2006 Dennis Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

Last Updated: Sept. 20, 2015

« 2005

2007 »

Jan. 2, 2006

Per eTreppid,

When eTreppid programmer Mr. Bal arrives at work, he discovers that all the eTreppid Source Code that he has been using, and which was on his workstation hard drive last week has been deleted. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 32.

“Another programmer/software developer, Mr. Kalluri, also discover[s] that another collection of eTreppid Source Code files stored at his workstation had been deleted. Mr. Kalluri asked Montgomery about the missing eTreppid Source Code, expressing misgivings about the difficulty of continuing to work without access to the files. Montgomery responded that he was performing a daily backup so that he'd have the most recent files, and that he would provide the eTreppid Source Code Mr. Kalluri required on an as-needed basis.” Id. ¶¶ 33-34.

Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.

Per eTreppid, Venables returns from vacation and “checked the status of the SRCSERVER and the ISASERVER. From this check, he determines that all of the eTreppid Source Code stored on each of these servers has been deleted. Jesse Anderson (co-employee) tells him that "portions of the eTreppid Source Code that had previously been stored on the programmers workstations ha[s] been deleted as well.” He asks Montgomery what is going on, to which Montgomery responds that he's been ‘cleaning stuff up,’ and and deleting files that ‘weren't needed.’” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶¶ 38-39.

Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.

Jan. 9, 2006

Per Montgomery, shortly before Trepp is leaving on a cruise, he gets a call on, “I think, Monday think, Monday morning from Mr. Trepp saying that I need to come down to the building.” Montgomery has “another commitment” so can’t come, and gets another call from Trepp that evening saying he (Montgomery) needs to come in the next morning. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 188 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).

Per eTreppid,

Trepp and Venables discover that substantially all of the eTreppid Source Code is missing, and none of the programmers have access to that portion of the eTreppid Source Code they have been working on. Venables looks for the source code but can't find it anywhere. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 40.

Trepp directs other employees to help look for it, but no one can find it. Id.

Further, when he has employees check the Backup CD's, he learns that they do not "and never had contained a complete copy of the eTreppid Source Code for any period of time, contrary to Montgomery's representations.” Id.

Jan. 10, 2006

Per Montgomery,

When he arrives at the building (in response to Trepp’s voice mail message last night), he sees “all of these people going through all the hard drives” in his work area, which includes government computers valued at over $3 million. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 189-91 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).

He tells Trepp that he is “surprised he [is] letting people with no classification dismantle disk drives,” to which Trepp responded that he is “looking for the software.” Id. at 193.

Montgomery tells the employees that they are not permitted to access classified computers, they respond that Trepp has ordered them to do so. Id. at 193-94.

Montgomery will later say it is possible that what they did destroyed some of the software/source codes. Id. at 194; see also id. at 199 (when asked whether he believes that the software self-destructed, Montgomery responds, “Well, since I was locked out of the building and I could never go into it, I suspect it probably happened.”)

Additionally, he will contend that there are about a “half a million-plus” lines of code to the software at issue, but those lines are all “in [his] head” since it’s really the same software that he created and copyrighted back in 1982. Id. at 195-96.

Per eTreppid,

Montgomery is in the building briefly. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 41-42.

During that time, Venables asks Montgomery where the eTreppid Source Code is. Montgomery replies that it is stored on "320 Gigabyte hard Drives" in the building. However, eTreppid cannot locate these drives. Id.

When Montgomery returns to the building, he speaks with Trepp, then tells Venables that Trepp “‘needs to give me big money if he wants’ to recover the missing eTreppid Source Code.” Id.

Jan. 18, 2006

Montgomery’s employment with eTreppid is terminated. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14. (Montgomery will later say that eTreppid terminated him Jan. 19. See, e.g., eTreppid State Proceedings, ECF644-2 at 156.)

Jan. 19, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Complaint and Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on January 19, 2006. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-4 at 40-49 (Complaint); Id. at 2-14 (TRO Motion). In support of its motion, eTreppid also files: Declaration of Barjinder Bal. ECF 644-3 at 107-08; Declaration of Venkata Kalluri. Id. at 109-11; Declaration of Sloan Venables. Id. at 112 – 644-4 at 1; Declaration of Warren Trepp. ECF 644-4 at 15-39.

Nevada State Court Judge Jerome Polaha holds an in chambers conference regarding eTreppid’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order. He denies eTreppid’s request for TRO and transfers the case to Business Court for further hearing. He also orders the minutes and all documents other than eTreppid’s complaint sealed. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 7-9 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 644-3 at 35-36 (Order denying TRO and setting hearing).

Jan. 19-23, 2006

Special Agents with the Air Force Office of Special Investigation apparently initiate an investigation into Montgomery and conduct a series of interviews of Warren Trepp. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 13-14. Among other things, Trepp states:

Trepp first learned that the company’s source code was missing on 9-10 January 2006 when employees complained about their inability to operate their computer systems. Venables informed Trepp that the source data was also deleted from the source server, and the company’s stand-alone back up system, to which only Montgomery had access, is missing.

Trepp believes that Montgomery deleted the source code from the source server, the ISA system and all workstations because (a) Sloan Venables (eTreppid employee) told Trepp that he’d asked Montgomery where the backup system was and Montgomery responded that he had taken it home; (b) Venables said that Montgomery told hm that “Trepp will ‘have to pay big bucks to get what he wants’”; (c) James Bauder (eTreppid employee) said he helped Montgomery carry sealed boxes out of the eTreppid’s offices during the late December-early January time period; (d) Venables – the only other person with full acess to the source code – was on vacation when the source code was deleted; (e) A review of the internal security cameras determined that someone had deleted the last four months of video.

Trepp confronted Montgomery about the source code on January 9 and Montgomery responded that the code was on 753 removable hard drives at the company. However, when employees reviewed those drives, the source code was not on them.

Montgomery told Venables to stay home before the holidays, but Venable came to work on Dec. 21 or 22 and saw Montgomery working on the source and ISA servers. When Venable asked what he was doing, Montgomery said he was cleaning up some files.

Montgomery was supposed to provide back up copies of the source code each hear and did so for seven years. However, a review of those backups (CDs, DVDs and hard drives) revealed that they were filled with junk and did not contain the source code.

Jan. 20, 2006

eTreppid v Montgomery. eTreppid Counsel (Jerry Snyder) files a Supplemental Declaration in Support of the eTreppid Motion for TRO, in which he submits the various eTreppid Operating Agreements setting forth the eTreppid-Montgomery relationship. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-3 at 42-104.

Jan. 23, 2006

Air Force Special Agents interview Sloan Venables, eTreppid Director of Research and Development. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at at 11-12. Among other things, Venable states.

He has known Montgomery since December 1999 and has had both a professional and personal relationship with him. He questions Montgomery’s technical capabilities, in part because he discovered that Montgomery’s workstation didn’t have the necessary applications installed to develop source code.

In November 2005, Venables learned, for the first time, that SECRET information was located in eTreppid facilities when he inadvertently discovered Montgomery with SECRET two hard drives in the warehouse. Thereafter, he would routinely see Montgomery using them while working. He didn’t know which specific computer system Montgomery was using but thought it was probably the one in the warehouse. The facility did not have formal approval to process classified information on any computer system.

Patty Grey (eTreppid employee) had complained that Montgomery was not properly storing the hard drives in the approved safe. When he confronted Montgomery about the complaint, Montgomery denied it. Venables then informed Trepp who said he’d talk to Montgomery about it.

On Dec. 21, 2005, Venables noticed that the work station, with RAID box controller and eight hard drives, which contained eTreppid’s source code and had been in eTreppid’s warehouse, was missing. When he asked Montgomery were it was, Montgomery responded that he had taken it home.

On Jan. 3, 2006, when Venables returned from vacation, he discovered that the SRCSERVER and ISASERVER had been accessed, and the monitors showed that an executable command had occurred. When he asked Montgomery what was going on, Montgomery responded that he was “cleaning up old stuff.”

During the week of January 3-6, Venables repeatedly asked Montgomery about the workstation he’d taken home and Montgomery repeatedly said he was going to return it – but never did.

On Jan. 6, 2006, when Venables arrived at work he heard Trepp and Montgomery arguing, and then Montgomery stormed out. When he later called Montgomery (at Trepp’s request), Montgomery responded that “He fucked me out of millions and is not going to get away with it." When Venables asked him to return, Montgomery responded that he'd think about it.

Only Venables and Montgomery had the level of access necessary to delete source code off of the SRCSERVER and ISASERVER and off the individual work stations – and he (Venables) didn’t do it.

Montgomery had the alarm codes for all company employees and had level of access necessary to access the surveillance cameras and delete the last four months of video recordings.

Between January 3-6, Venables and Gray searched the company to find nine SECRET hard drives (and this was first time Venables knew that there were 9 such hard drives). They found six copies of the original nine SECRET hard drives and two SECRET video tapes. They did not find the original nine SECRET hard drives.

Montgomery had several storage units around the Reno, NV area which, Venables believed, he would change from time to time.

Id. at 11.

Air Force Agents also receive and review

A statement from Jerry Snyder (eTreppid attorney) regarding statements Montgomery made at the TRO hearing. Per the statement, Snyder recalled Montgomery stating that (a) he did not have possession of eTreppid source code; (b) he owned all IP interests in eTreppid's pattern recognition and anomaly detection software and had not transferred interest to eTreppid; and eTreppid was allowing foreign nationals without the appropriate security clearances to work on the subject software. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 15.

A declaration made by Venables in the TRO proceeding. ECF 70-7 at 16. The investigator summarized relevant information contained in the declaration as follows: "On 21Dec05, VENABLES discovered that a workstation containing a RAID storage box used to backup eTreppid source code was missing. SUBJECT told VENABLES that he (SUBJECT) took the workstation home. On 3 Jan 06, SUBJECT was observed by VENABLES working on the SRC (source) and ISA servers. SUBJECT told VENABLES he was "cleaning stuff up" and this included deleting files. On 3 Jan 06, VENABLES and other employees determined that the source code was deleted from the SRC source server and the ISA server. On the 9 JAN, he and the other employees discovered the source code was removed from the workstations also. VENABLES and SUBJECT were the only two people with the administrator password necessary to accomplish this action. On 10 Jan 06, SUBJECT told VENABLES that if TREPP wanted the source code "he needs to give me big money.""

