UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1043/BA... · investigators contacted Bishnujee Singh, whose publicly-available resume

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 193 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 1 of 19 PagelD #:3382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE BOEING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:09-cv-07143

CLASS ACTION

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DECEMBER 10, 2010 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 157)

592703_i


I. INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth time defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action

Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws ("SAC"). Their current arguments fare no

better than their prior three. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny their motion.

Defendants argue that this Court should dismiss this SAC because Bishnujee Singh, who all

parties agree worked on the 787, has denied that he is the source of the information attributed to him

in the SAC. The facts, however, demonstrate that (a) Singh did provide that information; (b) the

information he provided was correct; and (c) Singh has a compelling motive to deny being the

source of information.

Plaintiffs' investigators have submitted sworn declarations with contemporaneous notes

demonstrating what Singh told them. While Singh now denies making these statements, the

evidence shows that Singh had, and continues to have, a strong motive to distance himself from the

information he gave plaintiffs' investigators: He is an aerospace engineer in Seattle and he is

actively seeking work at Boeing. Four hours after his deposition ended, Singh sent an e-mail

"following up" with two Boeing employees to tell them that he should receive "[a]t least" a

"THANK YOU!" for trying his "best to help in allpossible ways to Boeing group in this disposition

[sic] case by denying knowledge ofthefaeis." See Ex. 1 at 2. Eight days later, Singh sent his

resume to another Boeing employee and said that he "would definitely be interested" if a

"contractual opportunity arises" with the Company. Ex. 2. On December 5, 2010, Singh changed

his deposition testimony. Ex. 3. Where he first said he "would definitely not consider. . . working

with the Boeing group" (Dkt. No. 142, P.M. Session at 130:25-131:1, 131:20-132:1), he now states

that "[d]ue to my immigration status, I must be applying to work in my field, that includes applying

to Boeing." Ex. 3.

-1- 592703_i


Further, discovery provided to date corroborates the facts that Singh provided and defendants

have not denied them - rather, they have sought to explain them away. For example, as Singh told

plaintiffs' investigator,

¶J96-97. 2

The evidence shows that Singh is the source of the allegations in the SAC, that Singh has a

strong motive to now deny being the source, and that the information he provided is correct.

Defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 157) asks the Court to reconsider its denial of its August 10, 2010 and

September 24, 2010 orders on their motions to dismiss, which were brought under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b), (c), and (f). Under those procedural rules, the Court may not decide questions raised by facts

outside the pleadings. Defendants' motion, therefore, also fails procedurally. It must be denied.

Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added and internal citations are omitted.

Unless otherwise noted, all references to "J" or are to the SAC.

-2- 592703 1


II. ARGUMENT

This action relates to testing of the 787 aircraft at Boeing in May and June 2009 in

preparation for the publicly-scheduled June 2009 First Flight and delivery of the 787 and public

statements made by defendants about the timing of these events. Plaintiffs allege, in sum, that

defendants knew about severe and substantial risks to the 787's First Flight and delivery schedules,

but did not disclose them choosing instead to make a string of positive public statements about the

airplane during the proposed Class Period. See, e.g., ¶J12-15. Defendants waited until June 23,

2009, after they had returned from the biennial Paris Air Show, where their "highest priority [was]

keeping the 3,500 planes [they had] on backlog," and not losing orders to cancellations to reveal the

truth. ¶J14, 90. When they belatedly announced that the First Flight and delivery date would be

postponed, Boeing's stock dropped by more than 12% over two days. ¶111. Stock analysts

questioned the company's "controls and credibility." ¶116. Within a month and a half, defendant

Carson suddenly and unexpectedly announced he was leaving the Company, two years ahead of his

retirement date. ¶J128-129.

A. Defendants' Motion Is Procedurally Unsound

Defendants' motion contests the allegations in ¶J139-142 of the SAC which are based on

information provided by Singh. The paragraphs, as discussed more fully below, described the facts

about problems with the 787 that defendants were aware of when they made misleading statements

during the Class Period. Defendants argue that this information is unreliable because Singh now

denies knowledge of the allegations attributed to him. They ask the Court to "reconsider" its

August 10, 20 10 and October 14, 2010 orders denying their motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 73, 107),

which were brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), (c) and (f). Dkt. Nos. 67, 103. Defendants'

current motion is equally unpersuasive and is procedurally flawed because it raises issues of fact.

Defendants may not rely on declarations or affidavits in support of Rule 12(b) and (c) motions

-3- 592703_i


because they fall outside the scope of the pleadings. See, e.g., A. Cherney Disposal Co. v. Chi. &

Suburban Refuse Disposal Ass 'n, 484 F.2d 751, 760 (7th Cir. 1973) (the "motion to dismiss

should not. . . have been granted because it required a weighing of facts"); EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., No.

09 C 4228, 2009 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 99898, at *2.ft3 (ND. Ill. Oct. 26, 2009) (Conlon, J.) ("affidavits

and exhibits are matters outside the pleadings, and may not be considered in resolving [a] motion to

dismiss"). See also Cont 'lLeavitt Coninic 'ns v. Painewebber, Inc., No. 92 C 5939, 1994 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 18179, at *11 n.3*12 (ND. Ill. Dec. 20, 1994) (consideration of matters "outside the

pleadings are also inappropriate on a motion to strike"); Peterson v. Baloun, 715 F. Supp. 212, 214

(ND. Ill. 1989) (same).

Defendants' brief raises substantial questions of fact and for this reason alone, it should be

denied. See, e.g., Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.

No. 158) ("Defs.' Brf.") at 1 ("Singh denied everything of substance that was attributed to him" by

plaintiffs.). Further, if the Court considers defendants' factual submissions, their Rule 12 motion

must be converted into a motion for summaryjudgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) ("If, on a motion

under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the

court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56."). A motion for

summary judgment must be considered premature at this juncture for a number of reasons. The

motion precedes the completion of any formal discovery, fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1's

detailed procedures, and seeks resolution of contested facts. Accordingly, even if the Court

entertained defendants' declarations and converted their motion into one for summary judgment, it

still fails. See Scrub, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99898, at *2.ft3 (Conlon, J.) (the motion "does not

comply with Local Rule 56. l's detailed procedure [and] is premature. This case is in the early stages

of discovery. Summary judgment consideration is not appropriate in light of the undeveloped

record").

-4- 592703_i


Additionally, in prior briefing, defendants relied heavily on the holding of Campo v. Sears

Holdings Corp., 371 Fed. Appx. 212, 216-18 & n.4 (2d Cir. 2010). Yet, they do not even cite that

case in their new motion, and for good reason. In Campo, the Second Circuit held that an inference

of scienter was precluded by the fact that confidential witnesses had been deposed and clarified or

disavowed distinct portions of the information in the complaint that relied upon their testimony. Id.

at 217. Plaintiffs in Campo did not dispute the new evidence, and the Second Circuit noted that the

district court "made no credibility determinations, nor did it weigh competing testimony." Id. at 216

n.4. Here, unlike in Campo, plaintiffs have provided persuasive evidence that Singh provided the

information used in the SAC, and those documents subsequently produced by defendants corroborate

his information. Further, the evidence shows that Singh has a strong motive to now distance himself

from the allegations.

B. Singh Provided the Information at Issue to Plaintiffs' Investigators

Lead Plaintiff originally filed this action in November 2009. Dkt. No. 1. Thereafter,

plaintiffs' counsel continued their investigation of the case. In February 2010, plaintiffs'

investigators contacted Bishnujee Singh, whose publicly-available resume showed that he had

worked at Boeing on the 787 mid-body section.

Two investigators working for plaintiffs, Elizabeth Stewart and Ramsey Stewart, have

submitted declarations regarding their interactions with Singh. Exs. 9-10. On February 16, 2010,

Ramsey Stewart called Singh's cell phone, but he did not answer. See Ex. 10 at 2. At 8:30 that

evening, Singh called and spoke with Ramsey Stewart for approximately 15 minutes. Id. Singh told

Ramsey Stewart that he had worked at Boeing on the 787 Wing/Body Integration Group from 2009

For the Court's convenience, evidence and declarations submitted on prior motions are re-submitted here.

592703_i - 5 -


through mid-January 2010, and had information about the side-of-body and wing on the 787 test

planes. Id. That same evening, Elizabeth Stewart ("Stewart") contacted Singh and the two agreed to

meet face-to-face. Id. Singh and Stewart spoke again on February 17, 2010. Ex. 9 at 4.

On February 19, 2010, Elizabeth Stewart met with Singh, in person, for two hours at his

home in Lynnwood, Washington. Id. at 4-5. During the meeting, Singh related detailed non-public

information to Stewart about the tests, their failures, and defendants' access to that information,

along with additional information about the poor quality and limited experience of outsourced

engineering employees at Boeing. Ex. 9 at Attachment i. 4 This information was not otherwise

available to Stewart. Id. In keeping with her practices as an investigator, Stewart took notes of key

information provided to her. Id. at Attachment 1, Exs. A, B. She retained those contemporaneous

notes and has submitted them to the Court. Id.

On April 13, 2010, Singh and Stewart spoke again. Ex. 9 at 7. During the telephone call,

Singh stated he did not want to talk further, as he was working on a Boeing-related project, but,

when given the opportunity, did not recant or withdraw the information he gave her in February. Id.

at 6-7.

On May 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion asking for leave to amend the prior complaint in

this action, and attached the proposed SAC with the paragraphs at issue. Dkt. No. 48, Ex. A, ¶J139-

142. On June 22, 2010, the Court accepted the SAC for filing (Dkt. No. 62) and, on August 10,

2010, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss it. Dkt. No. 73. In the Order, the Court

focused on the four paragraphs summarizing the relevant information Singh gave Stewart. Dkt. Nos.

Both of the Stewarts will be available to testify regarding their interactions with Singh at any hearing on the motion.

-6- 592703 1


62,73;¶J139-142. Two of the paragraphs discuss Singh's positions at Boeing and two convey the

substantive information about the test failures as follows:

141. According to the first-hand knowledge of the CS, the April 21, 2009 load test file, which is in Boeing's direct control, indicates that the 787 wing structure failed at 30% below limit load. Further, according to the CS, the April 21, 2009 Wing Test file contained copies of internal electronic communications to defendants McNerney and Carson, which were dated within a few days of April 21, 2009, informing defendants that the 787's wing had failed at limit load and, as a result of that failed test, re-testing of the 787 wing assembly would be necessary. According to the CS, the contents of the April 21, 2009 Wing Test file, including the contemporaneous communications from the Wing Integration Team to defendants McNerney and Carson, are clear in the finding that the failed April 21, 2009 limit load test and necessary re-testing placed the plane's scheduled June 30, 2009 First Flight at risk.

142. According to the CS, the May 17, 2009 Wing Test file (i.e., the re-test) indicates that the 787 passed the limit load test on May 17, 2009, but failed the ultimate load test at about 125% of limit load. According to the CS, the fact that the 787 wing failed at 125% of limit load was generally known by the Wing Integration Team immediately upon completion of the May 17, 2009 test and was characterized by the Wing Test file documents as a "weight optimization issue." Further, according to the CS, the May 17, 2009 Wing Test file contains detailed analysis evidencing that nine days after the failed May 17, 2009 test, "delamination" of the 787 wing stringers was also identified as a serious engineering issue. According to the CS, the May 17, 2009 Wing Test file contains copies of internal electronic communications, dated around May 26, 2009, from the Wing Integration Team to defendants McNerney and Carson, which specifically informed defendants McNerney and Carson that the 787 wing failed the ultimate load test, as well as the fact that additional re-work of the wing attachment design was required to correct the delamination problem. These late May 2009 contemporaneous communications contained in the May 17, 2009 test file, from the Wing Integration Team to defendants McNerney and Carson, clearly communicated the Wing Integration Team's conclusion that Boeing would be unable to conduct a June 30, 2009 First Flight.

¶J141-142. The allegations in J142 of the SAC track the information in Stewart's notes from

her February interview with Singh. After defendants filed another motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 75),

again denied by this Court (Dkt. No. 79), counsel for plaintiffs, prior to any discovery being served

upon them, voluntarily identified Singh as the Confidential Source. Dkt. No. 92 at 5.

-7- 592703_i


C. The Limited Documents Produced to Date Corroborate Singh's Information and Confirm Defendants' Liability

Singh now denies knowledge of the facts at issue. See, e.g., Defs.' Brf. at 8-1O. However,

neither he nor defendants argue that the facts are wrong. While defendants have not completed

producing documents under the discovery requests served on them, 6 documents produced to date

demonstrate that the information Singh gave to plaintiffs' investigator is correct. As Singh originally

informed plaintiffs' investigator, within days of the April 21, 2009 wing test, Boeing knew the wing

investors about the tests in misleading terms by proclaiming that: "the initial results are positive."

¶75.

During his deposition, Singh also said Antonette Ayson (whose declaration defendants submitted in support of their prior motion to dismiss (see Dkt. No. 93, Ex. E)) was "lying" when she asserted that Singh was fired from Boeing. Dkt. No. 142, P.M. Session at 15-16.

6 Defendants have, to date, been unable to state when they will complete production of documents relevant to the first set of requests, sewed on them on August 30, 2010.

In support of their sur-reply in opposition to plaintiffs' class certification motion, defendants submitted the Affidavit of Steven Chisholm (Dkt. No. 165-2), a Boeing engineer, which argues that

As discussed infra, defendants' reliance on the Chisholm Affidavit is inappropriate as it merely creates an issue of fact that cannot be resolved at this stage. See Cushing v. City of Chicago, 3 F. 3d 1156, 1163 (7th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that issues of facts are inappropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Further, discovery, including production of documents first sought in August of last year, is not complete.

-8- 592703_i

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 193 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:3391

In May, things got much worse. As the SAC alleges and attributes to Singh - within "nine

days" of the failed May test, Boeing had found delamination in the wing. ¶144.

The information Singh provided to plaintiffs' investigators has proven to

be spot-on.

-9- 592703_i


Id. Thus, while Singh now denies knowledge of communications sent to

the defendants regarding the results of the static tests,

Defendant Carson and others at Boeing spoke repeatedly about the 787 during this time

period, but said nothing about the known problems. See, e.g., ¶93 (on June 15, 2009, at the Paris Air

Show, Carson stated that he was "absolutely committed" to a First Flight of the 787 "within the

next two weeks [by June 30, 2009]"); see also ¶J15, 87, 92, 95-98.

Further, defendants' August 30, 2010 Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended

Class Action Complaint (hereinafter, "Answer") effectively admits, among other things, that

defendants hid the fact that the 787 was already scheduled to undergo further testing before First

Flight when defendants told investors on May 3, 2009 that "[a]ll structural tests required on the static

airframe prior to first flight also are complete." Compare Dkt. No. 81, ¶75 with ¶J3, 139-142, 146,

- 10- 592703_i


149. They also admit that the 787 wing delaminated during the May wing test, and suffered

additional problems. Dkt. No. 81, ¶75; ¶J3, 139-142. Defendants also admit that the undisclosed

May test took place more than three weeks before defendants' appearance at the Paris Air Show and

admit that the results ofthat test demonstrated "an anomaly in the strain-gauge data," and "suggested

off-loading" in the 787 wing, and ultimately showed "delamination" in the wing. Id. Elsewhere in

the Answer, defendants admit that they later stated that "a full analysis of' other such wing stress

test results could be available in 10 days - far less than the time between the May test, and the

positive, unqualified Paris Air Show statements. Id.; ¶J135, 148.10

These documents demonstrate that the information Singh gave plaintiffs' investigators was

correct. They demonstrate that throughout the proposed Class Period, defendants were aware of a

grave risk that the First Flight ofthe 787 would have to be pushed back or canceled, and the delivery

schedule for the 787 would have to be modified. Defendants were informed of this information just

days after the failed tests in a manner consistent with what Singh told the investigators. These

10 Singh also denies the allegation in ¶139 in the SAC that he is a "former Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer and Chief Engineer." Defs.' Brf. at 6. However, several documents in addition to Stewart's notes, confirm that Singh represented himself as a chief engineer at Boeing. Two separate versions of Singh's resume state that he worked as a Chief Engineer and a Senior Structural Analyst Engineer at Boeing Company, Everett, Washington (see Ex. 18), and in a submission to his alma mater, Sheffield Hallam University, Singh submitted a biographical sketch that states that he had a "very exciting position as Structural Analyst Engineer with Boeing Seattle" and worked at "the Boeing Everett facility, once again as Chief Engineer on the Dreamliner 787 Programme." Ex. 19. Considering this evidence, plaintiffs had a good-faith basis for describing him as such in the SAC.

