Rossi v. Industrial Heat: Judge Makes Order on Required Information from IH for Discovery

In the ongoing Rossi v. Industrial Heat case, an order has been issued by John O’Sullivan, US Magistrate Judge, who is assigned to the the case.

Andrea Rossi’s team had recently submitted a list of items they wanted Industrial Heat et. al. to produce as information for the discovery process, which was very exhaustive; some have described it as a ‘fishing expedition’ and Industrial Heat had complained that the requests were burdensome and over-reaching.

Some of the key pieces of information required are:

“All communications, or documents memorializing communications, between the parties (e-mail, texts, etc.) by November 22, 2016.”

“Request No. 1 – Defendant agrees that it will provide documents evidencing the source of the $10 million payment. (Tr. 47: 9-12)”

“Request No. 2 – In addition to providing documents proving that Defendant had access to $89 million at or before the time the License Agreement was executed”

“Defendant shall answer the following interrogatories: “Did you or did you not have access to $89 million as of February l 5, 20162 If you had less than $89 million, then identify the amount of money you did have.” (Tr. 46:4-13)”

“Request No. 22 – the parties agreed to limit the search terms for electronic documents, including emails, to the following:
– E-cat
– E-cat IP
– Leonardo
– Rossi
– Guaranteed Performance (Tr. 38:3-9)”

The full order can be read here: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/74-Order-on-informal-discovery-conference.pdf

All documents produced in the case so far can be accessed here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

  • Ged

    You held the most replies in this thread here at the time, and spam other threads on this site extremely, so saying LENR forum is the only place you write extensively on is demonstratable false.

  • Ged

    O’Sullivan is a judge, don’t make pointless meaningless statements. And you are apparently wrong in all points. The order covers everything as far as I see. Look at the end of page 3 and the footnote for the blanket statement that addresses all not more specifically looked at. However, if something is left out it means the objection is overruled, not sustained, as Discovery requests succeed a priori: see https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_33 and http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter6/section2

  • pg

    Of course this guy is at IH service, after the first few posts I stopped reading him altogether.

  • sam

    Just post the link if I think it will
    add information to this blog.

  • sam
  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    With respect to Barry West, Robert Godes and Brillouin Energy, Defendant
    will produce communications referencing E-cat, E-cat IP, Rossi, Leonardo
    and/or Guaranteed Performance (Tr. 71 :22- 72:4)

    Found this interesting too.

    • Ged

      Very interesting. Some other newish names popping up for communication reveals it seems. I didn’t expect the Judge to grant so much of this let alone basically all of it, particularly the communications, but Discovery rights are very powerful indeed…

  • artefact

    Request nr. 22: What if E-cat was written e-cat or ecat or Ecat. Is that included?