IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ...Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013) (DE535) at Item 6. Trudeau’s wife, Babenko, is the nominee owner or officer of each Trudeau-Affiliated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN TRUDEAU, Defendant, THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC J. LANE, PC,

Respondent, GIN USA INC.,

Respondent, KT RADIO NETWORK INC.,

Respondent, WEBSITE SOLUTIONS USA INC.,

Respondent.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No. 03-C-3904 Hon. Robert W. Gettleman

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO HOLD THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC LANE, GIN USA, WEBSITE SOLUTIONS USA, AND KT RADIO NETWORK IN CONTEMPT

[FILED UNDER SEAL]

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 635 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:9289

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to FRCP 45(e) and the Court’s inherent power, the Federal Trade Commission

(“FTC”) moves to hold The Law Offices of Marc Lane (“Lane”) and the Trudeau-Affiliated

Entities (GIN USA, Website Solutions USA (“WSU”) and KT Radio Network (“KTRN”)) in

contempt of this Court’s Orders that they comply with their subpoenas “forthwith.” See Order

(Mar. 7, 2013) (DE580); Order (Mar. 6, 2013) (DE578) (the “Orders”). The subpoenas required

Lane to produce payment information, and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to produce both

30(b)(6) designees and financial records. Lane produced some documents, but withholds bills

and account numbers – including the account number associated with Trudeau’s previously

undisclosed Swiss bank account. PXG:1.1 Accordingly, the FTC asks the Court to hold Lane in

contempt, and order him to comply fully within twenty-four hours.

Lane apparently formed the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities as part of an “asset protection”

scheme designed to keep Trudeau’s assets “protected” from the Court’s June 2, 2010 order to

pay. Thus, not coincidentally, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have approached the Court’s

recent discovery orders with the same contumacious bent as Trudeau himself. After failing to

respond “forthwith,” as the Court ordered, Trudeau’s companies eventually produced certain

documents last week (nineteen days after the Court’s March 6 Order, and months after they first

received subpoenas). They still refuse to produce designees in accordance with subpoenas and

Court Orders that require witnesses to appear in this District. Specifically, they will not produce

designees unless the FTC agrees that they may appear “by ISDN connection or some other video

conferencing transmittal” (rather than appear personally). See PXG:2. Accordingly, the FTC

asks that the Court hold the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities in contempt and, as a contempt sanction:

(1) order that WSU and KTRN’s owner (Trudeau’s wife, Nataliya Babenko), and GIN USA’s

1 We abbreviate citations to the FTC’s exhibits and attachments as “PX_:_.” To

minimize redundancy, the FTC refers to the exhibits supporting to the prior motion to compel and continues the lettering and numbering therein.


2

sole officer (also Babenko) appear for an in-Court deposition; and (2) provide further relief

necessary for the FTC to take the Court-ordered 30(b)(6) depositions.2

II. BACKGROUND A. Trudeau Controls WSU, KTRN, and GIN USA

The evidence that Trudeau controls the “Global Information Network” and the various

associated entities is overwhelming:

Trudeau’s counsel and “asset protection” planner (Lane) formed WSU, KTRN, and GIN USA. See PXA:6.

WSU, KTRN, and GIN USA are located at the same Westmont address as

Trudeau’s other businesses (130 Quail Ridge Drive). See id. Even under Trudeau’s own exceptionally dubious version of events, he either is or was an owner or officer of fifteen other entities located at 130 Quail Ridge Drive. See Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013) (DE535) at Item 6.

Trudeau’s wife, Babenko, is the nominee owner or officer of each Trudeau-

Affiliated Entity. Babenko owns WSU and KTRN, see Trudeau’s Opp. to Contempt Motion (Sept. 25, 2012) (DE508) (“Trudeau Opp.”) at 5, and she is also named as GIN USA’s President, Treasurer, and Secretary.

WSU has contributed enormous sums toward Trudeau’s legal bills –

$869,703.92 – and apparently transferred $486,461.81 to Trudeau. PXG:3. Trudeau admits that he founded the Global Information Network. See FTC

Contempt Opening Br. (July 13, 2012) (DE481) at 9-11. He also serves as its chief spokesperson. See id. at 8.

