED: April 27, 2016 Respectfully Submitted: 4/ Mare D, Flink Mare D. Flink Baker & Hostetler Lup 1801 California St., Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202-2662 mflink@bakerlaw.com Angelo J. Artuso 1301 Bvelyn Ct. NE (87112-4629) P.O. Box $1763 Albuquerque, NM 87181 angelo.artuso@brytewerks.com Bric A, Packel Baker & Hostetler LLP Circa Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 epackel@bakerlaw.com Mark E. Braden Baker & Hostetler Lip Washington Square, Suite 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5304 mbraden@bakerlaw.com Theodore J. Kobus, IT Baker & Hostetler Lip 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor New York, NY 10111 tkobus@bakerlaw.com Patrick J. Rogers Patrick J. Rogers, LLC 20 First Plaza, Suite 725 Albuquerque, NM 87102 atrogers(@patrogerslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453. Filed 04/27/16 Page 14 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P, 54(b)TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER DISMISSING ANISSA GALISSIN-FORD AS A DEFENDANT [FCF No. 98], TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL ORDER AS TO MS. FORD, AND TO REINSTATE AND REJOIN MS FORD AS A PARTY DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE was filed and served through the Cou’s electronic filing system this 27 day of April, 2016 to: Jerry Todd Wertheim Samuel C. Wolf Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Clifford, PA. Post Office Box 2228 Santa Fe, NM 87504-2228 todd@thejonesfirm.com sam@thejonesfirra.com Attorneys for Anissa Ford Bruce Wetherbee 329 Rosario Hill Santa Fe, NM 87501 Jocationsmanager@gmail.com Pro Se Defendant Carolyn M. “Cammie” Nichols Brendan K. Egan Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP 500 4th Street NW, Suite 400 Albuquerque, NM 87102 cmnichols@rothsteinlaw.com bkegan@rothsteinlaw.com Kristina Martinez Coberly & Martinez LLLP 1322 Paseo de Peralta Santa Fe, NM 87501 kristina@coberlymartinez.com Attorneys for Defendant Michael Corwin 14Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453 Filed 04/27/16 Page 15 of 15 Gerald G. Dixon Steven 8. Scholl James C. Wilkey DIXON+SCHOLL+CARRILLO«P., P.O. Box 94147 Albuquerque, N.M, 87199-4147 jdixon@dse-law.com sscholl@dse-law.com jwilkey(@dse-lav.com Attorneys for Defendant Sam Bregman Zachary A. Ives Emily Molly Schmidt-Nowara Matthew L. Garcia Garcia Ives Nowara 924 Second Strect, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87102 zach@ginlawfiem.com molly@ginlawfirm.com matt@ginlawfirm,com Attorneys for Defendant Jamie Estrada 4s Mare D. Flink isCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 11 From: Vanesso Kennedy Sent: ‘Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:24 PM To: Flink, Mare Ce: Maggie Lang; Steve Scholl: Zach Ives; Kristina Martinez; Cammie M. Nichols; Kristina Martinez; molly@ginlawtirn.com; James C, Wilkey; Angelo Artiso; Pops; Jerry Dixon; Packel, Erle; Kobus, Theodore J; Braclen, E. Mark; patrogers@patrogerslaw.com Subject: ‘Amaya, etal v. Bregman, et al, No, :14-CV-00599 Wi/SMV Attachments: Def Estracia's Third Amencled Objections and Answers to Pleintifs First Interrogatories pat; Def Estracia's Third Amended Objections and Responses to Plalntffs! First RFPs,pcf eat Couset: Atte please fi Defendant Jamie Hsieda’s ‘hind Atnended Objection Defundnnt Jamie Estrada's Third Amended Objeotions enc Answers lo Paint production willbe sent fo you inomentrly Responses to Plants’ Pit Set of Requests for Production and Bist Sot of Intrrogatories. A Dropbox link eantaining the Th you, Vanessn 8. Kennedy Legal Assistant Garaia Ives Novara 924 Second Street NW, Suite A “Albaquergis, NM 87102 ‘Phone: (505) 899.1030 Fax: (505) 899.1051 assistant@ginlawfirm.com www.ginlawfirm.com "Please note our new physical and mailing address, Email addresses, phone and fax numbers remain the same.* ‘This: message and any attached documents are intended only for'the use of the addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If: ‘you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. Ifyou have received this commmication in ertor, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify me immediately. Exhibit 4Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CRYSTAL AMAYA, BRAD CATES, BRIAN MOORE, AND KIM RONQUILLO, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 1:14-CV-00559-W3-SMV SAM BREGMAN, MICHAEL CORWIN, JAMIE ESTRADA, ANISSA GALASSINI- FORD, JASON LOERA, and BRUCE WETHERBEE, Defendants. DEFENDANT JAMIL ESTRADAS THIRD AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS? FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES ‘Jamie Estrada, by and through his counsel of recon! Garoia Ives Nowara (Zachary A. Ives, and Molly Schmidt-Nowara) hereby provide Mr. Esttada’s third amended answors and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Estrada, INTERROGATORIES 1, For the period fiom July 1, 2011 to the present, identify each telephone number or orher identifying name or number you used to send or receive text messages to oF fiom any person, including without limitation any of the Defendants, ANSWER: 575-386-9654 2 For the period from July 1, 2011 to the present, identify each email address you ‘sed to send or receive emails to or from say person, including without limitation any of the Defendants.Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 11 8. Mdentify any and all persons with whom you have hadi Communications relating to the @susana2010.com domain and/or any emails sent to or from a @susana2010.com email address, and as to each person identified, identify each Communication with that person, inoluding but not limited to Communications as to how the emails were acquired and any plans ‘to acquire and disseminate the emails, ANSWER: Mr. Estrada objects to this request as overly broad and not soasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, This extremely broad request—for ‘commmunication “related fo” the @susane2010.com domain as well as any omails sent to or from. aan @susana2010.com acldress—is not limited in any manner. There is no meaningfal limitation ‘on the subject matter of the communications, no limitation on the time. ‘frame, and no limitation on the identities of the persons who were parties to the communications. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr. Estrada incorporates by reference his answer fo Interrogatories 7 aud 16 and, in addition, states as follows On.July 19, 2011 at 1:10 pm, I received a text me sage from Matt Kennicott: “Hey Jamie, Long time 110 chat, What's happening?” On July 19, 2011 at 1:16 pm, I revived a phone call from Jay McCleskey. I did not ‘answer the call and he lef the following voice mail: "Hey Jamie. Jay MoCleskey. Can you give me a call when you get a chance? 