{"cached_at":"2026-11-07T11:46:58.146198+00:00","cl_docket_id":"4202584","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","id":4202584,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/dcd/","court_id":"dcd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/21998996/","date_created":"2018-11-21T04:48:49.014922-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-27T16:44:19.116759-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"1","docket_number":"0501483","origin":1,"date_filed":"2005-07-28","jurisdiction":2,"nature_of_suit":440,"title":"","section":"1983","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":null,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":9999,"county_of_residence":11001,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"","defendant":"WILLIAMS","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":"2007-10-12","termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":4,"disposition":13,"nature_of_judgement":null,"amount_received":0,"judgment":null,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2008,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cadc/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/dcd/"},"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/201/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.020083-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-12T08:06:02.840789-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"John D. Bates","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-01-21T07:11:41.734028-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2005-07-28","date_terminated":"2007-10-12","date_last_filing":"2007-10-12","case_name_short":"","case_name":"WILLIAMS v. FANNIE MAE","case_name_full":"","slug":"williams-v-fannie-mae","docket_number":"1:05-cv-01483","docket_number_core":"0501483","docket_number_raw":"1:05-cv-01483","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"116226","cause":"42:1983 Civil Rights Act","nature_of_suit":"Civil Rights: Other","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"Government defendant","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.docket.xml","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579942/","id":3579942,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686772/","id":2686772,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/37/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.906006-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.539528-08:00","sha1":"4f17c230b19f9bc41fc630fb15937cd0e17d0439","page_count":2,"file_size":14486,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 37 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE\n\n Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Marialice\n\nBathrus Williams and Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie\n\nMae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and Grace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), do hereby\n\nstipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of this lawsuit, with each party to bear its own\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and costs.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley (D. C. Bar No. 248930)\n 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 533-5875\n Fax: (703) 533-5876\n E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n\n Brian J. H. Lederer (D. C. Bar No. 184184)\n 3003 Van Ness Street, N. W., Suite W228\n Washington, D. C. 20008\n Phone: (202) 244-1715\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 37 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Evelyn L. Becker (D. C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D. C. Bar No. 482382)\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D. C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N. W.\n Washington, D. C. 20006\n Phone: (202) 383-5300\n Fax: (202) 383-5414\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n Jonathan L. Griffith (D. C. Bar No. 456080)\n Fannie Mae\n 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\n Washington, D. C. 20016\n Phone: (202) 752-6167\n Fax: (202) 752-4948\n\n Counsel for Defendant Federal National\n Mortgage Association\n\nOctober 12, 2007\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:43:13-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450877545","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.898838-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.520059-08:00","date_filed":"2007-10-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-10-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice (Joint) by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS. (Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579941/","id":3579941,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686770/","id":2686770,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/36/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.883458-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.475437-08:00","sha1":"9bbaba78d6b89a2f26fed2770dd5a76279f52481","page_count":2,"file_size":15209,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.36.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR\n EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION\n TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams, by and through counsel, hereby moves for\n\nan additional extension of time to October 12, 2007, for filing her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment in this proceeding. The current deadline for\n\nthe filing of such Opposition is October 5, 2007.\n\n The purpose of the requested extension of time is to permit the parties to\n\nconclude, execute and file settlement documents pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure. While it originally was anticipated that such actions would be\n\ncomplete by October 5, 2007, the parties are still reaching agreement on specific terms\n\nand language of the settlement agreement.\n\n This motion has been discussed with counsel for the Defendants, and Defendants\n\ndo not oppose this further motion for additional time. Additionally, coordination has\n\nbeen accomplished to establish a recommended Defendants\u2019 Reply Brief date of\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nNovember 2, 2007, preserving the 21-day period in which Defendants may reply to any\n\nOpposition filed.\n\n A proposed Order is provided herewith for the Court\u2019s consideration.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 533-5875\n E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n Attorney for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams\n\nOctober 4, 2007\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Unopposed Motion for\n\nExtension of Time to Respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment,\u201d with\n\nproposed Order, has been served through the Court\u2019s ECF filing system to each of the\n\nfollowing named counsel for Defendants, this 4th day of October, 2007:\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:42:25-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450828997","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686771/","id":2686771,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/36/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.891090-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.503106-08:00","sha1":"2e5a434a3279b934e3e11b15c6a1626b8a93f108","page_count":2,"file_size":13093,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.36.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.36.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36-2 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n ORDER\n\n This matter came before the Court on the unopposed motion of Plaintiff Williams\n\nfor a further extension of time to file her Opposition to the Defendants\u2019 Motion for\n\nSummary Judgment in this proceeding. Based upon the reasons set forth in the motion,\n\nthe Defendants\u2019 non-opposition, and the full record of this proceeding, it is hereby\n\nORDERED that Plaintiff\u2019s motion is GRANTED.\n\n It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment on or prior to October 12, 2007. Any Reply\n\nby Defendants to Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition shall be filed on or prior to November 2, 2007.\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 36-2 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nServe:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq.\n200 Park Avenue\nSuite 106\nFalls Church, Virginia 22046\n\nBrian J. H. Lederer, Esq.\n3003 Van Ness Street, N. W.\nSuite W228\nWashington, D. C. 20008\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:46:13-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"0450829909","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.878076-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.488575-08:00","date_filed":"2007-10-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-10-04.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [33] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579940/","id":3579940,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686768/","id":2686768,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/35/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.865549-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.420690-08:00","sha1":"8b962fe494c9adf3836d837774c2b33a60f25176","page_count":2,"file_size":15009,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.35.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.35.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S SECOND CONSENT MOTION FOR\n EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION\n TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams, by and through counsel, hereby moves for\n\nan additional extension of time to October 5, 2007, for filing her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment in this proceeding. The current deadline for\n\nthe filing of such Opposition is September 21, 2007.\n\n The purpose of the requested extension of time is to permit the parties to\n\nconclude, execute and file settlement documents pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure.\n\n This motion has been discussed with counsel for the Defendants, and consent has\n\nbeen given. Additionally, coordination has been effected to establish a recommended\n\nDefendants\u2019 Reply Brief date of October 26, 2007, preserving the 21-day period in which\n\nDefendants may reply to any Opposition filed.\n\n A proposed Order is provided herewith for the Court\u2019s consideration.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 533-5875\n Fax: (703) 533-5876\n E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n Attorney for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams\n\nSeptember 13, 2007\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Second Consent\n\nMotion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary\n\nJudgment,\u201d with proposed Order, has been served through the Court\u2019s ECF filing system\n\nto each of the following named counsel for Defendants, this 13th day of September,\n\n2007:\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:40-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450428591","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686769/","id":2686769,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/35/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.872478-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.446868-08:00","sha1":"cc5c7aa420a380c6aa5f2962861fb8f7a29cb404","page_count":2,"file_size":13060,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.35.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.35.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35-2 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n ORDER\n\n This matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Williams for an\n\nextension of time to file her Opposition to the Defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary\n\nJudgment in this proceeding. Based upon the reasons set forth in the motion, the\n\nDefendants\u2019 consent, and the full record of this proceeding, it is hereby ORDERED that\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion is GRANTED.\n\n It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment on or prior to October 5, 2007. Any Reply\n\nby Defendants to Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition shall be filed on or prior to October 26, 2007.\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 35-2 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nServe:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq.\n200 Park Avenue\nSuite 106\nFalls Church, Virginia 22046\n\nBrian J. H. Lederer, Esq.\n3003 Van Ness Street, N. W.\nSuite W228\nWashington, D. C. 20008\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:43:45-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"0450431282","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.858622-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.431822-08:00","date_filed":"2007-09-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-09-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [33] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579939/","id":3579939,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686766/","id":2686766,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/34/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.842862-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.332016-08:00","sha1":"5caf3f44b820c24324df9a36b30ab59a720cb7ed","page_count":3,"file_size":17529,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 34 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S CONSENT MOTION FOR\n EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION\n TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams, by and through counsel, hereby moves for\n\nan extension of time to Friday, September 21, 2007, for filing her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment in this proceeding. This motion has been\n\ndiscussed with counsel for the Defendants, and consent therefore has been given.\n\n In support hereof, the following information is provided:\n\n 1. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment with the Court on June\n\n21, 2007. The deadline for the filing of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition currently is established as\n\nno later than July 23, 2007, as set by the Court\u2019s Minute Order entered December 15,\n\n2006.\n\n 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff\u2019s counsel have been substantially and materially delayed\n\nin preparing the Opposition because of the sudden death of case co-counsel Harley J.\n\nDaniels, Esq., on June 26, 2007. Prior to his death, Mr. Daniels had assumed the primary\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 34 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\ncounsel role for Plaintiff, and he has been critically involved in all phases of this\n\nproceeding.\n\n 3. Moreover, the two remaining counsel for Plaintiff in this case are significantly\n\ninvolved in Mr. Daniels\u2019 Estate, which includes provision of care and guardianship of a\n\nminor child, and a number of other complicating issues. Mr. Beasley is the named\n\nPersonal Representative of the Estate, and Mr. Lederer is the attorney for the Estate. Mr.\n\nBeasley and Mr. Lederer also are each involved in several other ongoing Federal and\n\nState Court proceedings.\n\n 4. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff and counsel will require a period of\n\napproximately two additional months to complete the Opposition filing.\n\n 5. The original schedule for the filing of Defendants\u2019 Reply was set for three\n\nweeks following the filing of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition (pursuant to the Court\u2019s Minute\n\nOrder of December 15, 2006). If this period is maintained following the proposed\n\nrevised date for the filing of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition (i.e. September 21, 2007), the Reply\n\nwould be due not later than October 12, 2007. The parties propose that this be the\n\nrevised date for the reply submission, should this motion be granted.\n\n A proposed Order is provided herewith for the Court\u2019s consideration.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 533-5875\n E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n\n Attorney for Plaintiff Marialice B. Williams\nAttachment 1: Proposed Order\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 34 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s Consent Motion for\n\nExtension of Time to Respond to Defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment,\u201d with\n\nproposed Order, has been served through the Court\u2019s ECF filing system to each of the\n\nfollowing named counsel for Defendants, this 9th day of July, 2007:\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:39:35-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450896859","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686767/","id":2686767,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/34/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.851470-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.376546-08:00","sha1":"51b74895c734689e1c4d998afc85ad927c822ec0","page_count":2,"file_size":13123,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.34.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.34.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 34-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n ORDER\n\n This matter came before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Williams for an\n\nextension of time to file her Opposition to the Defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary\n\nJudgment in this proceeding. Based upon the reasons set forth in the motion, the\n\nDefendants\u2019 consent, and the full record of this proceeding, it is hereby ORDERED that\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s motion is GRANTED.\n\n It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file her Opposition to the\n\nDefendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment on or prior to September 21, 2007, and that\n\nDefendants shall file any Reply pleading on or prior to October 12, 2007.\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 34-2 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nServe:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq.\n200 Park Avenue\nSuite 106\nFalls Church, Virginia 22046\n\nBrian J. H. Lederer, Esq.\n3003 Van Ness Street, N. W.\nSuite W228\nWashington, D. C. 20008\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKyra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:40:50-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"0450897216","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.835470-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.339663-08:00","date_filed":"2007-07-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-07-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [33] MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579938/","id":3579938,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686740/","id":2686740,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.641037-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.482581-08:00","sha1":"b390e99ff49439fc30c9a8912e1c55a3eec06d01","page_count":2,"file_size":19184,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n Plaintiff, :\n :\n vs. : Judge John D. Bates\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n DEFENDANTS FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, RICHARD\n LAWCH, AND GRACE HUEBSCHER\u2019S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and\n\nGrace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) respectfully move this Court for summary\n\njudgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56.\n\n\n\n\nJune 21, 2007 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank ____\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D.C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n Jonathan L. Griffith (D.C. Bar No. 456080)\n Fannie Mae\n 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20016\n (202) 752-6167 (phone)\n (202) 752-4948 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendant Federal National\n Mortgage Association\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:07-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888815","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Summary Judgment","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686741/","id":2686741,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.647476-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.516384-08:00","sha1":"206a993d3b7e2ec0876355989f62322d72ed0e5e","page_count":36,"file_size":201962,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 36\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n Plaintiff, :\n :\n vs. : Judge John D. Bates\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n DEFENDANTS FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, RICHARD\n LAWCH, AND GRACE HUEBSCHER\u2019S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR\n MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and\n\nGrace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) respectfully submit this memorandum in support\n\nof their motion for summary judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Williams (\u201cplaintiff\u201d), an African-American female formerly\n\nemployed by Fannie Mae, filed this action on July 28, 2005 alleging, among other things, that\n\nFannie Mae and two of its officers discriminated against, tortiously interfered with and conspired\n\nagainst her and her business after she left Fannie Mae\u2019s employment in June 1998. In June 2006,\n\nafter defendants filed dispositive motions related to plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint, this Court\n\nnarrowed the case to two discrete claims based on plaintiff\u2019s attempts to contract with Fannie\n\nMae and others: (1) a claim for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 (\u201cSection 1981\u201d)\n\nfor Fannie Mae\u2019s purported refusal to contract with plaintiff concerning a May 2001 insurance\n\nproposal, and (2) a claim for \u201ctortious interference\u201d based on defendants\u2019 purported interference\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 36\n\n\n\nwith plaintiff\u2019s co-brokerage relationship with CAM Financial Services, Inc. (\u201cCAM\u201d), a third\n\nparty that had done business with Fannie Mae in the past. (See Memorandum Opinion (\u201cMem.\n\nOp.\u201d) (Docket No. 19) at 24-25.) After eight months of full discovery, the undisputed record\n\nreveals that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on both claims.\n\n As a threshold matter, there are three defenses applicable to both of plaintiff\u2019s claims.\n\nFirst, both are barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see Mem. Op. at 19).\n\n(See Section I, infra.) In defendants\u2019 prior summary judgment motion, plaintiff avoided\n\nsummary judgment on her Section 1981 claim by amending her complaint to allege that she did\n\nnot actually discover defendants\u2019 alleged misconduct until shortly after an October 2003 meeting\n\nwith Fannie Mae on captive insurance, and arguing that additional discovery was necessary\n\nunder FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). In that discovery, plaintiff\u2019s own deposition testimony proved that\n\nthis meeting occurred in August of 2001, not in October 2003. Thus, plaintiff could have\n\npursued her allegations in 2001, and her claim is time-barred. Moreover, plaintiff also admitted\n\nthat her tortious interference claim is based upon Fannie Mae\u2019s refusal to do business with her,\n\nconceding that her tortious interference claim is simply a restatement of her Section 1981 claim.\n\nBecause this Court previously concluded that the only specific proposal to Fannie Mae that\n\nplaintiff could identify is the May 2001 insurance proposal, this claim is thus similarly barred by\n\nthe applicable three-year statute of limitations.\n\n Second, both claims are barred because plaintiff\u2019s company, Risk Mitigation Strategists,\n\nLLC (\u201cRMS\u201d), not plaintiff, sought to contract with Fannie Mae with respect to the May 2001\n\ninsurance proposal, and plaintiff, as an individual, has no standing to assert these claims. (See\n\nSection II, infra.) Although plaintiff owned RMS, her Section 1981 claim is nonetheless barred\n\nby the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Domino\u2019s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 126 S. Ct. 1246 (2006),\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 36\n\n\n\nwhich precludes an individual owner or shareholder from bringing a claim under Section 1981\n\nbased on a defendant\u2019s refusal to contract with a separate corporate entity. The same logic\n\napplies to plaintiff\u2019s interference claim because it was the corporation, RMS, that had any\n\neconomic or contractual expectation.\n\n Third, there are not, under either claim, any colorable damages because plaintiff has not\n\npresented evidence of any actual losses sustained in connection with Fannie Mae\u2019s refusal to\n\naccept her May 2001 insurance proposal. (See Section III, infra.) Indeed, under plaintiff\u2019s own\n\ntheory no damages exist because Fannie Mae never pursued this proposal with anyone.\n\n Even if the court were to reject these common defenses, plaintiff\u2019s two claims suffer from\n\nnumerous individual defects. First, the undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff cannot make\n\nout a case of race discrimination under Section 1981. (See Section IV, infra.) In her Amended\n\nComplaint, plaintiff alleges that Fannie Mae pursued the May 2001 insurance proposal with\n\nCraig Ott, a white male, because it did not want to do business with an African-American. The\n\nundisputed facts establish, however, that Fannie Mae did not actually pursue the business\n\nproposal with Mr. Ott or anybody else. Rather, the company determined that such business was\n\ninconsistent with its basic business model. Plaintiff cannot rebut this legitimate business\n\ndecision.\n\n Second, plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim suffers equally obvious defects. As an\n\ninitial matter, as noted above, plaintiff admitted in her deposition that this claim is based on\n\nFannie Mae\u2019s purported refusal to do business with her and a company cannot interfere with its\n\nown contracts. (See Section V.A, infra.) Next, discovery has shown that plaintiff\u2019s \u201cagreement\u201d\n\nwith CAM offered nothing more than a hope of future business and not the reasonable likelihood\n\nof a contract necessary to establish a valid business expectancy under the law. (See Section V.B,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 36\n\n\n\ninfra.) And even if plaintiff had a cognizable business expectancy, discovery has failed to\n\nidentify any admissible evidence of intent necessary to sustain her claim. (See Section V.C,\n\ninfra.) Finally, plaintiff has not produced any admissible evidence of causation. (See Section\n\nV.D, infra.) To the contrary, CAM\u2019s president testified that he knew of no reason why CAM\n\nwould have terminated its co-brokerage agreement with the plaintiff.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nI. THE PARTIES AND OTHER ENTITIES.\n\n A. FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, AND GRACE HUEBSCHER.\n\n Fannie Mae is a shareholder-owned, congressionally chartered federal instrumentality\n\nthat was established to carry out vital public policies prescribed by statute: to create a secondary\n\nmarket for residential mortgage financing, stimulate the flow of private capital into housing, and\n\nimprove the affordability of homeownership. See 12 U.S.C. \u00a7 1716. Fannie Mae does not make\n\nloans directly to consumers and, indeed, it is statutorily precluded from doing so. See id.\n\nInstead, Fannie Mae fulfills its important federal mission through its purchase or securitization\n\nactivities, which help provide primary market lenders with a ready source of capital to fund low-,\n\nmoderate-, and middle-income housing. See 12 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71716, 1719. This lawsuit centers\n\naround one aspect of Fannie Mae\u2019s business, its multifamily purchase and securitization\n\nactivities with a special class of lenders involved in the Delegated Underwriting and Servicing\n\n(\u201cDUS\u201d) program. Fannie Mae\u2019s DUS program involves a small group of multifamily lenders\n\nwho have the right to commit Fannie Mae, on a loan-by-loan basis, to purchase multifamily\n\nloans. (See March 25, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 14:7-15, attached hereto at Exhibit A1.) In\n\nexchange, these DUS lenders share the risk of loss with Fannie Mae. (See id.; March 28, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 27:4-13, attached hereto at Exhibit B.)\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 36\n\n\n\n Fannie Mae has a long-standing commitment to diversity in all aspects of its business.\n\nThat commitment has not gone unnoticed: in just the first six months of 2007, the corporation\n\nhas been honored with awards that include:\n\n \u2022 \u201cHispanic Corporate 100\u201d \u2013 Hispanic Magazine (February 2007);\n\n \u2022 \u201cAmerica's Top 50 Corporations for Multicultural Business Opportunities\u201d \u2013\n DiversityBusiness.com (March 2007); and,\n\n \u2022 \u201c40 Best Companies for African Americans\u201d \u2013 Black Enterprise (June 2007). 1\n\nImportantly, Fannie Mae\u2019s dedication to diversity and specifically its efforts to work with\n\nMinority Women-Owned Businesses (\u201cMWOB\u201d) has been a resounding success: between 1998\n\nand 2003 (the time period relevant to plaintiff\u2019s claims), MWOB made up between 18 and 21%\n\nof its discretionary spending. (See Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrogatory Responses (\u201cFannie Mae\u2019s\n\nInterrog. Resp.\u201d) No. 3, attached hereto at Exhibit C.)\n\n Defendant Richard Lawch has been employed by Fannie Mae since 1991, and currently\n\nholds the position of Senior Vice President of Community Investments. (See Declaration of\n\nRichard Lawch, (\u201cLawch Decl.\u201d), \u00b6 1, attached hereto at Exhibit D.) Defendant Grace\n\nHuebscher has been employed by Fannie Mae since 1996, and currently holds the position of\n\nVice President for Capital Markets. (See Declaration of Grace Huebscher, (\u201cHuebscher Decl.\u201d),\n\n\u00b6 1, attached hereto at Exhibit A.)\n\n B. PLAINTIFF AND RMS.\n\n Plaintiff was employed by Fannie Mae as a director in its multifamily unit from January\n\n1990 through June 1998 when she voluntarily left to join CAM. (See Am. Compl. (Docket. No.\n\n9), \u00b6\u00b6 11; March 28, 2007 Williams Dep. at 73:19-22.) After she resigned from Fannie Mae,\n\n\n1\n See\nhttp://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/awards/2007.jhtml?p=About+Fannie+Mae&s=Awards+%26+Achievements&t\n=2007+Awards+%26amp;+Achievements (last accessed on June 19, 2007).\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 36\n\n\n\nhowever, she was unable to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement with CAM, and decided to\n\nopen her own company. (See March 21, 2003 Williams Dep. at 226:5-10, attached hereto at\n\nExhibit E.) In October 1998, plaintiff formed RMS, a limited liability company, wholly-owned\n\nby plaintiff, with the sole intent that RMS would contract with Fannie Mae to \u201cpursue the\n\nbusiness [plaintiff] had been doing at Fannie Mae prior to [her] departure.\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 31-\n\n32; March 28, 2007 Williams Dep. at 20:17-20; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 300:19-20,\n\nattached hereto at Exhibit F; District of Columbia Certificate of Revocation, attached hereto at\n\nExhibit G.) The District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs revoked\n\nRMS\u2019s articles of incorporation in 2003 after the company \u201cfailed and/or refused to file reports\n\nand pay all fees and dues owing prior to June 16, 2002 and 2003.\u201d (District of Columbia\n\nCertificate of Revocation.)\n\n C. CAM.\n\n CAM is a financial services company that does both insurance and mortgage brokerage\n\nfor multifamily properties. (See Jones Dep. at 7:17-20, attached hereto at Exhibit H.) In 1997,\n\nwhile plaintiff still worked at Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae and CAM entered into a memorandum of\n\nunderstanding concerning multifamily credit risk insurance. (See CAM Amended Complaint \u00b6\n\n16, attached hereto at Exhibit I.) From 1997 through 1999, Fannie Mae used CAM as an\n\ninsurance broker for the procurement of multifamily credit risk insurance. By early 1999,\n\nhowever, the companies had a dispute with respect to the extent of their contractual relationship.\n\n(Id. \u00b6 46.) In the end, CAM brokered five non-DUS Fannie Mae insurance policies, two with\n\nAIG (one in 1997 and one in 1998) and three with General Star National Insurance Company (all\n\nin 1999). (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 19, 22 & 45.)\n\n CAM and Fannie Mae did not enter into any transactions following 1999, and all\n\nprospects for new business relationships between the two ended in December 2001 when CAM\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 36\n\n\n\nfiled suit against Fannie Mae for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages on\n\nthe basis that its brokerage relationship with Fannie Mae had allegedly been \u201cdestroye[d].\u201d (Id.\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 48, 85, 96.) Defendants have not had any business interaction with CAM since the filing of\n\nthe lawsuit in December 2001. (See Huebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 4, 5; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3, 4.) Ultimately,\n\nthe parties voluntarily dismissed the litigation after agreeing to arbitrate the underlying claims.\n\n(See Dismissal Order, attached hereto at Exhibit J.)\n\nII. THE MAY 2001 PROPOSAL.\n\n In May 2001, RMS made a proposal to Fannie Mae (hereinafter, \u201cMay 2001 Proposal\u201d)\n\nto \u201clay[] off risk associated with [Fannie Mae\u2019s] Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (\u201cDUS\u201d)\n\nProgram,\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 3, attached hereto at Exhibit K) by \u201csecur[ing] the\n\ninsurance and the DUS lenders as clients and bring[ing] the deal back to Fannie Mae.\u201d\n\n(Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 4; see also March 28, 2007 Williams Dep. at 36:13-20; May 7,\n\n2007 Williams Dep. at 154:10-14; Jones Dep. Exh. 2, attached hereto as Exhibit H1.) RMS\n\nsought to lay-off risk by providing insurance for certain losses that a DUS lender otherwise\n\nwould have to bear in the event of default on a loan.\n\n On May 15, 2001, CAM\u2019s president, Bob Jones, e-mailed Stephen Noble from Zurich\n\nInsurance, an insurer to whom CAM was pitching the proposal, a document from RMS entitled\n\n\u201cOpportunity To Provide Insurance Coverage For . . . Fannie Mae\u2019s Delegated Underwriting\n\nAnd Servicing Program,\u201d which outlined the May 2001 Proposal. (March 28, 2007 Williams\n\nDep. Exh. 1, attached hereto at Exhibit B1.) The cover e-mail, which was also sent to plaintiff,\n\nindicated that RMS represented three DUS lenders and that Mr. Jones and plaintiff hoped to be\n\nable to share performance data \u201cbased on your interest in a potential transaction.\u201d (March 28,\n\n2007 Williams Dep. Exh. 1, at FNMW.MBW.008015.)\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 36\n\n\n\n On May 23, 2001, plaintiff sent an e-mail to defendant Huebscher with an \u201cupdate from\n\nRMS,\u201d indicating that several insurers had expressed interest in RMS\u2019s May 2001 Proposal and\n\nasking a number of questions. (Jones Dep. Exh. 7, at FNMA.MBW.008031, attached hereto at\n\nExhibit H3.) On May 31, 2001, defendant Huebscher forwarded the e-mail to her supervisor,\n\ndefendant Lawch, indicating that plaintiff was interested in pursuing insurance for the DUS\n\nprogram. (See Jones Dep. Exh. 7, at FNMA.MBW.006230.) Defendant Huebscher\u2019s initial\n\nreaction was that it wouldn\u2019t be worth pursuing. (Id.) She explained that the proposal \u201cwasn\u2019t\n\nreally consistent with what I understood our business model to be.\u201d (March 26, 2003 Huebscher\n\nDep. at 463:21-22, attached hereto at Exhibit A1.) Because lenders could commit Fannie Mae to\n\nthe purchase of loans without prior approval, Fannie Mae wanted lenders to share the risk of a\n\nloan default. In short, as defendant Huebscher put it, Fannie Mae wanted to make sure that the\n\nlenders had \u201cskin [in] the game.\u201d (March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 449:12-25, attached\n\nhereto at Exhibit A1; March 27, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 519:19-23, attached hereto at Exhibit\n\nA1.) Allowing lenders to insure this risk would remove a strong incentive to underwrite the\n\nloans properly, and thus \u201c[i]f our programs are all delegated and the individuals that are selling\n\nand servicing for us are doing the underwriting and credit-risk analysis for us on our behalf,\n\n[Fannie Mae] [] like[d] them to have a stake in the game.\u201d (March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at\n\n449:21-25.)\n\n While laying-off the risk of DUS lenders was generally inconsistent with Fannie Mae\u2019s\n\nbusiness model, at the time defendants received RMS\u2019s May 2001 Proposal, the Office of\n\nFederal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) \u2014 the federal agency responsible for regulation\n\nof Fannie Mae\u2019s business \u2014 was in the midst of finalizing a new, risk-based capital rule, and\n\nFannie Mae was concerned about the regulation\u2019s potential impact on its DUS program. (See\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 36\n\n\n\nMarch 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 463:7-14.) Thus, defendant Lawch indicated \u201cif Ofheo [sic]\n\ncomes back with bad RBC Rules we may be interested [in insurance].\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 7, at\n\nFNMA.MBW.006230.) 2 As defendant Huebscher testified, \u201cwe were in the process of receiving\n\nand finalizing what were going to be Fannie Mae\u2019s risk based capital guidelines . . . [a]nd so I\n\nthink [Lawch] was trying to keep all of his options open.\u201d (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep.\n\nat 463:7-14.)\n\n In the end, OFHEO\u2019s final risk-based capital rule obviated any need for Fannie Mae to\n\npursue proposals involving the laying-off of DUS risk. In July 2001, shortly after Fannie Mae\n\nreceived plaintiff\u2019s e-mail, OFHEO issued its final rule. (See Risk-Based Capital, 66 Fed. Reg.\n\n47730 (September 13, 2001) (codified at 12 C.F.R. part 1750).) 3 The final rule contained\n\nsignificant revisions from OFHEO\u2019s previously proposed rule, including, among other things,\n\ncutting in half the capital impact of risk-sharing with DUS lenders. (See id.; Risk-Based Capital,\n\n64 Fed. Reg. 18084 (April 13, 1999); Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. No. 7.) Thus, the final rule\n\nobviated the need for Fannie Mae to obtain insurance for capital purposes and Fannie Mae did\n\nnot pursue DUS insurance coverage at the time because it was inconsistent with the risk-sharing\n\nnature of Fannie Mae\u2019s business model. (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 449:12-25; see,\n\ne.g., Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. No. 7.) Under these circumstances, Fannie Mae decided that\n\nit would not pursue the DUS proposal with either RMS or Craig Ott. (See id.)\n\n Plaintiff testified that she recognized in mid-2001 that Fannie Mae was not going to\n\nconsummate the proposed DUS transaction with her. (See, e.g., March 17, 2003 Williams Dep.\n\n\n\n2\n If the new regulation had required Fannie Mae to hold substantially more capital based on the risk that a\nDUS lender would be unable to fulfill its risk-sharing obligations, the possibility of insuring the risk could have\nbecome more attractive. (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 464-465, attached hereto at Exhibit A1.)\n3\n OFHEO\u2019s risk-based capital rule, while not published in the Federal Register until September 2001, was\navailable from OFHEO as of July 19, 2001. See http://www.ofheo.gov/media/archive/docs/regs/RBCFinal.pdf (last\naccessed June 21, 2007.)\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 36\n\n\n\nat 88, 91, 102, 104, 121, attached hereto at Exhibit L.) CAM also stopped working on the\n\nproposal in August 2001 because it heard from plaintiff that Fannie Mae was not pursuing the\n\nproposal. (See Jones Dep at 54.)\n\nIII. PLAINTIFF\u2019S CO-BROKERAGE AGREEMENT WITH CAM.\n\n As noted above, when plaintiff left Fannie Mae in 1998, she hoped to go to work with\n\nCAM. After plaintiff was unable to reach an agreement with CAM, she formed a company,\n\nRMS, that tried to purchase CAM, \u201cbut this offer, too, was rebuffed.\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 4, at\n\nFNMA.MBW.007369, attached hereto at Exhibit H2.) Thus, although CAM and plaintiff had\n\ntalked about a joint venture, they never actually entered into an agreement. (See Jones Dep. at\n\n31:2-25.)\n\n In May 2001, plaintiff wrote to Fannie Mae to \u201cclearly define\u201d the scope of her\n\ncompany\u2019s relationship with CAM. (Jones Dep. Exh. 2.) According to the letter, RMS and\n\nCAM did not have \u201cany connection with respect to ownership and no one from CAM or RMS\n\nhas an interest in the other\u2019s business ventures.\u201d (Id. at FNMA.MBW.008003.) Instead, she\n\nstated that they merely had a \u201cco-brokerage agreement.\u201d (Id.)\n\n Although neither CAM nor plaintiff has produced a signed co-brokerage agreement, they\n\nboth contend that an agreement did exist. In her May 2001 letter to Fannie Mae, plaintiff\n\ndescribed the agreement as follows: \u201cThe agreement indicates that when CAM locates an\n\ninsurance company for a project that RMS is working on, RMS agrees to compensate CAM\n\nthrough some form of split commission.\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 2.) Her interrogatory responses\n\nsimilarly described the agreement as \u201ca simple, common co-brokerage agreement with CAM\n\nFinancial that entailed paying them a commission in the event that they secured the insurance\n\nthat I needed on any of the proposals that I was working on.\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 36\n\n\n\n Bob Jones, CAM\u2019s president until 2005 and plaintiff\u2019s principal contact at the firm,\n\nrecalled only two Fannie Mae related projects or presentations that plaintiff or RMS worked on\n\nwith CAM: The May 2001 DUS proposal and her presentation on captive insurance in August\n\n2001. (See Jones Dep. at 58-59.) Mr. Jones also indicated that CAM worked on several non-\n\nFannie Mae product development projects with plaintiff, but that none of them resulted in an\n\nactual transaction with the exception of a $10,000 application fee paid by First Atlantic. (See id.\n\nat 32-37.) Mr. Jones indicated that he did not believe that the co-brokerage agreement formally\n\nterminated prior to his departure from the company in 2005, testifying that: \u201cI know no reason\n\nwhy it was ever terminated.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 35:18-19.) Plaintiff herself testified: \u201cI don\u2019t recall\n\nwhen it expired. I\u2019m not sure if it had a term in here. Let\u2019s see. Does this say? This doesn\u2019t say\n\nso I don\u2019t know. Well, it certainly had to expire when I was no longer a broker. I haven\u2019t been a\n\nbroker for two years.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 224:8-10). Plaintiff\u2019 brokerage license\n\nexpired in April 2003. (See District of Columbia Dept. of Insurance, Securities & Banking\n\nLicensee Look-up, attached hereto at Exhibit M.)\n\n In her discovery responses, plaintiff asserts that she had conversations with CAM\n\npresident Jones in which he informed her that (1) Fannie Mae was actively discouraging CAM\n\nfrom doing business with her and (2) Fannie Mae had made \u201cfalse and defamatory\u201d statements\n\nabout her. (Williams Interrog. Resp. Nos. 9 & 10.) She could not say, however, when these\n\nconversations occurred, what was said by Fannie Mae, or even who made the alleged remarks.\n\n(Id.; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 221:223:22.) Moreover, plaintiff\u2019s allegations were directly\n\ncontradicted by Mr. Jones himself, who could not recall a single conversation regarding RMS or\n\nthe plaintiff with defendants Huebscher or Lawch. 4 More specifically, Mr. Jones could not recall\n\n\n4\n When asked, \u201cDid you ever have any conversations with Ms. Huebscher about Marialice Williams or Risk\nMitigation Strategists, LLC, for which Ms. Williams was not present,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI just don\u2019t recall.\u201d\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 36\n\n\n\nany instance where defendants discouraged CAM from business relationships with the plaintiff, 5\n\nor made disparaging remarks about the plaintiff. 6 Mr. Jones\u2019 recollection is consistent with\n\ndeclarations submitted by defendants Huebscher and Lawch, indicating that no such\n\nconversations occurred. (See Huebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 7; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5, 6.)\n\nIV. PLAINTIFF\u2019S KNOWLEDGE OF FANNIE MAE\u2019S DECISIONS.\n\n On August 29, 2004, plaintiff sent Fannie Mae\u2019s CEO a draft complaint alleging that the\n\ncompany had refused to do business with her and had \u201cblackballed\u201d her on account of her race.\n\nAs evidence of this purported conduct, plaintiff attached a copy of a May 2001 e-mail between\n\ndefendants Lawch and Huebscher, and stated that the e-mail \u201cmade the blackball clear.\u201d (Draft\n\nCompl. \u00b6 19, attached hereto at Exhibit N.) The complaint also asserted (erroneously) that\n\nplaintiff did not discover this e-mail until May 2002. (Id.) This complaint was never filed.\n\n Nearly a year later, on July 28, 2005, plaintiff filed suit against Fannie Mae, Lawch and\n\nHuebscher. The new complaint reiterated that the e-mail constituted \u201cevidence of the ongoing\n\nand inexplicable blackballing of Plaintiff Williams from all Fannie Mae business.\u201d (Compl. \u00b6\n\n45.) The complaint, however, removed the previous reference to \u201cMay 2002\u201d and instead\n\n\n\n\n(Jones Dep. at 43.) When asked, \u201cWhether you had any discussions with Mr. Lawch about Marialice Williams or\nRisk Mitigation Strategies, LLC after Ms. Williams [Plaintiff] left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t\nrecall.\u201d When asked further, \u201cYou don\u2019t recall any?\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cNo.\u201d (Id. at 46.)\n5\n When asked, \u201cDid Ms. Huebscher ever tell CAM Services not to do business with Ms. Williams or Risk\nMitigation Strategies,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cNot that I recall.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 43.) When asked, \u201cAnd after Ms.\nWilliams left Fannie Mae, I take it then that you don\u2019t recall any conversation in which Mr. Lawch told CAM not to\ndo business with Ms. Williams,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall of any conversations.\u201d (Id. at 62.)\n6\n When asked, \u201cDid Ms. Huebscher make any disparaging remarks about Ms. Williams or Risk Mitigation\nStrategists, LLC to you,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall.\u201d When asked, \u201cDid Ms. Huebscher ever discuss Ms.\nWilliams\u2019 business acumen with CAM or with you,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t have any knowledge or recall.\u201d\nWhen asked, \u201cDo you recall whether Ms. Huebscher ever made any false statements to you about Ms. Williams or\nRisk Mitigation Strategists, LLC,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI have no recall [sic]. I don\u2019t think so.\u201d (Jones Dep. at\n44.) When asked, \u201cAnd you don\u2019t recall any conversations in which Mr. Lawch made any disparaging remarks\nabout Ms. Williams after she left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall of any.\u201d When asked, \u201cAnd you\ndon\u2019t recall any false statements that Mr. Lawch made to you about Ms. Williams after she left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr.