STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 18CVS 014001 COUNTY OF WAKE COMMON CAUSE,etal, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO DAVID LEWIS,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING,et al., Defendants. m a Plaintiffs bring this motion requesting that the Court issue certain direction to Legislative Defendants in light of recent developments relating to the electronic storage devices produced by Stephanie Hofeller to Plaintiffs in response to Plaintiffs? February 13, 2019 subpoena to Ms. Hofeller. In a May 31, 2019 letter to Plaintiffs? counsel, Legislative Defendants purported, unilaterally and without any plausible authorization, to designate ?the entirety? of the Hofeller ?les as ?Highly Con?dential/Outside Attomeys? Eyes Only? in a transparent effort to conceal evidence of wrongdoing by Legislative Defendants and others. Legislative Defendants? May 31 letter further demanded, again without any plausible basis, that Plaintiffs return and destroy the Hofeller ?les in their entirety. Each of these attempts by Legislative Defendants to conceal evidence that is extraordinarily relevant to this case is unjusti?ed and improper. For the reasons set forth in detail below, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court direct Legislative Defendants as follows: (1) Legislative Defendants shall not further pursue the return or destruction of material properly produced by other parties or third parties in response to law?il court process in discovery in this case; and (2) Legislative Defendants shall not attempt to unilaterally designate material produced in discovery by other parties or third parties as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential under the Consent Protective Order. BACKGROUND As the Court knows, on February 13, 2019, Plaintiffs issued a third-party subpoena pursuant to Rule 45 to Stephanie Hofeller, the daughter of the late mapmaker Dr. Thomas Hofeller who created the redistricting plans at issue in this case (the ?2017 Plans?). The subpoena requested all documents in Ms. Hofeller?s possession, custody, or control relating to Dr. Hofeller?s work on the challenged plans, as well as ?[a]ny storage device? in Ms. Hofeller?s possession, custody, or control that may contain such documents or any information ?relating to? such documents. Plaintiffs emailed a copy of the subpoena to all parties in this case on the same day the subpoena was served, February 13, 2019. Neither Legislative Defendants nor any other party or non-party moved to quash or otherwise objected to the subpoena. In mid-March 2019, in response to the subpoena, Ms. Hofeller produced four external hard drives and eighteen thumb drives containing over 75,000 ?les (the ?Hofeller Plaintiffs received these storage devices on March 13, 2019, and e-mailed notice to all Defendants on March 20, 2019, pursuant to Rule 45(d1). A dispute subsequently arose between the parties regarding whether to ?lter out certain ?les containing sensitive personal information of the Hofeller family before providing copies of the contents of the devices to Defendants. In attempting to negotiate a resolution of that issue, on April 9, 2019, Plaintiffs sent all Defendants a searchable index listing the ?les names and ?les paths of the over 75,000 Hofeller ?les. And in early May, pursuant to the Court?s direction, Plaintiffs provided complete copies of all of the Hofeller ?les to all three sets of Defendants. It has now been nearly four months since all Defendants received notice of the subpoena to Ms. Hofeller. It has been two-and-a-half months since all Defendants received notice of Plaintiffs? receipt of the Hofeller ?les in response to the subpoena. It has been nearly two months since all Defendants received a substantially complete searchable index of the Hofeller ?les. And it has been more than a month since all Defendants received all of the Hofeller ?les themselves. Over this time, neither Legislative Defendants nor anyone else has ?led a motion with this Court seeking a protective order or any other restriction over any of the Hofeller ?les. On May 17, Plaintiffs took a trial-preservation deposition of Ms. Hofeller, with her own counsel defending the deposition, and also counsel for each set of Defendants present and afforded the opportunity to examine Ms. Hofeller. (Legislative Defendants? counsel examined Ms. Hofeller for many hours.) Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that she obtained the storage devices at issue with her mother?s knowledge and express approval, while visiting her parents? home in Raleigh on October 11, 2018. Ex. A (S. Hofeller Dep.) at 2023-26: 10; 52:6-10; 81 :8-82z2; 110: 17-1 1:24. Speci?cally, Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that she asked her mother, ?Can I take these [devices],? and her mother ?said absolutely? and in fact ?encouraged? Ms. Hofeller to take them. Id. at 21:6-11, 26:3-10. Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that ?[her] mother gave to [her] unconditionally? ?everything on those hard drives that [her] father had left in his room.? Id. at 81:8?82z2. Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that she again sought and received her mother?s consent before producing the Hofeller ?les to Plaintiffs in response to their subpoena. Id. at 39:21-41 Ms. Hofeller further testi?ed that, in giving consent to produce the drives in response to the subpoena, her mother knew that the drives contained Dr. Hofeller?s ?work-related ?les.? Id. at 56:22-57:18; see id. at 59:13-18 At what point in time did you discuss with your mother the possibility of turning over your father?s business records to Common Cause or to Arnold Porter? A. The subpoena. That -- that would be when we speci?cally discussed that?). In the course of reviewing the Hofeller ?les for this case, Plaintiffs? counsel recently realized that several of the ?les were also relevant to another pending lawsuit in which Plaintiffs? same counsel from Arnold Porter are representing different plaintiffs?a federal challenge to the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census, which is pending before the United States Supreme Court. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs? counsel realized that several ?les revealed that Dr. Hofeller played a substantial, previously undisclosed role in orchestrating the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the Census, and that this fact called into question the veracity of testimony by two government witnesses in the case, and also bore directly on central merits issues in the case. On May 30, 2019, the plaintiffs in the New York action ?led a motion in the district court for an order to show cause whether sanctions or other appropriate relief are warranted in light of the new evidence. New York v. Dep ?t of Commerce, No. 18-cv-2921, ECF No. 595 (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs submitted notice of their district court ?ling to the Supreme Court. Dep ?t of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 (U .S.). The very next day after Plaintiffs disclosed this evidence of potential government misconduct, Legislative Defendants in this case sent a letter to Plaintiffs? counsel purporting to take certain actions with respect to the Hofeller ?les, suggesting that Plaintiffs? counsel have been ?neglecting [their] professional responsibilities,? and making various demands. Ex. at 5. First, Legislative Defendants?letter purported to suddenly and unilaterally designate ?the entirety? of the Hofeller ?les as ?Highly Con?dential/Outside Attomey?s Eyes Onlyf? under the Consent Protective Order in this case. Id. at 1. Legislative Defendants? stated reason for taking this actionT?which is unauthorized and without effect under the plain terms of the Consent Protective Order for reasons explained below?was that there are some unidenti?ed number of unspeci?ed ?les supposedly containing ?con?dential ?nancial information? beyond the 1,001 ?les designated Highly Con?dential pursuant to the Court?s May 1 order. Id. at 1. Legislative Defendants did not identify a single additional ?le containing ?con?dential ?nancial information,? did not provide any estimate of the number of such ?les, and did not make any claim that the number of such ?les is more than a miniscule fraction of the total Hofeller ?les. Second, Legislative Defendants? May 31 letter asserted that Plaintiffs? counsel have ?apparently been reviewing likely privileged materials? of Legislative Defendants. Id. at 1. But the letter listed only ?ve speci?c ?les that Legislative Defendants asserted may be privileged on the ground that those ?ve ?les were ?expert witness materials created by Dr. Hofeller in connection with North Carolina legal matters.? Id. at 2. Legislative Defendants provided no substantiation for their assertion that Plaintiffs? counsel had ?apparently? reviewed any of those ?ve ?les or any other similar ?les. Third, Legislative Defendants expressed various ?concerns? about the circumstances under which Ms. Hofeller acquired the Hofeller ?les and produced them to Plaintiffs in response to their February 13, 2019 subpoena. See id. at 2-3. The details of these baseless concerns and Plaintiffs? responses are set forth in full in the attached letters and need not be repeated here. Fourth, Legislative Defendants made a series of speci?c demands of Plaintiffs. In particular, Legislative Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) ?immediately cease and desist reviewing all materials produced by Ms. Hofeller, and particularly all ?les unrelated to North Carolina?; ?immediately cease and desist providing any or all of these materials to third parties unrelated to this case, as [Plaintiffs? counsel] have apparently recently done in a matter pending in New York?; ?return all of the produced materials to the Trustee for the Kathleen H. Hofeller Irrevocable Trust to allow for a privilege review of Dr. Hofeller?s materials?; ?identify by name all individuals [Plaintiffs? counsel] employ who have reviewed and produced materials, the date[s] on which they reviewed those materials, and which materials they reviewed with suf?cient speci?city that [Legislative Defendants] can determine which materials are at issue?; ?inform [Legislative Defendants] which of these wrongfully produced materials have been shared outside [Plaintiffs? counsel?s] ?rms, including but not limited to any expert witnesses in the case, and, if so, with whom and which materials with suf?cient speci?city to allow [Legislative Defendants] to assess the scope of the intrusion into protected materials?; and 6) ?attest that all copies of the materials wrongfully produced by Ms. Hofeller are no longer in [Plaintiffs? counsel?s] possession and have been destroyed.? Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added). Finally, Legislative Defendants stated, without elaboration, that they ?insist on? Plaintiffs? counsel?s ?compliance with the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Professional Responsibility.? Id. at 5. Legislative Defendants? counsel continued: ?Should you persist in neglecting your professional responsibilities, our clients are considering all options available to them to enforce their rights.? Id. Immediately thereafter, Legislative Defendants demanded ?compliance with the steps outlined above by June 5, 2019,? including that Plaintiffs ?return? all of the Hofeller ?les to a ?Trustee? and ?destroy[] . . . all copies of the materials.? Id. Plaintiffs responded to this letter on June 5, 2019. In their response, Plaintiffs explained that the Consent Protective Order does not authorize Legislative Defendants to designate any of the Hofeller ?les as Highly Con?dential, let alone all of them. Ex. at 2. As Plaintiffs explained, the Consent Protective Order unambiguously provides that only ?the Party producing the material? may designate the material as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential under the Consent Protective Order. Id. (quoting Consent Protective Order 1] 1) (emphasis added); see also Consent Protective Order 111] 2-3 (only ?the Producing party may designate? materials as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential). Legislative Defendants are not ?the Producing party? of the Hofeller ?les. With respect to Legislative Defendants? unsubstantiated allegations that Plaintiffs? counsel ?apparently? have reviewed privileged materials in the Hofeller ?les, Plaintiffs? counsel made clear that they have no intention of reviewing any of the ?ve Speci?c documents that Legislative Defendants identi?ed in their letter, nor have they reviewed?or have any intention of reviewing?any other draft expert report or draft declaration prepared in connection with litigation. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs further noted, however, that Legislative Defendants have waived any privilege they may have held over any information in the Hofeller ?les. Id. at 4-13. Under well?settled case law, Legislative Defendants waived any privilege when they did not move to quash Plaintiffs subpoena to Ms. Hofeller or otherwise raise any objection to the subpoena. Id. at 4?5 (citing cases). Legislative Defendants independently waived privilege when they acquiesced to?and indeed demanded?Plaintiffs? production of complete copies of all of the Hofeller ?les to State Defendants and Intervenor Defendants, without any ?ltering or privilege- related protections in place. Id. at 5-6 (citing cases). Plaintiffs also explained in their response that any purported claim of work-product privilege with respect to Dr. Hofeller?s work in Covington or on the 2017 Plans challenged in this case is overcome by Plaintiffs? substantial need for the information and the prejudice to Plaintiffs and the public interest from concealing it. Id. at 6?13. Speci?cally, Legislative Defendants cannot possibly maintain any work-product privilege claim over such materials because the Hofeller ?les reveal false statements and material omissions made by Legislative Defendants to the federal district court in Covington and to the public, in at least three respects: 0 In July 2017, Legislative Defendants convinced the federal district court in Covington not to order special elections under new remedial maps in 2017, based on Legislative Defendants? repeated statements that they had not yet started drawing new districts at all and needed suf?cient time to develop criteria, draft the plans, and receive public input. See id. at 7-10. The Hofeller ?les reveal that not only had work on the remedial plans begun well before July 2017, but that the new state House and state Senate plans were already substantially complete by the end of June 2017September 7, 2017 submission to the Covington court, Legislative Defendants purported to describe the ?process? and ?criteria? used to the draw the 2017 Plans. They stated that the process for drawing new plans began at the end of June 201 7 and that the criteria used were the ones adopted on August 10, 20] 7. Id. at 11. The Hofeller ?les reveal that Dr. Hofeller had in fact already substantially completed drawing the 2017 Plans in June 2017, before Legislative Defendants stated the process had even begun and a month-and-a-half before the adopted criteria were even introduced and adopted. See id. at 11-12. 0 Legislative Defendants repeatedly stated to the Covington court and at public hearings that neither they nor Dr. Hofeller had any racial data on the new districts being developed. Id. at 12. They said that ?data regarding the race of voters . . . was not even loaded into the computer used by the map drawer to construct the districts.? Id. (quoting Covington, ECF No. 192 at 28) (emphasis added). The Hofeller ?les reveal that Dr. Hofeller had data on the racial composition of the proposed districts in every one of his draft maps, including dra?s prepared after he was formally retained by Legislative Defendants. Id. at 12?13. Plaintiffs explained in their June 5 response letter that the evidence and full details of these false statements will be made clear at trial, and that the false statements not only overcome any work- product privilege claim, but also raise troubling questions regarding Legislative Defendants? recent efforts to use improper means to conceal the Hofeller ?les in their entirety. Id. at 13. Finally, Plaintiffs? June 5 letter rebutted Legislative Defendants? allegations and mischaracterizations regarding the circumstances under which Ms. Hofeller obtained and produced the Hofeller ?les, and Plaintiffs refused to accede to Legislative Defendants? speci?c demands that Plaintiffs return and destroy material evidence to this case. Id. at 13-18. ARGUMENT I. This Court Should Direct Legislative Defendants Not To Pursue Further the Return and/or Destruction of the Hofeller Files Plaintiffs request that this Court direct Legislative Defendants to cease pursuing the return and/or destruction of the Hofeller ?les. Legislative Defendants have demanded that Plaintiffs ?return? all of the Hofeller ?les to a ?Trustee? of an Irrevocable Trust, and Legislative Defendants have further demanded that Plaintiffs ?destroy? all remaining ?copies of the . materials.? Ex. at 4-5. Such demands are improper and should stop. Plaintiffs obtained the Hofeller ?les through the lawful process of this Court?a subpoena issued by Plaintiffs to Ms. Hofeller, through her attorney, with notice to all Defendants on the same day the subpoena was served. Ms. Hofeller produced the Hofeller ?les to Plaintiffs in response to their subpoena after no party or non-party moved to quash or otherwise raised any objection to the subpoena?none at all. The Hofeller ?les contain evidence that is highly relevant to the merits of this lawsuit, and Legislative Defendants? extrajudicial efforts to interfere with Plaintiffs? use of such lawfully obtained evidence?and indeed to have Plaintiffs ?return? and/or ?destroy? such evidence?are troubling. Legislative Defendants? actions are even more concerning given that the evidence in question appears to reveal false statements they made to a federal court and the public.1 If Legislative Defendants believe there are grounds for preventing or limiting introduction of evidence in the Hofeller ?les at trial, they should ?le a motion in limine or an objection when the evidence is introduced. They should not be making out-of-court demands that Plaintiffs? counsel destroy evidence that was obtained through a lawful subpoena and is highly materials to the merits of Plaintiffs? case. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court direct Legislative Defendants to cease in such efforts. To the extent Legislative Defendants? demands are accompanied by threats directed to Plaintiffs? counsel regarding their purported ?neglect[]? of their ?professional responsibilities,? they are all the more improper. Ex. at 5. A party may not seek to gain leverage or an advantage in civil litigation by ?sending threatening letters to opposing counsel? alleging purported disciplinary violations. Johnson v. EEOC Charlotte Dist. O?'ice, 2016 WL 3514456, at *5 n2 (W .D.N.C. June 27, 2016); see also Nieman v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3779090, at *5 (CD. Ill. Aug. 31, 2012) (admonishing party for ?litigation tactics which are harassing and intimidating,? including threatening opposing counsel with allegations of ethical violations). Here, Legislative Defendants do not specify a single implicated Rule of Professional of Responsibility or even attempt to identify what ?professional responsibilities? Plaintiffs? counsel are purportedly ?neglecting.? Ex. at 5. Indeed, Plainti??s? counsel have acted cautiously, ethically, and above-board at every turn, and will continue to do so at all times. II. This Court Should Direct Legislative Defendants Not to Attempt to Designate Documents in the Hofeller Files as Con?dential or Highly Confidential Under the Consent Protective Order This Court should further direct Legislative Defendants not to attempt again to unilaterally designate materials produced by Ms. Hofeller or other third parties as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential under the Consent Protective Order. Legislative Defendants? purported designation of ?the entirety? of the Hofeller ?les as Highly Con?dential in their May 31 letter is plainly not authorized. under the Consent Protective Order, and seems to have been done for improper purposes. The Consent Protective Order is unambiguous that only ?the Party producing the material? in discovery may designate those materials as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential. Paragraph 1 of the Order states: ?To fall within the scope of this Agreement, any such Con?dential material shall be designated as or EYES by the Party producing the material.? 4/5/19 Consent Protective Order 1 (emphasis added). Paragraphs 2 and 3 con?rm that only ?[t]he producing Party may designate? materials as or Id. 111] 2, 3 (emphasis added). Speci?cally, ?[t]he producing Party may designate as any materials that it produces in the litigation? subject to meeting certain con?dentiality criteria, id. 1] 3, and ?