505-280-1287" On July 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm, I received a text message from Jay McCloskey: “Jamie ~ u there?” I did not respond McCleskey’s text message and I did not return his phone call, After receiving these messages ftom Kennicott and MeCleskey, I called Anissa Ford to discuss, I mentioned to her that Teould:not figure out why they would be trying to corttact me at nce I had not been in contact with them for several months. that timeCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 11 Bither the evening of July 19, 2011, or sometime on July 20, 2011, Ford called to tell me that Adam Deguire had called her to tet her know that he lad received a call from McCleskey. Ford told me that Deguire had told her that McCleskey wanted to know if Deguire had the GoDaddy password to the susane2010.com domain, Deguire told Ford that he did not have it. I thn concluded that they wanted the same information ftom me, but that for some reason they ‘were not willing to leave me a specific message about it, Jn this conversation with Ford, I told her about my history with the domain. Specifically, I told her that David Hiss, an employeo of the Third Judicial District Attomey’s office under then-District Attomey Susana Martinez, had purchased this domain and had emeiled me the GoDacldy login credentials and receipt when T was serving as the interim Martinez: campaign ‘manager. 1 explained to Ford that Mavtinez. was using her staff at the Disitiot Attorney's office for political purposes and that the message I received from Hiss with this information came from his state government email address, 1 then told Ford that in August 2009, while I was working as the campaign manager for Martinez for Governor, I decided to make use of the domain for strictly email purposes. I had provided the login credentials to Scott Moris fiom Yumasol, a political IT company that we Were using for various campaign infizstructure purposes, so that he could set up the campaign ‘mail server. I told Ford that I had presumed, in August 2009, that in doing this Yumasol had taken complete control over the domain, just as I believed they had done with two other ‘campaign domains, susanamartinez2010,com and susanamartinez.com. 1 fold Ford about how days after I left the campaign in December 2009, I received a note from Mark Mills with Yumasol to let me know that a person named Jameson Mott had contactedCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 11 hhim about the domain, Mott was an employee of the Third Judicial Distict Attomey's office ‘under then-District Attomey Susana Martinez and hed vitten to Mills via his state government ‘email address, had responded to Mills that 1 wes no longer on the campaign. I told Ford about this because it was another example of misuse of govemment resources that 1 had encountered epeatedly throughout my time on the Susana Martinez, for Governor campaign, something Ford, too, ad encountered while working on the campaign, J then told Ford about how in June 2010—six months after I had left the Martinez campaign—I received an email from Deguire asking me about the domain credentials because some sort of server failure had occurred, Apparently Scott Mortis from Yumasol had not retained the domain login credentials that I had provided him several months earlier, and they needed them from me again, [told Ford about how, in 2010, I had forwarded to Deguite, Kennicolt, and Monts the original email from David Hiss with the login credentials. 1 told Ford that I had warned Deguite and Kennicott in both email and in phone conversations to make sure that the domain is kept current and that I did not know when the registration expired. Ford told me that she recalled an incident atound May 2010 when DA-cmployce Hiss ‘mot with Martinez and Ford in Mattinez’s district attomey office ia Las Cruces and described to them how the campaign email system worked and how it was connected to the District Altomey’s office. According to Ford, Hiss even produced a flow chart as a visual aid, She wos surprised to hear this information fiom Hiss, as he was a state govemment employee and not in ‘any way associated with the campaign. Ford also mentioned how during the gubematorial ‘campaign, when Martinez and Ford wete in Martinez’s office at the District Attorney's in Las ‘Cruces, Hiss would take possession of their campaign BlackBerries and connect them via a cable to his laptop in order to maintain them,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1. Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 11 In this conversation with Ford, I told her that I was shocked that Yumasol had apparently still not taken contro! over the domain and that Kennicott, who had been the director of ‘campaign operations for the Mavtinez campaign in 2010 had not retained the information I hed given him in June 2010. On the morning of July 20, 2011, when I attived at my office at DW Tumer, I found a handwritten message on my desk from our receptionist, letting me know that Keanicott called ny office on the previous day and had asked that I return his call, (On July 20, 2011, Tresponded to Kennicott’s text message: “Clearly you want something, or else you wouldn't be writing, Was out of town/office yesterday.” Afer not receiving a response from Kennicott, ater on July 20, 2011, I posted the following on my Facebook wall: “Boware the snakes who stab you in the back, and then call you out of thin air, all becanse they apparently want something from you.” I posted this because 1 wanted there to be a chance for Kennicott to see that I was not happy to be receiving, messages rom him when we had not spoken in months, Jn the days thet followed and after not receiving any further messages from MoCleskey or his associates, [ had a conversation with Ford about the domain. My recollection is that 1 suggested to her that it might be funny if I renewed the domain since it appoared that the Martinez campaign did not want it anymore. By reviving the domain, I presumed that 1 would keep it out of the hands of Martinez and MeCleskey, as well as gain insight into how they were using the domain, Around this time, Ford and I suspected wrongdoing in the Martinez administration, which had been fueled by information Ford received from a former staffer and Martinez political appointee. I knew I would not be able to retriove any messages that people with susan2010.com accounts hed alreadyCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 11 received, but T thought that if I revived the domain, I might be able to receive messages sent to the susana2010.com email accounts after J revived the domain, On July 29, 2011, ten days after the initial overtures by MoCleskey and Kemicott and nine days after Lresponded to Kennicott but did not receive any reply, J told Ford that I intended t0 revive the dead domain. I did not provide her with any detail about my methods. I never gave her the GoDaddy login and password information. She never had any control over the domain, Not did she have any role in’purchasing the dornain or setting up the inftastructure that I created {n the hopes of receiving emails being sent to the dend email addresses. After I revived tha email addresses, I only told Ford about partionlar emails when 1 chose to, ‘After successfully reviving the domain, 1 sent on email to Ford from the susana2010.com ‘email address that Susana Martinez once used, Ford sesponded, That