\nJones responded, \u201cWell, same answer; same question.\u201d (Id. at 62:19-63:8.)\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 13 of 36\n\n\n\nasserted that the plaintiff did not \u201cdiscover\u201d the significance of this evidence until much later.\n\n(Compl. \u00b6 46.)\n\n Fannie Mae moved to dismiss the complaint, noting that \u201cmuch later\u201d turned out to be a\n\nmatter of days. Documents provided by plaintiff herself indicated that she received the e-mail on\n\nJune 4, 2001 \u2014 less than a week after it had originally been sent. Instead of responding to\n\nFannie Mae\u2019s motion to dismiss, plaintiff changed her story and amended her complaint. This\n\ntime she alleged, for the first time, that it was not the e-mail that put her on notice of her claims.\n\nInstead it was an \u201cOctober 8, 2003\u201d meeting on \u201ccaptive insurance\u201d that provided the triggering\n\nevent for limitations purposes. (Am. Comp. \u00b6\u00b6 51-52.) According to her new complaint, it was\n\nnot until after this meeting that she actually realized that Fannie Mae did not intend to do\n\nbusiness with her. Plaintiff alleged that, following the meeting, \u201cdefendant Huebscher and other\n\nofficials at Fannie Mae stopped responding to Plaintiff Williams\u2019 correspondence and telephone\n\ncalls . . . and it became clear for the first time\u201d to plaintiff that defendants were not willing to do\n\nany business with her. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 53.) As plaintiff recently testified, \u201cI really didn\u2019t get\n\nany further com -- communication or correspondence from them after attempting to contact\n\nthem.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 196:19-21.) This testimony confirmed testimony she\n\ngave three years earlier in the CAM case. (See May 5, 2003 Williams Dep. at 32-33, attached\n\nhereto at Exhibit O.)\n\n Discovery has demonstrated that plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint is premised on an\n\nadmittedly inaccurate date. First, consistent with her original complaint, plaintiff admitted that\n\nafter reading the May e-mail between Huebscher and Lawch, \u201cIt was clear that [Fannie Mae] was\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 14 of 36\n\n\n\nnot going to do business with [her].\u201d (March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 91). 7 More importantly,\n\nthe captive insurance meeting she now contends starts the clock on her limitations period did not\n\noccur on October 8, 2003. Plaintiff herself testified that the meeting occurred on August 21,\n\n2001. (See May 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-129:13, attached hereto at Exhibit P (\u201cQ: Did\n\nyou in fact have that meeting on the 21st of August? A. Yes, we did. Q. And who was there?\n\nA. Kate Westover. Q. And what was her position? A. Kate Westover is an international\n\nauthority on captive insurance.\u201d).) This testimony is supported by a wealth of documentary\n\nevidence, including the testimony of CAM\u2019s president, and a declaration from the internationally\n\nrenowned captive insurance expert (Kathryn \u201cKate\u201d Westover), who made the actual\n\npresentation to Fannie Mae. (May 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-129:13; Jones Dep. at 54-55\n\n(\u201cI was copied on some e-mails that Ms. Williams was making a captive presentation in about\n\nAugust of 2001. It\u2019s somewhere in that time frame, August, September\u201d); Declaration of\n\nKathryn Westover, attached hereto at Exhibit Q; FNMA.MBW.008057, attached hereto at\n\nExhibit R.)\n\n A few months after the meeting \u2014 and Fannie Mae\u2019s purported refusal to contact her \u2014\n\nplaintiff\u2019s \u201cco-broker,\u201d CAM, filed suit against Fannie Mae. (See CAM Amended Complaint.)\n\nIn early 2002, shortly after CAM filed its lawsuit, Fannie Mae\u2019s counsel asked to meet with\n\n\n\n7\n Indeed, on March 17, 2003, seven months before she now contends she discovered Fannie Mae\u2019s alleged\ndiscrimination, plaintiff testified extensively about this e-mail exchange and what she understood it meant. Among\nother things:\n \u2022 When asked how she knew that it was decided that Fannie Mae rejected plaintiff\u2019s proposal, plaintiff stated\n that it was \u201c[i]n the context of this e-mail.\u201d (March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 102.)\n \u2022 Plaintiff acknowledged that she had discussions with others \u201cas soon as probably I got this e-mail. It\u2019s\n pretty shocking when you spent almost two hundred and some thousand dollars building a business to\n suddenly one day walk in the door and no [sic] you don\u2019t have ding, after lies and lies and lies and\n confidentiality and being asked if you wanted to do it, and then being crapped on in the midst of all of it.\u201d\n (March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 94, attached hereto at Exhibit L.)\n \u2022 Additionally, in this same deposition, plaintiff stated that the e-mail was sent to her \u201cbecause it\u2019s pretty\n clear from this e-mail that I was not going to be given the same opportunity as everyone else was being\n given to do this\u201d and it was \u201cbecause I was being screwed.\u201d (March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 94, 121.)\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 15 of 36\n\n\n\nplaintiff in order to obtain information for the lawsuit. Plaintiff refused the meeting. (See May\n\n7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 166:7-11.) Defendants did not have any business interaction with\n\nplaintiff or CAM after the filing of the lawsuit. (See Huebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 4, 5; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3,\n\n4.) Defendants did not promise plaintiff any business or even meet with her after this date. (See\n\nHuebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3, 4; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 3.)\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s recent testimony is entirely consistent with the documentary record and her\n\nprevious testimony. Plaintiff testified in March of 2003 and again in 2007 that she provided all\n\nof the information in her possession related to Fannie Mae in response to a subpoena issued in\n\nthe CAM litigation in early 2002. (See March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 37:8-18, attached\n\nhereto at Exhibit L; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 145-147.) Plaintiff, however, did not produce\n\na single e-mail or electronic document concerning Fannie Mae. Plaintiff explained the absence\n\nof any such documents by claiming to have had a computer crash in the fall of 2001. (See May\n\n7, 2007 Williams Dep. Exh. 10; March 17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 37:8-18.)\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s testimony also reveals that as early as June 2001 she believed that defendant\n\nLawch was discriminating against her. In her interrogatory responses, she indicated that her\n\nevidence of discrimination was a statement by defendant Lawch that \u201che was working with an\n\n\u2018international broker\u2019 for doing some insurance business for the MBS pools.\u201d (Williams\n\nInterrog. Resp. No. 1.) Plaintiff testified that: \u201cI knew that that was a discriminatory remark.\n\nThat he was selecting a white man with no experience or knowledge over me, a black person, to\n\ndo the aggregation business.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 200.) Plaintiff also testified \u2014 at\n\nan earlier deposition \u2014 that she heard defendant Lawch\u2019s statement in early 2001. (See March\n\n17, 2003 Williams Dep. at 107-108, attached hereto at Exhibit L.)\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 16 of 36\n\n\n\nI. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BOTH\n CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY ARE BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE\n THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.\n\n As this Court previously recognized, \u201cthe statute of limitation is three years for both the\n\nSection 1981 claim and the tortious interference claim.\u201d (Mem. Op. at 19-20 (citing Carney v.\n\nAm. Univ., 151 F.3d 1090, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Section 1981) and (Beard v. Edmondson &\n\nGallagher, 790 A.2d 541, 546 (D.C. 2002) (tortious interference).) Defendants previously\n\nmoved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff\u2019s claims are time barred because\n\nplaintiff\u2019s undisputed testimonial admissions established that she knew, or at the very least\n\nshould have known, that she had a cause of action against defendants on or about June 4, 2001.\n\n(See id. at 20 (quoting plaintiff\u2019s deposition testimony).)\n\n In response to defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment, plaintiff moved for a\n\ncontinuance pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). In that motion, plaintiff argued that \u201cit was not\n\nuntil the time following a business development meeting with Defendants which was conducted\n\non October 8, 2003, that plaintiff became fully aware of [defendants\u2019 alleged] plot.\u201d (Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nMot. for Continuance Under Rule 56(f) at 4 (Docket No. 13).) In her amended complaint,\n\nplaintiff alleged that this business development meeting concerned captive insurance and\n\ninvolved a presentation by Kate Westover, an expert on captive insurance. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 51.)\n\nIn the amended complaint, plaintiff also alleged that after the meeting \u201cofficials of Fannie Mae\n\nstopped responding to Plaintiff Williams correspondence and telephone calls\u201d and it \u201cbecame\n\nclear\u201d that defendants had been \u201cblackballing\u201d plaintiff and \u201cher business entities.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 53.)\n\n The Court granted plaintiff\u2019s FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) motion, stating that \u201c[t]o create a\n\ntriable issue of fact over a statute of limitations issue, a plaintiff may show that the defendant\n\nengaged in subsequent misrepresentation, tolling the statue of limitations.\u201d (Mem. Op. at 21.)\n\nThe Court held that \u201c[i]f plaintiff can demonstrate that defendants continued to promise other\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 17 of 36\n\n\n\nbusiness opportunities to her, then a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that she could not\n\nhave been aware of any racially discriminatory intent on the part of defendants in rejecting her\n\nMay 2001 proposal.\u201d (Id. at 22.) The Court also denied defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary\n\nJudgment on the basis that the tortious interference claim was time-barred because it concluded\n\nthere was no information in the record concerning the date of plaintiff\u2019s \u201canticipated co-\n\nbrokerage agreement with CAM.\u201d (Mem. Op. at 24 n.12.)\n\n Discovery has revealed that plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference and Section 1981 claims are,\n\nin fact, one and the same. Plaintiff hoped to use CAM to procure insurance for transactions she\n\npitched to Fannie Mae, and contends that Fannie Mae interfered with her relationship with CAM\n\nby refusing to enter into those transactions. Indeed, plaintiff admitted in her sworn deposition\n\ntestimony that her tortious interference claim is based on defendants\u2019 purported refusal to do\n\nbusiness with her: when asked, \u201cSo fundamentally your claim related to the co-brokerage\n\nagreement is that Fannie Mae didn\u2019t do any business with you; is that fair to say,\u201d plaintiff\n\nresponded, \u201cThat\u2019s right.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 215; see also id. at 202-03; Section\n\nII.B infra.) Because plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim is based on the same underlying\n\nfactual allegations as her Section 1981 claim, any claim for tortious interference would have\n\naccrued at the same time, and is time-barred for the same reasons, as that claim.\n\n The evidence developed in discovery since the Court\u2019s ruling demonstrates without\n\ndispute that: (1) the business development meeting that plaintiff identified as key to her\n\ndiscovery of Fannie Mae\u2019s (or defendants\u2019) alleged \u201cplot\u201d to deny her business occurred in\n\nAugust 2001, not October 2003 as alleged in the amended complaint; and (2) there is no\n\nevidence of any fraudulent concealment 8 by defendants, nor any evidence that defendants\n\n\n8\n As explained supra, plaintiff has not produced evidence that supports even a colorable theory of fraudulent\nconcealment. Nevertheless, defendants note that \u201c[f]or the court to toll the statute of limitations on the basis of\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 18 of 36\n\n\n\ncontinued to offer her future business.\n\n First, the allegation in plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint that the date of the so-called captive\n\ninsurance meeting that plaintiff contends triggered her discovery of defendants\u2019 wrongdoing is\n\nOctober 2003 is simply inaccurate. According to the plaintiff\u2019s own deposition testimony, this\n\nmeeting occurred in August 2001, not October 2003. (See May 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-\n\n129:13.) That admission is supported by a wealth of additional evidence that the meeting\n\noccurred in August 2001. (See May 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-129:13; Jones Dep. at 54-\n\n55; Declaration of Kathryn Westover; FNMA.MBW.008057.) Plaintiff contends that it was after\n\nsuch meeting that \u201cofficials of Fannie Mae stopped responding to [her] correspondence and\n\ntelephone calls\u201d and it \u201cbecame clear\u201d that defendants had been \u201cblackballing\u201d her and \u201cher\n\nbusiness entities\u201d (Am. Compl. \u00b653). As such, plaintiff has in fact admitted that she had no\n\nfurther contact with defendants concerning the May 2001 \u2014 or any other \u2014 business proposal\n\nafter August 2001.\n\n Second, plaintiff admitted in her deposition that she had notice of defendant\u2019s purported\n\nracially discriminatory intent in 2001. Specifically, she alleged that a statement by defendant\n\nLawch indicating he would be working with an \u201cinternational broker\u201d evidences her allegation\n\nthat Fannie Mae denied her the opportunity \u2014 on the basis of race \u2014 to make and enforce a\n\ncontract with respect to the May 2001 proposal. (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 1.) 9 And, in her\n\ndeposition, she testified that she knew at the time she heard the remark before June 2001 \u201c[t]hat\n\nhe was selecting a white man with no experience or knowledge over me, a black person, to do\n\n\n\n\u2018fraud or concealment,\u2019 the plaintiff must show that a defendant engaged in a course of conduct designed to conceal\nevidence of the alleged wrongdoing, and that the plaintiff was not on actual or constructive notice of that evidence,\ndespite the exercise of due diligence.\u201d Walker v. Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am., 461 F. Supp. 2d 52, 60 (D.D.C.\n2006) (citing Larson v. Northrop Corp., 21 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).\n9\n Moreover, that remark is the only \u201cevidence\u201d of discrimination plaintiff has advanced in support of her\ndiscrimination claim. (See id.)\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 19 of 36\n\n\n\nthe aggregation business.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 200.) Thus, it is beyond dispute that\n\nplaintiff was aware of any alleged discriminatory intent on the part of the defendants outside the\n\nstatute of limitations period and cannot assert that she was not on notice of her discrimination\n\nclaim.\n\n In short, plaintiff\u2019s recent averments, designed as they were to overcome glaring\n\nlimitations problems, stand in contravention to the sworn testimony and documentary evidence\n\nproduced in this case. Not only do the undisputed facts prove that plaintiff knew about the\n\nalleged discriminatory intent in 2001, but they also show that plaintiff could not possibly have\n\nbeen \u201cpromise[d] other business opportunities\u201d except outside the statute of limitations period.\n\nAs such, plaintiff\u2019s claims must be dismissed.\n\nII. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BOTH\n CLAIMS BECAUSE IT WAS RMS, NOT PLAINTIFF, THAT SOUGHT\n TO CONTRACT WITH FANNIE MAE.\n\n A. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A SECTION 1981\n CLAIM BECAUSE THE MAY 2001 PROPOSAL CAME FROM HER\n COMPANY, RMS.\n\n In Domino\u2019s Pizza v. McDonald, 126 S. Ct. 1246, (2006), the Supreme Court recently\n\nheld that the president and sole shareholder of a company \u2014 like the plaintiff here \u2014 does not\n\nhave standing to pursue a Section 1981 claim based on an actual or proposed contractual\n\nrelationship between the company and the defendant. Id. at 1252. Plaintiff\u2019s admission that the\n\nMay 2001 Proposal came from her company, RMS, thus bars her individual discrimination\n\nclaim.\n\n Domino\u2019s Pizza involved a Section 1981 claim brought by the president and sole\n\nshareholder of a small corporation, which had previously contracted with the defendant. The\n\nplaintiff alleged \u201cthat [defendant] had broken its contracts with [plaintiff\u2019s company] because of\n\nracial animus toward [him], and that the breach had harmed [him] personally by causing him \u2018to\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 20 of 36\n\n\n\nsuffer monetary damages and damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and\n\nhumiliation.\u2019\u201d Id. at 1248. The Supreme Court rejected plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit, concluding that\n\nbecause his claim derived from a contractual relationship between the defendant and his\n\ncompany, only the company could bring the claim. Id. at 1250-51. The Court specifically\n\nrejected plaintiff\u2019s argument that because he was the \u201cactual target\u201d of the discrimination and\n\npersonally lost benefits that would have accrued to him but for the alleged discriminatory\n\nconduct. Id. at 1250.\n\n The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Domino\u2019s Pizza applies with full force to the\n\nundisputed facts of this case. Plaintiff concedes that the May 2001 Proposal \u201cwas made by Risk\n\nMitigation Strategists, LLC . . .\u201d (March 28, 2007 Williams Dep. at 36.) Her written proposals to\n\nboth Fannie Mae and a potential insurance company confirm this testimony. In early May,\n\nplaintiff sent Fannie Mae a letter indicating that \u201cRMS w[ould] continue to work\u201d on the\n\nproposed business and followed up with an e-mail providing an \u201cupdate[s] from RMS.\u201d (Jones\n\nDep. Exh. 2; Jones Dep. Exh. 7, at FNMA.MBW.008031.) Similarly, the proposal that Bob\n\nJones and plaintiff forwarded to Zurich Insurance indicated that RMS represented three DUS\n\nlenders and that \u201cRMS is seeking insurance coverage for [these] lenders.\u201d (March 28, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. Exh. 1, at FNMA.MBW.008015, 008017.) Thus, the undisputed facts\n\ndemonstrate that plaintiff does not have standing to pursue her discrimination claim because the\n\nMay 2001 Proposal was made by RMS rather than plaintiff.\n\n B. PLAINTIFF SIMILARLY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A\n TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BECAUSE THE MAY 2001 PROPOSAL\n WAS MADE BY HER COMPANY, RMS.\n\n As described above, plaintiff\u2019s own testimony bears out the fact that her tortious\n\ninterference claim is, at bottom, based on defendants\u2019 purported refusal to pursue business with\n\nher (see p. 17, supra). (See, e.g. May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 202-03, 215.) This Court\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 21 of 36\n\n\n\npreviously concluded that the only specific Fannie Mae proposal plaintiff identified is the May\n\n2001 Proposal. (See Mem. Op. at 9.) Because that proposal was made by RMS rather than\n\nplaintiff herself, she lacks standing to pursue this claim. See, e.g., Vann v. Spak, Case No. 01-\n\n55555, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21428, at *2 (9th Cir. Sep. 10, 2001) (holding that dismissal was\n\nproper where plaintiff lacked standing to bring a tortious interference claim because he was not\n\na party to the underlying contract); Osborn v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 828 F. Supp. 446, 450-51\n\n(N.D. Tex. 1993) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff lacked standing because the\n\ntortious interference claim he made belonged to his business, rather than to himself).\n\nIII. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BOTH\n CLAIMS BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY DAMAGES\n ARISING FROM FANNIE MAE\u2019S REFUSAL TO CONTRACT.\n\n A. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF\u2019S CLAIM BECAUSE SHE HAS\n ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER AVERRED DAMAGES WHICH,\n EVEN AS ALLEGED, CANNOT SUPPORT A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1981.\n\n Plaintiff must, of course, prove her damages. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978).\n\nAs discovery has revealed, however, plaintiff\u2019s claimed damages are nothing more than \u201cmere\n\nunsupported allegations.\u201d See Devera v. Adams, 874 F. Supp. 17, 20 (D.D.C. 1995) (\u201c[T]he non-\n\nmoving party\u2019s opposition must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials\n\nand must be supported by affidavits or other competent evidence setting forth specific facts\n\nshowing that there is a genuine issue for trial.\u201d). Plaintiff\u2019s efforts at proof evince a wholesale\n\nfailure to \u201c\u2018provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find\u2019 in [her] favor.\u201d See id.\n\n(quoting Laningham v. United States Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). While the\n\ncourt \u201cmay consider any evidence that would be admissible at trial,\u201d in this case, all plaintiff has\n\noffered is her own averments, which, standing alone, cannot rebuff this motion for summary\n\njudgment. See Moore v. Ashcroft, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1, 20-21 (D.D.C. 2005).\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 22 of 36\n\n\n\n In particular, Fannie Mae asked plaintiff to describe in detail each of her damages and to\n\nspecify which damages relate to the May 2001 Proposal. Plaintiff merely responded that\n\n\u201c[l]osses were calculated based upon the amount of potential business that Fannie Mae did using\n\nstructures developed by [her].\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 13.) This measure of damages is,\n\nof course, wholly divorced from the business outlined in the May 2001 Proposal. But, more\n\nimportantly, the record demonstrates that Fannie Mae did not pursue the May 2001 Proposal\n\nwith anybody else. (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 465.; Fannie Mae Interrog. Resp.\n\nNos. 2 & 4.) Thus, plaintiff\u2019s claim fails under her own theory of damages because Fannie Mae\n\ndid not enter into the May 2001 Proposal with any individual or entity and thus plaintiff did not\n\nsuffer any losses in that respect.\n\n Moreover, even if plaintiff could recover for transactions that never occurred (with Mr.\n\nOtt or anybody else), plaintiff\u2019s speculative, back-of\u2013the-envelope calculations about what\n\n\u201cmight have been\u201d had Fannie Mae chosen to insure some or all of its DUS portfolio are\n\ninsufficient to support her claims. See e.g., Whetstone Candy Co. v. Nat\u2019l Consumers League,\n\n360 F. Supp. 2d 77, 82-83 (D.D.C. 2004) (granting summary judgment because plaintiff\u2019s claims\n\nof lost sales are but conclusory assertions since \u201csales forecasts were not in the record, nor were\n\ndeclarations by the employees who prepared them, or relevant expert reports\u201d); Miller Billboard\n\nAdver., Inc. v. Outdoor Sys., Case No. 99-1405, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800, at *7-9 (7th Cir.\n\nFeb. 22, 2000). Plaintiff\u2019s gambit of multiplying Fannie Mae\u2019s total business activity in a given\n\nsector by the fees that plaintiff claims she would have charged had she brokered insurance for\n\nthis activity from the time she left Fannie Mae going forward 10 is simply divorced from reality.\n\n\n10\n Plaintiff\u2019s rambling testimony on her damages theory includes: (1) \u201cAnnual reports from Fannie Mae\nreflect about $2 billion of MBS, one-off transactions which were closed . . . annually, substantially more MBS were\nissued with the DUS portfolio,\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 225 (emphasis added)); (2) \u201cGenerally speaking, the\nfees range from about 25 basis points annually for the insurance. In some instances, fees were as high as 56 basis\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 23 of 36\n\n\n\n Finally, plaintiff\u2019s purported reliance damages are similarly deficient. Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ninterrogatory responses list a number of recurrent business expenses (e.g., rent, travel, phone and\n\noffice equipment, office assistant.) (See Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 14.) But plaintiff cannot\n\nattribute any specific amount to the May 2001 proposal. (Id.) This is not surprising given that\n\nshe first raised the proposal with Defendant Lawch in early 2001 and conceded that \u2014 a few\n\nmonths later \u2014 she knew it would not go forward. This suggests that even if plaintiff could\n\npresent specific evidence of reliance damages, they would be de minimus at best. Moreover,\n\nwhen Fannie Mae requested that plaintiff produce more specific information on these damages to\n\nhelp determine whether any could be fairly attributable to her May proposal, she simply refused.\n\n(See, e.g., May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 268, 295-296.) For example, plaintiff admitted that her\n\ncredit card statements contained charges related to both personal and business expenses, and\n\nwould not \u2014 and could not \u2014 decipher between the two. (See May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at\n\n260:1-11.)\n\n B. PLAINTIFF OFFERS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DAMAGES\n RESULTING FROM THE TERMINATION OF HER CO-BROKERAGE\n AGREEMENT.\n\n Finally, plaintiff\u2019s thoroughly unsubstantiated and illogical estimation of damages also\n\nentitles defendants to summary judgment on plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim. As noted\n\nwith respect to plaintiff\u2019s Section 1981 claim (see Section III.A, supra), plaintiff cannot\n\ndocument any damages related to her proposal to do business with Fannie Mae. Moreover, as\n\ndescribed below, it is well-established that a defendant cannot tortiously interfere with its own\n\ncontracts and business relationships. (See Section V.A, infra.) Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s damages\n\n\n\npoints. And the broker\u2019s fee is approximately 10 percent of the premium fee,\u201d (Id. at 224 (emphasis added)); and (3)\n\u201c[T]hat\u2019s just for one year. So, let\u2019s see, \u201898, \u201899, \u20182000, \u20181, \u20182, \u20183, \u20184, \u20185. When did I file in \u20185? So that\u2019s seven\ntimes five, that\u2019s 35 million right there without me knowing the balance of what else would\u2019ve been there.\u201d (Id. at\n227.)\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 24 of 36\n\n\n\nallegations must flow from non-Fannie Mae business that CAM and plaintiff would have done if\n\nthe co-brokerage agreement had not been breached. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege \u2014 let\n\nalone document with evidence \u2014 any damages allegations that do not flow from lost business\n\nopportunities with Fannie Mae itself. 11 Indeed, it is difficult to see how plaintiff could have\n\nsuffered any damages given that her \u201cco-brokerage agreement\u201d consisted of her paying CAM for\n\ntransactions she put together. (See Jones Dep. Exh. 2, at FNMA.MBW.008003.) In short,\n\nplaintiff once again does not come close to producing the type of evidence necessary to survive\n\nsummary judgment on a key element of her tortious interference claim. Accordingly, this claim\n\nshould be dismissed as a matter of law.\n\nIV. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S SECTION 1981 CLAIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO\n EVIDENCE OF RACE DISCRIMINATION.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claim under Section 1981 \u2014 which focuses solely on a May 2001 DUS\n\nproposal \u2014 fails as a matter of law because the undisputed facts reveal that Fannie Mae had a\n\nlegitimate nondiscriminatory reason for declining to pursue the May 2001 proposal with any\n\nindividual or entity, including RMS.\n\n A. PLAINTIFF CANNOT EVEN MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE SECTION 1981\n CLAIM.\n\n Even assuming plaintiff had standing to pursue her Section 1981 claim, plaintiff\u2019s\n\ncomplaint cannot survive summary judgment because she cannot establish a prima facie case of\n\ndiscrimination. In order to establish a claim of racial discrimination under Section 1981, a\n\nplaintiff must demonstrate that: \u201c(1) [she] is a member of a protected class; (2) the defendant had\n\nan intent to discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination concerned one or more\n\nof the activities enumerated in Section 1981 (which includes the right to make and enforce\n\n11\n Indeed, plaintiff stated that her \u201c[l]osses are calculated based upon the amount of potential business that\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 25 of 36\n\n\n\ncontracts). Bennett v. United States Chess Fed\u2019n, 468 F. Supp. 2d 79, 86 (D.D.C. 2006); see also\n\nMem. Op at 8. In showing discriminatory intent, \u201cplaintiff must show that a defendant\n\nintentionally treated him or her differently because of his or her race.\u201d 12 Bennett, 468 F. Supp. at\n\n87. As this Court previously recognized:\n\n Under [controlling] case law, an inference of discrimination is\n created if the plaintiff is \u201csignificantly better qualified for the job\u201d\n \u2013 or here by analogy, the contract \u2013 than the less qualified\n candidate.\n\n(Mem. Op. at 8 (citing Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc);\n\nHolbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1999).) While plaintiff was able to survive\n\ndefendants\u2019 dismissal motion by alleging that Fannie Mae contracted with Craig Ott 13 with\n\nrespect to the May 2001 Proposal, the undisputed facts reveal that Fannie Mae did not give the\n\nMay 2001 Proposal to Craig Ott or anybody else.\n\n The May 2001 Proposal was flawed for two reasons. First, because DUS lenders could\n\ncommit Fannie Mae to purchase multifamily loans without prior approval, Fannie Mae wanted to\n\nensure good loan underwriting by requiring its lenders to share in the default risk. (See March 26\n\n2003 Huebscher Dep. at 449.) As such, the insurance strategies detailed in the May 2001\n\nproposal were \u201cnot really consistent\u201d with Fannie Mae\u2019s business plan. (March 26, 2003\n\nHuebscher Dep. at 463.) Second, while the prospect of an unfavorable risk-based capital rule led\n\n\nFannie Mae did using structures developed by me.\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n12\n In her responses to defendants\u2019 interrogatory requests, plaintiff suggested that defendant Lawch had made a\nremark that evidenced discrimination: \u201cMr. Lawch stated that he was working with an \u2018international broker\u2019 for\ndoing some insurance business for the MBS pools.\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 1.) As an initial matter, it is\nunclear how such statement has any probative value. Moreover, the undisputed facts reveal that Fannie Mae never\npursued the May 2001 Proposal with anyone (see Fannie Mae Interrog. Resp. No. 7), and, in fact, that it never hired\nan \u201cinternational broker\u201d for the multifamily division\u2019s securitization and other loan programs (see id. at No. 9).\n13\n While it is unnecessary for this Court to reach any conclusions about Mr. Ott\u2019s and plaintiff\u2019s relative\nqualifications, the undisputed facts show that Mr. Ott had extensive experience in the insurance business, including\nservice as a vice president of a major insurance company. (See, e.g., Jan. 19, 2004 Ott Dep. at 14-20, attached\nhereto at Exhibit S; March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 465.) Plaintiff, on the other hand, consummated a single\ninsurance transaction at Fannie Mae, and did not close a single transaction in her 5 years as an insurance broker.\n(See May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 201:1-10; 202:7-9.)\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 26 of 36\n\n\n\nFannie Mae to explore the possibility of using credit risk insurance for its DUS loans in mid-\n\n2001, the final OFHEO rule obviated the need to pursue such insurance. (See March 26, 2003\n\nHuebscher Dep. at 463; Jones Dep. Exh. 7, at FNMA.MBW.006230; Fannie Mae Interrog. Resp.\n\nNos. 2 & 4.) In short, Fannie Mae ultimately concluded that the May 2001 proposal was\n\ninconsistent with Fannie Mae\u2019s business model and that it should not pursue RMS\u2019s May 2001\n\nProposal with RMS, with Mr. Ott, or with anybody else. (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep.\n\nat 465; Fannie Mae Interrog. Resp. Nos. 2 & 4.) These undisputed facts demonstrate that\n\nplaintiff cannot meet her prima facie burden with respect to her Section 1981 claim.\n\n B. FANNIE MAE HAS A LEGITIMATE NONDISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR\n DECLINING TO PURSUE THE MAY 2001 PROPOSAL.\n\n Assuming plaintiff could establish by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case\n\n(which she cannot), the burden would then shift to the defendants to present evidence of a\n\nlegitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. See Clifton Terrace Assoc., Ltd. v. United\n\nTech. Corp., 929 F. 2d 714, 722 (D.C. Cir. 1991). This point is easily established in the\n\ndefendants\u2019 favor by the undisputed facts described above. As discussed in Section IV.A, supra,\n\nFannie Mae determined that it should not pursue the May 2001 Proposal because the concept\n\nproposed was inconsistent with Fannie Mae\u2019s business model that required risk-sharing between\n\nFannie Mae and its DUS lenders, and the Risk-Based Capital Rules issued by OFHEO in July\n\n2001 obviated any need to pursue the proposal. Because plaintiff will not be able to point to any\n\nevidence establishing a reasonable inference that the defendant\u2019s proffered explanation is\n\nunworthy of credence, her complaint fails under the McDonnell Douglas framework. See, e.g.,\n\nClifton Terrace, 929 F. 2d at 722; Chauhan v. M. Alfieri Co., 897 F.2d 123, 127-28 (3d Cir.\n\n1990); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 109 (1st Cir. 1988); see also Tx. Dep\u2019t of\n\nCmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981).\n\n\n\n 26\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 27 of 36\n\n\n\n C. THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY COULD\n FIND IN PLAINTIFF\u2019S FAVOR.\n\n Where, as here, the defendants have met their burden of production, the burden-shifting\n\nframework disappears, and a court reviewing summary judgment looks to whether a reasonable\n\njury could infer intentional discrimination or retaliation from all the evidence, including \u201c\u2018(1) the\n\nplaintiff\u2019s prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer\u2019s\n\nproffered explanation for its action; and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be\n\navailable to the plaintiff (such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes\n\non the part of the employer).\u2019\u201d Carter v. George Wash. Univ., 387 F.3d 872, 878 (D.C. Cir.\n\n2004) (quoting Waterhouse v. Dist. of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989, 992-93 (D.C. Cir. 2002); see\n\nalso Moore v. Ashcroft, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1, 22 (D.D.C. 2005) (\u201cIf Defendant is successful, then\n\nthe \u2018McDonnell Douglas framework \u2014 with its presumptions and burdens \u2014 disappears, and the\n\nsole remaining issue [is] discrimination vel non\u2019\u201d) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,\n\nInc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)). Here, plaintiff\u2019s claim fails because (1) evidence to support her\n\nprima facie case is woefully deficient, (2) she has offered no evidence to attack defendants\u2019\n\nproffered explanation for declining to pursue the May 2001 Proposal, and (3) the record is\n\nnotably clear of any other evidence of discrimination.\n\n Both contemporaneously with the May 2001 Proposal and through the course of\n\ndiscovery, all relevant decision-makers at Fannie Mae have pointed to objectively verifiable\n\nlegitimate non-discriminatory reasons why Fannie Mae chose to not contract with RMS. (See\n\nSection III.A & B.) Moreover, although plaintiff avers that Fannie Mae directed the business\n\noutlined in the May 2001 Proposal \u201cto a less qualified male contractor, Mr. Craig Ott,\u201d (Am.\n\nCompl. \u00b6 45), discovery has shown this is unquestionably not the case. The truth is that Fannie\n\nMae never actually chose between plaintiff and Mr. Ott; indeed, Fannie Mae chose to not pursue\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 28 of 36\n\n\n\nthe May 2001 Proposal with anyone. (See CITE.) Because plaintiff cannot produce any\n\nevidence that the business related to the May 2001 Proposal was given to anyone else, her claim\n\nsimply fails as a matter of law.\n\n In short, considering all the evidence, the only conclusion a jury reasonably could reach\n\nis that Fannie Mae abstained from contracting with RMS \u2014 indeed abstained from contracting\n\nfor the proposed business altogether \u2014 because the proposal was unnecessary and strategically\n\ndisadvantageous.\n\nV. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM.\n\n As plaintiff herself has acknowledged, to succeed on a claim of tortious interference\n\nunder District of Columbia law, a plaintiff must show: \u201c(1) the existence of a valid business\n\nrelationship or expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of\n\n[defendant]; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the\n\nrelationship or expectancy, and (4) resultant damage.\u201d (Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition to Defendants\u2019\n\nMotion to Dismiss, at 9 (Docket No. 12) (quoting Ulico Cas. Co. v. Prof\u2019l Indem. Agency, Inc.,\n\nCase No. 98-1018, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8591, at * 4 (D.D.C. May 5, 1999).) The undisputed\n\nfacts demonstrate that plaintiff cannot meet this burden for four additional and independent\n\nreasons. First, because plaintiff has admitted that the facts underlying her tortious interference\n\nclaim relate to Fannie Mae\u2019s alleged refusal to do business with her, her claim fails as a matter of\n\nlaw because a party cannot interfere with its own contracts. (See Section V.A, supra.) Second,\n\nwhile plaintiff concedes that her tortious interference claim is based on defendants\u2019 refusal to do\n\nbusiness with her and thus is barred as a matter of law, discovery has shown that any claim\n\nplaintiff may assert with respect to a business relationship with CAM is nothing more than a\n\nhope that does not establish a valid business expectancy under the law. (See Section V.B, infra.)\n\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 29 of 36\n\n\n\nThird, plaintiff has failed to present any admissible evidence showing that defendants actually\n\nintended to interfere with her co-brokerage relationship with CAM. (See Section V.C, infra.)\n\nFourth, plaintiff has failed to present any facts that show that defendants\u2019 alleged interference\n\nactually impaired her co-brokerage agreement with CAM. (See Section V.D, infra.)\n\n A. PLAINTIFF\u2019S OWN STATEMENTS ESTABLISH THAT HER ALLEGATIONS\n OF TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE ARE BASED ON FANNIE MAE\u2019S\n PURPORTED REFUSAL TO DO BUSINESS WITH HER, AND THEREFORE\n HER CLAIM CANNOT STAND AS A MATTER OF LAW.\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s own testimony bears out the fact that her tortious interference claim is, at\n\nbottom, based on defendants\u2019 purported refusal to do business with her. When asked, \u201cSo\n\nfundamentally your claim related to the co-brokerage agreement is that Fannie Mae didn\u2019t do any\n\nbusiness with you; is that fair to say,\u201d plaintiff responded, \u201cThat\u2019s right.\u201d (May 7, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 215; see also id. at 202-03.) Indeed, plaintiff stated that her \u201c[l]osses are\n\ncalculated based upon the amount of potential business that Fannie Mae did using structures\n\ndeveloped by me.\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 13.) Plaintiff, however, fails to understand the\n\nbasic limits of a claim of tortious interference. It is well-established that a defendant may not\n\ntortiously interfere with its own contracts and business relationships. See Donahoe v. Watt, 546\n\nF. Supp. 753, 757 (D.D.C. 1982) (\u201cA defendant\u2019s conduct under his own contract with the\n\nplaintiff may or may not rise to the level of a breach of that contract, but it cannot support an\n\naction for interference with it.\u201d); see also Rosenkoff v. Finklestein, 195 F.2d 203, 205 (D.C. Cir.\n\n1952) (\u201cAn invalid promise cannot be turned into a valid claim by describing the promisor\u2019s\n\nrefusal to perform it as an interference either with the expectancies or with the contract rights of\n\nthe promisee.\u201d). Thus her tortious interference claim must be dismissed on this basis alone.\n\n B. PLAINTIFF\u2019S DID NOT HAVE A VALID BUSINESS EXPECTANCY FOR\n FUTURE DEALS WITH CAM.\n\n Even if plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim was sufficiently distinct from her proposed\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 30 of 36\n\n\n\nrelationship with Fannie Mae to permit her claim to proceed (and it is not), her \u201cco-brokerage\n\nagreement\u201d with CAM does not create a valid business expectancy. As this Court previously\n\nrecognized, \u201c[i]t is well-established that \u2018[a] protected relationship exists only if there is a\n\nreasonable likelihood or probability that a contract would have resulted; there must be something\n\nbeyond mere hope.\u2019\u201d (Mem. Op. at 16 (quoting Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497, 1506 (10th Cir.\n\n1995).) The undisputed evidence in this case demonstrates that this \u201cagreement\u201d (which no one\n\nhas been able to produce) was little more than a promise by Ms. Williams (or her company\n\nRMS) to provide CAM a commission if it secured insurance for future projects that Ms.\n\nWilliams or her company was working on. As Ms. Williams explained, \u201c[t]he agreement\n\nindicates that when CAM locates an insurance company for a project that RMS is working on,\n\nRMS agrees to compensate CAM through some form of split commission.\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 2,\n\nat FNMA.MBW.008003.) But plaintiff has not been able to provide evidence of anything more\n\nthan a \u201chope\u201d for future projects. Indeed, Bob Jones characterized all of CAM\u2019s work with Ms.\n\nWilliams as simply \u201cproduct development.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 33:17-21; see also March 28, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 118:1-15.) Thus plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim fails for this reason as\n\nwell.\n\n C. PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH HER\n CO-BROKERAGE AGREEMENT.\n\n Even if plaintiff\u2019s co-brokerage agreement created a valid business expectancy with\n\nCAM, her claims would still fail because she cannot demonstrate intentional interference with\n\nthat agreement. This Court previously held that plaintiff must make a \u201cstrong showing of intent\u201d\n\nin order to make out a claim for tortious interference. (See Mem. Op. at 17 (citing cases).)\n\nPlaintiff, however, fails to produce any admissible evidence that reveals any such intent, let\n\nalone the \u201cstrong showing\u201d necessary for her to proceed. Instead, she provides only vague and\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 31 of 36\n\n\n\nself-serving hearsay about statements defendants purportedly made to CAM and cites to a letter\n\nshe sent to both defendants Mae and CAM. (See Williams Interrog. Resp. Nos. 2, 9 & 10.) As\n\nexplained below, this \u201cevidence\u201d does not create a genuine issue of material fact.\n\n 1. Plaintiff\u2019s Self-Serving Hearsay Statements Do Not Create A\n Genuine Issue of Material Fact.\n\n The Court permitted plaintiff\u2019s tortious interference claim to proceed to discovery based\n\non her allegation that defendants communicated \u201cknowingly false and defamatory\u201d information\n\nabout plaintiff to CAM. (Mem. Op. at 17.) However, in response to defendants\u2019 interrogatory\n\nrequests, the only evidence plaintiff could provide about these purported communications was\n\nher vague recollection of discussions she had with CAM president Bob Jones. (See Williams\n\nInterrog. Reponses Nos. 9 & 10.) In her deposition, plaintiff could not recall when these alleged\n\nconversations occurred, or what defendants supposed said to Mr. Jones. (See May 7, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 222-23.) 14\n\n In contrast to these vague and conclusory hearsay allegations propounded by plaintiff,\n\nFannie Mae has produced sworn declarations from defendants Huebscher and Lawch stating that\n\nthe alleged conversations never occurred. (See Huebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6 & 7; Lawch Decl. 5 & 6.)\n\nMore importantly, Mr. Jones \u2014 the other purported participant in this dialogue \u2014 testified under\n\noath that he could not recall a single conversation regarding plaintiff or her company with either\n\ndefendant Huebscher or defendant Lawch. 15 More specifically, Mr. Jones could not recall any\n\n\n\n14\n Specifically, plaintiff states: \u201cI learned of Defendant actively discouraging CAM Financial from doing\nbusiness with me as a result of phone conversations from Bob Jones, President of CAM Financial,\u201d (See Williams\nInterrog. Resp. No. 9), and \u201cI learned of false and defamatory information about me being communicated to CAM\nFinancial through telephone conversations with Bob Jones, President of CAM Financial.\u201d (See id. at No. 10.)\n15\n When asked, \u201cDid you ever have any conversations with Ms. Huebscher about Marialice Williams or Risk\nMitigation Strategists, LLC, for which Ms. Williams was not present,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI just don\u2019t recall.\u201d\n(Jones Dep. at 43) When asked, \u201cWhether you had any discussions with Mr. Lawch about Marialice Williams or\nRisk Mitigation Strategies, LLC after Ms. Williams [plaintiff] left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t\nrecall.\u201d When asked further, \u201cYou don\u2019t recall any?\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cNo.\u201d (Id. at 46.)\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 32 of 36\n\n\n\ninstance where defendants discouraged CAM from business relationships with plaintiff, 16 or\n\nmade disparaging remarks about plaintiff. 17 Indeed, Mr. Jones could recall only one set of\n\ninnocuous remarks made by anyone from Fannie Mae with respect to plaintiff: those made by\n\nFannie Mae employees Rhoda Newman and Betty Dance that \u201cMarialice [plaintiff] was trying to\n\ndrum up business\u201d in her post-employment visits to the Fannie Mae offices. (Jones Dep. at 47.)\n\n In the face of the sworn testimony provided by Fannie Mae, plaintiff\u2019s self-serving and\n\ninadmissible hearsay testimony is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. 18 Indeed, courts\n\nhave regularly granted summary judgment motions in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Poullard\n\nv. Smith Kline Beecham Corp., Case No. 02-1590, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35182 (D.D.C. Nov.