Last Updated: Sept. 20, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2006 |
2008 »
|
Jan. 5 through (at least) Feb. 28
According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration,
On or about January 5, 2007, I [Montgomery] began to receive phone calls from the following number: 999 999 9999. Based on my experience in working with various individuals inside <-------> and other federal agencies, I know that the calls originated from a federal agency. The calls have continued to the present, sometimes as frequently as twice a day, The caller is intimately knowledgable about these matters involving Warren Trepp, Daniel Bogden, James Gibbons, Ronald Bath and the illegal raid on my home. By mid-January, the caller had informed me of the following:
- The Washington FBI and the Washington US Attorney’s [sic] were working in two groups, “Group A” and “Group B.” They were in the process They were in the process of conducting an investigation into: (i) the relationship between James Gibbons, Warren Trepp, Daniel Bogden and Ronald Bath, the payment of monies by Trepp to Gibbons, and the illegal raid on my home – Group A: and (ii) filings by the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office which had been prepared by Attorneys for Warren T repp and which violated various laws and policies of the Department of Justice - Group B.
- The caller sometimes gave me very detailed information, much of which I corroborated from an entirely independent source, including (i) an order from the Attorney General's Office for Mr. Bogden and the Reno FBI to "stand down” in connection with their investigation of me (corroborated); (ii) the firing of Mr. Pugliese and Bogden based on their filing of papers and materials in the· search matter that had been prepared by Warren Trepp's attorneys, and in some instances, copied verbatim into filed court papers (uncorroborated); (iii) a complaint relating to the foregoing filings (uncorroborated); (iv) FBI visits to specified individuals by agents investigating certain matters including the improper filings, (corroborated); (iv) [sic] specific matters relating to the investigation into payments of money by Trepp to Gibbons (corroborated). Sometimes, we shared information. Based on these conversations, I do not believe that the Nevada NSAO has been privy to the Washington based investigation.
See Declaration of Dennis Montgomery, Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 115 (PDF) at ¶ 1.
Note: Flynn will later contend that this declaration (among other Montgomery declarations) is perjured. See, e.g., Montgomery v eTreppid, ECF 958 at 2.
Jan. 18, 2007
Search Case. Montgomery files a Motion to Unseal Search Proceedings. ECF 102; see also ECF 104 (PDF) (Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time on Motion to Unseal); ECF 103 (Michael Flynn Declaration in Support of Motion to Shorten Time on Motion to Unseal).
Jan. 26, 2007
Search Case. The United States files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Motion (102) to Unseal the Proceedings. ECF 105.
"Several Weeks" before Feb. 28, 2007
According to Montgomery’s Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration:
“Within the last several weeks I have watched the killing of some of our soldiers filmed for Arabic television, including the filming of the shooting down of our helicopters. I am just completely dumbfounded as to the Government's apparent incompetence in dealing with these matters, and why my technology is not being fully used, other than the sporadic use I am voluntarily providing. Its accuracy and reliability are beyond dispute. . . .
12. I am a scientist I am at a loss as to what to do next. It is just about a year since my home was illegally raided under. completely false pretenses. It is very difficult to watch our soldiers being assassinated for propaganda purposes on Arabic television when remedies exist to prevent it, and the Government I am trying to help, seems stuck in delay and dysfunction. . . ."
Search Case ECF 115 ¶¶ 11-12.
Feb. 5, 2007
Search Case. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of Motion (102) to Unseal Proceedings. ECF 103.
Feb. 13, 2007
Search Case. The United States files a Motion to Strike Pleadings filed by Michael Flynn and to Preclude his PHV Admission. ECF 110 (PDF).
Feb. 15, 2007
The Wall Street Journal publishes an article revealing that the FBI has opened an investigation into Montgomery's claims against Warren Trepp and Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons. See John Wilke, “Nevada Governor Faces FBI Probe Into Contracts: Focus Is Gifts Gibbons Got While in Congress; 'Black Budget' Missions,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2007. (Wayback Link).
*Note: The FBI will later close this investigation and Gibbons will be cleared of any wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Feb. 21, 2007
Search Case. Judge Hicks recuses himself from the case. ECF 111 (PDF). Thereafter Judge Philip Pro is assigned to the case. ECF 112 (PDF).
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Larry Hicks issues an order recusing himself “[d]ue to a number of considerations applicable to this and related cases.” ECF 115 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 68 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
Feb. 23, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. The cases are reassigned to Chief Judge Pro. ECF 116 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 69 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
Feb. 27, 2007
eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint and Motion for Order Shortening Time. ECF 70 (Motion); ECF 71 (Jerry Snyder Declaration).
Feb. 28, 2007
Search Case. Montgomery files an Opposition to the United States’ Motion (110) to Strike Flynn Pleadings and preclude his PHV Admission. ECF 113; see also ECF 114 (PDF) (Declaration of Michael Flynn in Support of Opposition); ECF 115 (Declaration of Dennis Montgomery in Support of Opposition).
Montgomery’s Declaration contains a number of remarkable claims. See ECF 115 and attached exhibits) In addition to his claims that his technology was used to thwart the August 2006 London would-be liquid bombers, Montgomery apparently asserts that he provided “specific ‘forecasts’ of terrorist threats generated by [his’ technology concerning”:
- The <-----------------------------> (Nov. 8, 2003)
- Mosul food tent (Dec. 22, 2004)
- London Tube (July 2004)
- December 2003 testing by <------------------------------------------->
- Port of Valdez “forecasts”*
- London liquid bomb threats (Aug. 2006)
- Iraqi oil fields (Sept. 2005 “and other dates)
- Al Zarqawi*
- Saddam Hussein*
*Note: These are referenced as “successful instances.”
See Search Case ECF 115 ¶11 (describing Exhibit 2 as “submitted to [Senate Intelligence Committee] based upon my knowledge of specific events and interactions with <-----> and other officials); Exhibit 2 (id. at 21-22) (listing of “forecasts of terrorist events purportedly generated by Mr. Montgomery’s technology).
Mar. 1, 2007
Search Case. The Court grants Michael Flynn's Petition for PHV Admission. ECF 116.
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues an order setting status conference and hearing on Mar. 14 re: the parties’ various motions for protective orders and motion to consolidate cases. ECF 117 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 72 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and related papers. See ECF 73 (PDF) (Motion for TRO); ECF 74 (PDF) (Motion for Hearing and Motion to Modify Order Granting Preliminary Injunction and Order to Show Cause);ECF 75 (Jerry Snyder Declaration in Support); ECF 76 (Proposed Order); ECF 79 (Corrected Declaration of Sloan Venables); ECF 78 (Declaration of Warren Trepp). The gravamen of this motion is the revelation that at least seven of the hard drives seized by the FBI are, eTreppid alleges, eTreppid property as evidenced by purchase records, etc.
