LINK TELECOMMUNICAnONS, * IN THE
INC.,
* CIRCUIT COURT
Plaintiff,
* FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
v.
* CASE NO. C-1999-56827 OT
MARK SAPPERSTEIN, et al.,
*
Defendants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT MARK SAPPERSTElN TO
INTERROGATORIES OF LINK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Defendant, Mark Sapperstein, with the assistance of his undersigned
counsel, answers the interrogatories of Link Telecommunications, Inc.,
("Link"), as foUows:
INTERROGATORY NO. I: State your full name, home and business addresses
for the past five (5) years, date of birth, marital status and social! security
number.
ANSWER NO. I: Mark C. Sapperstein, 15 Evan Way, Baltimore, MD, 21208
(since 12/97); 20 River Oaks Circle, Baltimore, MD 21208; 28 WaJ'ker Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21208, 1/11159, married, 212-78-0272.
INTERROGATORY NO.2: State your occupation during the past tlve years
including the names and addresses of each place of employment and the
identity of each corporation, partnership or other organization or enterprise with
which you have been involved in the past five (5) years as employee, officer,
director, partner, investor or otherwise engaged in work.
ANSWER NO.2: I object to this interrogatory to the extent it asks for the
identity of any entity in which 1have been an "investor" in the past five years, as
that information has nothing to do with my occupation or employment, as this
interrogatory purports to ask, nor are my investments relevant to the subject
matter of this case nor are they reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence at trial. Subject to this objection, my occupation and
employment since April I, 1995, is as a self-employed real estate developer.
INTERROGATORY NO.3: State when you first met George B. Chamberlain, Jr.
and give the purpose or reason for that meeting.
ANSWER NO.3: I first met Mr. Chamberlain in July of 1996. My understanding
of the purpose of that meeting was that Chamberlain wanted to speak to me
about a microwave bandwidth system for cellular telephone communications,
which he hoped to sell me.
INTERROGATORY NO.4: State your relationship, whether owner, officer,
director, employee or investor with Communications, Inc., Shore
Communications, West Shore Communications, Inc. and 28 \Valker Associates,
LLC.
ANSWER NO.4: I have never had a relation with Communications, Inc., and I
have no knowledge about this company. With respect to Shore and West
Shore, when they were in eXistence, I was the President, a director and the
majority shareholder of each. I am a member of 28 Walker Associates, LLC.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: Who introduced you to George B. Chamberlain, Jr. or
referred him to you and state the reason why Mr. Chamberlain was referred or
introduced to you?
2
ANSWER NO.5: My recollection is that Mr. Chamberlain contacted me
directly, for the reason set forth in my answer to Interrogatory No.3.
INTERROGATORY NO.6: What was the purpose of Shore Communications
having a microwave feasibility study performed by Comsearch during on or
about October and November, 1996?
ANSWER NO.6: Comsearch was retained to study whether the proposal
submitted by Link and/or Chamberlain could be accomplished and, if so,
whether doing so was economically feasible.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: Identify your relation with Dobson Cellular of
Maryland.
ANSWER NO.7: I have no relationship with Dobson Cellular. At one point,
before December of 1997, Dobson Cellular became a lessee of space on some
of defendant Shore's tower sites, by virtue of Dobson's purchase of an existing
communications network on the Eastern Shore from Cellular One. In connectin
with that transaction, Dobson assumed two leases between Cellular One and
Shore for tower space.
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Why did you not sign the non-disclosure agreement
presented to you by George B. Chamberlain, Jr. on behalf of Link
Telecommunications, Inc. (LTI)?
ANSWER NO.8: I saw no reason to sign it and I was not willing to continue
discussions with Link or Chamberlain if doing so was a condition.
3
Chamberlain, however, made no efforts, other than presenting the unsigned
non-disclosure agreement to me, to have that document executed and the
subject was not raised with me again by Chamberlain.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: Identify all do~umentsproduced during the
negotiations for the sale by you and any other defendants or related companies
or organizations dealing with the induding the sale of assets of defendants or
any of them to Pinnacle Towers, Inc.
ANSWER NO.9: I object to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks
information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without
waiving this objection, a copy of the purchase agreement will be produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the individual or individuals employed by or
acting on behalf of Pinnacle Towers Inc., that were in any way involved in
negotiations and sale of assets of defendants or any of them to Pinnacle Towers
Inc.