[t]he producing Party may designate as OUTSIDE EYES any non-public personal information, or any CONFIDENTIAL material that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes? meets certain additional criteria. Id. 11 3 (emphases added); see id. 1] 13 (stating that the Order applies equally to ?information produced by a 10 Legislative Defendants clearly are not ?the producing Party? of the Hofeller ?les, but rather are a ?receiving party? of those ?les. Legislative Defendants have no authority to unilaterally designate any of the Hofeller ?les as Highly Con?dential under the Consent Protective Order, let alone all of them. Legislative Defendants could not reasonably and in good faith have read the Consent Protective Order to provide otherwise. The sudden and pretextual nature of Legislative Defendants? attempted designation of material produced by a third party in discovery con?rms as much. Legislative Defendants purported to designate each and every one of the over 75,000 documents in the Hofeller ?les as ?Highly Con?dential? because, supposedly, they have identi?ed some unspeci?ed and unknown number of ?les that contain ?con?dential ?nancial information.? Ex. at 1. Plaintiffs can represent to this Court, and Legislative Defendants cannot dispute, that the vast majority of documents in the Hofeller ?les have no ?nancial information whatsoever. Legislative Defendants? invocation of some small, unidenti?ed number of ?les purportedly containing unspeci?ed ?nancial information as a basis to designate over 75,000 other ?les as Highly Con?dential is a baseless and legally inoperative abuse of the Consent Protective Order.2 The true impetus for Legislative Defendants? attempted designation of the Hofeller ?les is laid bare by the timing of their actions. Legislative Defendants purported to designate ?the entirety? of the ?les as Highly Con?dential just one day after several of the ?les?which exposed misconduct by federal government of?cials?were submitted to a federal district court and the United States Supreme Court in a case of national public importance. At a June 5 2 Plaintiffs offered in their June 5 response that, if Legislative Defendants are genuinely concerned about the privacy of ?les containing ?con?dential ?nancial information,? they should identify each such ?le, and Plaintiffs would consider jointly asking the Court to designate such ?les as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential, as appropriate, consistent with Plaintiffs? cautious approach to the highly sensitive personal information of the Hofeller family since they ?rst received the Hofeller ?les. See Pls.? Mot. for Clari?cation Pursuant to Rule 45, ?led 4/4/ 19. ll hearing concerning the misconduct by public of?cials exposed by these several Hofeller ?les, the US. District Judge called the matter serious ?serious? and set a schedule for full brie?ng on potential sanctions. Needless to say, concealing alleged misconduct by public of?cials is not a proper basis to designate materials as Highly Confidential/Outside Attorneys? Eyes Only under this or any other protective order. Contrary to Legislative Defendants? suggestions in their May 31 letter, moreover, there was nothing improper about Plaintiffs? counsel sharing relevant, non-con?dential materials obtained in discovery with litigants in another lawsuit. To the contrary, courts ?have overwhehningly and decisively endorsed the sharing of discovery information among different plaintiffs, in different cases, in different courts.? Burlington City Bd. of Educ. v. US. Mineral Prod. Co., 115 F.R.D. 188, 190 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (emphasis added); accord United States v. Comstock, 2012 WL 1119949, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2012) (?The general rule . . . is that information produced in discovery in a civil case may be used in other cases?); In re Accent Delight Int '1 Ltd, 869 F.3d 121, 135 (2d Cir. 2017) (nothing ?prevent[s] [a litigant] who law?illy has obtained discovery . . . from using the discovery elsewhere?); Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. House Grp., Inc., 121 F.R.D. 264, 268-69 (M.D.N.C. 1988) party needs to present good cause for prohibiting the dissemination of non-con?dential discovery information or from prohibiting the utilization of such discovery in other litigation?); FTC v. Digital Interactive Assocs., Inc., 1996 WL 912156, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 18, 1996) of information to litigants in other forums is often encouraged for purposes of judicial economy?); United States v. Hooker Chemicals Plastics Corp., 90 F.R.D. 421, 426 (W.D.N.Y. 1981) (similar); Patterson v. Ford Motor Co., 85 F.R.D. 152, 153-54 (W .D. Tex. 1980) (similar). 12 Again, if Legislative Defendants seek to restrict use of the Hofeller ?les, they must seek relief from this Court. While Plaintiffs would strenuously oppose any such request, nothing prevents Legislative Defendants from seeking an order of some sort from this Comt. Legislative Defendants have had months to seek such an order with respect to these materials, but neither they nor anyone else has made any attempt to do so. What Legislative Defendants cannot do is purport to unilaterally take out-of-court actions that are contrary to the Consent Protective Order entered by this Court. Plaintiffs recognize that the relief sought in this motion is not common, but believe that the circumstances warrant it. Legislative Defendants? actions are not only improper, but have diverted Plaintiffs? time and resources away from the steep demands of preparing for the upcoming trial. Indeed, Plaintiffs? expert rebuttal reports are due at the end of this week, and Plaintiffs? counsel have been forced to spend signi?cant time responding to Legislative Defendants? demands and improper attempted con?dentiality designation. Legislative Defendants? conduct should be brought to a stop. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respect?ally request that the Court enter an order directing that (1) Legislative Defendants shall not further pursue the return or destruction of material pr0perly produced in response to lawful court process in discovery in this case; and (2) Legislative Defendants shall not attempt to designate material produced in discovery by other parties or third parties as Con?dential or Highly Con?dential under the Consent Protective Order. 13 Respectfully submitted this the 6th day of June, 2019 POYNER SP LL LLP By: Edwin M. Speas, Jr. NC. State Bar No. 4112 Caroline P. Mackie NC. State Bar No. 41512 PO. Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 (919) 783?6400 espeas@poynerspruill.com Counsel for Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and the Individual Plaintijj?fs? *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 14 ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP R. Stanton Jones* David P. Gersch* Elisabeth S. Theodore* Daniel F. Jacobson* 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 (202) 954-5000 stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com PERKINS COIE LLP Marc E. Elias* Aria C. Branch* 700 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20005?3960 (202) 654-6200 melias@perkinscoie.com Abha Khanna* 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-8000 akhanna@perkinscoie.com Counsel for Common Cause and the Individual Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing by email, addressed to the following persons at the following addresses which are the last addresses known to me: Amar Majmundar Stephanie A. Brennan Paul M. Cox NC Department of Justice PO. Box 629 1 14 W. Edenton St. Raleigh, NC 27602 amaj mundar@ncdoj .gov sbrennan@ncdoj.gov pcox@ncdoj . gov Counsel for the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement and its members John E. Branch 111 Andrew D. Brown Nathaniel Pencook H. Denton Worrell Shanahan Law Group, PLLC 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 jbranch@shanahanlawgroup.com abrown@shanahanlawgroup.com dworrell@shanahanlawgroup.com npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com Counsel for the Defendant-lnfervenors This the 6th day of June, 2019. Thomas A. Farr Phillip J. Strach Michael McKnight Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak Stewart, RC. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Thomas.farr@ogletree.com Phillip.strach@ogletree.com Michael.mcknight@ogletree.com Alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com Counsel for the Legislative Defendants E. Mark Braden Richard B. Raile Trevor M. Stanley Elizabeth Scully Katherine McKnight Baker Hostetler, LLP Washington Square, Suite 1 100 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW. Washington, DC 20036-5403 rraile@bakerlaw.com mbraden@bakerlaw.com tstanley@baker1aw.c0m escully@bakerlaw.com Counsel for the Legislative Defendants Wk Edwin Ml. Speas, Jr. EXHIBIT A STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 1 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 2 COUNTY OF WAKE 3 18 CVS 014001 COMMON CAUSE, ET AL., 4 ) ) Plaintiffs, 5 ) ) vs. 6 ) ) DAVID LEWIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN ) OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ) ON REDISTRICTING, ET AL., ) 7 8 9 ) Defendants. ) 10 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 12 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 13 ________________________________________________ 14 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued) Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors: Shanahan Law Group BY: John E. Branch, III 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 (919) 856-9494 jbranch@shanahanlawgroup.com Counsel for the Deponent: Fiduciary Litigation Group BY: Tom Sparks 223 South West Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 (919) 229-0845 tom@fidlitlawgroup.com Also Present: Trae Howerton, Videographer 15 9:38 A.M. 16 FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 ________________________________________________ 17 POYNER SPRUILL 18 301 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 1900 19 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Reported By: Discovery Court Reporters and Legal Videographers BY: Lisa A. Wheeler, RPR, CRR 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1000 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (919) 649-9998 --oOo-- 20 21 22 BY: 23 LISA A. WHEELER, RPR, CRR 24 25 1 1 2 3 4 5 APPEARANCES Counsel for the Plaintiffs: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer BY: R. Stanton Jones 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001-3743 (202) 942-5000 stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com 3 2 3 4 6 -and- 5 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 Poyner Spruill BY: Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 783-6400 espeas@poynerspruill.com Counsel for the Defendants State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement and its members: 7 8 9 10 11 12 North Carolina Department of Justice Special Litigation BY: Paul M. Cox 114 West Edenton Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 (919) 716-6900 pcox@ncdoj.gov 13 14 15 16 16 Counsel for the Legislative Defendants: 17 18 19 20 BakerHostetler BY: Elizabeth A. Scully Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5403 (202) 861-1500 escully@bakerlaw.com 17 18 19 20 21 -and- 21 22 23 24 25 PAGE EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES 6 EXAMINATION BY MS. SCULLY 44 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRANCH 195 6 12 13 INDEX 1 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart BY: Thomas A. Farr 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 (919) 787-9700 thomas.farr@ogletree.com 22 23 24 25 EXHIBITS HOFELLER NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE EXHIBIT 1 Subpoena, Stephanie Hofeller Lizon EXHIBIT 2 Color Photocopied Photographs EXHIBIT 3 Subpoena, Kathleen H. Hofeller EXHIBIT 4 Subpoena, The Estate of Thomas Hofeller EXHIBIT 5 Certificate of Service (Incompetent Proceeding), with Attachments 9 14 167 167 174 EXHIBIT 6 Petition for Adjudication of 174 Incompetence and Application for Appointment of Guardian or Limited Guardian EXHIBIT 7 Interim Report of the Guardian 180 Ad Litem EXHIBIT 8 Order on Motion for Appointment of Interim Guardian 184 EXHIBIT 9 Report of the Guardian Ad Litem EXHIBIT 10 Motion to Dismiss 2 188 192 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 May 17, 2019 PROCEEDINGS 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record 2 3 at 9:38 a.m. Today's date is May the 17th, 3 4 2019. This begins the video deposition of 4 5 Stephanie Hofeller taken in the matter of 5 6 Common Cause, et al., versus David Lewis, in 6 7 his Official Capacity As Senior Chairman of 7 8 the House Select Committee on Redistrict -- 8 9 Redistricting, et al. This is filed in the 9 10 General Court of Justice, Superior Court 10 11 Division, in Wake County, North Carolina, 11 12 Case Number 18 CVS 014001. 