Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-MD-01916-MARRA

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

______________________________________________/

This Document Relates to:

______________________________________________/

ATS ACTIONS

08-80465-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-144)

10-80652-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-976)
11-80404-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-677)
11-80405-CIV-MARRA (D.C. Action) (Does 1-254)
17-80475-CIV-MARRA (OH Action) (Does 1-2146)
______________________________________________/

WOLF PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(3) PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES

The Wolf Plaintiffs hereby make the following limited objections to two witnesses: their

own attorney, whom the Defendants want to call as a witness, and Oswaldo Cuadrado, who is a

paid fact witness, not an expert. None of the Wolf Plaintiffs are among the bellwether plaintiffs in

the first trial set for January, 2024. Although three of the Wolf Plaintiffs are in the second

bellwether group set for trial in April 2024, all three will have claims only against Individual

Defendants under the Torture Victim Protection Act, which will probably be dismissed.1 The

1
Two of the three did file claims against the corporation, in case 11-80404-CIV-MARRA (D.C.
Action) (Does 1-677). However, the Court has applied the three year statute of limitations for
negligence in the District of Columbia to similar claims. This complaint was filed about four years
after the criminal case was unsealed. They were not included in the 10-80652-CIV-MARRA (D.C.
Action) (Does 1-976) complaint because they were outside of the time period of the payments
listed in the Defendants' Factual Proffer. Undersigned counsel unwisely cooperated with the non
Wolf counsel, who did not want these claims to be filed, and did not file them in 2010. A year
1
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 2 of 9

Court's ruling on the state action requirement for Torture Victim Protection Act claims will make

it impossible for any Plaintiff to state a claim. See Order Granting Individual Defendants’

Omnibus Joint Motion To Dismiss “New Jersey” Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaints [DE

3468].2 Since none of the Wolf Plaintiffs have cases that will be heard in the first two bellwether

trials, they will not make specific objections to exhibits or witnesses, or interfere in the trials at all.

The Wolf Plaintiffs may have to wait another year to make another motion for remand, unless there

is a global settlement that includes them.3

The Wolf Plaintiffs have argued for a bifurcated process, in which common facts and

witnesses are determined in the first trial or trials,4 with subsequent trials only asking the jury to

later, the non Wolf counsel stopped communicating with me, due to my disclosure of a scheme to
bribe paramilitary witnesses in this case, and in Drummond, and I no longer felt bound by my
agreement not to file them. Since these three bellwether plaintiffs' claims will probably be either
barred by statutes of limitations, or by the apparent impossibility of any plaintiff showing state
action, the Wolf Plaintiffs do not anticipate having any bellwether plaintiffs in the April 2024 trial,
either. There are no other proceedings scheduled in the case.
2
The Wolf Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion for Reconsideration of this Order, after consultation
with the other parties, and expect to participate in any appeal. The Court's interpretation of the
state action requirement would eviscerate the Torture Victim Protection Act by requiring a
government official to have knowledge of, and be personally involved in each incident. This is
based on an interpretation of the phrase "in this case" as requiring a more direct link than has been
required by any other court. The phrase should be interpreted as distinguishing "this case" from
another, different case, not as requiring intentional conduct by a state official.
3
Although the Court ordered all parties to participate in a mediation session with David
Geronemus last July, the undersigned counsel sat in a room by himself all day, and doesn't know
much about what the Defendants and non Wolf counsel may have discussed. I would not want to
make another trip to New York to sit in a room by myself again. I told Mr. Geronemus that if there
were another mediation session, I would insist on sitting in the same room as either the non Wolf
Counsel, or the Defense Counsel, but it's not reasonable to ask me to take two days off work and
fly across the country to sit in a room by myself. In addition, the Court ordered all parties to
participate in the mediation, but I wasn't included in whatever negotiations may have occurred.
4
If the Plaintiffs lose any issues in the first trial, other Plaintiffs can try again in subsequent trials,
since they are different parties from the first group of plaintiffs. However, the issues the Plaintiffs
win can be used to bind the Defendants in future trials, using issue preclusion offensively.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine at this stage which witnesses will be called and which
exhibits will be used. For example, many of the witnesses and exhibits relate to the Defendants'
defense of duress. Only the Wolf Plaintiffs can produce a witness to the "bus massacre" incident
2
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 3 of 9

determine the causation and damages in particular cases. The Wolf Plaintiffs will only make

general objections to two witnesses, and ask to exchange refined witness and exhibit lists, and

deposition designations, once the Wolf Plaintiffs have a trial on the calendar.