Mar. 5, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files, in each case, a Motion for Disclosures Regarding Conduct of Former Nevada U.S. Attorney, Trepp's Attorneys, and Others that May be the Subject of a Complaint Filed with the Department Of Justice. ECF 118 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 82 (eTreppid v. Montgomery). In this motion, Montgomery alleges that not only was there “improper collaboration” between eTreppid parties and the FBI, “but also the "planting" of evidence from the search case never inventoried by the FBI, but allegedly seized as part of the unconstitutional raids.” ECF 118at 2-3 (emphasis in original). According to Montgomery, four of the seven eTreppid hard drives referenced in eTreppid’s Mar. 1, 2006 Motion for TRO, etc. were not listed on the FBI inventory until October 2006 – months after the search/seizure. Id. at 4-5. Montgomery also makes a variety of allegations that Governor Jim Gibbons engaged in wrongdoing. See generally ECF 118.
Note: Gibbons will later be cleared of all wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Mar. 9, 2007
Search Case. Montgomery files a Motion for Discovery and Disclosures Regarding Conduct of Former Nevada USAG, Trepp’s Attorney, and Others that May be the Subject of a Complaint filed with the DOJ. ECF 117.
Mar. 13, 2007
Search Case. The United States files a Reply in Support of Its Motion to Strike Pleadings and Preclude his PHV Admission. ECF 119 (PDF).
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Reno Newspapers, Inc. files a Motion to Intervene in the case, citing to the information re: Governor Jim Gibbons contained in Montgomery’s Mar. 5 filing. ECF 120 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 83 (eTreppid v. Montgomery). These motions will be denied on Sept. 17, 2007.
eTreppid files a Status Report Statement in both cases. ECF 121 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 86 (eTreppid v. Montgomery)
Mar. 14, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files a Status Report in both cases. ECF 122 (Montgomery v. eTreppid); ECF 87 (eTreppid v. Montgomery)
Mar. 15, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro presides over a status conference and motion hearing (in both cases). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 123 - Montgomery v. eTreppid; ECF 88 – eTreppid v. Montgomery); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 151 - Montgomery v. eTreppid). Per the Minutes, Judge Pro issues an order (a) denying eTreppid’s Motion (15) to Remand the case and grants Montgomery’s motion to consolidate the two cases.
Mar. 19, 2007
Search Case. Judge Pro issues an order overruling the United States’ Dec. Objections (99), and affirming the Magistrate’s Nov. 28, 2006 Order requiring return of seized property and unsealing the records. See Search Case ECF 125. As summarized in the docket text entry for ECF 125, the Court orders as follows:
Within 20 days USA shall return to Montgomery all material seized pursuant to the search warrants executed 03/01/06 & 03/03/06. Property returned as related to 3-06-cv-56 and 3-06-cv-145 remains subject to the Preliminary Injunction in those cases. All filings except the declaration of Montgomery 115 shall be unsealed after counsel for the parties in the related actions shall have 21 days to review this sealed file and to file any objection to the unsealing of any portion. Counsel for Montgomery, eTreppid and the USA shall contact Cynthia Jensen 702-464-5477 to obtain limited access to the file. Motion to Strike 110 is DENIED as MOOT. Motion for Reconsideration 98 DENIED. Motion to Intervene 120 DENIED as MOOT….”
ECF 125 Docket Entry. Judge Pro expressly recognizes that "ownership" of (at least some) of the seized property was hotly disputed -- and expressly held that such property remained subject to the preliminary injunction previously entered against Montgomery:
"However, property which is the subject of the ownership dispute between Montgomery and eTreppid in the two related civil actions is the subject of a Preliminary Injunction entered February 8, 2006, by the Honorable Robert Perry, District Judge of the Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada. As a result, any items currently in the Government's possession which the Court's orders returned to Montgomery in this case, and which also are subject to the ownership dispute in the related civil cases, remain subject to the Preliminary Injunction, unless and until that Preliminary Injunction is modified by order of this Court."
See ECF 125 at 15.
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion for TRO and Evidentiary Objections. ECF 126, 127 (filed under seal but referenced in Court’s Mar. 20 order.)
Judge Pro issues several orders today:
- Order denying eTreppid’s June 7, 2006 Motion to Strike Montgomery’s Untimely Response. ECF 124 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).
- Order attaching a copy of his order issued today in the Search Case, and stating that “[a]ll filings except the declaration of Montgomery 115 shall be unsealed after counsel for the parties in the related actions shall have 21 days to review this sealed file and to file any objection to the unsealing of any portion.” ECF 125 (Montgomery v. eTreppid).
- Order denying Montgomery’s May 15, 2006 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF 128 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid), ECF 89 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
- Order
- denying eTreppid’s Sept. 14, 2006 First Request for Judicial Notice;
- denyingMontgomery’s Oct. 10, 2006 Request for Judicial Notice;
- denyingeTreppid’s Nov. 13, 2006 Request for Judicial Notice;
- denyingMontgomery’s Nov. 13, 2006 Request for Judicial Notice; and
- sealing four documents containing social security numbers and ordering the DOJ to file copies with the social security numbers redacted.
ECF 129 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid), ECF 90 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
Mar. 20, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues several orders today:
- Order that in conjunction with this Court's [Mar. 19 order affirming Magistrate Judge Cooke’s order to unseal case/return property], Magistrate Cooke’s order is unsealed and attached to order. ECF 130 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid).
- Order granting eTreppid's Mar. 15, 2006 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim. ECF 131. In this order, Judge Pro holds that the Copyright Act preempts Montgomery’s state law accounting counterclaim and, as such, it is dismissed with prejudice as to eTreppid and Trepp. eTreppid’s earlier (Feb. 16, 2006) motion on the same issue/prior complaint is dismissed as moot. ECF 131 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid), ECF 91 (eTreppid v. Montgomery).
- Order denying Montgomery’s Feb. 9, 2006 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. In this Order, Judge Pro holds that the Copyright Act does not preempt a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under Nevada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act because such a claim protects rights qualitatively different from copyright rights by prohibiting certain means of obtaining confidential information.” ECF 132 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid).
Mar. 21, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Pro’s Mar. 19 Order (125) unsealing the case/requiring return of seized property. ECF 133.
Judge Pro issues several orders today:
- Order requiring Montgomery to serve on the Department of Defense “copies of the sealed filings and in camera submissions made on 10/31/06, 11/03/06, 11/28/06 by 03/30/07.” ECF 134 (PDF). He also sets briefing schedule on motions for protective orders. Id.
- Order denyingeTreppid’s Mar. 1 Application for TRO. ECF 136 (PDF).
- Order denying Montgomery’s Mar. 19 Objections (filed under seal as ECF 127).
Mar. 22, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro sets a telephonic hearing for Mar. 23 on the United States’ Mar. 21 emergency motion for reconsideration. ECF 135.
Montgomery files a Response to the United States’ emergency motion for reconsideration. ECF 138.
eTreppid files a Motion for Protective Order to Protect Access to Seized Property Per FRCP Rule 41 (G) and to Modify Preliminary Injunction. ECF 139 (Motion); ECF 140 (Trepp Declaration)
Mar. 23, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order that parties have until April 27, 2007 to show cause why filings should not be unsealed. ECF 142 (PDF).