12 13 If counsel will please identify 13 14 yourselves for the record and whom you 14 15 represent and then our court reporter will 15 16 swear in our witness. 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. JONES: Stanton Jones from Arnold & 17 Porter for the plaintiffs. 18 MR. SPEAS: Eddie Speas with Poyner 19 Spruill for the plaintiffs. 20 MR. COX: Paul Cox with the North 21 22 Carolina Attorney General's Office for the 22 23 State Board of Elections. 23 24 25 MR. BRANCH: John Branch with Shanahan Law Group for the intervenor defendants. 24 25 married name of Stephanie Hofeller Lizon? A. It was actually Stephanie Louise Lizon. Q. Okay. And now you -- you've dropped the Lizon; you just go by Stephanie Hofeller? A. That's right. Q. And that's your maiden name? A. Correct. Q. Excellent. Okay. I'll go over some brief ground rules for the deposition today if that's okay. A. Yes. Q. So you understand that you've taken an oath to tell the truth today? A. I do. Q. Great. And the court reporter is taking down everything that we say so let's try not to talk over one another. If you let me finish my question, I will let you finish your answer. Does that make sense? A. Acknowledged, yes. Q. Your -- your counsel may object to some of my questions today and -- and that's fine. Un- -- you understand that unless he instructs you not to answer a question, you should let him state his objection for the 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FARR: Tom Farr with Ogletree Deakins for the def- -- legislative defendants. MS. SCULLY: Elizabeth Scully with BakerHostetler for the legislative defendants. MR. SPARKS: Tom Sparks representing the deponent, Stephanie Hofeller. **** STEPHANIE HOFELLER, having been first sworn or affirmed by the court reporter and Notary Public to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES: Q. Good morning, Ms. Hofeller. A. Hello. Q. I'm Stanton Jones from Arnold & Porter and I represent the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Would you please state your full name for the record. A. Stephanie Louise Hofeller. Q. Excellent. And am I right that you previously went by what I believe is a 7 1 record and then you'll go ahead and answer? 2 A. Yes, I understand that. 3 Q. Great. Is there any reason that you couldn't 4 5 give complete, accurate, and truthful testimony today? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And if you want a break, just let me know. 8 We'll finish the question and answer that 9 we're doing and -- and happy to take a break 10 whenever you'd like, okay? 11 A. All right. Thanks. 12 Q. What state do you live in? 13 A. Kentucky. 14 Q. Great. So you don't live in North Carolina? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Okay. And where you live in Kentucky, how 17 far is it from where we are in Raleigh? 18 A. It's about a ten- or 11-hour drive. 19 Q. Okay. Do you know, roughly how many miles is 20 it? 21 A. Roughly 650, something like that, I think. 22 Q. Okay. And can you tell me, who -- who are 23 24 25 your parents? A. My father is Thomas Brooks Hofeller and my mother is Kathleen Hartsough Hofeller. 6 8 2 (Pages 5 to 8) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. Great. So I have some questions about the subpoena that you received in this case. Is that okay? A. Yes. Q. Great. So earlier this year you received a subpoena from the plaintiffs in this case; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. MR. JONES: Mark this. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 1 was marked for identification.) BY MR. JONES: Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 1. Do you recognize this document as the subpoena that you received from the plaintiffs in this case? A. Yes. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And do you see on the first page under name and address of person subpoenaed on the left side toward the top it says, Stephanie Hofeller Lizon? That -- that's you, correct? A. That is me. Q. Okay. Great. And it says, care of Tom Sparks, Esquire. That's -- that's your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 February, did you review this -- this list of documents and things that were -- were asked to be produced? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did -- did you understand that the subpoena was requesting any electronic storage devices that had any of your father's work drawing maps for the North Carolina legislature? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you have any materials that were responsive to these requests in the subpoena? A. I did. Q. Okay. And -- and were -- am I right that those were electronic storage devices? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. External hard drives and ad -- I don't know what the proper -- or what people prefer to call them, ad-stick, thumb drive, external storage devices to be used as backup principally. Q. Okay. So -- so the materials that you had that were responsive to the requests in the subpoena were -- were external hard drives 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorney, correct? A. That's my attorney. Q. Great. Okay. And if you look down in the handwritten portion where there's a date and a signature, do you see it's dated February 13th, 2019? A. I do. Q. Okay. And is -- does -- is that around the time that you recall receiving this subpoena? A. Yes. Q. When you received the subpoena, did you take a look at it? A. Yeah. Q. Great. A. I got it in a electronic format initially from my attorney because I wasn't actually in the state at that moment, but I was shortly after that. Q. Great. And if you flip a couple of pages ahead to what's -- what's marked as Page 2 at the bottom of the page, do you see where it says, list of documents and things to be produced pursuant to this subpoena? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And when you received this subpoena in 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and external what we'll call thumb drives? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Great. A. Nothing that -- that appeared to have been pulled out from an already assembled computer. These were all, you know, backup devices. Q. Okay. These were all external devices that you would need to plug into a computer some way -A. Correct. Q. -- to look at them? Okay. Am I right that these storage devices had previously belonged to your father? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And mother. Q. And -- and you understood that the storage devices contained your father's work on North Carolina legislative maps? MS. SCULLY: Objection to form, leading. You can answer. A. It was -- at what point you -- I would have to -- to ask you to clarify at what point it -- it was or wasn't clear. I knew -- when 10 12 3 (Pages 9 to 12) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 I first saw them I knew that they were all belonging to my father and mother. I wasn't really sure which of them, if any, would have anything involving his work in North Carolina or elsewhere. Q. Got it. Let -- let's focus on the time when you received the subpoena and you -A. Oh, at that point, yes, I did know that it contained -- that all of those devices had at least -- at least one or two -- at least one or two files that would -- that were labeled in a -- in a way that it was obvious that they pertained to my father's work redistricting in North Carolina. Q. And did you send the storage devices -- those storage devices that we've been discussing to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Do you recall roughly when you sent them? A. I remember it was about a month after I received the subpoena. Originally, I -- my intention was to -- to bring them physically to Raleigh, but I got delayed and it was then 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 containing the storage devices in -A. Yes. Q. -- response to the subpoena? A. Yes, that does appear to be the box that I sent them in, exactly. Q. Great. And -- and on the first page, if you look at that top picture, it's addressed to R. Stanton Jones at Arnold & Porter, LLP, at an address in Washington, D.C. Is that the address where you sent the package? A. Yes. Q. Great. And if you flap -- flip to the second page, do you recognize those as additional photographs of the outside of the package that you sent with the storage devices in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. Q. If you flip to the third page, if you'll focus on the bottom image, do you recognize that as a photograph of the -- the interior of the box that you sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers with the storage devices in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. Q. Okay. If you flip to Page 4, do you 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decided that it would be best for preserving the integrity of -- of the evidence that it would be going straight to a third party. Q. Great. And I'll represent to you that I received the materials you sent on March 13th. Does that sound about right in terms of -A. That does. Q. -- the time? A. That does, actually. Where -- where I was in Kentucky, I couldn't even find a FedEx office. I had to go -- I had to go down the highway. I was surprised. MR. JONES: Can we mark this? (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 2 was marked for identification.) BY MR. JONES: Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 2. On the -- you can take a moment to -- to flip through. That's fine. Go ahead. A. That's... Q. So my first question is, if you look at the very first page, do you -- do you recognize the -- the photograph -- the photographs there as images of the package that you sent 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recognize the image there as being one of the thumb drives that you put in the -- in the package and sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you remember offhand how many external hard drives there were and how many thumb drives there were? A. I know there were four external hard drives. I honestly don't remember exactly how many -you know, there were -- I -- I -- there were a couple of empty thumb drives in my -- in my, you know, possession so I -- I was making sure that I wasn't, you know, sending anything wrong. These were all the ones that -- that I got from my father, but I don't remember exactly -- from his room, but I don't remember exactly how many there were. Like eight or nine, maybe, was it, or seven? Q. So if I -- I'll represent to you that inside the package that we received that we're looking at photographs of there were -- there were four external hard drives, as you said, and also 18 thumb drives. A. 18, yeah. Okay. 14 16 4 (Pages 13 to 16) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. A. Q. A. Does that seem right? Yeah. Great. Yeah. MR. FARR: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt and I'm new to the game, but what were the stipulations about objections in this case? Are all objections reserved except for privilege and form of the question? MR. SPEAS: Yeah. That's the way we've been operating so far. MR. FARR: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. JONES: Q. I'm not going to go through every single photograph here. There's about 50 pages of photographs. But would you just take a moment and flip through them and if you could just tell me, do you recognize these as photographs of the storage devices, both the external hard drives and the thumb drives, that you sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? Do you recognize them that way? A. So far, yes. It's a rainbow of colors. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. No. Okay. No. Did you -- did you delete any files that were on any of the storage devices? A. No. I was careful not to add or take anything away. Q. Did you modify any of the files in any way? A. No. Q. Okay. You didn't make any changes at all to any of the files -A. None. Q. -- on the storage devices? You have to -A. I'm sorry. Q. Yeah. You -- you -- I'll just start over again so we have a clean record. A. Yes. Q. So you -- you did not make any changes to any of the files or data on these storage devices before sending them to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? A. That's correct. I did not. Q. Okay. You can put that to the side. So now I have some -- some pretty basic questions about where you got the devices from. Is 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remember that, too. Yes, those look -- all of them I -- I remember. Q. Great. So having flipped through all of the photographs here, you recognize all of these images -A. Yes. Q. -- as being -A. I -- I don't see anything that I didn't have my hands on and put in that package. Q. Okay. Excellent. Would you flip to Page 23. Do you see the image there of a storage device with the label, NC Data? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you recall that as one of the images that you sent? A. I do. Q. Or, sorry, as one of the -A. One of the -Q. -- storage devices? A. -- storage devices, yes. Q. Okay. Before sending all of these storage devices to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena you received, did you alter any of the -- the contents of the storage devices? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that okay? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Great. So, first, can you please tell me just the month and the year when you got these devices. A. October 2018. Q. Okay. And next could you please tell me just where specifically did you get the devices from, just the physical location for starters? A. The apartment where my recently deceased father lived with my mother at Springmoor. Q. Okay. And what is Springmoor? A. Springmoor is a retirement community. Q. Okay. And your father and mother had been living in this apartment in Springmoor before his -- his death; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And at the time you got these files from the Springmoor apartment in October 2018, was your mother living there at the time? A. Yes, she was. Q. Okay. Before getting the devices from the apartment in Springmoor, did you ask your 18 20 5 (Pages 17 to 20) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 mother if it was okay to take them? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did you ask her that in October 2018? A. Yes, that -- that same day. Q. Okay. Did your mother object to you taking the devices? A. No, she didn't. Q. Okay. Did -- did -- did she say it was okay to take the devices? A. Yes. She encouraged me to. Q. Okay. So now I'm -- I'm going to back and -and ask a few more questions just to fill in some additional details about when and where you got the devices, okay? A. Yes. Q. Okay. When did you first learn that your father had died? A. September 30th, 2018. Q. Okay. And when you -- when you learned of his death -- and -- and I'll say for the record, I'm -- I'm sorry for your -- for the loss. When you learned of your father's death, did you contact your mother? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 flag that draped his coffin and a picture of my grandparents and inside the box was everything exactly as I had left it. So I took that to mean that I was supposed to look for other things and so I started -- I -- I thought there was a chance that there might have been something specifically for me as in a note or a message of some sort that I would find. Q. Okay. And -- and was that when you found the storage devices that we've been discussing? A. It was in that same incident, yes, that -that same evening. Q. Okay. And where in the apartment were the storage devices? A. They were on a shelf in my father's room. Q. Okay. Were they just sitting out open on the shelf? A. Yes, they were. There was a bag -- a clear plastic bag with the thumb drives and ad-sticks and then there was just a stack of -- it wasn't the only thing on the shelf. He had also some of those pullout boxes that kind of are like drawers that had some of his papers in there, and the -- the hard drives 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Did -- did you go to visit her then? Yes. Okay. And -- and did you go to visit her in Raleigh at the Springmoor apartment in October 2018? A. Yes, I did. Q. And at that time when you were there at the Springmoor apartment in Raleigh in October 2018 visiting your mother, did -- did you go -- did you and your mother go through some of your father's things? A. There wasn't much to go through. Most of what there even was in there was what was left out, really. There were a couple of desk drawers. I -- there were a couple of keepsakes of mine that I was looking for, but one of the main reasons that I was looking was because when I walked in the door to his room, immediately I saw a keepsake of mine from my childhood, a -- a jewelry box that I had and that I had left in -- in my parents' care. And inside of it -- it was displayed prominently right under the flag that he was buried with and -- well, not with but the 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just were there in the corner of -- it was a -- one of those kind of box-style book shelves. It wasn't just a straight shelf. Some of them had those removable drawers in them and others were just open. Q. Okay. But all of the four external hard drives and the 18 thumb drives that you sent to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena were on this bookshelf in your father's room in the apartment at Springmoor? A. That's right. Q. Okay. And -- and they weren't in any sort of safe or lockbox; they were -- they were just out? A. That's right. Q. Okay. Had you seen any of these storage devices before? A. Inasmuch as I could say later having looked at them and when they were done, then I was able to confirm that, yes, there were a couple of those that I recognized from when I was either staying with on short trips or living with my parents in their house in Alexandria, Virginia. Q. Okay. And -- and could you just tell me 22 24 6 (Pages 21 to 24) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 briefly how -- how did you recognize -- what was the connection that you made to these storage devices? A. The -- one of them had that blue rubber lining around it that I recognized immediately, and I know that there could be more than one and I also know it's a removable cover, so -- but then it just -- it appeared to be really what I -- what I was looking for, really. Q. And after getting the storage devices, when did you ask your mother if it was okay to take them? A. When I noticed them, it was in a survey and I'd first come in and -- and I was a little overwhelmed with emotion when I first walked into my father's room. Excuse me. So, you know, I was sort of looking around. There was heirloom furniture all around the apartment and other -- other things that belonged to my extended family, my, you know, great-grandparents and such, so I -- I sort of took the whole thing in, had another sort of, you know, casual, brief conversation with my mother about how things had unfolded, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Dalton Lamar Oldham. That was my father's business partner, attorney. Together he and my father were Geographic Strategies. Q. Okay. And -- and you understood your mother to be telling you that Mr. Oldham had come to the apartment in Springmoor after your father's death and taken -- is -- was it a laptop and a desktop computer? A. Yes. And, again, it was a -- it wasn't clear exactly how much had -- he had taken as my father was dying that he had -- that my father had said to him, take this. I don't think my mother really remembers exactly what was there before and -- shortly before and then shortly after his -- his death. Q. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. So now I have some questions just about what you did after getting the devices, okay? A. Uh-huh. Q. Great. So after getting the devices from your parents' apartment in Springmoor, did you consistently hold on to them until you sent them to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it was later when I was back in there and I also said, this is -- I think he wanted me to have this jewelry box. And so I said, I'm going to take that. Is that okay? And she said, of course. And I said, I'm going to take these, too. I think that I'll find the pictures and some of the things that I'm looking for on -- on these. Can I take these? And she said, absolutely. She -- she said, I don't even know how to use them. Q. Okay. Do you know if anyone else other than you had been to your parents' apartment at Springmoor to -- to look through or -- or potentially take any of your father's things before you had gotten there? A. That was my understanding because before I took any of those things, I specifically asked my mother -- I said, he had a work laptop still, yes? She said, yes. And she said, and a work computer. And I said, okay, did Dale come and take that stuff? She said, yes, Dale took the laptop, Dale took the work computer, and Dale took everything that he wanted. Q. And -- and who is Dale? 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. You didn't give them to anyone else for any period of time in there? A. No. Q. Okay. A. I'm sorry I laugh. It's just I was so thrilled to have some of this precious data of mine that I would not let anyone else near them. Q. Great. And did -- did you stay in Raleigh then or did -- did you eventually go back to Kentucky? A. I stayed in Raleigh for a few days that time and then I went back to Kentucky. Q. Okay. And -- and did you take the storage devices with you when you went back to Kentucky? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And were you then able to look at any of the -- the actual contents of the devices? A. I looked at the content of some of them that first night in my hotel room in Raleigh. Q. Oh, okay. And did -- am I -- did you -- you connected them to a computer to be able to look at them? A. Yes. Yes. I had a -- I had -- I had a 26 28 7 (Pages 25 to 28) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 laptop with me that I use. I had found a -an appropriate cable in one -- one of my father's drawers I found a whole box of cables and one of them was the proper adapter for that -- for those external hard drives. Q. Okay. And -- and when you -- when you did connect some of the -- the storage devices to the computer to be able to look at the contents, did -- did you see any personal information in there like photographs or other personal information? A. Yes. I found specifically really what I was looking for, which were files of mine that I had -- essentially I backed them up onto my parents' computer when I was visiting them last and, actually, many times before that as I felt that it was a really good way to assure that they would be preserved because I knew that my father was not -- you know, I knew he had a tendency to -- to be, you know, careful about those things -- those kinds of things. And, yes, I found a great many photographs that I was looking for of my children and other documents that were related to my life, matters that concerned me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 storage devices to the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case in response to the subpoena, did you change or manipulate any of the files on the storage devices that related to your father's work? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. Am I right that at some point after getting the storage devices, you contacted someone at the organization Common Cause; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do -- do you remember the specific person who you first contacted at Common Cause? A. I first reached out to Bob Phillips, the director, and it was in hopes that he might be able -- he and Common Cause might be able to give me a referral to find an attorney for my mother. Q. Okay. And in the course of those discussions with Mr. Phillips, did you -- did you discuss these storage devices? A. Not in that conversation, no. Q. Okay. Did Mr. Phillips connect you to someone else at Common Cause? 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and my children, and it was -- it was -- I felt, well, I buried this treasure and that I was getting to dig it up. I was really very excited to see those pictures again, pictures -- also some pictures of my -- of my great-grandparents and things like that that I had hoped that I would find copies of as well. Q. Got it. So -- so some of these photographs and other personal materials were things that you yourself had stored on your parents' computer years earlier when your father was still alive; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And -- and you -- you saw some of those materials on these storage devices? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Other than personal files like photographs, letters, et cetera, did you see data or files on the storage devices re- -that related to your father's work creating maps? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And I think I asked this before, but I'll just ask it again. Before sending the 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Okay. And who was that? Jane Pinsky. Did you then have discussions with Ms. Pinsky? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And in the course of those discussions with Ms. Pinsky did you mention the storage devices that we've been discussing? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did -- did you offer to -- to provide the devices to Ms. Pinsky and Common Cause? A. You know, when I first brought it up it was really just kind of an anecdotal reference to a interview with David Daley that I had recently read. At the end of this interview his last statement, and it was really the -the gist of it was about the fact that the rejected districts had been sent for redraw back to my father and now he was deceased and the comment that David Daley made was, I wonder -- I -- I think that somewhere out there on a hard drive there's a gift for the state legislators. 30 32 8 (Pages 29 to 32) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. I see. And -- and am I right, Mr. Daley is a journalist, an author who covers redistricting issues? A. Yes. He -Q. Okay. A. He sort of brought it to a little bit more mainstream attention by, I don't know, making it a little more personal, personable maybe even. Q. Got it. And -- and the article that you had read by Mr. Daley was one that was discussing the -- the redraw of North Carolina's legislative districts? A. Specifically, yes. Yes. That was the first time -- I did not even know that -- I was aware of Mr. Daley's book about Operation Red Map, but I was not aware that he was actually from North Carolina and would have such a specific interest in this for that reason. Q. Got it. So -- so in these discussions with Ms. Pinsky, having read Mr. Daley's article, am I right that you -- you expressed to Ms. Pinsky that you wanted to provide the storage devices to her and to Common Cause? A. Well, I -- I sim- -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it -- because we were discussing whether there was new evidence or no new evidence, errors of law only. So she mentioned that the case of the state legislative districts would be accepting new evidence and I said, well, I think this might be pertinent. And I didn't know if it was -- I said -- even at that time I said that I was skeptical that there was anything here that was not already disclosed after all of those. I recall personally discovery and discovery and discovery and discovery and a lot of grumbling because everyone always grumbles about discovery in civil litigation. That's my experience. Q. So when you say that this is pertinent, you mean you believed that the storage devices that you had gotten from your parents' apartment in Springmoor had files or evidence that were pertinent or relevant to -- to this litigation? A. Well, in that they -- they were clearly about redistricting and they were clearly labeled, North Carolina. Q. Excellent. After speaking to Ms. Pinsky 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Pardon? MR. SPARKS: I just want you to let him finish. A. Oh, I'm sorry. Q. Yeah. Go ahead. A. I -- I -- I simply quipped that, I have -- I have some hard drives. And we continued the discussion about that. At that time I was not aware that there was -- that one of the matters was not an appeal. I -- I was under the impression that all of the matters pending were appeals, therefore, no new evidence. I -- when I first mentioned these things, it was really from a journalistic point of view and more anecdotal. I did not presume that they had any value as evidence -Q. I see. And -A. -- per se. Q. -- did Ms. Pinsky explain to you that there is, in fact, a lawsuit relating to North Carolina's legislative districts that -- that is not on appeal yet, that is still in the trial phase? A. She did explain. I think the way she put 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about the devices, did she put you in touch then with the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case? A. Yes. And I wanted to clarify. This -- the conversation about these hard drives did not come up in the first of my conversations with Ms. Pinsky. That was a development later on when we were discussing how I was very frustrated about what was -- what was going on and -- with -- with my mother and I commented -- that's -- that's -- that's right. I commented on the progress that Common Cause had made with their assertions about the relative fairness of partisan redistricting and also the underlying issues that -- that sometimes are disguised, in my opinion, as simply partisan. And I sort of made that comment. I said, this is -- this is the furthest I've ever seen a plaintiff get with anything that my father drew, and I will say I also said, and the way I knew my father a decade ago, he would have looked at those maps and -- and laughed. Q. So am I understanding correctly that when you originally contacted Bob Phillips at Common 34 36 9 (Pages 33 to 36) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Cause and then in your initial discussions with Jane Pinsky, you were not contacting them principally about these storage devices? A. No, I was not. Q. Okay. Okay. Did you say you were -- you were contacting them in hopes that Common Cause would be able to help refer you to a lawyer in connection with your -- with your mother's situation? A. Yes. MR. SPARKS: Objection. MS. SCULLY: Objection to form, mischaracterizes the witness's testimony. A. I -- I know enough about litigation and attorneys because I'm a Hofeller. I knew that bias would come into play whether or not it was admitted. My father was often concerned that he would be discriminated against for his political position and took care to know the allegiance of someone he chose to represent him. I was not familiar with this town. I did not know -- I knew that -- many of the parties that were involved in the litigation surrounding my mother. I knew they had significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Then in February of -- of 2019 did you receive the subpoena from plaintiffs and that's when you sent the storage devices? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you tell anyone that you object to the subpoena or that you object to providing a response to the subpoena? A. No. Q. Okay. Did you, in fact, have any objection or problem with the subpoena or with providing a response to the subpoena? A. No, I didn't. Q. Okay. Did anyone else tell you that they object to the subpoena? A. No. Q. Did anyone else tell you that they had any objection or problem with you providing a response to the subpoena? A. No. Q. Did you -- did you ever speak to your mother about the subpoena? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did you tell her that you were going to respond to the subpoena? 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allegiances here and I felt that the only party in Raleigh that would both believe me that politics was an element and would know who might be actually independent counsel for my mother -Q. Okay. And am I right that the -- the lawyer you were seeking for your mother was in connection with the incompetency proceeding? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Let's go -- go back. After you discussed the storage devices with Ms. Pinsky at Common Cause, am I right that Ms. Pinsky then connected you directly with the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And is that Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Great. And did you -- did you have conversations with them then? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And in the course of those conversations did you -- did you express that you wanted to provide the storage devices that you had gotten from the apartment in Springmoor to them? 