Jan. 24, 2006

Air Force Special Agents interview Patty Gray, eTreppid Vice President of Product Development. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at at 17-18. Among things, Gray stated:

In Nov. 3-4, 2005, Gray generated data on nine hard drives at Nellis AFB, NV (eight of which contained SECRET information), which were delivered to Montgomery at eTreppid.

On Dec. 6, 2005, Gray checked to see whether the hard drives were stored in eTreppid’s NSA-approved safe and found that they were not. She informed Trepp who in turn instructed Montgomery to return them to the safe.

On Dec. 7, 2005, Gray checked again and the hard drives were not in the safe. When she asked Montgomery where they were, he said that they were in the warehouse file cabinet. She responded that they weren’t supposed to be kept there and again informed Trepp about the matter.

On Dec. 7, 2005, Gray emailed Montgomery, cc’ing Trepp, to remind him that all classified material must be stored in the proper safe so that she and Montgomery would both have the access.

On Dec. 12, Trepp asked Gray to generate some test tapes from the classified hard drives for internal testing. He asked her to make four DV tapes: 2 for Montgomery and 2 for him so that a “blind test” could be performed. Gray retrieved one of the classified hard drives and started working on the requested tapes.

On Dec. 13, Gray went to get another hard drives to generate test tapes and discovered that none of the hard drives were in the safe. She told Trepp and he required Montgomery to return the tapes to the safe.

While she was generating the test tapes, Montgomery came in and placed a new label on one of the hard drives she was using. He told her he was condensing the hard drives because some were only partially full.

Per Trepp’s request, she gave Montgomery two test tapes. She placed Trepps’ two test tapes in the safe’s upper drawer and changed the combination on that drawer, then returned the classified hard drives to the lower drawer (to which both she and Montgomery had access).

On Dec. 15, Gray discovered that all the hard drives were missing from the safe again. When she confronted Montgomery, he told her he wanted them in the warehouse for his convenience. When she said that he couldn’t store classified info in the warehouse, he responded that he didn’t care about his clearance because they’ll always give him clearance because they want him to do the work. When Gray told Trepp about the incident, he again required Montgomery to return the hard drives to the safe. Then, at Trepp’s instruction, Gray moved all the classified hard drives to the upper drawer (to which Montgomery did not have access).

On Dec. 18, Montgomery tried unsuccessfully to contact Gray. However, Trepp contacted her an instructed her to give the combination information to Montgomery. Although she challenged Trepp on this instruction because she feared that Montgomery would make a copy and also he would have access to Trepp’s two test tapes, he told her to do it anyway, so that Montgomery could work over the weekend, and she could re-secure the materials on Monday.

On Dec. 21, Gray met with Trepp mid-morning to tell him that she had reason to believe that Montgomery had “not written significant software for the company and observed what may have been classified images displaying coordinates that may have been images of Iraq” on a unclassified computer system of an employee who was not a US citizen and did not have clearance. She said that as she was trying to copy it, it was deleted - she believed, by Montgomery. She also told Trepp she had “fairly complete” information indicating that this employee had worked on a classified project involving ocean images.

Soon after that meeting, she received a call from Jesse Anderson (eTreppid employee), who said that Montgomery had called him to complaint that Gray and Trepp were “ganging up on him” and also asked Anderson whether there was any source code on his computer. Shortly after that call, Venables called Gray to say that Montgomery had just called him to complain that Gray and Trepp were “ganging up on him,” and accusing Venables of “stuff.” Gray informed Trepp of the calls from Anderson and Venables and of her belief that their conversation had been monitored.

At about 3:30, Gray received a call from Venables, asking her why Montgomery was taking hard drives out of the building. She called Trepp and they met with Montgomery.

On Jan. 7, 2006, Gray found seven hard drives (copies of the original nine drives condensed down) in Montgomery’s file cabinet in the warehouse. She checked the NSA-approved safe and found another seven copy hard drives, but the original nine drives were missing. Two of the four test tapes she had made were also missing.

On Jan. 8, 2006, Trepp told Gray that Montgomery had deleted all the source code from all the engineers’ systems between Christmas and New Years.

Between Jan. 9-13, 2006, Gray continued to search for the nine missing classified hard drives and two test tapes but was unable to locate them.

On Jan. 23, 2006, Gray checked one of the copy classified hard drives Montgomery had made then asked an employee (without clearance) what he had been working on. His description of work matched information contained on the classified hard drive.

Note: It is later determined that the information contained on the nine hard drives referenced above was not classified material.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a preemptory challenge to Judge Steven P. Elliot. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at x.

Nevada State Court Judge Jerome Polaha holds an in chambers telephone conference regarding eTreppid’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order. He holds that eTreppid needs more evidence to have a TRO granted and sets a hearing for next Wednesday. See Minutes of Proceeding, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 6.

Jan. 24-25, 2006

Air Force Special Agents again interview Sloan Venables. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at at 23-25. SA Haraldsen interviewed Venables on January 24 to “to determine if any recording devices were located on SUN's [a non-US citizen) computer system.” Venables reported that the computers Sun used had removable hard drives, flash drive ports, etc. Id. at 23.

Haraldsen again interview Venables on January 24 to “determine what classified data if any resided on SUN's computer system.” Venables reported that a review of Sun’s current system showed “two ocean images identified as images 5 and 6 and thumb nails generated from the original images.” Venables reported that a review of a hard drive previously assigned to Sun “disclosed a file [created in April 2005] containing over 13,000 bit map iinages of aerial photography of buildings. people and vehicles taken from an "ACFT". The images also reflected the time the photograph was taken as well as the coordinates.” Venables provided sample images from the computer to Haraldsen. Id. at 24-25.

Note, however, that per subsequent interview of Trepp, “the company did not possess any classified information prior to Nov 2005, than all aerial photography images on company hard drives prior to this date must be unclassified. Id. at 26; see also ECF 70-8 at 3 (The United States later determined that these images were unclassified.

Air Force Special Agents also interview Jesse Anderson, a web developer for eTreppid on January 24 and 25. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at at 19-20. Per the FBI report of the interview, Anderson states, among other things, as follows:

Anderson had suspected Montgomery “was using open source code to develop ETREPPID source code for almost two years. ANDERSON said that [when] he confronted SUBJECT about ETREPPID's use of open source code to develop its source code … SUBJECT told him that the ‘government knew about it’ and that TREPP knew about it and Trepp was ‘O.K. with it.’” Id. at 20.

“[Some time] in 2003, upon the direction of SUBJECT, during demonstrations of ETREPPID's Automatic Target Recognition (A TR) product ANDERSON was told to monitor his computer screen that displayed a video. SUBJECT instructed ANDERSON to strike the "A" key on his computer's keyboard each time the bazooka came into view on the video screen. ANDERSON said that he did this for approximately forty (40) separate demonstrations. ANDERSON stated that sometime in October or November of 2005, he learned from GRAY that representatives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were coming to see the ATR product and that this visit was in relation to a contract ANDERSON said that to his knowledge his prior participation in the ATR product was limited to bazooka demonstrations and he did not want to participate if ETREPPID was going to be paid by the DHS. ANDERSON told SUBJECT that he did not want to participate when DHS arrived and he did not. ANDERSON said that subsequent to that date SUBJECT no longer talked to him at work and ceased all social contact with him. Id.

About “four months ago SUBJECT gave him electronic TIF files (images), of what ANDERSON said he believed to be the ocean, and directed him to divide the TIF images into lk x lk pixels. ANDERSON said that he complied and said those images were still resident on his computer. Id.

Air Force Special Agents also interview James Bauder, a graphics designer for eTreppid. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 21-22. Per the FBI report of the interview, Bauder states, among other things, as follows:

“[A]bout one year ago, SUBJECT requested he purchase some open source code called MICATOGE XPLAYER. This purchase was an online purchase using BAUDER's PayPal account. The cost of the source code was about $100. BAUDER said that SUBJECT claimed he did not have a PayPal account and required the open source code for work. BAUDER subsequently provided a copy of the PayPal receipt to SA HARALDSEN.” Id. at 21.

BAUDER … assisted SUBJECT with some work regarding "images of the ocean." He said SUBJECT instructed him to place symbols on the images. BAUDER was unaware of why he was accomplishing this task, but surmised it had to do with "terrorist boats.” SUBJECT never explained why this work was being performed or for whom. Id.

Jan. 25, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. §1441(B) (Diversity). eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-3 at 28-34.

Jan. 26, 2006

Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen completes a draft report of his investigation. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 27. (Note: Although the draft report is undated, it states that Haraldsen will meet with FBI later “today.” Per final report, Haraldsen met with FBI on January 26. Id.)

Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen briefs agents at the Reno Nevada FBI office regarding the pending Air Force investigation “regarding the deletion and removal of [eTreppid] Source Code. SA McKinley said they would review the information provided, but based upon the briefing he believed they would initiate an investigation.” Search Case, ECF 70-8 at 11.

Jan. 30, 2006

The FBI notifies the Air Force Office of Special Investigations that the FBI is assuming investigative jurisdiction. Search Case, ECF 70-8 at 11.

Jan. 31, 2006

FBI Special Agents interview Warren Trepp, CEO of eTreppid. Search Case, ECF 70-5 at 3-7. Among other things, Trepp asserts:

He recently learned that Montgomery required eTreppid employees to falsify the results of live demonstrations for customers:

“Jesse Anderson, a programmer for eTreppid, told Trepp that Montgomery would require Anderson and Jim Bauder, another eTreppid employee to go into an office at eTreppid while Montgomery was out in a nearby field with a toy bazooka to demonstrate e'I'reppid's recognition software capabilities. Montgomery instructed Anderson and Bauder to go into a room and wait to hear a noise on their cell phone and then instructed them to press a button on a computer keyboard that would display an image of a bazooka on the computer screen viewed by the customers, including [DOD] employees.” Id. at 4.