\n\n30, 2005) (granting summary judgment because plaintiff\u2019s claim of defamatory remarks were\n\nunsupported by deposition testimony of any of the alleged participants, and therefore only\n\nsecond-hand hearsay); In re Ashby Enterprises, Ltd., 47 B.R. 394, 397 (D.D.C. 1985) (affirming\n\nsummary judgment where there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that\n\ndefendants \u201cever contacted [plaintiff\u2019s] other creditors or in any other way tried to deter them\u201d);\n\nsee also Abbott v. Gale, 896 F. 2d 323 (8th Cir. 1990); Schindler v. Marshfield Clinic, Case No.\n\n\n\n16\n When asked, \u201cDid Ms. Huebscher ever tell CAM Financial Services not to do business with Ms. Williams\nor Risk Mitigation Strategies,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cNot that I recall.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 43.) When asked, \u201cAnd after\nMs. Williams left Fannie Mae, I take it then that you don\u2019t recall any conversation in which Mr. Lawch told CAM\nnot to do business with Ms. Williams,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall of any conversations.\u201d (Id. at 62.)\n17\n When asked, \u201cDid Ms. Huebscher make any disparaging remarks about Ms. Williams or Risk Mitigation\nStrategists, LLC to you,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 44.) When asked, \u201cDid Ms.\nHuebscher ever discuss Ms. Williams\u2019 business acumen with CAM Financial or with you,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI\ndon\u2019t have any knowledge or recall.\u201d (Id.) When asked, \u201cDo you recall whether Ms. Huebscher ever made any false\nstatements to you about Ms. Williams or Risk Mitigation Strategists, LLC,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI have no recall.\nI don\u2019t think so.\u201d (Id.) When asked, \u201cAnd you don\u2019t recall any conversations in which Mr. Lawch made any\ndisparaging remarks about Ms. Williams after she left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cI don\u2019t recall of any.\u201d\n(Id. at 62-63.) When asked, \u201cAnd you don\u2019t recall any false statements that Mr. Lawch made to you about Ms.\nWilliams after she left Fannie Mae,\u201d Mr. Jones responded, \u201cWell, same answer; same question.\u201d (Id.)\n18\n Plaintiff acknowledges that her knowledge of such conversations is unspecific hearsay, on which she has\nno personal knowledge: \u201cI had several conversations with [CAM President] Bob Jones where I was told of negative\nand defamatory things that were said about me. Did he tell me what they were precisely? No. But we know they\nwere said. He knows they were said. Richard Lawch knows they were said. You have to ask them.\u201d (May 7, 2007\nWilliams Dep. at 222.)\n\n\n 32\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 33 of 36\n\n\n\n05-705, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1496, at *56 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 4, 2007); Richardson v. Rush-\n\nPresbyterian-St. Luke\u2019s Med. Ctr., Case No. 99-7540, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6346 (N.D. Ill.\n\nMar. 18, 2002).\n\n 2. Plaintiff\u2019s Own Letter Describing Her Co-Brokerage\n Agreement Does Not Demonstrate Any Ill Intent By the\n Defendants.\n\n The only \u201cevidence\u201d other than her self-serving hearsay that plaintiff cites in support of\n\nher tortious interference claim is a letter that she herself wrote to Fannie Mae in May 2001\n\ndescribing the co-brokerage agreement she had with CAM. (See Jones Dep. Exh. 2, at\n\nFNMA.MBW.008003.) The assertion that a letter written by plaintiff herself evidences any\n\nintent to interfere with plaintiff\u2019s co-brokerage agreement, let alone the \u201cstrong showing of\n\nintent\u201d necessary for plaintiff to survive summary judgment, is absurd on its face. 19 Moreover,\n\neven an evidentiary showing that defendants were attempting to \u201cpersuade\u201d plaintiff to end her\n\nco-brokerage agreement with CAM would be insufficient to show intentional interference. See,\n\ne.g., Bowhead Info. Tech. Servs., LLC v. Catapult Tech., Ltd., 377 F. Supp. 2d 166, 173-75\n\n(D.D.C. 2005) (efforts by the defendant to dissuade one of the parties from entering into a\n\ncontract with another was not \u201canything other than a general intent to interfere with a plaintiff\u2019s\n\nbusiness dealings, which is insufficient to impose liability\u201d).\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s argument that this letter constitutes interference because Fannie Mae had been\n\nexpanding its business relationship with CAM and used her letter as a \u201cstalling tactic, one more\n\ntactic . . . to exclude me [plaintiff] from the business I [plaintiff] had created\u201d (May 7, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 204) is baseless. First, it is nonsensical to suggest that a letter describing the\n\n\n19\n This Court previously recognized plaintiff\u2019s burden to show a \u201cstrong showing of intent\u201d on the part of\ndefendants. See Mem. Op. at 19; see also Chambliss v. Amtrak, Case No. 05-2490, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11522,\nat *96 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2007) (\u201cIntentionally procuring a breach of contract requires \u2018a strong showing of intent . . .\nto establish liability.\u2019\u201d (quoting Genetic Sys. v. Abbott Labs., 691 F. Supp. 407, 423 (D.D.C. 1998)).)\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 34 of 36\n\n\n\nrelationship \u2014 and which Ms. Williams shared with CAM before sending it to defendants \u2014\n\ninterfered with that relationship. (See Jones Dep. Exh. 2, at FNMA.MBW.008003-8004;\n\nFNMA.MBW.007996-7998, attached hereto at Exhibit T.) Second, the evidence is undisputed\n\nthat Fannie Mae was not expanding its business with CAM at the time. Indeed, it had been\n\nalmost two years since CAM had brokered an insurance deal for Fannie Mae and CAM was on\n\nthe verge of filing a lawsuit against Fannie Mae. (See CAM Amended Complaint.) Third, a\n\nletter written by plaintiff cannot serve as evidence of ill intent by defendants. See, e.g., Moore v.\n\nAshcroft, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1, 41 (D.D.C. 2005) (granting summary judgment because \u201cplaintiff\n\nhas provided no evidence to support her allegation other than her own personal, subjective\n\nopinion; she has . . . offered no supporting testimony through other witnesses . . . and has\n\nprovided no independent documentation\u201d).\n\n D. DEFENDANTS DID NOT CAUSE THE TERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S CO-\n BROKERAGE AGREEMENT.\n\n A claim of tortious interference has, as one its four required elements, proof that the\n\nalleged interference \u201cinduc[ed] or caus[ed] a breach or termination of the relationship or\n\nexpectancy.\u201d Bennett Enters. v. Domino\u2019s Pizza, 45 F.3d 493, 499 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing\n\nGenetic Sys. Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 691 F. Supp. 407, 422-23 (D.D.C. 1998)). Even if plaintiff\n\ncould establish intent to interfere with her relationship with CAM, there is no evidence\n\nestablishing a causal link between defendants\u2019 alleged actions and the dissolution of plaintiff\u2019s\n\npurported \u201cco-brokerage agreement\u201d with CAM.\n\n To the contrary, testimony by both CAM\u2019s president and plaintiff demonstrate that the\n\nco-brokerage agreement continued in effect until plaintiff lost her brokerage license. First, CAM\n\npresident Bob Jones testified that he believed the co-brokerage agreement was in effect when he\n\nleft the company in 2005. (See Jones Dep. at 35 (\u201cI know no reason why it [agreement] was ever\n\n\n\n 34\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 35 of 36\n\n\n\nterminated.\u201d).) More importantly, Mr. Jones testified that he continued to hold plaintiff\u2019s\n\nbusiness capabilities in high regard, refuting any inference that the allegedly disparaging remarks\n\nabout plaintiff \u2014 remarks that defendants, of course, submit never occurred \u2014 had any causal\n\neffect on CAM\u2019s business with plaintiff. 20 Second, plaintiff testified that her agreement with\n\nCAM terminated due to her own actions: the loss of her brokerage license. 21 In short, because\n\nplaintiff can point to no actions of defendants that terminated her co-brokerage agreement with\n\nCAM, plaintiff\u2019s cause of action for tortious interference cannot stand. See, e.g., Whetstone\n\nCandy Co. v. Nat\u2019l Consumers League, 360 F. Supp. 2d 77, 83 (D.D.C. 2004) (granting summary\n\njudgment in part because \u201cno specific evidence was offered as to the existence of or breach of a\n\ncontract, and none was offered as to the causal connection, if any, between the two events\u201d).\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the defendants respectfully request that their motion for\n\nsummary judgment be granted, and that plaintiff\u2019s two remaining claims be dismissed, in their\n\nentirety, with prejudice.\n\n\nJune 21, 2007 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank ____\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D.C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n\n20\n For example, Mr. Jones testified that \u201cThe quality of her [plaintiff\u2019s] work was very good,\u201d and \u201c[plaintiff]\nwas, in my opinion, critical to making those transactions work.\u201d (Jones Dep. at 80.)\n21\n Plaintiff testified on this point as follows: \u201cI don\u2019t recall when it [the agreement] expired. I\u2019m not sure if it\nhad a term in here . . . Well, it certainly had to expire when I was no longer a broker. I haven\u2019t been a broker for two\nyears.\u201d (May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 224.) Plaintiff\u2019s brokerage license lapsed in April 2003. (See District of\nColumbia Dept. of Insurance, Securities & Banking Licensee Look-up.)\n\n\n 35\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 36 of 36\n\n\n\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n Jonathan L. Griffith (D.C. Bar No. 456080)\n Fannie Mae\n 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20016\n (202) 752-6167 (phone)\n (202) 752-4948 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendant Federal National\n Mortgage Association\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:44:49-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888493","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686742/","id":2686742,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/2/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.654826-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.564173-08:00","sha1":"f7021c41661c86defa38ce5b68b33e943efcbcf6","page_count":29,"file_size":789967,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 29\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 29\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCivil Action No. 1:05CV01483\nVS.\n\nJudge John D. Bates\n\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n\nASSOCIATION, et al.\nDECLARATION OF GRACE\n\nDefendants. HUEBSCHER\n\nI, Grace Huebscher, hereby declare as follows:\n\n1. I have been employed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie\nMae\u201d) since 1996. I currently hold the position of Vice President for Capital Markets.\n\n2. Attached hereto at Tab 1 are true and correct copies of excerpts from the\ntranscript of my deposition testimony in the lawsuit entitled CAM Financial Services, Inc. v.\nGeneral Star Nat\u2019! Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 01-314 (S.D. Miss.) (\u201cCAM Financial\nlawsuit\u201d). That testimony is true and accurate.\n\n3. Although I met with Ms. Williams concerning the May 2001 Proposal, I did not\npromise Ms. Williams any business at that or any other time.\n\n4. I did not have any business interactions with Ms. Williams after December 20,\n2001, when CAM Financial Services, Inc. (\u201cCAM Financial\u201d) amended the complaint in the\nCAM Financial lawsuit to add Fannie Mae as a party.\n\n5. I did not have any business interactions with any officer, director or other\nrepresentative from CAM Financial after December 20, 2001.\n\n6. I never made false and defamatory comments regarding Ms. Williams to any\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 29\n\nofficer, director or other representative from CAM Financial.\n\n7. I never discouraged CAM Financial from doing business with Ms. Williams.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 18th of\n\nEBSCHER\n\nJune 2007 at Washington, DC.\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 29\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 29\n\non IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\n3 SOUTHERN DIVISION\n4 wn eee ee ee ene x\n\n5 CAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., :\n\n6 Plaintiff, : Case No.1:01cv314BrR\n7 \u00a5.\n\n8 GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE :\n\n9 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY : \u00b0\n10 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR MANAGEMENT:\n11 COMPANY, GENERAL RE CORPORATION;:\n12 GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION;:\n13 CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF\n\n14 MEMPHIS, INC.; CRAIG OTT,\n\n15 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS\n\n16 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS VICE:\n\n17 PRESIDENT OF GENERAL STAR\n\n18 MANAGEMENT COMPANY\n\n19 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n\n20 ASSOCIATION\n\n21 (FANNIE MAE),\n\n22 Defendants.\n\nQB -n ee en ee rere Xx\n\n24 Washington, D.C.\n\n25 Tuesday, March 25, 2003\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 1\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002343\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 29\n\n00002\n1 Videotaped deposition of GRACE ANN\n\n2 HUEBSCHER, a witness herein, called for examination\n3 by counsel for Plaintiff in the above-entitled\n\n4 matter, pursuant to notice, the witness being duly\n\n5 sworn by MARY GRACE CASTLEBERRY, a Notary Public in\n6 and for the District of Columbia, taken at the Four\n\n7 Seasons Hotel, 2800 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,\n\n8 Washington, D.C., at 9:53 a.m., Tuesday, March 25,\n\n9 2003, and the proceedings being taken down by\n\n10 Stenotype by MARY GRACE CASTLEBERRY, RPR, and\n11 transcribed under her direction.\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002344\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 29\n\n00013\n1 National Cooperative Bank. And from 1989 to 1994, I\n\n2, believe, I was with National Cooperative Bank running\n3 their mortgage company in Washington, D.C. And from\n4 1994 to 1996, I was with Hamilton Securities and from\n5 1996 until now, I was with Fannie Mae.\n\n6 Q. And I want to come back to a couple of\n\n7 those. The only professional degrees, then, you have\n\n8 are your B.A. in economics and Spanish Literature?\n\n9 A. Yes.\n\n10 @Q. When you went to work for Fannie Mae in\n\n11 1996, what position did you originally come on board\n12 as?\n\n13. A. Iwas the director of aggregation.\n\n14. Q. What does the director of aggregation do?\n\n15 A. Iwas hired to start Fannie Mae's\n\n16 multifamily conduit which was a means by which we\n17 allowed our lenders, which normally risk share with\n18 us, to deliver loans to us on a nonrecourse basis.\n\n19 Q. AndI'msorry, did you say risk share?\n\n20 A. Yes. And, you know, pause if you have --\n\n21 Luse a lot of lingo.\n\n22 QQ. Iunderstand. And some of that I may ask\n\n23 you to define as we go along. Let me see. You said\n24 you were hired to start Fannie Mae\u2019s multifamily\n\n25 conduit which is a means by which we allowed our\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 13\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002355\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 \u00a9 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 29\n\n00014\n1 lenders, which we normally share risk with us, to\n\n2 deliver loans on a nonrecourse basis.\n\n3 Can you give me that in layman's terms?\n\n4 A. Sure. Fannie Mae multifamily, as its\n\n\u00a7 business model, primarily chooses to purchase loans\n6 from lenders and would like those lenders to share in\n7 the risk of that sale. Our prominent program is the\n\n8 DUS program which stands for delegated underwriting\n9 and servicing.\n\n10 That's -- the majority of the volume or\n\n11 purchases of mortgages through multifamily come\n12 through that channel. And we buy loans from the DUS\n13 lenders one by one, and the lenders, when they sell\n14 them to us, they agree to share in the losses if any\n\n15 losses occur on a loan-by-loan basis.\n\n16 Q. Andso when you say one by one, that\u2019s on\n17 aloan-by-loan basis --\n\n18 A. Right.\n\n19 Q. --as opposed to a lender-by-lender basis.\n\n20 A. Yes, with that specific lender. All the\n\n21 DUS lenders share risk according to a prescribed\n\n22 formula on a loan level basis and they take 5 percent\n23 of the first loss of any loan, if in fact it goes\n\n24 into default, then they share thereafter. That's the\n\n25 primary majority of our business and has always been.\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 14\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002356\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 29\n\n00015\n1 We also buy pools from lenders from mostly\n\n2 depositories and insurance companies and there too\n\n3 typically we require that they share risk in those\n\n4 portfolios.\n\n5 What had happened in mid-1980s is that\n\n6 many of our DUS lenders were going to Wall Street and\n7 selling their loans without any risk sharing. And\n\n8 typically they do this because either they've had too\n\n9 much concentration to one borrower, maybe a\n\n10 geographic concentration, or they just choose not to\n\n11 take a risk in a particular market so that they were\n\n12 selling those loans to the Wall Street firms.\n\n13 The Wall Street firms, without any risk\n\n14 sharing. The Wall Street firms would then turn\n\n15 around and create securities, typically REMICs, which\n16 are real estate mortgage investment conduits. And\n\n17 those pools and REMICs were basically rated by rating\n18 agencies and chopped up into AAA, AA, all the way\n19 down to unrated securities and sold to third parties.\n\n20 What was happening was many of the Wall\n\n21 Street firms were coming to Fannie Mae and saying to\n22 Fannie Mae, would you please wrap the risk for AAA\n23 down to BBB, which is the risk profile we typically\n24 like to take. And what Fannie Mae discovered is why\n\n25 not provide this service directly to our lenders\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 15\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002357\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 29\n\n00016\n1 rather than having them go through a Wall Street firm\n\n2 who is going to take a slice and, you know, basically\n3 improve the economics.\n\n4 QQ. And let Fannie Mae keep that slice that\n\n5 was going to the Wall Street firm?\n\n6 A. Orsharing it with the lenders, just\n\n7 improving the economics, or even passing that on to a\n8 savings to the borrowers ultimately who are\n\n9 multifamily owners of properties who are taking out\n10 these mortgages. So that was our job and we started\n11 out doing exactly what the Wall Street firms were\n\n12 doing, which is taking a position in the loans,\n\n13 buying the loans, waiting until we had enough to\n\n14 aggregate into a REMIC, going to a rating agency,\n15 having them all rated, Fannie Mae would wrap through\n16 BBB and either buy those securities ourselves or sell\n17 them to a third party and we would also sell the B\n\n18 pieces.\n\n19 We really only did it to provide an extra\n\n20 service to our DUS lenders really as more of a - as\n21 trying to be good, you know, just to provide\n\n22 basically another outlet for them in case they needed\n23 it. It's not something that they would primarily\n\n24 choose to do, nor would we primarily choose to do,\n\n25 but it was an added service on top of our flagship\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 16\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002358\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 29\n\n00017\n1 product of DUS.\n\n2 Q. When you say that it is just an added\n\n3 service and is not something that you would choose to\n4 do -- and I want to make sure that I'm understanding\n\n5 this. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth,\n6 Do not hesitate to correct me if I\n\n7 characterize your testimony in any way that is not\n\n8 correct. When you say it's not something that Fannie\n9 Mae would choose to do, was this a source of\n\n10 significant revenue for Fannie Mae to perform these\n\n11 securitizations?\n\n12 MR. WIMBERLY: Objection, form.\n13 THE WITNESS: No, it wasn't.\n14 BY MR. WISER:\n\n15 QQ. What sort of volume are you talking about\n16 in terms of performing these securitizations on an\n\n17 annual basis once the program gets started?\n\n18 MR. WIMBERLY: Objection, form.\n19 THE WITNESS: You mean how many mortgages?\n20 BY MR. WISER:\n\n21 Q. How many mortgages and the unpaid\n22 principal balance.\n\n23 +A. It varied, but in terms of a percentage of\n24 our volume, it was, you know, minuscule.\n\n25 Q. And Ican appreciate that because of\n\nMarch 25, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 17\n\n_ CONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002359\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 29\n\n00018\n1 understanding what Fannie Mae's principal line is\n\n2 but, at the same time, can you give me something that\n3 is not expressed in terms of its relationship to the\n\n4 principal business but rather a dollar figure? What\n\n5 was the typical unpaid principal balance of loans\n\n6 that were securitized in 1998, approximately?\n\n7 MR. WIMBERLY: Objection to form.\n\n8 THE WITNESS: It could be -- I don't\n\n9 remember the exact amounts but 70 million to maybe\n10 150 million compared to total volume in that given\n11 year of maybe 8 to 10 billion.\n\n12 BY MR. WISER:\n\n13. Q. That would have gone through the DUS\n\n14 program?\n\n15 What's this about?\n6 A Thisis Marialice approached Rhoda and\n7 said that she's had some conversations with some\n8 of the DUS community about reinsuring their DUS\n9 risk, and that's basically, I think, the nature of\n10 it.\n11 Q. And what was the response to Fannie Mae\n12 upon receipt of this information from .\n13 Ms. Williams?\n14 MR. WIMBERLY: Objection. Form.\n15. THE WITNESS: Did you say what was the\n16 response by Fannie Mae?\n17 BY MR. WISER:\n18 Q_ Yes.\n19 A As you can see from my e-mail reply,\n20 I'm asking Richard for advice. At this point in\n21 time, I'm not really that involved with DUS. In\n22 fact, I was just beginning to be more involved --\n23 well, no -- it's 2002 -- yes.\n24 So I wasn't really that involved with DUS.\n\u201825 Sol'm asking him is this something that we want\n\nMarch 26, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 462\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002804\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 20 of 29\n\n00463\n_1 topursue. And actually, I was surprised that\n\n2 Richard wanted to pursue it in light of what I had\n3 just said in my previous testimony, which is we\n4 like the DUS lenders to have risk, to have at\n. 5 risk, and wouldn't necessarily want them to rely\n\n6 on third party to reinsurance. .\n\n7 But as you see, what Richard has said back\n8 here, we also were in the process of receiving and\n9 finalizing what were going to be Fannie Mae's\n10 risk-based capital guidelines for OFHEO,\n11 O-F-H-E-O. And that's Fannie Mae's regulator.\n12 And so I think he was trying to keep all of\n13 his options open, and I think -- and then you see\n14 my reply there.\n15 Q_ Isee that, in forwarding this message\n16 on to Richard Lawch, you comment that, \"My gut is\n17 no.\"\n18 A Yes. My gut is no based on what I just\n19 said; I was really surprised that we would\n20 consider that from a business perspective. That .\n21 wasn't really consistent with what I understood\n22 our business model to be.\n\n23 Q So the fact that you said, \"Do we want\n24 to pursue with her\" was not really a reference to\n\n25 Marialice Williams but, rather, was directed as to\n\nMarch 26, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 463\u00b0\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002805\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JUDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 21 of 29\n\n00464\n1 the subject matter itself; is that correct?\n2 A Pretty much.\n3 Q_ What was Richard's response?\n4 A just explained that.\n5 Q_ Would you give that to me again.\n6 A Sure. \"If OFHEO comes back with bad\n\n7 RBC rules, we may be interested. Are these\n8 different players than Craig is showing us?\"\n9 Q_ And RBC rules. would be the risk-based\n10 capital?\n11 A Yes.\n12 Q What is it about bad RBC rules that\n13 might have interested?\n14 A AsI mentioned in my testimony just\n15 previous to this is that we were in the midst of\n16 receiving revised guidelines from our regulator .\n17 OFHEO, and we weren't certain how they were going -\n18 to view the DUS entities.\n19 Many of our DUS entities are unrated\n20 entities; they don't have official long-term debt\n21 rating. So we were uncertain of what kind of\n22 treatment they would have. So what I think\n\n- 93 Richard must have been jumping to as a possibility\n24 is if, in fact, there's un-- like you know, say\n\n25 they penalize us for more capital, would we be\n\nMarch 26, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher _ Page 464\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002806\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 22 of 29\n\n00465\n1 better off, through some kind of reinsurance of\n\n2 their risk, getting a higher rated counterparty so\n3 we'd have to post less capital against that\n4 business.\n\u20185. Q > Why do you respond that, \"If we want to\n_ \u00a9 engage Craig on the project, it might be a better\n7 choice\"?\n8 MR. WIMBERLY: Objection.\n9 Mischaracterization. Misleading.\n10 THE WITNESS: This is, again, a very --\n11 there's thousands of things happening in our\n12 business. This is probably one of those things\n13 that's a real quick e-mail exchange between\n14 Richard and I and is so tangential to the business\n15 athand. .\n16 But probably what I'm saying - keep in mind\n17 this is May, 2001. You know, we had successful\n18 Gen Star transactions with Craig. Craig has now\n19 brought us, you know, Great American. We've had\n20 success with him.\n21 So is he potentially more proven to help out\n22 in this area? We did not pursue it, by the way.\n23 And we did not pursue it with Marialice.\n24 BY MR. WISER:\n25 Q. Why if the DUS lender had approached\n\nMarch 26, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher . Page 465\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002807\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 23 of 29\n\n00466\n\"1, Marialice, would you consider going to someone\n\n2 else besides Marialice Williams?\n3. A I think at the end of the day we\n4 actually had some DUS lenders approach us and\n_ 5 said, \u201cAre you okay with us talking to Marialice?\"\n6 And we said, \"Sure.\"\n7 Q_ Who were those DUS lenders?\n8 A I think Lend Lease was one of those.\n9 Q Okay. Any others?\n10 A I don't remember the other names. So\n11 we didn't prohibit it from happening. .\n12 Q. There is a reference here, in the very\n13 top, in your last response there, \"Maybe you and I\n14 can discuss or put on agenda for our team's weekly\n15 strategy meeting\"?\n16 A Uh-huh.\n17 Q_ What is the team\u2019s weekly strategy\n18 meeting?\n19 A. It was Richard's direct reports at the\n20 time, those individuals that were reportedly\n21 directly to Richard Lawch.\n22 Q Was that a formal meeting that,\n\u2019 23 theoretically, took place each week?\n24 A Theoretically took place each week.\n25 Q Did it, in fact, take place each week?\n\nMarch 26, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 466\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002808\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 24 of 29\n\n00502\n1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n2 SOUTHERN DIVISION\nmame eee er nn\n30 4\nCAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,\n4 :\nPlaintiff, :\n5 : Case No.\nVv. ~ | :01icv314BrR\n6\n\nGENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE :\n\n7 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY : |\nCOMPANY; GENERAL STAR MANAGEMENT :\n\n8 COMPANY, GENERAL RE CORPORATION; :\n\n_ CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF _ :\n\n9 MEMPHIS, INC.; CRAIG OTT, :\nINDIVIDUALLY ANDINHIS ~~:\n\n10 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS VICE :\nPRESIDENT OF GENERAL STAR :\n\n11 MANAGEMENT COMPANY; FEDERAL\n\n12 NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION\n13 (FANNIE MAE),\n\n14\n15 Defendants.\n\n16\n\n17 -------------r--- x\n\n18 \u201cWashington, D.C. .\n19 \u2018Thursday, March 27, 2003\n\n20 The continued deposition of GRACE HUEBSCHER,\n21 called for examination by counsel for Plaintiff in -\n. 22 the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, at\n23 the Four Seasons Hotel, 2800 Pennsylvania Avenue,\n24 N.W., Washington, D.C., Room 478, convened at 9:26\n25 a.m., before Sandy Medford Nelson, a notary public\n\nMarch 27, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 502\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002843\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 25 of 29\n\n00503\n\nuo Oo TS DH WH & WH WN\n\nmw wR N KR wD em\nwm \u20ac Ov &\u00a3 5 Ce Daakrzeaose2as\n\nMarch 27, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 503\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002844\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3\n\n00504\n1 APPEARANCES:\nOn behalf of the Plaintiff:\n\n2 NICHOLAS VAN WISER, ESQ.\nByrd & Wiser |\n\n30 Metro Plaza One\n8401 Colesville Road, Suite 501 -\n\n4 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910\n\n(301) 495-3131\n\n5 On behalf of the Defendant Fannie Mae:\n\nGERALD E. WIMBERLY, JR., ESQ.\n\n6 WILLIAM H. LEACH, ESQ.\nMcGlinchey Stafford, PLLC\n\n7 643 Magazine Street\nNew Orleans, Louisiana 70130\n\n8 (504) 586-1200 .\n\n9 JONATHAN L. GRIFFITH, ESQ.\n\n10 Associate General Counsel\n\n11 Fannie Mae\n\n12 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.\n\n13 Washington, D.C. 20016-2892\n\n14 (504) 586-1200 .\n\n15 On behalf of the General Star Defendants:\n\n16 WILSON CARROLL, ESQ. .\n\n17 Phelps Dunbar, LLP.\n\n18 SkyTel Centre, Suite 500\n\n19 200 South Lamar Street\n\n20 Post Office Box 23066\n\n21 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-3066\n\n22. (504) 586-1200 .\n\n23 ALSO PRESENT:\n\n24 JONATHON PERRY, Videographer\n\n25 BOB JONES\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\nMarch 27, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher\n\nPage 26 of 29\n\nPage 504\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002845\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 27 of 29\n\n00505 a\n1 CONTENTS\n\n2 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR\n\n3 WITNESS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS\n\n4 GRACEHUEBSCHER 506,577.57\n\n5 EXHIBITS\n\n6 HUEBSCHER DEPOSITION EXHIBITS MARKED\n\"7 No. 423 - Spreadsheet 519\n\n8 No.424-Email 541\n\n9 No. 425 - Document 550\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMarch 27, 2003 CAM of FM - Huebscher Page 505\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002846\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-3 Filed 06/21/2007\n\n1 (Deposition Exhibit No. 423\n2 marked for identification.)\n3 MR. WISER: Did y'all get one?\n4 BY MR. WISER:\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8 Q I don't know yet. We may not be.\n\n9 A Okay. \u2014\n\n10 Q Can you tell me--I'm sorry. Have you had\n11 achance to look at it? _\n\n12 A Well, I generally know what this is.\n\n13. .Q Okay. Can you tell me generally what this\n14 is?\n\n15 A As I mentioned previously when--Fannie Mae\n16 has a lot of different tools by which it can manage\n17 first loss risk, and not only portfolios. It buys\n\n18 from lenders and flow, but aggregation as well.\n\n19 So, what this is is a comparison of the cost of\n\n20 various executions against us because one of the\n21 things that, you know, DUS, is\u2014-because of the fact\n22 that you have seller risk sharing and that skin in\n\n' 23 the game, as I discussed before-- -\n\n24 Q Yes.\n\n25 \n\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION .\n(FANNIE MAE) DEFENDANTS\n\nJURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\nCOMES NOW, CAM Financial Services Inc., Plaintiff herein, by and through the\nundersigned counsel of record, and would respectfully show unto the Court, its claims for relief\nagainst General Star National Insurance Company; General Star Indemnity Company; General\nStar Management Company; General Re Corporation; General Reinsurance Corporation; Crump\nInsurance Services of Memphis Inc.; Craig Ott, Individually and in his Representative Capacity\nas Vice President of General Star Management Company and the Federal National Mortgage\nAssociation (Fannie Mae), Defendants, herein, and in support thereof would show unto the Court\n\nthe following to-wit:\n\nPage 1 of 36\nMW00158\nFNMA.MBW.008436\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 37\n\nPARTIES\n1. CAM F inancial Services, Inc., (hereinafter \u201cCAM\u201d) is a corporation organized and\nexisting under the laws of the State of Mississippi, having its principal place of business located\nat 1542 East Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, Mississippi.\n2. General Star National Insurance Company (hereinafter \u201cGenStar\u201d) is a stock insurance\ncompany, wholly owned and operating as a subsidiary of General Re Corporation, organized and\nexisting under the State of Connecticut; and having its principal place of business at Financial\nCentre; P.O. Box 10354, Stamford, CT 06904.\n3. General Star Indemnity Company, is a wholly- owned subsidiary of General Re\nCorporation, Corporation, organized and existing under laws of the State of Connecticut; and\nhaving its principal place of business at Financial Centre; P.O. Box 10354, Stamford, CT 06904.\n4. General Star Management Company is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of\nGeneral Re Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut; and\nhaving its principal place of business at Financial Centre; P. O. Box 10354, Stamford, CT 06904.\n5. General Reinsurance Corporation is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of General\nRe Corporation, and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut having\nits principal place of business at Financial Centre; P.O. Box 10354, Stamford, CT 06904.\nDefendants in Paragraphs 2 through 5, being wholly-owned subsidiaries of General Re\nCorporation are collectively referred to as \u201c\u201cGenStar.\u201d .\n6. General Re Corporation ( \u201cGenRe\u201d) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire-\n\nHathaway, Inc., organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut; and having its\n\nP 2 of 36\n\u201ceee MWwo00159\n\nFNMA.MBW.008437\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 37\n\nprincipal place of business at Financial Centre; P.O. Box 10354, Stamford, CT 06904. Crump\nInsurance Services of Memphis, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of\nthe State of Tennessee, and having its principal place of business at 1000 Ridgeway Loop Road.\nMemphis, Tennessee.\n\n7. Craig Ott (hereinafter \u201cOtt\u201d) is a resident of the State of New Jersey, residing at 263\nHobart Avenue Short Hills, N.J. 07078-2206. Ott has committed breaches of contract and\ntortious acts in whole or in part in the State of Mississippi, thereby establishing such mimimum\ncontacts in the State of Mississippi so as to reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this\nState.\n\n8. The Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a (and hereinafter) \u201cFannie Mae\u201d is a\nfederally chartered corporation, created by the United States pursuant to 12 U.S.C. \u00a71717, having\nits principal place of business in the District of Columbia, but who has entered into contracts to\nbe performed in whole or in part in the State of Mississippi, and has committed tortious acts in\nwhole or in part in the State of Mississippi, so as to reasonably anticipate being haled into court\nin this State. Fannie Mae has the power to sue and be sued in the courts of the United States\n\n\" pursuant to 12 U.S.C. \u00a71723a(a).\n\nJURISDICTION\n\n9. Your Plaintiff would show that this Court has jurisdiction of the matter pursuant to 28\nU.S.C. \u00a71332 in that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the\namount in genuine controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. Venue is proper in the Southern\n\nDistrict of Mississippi as the contracts were entered into in whole or in part within the Southern\n\nPage 3 of 36\nMw00160 |\nMA.MBW.008438\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5of 37\n\nDistrict of Mississippi and the torts alleged herein were likewise committed in whole or in part in\n\nthe Southern District of Mississippi.\n\nFACTS\n10. \u2018From 1992-1995 CAM specialized in the origination of multifamily Joans brokered to\nFannie Mae DUS Lenders (approved Delegated Underwriting Servicers for Fannie Mae). In\n1995 CAM began a special project to develop a multifamily loan credit enhancement to be\nunderwritten and issued by \u201cSingle A\u201d or higher rated insurance companies. In April or May of\n1995, CAM was approached by one of the Fannie Mae DUS Lenders (Eichler Fayne) to take its\nmultifamily loan credit enhancement proposal to Fannie Mae Capital Markets in Washington,\nD.C.\n11. CAM's initial proposal to Fannie Mae involving the use of a policy issued and\nunderwritten by a \u201cSingle A\u201d rated insurer was not acceptable as presented. Nevertheless,\nFannie Mae was intrigued by this new and unique concept and encouraged CAM to seek higher\nquality potential imsurers having AAA ratings.\n12. Accordingly, CAM Financial met with American International Group (AIG) at Fannie\n. Mae in the fall of 1995. AIG showed some preliminary interest in CAM's concept for coverage\n. for Fannie Mae.\n13. The first product development meeting between CAM, Fannie Mae and AJG took place\non February 1, 1996, at Fannie Mae in Washington. DC. This meeting concluded with a verbal\nagreement between Fannie Mae and CAM that CAM was to begin work on the development of a\n\ndraft insurance policy for AIG's review. Fannie Mae and CAM started with CAM's specimen\n\nPage 4 of 36\n\nMW00161 FNMA.MBW.008439\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6of 37\n\npolicy, modifying it to incorporate secondary market securitization documentation, risk-based\ncapital transfer, and collateral credit support for approval by Fannie Mae Credit Policy. CAM\nwould be the keeper of each policy draft update.\n\n14. After over twenty-five draft policy updates and revisions over a period of at least the\nnext ten months, Fannie Mae lawyers were reasonably satisfied with the policy form and\ncontent. Fannie Mae approved the proposed policy in January of 1997 and CAM sent the\nfinalized draft to AIG for review.\n\n15. From January through July 1997 CAM and Fannie Mae worked through more than ten\nadditional drafts of policies with AIG to ensure the policy would not be consirued by New York\ninsurance regulators as a \u201cfinancial guarantee\u201d and to eliminate other technical concerns,\nincluding Fannie Mae\u2019s Credit Support Agreement. Finally, AIG's chairman of the board gave\nhis approval for American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) to write\nthis unique type of insurance for Fannie Mae. A premium pricing grid was finalized and\nacceptable to AIG and Fannie Mae. AIG built a credit model to capture Fannie Mae historic\nmultifamily loan performance and CAM began working on underwriting criteria and due\ndiligence procedures separate from Fannie Mae for future loan portfolios to be covered by this\nnew and unique type of insurance product.\n\n16. CAM executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Fannie Mae on April 4,\n1997 to provide Multifamily Credit Risk Insurance ( MCRI) coverage specifically for Fannie\nMae. The purpose of this insurance coverage would be to provide loss coverage protection for\nthe subordinate level of risk on certain multifamily loans sold to or securitized by Fannie Mae.\n\nFannie Mae would be the insured and AlG would be the insurer. Fannie Mae would have the\n\nPage 5 of 36 MW00162\n\nF NMA.MBW.008440\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 37\n\nexclusive rights to use this coverage and CAM would be AJG's broker with the exclusive\nbrokerage rights to represent Fannie Mae. CAM and Fannie Mae would jointly retain all\ncopyrights to MCRI products written by AIG. (This ownership was in addition to the broad\nownership rights as to the MCRI itself pursuant to the filed copyrights). The term of this\nagreement would be seven years from date of execution, with Fannie Mae having the right to\nextend the MOU for two successive five year terms at the end of the initial seven year term. (See\nExhibit # 1 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal).\n\n17. In May 1997, Fannie Mae filed a joint copyright registration for Fannie Mae and CAM\nFinancial as the joint copyright owners for the generic version of the Multifamily Credit Risk\nInsurance Policy (MCRI) with the United States Copyright Office. (See Exhibit #2 retained by\nPlaintiff's counsel under seal).\n\n18. From May through July 1997, CAM developed insurance brokerage due diligence\nunderwriting and operating procedures to be used for transacting a pilot transaction with Fannie\nMae and AIG. During this time, Fannie Mae selected a pilot proposed transaction with\nMetropolitan Bank and Trust for delivery of a seasoned multifamily whole loan portfolio swap\nwith Fannie Mae in exchange for a Fannie Mae MBS using MCRI insurance coverage for\nsubordinated first loss security. Fannie Mae worked with the Office of Thrift Supervision for\nassurance the AAA insurance policy would be acceptable credit support for Thrift Institution\nrisk-based capital transfer.\n\n19. Fannie Mae Credit Policy approved the Metropolitan Bank & Trust transaction the first\n\n_ week of Aug 1997, with MCRI insurance as acceptable collateral for first loss recourse. This\n\nPage 6 of 36\nMW00163 . FNMA.MBW.008441\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 37\n\ntransaction closed on August 20, 1997 for approximately $92,000,000, with insurance coverage\nof $8,134,000 issued by AIG.\n20. This was the first time this type of insurance was used in a secondary market, Fannie\nMae securitized transaction as referenced in a Fannie Mae letter dated September 16, 1997. (See\nExhibit #3 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal).\n21. Several months after the closing of the Metropolitan Bank & Trust transaction, AIG\nasked CAM and Fannie Mae to change the name on future policies from Multifamily Credit Risk\nInsurance to Multifamily Collateral Risk Insurance. There would be no need to change the MCRI\nacronym. A second joint copyright recording was made by Fannie Mae in February 1998 to\nrecord a generic policy that included final changes used in the Metropolitan Bank transaction.\n22. A second transaction was closed with AIG issuing MCRI coverage through CAM for\nFannie Mae Multifamily Aggregation (seasoned conduit whole loans sold to Fannie Mae for\ncash) totaling approximately $100,000,000 on September 30, 1998 with coverage by AIG of\n$11,159,786. During the course of underwriting this transaction, disputes arose between Fannie\nMae and AIG. Fannie Mae and AIG soon became at odds with each other with no new coverage\nproposals submitted by Fannie Mae to CAM for price quotes by AIG following this second\ntransaction.\n23. Prior to the conflict arising between AJG and Fannie Mae, (in fact only several weeks\nafter execution of the April 4, 1997, MOU entered into between Fannie Mae and CAM), Fannie\nMae verbally asked CAM to begin efforts to identify and contact additional AAA rated insurance\n\ncompanies that might be interested in writing MCRI for Fannie Mae..\n\nMW00164 Page 7 of 36\n\nFNMA.MBW.008442\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9of 37\n\n24. On May 28, 1997, CAM executed a corporate Confidentiality Agreement with Cramp\nInsurance Services of Memphis, Inc., (\u201cCrump\u201d) to represent CAM, as its wholesale broker, for\nthe procurement of additional AAA rated insurers having an interest in writing MCRI coverage\nfor Fannie Mae. (See Exhibit #4 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal).\n\n25. On May 28, 1997, Craig Ott, Vice President of General Star Indemnity Co. Inc. and\nGeneral Star Management Company executed CAM Financial\u2019s Confidentiality Agreement for\nMCRIL. The confidentiality agreement was executed via fax transmittal prior to CAM\u2019s and\nCrump\u2019s first meeting with GenStar. (See Exhibit #5 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal).\n26. CAM's confidentiality agreement for MCRI clearly states that the signatory of the\nAgreement agrees, understands and acknowledges that all MCRI product information is\nconfidential and proprietary to CAM and Fannie Mae. Ott executed the CAM agreement with\n\"full knowledge and understanding of any unauthorized disclosure or dissemination of the form,\nterms, or provisions of the MCRI Policy, or any other information regarding MCRI is likely to\ncause irreparable harm to CAM Financial and Fannie Mae\u201d.\n\n27. Crump set up an introductory meeting with representatives of GenStar and GenRe in\nCAM's offices in Gulfport, Mississippi, in early June 1997. By letter of June 2, 1997, CAM\nauthorized Crump to release to GenStar and GenRe a copy of CAM's Confidential Term Sheet\n/Confidentiality of Multifamily Credit Risk Insurance dated May 31. 1997. (See Exhibit #6\nretained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal). At this meeting, GenStar, through Craig Ott and\nMike Denton, represented that they were communicating with and representing GenRe and all\nnecessary subsidiaries. They stated that Gen Re would be reinsuring any policies issued by\n\nGenStar or GenStar Management, and that Gen Re\u2019s financial wherewithal would provide the\n\nPage 8 of 36 .\nMW00165 FNMA.MBW.008443\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 37\n\nnecessary \u201cTriple A\u201d rating required by Fannie Mae. They represented that GenRe, as the parent\nwould be required to approve all aspects of any business plan or agreements that were ultimately\nentered into between CAM, Crump, Fannie Mae and any GenRe subsidiary.\n28. CAM and Crump next set up an introductory meeting with representatives of GenStar,\nGen Re, and NEAM at Fannie Mae in Washington. D.C. This meeting was held on August 1,\n1997. This introductory meeting was the first meeting at which were present representatives\nfrom all parties involved. The meeting was very productive and Fannie Mae agreed to furnish\nadditional data and pricing model information to NEAM (another GenRe wholly-owned\nsubsidiary that was to undertake the due diligence/underwriting tasks related to the approval of\naggregation pools), GenRe and GenStar. CAM agreed to furnish its Premium Pricing Grid and\nInsurance Due Diligence Underwriting Guidelines and Operating Procedures for Fannie Mae\nMCRI business to GenStar and to GenRe, as GenRe had represented through Craig Ott and John\nToi that the information was necessary for GenRe\u2019s underwriting analysis. This information\nwas and is proprietary to CAM and was developed by CAM and was furnished as a part of the\ninformation to be protected by the Confidentiality Agreement executed by GenStar.\n29. A second meeting with Fannie Mae occurred on October 31, 1997 at Fannie Mae.\nGenStar's Craig Ott and GenRe's John Toi gave Fannie Mae, CAM and Crump an update on\ntheir progress toward obtaining GenRe\u2019s approval for GenStar to write MCRI coverage for\nFannie Mae. At this meeting and all subsequent meetings that GenRe was \u201c\u2018calling the shots\u201d\nand was making all of the decisions on behalf of any GenRe subsidiaries involved, as.to\n\nGenStar\u2019s role in MCRI and that GenRe would reinsure the risk so as to meed the Fannie Mae\n\nPage 9 of 36\nMW00166\n\nFNMA.MBW.008447\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 37\n\nrequirement for a \u201cTriple-A\u201d rated carrier to issue and stand behind the policy. At that meeting,\nFannie Mae, CAM and Crump entered into a seven year exclusive offering by GenStar styled as:\n\nProvision of Multifamily Credit Risk Insurance (MCRI) by\n\nGeneral Star Indemnity Company (collectively, \"GenStar\"), as\n\nbrokered by Crump Insurance Services (\"Crump\"), and CAM\n\nFinancial Services, Inc. (\"CAM\"):\n\nConfirmation of Exclusive Offering to Fannie Mae; Non-\n\nDisclosure of Terms of Negotiations\n(See Exhibit #7 retained by Plaintiffs counsel under seal).