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. And because there were files that belonged to her, I asked for her permission also. I said -- she said that she had no problem with that. She also felt, as I did, that the process would most likely be centered around provably pertinent files anyway, but that -- I -- I reassured her -- I assured her, I should say, that she should be aware that once you -- and, again, this is something my father taught me. Once you let go of it, you don't have control of it anymore so you can't be guaranteed what will and won't be disclosed, so it's something you should be prepared for when you are involved with discovery. Q. Okay. And in the course of that discussion with your mother, did you understand that your mother was giving you permission or her okay to -A. Yes. Q. -- to -- let me -- let me finish the question. A. I'm sorry. Q. That's okay. I'll just -- I'm just going to ask it again, okay? 38 40 10 (Pages 37 to 40) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 A. (Nods head). Q. So in the course of that discussion with your mother about the subpoena, did you understand that she was giving you her permission or her okay to provide the storage devices that we've discussed to the plaintiffs' lawyers in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I just have a -- a few other questions and I -- I did want to ask you just a couple of questions about your relationship with each of your parents. And I -- and I don't intend to pry, but -- but I'll just ask a couple of basic questions if that's okay. A. That is okay, yes. Q. Okay. Would -- would you say that you had a positive relationship with your father in recent years? A. Not in recent years, no. Q. Okay. When was the last time you spoke to your father before his death last year? A. July of 2014. Q. Okay. Would you say that you have a positive relationship, a functional relationship, with 1 viewpoint to me seemed irrelevant to the 2 function of census data turning into voting 3 districts, and I really thought of it in -- 4 in those terms. I really -- I knew that if I 5 presented them this way that they would be 6 preserved, that they -- their integrity would 7 be preserved and everything there, including 8 my files, including other matters completely 9 unrelated to this, that those -- that that 10 would be a snapshot in time. 11 Q. Was -- was there any financial benefit to you 12 personally from providing these files to the 13 plaintiffs' lawyers? Did you -- did you make 14 any profit here? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: Can we go off the record, take a five-minute break? THE WITNESS: Sounds great. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is 10:24 a.m. (Whereupon, there was a recess in the proceedings from 10:24 a.m. to 10:46 a.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 10:46 a.m. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your mother? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you know whether an official estate was opened for your father after his death? A. No. That has been a confused issue. Q. Okay. So when you say no, you -A. I -Q. -- the answer is, no, you don't know? A. Exactly. Q. Okay. That's fine. Did you send these storage devices to the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case to -- to get back at your father or to spite your father for personal reasons? A. Not at all. Q. Okay. Could you just tell me briefly in your words, why did you want to provide these devices to the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case? A. When I was expressing my skepticism that there would be anything in the way of evidence, I stated that I felt that these files would if -- certainly be of historical value, that they would give insight into the process, not any value judgment on that process. I did not have -- my political 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: Thank you. Ms. Hofeller, I have no more questions for you today. Thank you for your time. THE WITNESS: My pleasure. EXAMINATION BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, Elizabeth Scully. We met earlier this morning. I represent the legislative defendants in this case and I do have some follow-up questions that I would like to ask of you today. First, if I could turn your attention to the document that was marked as Exhibit 2 that you went through with counsel for the plaintiffs earlier. Looking at -- at the -at the first page where there's a photograph of a -- of a box and then appears to be handwriting for -- addressed to Arnold & Porter. Do you see that there? A. I see the handwriting behind the box. Q. Uh-huh. A. Yes. Q. Is that your handwriting? A. No. 42 44 11 (Pages 41 to 44) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. No. Do you know whose handwriting that is? A. No. Q. Did you personally prepare the box, label it, put the contents in the box and send it to Arnold & Porter? A. I put the contents in the box, I sealed the box, and at the FedEx office the label was printed out and put on it in front of me. Q. Okay. Did you send the materials directly to Arnold & Porter or to a vendor before you sent them to Arnold & Porter? A. I sent them directly to Arnold Porter. Q. Did you ever send the materials to a -- a vendor? A. No. Q. Turning to the -- it's marked Number 4 in Exhibit Number 2. A. Okay. Q. You have that in front of you? A. I do. Q. And it appears on Page Number 4 of Exhibit Number 2 is a picture of a thumb drive. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. And on that thumb drive there are some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did you review all of the drives that you sent to Arnold & Porter during the same day? A. Yes. Yes. Maybe perhaps I had to take a break overnight, but it was -- I -- I made sure that I was not including anything that was mine that wasn't, you know, related to this at all, that I hadn't mistakenly mixed anything in, that these were all just the files and things that had come from my father's apartment. So that -- that's about the extent of it. Q. So if I understand you, if you found materials on the -- in any of these thumb drives or drives that you thought were yours or your personal information, you removed that information before you sent it to Arnold & Porter? A. No. MR. JONES: Objection. That mischar- -THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. JONES: -- mischaracterizes the testimony. MS. SCULLY: I -- I believe -MR. FARR: He asked -- she asked the 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 drawing -- a handwritten drawing on that thumb drive. Do you recall what material was contained in this thumb drive? A. Are -- are you -- please clarify the -- the handwriting being the A as opposed to the label on the drive, which is etched into the metal, I believe. Q. Well, let me -- let me back up and ask you this: Do you know -- on this document on the fourth page there appears to be two photographs. Both appear to reflect a thumb drive. Do you know if these are two different thumb drives or one thumb drive? A. I believe that is the two opposite sides of the same thumb drive. Q. Do you know that for a fact or is that just -- you're making an assumption? A. I am making an assumption. Q. Do you know if you in -- if you ever reviewed the information that was on this thumb drive that appears on Page 4 of Exhibit Number 2 that you sent to Arnold & Porter? A. I know that I reviewed all of the drives that I sent to -- to Arnold Porter. I do not recall what was on which storage device. 47 1 2 3 4 question so she can answer it. MR. SPEAS: Tom, how many people are representing your side in this deposition? MR. FARR: Three. 5 BY MS. SCULLY: 6 Q. I believe you testified earlier that when you 7 looked through the materials you took from 8 your father's room that you did find 9 information on those electronic files that 10 were personal to you, correct? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. Did you produce that personal information 13 when you sent the electronic materials to 14 Arnold & Porter? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. A moment ago when you said you looked through 17 the electronic files before you produced them 18 to Arnold & Porter to make sure that nothing 19 that related only to you or that wasn't 20 relevant -- you wanted to make sure that 21 wasn't being produced, what did you mean by 22 23 that? A. That wasn't what I said. What I said is I 24 checked them to make sure that they were my 25 father's, that I hadn't mistakenly grabbed 46 48 12 (Pages 45 to 48) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 something from my own room, a storage device 1 2 that I would keep, use with my phone, with my 2 3 laptop, completely unrelated to this, never 3 4 having been touched by my father. That's 4 5 what I meant. 5 6 Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. How 6 7 many hours did it take you to go through and 7 8 review the entire contents of the materials 8 9 10 that you provided to Arnold & Porter? 9 A. And please -- I would like to clarify that I 10 11 did not open every file. I merely observed 11 12 that this was the media that I thought it was 12 13 when I arrived at my home. So it was, oh, 13 14 two, three hours, I think, making sure. Some 14 15 of them, you know, I -- they didn't light up 15 16 at first. I had to put them in the other USB 16 17 drive, reseat the connectors. Some -- some 17 18 of them took -- some of them were slower than 18 19 others to open, but I would say that I had 19 20 made sure that -- done that last check before 20 21 putting it in the mail that I knew what I was 21 22 sending and that it was all what I was 22 23 asserting it was, and I think that process 23 24 took, yeah, maybe about two or three hours. 24 25 Q. Do you know how many files you opened during 25 take them, it was -- maybe I mentioned that I was excited about the possibility that there would be pictures of my children, but she said, they're yours. Take them. I don't have any use for them. Q. And when you had that initial conversation with your mother, you had no discussions with her and expressed no interest in looking through to find any of your father's business records or materials he may have created in connection with his work as -- as an expert in other litigations, correct? A. Correct. As a matter of fact, I went to the point of making sure that I asked my mother that all of his specifically work-related material had already been collected. I didn't wish to assert myself in -- in -in -- into the business intentionally. Q. At some point you say when you were -- well, when you first took the -- the files, did you -- you didn't know what was on these files when you first took them, correct? A. Some of them I didn't. The backups that I recognized from my parents' home PC back in Alexandria -- I was at least vaguely familiar 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those two to three hours? A. During those two to three hours I didn't open any of the files. I merely looked in the basic root folders on each to confirm what it was and that it had belonged to my father really was the point. The files on all of these that were mine specifically as in photographs I took, letters I wrote, those I had looked at early on. My interest in these drives initially was only for those. I ignored everything else for a period of time. Q. When you took these files from your father's room and spoke to your mother about it, you -- in that conversation with your mother you told her you were taking the files because you wanted to look through the files to find personal things related to you, photographs that may be on the files, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And with that understanding your mother