While Sloan Venables was on vacation in late December 2006, Montgomery deleted “all source code relating to eTreppid's software development efforts and all back up copies related to that software.” Id. at 5.

eTreppid has been authorized to possess and maintain classified information and an inventory of classified information taken after Montgomery left indicated that nine CDs containing classified data were missing. Id. at 6.

On January 7, 2006 and January 8, 2006, the eTreppid alarm was disarmed and re-armed by Montgomery's alarm code.” Id.

Trepp later provides a listing of ADT alarm code user names and numbers to the FBI. Search Case, ECF 70-6 at 24-25.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Federal District Judge McKibben presides over a hearing re: eTreppid’s Motion for Summary Remand, and grants that motion during the hearing. eTreppid State Proceedings, ECF 644-6 at 43-51 (Excerpts of Transcript of Proceeding).

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Declaratory Judgment in Nevada Federal District Court. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 1 (PDF). The case is assigned to Judge Brian E. Sandoval and Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

February 2006

Per Montgomery, in February 2006 (before the FBI search/seizure), Montgomery was “then in contact with several former officials above Gibbons, Haraldsen, and Bath, for the purpose of not only blowing the whistle on Trepp, Gibbons, and Bath, but also for the purpose of having the Government use Montgomery's software in the war on terror in order to save American lives; and thus cutting off Trepp' s defense contracts. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 7.

Feb. 1, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files its First Amended Complaint in this matter “to address different parties that Montgomery alleged were necessary (e.g., the Montgomery Trust), and other issues.” See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-143 (Complaint); id. at 65 (summarizing reason for amendment).

Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid's Ex Parte Motion for TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF 644-2 at 146-ECF 644-3 at 27. Montgomery denies all of eTreppid’s allegations against him and asserts that eTreppid is attempting to steal his intellectual property. Id.

Judge Perry grants eTreppid's requested TROafter hearing from both parties on the matter (to be effective upon eTreppid’s filing of $10,000 bond), and sets a hearing on eTreppid’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Feb. 7. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 65.

Per the written Temporary Restraining Order issued against Montgomery:

Until the date set for a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, you and all persons or entities in active concert or participation with you are TEMPORARILY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM destroying, hypothecating, transferring, modifying, and/or assigning the eTreppid Source Code, which eTreppid is informed and believes is currently in your possession and/or control, from discussing any eTreppid Technology, including anomaly detection and pattern recognition software, with any third party, except experts and other persons and witnesses necessary to Defendant's case and counsel, provided, however that such witnesses and counsel shall not disclose any information to others about eTreppid Source Code. …

ECF 644-2 at 121-23 (dated Feb. 2, 2006).

Feb. 2, 2006

FBI Agents interview Sloan Venables, eTreppid Director of Research and Development. Search Case, ECF 70-5 at 8-14. Among other things, Venables asserts:

On December 21, 2006, he noticed that a CPU and RAID box were missing from the warehouse and, when he asked Montgomery where they were, Montgomery responded that he’d taken them home. Id. at 9.

On January 2, he returned to the office to find Montgomery “cleaning up old stuff” (per Montgomery). When he investigated further, he found the source code folder empty. Id. at 10-11.

On January 3, he learned that “Montgomery had taken each programmer’s hard drive and returned it with the current source code wiped clean.” Id. at 12.

On January 10, the last day he saw Montgomery in the office, he learned that all 16 seucrity videos had been disabled and all recorded data had been deleted sometime between January 8-9. Id. at 13.

Venables will later provide to the FBI

Computer equipment removed from eTreppids’ video surveillance system. Id. at 25.

Four documents relating to Montgomery’s security clearance (Id. at 30-40) and Montgomery’s OPM Security Clearance Application (Search Case, 70-6 at 11-22.

eTreppid’s ADT alarm access log from Nov. 1, 2015-Jan. 15, 2016. Search Case, 70-6 at 1-6.

Text messages to/from Montgomery. Id. at 7-8.

A log generated by XXCopy for files copied from the Source Code Server folder F:\eTDevelopment\[ServerBackups]\ on December 21, 2005, at 15:08:45 hours. Id. at 9-10.

DVD disk containing Dennis Montgomery's email files located on eTreppid Technologies computers. Id. at 23.

The FBI informs the Air Force Office of Special Investigations that it has opened an economic espionage and theft of intellectual property investigation. Search Case, ECF 70-5 at 11.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an Answer and Counterclaim. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 95 (eTreppid Counsel acceptance of service re: same). Montgomery also files a Demand for Trial By Jury. Id. at 118-19.

Feb. 6, 2006

FBI Agents interview Patty Gray, eTreppid Vice President of Product Development. Search Case, ECF 70-5 at 15-22. Among other things, Grey reports:

In December 2005, Montgomery “took the nine Secret hard drives out of the safe and said he was going to condense the nine original hard drives onto six hard drives due to their being unused space on the original nine Secret hard drives. Gray recalled that Montgomery returned six hard drives labeled Secret into the safe along with the original nine Secret hard drives. Id. at 17.

Sometime before Dec. 18, she collected all secret material (the nine original drives and six copy drives) and placed them in the safe, and changed the combination per instructions from Warran Trepp. Id. at 18.

On Dec. 18, Trepp instructed her to give the combination to Montgomery, so she did. Id.

She was informed by “Software Engineer Lalith Tenneti … that before New Years, Montgomery sat down at Tenneti's computer and deleted his source code while Tenneti watched. Montgomery told Tenneti that he didn't need the source code on his work station and Montgomery had a new back up system in place. Gray later found out that Montgomery did this on every engineer's work station.” Id.

Patty Gray will later provide an inventory of purportedly classified materials maintained at eTreppid. Id. at 26-29.

Note: It is later determined that the nine hard drives at issue were not classified.

FBI Agents interview Neil Azzinaro, independent casino host. Search Case, ECF 70-5 at 23-24. Among other things, Azzinaro reports that in early January 2006, Montgomery told him he wanted to find a US citizen with 10-11 million dollars to invest because he wanted to start his own business. Id. (Azzinaro states that he has known Trepp and Montgomery since 1999 or 2000. Id.)

Feb. 7, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files its Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 63-74. See also Jerry Snyder Declaration filed in Support of Reply. ECF 644-8 at 2-95, ECF 644-9 at 1-101 and ECF 644-10 at 1-14 (attaching eTreppid Operating Agreements and Montgomery’s assignment of patents to eTreppid).

A Declaration of John B. Hennessey, Director of Security, Counter Intelligence and Special Program Oversight for the Air Force, is submitted during the hearing. ECF 644-12 at 74-76. In that declaration, Hennessey disputes Montgomery’s claims that “certain government officials required eTreppid to put into place a security protocol that would cause eTreppid's source code to be automatically deleted if anyone attempted to access it properly.” Id. ¶ C. He also disputes Montgomery’s claim that certain parties have offered to purchase eTreppid’s technology for $100,000,000. Id. ¶ D.

Nevada State Judge Perry issues an order granting Flynn pro hac vice admission (ECF 644-2 at 44-45) and Montgomery files a Preemption Brief in this proceeding, arguing that eTreppid’s state law trade secrets claims are preempted by federal copyright law (id. at 38-42).

Nevada State Court Judge Robert Perry presides over a hearing on eTreppid’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See eTreppid State Proceedings...

ECF 644-2 at 1-5 (Minutes of Proceedings)
ECF 644-19-20 (Transcript Vol. 1);
ECF 644-21-22 (Transcript Vol 2); and
ECF 644-11 through 644-18 (exhibits submitted during hearing).

Among many other thing, Montgomery testifies that he did not take any files or hard drives from eTreppid:

Q. Did you destroy or take any files or hard drives or anything from eTreppid Technologies?
A. No .

ECF 644-21 at 195.

After it is later revealed that Montgomery indeed has multiple hard drives and files that (Montgomery admits) belong to eTreppid (see, e.g., May 14, 2008 and May 23, 2008), Montgomery will attempt to explain how this testimony isn't false in various different ways. For example, during a June 10, 2008 hearing, Montgomery explains under direct examination that he didn't "take" them -- they were "given" to him:

Q -- you testified earlier today, in response to a question from the Court, that you did not take anything from eTreppid at the time you left in January of 2006. Do you remember that testimony?

A Yes.

Q Can you then explain how you then came into possession of the backup drives that you have been in the process of producing?

A Warren wanted all the backup drives out of the building and gave them to me to take out of the building. He did not want them left in the building.

Montgomery v. eTreppid, ECF 732 at 140. When questioned on cross, after first claiming he doesn’t remember his February 2006 testimony, Montgomery testifies as follows:

"Q [Referencing Feb. 7, 2007 Transcript]: Question: Did you destroy or take any files or hard drives or anything from eTreppid Technologies? "Answer: No." And that was your testimony then?

A. Yes.

Q. Your testimony now is that you did take files and hard drives from eTreppid, is that correct?

A. I didn't take them. Warren gave them to me to take out of the building. That's my testimony.

Q. Okay. Well, you didn't tell Judge Perry that you had permission to take certain of the backup, did you?

A. He didn't ask.

Q. You just were asked did you destroy or take any files or hard drives or anything from eTreppid. And your answer was no.

A. I didn't take them. I was told -- they were given to me to take out of the building.

Q. But, you took them?

A. Because they were given to me and told --

Q. Sir, did you take files?

A. Whatever was given to me, yes.

Id. at 143. Montgomery testifies at this same hearing that he was given/took 30-40 eTreppid hard drives. Id. at 172-73. However, Trepp will testify on Aug. 9, 2008 that he never gave Montgomery hard drives. However, during the Aug. 18, 2008 continuation of this hearing Montgomery changes his testimony again, arguing that since he "was eTreppid," he had (apparently implicit) authorization to take stuff:

"Q Okay. Remember your testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing where you said you took no electronic media from eTreppid. Do you remember that testimony?

A Yes.

Q So that's false testimony?

A No.

Q Okay.

A Well --

Q So, then you took the CDs. You took that data and put it on a CD, and took it out of the premises, did you not?

A Everything I took out of there, Mr. Trepp knew I was taking out.

Q So are you saying, then, that you downloaded or you, excuse me, copied data from eTreppid, put it on a machine,burned it on to a CD, and then asked permission to take it?

