Letter Rogatory

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ex rel. FLOYD LANDIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAILWIND SPORTS CORPORATION,
et al.,

Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

RELATORS MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST
PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Relator Floyd Landis hereby moves for issuance of a Letter of Request pursuant to the
Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. The
purpose of the motion is to obtain documents from the Union Cycliste Internationale
(UCI), located in Aigle, Switzerland for potential use at trial or other proceedings in this
action. The motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities
and the proposed Letter of Request.
Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), counsel for relator has conferred with counsel for the United
States and for each of the defendants regarding relators intent to file the instant motion. The
United States consents to the motion. Defendant Lance Armstrong objects to the motion.
Defendants Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William Stapleton and Bart
Knaggs take no position on the motion.

Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 219 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 9
2

A proposed Order is submitted herewith.

Dated: September 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

__________ /s/________________
Paul D. Scott
pdscott@lopds.com
California State Bar No. 145975
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

___________/s/________________
Lani Anne Remick
laremick@lopds.com
U.S.D.C. No. PA0045
Jon L. Praed
U.S.D.C. No. 450764
D.C. Bar No. 51665
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL D. SCOTT, P.C.
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel: (415) 981-1212
Fax: (415) 981-1215

Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis

1




Plaintiff,

v.

et al.,

Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

I. INTRODUCTION
Relator Floyd Landis hereby requests that the Court issue to the appropriate authority
in Switzerland a Letter of Request in the form attached seeking certified copies of documents
from the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located in Aigle, Switzerland for potential
use at trial or other proceedings in this action. See Proposed Letter of Request.
II. FACTS
Relator filed his Original Complaint in this False Claims Act matter on June 10, 2010
(Docket Entry (DE) No. 1), a First Amended Complaint on December 23, 2010 (DE No. 10),
and a Second Amended Complaint (SAC or Complaint) on February 22, 2013 (DE No. 42).
The Complaint names the following parties as defendants: Tailwind Sports Corporation,
Tailwind Sports, LLC, Montgomery Sports, Inc., Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings,
Inc., Thomas W. Weisel, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, William J. Stapleton, Barton B.
Knaggs, and Ross Investments, Inc. (collectively, Defendants).
2

The United States filed a Notice of Intervention in this action on February 22, 2013 as to
defendants Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Lance Armstrong and Johan
Bruyneel (collectively, the Intervened Defendants). DE No. 41.
The United States stated in its Notice of Intervention that it is not intervening at this
time with respect to William Stapleton, Barton Knaggs, Capital Sports and Entertainment
Holdings, Inc., and Thomas Weisel, and the United States has currently taken no position as to
intervention against defendants Montgomery Sports, Inc. and Ross Investments, Inc.
(collectively, the Non-Intervened Defendants). Id. The United States filed its own complaint
in the action against the Intervened Defendants on April 23, 2013. DE No. 44 (U.S.
Complaint). On June 19, 2014, the Court dismissed relators claims as to defendants Tailwind
Sports, LLC, Thomas Weisel, and Ross Investments, Inc. without prejudice. DE No. 174.
The UCI is the international governing body for the sport of cycling, SAC at 74, and is
headquartered in Aigle, Switzerland. See generally www.uci.ch. The complaints of the United
States and relator both allege that the 1995 and 2000 Sponsorship Agreements governing the
United States Postal Service Professional Cycling Team (USPS Team) required compliance
with the UCIs rules, including rules prohibiting doping. U.S. Complaint at 16, 28; SAC at
36, 37, 74. In both complaints, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that their named defendants
violated UCIs rules and that they submitted, caused to be submitted, and conspired to submit
false claims to the United States in violation of the terms of the Sponsorship Agreements.
Plaintiffs further allege that their named defendants falsely denied and actively concealed their
doping.
As one example, the United States has alleged that defendant Armstrong used a banned
corticosteroid before the 1999 Tour de France and then provided a false, backdated prescription
to UCI to explain positive urine tests and to conceal his doping so as to avoid the loss of
sponsors, including the USPS. U.S. Complaint at 42. Relator has also presented evidence to
the Court indicating that defendant Weisel was aware of the 1999 positive test and the false
prescription. DE No. 107 and 107-4. Since the filing of the United States complaint, defendant
Armstrong has reportedly stated that Hein Verbruggen, then the head of UCI, was complicit in
3

these events, saying that Verbruggen told him, This is a real problem for me, this is the
knockout punch for our sport . . . so weve got to come up with something. See Declaration of
Paul D. Scott (Scott Decl.) at 2 & Ex. A thereto.
Relator also alleges that defendant Armstrong tested positive for EPO while winning the
Tour de Suisse in 2001 and that he and Mr. Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a
financial agreement with Mr. Hein Verbruggen, head of UCI at the time, to keep the positive test
hidden. SAC at 87. The UCI has reportedly admitted that Armstrong gave UCI $25,000 in
2002 and that an additional $100,000 was paid to UCI by Armstrong in or around 2007 as well.
See Scott Decl. at 3 & Ex. B.
Relator has further alleged that Thomas Weisel Partners managed funds invested for Hein
Verbruggen between 2001-2004 when Verbruggen was President of UCI and that Jim Ochowicz
was the employee at Thomas Weisel Partners who handled the account. SAC at 138-41. In
addition, relator has alleged that Hein Verbruggen and UCI failed to enforce anti-doping rules
against Armstrong during the period relevant to the complaints, including 2001-2004, and that
Hein Verbruggen and UCI also exhibited strong bias against Mr. Landis in reaction to his
allegations of doping by Armstrong and the involvement of UCI. Id. at 142-43.
The documents sought from UCI in the Letter of Request are specific categories of
documents relevant to the allegations in this case. See Proposed Letter of Request at Schedule
A (listing documents).
III. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE THE PROPOSED LETTER OF REQUEST.
This request is authorized under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence
Abroad in Civil Commercial Matters, opened for signature, Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555,
T.I.A.S. No. 7444, reprinted in the notes section following 28 U.S.C. 1781 (the Hague
Evidence Convention). Article I of the Hague Evidence Convention provides that a judicial
authority of a signatory state may request the competent authority of another signatory state
to obtain evidence by means of a Letter of Request. See Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F.
Supp.2d 68, 82 n.8 (D.D.C. 2006) (Hague Evidence Convention provides for the taking of
4

