Subject: RE: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files From: "Ned Gelhaar" To: "Darren Enenstein" Cc: "Faisal Rashid" , "S Grant Russell" , "Michelle Choto" , "Omar Rodriguez" , "Sean Snyder" Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 20:02:38 +0000 v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Steve et al   I’ll send the formal disclosure later, but I’m attaching the CVs of the experts we’d propose, and request your comments         .   1.         Dr. Alan Newman, M.D. is the Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at California Pacific Medical Center (Sutter Health) and a Full Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at UCSF.  He has agreed to testify on the following subjects:   a.        The dangers of taking prescription psychoactive medications without a doctor’s prescription and/or when not under a doctor’s care; the effects and side-effects of certain psychoactive medications, including Seroquel and lithium; the potential for lasting effects from such medications; the correlation between Steven Russell’s symptoms and the potential effects and side effects of such medications; the extent of Mr. Russell’s symptoms and their impact on his life; and the potential that such symptoms and impacts will continue.   2.        Stefano Vranka is a Senior Managing Director with Ankura and an experienced forensic accountant and economist.  We have worked with him before and have had good experiences, including a jury verdict exceeding $35,000,000. He has agreed to testify on the following subjects:   a.        The immediate and long-term economic damages suffered by Steven Russell resulting from the symptoms and impacts caused by Tara Walsh’s conduct.   From: Ned Gelhaar <ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 11:09 AM To: Darren Enenstein <dse@enensteinlaw.com> Cc: Faisal Rashid <frashid@fenwick.com>; S Grant Russell <sgrussell@pm.me>; Michelle Choto <MChoto@enensteinlaw.com>; Omar Rodriguez <orodriguez@enensteinlaw.com>; Sean Snyder <angelrock@pm.me> Subject: Re: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files   Steve   I'll give you a call tomorrow.  We have until the end of the day Monday to select experts and serve the disclosure.    Ned Gelhaar Shareholder     Philadelphia Office Two Logan Square 100 N. 18 th  Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia PA 19103 C: 626.320.3598 T: 215.990.9057 F: 215.359.1919   New York Office 711 Third Avenue  17th Floor  New York, NY 10017 T: 212.622.7180 F: 212.584.9575   This email, including any attachments, is confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete the email and notify the sender. We are not tax advisors and any communications by us should not be construed as tax advice or used for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax- related matters addressed herein.   From: Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 8:13 AM To: Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > Cc: Faisal Rashid < frashid@fenwick.com >; S Grant Russell < sgrussell@pm.me >; Michelle Choto < MChoto@enensteinlaw.com >; Omar Rodriguez < orodriguez@enensteinlaw.com >; Sean Snyder < angelrock@pm.me > Subject: Re: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files   Perhaps  Daniel A. Martell, Ph.D., A.B.P.P. , the psychologist that was going to examine Tara, could be designated?   This would need to be decided on or before first thing this Monday morning (9am) so that a timely filing can be made.    Faisal, our instructions are that we are terminated and must notify everyone of this. You have litigators ready to assist. Please help Steve.  Thanks, Darren S. Enenstein On Jan 24, 2020, at 7:34 PM, Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > wrote:  Steve   I don't know that the issue was covered in an email string, but if you want to retain a forensic psychiatrist and/or other experts, please advise.  It would be a simple enough matter to retain them and disclose them on Monday, or seek an extension of the time for the disclosure.  You could then be examined and the expert(s) could testify at trial.   Ned     Ned Gelhaar Shareholder   <Outlook-EPG_logo_l.png>   Philadelphia Office Two Logan Square 100 N. 18 th  Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia PA 19103 C: 626.320.3598 T: 215.990.9057 F: 215.359.1919   New York Office 711 Third Avenue  17th Floor  New York, NY 10017 T: 212.622.7180 F: 212.584.9575   This email, including any attachments, is confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete the email and notify the sender. We are not tax advisors and any communications by us should not be construed as tax advice or used for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax- related matters addressed herein.   From: S Grant Russell < sgrussell@pm.me > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:55 PM To: Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com >; Faisal Rashid < frashid@fenwick.com > Cc: Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com >; Michelle Choto < MChoto@enensteinlaw.com >; Omar Rodriguez < orodriguez@enensteinlaw.com > Subject: RE: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files   Can you forward me out email chain on this?   On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:51 PM, Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > wrote: Thanks Faisal Our understanding is that we are not authorized to do further work for Steve and we may also be in a conflict situation. But to your point re the expert disclosure deadline, unless he’s changed his mind, Steve does not want to retain a forensic psychiatric expert to examine him and opine on damages. We served the request for disclosure of expert witness information to determine whether Tara would have such an expert to support her damages claim at trial. If Steve has changed his mind and wants to retain a forensic psychiatrist to support a damages claim (which would require paying a deposit), please let us know. Thanks, Ned -----Original Message----- From: Faisal Rashid < frashid@fenwick.com > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 1:51 PM To: Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > Cc: Stephen Russell < sgrussell@pm.me >; Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com >; Michelle Choto < MChoto@enensteinlaw.com >; Omar Rodriguez < orodriguez@enensteinlaw.com > Subject: Re: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files Hi all - we are discussing with Steve how Fenwick can be supportive on these various matters but one item that my colleague noted was a filing re: experts that is due on Monday. I am not sure if that has been prepared yet but given it will take us a little time to get up to speed and figure out what aspects of Steve’s disputes Fenwick will be primarily responsible for it seems prudent for any immediate filings to get handled through the Enenstein team. Happy to set up a call with Steve and a litigator on our end if that is helpful as well but most importantly want to make sure nothing slips through the cracks here. I’m unfortunately in air for next 3 hours but can talk later tonight or over the weekend. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Jan 24, 2020, at 9:23 AM, Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > wrote:  ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Hey Faisal I’m copying Omar Rodriguez who can respond re the file transfer issues. Thanks, Ned From: Faisal Rashid < frashid@fenwick.com > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:18 AM To: Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com > Cc: Stephen Russell < sgrussell@pm.me >; Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com >; Michelle Choto < MChoto@enensteinlaw.com > Subject: RE: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files Thanks, Ned. I’m connecting with litigators on our end and will be in touch with any questions. In terms of getting larger files over, we can create a folder on our internal file system and give you access so you can add any files there. I assume everything is in electronic format? Thanks From: Ned Gelhaar [ mailto:ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:05 PM To: Faisal Rashid < frashid@fenwick.com<mailto:frashid@fenwick.com >> Cc: Stephen Russell < sgrussell@pm.me<mailto:sgrussell@pm.me >>; Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com<mailto:dse@enensteinlaw.com >>; Michelle Choto < MChoto@enensteinlaw.com<mailto:MChoto@enensteinlaw.com >> Subject: ACC/WP RE: Russell Files ** EXTERNAL EMAIL ** Faisal I’m starting off with the case with the most pressing deadlines, Russell v. Walsh, S.F. Superior Court Case No. CGC-18-570137. I realize you’re not a litigator but I want to pass this brief summary along so whoever deals with the case can get up to speed quickly on the time-sensitive aspects of the case. I’m of course also available to discuss it. The case is about Steve’s claims for civil battery etc. arising from Tara drugging Steve while she was living with him in San Francisco, and Tara’s counterclaims for civil battery against Steve based on Steve allegedly assaulting her on several occasions. The operative pleadings are attached as Exhibits “A” and “B” to this email. The case is set for trial on March 16, 2020, but you could almost certainly obtain a continuance under the circumstances. Tara was represented by an attorney named Ivo Labar until January 6, 2020, when Ivo subbed out and Tara subbed in pro se about 30 minutes before Tara’s court ordered Independent Medical Examination (“IME”) in New York. Ivo stipulated to the issuance of the Order for the IME as well as the date, time, and place for the exam. The Order is attached as Exhibit “C.” I suspected that Tara would not show up so I sent Ivo a series of emails the week before the IME saying that our expert was traveling to New York from California for the exam so he needed to say something if she wasn’t going to show up. Ivo did not respond. At 9:23 on the morning of the exam (which was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m.), I got the following email from Ivo: Ned: Tara Walsh will not be appearing for the exam today. Also, a substitution of counsel is being filed as well, so it would be best to take up this issue, and any others, with her new representative. Thus, I think it’s pretty clear that Ivo quit because Tara refused to obey the Order. Since then, Tara has been representing herself, so to speak, by sending a letter to the judge slandering Steve (Exhibit “D”) and today filing a procedurally and substantively defective motion to dismiss (Exhibits “E1” and “E2”). In light of Tara’s conduct, I think it’s a virtual certainty that a judge would grant a continuance. But it may make sense not to make such a motion and instead go forward with the trial, and then move to exclude evidence of Tara’s injuries based on her willful defiance of the Order and her refusal to submit to the IME. This would likely eliminate any risk on Tara’s cross-claims, leaving the case to go to trial only on Steve’s claims. Indeed, I think it’s likely Tara would not even show up. If, instead, you were to seek a continuance, it’s possible that Tara could find a PI lawyer who would take the case on a contingency and convince a judge to give Tara another chance, letting Tara off the hook. Although we believe Tara’s claims are fabricated, you never know what a jury would do against a wealthy defendant. Having said this, as it stands, I think you would only be able to obtain nominal damages against Tara since Steve has thus far not wanted to retain experts who would support his damages claims. In order to credibly pursue damages, I think Steve should retain one or more experts in order to establish: (1) that Seroquel could cause Steve’s symptoms; (2) that Steve’s symptoms during his relationship with Tara suggest that Tara surreptitiously drugged him with other substances; (3) that Steve has in fact been injured by being drugged; and (4) that those injuries have impacted Steve financially. Given Tara’s limited funds, I understand that the cost of these experts would likely far exceed any collectable judgment. But I had planned to revisit this as the expert disclosure deadline is January 27, 2019. There are a number of deposition notices out for service and served and I’ll send a chart tomorrow summarizing them. . Please feel free to call with any questions. We wish you and Steve the best with these cases. Ned 626.320.3598 From: Darren Enenstein < dse@enensteinlaw.com<mailto:dse@enensteinlaw.com >> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:12 PM To: frashid@fenwick.com<mailto:frashid@fenwick.com > Cc: Ned Gelhaar < ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com<mailto:ngelhaar@enensteinlaw.com >>; Stephen Russell < sgrussell@pm.me<mailto:sgrussell@pm.me >> Subject: Russell Files Faisal, We are going to start sending you Steve’s files starting with key portions as per Steve’s request. Steve is copied here. Our files are electronic. What is the most secure way to send these? We can certainly send via email the key portions but the larger parts are more voluminous. Thanks, Darren S. Enenstein ------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email and all attachments are confidential, may be legally privileged, and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom the email is addressed. However, mistakes sometimes happen in addressing emails. If you believe that you are not an intended recipient, please stop reading immediately. Do not copy, forward, or rely on the contents in any way. Notify the sender and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 and then delete or destroy any copy of this email and its attachments. Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including all privileges that may apply.