Case Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 22 Exhibit 20 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 1 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA -------------------------------: KUWAIT AND GULF LINK : TRANSPORT COMPANY, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : JOHN DOE, : (a.k.a. Scott Wilson) et al., : : Defendants. : -------------------------------: Case No. 2012-1820 Civil Term Washington, D.C. Tuesday, December 15, 2015 Videotaped Deposition of: NORMAND LUSSIER called for oral examination by counsel for Defendants, pursuant to notice, at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 1440 New York Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., before Erick M. Thacker, RPR, and Amy E. Sikora-Trapp, RPR, CRR, CLR, of Capital Reporting Company, a Notary Publics in and for the District of Columbia, beginning at 9:03 a.m., when were present on behalf of the respective parties: (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 A P P E A R A N C E S On behalf of Plaintiff KGL: JOSEPH L. MEADOWS, ESQUIRE DAVID C. HAMMOND, ESQUIRE CROWELL & MORING, LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 202-624-2964 jmeadows@crowell.com dhammond@crowell.com 7 8 On behalf of Defendants Agility Public Warehousing Company, Agility TGS Logistics Services and PWC Transport Company: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RICHARD MARMARO, ESQUIRE SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 213-687-5480 richard.marmaro@skadden.com - and THOMAS A. PARNHAM, JR., ESQUIRE MARGARET E. KRAWEIC, ESQUIRE MARISA B. VAN SAANEN, ESQUIRE SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-7824 thomas.parnham@skadden.com margaret.krawiec@skadden.com marisa.vansaanen@skadden.com 19 20 21 22 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (CONTINUED): 2 On behalf of Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc.: 3 4 5 6 7 ALAN M. FREEMAN, ESQUIRE ADRIEN C. PICKARD, ESQUIRE BLANK ROME, LLP Watergate 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-771-5925 freeman@blankrome.com apickard@blankrome.com 8 On behalf of Department of Defense: 9 10 11 12 13 JAMES J. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE ELIZABETH L. KADE, ESQUIRE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 202-616-8267 james.schwartz@usdoj.gov elizabeth.l.kade@usdoj.gov 14 On behalf of Defense Logistics Agency: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DANIEL K. POLING, ESQUIRE TROY R. HOLROYD, ESQUIRE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Associate General Counsel 8725 John J. Kingman Road Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 703-767-1188 daniel.poling@dla.mil ALSO PRESENT: Solomon Francis, Video Technician 22 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 8 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Good morning. This 3 begins Media Unit No. 1 of the audio-visual 4 deposition of Mr. Normand Lussier taken in the 5 matter of Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company, et 6 al., plaintiffs, versus John Doe A/K/A Scott 7 Wilson, et al., defendants, pending in the Court 8 of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 9 Case No. 2012-1820-CIVIL TERM. 10 This deposition is being held at the law 11 offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 12 LLP, located at 1440 New York Avenue, Northwest, 13 Washington, D.C. on December 15, 2015 at 14 approximately 9:03 a.m. 15 My name is Solomon Francis. I'm the 16 legal video specialist here with our court 17 reporter, Erick Thacker. 18 Reporting Company. 19 20 We're with Capital For the record, will counsels please introduce themselves and whom they represent. 21 MR. MARMARO: Richard Marmaro of Skadden 22 Arps for the defendant, Agility. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 48 1 A No, sir. 2 Q Why did you depart from normal practice 3 4 5 6 in this case? A I believe I departed from normal practice because it involved Agility. Q What does Agility have to do with what 7 information you're going to give the target of the 8 -- target of an allegation? 9 10 11 A KGL and Agility were competitors. Agility was in litigation with DLA. Q So why would that cause you to depart 12 from your normal practice of not telling a target 13 of a whistleblower allegation that the allegations 14 had been referred to law enforcement? 15 A I don't know. I just -- that was my 16 thought at the time. 17 from my formal practice was it involved Agility, 18 and I wasn't probably thinking clearly, because it 19 did involve Agility, with whom I'd been concerned 20 for years. 21 22 Q Right. Why I would have departed And so would you say that anything to do with Agility kind of clouded your (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 49 1 judgment? 2 A That's a pretty fair statement. 3 Q And we're going to get into it a little 4 bit later, but as I recall your prior testimony, 5 the switch flipped on Agility sometime during the 6 performance of the PV contracts, where you 7 testified they were like a favorite of DLA and 8 doing a great job, and then, at some point, that 9 he switched -- flipped? 10 MR. POLING: We -- we have to object to 11 this, because Mr. Coyne has advised him not to 12 discuss any matters involving the PV contract. 13 MR. MARMARO: But that's -- first of 14 all, it's not for you to object. 15 Coyne. 