evidence abroad, without recourse to consular or diplomatic channels, by means of letters of
request.).
Both the United States and Switzerland are signatories to the Hague Evidence
Convention. See In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, No. 04-MD-1616-JWL, 2010 WL
4963019 at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 1, 2010); see also Obtaining Evidence, Embassy of the United
States, Bern, Switzerland (As of January 1, 1995, the Hague Convention on the Taking of
Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into effect for Switzerland. . . .
Under the convention, a judicial authority in the United States sends a letter of request to the
appropriate Swiss Central Authority in accordance with the convention.), available at:
http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html (copy attached as Scott Decl., Ex. C).
Procedures under the Hague Convention are available whenever they will facilitate
the gathering of evidence by the means authorized in the Convention. Societe Nationale
Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
482 U.S. 522, 541 (1987). When discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign
jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention, which encompasses principles
of international comity, is virtually compulsory. Tulip Computers Intl B.V. v. Dell
Computer Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 474 (D. Del. 2003) (quoting Orlich v. Helm Bros.,
Inc., 160 A.D.2d 135, 143, 560 N.Y.S. 2d 10 (1990)); see also Estate of Klieman v.
Palestinian Authority, No. 04-1173 (PLF/JMF), 2012 WL 3960319 (D.D.C. August 23,
2012) (Facciola, J.) (issuing letter of request for production of documents in possession of
non-parties located in Israel and related depositions); Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian
Authority, 272 F.R.D. 253 (D.D.C. March 4, 2011) (Facciola, J.) (issuing letter of request for
depositions of non-parties located in Israel).
Here, plaintiffs seek evidence from the UCI, a non-party located in Switzerland.
Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Court to issue a Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague
Evidence Convention.
Article 3 of the Hague Evidence Convention describes the information that must be
included in a letter of request, including information about the lawsuit, the parties, and the
5

evidence sought. Plaintiffs proposed Letter of Request addresses each of the required
elements, with reference to the corresponding provisions of Article 3. See Proposed Letter of
Request.
In addition, Switzerland has issued certain reservations to the provisions of the Hague
Evidence Convention which impose additional requirements. See Switzerlands Declarations
and Reservations to the Hague Evidence Convention, available at
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=561&disp=resdn, copy
attached as Scott Decl., Ex. D (hereinafter Declarations and Reservations). Plaintiffs have
also met these requirements.
For example, Switzerland requires that requests be translated into the official
language of the applicable Swiss canton. See Declarations and Reservations, re: Article 4
The UCI is located in Aigle, Switzerland, which is in the Canton of Vaud, where the official
language is French. Accordingly, plaintiffs proposed order submitted with this motion
provides that, upon approval by the Court of the Letter of Request, plaintiffs will have the
Letter translated into French prior to submission to the relevant Swiss authorities in the
Canton of Vaud.
Switzerland has also issued a reservation under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence
Convention as follows:
In accordance with Article 23, Switzerland declares that Letters of Request issued for
the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents will not be executed if:
a) the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question; or
b) a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were in
his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal; or
c) a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the
request for legal assistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping or at
his/her disposal; or
d) interests worthy of protection of the concerned persons are endangered.
6

See Declarations and Reservations re: Article 23. Plaintiffs Letter of Request also complies
with this reservation, in that the documents requested are described with specificity and are
relevant to this action. See Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 564 ("[T]he emerging view of
this exception to discovery [under Article 23] is that it applies only to requests that lack
sufficient specificity or that have not been reviewed for relevancy by the requesting court.")
(Blackmun, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citations omitted).
In any event, even if plaintiffs request were potentially noncompliant with
Switzerlands Article 23 reservation, that would not be grounds for this Court to decline to
issue the letter of request. Tulip Computers Intl B.V. v. Dell Computer Corp., 254 F. Supp.
2d at 475 (noting that, if plaintiffs requests were overly broad under receiving countrys
reservations to Article 23, [t]he Court is content that such officials will make the appropriate
determination under their own law).
Because the purpose of obtaining the records is for potential use at trial or other
proceedings in this action, Relator has also included a business records certification for
purposes of authenticating the foreign business records to be produced, in accordance with
Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(12). See Proposed Letter of Request, Form A.
The Letter of Request includes a request that the appropriate document custodian(s) execute
the certification. See id. at Section 12.

7

IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue the
attached Letter of Request. A proposed order is submitted herewith.

Dated: September 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

__________ /s/________________
Paul D. Scott
pdscott@lopds.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

___________/s/________________
Lani Anne Remick
laremick@lopds.com
U.S.D.C. No. PA0045
Jon L. Praed
U.S.D.C. No. 450764
D.C. Bar No. 51665
Pier 9, Suite 100
Tel: (415) 981-1212
Fax: (415) 981-1215

Attorneys for Relator Floyd Landis




Plaintiff,

v.

et al.,

Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-RLW

LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING
OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court) presents
its compliments to the Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud, Switzerland and requests assistance in
obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court.
This request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapter I of the Hague
Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters ("the Hague Convention"), to which both the United States and the Swiss Confederation
are party.
Specifically, the District Court requests assistance in obtaining authenticated documents
from non-party Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located in Aigle, Switzerland in the
Canton of Vaud. This Request is accompanied by a translation of the Request into French
(which is the official language in the Canton of Vaud).

Case 1:10-cv-00976-CRC Document 219-1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 15
2

SECTION I

1. SENDER:

The Honorable Christopher R. Cooper
United States District Court Judge
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
United States of America

2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF REQUESTED STATE:

Tribunal cantonal Vaud
Division Entraide judiciaire
Palais de justice de l'Hermitage
Route du Signal 8
1014 Lausanne ADM cant VD
Switzerland

3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED:

Plaintiffs Legal Representatives:

Paul D. Scott, Esq.
Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C.
Pier 9, Suite 100, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 981-1212
Fax: (415) 981-1215

on behalf of:


4. SPECIFICATION OF THE DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING
AUTHORITY REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF
REQUEST.