Objections to Witnesses

1. Objection to calling opposing counsel, Paul Wolf, as a witness.

The Defendants have listed undersigned counsel as a witness they "may call" at trial. The

Defendants do not explain why they are entitled to do this. Since Attorney Terrence Collingsworth

is also listed, it would appear to relate to paramilitary witness payments. It is also possible that

the Defendants want to ask me about the undisclosed participation of Tom Girardi in this case.

Both are matters that I disclosed to the Court due to ethical obligations, and my belief that it was

also the best strategy for my clients to expose these conspiracies. I haven't communicated very

much with the other Plaintiffs' counsel since about 2011, and am probably the attorney with the

least knowledge of these two subjects. In order to call opposing counsel as a witness, the

Defendants will have to show they are unable to obtain the same information from other sources.

a. The undersigned counsel, Paul Wolf, has no personal knowledge of any

payments to paramilitary witnesses, which can be obtained from other sources
that the Defendants haven't tried to pursue.

The undersigned counsel first brought the witness bribery issue to the Court's attention on

April 6, 2014, see the Wolf Plantiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Allow Participation in

April 28, 2014 ATA Scheduling Conference [DE 662] at 4 ("The proposed request to take

depositions of AUC witnesses is made for improper purposes and should be rejected."), and in

that the Defendants cite to justify their claim of extortion. Other common issues may include the
details of the Defendants' payments, their knowledge of the AUC's campaign, and breach of duty
of reasonable care in general. The collateral estoppel effects, and which witnesses and exhibits
continue to be relevant, should be determinable after the first two trials.
3
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 4 of 9

person at the April 28, 2014 Scheduling Conference. I had received a call from Mike Hugo, a

partner at Parker Waichman LLP, who told me about Attorney Terry Collingsworth's bribery of

paramilitary witnesses in Doe v. Drummond. Parker Waichman LLP was co-counsel with Mr.

Collingsworth in this case. Hugo approved and paid Collingsworth's expenses, including payments

to witnesses. He had copies of the first 144 contracts I signed with Does 1-144, believed his firm

represented them, and said he saw my name on the contracts, and decided to call me to see who I

was. After the call, I traveled to Parker Waichman's office in Port Jefferson, NY, and met with Mr.

Hugo, Monica Mora, Gary Falkowitz, and briefly met Mr. Parker and Abe Alonso, who also

worked on the Drummond case. Most of what was discussed would be privileged, but the witness

bribery is not. We decided to raise the issue in an upcoming meeting of Chiquita Plaintiffs' counsel

at the office of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington, DC, which occurred on June 22,

2011. In the meeting, Collingsworth didn't deny the payments, but provided legal justifications,

and then a Conrad & Scherer associate named Piper Hendricks drafted a legal memo which

purported to justify the payments. When it became clear that the group had decided to adopt the

same strategy for witness in this case, including Witnesses Mangones and Hasbun, I put my

objections in writing to the non Wolf Plaintiffs' counsel. At that point, when I started making a

written record of the bribery, the non Wolf Plaintiffs counsel stopped communicating with me, to

the point of not even conferring with me on motions or on the schedule.

I sent the Piper Hendricks memo to counsel for Drummond, and then met with them and

signed a declaration for their case. Although I had no firsthand knowledge of the witness bribery,

4
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 5 of 9

it resulted in Drummond sending subpeonas to Parker Waichman, who produced hundreds or

thousands of documents to Drummond,5 allowing them to prove a prima facie case of defamation.

