 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
CASE DOCKET
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
No key words found in document. -------------- This indicates that document is an image. -------------- Images in PDF files often contain text readable by persons but not by scanners. |
SNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
DEFENDANTS PRETRIAL MEMO
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ERNST PARTNERSHIP ARTHUR RHODE ISLAND COURT LITIGATION FINANCIAL FORECAST INVESTMENT DEFENDANT ERNST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT DURNING TAX CABOT ROAD MEMORANDUM INVESTORS COMPLAINT YOUNG LLP HENDERSON MATERIALS GENERAL PARTNERS OFFERING MATERIALS PLAINTIFFS ASSERT KANSAS CITY REAL ESTATE ACCOUNTANT COMMISSIONS PRE-JUDGMENT TESTIMONY |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., 1 ) Civil Action No. 93-4164
Plaintiffs, . i -
) . .
) i" ,
V. )
1
ERNST & YOUNG, f/Wa ARTHUR )
YOUNG, A General Partnership, 1 1
Defendant. )
PRE -TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF
DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Peter J. McGinn, Esq.
Steven M. Richard, Esq.
TILLINGHAST LICHT & SEMONOFF
One Park Row
Providence, RI 02903
Mitchell Kaplan, Esq.
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART
Exchange Place
55 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-2891
(admitted pro hac uice)
Patricia A. McGovern, Esq.
Joseph M. Heppt, Esq.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(admitted pro hac vice)
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., ? ) Civil Action No. 93-4164
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
PLANTIFFS PRETRIAL MEMO
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTNERSHIPS DURNING EVIDENCE ARTHUR YOUNG FINANCIAL FORECAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS INVESTORS RHODE ISLAND RONALD DURNING PARTNERS INVESTMENTS REVIEW PAYMENTS FINANCING ERNST TAX BENEFITS ARNOLD EISENMAN PRINCIPALS CABOT ROAD DAVID HENDERSON MEMORANDUM IRB FINANCING OPPOSING PARTY INDEPENDENCE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES REASONABLENESS ENGAGEMENT OCCUPANCY RATE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. a.
* * *
V. *
ERNST & YOUNG, f7Wa *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* $ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL MF,MORANDUM
I. PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE
Introduction
This is an action brought by sixteen investors who lost all of their money which they
invested in 1984 and 1985 in a series of limited partnerships sponsored by Ronald Durning
(hereafter collectively called the "Durning partnerships").'
1 Ronald Durning formed four companies for the purpose of creating and promoting
partnerships, including the six partnerships at issue in this case:
These companies and their roles were:
The "Brook Financial Corporation'' (originally the "Transpac Sales Corporation") formed
to serve as co-general partner with Durning in the limited partnership offerings;
The "Murray Hill Assets Corporation" which hnctioned in a role identical to the Brook
Financial Corporation;
"R.B. Durning Associates, Inc.", formed to serve as an operating entity, providing
whatever services the other entities needed, including the keeping of books and the hiring
of personnel; and
The "Gotham Maintenance Monitor Corporation", formed to serve as a fictitious general
(continued..
The Rhode Island office of Arthur Young issued favorable financial forecasts and reviews
in a similar format for each and every one of the limited partnerships in which plaintiffs invested.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
DEFS POSTHEARING MEMO DAM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS PUNITIVE DAMAGES EVIDENCE DAMAGES CLAIM MEMORANDUM PALMISANO MOTION STRIKE COURT HENDERSON SUPPORT RHODE ISLAND SHOWING TRIAL JUSTICE SUBMISSION ACTS ACCEPTING COMMISSIONS IMPOSITION POLICIES CONTEST WRITTEN POLICIES WRITING UNKNOWN REPRESENTATIONS COMPLIANCE UNDISPUTED FACTS PRINCIPLES RHODE ISLAND LAW |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE, SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET A L . : / -
V. C.A. No. 93-4164
ERNST & YOUNG LLP v
DEFENDANT'S POST -HEARING MEMORANDUM
Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("Ernst & Young")' submits this Post-Hearing
Memorandum in support of its motion to strike plaintiffs' punitive damages claim
under the procedures set out by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Palmisano u.
Toth, 624 A.2d 314 (1993).
Under Palmisarm, plaintiffs must present evidence in opposition to
defendant's motion to strike sufficient t o constitute a prima facie showing of their
entitlement t o punitive damages. Palmisano provides that if, at the end of the
hearing, the trial justice determines that the evidence which plaintiffs have
presented does not meet the standards required for submission of the punitive
damages claim to the jury, the trial justice is directed to strike the claim. Id. At
320-21. This Court held a Palmisano hearing on July 14 and 21, 1997, at which
plaintiffs offered evidence and examined witnesses. Plaintiffs did not make the
1 The acts which give rise t o this claim occurred during the period 1984-1985 and involved one
Ernst ~,loung's.pre~e,ceBso~
firms, Arthur Young & Co. For simplicity, the defendant will
referred to this memorandum as Ernst & Young.
~
, I .
required showing and, accordingly, the punitive damage claim should now be
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
DEFENDS POSTHEARING MEMO
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ERNST EVIDENCE FINANCIAL FORECAST PUNITIVE DAMAGES COURT DURNING LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ENGAGEMENT RHODE ISLAND TAB DAVIDSON TESTIMONY ARTHUR YOUNG EXHIBIT REVIEW REPORTS COUNTERSTATEMENT IRB FINANCING FORMAN TESTIMONY INDEPENDENCE PRIVATE PLACEMENT OCCUPANCY RATE PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM TAX SHELTER DURNING DEP QUALITY REPRESENTATION PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME PRIMA FACIE TRIAL JUSTICE |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET AL. :
V. C.A. NO. 93-4164
ERNST & YOUNG LLP /
DEFENDANT'S / MEMORANDUM
Defendant Ernst & submits this
Memorandum in support punitive
under the procedures set out by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in PaZrnisuno u.
Toth, 624 A.2d 314 (1993).
Under Palmisuno, plaintiffs must present evidence in opposition to
defendant's motion to strike sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of their
entitlement to punitive damages. Palmisuno provides that if, at the end of the
hearing, the trial justice determines that the evidence which plaintiffs have
presented does not meet the standards required for submission of the punitive
damages claim to the jury, the trial justice is directed to strike the claim. Id. At
320-21. This Court held a Palmisano hearing on July 14 and 21, 1997, at which
plaintiffs offered evidence and examined witnesses. Plaintiffs did not make the
1 The acts y.hich;&ve. rise. to thi,$ claim occurred during the period 1984-1985 and involved
Ernst & &un$s ppdqessor
, I I .r : 1.) '..? 8 I firms, Arthur Young & Co. For simplicity, the
referred t+g ;this :geqt?raqdu
*" J _rn
as Ernst & Young.
. ,
required showing and, accordingly, the punitive damage claim should now be
stricken.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
PLTFS RFA
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ENGAGEMENT CORRIGAN ERNST FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENTS DURNING CABOT ROAD CHANUTE TEMPLE SEASIDE ADMISSIONS REQUEST DEFENDANT ARTHUR YOUNG PERSONNEL RONALD EXCHANGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP EXPENSE CIVIL PROCEDURE DUMING/BROOK FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENTS ENGAGEMENT TITLES CORRIGAN BUILDING TORRIGAN PREDECESSOR EXPENSE REPORTS TIME PERIOD REAUEST LITIGATION REFER LARRY DAVIDSON |
0
.. . ..
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AI,- * *
Plaintif*s *
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, W a * ?
ARTHUR YOUNG, A General 1,'
Partnership : 2\*:f'
*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAJNTIFFS' RF,QUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
FROM DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG
The Plaintiffs in the above-captioned lawsuit hereby serve this Request for Admissions
from the defendant Ernst & Young of the statements contained below, pursuant to Rule 36 of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Definitions
1. As used herein, the term "Duming/Brook Financial engagements" means the work
performed by Arthur Young personnel for, on behalf of, or regarding any of the
following: Ronald B. Durning, Ronald B. Durning Associates, Brook Financial
Incorporated, 21 Cabot Road Limited Partnership, Corrigan Limited Partnership,
Chanute Limited Partnership, Produce Exchange Limited Partnership, Temple
Limited Partnership, and Seaside Limited Partnership.
2. The term "21 Cabot Road engagement" means the work done by Arthur Young &
Company for or regarding the 21 Cabot Road Limited Partnership.
s 1
r-7 :: '? ; ,'-
- *
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
DEF RESP TO RFA
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ENGAGEMENT ADMISSIONS ARTHUR YOUNG REQUESTS PLAINTIFFS SPENT RESPONSE GENERAL RECOLLECTION EXPENSE REPORTS AMOUNT ARTHUR YOUNG PERSONNEL DEFENDANT ERNST NECESSITY ADMIT DAVIDSON RECALL RECORDED TIME SPENT FORMAN PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT YOUNG LLP SUCCESSOR HEREBY DOCUMENT RETENTION POLICY LITIGATION CLIENT ENGAGEMENT CUMULATIVE AMOUNT LARRY DAVIDSON STEVE FORMAN |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., 1
1 Civil Action No. 93-4164
Plaintiffs, 1 1
V. 1 1
ERNST & YOUNG, 1 1
Defendant. 1
DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG'S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS'REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y"), successor to Arthur Young, hereby
provides the following response t o the Request for Admissions propounded by the
Plaintiffs:
A. General Responses
1. Under E&Ys document retention policy, the time to retain many of the
documents that are the subject of plaintiffs' requests for admissions expired before
the present litigation was commenced. Because there appeared to be no further
need to retain such documents, not all of the documents that originally existed have
been retained. E&Y has produced all those documents that it was able to locate.