Judge Pro presides over the hearing called on the United States’ Mar. 21 emergency motion for reconsideration. Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 143 (PDF)); Transcript (146). He then issues order granting the motion in part, as follows:
"IT IS ORDERED the Government’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [133] is granted as follows: As to Defendants Montgomery and Etreppid, they shall cease all further review of the files in [the Search Case], including review on the electronic case filing system, until the Department of Defense has conducted its review of the materials next week. The review will take place as follows: Ms. Wells, and whomever else from the Department of Defense that is going to be conducting that review, will conduct the review at the Court’s chambers in Las Vegas, where the case file is located and maintained. They will mark the documents that they have a concern with. When the Court returns on Friday, at 9:30 a.m., the Court will meet with those individuals in chambers to review those materials to which redaction is proposed. Assuming that redaction is necessary, the Court will accomplish it at that time. Directions will be given to counsel of record as to what they must do with regard to materials they have received."
Minutes of Proceedings, ECF 143 (PDF). Judge Pro also orders that
"prior to returning the items, Assistant United States Attorney Addington, in conjunction with the FBI, shall prepare a detailed inventory of the items to be returned, including photographs of them and documentation of serial numbers. A copy of that inventory shall be filed with the Court in [the Search Case] prior to the deadline for returning the property to Mr. Montgomery."
Id. at 5. Also during this hearing, Flynn discusses “proceedings in Washington”:
"Mr. Flynn advises the Court there are new proceedings pending in Washington and he has been asked by the Department of Justice attorneys involved in those proceedings and the FBI to cooperate and to voluntarily provide copies of what has been seized by the Government. The Court’s Order returning seized property subject to the Preliminary Injunction would implicate his ability to turn that material over. The Court hears the representations of Ms. Wells and Mr. Ross. The Court grants an exception to the Court’s previous Order which provides, to the extent said materials are requested in writing by the United States Department of Justice, copies may be provided by Mr. Montgomery. The Court instructs Mr. Flynn also to advise Ms. Wells of the name of the Department of Justice representative he is communicating with on this issue."
Id. at 4. Note: Per later Flynn filings, the “new proceedings” are grand jury proceedings relating to Montgomery's claims against Gibbons.
Mar. 26, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files its Opposition to Montgomery's Mar. 5 Motion for Disclosures. ECF 144 (PDF).
Mar. 27, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files an Opposition to Montgomery's Mar. 5 Motion for Disclosures, characterizing Montgomery's accusations as "extravagant and baseless." ECF 145 (PDF).
Mar. 30, 2007
DOD representatives meet with Judge Pro “in camera to review claims of military and state secrets privilege in accord with the unclassified Negroponte Declaration and the classified declaration previously reviewed by the Court.” Based on this review, Judge Pro will determine that DoD’s assertions of the military and state secrets privilege are valid with regard to a limited number of items contained within the Search Warrant case file.” See Apr. 2 Order.
Apr. 2, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order setting forth the procedure for disclosure of the record:
“1. Defendant Department of Defense shall not later than Friday, April 6, 2007, complete the process of redacting classified information from the Search Warrant case file and shall substitute appropriately redacted pages.
2. Commencing Monday, April 9, 2007, the Clerk of Court shall make available to the Montgomery and eTreppid parties the electronic case file in the [Search Case], and the related transcripts and exhibits for their further review. The Montgomery and eTreppid parties thereafter shall have to and including Friday, April 20, 2007, within which to complete their review ANDto file with the Court any objections to the unsealing of any portion thereof. …
3. Upon resolution of any further objections by the parties filed not later than April 20, 2007, the redacted Search Warrant case file, 3:06-cv-0263-PMP-VPC, will be unsealed in accord with this Court’s Order of March 19, 2007.
ECF 147 (PDF). The order addresses several other matters as well. Of particular note, the Court admonishes the United States for not coordinating among entities:
“Unfortunately, because many executive branch entities which comprise the United States are involved, as well as an equally diverse aggregation of government counsel, it is imperative that the various components of the United States which make up the parties involved in these related cases exert greater effort to communicate and cooperate amongst themselves prior to making filings with the Court which are later determined to have been improvident. To date, the United States has failed to do so. The result has been the inadvertent release of classified information which could have been avoided had the various representatives of the United States in these cases taken the care and the time necessary to communicate more effectively.”
Id. at 6. The Court orders parties to stop filing pleadings for 30 days (except those previously ordered/subject to deadlines), and to meet and confer on a process to avoid additional inadvertent disclosures. Id. at 7.
Apr. 3, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Response to the United States’ Sept. 25, 2006 Motion for Protective Order. ECF 149.
Apr. 5, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. An “AO 121 Copyright Form” – i.e., a Report on the Filing of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright. The form is incomplete, merely referring to “(copyrighted computer software),” without any copyright registration numbers or other details. ECF 150 (PDF).
Apr. 6, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Motion seeking “Instructions on How to Treat/File Sensitive Material.” ECF 153 (PDF).
Apr. 9, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of his Motion for Disclosures. ECF 157 (PDF).
Today, Flynn gains access to the FBI affidavit and reports relied upon to request search warrants in April including documents “reciting the infamous fake bazooka testing, Montgomery’s purchase of “open source code,” and Ms. Gray’s knowledge that Montgomery never wrote any significant software,” according to his later filings. See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 1099 at 5. According to Flynn:
“As of April 9, 2007, when this Court unveiled the FBI reports, Mr. Flynn was starting along the “learning curve” relating to Montgomery’s issues with the truth. He began conducting an investigation - independent of Montgomery and Edra Blixseth – which ultimately led to his expressed intent to withdraw in late May - June 2007 as more and more facts were unearthed. As the record plainly proves, unpaid fees, Montgomery deceit, and Mr. Flynn’s duty to withdraw under Nev. R. Prof. Con. 3.3 led to the withdrawal. See billing records in camera for May - July 2007; see emails under seal as Exhibit 5 to Reply to Fee Motion, docket # 277 and 278 - 283; see Motion to Withdraw, (doc. # 208), and Reply, (doc. # 214 under seal).”
Id. at 11.
Apr. 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The DOD files a Status Report Regarding State Court Materials. ECF 158 (PDF). According to this report, the DOD attempted to obtain the state records per the federal court’s prior request that the DOD, as removing party, obtain the records. However, the clerk of the state court informed DOD that “all such materials were sealed by order of the State court and would not be released to DoD counsel without an appropriate [order] of this Court or an appropriate order of the State court.” Id. at 2. The DOD suggests that this court to issue such an order. Id.
Apr. 18, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order requiring the DOD to “explain in writing within 14 days why it has not complied with [the court’s order to file] redacted copies of certain exhibits. Filing the redacted exhibits within this time frame shall satisfy this requirement.” ECF 159 (PDF).
Apr. 23, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Friendly Capital Partners, L.P. sue The Montgomery Family Trust to recover funds due per a promissory note and to foreclose on the asset securing that note -- i.e., Montgomery’s interest in eTreppid. ECF 1 (as filed in federal court upon removal).
Late April 2007
According to Flynn's later filings, upon his review of the FBI documents, he immediately informs Montgomery and Edra Blixseth of the information contained in the FBI documents. They then,
“sen[d] him to Washington in an effort to keep the matter sealed, based on potential threats to their lives by al Qaida…. For the weeks after the Court’s unsealing exposing the fraud, Mr. Flynn was still trusting (and naive) enough to believe their explanations that it was the Trepp/Gibbons political influence attempting to gain possession of the technology by impugning Montgomery that caused the government to take certain positions exposing the al Qaida “target coordinates”; and that their lives were in danger. Still believing them in late April 2007, Flynn flew to Washington and met with the DOJ asserting the alleged Trepp corruption and threats to their lives. During the same period, at the request of Edra Blixseth, Mr. Flynn wrote multiple drafts of the May 5, 2007 letter to VP Cheney marked under seal in the August 21, 2008 evidentiary hearing, and marked as Ex. 1 to Flynn Declaration in support of the Reply to the Motion for Sanctions. The drafts and final version were emailed to Montgomery and Blixseth. …”
The Cheney letter and Washington trip in April - May 2007 were major events - they claimed al Qaida would murder them; and Trepp was stealing the technology.”