email exchange is available to the public as an exhibit to the government's sentencing memorandtun in my ctiminal case, Ford was the only person who knew that I had taken control over the susana2010,com, domain until June 2012, when I hnd cletided fo fell Juson Loera about the emails, When [first told Loom on.Juure 5, 2012, that I was in possession of emails that showed ‘unethical or illegal activity, Ici. not go info specifics about how I obtained tho emails, On June 13, 2012, Pat Rogers contacted nie by plione and then came to my office to confront me abont the PED email ancl the susans2010.com domain, 1 recotded part of our conversation, T then met with Ford andl Loera to tll them about my conversation with Rogers, I played back my recording for both of them. On June 13 or June 14, 2012, I discussed with Ford what I shoutdl clo with the rest of the emails, | told her thal perhaps I should give the rest of them to Loom so that I would he fiee of 10Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 11 them, On June 15, 2012, I gave Loera full access to the emails and told him that I had ronewed the susana2010,com domain after it expited. I had not told him this before June 15, 2012. I do not recall going into any specific detail about how or when I renewed the domain, During the summer of 2012, when Loera was disseminating the emails to various press Cutlets, 1 was not made aware of Loera’s plans or methods before the emails were disseminated. 1 was not aware of Loera’s use of an alias to commmunicate with others, I was not aware of what ‘emails were being disseminated and to whom: they were being disseminated. I learned of the disclosure of the emails only after seeing news reports about the controversial emails, Between Jue 2012 and September 2012, 1 had several phone and in-person conversations with Ford regarding the dissemination of emails by Loera, Usually these conversations occurred after the emails were disclosed in press stories on subjects such as the Downs at Albuquerque, Governor Martinez’s executive order for state employees to use only official email for state business, and various controversies surrounding Pat Rogers (ineluding his resignations from NM Foundation for Open Government and the Moctall fim). Based on what I recall from those conversations, I do not believe that Ford had any knowledge about how Loera \was disseminating emails to his contacts, (On oF around September 15, 2012, Loera called me on the phone asking foe input on how hho might be able to compare the susana2010.com situation with a developing news slory out of Puctto Rico, where the fomer govemor of the territory, Luis Fortuno, had lost contol of his web domain beeause someone hid failed to renew it and someone hd purchased it at auction, Duting this phone conversation, I still did not disclose to Loeta exeetly how I renewed the domain, AIL recall telling him was that it was not an exact comparison and that he should be cautious, 14Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 11 Afler the FBI raided my home and my father’s home on September 19, 2012, I disclosed to certain family members my rok in reviving the susana2010.com domain and thus receiving. ‘emnails being sont to dead email addresses associated with the domain, These family members were Kristina Estrada (spouse), Emest Bstradn (father), Dennis Estrada (brother), Olivia LaPorta (Gister), and Erlinda Moreno (mother-in-law). Sometime shortly after the reid, T believe 1 did disclose my role with Rocky Galassini, I did not tell any of the people listed in this paragraph about the methods I used to revive the domain and receive the emails, On September 19, 2012, Sam Bregman told me it would be a conflict of interest for him to represent me in any matter relating to the emails from the @susana2010,com domain, ‘On September 19, 2012, I met with Locra and Ford at the Dion's Restaurant in Bernalillo, New Mexico, During this meeting, I relayed to them what bad happened that morning at my hhome, At this meeting, I do not recall discussing any cletails about how I revived the domain, 1 kept my identity as the person behind the revival of the susana2010.com domain a closely guarded secret until sometime in April of 2013, whon T leamed that I would probably be indicted for intercepting the emails. Duting the month of April I told certain people of my role in reviving the domain and receiving emails sent to susana2010.com addresses. To the best of my recollection, the people were: Carri Phillis, Janice Amold-Jones, Allen Weh, Heather Wilson, Marta Kramer, Alonzo Baldonado, and Kelly Fajardo, all of whom were close political colleagues of mine, I wanted to give them the courtesy of hearing the bed news of my expected {indictment from me rather than being shocked by hearing of it some other way. ‘On May 30, 2013, the day I was indicted, | informed Doug 'Tumer of my role in reviving, the domain and thus receiving emails being sent to those dead email addresses, Other than the conversttions described above, I do not recall having any discussions with 12Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 10 of 11 Loera about how exactly I had revived the domain after it expired. Specifically, I do not recall ‘ever telling him when exactly J revived the domain and the methods I used to do so. Ido not remember when I told Ford how I rovived the domain after it expited, but I believe I told her at some point after the emails began to be released publicly, Jn my answer to this interrogatory and in the statements and documents I have provided in response to other discovery requests, I have disclosed all communications that I can recalt (other than communications with my lawyers) about how I intercepted the susana2010.com emails, how those emails were disseminated, my motives for intercepting emails and teking part in their dissemination, the motives of others who were involved in the dissemination of those ‘emails, and any plans for intercepting and disseminating those emails. 9. State the date(s) and location(s) and identify any and all persons in attendance at any and sli gathering(s) or meeting(s) at which you were present and there were Communications relating to the @susana2010.com domain and/or emails sent o of fiom a @susans2010.com email address, ANSWER: Mr, Estrada objects to this yequest as overly broad and not reasonably calonlated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ‘The term “related to” is extremely brond and encompasses gatherings/meetings that have no bearing on any issue in this litigation, Plaintiffs do not limit the subject matter in any meaningful way, do not limit the time frame in any manner, and do not limit identities of the attendees. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr. Estrada incorporates by reference ‘answer to Interrogatories 7, 8, and 16 and, in addition, states as follows, 1 cannot recall any Specific mectings or gatherings other than the ones I have described in my responses to other discovery requests. um not withholding any information pursuant {o my objections above, 13Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 11 of 11 this interrogetory consistent with his obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's protrial disclosure requirements, 15, Identify all documents concerning the defenses and affirmative defenses stated in ‘your answer fo the amended complaint. ANSWER: Mr. Estrada objects to this request as overly broad, premature, and unclear, ‘The term “concerning” is extremely broad, and its meaning is unclear in the context of loge defenses, Discovery and investigation are ongoing, and Mr, Estrada has ‘not identified all responsive documents, In addition, pursuant to Mr. Fstrada’s agreement with the goverment Tegarding the use of discovery materials in the criminal case, some responsive documents are in the possession, custody, or control of the government, and Mr. Estrada is unable to identify them, Respectfully submitted, Js! Zachary A, Ives Zachary A, Ives zach@ginlawfirm.com ‘Molly Schmidt-Nowara molly@ginlawfirm.com GARCIA IVES NOWARA 924 Second Street NW, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87102 505.899.1030 16Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 12 Attachments: estrada - 4.15.26 fourth amencled answors and objections to plai interrogatories pdf ffs frst From: Zach Ives [mallto:zach@gintawflrm,com) Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:15 PM To} James C, Wilkey; Flink, Marc; Bruce Wetherbee: (locationsmanager@gmail.com); Jerry Dixon; Steve Scholl; Iuistina@coberlymartinez,cony; Cammie Nichols (cmhichak aw.com); molly@ginawimn.com Cc 'patrogers@patrogerslaw.com'; ‘angelo.artuso@brytewerks.com'; Vanessa Kennedy Subject; Estrada's Fourth Amended ‘Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories Dear Counsel: Jn tesponte to-axequest plaintiff counsel made yesterday, Mr Hsteaa Jintenrogatories. I have attached the amended anavwers, in amending his answers to plantfis Gast set of ‘Thank you, Zach Zachary A. Ives GARCIA IVES NOWARA, zech@pinlawfimcom ‘924 Second Street NW, Satte A ‘Albuquerque, NM 87102 508:899.1020 wiesnginlavfiem.com, = Please note cur new adletvess, [REMAINDER OF EMAIL STRAND RELATING TO BRIEFING ISSUES REDACTED) Exhibit 2Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CRYSTAL AMAYA, BRAD CATES, BRIAN, MOORE, AND KIM RONQUILLO, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No, 1:14-CV-00559-WJ-SMV SAM BREGMAN, MICHAEL CORWIN, JAMIE ESTRADA, ANISSA GALASSINI- FORD, JASON LOBRA, and BRUCE WETHERBEE, Defendants. DEFENDANT JAMIE ESTRADA’S FOURTH AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND. ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS! FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Jamie Estrada, by and through his counsel of record Garcia Ives Nowara (Zachary A, Ives, and Molly Schmidt-Nowara) hereby provide Mr. Estrada's third amended answers and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Sot of Interrogatories to Defendant Estrada, INTERROGATORIES 1. For the period from July 1, 2011 to the present, identify each telephone number or other identifying name or number you used to send or receive text messages to or from any person, including without limitation any of the Defendants. ANSWER: 575-386-9654 2. For the period from July 1, 2011 to the present, identify each email address you used to send or receive cmails to or from any person, inchuding without limitation any of the Defendants.Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 12 8. [entify any snd all persons with whom you have had Communications relating to the @susana2010.com. domain and/or any emails sent to or from a @susene2010,com email address, and as to each person identified, identify each Communication with that person, jucluding but not limited to Communications as to how the emails were acquited and any plans to acquire and lisseminate the emails, ANSWER: Mr. Estrada objeots to this request as overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lend to the discovery of admissible evidence, ‘This extremely brond request—for cominunication “related! to” the @suse2010.com domain as well as any emails sent to or from ‘an @susana2010,com advess—is not limited in any manner, There is no menting limitation on the subject matter of the communigntions, no limitation on the time frame, and no limitation ‘on the identities ofthe persons who were partes to the communications, Subject to and without waiving these objections, Me, Estrada incorporates by reference his answer to Intemogatories 7 and 16 and, in cition, sites a8 follows, On July 19, 2011 at 1:10 pm, Treceived a text “message from Matt Kennicott: “Hey Jamie, Long time no chat, What's happening?” On July 19, 2011 at 1:16 pm, I recoived » phone call from Jay MeCleskey. I did not answer the call and he lof the following voics mail: "Hey Jamie, Jay MeCleskey. Can you give ane a call when you yet a chance? 505-280-1287" On July 19, 2011 at 1:18 pm, I received text message flom Jy MoCleskey: “Jamie ~u there?" I did not respond MeCeskey’s text message and I did not return his phone call, Afer recviving these messages from Kenhicott and McCleskey, I called Anisse Ford to discuss. 1 mentioned to her that could not figure out why they would be trying to contact me at that time since I hdl not been in contact with them for several months,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 12 Either the evening of July 19, 2011, or sometime on July 20, 2011, Ford called to tell me that Adam Deguire had called her to let her know that he had received a call from MeCleskey, Ford told me that Deguire hed fold her that MeCleskey wanted to know if Deguire had the GoDaddy password to the susana2010,com domain, Deguire told Ford that he did not have it. 1 then concluded that they wanted the same infomation from me, but that for some reason they ‘were not willing f0 leave me a specific message about it, In this conversation with Ford, I told her about my history with the don Specifically, 1 told her that David Hiss, an employee of the Third Judicial District Attomey’s office under then-Distriet Attorney Susana Martinez, had purchased this domain and had emailed me the GoDaddy login oredentials and receipt when I wes serving as the interim Martinez campaign manager. 