16 even if it involves a PV contract, is fair game. It's for Mr. Secondly, anything to do with credibility, 17 MR. POLING: Well, it's not, because we 18 have a specific direction from Mr. Coyne. 19 Do we need to take a break, Mr. 20 21 22 Schwartz? MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me -- let's -- can I hear the question and then let us discuss (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 77 1 connection with any discussion you had regarding 2 the declaration that you were filing in the KGL 3 action? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Have the plaintiffs or their attorneys 6 requested that you execute any other declarations? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q Do you have an understanding that one of 9 Mr. -- strike that. 10 11 12 Is one of Mr. Poling's responsibilities within DLA to get involved with Touhy requests? A I don't know the full scope of his 13 responsibilities, sir. 14 encompasses all Touhy requests or not. 15 learned a lot more about the entire Touhy process 16 after I filed the -- after I prepared the 17 declaration, and I learned -- have learned now, to 18 my dismay, that I should not have done it without 19 going through the Touhy process. 20 mistake, no one else's. 21 22 Q I don't know if that I've That was my But you are aware that Mr. Poling is involved to some extent in the Touhy process (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 78 1 2 within the agency; is that right? A I am aware that Mr. Poling is involved 3 in the Touhy process regarding this case, this 4 matter. 5 6 Q I don't know about others. But he's certainly knowledgeable about the Touhy process? 7 A Well, on this matter, certainly. 8 Q All right. 9 Remember I just asked you whether you and Mr. Poling were involved in all 10 matters KGL, and you said Mr. Poling was not? Did 11 I understand your testimony correctly? 12 A 13 14 I believe so, yes, sir. MR. SCHWARTZ: Misstates the witness's answer. 15 16 Objection. BY MR. MARMARO Q Okay. Well, let me ask it direct, then. 17 Was Mr. Poling involved -- let me -- let me 18 withdraw that. 19 Was Mr. Poling involved with DLA's 20 position on all matters KGL/Iran? 21 MR. SCHWARTZ: 22 Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 91 1 Q. Why did he do that? 2 A. The question what did I do? 3 Q. No. 4 A. I don't know. 5 Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Poling the Why did he do that, if you know? 6 importance of keeping the Atlanta prosecutors in 7 the loop regarding the KGL litigation? 8 A. No, not that I recall. 9 Q. Do you have any idea why Mr. Poling was 10 having communications with the United States 11 Attorney's office regarding the KGL versus Agility 12 case? 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. Was the purpose of Mr. Poling's 15 communication with the United States Attorney's 16 office in Atlanta regarding the KGL case in order 17 to obtain information regarding possible thousand- 18 one violations by Agility employees? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Did you ever hear such a discussion? 21 A. Not that I recall. 22 Q. And why don't we actually -- I'm going No, sir. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 125 1 Noel Woodward in which you asked her what was 2 happening with regard to the FBI investigation 3 into KGL's alleged dealings with Iran. 4 Is that your testimony? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Why did you ask her that? 7 A. I -- I don't recall exactly, but I was 8 probably asked for an update by somebody. 9 Q. Mr. Hammond? 10 A. No. 11 Q. So Mr. Pribble was generally aware of It would be likely Mr. Pribble. 12 what was going on with regard to the allegations 13 of alleged ties with Iran; is that correct? 14 A. Yes, sir. So he would see a newspaper 15 article or -- or something and ask me if I had an 16 update. 17 Q. You had previously testified that once 18 allegations were made, it wasn't your job to 19 follow up upon them, it was out of your hands; is 20 that correct? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. Okay. If it's not your job to follow up (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 181 1 help a private litigant? 2 A. No, sir. 3 Q. You knew it was improper? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. And you also knew that if you pushed too 6 hard you might get burned by that investigative 7 agency? 8 A. No, sir. 9 Q. Did you ever tell DCIS or any federal 10 criminal investigative agency why you were asking 11 for the three to four binders of material? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. Did you tell them, for example, the 14 truth; that is, I'm asking because Mr. Hammond 15 asked me? 16 17 18 19 A. I never spoke with law enforcement regarding the KGL matters. Q. Ms. Woodward did your bidding on this one; correct? 20 A. Well, I wouldn't put it that way. 21 Q. Well, how would you put it? 22 A. Well, I would ask her for an update. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 13 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 182 1 Q. Okay. So -- but it was more than just a 2 general update, wasn't it; it was asking her to 3 ask a federal criminal investigative agency for 4 three to four binders of documents that Mr. 5 Hammond wanted you to get? 6 A. That appears to be likely, as a result 7 of reading these emails. 8 independently. 9 10 Q. Do you agree with me that that's something different than just a general update? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. All right. 