See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 1099 at 5-6 (internal citations omitted).
Apr. 27, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The DOD files a Notice that it has substituted exhibits per the Court’s Mar. 19 and Apr. 18 orders, attaching the substituted exhibits. ECF 160 (PDF).
Judge Pro issues an order modifying deadlines and requiring the United States to provide eTreppid with a redacted copy of Montgomery’s Opposition to its Motion for Protective Order today (i.e., by Apr. 27, 2007). ECF 162 (PDF).
Apr. 30, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro enters an Order on Stipulation (per DOD filing yesterday), extending deadlines. ECF 163.
May 11, 2007
NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams interviews Dennis Montgomery concerning his allegations that Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons accepted bribes from Warren Trepp of eTreppid, Montgomery’s former employer. See Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, “FBI Probes Nevada Governor for Corruption,” NBC Nightly News, May 11, 2007; see also Ksearer, “NBC investigates Jim Gibbons,” YouTube, uploaded May 11, 2007.
The US government will later close the investigations initiated by these claims, without bringing any charges against Gibbons. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Stipulation for extending deadlines. ECF 164. Judge Pro issues the order on stipulation. ECF 165.
May 15, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files an Objection to Unsealing of Search Case Materials. ECF 166.
May 15-18, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Sometime between May 15 and May 18, Montgomery files an Opposition to the United States’ Designations of State Secrets and Classified Information. ECF 168 (under seal but referenced in later filings).
May 18, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an “Opposition to Etreppid's Request to Redact "Investor Information." ECF 169.
eTreppid files a Reply in Support of its Sept. 19, 2006 Motion for Protective Order. ECF 170 (Motion); ECF 171 (Affidavit of Jonathan Butler).
The United States files a Reply in Support of its Sept. 25, 2006 Motion for Protective Order. ECF 172 (PDF).
May 21, 2007
Flynn will later assert that:
“As of May 21, 2007 when Mr. Flynn emailed Blixseth about “controlling” Montgomery, (Blixseth then “fired” Flynn that night), it accelerated Blixseth’s and Montgomery’s learning curve that Flynn was becoming aware of the fraud based on his dealings with the government and subsequent discussions with Montgomery, including Montgomery’s pending subpoena to deliver his hard drives containing the “bribery emails” to the Grand Jury. Mr. Flynn had begun his own investigation resulting in internal discussions with Montgomery.
These discussions ultimately conclusively proved to Mr. Flynn that he had a duty to withdraw and duties under Rule 3.3.”
See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 1099.
May 22, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues several orders today:
- An order re: the DOD’s Apr. 27 “suggestion” that the Court issue an order directing the state court to release documents to it. ECF 173 (PDF). In that order, he states “However, the Department of Defense has not indicated it moved for relief in the state court before seeking this Court’s intervention. The Court will not enter an order for the release of the state court record and instead refers the Department of Defense to the state court to seek relief initially in that forum.” Id.
- An Order granting eTreppid’s Feb. 27 Motion to File Amended Complaint and Motion for Order Shortening Time. ECF 174 (PDF). In this order, Judge Pro finds that “eTreppid has not engaged in bad faith by violating the Court’s Order sealing the search warrant case. eTreppid’s motion to amend relies on the FBI’s contact with eTreppid after the FBI searched Montgomery’s home and storage units. . . . eTreppid thus does not rely upon a sealed filing in the search warrant case to support its motion to amend.” Id. at 3-4. Additionally, the Court notes that “Although Montgomery contends eTreppid and the Government improperly colluded to conduct the illegal search, Montgomery offers no evidence to support his allegations.” Id. at 5.
- An order denying Montgomery’s Mar. 5 Motions for Disclosures (filed in both eTreppid cases) because “No reason exists to lift the stay [of discovery] at this time as to the particular matters raised in Montgomery’s motion.” ECF 176 (PDF).
May 23, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order denying Montgomery’s Sept. 19, 2006 and Apr. 6, 2007 Motions for Instructions on How to Handle Sealed Case as moot given that the “parties may continue to file unclassified but privileged materials under seal. As for classified information, the Court indicated in its April 2, 2007 Order (Doc. #147 at 5) the proper protocol for notifying the Court that a party finds it necessary to file classified information for the Court’s review. ECF 175 (PDF).
May 24, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues an order granting the United States’ June 21, 2006 Motions to Dismiss filed in each case. ECF 177 (PDF).
- As to Montgomery’s Feb. 21, 2006 Amended Complaint (ECF 7) in Montgomery v. eTreppid, Counts 1, 2, 4 and 10 of the are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the Department of Defense.
- As to Montgomery’s Feb. 17, 2006 Answer and First Amended Counterclaim (ECF 1-1) in eTreppid v. Montgomery, Count 1 is dismissed.
May 25, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Montgomery removes the case to Federal Court, asserting that he and his wife are Washington citizens and the Montgomery Family Trust is a Washington Trust. ECF 1.
May 29, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order setting a June 12 hearing on three pending motions: the United States’ Sept. 25, 2006 Motion for Protective Order; eTreppid’s May 15 Objections to Unsealing of Materials, Montgomery’s May 15-18 Opposition to the United States’ Designations of State Secrets and Classified Information. ECF 178.
May 31, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order that a letter from Jerry Snyder, eTreppid’s counsel shall be treated as a Letter Motion to Compel Production of Photos. ECF 179 (PDF). The letter is filed as a Motion. ECF 180 (PDF).
June 1, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files a Motion to Require Service of Montgomery's Oppositions to Government's Motions. ECF 181.
eTreppid files a Reply in Support of its Objection to Unsealing of Search Case Materials. ECF 182
June 4, 2007
eTreppid v Montgomery. The United States files an unopposed Motion in Nevada State Court, seeking an Order Directing Release of Copies of All Records and Proceedings to United States ' Government Counsel. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 6-28.
June 8, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion to Compel Production of Photographs. ECF 185 (Corrected Version; ECF 183 is Original Version).
The United States files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion to Compel, arguing that the matter should be addressed – if anywhere – in the Search Case proceedings. ECF 184 (PDF).
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Montgomery files an Answer to Friendly Capital's complaint, along with a Counterclaim against Friendly Capital, eTreppid, Warren Trepp and Doug Frye. ECF 3 (PDF).
June 11, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Second Amended Complaint against Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust. ECF 186 (PDF).
eTreppid also files a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Production of Photographs. ECF 187.
June 12, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro presides over the scheduled motions hearing on the United States’ Sept. 25, 2006 Motion for Protective Order; eTreppid’s May 15, 2007 Objections to Unsealing of Materials, Montgomery’s May 15-18 Opposition to the United States’ Designations of State Secrets and Classified Information. During this hearing a Declaration of Dennis Montgomery is submitted in opposition to The United States’ Motion for Protective Order. The Court orders parties to file responses to this declaration within 10 days. Id. See ECF 188 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 211 (Transcript).