Date: It is requested that the documents be transmitted within 45 days of UCIs receipt of the
Letter of Request.

Reasons for Urgency: To ensure that the documents are received in a timely manner for use in
the civil proceedings described below.

3

SECTION II

IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED
APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
REGARDING THE INSTANT REQUEST:

5. a. REQUESTING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (Article 3,a)

The Honorable Christopher R. Cooper
United States District Court Judge
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

b. TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF (Article 3,a):

Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, i.e.,

Tribunal cantonal Vaud
Division Entraide judiciaire
Palais de justice de l'Hermitage
Route du Signal 8
1014 Lausanne ADM cant VD
Switzerland

c. NAMES OF THE CASE AND ANY IDENTIFYING NUMBER

United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corporation, et al., No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. USA

6. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES (Article 3,b):

a. Plaintiffs:

The United States of America

Represented by:
The United States Department of Justice
STUART F. DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RONALD C. MACHEN JR.
United States Attorney
DANIEL F. VAN HORN
Relator Floyd Landis

Represented by:
Paul D. Scott
Lani Anne Remick
Jon L. Praed
Pier 9, Suite 100
4

Assistant United States Attorney
DARRELL C. VALDEZ
MERCEDEH MOMENI
Assistant United States Attorneys
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th St., N.W., Civil Division
MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
ROBERT E. CHANDLER
DAVID M. FINKELSTEIN
Attorneys, Department of Justice
Civil Division
Post Office Box 261
Ben Franklin Station

b. Defendants:

Lance Armstrong

Represented by:
John Keker
Elliot R. Peters
R. James Slaughter
Sharif E. Jacob
Tia Alexander Sherringham
Keker & Van Nest LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Robert Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Capital Sports Entertainment &
Holdings, Inc., Bill Stapleton & Barton
Knaggs

Represented by:
Marc S. Harris
Vicki Kirkland
Scheper Kim & Harris LLP
One Bunker Hill
601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071

John Patrick Pierce
THEMIS PLLC
2305 Calvert Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008

Johan Bruyneel
c/o Mike Morgan
Lafone House
The Leathermarket
Weston Street
SE1 3ER
mike.morgan@morgansl.com

Tailwind Sports Corporation and
Tailwind Sports, LLC

Formerly represented by:
Blair G. Brown
Rachel Cotton
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
1800 M Street, N. W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036-5807

5

Thomas W. Weisel and Ross
Investments, Inc.

Represented by:
Robert A. Sacks
Brendan Cullen
Christopher M. Viapiano
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-1725

7. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE
FACTS (Article 3,c):

a. Nature of the proceedings:
The above-captioned action is a civil case brought by plaintiffs under the civil False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq., based on alleged false claims by defendants to the United
States in connection with a sponsorship agreement for the United States Postal Service cycling
team (the USPS Team).
b. Summary of complaint
Relator filed his Original Complaint in this False Claims Act matter on June 10, 2010, a
First Amended Complaint on December 23, 2010, and a Second Amended Complaint (SAC or
Complaint) on February 22, 2013. The Complaint names the following parties as defendants:
Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Montgomery Sports, Inc., Capital Sports
and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Thomas W. Weisel, Lance Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel,
William J. Stapleton, Barton B. Knaggs, and Ross Investments, Inc. (collectively, Defendants).
The United States filed a Notice of Intervention in this action on February 22, 2013 as to
defendants Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports, LLC, Lance Armstrong and Johan
Bruyneel (collectively, the Intervened Defendants). The United States stated in its Notice of
Intervention that it is not intervening at this time with respect to William Stapleton, Barton
Knaggs, Capital Sports and Entertainment Holdings, Inc., and Thomas Weisel. The United
States has also not intervened to date against defendants Montgomery Sports, Inc. and Ross
Investments, Inc. (collectively, the Non-Intervened Defendants). The United States filed its
6

own complaint in the action against the Intervened Defendants on April 23, 2013. On June 19,
2014, the Court dismissed relators claims as to defendants Thomas Weisel and Ross
Investments, Inc. without prejudice, granting relator leave to amend his complaint with regard to
his allegations against those defendants. The Court also dismissed the allegations against the
entity Tailwind Sports, LLC, by agreement of the parties.
The UCI is the international governing body for the sport of cycling, and is headquartered
in Aigle, Switzerland. See generally www.uci.ch. The complaints of the United States and
relator both allege that the 1995 and 2000 Sponsorship Agreements governing the United States
Postal Service Professional Cycling Team (USPS Team) required compliance with the UCIs
rules, including rules prohibiting doping. In both complaints, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
their named defendants violated UCIs rules and that they submitted, caused to be submitted, and
conspired to submit false claims to the United States in violation of the terms of the Sponsorship
Agreements. Plaintiffs also allege that their named defendants falsely denied and actively
concealed their doping.
Relator Landis further alleges that UCI and its former president were involved in
concealing the doping scheme. He alleges that Mr. Armstrong made a financial arrangement
with the former head of UCI to keep a positive test hidden. He also alleges that Thomas Weisel
Partners managed funds for the former head of UCI between 2001 and 2004, during the period
that he was president of the organization. The UCI has reportedly acknowledged payments by
Mr. Armstrong of $25,000 in 2002 and $100,000 in 2007 but has denied wrongdoing.
c. Summary of defense
Mr. Armstrong has publicly admitted to the plaintiffs allegations regarding doping by
the USPS team but has denied liability. Capital Sports and Entertainment, William Stapleton
and Bart Knaggs have denied that they are liable for the allegations in the complaints.

8. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED OR OTHER JUDICIAL ACT TO BE
PERFORMED (Article 3,d):

a. Evidence to be obtained
The assistance requested of Switzerland consists of the following:
7

Obtaining certified copies of certain documents in the possession of non-party Union
Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located within the Canton of Vaud at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860
Aigle, Switzerland, Tel. +41 24 468 58 11, Fax +41 24 468 58 12, admin@uci.ch. The requested
documents are described in the attached Schedule A.
b. Purpose of the evidence sought
The documents sought from UCI in this Letter of Request pertain to the allegations
described above. Accordingly, this Court respectfully requests that the UCI disclose the
documents described in Schedule A.