As one Ohio judge explained, “[t]he FTC’s evidence indicating that Trudeau is

a ‘founder’ and ‘council’ member of GIN who exercises control over GIN remains unrebutted.” FTC v. Trudeau, No. 1:12-mc-022, 2012 WL 6100472, *5 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2012) (emphasis added).

As another Ohio judge wrote, “[t]he record evidence suggests that [the Trudeau-

Affiliated Entities] are not business pursuits created totally independent from Trudeau, but may have been created to evade the contempt sanction and conceal Trudeau’s assets.” FTC v. GIN USA, No. 5:12MC35, 2012 WL 5463829, *5 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2012) (emphasis added).

2 The FTC seeks enhanced discovery as a sanction (rather than a monetary award)

because any money the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities pay is really from Trudeau and, thus, rightfully belongs to the consumers Trudeau injured. As discussed further below, the FTC also asks that the Court set the 30(b)(6) deposition dates and, to the extent Babenko is unable to testify regarding certain noticed 30(b)(6) topics, the FTC asks that the Court order the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to disclose immediately who will appear on their behalf (and on which topics).


3

Trudeau funded the $2 million escrow account with GIN money. Specifically, the $2 million came from GIN USA, which received the money from WSU, which itself received the money from GIN USA’s Nevis-based parent entity, GIN FDN. See FTC Contempt Reply (Oct. 15, 2012) (DE517) (“Reply”) at 12 n. 16. A Belize asset protection vehicle, APC Trading Ltd. (“APC”), owns GIN FDN. PXG:4 at 3 (signature page).

Trudeau’s wife – Babenko – is APC’s sole director. See id. In short, this means

that Babenko nominally owns all of the domestic and foreign entities associated with the Global Information Network. Trudeau married Babenko shortly before the original 2008 judgment, PX1:C, and Lane orchestrated the creation of each foreign and domestic GIN-related entity after the original 2008 judgment.

In addition to owning GIN USA and GIN FDN, APC’s Swiss subsidiary (Website

Solutions Switzerland (“WSS”)) employs Trudeau. See Reply (DE517) at 3 n.3. Put differently, this means that – through APC and WSS – Babenko employs Trudeau.

Beginning in 2009, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities made every dollar of nearly

$3 million in payments to American Express for Trudeau’s credit card bills. See id. at 8-9.

Until recently, Trudeau lived in an expensive suburban home and enjoyed the

services of two personal chefs and a butler – all at KTRN’s expense. See id. In fact, since 2010, KTRN paid more than $500,000 to rent Trudeau’s suburban home. PXG:5. It also appears that KTRN and WSU are paying for Trudeau’s Zurich residence, but the FTC cannot determine this definitively without taking depositions covering the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ financial records.

The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have battled discovery to hide facts like these, which

make Trudeau’s control over them obvious. B. The Discovery at Issue Here

Beginning in December 2012, the FTC served the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities with

subpoenas seeking corporate testimony and financial documents. PXA:8-10. On the Trudeau-

Affiliated Entities’ behalf, Lane objected to the subpoenas’ document requests. PXA:7. With

respect to 30(b)(6) testimony, the FTC offered thirteen dates to both Lane and Winston & Strawn

(“Winston”), but received no response. See Omnibus Motion (Jan. 18, 2013) (DE538-1) at 6-7

(summarizing attempts to obtain deposition dates). Accordingly, the FTC moved to compel the

Trudeau Affiliated Entities to comply with their subpoenas. See id.

Also in December 2012, the FTC served Lane and Winston with identical subpoenas

seeking payment records. In relevant part, the subpoenas sought “all documents” of any sort


4

“evidencing payment received or promised, or the source of payment received or promised.”

PXG:6 (emphasis added); PXA14. After Lane and Winston asserted myriad frivolous

objections, the FTC moved to compel them to comply. See Omnibus Motion (DE538-1).

C. The Court’s Discovery Orders

On March 6, 2013, the Court rejected the various objections that Winston, Lane and

WSU asserted. See DE578 at 3 (characterizing the attorneys’ arguments as “about as valid as the

misrepresentations on Trudeau’s contemptuous infomercials”). The attorneys, WSU, KTRN,

and GIN USA all made essentially identical arguments, and the Court rejected the GIN

USA/KTRN objections on the following day. See DE580. Thus, the Court granted the FTC’s

motions and ordered Winston, Lane, and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to comply “forthwith.”