A No. I don't recall that specifically like that.

Q Well, how did you get -- tell us the form in which you received permission to take eTreppid's property?

A I can't tell you. I thought I was eTreppid.

Q Pardon me?

A I mean, I own stock in the company. I thought --

Q So you took it because -- I'm just talking about the testimony you gave us when you said you took no electronic data from --

A The way that question was asked to me, I thought that was meaning taking it illegally, or without somebody's permission.

Q The question was have you taken anything?

A I --

Q You said no. So, that was false testimony.

A No. I don't know."

Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 833 at 103-04.

Feb. 8, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Nevada State CourtJudge Robert Perry issues a Preliminary Injunction restraining Montgomery. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 29-32. The Injunction reads as follows:

“Until the conclusion of a trial on the merits or other Order, Montgomery and all persons or entities in active concert or participation therewith, are enjoined and restrained from destroying, hypothecating, transferring, modifying, and/or assigning the ETreppid Source Code, from discussing any ETreppid technology, including anomaly detection and pattern recognition software, with any third-party, except experts and other persons and witnesses necessary to Defendant's case and counsel, provided, however that such witnesses and counsel shall not disclose any information to others about ETreppid Source Code.

The Court issues this injunction to maintain the status quo and to avert any irreparable harm that ETreppid may suffer and based on the risk that Mr. Montgomery could delete and/or transfer the last version of the ETreppid Source Code that remains intact.”

Feb. 9, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 22-28. (This will be filed (under seal) on the federal docket as ECF 16, Ex. 1.)

Feb. 10, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Nevada State Court Judge Robert issues an order denying Montgomery’s Ex-Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiff to file its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of preemption. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 19-20. In denying the motion Judge Perry notes that

“Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on January 19, 2006; [Montgomery] filed a Complaint raising the issue of copyright upon which he claims preemption is based, on or about January 31, 2006 and did not raise this issue to this Court until approximately ten (10) hours into the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction conducted on Tuesday February 7, 2006. Moreover, this case was removed to Federal Court and then remanded. According to the materials this Court received from the Federal Court, the sole issue raised 28 was Diversity. Preemption was never mentioned.”

Id. at 19.

Feb. 13, 2006

A Report of Investigation by Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen is made. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 28-40 and ECF 70-8 at 1-11. Although this report is rather heavily redacted, unredacted portions include (but are not limited to) the following:

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION Regarding claims that Montgomery “stole and deleted eTreppids intellectual property” between Dec. 21 2005 and Jan. 10, 2006:

SUBJECT was observed removing Source Code from eTreppid's servers and individual workstations;

SUBJECT told an employee he took a workstation containing the backup Source Code to his residence;

SUBJECT on numerous occasions told this same employee he was going to return the workstation, but never did;

SUBJECT told the Facility Security Officer "he (referencing the CEO) needs to give me' big money if he wants it (a reference to the Source Code)";

Only two employees - SUBJECT and FSO, had the appropriate passwords to delete the Source Code from the servers, and the FSO was in Europe on vacation when the deletion occurred.

Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 31.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files:

a Motion to Modify Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (and Motion to Shorten Time), seeking clarification of the definition of “source code” and to make clear that the injunction applies to both Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 10-18. This will be docketed (under seal) as ECF 16 Ex. 8 on the eTreppid v. Montgomery federal docket.

notice that it has deposited with court clerk a check of $30,000 as security for the Preliminary Injunction. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-7 at 57-59.

Feb. 14, 2006

FBI Agents again interview Warren Trepp. Search Case, ECF 70-6 at 26-27. Among other things, Trepp states:

“eTreppid has earned in excess of ten million dollars in revenues since 1998 from various government and commercial contracts. Trepp anticipates that eTreppid's development efforts will result in other multi-million dollar contracts.” Id. at 26.

Montgomery previously filed ten Patent Assignment applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the period of November 2000 to November 2001 for patents pertaining to various technologies developed by Montgomery while an employee at eTreppid and on each patent Montgomery assigned full and exclusive rights, title, and interest of these technologies to eTreppid. Id.

Also today, FBI receives a CD from from Special Agent Paul Haraldsen, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, containing multiple agreements and legal filings regarding eTreppid Technology, LL.C, and Dennis Lee Montgomery. Search Case, ECF 70-6 at 28-29. The documents listed include declarations from Warren Trepp, Venkata Kalluri, Barjinder Bal, and Sloan Venables, filed in the eTreppid v. Montgomery state case that was pending in state court.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Nevada State Judge Perry denies eTreppid’s motion to shorten time re: its Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-7 at 55-56.

Feb. 16, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion to Dismiss Montgomery’s Counterclaim, Opposition to Preemption Brief, and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-7 at 17-31; see also Jerry Snyder Declaration (ECF 644-6 at 4-137 and ECF 644-7 at 1-16) (declaration contains multiple exhibits of various hearings and rulings to date). This motion will be attached (under seal) as ECF 16 on the federal eTreppid v. Montgomery docket.

Feb. 17, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files his Answer to First Amended Complaint and First Amended Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment and Accounting. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55. Montgomery names the Department of Defense as a defendant in his Counterclaim.

Feb. 21, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an Amended Complaint, adding a Jury Demand and adding the U.S. Department of Defense as a defendant. See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 7.

Feb. 22, 2006

The FBI receives a copy of a Consent to Search Agreement between eTreppid Technologies, LLC, and Special Agent Paul Haraldsen, Air Force Office of Special Investigation. Search Case, ECF 70-6 at 30-32.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Motion to Dismiss. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 13 (apparently filed under seal; not reflected on docket but referenced in ECF 32).

Feb. 23, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion to Dismiss Complaint and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication Of Issues and, in the Alternative, to Strike Each and Every Cause of Action. ECF 13. (This is filed under seal but later attached as an exhibit to eTreppid's Reply (ECF 36).

Feb. 27, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 126-34.

Shortly before the Mar. 1 FBI Search & Seizure and for next few months

According to later testimony, Montgomery has kept some of the eTreppid property that he admittedly took from eTreppid's premises,* consisted of at least 30-40 hard drives, in his "home or the storage facility shortly up to and before the raid on my home.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 732 at 149:

Q. Okay. And then where was it shortly up to or before the raid on your home?

* * *

THE WITNESS: They were in my car.

Q. And did they remain in your car for the period of – I guess the raid occurred on or about March 1st or 2nd, 2006 --did they remain in your car up until you produced them on May 23rd?

A. No.

Q. Where did it go then?

A. Back into the storage place.

Q. The storage facility here in Reno?

A. Yes.

Q. And for how long did it remain there?

* * *

Q. After the car, where did it go?

A. Um, back in storage.

Q. And where this time?

A. Reno. I mean, I think I said that.

Q. So it went, storage, car, storage?

A. Right.

Q. Give me the time frames.

A. Um, the month of, say, the month of April. I had moved it several times.

Q. Why were you moving it several times?

A. Because I was continuously being followed by the FBI.

Id. at 151-52.

"Q. Okay. Why didn't you -- why were you concerned that the FBI might take this hard drive from you, if it contained eTreppid property?

A. Well, they already tried -- they already tried a pretty rough raid on me once.

Q. Sir, why did you think the FBI might want from you property that belonged to eTreppid?

A. They didn't ask me for property that belonged to eTreppid.

Q. You said you were sort of taking it around because the FBI was following you. Why did you have a concern that the FBI might get access to this hard drive which had eTreppid property on it?

A. I was more concerned that they were after me, not what they were after."

Id. at 153-54. Montgomery then testifies as to the rather incredible lengths taken apparently to ensure these materials were not discovered: He hen gave the materials to Flynn who kept them for at least seven months (id. at 154-55), before they were turned over to Flynn’s son for six or seven months (id. at 155-56), before they were returned to Montgomery sometime after the FBI-seized materials were returned to him in 2007 (id. at 159).

During the Aug. 18 continuation of this hearing, Montgomery testifies that, shortly before the FBI raid on his home, he gave eTreppid back up drives (including those maybe containing the PST files) to Flynn– who therafter “put them in a storage facility that was under was Al Rava's name in San Diego.” ECF 833 at 49, 51..

*Note: Montgomery alleges, variously, that he didn't "take" it in that it was given to him and/or he thought he had implicit authorization to take it. See summary of such testimony contained at Feb. 7.

Feb. 28, 2006

Search Case. FBI Special Agent Michael West files an Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant - 12720 Buckthorne Lane, Reno, Nevada. See ECF 40 (PDF) (as later filed in redacted form) (D. Nev.). The search warrant is issued. ECF 2. Also filed is a motion, declaration, and order to seal the search warrant. ECF 3.

Mar. 1, 2006

Search Case. The Search Warrant on 12720 Buckthorne Lane is executed. See, e.g., ECF 21-2 at 22, 32. The search allegedly lasts approximately four hours. Id. at 32.

FBI Special Agent Michael West files an Application and Affidavit For Search Warrants of

Storage Unit #136, Double R Storage, 888 Maestro Drive, Reno, Nevada. ECF 4; see also Search Warrant, ECF 5.
Storage Unit #140, Double R Storage, (same). ECF 6; see also Search Warrant, ECF 7.
Storage Unit #141, Double R Storage, (same). ECF 8; see also Search Warrant, ECF 9.
Storage Unit #142, Double R Storage, (same). ECF 10; see also Search Warrant, ECF 11.
Storage Unit #143, Double R Storage, (same). ECF 12; see also Search Warrant. ECF 13.

These Search Warrants are issued. Also filed is a motion, declaration, and order to seal the search warrants. ECF 14.

Attorney Stillman (Montgomery counsel) sends a letter to the USAG for Nevada protesting several aspects of the search. Search Case ECF 21-2 at 22-25.

Attorney Flynn sends a letter to Donald Rumsfeld (DOD Secretary), Michael Chertoff (DHS Secretary), and Alberto Gonzales (Attorney General), asking for (among other things), permission to disclose the individuals who allegedly told him to place anti-intrusion software on his source code. He also asserts that all of his software is based on copyrighted work created in the 1980s. See Montgomery v. eTreppid, ECF 277-5.