SECTION III

9. IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY PERSON TO BE EXAMINED (Article 3,e):

None.

10. QUESTIONS TO BE PUT TO THE PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED OR
STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE TO
BE EXAMINED (Article 3,f):

None.

11. DOCUMENTS OR OTHER PROPERTY TO BE INSPECTED (Article 3,g):
It is requested that certified true and correct copies of the documents or electronic records
described in the attached Schedule A be obtained from the Union Cycliste Internationale
(UCI), located at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860 Aigle, Switzerland, Tel. +41 24 468 58 11, Fax +41
24 468 58 12, admin@uci.ch.

12. ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON OATH OR
AFFIRMATION AND SPECIFIC FORM TO BE USED (Article 3,h):
It is requested that the relevant UCI document custodian with personal knowledge of the
matters set forth in the attached Form A please execute Form A and return it along with the
documents. In the event that the certification cannot be made in the specific manner requested, it
is respectfully requested that the certification be provided under oath or affirmation.

8

13. SPECIAL METHODS OR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED (Article 3,i & 9):

Please see item 12 above.

14. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE
EXECUTION OF THE REQUEST AND IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY
PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED (Article 7).

Please send documents described on Schedule A, along with executed Form A to:

Relators Legal Representative:

Paul D. Scott
Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C.
Pier 9, Suite 100, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 981-1212
Fax: (415) 981-1215

15. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL
PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE EXECUTION OF
THE LETTER OF REQUEST (Article 8):

None.

16. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE
EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN (Article 11,b).
In responding to this Letter of Request, the UCI need not disclose documents and
electronic records which constitute confidential communications between the UCI and its
attorney that seek or provide legal advice, though this privilege may be waived if the
communication has been disclosed to third parties.

17. THE FEES AND COSTS INCURRED WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER
THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 OR UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF
THE CONVENTION WILL BE BORNE BY:

As this Request does not require a diplomatic officer or commissioner to take evidence,
and it does not require the use of experts or interpreters, it is understood pursuant to Article 14 of
the Hague Convention that this Request shall not give rise to any reimbursement of taxes or
costs . . . . It is further understood that Article 26 does not apply to this Request, because this
9

Request does not involve the taking of testimonial evidence or the service of process for the
attendance of a witness to provide testimony.
SECTION IV
This District Court expresses its gratitude to the judicial authorities of Switzerland for
their assistance under the terms of the Hague Evidence Convention.

Dated: ____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[signature and seal]

10

SCHEDULE A

I. Definitions
The following definitions, whether or not capitalized, shall apply to each Request below:
COMMUNICATION -- The term "COMMUNICATION" means a transmittal of
information, or request for information, by DOCUMENT or otherwise and includes any
conversation in person, by telephone or by any other means, as well as any utterance heard by
another person whether in person, by telephone or otherwise.
DOCUMENT -- The term DOCUMENT refers to, means, and includes all written or
graphic matter or tangible things of every kind and description, however produced or
reproduced, in your actual or constructive possession, custody, or control, including but not
limited to all originals (or copies where originals are unobtainable or where the copies are not
identical to the originals) of correspondence, emails, memoranda, reports, applications, claims,
policies of insurance, printed matter, contracts, agreements, proposals, bids, work papers,
statistical records, minutes, interoffice communications, studies, technical data, charts,
brochures, electronically stored information, computer data, computer discs, computer chips,
files, bulletins, reviews, compilations, sound recordings, films, photographs, videotapes, digital
recordings, notes, calendars, appointment books, diaries, time-sheets, time logs, or papers, no
matter how described or denominated, and any drafts thereof. Different versions of the same
document, such as different copies of a written record bearing different handwritten notations,
are different documents within the meaning of the term as used. In case originals or original
non-identical copies are not available, the term "DOCUMENT" includes copies of originals or
copies of non-identical copies as the case may be.
RELATED TO or RELATING TO -- The terms RELATED TO and RELATING
TO mean discuss, describe, refer to, substantiate, evidence, contradict, or be in any way
logically or factually connected to the matter discussed.
TAILWIND The term TAILWIND means Montgomery Sports, Inc., TWP Sports,
Inc., Tailwind Sports, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corporation, Tailwind Sports Corp., Tailwind
11

Sports, Inc., Disson Furst and Partners, LLC, Disson Furst & Partners, LLC, DFP Cycling, LLC,
Tailwind Cycling, LLC and any other d/b/as of any of the foregoing entities, along with any
person or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to
employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents,
owners, shareholders, subsidiaries, branches, divisions, units, affiliates, assigns, and predecessors
or successors in interest.
UCI The term UCI means the Union Cycliste Internationale, along with any person
or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to
employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents,
branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest.
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE The term U.S. POSTAL SERVICE means the United
States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to be acting or purporting to act on
its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors, officers, representatives, attorneys,
contractors, consultants, agents, branches, divisions, units, assigns, and predecessors or
successors in interest.
USPS TEAM The term USPS TEAM means the professional cycling team
sponsored by the United States Postal Service, along with any person or entity known to be
acting or purporting to act on its behalf, including but not limited to employees, directors,
officers, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, agents, owners, shareholders,
assigns, and predecessors or successors in interest.
References to any individual refer to that individual, along with any person or entity
known to be acting or purporting to act on the individuals behalf, including but not limited to
employees, representatives, attorneys, contractors, consultants, and agents.

II. Documents to be produced:

1. The Requests for Therapeutic Use exemptions submitted to UCI on behalf of Lance
Armstrong between January 1, 1995 and 2009.

2. The biological passports of Lance Armstrong submitted to UCI between January 1, 1995
and December 31, 2009.
12

3. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Lance Armstrong or his attorneys or other
representatives RELATING TO the following payments by Lance Armstrong to UCI:
the $25,000 paid in or around 2002; the $100,000 paid in or around 2007. The
COMMUNICATIONS to be produced should include the COMMUNICATIONS
requesting or offering the payments, transmitting the payments, and describing the
purpose of the payments.