June 21, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files its Final Proposed Protective Order. ECF 196 (PDF).
June 22, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an Objection to the United States’ June 21 Final Proposed Protective Order. ECF 201.
The United States files its Response to Dennis Montgomery June 12 Declaration. ECF 197 (PDF). Per this notice, the Montgomery Declaration and attached exhibits do contain “information that is subject to the [state secrets] privilege.” The DOD has redacted that info and “will arrange with the parties to retrieve any information covered by the privilege and provide redacted versions of the declaration and attached exhibits.” Id.
eTreppid files two responses to Montgomery’s June 12 Declaration:
- An “Objection to Public Filing of Irrelevant, Prejudicial, and Premature Documents by Dennis Montgomery.” ECF 200 (PDF).
- An “Objection to the Public Filing of a Fabricated Document by Dennis Montgomery.” ECF 198 (Objection); ECF 199 (Declaration of Jonathan Karchmer);
In its Objection to the Public Filing of a Fabricated Document (ECF 198), eTreppid asserts that forensic analysis of one of the documents that Montgomery attached as an exhibit “conclusively proves that Mr. Montgomery submitted to the Court on June 12, 2007, a fabricated version of the September 25, 2003 email, which was altered to include the falsely incriminating sentence.” Id. at 15; see also id. at 9 (referencing Declaration of Jonathan Karchmer (ECF 199)). eTreppid asserts in its second objection (ECF 200) that “several of the documents are of dubious authenticity and appear to be nothing more than part of Mr. Montgomery’s effort to publicize – before any discovery has been taken -- his unfounded allegations of an improper relationship between Mr. Trepp and Mr. Gibbons.” Id. at 4.
June 28, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order that, by 5:00 PM on July 3, “Mr. Raphael Gomez shall notify the Official Court Reporter of the proposed redactions to the transcript of the June 12, 2007 hearing. ECF 202 (PDF).
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Friendly Capital files a Joint Status Report summarizing the state of the case. ECF 16 (PDF).
July 9, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Dennis Montgomery and the Montgomery Family Trust. ECF 204 (PDF). In his declaration filed in support of the motion, Flynn cites as grounds that Montgomery "and his family Trust have ‘breached an obligation for the payment of fees,’ and Mr. Montgomery has ‘engaged in conduct that has made continued representation unreasonably difficult.’" ECF 205 (PDF) at 2 (declaration); see also ECF 203 (PDF) (Motion to Shorten Time); ECF 206 (PDF) (DiMare Declaration).
July 16, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files its Response to Michael Flynn’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF 209.
July 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files his Reply (to US Response) in Support of his Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF 210.
July 26, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files his Response to Michael Flynn’s Motion to Withdraw. ECF 213 (PDF).
July 25, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Defendants file Motions to Dismiss Montgomery’s Counterclaims or, In the Alternative, for More Definite Statement:
- Trepp: ECF 21 (Motion); ECF 22 (Lang Declaration).
- eTreppid: ECF 25 (Motion); ECF 26 (Lang Declaration).
- Friendly Capital: ECF 23 (Motion); ECF 24 (Lang Declaration).
Friendly Capital files a Motion to Strike Portions of Montgomery’s Counterclaim. ECF 27 (PDF)(Motion); ECF 28 (PDF) (Lang Declaration).
July 30, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part eTreppid’s Sept. 21, 2006 Motion to Dismiss. ECF 217 (PDF). Per the order, the “motion is granted with respect to [Montgomery’s] copyright claims in the First Amended Complaint only to the extent those claims are based on any allegations eTreppid and Trepp infringed the novel aspects of the Derivative Works. The motion is denied in all other respects. Id. at 15.
Flynn files his Reply (to Montgomery’s Response) in Support of his Motion to Withdraw. ECF 214. In his Reply, Flynn states: “Having complied with their ethical obligations and used specific language in their Motion to Withdraw, current counsel must now reply that both of the foregoing factors under the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct are critical to this Reply in order to address the current position of Montgomery.”
July 31, 2007
Search Case. Judge Pro issues an order denying Montgomery’s Motion (117) for Disclosures, etc. ECF 129.
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order to unseal and file Montgomery’s Nov. 6, 2006 Opposition Memorandum and accompanying documents and setting briefing schedule for eTreppid’s reply. ECF 219 (PDF) (Corrected Copy).
Judge Pro issues several orders:
- An order granting Flynn’s Motion to Shorten Time re: his Motion to Withdraw. ECF 224 (PDF).
- An order setting a telephonic motions hearing for Aug. 17, to address Michael Flynn’s July 9 Motion to Withdraw. ECF 223.
- An order denying eTreppid’s May 31 Letter Motion to Compel Production of Photographs. ECF 225 (PDF).
- An order re: the United States’ June 1 Motion to Require Service of Montgomery’s Opposition. The Court orders Montgomery to serve a copy on the United States. ECF 226 (PDF).
Montgomery files a Notice of Lodging of In Camera Ex Parte Material (i.e., in response to Judge Cooke's order today). ECF 220. Thereafter, Montgomery’s Nov. 6, 2006 Opposition to eTreppid’s Motion for Protective Order and Request for Judicial Notice re: his Opposition to the DOD’s Motion for a Protective Order is docketed. See ECF 221 (Opposition to eTreppid Motion); ECF 222 (PDF) (Request for Judicial Notice re Opposition to DOD Motion).
Summer 2007
Montgomery is served with a subpoena from a DC Grand Jury. See, e.g., Montgomery et al v. eTreppid, ECF 732 at 59 (Montgomery testifies that Grand Jury gave him a subpoena to “search everything I had” in August or maybe earlier - sometime during Summer of 2007).
Aug. 1, 2007
Search Case. Montgomery files notice of Change of Attorney. ECF 130.
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files Notice of Change of Attorney. ECF 227.
Aug. 2, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order denying eTreppid’s Feb. 13, 2006 Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction; denying Montgomery’s May 15, 2006 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction; and denying eTreppid’s Mar. 22, 2007 Motion for Protective Order and to Modify Preliminary Injunction. ECF 230 (PDF). Per that order, “the Court concludes that neither eTreppid Technologies, nor the Montgomery Defendants have demonstrated good cause to warrant modification of the preliminary injunction originally entered by Judge Perry on February 8, 2006. This action has been vigorously litigated by all parties and numerous issues have been raised for the Court’s consideration. At this stage, the Court deems it appropriate to maintain the status quo as provided by the original preliminary injunction entered in this case.” Id. at 2.
Aug. 3, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration of Montgomery, filed in Support of Opposition to DOD Motion for Protective order is placed on the public docket in redacted form. ECF 228.
Flynn files a “Notice that the Court Should Proceed with the Hearing on His Motion to Withdraw Scheduled for August 17, 2007.” ECF 229 (PDF).
Aug. 10, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues order setting hearing on Sept. 10 re: eTreppid’s Sept. 19, 2006 Motion for Protective Order. ECF 232.