1 explained to Ford that Martinez was using her staff at the District Attomey’s office for political purposes and that the message I received from Hiss with this information came from his state government email address, T then told Ford that in August 2009, while I was working as the campaign manager for Martinez for Governor, I decided to make use of the domain for strictly email purposes, I had provided! the login oredentials to Scott Morris from Yumasol, a political TT company that we \Wore using for various campaign infrastructure purposes, s0 that he could set up the campaign ‘email server. | fold Ford that I had presumed, in August 2009, that in doing this Yumasol had taken complete control over the domain, just as I believed they had done with two other campaign domains, susanamartinez2010.com and susanamartinez.com, T told Ford about how days after I left the campaign in December 2009, I received a note from Mark Mills with Yumasol to let me know that a person named Jameson Mott had contactedCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 12 him about the domain. Mott was an employee of the Third Judicial Distict Attomey’s office under then-Distriot Atfomey Susana Martinez and had writfen to Mills via his state government email address, I had responded to Mills that I was no longer on the campaign. I told Ford about this because it was another example of misuse of government resources that I had encountered repeatedly throughout my time on the Susana Mattinez for Governor campaign, something Ford, too, had encountered while working on the campaign T then told Ford about how in June 2010—six months after I had left the Martinez ‘camprign—I received an email from Deguite asking me about the domain credentials because some sort of server failure had occurred, Apparently Scott Monts from Yumasol had not retained the domain login creder als that I had provided him several months eatties, and they needed ‘them from mé again, I told Ford about how, in 2010, 1 had forwarded to Deguire, Kennicott, and Mortis the original email from David Hiss with the login credentials. 1 told Ford that 1 had ‘warned Deguire and Kennicott in both email and in phone conversations to make sure that the domain is kept current and that I did not know when the registration expired, Ford told me that she recalled an incident around May 2010 when DA-emptoyee Hiss ‘met with Martinez and Ford in Martinez's district attomey office in Las Cruces and described to them how the campaign email system worked and how it was connected to the District Attomey’s office. According to Ford, Hiss even produced a flow chart as a visual aid, She was surprised fo heat this information from Hiss, as he was a state government employee and not in ‘any way associated with the campaign. Ford also mentioned how during the gubernatorial campaign, when Martinez and Ford were in Mattinez’s office at the District Attomney’s in Las Cruces, Hiss would take possession of their campaign BlackBorties and connect them via a cable to his laptop in order to maintain them,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 12 In this conversation with Ford, 1 told her that I was shocked that Yumasol hed apparently still not taken control over the domain and that Kennicott, who had been the director of campaign operations for the Martinez campaign in 2010 had not retained the information 1 had given him in June 2010, On the moming of July 20, 2011, when I arrived at my office at DW Tamer, I found a handwitten message on my clesk from our receptionist, letting me know that Kennicott called my office on the previous day and had asked that I return his cell, On July 20, 2011, I responded to Kennicott’s text message: “Clearly you want something, or else you woulda’t be writing, Was out of town/office yesterday.” After not receiving a response from Kennicott, later on July 20, 2011, I posted the following on my Facebook wall: “Beware the snakes who stab you in the beck, and then eall you out of thin ait, all because they apparently want something from you.” I posted this because I ‘wanted there to be a chance for Kennicott to see that I was not happy to be receiving messages from him when we had not spoken in months, mn the days that followed and after not receiving any further messages from McCleskey ot his associates, I had a conversation with Ford about the domain, My recollection is that T suggested to her that it might be funny if I renewed the domain since it appeared that the ‘Martinez campaign did not want it anymore. By reviving the domain, 1 presumed that I would keep it out of the hands of Martinez and MeCleskey, as well as gain insight into how they were using the domain, Around this time, Ford and I suspected wrongdoing in the Martinez administration, which had been fueled by information Ford received from a former staffer and Martinez political appointee, {knew I would not be able to rettieve any messages that people with susana2010.com accounts had alreadyCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 12 received, but I thought that if T revived the domain, I might beable to receive messages sent to the susaia2010.com email accounts after I revived the domain, On July 29, 2011, ton days after the initial overtures by McCleskey and Kennicott and nine days after I responded fo Kennicott but did not receive any reply, 1 told Ford that 1 intended to revive the dead domain, 1 did not provide her with any detail about my methods. 1 never gave her the GoDaddy login and password information, She never had any control over the domain, ‘Nor did she have any role in purchasing the domain or setting up the inftastructuce thet I created in the hopes of receiving emails being sout fo the dead email addvesses. After I revived the ennail adidtesses, [only told Ford about partioular emails when I chose to. ‘After successfully reviving the domain, I sent an email to Ford from the susana2010,com nail addross that Susana Martinez once used. Ford responded, That email exchange is available to the public as an exhibit fo the government's sentencing memorandum in my ctiminal case. Port was the only person. who know that I had taken controf over te susana2010.com domain until June 2012, when had decided to tell Jason Loera about the emails, When I first fold Loera on June 5, 2012, that I was in possession of emails that showed ‘unethical or illegal activity, 1 did not go into specifics about how T obtained the emails, ‘On Ime 13, 2012, Pat Rogers contacted me by phone and then came to my office to conftont me about the PED email sud the susane2010,com domain. 1 recorded patt of our conversation, T then met with Ford ane Loora to tell them about my conversation with Rogers. I played bock my recarding for both of them, On June 13 o June 14, 2012, I discussed with Ford what should do with the rest of the ‘emails. I told her that perhaps I should give the rest of them to Loera s0 that I would be free of 10Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2. Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 12 them, On Jane 15, 2012, 1 gave Loera full access to the emails and told him that Thad renewed the susana?010.com domain afte it expited, I had not told him this before June 15, 2012, 1 do ‘ot recall going into any specific detail about how or when I renewed the domain. During the sunmer of 2012, when Loera was disseminating the emails to various press outlets, 1 was not made aware of Loera’s plans or methods before the emails were disseminated. Twas not aware of Loeta's use of an alias to communicate with others. Twas not aware of what emails were being disseminated and to whom they were being disseminated. 