Singh also disputes the allegation that he "worked on the Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team for the 787." ¶139. He also claims he never told Stewart that he worked on the "-8" version of the 787. ¶139; Defs.' Brf. at 6-7. In both versions of his resume, Singh describes his work at Boeing as follows: "Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modeling analysis of Mid Body Integration of Fuselage 787-9/4" Ex. 18. Both resumes also declare he was "Involved in Business development and overall Leadership of Boeing 787, Wings, Interiors, SRtvl & Damage Tolerance Group." Id. In his alumni biographical sketch Singh explains that "as Chief Engineer on the Dreamliner 787 Programme.... I'm enjoying guiding a team of more than 8,000 engineers .....m now working on successfully completing a test flight of Dreamliner 787-8 ......Ex. 19.

-11- 592703_i


documents, as well as others, reinforce the SAC's other allegations of scienter, i.e., that defendants

had a strong motive to delay announcing the risks concerning the 787 wing test failures until after

the Paris Air Show.

Finally, the documents demonstrate that while defendants were making positive, unqualified

statements about the 787, these grave risks were not disclosed. Under the federal securities laws,

where, as here, individuals or companies choose to speak on a subject, they must tell the entire story.

Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., 51 F.3d 1329, 1331 (7th Cir. 1995) ("If one speaks, he must speak

the whole truth."); In re Motorola Sec. Litig., No. 03 C 287, 2004 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 18250, at *71

(ND. Ill. Sept. 10, 2004) (concluding that the alleged misstatements could be found by a reasonable

trier of fact to constitute misleading "half-truths").

D. Singh Has a Strong Motive to Deny Being the Source of the Information

On September 20, 2010, 20 days after the Court denied defendants' third motion to dismiss,

their prior counsel withdrew from this action. Dkt. No. 82. Four days later, defendants' new

counsel filed another motion to dismiss, accusing plaintiffs and their counsel of committing "a fraud

on this Court." Dkt. No. 90. In response to the motion, plaintiffs submitted the original

declaration from Elizabeth Stewart, demonstrating that Singh was, indeed, the source of the

allegations. Dkt. No. 95, Ex. A. On October 14, 2010, after further briefing, the Court denied

defendants' third motion to dismiss as "lacking merit." Dkt. No. 107. At the hearing, the Court

stated that the motion was "ill founded if not reckless." Dkt. No. 141 at 3:22.

On October 19, 2010, defendants served Singh with a 34-part subpoena to produce

documents, and a response date of November 1, 2010. Dkt. No. 140 (Affidavit of Steve Y. Koh);

id., Ex. 1. Request No. 14 of 34 asked Singh to produce "[a]ll Documents Concerning Your

interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2010 relating to Your possession and

- 12- 592703i


unauthorized disclosure of Boeing proprietary information." Id. at 16. On November 1, 2010,

according to defense counsel, Singh appeared at their downtown Seattle offices with documents

responsive to the subpoena. Id. at 3. For most of the following day, at least three lawyers employed

by or representing defendants met with Mr. Singh in a room in a hotel in suburban Seattle. Id.; see

also Dkt. No. 142, A.M. Session at 40-41. Counsel for defendants typed out an affidavit with Singh,

and Singh signed it. Dkt. No. 140 at 3. The next day, defendants noticed Singh's deposition. Ex.

20. On November 17, 2010, defendants took his deposition, at which plaintiffs learned, for the first

time, of Singh's meeting with defendants' counsel and of his affidavit. Dkt. No. 142. In his

affidavit and during his deposition, among other things, Singh admitted that he spoke with plaintiffs'

investigators on the dates they stated, but denied that he gave them any of the information that was

attributed to him in the SAC. Id., A.M. Session at 51-53. Singh also denied any knowledge of

whether the facts attributed to him in the SAC were correct or incorrect. Id., P.M. Session at 117-

121.

Four hours after his deposition ended, however, Singh himself wrote to

jim.albaughBoeing.com and michael.j.dentonBoeing.com , "following up with your team at

Boeing" about the deposition. Ex. 1. Singh told Denton and Albaugh that he was "trying [his] best

to help in al/possible ways to Boeing group in this disposition [sic] case by denying knowledge of

the facts." See Ex. 1 at 2.11 In the e-mail, Singh asked Albaugh and Denton for "[a]t least," a

"THANK YOU! if not anything else," and requested that the e-mail be sent to defendant McNerney,

Boeing's CEO, "for his information regarding the matter & update." Id. Eight days later, Singh

Singh had identified Denton as "Vice President of Engineering for the 787 Program, who reported directly to defendant Carson," and a member of the Wing Integration Team, ¶140. James Albaugh replaced defendant Carson as CEO of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group.

- 13 - 592703_i


wrote to Ali Mabmoodi at Boeing stating he would "definitely be interested" in an engineering job

at Boeing and attached his resume. Ex. 2.

On December 5, Singh signed his deposition "correction" form. Ex. 3. At the deposition, he

had testified that he was not planning on seeking work from Boeing in the future. Dkt. No. 142,

P.M. Session at 131:20-132:1. His new testimony is that he will be "applying to Boeing" (as he had

in fact done ten days earlier). Ex. 3. On December 10, defendants filed this motion but mentioned

none of this information. 12

Conversely, within four hours of his deposition, Singh was c-mailing Boeing employees and

asking that his efforts in "denying knowledge of the facts" be made known to defendant McNerney.

Then, eight days after testifying he would not seek work at Boeing, Singh did exactly that. Ex. 2.

His desire to help Boeing by "denying knowledge of the facts" and subsequentjob application, along

with the pressure Boeing applied to him, demonstrate a bias. Further, if Singh were to affirm what

he previously told Stewart, he would have antagonized Boeing. 13 This is an enemy Singh, an

aeronautical engineer living in the Seattle area, can hardly afford. Of the seven civilian jobs listed

on Singh's resume, two were with Boeing. Currently, Singh owns an aeronautical engineering

company based in Seattle named Cayley Aerospace. At his deposition, Singh claimed Cayley has

not worked with, and has no interest in working with, Boeing. However, Singh told Stewart in April

12 Defendants produced the e-mail chain containing Singh's November 17, 2010 message to Boeing, and two December 7, 2010 c-mails between Singh and Boeing's counsel on December 13, 2010, three days after filing this motion. In his e-mail to Singh, Boeing's counsel reminded Singh that he was under oath at the deposition and informed him of the consequences if he were to change his story at this point. Ex. 1.

13 Just how formidable an opponent Boeing might be was made clear to Singh when he was recently visited by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and questioned about whether he had divulged proprietary information related to Boeing concerning ajob he had at Boeing over three years ago. See Dkt. No. 142, P.M. Session at 97-99 and Dkt. No. 140, Ex. 1 at 7 (Boeing subpoena issued to Singh asking for "All Documents Concerning Your interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in 2010 relating to Your possession and unauthorized disclosure of Boeing proprietary information").

- 14- 592703_i


2010 that he could not continue to discuss the 787 program with her because he was currently

working on a project involving Boeing. Stewart Dccl., ¶23.14

In sum, plaintiffs have shown that (a) Singh was the original source of the allegations; and

(b) the information he provided was correct. Further, plaintiffs have shown that Singh has a strong

motive to now deny being the source. Defendants have come forward with no sound factual or

procedural basis in support of their motion to dismiss this action. Accordingly, this Court must deny

defendants' motion.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny defendants' motion.

DATED: January 18, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS E. EULER JOHN J. RICE TRIG R. SMITH SHANNON M. MATERA MAUREEN E. MUELLER ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP

s/ THOMAS E. EULER THOMAS E. EULER

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax)

14 The home page of Cayley Aerospace also states: "Located in beautiful Seattle, Aerospace Capital of NorthWest, it has been providing services to numerous Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and VIP Completion, Centers STC Projects." See Ex. 21; also available at http://www.cayleyaerospace. com . It also boasts of Singh's "formal post-graduate training at Boeing using Aircraft Design Engineering tool and Aerospace Stress Analysis tools in all major programs of Boeing and Airbus on there [sic] programs in past."

- 15 - 592703_i


RANDI D. BANDMAN ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212/693-1058 212/693-7423 (fax)

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312/332-3400 312/676-2676 (fax)

Liaison Counsel

DEBORAH R. GROSS ROBERT P. FRUTKIN LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M.

GROSS, P.C. Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215/561-3600 215/561-3000 (fax)

MICHAEL J. VANOVERBEKE THOMAS C. MICHAUD VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD &

TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313/578-1200 313/578-1201 (fax)

Additional Counsel for Plaintiff

- 16- 592703 1


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 18, 2011, I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I

caused to be mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-

CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 18, 2011.


ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax)

E-mail: tomergrdlaw. com

592703_i

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois- Page 1 of 1 Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 193 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:3400

Mailing Information for a Case 1:09-cv-07143

Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.

• Randi D Bandman [email protected]

• Eric D. Brandfonbrener [email protected] ,[email protected],dmoten @perkinscoie.comjbrosnan @perkinscoie.com

• H. Rodgin Cohen [email protected]

• Patrick M. Collins pcollins @perkinscoie.com,docketchi@?perkinscoie.com ,anorris @perkinscoie.com

• Thomas E Egler [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected]

• Lori Ann Fanning LPanning @MfflerLawLLC.com ,[email protected] ,[email protected]

• Deborah R. Gross [email protected]

• Shannon Mckenna Matera [email protected] ,e_ file _sd @rgrdlaw.com

• Marvin Alan Miller [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected],JRamirez@?mfflerlawllc.com

• Maureen E. Mueller [email protected],e_ffle_sd@?rgrdlaw.com

• Pravin B. Rao

• John J. Rice jrice@?rgrdlaw.com ,tholindrake@?rgrdlaw.com

• Trig Randall Smith [email protected]

• Benjamin R. Walker walkerb @sullcrom.com ,deiesot@ sullcrom.com ,tulchind@ sullcrom.com ,wheelers@ sullcrom.com

• Alexander J. Willscher [email protected] ,s&[email protected]

Manual Notice List

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.

Steve V. Koh Perkins Cole, LLP 1201 Third Avenue #4800 Seatte, WA 98101

David B Tuichin Sullivan and Cromwell 125 Broad t New York, D004

Stephanie Wheeler Sulln well 125 - New lurK uuq- 498

https ://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?44356232269524-L_555_0- 1 1/18/2011

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document#: 193-1 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #:3401



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

No. 1:09-cv-07143

CLASS ACTION


APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DECEMBER 10, 2010

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 157)

593882_i


Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following exhibits:

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2:

Exhibit 3:

Exhibit 4:

Exhibit 5:

Exhibit 6:

Exhibit 7:

Exhibit 8:

Exhibit 9:

Exhibit 10:

Exhibit 11:

Exhibit 12:

Exhibit 13:

Exhibit 14:

Exhibit 15:

Exhibit 16:

Exhibit 17:

Exhibit 18:

Exhibit 19:

String of c-mails to and from Bisbnuj cc Singh, BOEING-LIV 03812004-10;

E-mails between Bishnujee Singh and Ali A. Mahmoodi, BOEING-LIV 03857422-27;

Deposition Correction Sheet of Bishnujee Singh, dated December 5, 2010;

BOEING-LIV 00000023.000001-12, filed under seal;

BOEING-LIV 09775346, filed under seal;

BOEING-LIV 09775341-42, filed under seal;



Declaration of Elizabeth Stewart in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, dated December 2, 2010;

Declaration of Ramsey Stewart in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, dated December 2, 2010;




BOEING-LIV 00474748, filed under seal;




Resumes of Bishnujee Singh;

Sheffield Hallam University - Archive alumni ofthe month, Bishnujee Singh;

593882_i - 1 -


Exhibit 20: Notice of Deposition Subpoena of Bishnujee Singh, dated November 3,2010; and

Exhibit 21: Home Page of Cayley Aerospace.

DATED: January 18, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS E. EULER JOHN J. RICE TRIG R. SMITH SHANNON M. MATERA MAUREEN E. MUELLER ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP


655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax)

RANDI D. BANDMAN ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212/693-1058 212/693-7423 (fax)

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

MARVIN A. MILLER MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312/332-3400 312/676-2676 (fax)

Liaison Counsel

-2- 593882 1


DEBORAH R. GROSS ROBERT P. FRUTKIN LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M.

GROSS, P.C. Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215/561-3600 215/561-3000 (fax)

MICHAEL J. VANOVERBEKE THOMAS C. MICHAUD VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD &

TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313/578-1200 313/578-1201 (fax)

Additional Counsel for Plaintiff

-3- 593882_i



I hereby certify that on January 18, 2011, I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing






foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 18, 2011.




E-mail: tomergrdlaw. com

593882_i

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois- Page 1 of 1 Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document#: 193-1 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 6 of 6 PagelD #:3406




• Randi D Bandman [email protected]

• Eric D. Brandfonbrener [email protected] ,[email protected],dmoten @perkinscoie.comjbrosnan @perkinscoie.com


• Patrick M. Collins pcollins @perkinscoie.com,docketchi@?perkinscoie.com ,anorris @perkinscoie.com

• Thomas E Egler [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected]

• Lori Ann Fanning LPanning @MfflerLawLLC.com ,[email protected] ,[email protected]


• Shannon Mckenna Matera [email protected] ,e_ file _sd @rgrdlaw.com

• Marvin Alan Miller [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected],JRamirez@?mfflerlawllc.com

• Maureen E. Mueller [email protected],e_ffle_sd@?rgrdlaw.com

• Pravin B. Rao

• John J. Rice jrice@?rgrdlaw.com ,tholindrake@?rgrdlaw.com


• Benjamin R. Walker walkerb @sullcrom.com ,deiesot@ sullcrom.com ,tulchind@ sullcrom.com ,wheelers@ sullcrom.com

• Alexander J. Willscher [email protected] ,s&[email protected]

Manual Notice List


Steve V. Koh Perkins Cole, LLP 1201 Third Avenue #4800 Seatte, WA 98101

David B Tuichin Sullivan and Cromwell 125 Broad t New York, D004

Stephanie Wheeler Sulln well 125 New lurK uuq- 498

https ://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?44356232269524-L_555_0- 1 1/18/2011


EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Documerit#: 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 2 of 19 PagelD #:3408

From: Bishnujec Singh [bishnujcc.singfl©cay:cyacospace.cornj Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:51 AM To: Koh, Steve Y. (Perkins Cole) Subject: HE Boeing Versus Piatilt L ivon i a !

• ::::::..:::: . He

From: Koh, Steve Y. (Perkins Core) [maito:SKohrkinscoie.comI Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:44 AM To: bishnujee.singb© ray eyaerospace.ccm Subject: RE: Boeing Versus Platiff Livonia

Mr, Sim gl.

You sere swoi n. subject to penalty of perjury, to tell the truth in your deposition and in execLitilig yotir declaration. Ii now or at any time you believe titat auvilung voti have teslifled

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Documentt 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 3 of 19 PagelD #:3409

From: F3ishrujee Singh [mado:hishflujee.siagh@cay[eyaerospace.com ] Sent: Wedflesdav, November 17, 201C 10:31 PM

To: [email protected] Cc: michaeLj.denIon©boeno.com Subject: Boeing Versus Flatiff Livorila!

2 .

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document tt 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 4 of 19 PagelD #:3410

:.H:: .•_ ----.:: I::. :::. H....:: :....... ::vH.::::: ::::..:.. -------..:

...: --

a

:3


)

nt4

S

'IA

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 6 of 19 PagelD #:3412

> 'Phone : (423) 111-3YJ2

> Fax: 425: 266 8950 •rilstop 06-37

From: [email protected] To: bishnujeeCdihotmaI.com Date: Eu, 30 Apr 2010 13:31:02 -0700 Subject: RE: Greetings;''

From: orthn Ljjee(c)hotmal: .com To: ance.d.varrier©boeiiig.corn Subject: ZW: Reality Facts about Irifotech India Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:37:13 -0830


I

From: IshnL]Jee Srngh Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:34 PM To: _akshmanarao Nieka Cc: cha 11(1 ran lOU lid © lfoLechsvi. corn Subject: Boe:ng Team

6



EXHIBIT 2


From: Bishnujee Singh Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:26 PM To:. Subject: Re:Contractual role

He

y.Ju s ... .:Lc C:N:

IL t'1tse ....... c;.LuI:: E,!.. ... 11.......................

. .

IF.