Aug. 14, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues order granting PHV admission to Deborah A. Klar, Teri T. Pham, and Ryan M. Lapine (i.e., Montgomery’s new lawyers). ECF 237, 238, 239.
Aug. 15, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files a Supplemental Declaration in Support of his Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF 240 (PDF).
Aug. 16, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files an Objection to Flynn’s Supplemental Declaration. ECF 241 (PDF).
Aug. 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro presides over the motions hearing (re: Flynn’s Motion to Withdraw). The matter is submitted. ECF 247 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 267 (Transcript).
Montgomery files his ANSWER to eTreppid’s June 11 Second Amended Complaint. ECF 242 (PDF).
Michael Flynn files a Notice of Lien on his own behalf (ECF 243) and on behalf of Carla DiMare (ECF 245).
Aug. 17, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Douglas Frye files a Motion to Dismiss Montgomery’s Counterclaims or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. ECF 40.
Aug. 20, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files an Amended Notice of Lien. ECF 246.
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Montgomery files:
- Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (dismissing Douglas Frye, without prejudice). ECF 41.
- Amended Counterclaim. ECF 42 (PDF).
Aug. 21, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files a Motion for Attorneys Fees. ECF 248 (PDF); see also Flynn Declaration in Support of Motion, ECF 249 (PDF). In this motion (and declaration), Flynn begins to reveal more details regarding the reason for his withdrawal – i.e., his growing belief that the claims made by Montgomery were not accurate.
Aug. 22, 2007
eTreppid v Montgomery. The Nevada State Court issues an order granting United States’ Motion for Order Directing Release of Copies of All Records and Proceedings to United States ' Government Counsel. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 3-5.
Aug. 29, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order granting the United States’ Motion for Protective Order (Sept. 25, 2006, as revised June 21, 2007). ECF 252. He also issues the Protective Order. ECF 253.
This Protective Order expressly permits discovery of any computer source code, software, and technical specifications at issue in the litigation. See ECF 253 at 3 (“This Order does not preclude the Parties from serving or taking any discovery from other Parties or third parties relating to, or questioning, the following….(c) The computer source code, software, programs, or technical specifications relating to any technology owned or claimed by any of the Parties (“the Technology”).”
Aug. 31, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a “Notice of Objection” to Flynn’s Aug. 20 Notice of Lien.” ECF 254.
Sep. 4, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order directing “counsel for the parties to review Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), which governs the filing of papers under seal. Counsel shall meet and confer prior to the September 10, 2007 to determine whether they can agree on a form of protective order.” ECF 255 (PDF).
Judge Pro issues an order granting Flynn’s Motion(s) to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF 256 (PDF). In this order, Judge Pro imposes two conditions requested by the United States, but also rejects two proposed conditions. Id. Additionally, he holds that:
[T]o the extent the Montgomery Plaintiffs seek to condition the withdrawal of Flynn and DiMare on Flynn and DiMare surrendering their complete “client file” to new counsel of record for Plaintiffs (Doc. #213), said precondition is rejected by the Court. In this regard, the record before the Court does not support a finding that Flynn and DiMare have withdrawn “voluntary” as counsel for Montgomery Plaintiffs, In the Matter of Kaufman 93 Nev. 452, 567 P.2d 957 (1977), nor does it appear on the record before the Court that Flynn and DiMare should be compelled to surrender their files to new counsel of record. Figliuzzi v. Fed. Dist Court. 111 Nev. 338, 890 P.2d 798 (1995).
Id.
Sep. 7, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Attorney Carlotta Wells files an appearance on Behalf of the DOD for Rapheal O. Gomez. ECF 257 (PDF).
Montgomery files a Motion to Consolidate Cases. ECF 258 (PDF). Per this motion, Montgomery seeks to add the pending case brought by Friendly Capital Partners – i.e., Friendly Capital Partners, L.P. v. Montgomery et al, 3:07-cv-00250-ECR-VPC (“Friendly Capital Litigation). See also ECF 259 (Notice of Motion to Consolidate, etc.)
Sep. 10, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Submission of Proposed Protective Order. ECF 260.
Montgomery files his Opposition to Flynn’s Aug. 21 Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs, which contains a Declaration of Dennis Montgomery. ECF 261 (PDF); id. at 7 (Declaration). Also filed is a Request for Judicial Notice in support of this opposition. ECF 262. The Nevada Federal District Court will later rule that "there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Montgomery committed perjury when he signed [this declaration], and that he signed the declaration in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, and for oppressive reasons." See Mar. 31, 2009 (info re Magistrate Judge's ruling); Apr. 5, 2010 (info re District Court's order overruling objections to Magistrate Judge's ruling).
Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over the scheduled motions hearing. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 266); Transcript (ECF 1014). The court issues rulings as follows:
“The Court makes its ruling with respect to the final protective order. IT IS ORDERED that counsel for eTreppid Technologies, LLC shall revise the protective order as ordered in this proceeding and submit it to the Court for its signature by no later than Tuesday, September 11, 2007. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for protective order 74 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Id. Additionally,
“The Court . . . advises the parties that it shall issue a detailed minute order setting out the concerns the parties will present to the Court at a case management conference. The parties shall meet and confer and contact [the] deputy clerk . . . no later than Monday, September 17, 2007, to set a date and time for a case management conference to be held within the next thirty (30) days. A case management report shall be due seven (7) days prior to the conference. The Court advises the parties it anticipates conducting monthly discovery & case management hearings in this action.”
Id.
Sep. 11, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order: “The court has concluded that a Rule 16 case management conference will assist the parties, counsel, and the court. Counsel for the parties shall contact the Courtroom Administrator . . . no later than Monday, September 17, 2007, to schedule the case management conference to be held within thirty days of this order.” ECF 263 (PDF).
Magistrate Judge Cooke also enters a Protective Order, as submitted by eTreppid on Sept. 10. ECF 264 (PDF).
Sep. 12, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over a hearing regarding unsealing of the Search Case materials. ECF 272 (PDF) (Minutes of Proceedings), and ECF 273 (PDF) (Amended Minutes of Proceedings). During the hearing, she sets specific procedures with respect to redacting personal information, etc. and proceeding with the unsealing of the Search Case and related documents. Id.
Magistrate Judge Cooke also issues an order setting a hearing for Sept. 14 for the parties to discuss the unsealing of materials in the SearchCase: “Specifically, the parties will discuss documents that contain personal information and confidential corporate information as outlined in the objections of eTreppid Technologies, LLC.” ECF 265 (PDF).
Sep. 14, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files its ANSWER to Montgomery’s Feb. 1, 2006 First Amended Complaint. ECF 268 (PDF).
Sep. 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order to unseal the Search Case materials “with the exception of Document #70 and Exhibit #30 which shall remain sealed in accord with the prior Orders of the Court.” ECF 270 (PDF).
Judge Pro also issues an order denying as moot the Nevada State Democratic Party’s Nov. 3, 2006 Motion to Intervene and Reno Newspapers LLC’s Mar. 13, 2007 Motion to Intervene. ECF 271 (PDF).
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Friendly Capital and Trepp file a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Counterclaims, or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. ECF 46 (Motion); ECF 48 (Lang Declaration).
eTreppid files a Reply to Montgomery’s First Amended Counterclaim. ECF 47.