4. Copies of the checks or other forms of payment used by Lance Armstrong or his
attorneys or other representatives in making the payments to UCI in 2002 and 2007.

5. The internal COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS at UCI RELATING TO Lance
Armstrongs payments to UCI in or around 2002 and 2007, including
COMMUNICATIONS and DOCUMENTS discussing the purpose of the payments and
how the funds were used.

6. The COMMUNICATIONS between TAILWIND and UCI RELATING to the bank
guarantees obtained by TAILWIND to ensure payment of Lance Armstrongs salary
between 1995 and 2004, including the COMMUNICATIONS by TAILWIND stating the
amount of Lance Armstrongs salary or the amount of the associated bank guarantees.

7. UCIs DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the positive test results associated with Lance
Armstrongs 1999 positive or suspicious test results for corticosteroids, including, but not
limited to, copies of the test results.

8. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and TAILWIND RELATING TO Lance
Armstrongs 1999 positive or suspicious test results for corticosteroids.

9. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI, on the one hand, and TAILWIND, William
Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, concerning the positive or
suspicious doping test results of Lance Armstrong between 1995 and 2004, including
UCIs letters to TAILWIND informing TAILWIND or its attorneys or other
representatives of those results.

Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, concerning the positive or
suspicious doping test results of USPS Team riders other than Lance Armstrong between
1995 and 2004, including UCIs letters to TAILWIND informing TAILWIND or its
attorneys or other representatives of those results.

13

11. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Lance Armstrong or any of his attorneys or
other representatives regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong
used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, regarding LEquipes
allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

13. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes
allegations in 2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

Stapleton, Thomas Weisel and/or Bart Knaggs, on the other, RELATING TO the report
prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance
Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

15. UCIs financial records and related DOCUMENTS showing the source of funds that UCI
used to pay for the report prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in
2005 that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

16. The report prepared by Emile Vrijman regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that
Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France.

17. Drafts of the Vrijman report regarding LEquipes allegations in 2005 that Lance
Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour De France, including drafts prepared prior to
the final version of the report and drafts with comments or edits.

18. The COMMUNICATIONS between Jim Ochowicz and Hein Verbruggen between
January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2004 that concern Mr. Verbruggens financial
investments with Thomas Weisel Partners or any business entity affiliated with Thomas
Weisel.

19. The COMMUNICATIONS between UCI and TAILWIND regarding any positive or
suspicious test results or adverse findings relating to the use of banned substances or
methods by any rider on the USPS TEAM between 1995 and 2004, including Lance
Armstrong.

20. The COMMUNICATIONS between Thomas Weisel and UCI between January 1, 1995
and the present.

14

21. The COMMUNICATIONS between Lance Armstrong and UCI between January 1, 1995
and the present, not including routine communications relating to negative drug tests.

22. The COMMUNICATIONS between William Stapleton and UCI between January 1,
1995 and the present.

23. The COMMUNICATIONS between Bart Knaggs and UCI between January 1, 1995 and
the present.

24. The COMMUNICATIONS between Jim Ochowicz and UCI between January 1, 1995

25. The COMMUNICATIONS between Mark Gorski and UCI between January 1, 1995 and
December 31, 2004.

26. The COMMUNICATIONS between Johan Bruyneel and UCI between January 1, 1995
15

FORM A

1. My name is __________________________________________. I am over the
age of 18 and fully competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated herein are true and correct
and are based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am familiar with the records of Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), located
within the Canton of Vaud at Ch. de la Mle 12, 1860 Aigle, Switzerland.
3. Submitted herewith, collectively, are _____ [insert number of pages] pages of
records from said business, collected in response to the Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague
Convention of 18 MARCH 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters, received in connection with the case of United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports
Corporation, et al., No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, Washington, D.C. USA.
4. These said pages of records are kept by UCI in the regular course of business.
5. It is the regular practice of UCI for an employee or representative with knowledge
of the act, event, incident, order, transaction, invoice, condition, photo, video recording, audio
recording, opinion, or diagnosis, to make the record, or to transmit information thereof to be
included in such record and by a person or persons
6. The said records were made at or near the time of occurrence of the matters set
forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of and a business duty to
record or transmit those matters.
7. The said records attached hereto are the originals or exact duplicates of the
originals.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Switzerland that the foregoing is true
and correct.

______________________________ ______________________________
Name Date
1



ex rel. FLOYD LANDIS ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

et al.,

Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-00976-CRC

DECLARATION OF PAUL D. SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF
PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF
EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
I, PAUL D. SCOTT, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the State of California, and my firm
the Law Offices of Paul D. Scott, P.C., is counsel for relator Floyd Landis. I am
admitted pro hac vice to practice before this Court in the above-titled action. I
provide this declaration in support of Relators Motion for Issuance of a Letter of
Request Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in
Civil or Commercial Matters.
2. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of the news
article Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned, November 18, 2013, available at
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9995039/lance-armstrong-says-uci-
head-planned-tour-doping-cover-up. According to the article, Lance Armstrong
stated that Hein Verbruggen, then the head of UCI, was complicit in the cover-up of
defendants Armstrong use of a banned corticosteroid before the 1999 Tour de
2

France. Id. The article includes reference to a statement by Armstrong that Hein
just said, `This is a real problem for me; this is the knockout punch for our sport ... so
we've got to come up with something.' So we backdated the prescription." Id.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct October 22, 2012
copy of a statement issued by UCI regarding two donations made to UCI by Lance
Armstrong in the amounts of $25,000 in May 2002 and $100,000 in January 2007.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Obtaining
Evidence, Embassy of the United States, Bern, Switzerland, available at:
http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html , a website managed by the U.S.
Department of State.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of
Switzerlands Declarations and Reservations to the Hague Evidence Convention,
available at: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=
561&disp=resdn a website managed by the Hague Conference on Private
International Law, an organization whose members include the United States and
Switzerland.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of September, 2014 in San
Francisco, California.