BOEING-LIV 03857422


> > From: Mahmoodi, Ali A > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:44 AM > To: Labarge, David C; Surdyk, Larry G > Cc: EXI-Singh, Bishnujee; Danson, James D > Subject: FW: Contractual role > > FYI > Impressive resume. > > Au > > > From: Danson, James D > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:32 AM > To: Mahmoodi, Ali A > Subject: FW: Contractual role > > FYI > > Jim Danson > Manager > 767 Wing Majors & Laydown > Cell: 425-876-9298 > > > > From: EXI-Singh, Bishnujee > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:55 AM > To: Danson, James D > Subject: Contractual role > > Hi James, > Sincere compliments of the day.I am interested in moving over from > Boeing Winnipeg to Boeing Seattle region as my residence is based in > Everett,WA.I would be glad if you could let me know any Contractual > position arises in Engineering in near future. > Kind regards > > > Bishnujee

BOEING-LIV 03857423


> • Bishnujee Singh • Chartered Engineer (EC-UK),Chartered Scientist(SC-UK), • MRAeS,MAeSI,r\l \IAA,MCASI • Boeing Enrkeeriii Department >BOC1UL > Direct:2U4-S 1-2881

> <<Curriculum Vitae2doc>>

BOEING-LIV 03857424

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document#: 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 13 of 19 PagelD #:3419 Bishnujee Singh

bislinujce(dthotmail.com

A Professional Aeronautical Engineer with wide background experience backed by appropriate qualif cations as listed and Recipient ol First Ever Royal Aeronautical Society Cayley Award 2003 awarded by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace, Rolls Royce UK, Lockheed Martin Aircraft Limited. Excellent technical mid interpersonal skills, able to relate easily at all levels to achieve quality and agreed project contract timescales. Self motivated and resourceful, working on own initiative or as a team leader,

('nyley Aerospace Inc, Lynnwood, W4 March, 2010- 7111 Date Siren Engineer

• Prepared structural substantiation tor new monuments such as class dividers, stowages, galleys made of sandwich composites, in now aircraft interior programs, with applicable airworthiness standards. Used Solid works, FEMAI'. MSC!I'ATRAN for FEA and Math cad lor documentation -

• Prepared stru:'':al substantiation for existing support structure during the integration of new monuments made of sandwich composites. in ii aircratt recontigamtion programs. with applicable airworthiness standards

• I 1rept 'ed I I ] I. ..or obta i no i g design vi lies of am Iwi cli composite del ails • Revic wed ci : II :,rir drawings (parts and in I llations) and coordinated with the design team • I ' tare jj I.....resolve NCR urir - I c monument pix di Lotion process • Of _l 'ii'] 'it to resoi e DRs dan I ' i.i'• • i' L .1,i it installation process • Sn11xwled the devepment and rnanagemei. ,,t; c. analysis processes

being (lthnpany, JEAI - Fvvr'e it, ff14 Aug 2009— March 2010 Stress Engineer

• Performs finite element modeling mid classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and reviews the same work from others

• Pr iv H i. hraeal Si.:. it and guidance to the engineers and designers. • In '...I...] ii I. i., ,.i ' : i id optiniizaiion for thselagos. • I.i\UI'.VJ H. *i.i], ':.!L H;rflhi:-to skin titting. • An..]', 'ad and vani Ii I sa . ictural components via hand calculations and finite clement analysis using MSCINASTRAN,

MSC,PATRAN are, CATTA VS • I)CVCAL ad and aanmanted technical reports to support the analysis performed. • A sensitivity study was carried out to understand the interaction of cutouts with damage cutouts made on the skin to understand the

spacing of the damage, using MSC/NASTRAN and MSC/PARTAN • Offered support to manufacturing team to establish safety of parts with mannfacturirig defects such as mis-drilled holes/undesired

blends in Fuselage frames (TAOs).

Midcoast Aviation (General Dynamics) lEA! - Cahokia. IL May 2009- Aug 2009 Siren Engineer

• Performs finite element modeling and classical stress anal on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work horn c'h'v",

• lnvolvedmL, ii. H ni ,: flu'. :iI . ..M .].di H. j I '.. i;of floInbardierUlobal Express Jet 9352 • Modificatioli - Ci :\c Rest. Aft Bulk n..,i.l. Divan. I I...,. ] :1 :dg Interiors. • provides technical snl'] . , it aid gtndaretoHi: . Hi ,i . I 'Id i a is, • Anal zed and valirtied structural eonipoueisn via ii ' al i latmun and finite element analysis using FiX NASTR AN, FEN4AP

and 51)1 ID",kORKS • I )eveloped and documented technical reports to sul'I. ii he analysis perfonned

BaySvs Technologies - [II Sept 2008 - May 2009 Flight Science Manager

• Performs [mile element modeling and classical stress analy sis on airera Ft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same c' ork tim o liers ,

• Reviev , nu i ] )pr :1 other forms of analy sis, such as heat loads, electrical loads, environmental control st stem flow- fluid low, icing, daniaee 1 , I. nince, and Itlie H

• May, r.,H if. 1 , 1q!111 Scieno:' i. I . c .:r .1 sciiedi.des. • A'::.:i'iis, iii.:, .... HI i v: ] i:'i::rm: :rou]D personnel. • Plans ma i 1 , wer I:'] arements fur, i trio i and future projects. • Se C': . i. . ii .cdat -or inter', iewing with the gronp. Interviews and makes recommendations for hire.

:1.] 1IlIcflL'K!M:ItLP1


• F::''H-. r:1 .: r-..2,,::. Ill, ,,.H 0r)nH."Ii!riL'HTh,,lJt.] III ill NHI,ILuT.H.H fln.,,:Cities it .:IL'II ,'•i- i.1H p '' Hr.'.: ,:,.. lei tr, I I I I i 1'..'.1::..'.: I'::,, I'.. I, It it ' : ' , '. '

• Prodc. loclilu,.) ...... :.I :',',H,nce to ,Ii::i.,i:, ,Ic.ui.i:i

• SeI.ni-.Ii'.laiI.:I ,'.H:'. ....'11)11)01 ji. '''t . C' •id'.'Hi H.

• 11:isu:;, that cal :I i.,JINH ..... I H.L and fullytrau dc:

• Regularly revie the ..it group and it 'i.., u "e actions for rndrvid - eith performance issues.

Heath 7,i',i,t 1r,- ....'. I 3,: 20-1_ - June ;uf)8 Stress Engineer

• i.i 1:. i:..HIi ... iii ....':.'' Ic .:l) all ,1seQ ;ill :.F,.iHifc'irv I I I, I,IIN' H I',irtjtiH) ( '...C,L..H I NI,\.'HH" :-:'\N.I . t.... '-. Iidy.. yr-.1utej,iee.:.:-.jcalcult 1 ,L :,,,d 11 .:I 1 itflg

• I:.,;.:I.:,I H, .'AN: , H it .L,I ,. .''.-'. H..... L,rH,',' . .....,Ii ..::,NH. ..-' HI:,: I I I ....HI . ....:•j '.1k .

..H '-I 'C ...',' ':1', .1 CI' 00] d.gciILI'.IukiII .lJ . : HIC.2.,IC-. k' I'',H,,I , ,,,.

• InS..] -HI,:, ,,i,,,u. IaAO-300 stress until, ..............- In.i,dI., ,'orlHi' Its and k. ''ru...... :,,...I:I,. ,.-. III weight and] .' Al::1,-,.. ........'iysishv hand t.'I,' L ......1 -,,:-'- report :nt..':l.

• In..I-ed:, i- To-. ,,,u for Air Ca.nada AH " rhus under -35 Degree C Cold Soak test and C.: P a ..... with Tm . . ...' . .1 . Conducted and wi, , c ''. .Iof St die centre Room Iempiratui'e Te-. ' , , o' Tn' - t test

for I .........:', w.I.sr cold s-.'.. e-.-' ,: 1 ...''1 iltso impact test under Room Femperatw .c..ii• H m: Edge test ani trial ,'.... iN'. IC,:, .I.:P..I:tssrihlyfor .ge'. ...

Boeing Co;npcnr H' Oct 2004 - Marc/i 2007 Structural Anr,!t', IM,• !/

• In 'iv: I , ,,.r'' , , . a. ..:u: '; (1.,' . I,: :"ior Finite Element Modeling using Palran and Analysis using Nastnm un I :: INN' .1.1-' .'I '. ,,,,,.:,:H l,I, Ii.,' I I'l I:,:..lI

• in.vc:ili_ :,1 1 '. ,.,.,.,I: I, it, Hi,II ,'I .:' . :

• Pace: .2:11,- I,, I •],., ,.-,, i,,, - Cc-.su: ._k.Iac astran and modeling using NIL H:li:i: I i:,v ).l l,:H ;':I:I.II,H ,HI,IH, C: ': iiHi,' H:: II 'H: ',C: ':::': L 'I,,' .iiodel

• Involved I, H,: I Hi .,:l NH.i, I.r::I I -,••- p•i-.p.11 1 , 1 „L I-PH .',..I [I .':'.Iran and Analysis using MSC

Mare.

• luvolvedi., H,,:: I :1,..',: 'H'. LI.,: ...I.'i:::'I: 'H Ii,': ,,,I .HI .. I I',,iIi,,” ...:,:I': , i,,'I laps.luterfereneeLoad generation.

• Design, Dev-eic1'mant' .L . .', III': . I HI: nLanding Ge irDoor so on-H' for Drean'dinerBoeing 787 Aircraft. Debugging and n.inganalysi:' ::LC:rl::,I I

• Non linear anal- ....ol : ... -. I. '- II - I br section tor 787-7 and use of gap contact elements using Patran & Nash'an.

• Supporting and coordiic.e liLt I: .....,ith running Final release of Section 49 Door section.

• I kindling the Airorali. --ii ,'ound (A( j ( ' tasks efficiently and to the utmost satisFaction of l3oemg Technical Services and Airlines Customers.

• Involved in generating the loads for fatigue analysis for the component.

Boeing AMRC - Rother/wni, Unii.'.I 1'. .--.'. .. en; Sept 2003 - Oct 2004 Structural Analyst Engineer

• lmolvedincia''I 11.:.::. I'll, 1, .:.'I,. :1:: ,: :'.:l:ll, forTh-it •::.., 'H'- ....lin Boeing 787where tire new Agile Fixture

system was suc .issndl -v d,',:,,,:,,.. I I:.' d usi- ' new materials which lid1 -:1 in bringing down the cost by 10 time without

alTect.ingH:Hi..:H:I ill,'HIl'. ,.I,I,:i ..He

Hyde Group Limited Aug 7-°02 - Sept 2003 Stress Engineer

• Sty'errnn::..,:,':.....,..,,:.',:: ,:':.H,: :,: ,., ,,.I, u .: .:I.:,'' coordirn"':"..•,IiI H-. I) -.I 'H,, Dural :.II,.,

Darn .H.i'.I,,,,: '.2 1, '1',:.. '.,-',:, .HH:.:" ill : lnvolveiill''(. ,c' . . ,. it . In l\ nnedMo ''thi e Cc ,L re i-.,,r

Mono11th... Hi.2.': :.'.,, .::.I I, it C 'I"' '• ..'-'..:-.'1l1 INi'.ilsFlaps,t ± . .'::tok::,ra rAl It s('''idBob),F-.'':::i' Rc.:.nct.:: IiI'I:!''':.I'.:ill ,: N,':' .'I:',' '1 i'lL,. :iH iHa:.

• In .' 1':' , I : I' '12 r I ' -i ' . I I . 'i 'I tip I .' 11 ' N --I -Mn with Emhraer aircraft in var )osiuon hire stow, alt and pre flight

• F' . . I'. Ii: :tran : -5. I , . of componci I of I anding (lear actuation system and analysis tinder various load cases under Ike H , t condition, ground segment, tilt and stow' condition.

Smeta - oevgorod Nap 2001 - Aug2002 Stress Engineering Manager

• Involved inMar,':,',,:,, -.1 Il_FCC:l ,'_ teani of Aircr'aui De.,,_,, mid ','':--': :0

• jNt.. are i,::perf:, 'CC: ,,',. ,I:,: C:'-,, :',, . ,,pl'r'caitraini,,: :iH_l ',:,

• In I. :i in .e:.'' I ''2:.,,'' I',I: .-. I.'-' - a' ' ir,mmnor F,r,:.:.: C-,,-:', ,:.,,,-.' I '' idling contractors and subcontractors involved II C

• IH:.-r,,,:,lCI,:-,, ,I I .n. I'C',',., I) :isandprepai'cd the S l. - .-: ' .'.-''- on. i"er aft n:iodifieationsand repairs.

Resume of Bishnujee Singh - pg. 2

BOEING-LIV 03857426

Case 1:09-cv-07143 Document it: 193-2 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 15 of 19 PagelD #:3421 • Involved In i .anthng (Car extension and retraction -i em unions, • Involved working with subcontractors der.i.c I - r '. nd F - .. i Jar design review meetings. • Involved in the Integrated Structuruk AfliL .] I '-.. r,I tic orarddcck using Nastran. Parma, ANSYS. Finite Element Modeling

and the Fatigue Analysis on wing rear : -] ii I I N.

• Developed and documented technical rep.'ii'-. support one analysis performed.

Ministry of Defense, Indian Government June 1996- July 2001 Head of Engineering

• Leading team of Senior Engineers, Engineers at various levels, ensuring that the projects are completed within stipulated time frame.

• Monitoring performance evaluation of Learn of design mid stress Engineer: cii itling them for their training program • Ersuring that Forecasting and scheduling of the Project and budget unvol' i,. I ii ith the project. • In Iw.:, with contractors and contractors to ensure timely com'ojci n I -c 1 i 'ret. • Ii . I .rc in D, inition of D. ic' iiicruenLs from. Airii,'r level. '- i:ri el i.e. Braking and Steering, Extension and

i:,nu.c.j Ai r : i:- iil'r: H: cli:'.' ':atiops • It. I - cI ii '.'r111c ,c i - :. 0 i.' - :- Inch m-,Ix'ed 'r': inc u ,'ccI'i i r . ctniirsicu iiredtoqualifv/ccth[, her, the

ii, - ,' I, .i,:L'.i : . : LLi I ....i,• ,i- ..I': ii.:c':H... :.ii-:I i.•-'Iii I: .. • I: . ...-i, - ,.. ii:'1"'11 i . ,.._:i , : . ._ I .iii:'r ::icIJ:'ii_-.rt. •i*l-)......... ii i-I ii.:., IiIii - _ ..

• I..j'cLciirc:H •.Iic 111 11 I:'.c ci.] :[ i'r . ..iic .cc . pci, ..I.c i'ri - .ccc ,HrcLi:i cc: ....c.c:, 1 :c . ..IC '3ircofaircrur:i ....I:::' ...... :. iiii'c: ,..i: 1 . 1:1,':.:1 i, - : i..,Iii':i:I': I i-,ii.ci .i,': :::vi.ic,i,I -ciiic: i:': :p.iis,

rtlH,t]cicc: .... • nAtorl.:: : -. i. .. inc ... :c:,:::ili ::i.]iii]c: u':u:_ c:n'.u:cI_ :ci]c\ . i,:_ni:i ]cc -crcc :.uc.n::uuc. ::::ci:

• Per 14 ...... H ...... .. I i.i'-, . ii .,:i::c: i,'ii::±i Hi .)c-ic.i 1 1-' - ' - -

l..)u:...c:c:-_.u-i: I ci .....I .ici,iii.-i ,- 'iii- iii:',c i .:ic , ii i.ccic:.ciii:c. I. ..'iii: iii :ii:.ii, • ci: - : -- ii,ii _:_ 'r_.1 ci..c ccc' '-,i :'ii •-Liic Co ticS cc ...oiioii.iuu Sri' c ii ,cidi ii i i1:::, c ... .. c.. i .]. l•.i ::-. hiiicc- to SOT 'ii.ii -crAi ciin...tadBolts), Fa-.ciicriiii-.i.c i:i..ci.Hi. cc-: 'vL- , -iiiircja

Education /Skills • MSc (Honors) Athanced Design Engineering - Xiii,: c , I 1111M I 1 INC'- H I cg intl

• Graduate of the Royal Aeronautical Sochi, , -I,I....I:. .....i .ici .- ii i .- . - i' 'i ton • Bachelor ofAerona,utical Engineering 'JII i i i 'ci ': i I : ' .'i .ciic- '. I' ' . alization it 1tr., and flc.-iiLigincenng • Courses: FInns hi ra', ' i.( ,- I :1 . . . .i . . '- ' .-ri Pairan, A......Hand( .deui ii. 'n,Ahaqas • Training: ' ' ,1 1 ,, vii:. iPtc'i ii Vciii li::1:: :,'iç c ciii: ::ic iHi,'i ill' . H l I 'catra . ..:b) Ha . .H 'nc --nrc iH':.i'-'ii:i

modelingacUfi cii:--. N.i.Lic:i . :\ It:..'i H:: Ic'cic. iciji c- ....ii in'P(i.,Jcnts

• Licenses: H.1 ..H 1I ... -- 'ic cii ...I - i. ....,I:. i icii.-ic H c i i ' ii l c icc, .ci'L.au c i] K1,(--iici;,eicdl'.uc,i.c,ccu,iHHY I JK),Prolc:sioii:iI Liieiiic'cr - II'Fi', ii:'' ii'Hi,:i •H.