DE578 (emphasis added); DE580 (emphasis added).

D. The Document Productions From Lane and the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities

No one complied “forthwith.”3 After multiple communications between counsel

regarding the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ production, they eventually produced documents

nineteen days after the Court’s March 6 Order.4

Winston responded eight days after the Court’s Order. Winston redacted its production,

but disclosed account numbers (“the source of payment[s] received,” PXG:6 at 7) and monthly

invoices revealing amounts Trudeau had paid or promised to pay (“payment[s] received or

promised,” id.). See, e.g., PXG:7. After the Court ordered Trudeau to compensate consumers in

3 See, e.g., Dickerman v. N. Trust Co., 176 U.S. 181, 193 (1900) (stating that “forthwith”

indicates “as soon as by reasonable exertion, confined to the objection, it may be accomplished. . . . It varies, of course, with every particular case. In matters of practice and pleading it is usually construed, and sometimes defined by rule of court, as within twenty-four hours.”) (quotation and citation omitted). Although courts give “forthwith” slightly varying definitions, “immediately” is the most common. See, e.g., United States v. L.M.K., 149 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 1998) (“‘Forthwith’ means ‘with dispatch’ or ‘immediately.’”) (quotation omitted). To the FTC’s knowledge, no court has ever defined “forthwith” to afford more time than is actually necessary to complete the task ordered. Cf. State v. Elisondo, 757 P.2d 675, 689 (Idaho 1988) (“Forthwith means forthwith, not tomorrow, and not when convenient.”).

4 The production includes primarily printouts of accounting reports and bank statements that could not have taken more than a few hours to compile.


5

2010, see Order (June 2, 2010) (DE371), Trudeau paid Winston more than $1.7 million. PXB ¶

4. Trudeau paid Winston primarily with funds from WSU and International Pool Tour (“IPT”).

See id. at ¶ 5. In fact, six months after IPT had paid Winston (in total) $829,901, id. at ¶ 5,

Winston wrote: Trudeau does own International Pool Tour (“IPT”), but that company is on the verge of bankruptcy and has no assets that can be liquidated or turned over to the FTC. There is no evidence to the contrary.

PXG17, Contempt Opp. (Sept. 25, 2012) at 5 n.2 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted).5

Lane responded after Winston. Specifically, Lane produced a confusing jumble of

twenty-four heavily-redacted retainer agreements along with various (also heavily-redacted)

checks and wire records.6 The redactions are so significant that it is often impossible to tell

which retainer applies to which client. See, e.g., PXG:9. Additionally, and notwithstanding the

document request’s express language, see PXG:6 at 7, Lane also withheld “bookkeeping

documents,” “financial statements,” and “other financial records” necessary to connect the

payments he received to work he did for any particular person or entity (although such

documents indisputably are documents that “evidenc[e] payment[s] received or promised”).

Most significantly, Lane redacted account numbers from checks and wire records, and he

withheld invoices completely. When the FTC raised these issues with Winston (in its capacity as

Lane’s counsel), Winston defended Lane’s omissions.7 According to Winston, Lane may redact

5 Winston received funds from IPT most recently in late March 2012. PXG8. In any

event, to support the above-quoted representation, Winston cited IPT’s tax return from the previous year (2010), which purportedly “list[ed] current liabilities at over $14 million, with assets of only $4 million.” See Opp. at 5 n.2. However one characterizes the tax return, it is clear beyond any doubt that – long after this Court’s June 2010 order to pay – IPT had assets that Trudeau used to pay Winston’s bill, which means that IPT had assets that Trudeau could have used to comply with this Court’s order to pay.

6 GIN USA and WSU paid Lane at least $500,000 after the Court’s order to pay. PXG:14-15.

7 Two months ago, the Court expressed substantial skepticism regarding whether Winston should represent Lane, but Winston assured the Court that it considered and resolved possible conflicts. See PXG:16 at 13:1-11, 14:15-22. To the extent that Winston’s conduct makes Lane’s noncompliance more obvious or renders Winston unable to defend Lane credibly, Trudeau’s lawyers created this circumstance. They cannot rely on self-created ethical entanglements to delay or frustrate this proceeding further.