/s/ Paul D. Scott
PAUL D. SCOTT
ESPN.com: Endurance [Print without images]
Monday, November 18, 2013
Associated Press
Lance Armstrong claims former International Cycling Union president Hein Verbruggen instigated a
cover-up of his doping at the 1999 Tour de France.
Armstrong told Britain's Daily Mail newspaper in an interview published Monday that Verbruggen insisted
"we've got to come up with something" to explain his positive tests for a banned corticosteroid.
Cycling's governing body, the UCI, appeared to ignore its own anti-doping rules when it accepted
Armstrong's backdated prescription for a cream to treat saddle sores.
That allowed Armstrong to stay in the race, and he went on to win the first of his seven Tours, helping revive
the sport after doping scandals wrecked the 1998 event.
"The real problem was, the sport was on life support," Armstrong said in the article. "And Hein just said,
`This is a real problem for me; this is the knockout punch for our sport ... so we've got to come up with
something.' So we backdated the prescription."
Though Armstrong has acknowledged the prescription excuse in a television interview with Oprah Winfrey,
he had not previously linked Verbruggen or other UCI officials to a cover-up.
Verbruggen, who served as UCI president until 2005, did not respond to phone messages Monday.
The Dutch official, who is still listed by the UCI as its honorary president, has long denied any collusion with
Armstrong despite widespread claims the American rider was protected.
Corticosteroids, which reduce inflammation, are banned unless the athlete has a therapeutic use exemption.
Armstrong and his manager, J ohan Bruyneel, had signed the doping control document that he was not taking
any medication at the time, so under UCI rules, he should have been disqualified even if he later produced a
prescription.
Verbruggen was granted honorary membership by the IOC in 2008 after 12 years' service and will complete
his duties as chairman of the Olympic Broadcasting Service after the Sochi Winter Games in February.
The IOC released a statement Monday, saying, "It is hard to give any credibility to the claims of a cyclist who
appears to have misled the world for decades."
"That said, the UCI is currently working on plans to investigate the matter more thoroughly and we await
proper considered outcomes," the Olympic governing body added.
Armstrong spoke out while the UCI is in the process of creating an independent commission that will
examine alleged official collusion, and he is expected to be the star witness.
Armstrong, who is seeking a reduction in his lifetime ban, told the Daily Mail that he would reveal details of
ESPN.com - Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=9995039&type=story
1 of 2 9/12/2014 3:16 PM
how the UCI operated.
"I have no loyalty toward them," he said. "In the proper forum I'll tell everyone what they want to know. I'm
not going to lie to protect these guys. I hate them. They threw me under the bus."
In October 2012, the UCI decided not to challenge a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency verdict to strip Armstrong of
his Tour titles and ban him for life. Verbruggen's successor, Pat McQuaid, said the disgraced rider deserved to
be forgotten by the sport.
The UCI has been led since September by British official Brian Cookson, who defeated McQuaid in a
presidential election in which the Armstrong case and cycling's doping past were central issues.
In a statement Monday, the UCI said its commission would "invite individuals to provide evidence."
"We would urge all those involved to come forward and help the Commission in its work in the best interests
of the sport of cycling," the governing body said. "This investigation is essential to the well-being of cycling
in fully understanding the doping culture of the past, the role of the UCI at that time and helping us all to
move forward to a clean and healthy future."
---
Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2508961/LANCE-ARMSTRONG-WORLD-
EXCLUSIVE-Drugs-cheat-meets-accuser-Emma-OReilly.html
ESPN.com - Lance: Tour doping cover-up planned http://espn.go.com/espn/print?id=9995039&type=story
2 of 2 9/12/2014 3:16 PM
Tour de Suisse samples and donations by Lance Armstrong to UCI

The 2001 Tour de Suisse samples

The UCI took, on its own accord, the initiative to have validated the sole urinary EPO test (as
opposed to the combined blood and urine test that had been validated by the IOC in view of
the Sydney Olympics) that was developed by the anti-doping laboratory of Paris. The
validation process was conducted by experts appointed by the IOC.

The UCI introduced the sole urinary EPO test in the Tour of Flanders on 8 April 2001. The
UCI was ahead of any other sports organisation for testing for EPO.

The UCI conducted 40 EPO tests at the Tour de Suisse of 19 28 June 2001. The urine
samples were analysed by the anti-doping laboratory of Lausanne.

The Lausanne laboratory had set as the criterion for a sample to be considered as positive
the presence of 80% or more of basic bands.

The laboratory reported all samples as negative, as none of them reached the threshold of
80%. Yet three of these negative samples, belonging to different riders, were marked by the
laboratory as suspicious, which the laboratory did when the sample showed 70% or more of
basic bands.

At that time the EPO test was only two months old, and there were no general criteria in this
respect. Where the Lausanne laboratory applied a 80% threshold, the Paris laboratory, that
had developed the test, considered a sample as positive as from 85% instead of 80%. Later
on, in 2003 and 2004, it was discovered that urine samples could present a positive pattern
for EPO, this is over 80%, without EPO being present ( a false positive), as a consequence
of bacterial degradation of the sample (the so-called active urine as shown in the case of
Bernard Lagat in 2003) or a high concentration of proteins (the so-called effort urine as
shown in the case of Rutger Beke in 2004). Nowadays the laboratories conduct additional
tests on the urine samples to exclude these possibilities, yet this was not the case in 2001
when these phenomena were not known.

In any event in 2001 there was no way in which to consider samples of over 70% but less
than 80% as positive. That there was no positive test is confirmed in USADAs decision on
pages 52 and 144-145.

Note : on page 144 USADA refers to statements made by Dr. Saugy to Cyclingnews on May
27, 2011. The corresponding article is not included in the supporting materials and no
reference is made to it in a footnote as is done with other sources that USADA used for its
decision. What USADA does not quote in its decision is the following statement attributed to
Mr Saugy : But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have
been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with
that sole argument in front of a court. A more complete statement by Dr Saugy can be
found here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/swiss-lab-director-says-he-found-no-
positive-result-for-lance-armstrong/2011/05/27/AGy5CnCH_story.html

Therefore there was no positive test for EPO on the Tour de Suisse 2001, not for Mr
Armstrong, nor for any other rider that had participated in that race.