• Memberships: I iv 1< . .H cci. -i- ccc. ".'. i.. '' .Ii'ii don. IvWAcS), 'lv' ", - ronautical Society of India (NcwDdlliL MAcSi), American Inst: i .i c , c Aeron , i -, Hr /: crop, i.p ,, i Hr MAIAA)

• FlyingSliII's: i - .'i .'ii r. '1 , , 11— - (H - - .ia 152 llondualflight

p Achievements

• Awarded First Ever Cayles Scholar Award 2(' from R''yalAcronautic. H.-- i. : (London) and sponsored by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace. Rolls Ro: a. Lockheed Martin Aircraft i united

• Awarded Research FelIo'n,lii1, lor Pespond Project ii H lit IMesra). Al:.::. 11 1Research kcicir ..i ac:-.i,:ei)i:i.

• Awarded Scholarship from British Government for ivI-c (I lonours) Advanced Engineering at Sheffield I lallam I Inivcrsity for outstan- ling Academic and Pn Ic' ional Excellence in I--c 'r.autical Engineering.

Publications • Principles of Flight,' 1k '-ir:'ii-.0 ccl C ,,cnc of India, Piynsh

Publication, Delhi (Jr. Ii.m) B "iagji. Mr &...C. Ashoka, V L Vernia,15 Jan 1996 • Workshop Tedin.tt,n, Hi.' ii i ,.-i H'. i,t, ':'India, Pivush

Publication, DeEr Hi-Hi Hi i ',. -, i..it 'crj VI. Vernia 01 Match 1996 • Mchmmics of Fluid, rue ,H , ii a,i- I,-------'''Ho-P.c Pi iisll

Publication, Delhi (Indi i Hi'. C.U. i. - 'il .i ' --- V I Venna 20 May, 1996 • Applied Thermal Engineering, Icc -.c. 'icit,ii - 'ricH, of India, Piynsh

Publication, Delhi (India) Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B 'cngh, V L Vernia 08 July 1996

Resume of Bishnujee Singh - pg. 3

BOEING-LIV 03857427


EXHIBIT 3

E rson. I

Reporters 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98403-3360 (253) 627-6401 Fax (253) 383-4884

MMS

CORRECTION SHEET DEC •i 5 2010

Byers & Anderson, Inc Deposition of: Bishnujee Singh, AN Session Date: November 17, 2010 Case: City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Boeing Cause No.: 1:09-cv07143 Reporter: Terilynn Pritchard, CIE, P1R, CRR, CLR

Instructions: Please carefully read your deposition and on this correction sheet make any changes or corrections in form or substance that you feel should be made. You may add additional sheets, if necessary. After completing this form, please sign your name in the space provided. Please do not mark the transcript. Thank you.

PAGE 4 LINE I

HF

CORRECTION

REASON FOR CORRECTION

OT ' ciwukcLbc

Iti(i alt 0LcZ 1tLtILM, C&4J; Qh 'I

"Ctcz/tr

- Il

1;kMk4tL £ 'nnt ML/ziotLn s-i'.

01ref: !;/&_--: itJo5 /Qo

SIGNATURE OF WITNESS:

Reporters 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98403-3360

(253) 627-6401

Fax (253) 363-4884

CORRECTION SHEET

Deposition of: Sishnujee Singh, PH Session Date: November 17, 2010 Case: City of Livonia Employees' Retirement Sytem v. Boeing Cause No.: 1:09-cv-07143 Reporter: Terilynn Pritchard, CCR, RMR, CRR, CLR

Instructions: Please carefully read your deposition and on this correction sheet make any changes or corrections in form or substance that you feel should be made. You may add additional sheets, if necessary. After completing this form, please sign your name in the space provided. - Please do not mark the transcript. Thank you.

PAGE 4 LINE I CORRECTION REASON FOR CORRECTION

£ S

Ii 2)

o tt ( h7w-S j, 0 c41,vvt.ii&?

1. tthv 't ht5jlCmflOt4 Cl

B3,4%'Ls)iatt-4, Wcastts gMJkqAI

Ft ft Cf

l}.- It PLLt t(CK* VikBoJ &i LL u 4 a&

______ 7 frti P4La<iJ k 4,,JJ. J1 UJ l

L4


rt Reporters

2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202

Tacoma, WA 98403-3380

(253) 627-6401

Fax (253) 383-4884

CORRECTION SHEET

Deposition of: Bishnujee Singh, PM Session Date: November 17, 2010 Case: City of Livonia Employees' Retirement Sytem v. Boeing Cause No.: 1:09-cv--07143 Reporter: Terilynn Pritchard, OCR, RMR, CRR, CLR

Instructions: Please carefully read your deposition and on this correction sheet make any changes or corrections in form or substance that you feel should be made. You may add additional sheets, if necessary. After completing this form, please sign your name in the space provided. Please do not mark the transcript. Thank you.

PAGE 1 LINE *

CORRECTION REASON FOR CORRECTION

71

Vi9 _,A4,LL_6-c w I 1i

4QLh1. no tfl UnJk,lJJAbI ,ath2' t,ñ',

ic Li1 p k

iIctd-1 (U 0 Ill JJJj.

11 Lh4j?ke j9ItrutL ic "gtY

U j' ,i Ufrj LRI AVZL2SPRCR!NC JtLhAL

&t,n,t&j

Dw,tt 111 th20 , I

I <; l TJd2- u CfryLY k1V1G*AC4 it g 2in/Lci&.


(0.


EXHIBITS 4-8 Restricted Documents Pursuant to L.R. 26.2

and the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 46), filed May 11, 2010, in the action captioned City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.

The Boeing Co., et at, Master File No. 09-CV-7143


EXHIBIT 9



EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )

)

Plaintiff; ) )

VS )


Defendants.

)

No. I :09-cv-07143

CLASS ACTION


DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STEWART IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

5N7734

I, Elizabeth Stewart, submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class

Certification. The facts attested to herein are based upon my first-hand knowledge.

I I am willing and fully prepared to appear before this Court and testify to the facts

contained in this declaration. Should the Court decide to entertain oral argument on Plaintiffs'

Motion for Class Certification, I am willing to appear voluntarily for the hearing and will be

available for any questions this Court or the parties may have concerning my contacts with Mr.

Bishnujee Singh ("Singh") and the information he freely volunteered to me as part of my

investigation of this case.

2. 1 am Senior Manager of Investigations and a Case Manager employed by the firm

L.R, Hodges & Associates, Ltd. ("LR}1&A"). LRH&A is a private investigation firm operating

pursuant to a license from the State of California Bureau of Security and investigative Services,

License Number P1 18129. LRH&A provides investigative and consulting services in the area of

complex civil litigation, including, but not limited to, securities fraud class action. litigation.

3, I have been employed with L'RH&A for over 11 years. Currently, my job duties

include managing and overseeing case , investigations, formulating investigative strategies,

conducting interviews with former employees of coni panics, and preparing written summaries ofthe

interviews conducted.

4. On January 5, 2010, the law firm ofRobbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins

Ocher") retained LRH&A to assist with the investigation of alleged fraudulent statements made in

2009 by The Boeing Company ("Boeing") and certain of its executives regarding the 737

Drearnhiner.

5, Consistent with my job responsibilities at LRH&A, 1 have conducted and supervised

an investigation into the alleged fraud in this case, and continue with those efforts as of the date of

this declaration,

5877341

1111111 "M

6. It is my understanding that the Court is in possession of my declaration submitted in

support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal.

See Dkt. No, 101-2. For the Court's convenience, I have annexed that declaration hereto and

reference it as "Attachment 1."

I hereby re-attest to the truth and accuracy of each of the statements contained in my

declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Certify Order for

Interlocutory Appeal. See Attachment 1

8. 1 have read and reviewed the November 2, 2010 declaration of Bishnujee Singh

("Singh Declaration"), See Docket Number 140. Referenced herein as "Dkt. No. 140."

9. I have read and reviewed the transcript of Singh's November 17, 2010 deposition.

See Docket Number 142. Referenced herein as "Dkt. No. 142."

10. Based on my knowledge of my contacts with Singh, which are memorialized in my

contemporaneous notes and memorandum, Singh' s declaration and deposition testimony contain

numerous falsehoods.

I. Relevant Background Regarding My interactions with Singh

II. On February 19, 2010, 1 met with Singh in person in Lynnwood, Washington,

regarding the allegations of fraud in this case ("February 19, 2010 Meeting"). Further, at the

beginning ofthe February 19, 2010Meeting, before Singh conveyed any non-public information to

me concerning Boeing. I informed him, consistent with LRH&A's standard practices, that LRH.&A

had been retained by the law firm of Robbins Geller (then "Coughlin Stoia. Geller Rudman &

Robbins LIP" or "Coughlin Stoia") to gather factual information on behalf of a group of Boeing

shareholders who had brought a lawsuit against Boeing and certain of its executive officers. I

identified the individual executive officers by name to Singh and explained that the claims made in

the lawsuit involved statements made by those officers about Boeing's ability to conduct the 787

-2- 557734 1

ii I,, I II Pi I 111 1111111

"First Flight" in late June 2009. It is my professional practice, and has been throughout my career,

to make such disclosures about the nature ofthe investigation, my client, and the fact that my client's

interests are adverse to those of the subject's (here, Singh) former employers. Likewise, I make

these disclosures at the beginning of any discussion with a former employee before asking any

questions related to the subject's factual knowledge of case issues.

12 In the course of the February 19, 2010 Meeting. I asked Singh whether he had

retained any documents with respect to his work at Boeing. Singh said he did not After he

informed me that he did not retain any documents, I did not inquire with him again regarding his

retention of documents. I never asked Singh to provide me with any documents in that meeting or

any time subsequent to February 19, 2010.

13. During the February 19, 2010 Meeting, 1 asked Singh if he had signed a

confidentiality agreement with Boeing in connection with his August 2009 through January 2010

employment and he stated that he did. Consistent with my practice as an investigator and consistent

with my practice as an employee of LRT-I&A, 1 informed Singh that the kind of information we were

seeking from him were things such as historical events and circumstances and communications about

those events and circumstances, including the dates and contents of communications about those

factual events and circumstances. I made clear to Singh on February 19, 2010 that I did not wantto

elicit from him any confidential, proprietary, or attorney-client privileged communications, and

added that I did not want to put him in a position of possibly breaching his confidentiality

agreement. I further informed Singh that if he did not want to answer any particular question, orwas

uncomfortable at any point during our conversation, he did not have to answer the questions or could

tell me that he was uncomfortable.

14. Repeatedly throughout the February 19, 2010 Meeting, I confirmed and re-confirmed

with Singh key points of information he had provided me to ensure that my notes properly reflected

-3- 587734

the facts as Singh understood them. At no time during the two-hour long February 19, 2010 Meeting

did Singh decline to answer any questions, convey that he was uncomfortable answering my

questions, terminate the conversation, or ask me to leave. Had Singh done so, I would have

complied with his wishes, as is my professional practice.

IL The Singh Declaration Contains Numerous Falsehoods

15. In ¶3 of the Singh Declaration, Singh states that i spoke with plaintiffs' investigator,

Elizabeth Stewart, ou two occasions. in 2010. initially, I received a call from a man who said he was

Ms. Stewart's husband. Be asked if l, would meet with Ms. Stewart for dinner and I declined

because I was too busy" Did. No, 140, Lx. 2, ¶3.

16. The above-quoted language in 13 of the Singh Declaration is false. Between

February and April 2010, I had four contacts with Singh, the first three of which occurred between

February 16, 2010 and February 19, 20 LU. As an initial matter, Ramsey Stewart (who ismy husband

and worked with LRH&A and assisted me with my investigation in this matter), first spoke with

Singh on February 16, 2010 at around 8:30 p.m. Mountain Standard Time and during this phone call,

Singh voluntarily disclosed his knowledge of the April 21 ; 2009 wing stress test on the 787 aircraft,

Shortly after Ramsey Stewart spoke with Singh, I called Singh (8:50 p.m. Mountain Standard Time

on February 16, 2010) and confirmed that he was willing to meet with me on February 17, 2010.

During this call, Singh informed me that he had knowledge of the April and May 2009 787 wing

stress tests. Singh and I agreed to meet in the lobby of the Best Western Navigator Inn & Suites in

Everett, Washington. On February 17, 2010, 1 called Singh and informed him that I might be late for

the meeting and we agreed to reschedule it for February 18, 2010. Singh did not show up for the

meeting on February 18, 2010, sol left him a. voice message. On February 19, 2010, 1 went to

SingE's home in Lynnwood, Washington to see if he still wanted to proceed with a meeting. After I

arrived and introduced myself, and asked if he had time to meet with me, Singh agreed, invited me

-4- 5877341

into his house and we had a conversation about his work at Boeing. Singh was friendly and open to

discussing his knowledge of the April and May 2009 787 wing stress tests and certain materials

documenting those test results,

17. At 13 of the Singh Declaration, Singh further asserts that our February 19, 2010

Meeting "lasted for approximately 35-40 minutes in total [and] Ms. Stewart did not tell me that she

wasworking for plaintiffs who were suing Boeing." Dkt. No. 140, Ex. 2, ¶3.

18. Those assertions are false as well. The February .19, 2010 Meeting lasted two hours,

from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. Further, and as noted above, at the beginning of the

meeting, I specifically disclosed to Singh that LRH&A had been retained by the law firm ofRobbins

Geller to gather factual information on behalf ofagroup ofBoeing shareholders who had brought a

lawsuit against Boeing and certain of its executive officers. I identified the individual executive

officers by name to Singh and explained that the claims made in the lawsuit involved statements

made by those officers about Boeing's ability to conduct the 787 'First Flight" in late June 2009,

19. in ¶4 of the Singh Declaration, Singh states that "Ms. Stewart asked me about wing

tests that were performed in April and May of 2009 on the 787-8. Ms. Stewart asked mewhetherthe

results and findings from the wing tests were communicated to James McNerney, Scott Carson or

any other executives during April, May and June of 2009. 1 told her that I had no knowledge on that

subject and did not have access to, or awareness of, such communications." Dkt. No. 140, Ex. 2, ¶4,

20. The above-quoted language in ¶4 of the Singh Declaration is false and misleading for

numerous reasons. First, Singh intimates that my questioning during the February 19, 2010 Meeting

was leading. To the contrary, my questions during the Meeting were opened-ended. In response to

my questions, Singh volunteered information concerning the April and May 2009 787 wing stress

test results and materials documenting those results. I contemporaneously made handwritten notes

of his comments and, as is my practice, shortly thereafter I used those notes to aid me in writing a

-5.. 597734

thorough description of our conversation. See Attachment 1, Exs. A, B. During the February 19,

2010 Meeting, I informed Singh of the pleading standards for these types of cases and the

importance of obtaining as much detail as possible of the basis for Singh's knowledge of the facts.

During the February 19, 2010 Meeting, Singh informed me that he had personally seen certain

Outlook email communications to defendants McNerney and Carson regarding the April and May

2009 787 wing tests. See Ed. Singh also informed inc that he had seen the April and May 2009 test

files in connection with his work on the "fix" to the 787 wing during the fall of 2009. Id.

2]. The above-quoted language in 14 of the Singh Declaration is false for additional

reasons. Prior to February 19, 2010, I had no knowledge of the actual stress results of the 787 wing

tests conducted by Boeing in April and May 2009. It was Singh who provided me with the specific

information that the 787 wing failed at approximately 30% below limit load in April 2009. See

Attachment 1., Exs. A. B. Singh was my sole source for specific information about the 787 wing test

results. Singh told me the 787 wing failed at approximately 125% of ultimate load in May 2009 and

suffered delamination during that test. Id. Singh provided me with the specific information that the

results of the April and May 2009 787 wing tests were communicated to defendants McNerney and

Carson via email. Id. Singh provided me with the specific information concerning the April and

May 2009 787 wing test files, which contained the emails communicating the results to defendants

McNerney and Carson. See Ed,

22. At 16 of the Singh Declaration, he states that a month after the February 19, 2010

Meeting, "Ms. Stewart called me and asked me the same question again about my access to test files

and test findings and I gave her the same response. She became angry and her tone became

aggressive. She insisted that I 'admit' that I had seen documents which communicated the wingtest

results or Findings to Mr. McNerney, Mr. Carson or other executives. I refused to say what she

6- 587734,, 1

wanted me to say. 1 told her that if she were to claim that I said things that are untrue I would testify

that she lied. . . As 1 said, she was angry and aggressive." Dkt. No. 140, Lx. 2, 1,16.

23. The above-quoted language in ¶6 of the Singh Decimation is false. Aside from the

initial phone calls with Singh on February 16 and 17, 2010 and the February 19, 2010 Meeting, the

only other time 1 spoke with Singh was on the telephone on April 13, 2010. See Attachment 1, ¶1 t.