Sep. 18, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files (under seal) an Emergency Ex Parte Application for Clarification of Order re Motion to Withdraw by Michael J. Flynn (ECF 274) as well as a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of this motion (ECF 275 (PDF)). This request includes materials filed in California, including a Sept. 12, 2007 Declaration of Dennis Montgomery (ECF 275-5 (PDF) at 11-12) containing the same statement later found to be perjurous.
Sep. 20, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files motion to substitute attorney and appearance of Mark H. Gunderson. ECF 276.
Sep. 24, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files a Reply in Support of his Aug. 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. ECF 277 (PDF) (Reply); ECF 278 (PDF) (Rava Declaration); ECF 279 (PDF) (DiMare Declaration); ECF 280 (Flynn Declaration under seal); ECF 281 (PDF) (Stillman Declaration).
Sep. 25, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Sept. 7 Motion to Consolidate the Friendly Capital litigation with this litigation. ECF 285 (PDF).
Sep. 26, 2007
Search Case. Judge Pro issues orders unsealing the case, making the case documents – including Air Force and FBI investigation documents – publicly available on the court docket. Thereafter, the FBI investigation documents are publicly available on the docket. See ECF 70 and ECF 71.
See Search Case, ECF 133 (“ORDER in accordance with this court's order (#272 in case 3-06-cv-56) and Judge Pro's orders (131 in this case and #270 in case 3-06-cv-56, the clerk is directed to unseal the redacted copy of document 70 at this time”).
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files an Opposition to Montgomery’s Sept. 18 Ex Parte Application for clarification of Order. ECF 286 (PDF).
Sep. 27, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The Court grants Montgomery’s motion to substitute Mark H. Gunderson as local counsel (substituting for Ronald Lugar and Eric Pulver). ECF 287 (PDF).
Sep. 28, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Joint Status Report. ECF 289 (PDF).
Oct. 3, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues order that the parties’ Sept. 28 joint status report fails to comply with her prior orders, directing the parties to file a new report in compliance with orders, and directing that the Oct. 11 status conference will proceed as scheduled. ECF 290 (PDF).
Oct. 4, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order denying Montgomery’s Ex Parte Application for Clarification of Order re: Flynn Withdrawal. ECF 291 (PDF) (“Although styled a motion for clarification, Montgomery essentially seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order. The Court will deny the Motion for Clarification as the Court’s prior Order is clear and unambiguous, dealing solely with the matter then before the Court as to whether to condition Flynn’s withdrawal as an attorney in this matter on the return of Montgomery’s client file.”).
Oct. 5, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Montgomery files Response to Friendly Capital/Trepp’s Sept. 17 Motion to Dismiss. ECF 50 (Motion); ECF 51 (Request for Judicial Notice).
Oct. 8, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Status Report, Proposed Stipulated Discovery Plan, and Scheduling Order. ECF 292.
Oct. 9, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Reply in Support of his Sep. 7 Motion to Consolidate the Friendly Capital Litigation with this case. ECF 293.
Oct. 11, 2007
Search Case | Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues an order on stipulation, dismissing the action as to the United States (i.e., dismissing all claims brought by Montgomery against the United States, without prejudice). ECF 134 (PDF) (Search Case); ECF 295 (PDF) (Montgomery v. eTreppid; eTreppid v. Montgomery).
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over the scheduled case management conference. See ECF 297 (Minutes of Proceeding) ECF 301 (Transcript). She establishes a detailed pretrial motions and discovery schedule. ECF 297 (PDF).
Oct. 12, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order granting in part Flynn’s Motion for Attorney Fees:
“IT IS ORDERED that this court retains ancillary jurisdiction to resolve Flynn’s motion (#248) and this fee dispute between Flynn and Montgomery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Flynn's motion for attorney's fees and costs (#248) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the court will adjudicate the amount of attorney's fees and costs Flynn seeks pursuant to this motion. Given the complexity of these matters, the amount of fees requested, and because Flynn's motion implicates the attorney-client privilege, Flynn shall submit to the court in camera a supplement in support of his motion for fees and costs no later than Friday, October 26, 2007. . . .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Flynn's motion for attorney's fees and costs (#248) is DENIED IN PART to the extent Flynn requests that the court order Montgomery to presently pay any adjudicated attorney's fees and costs. Any fees and costs awarded will attach to any verdict, judgment or decree entered in this action in favor of Montgomery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Montgomery shall deliver, either via facsimile or hand delivery, a copy of this order to the chambers of the presiding judge in case no. BC375335, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, no lata than 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, October 15, 2007. . . .”
ECF 296 (PDF). With respect to the last portion of the order noted above, Judge Cooke takes Montgomery (and his attorneys) to task for seeking – in California – relief that is contrary to her/the Nevada Court’s order. See, e.g., id. at 3, n.3.
Oct. 15, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files notice that he’s lodged Magistrate Judge Cooke’s order with the California court. ECF 298.
Oct. 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order denying Montgomery’s Motion to consolidate the Friendly Capital Litigation with this case. ECF 299 (PDF).
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Judge Pro’s order in Montgomery v. eTreppid, denying Montgomery’s motion to consolidate this case with that one, is docketed. ECF 52.
The case is reassigned to Judge Pro. ECF 53. (Judge Pro is the third judge on this case. It was initially assigned to Judge Brian E. Sandoval (on May 29). When he recused himself (ECF 6), it was assigned to Judge Reed (ECF 8) who thereafter ordered it referred for reassignment (ECF 44).)
Oct. 19, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Friendly Capital/Trepp file a Reply in Support of their Sept. 17 Motion to Dismiss. ECF 54.
Oct. 23, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order setting monthly status conferences and requiring parties to file discovery status reports prior to the hearings. ECF 300.
eTreppid files a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint/Motion to File Third Amended Complaint. ECF 303.
Oct. 25, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues an order denying as moot the Defendants’ original (July 25; Aug. 17) motions to dismiss. ECF 57.
Oct. 29, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order staying prior orders regarding the Flynn Motion for Attorney Fees briefing, pending decision on Montgomery’s Ex Parte Application (apparently filed under seal around Oct. 23) for an order requiring Flynn to redact all attorney-client communications prior to submission to the court. ECF 307 (PDF).
Magistrate Judge Cooke also issues an order granting Carla DiMare’s ex parte request for permission to file declaration in response to Montgomery's ex parte application to redact legal bills and request to strike Montgomery's expert's declaration (later sealed per ECF 314 (PDF)). ECF 309 (PDF).
Oct. 30, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Michael Flynn files a "Notice," attaching a letter he sent to counsel notifying them that he has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury in Washington DC and plans to comply with the subpoena after Montgomery has had an opportunity to present appropriate defenses and privilege assertions. ECF 312 (PDF).
Nov. 5, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files Motion to Enforce Right to Inspection of (eTreppid) Records. ECF 321 (PDF) (Motion and declarations, including Montgomery Declaration (at 11-14); ECF 222 (Exhibits, etc).
Note: Flynn will later contend that this Montgomery declaration (among others) is perjured. See, e.g., Apr. 24, 2008. The Court will rule that Montgomery committed perjury with respect to one of the challenged declarations (see Mar. 31, 2009), but the case will be dismissed before the court determines whether Montgomery did commit perjury again with these declarations and, as such, the court denies as moot Flynn's motion regarding same (see Feb. 20, 2009).