When considering samples with a result between 70% and 80% reference should also be
made to the case of rider Bo Hamburger, who was tested for EPO on 19 April 2001. The A
sample showed a result of 82.3% and was declared positive by the Lausanne laboratory.
The B sample had been divided into two parts. One part resulted in a level of 82.4 % and the
other part in a level of 78.6%. Both the Lausanne laboratory and the UCI considered the
overall test result as positive for EPO. The case was brought before CAS and CAS decided
that the sample had to be considered as negative because the B sample did not confirm the
A sample because one of the B samples did not attain the level of 80% laid down by the
laboratory itself for the A sample (CAS 2001/A/343 UCI v/Hamburger, 28 January 2002).

A copy of the laboratory reports was sent by the laboratory of Lausanne to the Swiss
Olympic Committee. If ever there would have been a positive test result, the Swiss Olympic
Committee would have been informed of that and would have noted that it had not been
dealt with properly.

In addition, under the rules at that time, if there would have been a positive test the
laboratory was obligated to send a copy of the laboratory report to the IOC. Therefore if there
had been a positive test, the IOC would have known it.

In 2010 the UCI has asked all anti-doping laboratories to make a list of all positive results for
EPO in cycling in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, it being understood that as from 2004
WADA receives a copy of all laboratory reports. None of these positive results belonged to
Mr Armstrong.

In any case it is crystal clear that the UCI did not conceal a positive test, as there was no
positive test.

After the Tour de Suisse that ended on 28 June 2001 Mr Armstrong was tested ten times
during the Tour de France of 2001, that started one week later, on 7 July 2001. Mr
Armstrong was tested ten times, of which five times for EPO. All samples were reported as
negative by the laboratory of Paris. A copy of each laboratory report was sent to the French
Anti-Doping Agency CPLD.

In total the UCI conducted 271 EPO tests in 2001. Nine riders were found positive.

The donations

As the UCI has stated many times there is no relationship between the testing of Mr
Armstrong and the two donations he made to the UCI. As indicated above, as there was no
positive test there was no test to conceal and no need for an incentive to attempt to have a
test concealed.

If the donations that Mr Armstrong made to the UCI are mentioned in USADAs reasoned
decision, nowhere in that decision is Mr Armstrong accused of having bribed someone in
order to have covered up a test. Such bribe would have been an anti-doping rule violation
indeed.

Mr Armstrong made a first donation of 25'000.- USD in May 2002. This donation was
reported to the UCI Anti-Doping Commission and to the then Council for the fight against
doping, that managed the financing of UCIs fight against doping and comprised
representatives of riders, teams and organisers. The donation was used for testing in the
junior category (17-18 years old).

Three years later, in the first half of 2005, the year in which he retired from the sport a first
time, Mr Armstrong promised a donation of 100'000.- USD for the purchase of a new Sysmex
blood analyzer that also counts reticulocytes. The UCI bought that Sysmex machine in July
2005 and paid it from its own funds as Mr Armstrong had not paid yet the amount that he had
promised and the machine was needed for the fight against doping. Mr Armstrong was
reminded of his promise later in 2005 and in 2006. The amount was eventually paid in
January 2007, one and a half years after Mr Armstrong had retired from the sport.

Note : the statement on page 51-52 of the reasoned decision that Mr Armstrong offered at
least $ 100,000 in May 2002 is wrong and in contradiction with the press articles referred to
in footnote 249. The donation of $ 100,000 was offered three years later, in 2005. It is also
precarious that USADA considers press articles as evidence for a decision that it deems to be
on a par with an arbitral award. It is even more precarious that USADA did so without having
asked the position of the UCI.

Sysmex issued a press release dated 29 July 2005 in which it stated that Mr Armstrong had
financed a Sysmex for the UCI. However the donation promised by Mr Armstrong had
already been made public by the UCI and was reported, inter alia, in Le Monde of 24 July
2005.

The UCI has accepted these donations in good faith in order to finance its anti-doping
programme that was and still is very expensive. It is also clear now that it would have been
wiser not to have accepted them. In any event these donations as outlined above have had
no influence on the testing of Mr Armstrong by the UCI.

9/11/2014 Obtaining Evidence | Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerland
http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html 1/2
4
OBTAINING EVIDENCE

