LAW OFFICES OF ALAN L. ZEGAS Alan L. Zegas 552 Main Street Chatham, New Jersey 07928 (973) 701-7080 Attorneys for Defendant, David Wildstein IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY GERARD JERRY SPEZIALE, Civil Action No. 14-02890 (LBW) Plaintiff DEFENDANT DAVID v. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES OF PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF NEW JERSEY, DAVID WILDSTEIN, MICHAEL FEDORKO, JOHN DOES 1-10 And ABC CORPS, 1-10, Defendant. TO: Gabriel H. Halpern, Esq. Pinilis Halpern LLP 160 Morris Street Morristown, NJ 07960 The Vespi Law Firm 547 Union Blvd. Totowa, NJ 07660 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Gerard Jerry Speziale SIRS: Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 26.1 and 33.1, Defendant David Wildstein ("Defendant Wildstein" or ?Wildstein?] hereby objects and responds to Plaintif?s First Set of lnterrogatories as follows. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN L. ZEGAS Mil Dated: June 5, 2015 Judson L?i?Hand GENERAL OBIECTIONS All of the general objections made by Defendant Wildstein are applicable to the Plaintiff Gerard Ierry Speziale ["Plaintiff? or ?Speziale?)?s interrogatories and are incorporated in each response to the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff. Failure to specifically refer to a general objection should not be construed as a waiver of the general objection in responding to each interrogatory. To the extent the information, materials, and documents are made available for review and/or supplied in response to any interrogatory, such response or answer is without waiver of and subject to these general objections: 1. Whenever an interrogatory seeks to impose upon Defendant Wildstein a greater or broader obligation than the one imposed by the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [the ?Rules?), Defendant Wildstein shall respond in conformance with the, Rules. 2. Defendant Wildstein objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they purport to seek information, materials, and documents beyond the scope of permissible discovery under the Rules. 3. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Defendant Wildstein regarding the admissibility or relevance of any fact, or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization contained in the interrogatories of this party. 4. The responses of Defendant Wildstein are based upon information, materials, and documents presently known to him, his current representatives, and/or agents. Defendant Wildstein?s investigation of the facts concerning this action continues and the subject matter of these interrogatories continues to develop. Further investigation and analysis may supply additional facts and documents and additional meaning to known facts and documents. Therefore, Defendant Wildstein?s responses are set forth without prejudice to his right to assert additional objections, and/or supplemental, amended or modified responses at any time prior to trial of this lawsuit. Should Defendant Wildstein discover additional information, materials, and documents, or additional grounds for objections and/or supplemental information, materials and documents, amended or modified responses will be supplied. 5. Defendant Wildstein objects to each interrogatory that seeks an answer or information, materials, and documents the disclosure of which would violate the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any applicable protection or restriction from discovery, or that seeks information, materials or documents that have been prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or on behalf of Plaintiff, his attorneys and/or representatives. If any document marked "attorney-client? or ?attorney work product" is produced, such production should not be construed as a waiver of the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Moreover, the response or answer is made based on the understanding that, if any privileged materials are inadvertently produced, all such materials and copies of such materials will be returned to Defendant or to its attorneys immediately upon the request of Defendant Wildstein or his attorneys. in addition, the Rules of Professional Conduct require the Plaintiff to return immediately, sight unseen, any materials inadvertently provided by Defendant Wildstein that the Plaintiff recognizes could reasonably be construed as privileged and/orcon?denUaL 6. Defendant Wildstein objects to each interrogatory seeking information, materials, and documents currently in possession of Plaintiff or that are a matter of public record or are equally accessible to Plaintiff, because the burden that gathering such information, materials, and documents imposes upon Defendant Wildstein would either by unduly burdensome or greatly exceed the burden that gathering the same information, materials, and documents would impose upon Plaintiff. 