However, under the circumstances, the fact that E&Y has been unable to locate
other documents cannot be taken conclusively to show that such documents did not
originally exist.
2. Certain of plaintiffs' requests for admissions concern time and expense
reports generated by Arthur Young & Co. Such reports show the number of hours
0 0
provide a description of the work performed by that individual on that
engagement, nor necessity all of the time "spent" by the individual on that client's
engagement during the time period covered by the report, but simply the amount of
I
I time that individual "charged" to that particular project.
3. Certain of plaintiffs' requests for admissions concern work in process
reports generated by Arthur Young & Co. Such reports reflect the time "charged"
',
by Arthur Young personnel to a particular client engagement during the two week
period covered by the report and not necessarily the amount of time "spent" by such
personnel on the engagement. Such reports also reflect the cumulative amount of
time charged by Arthur Young personnel on the engagement through the date of the
report.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
PLTF PUNI DAM HEARINGMEMO
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FINANCING FORECASTS ARTHUR INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ARTHUR YOUNG RHODE ISLAND OFFICE FACTS CORRIGAN SEASIDE OBTAINING CONTINGENT CHANUTE REVIEWS EVIDENCE PREPARING FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS EXISTENCE TEMPLE GENERAL PARTNERS ANDOR DAVID HENDERSON MANAGER CHARGE PAYMENTS MATERIALIZE BLATANT RELATING |
STATE OF MODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT J
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, flWa *
ARTHURYOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTWFS' PRE -PUNITIVE DAMAGES HEARING MEMORANDUM
Statement of Facts
This is an action brought by sixteen investors who lost all of their money which they
invested in a series of limited partnerships (21 Cabot Road, Corrigan, Chanute, Produce, Seaside
and Temple Limited Partnerships) sponsored by the same general partners.
The Rhode Island office of Arthur Young issued favorable fmancial forecasts and reviews
in a similar format for each and every one of the limited partnerships in which plaintiffs invested.
The evidence will show that the hancial forecasts were fraudulently andor recklessly prepared.
David Henderson, Arthur Young's Tax Manager andor Tax Principal in charge of the real
estate practice for Arthur Young's Providence, Rhode Island office, and the Engagement Manager
in charge of preparing each and every one of the reviews of the financial forecasts during the time
he was employed at Arthur Young, received payments totaling approximately $266,000 from
Ronald Durning and Brook Financial Corporation, the general partners of the limited partnerships
in which plaintiffs invested. In exchange for these payments, Henderson advised Arthur Young
customers to purchase shares in the limited partnerships, identified other potential investors, and
97 JUL I I
drafted financial forecasts which either ignored known difficulties with the partnership schemes or
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
DEFS MEMO RE MO STRK DAMG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS PUNITIVE DAMAGE ARTHUR YOUNG REPORTS SUPPORT EVIDENTIARY HEARING TAX PARTNERS PREDECESSOR FIRMS MOTION DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES REFER LITIGATION DISCLOSURE MATERIALS DURNING POTENTIAL TAX BENEFITS FORECASTED CASH FLOWS GENERAL PARTNERS DISCLOSED NUMEROUS RISK ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIONS YOUNG ISSUED I1REVIEW1L DENIES LIABILITY ALLEGED PROBLEMS WARNED PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS DIFFER REFER HEREAFTER |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Providence, Sc.
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET A L .
V. C.A. No.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP i u
DEFENDANT'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGE
CLAIM AND FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Defendant, Ernst & Young LLP (llE&Y1l), submits this
memorandum in support of its motion requesting that this Court
hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Palrnisano v. Toth,
624 A.2d 314 (R.I. 1993), to adjudicate the merits of plaintiffs'
punitive damages claim. The evidentiary hearing is necessary
because plaintiffs recently served discovery seeking that E&Y
produce confidential and proprietary financial information. E&Y
submits that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damage is devoid of
any factual and legal support and t h a t they will be unable to
make a prima f a c i e showing that they are entitled to punitive
damages as required by Palmisano.
I. BACKGROUND
Units in the separate tax shelters were offered through
private placements over a period of approximately a year
beginning in early 1984. Each limited partnership was formed
either to operate or renovate a commercial building, whose
rehabilitation was expected to generate tax deductions and
credits. Four of the buildings were located in Missouri, one was
located in Connecticut and one was located in Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs' allegations against E&Y in this litigation
center around two different theories. First, the disclosure
materials used by Brook Financial and Durning included a
"financial forecast,11 which projected such matters as potential
tax benefits and forecasted cash flows based upon various
assumptions of t h e general partners. Each forecast disclosed
numerous risk factors and gave no assurance that the forecasted
results would be achieved. While the forecasts were
representations of the gen.era1 partners, not Arthur Young (one of
two predecessor firms that merged in 1989 to form E&Y), Arthur
Young issued I1review1l reports regarding them.2 Plaintiffs claim
t h a t the forecasts - and these reports on them - suffered from
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
DEF RESP TO 2ND INTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INTERROGATORIES RESPONSE PLAINTIFFS ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANT ERNST SUPERIOR COURT RULE DISCOVERY SECOND SET PURSUANT RHODE CIVIL PROCEDURE INTERROGATORIES INSOFAR PRIVILEGE OPERATING UNITS CALENDAR UNDULY BURDENSOME MATTER PENDING ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE REVENUES EMPLOYEES PRIMA FACIE PUNITIVE DAMAGES PALMISANO TOFF GROSS REVENUES NET REVENUES PROFITS ASSETS |
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND and PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
C.A. NO. 93-4164
1
ARNOLD J. EISENMAN, et al., 1 1
Plaintiffs ) 1
V. 1 1
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a ARTHUR )
YOUNG, a General Partnership, 1 1
Defendant )
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET
OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNl G
The Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("Emst & Young") hereby responds, pursuant
to Rhode Island Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c), to Plaintiffs' Second Set of
Interrogatories to Defendant Ernst & Young.
General Obiections
1. Ernst & Young generally objects to the interrogatories insofar as they seek to
expand the scope of discovery beyond that which is required or permitted by the Rhode
Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Ernst & Young states that its response is
made in compliance with these rules.
2. Ernst & Young generally objects to the interrogatories insofar as they seek
disclosure of any information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. To the extent that the interrogatories
seek such information, it is excluded from Ernst & Young's responses.
Answers to Specific Interrogatories
Interrogatory No. 27:
Present an organization chart or narrative statement of your present organization
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
PLF 2ND REQ FOR PRODUCT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT PURSUANT COUNSEL RHODE ISLAND PLAINTIFFS PRODUCTION DEFENDANT ERNST COPYING BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS HIGH STREET POSSESSION CONTROL DECLINE ADDRESSEE CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES REASON MEMORANDUM TELEGRAM PHOTOGRAPH MATTER FACTS SEPARATE-RESPONSES PRECISE FORM MANNER USUAL COURSE BUSINESS CORRESPOND |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules
of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs hereby r e q u e s t that defendant
Ernst & Young produce and make available for i n s p e c t i o n and
copying all documents described below.
The documents produced pursuant to this request are to be
made available f o r inspection and copying by May 19,1997, in
Boston, Massachusetts at the offices of McGowan, Engel, Tucker,
Garrett & Schultz, 125 High Street, High Street Tower, S u i t e 2601
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or at such other time and place as
may be agreed upon by counsel.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This request for production is continuing in nature,
and any subsequently discovered or additional information
responsive to this request shall be supplied immediately upon any
such information coming to the attention of defendant or its
counsel.
2. All documents requested herein are to be produced if in
the possession, control o r available to defendant or any of its
agents, consultants, counsel or representatives.
3. If any document requested is not available in whole,
any part of said document within the possession, control or
available to defendant shall be produced.
4 . If you decline for any reason to produce a document
that you are requested to produce, please state with respect to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
PLTF 2ND INTS TO DEFEND
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RHODE ISLAND PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL PRINCIPALS EISENMAN SECOND SET NATURE PURSUANT RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE ATTENTION POSSESSION CONTROL AGENTS CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES BUSINESS IDENTIFV COMMUNICATION |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4 164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ***********
M O L D EISENMAN, ET. A L . * * *
V. *
ERNST & YOUNG, EWa *
ARTHURYOUNG *
A General Partnership * *
...............................
PLAINTIFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG
INSTRUCTIONS
1. These interrogatories are continuing in nature pursuant to Rhode Island Superior
Court Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c), and any subsequently discovered or additional information
responsive to these interrogatories shall be supplied immediately upon any such information
coming to the attention of plaintiffs or their counsel. All information requested herein is to be
forth if it is in the possession of, control of, or is available or accessible to defendant
through any of its agents, consultants, counsel or representatives.
2. If an interrogatory requires you to identify a person, please state his or her
last known residential address, last known business address, last known job title or description,
and last known telephone number. If an interrogatory requires you to identify any other entity,
please state its name, its address and the address of its principals, and its telephone number and
the telephone number of its principals.