\n30. A third meeting, on December 17, 1997, was held at Fannie Mae (with representatives\nof both GenStar and GenRe in attendance) to announce that GenStar now had corporate\napproval of Gen Re and with the blessing and approval of GenRe had made the decision to\nsupport MCRI exclusively for Crump on behalf of Fannie Mae. GenRe, or a subsidiary\ncompany representative, accompanied GenStar to all meetings with CAM and Fannie Mae, and it\n\nwas represented that GenStar was the company that would issue the policy, but that GenRe was\n\nmaking all decisions regarding the product, and was re-insuring the product. GenStar and GenRe\nrepresentatives worked directly with CAM (through Crump). At this meeting, GenStar/GenRe\ncommitted to provide Two Billion Dollars ($2,000,000,000) per year of insurance coverage for\nMCRI and Fannie Mae. GenStar followed the Fannie Mae meeting with a letter to Crump\nannouncing the GenStar commitment to offer MCRI coverage for terms up to 30 years on behalf\nof Fannie Mae. On December 22, 1997, Crump sent CAM a copy of the GenStar commitment\nto write MCRI coverage exclusively through Crump and Crump agreed to exclusively write\n\nMCRI through CAM. (See Exhibits #8 & #9, respectively, retained by Plaintiff's counsel under\n\nseal).\n\nPage 10 of 36\n\nMWO0\n0167 FNMA.MBW.008446\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 37\n\n31. The GenStar letter of December 16, 1997 indicated there were two key points or issues\nremaining to resolve, and expressed GenStar\u2019s anticipation of being able to write Fannie Mae\nbusiness beginning in January 1998. Unfortunately, these two issues became rather significant\nhurdles to overcome. It was approximately twelve more months in resolving these two hurdles,\nbefore GenStar was able to write the first MCRI policy for Fannie Mae. Under CAM\u2019s MCRI\nbusiness plan that was ultimately approved by GenRe, CAM was the agent for Fannie Mae and\nthe broker for GenStar. Premiums for MCRI were to be remitted from Fannie Mae to CAM in\nGulfport, Mississippi. CAM then deducted its commissions from the gross premium and\nremitted the net premium to Crump as the wholesale broker for GenStar, pursuant to the\nbrokerage agreement between CAM and Crump, and the letter agreement from Crump agreeing\nto place such insurance exclusively through CAM. Crump was to deduct its brokerage fees from\nthe net premium, and remit the \u201cnet-net\u201d premium to GenStar. GenStar was to have entered into\nreinsurance agreements with GenRe. Thus CAM, the agent for the policy, received and remitted\nthe premium payments from the insured. For the contract of insurance. During this time,\nGenStar and GenRe represented to CAM that as GenRe was providing this reinsurance, (to\nassure the \u201cTriple-A\u201d rating), that Ronald Ferguson (GenRe\u2019s CEO), Joe Brandon (GenRe\u2019s\nCFO) and James Gustafson (GenRe\u2019s president) must and had approved all aspects of the MCRI\nbusiness plan.\n\n32. In the spring of 1998, at a meeting between Crump, CAM, GenRe, GenStar and Fannie\nMae, this commitment for $2,000,000,000 per year in coverage was confirmed by GenStar, with\n\nthe approval of GenRe.\n\nMW00168 Page 11 of 36\n\nFNMA.MBW.008445\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 13 of 37\n\n33. Ott and GenStar entered into a Confidentiality Agreement with Boston Portfolio\nAdvisors on January 14, 1998. On June 2, 1998, Ott notified Fannie Mae of this agreement and\nasked that the same terms of the Fannie Mae-CAM-Crump-GenStar Confidentiality Agreement\nfor MCRI dated October 31, 1997, be applicable to Boston Portfolio by extension. (See Exhibit\n#10 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal). Fannie Mae accepted this extension of\napplication of the Confidentiality Agreement in correspondence.\n\n34. It is CAM\u2019s understanding that a similar Confidentiality Agreement had been executed ~\nbetween Crump, GenStar and Nicholas Didier. CAM was assured that Nicholas Didier executed\nConfidentiality Agreements with Crump, prior to Crump\u2019s introduction of Nicholas Didier to\nCAM, GenStar and Fannie Mae. CAM has not been provided executed copies of any such\nConfidentiality Agreements.\n\n35. During October 1998, when the final approval for GenStar to write MCRI coverage for\nFannie Mae was imminent, CAM and Crump first became concerned that Ott and GenStar were\nmaking an attempt to establish a direct insurance relationship with Fannie Mae, thereby\ncircumventing the brokerage contracts and relationships of CAM and Crump.\n\n36. In June 1998, CAM had introduced Metropolitan Bank and Trust to GenStar and GenRe\nthrough Crump on a proposed MCRI transaction to insure a commercial and multifamily\nportfolio. (Fannie Mae had declined the transaction because of a heavy concentration of\ncommercial loans.) Over the next several months following Fannie Mae\u2019s declination, Ott, on\nbehalf of GenStar and GenRe took over direct control of the due diligence activities as well as\nall negotiation with Metropolitan. Ott deliberately kept Crump and CAM out of all discussions\n\nwith Metropolitan regarding this transaction. CAM was advised by Crump that Crump had\n\nPage 12 of 36 .\nage wee MW00169\n\nFNMA.MBW.008444\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 14 of 37\n\nnumerous conversations with GenStar and GenRe im protest over being omitted from these\ndiscussions and over Oit\u2019s circumvention of the agency/brokerage relationship. CAM would\nshow that Crump was required by the terms of 1) the Confidentiality Agreement, 2) the Letter\nAgreement to write MCRI exclusively through CAM and the Letter Agreement between GenStar\nand Crump to write MCRI exclusively through Crump(to which CAM was clearly and\nunequivocally an intended third party beneficiary), and 3) the fiduciary relationship which arose\nby operation of the brokerage agreement with CAM and the agency relationship which arose\ntherefrom, to use any lawful means necessary to force compliance with the spirit and terms of\nGenStar and GenRe\u2019s commitments. Out of fear of losing additional. business from.\nGenStar/GenRe, Crump failed and refused to take such action, and actively conspired to conceal\nthe truth of the transaction from CAM. Crump had full knowledge that Crump\u2019s failure to act,\nand conspiracy to conceal such information was damaging to CAM. CAM relied on the\nConfidentiality Agreement, the Letter Agreements, the verbal commitments and its\nagency/brokerage relationships and agreements with Crump to protect its interests in this matter.\nCrump did not do so, and as a result, GenStar/GenRe unlawfully did misappropriate CAM\u2019s\ncopyrighted policy, and the other proprietary information, included but not limited to the\nConfidential Term Sheet, Premium Pricing Grid and CAM Operating Procedures and\nUnderwriting Guidelines which were the sole property of CAM.\n\n37. Finally, on September 29, 1998, GenStar did provide Crump with a copy of the\ncoverage quote previously sent to Metropolitan. The quote referenced the offering of CAM'\u2019s .\n\nproduct and coverage for Commercial/ Multifamily Collateral Replacement Insurance. (See\n\nPage 13 of 36\nMW00170 ENMA.MBW.008453\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 15 of 37\n\nExhibit #11 retained by Plaintiffs counsel under seal). CAM was not advised of this coverage\nquote until late October of 1998.\n\n38. It was then apparent that GenStar and GenRe (who approved all MCRI transaction)\nwere finalizing the $100,000,000 transaction with $10,000,000 coverage in a direct transaction\nwith Metropolitan, in direct violation of the exclusive agency and brokerage relationships\nbetween GenStar/GenRe and Crump, and between Crump and CAM. Ott attempted to\ndownplay this fact and tried to assure Crump that there was no effort being made to cut Crump\nand CAM out of the deal, assuring Crump that Crump and CAM would be paid on the \u2014\ntransaction, however, Crump would have to remain \u201ctransparent until the deal closed\u201d and that\nCrump could deal with CAM as they pleased. CAM was subsequently advised by Crump for\nthis \u201cneed for transparency\u201d after the fact, and despite vigorous protest by CAM, no satisfactory\nexplanation has ever been offered for such a requirement, other than to verify the arguments\nmade by GenStar, GenRe and Ott to Fannie Mae that CAM \u201cwas expendable.\u201d CAM, to this\nday, has received no premium payments from Metropolitan, as would have been required by the\nMCRI business plan, nor has it received any accounting from Crump for payments made directly\nto either GenStar or Crump as called for in the Term Sheet and CAM Operating Procedures and\nUnderwriting Guidelines of the business plan that had been presented to and approved by CAM.\nCrump has intentionally concealed this information from CAM in order to protect its own\nrelationship with GenStar.\n\n39. After witnessing this conduct by GenStar (through its Vice President, Craig Ott), in the\nnon-Fannie Mae, Metropolitan Bank transaction, CAM and Crump became extremely concerned\n\nabout the potential for similar wrongful conduct by Ott in the development of a relationship\n\nPage 14 of 36\nMwo00171\nFNMA.MBW.008452\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 16 of 37\n\nbetween GenStar, himself and Fannie Mae. It is now apparent that GenStar, (through its Vice\nPresident, Ott), and Boston Portfolio Advisors were having extensive direct contact with Fannie\nMae without knowledge or participation of CAM. Crump has totally failed and refused to take\nany action to stop this action in spite of the exclusive brokerage and agency relationships\nbetween GenStar, Crump and CAM.\n\n40. CAM wrote Fannie Mae on October 30, 1998, expressing its concern that an insurer was\nattempting to establish a direct relationship with Fannie Mae on MCRI. CAM did not identify\nGenStar or GenRe by name in the letter in effort not to jeopardize the final approval status of\nGenStar, by Fannie Mae. Nevertheless it is now apparent that Ott, GenStar and GenRe were \u00a9\nattempting to and succeeding in circumventing CAM\u2019s Fannie Mae relationship just as he had\nwith Metropolitan in the previous transaction.\n\n41. Fannie Mae's Richard Lawch responded to CAM's letter by telephone call on November\n4, 1998, stating that \u201cCAM is fully protected with its MOU exclusivity agreement with Fannie -\nMae and no insurance carrier will be able to go around CAM, but Fannie Mae needs to be able to\nhave a one-on-one dialog to facilitate issues and understanding of mortgage banking terms that\ninsurance carriers don't understand.\u201d\n\n42. In spite of this verbal response from Mr. Lawch on November 4, on November 18,\n1998, Mr. Lawch also saw fit to respond in writing to CAM's letter of October 30\",\n\nreferencing several points not mentioned in his telephone call two weeks earlier, primarily to the\neffect that Fannie Mae would recognize the exclusive position of CAM as placing agent for .\n\nMCRI coverage only on potential insurers brought to Fannie Mae by CAM. There was no\n\nPage 15 of 36\nMwWw00172\n\n1\nFENMA.MBW.00845\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 17 of 37\n\nreference made to CAM\u2019s request for inclusion of GenStar in the MOU (See Exhibit #13\nretained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal).\n43. On December 4, 1998, CAM sent a letter with a proposed memorandum to Fannie Mae\nrequesting a modification to the CAM-Fannie Mae MOU to include GenStar. (See Exhibit #12\nretained by Plaintiffs counsel under seal).\n44, On December 18, 1998, Fannie Mae's Richard Lawch sent a direct letter to Ott and\nGenStar seeking the \"opportunity to share credit risk exposure on certain investments in Fannie\nMae's Portfolio\u201d without any reference or copy to CAM Financial. This action by Fannie Mae -\nwas in direct contravention and breach of the entire agreement, contract, understanding and\nrepresentations from Fannie Mae to CAM. CAM had relied upon the promises and\nrepresentations of Fannie Mae that in consideration for CAM\u2019s efforts in the development of the\nbusiness plan, underwriting procedures, due dili gence protocols and MCRI insurance policy,\nCAM would be the exclusive agent for Fannie Mae. (See Exhibit #14 retained by Plaintiff's\ncounsel under seal).\n45. GenStar continued to move forward with Fannie Mae. The first Fannie Mae transaction\ninsured by GenStar closed in February 1999, and the following policies have since been issued\nby GenStar:\n\n1* Policy. GenStar IAG 364502; Final UPB $236,000,000; Aggregate Coverage\n\n$19,900,000; Effective date of February 1, 1999.\n\n2\u2122 Policy. GenStar [AG 366673; Aggregation II Forward Commitment\n\n$200,000,000, Aggregate Coverage not to exceed $19,900,000; Effective\n\nPage 16 of 36\nMw00173\nFNMA.MBW.008450\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 18 of 37\n\ndate of October 1, 1999; Fannie Mae delivery was recently completed at\n\napproximately $191,000,000.\n\n3\" Policy. GenStar LAG 368917; MBS Swap Metropolitan Bank and Trust\n\nCompany Final UPB Approximately $145,000,000; Effective date of\n\nNovember 23, 1999.\n46. By letter of April 12, 1999, Fannie Mae indicated it now considered itself as having the\nright to go direct to insurers to cover \"its own property or interest\" without a surplus lines broker.\nThe letter stated that \u201cFannie Mae believes they can use the joint copyright without joint consent.\nand also create MCRI derivatives without joint consent.\u201d Fannie Mae refused to modify the\nMOU to include GenStar. (See Exhibit #15 retained by Plaintiff's counsel under seal). This\naction of Fannie Mae completely ignored and violated Fannie Mae\u2019s fiduciary duty to CAM as a\njoint copyright owner and as the sole owner of the intellectual property rights underlying and\nsupporting the MCRI business plan, as well as the agreement and contract between CAM and\nFannie Mae through which Fannie Mae obtained CAM\u2019s services and expertise in the\ndevelopment of the MCRI business plan. This action by Fannie Mae was the result of the\nwillful, malicious and intentional interference by Ott, GenStar, GenRe and Crump with the\nbusiness relationship which had existed between CAM and Fannie Mae.\n47. CAM would show unto this Court that GenStar, through Craig Ott, actively and\npurposely worked to poison and discredit CAM's relationship with Fannie Mae, and that Ott\nhad advised Fannie Mae that it didn't need a surplus lines broker and that Fannie Mae could go\n\ndirect to GenStar, thereby circumventing the brokerage and agency fees of both CAM and\n\nPage 17 of 36\n\nMwW00174 ENMA.MBW.008449\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 19 of 37\n\nCrump.\n\n48. Although the above business transactions have been written with MCRI insurance\nissued by GenStar with CAM as Fannie Mae agent and broker to Gen Star, CAM would show\nthis Court that Ott, as an employee and corporate executive of GenStar, has acted in bad faith\nand has willfully, maliciously and intentionally breached CAM's Confidentiality Agreement for\nMCRI, thereby causing significant damages over the past 24 months by discrediting and\ndestroying CAM\u2019s MCRI insurance brokerage relationship with Fannie Mae. CAM would\nfurther show unto this Court that shortly before his departure from GenStar, It is understood\nthat Ott formed, or was in the process of forming a business partnership with Nicholas. Didier (a\nremsurance broker for GenStar) and Scott Calahan, President of Boston Portfolio Advisors.\n(Boston Portfolio Advisors had been GenStar's due diligence contractor on Fannie Mae\nbusiness).\n\n49. CAM would show that Ott represented to Fannie Mae the fact that Nicholas Didier\nperformed work for GenStar by providing reinsurers to increase GenStar\u2019s capacity for Fannie\nMae business. In point of fact, it is noteworthy that several of these reinsurance companies\nrepresented as having been brought to GenStar by Didier had in actuality been introduced to Ott\nby CAM and Crump.\n\n50. CAM would show that Crump has totally failed to require the compliance with the\nConfidentiality Agreement it executed with CAM and failed to protect CAM when acting as\nbroker for CAM with GenStar. Crump concealed the Metropolitan Bank transaction from.CAM\nand has refused to account to CAM for premiums received therefrom in violation of the\n\nexclusivity agreement, brokerage agreements, fiduciary relationship and oral promises from and\n\nPage 18 of 36\nMW00175\n\nFNMA.MBW.008448\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 20 of 37\n\nbetween Crump and CAM. Crump\u2019s actions and inactions have proximately caused, allowed\nand facilitated GenStar/GenRe\u2019s sabotage of the CAM/Fannie Mae relationship and contract.\n51. CAM would show that GenStar and GenRe have totally failed to comply with the\nConfidentiality Agreement executed with CAM, through the actions of the Vice President, Ott,\nand have continued to willfully, wantonly and maliciously breach said agreement in refusing\n\nnumerous demands by CAM to restrain the actions of Ott since his departure from GenStar.\n\nCOUNT ONE\n\nTORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH\nCONTRACTUAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONS\nBY GENSTAR, GENRE, OTT AND CRUMP\n\n52. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n53. Your Plaintiff would show that the facts as alleged set forth a. claim for relief on the\ngrounds that GenStar, Crump, GenRe and their Vice President, Ott (both individually and in his\ncapacity as agent) tortiously, willfully, and intentionally interfered with the contractual relations\nbetween CAM and Fannie Mae, thereby damaging them grievously through the following\nwrongful conduct:\n53.1. GenStar, GenRe and Ott initiated direct contacts with Fannie Mae in'an |\nattempt to diminish and destroy CAM's business relationship with Fannie Mae.\nCAM\u2019s business relationship with Fannie Mae was multifaceted and consisted of\na long history of product and business plan development, joint copyright\n\nownership of the MCRI policy itself, and an agreement that CAM\u2019s compensation\n\nPage 19 of 36\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 21 of 37\n\nfor its years of work in the development of all aspects of MCRI would be for\nCAM to participate in all MCRI transactions. Crump was aware of these contacts\nand actively conspired to conceal them from CAM in an attempt to protect and\nfarther its own relationship with GenStar and GenRe; also Crump\u2019s negligent,\nintentional and willful acts were calculated to cause damage to CAM\u2019s lawful\n\nbusiness.\n\n53.2. In the first transaction involving GenStar and GenRe, (in February of\n1999), Ott instructed Fannie Mae not to pay CAM's premium invoice and to\nmake direct payments of premium to GenStar. This was apparently his first.\nattempt to cut CAM out of its commi ssion on the Fannie Mae transactions. Ott,\nalthough warned on several occasions by Crump, continued his willful, wanton\nand intentional course of conduct in excluding CAM and Crump from telephone\nconversations and meetings with Fannie Mae. Crump was aware of these actions\nbut failed to take appropriate and meaningful action to stop the misconduct out of\nconcern for its own relationship with GenStar. GenStar, itself, warned Ott not to\npractice retail marketing with Fannie Mae but has totally and completely failed to\ncontrol its own officer and employee and enforce compliance with the\nConfidentiality Agreement, and Crump has correspondingly failed to enforce its\nConfidentiality Agreement with GenStar and CAM and its exclusivity agreements\nwith Crump (to which CAM is a direct and intended third party beneficiary) and\n\ncorrespondingly Crump\u2019s own exclusivity agreement with CAM, thereby\n\nPage 20 of 36\n\nMW00177 FNMA.MBW.008455\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 22 of 37\n\nviolating its contractual commitments, its fiduciary responsibilities and its\n\nbroker/agent responsibilities to CAM;\n\n53.3. On the first Fannie Mae Aggregation forward delivery transaction, Ott\nattempted to substitute a GenStar insurance policy in an effort not to use the\nCAM/Fannie Mae copyrighted policy. Said policy was a derivative of the CAM\npolicy and relied upon stolen and converted proprietary intellectual property\n\nbelonging to CAM;\n\n53.4. GenStar, GenRe and Ott attempted to cut brokerage commissions to CAM\n\non the GenStar Fannie Mae Aggregation II transaction, in October of 1999;\n\n53.5. GenStar, GenRe and Ott attempted to cut brokerage commissions due\n\nCAM on the Metropolitan Bank Fannie Mae MBS transaction in November of\n\n1999;\n\n53.6. GenStar, GenRe and Ott initiated direct negotiations with Fannie Mae on\nthe forward commitment coverage for GenStar Fannie Mae, Aggregation I, II and\nII] commitments and without including CAM and Crump. This was a direct\nviolation of the agreement to write MCRI exclusively through Crump, and\n\nCrump\u2019s agreement to write MCRI exclusively through CAM. Crump was aware\n\nP 21 of 36\nagen\u2019 MW00178\n\nFNMA.MBW.008456\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 23 of 37\n\nof this action by GenStar and GenRe, and failed to take any action and conspired\n\nto conceal the actions from CAM;\n\n53.7. Ott claimed credit with Fannie Mae for reinsurer contacts which were\ndeveloped and furnished by Crump and CAM, thereby attempting to remove\nCAM from those transactions. This was accomplished by bringing these\nreinsurers to Fannie Mae for a meeting in December of 1999 without telling CAM\nor Crump of any such meeting, and without disclosing that such reinsurers had in\n\nactuality been introduced by CAM to GenStar and Ott;\n\n53.8. GenStar, GenRe and, Ott conducted retail marketing by direct negotiation\nwith Fannie Mae without including CAM or Crump, over the continuous protest\n\nof CAM;\n\n53.9. GenStar and Ott corresponded directly with Fannie Mae without copying\nCAM or Crump, thereby attempting to create the impression that CAM and\n\nCrump were unnecessary;\n\n53.10. GenStar and Ott held numerous meetings and telephone conversations\n\ndirectly with Fannie Mae without including CAM or Cramp;\n\nPage 22 of 36\nMwo0179 FNMA.MBW.008457\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 24 of 37\n\n53.11. GenStar and Ott sent all premium quotes and premium pricing directly to\n\nFannie Mae without copying CAM or Crump.\n\n53.12. GenStar, GenRe and Ott intentionally interfered with existing CAM\ncontracts by initiating direct discussions with Fannie Mae (the insured) about the\nfeasibility of cutting CAM and Crump brokerage commissions without CAM\u2019s or\n\nCrump\u2019s knowledge or involvement;\n\n53.13. Ott played a direct role in bringing Nicholas Didier to Fannie Mae in\n\nDecember 1999 again excluding Crump and CAM.\n\n53.14. GenStar, GenRe and Ott deliberately cut CAM out of the Metropolitan\ncommercial transaction by appropriating CAM\u2019s client after CAM made proper\n\nintroductions through Crump and GenStar.\n\n54. As a result of the actions of GenStar, GenRe, Ott and Crump, the formerly close\nbusiness relationship between CAM and Fannie Mae no longer exists, and Fannie Mae is no\nlonger willing to accept insurers brought to it by CAM for future aggregations.\n\n55. As stated above and elsewhere in the amended complaint, the actions and omissions of\nGenStar, GenRe, Craig Ott and Crump were negligently, intentionally and willfully done and\n\ncalculated to cause damage to CAM lawful business.\n\nPage 23 of 36\nMwW00180 ENM A.MBW.008458\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 25 of 37\n\n56. . The actions and omissions of GenRe, GenStar, Craig Ott and Crump were done -\nwith the unlawful purpose of causing damages and loss, without right or justification, and actual\ndamage and loss resulted from their actions and omissions.\n\n57. As a result of the aforedescribed actions, CAM has been damaged in the amount of\nForty-Five Million Seven Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Five\n\nDollars ($45,744,325).\n\nCOUNT TWO\n\nTORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH\nPROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONS\nBY GENSTAR, GENRE, OTT AND CRUMP\n\n58. Y our Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n59. The factual allegations in the preceding paragraphs, and the specific factual allegations\ncontained in Count One constitute a claim for intentional interference with prospective business\nrelationships of CAM.\n\n60. As a result of these intentional wrongful actions, CAM has been damaged in the amount\nof Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000).\n\nCOUNT THREE\n\nBREACH OF CONTRACT\n61. Y our Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n\nFNMA.MBW.008459\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 26 of 37\n\n62. Your Plaintiff would show that the facts alleged above set forth a claim by CAM\nagainst GenStar and GenRe for breach of its contractual commitment to provide additional\ninsurance coverage of up to Two Billion Dollars ($2,000,000,000.00), despite the detrimental\nreliance upon said agreement by CAM. See specifically the facts alleged in paragraphs 30\nthrough 32 above.\n\n63. As aresult of the breach of its contractual commitment to provide this additional\ninsurance capacity, CAM has been damaged in the amount of Seven Million Thirty-Three\n\nThousand and No/100 Dollars ($7,033.000.00).\n\nCOUNT FOUR\n\nCONVERSION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT\nAND INTERFERENCE WITH METROPOLITAN BANK TRANSACTION\n\n64. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n65. GenStar, GenRe, Craig Ott and Crump breached CAM\u2019s Confidentiality Agreement,\n\ninfringed upon CAM\u2019s copyright and converted CAM\u2019s intellectual property and proprietary\ninformation by taking CAM\u2019s client (Metropolitan Bank), using CAM proprietary\ndocumentation and intellectual property (including but not limited to the CAM Operating\nGuidelines, underwriting standards, policy grids, underwriting procedures, pricing grids,\nconfidential term sheets and due diligence protocols developed and owned by CAM) , and\nCAM\u2019s jointly copyrighted MCRI policy to create a GenStar policy and insure a $100 million\ncommercial Joan transaction. (Metropolitan). CAM had introduced Metropolitan to Crump and\n\nGenStar in June 1998. GenStar\u2019s Craig Ott then made direct contact with the Metropolitan\n\nPage 25 of 36\n\nMW00182\nFNMA.MBW.008460\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 27 of 37\n\nBank and proceeded to cut CAM out of this transaction and commission income. Crump,\nGenSiar, GenRe were aware of Craig Ott\u2019s conduct, participated and conspired in this conduct to\n\u201d exercise dominion and control over the intellectual property (including, but not limited to CAM -\nOperating Procedures and Insurance Underwriting Guidelines, pricing grids, confidential\ntermsheets and due diligence protocols developed and owned by CAM) inconsistent with CAM\u2019s\nrights.\n66. Crump totally and wholly failed to take any meaningful action to prevent the loss of the\ncommissions through the actions of its insurers and agents and to protect CAM and conspired\nwith GenStar and GenRe to conceal this.\n67. As a result of the wrongful acts of GenStar, GenRe, Crump and Ott, CAM has been\ndamaged through the loss of commission in the amount of Seven Hundred Twenty-Eight\n\nThousand Dollars ($728,000.00).\n\nCOUNT FIVE\n\nCOPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT\n\n68. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding\nparagraphs as though fully copied herein.\n\n69. That GenStar, GenRe, Crump and Ott have jointly and severally infringed upon the\ncopyright of CAM with respect to the MCRI policy copyrighted by CAM and Fannie Mae,\nwithout authorization or approval by CAM or Fannie Mae. CAM has no knowledge of any\napproval by Fannie Mae for GenStar, GenRe or Crump to use the MCRI business plan, the\n\nMCRI insurance policy or any derivative thereof. If such approval was given, then CAM would\nPage 26 of 36\nMW00183\n\nFNMA.MBW.008461\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 28 of 37\n\nassert the claim for violation of the fiduciary duties owed by Fannie Mae to CAM as a joint\ncopyright owner as set forth in Count Ten below.\n70. That as a result of the actions of the Defendants, CAM has been damaged in an amount\n\nnot less than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00).\n\nCOUNT SIX\n\nINTENTIONAL BREACH OF CONTRACT (CONFIDENTIALITY\nAGREEMENT) BY CRAIG OTT\n\n71. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n72. That Ott, since his departure from GenStar has appropriated, used, converted and stolen\nthe copyrighted insurance policy and other intellectual property, ideas, concepts, procedures,\netc., (including but not limited to due diligence protocols and policy models), that were\nacknowledged to be covered by the Confidentiality Agreement executed by himself as Vice\nPresident of GenStar. These provisions are binding upon him even following his-departure, and\nCAM has been damaged thereby.\n\n73. CAM has been damaged by the actions of Ott since his departure from GenStar in an\namount not less than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00). Additionally, CAM wouid ask that\nthis Court issue injunctive relief preventing the continued wrongful actions of Ott in violation of\n\nthe Confidentiality Agreement.\n\nCOUNT SEVEN\n\nBREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BY GENSTAR/GEN RE\n\nPage 27 of 36\n00184\nMwo0 ENMA.MBW.008462\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 29 of 37\n\nFAILURE TO TAKE ACTION TO HALT ACTIONS OF OTT POST DEPARTURE\n\n74. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\n\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n75. CAM would show that GenStar/Gen Re have an affirmative duty to enforce the\n\nConfidentiality Agreement it executed with CAM as to its departed Vice President, Ott.\n\n76. CAM would show that GenStar/Gen Re have totally failed to take any action to enforce\n: said Confidentiality Agreement, and as a result, CAM has been damaged in an amount of not less\n\nthan Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00).\n\nCOUNT EIGHT\n\nBREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BY CRUMP\nFAILURE TO TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE\nCONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AGAINST GENSTAR, GEN RE\nAND CRUMP\n\n77. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs -\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n78. CAM would show that Crump had an affirmative duty to enforce the Confidentiality\nAgreement it executed with CAM as to its insurer, GenStar and GenRe, and to GenStar\u2019s\ndeparted Vice President, Ott.\n\n79. CAM would show that Crump has totally failed to take any action to enforce said\nConfidentiality Agreement, and as a result, CAM has been damaged in an amount of not less\n\nthan Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00).\n\n28 of 36\nPage 28 0 MW00185\n\nMA.MBW.008463\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 30 of 37\n\nCOUNT NINE\n\nACCOUNTING - AS TO CRUMP\n\n80. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n81. That CAM is entitled to an accounting from Crump of the following:\n76.1. An immediate accounting for all sums directly or indirectly received\nfrom any source on Fannie Mae portfolio\u2019s;\n76.2. An immediate accounting for all sums directly or indirectly received from\nany source on the Metropolitan Bank/U.S. Trust transaction;\n76.3 An immediate accounting for all premiums from Fannie Mae\u2019s \u201cAggregation\n1\" which Crump permitted to be transmitted directly to GenStar, in violation of its\n\ncontract;\n\nCOUNT TEN\n\nBREACH OF CONTRACT - FANNIE MAE\n\n82. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\n\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n83. The allegations set forth above state a claim for relief against Fannie Mae for breach of\ncontract.\n84. Fannie Mae and CAM entered into a contractual relationship whereby CAM agreed to\n\ndevote substantial time, effort, expertise and expense to the development of a business plan\n\nPage 29 of 36\n\nMw00186 FNMA.MBW.008464\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 31 of 37\n\nwhereby Fannie Mae would be able to lay off first loss risk on 1) individual multifamily loans,\n2) pools of multifamily mortgages, 3) mixed securitizations containing commercial and\nmultifamily mortgages, 4) securitization of existing pools and to include the Fannie Me\nAggregation Facility, Fannie Mae DUS Lender at-risk portfolio and Regional Bank multifamiliy\nmortgage products through the use of insurance. This business plan included, but was not\nlimited to the following: 1) the development of the MCRI insurance policy; 2) the development\nof insurance underwriting guidelines, 3) creation and keeper of all policy drafts, 4) creation and\ndevelopment of insurance operating procedures, 5) establishment of pricing grids, and 6)\ncreation and development of due diligence protocols, and 7) locating \u201cTriple-A rated\u201d insurance\ncarriers willing to issue such policies and coordinating efforts with those carriers in the\ndevelopment of the surance policy. In order to compensate CAM for its time, efforts, expertise\nand expense, CAM was to be the sole and exclusive agent for Fannie Mae in the procurement of\nthe MCRI insurance. CAM has fulfilled its commitment to Fannie Mae, and Fannie Mae has\nbreached this agreement by failing and refusing to allow CAM to serve as agent for Fannie Mae\nand instead is using other entities. for the procurement of the MCRI insurance and other\nderivative first loss risk coverage.\n\n85. As.a result of Fannie Mae\u2019s breach of its contractual relationship with CAM, CAM has\nbeen damaged in the loss of commissions over the remaining life of the 95 year joint copyright in\n\nthe amount of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000) |\n\nCOUNT ELEVEN\n\nPage 30 of 36\nMW00187\n\nFNMA.MBW.008465\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 32 of 37\n\nBREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY FANNIE MAE AS TO\n\nJOINT COPYRIGHT HOLDER\n\n86. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein\n\n87. That Fannie Mae and CAM are the joint copyright owners of the MCRI insurance\npolicy developed by CAM.\n\n88. That as a joint copyright owner, Fannie Mae is alleged to have given permission to\nothers, specifically GenStar, to create a derivative for non-Fannie Mae transactions and use said\npolicy, without accounting to CAM for same and without obtaining CAM\u2019s permission.\n\n89. . That as a co-owner of the policy, Fannie Mae is under a fiduciary obligation to its co-\nowner, CAM, to use the policy to the interests of both CAM and Fannie Mae, and to account to\nCAM for any and all economic benefit derived from the use of the policy and any and all\n\nderivative use of the policy.\n\n90. Fannie Mae has breached its fiduciary obligations to CAM as the co-owner of the\ncopyright and has used the policy, and derivatives of the policy so as to deprive CAM of any of\nthe benefits thereof.\n\n91. CAM has been damaged by Fannie Mae\u2019s breach of its obligations to CAM as a co-\n\nowner of the copyrighted policy in the amount of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000).\n\nCOUNT TWELVE\n\nCONVERSION AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY\n\nBY FANNIE MAE\n\nPage 31 of 36\nMW00188 ~ NMA. MBW.008466\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 33 of 37\n\n92. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding\nparagraphs as though fully copied herein.\n\n93. That in addition to the copyrighted policy referenced in the preceding Count, Fannie\nMae has converted and misappropriated certain intellectual property and work-product of CAM,\nincluding but not limited to the insurance underwriting guidelines, insurance operating\nprocedures, pricing grids, confidential term sheets and due diligence protocols developed by\nCAM.\n\n94. That as a result of Fannie Mae\u2019s conversion and theft of this confidential and\nproprietary information, CAM has been damaged in the amount of One Hundred Milhon Dollars\n\n($100,000,000).\n\nCOUNT THIRTEEN\n\nPUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS\n\n95. Your Plaintiff would re-adopt and re-allege the allegations of the preceding paragraphs\nas though fully copied herein.\n\n96. That the above-alleged actions of all of the defendants are intentional, willful and\nwrongful, and were committed with the intent to damage CAM, both from the intentional breach\nof the various agreements executed between CAM and the various defendants, as well as the\nintentional interference with CAM\u2019s business and contractual relationships with third parties, in\nan attempt to convert proprietary information to the Defendants\u2019 own use. As a result, your\nPlaintiff would pray that this Court award punitive damages against each of the Defendants, in an\n\namount to be shown at the trial of this action in an amount reasonably calculated to punish the\n\nPage 32 of 36\nMW00189\n\nMA.MBW.008467\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 34 of 37\n\nDefendants and to deter such wrongful conduct by them and those-similarly situated. Your\nPlaintiff would pray that this be in an amount equal to no less than ten percent (10%) of the net\nvalue of \u00e9ach of the Defendants, but in no event Jess than One Hundred Million Dollars\n\n($100,000,000.00).\n\nWHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, your Plaintiff would pray for the following\nTelief:\n\n1. A judgment against each of the Defendants GenStar, GenRe, Ott and Crump, for\nactual damages in the amount of Forty-Five Million Seven Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Three -\nHundred and Twenty Five Dollars ($45,744,325) for the tortious interference with the existing\nand contract and in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) for actual damages\nresulting from the intentional interference with future business relationships between CAM and\nFannie Mae as set forth in Count One;\n\n2. A judgment against GenStar and GenRe in the amount of Seven Million Thirty-Three\nThousand ($7,033,000) for damages resulting from GenStar/GenRe\u2019s breach of contract to\nprovide an additional Two Billion Dollars in msurance coverage.\n\n3. A judgment against GenStar, GenRe, Ott and Crump in the amount of Seven Hundred\nTwenty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($728,000.00) for the loss of commissions through the\nconversion of the policy and intellectual property on the Metropolitan Bank transaction as set\nforth in Count Three above;\n\n4. A judgment against GenStar, GenRe, Ott and Crump for copyright infringment as set\n\nforth in Count Four above in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000).\n\nPage 33 of 36\nMW00190 w.008468\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 35 of 37\n\n5. A judgment against Craig Ott in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000) for\nthe breach of the Confidentiality Agreement as set forth in Count Five.\n\n6. A judgment against GenStar and GenRe in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars\n($50,000,000) for the breach of the Confidentiality Agreement by GenStar, Gen Re and the\nfailure of same to enforce the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement against Craig Ott upon his\ndeparture from Gen Star; .\n\n7. A judgment against Crump in the amount of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000), for\ndamages suffered by CAM as a result of Crump\u2019s violation of the Confidentiality Agreement,\nbrokerage agreement, exclusivity agreement and agency relationship with CAM and the failure \u2014\nto enforce its exclusivity agreement and confidentiality agreement with GenStar and GenRe;\n\n8. An accounting from Crump as described in Count Eight, above, at the expense of\nCrump;\n\n9. A judgment against Fannie Mae in the amount of $100,000,000 for the breach of its\ncontractual agreement with CAM to be the sole agent for Fannie Mae in the procurement of\nMCRI and all derivatives therefrom as set forth in Count Nine;\n\n10. A judgment against Fannie Mae in the amount of $100,000,000 for damages suffered\nby CAM as a proximate result of Fannie Mae\u2019s intentional breach of its duties to CAM asa joint\ncopyright owner and for an accounting as to all economic benefits which Fannie Mae has reaped\nas a result of its use of the MCRI policy and all derivatives therefrom;\n\n11. A judgment against Fannie Mae in the amount of $100,000,000 for the\nmisappropriation and conversion of intellectual, proprietary property of CAM as described in\n\nCount Eleven;\n\nPage 34 of 36\nMW00191\n\nFNMA.MBW.008469\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 36 of 37\n\n12. A permanent injunction against Craig Ott to prevent him from using or in any way,\ndirectly or indirectly appropriating or converting the copyrights and intellectual property of\n\nCAM; and\n\n13. Punitive Damages jointly and severally in the amount of Two Hundred Million\nDollars or such amount as is calculated to punish the defendants for such wrongful conduct and\n\nto deter such conduct in the future from the Defendants and others similarly situated.\n\nFor this and such other and general relief as may be just and proper in the premises, does \u2014\n\nyour Plaintiff now and ever pray.\n\ni\n\nCAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.\n\nBY: BYRD & WISER\n\nBY: NICHOLAS VAN WISER\n\nNICHOLAS VAN WISER\n\nMs. Bar No. 7339\n\nand\n\nMATTHEW G. MESTAYER\n\nMs. Bar No. 9646 . FNMA MBW.008470\n\nIFIDENTIAL\nPage 35 of 36 CONFID\n\nMW00192\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-11 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 37 of 37\n\nByrd & Wiser, Attorneys at Law\nP.O. Box 1939\n\nBiloxi, Ms. 39533\n\n(228) 432-8123 (telephone)\n(228) 432-7029 (fax)\nnwiser@byrdwiser.com\n\nCERTIFICATE\n\nL NICHOLAS VAN WISER, of counsel for Plaintiff do hereby certify that I have this\ndate mailed a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Notice, postage prepaid, by\nmeans of United States Mail to John Whitfield, Esq., Attorney for Gen Star, at North Court One,\nSuite 300, 1905 23\" Avenue, Gulfport, MS 39501; David Clark, Esq., Attorney for Crump\nInsurance, at P.O. Box 1789, Jackson, MS 39215-1789 and Joe Sam Owen, attorney for Craig\nOtt, P.O. Drawer 420 Gulfport, Ms. 39501. .\n\nDATED, this __ the day of December 2001.\n\nNICHOLAS VAN WISER, ESQ.\n\nPage 36 of 36\n\n: A.MBW.008471\nMW00193 FNM SO ENTIAL\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:45:52-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888716","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit I - CAM Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686751/","id":2686751,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/11/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.722943-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.074083-08:00","sha1":"a6cc5ae36d2b9501cb2f974bc29a4db0762c9165","page_count":4,"file_size":77795,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.11.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.11.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-12 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 4\n\nEXHIBIT J\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-12 Filed 06/21/2007 Page2of4\n* CATT ere Dis | bee\n\n; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\nSOUTHERN DIVISION\n\nCAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., PLAINTIFF\nVS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:01cv314GuRo\n\n~\n\nGENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE\nCOMPANY; GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY\nCOMPANY; GENERAL STAR MANAGEMENT\nCOMPANY; GENERAL RE CORPORATION;\nGENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION;\nCRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF MEMPHIS,\nINC.; CRAIG OTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN\n\nHIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS VICE\nPRESIDENT OF GENERAL STAR\nMANAGEMENT COMPANY; FEDERAL\nNATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION\n\n(FANNIE MAE) DEFENDANTS\nAND\n\nCOUNTER-PLAINTIFF\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nASSOCIATION (\u201cFANNIE MAE\u201d)\nVS.\nCOUNTER-DEFENDANT\nCAM FENANCIAL SERVICES, INC,\nORDER\n\nConsidering the Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by plaintiff, CAM\nFinancial Services, Inc. (\u201cCAM\u201d), and defendant, Federal National Mortgage Association\n(\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), by and through their attorneys, who have jointly moved the Court for an Order\nof Dismissal pursuant to the provisions of FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2), dismissing with prejudice\nthe claims herein, and the Court having received and considered the Motion and the evidence\nadduced in support thereof, and finding that the motion is well taken, and that the relief sought\ntherein should be granted, counsel for the parties, having executed an Arbitration Agreement,\n\nagreeing to submit the remaining claims in this matter to binding arbitration, and the parties\n\n524466.2\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-12 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 4\n\nhaving agreed to a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims, in anticipation of the pending\n. arbitration.\nIT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:\nL \u2018That the captioned matter is hereby dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice; and\n\n2... That each party shall bear its own costs relative to the dismissal entered hereby.\n\n\u201cg0 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this O say of \u201cCE CerrrGga004.\n\niy\nUNITED STATES D JUDGE\n\nPREPARED BY AND APPROVED:\n\nSignature Affixed\n\nGERARD E. WIMBERLY, JR. (MS #43132)\n\u00ae McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC\n\n643 Magazine Street\n\nNew Orleans, Louisiana 70130\n\nPhone: (504) 586-1200\n\nFax; (504) 596-2800\n\nAttorneys for Fannie Mae\n\nAPPROVED:\n\nsmmpkin.& Reeves, PLL\n160 Main Street\n- Biloxi, Mississippi 39530\nAttorneys for CAM Financial Services, Inc.\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-12 Filed 06/21/2007 Page4of4\n\nhaving agreed to a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims, in anticipation of the pending\n\narbitration.\nIT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:\n1. That the captioned matter is hereby dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice; and\n2. That each party shall bear its own costs relative to the dismissal entered hereby.\n\nSO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this day of 2004.\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\nPREPARED BY AND APPROVED:\n\n- GERARD E. WIMBERLY, JR-(MS #43132)\n\nMcGlinchey Stafford, PLLC\n643 Magazine Street\n\nNew Orleans, Louisiana 70130\nPhone: (504) 586-1200\n\nFax: (504) 596-2800\nAttorneys for Fannie Mae\n\nAPPROVED:\n\nJAMES R. REEVES, JR. (MS #9519)\nLumpkin & Reeves, PLLC\n\n160 Main Street\n\nBiloxi, Mississippi 39530\n\nAttorneys for CAM Financial Services, Inc.\n\n524466.2\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:41:16-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888983","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit J - CAM Dismissal Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686752/","id":2686752,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/12/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.731155-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.093442-08:00","sha1":"9eff4848ac4637e12bcbda489c05ea5d264de88e","page_count":11,"file_size":557813,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.12.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.12.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 11\n\nEXHIBIT K\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 11\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\nPlaintiff, : Judge John D. Bates\nvs.\n: PLAINTIFF MARIALICE\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE : BATHRUS WILLIAMS\nASSOCIATION, et al. : ANSWER TO\n: INTERROGATORIES\nDefendants.\n\nPLAINTIFF\u2019S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 INTERROGATORIES\nINTERROGATORY NO. 1: Describe in detail each and every fact or\n\nstatement made by any Defendant that supports your allegation that Defendants\n\ndenied you the opportunity to make and enforce a contract on the basis of race\nwith respect to the May 2001 Proposal.