The FBI receives additional information from Warren Trepp. Search Case, 70-6 at 33-34. This information included (as stated in the FBI report):

Trepp reported that Defense Security Services (DSS) was made aware of security violations relating to Montgomery on January 20, 2006. Id. at 33.

Trepp reported that review of Montgomery’s Security Clearance Application showed he failed to list his employment at 3Net Systems, Inc., and that he had been named as a 3Net Systems employee in court documents filed in California Superior Court (No. CV536169) in 1993. Id. at 33.

Trepp reported that the DSS suspended Montgomery's access to classified information on January 20, 2006. Id. at 33.

Trepp provided a copy of a Defense Security Services (DSS) Incident Report for Dennis Lee Montgomery.

Mar. 2, 2006

The FBI receives additional information from eTreppid employee Venables. Search Case, 70-6 at 35-37. Per the FBI's report, Venable states that during week of Feb. 27, he was instructed by a Jay Dixon (DSS employee) to search all eTreppid computers for classified data. He did so with assistance from a DSS technical employee and located what appeared to be classified data on computer stations used by Chinese nationals (although they were unaware that the data was there). Per instructions from the technical employee, he deleted the data but was thereafter advised by Dixon that that was a mistake and that he should secure the two hard drives, which he did. (See also Mar. 3, 2006 brief Interview of Venables regarding names of servers at eTreppid. Id. at 37.)

Mar. 3, 2006

FBI Agents interview the Manager of Double R Self-Storage. Search Case, 70-6 at 38-40, Search Case, 70-7 at 1-10. Gendrinas provided information regarding which storage units Montgomery rented, along with reports generated by the units’ access control system.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files his Reply in Support of his Feb. 9 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 116-125.

Mar. 7, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court of the trial court’s Preliminary Injunction Order. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 90-91.

eTreppid files a Reply in Support of its Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction. ECF 644-5 at 93-102.

Mar. 8, 2006

Dennis Montgomery’s security clearance is reportedly suspended/revoked. See, e.g., Search Case ECF 21-2 at 27.

*Note however, that Montgomery continues (through 2015) to deny that his clearance has been revoked.

Search Case. Return of Search Warrants are filed: 12720 Buckthorne Lane (ECF 15); Storage Unit #136, Double R Storage (ECF 16); Storage Unit #140, Double R Storage (ECF 17); Storage Unit #141, Double R Storage (ECF 18); Storage Unit #142, Double R Storage (ECF 19); Storage Unit #143, Double R Storage (ECF 20).

Mar. 9, 2006

Search Case. Attorney Stillman (Montgomery counsel) sends a letter to USAG for Nevada addressing several matters of dispute and attached a draft proposed stipulation regarding the handling of items seized during the search. ECF 21-2 at 26-27.

Mar. 10, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files Motions (a) to unseal search warrant affidavits, (b) for return of property, and (c) for segregation and sealing of “all attorney-client and trade secret materials” seized. ECF 21 (Motion); see also ECF 21-3 (Montgomery Declaration).

Mar. 13, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files his Opposition to eTreppid's Motion to Dismiss. ECF 32; see also ECF 32-1 (Declaration of Philip Stillman); ECF 32-2 (Declaration of Dennis Montgomery).

Mar. 14, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files Request for Submission, asking Court to submit its Feb. 13 Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction for decision. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 84.

Mar. 15, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion to Dismiss Montgomery’s Amended Counterclaim. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 57-77. Per later order, this pleading was filed on the federal docket as ECF 16, Exhibit 12.

Mar. 17, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Motion for Protective Order and to Seal Proceedings. ECF 33; see also ECF 34 (Declaration of Jerry Snyder).

Mar. 20, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. The United States files a Petition for removal of the eTreppid state proceedings in light of the fact that Montgomery added the Department of Defense as a Co-defendant in his counterclaim filed in state court. eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 1; see also eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 29-40.

Mar. 22, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. The Case assigned to Judge Brian E. Sandoval and Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

Judge Sandoval issues an order requiring the United States to “file and serve a signed Statement no later than 15 days from the date of this order. It if further ORDERED that counsel shall have 30 days to file a Joint Status Report. Statement due by 4/6/2006. Status Report due by 4/21/2006.” ECF 2. (The Court will later issue an order granting a consent motion to extend these deadlines. ECF 7.)

Mar. 24, 2006

Opspring LLC is registered with the Secretary of State of Washington. Atigeo Litigation, ECF 63 (Montgomery Declaration); see also Blixseth v. YMC Appeal, Doc 87-4 at 17. Between March 2006 and June 2007, Edra Blixseth will pay more than $1.2 million in legal fees to Montgomery attorneys. See Blixseth v. YMC Appeal Doc 87-4 at 17.

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Attorney Karen K. Richardson files a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the United States. ECF 5.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Motion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss Montgomery’s First Amended Complaint. ECF 35, 36. (This motion was apparently filed under seal as it is not on the docket, although responses and references are on docket).

Mar. 27, 2006

Search Case. The United States responds to Montgomery’s Motions (to unseal affidavits, return property, etc.). See ECF 22 (PDF) (response to motion for return of seized property); ECF 24 (PDF) (response to motion to unseal search warrant affidavits, in which they assert that they will present evidence showing that multiple factual allegations made by Montgomery are untrue); ECF 25 (PDF) (response to motion for order sealing/segregating all attorney-client and trade secret information).

Apr. 3, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of his Motions (ECF 21) to unseal search warrant affidavits and return property, etc. ECF 26.

Apr. 4, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a Response the United States’ Consent Motion for Extension of Time (which was already granted by the Court (ECF 7)). ECF 10.

Apr. 5, 2006

Montgomery is hired by Opspring LLC. “As the Chief Technology Officer it was [his] responsibility to head the company's software development.” Atigeo v. Montgomery, ECF 37 (Montgomery Nov. 22, 2013 Declaration) at ¶ 3; see also ECF 35 (Sandoval Nov. 18, 2013 Declaration) at ¶10.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppids Motion for Protective Order and to Seal Pleadings & Records. ECF 39 (Opposition); ECF 40 (exhibits)

Apr. 6, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Attorney Carlotta P. Wells files an Appearance on Behalf of the United States. ECF 12. The United States files a Status Report/Statement. ECF 13.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Attorney Carlotta P. Wells files an Appearance on Behalf of the United States. ECF 41.

Apr. 10, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke sets a hearing on eTreppid’s Motion for Protective Order and to Seal Proceedings for May11, 2006. ECF 42.

Apr. 11, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Response to eTreppid’s Ex Parte Motion. ECF 43. (The eTreppid Motions are apparently filed under seal as they do not appear on the docket at ECF 35, 36, as referenced in Montgomery’s Response.)

Apr. 17, 2006

Search Case. The Court sets an evidentiary hearing on Montgomery's Motions (21) to unseal search warrants and for return of items seized, etc., for May 3, 2006. ECF 27 (PDF).

Apr. 19, 2006

Search Case. The Court issues an order directing the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefing addressing several issues relating to Montgomery's Motions (21) to unseal search warrants and for return of items seized, etc. ECF 28.

Apr. 20, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion to Sever and Remand, asking the Court to sever Montgomery's claims against the United States (asserted in his Counterclaim) and remain the case back to state court. ECF 15. (This motion was filed under seal and is not on the docket, although responses and other references are on the docket.)

Apr. 28, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a “Partial Compliance with Court Order of April 19, 2006," in which it notifies the Court is is providing redacted versions of two affidavits relating to the search warrants under separate cover. ECF 31 (PDF).

The Court issues an order stating, in part:

"There appear to be serious concerns about the search warrants issued by this court as it relates to certain classified information. ...

Given the nature of these proceedings, the court has determined that the May 3, 2006 evidentiary hearing is VACATED. The order requiring the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefing is VACATED. The court will not accept any further telephonic communications from counsel for the parties, and the court directs that the parties file the appropriate motion or separate action addressing any issues relating to the government's concerns about classified information."

ECF 32 (PDF).

May 3, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an ex parte motion for a decision on his motions without a hearing. ECF 33 (PDF).

May 8, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a Motion for Protective Order Prohibiting Disclosure of Classified Information. ECF 34 (PDF).

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Both Montgomery and the United States file Responses to eTreppid’s Motion to Sever and Remand. See ECF 21 (United States Response); ECF 22 (Montgomery Response).

May 10, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a Motion for Expedited Issuance of Protective Order or, in the Alternative, for an Expedited Hearing. ECF 35.

Montgomery files a Response to the United States’ Motion (34) for Protective Order. ECF 36 (PDF). This response includes a letter sent by Flynn to USAG Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, referencing a March 1, 2006 letter sent to Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Id. at 19-21. It also includes a Declaration of Dennis Montgomery, dated May 9.

Flynn sends a letter to Daniel G. Bogden (US Attorney General) and others, referencing his Mar. 1 letter to Rumsfeld et al. Search Case ECF 36 (PDF) at 19-21. In this letter, he describes his Mar. 1 letter as offering "a simple and obvious solution to resolve this matter," offering Montgomery's "full cooperation with the appropriate governmental agencies to get his software technology up and running in the war on terror in order to avert national disasters and save the lives of US citizens." He refers to the current search proceedings as "local political mischief" which should be "addressed at the highest levels of government on behalf of which Mr. Montgomery utilized his software. Mr. Montgomery's sole concern is to save American lives and to get his software operative." Id.

May 15, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files:

Motion to Consolidate Montgomery v. eTreppid (00056) and eTreppid v. Montgomery (00145). ECF 23.

"First Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.” ECF 24.

“First Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction.” ECF 26 (Motion); ECF 26-1 (Montgomery Declaration); 26-2 (Philip Stillman Declaration).

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Motion to consolidate Montgomery v. eTreppid (00056) and eTreppid v. Montgomery (00145). ECF 50.

May 16, 2006

Search Case. The Court issues an order setting a hearing on the United States’ Motion for Protective Order for May 26, 2006. ECF 37.

May 22, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Reply in Support of its Motion to Remand and Sever. ECF 27.

May 24, 2006

Search Case. The United States files its Reply in Support of its Motion (34) for a Protective Order. ECF 38.