3. If an interrogatory requires you to identifv a communication, please state the
< .
r 1 ., T T -e
identity of all persons who participated in or may have heard the
communication (i.e. meeting, phone conversation, document, etc.), the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
DEF MEMO RE PLTFOPP MFPSJ
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BORROWING STATUTE MOTION COURT ERNST OPPOSITION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NON-RESIDENT ISLAND LAW DISMISS ASSERT FACTS RISE MODE ISLAND RHODE ISLAND REFERENCE EMST CITATION DEF HOME STATES LIMITATIONS PRECLUDE MERITS BORROWING STATUTE MANDATES REGARD PLAINTIFFS MISSTATE TEACHING LAW ADDRESSING COURT HORN REACHING |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al.,
V.
ERNST & YOUNG, fMa
ARTHUR YOUNG, a General
Partnership,
Defendant. :
plaintiffs' opposition to its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
INTRODUCTION
In opposing Elllst & Young's motion to dismiss as time barred the claims
non-resident plaintiffs, plaintiffs assert that borrowing statutes "were not passed to close state
courts to out of state plaintiffs in all cases absent extraordinary circumstances." (PI. Op. p.
This assertion is quite remarkable under the circumstances presented by the facts of this case.
The events which give rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred eight to nine years before they filed this
action in the mode Island Superior Court. The events were the subject of other prior state and
federal court litigation in Missouri, Ohio and Rhode Island (among other places) in which
. Reference to:Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Emst & Young LLP's
t .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
PLTF OPP TO DEF MFSJ
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS ERNST FWA ARTHUR YOUNG GENERAL PARTNERSHIP FACTS ISLAND PLAINTIFFS LAW DOCTRINE ACCORDANCE AMOUNT WEIGHT |
STATE OF MODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPERIOR COURT NO. 93 -4 164
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
DEF MEMO RE OBJ 2 USE DEP
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS DEPOSITION EVIDENCE PARTNERSHIPS ERNST RHODE ISLAND DURNING PURPOSE JUDGE DISCOVERY LIVES MASSACHUSETTS BACKSROUND SECURE APPEARANCE ONGOING FILING PRIOR DEPOSITION MOTION SEEKING PLAINTIFFS CLAIM CONFERENCE FACTUAL BACKSROUND REHABILITATE REAL ESTATE PROJECT MISSOURI OHIO PROMOTER LOST SIGNIFICANT TAX ADVANTAGES |
HEARING DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5 , 1996
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC .
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs
V.
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG, a General
Partnership Defendant
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF ITS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO USE RONALD DURNING'S DEPOSITION
Defendant Ernst & Young, LLP ('IErnst & Young") hereby
submits this memorandum in support of its objection to
Plaintiffs' "Motion To Use Ronald Durning's Deposition Lawfully
and Duly filed in Former Action".
Plaintiffs' motion misconstrues the purpose and
function of Rule 32(a) of the Rhode Island Rules of Civil
Procedure ("Procedural Rule 32 (a)
Island Rules of Evidence ("Evidentiary Rule 8 0 4 " ) . Plaintiffs
have brought an evidentiary motion, which should be presented as
a motion in limine or evidentiary motion made at the time of
trial, before the motion judge as if it w e r e a discovery motion.
A deposition, whether taken in the instant case or some years ago
in a related proceeding, may be offered in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule, when a witness is unavailable at
the time sf*
! .. .
I .:, ~rl~~~.:i:;'~
,.., ,.,
8 , .~
_-
~ I
,. . . - , ,
, " . . .. z , . ...:
~
r , . ~ . .
:.,I;,,;., , : .. , ' ' ' '. ' I
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
PLF SUPP RESP TO 2ND INTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RHODE ISLAND INTERROGATORY ACCOUNTANT WITNESS INTEND OBJECTIONS PLAINTIFFS CIVIL PROCEDURE RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT PARTY OPINIONS CARMICHAEL INTERPRETATION STANDARDS GUIDELINES REVIEWS APPROPRIATENESS PARTNERSHIPS ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS ARTHUR YOUNG COMPANY ACCEPTING REVIEW ENGAGEMENTS RELATING CABOT CORRIGAN PI-ODUCE EXCHANGE SEASIDE INSTITUTE TEMPLE ADEQUACY |
m
0
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
_.
...............................
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. * *
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
...............................
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND
INTERROGATORIES TO PLAmTIFFS
ct".3 .-_
i I$EF~ROGATORY NO. I I
c2
- 72 L- " I 7J -*; j-r
F%~l cj,': -?-:identify each expert witness whom you intend to call to testify at trial
F.3 . -^*,__--.
p + r - '
.,r. -i
IC . r :
x V
@me
7 4ing
f in this matter, and for each
b
9
-. :,:I
1, +: ,.. ,
<:<;
I . a,
-L+ , , I ,,.t
cr! :I:> .-i The subject matter on which
b. The substance of the facts
stif);
c. A summary of the grounds for
d. The qualifications of each
background, stating the name
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
DEFS 2ND SUPP RESP 1STINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONSES PLAINTIFFS ERNST HOLMES BASIS DEFENDANT ERNST PMNTIRFS FIRST SET RE-ASSERTS GENERAL OBJECTIONS FULLY SET WAIVER INSTRUCTION DISTRICT COURT NOTING DISCOVERY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OVERLY BROAD UNDULY BURDENSOME SEEKING PRIOR TESTIMONY WORK PRODUCT DEPOSITIONS PERSONNEL HOLMES LITIGATION |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., 1 1 Civil Action No. 93-4164
Plaintiffs, 1
V. 1 1
ERNST & YOUNG, 1 1
Defendant. 1
DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL, RESPONSE
TO PMNTIRFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
I Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y), successor to Arthur Young, hereby
provides the following supplemental answers to certain interrogatories propounded
by the Plaintiffs:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
E&Y re-asserts the general objections to plaintiffs' interrogatories asserted in
E&Y's initial responses as if fully set forth herein. The following supplemental
responses are not to be construed as a waiver of those objections.
SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES
14. Please identify all persons (see Instruction #2), other than plaintiffs,
who were deposed in the case of Holmes u. Ernst & Young, et al., (U.S. District
Court, W.D. Mo., Case No. CV 89-230711, noting the subject(s) about which the
person was deposed.
ANSWER: E&Y objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks
information neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. E&Y further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is
overly broad and unduly burdensome. E&Y further objects that in seeking a
characterization of prior testimony, the interrogatory seeks work product.
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: The following is a list of the
depositions of E&Y personnel in the Holmes litigation and the dates on which they
were deposed:
DeDonent Deaosition Date(s)
Larry Donald Davidson 01/10/91, 06/13/91, 07/12/91, 06/14/94, 09/25/91
Steve Forman 01/10/91, 08/01/91, 08/02/91
Robert G. McLendon 01/24/91
Charlene K. Butler 01/22/91, 02/15/91
Joseph A. Genovese 0 1/23/9 1
David E. Barney 02/14/91
Frank Anthony Garguilo 02/19/91
SNIPPETS:
|
|
18
.
SUPP RESP TO PLTF INTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONSE INTERROGATORY SUPPLEMENT DAVID HENDERSON PARTY LITIGATION BODELL JOSEPH EDWARD JANOWSKI JOHN PLAINTIFFS DISTRICT COURT LAWSUIT RESOLUTION REQUEST THIRD PARTIES SUSDLEMENTAL RESPONSE RESPONSIVE INFORMATION POSSESSION CUSTODY CONTROL SUDPLEMENTAL REMONSE REFERENCES PRODUCTION SEPARATE IDENTIFICATION UNDULY BURDENSOME RHODE ISLAND |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE, SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN
STANLEY BODELL
JOSEPH BODELL, J R .
JOSEPH A . CATES
MATTHEW JAGIELSKI
EDWARD JANOWSKI
EDWARD J. JANOWSKI
JOHN LEINEWEBER
RAMIZ MASRI
ANTHONY PACELLA
LEONARD ROSEN
LOUIS P . SCHEPS
DOUGLAS SMITH
JOHN D. SPIELBERGER
DARRELL STEGALL
TANOUS J. THOMAS
JEFFREY M. WIENER
and JAMES 0 . WILLIS
V.
ERNST & YOUNG f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
Defendant Ernst & Young files these Supplemental
Responses as a result of the agreements reached by counsel during
an extensive conference on January 10, 1995.
Supplemental Response to Interroqatorv No. 13.
As a supplement and clarification to i t s initial
response to interrogatory No. 13, Ernst & Young is aware that
David Henderson was a party in the Holmes litigation. Ernst &
Young is also aware that David Henderson was a party in
litigation in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts entitled Securities and Exchanse Commission v.
is not aware of the nature of that lawsuit or its final
resolution. Ernst and Young is further aware that
David Henderson was a party to a lawsuit brought by Ingersoll-
Rand seeking to collect on a promissory note, but is not able to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
19
.
PLF OPPO TO MTC DOCS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ARTHUR YOUNG PARTNERSHIPS INVESTORS TAX LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS PLAINTIFFS TAX BENEFITS ISLAND GENERAL PARTNERS DEFENDANT ERNST ACCOUNTING REVIEW CONSTRUCTION TAX DEDUCTIONS CREDITS UNDERLYING MOREOVER POSSESSION DEPENDENT REACHING MILESTONES LEGITIMATELY CLAIM IRS CLAIMING COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIABLE INVESTMENTS ACCORD APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING WIDELINES |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
!\
* * * * * * * * * * * * t , * *
PLAINTIFFS ' TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO OVE TIONS AND COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AS TO EACH PLAINTIFF
Facts
This is an action brought by eighteen investors who lost all
of their money which they invested in a series of limited
partnerships sponsored by the same general partners.