6

from responsive documents anything (even nonprivileged information) except the dollar amount

he received and the “source.” See PXG:10. And, as Winston explained it, “source” (to Lane)

means who sent the money, not where it came from. For example, with respect to a responsive

document reflecting a wire from a previously-undisclosed Swiss account,8 Winston writes: “in

LANE_000176, the document states that there was a wire from Kevin Mark Trudeau in the

amount of $18,846.41. As a result, the FTC has information regarding the amount of payment

received and the source (Mr. Trudeau).” See id.

Winston also contends (incorrectly) that “redaction may be appropriate” in accordance

with the subpoena’s instructions regarding sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”).

See id. Finally, Winston asserts that invoices do not contain responsive information because they

“may or may not have been paid,” and even if Trudeau did pay an invoice, producing it “would

be duplicative” of checks and other information. See id. Winston does not attempt to reconcile

its production – which includes account numbers and invoices – with Lane’s, which does not.

E. The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ Refusal To Produce 30(b)(6) Designees

In accordance with the Court’s Orders enforcing the 30(b)(6) subpoenas to the Trudeau-

Affiliated Entities and ordering them to comply “forthwith,” the FTC proposed six potential

deposition dates. PXG:11. In response, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities suggested that they

would agree to certain of these dates, but only if the FTC agreed to take the depositions “by

ISDN connection or some other video conferencing transmittal.” PXG:2. Suffice it to say, the

FTC declined this condition (which neither the subpoenas nor the Court’s Orders contain). The

Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have not provided alternative dates. See PX:G:12 (“[Y]ou are correct

that I have not yet provided dates for the corporate depositions[.]”). Additionally, despite

repeated requests from January to the present, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities refuse to disclose

who will appear at their depositions (and on which noticed 30(b)(6) topics).

8 Among dozens of omissions and inaccuracies, Trudeau’s “sworn” financial statement

did not disclose this account. PXG18 at 5, Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013).


7

III. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court has inherent power to enforce its orders through civil contempt. See, e.g.,

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709,

737 (7th Cir. 1999). Additionally, FRCP 45(e) grants the Court authority to “hold in contempt a

person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena.” A party

is in contempt when (1) the order sets forth an unambiguous command; (2) the command is

violated; (3) the party has not substantially complied; and (4) the party has not taken “reasonable

and diligent” steps to comply. FTC v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2009).

IV. ARGUMENT A. Lane Is in Contempt Because He Withheld Account Numbers and Invoices.

The Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena to Lane is unambiguous, as is the subpoena

itself. Lane’s position – that he may redact account numbers because the transferring account is

not the “source” of the payment – grossly misinterprets the subpoena. First, Lane’s original

objection included only boilerplate and he did not raise any concern about the language now at

issue. PXA:7. Through Winston, Lane filed an extensive brief opposing the FTC’s motion to

compel, but – again – he never contended that the subpoena contained any ambiguity (and it does

not). See Lane Opp. (Feb. 13, 2013) (DE556). Second, read in any context, but especially one in

which a party is looking for assets, the “source” of a payment includes where it came from, not

merely who caused it to be sent.

Third, any debate over what constitutes a “source” is irrelevant because the subpoena

requires Lane to produce “all documents” reflecting nonprivileged responsive information, as

opposed to only the responsive information itself. PXG6 at 7 (no. 2). The subpoena – which the

Court enforced – expressly provides: “If only a part of a responsive document is privileged, all

non-privileged parts must be submitted [to the FTC].” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Account

numbers are not privileged. And there is no doubt that the documents from which Lane redacted

account numbers are responsive (Lane produced them). In short, neither the subpoena nor the

Court’s Order gives Lane authority to redact nonprivileged information from otherwise


8

responsive documents.9 For this reason as well, when he redacted account numbers, Lane

violated the Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena.