May 25, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an “Objection to the Government’s Proposed Presentation of Evidence Not Disclosed in its Motion for a Protective Order or Its Reply. ECF 39.

May 26, 2006

Search Case. The United States files redacted versions of its Applications and Affidavits for Search Warrants of 12720 Buckthorn Lane (ECF 40 (PDF)); and 888 Maestro Drive Unit #136 (ECF 41 (PDF)).

The Court holds the scheduled hearing on the United States’ Motion for Protective Order. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 42); Transcript of Proceeding (123). On the motion for protective order, "The government's motion for the expedited issuance of a protective order or in the alternative a motion for an expedited hearing submitted on May 10, 2006 is GRANTED. The government's motion for a protective order prohibiting disclosure of classified information sent to the Court on May 8, 2006, is DENIED. . . . The government has leave to renew its motion with proper evidentiary support." See ECF 42 (PDF).

June 1, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a Supplement to the redacted Applications and Affidavits for Search Warrants of 12729 Buckthorn Lane (ECF 43 (PDF)) and 888 Maestro Drive Unit #136 (ECF 44 (PDF)).

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 28) and an Opposition to Montgomery’s Montgomery’s Motion to Consolidate Cases 00056 and 00145 (ECF 28).

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Motion to Consolidate Cases 00056 and 00145. ECF 53.

June 2, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motions (ECF 21) to unseal search warrant affidavits and return property, etc. ECF 45 (PDF).

The United States files a “Response to Issues Identified in Court Minute Order of Apr. 19, 2006.” ECF 46; see also Declaration of Michael A. West, ECF 47 (PDF).

eTreppid v. Montgomery. The United States files a Response to Montgomery’s Motion to Consolidate Cases 00056 and 00145. ECF 30.

Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim. ECF 31

Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files a Response to Montgomery’s Motion to Consolidate Cases 00056 and 00145. ECF 54.

June 6, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files a Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motions (ECR 21) to unseal search warrants, return property, etc. ECF 48. See also Second Declaration of Michael Flynn in support of Motions (ECF 49), Amended Second Memorandum (ECF 50); Amended Second Declaration of Michael Flynn (ECF 51).

June 7, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion to Strike Untimely Response to its Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim. ECF 34. (This motion will be denied Mar. 19, 2007.)

June 13, 2006

Search Case. The Court issues a minute order setting an evidentiary hearing for June 29, 2006. ECF 52 (PDF).

June 14, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of its Motion to Consolidate Cases 00056 and 00145. ECF 35 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 55 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

June 16, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files its Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Counterclaim. ECF 36.

June 19, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a Response to eTreppid’s Motion to Strike his Response as Untimely. ECF 38.

June 21, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files a Motion to Dismiss in both cases. ECF 39 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 56 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

June 26, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Reply in Support of its Motion to Strike Montgomery’s Untimely Response to its Motion to Dismiss. ECF 40.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a First Motion to Continue Status Conference (unopposed) and to Submit Draft Protective Orders. ECF 57

June 27, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files:

Reply in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF 41.

Motion to Continue Status Conference to a Date after July 9, 2006. ECF 43.

Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order pursuant to the requests of the parties to continue the status conference. ECF 44

June 28, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files Motion to Continue Status Conference until after July 9. ECF 59.

June 29, 2006

Search Case. The Court holds an evidentiary hearing on Montgomery’s Motions to unseal affidavits and return property. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 53); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 124). The hearing will continue July 31. ECF 53 (PDF).

July 2006

According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration:

"7. In July, 2006, [Opspring] arranged a meeting in Vice-President Cheney's Office which I attended with several individuals for the purpose of educating and explaining to the Vice-President that much of my work was so highly compartmentalized within <----> , it was likely that some high level officials in the administration and even within the intelligence community, including certain Air Force officials aligned with Warren Trepp, and potentially even the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte (whom certain distrusted) did not know or understand the full scope of its utilization in the war on terror; and/or had competing financial interests aligned with Trepp, Gibbons and Bath. . . .

8. . . . I met for several hours with Samantha Ravich, Deputy Assistant to the Vice-President in charge of National Security. I was later told by other individuals who attended the meeting with Ms. Ravich, that they thereafter met directly with Vice-President Cheney, and that the whole matter was under his review; would be reported directly to the President, and that progress in the immediate utilization of the technology was being made. During the meeting with Ms. Ravich, after she represented that she held the necessary clearances to discuss these matters, I explained to her some of what is recited in my previous declaration, as well as my more immediate concerns hereinafter stated.

7 [sic]. In that meeting; J explained two particularly urgent concerns: (i) the continued <----------------------------> which I had been accomplishing privately; and the need for "blade servers~ to accelerate that processing and decoding; given the huge volume of digital streaming involved; and (ii) the utilization of my technology in connection with <------------> which was used in a highly compartmentalized <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> including the assassination of U.S. soldiers. My technology can <-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> We effectively tracked several of them. It was apparent that Ms. Ravich had either a very limited understanding of my work for <------> and/or that her knowledge of these issues was either compartmentalized; and/or that she had never been briefed."

Search Case ECF 115 ¶¶ 7, 8, 7. See also Aram Roston, "The Man Who Conned the Pentagon," Playboy, Jan/Feb 2010 (Lexis-Nexis version of this article as filed in Montgomery v. Risen, ECF 52-3) ("His word may be suspect, but there is corroborating evidence. Ravich listened to Montgomery and Blixseth, but she was—even in Montgomery’s recollection—unimpressed by his claims"),

Jul. 10, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files its Response to United States’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF 44 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 60 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

July 30, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an Ex Parte Application to enforce a trial subpoena duces tecum served on eTreppid Technologies, LLC for the production of corporate documents. ECF 55 (PDF).

July 31, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files a “Summary of Evidence in his F.R.Crim.P. 41(g) Hearing, Prior to the July 31, 2006 Hearing.” ECF 58.

The Court reconvenes the evidentiary hearing on Montgomery’s Motions (21) to unseal affidavits and return property. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 59); Transcript (ECF 125).

Summer 2006

Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, his exclusive capability re: his source code "is established by the recent interception of the attempts by terrorists operating out of London to blow up jetliners originating in London and bound for the US. I gave the appropriate authorities within the US Government accurate and very specific intelligence regarding this terrorist plot, from my "decoding software" as I have done in the past, weeks prior to the arrests by the London authorities – without compensation.” Montgomery v eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 6. In his Dec. 2006 Qui Tam Complaint, Montgomery similarly alleges that, after the FBI search, he “freely gave the “output” from his technology to the Bush Administration and this “output” subsequently and correctly forecasted a specific terrorist threat saving the lives of potentially thousands of Americans.” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶101.

According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration, "Shortly after the meeting in Vice-President Cheney’s office, I provided specific "output" containing target coordinates and flight numbers to specific individuals who met directly with the Vice President This “output” related to the London liquid bomb flights, which were subsequently used in the disruption of that threat. I was told my technology had been validated and progress would be made." Search Case ECF 115 ¶ 9.

According a declaration filed by FBI Agent Michael West in September 2006, on August 10, he received the following information from the Seattle FBI office:

"[T]he Seattle FBI office [has] received information from Azimyth, a company located in Bellevue, Washington, which had discovered terrorist threat related information. Michael Sandoval, Chief Executive Officer of Azimyth []contacted a retired Central Intelligence Agency former Chief of Station residing in Washington and offered to provide the U.S. Government terrorist threat related information. … Montgomery was the Azimyth employee who located the information. In a subsequent conversation with Montgomery, he reported that he located increase noise in recent Al-Jazeera video transmissions."

Search Case ECF 76 (PDF).

Notes: Montgomery's claim was reportedly “immediately disputed by United States intelligence officials.” See Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. “Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security,” New York Times, Feb. 19, 2011. See also Dominic Casciani, “Liquid bomb plot: What happened,” BBC News, Sept. 7, 2009 (explaining that, after discovering suspicious items contained in Ahmed Ali’s suitcase upon his return from Pakistan in June 2006, MI5 and multiple other agencies undertook a massive surveillance program, which led to the arrests).

Timing - The London arrests occurred in August 2006. Id. See also “Three guilty of airline bomb plot,” BBC News, Sept. 7, 2009; Alan Cowell and Dexter Filkins, “Terror Plot Foiled; Airports Quickly Clamp Down,” New York Times, Aug. 11, 2006.

What Capability/Source Code - Per Aram Rosten's article, Montgomery claimed that the "new output data" he provided to VP Cheney's office in order to validate his work, which had “had been encrypted in Al Jazeera, were the keys that allowed investigators to crack the liquid-bomb plot in London.” See Aram Roston, “The Man Who Conned the Pentagon,” Playboy, Jan/Feb 2010 (Lexis-Nexis version of this article as filed in Montgomery v. Risen, ECF 52-3).

Aug. 2, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time Within Which to Hear their Application to Enforce Trial Subpoena. ECF 56. The Court grants this motion. ECF 57. The Court also sets another hearing for August 11. ECF 60.

Aug. 9, 2006

Search Case. eTreppid files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Ex Parte Application (55) to Enforce Trial Subpoena and a Counter-Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena. ECF 62 (Motion); ECF 63 (PDF) (Snyder Declaration).

Aug. 10, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of his Ex Parte Application (55) to Enforce Trial Subpoena. ECF 64.

Aug. 11, 2006

Search Case. The Court holds a hearing on Montgomery’s Ex Parte Application (55) to Enforce Trial Subpoena. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 67 (PDF)); Transcript (ECF 126). The Court rules that the subpoena was effectuated but rules that eTreppid is not required to turn over most of the requested documents. However, eTreppid must provide the Sept. 28, 1998 "Contribution Agreement" for the movants review no later than Tuesday, August 15, 2006, and the United States must provide any documents responsive to requests for eTreppid parties' communications with teh United States. ECF 67 (PDF)

Aug. 15, 2006

Search Case. The parties file a Joint Pre-Hearing Statement, prior to the Aug. 17, 2006 Continued Hearing. ECF 65.

Aug. 16, 2006

Search Case. The Court issues a minute order addressing the August 17, 2006 hearing protocol. ECF 66.

