Discovery Abuse by HC120723014937

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 1

									            Documented Discovery Abuse by Battelle & DOE-Funded Counsel

Battelle-PNNL documents [ http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/RM-00002.pdf ] indicate that the DOE Office of Science
[taxpayers] is nevertheless paying for Battelle’s litigation costs to defend this lawsuit despite the following:
  (a) Preponderance of evidence showing willful fraud and abuse against the Government [OIG, DOE & district court]
  (b) DOE 48 CFR 970-5228-1 [ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04148r.pdf ] prohibiting reimbursement for willful misconduct
  (c) Battelle 2006 admissions to allegations in OIG complaints I04RS007, I05RR039, and P07HL035

Battelle’s litigation costs include those for outside counsel, Delbert Miller who submitted false material statements and
misrepresentations to the court regarding research funded by DHS US Customs and Border Protection [Radiation
Portal Monitoring Project]. Battelle is also concealing explicit DOE policy [48CFR970 5227.2 ] on copyright and
commercialization and misleading the court. Battelle and their counsel [Miller] are engaging in discovery abuse to
conceal Battelle’s willful misappropriation of DOE-funded [MDM/PDAC] mobile/wireless software by calling it “new
code” renaming it RDADS and filing a new invention report & copyright and patenting it under the new name.

To further hide Battelle’s commercial misappropriation of the MDM/PDAC mobile software funded under the DOE
technical assistance program, Miller submitted declarations from two PNNL scientists [under penalty of perjury] that
contain material false statements, which are clearly refuted by their own documents and timecards. [Note, early in
discovery, Battelle in-house counsel released documents pertaining to the RDADS mobile software because
admissions from scientists and other documents revealed RDADS was a newer version of the DOE-funded MDM
software. Miller used false statements and declarations to “undo” the evidence showing fraud and misappropriation.]

          Links Showing DOE-Funded Counsel False Statements to the Court to Cover-up Fraud
Miller to the Court: “Battelle has developed a new software product called RDADS (Rapid Data Acquisition and Dissemination System). RDADS
was created for and is being used in the Department of Homeland Security’s Radiation Portal Monitoring Project. It has absolutely nothing to do
with Plaintiffs or their lawsuit.” http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/DefendantResponsePlaMotCompel2ndRFP.060728.pdf Page12

Battelle Evidence Refuting Miller False Statements: Emails: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/Misappropriation.htm
RDADS “New code” Screens/Diagrams Showing Battelle’s Plagiarism: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/1A-Graphics.htm
Copyright-Commercialization Policy Concealed: http://www.mobiledatamanager.com/OIG/CFR48-970--SW-Copyright-Commercialization.htm


                        Background: Delbert Miller; Bogle & Gates Discovery Abuse
Research on Mr. Miller reveals that he was a litigator at the now defunct Seattle-based Bogle and Gates law firm that
was sanctioned $325,000 for discovery abuse, the largest in US history. Excerpts from two notable Bogle & Gates
cases [showing blatant discovery abuse and resulting court sanctions] are presented below. They are cited because
Mr. Miller is invoking similar tactics in my Federal case; the DOE Office of Science continues to finance these tactics
that are deceiving the court by hiding Battelle’s misappropriation [“new code”] of DOE-funded software and other fraud.

  Pollock v. Fisons Corp. [ http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=918 ]
  “A two-year-old girl died after taking asthma medication. When the girl's parents sued, the manufacturer, Fisons Corp., used a
  misleading discovery response to avoid disclosing company memos that revealed corporate knowledge of the risks posed by the
  medication...The Washington state Supreme Court unanimously denounced Fisons and its lawyers [Bogle & Gates] for their
  tactics. (18) The court found that Fisons had carried out a prolonged shell game, replete with "misleading" answers that were
  "contrary to the purposes of discovery and ... most damaging to the litigation process."
  “The Court added, "Having read the record herein, we cannot perceive of any request that could have been made to this drug
  company that would have produced the smoking gun documents." The court sent the case back to the trial court with directions
  to impose sanctions "severe enough to deter these attorneys and others from participating in this kind of conduct in the future."
  Bogle & Gates then agreed to settle by paying $325,000 and admitting that its attorneys advised Fisons not to produce the
  smoking gun documents and that such advice violated court discovery rules."

  Subaru of America [ http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1015973958083 ]
  “Bogle & Gates represented Subaru of America on charges that the driver's seatbacks in Subaru's Justy could collapse
  backwards when hit from the rear, potentially causing grave injury. In the view of federal Judge Robert Bryan, Bogle obfuscated,
  stonewalled, and gave answers that were just plain wrong.”
  “In one request, plaintiffs had asked for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records that showed the collapse of
  driver's seats from a rear-impact force of 30 miles per hour. Bogle's response was that the request was "vague, confusing and
  unintelligible…Specifically, 30 miles per hour is a velocity, not a force, and due to this confusion of technical terms, no meaningful
  response can be given." Judge Bryan called this "lawyer hokum," and forced Bogle to pay the other side's attorneys' fees.”

								
To top