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\nNo statements were made other than one by Defendant Richard Lawch. Mr.\nLawch made the statement in the doorway of his office after Plaintiff was in a\nmeeting with the Senior Vice President Lou Hoyes and Bert Lee, Charlotte\nHolloman, and others to discuss business opportunities. Mr. Lawch stated that\nhe was working with an \u201cinternational broker\u201d for doing some insurance business\nfor the MBS pools.\n\nIt was the actions, not the statements that made me aware that Fannie Mae was\nexcluding me from the pool of insurance brokers who were doing business with\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 11\n\nFannie Mae at the time. Fannie Mae and these brokers were doing business in\naccordance to concepts that | had developed while at Fannie Mae and was\npromised that | would be allowed to develop once | left Fannie Mae.\n\nT AT : Describe in detail each and every fact or\nstatement made by any Defendant that supports your allegation that Defendants\ntortiously interfered with your Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement or any\nother business relationship with CAM Financial.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\nThe facts supporting my allegation that Defendants tortiously interfered with my\nJoint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement with CAM is the letter that | was asked\nto write by Grace Huebscher and Rhoda Newman. | was told to write a letter to\nFannie Mae indicating that | was not in business with CAM Financial. | was told\nthat until that letter was forthcoming, | would have no more meetings with Fannie\nMae regarding business development.\n\nI RR RY NO. 3: Describe in detail the May 2001\nProposal, including any expected financial arrangement and benefits to you\n\nassociated with that Proposal.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\nThe May 2001 Proposal entailed the laying off of risk associated with the\nDelegated Underwriting and Servicing Program. Many of the lenders in this\nprestigious program were having problems with their balance sheet because they\nwere carrying a substantial amount of risk on the loans that they were selling or\nsecuritizing with Fannie Mae. The idea was that while the first 1% of the risk was\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 11\n\ncarried by the lender, the next level of risk was shared on a parri passu basis by\nFannie Mae and the lender, up to 20% of the amount of the loan. | contacted\nnumerous insurance companies, came up with alternative proposals including\nthe use of a captive insurance company in order to lay off that risk for both\nFannie Mae and the lender.\n\nWe obtained quotes from the insurance companies indicating that the insurance\nwould range up to 25 basis points per annum for the lender but that if Fannie\nMae were to opt in to the insurance; the cost would be reduced to the lender.\nThe commission on that insurance cost would be approximately 10% or 2.5 basis\npoints on the amount of the loan. At that time Fannie Mae had approximately $9\nbillion of DUS loans and if the program had been okayed by Fannie Mae we\nwould have earned $22 million. -\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe in detail each and every\n\nmeeting (including, but not limited to, the time, place, attendees, and topics\ndiscussed), correspondence, or communication you had with Defendants\nconcerning the May 2001 Proposal.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: This answer is based ona\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\n| did not meet regularly with the Defendant regarding the May 2001 proposal.\nWe talked on the phone and wrote e-mails. The point is that my job was to\nsecure the insurance and the DUS lenders as clients and bring the deal back to\nFannie Mae. We worked with Washington Mortgage, Lend Lease, Red Capital\nMortgage, and others. We only contacted Fannie Mae for information requested\nby the insurance companies or the lenders.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe in detail how the business or\n\ncontracts proposed by you in the May 2001 Proposal were awarded to Craig Ott,\nincluding exactly what business or contracts were awarded to Craig Ott and how\n\nthey were the same or similar to the business or contracts proposed by you.\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5of 11\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\n| cannot testify at this time about what business or how much business that\nFannie Mae gave to Craig Ott. This matter is within the knowledge of Fannie\nMae and | await Defendants\u2019 discovery responses.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 6: Describe in detail each and every\ncorrespondence or communication between you and Fannie Mae between 2001\nand the present, including date, location, parties to the correspondence or\n\ncommunication and subject of the correspondence or communication.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: This answer is based ona\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\nMost of my communication with Fannie Mae was by phone or by e-mail. | have\nhad two computer crashes since | began working with Fannie Mae in 1998 to\nbring these opportunities to fruition.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe in detail the contents and\n\nscope of your Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 11\n\n| had a simple, common co-brokerage agreement with CAM Financial that\nentailed paying them a commission in the event that they secured the insurance\nthat | needed on any of the proposals that | was working on. These proposals\nranged from insuring pools of automobile loans, charter school loans, captive .\ninsurance and reinsurance, etc.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 8: Describe in detail each and every\n\ncorrespondence or communication between you and CAM Financial concerning\nthe Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The detail of the co-brokerage\nwith CAM was a co-brokerage agreement.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 9: Describe in detail each and every\n\ncommunication or correspondence evidencing that Defendants \u201cactively\ndiscouraged\u201d CAM Financial from dealing with you, as referenced in Paragraph\n61 of your Amended Complaint, including how, when and from whom you\nlearned of this communication or correspondence.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. . Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\n| learned of Defendant actively discouraging CAM Financial from doing business\nwith me as a result of phone conversations from Bob Jones, President of CAM\nFinancial. | cannot recall the dates of these conversations.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 10: Describe in detail each and every\n\ncommunication or correspondence of \u201cknowingly false and defamatory\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 11\n\ninformation\u201d about you by Defendants to CAM Financial, as referenced in\nParagraph 62 of your Amended Complaint, including how, when and from whom\nyou learned of this communication or correspondence.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\n| learned of false and defamatory information about me being communicated to\nCAM Financial through telephone conversations with Bob Jones, President of\nCAM Financial. | cannot recall the dates of these conversations.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 11: Describe in detail the circumstances\n\nthrough which the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement was terminated\n(including, but not limited to, how notification occurred and by whom.)\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:\n\nThe Co-Brokerage Agreement expired with CAM.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe in detail the circumstances\n\nthrough which you learned of CAM Financial's lawsuit against Fannie Mae\n(including, but not limited to, how and when you were notified and by whom.)\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO, 12: | learned of CAM Financial's\nlawsuit against Fannie Mae from Bob Jones, President, CAM Financial. Fannie\nMae was not originally a defendant in the lawsuit by CAM Financial against the\ninsurance companies. Fannie Mae was added to the lawsuit later by the judge |\nbelieve. | cannot recall the dates.\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 11\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 13: Describe in detail how you calculate your\nlosses and damages at the amounts listed in Paragraph 86 of your Amended\nComplaint, and specify whether such losses and damages relate to the May\n2001 Proposal, or the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage Agreement, or both.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: This answer is based on a\nsearch of my own memory and on documents in my possession. | did not have\nthe benefit of my computer records, because it crashed and none of the\ndocuments on it could be recovered. Examination of documents in the\npossession or under custody and control of Defendants, which were requested\nby me and which have not yet been produced, | expect should permit me to\nfurther elaborate on this answer.\n\nLosses were calculated based upon the amount of potential business that Fannie\nMae did using structures developed by me. Generally speaking, the fees ranged\nabout 25 basis points annually for the insurance. In some instances, the fees\nwere as high as 56 basis points (Metropolitan Savings Bank MBS transaction)\nand the broker's fee is approximately 10% of the premium fee. Annual reports\nfrom Fannie Mae reflect that about 2 billion of MBS one off transactions were\nclosed annually. Substantially more MBS were issued with the DUS porifolio. |\nwould have no way of knowing exactly what the credit enhancement\narrangements were for all of these transactions and the extent to which\ninsurance was used. Fannie Mae would know this.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 14: List and describe each and every\n\nexpense you incurred in reliance on Fannie Mae\u2019s alleged promises and\nassurances to conduct business with you, and identify for each expense whether\nthe expense was for the May 2001 Proposal, the Joint Venture or Co-Brokerage\nAgreement, both, or neither, and also identify whether each expense was used\nsolely for the identified project or agreement or for other business purposes as\n\nwell, with Fannie Mae or otherwise.\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 11\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: | left Fannie Mae after a lengthy\ndiscussion with Lou Hoyes, the then Vice President of Multifamily for Fannie\nMae. Based upon discussion and the letter that Mr. Hoyes had sent to CAM\nFinancial, it was expected that nearly $1 billion of multifamily business would be\ndone using the insurance credit enhancement that | developed for Fannie Mae\nover the next year after | left. On the strength of those promises, | spent:\n\ne Rent at $1,450.00 per month\n\ne Phone and office equipment at $1,000.00 per month\n\ne Travel to visit DUS lenders, conferences, especially MBA conferences\n\nand insurance companies at $1,500.00 per month\n\ne Office assistant at first $2,000.00 and then at $3,000.00 per month\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 15: List the name, address, and telephone\n\nnumber of each individual likely to have information that you may use to support\nyour claims, describing fully for each individual the information they will likely\n\nhave.\n\nANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Names of individuals who can\nattest to these efforts:\ne Harvey Hartsfield, 742 Aspen Street NW; Washington, DC 20011; 202-\n352-6964\nConway Downing\nChris Tawa, Lend Lease, no address\nBob Jones, President, CAM Financial, Gulfport, Mississippi\nRhoda Newman, Fannie Mae\nJane Harrison\nGrace Huebscher, Fannie Mae\nJeff Webb and others at AIG Insurance\nJK Larsen, Lend Lease Bovis\nEric Rosenfield\nStephen Noble, Zurich Re\nMarsh Mac\nRed Mortgage Capital\nAries Capital\nSwiss Re\nThe DC Department of Insurance Securities and Banking\nRichard Lawch, Fannie Mae\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 11\n\nAll of the companies and individuals above had extensive dealings with me while\n| was trying to develop credit enhancement and risk reduction techniques using\ninsurance products. The ultimate goal for all of the clients and insurance\ncompanies was to lay off the risk to lenders while insuring losses to protect\n\ninvestors including to protect Fannie Mae.\nx on .\n\nMarialice Balthrus Williams\nJanuary 8, 2006\n\nAFFIRMATION OF PLAINTIFF\u2019S ANSWERS\n\nSubscribed and sworn before a Notary Public in Washington, District of\n\u2018Columbia, this 8th day of January 2007, |, Marialice Bathrus Williams, Plaintiff,\nstate that | believe that the answers stated in response to Defendants\u2019\ninterrogatories are true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and\n\ninformation.\n\nMarialice Bathrus Williams\n/ stary Public\nMy Commission expires: Jl | G \\\\\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 11\n\nCertificate of Service\n\n| certify that a copy of Plaintiffs Affirmed Answers to Defendants\u2019 Interrogatories\nwas hand delivered on January 8, 2007, to counsel for Defendants, Sarah\nGoldfrank, Evelyn Becker and Kyra Grundeman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n1625 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001.\n\nBrian Lederer\n\n10\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:43:42-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":12,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888653","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit K - Williams Interrogatory Responses","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686753/","id":2686753,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/13/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.739245-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.108419-08:00","sha1":"6b05fb2a1c5bb8102d7f9d783934276f7d11ab20","page_count":12,"file_size":310893,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.13.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.13.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-14 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 12\n\nEXHIBIT L\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-14 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 12\n\noT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\n3 Southern Division\n4 ------------------ x\n\n5 CAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,\n\n6 Plaintiff, : Case No.\n\n7. : 1:01cv314BrR\n\n8 GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE\n\n9 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY\n\n10 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR MANAGEMENT\n11 COMPANY, GENERAL RE CORPORATION;\n\n12 GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION;\n\n13 CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF MEMPHIS,:\n14 INC.; CRAIG OTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND :\n\n15 IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS:\n\n16 VICE PRESIDENT OF GENERAL STAR\n\n17 MANAGEMENT COMPANY; FEDERAL NATIONAL:\n18 MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAB), :\n\n19 Defendants.\n\n20 ------------------ X\n\n21 Washington, D.C.\n\n22 Monday, March 17, 2003\n\n23 Videotaped deposition of MARIALICE\n\n24 WILLIAMS, a witness herein, called for examination by\n\n25 counsel for Defendant Fannie Mae, in the above-\n\nMarch 17, 2003 FM of MAW Page 1\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.001532\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-14 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3of12\n\n00002\n1 entitled matter, pursuant to subpoena, the witness\n\n2 being duly sworn by SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, a Notary\n3 Public in and for the District of Columbia, taken at\n\n4 the offices of Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut\n\n5 Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at 1:23 p.m., Monday,\n6 March 17, 2003, and the proceedings being taken down\n7 by Stenotype by SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, CRR, RPR, and\n8 transcribed under her direction.\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n2]\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMarch 17, 2003 FM of MAW Page 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.001533\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JUDB Document 33-14 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4of 12\n\n00037\n1 QQ. Memorandum, memoranda, do you keep copies\n\n2 of memoranda?\n\n3. A. Yes.\n\n4 QQ. Business reports, that kind of thing? If\n\n5 you would, just please describe for me. --\n\n6 \u00bb\n\nFNMA.MBW.008179\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB \u00a9 Document 33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page6of13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentiality Order\n\n12. On November 1, 1998, Ms. Williams obtained an insurance broker's license\nfrom the District of Columbia Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation in\norder that Ms. Williams, individually, as well as through RMS, could provide\nbrokerage services and teceive brokers\u2019 fees generated by her efforts with Fannic\nMae in producing insurance products bought by, on behalf of or for the benefit of\nDefendant Fannie Mae and its multifamily leaders, including its DUS and\nAgegtegation Progtam lenders.\n13. Following her departure from Fannie Mae, with the sanction of Fannie Mae,\nRichard Lawch and Grace Huebscher, Ms Williams proceeded to develop the\nbusiness \u2014 arranging meetings, attending conferences, and making proposals. She\nworked diligently and in good faith to consummate business with Defendants. Ms.\nWilliams marketed to Fannie Mae and its lendet customers a variety of insurance\nproducts.\n14. Ms. Williams attended conferences such as those sponsored by the Mortgage\nBankers Association where Ms. Williams made presentations to Fannie Mae\ncustomers regarding pertincat insurance strategies concerning Fannie Mae and its\nbusiness.\n15. The strategies were designed to facilitate and to address the following:\na.) make it easier and less costly for lenders using the then existing\nFannie Mae executions to swap mortgages for mortgage-backed\n\nsecurities or sell various loans and mortgages to Defendant Fannie\n\nMae;\n\nFM42684\n\nFENMA.MBW.008180\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-16 . Filed 06/21/2007 Page7 of 13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentialit: ~*~\n\nb.) .) minimize Defendant Fannie Mae's exposure to real estate, credit,\nand market risks associated with its portfolios of mortgages, financial\ninstruments, detivatives and hedging activities; and\nc.) .) shorten transaction time through eliminating a number of\ndocuments and substituting an insurance policy and making follow up\ntransactions vittually a snap.\n16. Defendant Fannie Mae had representatives at meetings in Chicago, San\nFrancisco, and Orlando, Florida where Ms. Williams made presentations to Fannie\nMae customers, attended parties with Fannie Mae customers, and attended Fannie\nMae parties to discuss marketing results of the conference.\n17. In May 2001, another specific proposal was discussed, reflecting the exhaustive\nwork in cefining the product. Ms. Williams, in association with CAM Financial,\nhaving secured the interest of several A+ rated insurance companies, brought the\nproposal to Fannie Mae for doing business, relying again on the written and oral\nassurances, by Fannie Mae, its officers and agents. 18. While Fannie Mae\u2019s public\ndiscussion continued as stated, privately and secretly, Fannie Mae, was proceeding\nto blackball, to deny Ms. Williams business opportunities, and to refuse to do\nbusiness with Ms. Williams, an African-American, in favor of a white male, Mr. Craig\nOtt.\n19. Please note that in response to an email dated May 30, 2001 from Ms. Williams,\nDefendant Grace Huebscher and Defendant Richard Lawch on May 31, 2001 had the\nfollowing private, written discussion by e-mail:\n\nRichard, Marialice wants to pursue the credit risk\n\ninsurance for DUS risk. Do you want to pursue with her?\n\n\u2018 MY GUT IS NO but if you think it is worth continuing\ndiscussions, I will focus on her questions?\n\n\u2014 FM42685\n\nFNMA.MBW.008181\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8of 13\n\nRichard S. Lawch wrote back by e-mail:\nIf Ofheo [OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING\nENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT] comes back with bad\nRBC [Risk Based Capital] rules we may be interested.\nAre these different players than Craig [Ott] is showing\nus?\n\nGrace Huebscher replied:\n\nProbably not so if we want to engage Craig [Ott] on this\n\nproject, that might be a better choice. If you like that\n\nplan then let's discuss what we want to ask Craig to find\n\nfor us...\nFannie Mac, Richard Lawch and Grace Huebscher never presented Ms. Williams\nwith theic true decision, motive and intention, giving one face in public and another\nwa secret, in private. Ms. Williams did not discover the existence of Exhibit A untl\nthe spring of 2002, which then made the blackball clear.\n26. Atall times, from 1998 to the present, Fannie Mac has intentionally, improperly,\naad willfully refused to do business with Ms. Williams, and bad no intention of ever\ndoing any business with Ms. Williams. Fannie Mae through its Vice-President\nRichard Lawch (now Senior Vice-President) and Vice-President Grace Huebscher of\nthe Multifamily Division engaged in an intentional and malicious plan to deprive Ms.\nWilliams of her right to contract based on her Afro-American identity, on the same\nterms as ate afforded \u201cwhite citizens.\u201d As officers and directors of Fannie Mac, they\nfurther engaged in a persistent course of conduct designed to interfere with her\nprospective economic opportunities. Ms. Williams was blackballed and locked out\n\nby Fannie Mae.\n\nFM42686\n\nENMA.MBW.008182\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB . Document 33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 PageQof13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentiality -4--\n21.\u2018 This plan and scheme was made manifest by the May 31, 2001 e-mail from\n\nHuebscher to Lawch, which summarily and explicitly denied Ms. Williams an\nopportunity to participate in a pending business opportunity.\n\n22. Further, the line of business for which Ms. Williams was uniquely qualified\nwas given to a white male citizen \u2014 one Craig Ott, with credentials and experience\ninferior to that of Ms. Williams. In fact, he was structuring and closing transactions\nbased upon the business concepts that Ms. Williams had developed at Fannie Mae\nand that he had leamed under the tutelage of Ms. Williams.\n\n23. During the above mentioned period, Ms. Williams engaged in such marketing\nefforts and made presentations to Defendant Fannie Mae through many of its\nemployees, officers and agents in such a manner that Defendant, by and through\nthese employees, officers and agents, had actual knowledge of Ms. Williams's\nexpectancy of business opportunities.\n\n\u201cA, Defendant Fannie Mae, through its agents and officers Defendants Richard\nLawch and Grace Huebscher, discouraged others and its lenders and customers\nfrom doing business with Ms. Williams.\n\n25. Defendants and other agents, employees and officers of Fannie Mae discouraged\nconsultants, brokers, lenders and customers and their representatives from dealing\nwith Ms. Williams\u2014and companies associated with her, such as CAM Financial-- in\nsecuring insurance products. They knew, for example, that Ms. Williams, as part of\nher business plan, intended to work with CAM Financial, the insurance brokerage\nfirm that provided insurance coverage for these transactions under an exclusive\n\nagreement with Fannie Mae.\n\nFM42687\n\nFNMA.MBW.008183\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-16 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentiality Order\n26. Fannie Mac thereby deprived Ms. Williams from earning commissions through\nits co-brokerage agreement with CAM Financial. Their actions are continuing and\nongoing to the present while Fannie Mae is continuing to do business in the small\nmultifamily housing market using mortgage backed secutities\u2019 products developed\nby Ms. Williams, as stated previously above.\n27. Defendants blacklisted and blackballed Ms. Williams. These actions drove Ms.\nWilliams into bankruptcy.\n28. Ms. Williams has been damaged as approximate cause of Fannie Mae\u2019s illegal\nand tortious actions in an amount in excess of $35,000,000 as a result of lost co-\nbrokerage commissions with CAM financial commissions attributable to placing\niasurance for her own insurance commission account and insurance consulting fees\nwith the above referenced customers and prospective customers.\n29. This damage is continuing and growing.\n30. Defendants\u2019 conduct and actions as set forth induced the breach of prospective\nbusiness relationships, contracts and economic expectancies between Ms. Williams,\nan African American, and its customers and prospective customers, and encouraged\nand promoted the establishment of business relationships, contracts and economic\n\nexpectancies with white persons, contrary to the protection offered by 42 USC 1981.\n\nCOUNT II TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC\nADVANTAGE\n\n31. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-30 are repeated and expressly\n\nincorporated here.\n32. Defendants' conduct and actions as set forth constitute a tortious\n\ninterference with a business or prospective business relationship or economic\n\nFM42688\n\nFNMA.MBW.008184\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentiality Order\n\nadvantage with Ms. Williams's customers and potential customers, CAM Financial,\nand its co-brokerage, commission-shating relationship with CAM Financial.\nDefendants, with knowledge of Ms. Williams's co-brokerage and joint marketing and\nsales atrangement with CAM Financial and its efforts to market and sell its insurance\nproducts, insurance consulting and general consulting services to Defendant Fannie\nMae's lenders and customers, has intentionally and without justification or privilege\ninterfered with such relationships with CAM Financial and Ms. Williams's customers\nand potential customers by inducing or causing a breach or termination of such\nrelationships and expectancy and resultant damage.\n\nCOUNT HL INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL\nHARM/OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT\n\n33. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-30 are repeated and expressly\n\nincorporated here.\n\n34. Defendants blacklisted and blackballed Ms. Williams. Those actions caused her\nto file bankruptcy, to leave her office at the Watergate in disgrace and to leave her\nhome at the Watergate despondent and nearly unable to function. Ms. Williams was\ndevastated by the shabby and disingenuous way she was treated. All these years Ms.\nWilliams worked in good faith to attempt to fashion a business relationship with\nFannie Mae based on what she brought to the table. These actions caused her\nshock and humiliation when they revealed all her work to have been in vain.\nDefendants crushed her in a way that has cost her untold millions in lost business.\nThose actions caused her worst nightmare to come true.\n\n35. Those actions were intentional/and ot were carried out with reckless disregard\n\nfor her as a person and as an African-American. Those actions are outrageous, and\n\nFM42689\n\n10\n\nENMA.MBW.008185\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-16. Filed 06/21/2007- Page 12 of 13\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nand Confidentialits Ardo~\n\ninflicted on her great emotional distress, namely, fright, horror, grief, shame,\nhumiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment and nausea.\n\nCOUNT IV - REQUEST FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF TO ORDER DEFENDANTS\nTO CONTRACT WITH MS. WILLIAMS ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS WHITE\nCITIZENS, AND TO AFFORD HER THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES\nPREVIOUSLY DENIED.\n\n36. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-30 are repeated and expressly\nteicarporated here.\n\nJURY DEMAND\n\nMs. Williams requests a trial by jury on all issues allowable by law.\n\nREQUEST FOR RELIEF\niL DAMAGES: Based on Counts Onc, Two, and Three, Ms. Williams demands actual\ntlamages in the amount of $50,000,000, which includes compensatory damages, lost\nvammissions, damage to credit due to bankruptcy, emotional distress and suffering.\nMs. Williams also demands punitive damages in the amount of $100,000,000 for the\nmalicious, wanton, outrageous conduct of Fannie Mac and its employees.\n2, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: Plaintiff requests this Court to enter injunctive relief\nenjoining Fannie Mae and its officers from further interfering with Ms. Williams\n\nbusiness opportunities.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nHarley J. Daniels, Esq.\nBrian Lederer, Esq.\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq.\nLaw Offices\n3003 Van Ness St, NW, Suite #W228\nWashington, D. C. 20008\n690 (202) 244-1715\nFM42\n\n41\n\nENMA.MBW.0081 86\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document-33-16 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 13 of 13.\n\nVerification\n\nSubsctibed and sworn before a Notary Public in Washington, District of Columbia, |,\nMarialice Bathrus Williams, Plaintiff, state that I believe that the facts stated in the\nComplaint for Damages and for Injunctive Relief are true, to the best of my\nknowledge and information.\n\nMarialice Bathrus Williams\n\nNotary Public\n\nMy Commission expires:\n\nConfidential\nSubject to Protective Order\nond Confidentiality Orde-\n\nFM42691\n\n412\n\nFNMA.MBW.008187\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:46:02-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":15,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888656","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit N - Draft Complaint","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686756/","id":2686756,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/16/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.760756-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.151679-08:00","sha1":"e38914ea7f7b667451037ea791c8ecf83cbaada2","page_count":5,"file_size":121848,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.16.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.16.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-17 Filed 06/21/2007 Page of5\n\nEXHIBIT O\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-17 Filed 06/21/2007 Page2of5\n\n00001\n1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\n3 SOUTHERN DIVISION\n\n5 CAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,\n\n6 Plaintiff, : Case No.1:0icv314BrR\n7.\n\n8 GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE :\n9 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY :\n10 COMPANY; GENERAL STAR MANAGEMENT :\n11 COMPANY, GENERAL RE CORPORATION; :\n12 GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION: :\n13 CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF\n\n14 MEMPHIS, INC.; CRAIG OTT,\n\n15 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS\n\n16 REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AS VICE :\n17 PRESIDENT OF GENERAL STAR\n\n18 MANAGEMENT COMPANY\n\n19 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n\n20 ASSOCIATION\n\n21 (FANNIE MAB),\n\n22 Defendants.\n\n23 ----------------- X\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMay 5, 2003, FM of MAW Page 1\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002921\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-17 Filed 06/21/2007 Page3of5\n\n00002\n1 Washington, D.C.\n2 Monday, May 5, 2003\n3 Videotaped Deposition of MARIALICE\n\n4 WILLIAMS, a witness herein, called for examination by\n5 counsel for Defendant, Fannie Mae, in the\n\n6 above-entitled matter, pursuant to subpoena and\n\n7 agreement, the witness being duly sworn by PENNY M.\n8 DEAN, a Notary Public in and for the District of\n\n9 Columbia, taken at the offices of Steptoe & Johnson,\n\n10 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at\n11 9:55 a.m., Monday, May 5, 2003, and the proceedings\n12 being taken down by Stenotype by PENNY M. DEAN, RPR,\n13 and transcribed under her direction.\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n2]\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMay 5, 2003, FM of MAW Page 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002922\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-17 Filed 06/21/2007 Page4of5\n\n00032\n1 was also giving Grace Huebscher the decision-making\n\n2 power and she clearly indicated that she did not want\n3 to do any further business with me.\n\n4 BY MR. WIMBERLY:\n\n5 Q. And how was he giving Ms. Huebscher the\n\n6 decision-making power?\n\n7 ~~ A. Imet with Ms. Huebscher at a restaurant\n\n8 along with Rhoda Newman who used to work for me when\n9 I was at Fannie Mae. And Ms. Huebscher indicated\n10 that she was looking for new and innovative ways to\n11 lay off risk and I] told her that ] had several brand\n\n12 new concepts that I had developed and she indicated\n13 that she would like to sign a confidentiality\n\n14 agreement with me at that time and after doing so --\n15 and it was a five-page confidentiality agreement\n\n16 which covered all the ideas which I would disclose to\n17 Ms. Huebscher. After that, and I brought in at great\n18 expense and difficulty the internationally renowned\n19 expert on captive insurance companies who had just\n20 completed writing the regulations for the District of\n21 Columbia and the application for the District of\n\n22 Columbia's new captive program, she listened to all\n23 of my ideas, I then began to corresponded with her by\n24 e-mail and she would not respond to me at all, she\n\n25 would not respond, I would cc Mr. Lawch, she would\n\nMay 5, 2003, FM of MAW Page 32\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.002952\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-17 Filed 06/21/2007 Page5of5\n\n00033\n1 notrespond. So I received no response to any of my\n\n2 efforts and therefore could not press any further\n\n3 with Fannie Mae.\n\n4 Q. When was that?\n\n5 - neh .\n\nvo - To: , . Q\n\n\" \u201cgubj\u00e9et\u00e9 A few questions 2 and: an apdate from RMS. - oa et : oak tp je oo\n1 . i\u00a5 ioe : ho .\n\nve Update fom RMS -\n\n\u201d _ First the good news--we rehave the interest af three insurance companies, two of \u2018whom are domestic. All are erated At and above,\u201d\nHowever, we need | to \u2018know a couple of things to facilitate our discussions with them:\n\n: 4. is there any. interest on Fannie\u2019 Mae's partin insuring her portion of the 5-20% mezzanine level of risk oa the DUS S ponte?\n(This \u00a9 could toad toa lower prerhium for the lenders). :\n\nme 2 Does Farini\u00e9 Mae have any objection to the DUS lenders slaying off all or Part of thelr first loss ss obligation on the DUS ioane to a -\not. \"AA\" or better rated credit enhancer? *\n\u201c3, Is Is there any / possiblity of obtaining data from Fannie Mae regarding the undervring and performance of the DUS portfolio?\n- The keen interest is in what percentage of the mortgage loans originated meet the various tiers of the DUS program and has there\n. been a distinction in the\u2019 performance based upon those tiers of Hoans? .\n\n' Sorry that we were unable to get Kate Westover i in to see you in June, We only need about. and hour: and a half Isthereatimein\naly th that will work? Also. if you find that there is room because ofa cancellation i i June we would be happy to fin\n\n- We. don't need all of \u2018the answers toe our questions: atone time. As soon as you have some idea about each question, tet us know.\n, Thanks, Marialice .\n\nwrod av: af above\n\nsike UUS patting?\n\nusb agar ant Kyi\n\n\u2018bot J oe . - SO . \u2014 40496 \"5923/01 9:53 AW.\n\nENMA.MBW.008031\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19 Filed 06/21 [2007 Page 5 of 17\n\nSB ivd: Captive Insurance, Company Update} :\n\n\u00bb Sibjects [Fwe: Captive Insurance \u2018Compinty Update].\n-Dat\u00e9: Wed,06 Jun 2004 12:21:05.-0500 |\niF rom: Bob Jones -\nTo: dvgroves@bellsouth, net, chockrunsey@eam-financil com\n\n: Bob. Jones wrote:\n\ni \u2018advised\u2019 \u2018Marialice to copy both. Red capital \u2018and Lend Lease on \u2018this. . .\nmessage to Richard and Grace, . just as. if she never saw the Fannie. Mae.\nemail _t\u00e9garding Graig. ott. - %\n\n. this reversal by IRS now offers Fannie Mae and/or each pus Lendet. to :\n-: > foxm their\u2019 own captive under the same \"economic family\u201d for balance\u2018 -\u00b0 ~ /\nsheet \u2018treatment: with the captive first loss premium now\u2019 tax deductible, . .\n\u2018The: IRS raling also. acknowledges. the shift of captive first loss from :\n.-* the the policy Holder to the.insurer for risk transfer. Our copyrighted\n' MCRI policy is acceptable\u2019 for risk transfer and could be used by AIG, | :\n\u201c Gen Star. or Surich to front the. captive. coverage. , .\n\ntc\n\n\u201cSubjects Captive li Tnstiraace Conipainy Update\n' Dates Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:13:44 -0400-.\nFrom: \"Marialice Williams\u201d \nTo: , \u2019\n\u201d- CC: , , > \n\nOn June 4; 2001, the IRS issued a \u2018ming that fins the i insurance world reeling. The long standing pe position that premiuins 2s paid to\ncaptives are e not deductible under a the so-called\u201d economic family\u201d theory has been reversed.\n\nThe IRS, iit 1977, took thep position that \u201cin the case of related- -party risks, if such risks are insured of reinsured by arelated\ninsurance company\u2014one in-the same 'econamic family, the premiums involved cannot be deducted from federal taxes becabse risk -\n\n-has not Shifted from the. policyholder to. the insurer.\u201d\n: \u201cAccordingly, tl the IRS will no longer invoke the. \u2018economic fanily theory with Tespect to captive insurance transactions.\u201d\n\nAfter this\u2019 new ruling, it i is clear that the captive i is an ideal way to lay off the first loss obligation of assetholders entering into -\n\u201d- secondary market transa\u00a2tions. This ruling can-cnable Fannie Mae to set up its own credit enhancement facility. Andi in light of\n, Fannie \u00e9 Mae's credit, the capitalization costs would be minimal, =~ y\n\nPo, The DUS lenders could set ups such a fund with their DUS reserve accounts and obtain. substantial economic benefit as well as as\u201d\n- reducing I Fanni\u00e9 Ma\u00e9's exposure to the risk associated with this portfolio, That's because any policy issued by a DUS lender's\nCaptive insurance compariy: would be wrapped or fronted bya rated Teinsurer, to\n\n- My associate and I serve on the Captive Advisory Committee for the District of Columbia's Department of Insurance and Securities\nRegulation. Our new law was pattemed after the Vermont statute which is considered the best domestic jurisdictior in which to\n_ form a captive: Just one.captive has applied for and been approved to operated i in D.C. This could have all Kinds of positive \u2014\n- ramifications for Fannie Mae. : :\n\nas ode\n\n- Our associate, Kate Westover, j in Vermont, j as assisting US with \u00e9ur customers. She will be consulting with Larry Mirrel,\nthe Commissioner for. DISR on 1 June 14 while you guys at Fannie Mac will be out of town, We had hope to bring her by.\n\nMeanie, my aisaciate, Harvey Hartsfield continues to work with Rhoda on a time for Kate to make a presentation to Fannie\n\n: Mae.\n\n10514 6/6/07 12:31 PM\n\nlof2-\n\nENMA.MBW. 908054\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\n\f* . Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB _ Document 33-19 Filed 06/21/2007 _ Page6of17_ :\n\nty! \u2018Feel free to call if you have questions. . Marialice ue\n\n2of2 oe - St - - 10515 6/6/0k 12:31 PM\n\n3\n\nENMA.MBW.008052\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\f* apie insurance Cumpames\n\n: 2 Sujet Captive Insurance Companies.\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19 Filed 06/21/2007 Page /7of17\n\nDate: Mon, 18 Jun 2061 16:29:30 -0400 *\n\n- Brom: \"Risk-Mit\" . Lo:\n\u201cTor , crnbeisler@redeapitalgroup.cc com> \u00b0 :\nOG \u2018, , \"Bob Jones\" \u201cbobjones@eamfnancil com> -\n\nHaney and Is saw \u2018the quotes \u2018from Davidi in an anticle | in ithe Muli:Housig News for June 2008, Glad tos sce that you guys a are - mo : So\n\n, a . \u2018anticipating another successful year in nrefinanting apatiment b baiting mortgages.\n\n. We just \u201cwanted to > reinind you that 01 our captive insuraiive company concept has just been give a \u2018boost by the new Revenue 2 Rating\n| vfrom IRS: Our associate, Kate \u2018Westover gave an excellent: presentation at at the Department of lr Insurance and. Securities Regulation\nlast week. Several of our clients were in attendance. . ,\n\n\"Kate was able to confirm for Lany. Mire! the head of DISR that the new Revenue Railing byt the RS, 2001 31, provides for the\u2019\n\nme deductibility of premiums paid to captive insurance companies by captive insurance company owners. And further bolsters the\n\n~ \u2018concept. that captive insurance companies, owned by a related company or parent, are true insurance companies. Therefore, onc\u00e9 a\n\n- _ captive issues a policy to cover the risk on a portfolio. of assets there is a true risk transfer from the related or parent campany to.\n\n: \u2018the captive. Therefore, our clients who are concemed about risk-based capital i issu\u00e9s can now form a captive insurance company, . .\n: transfer the risk of Joss of their loan portfolio to the: captive. insurance + company and get the accounting and balance sheet relief that\nthey heed. - : : . a oy\n\nAnd, if used i in connection with securitization, the captive i insurance company policy is the oredit enhancement necessary to .\n\n. . eliminate the need to ISSUE SUBORDINATE SECURITIES. '\n\nAlso, D. C \u2018has approved the first captive insurance \u00a2 company y under the new D. C captive insurane\u00e9 law. We are on the captive\n\n\u2019 \u201cadvisory committee for D.C, and are more committed than ever to bringing this innovative risk transfer concept to our customers.\n\nmo ~ We are happy to be able to provide this innovative tool te our customers on'a local basis. \u2018The off-shore jurisdictions have.\n\ndominated this busiriess for the past 30 years.\u2019 -\n\n. Let\u2019 us know if you would like to see the documestation on the revenue e ruling or want to disess the use of the captive insurance as\n\n\u201cog risk-transfer credit enhancement facility \u00a7 in your day to day operations, fetta pail Rp an\n\nlof]\n\n: - Marialice Williams :\n\nere a Eel ithule, WS\n\nbei Luh bisa: ane\n\ni\nop A Gur custorniecs\n\ntin HAAS\n\n10519 6/18/01 445 PM.\n\nFNMA.MBW.008054\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 17.\n\nFP pwowaeeunuss ab angen te Tt\n\n\u2018Subject: Presentation on 1 August a\n\n: Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:49:18 0400\n\nFrom: \"mail .risk-mitigation.com\" \u201cemarialice@iskomitgation, com>\n-, To: \"Rhoda E Newman\u201d ,\n ... 0 Coon\nCC: |\n\nwy We are: ooking fo forwatd to imeeting with you oni the 2ist st of August \u2018However, we want to make certain that Kate j is on. .\n\n \u201ctarget-with her presentation. Could you please let us. know if you are looking. at the captive as a potential c credit\n\nBe \u2018enhancement tool for Fannie Mae or. as a tool that the DUS lenders could use.\n\nlof!\n\nf\n\n- met with LendLease\u2019 Chief Cradit Officer and the CFO i in Dallas last week. There. appears: fo be ir interest on their\n*.\u201d part in using a captive insurance company as a risk transfer and.credit enhancement vehicle butthey were -\n. \u201cconcerned about Fannie Mae's r\u00e9action to the concept of caplive.insurance companies. . Also, it appeared to\n.. LendLease that the captive could be-very-effective if they could also lay off their 5% first loss obligation under the |\n-DUS program: to the captive i insurance company. This, question was $ raised i in my. e-mail to you back on May 30.\n\n: - Finally, could wa spend a little time discussing the other iwo questions from the Insurance companies that we e posed\nto you at the end of. May? :\n\nMy partner, Harvey Harsh eld will be working with Kate on her presentation sO pl\u00e9ase ec him on your response.\n\nThanks. Marialice .\n\nwat, eT uniter ihe\n\u2018oh May SO\n\nPei wg Gates\n\n10522 \u00a9 s6i01 12:00 PM\n\nFNMA.MBW.008057\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\f\u201cPage 9 of 17\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19\n\nFUIGHISIC? FOAL OCT ppudoig pup Jatuaptfuoy\n\nCOS TPL TOE HE\n\n\u2018 ~ - . _saeie3 \u201cmaysenanid sia MI wom Faxes aujastouay uojjeuzsoyny now 40t\nOya ee lo OAT SESIOSLVYLS NOLLVOILIW Nort\n\nee . 2 my fas oS we - -NOLLATOs AALLAV TL\n\n\u00a9 tAg qwes\n\n\u2018ZIG BEE Z20e\n\nTRg9S:z 4-8z-Bnv\n\nz obeg:\n\nENMA.MBW.008060\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fPage 10 of 17\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19\n\n- _ Pap eR aAt\n: oO\nLe. oe oe mo \u201cparame, 40 9 syunoage Buryisopin poebaibes Aeset eaeu Aew (epanuy sk fg pauumo 104) onyeies Paiosuods y \u201c\u20ac\n\u201c . . \u201c-dlysieuno ou yng seunp pue suse Buyaey vendeo\n- oe ce . : oe \u201canne 10 seas 30 Juedpaied, e 2 ag fous 1 \u2018aluno uel 2 eq) 40 onydes oun UM > Ae pamsu poreaniudos ou, <\nualhsui pepuipe-uow e. M04 soupsnsil eseysind pue\n. - SLI ! 0 sunewe jueoyubis rere: 3 Ainge ou sey Worn ebupirisuy jo sekng jejoveusuoa e st paunaul Peyeansiydos ayl <\n. users Aojeinbai aoueinsuy fetofauuwos\nou 40 spisino /Spasnsuy pareonsno, fo sys aun yo aouemisuias 10 eouensul ay s! asodinid Areuiid s anydes ay L<\u00ab\n_Whaidiese eB 10: \u2018en B \u2018fuedio\u2019 sors e 08 tie ~ ftedoa souesnse) esodind Hepeds \u00a5 \u00ab\n\nCos gee sag me geandege srzeyat\n\n:Ag 1Ues |\n\nt\n\n'LEOE BEE coe\n\n*WuOS:z\n\ne ebeg\n\n- }0-82- Bry\n\nFNMA.MBW.008061\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fPage 11 0f17 ~\n\nFiled 06/21/2007 ~\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19\n\nno - : ~, : vo - \u201cauto pueio, fa POMOC} spounsu s n 49} efonuon asoysuo Supe au. i Suleseg Bpnuniog soz plig 0961 au ul\nes . mo oo xe) p auted 4999 a 7 pans eu Sumo, \u2018soSquerpe \u00bb xa. patoyo Ayre seypqwop anid arousHd\n\nge ie \u2018senbiuyoey aay ieino vem 2860) sdeyied pasn 229 sey ey weuayseus Atuy ue souesriauy andes |\n\n& . L 8 se\u2019 gone: \u2018neiBod | Bixpuny ss Baneusaie Buneye _ - asvodsal e s| yemew . LUV,\n\n. a. 3 ! a \u2018 : onpeye 3809 24 you keut fuedwo eohesnen ferounuce 8 . \u2018ysl 204) jo ie 10. sejsuen\n\nPape desdiyy\n\n\u201cpaumo\n\nsq. faiofew \u00a9 eu \u2018000 e Jano je payeuyse are Lojeredo juenns ut | SoA in ejaeqauun are sonsiiens SPM. PLOM\n\u201cpyeuine) se sounsnsyy enndeo sezusooes mou OIVN ain - Aysnpu andes e usiigeise % Sula ae SaqBys snolsunny\ncuemer, \u2018a pemotiy \u2018painsuy sn 10}. syoquiop aucysuo Buipea, aut oulnaaq qwoulsan s0g6t ay) ul\n\n*sojouop ardusyo uy sonydes ysour 194 sabejueape xe] peyeuiuutje uouejsi6ol uowerodson ubia104 Pationuog,\nreuleouy Sunivepun,\n\n80061 hyea atiy 4 x0 out tu Pewoy Bureq\n\n\u201cuopezqunods xsi (Kquacas you) pue souBsnsuy yas peyljenb* selqonpop pel iy. \u2018seroqod. payer fenypadsonay\n\n10 sajsues, BR SANEUIONY out \u20ac\n\n-auirisse 0} Bum st 1 ureduiioa eaueinsuy ou Rul sys aney Rew Aaa s0-\n\n\u2018speunsuy peyeaysiydos \\ 104 <\n\nA A A A A\n\nfg qves\n\n S\u00a3408 BEE z0z\n\nt0-Be-Gny\n\n: TNBSSZ\n\ny-36eg\n\nFNMA.MBW.008062\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fPage 120f 17)\n\nFiled 06/21/2007 |\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01 483-JDB . Document 33-1 9\n\n\u201cSS agson ls os\n\nthon aS : eS, . \u201csuumiboid stamped io eouninsuy 798 wey) JSOUEW enipoye 1860 evolu 2 U au, peursiay Surouoiy 40 weueypou\n\n poprdeoteen\n\n\u201ceBeNBACD. pue sulle|o \u2018tp s .$80| Jano JORUaD 'sn00} Wweweseuew yeu Pancuduy \u201cpy\nah A . . oF mo o a Me oh uonusras $ anydes ou) exoge pug, ing tnoq 4811 40 s2)suen jo 1800 u uoronpay \u2018e\n\nURE Be ea 98 Busweuy uy Auyepecun conivas 6] paunsuy to Rige on enoiduy 0} Suguncooe. eousitisi jo eZ\nclose eae se ee! Ls os eantiog pus yea5 -\n\nCanis ky! &SsAudvo asn OL S3NNLLNOD S.G3YNISNI OG AHM\n\n:AB Was\n\nIZhOR BEE 20Z\n\nlo-g2-Sny\n\nMd9922\n\n\u201csg ebeg\n\nFNMA.MBW.008063\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fPage 13 of 17\n\nFiled 06/21/2007 .