The defendant Ernst SI Young (then doing business as Arthur
Young) had issued favorable financial forecasts in a similar format
f o r each and every one of the limited partnerships in which
plaintiffs invested. Each and every one of the plaintiffs relied
on these financial forecasts prepared by Arthur Young (one of the
largest accounting firms in the country) in making his decision to
invest in the limited partnership[s].
It is now known that the financial forecasts were fraudulently
and/or negligently prepared. David Henderson, Arthur Young's Tax
Manager and/or Tax Principal in charge of the real estate practice
f o r Arthur Young's Providence, mode Island office received
payments totaling approximately $266,000 from the general partners
customers to purchase shares in the limited partnerships,
identified other potential investors, and drafted financial
forecasts which either ignored known difficulties with the
partnership schemes o r stated to be true facts known to be false.
Arthur Young never disclosed Henderson's conflict of interest
in its review of the financial forecasts. Moreover, Arthur Young
negligently o r fraudulently indicated that construction financing
existed for the projects when documents in Arthur Young's
possession showed that the financing in fact did not exist. Arthur
Young indicated that tax deductions and credits would be available
which were dependent upon the completion of construction or the
reaching of other milestones that Arthur Young knew or should have
known could not be reached in time to legitimately claim the tax
benefits in the years Arthur Young indicated the benefits would be
available. In fact, the plaintiffs have been penalized by the IRS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
20
.
PLF OPPO TO MTC ANSWERS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS PLAINTIFFS INVESTORS ARTHUR ARTHUR YOUNG RHODE ISLAND GENERAL PARTNERSHIP REAL ESTATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTING TAX UNDERLYING COMPEL INTERROGATORIES LOST MONEY REHABILITATE DEFENDANT ERNST BUSINESS FORMAT ACCOUNTING FIRMS COUNTRY DAVID HENDERSON TAX MANAGER CHARGE REAL ESTATE PRACTICE PROVIDENCE ACCORD APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * , A'
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AI;. *
* .r".,d
V. * * .a-
,-
j s
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a +
ARTHUR YOUNG i,,,
/++* t
A General Partnership
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * : ,
PLAINTIFFS` OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL MORE
RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AS TO EACH PLAINTIFF
Facts
This is an action brought by eighteen investors who lost all
of their money which they invested in a series of limited
partnerships sponsored by the same general partners. All of the
limited partnerships ostensibly were formed to rehabilitate
existing real estate.
The defendant Ernst & Young (then doing business as Arthur
Young) had issued favorable financial forecasts in a similar
format f o r each and every one of the limited partnerships in
which plaintiffs invested. Each and every one of the plaintiffs
relied on these financial forecasts prepared by Arthur Young (One
of the largest accounting firms in the country) in making his
decision to invest in the limited partnershiP[si-
It is now known that the financial forecasts were
fraudulently and/or negligently prepared. David Henderson,
Arthur Young's Tax Manager and/or Tax Principal in charge of the
real estate practice f o r Arthur Young`s Providence, Rhode Island
1
defendant reviewed and evaluated the assumptions underlying the
financial forecasts, ( 3 ) the assumptions underlying the financial
forecasts supported the financial forecasts, ( 4 ) the financial
forecasts were presented in accord with applicable accounting
2
SNIPPETS:
|
|
21
.
DEFS MEMO RE OBJ PTF MTC
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HOLMES ERNST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM SUPPORT BODELL JOSEPH EDWARD JANOWSKI F/K/A ARTHUR YOUNG DEFENDANT MOTION COMPEL CEDAR TREE PLAINTIFFS ADMIT CABOT ROAD EXHIBIT CONNECTION JOINDER ACTION INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS ADMISSION INTERROGATORIES FACTUALLY DISTINCT ACCOUNTANT WORKPAPERS RELATING BALANCE PARTICULARIZED INQUIRIES PROPER BROAD FISHING EXPEDITIONS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE I SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN
STANLEY BODELL
JOSEPH BODELL, JR.
JOSEPH A. CATES
MATTHEW JAGIELSKI
EDWARD JANOWSKI
EDWARD J. JANOWSKI
RAMI2 MASRI
LOUIS P. SCHEPS
DOUGLAS SMITH
JOHN D. SPIELBERGER
DARRELL STEGALL
JEFFREY M. WEINER
and JAMES 0. WILLIS
V .
ERNST & YOUNG f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
Defendant Ernst & Young, f/k/a Arthur Young, submits
this memorandum in support of its objection to Plaintiffs' Motion
to Compel Defendant to Produce Further Documents. A copy of
Ernst & Young's responses to Plaintiffs' requests is attached
hereto as Exhibit A .
connection with the Holmes case. This case, however, involves
entirely different Plaintiffs than in Holmes, to some extent
different limited partnerships in which the present Plaintiffs
invested, and, quite obviously, different relationships between
these Plaintiffs and Ernst & Young and the 120 Holmes plaintiffs
and Ernst & Young. The Holmes case was a joinder action in which
each of the more than 120 plaintiffs pursued their individual
claims arising out of their individual relationships with either
a partnership or an Ernst & Young professional.
In this case, we have eighteen (18) individual
plaintiffs, none of whom were plaintiffs in Holmes, and each with
their own relationship with either a limited partnership or Ernst
& Young professional. By Plaintiffs' own admission, the Holmes
SNIPPETS:
|
|
22
.
DEF MEMO RE OBJ TO MTC AN
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HOLMES ERNST LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS INTERROGATORIES MEMORANDUM SUPPORT MOTION COMPEL BODELL JOSEPH EDWARD JANOWSKI OBJECTION FIRST SET DEFENDANT SIMILARITY CEDAR TREE PLAINTIFFS ADMIT CABOT ROAD YOUNQ UNITED STATES DISTRICT STATES DISTRICT COURT JOINDER ACTION ADMISSION ACCOUNTANT WORKPAPERS RELATING BALANCE PARTICULARIZED INQUIRIES PROPER BROAD FISHING EXPEDITIONS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
ARNOLD EISENMAN
STANLEY BODELL
JOSEPH BODELL, JR.
JOSEPH A. CATES
MATTHEW JAGIELSKI
EDWARD JANOWSKI
EDWARD J. JANOWSKI
RAMIZ MASRI
LOUIS P. SCHEPS
DOUGLAS SMITH
JOHN D. SPIELBERGER
DARRELL STEGALL
JEFFREY M. WEINER
and JAMES 0. WILLIS
V. C . A . NO. 93-4164
ERNST & YOUNG f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT, ERNST & YOUNG
Defendant Ernst & Young submits this memorandum in
support of its objection to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further
Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. A copy of
Defendant's answers is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs' interrogatories and document requests
reveal t h e i r reliance on the similarity between the present
litigation and Holmes, et al. v. Ernst & Younq, et al., United
States District Court, W.D. Mo., C.A. No. CV 89-23071
entirely different Plaintiffs than in Holmes, to some extent
different limited partnerships in which the present Plaintiffs
invested, and, quite obviously, different relationships between
SNIPPETS:
|
|
23
.
DEF MEMO RE MTC PRODUCT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTMENTS DAMAGES ERNST LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS PRODUCTION REQUESTS TAX COMPLAINT BODELL JOSEPH EDWARD JANOWSKI JOHN ARTHUR YOUNG OBJECTIONS IMPROPER RESPONSE FINANCIAL FORECASTS PICTURE PRODUCING DOCUMENTS RELATING UNDERSTANDING FINANCIAL LOSSES SHAM COODERS LVBRAND PENN HOULIHAN ANDERSON-STOKES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE |
P
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE, SC .
ARNOLD EISENMAN
STANLEY BODELL
JOSEPH BODELL, JR.
JOSEPH A. CATES
MATTHEW JAGIELSKI
EDWARD JANOWSKI
EDWARD J. JANOWSKI
JOHN LEINEWEBER
RAMIZ MASRI
ANTHONY PACELLA
LEONARD ROSEN
LOUIS P . SCHEPS
DOUGLAS SMITH
JOHN D. SPIELBERGER
DARRELL STEGALL
TANOUS J. THOMAS
JEFFREY M. WEINER
and JAMES 0. WILLIS
V.
ERNST & YOUNG f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AS TO EACH PLAINTIFF
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have placed in issue their financial
sophistication and the consequences resulting from their
investment choices. Yet, they refuse to provide relevant
financial documents pertaining to these issues.
Although there are eighteen (18) separate sets of
document requests in question, each plaintiff relies on the same
generic, improper objections. Pursuant to Rule 37(a), Ernst &
Young moves this Court f o r an order compelling each Plaintiff to
produce documents responsive to t h e requests at issue in this
SNIPPETS:
|
|
24
.