7. By responding to or answering these interrogatories, Defendant does not waive, nor intend to waive, any objections that it may have regarding the use by Plaintiff of these answers or responses and Defendant Wildstein expressly reserves: All questions or challenges regarding competency, privilege, relevance, materiality, authenticity, hearsay, and admissibility of all information, materials and documents produced; The right to object to any party?s use of any answer or response, in whole or in part, or to the use of the subject matter conveyed thereby in any later stage of proceeding in this litigation on any or all of the grounds set forth herein; The right to object on any and all proper grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of any answer made or information, materials and documents produced by Defendant Wildstein; All objections as to vagueness, overbreadth, duplication, and ambiguity. 8. Where any of these interrogatories or document requests seeks information, materials, and documents, that are not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, not admissible, and/or not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, Defendant Wildstein objects to the discovery of such information, materials, and documents. 9. Defendant Wildstein objects to any interrogatory or request by Plaintiff where the gathering of the information, materials, and documents imposed upon Defendant Wildstein would be unduly burdensome and/or duplicative 10. Defendant Wildstein objects to the definitions of terms provided by Plaintiff to the extent that they are unreasonable, unduly burdensome, harassing, and inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ambiguous, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible, relevant or material evidence. Defendant Wildstein will assign to undefined terms used in these interrogatories their usual and ordinary meaning. Further, Defendant Wildstein objects 13 fl to the definitions of ?identifey, communication? and ?document? supplied by Plaintiff on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome, harassing, overly broad, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible, relevant or material evidence. 11. To avoid undue duplication, Defendant Wildstein, as if included herein, incorporates the pleadings and any attachments thereto that have been submitted by or served upon the parties through their counsel. 12. Use .of the reference ?see? or ?see i also" in responding to a specific interrogatory incorporates at length the entire response or answer cited, unless otherwise indicated. 13. The answers or responses set forth herein are based upon information, materials and documents that have been collected and/or reviewed for the purpose of responding to these interrogatories. Not-all of these answers are necessarily prepared from personal knowledge ofany single individual. 14-. Unless otherwise indicated by Defendant Wildstein, the relevant time period for these responses is from January 1, 2010 until October 31, 2013. 15. Upon request, counsel for Mr. Wildstein will make responsive documents available for inspection. DEFENDANT DAVID RESPONSES AND OBIECTIONS TO GERARD ERRY FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1. Set forth all positions held with any governmental entity from January 1, 2009 through the present. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks to require Defendant Wildstein to provide information for a time period beyond that of the allegations in the Complaint. Moreover, Defendant Wildstein objects to this interrogatm?y to the extent the information sought is available to the Plaintiff through examination of documents to be produced by Defendant Wildstein and/or in the possession of third parties. Without waiving the above objections and in the interest of coogaeration, the Defendant Wildstein responds as follows: From May 2010 until his resignation in December 2013, Defendant Wildstein was the Director of Interstate Capital Projects for the Defendant the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2. Set forth all communications which you had with Jerry Speziale regarding his position as Deputy Superintendent of the Port Authority Police Department. ANSWER: Objection. Overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving said objections and in the interest of cooperation, the Defendant responds as follows: Defendant Wildstein recalls the following communications with Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff?s new poSition with the Port Authority Police Department: In the summer of 2010, Wildstein had several meetings at the coffee shop in Union Square, Manhattan and phone conversations with Plaintiff in advance of Plaintiff?s being offered the position with The Port Authority. In or about September 2010, Wildstein met with Plaintiff at the Port Authority's offices on Plaintiffs first day on the job at the Port Authority. In or about the fall of 2010 and winter of 2011 Wildstein had breakfast with Plaintiff several times at the coffee shop in Union Square in Manhattan also to discuss Plaintiff new position. Between in or about the spring or summer of 2010 and the early fall of 2013, Wildstein spoke to Plaintiff a couple of times casually at Port Authority facilities at various events. In or about the fall of 2013, Wildstein walked into Plaintiffs office at the Port Authority?s Police Headquarters in Jersey City following Plaintiffs resignation and wished Plaintiff well in his new position. Wildstein stopped scheduling meetings with Speziale sometime