\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19\n\n_ suioasde juetsqied 10 svicihq' eojorne \u2018aiedand | enoge Z IM qusutoue ,\n\n-spudunsutal 16 5 bak pie seBero1a0 uodn Buipuadsp sow 20 sibam\n\nideo wusuisbetiou 1 Aewone oqoruuop kq auop aq 3 Ae) Nam t ONAIS ONY NOLLVuV dad NOWVOMddy\nes * Fahiep 2 t mine \u2018peanbau st\n\n\"-pasnbat jencudse O38 \"proidde pieog suum hq pouiuuayep aus\n\n\u201cuoweunb eojiensue pue Bunion Uedn Buypuedep \u2018 ssef 10 inuoii t .\n\n\u201cMOINAL sepjoysieus pue- uopesederd JQy 150K es c mony :\n\noe * : a a - fons 108 adoos = BIep sso) He Aeon uodn Supuodp ato 40 wntious t\n\nood\n\nfe bas! : nviboud BALD V ONILNSW2TaWl\n\naN GauwmuSS \u00a9 oe Se os Se Sate\n\n: oardatgn\n\nSeg - NOLLWONdav BHI ONMIS waLaY SHaaM 5 O1 PaasNaoit ATivnsh SISALdvO \u00a5.\n\nSLNaWaauOV invatouweve NOIS YO SSuVHs aNSsi th .\n\nayeon e\n\nseem | NOLLVHOdHOONI HO Tid 6\nNOLWINAWNO00 \u00ab ONILREMYSONN 8\n\n\u201c \u2018SuRaIAOUd BOIRUES. 40 NOILOSTaS \"awOWod OL LISIA \u201cgS:\n\n- NW1g ssanisna AO. WAONdav \u2018g\nNOUvavdta Nvid SSSNISNG \u2018p\npo NOLWINaNNOG AULVYOAYOD \u20186.\n\n. 2 4ants sinigisvas +1\n\nSL\n\nl WwHlvTio9 NO/ONY NOWWZITWLIEvO \u2018SiNnoSoY SINVE NadO ' He\nwo eS - sNOLuMOS ONDINVE SSvd\" SUONIO 10373 OL NUR TWNOILziNvSu0 70H 04\n\n-ONRENLONELS WvEuDOud \u201cZo\n\n\u2018\n\n' SAB ques \u00a9\n\n\u2018108 BEE 2Oz\n\n10-92-5ny\n\n\u201cnd\u00e9gie.\n\n6/9 sbeg\n\n064\nMA.MBW.008\nFT MONFIDENTIAL\n\foe oo afl \u201cseydms pue sontasay\nso simozoy. TUSUNSOAUT \u201d\n\nPage 14 of 17\n\n\u201cUppy -\n# ed\n\n=\n\n\\-. onion areRofSy\nEP. pure oyroads soy\n\n - BouBINSUTY -\n\n9 papad :\n\nwee 1. |= sandes\nOD \u00bb ree AINY\ncee 2 7B erRwID-\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\nsmsomimaaas amu Chek \u201cunwed\npe s2hey dono\n\n\u201c fF supssaoxg\n\nPOT . -sa9y juort sure}OYy- .\nHo Suedino3 OLY\n\nstinssy sande, \u20ac\n: | 00 -\n\nSUOISSTUWOD suTRIOY\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-19\n\u201ces\n\nYau\n((a00) uunyurasy ssoip) peusu9 z\n\npamsuy\n\nboa i CAN 2 oy , sanna IO MOTE aATLAVO am\n\ni AG Reg\u201d\nFNMA.MBW.008065\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\n\u20182106 BEE 20Z\n\nto-B2-Bry |\n\ntid L572\n\neft abeg\n\fPage 15 of 17\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\niQ ok, Hoh \u201cSANNA 40 MOTE NOLLWZILRINOAS SR\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01 483-JDB Document 33-19\n\ncoy : . hoe | sumoooy rade\n\na . . . A . | : & \u201csOxD) anid.\n\n- mS * - - a / oa : oo - i _ ant rides 1 \u00a2 \"\n\n\u201cwie vo\n\neet\n\n. eee .\n- gourenssy puog.\n\n- SOATIRALIO(] \u00ab\"\n\nF. sioyzeyy yeirdeg\nA: Bon ssesov eandeg\n\n* sniding poureg\n\nvee tee bo symosoy\n\n-paansuy yore 10F sO pretotag|\nSALLAW O-\n\n- SUOISSTUNLO suTeE}ay\n\n-\"MAOWNW |\n\n' \u2018stepjoyamyg oad 10\u00b0 -\nSINY alouavd CRINSNI ATLL\n\n1 4g ques\n\n10-82 -Ony\n\n*HdLS:Z\n\n6/8 abeg\n\n_ E\u00a3b0B. BER Z0z\n\nFNMA.MBW.008066\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fPage 16 0f17\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\n_ Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB = Document 33-19\n\noS Caw Le * 7 4pauinbed Buunzoniys weiGold pue sjsfjeue sso) aya\nwo - Es \u2018o00's$ LULU \u2018wIntueld jo juaoied & 1 xe} Luniasd\n\nCee Sa So \"epntueg ut jpuond\u00e9 Quouuien 104 pasinber \u2018siorenGal \u2018sie\n\nSt OOO 00'S Son's\nOUR OU THR\n\nSOOT OE BRET\n\n| BMOHSadOYO.NO' | ANOWNSA: \u2014 \u2014 yaneae\n-/))) QBYOSNOdS\u201d > | BUN Bund\n\nan hlouasaus 70 HOREOO| PUE sOupeous piedq 40} Busjaned) suosiad jo saquinti vo yuapuadag \u201cIA\nUM PUP sadtnies Bugunosor. 0 addons Aq paused NA\n\u2018Pauinba: UoneoYEo aaresau JaUyouiA 49 @fforwop Aq paulliuajad - \u201c1A\n\nMAG aHses YUM SSW OF SILO OF SISIA \u201cAI\n\nPSUIULUGISP Bq [WM S}$S09 |EUOMPMY +)\n\n- a SeBvelyo BujoBu0 payruines OL\n\n| COTE, ~ 0009 _. Bugasy siojaug jo pieog \u2018iia\n\noh \" on oo . : : or 000108: oS goo'ss - -. ~ 0a0'ss - oe . BB2YD jendegwey Aueduiog jueweieueyy \u20181A\n\nCONG .000'6 \u00b0 mo xe] Aueduio3 ee} esueny JEQuUny \u201c1A,\n\n2X3 DUIOBUG (g\n\n000%. 0009... | SHURE PUB [BARI] \u201cAL\n\n\u201cog o0'0rg a! oon\u2018ors . ueid ssauisng 10 uoneaydde sof Apmys Aiaiseay 1\n\nSS SSO TOREMETZ (y\n\n/ on net oy [me (x2) peuepey- pue Buypuey Sune} *\u2018sOUemNsulat #B\\s00 Bulprraxe \u2018eoyeuigse eaijenesuey)\n\n1+ SAU AYD GAYOSNOUS HO Bild HOt S450 ONILYYSIO ONY NOLLVNYO4 BAUD QALY HIS\n\npue Ved ssaujeng jo adoas Aq peujuaieg. \u201cA.\n\n, a So a] JO UORDATES Aq Paullaieg 11 -\nPo Ea Rees oe Ss aidippaydde say 294 Melnal Jo 4eqdes areus to tinoure Li eq ew\nwe os lee . _\u201cediape Bugunosoe pue re69} \u2018xe} jeuoissajaud pue aun fevenjoe yo junawe fq SULUGTep OG lime ae EN\n\n[RBM Y puR ypny \u2018a\nco os SBURYD UOHeUZOS preUiBse [OL\n\na mo we $000'9\u20ac$, BT POSE 20DIg~ | _. S88j UOHeNsiBau pub uoneaiddy 4 |\n\nrAg@ ques\n\n'\n\n'z10e BEE z0z\n\n\u2018y0-82-5ny\n\nTWdLS22\n\n6/6 ebeg\n\n7\nNMA.MBW.00806\nF CONFIDENTIAL\n\f\u201cWashington Mutual Transaction\n\n\u2019 Bob\u2019 Jones wrote:\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-19 \u2014 Filed 06/21/2007 |\n\n~ Subject: Washingto\u2019 Mutual \u2018Transaction\n. Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:45:56 -0500 -\nFrom: Bob Jones Sbobjones(@ecan\u00bb financial. cc coni>\n\n_ Fo: marialice(@risk-mitigation. com, amover@belsoutnet, bobjones enfin nancial com \u201c. me -\n\n\u201cl Marialice, Karl retumed my cal. \" No- ingucance. | Fannie Mae requized.a a.\n\nofl |\n\nspread account that accrues { no Front end $ ) to 50 bpts plus first -\n\n\u2018 loss\u201d recourse of some number -(confidential)} south of: 4%..: Fannie Mae's\u201d\n\ninitial recourse level was 63.: The portfolio bas 12\u00b0 year: weighted\n\n| average seasoning: Fanhie.Mae wouldn't. \u2018disclose. its CER, bat Kark used\na CPR of 4%, He was very happy with this deal,- Lo -\n\n, : He also told\u2019 me \u2018the average. \u2018recourse. on a Fannie Mae \u2018DUS portfolio. swap\u2019\n\nranges from 9 to Ate: Real \u201cinteresting, T \"hope, this. information\u2019 is -\n\nwe helpful:\n\n: Good luck on the, captive presentation with, Kate and, Fannie Mae next\noo week. - cot Foy So,\n\nPage 17 of 17 \u2014\n\nSoap eg,\n\nCONFIDE\n\n40537 |. .\n* \u201cet6vol 9:49 AM\nENMA.MBW.008069\n\nNTIAL\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:46:26-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":18,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888662","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit Q - Westover Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686759/","id":2686759,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/19/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.783519-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.195322-08:00","sha1":"d9e8d8fd829114136066ccc83b88f1ef295b565e","page_count":2,"file_size":41583,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.19.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.19.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-20 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of2\n\nEXHIBIT R\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-20 Filed 06/21/2007 Page2of2\n\ni

.\n2\"... Tor \"Rhoda E Newman\u201d ; - .\n.. ._ Sgrace_huebscher@fanniemae.com> 0\u00b0)\". 5\nCC: : -\n\n* We \u2018are-looking forward to inieeting with you ofi the 21st of Augusk However, we want to make certain that Kate ison. |\n' target with her presentation. Could you please let us know if you are looking at the captive as @ potential credit\n\n. ~, \u201cenhancement tool for Fannie Mae or as a tool that the DUS ienders could use,\n\nONS of\n\n\" Tmet with LendLease\u2019 Chief Cr\u00e9dit Officer and tha GFO in Dallas tast week. There-appears to be iriterast on their\n*.\u2019 part in using a captive insurance company as a risk transfer and credit enhancement vehicle but they were\n\n\u201cconcerned about Fannie Mae's r\u00e9action to the concept of captive insurance companies. . Also, it appeared to\n\n_: LendLease that the captive could be-very.effective if they could also lay off their 5% first loss obligation under the | .\n: -DUS program to the captive insurance company. This question was raised in my e-mail to you back on May 30,\n\n- Finally, could we spand a little time discussing the other two questions from the insurance companies that we posed.\n\nto you at the end of May?\n\n\"+ My pariner, Harv\u00e9y Hartsfield will be working with Kate on her presentation so please cc him on your response,\n\n\u2019 Thanks. Mariaiice . =.\n\nwee atedd Roe rt ey.\n\nma Rh we de\n\nwere Fo. - sworn Sit Uren Ure\noo St May CO\n\nSe sl Gee Gael\n\n10522 \u2014 syi07 12:00PM\n\nFNMA.MBW.008057\nCONFIDENTIAL\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:41:07-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":19,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888459","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit R - Production Document","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686760/","id":2686760,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/20/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.791924-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.206992-08:00","sha1":"3f8dec8e1ed88309bb8bae5fd68528838ce2c212","page_count":10,"file_size":238332,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.20.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.20.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 10\n\nEXHIBITS\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 10\n\n00001\n1\n\n2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI\n\n4 SOUTHERN DIVISION\n\n5 x\n\n6 CAM FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,\n7 Plaintiff,\n8 -against- No. 1:01cv314BrR\n\n9 GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY;\nGENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY; GENERAL\n\n10 STAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY; GENERAL RE\nCORPORATION; GENERAL REINSURANCE\n\n11 CORPORATION; CRUMP INSURANCE SERVICES OF\nMEMPHIS INC.; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n\n12 ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAB),\n\n13 Defendants.\n\nx\n14\n\nJanuary 19, 2004\n15 9:19 a.m.\n\n16 Videotaped deposition of CRAIG J. OTT,\n\n17 taken by Plaintiff, pursuant to notice, at\n\n18 the offices of Dewey Ballantine LLP, 1301\n\n19 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York,\n20 before Gail F. Schorr, a Certified Shorthand\n\n21 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and\n\n22 Notary Public within and for the State of\n\n23 New York.\n\n24\n\n25\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 1\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004939\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21\n\n00002\n\n1\n2 APPEARANCES:\n\n3 LUMPKIN & REEVES\nAttorneys for Plaintiff\n4 160 Main Street\nBiloxi, Mississippi 39533\n\n5\nBY: JAMES R. REEVES, ESQ.\n6\n7\nBYRD & WISER\n8 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n145 Main Street\n9 P.O. Box 1939 (39533)\nBiloxi, Mississippi 39530\n10\nBY: NICHOLAS VAN WISER, ESQ.\n11\n12\n\nMcGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC\n13 ~\u2014s Attorneys for Defendant FEDERAL\nNATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE\n\n14 MAB)\n643 Magazine Street\n15 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130\n16 BY: GERARD E. WIMBERLY, JR., ESQ.\n~and-\n17 CYNTHIA L. BROWNE, ESQ.\n\n18\n\n19 DEWEY BALLANTINE LLP\nAttorneys for Defendant GENERAL STAR\n20 1301 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, New York 10019-6092\n21\nBY: DAVID J. GRAIS, ESQ.\n22\n\n23\n24\n25\n\nFiled 06/21/2007\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott\n\nPage 3 of 10\n\nPage 2\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004940\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4of 10\n\n00014\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 courses?\n\n3 A. No, sir.\n\n4 Q. Where is Pace University?\n\n5 A. New York City.\n\n6 Q. Allright. Did you attend\n\n7 those at night while you maintained your\n\n8 full-time job?\n\n9 A. That's correct.\n\n10 Q. Walk me forward with your work\n\n11 history from the time that you graduated\n12 undergraduate -- from the undergraduate\n13 college in I think '68 you said. Tell us\n\n14 the various jobs that you've held up to the\n15 time that you went to work with the Gen Star\n16 companies?\n\n17 A. I worked for Aetna C&S in\n\n18 Rochester, New York.\n\n19 Q. [il tell you, so we don't\n\n20 interrupt you flow, I'll interrupt you here,\n21 but as you go through this if you can tell\n22 me generally what your job title was and a\n23 brief description of what you did it will\n24 save us from having to come back and ask\n\n25 that question once you're through.\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 14\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004952\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5of10\n\n00015\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 A. Okay. I worked for Aetna. C&S\n\n3 in Rochester, New York, for an agency as an\n4 underwriter, performing typical underwriting\n5 duties.\n\n6 [left there and moved\n\n7 after -- that was after I was discharged\n\n8 from the army in 1970. So I moved to New\n9 Jersey in 1972 where I took a position with\n10 Reynolds Securities, a New York Stock\n\n11 Exchange firm as a registered\n\n12 representative. I worked as a stock broker\n13 there for two years. [left there and went\n\n14 to -- took a position with General\n\n15 Reinsurance Corporation as an underwriter.\n16 Q. Approximately what year would\n\n17 that have been?\n\n18 A. 1973.\n\n19 Q. You hired on there at Gen Re\n\n20 as an underwriter?\n\n21 A. Yes.\n\n22 Q. Tell us in a very summary\n\n23 fashion generally what an underwriter at Gen\n24 Re, Gen Star Company does?\n\n25 A. The position I held was\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 15\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004953\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6of10\n\n00016\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 property facultative underwriter. I\n\n3 entertained risk submissions from insurance\n4 companies for the purpose of mitigating,\n\n5 transferring, reducing risk on their part.\n\n6 Facultative reinsurance is an\n\n7 account-by-account acceptance, risk\n\n8 acceptance process.\n\n9 I left General Re in 1977,\n\n10 \u201878, I'm not clear on that. \u201878, I believe.\n\n11 Q. Why did you leave?\n\n12 A. To start my own business. I\n\n13 went to work as a broker at a small firm\n\n14 called RFC Intermediaries. I worked there\n15 for one year as a property facultative\n\n16 reinsurance broker. I then left there and\n\n17 started my own business called First\n\n18 Manhattan Intermediaries in 1978.\n\n19 First Manhattan Intermediaries\n\n20 was a reinsurance brokerage firm. We had an\n21 office in New York. A year later we opened\n22 an office in Chicago. We had about 20 - as\n23 Irecall, 20 to 25 employees. We were\n\n24 acquired by Alexander & Alexander in 1981 --\n25 '83, 1983 I believe it was.\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 16\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004954\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 10\n\n00017\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 Q. Where did you go next?\n\n3 A. That acquisition was -- we\n\n4 were made part of a subsidiary of Alexander\n5 & Alexander known as Thomas A. Greene &\n6 Company. I worked there until 1988. I left\n7 there to join another reinsurance brokerage\n8 firm called -- I don't remember what it was\n9 called at the time. It was in a transition.\n\n10 It became Aon Risk Services I believe was\n11 the final name.\n\n12 Q. Aon Risk Services?\n\n13 A. I believe that was it. It was\n\n14 not -- you cannot use the word reinsurance\n15 in a brokerage name, so. And it wasn't Aon\n16 Re. I believe it was Aon Risk Services. I\n17 worked there for one year and I was\n\n18 recruited away by another firm known as John\n19 F. Sullivan Company in Philadelphia,\n\n20 Pennsylvania.\n\n21 Q. Sorry, backing up. What did\n\n22 you do at Aon Risk Services?\n\n23 A. Reinsurance broker, same as\n\n24 Thomas A. Greene before that.\n\n25 Q. Allright. We're up to\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 17\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004955\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8of 10\n\n00018\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 Sullivan. What did you do there?\n\n3 A. Reinsurance broker. I worked\n\n4 there until 1995. During that time I was a\n5 reinsurance broker and worked on information\n6 systems based reinsurance projects. I\n\n7 worked at General Star in 1995. I worked\n8 there for five years until 2000, 2000.\n\n9 Q. Did you hold the same job\n\n10 title or position during your entire tenure?\n11 A. At which?\n\n12 Q. At Gen Star.\n\n13 A. At Gen Star. No, I was\n\n14 promoted once while I was there.\n\n15 Q. What was your initial hire-in\n\n16 title?\n\n17 A. Second vice president. I was\n\n18 promoted to vice president.\n\n19 Q. When was that promotion?\n\n20 A. I would say it was perhaps in\n\n21 1997.\n\n22 Q. Were you second vice\n\n23 president, vice president of any particular\n24 division?\n\n25 A. Yes.\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 18\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004956\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9of10\n\n00019\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 Q. What division?\n\n3 A. Iwas responsible for the\n\n4 operation of the property division of\n\n5 General Star.\n\n6 Q. From 1997 up until the time\n\n7 that you left Gen Star in 2000, who was your\n8 supervisor?\n\n9 A. Kevin Brooks.\n\n10 Q. Was he your supervisor during\n\n11 the entire time that you worked at Gen Star?\n12 A. That's correct.\n\n13 Q. So there was no level of\n\n14 supervisor between you and Kevin Brooks?\n15 A. No, sir.\n\n16 Q. Who did you supervise?\n\n17 A. Thad five branch offices,\n\n18 Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, New York and Los\n19 Angeles. So I supervised the managers of\n20 the property department in those five\n\n21 offices.\n\n22 Q. Allright. Who were they?\n\n23 A. Atlanta was Cliff Groover.\n\n24 Dallas was Jerry Miller. Los Angeles,\n\n25 Michael Denton. New York, Robert Wenzel.\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 19\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004957\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-21 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 10\n\n00020\n1 CRAIG J. OTT\n\n2 And Chicago, Bruce Wise. And there was some\n3 turnover during that time, but those were\n\n4 the original contacts in those five offices.\n\n5 Q. Describe for us your duties\n\n6 and responsibilities on a typical, routine\n\n7 daily or weekly basis during this time\n\n8 period at Gen Star.\n\n9 MS. BERGIN: Object to the\n\n10 form.\n\n11 A. My responsibility was to\n\n12 manage the affairs of those, the individuals\n13 in those departments regarding their\n\n14 direction of production, their focus on\n\n15 products, and of course the goal was to\n\n16 generate an underwriting profit.\n\n17 Q. How often did you meet with\n\n18 Mr. Brooks?\n\n19 A. There was no -- we had monthly\n\n20 meetings. Other than that, there were no\n21 set pattern -- there was no set pattern of\n\n22 meetings, but I would say that we met\n\n23 intermittently perhaps once every other\n\n24 week. And we would have an annual meeting\n\n25 as well as an annual planning meeting.\n\nJan 19, 2004 - CAM of Craig Ott Page 20\n\nCONFIDENTIAL\nFNMA.MBW.004958\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:40:47-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":20,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888624","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit S - Ott Deposition Excerpts","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686761/","id":2686761,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/21/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.800341-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.221612-08:00","sha1":"e6043f5f2733a693aeb617aaa5da9e57e1bfba16","page_count":4,"file_size":94694,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.21.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.21.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-22 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 4\n\nEXHIBIT T\n\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-22\n\na ., Subject: Re: Fannie Mae Draft letter. o\n\u201cor: |) Dater Wed, 02 May 2001'15:55:54 0500.\n\n\"From: Bob Jones \n|\u201d... Yo: Marialice Williams \n\n.. Bob Jones wrote:\n\nFiled 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 4\n\n.-Mariali\u00a2e, although this is. somewhat sensitive, I don't have a. problem with the oS\n\n| letter and I believe you should send it te \u2018Grace\u00e9.-\n\n\u201cprotect each \u2018other. in our prior agreed: to Brokers .A\n\n. Fannie Mae.s \u00b0\n_. Maxialice Williams wrote: 4\n>\n> | 2nceding: quoted-printable\n>\n>\n>\n\n|. \u00a3xplanation of cam and RMS.doe\n\n) Part 4.3.1 - Type: Plain Text (text/plain) 9\u00b0\n\n\"Name: Explanation\nType: Winword File fapplication/msword)\nEncoding: base64 wort, St\n\nI believe RMS and.cAM WILL Ut\ngreement on this coverage for\n\nof CAM and\u2019 RMS. doc\n\n10478 2201646 AM\n\nFNMA.MBW.007996\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\f*. Dear Grace;\n\n. the best and lowest cost insurance available to meet their needs.\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-UDB Document 33-22 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 4\n\n| First, 1 want to thank you for the delightful iunch tast week with Rhoda: Itwas <=\n\n: ve , good catching up with you two, Second, \u2018| want to-thank you for the opportunity - | : es\n\n\"to pursue a Solution for our clients to obtain relief from their mezzanine loss. -\n* -. Coverage obligation under the DUS program. Therefore, | welcome the -\n\n\"opportunity to clearly define \u2018the relationship batween my comipariy, Risk a\n\"> Mitigation Strategists, LLC (\"RMS\") and CAM Financial Services, Inc. (\"GAM\"). _-- aos\n_. Vwas in Atlanta yesterday and had lunch with Bob Jones, President of CAM.\u201d\n.\". .Bob indicated that he had transmitted an e-mail to you and Rhoda indicating that .- -\n- - AIG may have an interest in providing insurance coverage for mezzanine levels\n\u201c. Of risk. a\n\n~ My'company, RMS, is licensed to do business in Washington, D.C. CAM and 0\nRMS do not have any connection with respect to ownership and no one from: | |\n_ CAM or RMS has an interest in the other's business ventures. \u2018However, CAM _\n_and RMS have a broker agreement that is commen in the insuranca business. \u00a9\nThe agreement indicates that when CAM locales an insurance company for a\n\n.. Project that RMS jis working on, RMS agrees fo compensate CAM through some. ~~\n\nfonn of split commission, However, it does not mean that CAM plays any rolein .\n\u2018the development of the program or project that RMS is working on nor does CAM o\ninterface with the customers. Be vo\n\n_ My company has relationships with numerous insurance brokers and carriers\u2019...\nwith whom we have signed confidentiality agreements. Due to tha innovative \u2014\n-and unique ways that our customers utilize insurance to solve their problems of. \u2014\n\n. covering different types of risk, we plan to continue to use our network of i:\nresources to assist our customers, many of whom are DUS lenders, in obtaining\n\nBefore Heft Fannie Mae, | assisted in negotiating an agreement between CAM\n\nand Fannie Mae that provided CAM with the opportunity to seek insurance-based .- wo\nsolutions for risk coverage in the Securitization program of the Negotiated 9 \u2014-\nTransaction's department. } do nol believe that the agreement between Fannie\n\nMae and CAM contemplated extending CAM\u2019s authority to work on any aspect of\n\nrisk coverage for Fannie Mae\u2019s DUS program. \u2014 ct\n\n\u2018Therefore, unless otherwise instructed by you, -RMS will continue to work on<.\n\"behalf of its clients io obtain insurance that will cover the 5-20% risk coverage\n\nobligation or mezzanine levet or risk Coverage as required by Fannie Mae under \u00bb\n\nits DUS program. \u2018 ot * Las\n\neb\n\n10479\n\nweer tae\nowt\n\n: a oe 97\nss ENMA.MBW.0073\nCONFIDENTIAL\n\fSag: Sincerely, Lp\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-22\n\n-.Marialice Wiliams\n\nFiled 06/21/2007 Page 4of4\n\ntier ele\n\n10480\n\nFNMA.MBW.007998\nCONFIDENTIAL\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:40:01-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":21,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888865","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit T - Production Document","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686762/","id":2686762,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/22/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.808452-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.236742-08:00","sha1":"9b7a20ed7575ebff6c01c956ac3fa8db08ff6e0b","page_count":3,"file_size":113616,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.22.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.22.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-23 Filed 06/21/2007 Page1 of 3\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n \n\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nCivil Action No. 1:05CV01483\nvs. -\nJudge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n\n \n\nASSOCIATION, et al.\n: DECLARATION OF KYRA\nDefendants. 1 GRUNDEMAN\nI, Kyra A. Grundeman, hereby declare as follows:\n1. 1 am counsel for defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie\n\nMae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and Grace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) in the above-captioned\naction. 1 am over eighteen years of age, and the statements made herein are based on my\npersonal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated.\n\n2. Attached to defendants\u2019 Memorandurn in Support of Motion for Summary\nJudgrnent are true and correct copies of the following documents:\n\nExh. A Declaration of Grace Huebscher, with true and correct copies of excerpts\nof depositions taken in the lawsuit entitled CAM Financial Services, Inc. v.\nGeneral Star Nat \u2019l Insurance Co., et al. , Civil Action No. 01 -3 14 (S.D.\nMiss.) (\u201cCAM Financial lawsuit\u201d) attached at Tab 1 of EXhibit A.\n\nExh. B March 28, 2007 Deposition of Marialice Williams, with a true and correct\ncopy of Exhibit 1 of this deposition, Bates-labeled FNMA.MBW.OOSOIS-\n8018, attached at Tab l of Exhibit B.\n\nExh. C Defendant Fannie Mae\u2019s Response to Plaintifi\u2019 s First Set of\nInterrogatories.\n\nExh. D Declaration of Richard Lawch.\n\nExh. E Excerpts from the March Zl, 2003 Deposition of Marialice Williams,\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-23 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 3\n\nExh. F\n\nExh. G\n\nExh. H\n\nExh. I\nExh. J\nExh. K\n\nExh. L\n\nExh. M\n\nExh. N\n\nExh. O\n\nExh. P\n\nExh. Q\nExh. R\n\nExh. S\n\nExh. T\n\ntaken in the CAM Financial lawsuit.\n\nMay 7, 2007 Deposition of Marialice Williams, with a true and correct\ncopy of Exhibit 10 of this deposition, attached at Tab 1 of Exhibit F.\n\nDistrict of Columbia Certiiicate of Revocation.\n\nApril ll, 2007 Deposition of Robert Jones, with a true and correct copy of\nExhibit 2 of this deposition, Bates-labeled FNMA.MBW.008002-8004,\nattached at Tab 1 of Exhibit H; a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4 of this\ndeposition, Bates-labeled FNMA.MBW.007369-7370, attached at Tab 2\nof Exhibit H; and a true and correct copy of Exhibit 7 of this deposition,\nBates~labeled FNMA.MBW.006230-6232, FNMA.MBW.008031,\nattached at Tab 3 of EXhibit H.\n\nCAM Financial Litigation Arnended Complaint.\nCAM Financial Litigation Disrnissal Order.\nPlaintift\u2019 s Answer to Defendants\u2019 Interrogatory Requests.\n\nExcerpts from the March 17 , 2003 Deposition of Marialice Williarns,\ntaken in the CAM Financial lawsuit.\n\nDistrict of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities & Banking\nLicensee Look-Up.\n\nMarialice Williams\u2019 Draft Complaint.\n\nExcerpts from the May 5, 2003 Deposition of Marialice Williams, taken in\nthe CAM Financial lawsuit.\n\nExcerpts from the May 6, 2003 Deposition of Marialice Williams, taken in\nthe CAM Financial lawsuit.\n\nDeclaration of Kathryn Westover.\n\nDocument Bates-labeled FNMA.MBW.008057, produced by defendants\nin this litigation\n\nExcerpts from the Jan. 19, 2004 Deposition of Craig Ott, taken in the\nCAM Financial lawsuit.\n\nDocument Bates-labeled FNMA.MBW.007996-7998, produced by\ndefendants in this litigation\n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-23 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 3\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on\n\nJune 21, 2007 at Washington, D.C.\n\n \n\n \n\nv\n\nYRA A. GRUNDEMAN\n\nc\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:45:40-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":22,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888427","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit Declaration of K Grundeman","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686763/","id":2686763,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/23/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.815323-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.250360-08:00","sha1":"a4af0f63736512de961da558d474061aaa537a71","page_count":6,"file_size":36480,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.23.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.23.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n Plaintiff, :\n :\n vs. : Judge John D. Bates\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n DEFENDANTS FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,\n RICHARD LAWCH, AND GRACE HUEBSCHER\u2019S\n STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS\n\n Defendants\u2019 1 motion for summary judgment is based on the following undisputed\n\nmaterial facts:\n\n 1. Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) was employed by Fannie Mae as\n\na director in its multifamily unit from January 1990 through June 1998, when she voluntarily left\n\nto join CAM Financial Services, Inc. (\u201cCAM\u201d). (Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 11; March 28, 2007 Williams\n\nDep. at 73:19-22.)\n\n 2. In 1997, Fannie Mae and CAM entered into a memorandum of understanding\n\nconcerning multifamily credit risk insurance. (See CAM Amended Complaint \u00b6 16.)\n\n 3. From 1997 through 1999, Fannie Mae used CAM as an insurance broker for the\n\nprocurement of non-DUS multifamily credit risk insurance. (See CAM Amended Complaint.)\n\n 4. After plaintiff resigned from Fannie Mae, she was unable to reach a mutually-\n\nacceptable agreement with CAM. (See March 21, 2003 Williams Dep. at 226:5-10.)\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n 5. In October 1998, plaintiff formed Risk Mitigation Strategists, LLC (\u201cRMS\u201d), a\n\nlimited liability company, wholly-owned by plaintiff, to \u201cpursue the business [plaintiff] had been\n\ndoing at Fannie Mae prior to [her] departure.\u201d (Amended Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 31-32; March 28, 2007\n\nWilliams Dep. at 20:17-20; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 300:19-20; District of Columbia\n\nCertificate of Revocation.)\n\n 6. Although CAM and plaintiff talked about a joint venture, they never actually\n\nentered into an agreement. (See Jones Dep. at 31:2-25.)\n\n 7. RMS and CAM did not have \u201cany connection with respect to ownership and no\n\none from CAM or RMS has an interest in the other\u2019s business ventures.\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 2, at\n\nFNMA.MBW.008003.)\n\n 8. CAM\u2019s president Bob Jones could only recall two Fannie Mae-related projects or\n\npresentations that RMS or plaintiff worked on with CAM: The May 2001 Delegated\n\nUnderwriting and Servicing (\u201cDUS\u201d) proposal and a presentation on captive insurance. (See\n\nJones Dep. at 58-59.)\n\n 9. In May 2001, RMS made a proposal to Fannie Mae to \u201clay[] off risk associated\n\nwith [Fannie Mae\u2019s] [DUS] Program,\u201d (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 3) and \u201csecure the\n\ninsurance and the DUS lenders as clients and bring the deal back to Fannie Mae\u201d (hereinafter,\n\n\u201cMay 2001 Proposal\u201d). (Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 4; see also March 28, 2007 Williams Dep.\n\nat 36:13-20; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 154:10-14; Jones Dep. Exh. 2.)\n\n 10. On May 15, 2001, Jones copied plaintiff on an e-mail to Stephen Noble from\n\nZurich Insurance concerning RMS\u2019 \u201cProposal to Provide Insurance Coverage for . . . Fannie\n\nMae\u2019s Delegated Underwriting Servicing Program.\u201d (March 28, 2007 Williams Dep. Exh. 1.)\n\n\n1\n Collectively, Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch (\u201cLawch\u201d), and\nGrace Huebscher (\u201cHuebscher\u201d).\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nThis e-mail outlined RMS\u2019 May 2001 proposal, and indicated that plaintiff and CAM president\n\nJones hoped to be able to share performance data \u201cbased on your interest in a potential\n\ntransaction.\u201d (Id.)\n\n 11. Fannie Mae\u2019s DUS program involves a small group of multifamily lenders who\n\nhave the right to commit Fannie Mae, on a loan-by-loan basis, to purchase multifamily loans.\n\n(See March 25, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 14:7-15.) In exchange, these DUS lenders share the risk\n\nof loss with Fannie Mae. (See id.; March 28, 2003 Williams Dep. at 27:4-13.)\n\n 12. On May 31, 2001, Ms. Huebscher forwarded an e-mail from plaintiff indicating\n\nRMS\u2019s interest in pursuing insurance for the DUS program to her supervisor, Mr. Lawch. (See\n\nJones Dep. Exh. 7, at FNMA.MBW.006230.)\n\n 13. In May 2001, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) was\n\nin the midst of finalizing a new, risk-based capital rule, and Fannie Mae was concerned about the\n\nregulation\u2019s potential impact on its DUS program. (See March 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at\n\n463:7-14.)\n\n 14. In July 2001, shortly after Fannie Mae received plaintiff\u2019s e-mail, OFHEO issued\n\nits final risk-based capital rule. The final rule contained significant revisions from OFHEO\u2019s\n\npreviously proposed rule, including, among other things, cutting in half the capital impact of risk\n\nsharing with DUS lenders. (See Risk-Based Capital, 66 Fed. Reg. 47730 (September 13, 2001)\n\n(codified at 12 C.F.R. part 1750); Risk-Based Capital, 64 Fed. Reg. 18084 (April 13, 1999);\n\nFannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n\n 15. The final rule obviated the need for Fannie Mae to obtain insurance for capital\n\npurposes and Fannie Mae did not pursue DUS insurance coverage at the time because it was\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\ninconsistent with the risk sharing nature of Fannie Mae\u2019s business model. (See March 26, 2003\n\nHuebscher Dep. at 449:12-25; see, e.g., Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n\n 16. Fannie Mae did not pursue the DUS proposal with either RMS or Craig Ott. (See\n\nMarch 26, 2003 Huebscher Dep. at 449:12-25; see, e.g., Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n\n 17. Plaintiff testified that she recognized in mid-2001 that Fannie Mae was not going\n\nto consummate the proposed DUS transaction with her. (See, e.g., March 17, 2003 Williams\n\nDep. at 88, 91, 102, 104, 121.)\n\n 18. CAM stopped working on the May 2001 proposal in August 2001 because it\n\nheard from plaintiff that Fannie Mae was not pursuing the proposal. (See Jones Dep at 54.)\n\n 19. The captive insurance presentation by Kate Westover, at which plaintiff, Kate\n\nWestover, and Fannie Mae representatives were present, occurred on August 21, 2001. (See\n\nMay 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-129:13; May 6, 2003 Williams Dep. at 128:25-129:13;\n\nJones Dep. at 54-55; Affidavit of Kathryn Westover; FNMA.MBW.008057.)\n\n 20. Plaintiff determined that defendants did not wish to pursue a business relationship\n\nor particular contracts with her after they stopped returning her phone calls and e-mails following\n\nthe captive insurance meeting. (See Amended Compl. \u00b6 53; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at\n\n196:19-21; May 5, 2003 Williams Dep. at 32-33.)\n\n 21. Fannie Mae and CAM did not enter into any insurance transactions after 1999.\n\n(See CAM Amended Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 48, 85, 96.)\n\n 22. Defendants did not have any business discussions with plaintiff or CAM after\n\nCAM filed suit against Fannie Mae in December 2001. (See CAM Amended Complaint;\n\nHuebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 4, 5; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3, 4.)\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n 23. Defendants did not promise plaintiff any business or even meet with her after this\n\ndate. (See Huebscher Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3, 4; Lawch Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 3.)\n\n 24. Plaintiff described her co-brokerage agreement with CAM as \u201ca simple, common\n\nco-brokerage agreement with CAM Financial that entailed paying them a commission in the\n\nevent that they secured the insurance that I needed on any of the proposals that I was working\n\non.\u201d (See Williams Interrog. Resp. No. 7.)\n\n 25. Plaintiff further explained that the co-brokerage agreement \u201cindicates that when\n\nCAM locates an insurance company for a project that RMS is working on, RMS agrees to\n\ncompensate CAM through some form of split commission.\u201d (Jones Dep. Exh. 2.)\n\n 26. The District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs\n\nrevoked RMS\u2019s articles of incorporation after the company \u201cfailed and/or refused to file reports\n\nand pay all fees and dues owing prior to June 16, 2002 and 2003.\u201d (See District of Columbia\n\nCertificate of Revocation.)\n\n 27. Plaintiff\u2019s brokerage license expired in April 2003. (See District of Columbia\n\nDept. of Insurance, Securities & Banking Licensee Look-up.)\n\n 28. Mr. Jones indicated that he did not believe that the co-brokerage agreement\n\nformally terminated prior to his departure from the company in 2005. (See Jones Dep. at 35:18-\n\n19.)\n\n 29. Bob Jones has no recollection of any conversations regarding RMS or plaintiff\n\nwith defendant Huebscher or defendant Lawch. (See Jones Dep. at 43, 46.)\n\n 30. Bob Jones has no recollection of any instance where defendants discouraged\n\nCAM from business relationships with plaintiff, (see Jones Dep. at 43, 62), or made disparaging\n\nremarks about plaintiff. (See Jones Dep. at 44, 62-63.)\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-24 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n 31. Plaintiff testified that in early 2001, she heard Mr. Lawch remark about an\n\n\u201cinternational broker\u201d and that \u201cshe knew that that was a discriminatory remark.\u201d. (See Williams\n\nInterrog. Resp. No. 1; May 7, 2007 Williams Dep. at 200; March 17, 2003 Dep. at 107-08.)\n\n 32. Fannie Mae never hired an \u201cinternational broker\u201d for the multifamily division\u2019s\n\nsecuritization and other loan programs. (See Fannie Mae\u2019s Interrog. Resp. at No. 9.)\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:41:54-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":23,"pacer_doc_id":"04501889112","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Statement of Facts Statement of Undisputed Facts","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686764/","id":2686764,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/24/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.822151-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.266842-08:00","sha1":"f2ce12a3f48980bfefbdaaa30a862aaab1f3a07b","page_count":1,"file_size":14522,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.24.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.24.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-25 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483 (JDB)\n vs. :\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie\n\nMae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and Grace Huebscher\u2019s (\u201cdefendants\u201d) Motion for Summary Judgment,\n\nand for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion issued on this date, it is hereby\n\n ORDERED that defendants\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN ITS\n\nENTIRETY; it is further\n\n ORDERED that plaintiff\u2019s amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.\n\n SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:42:39-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":24,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888591","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686765/","id":2686765,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/33/25/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.828907-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.289989-08:00","sha1":"e05af89c50a33af140baa042f10d65977522cc47","page_count":1,"file_size":12049,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.25.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.33.25.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 33-26 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via\nECF to Michael W. Beasley, Esq. and via Federal Express this 21st day of June 2007 upon:\n\nBrian Lederer, Esq.\n3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nSuite #W228\nWashington, D.C. 20008\n\nHarley Jay Daniels\n5511 Second Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20011\n\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Kyra A. Grundeman\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:49-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":25,"pacer_doc_id":"04501888630","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Certificate of Service","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.635721-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:10.272595-08:00","date_filed":"2007-06-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-06-21.026","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION for Summary Judgment by FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, GRACE HUERSCHER (Attachments: # (1) Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# (2) Exhibit Exhibit A - Declaration of Grace Huebscher and Deposition Excerpts# (3) Exhibit Exhibit B - 3-28-2007 Williams Dep and Exhibit# (4) Exhibit Exhibit C - Fannie Mae's Interrogatory Responses# (5) Exhibit Exhibit D - Declaration of Richard Lawch# (6) Exhibit Exhibit E - 3-21-2003 Williams Deposition Excerpts# (7) Exhibit Exhibit F - 5-7-2007 Williams Deposition and Exhibit# (8) Exhibit Exhibit G - DC Certificate# (9) Exhibit Exhibit H - Jones Deposition and Exhibits# (10) Exhibit Exhibit I - CAM Amended Complaint# (11) Exhibit Exhibit J - CAM Dismissal Order# (12) Exhibit Exhibit K - Williams Interrogatory Responses# (13) Exhibit Exhibit L - 3-17-2003 Williams Deposition# (14) Exhibit Exhibit M - DC License Document# (15) Exhibit Exhibit N - Draft Complaint# (16) Exhibit Exhibit O - 5-5-2003 Williams Deposition Excerpts# (17) Exhibit Exhibit P - 5-6-2003 Williams Deposition Excerpts# (18) Exhibit Exhibit Q - Westover Declaration# (19) Exhibit Exhibit R - Production Document# (20) Exhibit Exhibit S - Ott Deposition Excerpts# (21) Exhibit Exhibit T - Production Document# (22) Affidavit Declaration of K Grundeman# (23) Statement of Facts Statement of Undisputed Facts# (24) Text of Proposed Order # (25) Certificate of Service)(Goldfrank, Sarah)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579937/","id":3579937,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686739/","id":2686739,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/32/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.630094-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.448955-08:00","sha1":"b89ea09ed7f12a8cbea0f9ad55ee982226faded0","page_count":2,"file_size":24917,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.32.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.32.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\nv. ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-1483\n ) (JDB)\nFANNIE MAE, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n PRAECIPE\n (PLAINTIFF\u2019S ATTORNEY CHANGE OF ADDRESS)\n\n The Clerk of Court will please note the following change of address and point-of-\n\ncontact information for the Plaintiff\u2019s counsel in this proceeding, effective May 1, 2007:\n\n Attorney for Plaintiff (no change): Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n New Address: 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n New Phone: (703) 533-5875\n New Fax: (703) 533-5876\n New E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n 200 Park Avenue, Suite 106\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 533-5875\n Fax: (703) 533-5876\n E-Mail: beasleys2@verizon.net\n\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing Praecipe (Plaintiff\u2019s Attorney\n\nChange of Address) has been served through the Court\u2019s ECF filing system and also has\n\nbeen mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following named counsel for\n\nDefendants, this 1st day of May, 2007:\n\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esq.\nEvelyn L. Becker, Esq.\nKryra Anne Grundeman, Esq.\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 I Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n\nJonathan Lee Griffith, Esq.\nFannie Mae\n3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20016\n\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D. C. Bar No. 248930\n Attorney for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:45:02-07:00","document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450838934","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.623216-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.431227-08:00","date_filed":"2007-05-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-05-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael W. Beasley (Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579936/","id":3579936,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686738/","id":2686738,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/31/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.616142-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.420419-08:00","sha1":"fd6afcc950aa4949776dc5e6ac33f053ef0e2ab8","page_count":1,"file_size":146515,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.31.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.31.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 31 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n Civil Action No.1 :05CV01483\n vs.\n Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n ASSOCIATION, et al.\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n APPEARANCE\n\n Please enter the appearance ofthe undersigned counsel for defendant Federal National\n\nMortgage Association (\"Fannie Mae\").\n\n\n\nApril 3, 2007 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n /s/ Jonathan Griffith\n Jonathan Griffith (D.C. Bar No. 456080)\n Fannie Mae\n 3900 Wisconsin Ave., NW\n Washington, D.C. 20016\n (202) 752-6167 (phone)\n (202) 752-4948 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendant Federal National\n Mortgage Association\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:44:21-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450579520","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.608856-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.400879-08:00","date_filed":"2007-04-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-04-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Lee Griffith on behalf of FANNIE MAE (Griffith, Jonathan)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579935/","id":3579935,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686737/","id":2686737,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/30/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.601475-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.387713-08:00","sha1":"bc620021278f35706ee940cd0c9feeb47a744678","page_count":2,"file_size":93748,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.30.