DEFS RESP TO FIRST INTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE FIRST SET DISCOVERY RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL PROCEDURE PRIVILEGE DEFENDAHTT ERNST PURSUANT LITIGATION DISCLOSURE PURPORT EXCEEDS PROTECTIVE ORDER SCOPE QUESTION LIMITATION AVOID QUESTION LIMIT MULTIPLE CONLPOUND WAIVING DISCOVERY REQUESTS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING PENDING ACTION REASONS COMPETENCE MATERIALITY AUTHENTICITY |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., 1
1 Civil Action No. 93-4164
Plaintiff, 1 ,.
,_..--I_
**,,-+-
1 /*/'
V. 1
1 J C<
ERNST & YOUNG, 1 J
1
Defendant. 1
DEFENDAhTT ERNST & YOUNG'S RESPONSE To
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant t o Rule 33 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendant Ernst & Young ("E&Y"), successor to Arthur Young,
hereby responds to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. E&Y objects to each and every interrogatory in Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories to the extent they call for information protected by the attorney-
client privilege, the accountant-client privilege, the work product doctrine,
exemptions for communications or investigations made in anticipation of
litigation o r for trial, or any other applicable privilege o r immunity from
discovery.
2. E&Y objects to each and every interrogatory in Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories to the extent they seek t o require disclosure of information that is - -
not within its possession, custody or control.
3. E&Y objects to Plaintiffs' Instructions and Definitions to the extent
they purport to require responses that are beyond the requirements contemplated
by the discovery provisions of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure.
4. E&Y objects to each and every interrogatory in Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories to the extent they call for information received by E&Y from others
in confidence or pursuant to a protective order.
5. E&Y objects to each and every interrogatory which exceeds the scope
of discovery and purports t o require disclosure of information which is
SNIPPETS:
|
|
25
.
MEMO RE PLTF MTC ANSTOINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ERNST PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE COMMUNICATION RELATING ARTHUR YOUNG FIRST SET YOUNG STATES DEFENDANT ERNST DISCOVERY LITIGATION MATERIALS MEMORANDUM MOTION COMPEL INSTRUCTION PARTNERSHIPST1 BASIS OVERLY BROAD UNDULY BURDENSOME DISCLOSURE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE WAIVING RESPONSIVE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS DEPOSITION ARTHUR YOUNG PERSONNEL INSPECTION I1LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS PARTICULARS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG
Statement of the Case
On June 8 , 1994, Plaintiffs issued their first set of
interrogatories to defendant Ernst & Young. On November 8 , 1994,
defendant Ernst & Young responded. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to require Ernst & Young to give fully responsive answers
to certain interrogatories. This memorandum sets forth those
interrogatory answers that plaintiffs deem inadequate.
Arsument
I. ERNST st YOUNG SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO FURTHER ANSWER
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES.
INTERROGATORY # 1:
Please identify each communication ( s e e Instruction # 3 ) by Ernst
& Young with a plaintiff in this case discussing or otherwise
relating to one or more of the Illimited partnershipst1.
INTERROGATORY ANSWER # 1:
Ernst & Young objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it
is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and to the extent it seeks
the disclosure of information protected from discovery by work
product doctrine.
Without waiving the fore o&,ng.-!gqneral and specific objections,
Ernst st Young states thazakesppns$%g information is limited to
those plaintiffs in tpis'!,,Li't,i@&ion
-who
' -I.-.-> -
B ~ - . ~ . ,r Ir . i,.l:, .-,'
i
' I . I J<, (,,...;-, ';<
accountant-client relationship with Arthur Young. To the extent
any plaintiff in this litigation maintained such a relationship,
the responsive oral communications will be identified during
deposition discovery of plaintiffs and Arthur Young personnel in
SNIPPETS:
|
|
26
.
PLTF MEMO NTC PRODUCTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HOLMES PLAINTIFFS INVESTORS ERNST LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS DEFENDANT ARTHUR FINANCIAL FORECASTS FACTS CABOT ROAD CEDAR TREE MODE ISLAND MOTION COMPEL DEFENDANT LOST GENERAL PARTNERS HENDERSON TAX CHARGE SECRET PAYMENTS EXCHANGE SCHEMES RELATING COMPLAINT REQUEST DISCOVERY FACTS RELEVANT PRODUCTION |
STATE OF MODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * x * * * * * * * *
MEORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
TO PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an action brought by eighteen investors who lost all
of their money which they invested in a series of limited
partnerships sponsored by the same general partners.
The defendant Ernst & Young, f/k/a Arthur Young, was the
accountant for six of the plaintiffs and recommended that these
clients invest in the failed limited partnerships. All eighteen of
the plaintiffs relied on favorable financial forecasts issued by
the defendant f o r each of the limited partnerships.
It is now known that the financial forecasts were fraudulently
and/or negligently prepared. David Henderson, Arthur Young`s Tax
Manager and/or Tax Principal then in charge Of the real estate
practice for Arthur Young's Providence, mode Island office,
secretly received payments totaling approximately $266,000 from
the general partners of the limited partnerships in which
plaintiffs invested. In exchange f o r these secret payments,
Henderson advised Arthur Young customers to purchase shares in the
1
limited partnerships, identified other potential investors, and
drafted financial forecasts which either ignored known difficulties
with the partnership schemes or stated to be true facts known to be
false .
This is the second action brought against Ernst & Young
relating to its actions set forth above. In 1989, approximately
150 limited partners in the same limited partnerships involved in
this case sued Ernst & Young in the case of Holmes v. Ernst &
Youns, et. al., (U.S. District Court. W.D. Mo., Case No. CV 89-
23071) (hereafter "the Holmes case!!). The Holmes complaint
contained allegations that Ernst & Young committed the same common
SNIPPETS:
|
|
27
.
DEFEN ANSWER & CNTRCLAIM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARAGRAPH ALLEGATIONS SET ADMITS DENIES RECOVERY REASON DEFENDANT ERNST HEREBY PENDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREINAFTER PLAINTIFFS RELIEF PLEADING LACKS INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TRUTH THEREIN |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al. * *
Plaintiffs, * *
V. * Civil Action No. 93-4164
*
ERNST & YOUNG, * * ,,.'
Defendant. * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEFENDANT =ST & m G I
S
CLAIM
. I
~..
:
:;- Defendant Ernst & Young ("E&Y') hereby answers the pending
. ,
.
amended complaint ("hereinafter Complaint"), by like-numbered paragraphs, as
follows:
1. Admits that this action purportedly is brought pursuant to
of recovery identified in paragraph 1 of the complaint, but denies that
entitled to relief against E&Y under any theory of recovery.
2. Makes no answer to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the
the reason that such allegations are legal conclusions to which no responsive
pleading is required.
3. Admits, on information and belief, the allegations of paragraph
complaint.
4. Admits, on infomation and belief, the allegations of
complaint.
5. Admits, on information and belief, the allegations of
complaint.
. .
. .
.
. .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
28
.
PLF ANSW TO INTERROGS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT PAYMENT RHODE ISLAND ARNOLD EISENMAN PLAINTIFF JEFFREY RESPONSE DEFENDANT ERNST SPECIFYING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FAMILY MEMBER PARTICIPANT DISCLOSE AMT ANNUM SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING ENTITY SUPPLYING RECALL PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUMS FINANCIAL FORECASTS COMMITTING MESSRS RONALD DURNING RON GRIFFIN BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION KANSAS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
EIWST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF JEFFREY M. WE;INER'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, t h a t of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Corrigan Associates Ltd. Partnership
Amt. Invested : $16,750
Name ProTax Investors General Partnership. I
was a partner in this partnership and
subscribed f o r 1/4 of a unit to the best
of my recollection.
Terms $3,250 at the time of subscription: 8
payments of $1,675 to be paid semi-
annually beginning in February, 1985 with
interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum.
Date of Purchase: Approximately August 15, 1984
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : Approximately $4,300
Name ProTax Investors General Partnership. My
recollection is that I purchased 1/5 of
one unit.
1
T e r m s I do not recall the terms of purchase and
am unable to locate documents which will
disclose the terms.
Date of Purchase: Approximately August 15, 1984
SNIPPETS:
|
|
29
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SMITH RECOMMENDATION SUPPLYING RELATING LAWSUIT BOSTON ARTHUR YOUNG REVIEW EXCHANGE GEORGE HILLMAN QFHTERROGATORY ENTITY SUPPLYING RECOLLECTION POSSESS FINANCIAL ADVISOR MCCAFFERTY ACCOUNTING FIRM SOUND FINANCIAL FORECAST INTERROGATORY TCTT |
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ' *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AI;. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF J. HUNT2 LEINEWEBER'S
ERNST & YOUNG'S
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify a11 investments by you which are
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each
Partnership in which you purchased an interest,
the purchase was made ( e . g . your own name,
or of an entity of which you were a
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Produce Exchange
Amt. Invested : $ 3 3 , 5 0 0 . 0
Name John Huntz
Terms May 1, 1985
November 1, 1985
.__- May 1, 1986
,_-- 81
4-.>I ,:. i',) November 1, 1986
t s
..I.,*
_- ._ - I
I ,<
". rs, May 1, 1987
"- ., (T-
,<'-J November 1, 1987
, , 7 3
-.-.I " ' _..) .! yr:
- , ..
, :.
_ "J Date of Purchase: December 12, 1984
-. 1 .-
,+- .
-,:, r- 4x3
..'., -".i qFhTERROGATORY
I NO. 2 :
.__,, ,._, - .
." . -
SNIPPETS:
|
|
30
.