Fourth, Lane asserts that redacting account numbers “may be appropriate” in accordance

with the subpoena’s instructions regarding sensitive PII. PXG:10. In reality, the instructions

provide that, if a document contains sensitive PII, such as an “account number,” the responding

party should “contact us first before sending those materials to discuss ways to protect such

information during production or whether it would be appropriate to redact the sensitive

information.” PXG:6 at 4. The instructions do not authorize Lane to redact account numbers

without the FTC’s consent, and – given this subpoena’s purpose – the FTC would not have

consented even if Lane had asked (and he did not). Finally, the fact that Winston produced

account numbers resolves any possible doubt that Lane’s theory is yet another attempt to protect

Trudeau’s assets rather than comply.

Winston also produced invoices, which Lane’s identical subpoena covers as well.

Through Winston, however, Lane argues that invoices may not reflect “payments received”

because Trudeau may not have paid an invoice. But the subpoena also covers “payments

promised.” PXG:6 at 5 (no. 2). When Trudeau, Babenko, Suneil Sant, or one of Trudeau’s other

associates executed Lane’s engagement agreements, they committed (promised) to pay the

invoiced amounts. See, e.g., PXG:9 at 10 (signatory “guarantee[d] payment of all amount due”;

9 Lane is not entitled to redact from responsive documents other information that – in

Lane’s opinion – is nonresponsive or irrelevant. See, e.g., ArcelorMittal Cleveland Inc. v. Jewell Coke Co., L.P., No. 1:10-CV-2010, 2010 WL 5230862, *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2010) (“The Court is not persuaded that Jewell is entitled to redact information in its document production that it believes is irrelevant or non-responsive to ArcelorMittal’s documents requests. Indeed, the language of Rule 34 discusses production of ‘documents,’ rather than paragraphs or sentences.”) (citation omitted); HR Techn., Inc. v. Imura Int’l U.S.A., Inc., No. 08–2220, 2010 WL 4792388, *5 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010) (“The Court agrees with the reasoning of courts that have rejected such redactions by parties.”); Orion Power Midwest, L.P. v. Am. Coal Sales Co., No. 2:05-cv-555, 2008 WL 4462301, *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2008) (holding that “[t]here is no express or implied support” in the FRCP for allowing “a party [to] scrub responsive documents of nonresponsive information”). When courts have permitted a responding party to redact irrelevant information, usually they have done so only after a finding that the information is irrelevant. See, e.g., Beauchem v. Rockford Prods. Corp., No. 01 C 50134, 2002 WL 1870050, *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2002) (mag. op.) (allowing redactions only after conducting a “thorough in camera review” to determine that the information was irrelevant).


9

Lane would “issue periodic statements for fees and costs incurred, which are due upon receipt”);

id. at 13 (identical language); id. at 4 (client “agree[s] to pay” Lane’s hourly rates, and Lane

“will issue periodic statements for fees and costs incurred”); id. at 7 (identical language).

Accordingly, invoices evidence payments Lane’s clients promised to make, and the Court’s

Order obligated Lane to produce them.10

Because Lane has withheld important information that the Court’s Order enforcing the

subpoena required that he produce, Lane violated that Order. Lane withheld an extensive

amount of relevant information, which means that Lane did not “substantially comply.” See

Trudeau, 579 F.3d at 763. And Lane certainly made no “reasonable and diligent” effort to

comply, see id.; instead, he deployed an untenably narrow interpretation of the subpoena that

renders his production evasive and incomplete. Accordingly, Lane is in contempt.

B. The Trudeau-Affiliated Entities Are in Contempt Because They Will Not Provide 30(b)(6) Deposition Dates Unconditionally.

There is no basis for the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities’ position that the FTC must agree to

take their depositions “by ISDN connection or some other video conferencing transmittal” rather

than appear personally. See PXG:2. The Court ordered the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities to