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.30.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 30 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n )\n v. ) Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n )\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ) Judge John D. Bates\n ASSOCIATION, et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n____________________________________)\n\n\n NOTICE OF APPEARANCE\n\n On behalf of Marialice Bathrus Williams, by and through her undersigned counsel, please\n\nenter the appearance of attorney Harley Daniels, D. C. Bar Number 50112, as additional named\n\ncounsel for the Plaintiff in this proceeding. Mr. Daniels is a Member of the United States District\n\nCourt Bar in good standing.\n\n Mr. Daniels\u2019 address is 3003 Van Ness Street, N. W., Suite W228, Washington, D. C.\n\n20008, and his telephone number is (202) 468-7737.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n _______/S/ ___________\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 248930\n 411 East Broad Street\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n Phone: (703) 241-2909\n Fax: (703) 241-5885\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 30 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n ______/S/___________________\n Brian Lederer, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 184184\n 3003 Van Ness St., NW, Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n Phone: (202) 244-1715\n Fax: (202) 244-7833\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff\n Marialice Bathrus Williams\n\n March 26, 2007\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this \u201cNotice of Appearance\u201d of attorney\n\nHarley Daniels, filed on behalf of Plaintiff, was provided by electronic mail filing and by first class\n\nmail, postage prepaid, this 26th day of March, 2007, to Evelyn L. Becker, Esquire, Kyra Anne\n\nGrundeman, Esquire, and Sarah Alexander Goldfrank, Esquire, O\u2019MELVENY & MYERS, LLP,\n\n1625 I Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, Counsel for Defendants.\n\n\n\n _______/S/________________\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n Counsel for Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:44:32-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501734461","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.595117-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.365272-08:00","date_filed":"2007-03-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2007-03-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Michael W. Beasley on behalf of MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS (Beasley, Michael)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579934/","id":3579934,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686736/","id":2686736,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/29/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.589669-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.354614-08:00","sha1":"bc6d85edc9df5604214c81adc34f199b844154b9","page_count":6,"file_size":257657,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.29.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.29.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" \n\nCasei:os-cv-omas-JDB' Documem 29\"1: `Filed12/19/2006 Page10f6\n\n \n\n-IN `THE UNITED-srATiEs i)lsTRICT coUR_T Fi LE D\nnon THE nlsimc_r oF`CoLoMBIA\nDEC 1 9 2005\n1 .' - mud times wmrrmstom,citsl<\n\u2018 MARiALIcE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, : . , civil Accion No. 1;05\u00a2v01433 u.s. msimctcoum\nPiaimifr; ' \u2019: '\n: \u00bb dudge John D. Bates\nvs. : '\n_ FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE \u00a7\n. AssociA_TIoN, RICHARD LAWCH, t y __\n_ANI) GRACE HUEB sCHER, '- sTIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE\n\n \n\nl ORDER\n' Defendants\u2018. ` -'\n\n \n\nl\nl\n\nPlaintifl` Marialice Bathrus Williams aind defendants Federal National Mortgage\n_Association_(\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), R_ichard Lawch :and _Gr_ace. Huebscher (collectiyely, \u201cParties\u201d) by\nand through their respective counsel, having s:tipulated_ and agreed that an order pursuant to\nF-ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is necessary -to'pro:tect documents and other information in\n\n. the above-captioned action (\u201cAction\u201d), it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\nI. t SCOPE: OF-ORDER\n\nThis Stipulation and Protective Order j(\u201cProtectiVe Order\u201d or \u201cOrder\u201d) includes in its\nscope all documents, things and information (:including all documents and tangible things as\ndefined in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of ijivil Procedure or any applicable local rule) that\nare produced, disclosed or_ filed in the Action by or on behalf of any Party or non~party,\nVoluntarily or involuntarily, Whether pursuant to formal or informal discovery requests,\nsubpoena, deposition, notice, motion practice or triali and Whether revealed in a document,\ndeposition, a response to any type of Written discoyery, a submission to the Court, testimony\n\nadduced at trial, introduced into evidence or oj;herwise disclosed (\u201cLitigation Material\u201d).\n\n\u00a7\nt\n|\n1\ni\nl\n\n \n\n \n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 29 'Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 6\n\nII. DESIGNATION OF COl\\lFlDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\nA. A Pa:rty shall have the right to designate confidential any Litigation Material that\n\ncontains or discloses such Party\u2019s confidential business information, trade secrets or sensitive\n\nproprietary commercial, financial or research information that has not been released into the\n\npublic domain (\u201cConfidential Information\u201d).\n\nB. All Litigation Material that a Party claims is Confidential lnformation and subject\n\nto the terms of the Protective Order must be designated as Conlidentia] lnformation by\n\nconspicuously stamping the Word \u201cCONFID]_EZN'I'I_AL\u201d on each page (except that in the case of\n\nmulti-page document in Which the pages are consecutively numbered, only the first page need be\n\nso stamped) or, in the case of other infonnatigi)n, by notifying the other Parties in writing\n\nConfidential lnformation disclosed at a deposition shall be designated as such on the record or by\n\na letter to all counsel of record Within 30 days of receiving the transcript Until the 30-day\n\nperiod elapses, the Parties shall treat such deposition material and testimony as Contidential\n\nInformation.\n\nnl. \u00a7ESTRICTIQNS oN Uss_s 0F_ ;CoNLIDE__N_TIAL_LNFQB_MATION\n\nConfidential Information shall be used solely for the purposes of preparation trial and\n\nappeal of this Action and for no other purpose, except that nothing herein shall limit any Party\u2019s\n\nuse of its own docnrnents, things or information Com\u2018idential lnformation shall not be disclosed\n\nor disseminated to anyone, except:\n\nA. The undersigned counsel for the Parties and the regular employees of outside\n\ncounsel to vvhom it is necessary that the information be disclosed for purposes of this Action, and\n\nin- house counsel and current employees of the Parties Who are in fact assisting in the prosecution\n\nor defense of this case and their secretaries, cli=:rks and legal assistants;\n\nB. The Court, the jury, court persc_ nnel, and court reporters, provided that prior to\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Docuni\\ent 29 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 3 of 6\n\nfiling any Co`nfidential lnformation, the Party attempting to file such mformation must comply\nwith the provisions set forth in Paragraph IV C) and (D) below;\n\nC. Any other person, entity or fn.n with the prior written consent of the Party who\ndesignated the material as ConEdential Inforniation; and,\n\nD. Any expert retained by a Party, or a deponent (solely for purposes of his/her\ndeposition), but only after complying with the provisions set forth in Paragraph IV(B) below.\n\nE. lf a Party that received Conf'rdential Information (\u201cReceiving Party\u201d) becomes\nobligated to disclose the information in response to a lawful subpoena_or other legal process, the\nReceiving Party shall give prompt written notice to the Party that produced the Coniidential\nInformation (\u201cProducing Party\u201d) within five calendar days from receipt of the written notice to\nallow the Producing Party the opportunity to lintervene and seel< judicial protection from the\nenforcement of the subpoena and/or entry of an appropriate protective order in the Action in\nwhich the subpoena was issued\n\nIV. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n\nA. If, prior to the date of this Pronective Orde_r, any Party shall have already produced\nor otherwise disclosed Litigation Material, the undersigned counsel for the Receiving Parties\nshall not disclose it to anyone outside of their law firms until ten days after the entry of this\nOrder. During those ten days, counsel for the Producing Party may in writing designate\nConfidential lnformation, in which event cour sel for the Receiving Party shall be responsible for\nreturning the documents, things and informati_ )n to the Producing Party so that the Confidential\nlnforrnation may be appropriately markedl ln the event a Produ_cin_g Party produced or other\ndisclosed docurnents, things and information marked \u201cCONF]DENTIAL\u201d prior to entry of this\norder, such Coniidential Inforrnation shall be protected by this Order.\n\nB. Each person to whom Confideri ti-al ]_nforrnation will be disseminated (other than\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n' ' forth its objection in writing to the Producing_\u00e9\n\ncase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB oocurr\n\nand court reporters) will be required, prior to\n\n \n\nent 29 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 4 of 6\n\n' .the'-Parties,_t`he attorneys for the Parties and their employees, the Court, the jury, court personnel\ni\n\nany dissemination, to receive and read a copy of\n\nthis Order and to agree, in writing, to be bound by the terms of this Order, and to be personally\n\nsubject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement hereof. Counsel for any\n\nReceiving Party shall maintain a list of all sur\nperson to that effect, and shall provide copies\ncamera inspection if any Party files a motion\n\nC. Any hearing which refers to 01\n\nCourt\u2019s discretion, be held in camera Before\n\n\\\n\n'h persons along with the written agreement of each\n.of such written agreements to the Court for in\n\nto enforce this Order.\n\ndescribes Confidential Information may, in the\n\na Party may refer to or describe Contidential\n\nlnformation in a court hearing, that Party must request that the hearing be held in camera\n\nNothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any Party\u2019s right to contest\n\nthe sealing of any documents, things and infoi'mation pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of\n\nCivil Procedure.\n\nD. The Parties agree to tile with the Court any Conftdential lnformation only \u201cUnder\n\nSea \u201d, to the extent allowed by the Court.\nE, If an objection to designation a\n\nConfidential lnformation is made, counsel for'\n\nParty shall meet and confer as soon as practng\ndifferences Failing resolution, the Obj ectingl\n\nand conference, file a motion to remove the Cl\n\nf documents, things and information as\n\nthe objecting Party (\u201cObjecting Party\u201d) shall set\nParty, and such Objecting Party and Producing\ntble in a good faith effort to resolve their\n\nParty may, as soon as practicable after the meeting\n\nantidential lnformation designation Pending\n\n` resolution of the motion, the Confidential Info\u2018rmation shall be treated as such, except as required\n\nby the Court and agreed upon in writing by th\u00a7 . Parties. This paragraph in no Way changes the\n\n5 4\n\n \n\n \n\ncase 1:05-cv-01483-JD'B occurs\n\nburden of proof bn the names under exisng\ndocuments\n\nF.\n\n'a person not designated to receive such inforr\n\ndisclosed such information innnediately shall\n\nlf any Confidential lnformatio\n\n \n\nl\n\nent 29 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 5 of 6\n\n_' case law with respect to confidentiality of\nn is disclosed, through inadvertence or otherwise, to\nnation under this Order, then the Party that\n\nuse its best efforts to bind such person to the terms\n\nof this Order and identify such person to the Producing Party.\n\nG. The production of documents,\n\nthings and information subject to the attorney-\n\nclient privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege shall not constitute a waiver of that\n\nprivilege for the documents, things and inforr\nproduction from the Producing Party, the Rec.\n\nand information7 and all copies thereof, to the\n\nH.\n\nany discovery on any grounds that would oth\n\n_ Party\u2019s right to seek judicial order or to seek\n\nThis Order shall not be constra\n\nnation or their subject matter. Upon notice of such\neiving Parties shall return the documents, things\nProducing Party.\n\ned to preclude or limit any Party nom opposing\ntrwise be available This Order shall not limit any\n\nfurther and additional protection against or\n\nlimitation upon production or dissemination ony documents, things and information or their\n\ncontents.\nV.\n\nWithin thirty days of the close of this\n\nall copies of other Parties\u2019 Confidential lume\n\nUSE AND RETURN OF'CQ\n\n|NFII)ENTIAL INFORMATI ON\n\u00a7\n\nlction, each Party shall use best efforts to retrieve\n\n1ation from their own files, and from experts or\n\nother persons to whom they have been provided consistent with this Order, and to return to the\n\nProducing Parties all copies of Con_fidential Iri\n\nthis Action. l_n lieu of returning the same, Re\n\nthings and inforrnation, and all copies thereof,i\n\nthat has been placed in any computer system\n\nformation produced or otherwise disclosed during\nseiving Parties may certify that all documents,\nhave been destroyed Confidential lnforniation\n\nn all be completely erased, and any documents,\n\n \n\n \n\ni;` 5\n\nit\n\n \n\nCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB _ Docum:\n\nl\nthings and information listing or summarizini\nsame period. Each Party then shall provide ti\n\nshe or it has complied with this paragraph\n\nth\nsioNEo this /? day of miami\n\nent 29\n\n \n\n \n\nFiled 12/19/2006 Page 6 Of 6\n\nr such information shall be destroyed within the\n\nre opposing Party with a letter certifying that he,\n\n\u00a7\u00a7 2006.\n\nfunds ronN o. BArEs\nUNIrED srArEs DrsTRrCT CoURr\n\n \n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:40:57-07:00","document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450627210","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.584249-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.335143-08:00","date_filed":"2006-12-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-12-19.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 12/19/06. (tb, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579933/","id":3579933,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686733/","id":2686733,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/28/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.562149-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.215790-08:00","sha1":"f23a650a0cfc0bae7f28a9044995c31eb702ecee","page_count":3,"file_size":11346,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and Grace\n\nHuebscher (\u201cDefe ndants\u201d), and plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), by and\n\nthrough their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit for this Court\u2019s review and approval a\n\nrevised Stipulated Protective Order in the above-referenced case. This Protective Order was\n\nnegotiated by the parties in order to serve their interests in conducting discovery in this case, and\n\nwas revised to reflect a small modification requested by this Court.\n\n\n WHEREFORE, Defendants and plaintiff respectfully request this Court to approve and\n\nenter the Stipulated Protective Order submitted herewith as Exhibit A.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\nDecember 19, 2006 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D.C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley (with permission)\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 248930\n 411 East Broad Street\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n (703) 241-2909 (phone)\n (703) 241-5885 (fax)\n\n /s/ Brian Lederer (with permission)\n Brian Lederer, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 184184\n 3003 Van Ness St., NW, Ste. #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n (202) 244-1715 (phone)\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus\n Williams\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S.\nmail this 19th day of December, 2006 upon:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq. Brian Lederer, Esq.\n411 East Broad Street 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nFalls Church, VA 22046 Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n\n\n\n _/s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank_______\n Sarah A. Goldfrank\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:12-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501617474","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686734/","id":2686734,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/28/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.570365-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.259855-08:00","sha1":"bb800d8d8e6c0efd2361297c6b87fb21d29bcbed","page_count":6,"file_size":22176,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, : Civil Action No. 1:05cv01483\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Judge John D. Bates\n vs. :\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\nASSOCIATION, RICHARD LAWCH, :\nAND GRACE HUEBSCHER, : STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE\n : ORDER\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams and defendants Federal National Mortgage\n\nAssociation (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch and Grace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cParties\u201d) by\n\nand through their respective counsel, having stipulated and agreed that an order pursuant to\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is necessary to protect documents and other information in\n\nthe above-captioned action (\u201cAction\u201d), it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n I. SCOPE OF ORDER\n\n This Stipulation and Protective Order (\u201cProtective Order\u201d or \u201cOrder\u201d) includes in its\n\nscope all documents, things and information (including all documents and tangible things as\n\ndefined in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any applicable local rule) that\n\nare produced, disclosed or filed in the Action by or on behalf of any Party or non-party,\n\nvoluntarily or involuntarily, whether pursuant to formal or informal discovery requests,\n\nsubpoena, deposition, notice, motion practice or trial, and whether revealed in a document,\n\ndeposition, a response to any type of written discovery, a submission to the Court, testimony\n\nadduced at trial, introduced into evidence or otherwise disclosed (\u201cLitigation Material\u201d).\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n II. DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n A. A Party shall have the right to designate confidential any Litigation Material that\n\ncontains or discloses such Party\u2019s confidential business information, trade secrets or sensitive\n\nproprietary commercial, financial or research information that has not been released into the\n\npublic domain (\u201cConfidential Information\u201d).\n\n B. All Litigation Material that a Party claims is Confidential Information and subject\n\nto the terms of the Protective Order must be designated as Confidential Information by\n\nconspicuously stamping the word \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d on each page (except that in the case of\n\nmulti-page document in which the pages are consecutively numbered, only the first page need be\n\nso stamped) or, in the case of other information, by notifying the other Parties in writing.\n\nConfidential Information disclosed at a deposition shall be designated as such on the record or by\n\na letter to all counsel of record within 30 days of receiving the transcript. Until the 30-day\n\nperiod elapses, the Parties shall treat such deposition material and testimony as Confidential\n\nInformation.\n\n III. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n Confidential Information shall be used solely for the purposes of preparation, trial and\n\nappeal of this Action and for no other purpose, except that nothing herein shall limit any Party\u2019s\n\nuse of its own documents, things or information. Confidential Information shall not be disclosed\n\nor disseminated to anyone, except:\n\n A. The undersigned counsel for the Parties and the regular employees of outside\n\ncounsel to whom it is necessary that the information be disclosed for purposes of this Action, and\n\nin- house counsel and current employees of the Parties who are in fact assisting in the prosecution\n\nor defense of this case and their secretaries, clerks and legal assistants;\n\n B. The Court, the jury, court personnel, and court reporters, provided that prior to\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\nfiling any Confidential Information, the Party attempting to file such information must comply\n\nwith the provisions set forth in Paragraph IV(C) and (D) below;\n\n C. Any other person, entity or firm with the prior written consent of the Party who\n\ndesignated the material as Confidential Information; and,\n\n D. Any expert retained by a Party, or a deponent (solely for purposes of his/her\n\ndeposition), but only after complying with the provisions set forth in Paragraph IV(B) below.\n\n E. If a Party that received Confidential Information (\u201cReceiving Party\u201d) becomes\n\nobligated to disclose the information in response to a lawful subpoena or other legal process, the\n\nReceiving Party shall give prompt written notice to the Party that produced the Confidential\n\nInformation (\u201cProducing Party\u201d) within five calendar days from receipt of the written notice to\n\nallow the Producing Party the opportunity to intervene and seek judicial protection from the\n\nenforcement of the subpoena and/or entry of an appropriate protective order in the Action in\n\nwhich the subpoena was issued.\n\n IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n\n A. If, prio r to the date of this Protective Order, any Party shall have already produced\n\nor otherwise disclosed Litigation Material, the undersigned counsel for the Receiving Parties\n\nshall not disclose it to anyone outside of their law firms until ten days after the entry of this\n\nOrder. During those ten days, counsel for the Producing Party may in writing designate\n\nConfidential Information, in which event counsel for the Receiving Party shall be responsible for\n\nreturning the documents, things and information to the Producing Party so that the Confidential\n\nInformation may be appropriately marked. In the event a Producing Party produced or other\n\ndisclosed documents, things and information marked \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d prior to entry of this\n\norder, such Confidential Information shall be protected by this Order.\n\n B. Each person to whom Confidential Information will be disseminated (other than\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\nthe Parties, the attorneys for the Parties and their employees, the Court, the jury, court personnel\n\nand court reporters) will be required, prior to any dissemination, to receive and read a copy of\n\nthis Order and to agree, in writing, to be bound by the terms of this Order, and to be personally\n\nsubject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement hereof. Counsel for any\n\nReceiving Party shall maintain a list of all such persons along with the written agreement of each\n\nperson to that effect, and shall provide copies of such written agreements to the Court for in\n\ncamera inspection if any Party files a motion to enforce this Order.\n\n C. Any hearing which refers to or describes Confidential Information may, in the\n\nCourt\u2019s discretion, be held in camera. Before a Party may refer to or describe Confidential\n\nInformation in a court hearing, that Party must request that the hearing be held in camera.\n\nNothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any Party\u2019s right to contest\n\nthe sealing of any documents, things and information pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of\n\nCivil Procedure.\n\n D. The Parties agree to file with the Court any Confidential Information only \u201cUnder\n\nSeal\u201d, to the extent allowed by the Court.\n\n E. If an objection to designation of documents, things and information as\n\nConfidential Information is made, counsel for the objecting Party (\u201cObjecting Party\u201d) shall set\n\nforth its objection in writing to the Producing Party, and such Objecting Party and Producing\n\nParty shall meet and confer as soon as practicable in a good faith effort to resolve their\n\ndifferences. Failing resolution, the Objecting Party may, as soon as practicable after the meeting\n\nand conference, file a motion to remove the Confidential Information designation. Pending\n\nresolution of the motion, the Confidential Information shall be treated as such, except as required\n\nby the Court and agreed upon in writing by the Parties. This paragraph in no way changes the\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nburden of proof on the Parties under existing case law with respect to confidentiality of\n\ndocuments.\n\n F. If any Confidential Information is disclosed, through inadvertence or otherwise, to\n\na person not designated to receive such information under this Order, then the Party that\n\ndisclosed such information immediately shall use its best efforts to bind such person to the terms\n\nof this Order and identify such person to the Producing Party.\n\n G. The production of documents, things and information subject to the attorney-\n\nclient privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege shall not constitute a waiver of that\n\nprivilege for the documents, things and information or their subject matter. Upon notice of such\n\nproduction from the Producing Party, the Receiving Parties shall return the documents, things\n\nand information, and all copies thereof, to the Producing Party.\n\n H. This Order shall not be construed to preclude or limit any Party from opposing\n\nany discovery on any grounds that would otherwise be available. This Order shall not limit any\n\nParty\u2019s right to seek judicial order or to seek further and additional protection against or\n\nlimitation upon production or dissemination of documents, things and information or their\n\ncontents.\n\n V. USE AND RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n Within thirty days of the close of this Action, each Party shall use best efforts to retrieve\n\nall copies of other Parties\u2019 Confidential Information from their own files, and from experts or\n\nother persons to whom they have been provided consistent with this Order, and to return to the\n\nProducing Parties all copies of Confidential Information produced or otherwise disclosed during\n\nthis Action. In lieu of returning the same, Receiving Parties may certify that all documents,\n\nthings and information, and all copies thereof, have been destroyed. Confidential Information\n\nthat has been placed in any computer system shall be completely erased, and any documents,\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-2 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\nthings and information listing or summarizing such information shall be destroyed within the\n\nsame period. Each Party then shall provide the opposing Party with a letter certifying that he,\n\nshe or it has complied with this paragraph.\n\n\n\n SIGNED this ____ day of _____________, 2006.\n\n ________________________________\n JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:18-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"04501642513","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686735/","id":2686735,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/28/2/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.578588-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.308003-08:00","sha1":"03131887eec1eeb9d772675a9cfcdf3118ae21bf","page_count":1,"file_size":8555,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.28.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 28-3 Filed 12/19/2006 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of the parties\u2019 Renewed Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated\n\nProtective Order, it is hereby ordered that:\n\n 1. The Motion is GRANTED; and\n\n 2. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept and file the\n\nStipulated Protective Order affixed as Exhibit \u201cA\u201d to the Renewed Joint Motion for Entry of\n\nStipulated Protective Order.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Court Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:42:55-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"04501631382","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.554944-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.294661-08:00","date_filed":"2006-12-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-12-19.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Joint MOTION for Protective Order by FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, GRACE HUERSCHER. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Protective Order# (2) Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Goldfrank, Sarah)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579932/","id":3579932,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686731/","id":2686731,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/27/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.539893-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.107983-08:00","sha1":"92e87414c8b30c4f30fd66b8f5404c1110be5ae2","page_count":4,"file_size":17913,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.27.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.27.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 27 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and Grace\n\nHuebscher (\u201cDefendants\u201d), and plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), by and\n\nthrough their undersigned counsel, file this Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order and\n\nrespectfully submit to this Court the following:\n\n 1. Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery requests on September 7, 2006. Due\n\nto health issues, Plaintiff has sought and received extensions of time to respond to discovery\n\nrequests. Such extensions have delayed progress in this case.\n\n 2. The parties have conferred, and agreed to an amendment to the Scheduling Order,\n\nas follows:\n\n a. All discovery shall be completed by not later than May 7, 2007.\n\n b. Dispositive motions shall be filed by not later than June 21, 2007.\n\n Oppositions shall be filed by not later than July 23, 2007. Replies shall be filed\n\n by not later than August 13, 2007.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 27 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n c. A status hearing previously was scheduled for March 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.\n\n in Courtroom 8. The parties request that the status hearing be reset to a date\n\n following the close of discovery on a date convenient to this Court.\n\n 3. This Joint Motion is filed in good faith and is not filed merely for the purposes of\n\ndelay.\n\n WHEREFORE, Defendants and Plaintiff respectfully request this Court to grant this Joint\n\nMotion to Extend the Scheduling Order.\n\n\n\nDecember 14, 2006 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Kyra A. Grundeman\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D.C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley (with permission)\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 248930\n 411 East Broad Street\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n (703) 241-2909 (pho ne)\n (703) 241-5885 (fax)\n\n /s/ Brian Lederer (with permission)\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 27 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n Brian Lederer, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 184184\n 3003 Van Ness St., NW, Ste. #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n (202) 244-1715 (phone)\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus\n Williams\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 27 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S.\nmail this 14th day of December, 2006 upon:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq. Brian Lederer, Esq.\n411 East Broad Street 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nFalls Church, VA 22046 Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n\n\n\n _/s/ Kyra A. Grundeman_________\n Kyra A. Grundeman\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:39:27-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501583973","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion to Amend/Correct","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686732/","id":2686732,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/27/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.547562-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.161027-08:00","sha1":"916d4156ac541f0fec8549542aed411c8edcf3e9","page_count":1,"file_size":10090,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.27.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.27.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 27-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of the parties\u2019 Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, it is\n\nhereby ordered that:\n\n 1. The Motion is GRANTED; and\n\n 2. All discovery shall be completed by not later than May 7, 2007; and\n\n 3. Dispositive motions shall be filed by not later than June 21, 2007. Oppositions\n\nshall be filed by not later than July 23, 2007. Replies shall be filed by not later than August 13,\n\n2007; and\n\n 4. A status hearing is scheduled for [DATE] at [TIME] in Courtroom 8.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Court Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:43:37-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"04501583823","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.534427-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.118566-08:00","date_filed":"2006-12-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-12-14.005","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct [25] Order - Modify Scheduling Order by FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, GRACE HUERSCHER. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Grundeman, Kyra)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579931/","id":3579931,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686728/","id":2686728,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/26/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.513094-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.021699-08:00","sha1":"f6ccae2289b8c9cb2a3f194ba85101ab0c35a952","page_count":3,"file_size":14744,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and Grace\n\nHuebscher (\u201cDefendants\u201d), and plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), by and\n\nthrough their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit for this Court\u2019s review and approval a\n\nStipulated Protective Order in the above-referenced case. This Protective Order was negotiated\n\nby the parties in order to serve their interests in conducting discovery in this case.\n\n\n\n WHEREFORE, Defendants and Plaintiff respectfully request this Court to approve and\n\nenter the Stipulated Protective Order submitted herewith as Exhibit A.\n\n\nDecember 14, 2006 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Kyra A. Grundeman\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n\fCase 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n Kyra A. Grundeman (D.C. Bar No. 493622)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n /s/ Michael W. Beasley (with permission)\n Michael W. Beasley, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 248930\n 411 East Broad Street\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046\n (703) 241-2909 (phone)\n (703) 241-5885 (fax)\n\n /s/ Brian Lederer (with permission)\n Brian Lederer, Esq.\n D.C. Bar No. 184184\n 3003 Van Ness St., NW, Ste. #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n (202) 244-1715 (phone)\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus\n Williams\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S.\nmail this 14th day of December, 2006 upon:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq. Brian Lederer, Esq.\n411 East Broad Street 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nFalls Church, VA 22046 Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n\n\n\n _/s/ Kyra A. Grundeman_______\n Kyra A. Grundeman\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:47:25-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450541786","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686729/","id":2686729,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/26/1/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.521385-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.034390-08:00","sha1":"6a18b6949d12260e48aa57c5dfceb1391f8802e8","page_count":6,"file_size":22416,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, : Civil Action No. 1:05cv01483\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Judge John D. Bates\n vs. :\n :\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\nASSOCIATION, RICHARD LAWCH, :\nAND GRACE HUEBSCHER, : STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE\n : ORDER\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n Plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams and defendants Federal National Mortgage\n\nAssociation (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch and Grace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cParties\u201d) by\n\nand through their respective counsel, having stipulated and agreed that an order pursuant to\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is necessary to protect documents and other information in\n\nthe above-captioned action (\u201cAction\u201d), it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n I. SCOPE OF ORDER\n\n This Stipulation and Protective Order (\u201cProtective Order\u201d or \u201cOrder\u201d) includes in its\n\nscope all documents, things and information (including all documents and tangible things as\n\ndefined in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any applicable local rule) that\n\nare produced, disclosed or filed in the Action by or on behalf of any Party or non-party,\n\nvoluntarily or involuntarily, whether pursuant to formal or informal discovery requests,\n\nsubpoena, deposition, notice, motion practice or trial, and whether revealed in a document,\n\ndeposition, a response to any type of written discovery, a submission to the Court, testimony\n\nadduced at trial, introduced into evidence or otherwise disclosed (\u201cLitigation Material\u201d).\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n II. USE OF LITIGATION MATERIAL GENERALLY\n\n All non-public Litigation Material shall be used solely for the purposes of preparation,\n\ntrial and appeal of this Action and for no other purpose, absent further order of the Court.\n\nNothing herein shall limit any Party\u2019s use of its own documents, things or information.\n\n III. DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n A. A Party shall have the right to designate confidential any Litigation Material that\n\ncontains or discloses such Party\u2019s confidential business information, trade secrets or sensitive\n\nproprietary commercial, financial or research information that has not been released into the\n\npublic domain (\u201cConfidential Information\u201d).\n\n B. All Litigation Material that a Party claims is Confidential Information and subject\n\nto the terms of the Protective Order must be designated as Confidential Information by\n\nconspicuously stamping the word \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d on each page (except that in the case of\n\nmulti-page document in which the pages are consecutively numbered, only the first page need be\n\nso stamped) or, in the case of other information, by notifying the other Parties in writing.\n\nConfidential Information disclosed at a deposition shall be designated as such on the record or by\n\na letter to all counsel of record within 30 days of receiving the transcript. Until the 30-day\n\nperiod elapses, the Parties shall treat such deposition material and testimony as Confidential\n\nInformation.\n\n IV. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n Confidential Information shall not be disclosed or disseminated to anyone, except:\n\n A. The undersigned counsel for the Parties and the regular employees of outside\n\ncounsel to whom it is necessary that the information be disclosed for purposes of this Action, and\n\nin- house counsel and current employees of the Parties who are in fact assisting in the prosecution\n\nor defense of this case and their secretaries, clerks and legal assistants;\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n B. The Court, the jury, court personnel, and court reporters, provided that prio r to\n\nfiling any Confidential Information, the Party attempting to file such information must comply\n\nwith the provisions set forth in Paragraph V(C) and (D) below;\n\n C. Any other person, entity or firm with the prior written consent of the Party who\n\ndesignated the material as Confidential Information; and,\n\n D. Any expert retained by a Party, or a deponent (solely for purposes of his/her\n\ndeposition), but only after complying with the provisions set forth in Paragraph V(B) below.\n\n E. If a Party that received Confidential Information (\u201cReceiving Party\u201d) becomes\n\nobligated to disclose the information in response to a lawful subpoena or other legal process, the\n\nReceiving Party shall give prompt written notice to the Party that produced the Confidential\n\nInformation (\u201cProducing Party\u201d) within five calendar days from receipt of the written notice to\n\nallow the Producing Party the opportunity to intervene and seek judicial protection from the\n\nenforcement of the subpoena and/or entry of an appropriate protective order in the Action in\n\nwhich the subpoena was issued.\n\n V. GENERAL PROVISIONS\n\n A. If, prior to the date of this Protective Order, any Party shall have already produced\n\nor otherwise disclosed Litigation Material, the undersigned counsel for the Receiving Parties\n\nshall not disclose it to anyone outside of their law firms until ten days after the entry of this\n\nOrder. During those ten days, counsel for the Producing Party may in writing designate\n\nConfidential Information, in which event counsel for the Receiving Party shall be responsible for\n\nreturning the documents, things and information to the Producing Party so that the Confidential\n\nInformation may be appropriately marked. In the event a Producing Party produced or other\n\ndisclosed documents, things and information marked \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d prior to entry of this\n\norder, such Confidential Information shall be protected by this Order.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n B. Each person to whom Confidential Information will be disseminated (other than\n\nthe Parties, the attorneys for the Parties and their employees, the Court, the jury, court personnel\n\nand court reporters) will be required, prior to any dissemination, to receive and read a copy of\n\nthis Order and to agree, in writing, to be bound by the terms of this Order, and to be personally\n\nsubject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement hereof. Counsel for any\n\nReceiving Party shall maintain a list of all such persons along with the written agreement of each\n\nperson to that effect, and shall provide copies of such written agreements to the Court for in\n\ncamera inspection if any Party files a motion to enforce this Order.\n\n C. Any hearing which refers to or describes Confidential Information may, in the\n\nCourt\u2019s discretion, be held in camera. Before a Party may refer to or describe Confidential\n\nInformation in a court hearing, that Party must request that the hearing be held in camera.\n\nNothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any Party\u2019s right to contest\n\nthe sealing of any documents, things and information pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of\n\nCivil Procedure.\n\n D. The Parties agree to file with the Court any Confidential Information only \u201cUnder\n\nSeal\u201d, to the extent allowed by the Court.\n\n E. If an objection to designation of documents, things and information as\n\nConfidential Information is made, counsel for the objecting Party (\u201cObjecting Party\u201d) shall set\n\nforth its objection in writing to the Producing Party, and such Objecting Party and Producing\n\nParty shall meet and confer as soon as practicable in a good faith effort to resolve their\n\ndifferences. Failing resolution, the Objecting Party may, as soon as practicable after the meeting\n\nand conference, file a motion to remove the Confidential Information designation. Pending\n\nresolution of the motion, the Confidential Information shall be treated as such, except as required\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\nby the Court and agreed upon in writing by the Parties. This paragraph in no way changes the\n\nburden of proof on the Parties under existing case law with respect to confidentiality of\n\ndocuments.\n\n F. If any Confidential Information is disclosed, through inadvertence or otherwise, to\n\na person not designated to receive such information under this Order, then the Party that\n\ndisclosed such information immediately shall use its best efforts to bind such person to the terms\n\nof this Order and identify such person to the Producing Party.\n\n G. The production of documents, things and information subject to the attorney-\n\nclient privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege shall not constitute a waiver of that\n\nprivilege for the documents, things and information or their subject matter. Upon notice of such\n\nproduction from the Producing Party, the Receiving Parties shall return the documents, things\n\nand information, and all copies thereof, to the Producing Party.\n\n H. This Order shall not be construed to preclude or limit any Party from opposing\n\nany discovery on any grounds that would otherwise be available. This Order shall not limit any\n\nParty\u2019s right to seek judicial order or to seek further and additional protection against or\n\nlimitation upon production or dissemination of documents, things and information or their\n\ncontents.\n\n VI. USE AND RETURN OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\n\n Within thirty days of the close of this Action, each Party shall use best efforts to retrieve\n\nall copies of other Parties\u2019 Confidential Information from their own files, and from experts or\n\nother persons to whom they have been provided consistent with this Order, and to return to the\n\nProducing Parties all copies of Confidential Information produced or otherwise disclosed during\n\nthis Action. In lieu of returning the same, Receiving Parties may certify that all documents,\n\nthings and information, and all copies thereof, have been destroyed. Confidential Information\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-2 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\nthat has been placed in any computer system shall be completely erased, and any documents,\n\nthings and information listing or summarizing such information shall be destroyed within the\n\nsame period. Each Party then shall provide the opposing Party with a letter certifying that he,\n\nshe or it has complied with this paragraph.