SECOND AMMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TIMES RELEVANT RESIDENT ISLAND BODELL JOSEPH MASSACHUSETTS RHODE STANLEY BODELL CATES RAMIZ MASRI LOUIS SCHEPS DOUGLAS SMITH JURISDICTION OHIO PLAINTIFF EDWARD JANOWSKI PURSUANT GENERAL LAWS EXCESS PLAINTIFF ARNOLD EISENMAN MODE ISLAND KANSAS CONNECTICUT PLAINTIFF MATTHEW JAGIELSKI ISIAND PLAINTIFF JOHN LEINEWEBER PROPERTY OWNER YORK |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND and PROVIDENCE PLANATIONS
SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE COUNTY
------------e-------l __________l X
ARNOLD EISENMAN, J
STANLEY BODELL,
JOSEPH BODELL, JR.
JOSEPH A. CATES,
MATTHEW JAGIELSKI, ,J
0
EDWARD m ,
JANOWSKI, 1 0 ,
EDWARD J. JANOWSKI, \ ' E
JOHN LEINEWEBER, I, ,.I .*
RAMIZ MASRI,
ANTHONY PACELLA,
LEONARD ROSEN,
LOUIS P . SCHEPS,
DOUGLAS SMITH,
JOHN D. SPIELBERGER, CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-4164
DARRELL STEGALL,
TANOUS J. THOMAS
JEFFREY M. WEINER,
and JAMES 0. WILLIS,
Plaintiffs
-vs-
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG,
A General Partnership
Defendant
X
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
fraudulent misrepresentations and breach of contract by the & +i
e c2
~
defendant. EL3 2 ::<
e
CJ J :-.;'.
2. Jurisdiction is established pursuant to Rhode Isla&$cr'-.
*_
SNIPPETS:
|
|
31
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FINANCIAL FORECAST INTERROGATORY PURCHASE LAWSUIT ARTHUR YOUNG CONNECTICUT COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS LC3 SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING ENTITY SUPPLYING SUBSCRIPTION DOCUMENTS OFFERING STATEMENT AGREEMENT STATEMENT DAVID HENDERSON HIGHLIGHTS DEFINITION IRC PRIOR RONALD DURNING BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION PARTNERS BROKERS TAX ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS FAMILY MEMBERS ADVISORS |
.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P L A I N T I F F LOUIS P. SCHEPS` RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG`S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Partnership Temple Associates
Amt. Invested : $60,000
z-77 .
:z Name Louis P. Scheps
S A Terms . $12,000 down with the balance paid
"173
m
W S c%
n pursuant to a promissory note plus
interest
2 2223 Date of Purchase: The first quarter of 1985.
`:`m. I 0
-u. -
JJ
z z % r"rt
-
-3; :>7J ~ R R O G A T O R YN O. 2:
?>LC3
e,,
._ - c
- 2 Identify each and every document which you received from any
SNIPPETS:
|
|
32
.
PLTFS MEMO RE MTA COMPLAI
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ERNST AMENDED COMPLAINT INVEST ALLEGES FAILED LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ARTHUR YOUNG NEGLIGENCE CLIENTS DUTY SUPPORT MOTION SUING ERNST EXERCISE ACCOUNTING PREPARATION FINANCIAL FORECASTS FORESEEABLE CLASS ALLEGING FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS SPECIAL DUTY FORESEEABLE GROUP PLEADINGS MEMO DEFENDANTS DISMISS NEGLIGENTLY ADVISING REVIEWING AMENDING |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT
PROVIDENCE, SC .
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al, '
Plaintiffs,
V. C.A. No. 9 3 - 4 1 6 4
)
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a ARTHUR YOUNG )
A General Partnership, )
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFFS' MEMOWDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND THE COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil
1. This is a case in which eighteen investors in failed
limited partnerships are suing Ernst & Young (the successor company
to "Arthur Young") for fraudulently and negligently inducing them
to invest in the limited partnerships.
2. The Amended Complaint already alleges that "[alt all times
herein pertinent, Arthur Young owed professional and fiduciary
du.ties to the clients of Arthur Young and Company, including
without limitation the duty to exercise utmost good faith in
dealing with each plaintiff and complete loyalty to each
plaintiff's interest," Amended Complaint 171.
3 . The Amended Complaint further alleges that in its
performance of professional accounting services for the plaintiffs,
. . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
33
.
PLAINTIFFS RESP TO INTERR
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LAWSUIT INTERROGATORY PURCHASE COMMUNICATIONS PRIOR PARTNERSHIP FAMILY MEMBER RELATING RECALL CHANUTE EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS SPOOR DEFINITION LVCL1 CONNECTION RONALD DURNING BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION ARTHUR YOUNG BROKERS TAX ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS ADVISORS RICHARD SPOOR CAMPBELL RECOLLECTION EXACT DEFINITION VLC1V |
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF DOUGLAS A. SMITH'S liESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made ( e . g . your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Chanute Limited Partnership
Amt. Invested : $35,000
Name Douglas A. Smith
Terms Promissory Note
Date of PurchaLz: Late 1984
. -.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you received from any
source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a subject
of the lawsuit and identify specifically how the d o c ~ ~ e n t
was
received, the date it was received, the location at which it was
state whether you read the document and, if so, whether you read it
before or after deciding to invest.
ANSWER # 2
I do not recall each and every document which I received
relating to the investments which are the subject of this lawsuit.
I do recall that I received a full package of information from
8IL+l&
Richard Spoor of Spoor, 3ekxas, Campbell and Young (Financial V
SNIPPETS:
|
|
34
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTNERSHIP PRIOR ISLAND LAWSUIT PURCHASE CHARLENE BUTLER PROVIDENCE INTERROGATORY PARTICIPANT FINANCIAL FORECAST REVIEW BROTHER BODELL ARTHUR YOUNG CABOT ROAD SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT TAX ADVISOR AUDITOR DAVID HENDERSON INSTRUMENT MODE ISLAND VICEPRESIDENT BOUGHT RONALD DURNING SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT BOOKS SIGNING SALES PRESENTATION RHODE ISLAND COMMUNICATIONS |
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF STANLEY C. BODELL'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $35 , 500
Name Stanley C.
Terms Promissory
payment
next four
7k ,zJ
*#rs .:
&- ... ..e Date of Purchase: May 31, 1984
L- :;,";;
z
kq2 r;; N c,
T ~ ~ O G A T O R Y
NO. 2:
C**J T*'J q
i I '::. "".,>_, --l
- l f
,*'' /.-
-!? (T--> Identify each and every document which you received from any
,:..)I ,L ,
?;fa ! T :*x>
SNIPPETS:
|
|
35
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RECEIVING PURCHASE LAWSUIT EXCHANGE RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE INTERROGATORY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RELATING SUPPLYING BOSTON BAY FAMILY MEMBER PARTICIPANT PAYMENT SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING RECOLLECTION POSSESS RECALL RECEIVING NOTICE GEORGE HILLMAN FLYER DESCRIBING DETAILED INFORMATION PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM DETAILED FINANCIAL FORECAST ARTHUR YOUNG FLEET NATIONAL BANK NATIONAL BANK BUILDING FINANCIAL ADVISOR IRIS ADVISOR IRIS SCHNITZER |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF JAMES 0. WILLIS'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERXOGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name i n which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership . Produce Exchange
Amt. Invested : $85 I 000
Name James 0. Willis
Terms $18,000 down
$25,125 + interest due May 1, 1985
$25,125 + interest due November 1, 1985
$5,025 + interest due May 1, 1986
$5,025 -k interest due November 1, 1986
$3,350 + interest due May 1, 1987
$ 3 , 3 5 0 + interest due November 1, 1987
(Terms were modified after note was
assigned to first lngersoll-Rand and then
National Savings Bank. See Documents
produced. )
Date of Purchase: December 26, 1984
1
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you received from any
source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a subject
of the lawsuit and identify specifically how the document was
received, the date it was received, the location at which it was
received, identify any person or entity supplying the document, and
SNIPPETS:
|
|
36
.
PLTFS RESPONSE TO INTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT PARTNERSHIP CORRIGAN ARTHUR YOUNG COMMUNICATIONS FAMILY MEMBER RELATING GRAHAM BEREA OHIO PRIOR EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS BROKERS DEFINITION TTCT CONNECTION RONALD DURNING BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION TAX ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS ADVISORS ADDRESSED QUESTIONS BROKER THOMAS GRAHAM SAFETY VENTURE |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF MATTHEW JAGIELSKI'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made ( e . g . your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Corrigan
Amt. Invested : $47 ,
208
Name Matthew Jagielski
Terms $11,792 to Corrigan Assoc. Ltd.
$47,168 in a promissory note at 14%
interest in eight installments/see folder
# 24 in response to Document Request.
Date of Purchase: August 27, 1984
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you received from any
source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a subject
of the lawsuit and identify specifically how the document was
received, the date it was received, the location at which it was
received, identify any person or entity supplyingthe document, and
state whether you read the document and, if so, whether you read it
before or after deciding to invest.
ANSWER # 2
Private Placement Memorandum - Corrigan Assoc. Ltd.
Partnership, prepared by Arthur Young.
Financial Forecast for Corrigan Associates, prepared and
reviewed by Arthur Young.