During that call, 1 gave him the opportunity to deny, disavow, recant and/or alter any of the

information he had provided me or Ramsey Stewart (husband) in February 2010 Ii., ¶12. He did

not Id On April 13, 2010, Singh said that he was no longer willing to cooperate in the

investigation because he was currently working on a project involving Boeing. At no time did I ever

express any anger or act aggressively towards Singh. Based on my 1. 1 years of experience as a

professional investigator, I know that it is not only unprofessional, but unproductive and ineffective,

to treat a confidential source in a disrespectful or hostile manner. At all times, consistent with

LRH&A. practices, 1 treated Singh with the utmost respect.

24. At ¶7 of the Singh Declaration, Singh states that he "know[s] nothing" about what

plaintiffs have attributed to him in the complaint. Dkt. No. 140, Ex. 2, ¶7.

25. The above-quoted language in ¶7 of the Singh Declaration is false, as demonstrated

by my contemporaneous handwritten notes of my February 19, 2010 Meeting, as well as my

contemporaneous memorandum to plaintiffs' counsel summarizing theinterview. SeeAttaehment I,

Exs. A, B.

26. At 1111 through 14 ofthe Singh Declaration, Singh cites to Till 39 through 142 ofthe

operative complaint and essentially denies all the allegations attributed to him. See Dkt. No. 140,

Lx. 2, 1flhI 1-14 .

27. Each denial made by Singh is false, as demonstrated by my contemporaneous

handwritten notes of my February 19,. 2010 Meeting, as well as my contemporaneous memorandum

7 q7774

Oâ8sel Filed: 02/08/10 Page bO2QPggE#123456

to plaintiffs' counsel summarizing the Meeting. See Attachment], Exs. A, B. For instance, Singh

informed me that he worked at Boeing as a Chief Engineer and Senior Structural Analyst. Id Singh

informed me that he reported to Larry Hall. Id. Singh informed me that he had seen the April and

May 2009 stress test files as part of the fix he was working on for the 787-9 airframe. Id. Singh

described with particularity the contents of the April and May 2009 stress test files, as well as the

results of those tests and their subsequent communication to the individual defendants, via Outlook,

and the approximate dates ofthose communications. Id. Singh specifically informed me of the 787

Wing integration Team and identified some of its members. Id. Singh specifically referenced the

787 wing failing at approximately 30% below limit load in April 2009. Id. Singh specifically

informed me of the May 2009 test, in which he said the 787 wing failed at 125% of limit load and

suffered delamination. Id. This information was volunteered by Singh during the investigation of

this case, and he was my only source for this information.

28. At ¶20 of the Singh Declaration, Singh asserts that I wanted him to "admit" to a

certain set of facts (identified in ¶L9 of the Singh Declaration), which he claims he did not know.

Dkt. No. 140, Ex, 2, ¶20.

29. The assertions Singh makes in ¶20 are false. As noted above, Singh volunteered all

of the information he provided to Ramsey Stewart on February 16, 2010 and me on February 16 and

19, 20 10 based on open-ended questions regarding his knowledge of the April and May 2009 787

wing tests. As an investigator, and consistent with LRH&A practices, it is not my role to seek

factual admissions from sources, but rather gather factual information by asking open-ended

questions. Singh also claims in T1.20 that he does "not know how Ms. Stewart can claim that this

information came from me, since I told her the opposite." That statement is false as demonstrated by

my contemporaneous handwritten notes of the February 19, 2010 Meeting. See Attachment 1,

Ex, B.

597734

771M 0

30. At ¶21 through 24 of the Singh Declaration, Singh cites to my record of our

meetings and repeatedly asserts that 1 have lied. Dkt. No. 140, Ex. 2. ¶f21 -24. Singh's accusations

are baseless as evidenced by my contemporaneous handwritten notes of my February 19, 2010

Meeting, as well as my contemporaneous memorandum to plaintiffs' counsel of the meeting. See

Attachment 1, Exs. A, B. Singh's accusations are also false because he freely admitted his

knowledge concerning the April and May 2009 wing tests and associated test files on two separate

dates - February 16 and February 19, 2010. See Attachment I, Exs. A, B. In addition, Singh's

specific accusations that my work-product is inaccurate are false. See ¶1114-29 of this declaration.

Had Singh informed Ramsey Stewart or me in the February 16, 2010 phone conversations that he

had no knowledge of the April and May 2009 wing tests, 1 would not have taken the time to meet

with him in person on February 19, 2010 or to follow-up with him on April 13, 2010,

111. Singli's November 17, 2010 Deposition Contains Numerous Falsehoods

31. Singh testified at his deposition that "[s]he was just trying to convince me more and

more into believing that 1 had that knowledge of the fill-scale static test, but 1 said to her, 'Look-. I

cannot lie about the fact. The fact is 1. don't have that information. That is the bottom line." See

Dkt. No. 142 at 27:7-17. That testimony is false. As an initial matter, during my conversations with

Singh, I did not have knowledge of "static tests" and, therefore, would not have been in a. position to

ask questions regarding "static tests." As noted above in this declaration at ¶1i14- 29, on February 16

and 19, 20103 Singh spoke freely of his knowledge of the April and May 2009 wing tests and the

materials documenting the results of the tests. See also Attachment I, Exs. A. B. In addition, when

given the opportunity to disavow that information on April 13, 2010, Singh declined to do so. See

Id., ¶11 11 - 1 2.

32. Singh testified that! became "very agitated" when lie purportedly informed me that

"Look, I cannot lie about the fact." See Dkt. No. 142 at 28:25-29:8. That testimony is false. First,

-9- 5W7734

Singh never said or suggested to me that I was asking him to lie about anything as he voluntarily ,

disclosed the information concerning the April and May 2009 787 wing tests. I never acted agitated

or angry towards Singh.

33, Singh testified that he repeatedly informed me that he never saw documents regarding

the April and May 2009 stress tests, including c-mails sent to defendants McNerney and Carson

concerning the 787. See DIct, No, 142 at 33:23-34i 11. Thattestimony is false as evidenced by my

contemporaneous handwritten notes of the February 19, 2010 Meeting as well as my

contemporaneous memorandum of the Meeting. See Attachment 1, Exs, A, B. Further, Singh

informed me on February 16, 2010 that he had knowledge of the results of the April and May 2009

failed wing tests and the documents related to those tests, Singh never informed me that he did not

see the documents at issue and when given the opportunity to disavow or deny seeing and having

knowledge of those documents he did not, See Attachment 1, ¶1111-12 .

34. During Singh's deposition, defense counsel had Singh testify to the accuracy offl3-

24 of the November 2, 2010 declaration that counsel for Boeing had drafted. See Dl& No. 142 at

50: 12798. For the reasons stated in this declaration at 1,11114"29, virtually the entirety of Singh's

testimony concerning his November 2, 2010 declaration is false. See also Attachment 1, Exs. A, B,

35. Singh testified that he told me "No, I cannot participate in lies in this one. You

cannot throw somebody else's information on my shoulder , ....She was absolutely abusive and

threatening at that time," Dkt. No, 1.42 at 8610-20. That testimony is false. As noted herein, I

never acted abusive or threatening in my interactions with .Singh. Further, he never informed me

that "No, I cannot participate in lies in this one" or "[yjou cannot throw some.bodyelse's information

on my shoulders. " Again, Singh voluntarily disclosed his knowledge of the results of the April and

May 2009 787 wing stress tests and the contents of the associated test files to me on February 19,

2010,

- 10- 5877341

RE realopi!J]'' 777M 0

36. Singh testified that 1 neither left him a business card nor my phone number, Dki. No.

142 at 133:13-17. That testimony is false. OnFebruary 19,2010,1 left my business card with Singh

during our meeting (as is my practice) and on other occasions (i.e., February 18, 2010, February 19.

2010), left him my telephone number.

I declare, pursuant to the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 2nd day of December, 2010, at Denver, Colorado.

5%773&1

ATTACHMENT 1



EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' ) RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )

)

Plaintiff; ) )


Defendants.

No. I :O9cv-O7 143

CLASS ACTION


DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STEWART IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

5763111

1, Elizabeth Stewart, submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to

Defendants' Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal. The facts attested to herein are based

upon my first-hand knowledge.

Currently, I am a Senior Manager of Investigations and Case Manager employed by

the firm L.R. Hodges & Associates, Ltd. ("LRII&A"). LRH&A is a private investigation firm

operating pursuant to a license from the State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative

Services. License N'umbcrP! 18129. LRH&A provides investigative and consulting services in the

area ofoomplex civil litigation, including, but not limited to, securities fraud class action litigation.

2. 1 have been employed with LRJJ&A for 11 years. Currently, my job duties include

managing and overseeing case investigations, formulating investigative strategies, conducting

interviews with former employees of companies, and preparing written summaries of the interviews

conducted.

1 On January 5,2010, the law firm Robbins Ocher Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins

Geller") retained LRH&.A to assist with the investigation of alleged fraudulent statements made by

The Boeing Company ("Boeing") and certain of its executives regarding the 787Dreamliner during

2009.

4. Consistent with my Job responsibilities at LRH&A. I have conducted and supervised

an investigation into the alleged fraud in this case, and continue with those efforts as of the date of

this declaration.

5. It is my understanding that certain information contained in mydeclaration, aswell as

copies of any investigative summaries, notes or other contemporaneous records attached hereto, is

protected attorney work product, and that Robbins Ocher is prepared to submit such protected

attorney work product to the Court for in cetmera inspection.

5763fl 1

6. it is my understanding that the allegations referenced at ¶1J139-142 of the Second

Amended Complaint are attributed to information obtained from 'Ms. Bishnujee Singh 'Mr. Singh")

during LRH&A's investigation of this action.

7. In connection with LRFI&A's investigation of this case, LRH&A had numerous

contacts with Mr. Singh between February 16, 2010 and April 13 7 2010, including an in-person

interview I conducted with Mr. Singh at his residence located at 18830 38th Avenue West,

Lynnwood, Washington, 98037. on February :19, 2010,

8. On February 21, 2010, 1 memorialized the information I obtained from Mr. Singh

during the February 19, 2010 interview and emailed it to Tom Egler, a Robbins Geller partner

working on this action.

9. A true and correct copy of my February 21, 2010 email to Tom Egl&, which

memorializes the information Mr. Singh provided to me regarding the 787 April 2009 and May 2009

wing test results, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

10. True and correct copies of my notes taken during my February 19, 2010 interview of

Mr. Singh in Lynnwood, 'Washington are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

I I. On April 13, 2010, 1 spoke with Mr. Singh on the telephone to afford Mr. Singh the

opportunity to deny. disavow, recant or alter any of the information he provided to inc on February

19, 2010, as well as inform him that plaintiffs would be disclosing Mr. Singh as a source or

information in this case.

12. On April 13, 2010, Mr, Singh, after being afforded the express opportunity to do so,

did not deny, disavow, recant or alter any ofthe information he provided to me on February 19 7 2010

regarding the April 2009 or May 2009 787 wing tests.

576311 1

13. On April 14, 2010, 1 notified Tom Egler, Trig Smith and Shannon Matera of the

results of my April 13, 2010 call with Mr. Singh.

I declare, pursuant to the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: August 25, 2010

El I/A BETHSTEWART

5763111

1 W4 NJ

Page i Ot'4

Elizabeth Stewart

From: Elizabeth Stewart

Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 4:45 PM

To: Tom Egler

Cc: Lynne Hodges

Subject: Boeing - CONFIDENTIAL WORK PRODUCT

Confidential Work Product

Tom In the interest of time, below, are the factual details obtained from .Bishrtujee Singh. I will cut/paste this information into a formal memo thatwill include his employment background intoned other non-substantive details and send it to you later today/tomorrow.

Singh previously worked for Boeing from October 2004 through March 2007 as a Senior Structural Analyst Engineer in the Lowered Ceiling Group for the 777, 737, 747, 757, and 767 Programs. He rejoined Boeing in August 2009 but left the Company on January 15, 2010, after a five-month stint as Chief Engineer forthe Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team on the 787 Program. In this eapaciLy, he worked on the 787-9 and -8 aircraft and was responsible for ensuring the quality of parts provided by outside suppliers for the "fix" that Boeing was working on for the wing joints, where the wing and fuselage attached to each other. He was also involved with the <:'..s and design review, Finite Element Modeling (IF M") analysis conducted during this time fiji i e by providingtechnieal support to the design and engineers working on development the

He reported to Larry Hall, Vice Presidcri ofH' V rig/Body Integration Team. Singh said Bt: •.iig v, ; hiring inexperienced engineers ngit out r college to work on the redesign of the 787

rig-to-body attachment and was upset with the Wing-Body Integration Group's management for this. This was why he left in mid-January 2010. He said when he worked at Boeing in the 2004-2007 time frame, he recalled only experienced engineers held these roles on the aircraft programs he worked on,

a He recalled that the sizing of parts was an issue on the 787-8 and -9 planes because the two planes weren't built to identical specifications. He attributed delays in the development of the "fix" to the wing-to-body attachments to too much outsourcing of parts. He said the parts came from outside suppliers were often of poor quaLity.

Singh reviewed the records relating to the April 21, 2009 wing load test, and the subsequent re-test that occurred in May 2009, in order to understand what had gone wrong in thoci tct and incorporate that knowledge into his work on the "fix' during the fall of 2Ui1). tI said there was a file containing the technical test results, internal ernails from engineers who pan! ciaied in conducting the test reporting on the results to th.e Wing Integration Team's man:iement. He identified this management team as including Hall, Terry Pliant, and Mike Denton. He said Pham was a "second level manager" on the Wing integration Team and reported to Hall (VP of Wing Integration Team, according to Singh), who in turn reported to Denton. Singh said Denton. was VP of Engineering for the 787 Program, and that Denton reported to Defendant Scott Carson. f/have done research on the official titles QiPham, HaiL and Demon, but have thunda dearth of information on Hall and P/ram current positions. Demon was VP of 'Engineering for

Q4, and on P"9,)10 it was announced he has been named President of Boeing Japan. But no mention c/Demon holding the VP oJ'Etgineering spot on the 787 Program. The last title I could find/hr Larry Hail was Director c/Structural Design Jbr BC/A, and that was in 2005 Again no mention ofa title/role specific to the 787 Program. And couidn 'tjind Thrry P/ram at all So, I don't ;."ink tiny reuofling hiernrchy info is reliable. 1

' found the following names "?!'as associated

Pr ominrlu some, 1 29 10 press it' ce -V

8/27/2010

I Imams!

Ifonw'd Chambers will lead a newly created commercial Airplanes function. Program Management, which wiilJbcus on the development ofprogram-management skills and drive enterprise-wide beg! practices throughout the organization. He most recently was vice president and deputy program manager. 787 Program. John Cornish was named vice president. 787 J"inai Assembly, reporting to Scott liancher, vice president ana' general manager, 787 Program. Cornish most recently led Commercial Airplanes Mannfhcturing and Quality organization. Mi/re Delaney was named vice president. Engineering, Boeing commercial Airplanes. He has extensive engineering experience with all jive CommercialAirplanes programs. including spending the last two years as 787 chiefproject engineer. Jø'lke Denton will become president, Boeing Japan. reporting to boeing international President Shepherd H/li. Denton most recently was vice president, Engineering, Boeing commercial Airplanes. He will relocate to Tokyo.

• Singh said from his review of the 4121/09 wing load level test tile, lie learned that this test failed at 30% below limit Load (the maximum load anticipated to he the most the plane will ever experience in actual flight conditions). He said this failure was known immediately upon completion of the test, but he did not recall reading that delamination occurred in this test. The file also included one or more emais reporting this result within a couple of days after the test took place, and that both Defendant Company CEO Jim McNerney and Defendant BCA CEO Scott Carson were on the distribution list for this email. He could not recall who specifically this email was from but said it was from someone on the Wing Integration Team. He said Boeing's email system was Microsoft Outlook, When asked, Singh said he could not recall the specific words used but that this entail indicated that a lot of design rn-work on the wing would be necessary at this point, and indicated that this would extend the plane's schedule for First Flight f which at the time was publicly reported would take place be/bre the end of the second quarter/end of.June 2009].

• Singh recalled from his review of the wing load level test file for the re-test in May 2009 that the re-test took place on or about May, 17. 2009, The results of this re-test were that the wing passed the Limit Load level (2.5 Os) but did not pass Ultimate Load (3.75 (is, or 150% of Limit Load), He said the wing failed at about 125% of limit Load. He said this result was also known immediately after the test was completed and the problem described as a "weight optimization issue," but he did not recall reading that the delamination of the stringers from the wing skin was identified immediately at the time of the May 17 test. He said a "detailed analysis" of the May 17 test results took place after the test, and he recalled the May 17 test file reflected that delamination was identified as the specific problem about nine days after the test was completed [so, around Ma261, Siugh said there were emails in the May 17 re-test file on or around the date the delamination was discovered that stated a re-work of the wing attachment design was required to correct the delamination problem, and stated more definitively that the scheduled First Flight date could not be met. These entails included Defendants Carson and McNerney on the distribution.