1 leamed of the disclosure of the emails only after seeing nows reports about the controversial emails, Between June 2012 and September 2012, 1 had several phone and in-person conversations with Fort regarding the dissemination of emails by Loera, Usually those Conversations occurred after the emails were disclosed in press stories on subjects such as the Downs at Albuquerque, Govemor Martinez's executive order for state employees to use only ‘official email for state business, and various controversies surrounding Pat Rogers (including his resignations from NM Foundation for Open Govemment and the Modal fim), Based on what t call from those conversations, I do not believe that Ford had any knowledge about how Locrm was disseminating emails to his contacts, On or around September 15, 2012, Loera called me on the phone asking for input on how hhe might be able to compate the susane2010.com situation with « developing news story out of Puerto Rico, where the former governor ofthe territory, Luis Fortuno, had lost control of his web domain because someone had filed to renew it and someone had purchased it at auction, During this phone conversation, 1 still did not disclose to Loera exactly how I renewed the domain, All 1 ‘recall telling him was that it was not an exact comparison and that he should be cautious. ttCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 12 ‘On September 19, 2012, FBI agents arrived to my home to execute a search warrant. They interrogated me about the susana2010.com domain. To the best of my recollection, the agents asked who I worked for ancl I told him that 1 owned! my own business but had # contract with DW Turner. They asked me about my work history with Susana Martinez, and I told him that {was her interim campaign manager and that I Jef in 2009 to rum for office myself In response fo the agents’ questions, I explained that David Hiss had purchased the domain and that in 2009 T had handed off the domain fo Yuma Solutions to manage. | told the agents that Adam Deguire asked me for the user name and password in 2010, and that I had provided! the username and password to him, Matt Kennicott, and Yumasol. In response to one question, an agont asked me fo respond cither “yes" or “io,” adding that if] answoring “yes" to eny of the remaining questions was what a guilty person would do. I believe T responded "no" to every subsequent question, sometimes answering falsely. An agent asked me if T set up a new GoDaddy account to host ‘the susana2010.com domain, 1 truthfully responded, ‘An agent asked me if 1 ever logged into the GoDaddy account associated with the-susana2010.com domain, and I said, “no, "This was false, ‘An agont asked if the FBI would find information in the house about the sylviatnonti@emailcom email account, and Esald, “no.” ‘This was true, scori@gma An agent asked if | knew anything about the sylvi om email account and 1 saidno, This was false, ‘An agent asked if 1 knew that the susana2010.com domain had expired, and I snid “no,” This was false, ‘Atv agent asked if Thad paid to renew the susana2010.com domain using.a gift card, and 1 12Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 10 of 12 said “no.” This was false, The agents asked me other questions, but I do not recall those questions at this time, ‘After the FBI raid on my home and my father’s home on September 19, 2012, I disclosed ‘© certain fully members my tole in reviving the susana2010.com domain and thus receiving cms being sent to dead email addresses associated with the domain, These family members ‘wore Kaistina Estrada (spouse), Emest Estrada (father), Dennis Estrada (brother), Olivia LaPorta (Sister), and Erlinda Moreno (mother-in-law). Sometime shorily after the raid, 1 believe 1 did Aisclose my role with Rocky Galassni, 1 did not tell any of the people listed in this paragraph about the methods I used to revive the domain and receive the emails, (On September 19, 2012, Sam Bregman told me it would be a conflict of interest for him (o represent me in any matter relating fo the emma from the @susena2010.com domain, On September 19, 2012, 1 met with Loera and Ford atthe Dion's Restaurant in Bemalillo, Now Mexico, During this mesting, I relayed to them what hed happened that morning at my home. At this meeting, I do not recall discussing any details about how I revived the domain, I kept my identity as the person behind the revival of the susene2010,com domain a closely guarded seeret until sometime in April of 2013, when I learned that | would probably be indicted for imereepting the emails. During the month of April I told certain people of my role in reviving the domain and receiving emails sent to susana2010,com addresses, To the best of my recollection, the people were: Carri Phillis, Janice Amold-Jones, Allen Weh, Heather Wilson, Maria Kramer, Alonzo Baldonado, ancl Kelly Fajardo, all of whom were close political colleagues of mine, I wanted to give them the courtesy of heating the bad news of my expected indictment from me rather than being shocked by hearing of if some other way, On May 30, 2013, the day L was i ted, 1 informed Doug Turner of my role in reviving, 13Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 11 of 12 the domain and thus receiving emails being sent to those dead email addresses, Other than the conversations described above, I do not recall having any discussions with Loora about how exactly I had revived the domain afer it expited, Specifically, I do not recall ver telling him when exactly I revived the domain and the methods 1 used to do so, Ido not remember when I told Ford how I revived the domain after it expired, but 1 believe I told her at some point after the emails began to be released publicly. Jn my answer to this interrogatory and in the statements and documents I have provided in response to other discovery requests, 1 have disclosed all communications that I can recall (other than communications with my lawyers) about how I intercepted the susana2010.com emails, how those emails were disseminated, my motives for intercepting emails and taking part in their dissemination, the motives of others who were involved in the dissemination of those comtails, and any plans for i tercepting and disseminating those emails, State the date(s) and location(s) and identify any and all persons in attendance at any and all gathering(s) or meeting(s) at which you were present and there were Communications relating to the @susana2010.com domain and/or emails sent to or from a @susana2010.com email address. ANSWER: Mr, Estrada objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably caleulsted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, ‘The term “related to” is extremely broad and encompasses gatherings/mectings that have no bearing on any issue in this litigation, Plaintiffs do not limit the subject matter in any meaningful way, do not limit the time frame in any manner, and donot limit identities of the attendees. Subject fo and without waiving these objections, Mr, Estrada incorporates by reference his answer to Interrogatories 7, 8, and 16 and, in addition, states as follows, I cannot recall any 4Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-2 Filed 04/27/16 Page 12 of 12 is considering using as attachments to pleadings, Mr, Estrada will supplement his response to this interrogatory consistent with his obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's pretrial disclosure requirements. 