10 Invoices are particularly important because Lane’s production fails to comply with the

Court’s Order enforcing the subpoena in at least two additional respects. First, some of Lane’s engagement agreements establish security retainers, which Lane apparently charged against as his firm performed work. See, e.g., PXG:13 at 2; id. at 4. Along with “true retainers” and “security retainers” (pursuant to which the retainer remains the client’s property until work is performed), Illinois recognizes “advance payment retainers” (pursuant to which the payment becomes the lawyer’s property immediately). See Dowling v. Chi. Options Assocs., 875 N.E.2d 1012, 1022 (Ill. 2007). Under Dowling, at least two (and probably more) of Lane’s heavily-redacted engagement agreements do not create “advance payment retainers” because they do not “use that term [‘advance payment retainer’],” and they do not “clearly state that the funds become the property of the lawyer when paid and that they will not be held in a client trust account.” Id.; see PXG:13. Because Lane’s security retainers belong to the client, Lane did not receive payment until he performed work, which means that some sort of financial statement reflecting that work – like an invoice – is necessary to determine what payments Lane received. Second, although the subpoena expressly covers “bookkeeping documents,” “financial statements,” and “other financial documents” that reflect “payments received,” PXG:6 at 7 (no. 2), Lane produced no documents that enable the FTC to match particular wires or checks to work for a particular client (like Trudeau). Invoices might suffice but, in any event, Lane must have records that apply payments to particular clients and matters. Such documents reflect payments received, which means the Court’s Order obligated Lane to produce them. Lane wrongly withheld these documents to make his production as difficult to understand as possible.


10

comply with their deposition subpoenas, which require these Westmont-based entities to appear

in Chicago. Neither the FRCP, the subpoenas themselves, nor the Court’s Orders enforcing

those subpoenas give the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities some sort of “videoconference option.”11 If

the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities wanted to raise this issue, they had to do so through their

subpoena objections or the extensive briefing they submitted when opposing the FTC’s motion

to compel.

Instead, they have refused to accept dates for their Court-ordered depositions unless the

FTC agrees to a new condition they manufactured last week. Refusing to appear in accordance

with the subpoenas violates the Court’s Orders enforcing those subpoenas and, therefore, the

Trudeau-Affiliated Entities have not “substantially complied.” Nor does their “video

conferencing transmittal” condition constitute a “reasonable and diligent” effort to comply.

Accordingly, the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities are in contempt.

V. CONCLUSION

Because the Trudeau-Affiliated Entities violated this Court’s Orders requiring that they

comply with their 30(b)(6) deposition subpoenas, the FTC asks that the Court hold them in

contempt and, as a contempt sanction, order that WSU and KTRN’s owner (Babenko), and GIN

USA’s sole officer (also Babenko) appear for an in-Court deposition. Additionally, the FTC asks

that the Court set the 30(b)(6) deposition dates and, to the extent Babenko is unable to testify

regarding certain noticed 30(b)(6) topics, the FTC asks that the Court also order the Trudeau-

Affiliated Entities to disclose immediately who will appear on their behalf (and on which topics).

Lane also violated this Court’s order enforcing the subpoena. The FTC asks the Court to

hold Lane in contempt, and order him to comply fully within twenty-four hours.

11 Cf. SEC v. Symbol Techs., Inc., No. CV-04-2276, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18140, at *9-

*10 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010) (denying motion for reconsideration; court had entered default judgment against defendant in Sweden who offered to appear for his deposition via videoconference, but would not appear in New York).


11

Dated: April 1, 2013 David O’Toole ([email protected]) Federal Trade Commission 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825 Chicago, Illinois 60603-5001 Phone: (312) 960-5601 Fax: (312) 960-5600

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Jonathan Cohen Michael Mora ([email protected]) Jonathan Cohen ([email protected]) Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B Washington, DC 20580 Phone: 202-326-3373; -2551 Fax: 202-326-2558


12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jonathan Cohen, hereby certify that on April 1, 2013, I caused to be served true copies of the foregoing to the Court. I further certify that, on April 1, 2013, appropriately redacted versions of the foregoing will be served by electronic means to: Kimball Richard Anderson [email protected] Thomas Lee Kirsch, II [email protected] Katherine E. Croswell [email protected] Daniel J. Donnellon [email protected] Kenjiro D. LeCroix [email protected]

/s/ Jonathan Cohen Jonathan Cohen ([email protected]) Attorney for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission


Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 635-1 Filed: 04/22/13 Page 1 of 67 PageID #:9302



































































Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ...Fin. Statement (Jan. 25, 2013) (DE535) at Item 6. Trudeau’s wife, Babenko, is the nominee owner or officer of each Trudeau-Affiliated