The above documents were presented, received and discussed in
the end of July 1984 at Graham and Associates, 17 Church Street,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
37
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT PARTNERSHIP CORRIGAN ARTHUR YOUNG RHODE ISLAND PLAINTIFF RAMI2 RESPONSE DEFENDANT ERNST SPECIFYING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FAMILY MEMBER PARTICIPANT PAYMENT SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING SUPERIOR COURT ENTITY SUPPLYING PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM CORRIGAN ASSOC FINANCIAL FORECAST |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT / --
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF RAMI2 MASRI'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant) the date of
I
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Corrigan
Amt. Invested : $47,208
Name Ramiz Masri
Terms $11,792 to Corrigan Assoc. Ltd.
$47,168 in a promissory note at 14%
interest in eight installments/see folder
# 24 in response to Document Request.
Date of Purchase: August 27, 1984
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you received from any
source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a subject
of the lawsuit and identify specifically how the document was
received, the date it was received, the location at which it was
SUPERIOR COURT
FILED 1
received, identify any person or entity supplying the document, and
state whether you read the document and, if so, whether you read it
before o r after deciding to invest.
ANSWER # 2
Private Placement Memorandum - Corrigan Assoc. Ltd.
Partnership, prepared by Arthur Young.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
38
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FINANCIAL FORECASTS RELATING LAWSUIT SUPPLYING RECALL CORRIGAN CHANUTE SEASIDE PORTER GUTTERY PURCHASE INTERROGATORY SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING ENTITY SUPPLYING RECOLLECTION POSSESS RECOMMENDATION FINANCIAL ADVISOR PORTER KANSAS PARTNERSHIPS |
STATE OF NODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
V.
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF
ERNST
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment)
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership
Amt. Invested :
Name
Terms
. ,
._-, -
.. .. , ., Date of Purchase:
.
I -
-- ,,-..
;'
,-
. . - . --
.. Partnership
, . . -
. .- .. Amt. Invested :
, - .: Name
.. . ..
--
.
.. I- Terms
f
.. . .
I ,
. -
SNIPPETS:
|
|
39
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTNERSHIP RHODE ISLAND INTERROGATORY PURCHASE CHARLENE BUTLER PROVIDENCE LAWSUIT PARTICIPANT FINANCIAL FORECAST REVIEW BROTHER BODELL ARTHUR YOUNG PRIOR CABOT ROAD SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT TAX ADVISOR AUDITOR DAVID HENDERSON ODE ISLAND PRESIDENT BOUGHT RONALD DURNING SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT BOOKS SIGNING SALES PRESENTATION DEFINITION RLC COMMUNICATIONS CONNECTION |
0
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST st YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF JOSEPH J. BODELL JR.'S RESPONSE TO
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made ( e . g . your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1.
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $35,500
Name Joseph J. Bodell
Terms Promissory Note with
payment $5,940. $'
next four years.
Date of Purchase: May 31, 1984
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
.' ,.
, -
,.
1.
.. Identify each and every document which
..~. .
I -..
.. . -
.
', ,, "
..
.. . .
.. . , -,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
40
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT ISLAND PARTNERSHIP AMT RELATING SUPPLYING BUSINESS ARTHUR YOUNG FINANCIAL ADVISORS SPECIFYING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPANT PAYMENT SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING RECOLLECTION RHODE ISLAND RESIDE CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACCOUNTANT ARTHUR YOUNG RECALL CABOT ROAD CORRIGAN HEREAFTER ADVICE DAVID HENDERSON PERSONAL FINANCIAL ADVISORS LEEDON WEBBING COMPANY |
OSTATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT /..,"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. *
*
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF EDWARD JANOWSKI'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.
g. your own name, t h a t of a family member
o r of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $35,500
Name Edward Janowski
Terms Check
Date of Purchase: May 29, 1984
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $67,000
Name Edward Janowski
Terms Check
Date of Purchase: August 16, 1984
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $4,000
Name Edward Janowski
Terms Check
Date of Purchase: January 12, 1988
Partnership Corrigan Associates
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
41
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GRAHAM LAWSUIT CHANUTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECALL ADVISOR ACCOUNTANT LUCAS PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS ADVICE THOMAS GRAHAM CHURCH STREET BEREA ACCOUNTANT JERRY LUCAS PACKET ICE INTERROGATORY CONNECTION RONALD DURNING BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION ARTHUR YOUNG BROKERS TAX ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS FAMILY MEMBERS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
NO.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF JOHN D. SPIELBERGER'S RESPONSE TO
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1 :
Identify all investments by you which are a
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Chanute Limited
Amt. Invested : $35,000
Name John D. Spielberger
T e r m s $7,000 down; the rest
Promissory note. I
terms of the note,
required payments
Date of Purchase: December 17, 1984
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you
_. , . -; ,
8 . : . " 9
, ' ,.. '., source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a
-, .
* . .. *
. i ,
i , - ',,:, -
,
.. ..-. , ' 1 , , . - b f the lawsuit and identify specifically how the document was
, -,
... ,
, .' , .
received, identify any person o r entity supplyingthe document, and
state whether you read the document and, if so, whether you read it
SNIPPETS:
|
|
42
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT FINANCIAL FORECASTS PURCHASE RELATING SUPPLYING CORRIGAN JEFFREY WEINER OVERLAND PARK KANSAS COMMUNICATIONS ARNOLD EISENMAN PLAINTIFF DARRELL RESPONSE DEFENDANT ERNST SOURCE WHATSOEVER RELATING ENTITY SUPPLYING RECOLLECTION POSSESS RECALL CABOT ROAD RECOMMENDATION ACCOUNTANT FINANCIAL ADVISOR RONALD DURNING PRO-TAX INVESTORS GROUP DEFINITION IICLT CONNECTION |
-
-. . .. .
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * J
COURT
NO. 93-4164
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF DARRELL STEGALL`S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $7 ,
390
Name Pro-Tax Investors
Terms Promissory Note (Terms are set forth in
Promissory Note produced in response to
request f o r production of documents.)
Date of Purchase: August 22, 1984
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $13,400
SNIPPETS:
|
|
43
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTNERSHIP PURCHASE LAWSUIT EXCHANGE BROOKS FINANCIAL CORPORATION FAMILY MEMBER INTERROGATORY TAX BOSTON ACCOUNTANT CPA COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CONSULTANTS POST OFFICE SQUARE EXACT INTERNAL ACCOUNTANT DENNIS NORMAN BITSOLI PRIOR DEFINITION TTCTT CONNECTION RONALD DURNING ARTHUR YOUNG BROKERS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS ADVISORS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC.
NO.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * A * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF LEONARD ROSEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
I INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately fo r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
o r of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership Produce Exchange Limited
Amt. Invested : $85 , 000
Name Leonard A. Rosen
Terms $18,000 Down Payment
balance due in
over a three year
Date of Purchase: December 28, 1984
I INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify each and every document which you received from any
source whatsoever relating to the investments which are a subject
I of the lawsuit and identify specifically how the document was
received, the date it was received, the location at which it was
received, identify any person or entity supplying the document, and
? ! P -- ! , - -
--.. )-I-,;.;;T
u t - > . , / .:. 1..
~
. , ..
-- -.. . 1
state whether you read the document and, if so, whether you read it
before or after deciding to invest.
ANSWER # 2
Documents Received:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
44
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE INTERROGATORY LAWSUIT EMPLOYEES ARNOLD PARTNERSHIP FAMILY MEMBER RELATING ACCOUNTANT ARTHUR YOUNG COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS POSSESS RECALL CABOT ROAD CORRIGAN ATTENTION ACCOUNTANT STEVEN SEECHE DEFINITICN RLC PRIOR CONNECTION RONALD DURNING BROOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION BROKERS TAX ACCOUNTANTS PURCHASER REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS ADVISORS |
e
,'
,.I'
,",a
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. *
*
EFWST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF ARNOLD EISENMAN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
EIWST 6 YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately for each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $71,000
Name Arnold J. Eisenman
Terms $11,880 down with the balance paid
pursuant to a promissory note plus
interest
Date of Purchase: May 31, 1984
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $134,000
Name Arnold J. Eisenman
Terms $26,800 down with the balance paid
pursuant to a promissory note plus
interest
Date of Purchase: August 31, 1984
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
45
.
PLTF RESPONSE TO INTERROG
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PURCHASE PAYMENT AMT CREDIT INTERROGATORIES PROCEEDS UNDERLYING RHODE ISLAND ARNOLD EISENMAN PLAINTIFF EDWARD RFSPONSE DEFENDANT ERNST LAWSUIT SPECIFYING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FAMILY MEMBER PARTICIPANT CORRIGAN ACCORDING TRUST FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES CHANUTE DOCUMENTATION POSSESSION |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR
NO, 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
*
V. * *
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG *
A General Partnership *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAINTIFF EDWARD J. JANOWSKI'S RFSPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ERNST & YOUNG'S INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all investments by you which are a subject of this
lawsuit, by specifying (separately f o r each investment) the Limited
Partnership in which you purchased an interest, the name in which
the purchase was made (e.g. your own name, that of a family member
or of an entity of which you were a participant), the date of
purchase, the amount invested and terms of payment.