Attorney Collingsworth then sent me a subpeona, took my deposition, and tried to use my

testimony to prove I had no personal knowledge of any witness bribery in the Drummond case,

which is true. Before calling me as a witness, the Defendants should explain why they are unable

to obtain this information from Mr. Hugo, or from another person at Parker Waichman or Conrad

& Scherer who was personally involved with paying the witness expenses.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is the Declaration of Paul David Wolf, Esq., the undersigned.

The Declaration sets forth details showing that undersigned counsel does not have personal

knowledge of the witness bribery or tampering that occurred in this case. My knowledge of the

witness bribery in the Drummond case is based on what Mike Hugo and others at Parker Waichman

LLP told me, and on the comments made by Attorney Collingsworth at a meeting of the MDL

plaintiffs' counsel at the office of Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll in Washington, DC on June 22,

2011. These are arguably statements against interest, but representatives of every other plaintiff

group were at that meeting, most of which are large law firms that could survive having an attorney

disqualified because they have many others who could take their place. Undersigned counsel is a

solo practitioner who couldn't litigate the cases anymore if he were disqualified. It would be

grossly unfair to reward the attorneys who bribed the witnesses by putting them in charge of the

cases of the whistleblower.

5
Unlike the other Non Wolf Plaintiffs counsel, Parker Waichman didn't try to assert privilege over
the witness bribery materials. Parker Waichman doesn't appear to be involved in the litigation
anymore. Mr. Hugo and Mr. Alonso lost their jobs, and the firm appears to have washed its hands
of the matter.
5
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 6 of 9

In addition, if the Defendants were to send a trial subpeona to undersigned counsel, the

remedy would be to file a motion to quash in Colorado District Court, the jurisdiction where

undersigned counsel lives. In Colorado, opposing counsel may only be subpoenaed upon a

showing that opposing counsel's testimony will be actually adverse to his or her client, that the

evidence sought to be elicited from the lawyer will likely be admissible at trial under the

controlling rules of evidence, and that there is a compelling need for such evidence, which need

cannot be satisfied by some other source. Taylor v. Grogan, 900 P.2d 60, 62 (Colo. 1995). In

addition, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that the act of subpoenaing opposing counsel as a

trial witness under certain prescribed circumstances, is deemed the "functional equivalent" of a

motion to disqualify. Williams v. District Court, 700 P.2d 549, 555 (Colo. 1985). So in addition

to my testimony being inadmissible because it is hearsay, there are many other people the

Defendants could call, at Conrad & Scherer LLP, at Parker Waichman LLP, or among the Plaintiffs

committee led by Jack Scarola, who have firsthand knowledge of the bribery. For these reasons,

the Court should find that my testimony would be inadmissible, and that the Defendants can seek

this evidence from another source.

b. The Defendants may obtain information about Mr. Girardi's secret

participation in this case from his law partner for most of his career, Walter
Lack, who remains secretly involved in this case.

Similarly, undersigned counsel complained about the secret participation of Tom Girardi

and his partner Walter Lack in this case after his theft of client settlement funds in other cases

became publicly known. See Response to Order on Plaintiff De-Duplication [DE 2922] at 6-7.

Although Mr. Girardi was disbarred for stealing millions of dollars from his mass tort clients, and

claims to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, Walter Lack continues to assert control over the

same cases, via attorney William Wichmann. This is shown by Mr. Lack's personal participation

6
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 7 of 9

in the mediation with Mr. Geronemus last month, which was only disclosed by Mr. Wichmann on

the day before the mediation. Mr. Lack has never entered an appearance in this case. Nor was his

secret participation ever disclosed in the Non Wolf appellants' Certificates of Interested Persons in

the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, any information the Defendants wanted to obtain

about Mr. Girardi's participation could be obtained from Mr. Lack, who is a firsthand source, who

has no legitimate power of representation in this litigation anyway.6 Since Lack's role is only as

an investor, Mr. Wichmann could continue the litigation even if Mr. Lack were disqualified from

the case because he was a fact witness.