Evidence may be obtained in Switzerland in two ways: under the Hague Convention on
the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters or by the letters rogatory
process. In addition, the Swiss penal code 271 provides that attorneys attempting to
take a deposition or serve process in Switzerland outside of these authorized methods
are subject to arrest on criminal charges.
The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters
As of January 1, 1995, the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil
or Commercial Matters entered into effect for Switzerland. The convention codifies the
taking of evidence on notice and commission and the compulsion of evidence pursuant
to a letter of request. Under the convention, a judicial authority in the United States
sends a letter of request to the appropriate Swiss Central Authority in accordance with
the convention. (See Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for a model letter of request.)
Central Authorities
Switzerland has 26 separate Central Authorities, one for each canton. A letter of
request should be addressed to the appropriate central authority in the official
language of that authority (i.e., French, German, or Italian; see the attached list of
Central Authorities for guidance on the appropriate language).
The documents establishing the execution of the Letter of Request will be returned by
the same means that the original request was sent.
Pre-trial Discovery
In a reservation made at the time of ratification of the treaty, Switzerland declared
that letters of request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of
documents will not be executed if:
the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question;
or
a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were
in his/her possession or keeping are at his/her disposal; or
a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the
request for legal assistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping
or at his/her disposal; or
the valid interests of the person from whom evidence is requested may be
compromised.
Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerland
9/11/2014 Obtaining Evidence | Embassy of the United States Bern, Switzerland
http://bern.usembassy.gov/obtaining_evidence.html 2/2
For information on Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, please refer to the separate
Judicial Assistance flyer on this topic. Please note that this information is only
applicable in civil or commercial cases. To obtain evidence in a criminal case in
Switzerland, please refer to the U.S.-Swiss Legal Assistance Treaty: The Treaty with
the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with related notes,
signed at Bern, May 25, 1973; entered into force January 23, 1977; 27 UST 2019;
TIAS 8302.
Taking of Evidence by Consular Officers
Voluntary depositions: Prior Swiss permission is required before consular officers can
take voluntary depositions from any party, regardless of nationality. This permission
must be obtained from the Swiss Department of Justice and police as follows: The
requesting party must send an official Hague Convention letter of request to the
appropriate Cantonal Central Authority requesting permission for a consular officer to
take the deposition. The Central Authority will forward the request to the Swiss Federal
Office for Police Matters. After permission is granted, parties involved in taking the
deposition (including the U.S. consular officer) must schedule a mutually convenient
time for the procedure. Unfortunately, space is very limited at the Embassy and
Consulate, which will make scheduling difficult. For further information on this process
please see the informational flyer provided by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice at
http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/312_0/index.html#id-ni39-ni41-3.
The U.S. Embassy, Consulate General and Consular Agency do not have trained legal
stenographers, typists or interpreters available. The party requiring the deposition may
want to provide their own. The fee for the services of a consular officer in taking
depositions is currently U.S. $235.00 per hour, or fraction thereof. A heavy workload
and small staff make it impossible for consular staff members to serve as
stenographers, typists or interpreters.
Taking of Evidence by an Appointed Commissioner: A commissioner may take
voluntary evidence if prior Swiss government approval is obtained (see above).
Please note: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of a
specific foreign country is provided for general information only. Questions involving
interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign counsel.
This site is managed by the U.S. Department of State. External links to other Internet
sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies
contained therein.
9/11/2014 HCCH |
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=status.comment&csid=561&disp=resdn 1/1
Declarations Reservations
Articles: 1,2,4,8,15,16,17,23,
(Translation)
"Re Article 1
1. With regard to Article 1, Switzerland takes the view that the Convention applies exclusively to the
Contracting States. Moreover, regarding the conclusions of the Special Commission which met in The
Hague in April 1989, Switzerland believes that, whatever the opinion of the Contracting States on the
exclusive application of the Convention, priority should in any event be given to the procedures provided
for in the Convention regarding requests for the taking of evidence abroad.
Re Articles 2 and 24
2. In accordance with Article 35, first paragraph, Switzerland designates the cantonal authorities listed in
the annex (see Authorities) as Central Authorities as referred to in Articles 2 and 24 of the Convention.
Requests for the taking of evidence or the execution of any other judicial act may also be addressed to the
Federal Justice and Police Department in Bern, which will forward them to the appropriate Central
Authority.
Re Article 4, second and third paragraphs
3. In accordance with Articles 33 and 35, Switzerland declares, with regard to Article 4, second and third
paragraphs, that Letters of Request and any accompanying documents must be in the language of the
authority requested to execute them, i.e. in German, French or Italian, or accompanied by a translation
into one of these languages, depending on the part of Switzerland in which the documents are to be
executed. The documents confirming execution will be drawn up in the official language of the requested
authority.
Re Article 8
4. In accordance with Article 35, second paragraph, Switzerland declares, with regard to Article 8, that
members of the judicial personnel of the requesting authority of another Contracting State may be present
at the execution of a Letter of Request provided they have obtained prior authorization from the
executing authority.
Re Articles 15, 16 and 17
5. In accordance with Article 35, Switzerland declares that evidence may be taken according to Articles
15, 16 and 17 subject to prior authorization by the Federal Justice and Police Department. A request for
authorization must be addressed to the Central Authority in the canton where the evidence is to be taken.
Re Article 23
6. In accordance with Article 23, Switzerland declares that Letters of Request issued for the purpose of
obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents will not be executed if:
a) the request has no direct and necessary link with the proceedings in question; or
b) a person is required to indicate what documents relating to the case are or were in his/her possession or
keeping or at his/her disposal; or
c) a person is required to produce documents other than those mentioned in the request for legal
assistance, which are probably in his/her possession or keeping or at his/her disposal; or
d) interests worthy of protection of the concerned persons are endangered."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES ex rel. LANDIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAILWIND SPORTS CORP., et al.

Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 10-00976 (CRC)

ECF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RELATORS MOTION
FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OF REQUEST PURSUANT TO
THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN
CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

Upon consideration of the relators motion for issuance of a Letter of Request
pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters, the opposition and any reply thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that:
1. Upon entry of this Order, relator shall submit the proposed Letter of Request
to the Courts chambers in pdf format via email, for signature of two originals by the Court.
2. Upon the Courts signing of the Letter of Request, the Clerk of Court shall
provide the signed originals to counsel for the relator, who shall have the Letter of Request
translated into French and forwarded to the appropriate judicial authorities in Switzerland by the
most expeditious means available.

SIGNED:
________________ ____________________________
Date Christopher R. Cooper
United States District Judge

- 2 -
The following are entitled to be notified of the entry of this order:
Paul D. Scott
Lani Anne Remick
Jon L. Praed
Pier 9, Suite 100
Telephone: (415) 981-1212
Facsimile: (415) 981-1215
Counsel for Relator Floyd Landis
Darrell C. Valdez
Mercedeh Momeni
U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 252-2507
Robert E. Chandler
David M. Finkelstein
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Fraud Section
P.O. Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
Telephone: (202) 514-4678
Counsel for Plaintiff United States
of America

Blair G. Brown
Rachel Cotton
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Telephone: (202) 778-1829
Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
Former Counsel for Defendant Tailwind
Sports Corporation

Marc S. Harris
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 613-4655
Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
John Patrick Pierce
THEMIS PLLC
2305 Calvert Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 567-2040
Facsimile: (202) 567-2051
Counsel for Defendants Capital Sports &
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., William J.
Stapleton, and Barton B. Knaggs

John W. Keker
Elliot R. Peters
R. James Slaughter
Sharif E. Jacob
Tia Sherringham
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
633 Battery Street
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

Robert D. Luskin
Benjamin D. Wood
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 457-6000
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
Counsel for Defendant Lance Armstrong


- 3 -
Rebecca A. Worthington
Thomas E. Zeno
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Telephone: (202) 626-6600
Facsimile: (202) 626-6780

Former Counsel for Defendant Johan
Bruyneel

Johan Bruyneel
c/o Mike Morgan
Lafone House
The Leathermarket
Weston Street
SE1 3ER
mike.morgan@morgansl.com


Letter Rogatory

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Letter Rogatory

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Вам также может понравиться