Case 1:10-cv-00621-EJL -REB Document 74-4

Monica L. Hammett
From: Sent: To: Cc: Berman, David [BermanD@sec.gov] Monday, May 16, 2011 2:31 PM Jordan Kam Dick Greener; Richard Roth; LaMarca, Susan F.

Page 1 of 2 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 2

Subject: RE: SEC v. AEHI, et al.

Thank you, Jordan. Here is our response to Richs letter. We cannot agree to another extension on the summary judgment briefing schedule, nor can we excuse defendants from complying with their discovery obligations. This situation is entirely the result of defendants decision to file a summary judgment motion on the ultimate issue of liability for one defendant, and on an important issue for liability for another, long before the discovery record is complete. The Commission is entitled, under both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 56, to a complete record when responding to defendants motion. And we believe there is no basis, in good faith, for us to go to the Court and say that we see good cause for an adjournment, as required by Local Civil Rule 6.1(a). Indeed, we understood from you when we stipulated to the last extension of the briefing schedule that defendants believed the discovery we sought would be completed well before the briefs were due. Yet, when pressed for the necessary discovery, defendants have failed to provide it. For one example, defendants privilege log shows that hundreds of responsive, non-privileged documents have been improperly held. For another, defendants produced documents that were scrubbed of all metadata, and apparently directed their law firm to do the same. Neither of these issues arose because defendants lacked sufficient time. In any case, as weve repeatedly said, there is an easy, non-prejudicial way for defendants to avoid whatever burdens have befallen them as a result of their motion: they can simply withdraw it. Although we do want to avoid unnecessary motion practice, that does not mean that we are willing to grant a sequence of extensions on the discovery to which we are entitled. If the defendants feel that it is necessary to move the Court for another extension, then we will respond by explaining the background and will let the Court decide what is appropriate. Otherwise, we expect to move forward with the discovery that we have. As a purely logistical matter, we ask that you please let us know your intentions by the end of the day today, as I am scheduled to fly to Washington, D.C. on Wednesday for the deposition of Mr. Bevilacqua. Best,

David A. Berman | Staff Attorney U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission | Division of Enforcement 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 | San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-705-8116 | Fax: 415-705-2501 | bermand@sec.gov

From: Jordan Kam [mailto:JKam@rrothlaw.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:09 AM To: Berman, David Cc: Dick Greener (rgreener@greenerlaw.com); Richard Roth Subject: SEC v. AEHI, et al.

David,

5/17/2011

Case 1:10-cv-00621-EJL -REB Document 74-4

Page 2 of 2 Filed 05/17/11 Page 2 of 2

Richard Roth is out of the office at the moment but asked that I forward you the attached letter. Best, Jordan M. Kam, Esq. THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC 295 Madison Avenue, 22nd Fl. New York, New York 10017 Tel: (212) 542-8882 Fax: (212) 542-8883
This electronic mail message contains information that(a)is or may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and(b)is intended only for the use of the Addresse(s)named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, an addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, using, copying, or distributing any part of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you. NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN IS INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY ANY TAXPAYER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYER.

5/17/2011