Aug. 17, 2006

Search Case. The Court reconvenes the evidentiary hearing on Montgomery’s Motions (21) to unseal affidavits and return property a hearing. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 68 (PDF)); Transcript (ECF 127). The Court orders the United States to submit the reports and back up information relied upon by FBI Special Agent West for in camera review. ECF 68 (PDF)

Sep. 1, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Federal Judge Sandoval issues an order granting eTreppid’s Mar. 24 Motion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss or to Respond to First Amended Complaint and denying as moot eTreppid’s Feb. 22 Motion to Dismiss. ECF 69 (PDF).

Sep. 11, 2006

Search Case. The United States files notice of “Compliance With Court Order Of August 17, 2006, by submitting the information upon which Special Agent West relied in support of his search warrant affidavits. Search Case, ECF 70. These documents are originally submitted under seal but will be unsealed in late September 2007 per court orders issued on Sept. 17 and 26, 2007. The documents include:

Jan. 31, 2006 Interview of Warren Trepp, CEO of eTreppid. ECF 70-5 at 3-7. See also ECF 70-6 at 24-25 (documentation that Trepp provided re: listing of ADT alarm code user names and numbers).

Feb. 2, 2006 Interview of Sloan Venables, eTreppid Director of Research and Development. ECF 70-5 at 8-14. See also ECF 70-5 at 25, 30-40; ECF 70-6 at 1-23 (listing and/or copies of various documents and materials Venebles provides to the FBI).

Feb. 6, 2006 Interview of Patty Gray, eTreppid Vice President of Product Development. ECF 70-5 at 15-22. See also id. at 26-29 (inventory of classified materials maintained at eTreppid).

Feb.6, 2006 Interview of Neil Azzinaro, independent casino host. ECF 70-5 at 23-24.

Feb. 14, 2006 interview of Warren Trepp. ECF 70-6 at 26-27.

Feb. 16, 2006 receipt of a CD from Special Agent Paul Haraldsen, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, containing multiple agreements and legal filings regarding eTreppid Technology, LL.C, and Dennis Lee Montgomery. ECF 70-6 at 28-29.

Feb. 22, 2006 Consent to Search Agreement between eTreppid Technologies, LLC, and Special Agent Paul Haraldsen, Air Force Office of Special Investigation. ECF 70-6. at 30-32.

Mar. 1, 2006 information received from Warren Trepp. ECF 70-6 at 33-34.

Mar. 2, 2006 Information provided by Venables. ECF 70-6 at 35-37. See also id.at 37 (brief Interview of Venables regarding names of servers at eTreppid).

Copies of Air Force Office of Special Investigations Reports of Investigative Activity, which included:

January 23, 2006 interview of Sloan Venables. ECF 70-7 at 11-12.

January 19-23 2006 Interviews of Warren Trepp. ECF 70-7 at 13-14.

January 23, 2006 Statement from Jerry Snyder (eTreppid attorney) regarding statements Montgomery made at the TRO hearing. ECF 70-7 at 15.

January 23, 2006 review of Venables Declaration. ECF 70-7 at 16.

January 24, 2006 Interview of Patty Gray. ECF 70-7 at 17-18.

January 24, 25, 2006 Interview of Sloan Venables. ECF 70-7 at 23-25.

January 24-25 Interview of Jesse Anderson, a web developer for eTreppid. ECF 70-7 at 19-20.

January 25, 2006 Interview of James Bauder, a graphics designer for eTreppid. ECF 70-7 at 21-22.

[January 26, 2006] Undated draft report by Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen. ECF 70-7 at 27.

February 13, 2006 Report of Investigation by Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen. ECF 70-7 at 28-40 - ECF 70-8 at 1-11.

Email exchanges between FBI agent and Warren Trepp, Sloan Venables, and Air Force Special Agent Haraldsen regarding the investigation. ECF 70-8 at 12-19.

Sep. 13, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a Second Submission re “Compliance With Court Order Of August 17, 2006 (Information West relied on in support of search warrant). ECF 71. The submission contains transcripts of recorded calls between Air Force Special Agent Paul Haraldsen and Montgomery. (These documents are originally submitted under seal but will be unsealed in late September 2007 per court orders issued on Sept. 17 and 26, 2007.)

Sep. 14, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time Within Which to File Post-Hearing Brief. ECF 72.

eTreppid files a Motion for Return of Seized Property and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. ECF 73 (Motion); ECF 74 (Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Motion).

Sep. 15, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a “Petition for Judicial Review Request for Ruling on How to Handle Sealed Case in Oppositions.” ECF 50.

Sep. 19, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a First Motion Request for Ruling on How to Handle Sealed Case in Oppositions also filed in 3:06-cv-00145. ECF 73.

eTreppid files a Motion for Protective Order. ECF 74 (PDF). In this motion, eTreppid summarizes the parties’ (eTreppid, Montgomery, United States) discussions and proposed draft protective orders to date.

Sep. 21, 2006

Search Case. The United States files:

Supplemental Briefing In Response To Motion To Unseal Search Warrant Affidavits. ECF 75. See also ECF 76 (PDF) (Second Declaration of Special Agent Michael A. West In Support Of Government's Supplemental Briefing On Motion To Unseal).

Supplemental Briefing In Response To Motion For An Order Sealing And Segregating All Attorney-Client And Trade-Secret Information. ECF 77.

Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and, in the Alternative, to Strike Each and Every Cause of Action. ECF 76 (filed under seal but referenced in later pleadings).

Sep. 22, 2006

Search Case. The United States files Supplemental Briefing in Response to Montgomery’s Motion For Return Of Seized Property. ECF 78.

Sep. 25, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files his Post-Hearing Memorandum supporting his Motion for the Return of his Property. ECF 81.

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files Motions for Protective Order in both cases. ECF 51 (PDF) (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 83 (Montgomery v. eTreppid). Two versions (one classified) of a "Declaration and Formal Claim of State Secrets and Statutory Privileges by John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence," is filed in support of this motion. (Attached to ECF 83.)

With respect to the Negroponte declaration, Montgomery will later claim as follows:

"Do you really think the government invoked the State Secrets Priviledge [sic] from beiing [sic] embarrassed or conned? Negroponte in his in camera declaration, if ever released, was spell it all of out [sic].

They governemnt [sic] never wanted information to come out regarding the other work. The program started out spying on terrorist, and under Obama quickly moved to spying on Americans!! A program which was started by Brennan in 2003 and continues to this day. This technology is being used today to spy on Americans, including candidate Romney."

See Nov 1, 2012 email from Montgomery ("Sectec Astronomy <[email protected]>"), attached to First Amended Complaint, Montgomery v. Risen, ECF 44 at 164; See Declaration of Dennis Montgomery (id. at 139, ¶ 54) ("Attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 8 are a few of my communications to James Risen informing him in advance of the publication of the Book that his statements were not only false but preposterous and that his sources were clearly unreliable.")

After Sept. 25, 2006

According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration:

“[After Negroponte filed his declaration], I was informed that Mr. Negroponte’s lack of knowledge about my technology and work within <---> was part of the problem and that he was being fired. I have recently cooperated with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating these matters as reflected in the attached questions, marked as Exhibit 2 hereto, submitted to the Committee based upon my knowledge of specific events and interactions wit-and other officials.”

Search Case ECF 115 ¶ 11.

Sep. 26, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over the Status Conference scheduled in both cases. See Minutes of Proceeding, ECF 52 (PDF)(eTreppid v. Montgomery) and ECF 84 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); Transcript of Proceeding, ECF 85 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

During this hearing, Magistrate Judge (a) stays all discovery except that “[i]n the event eTreppid Technlogies, LLC wishes to obtain information or subpoena records from Mr. Montgomery’s current employer in the State of Washington, the Court will allow that discovery to proceed;” and (b) orders the parties to complete briefing on the pending motions for protective order: Oppositions to motions for protective order to be filed by Oct. 24 and Replies to be filed by Nov. 9. ECF 52 (PDF) (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 84 (Montgomery v eTreppid).

Additionally,

“The Court notes for the record that the parties raised the issue of briefing on the pending dispositive motions in these actions; however, the Court is concerned that its report and recommendation regarding the sealed search warrant matter may inhibit the full discussion on briefing regarding the motions to dismiss. Therefore, with respect to the briefing of the pending motions to dismiss, regarding Mr. Montgomery’s opposition to these motions, the parties shall raise this issue with the District Court.”

Id.

Sep. 28, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files Objections to Supplemental Sealed Affidavit (76) of Special Agent Michael West. ECF 82.

Oct. 10, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid's Sept. 21 Motion to Dismiss. ECF 87 (Motion); ECF 86 (Request for Judicial Notice (of declarations previously filed in case).

Oct. 16, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion for Return of Seized Property. ECF 85.

Oct. 30, 2006

Dennis Montgomery signs a SEALED DECLARATION OF DENNIS MONTGOMERY IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITIONS TO DOD'S AND ETREPPID'S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS.

On Nov. 7, 2006, this declaration will be filed -- under seal -- in Montgomery v. eTreppid. This will later be placed on the Montgomery v. eTreppid docket -- in redacted form -- at ECF 228.

On June 1, 2015, Montgomery will file an unredacted, apparently draft version, of this declaration another case.

Among many claims made in this declaration is the following: "...I expect, given the Government's failure to use certain Information that I processed which turned out to be accurate, but on which the Government failed to act, resulting in multiple civilian and military casualties, that such information is not in the sealed [Negroponte] declaration." Id. at ¶ 10 (emphasis added). See also id. ¶¶ 21-22 (further allegations re: attacks that he allegedly warned the government about using his technology, and that the government failed to act on in time to prevent the attacks.)

Montgomery also asserts: “The Government has now held my computers and storage media for over six months knowing I do not have possession of any “classified information”.... ” Id. at ¶ 6 (emphasis added).

Notes: Despite this assertion under oath that he possesses no classified information, Montgomery will - over the next many years and in a wide variety of circumstances - repeatedly claim that he does in fact have "classified information" obtained during the time he worked at eTreppid. For example, on May 14, 2008, he will file an "Emergency Request for Status Conference to Address the Montgomery Parties' Compliance with the Court's [Document Production] Order."