ANSWER NO. 10: I do not know which employees or representatives of
Pinnacle where "in any way" involved in the negotiations and sale of assets.
dealt with the following individuals at Pinnacle: Stephen Woolsley, Jamie
Delappa, Steve Smith and Daphne Goodyear. Dennis Hom and Jennifer
Goodrich, of Holland & Knight, Pinnacle's counsel, were also involved. Dan
Feigner and Jason Havlin, of Price Waterhouse, conducted due diligence on
behalf of Pinnacle.
4
from the monies paid by Pinnacle Towers Inc. for the assets of any of the
defendants, the sale having occurred on or about December, 1997.
ANSWER NO. II: The sale occurred in early January 1998. Shore received
I
$8,123,300, West Shore received $700,000, and 28 Walker received $150,000. In
addition, $2,027,000 in liabilities were pa~d directly to Provident Bank.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each person whom you expect to call as an
expert witness at trial, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected
to testify and the summary of the grounds for each opinion, and attach to your
answers any written report made by the expert concerning those findings and
opinions.
ANSWER NO. 12: I have not yet detennined which experts, if any, I intend to
call at the trial of this case.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State whether, at any time during the last fifteen (I 5)
years you have been convicted of any crime other than a minor traffic offense.
If so, for each conviction identify the court in which you were convicted and
state the amount, of any fine and the date and length of any incarceration
imposed. For purpose of this Interrogatory, a conviction includes a plea of nolo
contendere followed by a sentence, whether or not the sentence is suspended.
ANSWER NO. 13: No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify aU officers and directors of Marl-Link, LLC.
ANSWER NO. 14: Me and my wife, Stacy Sapperstein, were the only officers and
directors until Meri-Link's dissolution.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify all FCC licenses now held by any of the
named defendants in this case and any that were transferred to Pinnacle
Towers, Inc.
ANSWER NO. 15: None.
5
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: If you contend that you or any corporation or
organization with which you were involved acquired plainlliffs plan for
microwave use as described in complaint in this case pursuant to some
authority, specify the nature of the authority, state when given, and identify the
person whom you contend gave you the authority?
ANSWER NO. 16: The uplan" was pre?ented by Link and/or Chamberlain with
no restrictions regarding its use, and without being subject 10 any confidentiality
restrictions or other limitations upon its use. Link and/or Chamberlain having
made the "plan" available under these circumstances, there are no limitations
upon the use of that "plan" by myself, or by any entity with which I am or was
associated.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you claim that you have lawfully acquired the
market identified by plaintiff, the competitive technical solution and business
model produced by plaintiff as described 'in the complaint from someone other
than the plaintiff; and if so, set forth the basis of the claim and identify any
writing which is reflective of the acquisition?
ANSWER NO. 17: I do not understand what information this Interrogatory is
seeking. To the extent that it is asking whether I claim that the same or similar
information presented in what Link describes as its "plan" came to me
independently from some other source, I am not making any such claim,
although I believe that the concepts set forth in the "plan" are not unique.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: If you contend that you acquired the market
identified by plaintiff, the competitive technical solution and business model
produced by plaintiff as described in the complaint with permission, identify the
person from whom you received permission, and specify when and where it
was given?
ANSWER NO. 18: ) incorporate my answers to interrogatory nos. 16 and 17_
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did you provide to Comsearch infomlation
pertaining to the market identified by plaintiff, the competitive technical
solution and business model produced by plaintiff as described in the
complaint?
ANSWER NO. 19: I arranged to have what Link and/or Chamberlain provided
to me provided to Comsearch, with the ~nowledge and consent of Link and/or
Chamberlain. My recollection is that most of this information was provided
directly by Chamberlain to Comsearch.