• When asked, Singh said the importance of the comment that a lot of design re-work on the wing attachment was necessary is that Boeing had go back and conduct detailed evaluations of what new combinations of materials and designs (configurations) of those materials to use on the wing attachment. Singh said it is common knowledge that this process would be '-and in fact was - very time-consuming. First, multiple versions of different materials combinations and configurations had to be created and evaluated to decide on what parts and their designs should be used to try to 'fix the problem, including the design (tooling) for the new parts. He explained that since they did not know what materials they would use, or how those materials would behave when combined (referred to "allowable properties," such as how they would respond tension and compression during the load level testing), they were essentially undertaking anew r'carrh T)rnject., which always takes time. Once the materials and design for the new parts were decided upon, had to place orders with the outside suppliers for the new pans, and the suppliers then had to rnanufc:iu the new parts to Boeing's specifications, and ship them to Boeing. When the parts were receivc4, Boeing had to integrate the newly tooled parts into the existing wing, and then do the re-test. Singh Ulows from his experience working with these outside suppliers that the minimum amount of time between when the new parts order was placed and when the new parts were received was 60 days,

• At this point in the conversation, we asked Singh if he had signed a confidentiality agreement with Boeing

8/2712010

4YAPV

in conjunction with his April 2009 through mid-January 2010 employment and he said he did. He believes he has a copy of it on his computer and said he would look for it and email it to us. We told Singh that the kind of information we were seeking from him were things like historical events, circumstances, and communications about those events and circumstances, including dates and contents of communications about factual events and circumstances, and made clear that we were wanting to elicit from him any confidential, propiietan', or attorney-client privileged communications, and added that we did not want to put him in a position of possibly breaching that agreement. For this reason, we advised Singh that Coughlin Stoia will retain an independent attorney for Siugh to review that agreement as soon as he sends it to us. He indicated his understanding of and agreement with these points. Despite that he has a confidentiality agreement. Singh said he was comfortable continuing to talk with us. We then explained to Singh the pleading standard that the plaintiff shareholders have to overcome in order to get the right to obtain specific factual information and documents directly from Boeing in formal discovery, and that in order to overcome the pleading standard, specific factual information obtained from our informal fact-gathering efforts through former employees must be included in the upcoming Consolidated Amended Complaint. We further explained that information obtained from former employees is typically attributed to a "Confidential Witness" in the CAC, including a description of that person's employment dates and job responsibilities, in order to demonstrate to the judge that the CW was in a position to know the thctual information that he or she provided, and therefore that the information is credible and reliable as true. We told him that for example if the information he was providing would he used in the CAC, he would not he identified in the CAC by name, but as a CW with a description such as that he was a Chief Engineer on the Wing Integration Team from August 2009 through January 2010,. and that in this capacity he had reviewed the test results and related communications from the Aprif and May 2009 wing load level tests. Singh indicated he understood this, and the substantive discussion continued at this point.

Because Boeing was almost exclusively relying on straight-out-of-college engineers who lacked any meaningful practical experience observing actual load level tests and reviewing the results. Singh said numerous designs for the wing attachment parts were pursued that an experienced engineer would have known not to even pursue because the designs would not work based on the fundamental scientific properties of the materials combinations and configurations. He said these young engineers knew how to run the FEM computer programs really well, but these were just simulated tests. As it result, he said many of the proposed part designs considered contained fundamentally incorrect assumptions about how the materials would behave under the requisite load levels. He gave as an example a computer simulation test on an "I-beam" in the wing design that applied 400 pounds of pressure on the beam and how the beam withstood the pressure. Though the simulation demonstrated the beam would stand up to the pressure at 400 pounds, the same simulation calculations were then applied in practice to a "plate" on the wing attachment, which has completely different dimensions from an 1-beam (surface area and thickness). Because the plate has a much larger surfhce area than the I-beam, and the materials have different thicknesses, the same calculation to achieve 400 pounds of pressure on the I-beam yielded only 200 pounds of pressure Ott the plate. Singh also criticized Boeing for relying on these inexperienced engineers to come up with the wing attachment solution because doing so was it violation of an FAA regulation that requires the design work to be conducted by engineers with a minimum of five to eight years of experience. The engineers relied upon only had one to two years of experience. Though there were "project leads" that these engineers reported to, and these project leads had the requisite experience levels and were mostly long-time Boeing employees, they were not actually doing the design work and did not closely oversee the young engineers' work, which as verif,'ing that the materials property assumptions being plugged into the wing attachment re-designs were accurate. Singh could not recall the names of these young engineers or their project leads, but said he probably has some of their names in documents he kept on his computer. He said he will look for those names and provide them.

Another impropriety that Singh knew Boeing allowed to happen on the wing load level project was that it had outside contractors from infotek and Infosys prepare the formal test result reports, even though FAA regulations require that actual Boeing employees must prepare these reports in-house, He said Boeing did not disclose this fact. He said the formal test result reports on the April and May wing load tests were finalized and distributed around 20 calendar days after the tests took place. He said that the drafting of the formal final reports actually started even before the tests took place, and said this is a common practice. A

8/27/2010

lot of the verbiage in the report, such as the purpose of the test and the process followed to conduct the test, can be drafted ahead of time, and blanks are left in the report that are then filled in once the test takes place. Because the tests did not yield the results that were anticipated -- because the tests failed - portions of the report had to be re-written and other portions had to be added to explain the test failures and the plans for re-working the design.

• Singh also said there was a major language bather on the wing attachment re-design project because 99% of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries contractors working at Boeing's site in Everett on the project did not speak English, and their Boeing counterparts did not speak Japanese.

At the end of our meeting with Singh, we specifically asked him again if he would be comfortable having Coughlin Stoia include the factual details he provided during our meeting in the CAC, and Singh nodded his head and said "yes" and "sure" in response. We asked him if he was absolutely sure he was comfortable with this and with the possibility that Boeing representatives would find out he had provided this information, Singh reiterated that he was comfortable with this, and noted that the facts of what happened are what they are, regardless of how Boeing reacts. He said he believes Boeing's public statements about what happened in these two tests didn't filly explain what really happened and seem misleading. We then told Singh that it would be understandable if he was concerned at all about the information he provided to being used in the Complaint, since Boeing is such a large and powerful company and might find out he had provided the information, and told him that if he had any discomfort, at all about am of this, we wanted him to communicate that to us now, and that if he wasn't totally comfortable, the information he provided would not be used. He again said he was fine with it.

I hope some of these details will be helpful

Elizabeth Stewart

hR. Hodges & Associates, I.M. 5864 Owens Avenue, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 'Direct/Fax: 303-322-3754

This e-mail Irans,niisi.on and any attachments contain confidential information from LU. T!oclyrs & Associates. Ltd., which maw he protected by the attor,wv-client privilege and4n' the work jnvthi cl do cirine, Jfyoa ore not the intended recipient you maw not read, copy or use this in/brmation. Please noti& the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete Ibis message.

8/27/2010

I *ZUU$IISI

{Vb$.4 cctè t½tt4 TI CtL

LA I

• •• •

• 1* c '

-

:

- In (r

' ' c_ WAJ -

\

-a cce 4or v2

: L/ \AflNy

- / I r1U

4 52

J~k D~

-

t '

4rrt \j

r .I7L .0 •1

AV t'o c& Q OceMb it

ntth &aw 9(x). I

çtvi

r

a I

r 4itY:11. :. L

? A( (V

A C J ) !

1p

VV-VVI- Lo

-

Li'yc c)t)

C % A

M

U

4 L2,'AZ 4OtMtks

3 tktkr Zc'o \,

- c

5 t1. 11

tt4 t$L flik Vtc' -5

—Vu-> (I

'VATLA WA

kocc&itJ H I h 45V

I U H p c *

Ltt.

syAfc xD..pL.%cYh yrfak ii t-r'oY)\

oWvj '-s- rf' aA$

WAI

Sun

e

Ov VILL

H'-' •I: tY\A}SJI c2c3xL4i9

i2 L2 It

tt' J (264 Mt

L'c47i-

• — n p$ t .t4 j4C&tJt.

fJç ècrs,. — ovrç •-Wit.

1'

U

kW

• 9 C)LØ5L cP17iA4Q97 r5yV •

.: 11: OewøY7t144I3 Ellhmunmilt~# : 134EIS1 : 12YOAU FPägfl&df2flJ FPägp4 Ek#t231

k t4t(%.Yk\\ \ -t vtô4 4rr4.

.4 puf ton t.

SLV ' yr 5

' 4nyrtntkt bhj

Lt tL L'O

P1k c *4-r4'n ,rStt -4te5

c14t(

t5vt A\n4iJ €p

4 fPë44

VIOL-

4 k-1 I e~stay -6 eL7 P&Kr .

U I

FL+ —

tcbt

i\J


I hereby certify that on December 3, 2010, I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing




CMIECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List.


foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 3, 2010.

s/ THOMAS E. EGLER THOMAS E. EGLER



E-mail: tomergrdlaw;com

5885321

Me WIN so 040 & 11 11 KOHNUA11,




• Rand! D Bandman [email protected]

• Eric D. Branclfonbrener [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected]


• Patrick M. Collins [email protected] @perkinscoie.com ,[email protected]

• Thomas E Egler [email protected],[email protected] [email protected]

• Lori Ann Fanning [email protected]@MillerLawLLC.com ,[email protected]


• Shannon Mekenna Matera [email protected] ,[email protected]

• Marvin Alan Miller

• Maureen E. Mueller rnmueller@rgrdlawcom,eJilesd@rgrdlawcom

• Pravin B. Rao

• John J. Rice jrice@rgrdlawcom,tholindrake@rgrdlawcom


• Benjamin R. Walker [email protected]@sullcmmcom,[email protected] ,[email protected]

• Alexander J. Willscher [email protected]

Manual Notice List


David B Tuichin Sullivan and Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004

Stephanie C. Wheeler Sullivan & Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binfMailList.pl?5649 10941 326375-L_605_O- 1 12/3/2010


EXHIBIT 10

fl Trsm r i'•

1, 1 I ling and IF y prepared - - I stify to the thrts

ained in this dee1ar,, Should

or Class

i*-, ')flfli A flfli (\ T .f_r_ .........

2010 and

U LflV 'UUU Wi n

--'C

r

'7

1)11 0. ui tills case, I had a 1..

A+ +1

III

e

n. -

11

EXHIBIT A (Redacted)

RI E11i]MtF 1f9WEl 7ff 3

Redacted - Attorney Work-Product

Cd :thQ B&lumflffi9t FFIISI : 2Lfl1D Fa3Bo1f9tGa4ejEI Vi34


I hereby certify that on December 3, 2010, I authorized the electronic filing ofthe foregoing






foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 3, 2010.




E-mail: tomergrdlaw.com

588532_i

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.1.1 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois- Page 1 of 1 Cd :thQ B&umt9t 1RId : 2A11D Fa9Jo1f9tGa4ejEI V16




• Randi U Bandman [email protected]

• Eric U. Brandfonbrener [email protected] ,docketchi @perkinscoie.com ,dmoten@ perkinscoie.com ,jbrosnan@ perkinscoie.com


• Patrick M. Collins [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

• Thomas E Egler [email protected],[email protected]@rgrdlaw.com

• Lori Ann Fanning [email protected],MMiller@ MillerLawLLC.com,[email protected]


• Shannon Mckenna Matera [email protected] ,e_ file _sd@ rgrdlaw.com

• Marvin Alan Miller Mmiller@ millerlawllc.com ,aj ewell@ millerlawllc.com,LFaiiining @millerlawllc.com,JRamirez @millerlawllc.com

• Maureen E. Mueller [email protected] file [email protected]

• Pravin B. Rao

• John J. Rice [email protected],[email protected]


• Benjamin R. Walker wallcerb @ sullcrom.com ,deiesot@ sullcrom.com ,tulchind@ sullcrom.com,[email protected]

• Alexander J. Willscher [email protected]

Manual Notice List


David B Tuichin Sullivan and C r.• ?ll 125 Broa New York, I I

Stephanie G. Wheeler Sullivan & C. u. 11 125 Broa 1*-

New York, I I

https ://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?5649 10941 326375-L_605_0- 1 12/3/2010


EXHIBITS 11-17 Restricted Documents Pursuant to L.R. 26.2

and the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 46), filed May 11, 2010, in the action captioned City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.

The Boeing Co., et at, Master File No. 09-CV-7143


EXHIBIT 18


2/10/10

First Ever British Cayley Award Winner 2003

Summary A professional Aeronautical Engineer with wide background experience backed by appropriate qualifications as listed and Recipient of First Ever Royal Aeronautical Society Cayley Award 2003 awarded by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace, Rolls Royce UK, Lockheed Martin Aircraft Limited. Excellent technical and interpersonal skills, able to relate easily at all levels to achieve quality and agreed project contract timescales, Self motivated and resourceful, working on own initiative or as a team leader.

Professional Experience Boeing Company, lEA! - Everett, WA Aug 2009- Present Chief Engineer

Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modeling analysis of Mid Body Integration of Fuselage 787-91-8 Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task listings. Ensures that each individual is qualified and frilly trained for the task to which each is assigned. Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues Performs finite element modeling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others. Involved in Business development and overall Leadership of Boeing 787, Wings, Interiors, SRM & Damage Tolerance Group.

MidCoasl Aviation (General Dynamics) lEA! - Cahokia, IL May 2009- Aug2009 Chief Engineer (Stress & Design)

Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modeling analysis of Bombardier Global Express Jet 9352. Modification of Crew Rest, Aft Bulk head, Divan, Closet, Sideledges, Interiors. Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task listings. Ensures that each individual is qualified and frilly trained for the task to which each is assigned. Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues Performs finite element modeling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others.

RaySys Technologies (NASA GSFC)- VA Sept 2008- May 2009 Flight Science Manager

Performs finite element modeling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others. Reviews and approved other forms of analysis, such as heat loads, electrical loads, environmental control system flow, fluid flow, icing, damage tolerance, and fatigue, Manages the project Flight Science budgets and schedules. Assigns duties to Flight Sciences Engineering group personnel.


Plans manpower requirements for current and future projects. Selects candidates for interviewing with the groUp. Interviews and makes recommendations for hire. Establishes relationships with outside service providers that can perform mechanical engineering work for BaySys. Communicates requirements, negotiates purchase order terms, and requests purchase orders from the Purchasing department as required. Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task listings. Ensures that each individual is qualified and fully trained for the task to which each is assigned. Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues.

Heath Tecna Inc - Bellingham, WA July 2007- June 2008 Senior Stress Engineer

Involved in Qantas Airlines Airbus A330 detailed design and stress analysis of Crew Rest, finite element modeling of Partition Stowage using FEMAP, designing using solidworks, Interface load calculation and stress report generation. Involved in A330 Qantas Airlines new design of centreline class divider using solidworks and stress analysis using FEMAP, Interface load generation and detailed stress report for Airbus, Germany. Involved in stress analysis of Console for A330-200, Finite Element Modeling using FEMAP and stress report generation for Airbus, Germany. Involved in detail stress analysis of curtain header for A330-200, FEM modeling using FEMAP, Interface load calculation for some and detail stress report creation. Involved in Air Canada A330-300 stress analysis of Raceway Installation, MCUs and Floor rework modification. Detail weight and load analysis, stress analysis by hand calculation and stress report generation. Involved in Raceway Testing for Air Canada AO Airbus under -35 Degree C Cold Soak test and certification of same with Transport Canada and FAA. Conducted and witnessed of Static centre Room temperature Test, Static compression test, Impact test for high heel load of 170 Its; under cold soak condition and also Impact test under Room Temperature condition, Static Edge test and analysis of Wire shield assembly for Edge test.

Boeing Company - Everett, WA Oct 2004- March 2007 Senior Structural Analyst Engineer

Involved in Program involving 777, 737, 747, 757,767 Lowered Ceiling Group, manpower resourcing for stress and Design team, distribution of work hours, risk assessment and ensuring timely completion of the project, budgetary allocation for the project hours, involved in major and minor classifications. Involved in new SIA 777-300ER, First Class & Business Class Lowered Ceiling Panel Finite Element Modeling using Patran and Analysis using Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Involved in SIA 777-300ER, First Class & Business Class Outboard Ceiling Panel Finite Element modeling and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Involved in new 777-200 ANZ Closet Finite Element Modeling using Patran & Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for RFI Closet. Involved in new 777-200 KAL Door I Right Hand Closet Finite Element Modeling using Patran & Stress Analysis Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for RH Closet. Involved in new 767 Large Cargo Freighter Closet Finite Element Modeling using Patran & Stress Analysis Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for RH Closet. Involved in preparing sustaining Stress AiialysiflOtes for 777, 767, 747, 737 Ceiling Panels, Sidewalls, Closets, Partitions. Involved with Structural Analysis of 777, 767, 757 cabin interiors and overhead stowages of Boeing Aircraft. Involved with Aircraft material testing of structural panels. Handling the Aircraft on Ground (AOG) tasks efficiently and to the utmost satisfaction of Boeing Technical Services and Airlines Customers.


