Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DENNIS L. MONTGOMERY
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-20782-JEM
v.

JAMES RISEN, ET AL.,

Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM
Introduction
Under the Courts July 20, 2015 Order [ECF No. 91], Plaintiff files this pre-hearing
memorandum on the discovery dispute in order to educate the Court on the issues that may arise
during the hearing of August 7, 2015.
In Defendants Notice of Legal Issues to Address in Their Pre-Hearing Memorandum
[ECF No. 92], they outline four (4) topics that they disingenuously assert Plaintiff produced
insufficiently in document production: (1) the failure to produce potentially classified
information; (2) information regarding Plaintiffs domicile; (3) Plaintiffs medical records; (4)
Plaintiffs tax returns. Defendants again attempt to mislead this Court. It is a federal crime to
produce, transfer or review classified information, Defendants are fully briefed on and aware of
Plaintiffs domicile over the past ten (10) years, Defendants are in possession of at least 92 pages
of medical records and have been provided an additional 5,641 more pages of medical records
by today, August 4, 2015. Defendants are also in possession of 263 pages of Plaintiffs tax

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 2 of 5

returns. Indeed, Defendants have all of the information they disingenuously seek to have this
Court order over to them.
1. Plaintiff Is Not Required to Produce Classified, Government Information
Plaintiffs counsel is not aware whether or not Plaintiff has custody, possession or control of
classified information, but if Plaintiff does, it cannot be produced to Defendants pursuant to law.
Plaintiff, who has a severe brain aneurism and could barely speak or see during the period
leading up to production, did an admirable job at producing what he had that could be legally
produced and responded to.
2. Plaintiff Provided His Domicile Information
Plaintiff is not withholding any information about his domicile.
3. Plaintiff Provided His Medical Information
Plaintiff provided all of the relevant medical information that is in his possession, custody
and control. Plaintiff had various doctors appointments in the last two weeks and those
documents will be provided as soon as they are available.
4. Plaintiff Provided His Tax Returns
As Plaintiffs counsel told Defendants counsel based on information from Plaintiff in a
telephone conversation various times, Plaintiffs tax returns have been produced to the fullest.
Plaintiff is not in possession of tax returns from the years 2008-2014, and Defendants are well
aware of this. An IRS whistleblower complaint filed by Plaintiff asserts this. Specifically,
Plaintiff wrote:
IRS and FBI officials, in Reno Nevada retaliated against me and my family in
2007, by beginning and extensive IRS investigation into myself and my family.
The investigating IRS officials have acknowledge using the information that was
collected by the FBI on the raid on my home (and offsite storage units) even
though they knew the raid was illegal. I provided the necessary information
regarding my finances to my attorneys. The US Government, under the SSP then

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 3 of 5

sized all those finance documents from my attorneys, without even issuing a
search warrant. Without these documents, it makes it almost impossible to file tax
returns and defend myself against the IRS.
Plaintiff previously produced this document to Defendants and they are aware that Plaintiff
cannot produce tax documents from 2008 to 2015.
Conclusion
Defendants seek to create issues for tactical reasons, which largely do not exist. It is
telling that thus far, Plaintiff has produced 29,587 pages of documents, and Defendants produced
only about 4,000. Importantly, a hearing which Plaintiff will notice up in the future if the
Magistrate-Judge cannot hear the issue on August 7, 2015, concerns Plaintiffs former legal
counsel Michael Flynn, Esq., having been induced to breach attorney client privileges and
confidences, and work product between Plaintiff, by the Defendants. In this regard, the
documents produced by Defendants in their initial disclosures disclose that Flynn turned over
20,000 documents likely containing attorney/client communications and work product, most of
which Defendants withheld and did not produce to Plaintiff. When questions were asked about
this secretion and spoliation of the documents at the disposition of James Risen on June 19,
2015, Defendants counsel largely refused to allow her client Risen to answer questions about
the non-produced documents and instead, through improper speaking objections, fed him
answers falsely suggesting that all documents had been provided to Plaintiff. Attached is the
portion of the relevant pages of the Risen deposition transcript. Exhibit 1.
In short, Plaintiff has been much more correct and forthcoming than Defendants. And,
Defendants Pre-Hearing Memorandum dishonestly fails to state that pursuant to the meet and
confer, which took place for several hours on two occasions in the last few weeks, most of the
issues have been resolved. Instead, Defendants seek to wage ad hominem attacks and impugn

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff and his counsel for strategic reasons. The most severe example of this concerns the
alleged software, which Defendant suggests in his book Pay Any Price, is classified.
Accordingly, Defendants and their counsels receipt of this software would subject Plaintiff and
them to criminal liability. Defendants and their counsel are simply trying to create a Catch 22,
particularly since Defendant Risen was forced to admit at deposition that his libelous and
slanderous published statements were not based on any classified information he received from
government sources. Thus, the issue of the software is irrelevant as Defendant simply made up
and concocted his defamatory publications to sell his book. Defendants cannot be permitted to
have it both ways.1
For the foregoing reasons, and as will be argued on August 7, 2015, Defendants Motion
to Compel should be denied.

Dated: August 4, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Larry Klayman
Klayman Law Firm
FL Bar No. 246220
7050 W Palmetto Park Rd.
Suite 15-287
Boca Raton, FL 33433
(310) 595-0800
leklayman@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this pleading to aid the Magistrate-Judge prior to the
hearing of August 7 2015.
4

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 4th day of August 2015, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served via email and U.S. Mail upon the following:
Sanford Lewis Bohrer
Brian Toth
Holland & Knight, LLP
Suite 3000
701 Brickell Ave
Miami, FL 33131
Email: sbohrer@hklaw.com
Email: brian.toth@hklaw.com
Laura R. Handman
Micah Ratner
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20006-3401
Email: laurahandman@dwt.com
Email: MicahRatner@dwt.com
Attorneys for Defendants

/s/ Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, Esq.

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 1 of 7

Exhibit 1

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 2 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 96-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2015 Page 7 of 7