7
Verification
I solemnly declare and affirm under penalties of perjUIy that the
contents of the foregoing answers to interrogatories are true, to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Mark Sa
* * *
q{UlLt.u)l'h~
Kathleen M. McDonald
Cristina Flores
Kerr McDonald, LLP
31 Light Street
Suite 400
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 539-2900
Attorney for Defendant
Mark Sapperstein
MI5S7
8
LINK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., * IN THE
Plaintiff, * CIRCUIT COURT
v. * FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNlY
MARK SAPPERSTEIN, et aL, * CASE NO. C-1999-56827 OT
Defendants.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTICE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this &~ay of April, 2000, a copy of this
Notice and the Answers of Defendant Mark Sapperstein to Interrogatories of
Link Telecommunication, Inc., weremailed.byfirstclassmail.postagepaid.to
William R. Voltz, Esquire, 2120 L. Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C.
20037, and to Patricia Drummond, Esquire, 14718 Main Street, Upper Marlboro,
Md 20772, counsel for Plaintiff.
1i~?rI~
Kathleen M. McDonald
Kerr McDonald, LLiP
31 Light Street
Suite 400
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attorney for Defendlant
Mark Sapperstein
MISS7
LINK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., * IN THE
Plaintiff, * CIRCUIT COURT
v. *
FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
MARK SAPPERSTEIN, et al., * CASE NO. C-1999-56827 OT
Defendants.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT MARK SAPPERSTEIN TO
UNK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant Mark Sapperstein, by his undersigned counsel, responds to Link
Telecommunications, Inc., request for production of documents as foHows:
REQUEST NO.1: All documents identified in your Answers to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories.
RESPONSE NO.1: Any such documents will be produced unless they are subject to
a claimed privilege.
REQUEST NO.2: All written reports of each person who you expect to call as an
expert witness at trial.
RESPONSE NO.2: There are no such documents.
REQUEST NO.3: The most recent resume or curriculum vitae of each expert whom
you expect to call as an expert witness at trial.
RESPONSE NO.3: There are no such documents.
REQUEST NO.4: All notes, diagrams, photographs or other documents prepared and
presented to Comsearch when requesting their feasibility study which Comsearch
them perform in approximately October and November, 1996.
RESPONSE NO.4: Sapperstein cannot recall with precision what documents were
provided to Comsearch, and most, if not all, of those documents were provided to
Comsearch by Chamberlain or Link, and not by Sapperstein. Any such documents will
be produced if they can be identified.
REQUEST NQ. 5: All drafts, working papers or documents generated by each witness
whom you intend to call as an expert at trial connection with the opinions and subject
on which the witness is expected to testify.
RESPONSE NO.5: There are no such documents.
REOUEST NO.6: All written or recorded statements by you or any agent, employee or
representative of yours concerning the subject matter of this action.
RESPONSE NO.6: Sapperstein objects to this request on the ground that it exceeds
the scope of discovery set forth in Md. Rule 2-402(d), and seeks protected work
prodUCt.
REQUEST NO.7: Photographs, video tapes or audio tapes, diagrams, surveys or other
graphic representation of information concerning the subject matter of this action.
RESPONSE NO.7: Any such documents will be produced.
REQUEST NO.8: All documents that contain information about, refer or related to any
conversation or meeting during which the following were discussed:
a. Presentation of documents to Comsearch for purpose of having their study
performed.
b. All meetings attended for the purpose of discussing Mart-Link, LLC.
c. All discussions held with Pinnacle Towers, Inc., (Pinnacle) or any other
name used or related Pinnacle regarding the power space rental revenue
potential from the acquisition of the Shore Communication's properties.
d. Details of all rental income data presented to Pinnacle including the higher
rental rates possible when CeHularOne of Maryland implemented that the six
Ghz/DS3 LTI Metro Plan presented to CeHularOne by Ziad Sleem and Mark
Sapperstein during the summer months of 1996.
e. All documents that contain information about, refer or relate to sale of any
interest in any of the named defendant corporations by Jay WinE![ to you.
f. All documents that contain information about, refer or relate to sale of
interest in any of the named defendant corporations to Pinnacle.
g. All documents that contain information about, refer or relate to meetings
among shore Communications, West Shore Communications, 28 Walker
Associates, LLP., Mark Sapperstein, Jay Winer and other corporate officers or
partners or investors and AT &T Mobile or any third party representative or
affiliate of AT&T Mobile regarding LTI Metor, Marl-Link and/or digital microwave
infrastructure or backbone network proposal.