15. Identify all documents concerning the defenses and affirmative defenses stated in your answer to the amended complaint. ANSWER: Mr, Estrada objects to this request as overly broad, premature, and unclesr, The term “concerning” is extremely broad, and its meaning is unclear in the context of legal defenses, Discovery and investigation are ongoing, and Mr. Estrada has not identified all responsive documents. In addition, pursuant fo Mr, Estrada’s agreement with the government regarding the use of discovery materials in the criminal case, some responsive documents are in the possession, custody, or control of the govemment, and Mr; Bstrada is unable to identify them. Respectfully submitted, (sl Zachary A, Ives Zachary A. Ives zech@ginlawfirm.com ‘Molly Schmidt-Nowara molly@ginlawfirm.com GARCIA IVES NOWARA 924 Second Street NW, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87102 505,899.1030 17Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 6 From: Vanessa Kennedy Sent: ‘Wednesday, Febriiary 17, 2016 2:48 PM To: Flink, Mare ca Maggie Lane; Steve Scholl; Zach Ives; Kristina ‘Martinez; Cammie M. Nichols; Kristina Martinez; moly@ giniawtirm.com: James C. Wilkey; Angelo Artuso; Pops Jerry Dixons Packel, Eric; Kobus, Theodore J, Braden, E. Mark: patrogers@patrogersiaw.com Subject: Amaya; et al. v, Bregman, et al, No. 1:14-CV-00599 W/SMV_ Attachments: Feb 17 2016 ltr from ZAI to Flink pdf Dear counsels lease ee the accompanying corespondence together with ts eneotues, A Dropbox nk containing the production willbe sent toyou momentorty. Thankyou. Vanessa S, Kennedy Legal Assistant Garcia Ives Nowara 924 Second Street NW, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 899.1030 Fax: (508) 899.1054 assistant@ginlawfirm.com www. ginlawFirm,com *Please note our new physical and mailing address. Email addresses, phone and fax numbers remain the same,* This message and any attached documents are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL, If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and Its attachments and notify me immediately. Exhibit 3Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CRYSTAL AMAYA, BRAD CATES, BRIAN MOORE, AND KIM RONQUILLO, Plaintiffs, vs, Case No, 1:14-CV-00559-WI-SMV SAM BREGMAN, MICHAEL CORWIN, JAMIE ESTRADA, ANISSA GALASSINI- FORD, JASON LOERA, and BRUCB WETHERBER, Defendants, DEFENDANT JAMIE ESTRADA’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS! FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Jamie Estrada, by and through his counsel of record Garcia Ives Nowera (Zachaty A. Ives, and Molly Schmidt-Nowsta) hereby provide Mr. Estrada'’s amended answers and objections to Plaintifis’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Estrada, INTERROGATORIES 1, Forthe period ftom July 1, 2011 to the present, idontify each felophone number or other identifying mame or number you used to send or receive text messages to or from any person, including without limitation any of the Defendants, ANSWER: 575-386-9654 2 For'the peviod from July 1, 2011 to the present, identify each ema address you used to sencl or receive emails to oF from any person, including without limitation any of the Defendants,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 6 iPhonos at difforent points in time: an iPhone 5 and an iPhone Ss, I am not withholding any information pursuant to my objections above, 7, Identify any and all documents, including but not limited to texts and emails that you have or had in your possession, custody, or control relating to the emails sent to or from a ‘@susana2010,com email address, ANSWER: Mr. Bstrada objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, ‘This extremely broad request—for every document “related to” any emails sent to or from a susana2010,com ‘address—is not limited in any manner, ‘There is no meaningful limitation on the subject matter of the documents. There is no limitation whatsoever on the identities of the senders and seclpients, Mr, Estrada communicated aboot the susana2010,com emails and his prosecution for {intercepting those omails with many people, including, for example, family members and other people who provided letters in support of his sentencing memorandum, Bven if all of this {information was within the seope of disoovery, it would be impossible for Mr. Hstrada'to identify the documents in part because Mr, Hsteada has returned potentially responsive documents to the United States pursuant fo the agreement regarding the use of discovery materials in the criminal nse, Subject to and without waiving these objections, Me, Estrada states as follows regarding communications with certain people during the relevant time period, as defined by Judge Vidmar Guly 29, 2011, through Decomber 18, 2014), Defendant Jason Loera, Anisse Ford, and 1 communicated about certain intercepted susana2010,com emails by text and email from time to time, Please refer to the text messages and emails I am producing in response to plaintiffs’ first set of requests for production and Bates Inboled Esttada_000086-Estrada_000095,Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 6 Bstrada_000104-Esteeda_000171, Tam not aware of any additional written commun Mr, Loeta or Ms, Ford about the intercepted susana2010,com emails, T communicated with Pat Rogers aboitt the intercepted susana2010,com emails duting the relevant time period but nob in waiting as far as 1 recall, I xeoorded some of our oval communications and have already produced the recording in response to plaintiffs" discovery requests, T did not communicate with Defendant Bruce Wetherbee about the intercepted susane2010.com emeils, In thet, I never communicated with Mr, Wetherbee about anything during the xelovant time period. Ido not recall ever communicating in weiting with Defendant Michel Corwin about the intercepted susana2010.com emails, Indeed, 1 do not recall communicating with Defendant Michael Corwin about the ittercepted susana2010,com ematls at all. T do not tvcall having any non-privileged communications about the intercepted susana2010.com.emails with Defendant Sam Bregman, 8, Identify any and all persons with whom you have had Communications relating to the @susana2010.com domain andor any emails sent to or from a @susana2010.com email addvess, and as fo each person identified, identify each Communication with that person, including but.not limited to Communications as to how the emails were acquired and any plans to acquire and dissominate the emails, ANSWER: Mr. Estrada objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably caleulated to fend to the discovory of admissible evidence, ‘This extremely broad sequest—for ‘communication “related fo” the @susana2010,c0m domain as well ss any emails sent to or from an @susana2010,0om. address—is not limited in any manner, There is no limitation on theCase 1:14-cv-00589-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 6 subject matter of the comrmuniostions. In addition, thete is no time frame limitation in the Toquest Itself, and the limitation on time frame that plaintiffs have recently proposed (June 1, 2012 to the present) sweeps well beyond the events pertinent to plaintiffs” claims, There is no limitation on the identities of the persons who wero parties to the communications, Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr, Estrada incorporates by reference his answer to Interrogatory No. 7. 