In that motion, he will assert (among many other things) that he cannot produce the documents at issue per the Court's order in part because of the "1.5 million pages of paper” – “estimated to consist of 350 gigabytes of information,” a "substantial percentage, i.e., sixty to eighty, of the Technology Data” may fall ... within the United States’ requested Protective Order “and/or Non-Disclosure Agreements executed by Dennis Montgomery (i.e., is classified). ECF 604 (PDF) at 3.

Thereafter, during the Aug. 18, 2008 portion of the show cause hearing (as to why Montgomery should not be held in contempt for his continued failure to produce documents in spite of multiple court orders), Montgomery attempts to explain this inconsistency as follows:

Q . . . You said that one of the reasons why you hadn't produced a lot of the documents that were required to be produced is because you had a concern that the State Secret Privilege may be implicated on some of that electronic media you had.

Do you remember that testimony from June 10th and June 24th?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Okay. That was your position then, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You've taken a contrary position before, have you not, that there's no State Secret Privilege on any of the seized material?

A. Seized material?

Q. Yes.

A. I think, originally, that was the position.

Q. And that was the position you took in a sworn declaration, was it not?

A. Yes. I remember signing something.

ECF 833 at 105-06.

Q. Okay. So when you said this [ECF 228 Declaration] under penalty of perjury, that was false?

A. No. Just what I believed at the time to be accurate.

ECF 833 at 110.

Nov. 1, 2006

The Wall Street Journal publishes a front-page article based on Montgomery’s allegations against U.S. Congressman Gibbons and Warren Trepp. See John R. Wilke, “Congressman's Favors for Friend Include Help in Secret Budget: With Rep. Gibbons's Backing, An Ex-Trader for Milken Wins Millions in Contracts,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1, 2006.

Nov. 2, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. An Order of Recusal is issued. Case is referred to Chief Judge Philip M. Pro for reassignment. ECF 57 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 95 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order requiring Montgomery to file his opposition to the United States’ motion for protective order and eTreppid’s motion for protective order under seal via hand delivery and in camera review by the court. She denies his (apparently sealed/not on docket) ex parte motions for a hearing on how to treat sealed material. ECF 59 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 97 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

Nov. 3, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. The Nevada State Democratic Party files an Emergency Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Court Records. ECF 98 (PDF). Citing to the Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal article, the NSDP requests that the Court unseal all materials seized at Montgomery’s house because “[i]t is the proposed intervenor's belief that documents that were on the computers and disks have been filed with the Court, and that these documents explain the relationship between Mr. Gibbons and the Defendants.” Id. at 4. This motion will be denied on Sept. 17, 2007.

Nov. 6, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. Chief Judge Pro issues an order requiring counsel for all parties to “fully comply with the provisions of Local Rule 7.1-1 within 10 days. ECF 60 (eTreppid v. Montgomery) ECF 99 (Montgomery v. eTreppid). The case is reassigned to Judge Brian Larry R. Hicks. ECF 61 (eTreppid v. Montgomery) ECF 100 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cook sets an expedited briefing schedule for the Nevada State Democratic Party’s Emergency Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Court Records. ECF 101.

Montgomery submits an Opposition to eTreppid's Sept. 19 Motion for Protective Order, but does not file it with the Clerk of the Court, since it references matters related to the Search Case. (See ECF 218). It will later be docketed as ECF 221.

Montgomery apparently also submits an Opposition to the DOD's Sept. 25 Motion for Protective Order. See ECF 222. (Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to DOD Motion).

The SEALED DECLARATION OF DENNIS MONTGOMERY IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITIONS TO DOD'S AND ETREPPID'S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS, dated Oct. 30, 2006, is submitted under seal in support of his Opposition. This will later be publicly filed in redacted form at ECF 228. See Oct. 30, 2006 and links therein for information about this declaration.

Nov. 13, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. The parties file responses to Nevada State Democratic Party’s Emergency Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Court Records. ECF 102 (United States Response); ECF 103, 104 (eTreppid Response and Request for Judicial Notice); ECF 105, 106 (Montgomery Response and Request for Judicial Notice).

Nov. 15, 2006

Search Case. Case is reassigned from Judge Brian E. Sandoval to Judge Larry R. Hicks, per order signed by Judge Philip M. Pro. ECF 21.

Nov. 17, 2006

eTreppid v. Montgomery | Montgomery v. eTreppid. The parties file their Certificate of Interested Parties.

eTreppid – ECF 62 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 107 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

Montgomery – ECF 63 (eTreppid v. Montgomery); ECF 108 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).

Nov. 27, 2006

Montgomery v. eTreppid. Nevada State Democratic Party files its Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Court Records. ECF 109.

Nov. 28, 2006

Search Case. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues three orders:

1. Order granting Montgomery’s Motion to Unseal Search Warrants and Return Property (and denying motion for segregation of materials as moot). ECF 86.

2. Order granting Montgomery’s Motion to Strike Special Agent West’s Supplemental Affidavit and sua sponte striking the Declaration of Greg Gilbert (filed by Montgomery). ECF 87 (PDF).

3. Order denying eTreppid’s Motion for Return of Seized Property. ECF 88 (PDF).

Nov. 30, 2006

Search Case. The United States files an Ex Parte Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Nov. 28, 2006 Order to Unseal Warrants and Return Property. ECF 89.

Dec. 1, 2006

Search Case. The Court issues a Minute Order re Serving Ex Parte Motion, in which it orders the United States to serve its Ex Parte Motion (89) on Montgomery. ECF 90.

The United States files an Objection (to the order (90) issued today) and Notice of Intent to Appeal Order of December 1, 2006. ECF 91.

The Court issues an Order to Show Cause (hearing to be held Dec. 4) - i.e., requiring the United States to show cause why it has failed to comply with the Court's Dec. 1 Order. ECF 92 (PDF).

The United States files (to District Court) an Emergency Ex Parte Request For Issuance Of A Stay On The U.S. Magistrate Judge's Order Of December 1, 2006. ECF 94.

Dec. 4, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files an Objection To Government's Motion for Clarification and Request to Hold the The Government in Contempt. ECF 93.

The District Court issues an Order Referring the United States' Emergency Ex Parte Request for Issuance of a Stay (back) to the Magistrate Judge. ECF 95.

Magistrate Judge Cooke holds the show cause hearing per her Dec. 1 Order. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 96 (PDF)); Transcript (ECF 128).

Dec. 7, 2006

Search Case. The United States files a Motion to Withdraw its Emergency Ex Parte Request for Issuance of a Stay. ECF 97.

Dec. 12, 2006

Search Case. The United States files Objections to Magistrate Judge's Nov. 28 Order Unsealing Affidavits and for Return of Seized Property Pursuant to F.R.Crim.Proc. 41(G). ECF 99.

eTreppid files a Motion for Reconsideration the Court's order (88) denying its Rule 41(G) Motion for Return of Property. ECF 98.

Dec. 14, 2006

Qui Tam Litigation. Montgomery files a Complaint for Violation of the False Claims Act and Conspiracy to Violate the False Claims Act. ECF 2. He names as defendants Warren Trepp, Congressman Jim Gibbons, eTreppid, General Ronald Bath, Ascentia Capital Partners, eTreppdi employees Sloan Venables and Patty Gray, Air Force Special Agent Paul Haraldsen and FBI Special Agent Michael West.

In his Complaint, Montgomery alleges, among other things, that Trepp bribed U.S. Congressman Gibbons for the purpose of securing multiple lucrative defense contracts,* and engaged in insider trading based on information he learned in the course of Montgomery’s work on those contracts. See generally Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF).

*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp- Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.

Montgomery also asserts that, between September 28, 1998 and January 18, 2006, he was an independent contractor for eTreppid. Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 12.

*Note: This is contradicted by Montgomery's own testimony under oath in other cases. See, e.g., eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 189-91 Montgomery testifies on the stand that he became an eTreppid employee in January 2003); eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 26-2 at ¶ 12 (declaration in which Montgomery asserts that he became an eTreppid employee in January 2004);

Montgomery also asserts that, between September 28, 1998 and January 18, 2006, the “source codes” he used on certain military contracts were never on the eTreppid premises. Complaint, Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 6.

*Note: This is contradicted by Montgomery's own testimony under oath in other cases. See, e.g., eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 194-95 ("Q. The source codes with regard to anomaly detection software, where are they? A. In the [eTreppid] building.”) id. ECF 644-22 at 8 (when asked when he put his software on eTreppid computers, he responded, July or August of 2003, I believe"); eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 26-2 at ¶¶ 17-18 (declaration "the the programs were stored in part on eTreppid hard drives. . . ").

Montgomery accuses Air Force and FBI Agents of conducting investigations/obtaining the search warrants for the purpose of stealing Montgomery’s source code for their own pecuniary gain.* In so doing, he alleges, they “not only perpetrated a fraud on plaintiff U.S. Government. They wilfully prevented Montgomery from providing the technology to the Government to save American lives.” Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 91.

*Note: This claim seems utterly illogical/circular: Montgomery asserts that Trepp, the Air Force, and the FBI knew that his source code would self-destruct if anyone other than he tried to access it, yet he claims that the sole purpose of the search was to get their hands on his source code – i.e., the source code that they could never get because it would self-destruct as soon as anyone other than Montgomery attempted to access.

Dec. 21, 2006

Search Case. Montgomery files:

Opposition to the United States’ Objections (99) to Magistrate Judge's Order Unsealing Affidavits and for Return of Seized Property. ECF 100.

Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion (98) for Reconsideration of Rule 41(G) Motion for Return of Property. ECF 101.

Late December 2006 - Late February 2007

According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration:

“Throughout the summer and fall of 2006, up to and including the present, l have worked with my current employers to improve my <-----------------> technology. It is significantly improved and we have voluntarily used it within the last 60 days to voluntarily provide intelligence information to the appropriate officials in order to save American. lives. Even with its current limited use, it has specifically averted specific terrorist threats.”

Search Case ECF 115 ¶ 11.

« 2005

2007 »

A Timeline of Dennis L. Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

2006 Dennis Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

Comments

Search