h. All documents that contain information that refer or relate to alJ meetings
attended by Shore Communications, West Shore Communication, 28 Walker
Associates, LLP., Mark Sapperstein, Jay Winer, Fred Delavan, or other corporate
officer, partner or investor or third party representative and Bell Atlantic Mobile
regarding LTl Metro and/or other digital microwave infrastructure or backbone
network proposal.
i. All documents that contain information that refer or relate to all meetings
attended by Shore Communications, West Shore Communication, 28 Walker
Associates, LLP., Mark Sapperstein, Jay Winer, Fred Delavan, or other corporate
officer, partner or investor or third party representative and Sprint regarding LTI
Metro and/or other digital microwave infrastructure or backbone network
proposal.
RESPONSE NO.8: With respect to subsections (a), to the extent that there are any
such documents they wilJ be produced, as set forth in the Response to Request NO.4.
With respect to subsections (b) and (d), there are no such documents. \Vith respect
to the documents in the other subsections, Sapperstein objects to those requests
because they seek documents that are not relevant to the subject matter of this
litigation and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
REQUEST NO.9: All documents that contain information about, refer or relate to the
purchase by Pinnacle of the assets of any of the defendants.
RESPONSE NO.9: Sapperstein objects to this request because it seeks documents
that are not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving or
otherwise limiting this objection, Sapperstein will produce the sales contract, which
reflects that Pinnacle did not purchase the assets of Marl-Link, LLC, induding the
Comsearch study and that, in fact, those assets were expressly and spf~cifically
excluded from the sale.
REQUEST NO. 10: Copies of the corporate charters, By-Laws and all amendments
thereto of all corporate defendants.
RESPONSE NO. 10: The documents will be produced.
REQUEST NO. II: Copies of audited profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and
cash flow statements for yourself and all corporate defendants in which you have had
any interest in the past eight (8) years that relate to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSE NO. 11: Sapperstein objects to this request because it is overly broad,
seeks confidential financial information, and seeks information that is not relevant to
the subject matter of this case nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
REOUEST NO. 12: Copies of minutes of meetings of the executive comrnittee, the
board, and/or the stockholders insofar as they relate to sale of assets by any of the
defendants to Pinnacle.
RESPONSE NO. 12: Sapperstein objects to this request because it seeks information
that is not relevant to the subject matter of this case nor is it reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST NO. 13: Such documents as are necessary to disclose the identity and dates
in office for each officer and director of each of the corporate defendants since
January I, 1994.
RESPONSE NO. 13: Sapperstein objects to this request on the gwund that it is unduly
burdensome and overly broad. The officers and directors of Shore Communications,
from JanuaIY 1, 1994, were Sapperstein (President and Secretary) and his wife, Stacy
Sapperstein (Vice-President). From JanuaIY 1, 1994, until May 14, 1997, Jay Winer was
the Vice-President of West Shore and Fred Delavan was the Treasurer of West Shore,
and Sapperstein was President and Stacy Sapperstein was SecretaIy of that
corporation. Mter that time, Sapperstein and Stacy Sapperstein were the only officers
and directors. With respect to 28 Walker Associates, LLC, Sappersltein and Stacy
Sapperstein are, and have been, the only members.
~~fn.l~
Ka hJeen M. McDonald
Kerr McDonald, LLP
31 Light Street
Suite 400
Baltimore, MaIYland 21202
(410) 539-2900
Attorney for Defendant
Mark Sapperstein
M1558
LINK TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., * IN THE
Plaintiff, * CIRCUIT COURT
v. * FORANNEARUNDELCOUNTY
MARK SAPPERSTEIN, et al., * CASE NO. C-1999-56827' OT
Defendants.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTICE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this ~day of April, 2000, a copy of this Notice and
the Response of Defendant Mark Sapperstein to Link Telecommunications, Inc.'s
Request For Production Of Documents, was mailed, by first class mail, postage paid, to
William R. Voltz, Esquire, 2120 L. Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20037, and
to Patricia Drummond, Esquire, 14718 Main Street, Upper Marlboro, Md ~~0772, counsel
for Plaintiff.
~~a.:::L...:.....~~
Ka leen M. McDonald
Kerr McDonald, LLP
31 Light Street
Suite 400
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Attorney for Defendant
Mark Sapperstein