ANSWER # 1
Partnership 21 Cabot Road
Amt. Invested : $105,000
Name Edward J. Janowski
Terms Cashier's Check
Date of Purchase: April 21, 1984
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $301,500
Name Edward J. Janowski
Terms Cashier's Check
Date of Purchase: August 30, 1984
Partnership Chanute Associates
Amt. Invested : $70,000
Name Edward J. Janowski
Terms Cashier's Check
Date December 6 , 1984
.-
Partnership Corrigan Associates
Amt. Invested : $18,000
Name Edward J. Janowski
Terms Cashier's Check
Date of Purchase: Payment was due by October 16, 1987
SNIPPETS:
|
|
46
.
PLTF FIRST RFP
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT DEFENDANT ERNST PURSUANT COUNSEL ISLAND PLAINTIFFS PRODUCTION INSPECTION COPYING BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS RESPONSES POSSESSION CONTROL DECLINE ADDRESSEE REPRESENTATIVES REASON MEMORANDUM TELEGRAM PHOTOGRAPH MATTER FACTS SEPARATE RESPONSES PRECISE FORM MANNER USUAL COURSE BUSINESS CORRESPOND |
0
/'
,,'
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. 'PERIOR
/' COURT
NO. 93-4164
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL. *
V. * *
ARTHUR
ERNST & YOUNG
YOUNG, f/k/a **
* \ I'/
*A * * * * *
General * * * * * *
Partnership * **
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF DOCTJKENTS BY DEFENDANT ERNST Sr YOUNG
pursuant to Rule 34 of the *ode Island Superior Court Rules
of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs hereby request that defendant
Ernst & Young produce and make available f o r inspection and
copying all documents described below.
The documents produced pursuant to this request are to be
made available f o r inspection and copying by July 1, 1994, in
Boston, Massachusetts at the offices of McGowan, Engel, Tucker,
Garrett & Schultz, One International Place, Suite 701, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, o r at such other time and place as may be
agreed upon by counsel.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This request f o r production is continuing in nature,
and any subsequently discovered or additional information
, -
responsive to this request shall be supplied immediately upon any
such information coming to the attention of defendant o r its
counsel.
2. All documents requested herein are to be produced if in
the possession, control or available to defendant o r any of its
1
agents, consultants, counsel o r representatives.
3 . If any document requested is not available in whole,
any part of said document within the possession, control or
available to defendant shall be produced.
4 . If you decline f o r any reason to produce a document
that you are requested to produce, please state with respect to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
47
.
PLTF FIRST INTS TO DEFENS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMMUNICATION NATURE CUSTODIAN RHODE ISLAND PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT COUNSEL POSSESSION CONTROL PRINCIPALS SEPARATE CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES MEETING PHONE CONVERSATION SUBSTANCE CONTEXT NOTING MEMORANDUM TELEGRAM PHOTOGRAPH MATTER EXACT DATA BASIS DERIVATION INTERROGATORY QUESTION COMMON PRIVILEGE EXEMPTION |
/-"
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE, SC. IOR COURT
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ARNOLD EISENMAN, ET. AL.
V.
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a *
ARTHUR YOUNG
A General Partnership *
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
TO DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG
INSTRUCTIONS
1. These interrogatories are continuing in nature pursuant
to Rhode Island Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c), and
any subsequently discovered or additional information responsive to
these interrogatories shall be supplied immediately upon any such
information coming to the attention of plaintiffs or their counsel.
All information requested herein is to be set forth if it is in the
possession of, control of, or is available or accessible to
defendant directly or through any of its agents, Consultants,
counsel or representatives.
2. If an interrogatory requires you to identify a person,
identify any other entity, please state its name, its address and
the- address of its principals, and its telephone number and the
-telephone number of its principals.
1
3 . If an interrogatory requires you to identifv a
communication, please state the identity of all persons who
participated in or may have heard the communication, the nature of
the communication (i.e. meeting, phone conversation, document,
etc.), the substance of the communication, the context of
statements within the communication, the location(s) where the
communication occurred, the date of the communication, and any
documents which constitute, discuss, or otherwise relate to the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
48
.
ANSWER TO PLTF CNTRCLAIM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARAGRAPH COUNTERCLAIM WEINER ADMITS CLIENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WEINER DENIES INVESTMENT DURNING ERNST VEHICLES PURCHASE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNITS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT DISCLOSE MATERIAL INFORMATION WEINER DENIES RECOMMENDING SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TRUTH PARTNERSHIP UNITS SOLD NOTWITHSTANDING COMPENSATION PAID PRESIDENT SHAREHOLDER DILIGENCE REASONABLE CARE NEGLIGENCE FRAUD |
STATE OF M O D E ISLAND and PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
PROVIDENCE COUNTY
ARNOLD J. EISENMAN, et.al.,
Plaintiffs
-vs-
ERNST & YOUNG, f/k/a ARTHUR
YOUNG,
. . . .. A
.. . General.
i. . -. . ---- -. Partner.ship
- I . :
Defendant
--------------------________3___
X
ANSWER OF JEFFREY M.
COUNTERCLAIM OF ERNST h
2. Admits those allegations contained in paragraph 2
Counterclaim and states further that while he advised clients as
to investment decisions, Weiner was not a "registered investment
advisor".
$nvestment vehicles, including the purchase of limited partnership
1 . - ,
.tax shelters of which Durning was a general partner. Weiner
:admits presenting certain of his clients with various investment
vehicles, including the Durning-sponsored limited partnerships,
f o r the clients' consideration and determination. Weiner admits
the o t h e r allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the
Counterclaim.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
49
.
DEFENDS INTERROGATORIES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
INVESTMENT MATTER EMPLOYEES PLAINTIFFS CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES PARTNERSHIP AMOUNT RESPONSE RELATING TAX REFERENCE ATTORNEYS PURCHASE LITIGATION SUPERIOR COURT COUNSEL REQUEST AGENTS COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CREDITS BUSINESS ALLEGED LOSS DAMAGE SUMMARIES REPORTS FACTS DEDUCTIONS |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENMAN, et al., 1 1 Civil Action No. 93-4164
Plaintiffs, 1 1 "
~
V. 1 1
ERNST & YOUNG, ) , /"
L
' -.
/+
Defendant.
DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG'S
INTERROGATORIES TO JOSEPH BODELL, JR.
In accordance with Rule 33 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, defendant Ernst & Young ("E&Y') propounds these Interrogatories to
each plaintiff individually. These interrogatories are to be answered under oath by
each plaintiff and served on counsel for E&Y no later than May 6, 1994.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. These interrogatories are continuing in nature pursuant to Rhode
Island Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c), and any subsequently
discovered or additional information responsive to these interrogatories shall be
supplied immediately upon any such information coming to the attention of
plaintiffs or their counsel. All information requested herein is to be set forth if it is
in the possession of, control of, or is available o r accessible to plaintiffs directly or
through any of their agents, consultants, counsel or representatives.
2. If any information called for by an interrogatory is not available or
accessible in the full detail requested, such interrogatory shall require the setting
forth of the information called,& in as detailed a manner as is available or
estimates or approximations (identify and d escribe each method by which any
estimate or approximation is made),
3. When reference is made to any corporation, other entity or individual,
the reference means all officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys,
consultants, affiliates, or other representatives of such corporation, other entity or
individual.
4. Provide the following information for all information withheld on the
grounds of privilege:
(a) the claim of privilege under which it is withheld;
SNIPPETS:
|
|
50
.
DEFEN FIRST RFP
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF PRIVILEGE PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT DEFENDANT ERNST PRODUCTION DIRECTORS RHODE ISLAND COUNSEL AGENTS CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES APPROXIMATIONS AFFILIATES ADDRESSEE RECEIVED ANDOR WITHHELD MATTER CUSTODIAN ADEQUATE SUPPORT CONTENTION EXERCISING DILIGENCE SECURE SPECIFYING REASONS REMAINDER STATING WHATEVER INFORMATION |
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
PROVIDENCE SUPERIOR COURT
ARNOLD EISENIMAN, et al., 1 1 . . Civil Action No. 93-4164
'
PlaintifG, ",*, ) ,.j :
V.
ERNST & YOUNG, 1
Defendant. 1
DEFENDANT ERNST & YOUNG'S FIRST REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO JAMES 0. WILLIS
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, defendant Ernst & Young ("E&Y') requests that each plaintiff produce
the following documents by May 6, 1994, for inspection and copying at the law
offices of Tillinghast Collins & Graham, One Old Stone Square, Providence, Rhode
Island, 02903. All responsive documents shall be produced in accordance with the
following instructions and definitions:
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This request for production is to be deemed continuing in nature, and
any subsequently discovered or additional information responsive to this request
shall be supplied immediately upon any such information coming to the attention of
plaintiffs or their counsel. All inf'ormation requested herein is to be set forth if it is
in the possession of, control of, or is available OF accessible to each plaintiff OF any of
their agents, consultants, counsel, or representatives.
2. If any information called for is not available or accessible in the full
manner as is available or accessible, including, where specific information is not
available or accessible, estimates or approximations (identify and describe each
method by which any estimate or approximation is made).
3. When reference is made to any corporation, other entity or individual,
the reference means all officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys,
consultants, affiliates, or other representatives of such corporation, other entity or
individual.
4. Provide the following information for each document withheld on the
grounds of privilege:
its date;
its title;
its author;
its addressee;
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