13 I don't recall it So did you tell Ms. Woodward why you were asking for the documents? 14 A. No, sir. 15 Q. Did you tell Ms. Woodward that you were 16 asking for the documents because Mr. Hammond had 17 asked you for them? 18 A. I don't believe I did. 19 Q. Did you tell Ms. Woodward what reason 20 she should give to the federal criminal 21 investigator in -- in justification for asking for 22 the documents? (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 14 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 183 1 2 3 A. I don't recall giving her any justification. Q. Did you and she discuss any cover story 4 as to what to explain to the federal criminal 5 investigator as to why you were asking for the 6 materials? 7 A. No, sir. 8 Q. Did you and Mr. Poling discuss a cover 9 10 11 story as to why you were asking for this material to conceal the real reason? A. No, sir. 12 (Deposition Exhibit Number 92 was 13 marked for identification.) 14 Q. All right. Okay. You have before you 15 Exhibit 92, which is a document bearing Bates 16 number, excuse me, DLA1605. 17 MR. MARMARO: It's a July 22, 2011 email 18 from Noel Woodward to Norm Lussier, re: KGL and 19 present responsibility. 20 Q. And if you look -- if you need any 21 context to determine whether this email trail 22 relates to the same three or four binders, white (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 15 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 Normand 12-15-2015 185 1 Q. What is it? 2 A. It's a by name IG within DLA. 3 3 Q. Okay. And And --- and and she she is is --- is is asking asking Okay. 4 Kathy Kathy Shaw Shaw for for something; something; right? If you you look look at right? If the second second paragraph, paragraph, quote, quote, what what II need need to to know 5 the 6 is is if if DCIS DCIS has has aa copy copy of of the the contents contents of these 7 binders. binders. 8 Do you see that? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. So that's what this email is about; 11 right? 11 right? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. All right. And if if these these three three to to four right. And 14 white white binders binders that that have have been been identified identified in the 15 page page following following and and that that we've we've been been talking talking about 16 for for the the last last five five or or 10 10 minutes; minutes; right? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. And she she says says to to Kathy Kathy Shaw, All right. right. And 19 with with aa copy copy to to Jon Jon Hawe, Hawe, with with aa copy copy to to you, you, with 20 aa copy copy to to Sharon Sharon Wood, Wood, and and she she says, says, quote, quote, as you 21 know, know, DLA DLA and and the the Army Army both both have have contracts contracts with 22 KGL KGL now, now, and and we we need need to to make make sure sure we we are are dealing (866) 448 448 -- DEPO DEPO 2015 www.CapitalReportingCompany.com ©©2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 16 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 186 1 with the presently responsible contractor. 2 3 And then she continues on. She needs to find out if DCIS has a copy. 4 That's a cover story, isn't it? 5 MR. SCHWARTZ: 6 7 8 9 10 Q. Objection, argumentative. That's not the reason you guys were looking for the three to four binders, is it, sir? A. That's a reason she provided in her email. Q. That wasn't my question. That's not the 11 real reason you and Mr. Poling were looking for 12 the three to four white binders, is it, sir? 13 A. No. 14 Q. All right. 15 The real reason is because of a request that Mr. Hammond had made; correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But you didn't want to tell DCIS that 18 because you knew if you told the truth DCIS would 19 call you out on it and you would get into trouble? 20 A. That's possible, yeah. 21 Q. All right. 22 What other possibilities are there for giving a false reason for why you were (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 17 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 these emails? A. Kowalski. Q. But how come you didn't tell him you were trying to get information? A. Well, I didn't -- as a routine matter, I did not talk to contracting officers. Q. 9 Are you making this stuff up as you go? MR. SCHWARTZ: 10 11 I don't have any information for Mr. MR. HAMMOND: Q. MR. HAMMOND: 13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Q. 15 Objection, argumentative. Are you making this up? 12 14 Objection. Objection, argumentative. Objection. You can answer. MR. HAMMOND: Same objection. 16 A. No. 17 Q. Was Mr. Poling aware of your efforts to 18 19 assist Mr. Hammond in obtaining these documents? A. I don't know if he was aware. 20 (Deposition Exhibit Number 93 was 21 marked for identification.) 22 MR. MARMARO: Exhibit 93 is a multipage (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 18 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 251 1 Agility to go through all these hoops, we're 2 denying Touhy requests, we're not giving them 3 information informally, and we're forcing them to 4 go to federal district court to enforce their 5 rights on the one hand, when all Dave Hammond has 6 to do is lift up the phone and I jump? 7 8 Did you ever go to Fred Pribble and say that that seemed wrong to you? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. Did Mr. Pribble seem troubled by the 11 fact that Agility had to go to federal district 12 court in a lawsuit against the government to 13 enforce its rights under Touhy and to get your 14 deposition and documents, on the one hand, when 15 all Dave Hammond had to do was lift the phone and 16 call you or email you to get whatever he wanted? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. Did Mr. Poling seem troubled by that? 20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. Did -- were you aware that Mr. Poling 19 22 gave assistance to Mr. Hammond by filing a (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 19 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 252 1 declaration in support of a common interest 2 privilege which was found by the judge in 3 Pennsylvania to border on the frivolous? 4 5 Did you know that? A. I did not recall Mr. Poling preparing a 6 declaration for that matter, but I do recall him 7 mentioning that he had been in discussion with the 8 U.S. Attorney's office about asserting a common 9 interest privilege. 10 Q. U.S. Attorney's office in Atlanta? 11 A. No. 12 of Columbia. 13 Q. I believe it was for the District And do you know whether or not Mr. 14 Poling required Mr. Hammond to go through the 15 Touhy process in order to get the declaration that 16 Mr. Poling gave to Mr. Hammond to be filed in the 17 court in Pennsylvania arguing for a common 18 interest privilege, which the judge later found to 19 border on the frivolous? 20 21 22 A. No, sir. I'm unaware of the steps surrounding provision of that declaration. Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. Poling gave (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 20 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 253 1 that declaration to Mr. Hammond voluntarily? 2 A. I'm unaware of the circumstances. 3 Q. Are you aware of whether Mr. Poling gave 4 the declaration during the course and in the scope 5 of his duties and responsibilities as a DLA 6 attorney? 7 8 9 MR. HAMMOND: Objection, asked and answered. A. I don't know, sir. I assume that's the 10 reason he prepared the declaration, was in the 11 scope of his employment. 12 Q. And finally on this subject, do you know 13 whether Mr. Poling told Mr. Pribble that he was 14 helping Mr. Hammond try to assert a common 15 interest privilege to prevent the discovery of 16 documents, many of which we've used in the course 17 of this deposition? 18 19 20 A. I'm unaware of any conversation he had with Mr. Pribble. Q. But you are aware that the U.S. District 21 Court judge allowed this deposition to go forward 22 and ordered or allowed -- (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 21 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 Normand 12-15-2015 293 1 bias, bias, you you wanted wanted to to see see them them indicted indicted under under 1001; 2 correct? correct? 3 3 A. I would not be adverse to anything bad 4 happening happening to to Agility. Agility. 5 Q. You would be in fair of -- 6 A. Yes. Good word. word. Yes. Good 7 Q. Let me You would me finish finish the the question. question. You 8 be be in in favor favor of of something something bad bad happening happening to to Agility; 9 correct? correct? 10 A. Yes, correct. 11 Q. And the badder the better; right? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 Q. And a 1001 violation is really bad; 14 right? 14 right? 15 A. Well, yes, sir. 16 Q. And that would have been good, from your 17 perspective, perspective, in in the the --- within within your your duties duties and 18 responsibilities responsibilities as as aa DLA DLA official official to to have have them 19 indicted indicted under under aa 1001; 1001; right? right? 20 A. Well, no. no. II did did not not participate participate in in this this 21 communication communication with with the the U.S. U.S. Attorney's Attorney's office. I 22 did did not not object object to to it, it, but but II did did not not participate participate in (866) 448 448 -- DEPO DEPO 2015 www.CapitalReportingCompany.com ©©2015 Case 1:16-cv-00448-JDB Document 1-21 Filed 03/07/16 Page 22 of 22 Capital Reporting Company Lussier, Normand 12-15-2015 Normand 12-15-2015 294 1 it. 1 it. 2 Q. But you would have liked it if the U.S. 3 Attorney's Attorney's office office had had run run with with Mr. Mr. Hammond's Hammond's 4 package package and and gotten gotten an an indictment; indictment; right? 5 A. I would have had no problem whatsoever 6 with with that. that. 7 Q. You would have been happy with that; 8 right? right? 9 A. I would have been happy with that. Yes, Q. Do you feel that would have given -- do 10 sir. 10 sir. 11 12 you you feel feel that that would would have have given given the the federal 13 government government additional additional leverage leverage against against Agility Agility in 14 the the criminal criminal case case in in Atlanta, Atlanta, if if Mr. Mr. Hammond Hammond were 15 successful -15 successful 16 Wait aa second. second. MR. MARMARO: MARMARO: Wait 17 MR. SCHWARTZ: SCHWARTZ: II thought thought you you were were 18 finished. 18 finished. 19 Q. -- if Mr. Hammond were successful in his 20 efforts efforts to to get get Agility Agility investigated investigated and and indicted 21 under 21 under aa 1001? 1001? 22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Objection. MR. SCHWARTZ: Objection. And And I'm I'm going going (866) 448 448 -- DEPO DEPO 2015 www.CapitalReportingCompany.com ©©2015