\n\n\n\n SIGNED this ____ day of _____________, 2006.\n\n ________________________________\n JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:44:42-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"0450531245","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Stipulation and Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686730/","id":2686730,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/26/2/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.528749-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.052660-08:00","sha1":"d58717d002a6bdda4be15db87e9b3fb9f296230a","page_count":1,"file_size":9999,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.26.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 26-3 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, :\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Civil Action No. 1:05CV01483\n vs. :\n : Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE :\n ASSOCIATION, et al. :\n :\n Defendants. :\n____________________________________:\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of the parties\u2019 Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order,\n\nit is hereby ordered that:\n\n 1. The Motion is GRANTED; and\n\n 2. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept and file the\n\nStipulated Protective Order affixed as Exhibit \u201cA\u201d to the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated\n\nProtective Order.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n HONORABLE JUDGE JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Court Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:46:47-07:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"0450539333","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.506142-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.044725-08:00","date_filed":"2006-12-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-12-14.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Joint MOTION for Protective Order by FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, GRACE HUERSCHER. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Stipulation and Protective Order# (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Grundeman, Kyra)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579930/","id":3579930,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686727/","id":2686727,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/25/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.498640-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:09.003801-08:00","sha1":"a7376e5a9944ffa1ce08087c3a5a55d420c5d70f","page_count":2,"file_size":30809,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.25.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.25.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 25 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\n MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v. Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n ASSOCIATION, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n SCHEDULING ORDER\n\n Pursuant to the conference with the Court on September 6, 2006, and the Joint Rule 16.3\n\nReport, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:\n\n 1. Amendments to the pleadings, if any, shall be filed by not later than October 31,\n\n 2006.\n\n 2. Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures, if any, shall be served by not later than\n\n November 6, 2006. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be served by not later\n\n than January 5, 2007.\n\n 3. Each side shall be limited to seven (7) depositions, including depositions of\n\n experts and non-parties.\n\n 4. All discovery shall be completed by not later than March 5, 2007.\n\n 5. Dispositive motions shall be filed by not later than April 20, 2007. Oppositions\n\n shall be filed by not later than May 21, 2007. Replies shall be filed by not later\n\n than June 11, 2007.\n\n 6. A status hearing is scheduled for March 6, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 25 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n 7. As to all other discovery issues not addressed in this Scheduling Order, the parties\n\n must comply with the limitations and requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of this Court.\n\n SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n /s/\n JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Judge\n\nDate: September 6, 2006\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:45:31-07:00","document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501825587","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.491330-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.994305-08:00","date_filed":"2006-09-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-09-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 9/6/2006. (CK)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579929/","id":3579929,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686726/","id":2686726,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/24/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.484853-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.985652-08:00","sha1":"52cb980defe2b7ce0626eb04408561552bf61cc3","page_count":9,"file_size":28870,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.24.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.24.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n ) Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n v. )\n ) Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE )\n ASSOCIATION, RICHARD LAWCH, )\n AND GRACE HUEBSCHER, )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n PARTIES\u2019 JOINT REPORT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.3\n\n Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), plaintiff Marialice Bathrus\n\nWilliams (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), and defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie\n\nMae\u201d), Richard Lawch, and Grace Huebscher (\u201cDefendants\u201d), (collectively, the\n\n\u201cParties\u201d) hereby respectfully submit their Meet and Confer Statement, which is based\n\nupon telephonic meetings, exchanges of e-mail and a personal meeting between Michael\n\nW. Beasley, Esq., and/or Brian J. H. Lederer, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff, and Evelyn L.\n\nBecker, Esq., Sarah A. Goldfrank, Esq., and/or Kyra A. Grundeman, Esq., O\u2019Melveny &\n\nMyers LLP, counsel for Defendants, initiated on August 14, 2006.\n\n Following this Court\u2019s Order on Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss and, in the\n\nalternative, for summary judgment, and Plaintiff\u2019s motion for continuance pursuant to\n\nRule 56(f) to permit discovery in aid of her opposition to Defendants\u2019 motion for\n\nsummary judgment, dated June 26, 2006, two issues remain in this litigation.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 9\n\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s statement of the issues is as follows: 1) Whether Plaintiff Williams, a\n\nformer employee of Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d),\n\nwas denied by the Defendants, based on racial discrimination, the equal opportunity to\n\ncontract with Defendant Fannie Mae pursuant to business proposals made on or about\n\nMay 2001 (Count 1 of the Amended Complaint, as further modified by the Court\u2019s\n\nOrder); and 2) Whether Defendants conducted tortious interference with Plaintiff\u2019s\n\nlegitimate business relationships or prospective economic advantage regarding CAM\n\nFinancial co-brokerage agreement (Count IV of the Amended Complaint). Plaintiff\n\nasserts that Defendants\u2019 assertion of a defense of statute of limitations is without basis in\n\nlaw or fact.\n\n Defendants\u2019 statement of the facts is as follows: (1) Whether Plaintiff brought a\n\nspecific proposal to Defendants in May 2001, Defendants rejected this alleged May 2001\n\nproposal, and Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on her race\n\nin violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 by rejecting this alleged May 2001 proposal; and (2)\n\nWhether Plaintiff had a valid business relationship or expectancy with CAM Financial\n\nwith respect to an alleged co-brokerage agreement, which Defendants intentionally\n\ninterfered with, causing a breach or termination of this alleged relationship or expectancy,\n\nand resulting damage.\n\n Defendants deny the allegation that Plaintiff was subjected to racial\n\ndiscrimination, deny that there was any tortious interference with Plaintiff\u2019s legitimate\n\nbusiness relationships or prospective economic advantage regarding the CAM Financial\n\nco-brokerage agreement, deny the allegation that Plaintiff brought a specific proposal to\n\nDefendants in May 2001, deny the allegation that Plaintiff had a legitimate business\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 9\n\n\n\nrelationship or expectancy with CAM Financial, and assert that all of Plaintiff\u2019s claims\n\nare barred by the statute of limitations.\n\n For the Court\u2019s convenience, the remainder of the discussion herein follows the\n\nnumbering and topics set forth in Local Rule 16.3(c).\n\n 1. Dispositive Motions/Discovery Timeframe: Plaintiff states that\n\ndispositive motions are not likely to resolve this matter. Plaintiff believes that there will\n\nbe a trial on the merits following the Court\u2019s ruling on further dispositive motions.\n\nDefendants believe that this matter is likely to be resolved through dispositive motions.\n\nAny motions for summary judgment should be filed within forty- five (45) days after the\n\nclose of discovery; any opposition brief to summary judgment should be filed within\n\nthirty (30) days after receipt of the filing of the motion; and any reply brief should be\n\nfiled within twenty (20) days after receipt of the filing of the opposition brief.\n\n 2. Amendment to Pleadings:\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Statement: Plaintiff fully anticipates and believes, based on a review\n\nto date of the extensive documents in the CAM litigation and based on what Plaintiff\n\nbelieves will be revealed in the course of discovery, that further amendments to the\n\namended complaint will be forthcoming. The CAM litigation is CAM Financial v.\n\nGeneral Star International, Fannie Mae, et al., Southern District of Mississippi, 01-CV-\n\n00314-LG-JMR.\n\n Defendants\u2019 Statement: At this time, Defendants do not consent to further\n\namendments to the Amended Complaint. Defendants shall respond promptly to any\n\nrequest for consent.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 4 of 9\n\n\n\n 3. Assignment to Magistrate Judge : At this time, the Parties oppose referral\n\nof this case to a Magistrate Judge.\n\n 4. Settlement Possibility: The Parties have preliminarily discussed\n\nsettlement as of the date of this filing, and are unable to settle this matter at this time.\n\n 5. Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Parties discussed whether the case\n\nwould benefit from alternative dispute resolution (\u201cADR\u201d), considering the factors set\n\nforth in LCvR 16.3(c)(5)(i)-(v). The parties agree that ADR at this time would be\n\npremature, but may be helpful in the future, and will consider ADR after the close of\n\ndiscovery.\n\n 6. Dispositive Motions/Discovery Timeframe: As noted above, the Parties\n\nbelieve that any dispositive motions should be filed within forty- five (45) days after the\n\nclose of discovery; that any opposition to the motion for summary judgment should be\n\nfiled within thirty (30) days after receipt of the filing of the motion; and that any reply\n\nbrief should be filed within twenty (20) days after receipt of the filing of the opposition\n\nbrief.\n\n 7. Initial Disclosures: The Parties are willing to stipulate to dispensing with\n\nthe initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).\n\n 8. Discovery: The Parties propose that discovery be completed 180 days\n\nfrom the date of the Initial Scheduling Conference, now set for Wednesday, September 6,\n\n2006. The Parties believe that discovery matters, including limitations placed on\n\ndiscovery, should be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local\n\nRules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Specifically, the\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 5 of 9\n\n\n\nParties believe that twenty- five (25) interrogatories and seven (7) depositions per Party\n\nshould be sufficient.\n\n 9. Experts: The Parties do not know at this time whether expert witnesses\n\nmay be necessary. The Parties propose that any experts be designated no later than sixty\n\n(60) days after the commencement of discovery, and that any rebuttal experts be\n\ndesignated no later than sixty (60) days thereafter. The Parties propose that all other\n\nrequirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 regarding experts should apply.\n\n 10. Class Actions : This case is not a class action and, therefore, this\n\nparagraph of Local Rule 16.3 does not apply.\n\n 11. Bifurcation of Discovery or Trial: The Parties do not see any need for\n\nbifurcation at this time.\n\n 12. Proposed Date for the Pretrial Conference: The Parties believe that the\n\nPretrial Conference for this proceeding should be scheduled following the close of\n\ndiscovery and the Court\u2019s rulings on outstanding dispositive motions.\n\n 13. Trial Date: The Parties believe that the Court should schedule a trial date\n\nat the Pretrial Conference.\n\n 14. Other Matters: The Parties are unaware of any other matters requiring the\n\nattention of the Court at this time.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /S/ Michael W. Beasley (with permission) /S/ Kyra A. Grundeman\n MICHAEL W. BEASLEY, ESQ. EVELYN L. BECKER, ESQ. (DC Bar\n D. C. Bar No. 248930 No. 451163)\n 411 East Broad Street SARAH A. GOLDFRANK, ESQ. (D C\n Falls Church, Virginia 22046 Bar No. 482382)\n Phone: (703) 241-2909 KYRA A. GRUNDEMAN, ESQ. (DC Bar\n Fax: (703) 241-5885 No. 493622)\n E-Mail: beasleys@erols.com\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n O\u2019MELVENY & MYERS, LLP\n/S/ Brian J.H. Lederer (with permission) 1625 Eye Street, N. W.\nBRIAN J.H. LEDERER, ESQ. Washington, D. C. 20006\nD. C. Bar No. 184184 Phone: (202) 383-5300\n3003 Van Ness Street, N. W. Fax: (202) 383-5414\nSuite #W228 E-Mail: ebecker@omm.com\nWashington, D. C. 20008 sgoldfrank@omm.com\nPhone: (202) 244-1715 kgrundeman@omm.com\n\nCounsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants\n\n\nDated: September 1, 2006\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 7 of 9\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n )\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n ) Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n v. )\n ) Judge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE )\n ASSOCIATION, RICHARD LAWCH, )\n AND GRACE HUEBSCHER, )\n )\n Defendants. )\n )\n\n\n [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER\n\n On July 12, 2006, this Court filed an Order for an Initial Scheduling Conference.\n\nPursuant to the Court\u2019s directive on that date, the parties have filed a Joint Report\n\nPursuant to Local Rule 16.3. It is hereby\n\n ORDERED that the following deadlines and provisions shall govern scheduling\n\nand discovery in this case:\n\n PROCEDURE DEADLINE\n\nDeadline to Designate Expert Witnesses November 6, 2006\nDeadline to Designate Rebuttal Expert January 5, 2007\nWitnesses\nDeadline to Complete Discovery March 5, 2007\nDeadline to File Dispositive Motions April 19, 2007\nDeadline to Respond to Dispositive May 21, 2007\nMotions\nDeadline to Reply to Dispositive Motions June 11, 2007\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 8 of 9\n\n\n\n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pretrial Conference will be scheduled\n\nfollowing the close of discovery and the Court\u2019s rulings on outstanding dispositive\n\nmotions. It is further\n\n ORDERED that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules shall\n\ngovern limitations on discovery.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n SIGNED this the ____ day of September, 2006.\n\n ___________________________\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 24 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 9 of 9\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished\nby U.S. mail this 1st day of September, 2006 upon:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq. Brian Lederer, Esq.\n411 East Broad Street 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nFalls Church, VA 22046 Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n\n\n\n\n/s/ Kyra A. Grundeman________\nKyra Grundeman\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:42:13-07:00","document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450806029","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Meet and Confer Statement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.479535-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.974336-08:00","date_filed":"2006-09-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-09-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Grundeman, Kyra)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579928/","id":3579928,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686725/","id":2686725,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/23/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.473858-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.966008-08:00","sha1":"48c1c499826b1e86112670ec60161bab34f8ff28","page_count":1,"file_size":33661,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.23.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.23.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 23 Filed 08/17/2006 Page1 of1\n\nIN THE UNITED S'I`ATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n \n\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\nPlaintiff,\nCivil Action No. 1:05CV01483\nvs.\nJudge John D. Bates\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\nASSOCIATION, et al.\n\nDefendants.\n\n \n\nAPPEARANCE\nPlease enter the appearance of the undersigned counsel for defendants Federal National\n\nMortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch and Grace Huebscher.\n\nAugust 17, 2006 Respectfully submitted,\n\n \n\nO\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n1625 Eye Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20006\n(202) 383-5300 (phone)\n(202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\nCounselfor Defendants F ederal National\nMortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\nGrace Huebscher\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:41:02-07:00","document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0450792824","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.468340-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.955747-08:00","date_filed":"2006-08-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance by Kyra Anne Grundeman on behalf of all defendants (Grundeman, Kyra)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579927/","id":3579927,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686724/","id":2686724,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/22/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.461323-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.948005-08:00","sha1":"987c1bbaffacd1920ce691b61b1b8f33365d8540","page_count":2,"file_size":33667,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.22.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.22.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 22 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\n MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v. Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n ASSOCIATION, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n ORDER FOR INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE\n\n It is hereby ORDERED that the initial scheduling conference in this matter is set for\n\nSeptember 6, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8. Counsel who attend the scheduling conference\n\nmust be sufficiently familiar with the case to answer any questions that arise. Parties are\n\nwelcome to attend.\n\n Counsel shall confer in accordance with Rule 16.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules and Rule\n\n26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall submit their Joint Rule 16.3 Report\n\naddressing the topics listed in Local Civil Rule 16.3(c) no later than fourteen days following their\n\nconference, see L. Civ. R.16.3(d), and in no event less than three business days before the initial\n\nscheduling conference. Counsel also may include in their Joint Rule 16.3 Report a brief\n\nstatement of the case and any statutory basis for causes of action and defenses.\n\n Written communication with the Court is to be by motion, opposition, and reply, rather\n\nthan letter. See L. Civ. R. 5.1(b). The parties are directed to the requirements of Local Civil Rule\n\n7.1(c) regarding the submission of proposed orders with all motions and oppositions and to the\n\n\n -1-\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 22 Filed 07/12/2006 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nrequirements of Local Civil Rule 7.1(m) regarding the duty to confer on all nondispositive\n\nmotions (including those for enlargements of time).\n\n\n\n\n /s/\n JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Judge\n\nDated: July 12, 2006\n\n\n\nCopies to:\n\nMichael W. Beasley\n411 East Broad St.\nFalls Church, VA 22046\nEmail: beasleys@erols.com\n\nBrian J.H. Lederer\n3003 Van Ness St., NW\nSuite W228\nWashington, DC 20008\n\nEvelyn L. Becker\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 Eye St., NW\nWashington, DC 20006\nEmail: ebecker@omm.com, sgoldfrank@omm.com\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:42:23-07:00","document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501783764","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.454280-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.937286-08:00","date_filed":"2006-07-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-07-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER setting initial scheduling conference for 9/6/2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 7/12/2006. (CK)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579926/","id":3579926,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686723/","id":2686723,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/21/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.446909-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.928489-08:00","sha1":"ff958dcd54b97c4169a9e1af84f068571838f1f7","page_count":13,"file_size":33417,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.21.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.21.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n____________________________________\n :\nMARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS, : Civil Action No. 1:05cv01483\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n : Judge John D. Bates\n vs. :\n : DEFENDANTS FEDERAL NATIONAL\nFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE : MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,\nASSOCIATION, RICHARD LAWCH, : RICHARD LAWCH, AND GRACE\nAND GRACE HUEBSCHER, : HUEBSCHER\u2019S ANSWER AND\n : AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO\n Defendants. : PLAINTIFF\u2019S AMENDED\n____________________________________: COMPLAINT\n\n Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (\u201cFannie Mae\u201d), Richard Lawch and\n\nGrace Huebscher (collectively, \u201cdefendants\u201d) respectfully submit their answer and affirmative\n\ndefenses to plaintiff\u2019s Amended Complaint (\u201cComplaint\u201d). Unless specifically admitted,\n\ndefendants deny each and every averment in the Complaint. Defendants have not yet completed\n\ntheir investigation into all the facts underlying or supporting their defenses in this lawsuit. This\n\nAnswer is based on defendants\u2019 reasonable investigation to date. Defendants reserve the right to\n\nsupplement this Answer as necessary.\n\n ANSWER\n\n PARTIES\n\n 1. Defendants admit that plaintiff Marialice Bathrus Williams (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) is an\n\nAfrican-American woman. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form\n\na belief as to the remaining allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and\n\ntherefore deny these allegations. Defendants admit that plaintiff was employed by Fannie Mae\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\nin various positions, including as an attorney, Assistant Director, and Director, from 1989 to\n\n1998. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.\n\n 2. Defendants state that Fannie Mae is a federally-chartered, shareholder-owned\n\ncorporation, and admit that Fannie Mae\u2019s primary place of business is located at 3900 Wisconsin\n\nAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016-2892. Defendants further admit that, in certain cases,\n\nFannie Mae is considered a federal instrumentality. Defendants deny each and every remaining\n\nallegation in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.\n\n 3. Defendants admit that Mr. Lawch is a white male, who is currently residing at\n\n8316 Snug Hill Lane, Potomac, Maryland 20854. Defendants also admit that Mr. Lawch was a\n\nVice President in the Multifamily Division of Fannie Mae in 1991 and subsequently became a\n\nSenior Vice President in that Division. Defendants admit that plaintiff purports to sue Mr.\n\nLawch in his personal capacity but deny that plaintiff is entitled to any relief on her claims.\n\nDefendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.\n\n 4. Defendants admit that Ms. Huebscher is a white female, who is currently residing\n\nat 8805 Jones Mill Road, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815-4726. Defendants also admit that Ms.\n\nHuebscher has served as a Vice President in the Multifamily Division from 1998 through the\n\npresent. Defendants state that Ms. Huebscher\u2019s current title is Vice President for Capital\n\nMarkets. Defendants further admit that Ms. Huebscher assumed some of the duties and\n\nresponsibilities of plaintiff following her departure from employment at Fannie Mae.\n\nDefendants admit that plaintiff purports to sue Ms. Huebscher in her personal capacity but deny\n\nthat plaintiff is entitled to any relief on her claims. Defendants deny each and every remaining\n\nallegation in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n JURISDICTION\n\n 5. Defendants admit that plaintiff seeks to bring claims under Section 1981 of the\n\nCivil Rights Act of 1964 before this Court. Defendants deny each and every remaining\n\nallegation in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.\n\n 6. Defendants admit that plaintiff seeks to bring claims under Section 1985 of the\n\nCivil Rights Act of 1964 before this Court. Defendants deny each and every remaining\n\nallegation in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.\n\n 7. Defendants admit that jurisdiction is proper before this Court pursuant to 28\n\nU.S.C. 1331. Defendants also state that Title III of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. \u00a7 1716,\n\net seq. (\u201cFannie Mae Charter Act\u201d), confers an independent grant of federal jurisdiction upon\n\nclaims brought against Fannie Mae. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in\n\nparagraph 7 of the Complaint.\n\n 8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied. Defendants\n\nspecifically deny that plaintiff is entitled to recover for attorneys fees and costs.\n\n VENUE\n\n 10. Defendants admit that venue is proper in this District. Defendants deny each and\n\nevery remaining allegation in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n 11. Defendants admit that plaintiff was employed by Fannie Mae in its Multifamily\n\nDivision from January 1990 to June 1998. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation\n\nin paragraph 11 of the Complaint.\n\n 12. Defendants admit that during her tenure in the Multifamily Division of Fannie\n\nMae plaintiff was invo lved in the development of insurance policies for certain multifamily loan\n\ntransactions. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 12 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 13. Defendants admit that during her tenure at Fannie Mae plaintiff helped develop\n\nproducts that supported Fannie Mae\u2019s secondary market activities. Defendants deny each and\n\nevery remaining allegation in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.\n\n 14. Denied.\n\n 15. Denied.\n\n 16. Denied.\n\n 17. Denied.\n\n 18. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these\n\nallegations.\n\n 19. Defendants admit that plaintiff left the employment of Fannie Mae in June 1998\n\npursuant to an agreement that speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 19 of\n\nthe Complaint are inconsistent with the referenced agreement, they are denied. Defendants deny\n\neach and every remaining allegation in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.\n\n 20. Denied.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n 21. Denied.\n\n 22. Denied.\n\n 23. Defendants state that the referenced correspondence speaks for itself. To the\n\nextent the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint are inconsistent with the correspondence,\n\nthey are denied. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 23 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 24. Defendants admit that, on occasion, Fannie Mae has developed a business\n\nrelationship with a former employee. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in\n\nparagraph 24 of the Complaint.\n\n 25. Denied.\n\n 26. Defendants admit that Fannie Mae has acted fairly and without discrimination or\n\nunlawful retaliation in its consideration of former employees for business opportunities with the\n\ncorporation. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 26 of the\n\nComplaint, and specifically deny that communications with plaintiff were intended to cause a\n\ncertain response.\n\n 27. Denied.\n\n 28. Concerning the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 28, defendants\n\nadmit that they knew that plaintiff informed Fannie Mae that she would be working on risk\n\ntransfer products. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 28 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 29. The first sentence of paragraph 29 of the Complaint is vague and ambiguous, and\n\naccordingly defendants are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the\n\nallegations contained therein. Concerning the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n29, defendants admit that they do not treat former employees who are African-American females\n\nany differently than they treat former employees who are white males. Defendants deny each\n\nand every remaining allegation in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.\n\n 30. Denied.\n\n 31. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint with respect to the plaintiff\u2019s\n\ninvestment in the broker business, and therefore deny these allegations. Defendants deny each\n\nand every remaining allegation in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.\n\n 32. Defendants admit that they were aware that CAM Financial and plaintiff had\n\ncommunications regarding potential business. Defendants are without information or knowledge\n\nsufficient to form a belief concerning the remaining allegations in the first sentence of paragraph\n\n32 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these allegations. Concerning the allegations contained\n\nin the second sentence of paragraph 32, the referenced correspondence speaks for itself. To the\n\nextent the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint are inconsistent with the correspondence,\n\nthey are denied. Defendant s deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 32 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 33. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these\n\nallegations.\n\n 34. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these\n\nallegations.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n 35. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore\n\ndeny these allegations. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 35 of the Complaint\n\nare denied.\n\n 36. The allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 36 of the Complaint\n\nare denied. Concerning the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 36, defendants are\n\nwithout information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether plaintiff \u201cworked\n\ndiligently and in good faith to consummate business with defendants\u201d and whether her basis for\n\nentering into a confidentiality agreement with Fannie Mae was to ensure \u201cthat the proprietary\n\nnature of Plaintiff Williams\u2019 business initiatives and product development concepts could not be\n\nimproperly utilized,\u201d and therefore deny these allegations.\n\n 37. Denied.\n\n 38. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these\n\nallegations. Answering further, Fannie Mae states that it specifically instructed plaintiff that she\n\nshould not purport to represent Fannie Mae after she left her employment with the company.\n\n 39. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief\n\nconcerning the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and therefore deny these\n\nallegations. Answering further, Fannie Mae states that it specifically instructed plaintiff that she\n\nshould not purport to represent Fannie Mae after she left her employment with the company.\n\n 40. Paragraph 40 of the Complaint is vague and ambiguous, and accordingly\n\ndefendants are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations\n\ncontained therein. Defendants reserve the right to supplement their response to this paragraph.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n 41. Denied.\n\n 42. Defendants admit that Ms. Huebscher received an e-mail from plaintiff in May\n\n2001 stating that three A+ rated insurance companies were interested in possibly insuring DUS\n\nloans. Defendants also admit that Fannie Mae did not enter into a transaction related to the\n\nreferenced e-mail. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 42 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 43. Denied.\n\n 44. Denied.\n\n 45. Denied.\n\n 46. Defendants state that the referenced correspondence speaks for itself. To the\n\nextent the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint are inconsistent with the correspondence,\n\nthey are denied. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation in paragraph 46 of the\n\nComplaint.\n\n 47. Defendants admit that plaintiff was on notice of the contents of the referenced\n\ncorrespondence by June 4, 2001, but are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a\n\nbelief concerning the exact date plaintiff received the correspondence, and therefore deny those\n\nallegations. The allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 47 are denied.\n\n 48. Denied.\n\n 49. Denied.\n\n 50. Defendants admit that plaintiff had a fair and equal opportunity to make and\n\nachieve contracts with Fannie Mae. Defendants also admit that plaintiff contacted Fannie Mae\n\nabout the possibility of doing business with the company, but defendants are without information\n\nor knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations concerning when any such\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\ncommunications ceased, and therefore deny these allegations. Defendants deny each and every\n\nremaining allegation in paragraph 50 of the Complaint.\n\n 51. Denied.\n\n 52. Denied.\n\n 53. Denied.\n\n 54. Denied.\n\n 55. Denied.\n\n 56. Denied.\n\n 57. Denied.\n\n 58. Denied.\n\n 59. Denied.\n\n 60. Denied.\n\n 61. Denied.\n\n 62. Denied.\n\n 63. Denied.\n\n 64. Denied.\n\n 65. Denied.\n\n 66. Denied.\n\n 67. Denied.\n\n 68. Denied.\n\n 69. Denied.\n\n COUNT I\n (Unlawful Discrimination Based Upon Race and Sex)\n\n 70. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-69 of the Complaint.\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n 71. Paragraph 71 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 72. Denied.\n\n COUNT II\n (Unlawful Retaliation for the Prior Exercise of Protected Civil Rights)\n\n 73. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-72 of the Complaint.\n\n 74. Paragraph 74 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 75. Denied.\n\n COUNT III\n (Unlawful Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff the Opportunity to\n Make Contracts Based Upon Race and Sex)\n\n 76. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-75 of the Complaint.\n\n 77. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 78. Denied.\n\n COUNT IV\n (Tortious Interference with Business Relationships, Specifically\n Including Plaintiff\u2019s Expectation of Prospective Business Advantage)\n\n 79. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-78 of the Complaint.\n\n 80. Paragraph 80 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 81. Denied.\n\n COUNT V\n (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)\n\n 82. Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1-81 of the Complaint.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n 83. Paragraph 83 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.\n\n 84. Denied.\n\n DEFENSES\n\n Defendants incorporate by reference herein the denials, admissions and allegations set\n\nforth in paragraphs 1 through 84 above. Defendants assert the following additional defenses:\n\n 1. The Complaint fails to state any claim against defendant upon which relief can be\n\ngranted.\n\n 2. Plaintiff\u2019s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery because it has\n\nmade statements or taken actions that estops it from asserting its claims or constitute a waiver of\n\nits claims.\n\n 3. Plaintiff\u2019s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery on the ground\n\nthat Defendant has discharged its obligations to the claimant.\n\n 4. Plaintiff\u2019s claims may be barred, in whole or in part under applicable statutes of\n\nlimitations or repose or the doctrine of laches.\n\n 5. Plaintiff\u2019s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean\n\nhands.\n\n 6. Any loss and/or damages that may have been sustained by plaintiff was directly\n\nand proximately caused by the superseding, intervening acts or omissions of plaintiff itself, a\n\nthird party or third parties for which Fannie Mae is neither responsible nor liable.\n\n 7. Plaintiff has not sustained any damages compensable at law.\n\n 8. Fannie Mae is immune from punitive damages.\n\n 9. Defendants reserve the right to assert and pursue additional defenses that may\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\nbecome known through discovery or otherwise.\n\n PRAYER FOR R ELIEF\n\n Wherefore, defendants pray that the Court determine and adjudge:\n\n (a) that the Complaint be dismissed on the merits;\n\n (b) that plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint;\n\n (c) that defendants be awarded its costs, disbursements, attorneys\u2019 fees, and expenses\n\nincurred herein; and,\n\n (d) that defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem\n\nproper.\n\nJuly 11, 2006 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Evelyn L. Becker (D.C. Bar No. 451163)\n Sarah A. Goldfrank (D.C. Bar No. 482382)\n O\u2019Melveny & Myers LLP\n 1625 Eye Street, N.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20006\n (202) 383-5300 (phone)\n (202) 383-5414 (fax)\n\n Counsel for Defendants Federal National\n Mortgage Association, Richard Lawch and\n Grace Huebscher\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 21 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S.\nmail this 11th day of July, 2006 upon:\n\nMichael W. Beasley, Esq. Brian Lederer, Esq.\n411 East Broad Street 3003 Van Ness Street, N.W.\nFalls Church, VA 22046 Suite #W228\n Washington, D.C. 20008\n\n\n\n /s/ Sarah A. Goldfrank\n Sarah A. Goldfrank\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:43:06-07:00","document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501782555","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.439680-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-11T18:25:08.918853-08:00","date_filed":"2006-07-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-07-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ANSWER to Amended Complaint by FANNIE MAE, RICHARD LAWCH, GRACE HUERSCHER. Related document: [9] Amended Complaint filed by MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,.(Goldfrank, Sarah)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579925/","id":3579925,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686722/","id":2686722,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/20/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.433197-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-12T01:51:56.692221-07:00","sha1":"562202f2d489cd4c3b201dfc3c3109b4794b8310","page_count":2,"file_size":34719,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.20.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.20.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 20 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\n MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v. Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n ASSOCIATION, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, for summary\n\njudgment, and plaintiff's motion for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) to permit discovery in\n\naid of her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, and for the reasons stated in\n\nthe memorandum opinion issued on this date, it is hereby\n\n ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED\n\nIN PART; it is further\n\n ORDERED that plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 1981 (Count I) may proceed only with respect to the claim that defendants unlawfully rejected\n\nher May 2001 proposal, and Count I is dismissed in all other respects; it is further\n\n ORDERED that plaintiff's claims of tortious interference with business relationships or\n\nprospective economic advantage may proceed only with respect to defendants' alleged tortious\n\ninterference with the CAM Financial co-brokerage agreement (Count IV), and Count IV is\n\ndismissed in all other respects; it is further\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 20 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n ORDERED that plaintiff's claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 (Count II), civil\n\nconspiracy under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1985(3) (Count III), and intentional infliction of emotional distress\n\n(Count V) are DISMISSED; it is further\n\n ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without\n\nprejudice; and it is further\n\n ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) to permit\n\ndiscovery in aid of her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED,\n\nand full discovery shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the\n\nLocal Civil Rules of the Court following the filing of defendants' answer to the amended\n\ncomplaint.\n\n SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n /s/\n JOHN D. BATES\n United States District Judge\nDated: June 26, 2006\n\n\nCopies to:\n\nMichael W. Beasley\n411 East Broad St.\nFalls Church, VA 22046\nEmail: beasleys@erols.com\n\nBrian J.H. Lederer\n3003 Van Ness St., NW\nSuite W228\nWashington, DC 20008\n\nEvelyn L. Becker\nSarah Alexander Goldfrank\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP\n1625 Eye St., NW\nWashington, DC 20006\nEmail: ebecker@omm.com, sgoldfrank@omm.com\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2009-07-31T12:46:20-07:00","document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"04501769530","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.427793-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-12T01:51:56.685233-07:00","date_filed":"2006-06-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2006-06-26.002","pacer_sequence_number":94,"description":" ORDER on 10 defendants' motion to dismiss, 11 defendants' motion for summary judgment, and 13 plaintiff's motion for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) to permit discovery in aid of her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. See text of order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/26/2006. (CK)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/3579924/","id":3579924,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4202584/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/2686721/","id":2686721,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4202584/19/williams-v-fannie-mae/","date_created":"2016-08-20T05:58:42.422240-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-12T08:06:02.923428-08:00","sha1":"f7883d130ba7c73ffd3d21ef1c49f0901cc1fc48","page_count":25,"file_size":150628,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.19.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226/gov.uscourts.dcd.116226.19.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 19 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 25\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\n\n MARIALICE BATHRUS WILLIAMS,\n\n Plaintiff,\n v. Civil Action No. 05-1483 (JDB)\n FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE\n ASSOCIATION, et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n Plaintiff, an African-American woman and former employee of the Federal National\n\nMortgage Association (\"Fannie Mae\"), brings this action against defendants Fannie Mae and two\n\nof its vice-presidents, Richard Lawch and Grace Huebscher. She alleges that, after her departure\n\nfrom Fannie Mae, defendants discriminated against her by denying her subsequent potential\n\nbusiness contracts on the basis of her race and prior protected civil rights activity and also\n\ninterfered with her business relationships with other entities.1 Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant\n\nto federal civil rights laws, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1981 and 1985(3) (Counts I through III), and District of\n\nColumbia tort law (Counts IV and V).2\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Plaintiff also originally asserted a sex discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981, but\nwithdrew the claim at the motions hearing held on June 5, 2006. Mot. Hrg. Tr. at 25.\n 2\n Plaintiff characterizes her \u00a7 1981 claim as being \"applied through\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983.\nHowever, as defendants point out, \u00a7 1983 has no applicability here. In order to bring a claim\nunder \u00a7 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under the color of state law. See\nGomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980) (holding that a plaintiff must allege both\ndeprivation of a federal right and that the depriving party acted under the color of state law in\norder to bring a \u00a7 1983 claim). Because plaintiff has not alleged that defendants acted under the\ncolor of state law, she may not bring (and has not brought) any claims under \u00a7 1983.\n\f Case 1:05-cv-01483-JDB Document 19 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 of 25\n\n\n\n Defendants move to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can\n\nbe granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and in the alternative, move for summary\n\njudgment on the ground that the three-year statute of limitations has expired for each claim.\n\nPlaintiff has moved for a continuance to permit discovery in aid of her opposition to summary\n\njudgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The Court held a hearing on the motions on June 5,\n\n2006. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the amended complaint states a\n\nclaim for relief as to race discrimination in violation of \u00a7 1981 with respect to the rejection of her\n\nMay 2001 contract proposal and also states a claim for tortious interference with business\n\nrelationships. The remainder of the claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon\n\nwhich relief can be granted. The Court also concludes that full discovery should proceed in this\n\nmatter, and thus grants plaintiff's motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f).\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n The following facts are alleged in plaintiff