This posting is an update on the status of the Betancourt litigation (as of June 23, 2011). We provide some background information first in order to place the relevance of recent events in context.
Background
From the Joint Discovery Report filed in US Federal Court on March 21, 2011 in the Murphy litigation:
"Mr. Murphy states that he has not entered into the forensic review agreement because Mr. Al-Mazeedi has recently violated confidentiality agreements in this and the related litigation involving Martin Betancourt by posting confidential information from discovery disclosures on BTU's website. Mr. Murphy's review of the site last week showed that the information was still posted, even though Mr. Betancourt's attorney had sent a letter to BTU's counsel on or about February 25, 2011 complaining about the confidentiality violation. Until it appears that Mr. Al-Mazeedi is willing to abide by confidentiality agreement, Mr. Murphy does not want to put his personal information from an iPhone and hard drives at risk."
Link: Murphy Joint Discovery Report
As the above statement from the Murphy litigation reveals, Betancourt's been deposed with only the customary confidentiality provisions in place. Also, as the statement above reveals (and we discuss at length in a previous blog posting), Al-Mazeedi did not hesitate to use information obtained in depositions to make public pronouncements on his website.
Why do we revisit this issue?
The latest filing in the Betancourt litigation (made available on the PACER website June 24, 2011) is a Stipulation and Protective Order.
As the following excerpt from from the proposed Stipulation and Protective Order shows, although the document is meant to protect business and personal information produced during discovery the language in the document almost exclusively deals with BUSINESS information:
"Any discovery material produced in this action that contains or discloses trade secrets, unpublished financial data, financial or investment forecasts or strategies, appraisals, business forecast or strategies, lists of customers, shareholders, investors, vendors or providers or other information of a non-public nature considered by the producing party to be commercially or personally sensitive or proprietary, may be designated by the producing party as confidential under the terms of this Stipulation and Protective Order by affixing the word "Confidential" on the face of the document."Link: Betancourt Stipulation and Protective Order
Firstly, the Stipulation and Protective order is not really intended to protect Betancourt. Betancourt is obviously not a company and has already been deposed. Documents from the McBrearty litigation show that Betancourt was first deposed sometime in July 2010, almost a year ago. Consequently he had no chance to deem HIS information as confidential under a Stipulation and Protective Order. Additionally, documents in the Betancourt litigation show that he turned over the contents of his computers and peripherals to BTU and Al-Mazeedi long ago (over 2 yrs ago)
Secondly (but actually, this is the most relevant fact), we can conclude that Al-Mazeedi has not been deposed as of June 23, 2011. The court docket shows that the judge in the Betancourt litigation entered the order on that date. [Note: The deadline for the end of discovery in the Betancourt litigation is July 1, 2011.]
Question
Who then, would this document really benefit... BTU Ventures Inc, BTU Industries Holdings USA Inc, and all the other Al-Mazeedi companies are corporate entities. What a coincidence!
Observations
As we've stated elsewhere in this blog, Al-Mazeedi should have been jumping at the chance to be deposed as soon as possible because all answers he would provide in his depositions would only serve to validate and reinforce the "truth" that he has been presenting to the courts in the hundreds of pleadings he's filed.
Protective orders are probably not unusual in litigation. However, it's interesting to see that after more than two (2) years into the Betancourt litigation this protective order was deemed necessary just before Al-Mazeedi is due to be deposed.
Just to refresh everyone's memory, the following is an excerpt summarizing Betancourt's counterclaims against BTU Ventures and Wael Al-Mazeedi:
"These counterclaims are brought by Martin Betancourt, ("Betancourt") a former executive with the defendant corporation, which was in the business of providing services to investment funds that aggregated the capital of foreign investors for investment in power plants outside the United States. In the course of his employment, Betancourt detected apparent criminal fraud by his employer, and, as a whistleblower, shared documents evidencing such fraud to counsel for plaintiff investors suing his employer. As a result of his whistleblowing disclosures, Betancourt's employment was terminated and he was sued in this Court.
He brings counterclaims against his former employer and its chairman/chief executive officer under Massachusetts common law. Further, during the course of employment, Betancourt, became suspicious that his employer and/or chief executive officer were illegally wiretapping/intercepting his conversations (and the conversations of others) through the use of a listening device planted in his office. Recently, evidence to support such suspicions [sic] has come to light (see linked filing from US District Court, pages 2 and 3) in the form of video surveillance footage and eyewitness testimony which reveals that such a listening/wiretapping device was placed in his office during the course of his employment."
Conclusion
Betancourt's counterclaims involve events that took place before Summer-Fall 2008.
What kinds of questions could Al-Mazeedi be asked regarding BTU Ventures Inc, BTU Industries Holdings USA Inc, Meiya Power, etc? What kinds of answers could be provided that need to be mega, ultra, super-duper protected? Our opinion is that the intent of the Stipulation and Protective Order is not so much "protection" as limiting access - the information is already protected. Hayat might want access to the deposition, Al-Mazeedi's current and former investors might want access to the depositions.
What kinds of things from the past need such types of "protection" or limited access?
We believe everything speaks for itself. Quite loudly.