In In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 1669444, an MDL Court required

applicants for plaintiffs’ leadership to disclose to the Court whether their firms had contingent

financing. Id. at *6. If so, the Court required the applicant to disclose whether the funder had

direct or indirect control over substantive decisions and whether the financing created conflicts of

interest, undermined counsel’s obligation of vigorous advocacy, affected counsel’s judgment or

affected party control of settlement. Id. Further, the applicant was required to explain the nature

and amount of financing and submit a copy of the financing documentation to a Special Master for

review. Id. The court cautioned that MDLs warrant transparency. Id. This Court should also order

all counsel - including defense counsel - to disclose their agreements with other counsel in this

case, which are not privileged.

Whatever relevance Mr. Girardi's participation could have in this case, I know less about it

than the non Wolf counsel. I haven't worked with Mr. Wichmann or the other non-Wolf counsel

6
Any contingency interest that Mr. Lack may have in Mr. Wichmann's cases would be complicated
by the Girardi bankruptcy estate. It's doubtful that Mr. Girardi would have voluntarily abandoned
his financial interest in the Chiquita case. He has avoided prosecution by claiming mental
incompetency, which raises the issue of whether he would even be competent to abandon his
interest in Chiquita.
7
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 8 of 9

in more than ten years. I was surprised that Mr. Lack appeared for the mediation, and pointed out

the issue to the mediator, but not as an obstacle to the mediation of the case. If this is the issue the

Defendants have in mind, they should call Mr. Lack as a witness instead of me. Since Mr. Lack

never entered an appearance, there's no need to disqualify him, and Mr. Wichmann can continue

representing their clients, as he has been doing.

2. The Court should strike the testimony of Oswaldo Cuadrado Simanco, because he
was paid by the Defendants to testify about factual matters, and is not an expert.

As compensation for compiling a description of his personal knowledge, Defense Expert

Osvaldo Cuadrado Simanco was paid a flat fee of $10,000, and understood that if Chiquita liked

his report and decided to use him as a witness, he would be paid an extra $350 per hour for his

testimony. See Non-Wolf Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Testimony of Osvaldo Cuadrado Simanca

as a Fact Witness [DE 2520] at 2; Cuadrado Report [DE 2520-1] at ¶ 7; Cuadrado Deposition [DE

2520-2] at 22. Cuadrado testified that he did not know about Chiquita’s payments to the AUC,

although Chiquita admitted that fact in its well-publicized guilty plea. Cuadrado Deposition [DE

2520-2] at 66. He also testified that he did not know that the AUC killed civilians. Id. at 69. He

testified about his own personal experiences as the Mayor of Apartado, rather than as an expert

brought in to help the jury understand a technical subject. As such, he is an improperly-paid fact

witness.

The Wolf Plaintiffs join in this Motion and adopt the legal objections made therein. In

particular, “the proper sanction for the wrongful payment of fact witnesses is the exclusion of the

tainted witnesses.” Rocheux Int’l of New Jersey v. U.S. Merchants Fin. Grp., Inc., No. CIV. 06-

6147, 2009 WL 3246837, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2009); see also id. at *5 (exercising the court’s

inherent authority to exclude purported expert witness “as an improperly paid fact witness”);

Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass’n, 117 F.3d 1328,

8
Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 3476 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2023 Page 9 of 9

1335 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding trial court order “barring Lloyds from using the testimony of

paid witnesses…adequately penalized Lloyds for violating Rule 4–3.4(b) of the Rules of

Professional Conduct”).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Wolf

_______________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 60584
Colorado Springs, CO 80960
(202) 431-6986
[email protected]
Fax: n/a

October 9, 2023

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on October 9, 2023, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of
the Court using the Court's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, which will serve notices on all
persons entitled to receive them.

I further certify that on October 9, 2023, I served copies of this document on counsel for
the Defendants and for the Non Wolf Plaintiffs by email.

/s/ Paul Wolf

______________
Paul Wolf