Nov. 7, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn lodges transcripts from California proceedings. ECF 323 (Part 1); ECF 324 (Part 2).
Nov. 8, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Re: Etreppid's Non-Statutory Trade Secret Tort Claims. ECF 325.
Nov. 9, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid submits a Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. ECF 326.
The United State submits Proposed Protocols. ECF 327.
Montgomery submits a Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. ECF 328.
Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over telephonic hearing scheduled per United States’ request, apparently to discuss a sealed Montgomery Declaration, filed Feb. 28, 2007 in the Search Case. As a result of this hearing, Magistrate Judge Cooke issues order unsealing that document (Search Case ECF 115). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 331 (Text Entry Only)); Transcript (ECF 1015).
Nov. 13, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files a Notice regarding Discovery Protocols. ECF 329 (PDF).
Montgomery files an Opposition to eTreppid’s Oct. 23 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint/File Third Amended Complaint. ECF 330.
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order requiring the parties to submit proposed discovery plans and scheduling orders. ECF 60.
Nov. 14, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Response to Montgomery’s Nov. 9 Proposed Discovery Plan. ECF 333.
Nov. 15, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over discovery status conference. ECF 335 (PDF) (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 340 (Transcript). The resulting order includes (among other things) the following:
“[T]he Court finds that it shall allow written discovery to commence first. The deadline for the initial stage of written discovery is Friday, February 15, 2008. There shall be no depositions taken at this time. To the extent issues arise regarding written discovery, the Court shall hear those disputes at the monthly discovery status conferences currently scheduled in this matter.”
ECF 335. The Court also orders parties to file briefs on the United States’ proposed protocol for participation and review of documents to be produced. Id.
Nov. 21, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Friendly Capital/Trepp submit Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. ECF 61.
Nov. 26, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppied files Opposition to Montgomery’s Nov. 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF 336.
Nov. 27, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order denying Montgomery’s October Ex Parte Motion for an order requiring Flynn to redact all attorney-client communitions (referenced in Oct. 29 Order). ECF 338. However, in so ordering, Judge Cooke strongly admonishes Flynn that the “fee application process is not an invitation to include prejudicial, accusatory comments about the Montgomery parties, hyperbole, personal attacks, or any other invective that has no relevance to the legal services performed. Should Mr. Flynn and Ms. Dimare ignore this order, the court will strike those entries and task summaries, as well as the time billed for those legal services.” ECF 338 (PDF) at 3.
eTreppid files its Reply in Support of its Oct. 23 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint/File Third Amended Complaint. ECF 339.
Nov. 29, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order that eTreppie’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint will be heard at the next scheduled status conference. ECF 341.
eTreppid files Opposition to Montgomery’s Nov. 5 Motion to Enforce Right to Inspection of Records. ECF 342 (PDF).
eTreppid files Motion for Sanctions against Montgomery, asserting that “[t]hroughout this matter, Montgomery has made a substantial number of false statements in declarations signed under oath, has submitted fabricated documents to the court, and has provided live testimony that is likewise false. Simply put, the record in this case is riddled with Montgomery’s mendacities.” ECF 343 at 2. For eTreppid's evidence in support of its motion, see ECF 344 (Perez Declaration in Support of Opp to Motion and Motion for Sanctions); ECF 345 (Trepp Declaration); ECF 346 (Frye Declaration);
Nov. 30, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files its brief regarding the United States’ Proposed Discovery Protocols. ECF 347.
Montgomery also files a “Answering Brief” regarding the United States’ Proposed Discovery Protocols. ECF 348 (PDF).
The United States (Rapheal Gomez) files:
- Memorandum in Support of Proposed Protocols (addressing and dispensing with Montgomery’s objections). ECF 349 (PDF).
- Motion for Protective Order - Enforcement of U.S. Protective Order with Respect to Attorney Files. ECF 350.
Dec. 5, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues order granting the Nov. 21 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. ECF 62.
Dec. 6, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order striking documents (ECF 351-355) filed by Flynn: “On November 27, 2007, this Court entered an order requiring Mr. Flynn and Ms. Dimare to supplement their billing statements in support of their attorneys fee in camera and to serve the supplement on counsel for the Montgomery parties. Rather than simply submitting their supplement in camera , Mr. Flynn and Ms. Dimare have both submitted their supplement in camera and filed their supplement under seal (#351-#355). IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall strike documents # 351 - # 355 from the court's docket and remove the sealed images from the file.” ECF 356 (PDF).
Dec. 7, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files a Response regarding the United States’ Nov. 30 Motion to Compel Enforcement of Protective Orders, in which he asserts his support for the proposal. ECF 357 (Response); ECF 358 (PDF) (Flynn Declaration) ECF 359 (DiMare Declaration).
Dec. 10, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. eTreppid files a Motion to Realign the Parties. ECF 360 (PDF). In this Motion eTreppid essentially asserts that it is the real plaintiff here and was first to file suit and, therefore, the eTreppid v. Montgomery case should be the lead case.
Montgomery files
- Reply in Support of his Nov. 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF 361.
- Reply in Support of his Nov. 5 Motion to Enforce Right to Inspection of Records. ECF 362.
- Objection to eTreppid’s Nov. 29 Opposition to his Motion to Enforce Right to Inspection of Records. ECF 363.
Dec. 11, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues order approving the United States’ proposed protocols and ordering all parties to comply with the protocols in this proceeding. ECF 365 (PDF).
Dec. 13, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files a Non-Opposition re: eTreppid’s Dec. 10 Motion to Realign the Parties. ECF 368.
Dec. 17, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke presides over discovery status conference and motions hearing. ECF 375 (PDF) (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 383 (Transcript). During this hearing, the Court grants eTreppid’s Oct. 23 Motion to File Amended Complaint.
eTreppid files Third Amended Complaint, adding Michael Sandoval, Edra Blixseth, Atigeo, LLC, and Opspring, LLC as defendants. ECF 370. This Complaint is stricken on Jan 7, 2008 per ECF 387.
eTreppid v. Montgomery. eTreppid files Third Amended Complaint, adding Michael Sandoval, Edra Blixseth, Atigeo, LLC, and Opspring, LLC as defendants. ECF 93. (This document will become null/void when Court denies eTreppid's Motion to Realign the Parties in January 2008. Therafter, eTreppid will, on Jan. 11, 2008, file an Answer and Counterclaim.)
Dec. 21, 2007
Friendly Capital v. Montgomery. Judge Pro holds a hearing on Friendly Capital/Trepp’s motion to dismiss Montgomery’s Counterclaims. ECF 63 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 64 (Transcript). During the hearing he raises the issue of jurisdiction and orders Defendants to file a Supplemental Brief on the Court's jurisdiction on the removal. He also grants Friendly Capital/Trepp’s request to file a memo “regarding the Duluth case cited by Mr. Gunderson in his argument.” ECF 63.
Dec. 28, 2007
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Montgomery files Opposition to the United States’ Nov. 30 Motion for Protective Order Enforcement of U.S. Protective Order With Respect to Attorney Files. ECF 381 (Response); ECF 382 (Klar Declaration).
| « 2006 |
2008 »
|
Comments