9. State the date(s) and location(s) and identify any and all persons in attendance at any and all gathering(s) or meeting(s) at which you were present and there were Communications relating to the @susana2010.com domain and/or emails sent to or from a @susana2010,com omeil address, ANSWER: Mr, Esttade objects to this request as overly broad and not reasonably caloulated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, The term “related to” is extremely broad and would surely encompass gatherings or meetings that have no bearing on the plaintiffs? claims or the defendants’ defenses, Plaintiffs co not limit the subject matter in any meaningful ‘way. In addition, there is no time frame limitation in the request liself, and the limitation on time frame that plaintiffs have recently proposed (June 1, 2012 to the present) sweeps well beyond the vents pertinent to plaintiffs’ claims, Nor do plaintiff's do not limit identities of the attendees, Subject to and without waiving these objections, Mr, Estrada incorporates by reference his answer to Interogatory No, 16 and, in addition, states as follows, I cannot recall any specific meetings or gatherings other than the ones I described in my answer to Interrogatory No. 16, 1 ‘am not withholding any information pursuant to my objections above, 10. Hentify any end all Communications you had with any of the Defendants concerning the disposition, erasure, or destruction of any documents including but not limited toCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-3 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 6 emails ftom the @susana2010.com domain, RESPONSE: Admit, 18 Admit that you never told Michael Corwin, or anyone that the emails you obtained from the @susana2010.com domain were obtained when the website registration expired, RESPONSE; Mr, Estrada objects to this vequest because it is compound, Notwithstanding this objection, and without ‘waiving it, Mr, Bstrada states as follows. Admit as to Mr, Corwin, Deny as to “anyone,” (siZachary A.Ives Zachary A.Tves zach@ginlavefirm.com Molly Schmidt-Nowata ‘molly @ginlawfirm,com GARCIA IVES NOWARA 924 Second Sttect NW, Suite A Albuquerque, NM 87102 505.899.1030Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-4 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 3 Attachments: 2016.03.24 Corwin 1042 - 1053,pdf; 2016.03.24 Corwin 1054 - 1137,pdf; 2016.03.24 Corwin 1138 - 1212,pdf From: Kristina Martinez [maito:kristina@coberlymartinez.com) Sent: Thurslay,/March 24, 2046 2:00 PM To: Flink, Marc; ‘Jerry Dixon’; “James C. Wikey'; ‘Cammie Nichols’ Zach Ives’; molly@ginlawfiem.com; ‘Bruce Wetherbee! Cc: patrosers@patrogerslaw.com}; angelo,artuso@bryteWwerks,com; ‘Lily Hofstra’; ‘Debl Shoemaker ‘Subject: RE: Amaya et al v Bregman et al - Second Rule 16 Scheduling Conference all, Attached are Corwin 1042-1053, which are responsive to Plaintiffs! RPF No, 19 (mls-numbered in Plaintiffs! Second Sot OF RFPS as.No. 18}, andl Carwin 1054-1137, whieh are responsive to Plaintiffs’ RPF No. 2. [REMAINDER OF EMAIL STRAND RELATING TO DISCOVERY ISSUES REDACTED) Exhibit 4Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-4. Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 3 ‘om Matt aa concn ‘ oa Ne ne eat & Bi: cy id eh SM Hoy ania, $A gat ihardson | am nose tat haat in ha oop th Obama Hower, ‘Congrotcran Loan au! wl rexct out othem to. No guavetees tr wean c oon ‘trans r/o Come up ih iy oor tho Feds to mew nwa onthe Does ut. exo Coren conn rane.cory lo have cennoctons to Beaty Uda end (On Feb 2, £015, a 07 PM, Asn Ford etodanseadtgnlom> vole Hoy ttenna emriton ed eral ome. Because othe sevely and ugecy ce matt, tm waneng ‘you can gel teva Ronateon fr hp. Gevvnra ts eur ty ic hh COG gue ct net ap. He vA e wth wth) On wag fo np dan re Mss mea be nay ei, #8 m1 ett Gonyeesnun un end Congas Loge ete ee ete woud be gent appreciated Ponce in memo know you hav ay her Wot. ‘Thank! ‘eetCase 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-4 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3 ‘sompacslonno emergency communion of my cr Tats my onty nope for batag cb to lp ny ey. boBore theo shoul be ipatian eupoit ot ti et thope would be eb fo get ‘therein tho Ni dotegton fo evoote toh US, etorneygenaa! od tha posidant on ry behal {toate tha the probebyo btteng a cormulton eet, However il vonahing Bas happens io Stohon, | at kaow hate dons covocptitg ha auld to bora for ny oly. ‘ak You, Mca or your eonstoraon of i aque stacey sa Sox tom my Phono CorwinFrom: Sent: To: ‘Subject: Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-5 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 3 Vanessa via Dropbox Wednesday, April 20, 2036 1:11 PM Fink, Mare Vanessa Kennedy sent you “Def Estrada's Fourth Amended Discovery Production 4.20.6" Vanessa shared some files with you on Dropbox re Def Estrada's Fourth Amended Discovery Production 4.20.16 Exhibit 5Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-5 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 3 ‘Subject: What up? ‘From: Susana Martinez Date: 7/29/11 2:51 PM. ‘To: Anissa Ford Bhahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Batads 009592 os oo10Case 1:14-cv-00599-WJ-SMV Document 453-5 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3 What up? Subject; What up? From: Susana Martinez Date: 7/29/11 2:51 PM To: Anissa Ford Delivered-To: fordanissa@gmall.com Received: by 10.231,167,194 with SMTP id r2es183202Iby; Fr, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224,190.4 with SMTP Id dg4mr156430Sqab.150.1311972685995: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:25 -0700 (POT) Return-Path: Received: from mall-qy0-f182.google.com (mall-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85,216.182) by ‘mx.googie.com with ESMTPS id dm6si121357Sqab.25.2011.07.29.13.51,24 (version=TLSv1/$SLv3 clpher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:24 ~0700 (PDT) Received -SPF: softfall (google.com: domain of transitioning susana.m@susana2010.com does not designate 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.182; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=softfall (google.com: domain of transitioning susana.m@susana2010.com does not designate 209.85.216,182 as permitted sender) smtp.mall~susana.m@susana2010.com Received: by mall-gy0-F182.google.com with SMTP id 3850295423Sqyk.6 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Recelved: by 10.229.31.202 with SMTP Id 210mr13440S1qcc.260.1311972684473; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.230,212 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating~IP: (216.31.88.67} Received: by 10,229.230.212 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Content-Type: muttipart/alternative; boundary=0016368322a4d0268704393b7109 Bhahahahahahahahahahaltil Lot Batra 008 nisa_OO11