Involved with material replacement from Carbon Graphite to Fiberglass for 737-900 Sidewall Panel Use of new fiberglass has better Abuse load carrying capacity with slight reduction in weight. Finite Element Analysis of Actuation system for 777, 747, 737 Landing Gear systems using MSC Nastran and modeling using MSC Patron. Fatigue & Damage Tolerance analysis using the resultant peak stresses generated from the model Involved in Finite Element Modeling of Landing Gear Main Piston rod and Rod end using MSC Patran and Analysis using MSC Marc, Involved in generating the loads for fatigue analysis for the component. Involved in Finite Element Modeling of Moveable OutBoard Pairings of Trailing Edge section of Flaps. Interference Load generation Involved in forecasting, scheduling and distribution of the work for Section49 for Dreamliner 787 Aircraft, involved in risk management analysis and ensuring that the project meets it deadline with Design, Development and Testing of Main Landing Gear Door section. Design, Development and Testing of Main Landing Gear Door section 49 for Dreamliner Boeing 787 Aircraft. Debugging and running analysis of Central Hinge section, Non linear analysis of Uplock for MLGD Door section for 787-7 and use of gap contact elements using Patran & Nastiest. Supporting and coordinating BDC team with running Final release of Section 49 Door section,

Hyde Group Limited - Cheshire Aug 2902- Sept 2003 Stress Engineer

Stress analyses on numerous wing box related jobs in coordination with the Design Engineering, Test Engineering, Durability and Damage Tolerance, and Stress Liaison Engineering. Involve in projects such as Integrally Machined Monolithic Centre Spar, Monolithic Rear Spar and Centre Spar Close-out Panels, Flaps, Hinges to Rear Spar Upper Attachments (Stud Bolts), Fastener Reduction Program, and Monolithic Bulkhead Caps. Involved in Fatigue analysis of Landing Gear system with Embraer aircraft in various position like stow, tilt and pre flight conditions. Involved in Patran modeling of component of Landing Gear actuation system and analysis under various load cases under Pre Flight condition, ground segment, tilt and stow condition.

Smeta - Novgorod Nov 2001 -'Aug2002 Stress Engineering Manager

Involved in Management of Engineering team of Aircraft Design and stress team. Ensure the performance evaluation and technical training of personnel. Involved in forecasting schedule of task, majoi,'Uñor changes of design and also handling contractors and subcontractors involved in the project, Performed Classical Hand Stress Analysis and prepared the Stress Reports on aircraft modifications and repairs. Involved in Landing Gear extension and retraction system solutions, Involved working with subcontractors design teams and regular design review meetings. Involved in the Integrated Structural Analysis of Aircraft forward deck using Nastran, Patten, ALGOR, JLANALYZER, ANSYS, Auto PEA, Finite Element Modeling and the Fatigue Analysis on wing rear spar repairs. Creating Stress Report and performing Margin of Safety (MS) and Reserve Factor (RF) calculation.

Ministry of Defense, Indian Government June 1996- July 2001 Head of Command, Engineering Officer

Leading team of Senior Engineers, Engineers at various levels, ensuring that the projects are completed within stipulated time frame, Monitoring performance evaluation of team of design and stress Engineers, guiding them for their training program Ensuring that Forecasting and scheduling of the Project and budget involved with the project. Involved with contractors and sub contractors to ensure timely completion of the project. Involved in Definition of Design requirements from Aircraft level, Systems level i.e. Braking and Steering, Extension and Retraction and Airworthiness Regulations. Involved in Design Integration - which involved monitoring the vendor design for compliance and requirements and integrating the LU into the Aircraft and associated operating systems,


Involved in Verification / Validation - which involved reviewing and defining all the activities required to qualify/certify that the equipment meets the design objectives i.e. analysis, rig testing and flight testing. In -service support - investigation of problems with the development of modifications to fix the problems. Experienced in the internal load and stress analyses pertaining to building aircraft and for modifications or repairs of aircraft structures such as fuselage frames, skin panels, longerons, pressure bulkheads, floor structures, overhead structures; wing spars, ribs, stringers, skin panels; etc Worked on various aircraft equipment, cabinet, galley, rack, table, seat, antenna, radar installations, etc. Perform stress analyses on numerous wing box related jobs in coordination with the Design Engineering, Test Engineering, Durability and Damage Tolerance, and Stress Liaison Engineering. Involve in projects such as Integrally Machined Monolithic Centre Spar, Monolithic Rear Spar and Centre Spar Close-out Panels, Flaps, Hinges to Rear Spar Upper Attachments (Stud Bolts), Fastener Reduction Program, and Monolithic Bulkhead Caps. Responsible for thermal-structural and stress-strain analysis ofjet engines by ANSYS and LS-DYNA, its transient effects. Simulation ofjet engines destruction by LS-DYNA. Research of machines units plastic deformation processes. Simulation of gas-dynamic process in ejector systems. Material/cost optimization of machine units by PEA ANSYS. Analyzed (using ANSYS) the transient heat transfer of a turbine rotor during startup and shutdown. Simulated (ANSYS PEA) the transient thermal response of turbinejoint (preloaded bolts, interface gaps, transient conditions) during cold emergency startup. Investigated the application of composite materials to propulsion systems. Defended results at Naval design reviews. Verified PEA results by cross-checking with EXCEL spreadsheet calculations, Developed ANSYS finite element models for modal analysis, dynamic response and shock stresses. Interfaced with customers and A/h's regarding turbine mechanical installation issues. Simplified, clarified and standardized turbine mechanical outline drawings. Included convection (impingement and duct flow), radiation and conduction cooling. Optimized cooling designs to maximize component life with minimal cooling flows. Responsible for the heat transfer analysis and cooling flow design of air-cooled gas turbine parts.

Education/Skills MSc (Honors) Advanced Design Engineering - Sheffield Hallam University, England Graduate of the Royal Aeronautical Society - The Royal Aeronautical Society, London Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering - Majoring in Structural Mechanics with specialization in Stress and Design Engineering Courses: Unix, C, Fortran, Auto Cad, Wordstar, FEM, Catia SV, Pro E, Algor, Nastran, Patron, Ansys, Hand Calculation, Abaqus Training: MSC Nastran/MSC Patran training by MSC Software for Boeing, CATIA VS training by Dassault, Stream Designing, modeling and Analysis training by Boeing, ENOVIA training by Boeing Licenses: Chartered Engineer (Engineering Council-UK), Chartered Scientist (Science Council-UK), Chartered Physicist (lOP-UK), Professional Engineer (NPER), PE (Engineers Australia) Memberships: Fellow PIE Australia, Fellow RAS (UK) Associate Fellow, Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute, The Royal Aeronautical Society. (London, MRAeS), The Aeronautical Society of India (New Delhi, MAeSi), American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (Sr. MAIAA) Flying Skills: Pilot in Command experience on Cessna 15211 on dual flight

Achievements Awarded First Ever Cayley Scholar Award 2003 trom Royal Aeronautical iociety tonuoru and sponsored by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace, Rolls Royce, Lockheed Martin Aircraft Limited. Awarded Research Fellowship for Respond Project at ISRO (Mesra).

Appointed as a Research Scientist in a Space Division of ISRO. Awarded Scholarship from British Government for MSc (Honours) Advanced Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University for outstanding Academic and Professional Excellence in Aeronautical Engineering.

Publications


Principles of Flight, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India) B Singh, Mr. CC, Asboka, V L Verma,15 Jan 1996 Workshop Technology, The Aeronautical Societyof India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India) Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B. Singh, V L Verma 01 March 1996 Mechanics of Fluid, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India) Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B. Singh, V L Verma 20 May 1996 Applied Thermal Engineering, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India) Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B. Singh, V L Verma 08 July 1996

Resume of Bishnujee Singh pg. 3


Curriculum Vitae

Name:

*WE Date of Birth:

Address:

Email: bishnujee@hotmaiLcom Mobile: Nationality: US Person

Career Summary

A professional Aeronautical Engineer with wide background experience backed by appropriate qualifications as listed and Recipient of First Ever Royal Aeronautical Society Cayley Award 2003 awarded by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace, Rolls Royce UK,Lockheed Martin Aircraft Limited. Excellent technical and interpersonal skills, able to relate easily at all levels to achieve quality and agreed project contract timescales. Self motivated and resourceful, working on own initiative or as a team leader. Honoured as Modern Day Technology Leader Award at BEYA 2010 in Washington DC, USA-Awarded as Fellow of Engineers Australia for Engineering Leadership.

Qualifications MSc (Honours) Advanced Design Engineering Sheffield Hallam University, England

The Royal Aeronautical Society, London Graduate of the Royal Aeronautical Society

Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering - Majoring in Structural Mechanics with specialisation in Stress and Design Engineering

Courses Unix, C, Fortran, Auto Cad, Wordstar, FEM, Catia 5V, Pro E, Solid Works, FEMAP, NX Nastran, Math Cad, lAS, SA,GK Joints, Algor, Nastran, Patran, Ansys, Hand Calculation, Abaqus, APARD, FEADMS, FAMOSS, Moss Duberg, IDTAS, DTANAL,Boeing Book 1,2,3 & 4

Training MSC NastranlMSC Patran Training by MSC Software for BOEING, Everett, Washington, USA CA11A VS Training by Dassault stream, Designing, modelling and Analysis, Boeing, Everett, USA ENO VIA Training by Boeing, Everett, USA Ministry of Defence, Naval Engineering College (India)

Licenses Chartered Engineer (Engineering Council-UK) Chartered Scientist (Science Council-UK) Chartered Physicist (lOP-UK) Professional Engineer (NPER), PE (Engineers Australia)

SINGH-LIV 00000014


AFEC Engineer (Aerospace Engineering) mt FE (Aust) (Aerospace Engineering)

Memberships Fellow HE Australia Fellow RAS (UK) Associate Fellow, Canadian Aeronautics and Space institute The Royal Aeronautical Society, London, MRAeS The Aeronautical Society of India, New Delhi, MAcSi American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Sr. MAIAA

Flying Skills Pilot in Command experience on Cessna 152 II on dual flight

Career History

Cayley Aerospace Inc, Lynnwood, WA Feb 2010- Till Date Chief Engineer -Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modelling analysis of Bombardier Global Express .Modification of Crew Rest, Aft Bulk head, Divan, Closet, Side ledges, Interiors -Review of Engineering Drawing and advising Design Engineer to make any Design changes which might affect the structural integrity of the panel -Ensure that Drawing created by Designers are in compliance with Bombardier standards and processes

-Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. -Ensures that each individual is qualified and fully trained for the task to which each is assigned. -Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues -Performs finite element modelling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, Systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others.

-Guiding team of Engineers with optimization issues and weight savings -Supplying Interface Loads to various groups in organisation for their approval -Carrying out Stress documentation for new FEM Analysis - Carrying out Documentation & disposition for any repair work carried out on frames. -Performed static stress analyses of aircraft interior parts installed in Global Express jets using classical hand calculations and FEA ensuring compliance to FAA (FAR Part 25) and EASA (JAR Part 25 ) requirements for Interior completions -Correlated aircraft interior cabinet test data using MSC NASTRAN for FEA for the purpose of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) -Evaluating designs for possible stress limitations and suggesting improvements by researching alternate materials and designs -Activities included design reviews, tests and certification of aircraft interior cabinetry final strength substantiation -Coordinating with outside vendors, helping them in the analysis and checking their stress reports -Performed engineering development, design analysis, and testing of various aircraft interior components and installations

SINGH-LIV 00000015


-Stress duties included concept studies (human factor, aesthetics, strength to weight ratio, etc) vendor contacts and cost studies leading to production design -Recommended design modifications to ensure structural integrity -Provided on-the-job training forjunior stress engineers on PEA modelling and pit/post processing -Leading Team of Designer, Stress analyst, Certification, liaison Engineers, Manager &

Leads -Dealing with Suppliers & Contractors -Ensuring program is completed within Schedule deadline and quality of work is upto expectation of customer. -Program Management for the group and also release purchase order for the suppliers & vendors -Mentoring Engineers & team members involved in the Aircraft completion program -Interacting with FAA for compliance and standards followed by the group -Ensuring testing is FAA & regulatory certification compliance. -Involved in developing strategy of business growth for the group -Support bid and proposal for the team

Boeing Company, IEAI, Everett, WA Aug 2009-Jan 2010 Chief Engineer -Involved leading group of 8600 Engineering staff with turnover of more than 150 M US$ in2009

-Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modelling analysis of Mid Body Integration of Fuselage 787-9/-8

-Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. -Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task

listings. -Ensures that each individual is qualified and hilly trained for the task to which each is assigned. -Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues -Performs finite element modelling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, Systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others. -Involved in Business development and overall Leadership of Boeing 787, Wings, Interiors, SRM & Damage Tolerance Group.

MidCoast Aviation (General Dynamics) IEAL, Cahokia, IL May 25, 2009 -06 Aug 09

Chief Engineer (Stress & Design)

-Involved in Leading Stress & Design review, FEM Modelling analysis of Bombardier Global Express Jet 9352 .Modification of Crew Rest, Aft Bulk head, Divan, Closet, Side ledges, Interiors -Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers.

SINGH-LIV 00000016


-Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task listings. -Ensures that each individual is qualified and fully trained for the task to which each is assigned. -Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues -Performs finite element modelling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others.

Bay Sys Technologies (NASA Goddard Space Centre, VA) Sept 2008- May 2009 Flight Science Manager -Performs finite element modelling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures, systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others. -Involved in STC Projects 8143 & 8175 -Actively involved with FAA Certification issues with NYACO on STC projects -Reviews and approved other forms of analysis, such as heat loads, electrical loads, environmental control system flow, fluid flow, icing, damage tolerance, and fatigue. -Manages the project Flight Science budgets and schedules - Assigns duties to Flight Sciences Engineering group personnel -Plans manpower requirements for current and future projects -Selects candidates for interviewing with the group. Interviews and makes recommendations for hire. -Establishes relationships with outside service providers that can perform mechanical engineering work for Bay Sys. Communicates requirements, negotiates purchase order terms and requests purchase orders from the Purchasing department as required. -Provides technical support and guidance to the engineers and designers. -Supports Bid and proposal work with system block diagrams, hour estimates, and task listings. -Ensures that each individual is qualified and fully trained for the task to which each is assigned. -Regularly reviews the performance of the group and make corrective actions for individuals with performance issues.

Heath Tecna Inc, Bellingham, WA July 2007-June 2098 Senior Stress Engineer - Involved in Qantas Airlines Airbus A330 detailed design and stress analysis of Crew Rest, finite element modelling of Partition Stowage using FEMAP, designing using Solid works, Interface load calculation and stress report generation. -Involved in A330 Qantas Airlines new design of centreline class divider using Solid works and stress analysis using FEMAP, Interface load generation and detailed stress report for Airbus, Germany. -Involved in stress analysis of Console for A330-200, Finite Element Modelling using FEMAP and stress report generation for Airbus, Germany. -Involved in detail stress analysis of curtain header for A330-200, FEM modelling using FEMAP, Interface load calculation for same and detail stress report creation.

SINGH-LIVO0000017


-Involved in Air Canada A330-300 stress analysis of Raceway Installation, MCUs and Floor rework modification. Detail weight and load analysis, stress analysis by hand calculation and stress report generation. -Involved in Raceway Testing for Air Canada A330 Airbus under -35 Degree C Cold Soak test and certification of same with Transport Canada and FAA. Conducted and witnessed of Static centre Room temperature Test ,Static compression test, Impact test for high heel load of 170 lbs under cold soak condition and also Impact test under Room Temperature condition, Static Edge test and and analysis of Wire shield assembly for Edge test.

Boeing Company, Everett, WA Oct 2004-Feb 2007 Senior Structural Analyst Engineer -Involved in Program involving 777,737,747,757,767 Lowered Ceiling Group, Manpower resourcing for stress and Design team, distribution of work hours, risk Assessment and ensuring timely completion of the project, Budgetary allocation for the project hours, involved in major and minor classifications. -Involved in new SIA 777-300ER, First Class & Business Class Lowered Ceiling Panel Finite Element Modelling using Patran and Analysis using Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same.

-Involved in SIA 777-300ER, First Class & Business Class Outboard Ceiling Panel Finite Element modelling and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same.