in 2011, after Speziale indicated that he was an expert in taping conversations and would make his services available to Wildstein if asked, after learning that Speziale had personally conducted an unauthorized sting operation of cab drivers at one of the Port Authority airports, and after learning that Speziale was making repeated attempts to gain permission to carry a gun. 3. Set forth all communications you had with any third party regarding Jerry Speziale including the date or approximate date, and person with whom such communication was had. ANSWER Objection. Overly broad and unduly burdensome. This request seeks all communications of any kind that you had with any third party concerning Plaintiff, without limitation on the subject matter of such communications. Without waiving said objections and in the interest of cooperation, the Defendant Wildstein responds as follows: Wildstein recalls communicating with various third parties about Plaintiff during Plaintiffs time with the Port Authority. In June 2010, Wildstein met with Governor Christie and others, including Bill Baroni, Michelle Brown, and Richard .Bagger, in the governor?s private office in Trenton. At the meeting Christie directed the Port Authority to terminate Deputy Superintendent of the Port Authority Police Department/Deputy Director of Public Safety Arthur Cifelli and directed the Port Authority to hire Speziale to fill those posts. Christie told Wildstein and the others that he wanted to get Speziale to drop his re~election bid to help Republicans win the post, and to take Speziale?s campaign war chest out of the race. Christie also told Wildstein and others that he knew of Cifelli from his service as U.S. Attorney because Cifelli had perjured himself during his testimony in the Grand Iury proceedings related to John and that his of?ce had considered prosecuting Cifelli for perjury. Christie made it clear that he would not have Cifelli working for his administration. He told Wildstein and others that he would first talk to David Samson, since Samson was friends with Cifelli and Sometime in September of 2010, on the day Speziale began his employment at the Port Authority, Wildstein was advised by Port Authority Human Resources that Speziale was collecting a disability pension from the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and that he was not permitted to carry a gun. Plaintiff later con?rmed this to Wildstein. Wildstein played a role in only one decision regarding the scope of Speziale?s role at the Port Authority. Sometime in the fall of 2012, Michael Chertoff and Richard Falkenrath of The Chertoff Group, conducting a review of Port Authority security, recommended the elimination of Speziale?s position, an option which Wildstein opposed. Wildstein also recalls communicating at some point during his time at the Port Authority, either in person, on the phone or via electronic media, such as emails, with various third parties concerning Plaintiff. Wildstein discussed a variety of issues with them, including the hiring of Plaintiff, Plaintiff?s duties at the Port Authority and his resignation. The following is a list of persons with whom Wildstein communicated concerning Plaintiff: Ana Abelians lay Alpert Richard Bagger Bill Baroni Tom Belfiore Michelle Brown Darrell Buchbinder Ernesto Butcher Michael Chertoff Jeff Chiesa Chris Christie Steve Coleman Diane Conzo Nicole Crifo Eileen Dalton Michael Drewniak Joseph Dunne Richard Falkenrath Michael Fedorko lune Forrest Deborah Grammiccioni Mary Lee Hannell Christopher Wayne Hasenbalg Bridget Kelly Phil Kwon Louis La Capra Iohn Ma Charles McKenna Michael Nestor Patrick O?Reilly Ann Mary O'Rourke Jamie Rubin Scott Rumana David Samson Pat Schuber Arielle Schwarz Steve Sigmund Bill Stepien Robert Van Etten Drew Warshaw Representatives of the United States Attorney?s Office and law enforcement of?cials. See also see documents to be produced for inspection. 4. State whether Speziale expressed concerns or made complaints to you, regarding the operations of The Port Authority or individuals at The Port Authority and further state whether you discussed those concerns or complaints with any person; If so, set forth with whom you had such discussion, the substance of the discussion and the date of such discussion. ANSWER Objection. Overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving said objections and in the interest of cooperation, the Defendant Wildstein responds as follows: During his time working for the Port Authority, Plaintiff raised issues with Wildstein concerning the command staff, the police union contract, coverage plans for police posts, updates for technology and emergency management plans. Plaintiff would also complain that he was not being included in meetings of high-ranking officials of the Port Authority. See also documents to be produced for inspection. CERTIFICATION I have read the foregoing answers to interrogatories. I hereby certify that these answers to interrogatories are true. I further certify that the documents provided with these answers to interrogatories are true copies of the original documents. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false I am subject to punishment @r n? David Wildstein Dated: ?5