Chiquita Notice of Supplemental Authority

8/19/2019 Chiquita Notice of Supplemental Authority

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chiquita-notice-of-supplemental-authority 1/4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

________________________________________________/

This Document Relates To:

ATS ACTIONS

08-80465-CIV-MARRA

10-80652-CIV-MARRA11-80404-CIV-MARRA

11-80405-CIV-MARRA

13-80146-CIV-MARRA

________________________________________________/

Plaintiffs Does 1-144, 1-976, 1-677, 1-254, and 1-88

Notice of Supplemental Authority

Plaintiffs Does 1-144, 1-976, 1-677, 1-254, and 1-88 hereby provide notice of the

denials by the 11th Circuit of an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of

mandamus, made by Attorneys Terrence Collingsworth and John Scarola, in cases No.

14-15722 and 14-15749. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto. Both attorneys challenged the

orders of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida in case No. 14-mc-81189,

denying Mr. Scarola's Motion to Quash a subpeona for documents related to the payment

and provision of security to witnesses in the Drummond litigation. See Exhibit 2,

attached hereto.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1031 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/16/2016 Page 1 of 4



The 11th Circuit decision is relevant to the Motion made by Mr. Simons and other

"New Jersey" counsel,1 for the Court to sanction me for having Colombian attorney Alex

Alberto Morales attend the deposition of Jesus Ignacio Roldan, R. 968, and my

Opposition and Cross Motion for an Order to Supplement Production of "Crime-Fraud"

Documents. R. 970, 971. Mr. Scarola's firm will now have to produce to Drummond,

substantially the same documents I requested in my Cross Motion. R. 971. Neither Mr.

Scarola, Collingsworth nor Simons responded to discovery requests for this information

served by email on 12/20/2015, which led to Mr. Simons' relatiating by filing a motion to

sanction me. R. 968. In addition, the Northern District of Alabama has already held that

the crime-fraud exception to the attorney work product doctrine applies in that case.

The Doe Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm to their cases against Chiquita

Brands if the witness payment evidence is not produced. The harm is irreparable and

ongoing. These attorneys attempted to bribe Raul Hasbun, and promised Ivan Otero - the

Colombian attorney who bribed so many witnesses in Drummond - a contingency fee in

the instant case. The same attorneys also tried to perpetrate a fraud on this Court with

witness Jose Gregorio Mangones, who they know submitted a false declaration in the

case against Dole, and whose "script" contains the false statement that Mr. Mangones

personally met with a Chiquita representative along with Mr. Hasbun. See R. 914-2 at

11. ("Did you personally participate in a meeting in 2001 to arrange for Chiquita to

extend the arrangement it had made with Carlos Castaño covering Uraba to the area

under your control, the Zona Bananero (sic)?" A. "Yes, along with Pedro Bonito, I met

1 Neither Mr. Scarola nor Mr. Collingsworth joined in the New Jersey Motion to sanction me. However,

Mr. Mangones Lugo, at least, is one of Mr. Collingsworth's witnesses from the fraudulent case against

Dole. The New Jersey counsel also coordinated with Mr. Collingsworth and Mr. Scarola in preparing for

the deposition of Jesus Ignacio Roldan, and acted as their agent in arranging them.




with a Chiquita representative in a coffee drying plant in Santa Marta. Chiquita agreed to

pay me the same amount it was paying in Uraba, three cents a box for all bananas shipped

out of my region.") It was the New Jersey counsel, not Mr. Collingsworth, who

petitioned the Court for an "emergency" motion to take this false testimony. R 688. I'm

the one who put a stop to the conspiracy.

Mr. Simons, Scarola, Collingsworth, and the others have excluded me from their

communications, and will not coordinate or share any discovery with me absent a

confidentiality agreement. The MDL transferee court is tasked with "coordinating"

discovery among plaintiffs lawyers. This cannot mean excluding one of the few lawyers

(Mr. Hugo and Mr. Wichmann being the others) who will not agree to keep this kind of

information confidential. Mr. Scarola should be ordered to provide the plaintiffs

represented herein with a copy of whatever he produces to Drummond. The Court may

also consider whether review this material in camera to determine whether any of it

should be produced to Defendant Chiquita Brands.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

____________________Paul Wolf, CO Bar 42107

Counsel for Does 1-144

1-976, 1-677, 1-254, 1-88

PO Box 46213Denver CO 80201

(202) 431-6986

[email protected]

March 16, 2016




Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2016, I electronically filed theforegoing Doe Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority and Exhibits with the Clerkof Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all persons

entitled to receive such notices.

/s/ Paul Wolf

____________________

Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107