-Involved in new 777-200 ANZ Closet Finite Element Modelling using Patran & Nastran and and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for RH Closet.

- Involved in new 777-200 KAL Door 1 Right Hand Closet Finite Element Modelling using Patran & Stress Analysis Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for R}1 Closet.

-Involved in new 767 Large Cargo Freighter Closet Finite Element Modelling using Patran & Stress Analysis Nastran and generating PLS Transmittal for Interface Loads for same. Preparing Stress Analysis notes for RH Closet.

- involved in preparing sustaining Stress Analysis notes for 777,767,747,737 Ceiling Panels, Sidewalls, Closets, Partitions.

- Involved with Structural Analysis of 777,767,757 cabin interiors and overhead Stowages of Boeing Aircraft.

-Involved with Aircraft material testing of structural panels. -Handling the Aircraft on Ground (AOG) tasks efficiently and to the utmost satisfaction of Boeing Technical Services and Airlines Customers.

-Involved with material replacement from Carbon Graphite to Fiber glass for 737-900 Sidewall Panel Use of new fiber glass has better Abuse load carrying capacity with slight reduction in weight.

-Finite Element Analysis of Actuation system for 777,747,737 Landing Gear systems using MSC Nastran and modelling using MSC Patran. Fatigue & Damage Tolerance Analysis using the resultant peak stresses generated from the model

-Involved in Finite Element Modelling of Landing Gear Main Piston rod and Rod end using MSC Patran and Analysis using MSC Marc.

SINGH-LIV 00000018

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document#: 193-6 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 12 of 27 Pagel D#:3479

-Involved in generating the loads for fatigue analysis for the component. -Involved in Finite Element Modelling of Moveable Out Board Pairings of

Trailing Edge section of Flaps. Interference Load generation - Involved in forecasting, scheduling and distribution of the work for Section49 for Dreamliner 787 Aircraft, involved in risk management analysis and ensuring that the Project meets it deadline with Design, Development and Testing of Main Landing Gear Door section, Design, Development and Testing of Main Landing Gear Door section 49 for Dreamliner Boeing 787 Aircraft. Debugging and running analysis of Central Hinge Section. Non linear analysis of Uplock for MLGD Door section for 787-7 and use of gap contact Elements using Patran & Nastran Supporting and co-ordinating BDC team with running Final release of Section 49 Door Section,

Hyde Group Limited, Cheshire. Aug 2002-Sept 2003

Project/Research Stress Engineer -Stress analyses on numerous wing box related jobs in coordination with the Design Engineering, Test Engineering, Durability and Damage Tolerance, and Stress Liaison Engineering. Involve in projects such as Integrally Machined Monolithic Centre Spar, Monolithic Rear Spar and Centre Spar Close-out Panels, Flaps, Hinges to Rear Spar Upper Attachments (Stud Bolts), Fastener Reduction Program, and Monolithic Bulkhead Caps -Involved in Fatigue analysis of Landing Gear system with Embraer aircraft in various Position like stow, tilt and pre flight conditions

-Involved in Patran modelling of component of Landing Gear actuation system and Analysis under various load cases under Pre Flight condition, ground segment, tilt and stow condition.

Smeta, Novgorod

Nov 2001-Aug2002

Key responsibilities: Stress Engineering Manager -Involved in Management of Engineering team of Aircraft Design and stress Team

-Ensure the performance evaluation and technical training of personnel. -Involved in forecasting schedule of task, major, minor changes of design and also handling contractors and subcontractors involved in the project.

- Performed Classical Hand Stress Analysis and prepared the Stress Reports on Aircraft modifications and repairs.

- Involved in Landing Gear extension and retraction system solutions. - Involved working with subcontractors design teams and regular design review

Meetings.

SINGH-LIV 00000019


Ministry of Defence, Indian Government June 1996-July 2001 Key responsibilities: Head of Engineering

-Performs finite element modelling and classical stress analysis on aircraft Structures. Systems and interiors and reviews the same work from others.

-Leading team of Senior Engineers, Engineers at various level, ensuring that the projects are completed within stipulated time frame.

-Monitoring performance evaluation of team of design and stress Engineers, guiding them for their training program

-Ensuring that Forecasting and scheduling of the Project and budget involved with the project.

-Involved with contractors and sub contractors to ensure timely completion of the Project.

- Involved in Definition of Design requirements from: Aircraft level, Systems level i.e. Braking and Steering, Extension and Retraction and Airworthiness Regulations.

- Involved in Design Integration - which involved monitoring the vendor design for compliance and requirements and integrating the LG into the Aircraft and associated operating systems.

- Involved in Verification / Validation - which involved reviewing and defining all the activities required to qualify/certify that the equipment meets the design objectives i.e. analysis, rig testing and flight testing.

- In -service support - investigation of problems with the development of modifications to fix the problems.

- Experienced in the internal load and stress analyses pertaining to building aircraft and for modifications or repairs of aircraft structures such as fuselage frames, skin panels, longerons, pressure bulkheads, floor structures, overhead structures; wing spars, ribs, stringers, skin panels etc

- Worked on various aircraft equipment, cabinet, galley, rack, table, seat, antenna, radar Installations, etc.

Key Achievement Awarded First Ever Cayley Scholar Award 2003 from Royal Aeronautical Society (London) and sponsored by BAe Systems, Smiths Aerospace, Rolls Royce, Lockheed Martin Aircraft Limited.

Awarded Research Fellowship for Respond Project at ISRO (Mesra). Appointed as a Research Scientist in a Space Division of ISRO.

Awarded Scholarship from British Government for MSc (Honours) Advanced Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University for outstanding Academic and Professional Excellence in Aeronautical Engineering.

Honoured as Modem Day Technology Leader Award at BEYA, Black Engineer of the Year Award 2010 in Washington DC, USA on Feb 19, 2010.

SINGH-LIV 00000020


Awarded as Fellow of Engineers Australia on Oct 20, 2009 for Engineering Leadership.

First Ever Aerospace Engineer to be awarded as Chartered Scientist by Science Council-UK in association with Royal Aeronautical Society, UK

First Ever APEC Engineer award by Engineers Australia in Aerospace Engineering

First Ever mt Professional Engineer in Aerospace Engineering awarded by EA (Aust)

BEngg (Aeronautical Engineering) Stream: Structural Mechanics Course Subject: Mathematics-11 Mechanics of Solids Mechanics of Fluids Principles of Flight Workshop Technology Engineering Thermodynamics Electrical Engineering Engineering Drawing & Design Aerodynamics-I Aircraft Structures-I Aircraft Structures-11 Vibration & Aero elasticity Mathematics-Ill Advanced Strength of Materials Structural Design & Testing

MSc (Advanced Engineering) Honours Course Module: Project & Quality Management: Euro Fighter Project Management & Quality Management of Airbus Industry, In depth Analysis of supply chain of Airbus Industry.

Finance & Marketing: Finance and Marketing Strategy of Aircraft Seat manufacturing Industry.

Design for Manufacture: QED, FMEA,Design for Assembly for Hydraulic Jacks

Enterprise Information System: Data Base Management systems, Knowledge Management systems, Information Security of Organisations.

CAD/CAM: CAD /CAM Analysis of Aircraft Wing section, CNC Machining involved in Aerospace Industry

SINGH-LIV 00000021


Finite Element Analysis/Finite Element Differences: FEA of Bevelled Tapered washers, Use of ABAQUS FEA software tool for FEA modelling and stress analysis

International Product Design: Development of Tyvek suit with Biodegradable material. Competitive Materials Technology: Case study of Aircraft Wing Design for Airbus Commercial Jet, Leaf spring Design analysis. Strength: Able to handle all work independently with minimum supervision and posses the Finite Element skills necessary to complete the Jobs satisfactorily.

Weakness: Like all human being prone to error.

Publications:

1) Principles of Flight The Aeronautical Society of India,Piyush Publication, Delhi (Jndia),B Singh, Mr. C.C. Ashoka,V L Verma,15 Jan 1996

2) Workshop Technology, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India) ME. C.C. Ashoka, B.Singh, V L Verma 01 March 1996

3) Mechanics of Fluid, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India), Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B.Singh, V L Verma 20 May 1996

4) Applied Thermal Engineering, The Aeronautical Society of India, Piyush Publication, Delhi (India), Mr. C.C. Ashoka, B.Singh, V L Verma 08 July 1996

SINGH-LIV 00000022


EXHIBIT 19

Sheffield Hallam University - Archive alumni of the month Page 5 of 6 Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 193-6 Filed: 01/18/11 Page 17 of 27 PagelD #:3484

groups providing accelerator components. Managing such a large and diverse unit is a challenge, but very satisfying professionally.

At present the main focus is on the commissioning of our latest accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The LHC has been over 20 years in the making with studies in the 80s leading to the go-ahead for consUucon in 1995. The final stages of installation, testing and beam commissioning have been a tremendously exciting time for everyone involved.

As well as the LHC there are several other major facilftes at CERN and my day-to-day work involves all of these. CERN needs a huge range of disciplines and technologies to build and maintain its facilftes. It is a very multi-cultural environment with people from all over the world coming to work here and use the facilities. Over half of the worlds Particle Physicists work at CERN and represent over 90 different nationalftes. All this makes for a very stimulating intellectual environment.

Commissioning and operating the LHC at nominal performance will be a tremendous challenge in the coming years. The next few years will be very exciting as the results come out of the LHC and shape our understanding of the universe we live in. In addition studies are already underway in my department concerning the next generation machines for the high-energy frontier of particle physics.

My PhD at Sheffield Hallam was in materials science, but required me to learn a number of other disciplines including electrical engineering, real-time control and mechanics. Having such a broad range of experiences during my studies was extremely useful when I arrived at CERN.

CERN continues to look for engineers and sciensts to come and work with them. There are a variety of possibilities including student placement programmes, doctoral student programmes, fellowships for graduates and staff posts. For more information about CERN, take a look at their website.

January 2010

Bishnujee Singh MSc Advanced Engineering, class ot 2004

It gave me immense pride and sasfaction to graduate from Sheffield Hallam with an MSc Advanced Engineering in 2004. I thought the MSc was great as lye seen very few courses in the world which place so much emphasis on professional development. lye had an excellent experience since completing my studies as lye helped to mentor lots of aeronaucal engineers from the Aeronaucal Society of India and other Indian universftes.

I was offered a very exciting position as Structural Analyst Engineer with Boeing Seattle while I was studying at Sheffield Hallam and became involved with all major aircraft programmes. Another exciting opportunity was at NASA Goddard Space Center at Wallops Flight Facility. Here I progressed to Head of the Flight Science group and was involved in aerodynamics, structures, flight tests and certification. This gave me

experience of managing some of the best and brightest engineers and programmes at NASA.

The course at Sheffield Hallam helped me attain my chartered engineer status in 2005 with the Engineering Council-UK in association with the Royal Aeronaucal Society. The MSc award also helped me become the first chartered scienst with Science Council-UK in the aerospace discipline from the Royal Aeronaucal Society in London.

My studies at Sheffield Hallam also brought recognition for me as I received my first ever Cayley Award in 2003 from the Royal Aeronautical Society. In 2009 I was elected as an Associate Fellow of the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute for my contribution to the Aerospace Industry by the Canadian Research Council in Canada. I was also elected by the Engineers Australia team as a Fellow of Engineers Australia in October 2009. Attaining Fellow Status of Engineers Australia has been like a dream come true for me.

I've recently moved to the USA to be at the Boeing Everett facility, once again as Chief Engineer on the Dreamliner 787 Programme. It has been an exciting move and I'm enjoying guiding a team of more than 8,000 engineers. My job does involve a lot of tough decisions and the challenges are enormous as the engineering team are spread globally.

I'm now working on successfully completing a test flight of Dreamliner 787-8 and I'm also planning to complete my FAA Airline transport pilot license as I'm now actively involved with flying planes in Seattle.

Sheffield Hallam University is not responsible for the content of external websites

4cc

http://arum.lits.shu.ac.uk/netcommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1535 1/14/2011


EXHIBIT 20


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff,

V.


Defendant.

NO. 1:09-cv-07 143


NOTICE OF SUBPOENA

To: All Counsel of Record

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, counsel for The Boeing Company, W. James McNerney, and Scoff E. Carson, will

serve the attached subpoena on Bishnujee Singh.

DATED: November 3, 2010

The Boeing Company, W. James McNerney, and Scott E. Carson

By /s/ Pravin B. Rao One of Its Attorneys

03 00 7-0285/LEGAL 19525522.1


David B. Tulchin Stephanie G. Wheeler Alexander J. Willscher Benjamin R. Walker SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004-2498 Tel: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 tu1chind(á sullcrorn.com whee1ers(2isu1Icromcom vi11schera(asu11cromconi

wallcerb('ä)sullcrom corn

Pravin B. Rao Patrick M. Collins Eric D. Brandfonbrener PERKINS ColE LLP 131 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60603-5559 Tel: (312) 324-8400 Fax: (312) 324-9400 prao(2i1,perkinscoie.com pcoilms(thperkinscoiecom ebrand(aperkmscoie.corn

Attorneys for Defendants The Boeing Company, W James McNerney, Jr. and Scott E. Carson

03007-0285/LEGAL19525522.1 -2-



I, Pravin B. Rao, one of Defendants' attorneys, hereby certify that on November 3,2010,

a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SUBPOENA was served via email on the

following counsel of record and additional counsel:

Lori A. Fanning Marvin A. Miller MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street Suite 2910 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel. (312) 332.3400 Fax. (312) 676-2676 1famñng(2),rni11er1aw11c.com nyrniller(ä)rnillerlawllc. corn

Deborah R. Gross Robert P. Frutkin LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. Wanamaker Building Suite 450 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 Tel. (215) 561-3600 Fax. (215) 561-3000 debbie(iIbernardnigrossconi rpf(ábernardnigross.coni

Thomas E. Egler Shannon M. Matera Trig R. Smith ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101-3301 Tel. (619) 231-1058 Fax. (619) 231-7423 torne(ärgrd1aw.com smatera(ârgrdiaw.com In gs(2irgrdiaw.com

Randi D. Bandman ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 52 Duane Street 7th Floor New York, New York 10007 randib(drgr1aw. corn

03007-0285/LEGAL19525522.1 -3-


ADDITIONAL COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Michael J. Vanoverbeke Thomas C. Michaud VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD &

TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, Michigan 48201 Tel. (313) 578-1200 Fax. (313) 578-1201 mvanoverbeke(2vmt1aw.coni trnihcaud (dvmt1aw.com

Is! Pravin B. Rao Pravin B. Rao

03007-0285/LEGAL19525522.1 -4-


AO SSA (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Western District of Washington

)

)

)

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System Plaintiff

V.

The Boeing Company, W. James McNerney, Jr., and Scott E. Carson

Defendant

Civil Action No. I :09-cv-07143

(lithe action is pending in another district, state where:

Northern District of Illinois

SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: Bishnujee Singh, 18830 38th Ave W, Lynnwood, Washington 98037

Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization that is not a party in this case, you must designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or those set forth in an attachment:

Place: Date and Time:

4220 Alderwood Mall Blvd 11/1712010 9:30 am

The deposition will be recorded by this method: Stenonraphic

11 Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ, P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule

45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.

Date: 11103/2010 CLERK OF COURT

OR Ls z lo Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorneys signature

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name ofparty) Defendants The Boeing

Company, W. James McNfpy, Jr., and Scott ECarson , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Kathleen O'Sullivan, Perkins Cole LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800, Seattle, Washington 98101, [email protected] , (206) 359-8000.


AO 88A (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-07143

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. F. 45.)

This subpoena for (name of individual and title, ifa,oi)

was received by me on (date)

[1 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:

on (date or

J I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of

$

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of$ — 0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: Server's signature

Printed name and title

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


AO SSA (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena toTesti& at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)

(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena. (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or

attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid inxssing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction— which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. (A) Appearance Not Required. A person conmianded to produce

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to pet unitthe inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

(i) At anytime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving patty may move the issuing court for an order compelling production or inspection.

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer fl -am significant expense resulting from compliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. (A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must

quash or modify a subpoena that: (I) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer

to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person - except that, subject to Rule 45(c)( )(B)(iii), the person maybe commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

(Hi) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by

a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;

(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or

(Hi) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.

(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(H) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.

These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:

(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form/or Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified- If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information, The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery. -

(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection. (A) Information Withheld, A person withholding subpoenaed

information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,

communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing 'orrnation itself privileged or protected, will enable the Parties to as the claim.

(B) Infer n Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena s subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that rcceived the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information most preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty's failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).


EXHIBIT 21

Case 109-cv-07143 Document 4 -6 Filed 01/18/11 Page 77 of 27 PageID#:3494

WE ARE

LILL

ii4:HrvrL4n

el

AN