gave you permission to take the files, correct? A. I did not feel that my mother's permission for me to have these was conditional on anything. When she gave me permission to 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with what had been on my parents' home PC when I was there, so those were pretty much as I expected them. And then I -- my thought was that I would at least look at everything and see what it was. Q. Now, you said you went to your mother's home. It was sometime in October 2018. Do you know specifically when you were -- went to your mother's home and took these files? A. October 11th. Q. And how do you know it was October 11th? A. I have had to recount the details of my arrival at my mother's house several times over the past few months, so it's become pretty -- pretty normal. Q. Do you have any documents that reflect when you were in North Carolina? A. Documents. I don't think so, no. Q. Did you go to any restaurants, make any credit card charges, purchase gasoline near your mother's apartment, any type of document that would indicate the time period when you were visiting with your mother? A. I believe that receipts would reflect that I was in Raleigh during certain days. 50 52 13 (Pages 49 to 52) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. How long did you stay -- did you stay with your mother at that time? A. Not at that time. At that time I stayed in a hotel and I stayed for, I believe, around four days. I think -- I don't honestly recall off the top of my head if it was three nights or four nights. Q. Was the hotel located in Raleigh? A. Yes. Q. What was the name of the hotel where you stayed? A. I stayed one night in a hotel, the name of which I don't recall because I didn't like it. So then I moved to the La Quinta, I believe, yes -Q. And how -A. -- near Crabtree. Q. And how did you pay for your stay at the La Quinta? A. I paid -- I think the first night I paid cash and the next night I paid with my debit card. Q. And you get monthly statements of your debit card? A. I think I've gone paperless. Q. Do you receive e-mails of -- notification of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 father's business work with his partner, Dale Oldham? A. I noticed, as was standard on my father's home PC, there would -- there was usually at least a folder related to his work. I was accustomed to not really paying much attention to the specifics. I talked to him about things. I didn't need to poke. Q. And when you noticed that there were folders on this hard drive that you reviewed related to your father's work and knowing that Dale Oldham had taken efforts to try to reclaim business records, did you go back and tell your mom, you know, we still have information related to Dad's work? A. My father always had information related to his work on the personal hard drive. It wasn't noteworthy. Q. Does that mean you did not go back and tell your mom that there was information related to his work on the hard drive that you had? A. At some point when I discussed the fact that they might be of interest to the case, I -again, with my mother there are some things because she's my mother that don't need to be 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your debit card statement -A. Yes. Q. -- when it's available? A. Yes. Q. And your debit card is held with what bank? A. PNC. Q. After you took the materials from -- from your father's room, when did you first begin to look through the materials? A. That same evening. Q. When you stayed at the hotel that you don't recall the name of? A. Yes. Q. And how many -- well, did you review one device? How many devices did you review that night? A. That first night I stuck with the one because that's where I found hundreds of pictures of me with my infant children. Q. And was the one a thumb drive or was it a hard drive, if you remember? A. An external hard drive. Q. When looking through this one external hard drive on that first night, did you also find materials that appeared to be related to your 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 explicitly stated. She assumed that there would be at least some work-related material on the hard drive. I discussed with her the nature of this litigation and, again, such similar litigation was a regular fixture in my entire life living with my father. So the idea that there would be some litigation going on around things that he had drawn was just par for the course. So, yes, I don't know that I would have explicitly said, Mother, there are these kinds of files on this. It was more like, Common Cause may have an interest in these work files. And even I -- with her I even discussed my belief that this would not -- these all being backups, that this would not be any information that was not already known and had already been disclosed. There were files that were titled, Discovery, so I assumed that those had gone previously into discoveries that had already happened. Q. From your answer I'm still not clear whether you actually had a conversation with your mother about your father's business records that you discovered on the external hard 54 56 14 (Pages 53 to 56) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 drives. Did you have a specific conversation with your mother to tell her that you identified business records of your father's on these external hard drives that you had taken possession of? MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered. A. All of those points were at some point mentioned. My mother was aware of the fact that the interest -- the subpoena for these hard drives was, in fact, for work-related files only. So not only was it clear to her that there were work-related files, but it was clear to her that the lawyers that would be looking at it on either side would not be looking at anything other than my father's work-related files. Q. When did you first begin discussing with your mother the fact that Common Cause may have an interest in your father's work files? A. My -- wow. She and I were discussing the matter of this pressing issue of hers. Most of our discussions about Common Cause in those first two months were just about how 1 A. I'm aware. 2 Q. Do you know the time period in which that 3 occurred? 4 A. November. Early November. 5 Q. October/November your conversations with your 6 mom with respect to Common Cause are focused 7 on how they'd helped her identify an 8 attorney. Who was that attorney that they 9 10 11 12 13 helped her identify? A. I was referred to Allan From, who explained that he didn't handle specifically those matters and referred us to Douglas Noreen. Q. At what point in time did you discuss with 14 your mother the possibility of turning over 15 your father's business records to Common 16 17 18 Cause or to Arnold & Porter? A. The subpoena. That -- that would be when we specifically discussed that. 19 Q. Did you -- 20 A. I think I might have quipped about that David 21 Daley article way back in October when I was 22 looking at those hard drives recalling that 23 comment, somewhere out there on a hard drive. 24 Q. Did you -- 25 A. I made a joke about that. I wasn't really, 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nice it was that they had given us some referrals. Q. When you say your discussions in those first two months, you mean -- what -- what time period do you mean? A. That would have been October and November. Q. Of 2018? A. Correct. I'm sorry. Yes. Q. So October/November 2018 your discussions with your mother are focusing on the referral -- attorney referral you received for her and on the -A. And her case, really. Q. And her case? A. All of it as it may be related to the unfortunate politicizing of our family life. Q. And when you say her case, I believe you testified earlier that the case you're referring to was a petition to have your mother found incompetent, correct? A. Yes. Q. You are aware that there was an interim order entered and your mother had a guardian over her estate and over her person appointed, correct? 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know, saying, look at those hard drives. Well -Q. Did you have -A. Dale got all the good stuff. Sorry. Q. Did you have a conversation with your mother about the possibility of turning over your father's business records to Common Cause or Arnold & Porter before you received the subpoena? A. I think that I did -- the -- did -- she was also curious about the case and I had said that I was -- I think I shared with her on that moment when I -- when I realized -maybe around that same day when I realized that this wasn't strictly appeal, that -that there had been a new -- a new matter opened. And she never really was all that familiar with the details and, to be honest, I'm no expert on redistricting either. I really only felt that I was uniquely informed about my father as a person and perhaps his process, his -- his creative process, his -his political philosophy. Those kinds of things I felt that I was perhaps -- that I possessed some unique understanding of the 58 60 15 (Pages 57 to 60) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 man, but my mother was not -- my mother has a career of her own so her interest was really more incidental, just as much as anyone in -in -- in the public -- the general public might be interested in the political process. Q. You testified earlier that you understood your father had a business and a business partner, Dale Oldham, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you understood that your -- your father and Mr. Oldham in their business were retained and engaged as experts in litigations over the years, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You testified you're familiar with civil litigation earlier, correct? A. Yeah, and specifically with litigation on the matters of the concern of the people. Q. You understand that in connection with your father's work as an expert consultant that there are materials that he prepares as an expert that are privileged materials -MR. JONES: Ob- -BY MS. SCULLY: Q. -- materials that he prepares on behalf of 1 A. That is absolutely correct. 2 Q. You have no legal training, correct? 3 A. No formal training. 4 Q. You've never worked -- 5 A. Just on the street. I'm sorry. 6 Q. You've never been employed or worked in a law 7 firm, correct? 8 A. I believe that I've done temp work as a 9 receptionist for law firms but nothing -- 10 11 12 nothing noteworthy in that it would pad my CV. Q. You have never made any determinations or 13 been asked by anyone to make any 14 determinations about whether something is a 15 privileged document or not, correct? 16 17 18 A. No. That's correct. I mean, I have not been ever asked by anyone to do that, no. Q. Other than seeing a document marked as 19 privileged, you have -- you've testified you 20 don't know and haven't -- you don't have the 21 skills to determine whether a document is a 22 privileged document or not if it doesn't 23 reflect privileged on the document itself? 24 A. Well, you know, if it was civil litigation 25 concerning personal matters, then I think I 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the clients he's been retained to be an expert for, correct? MR. JONES: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion. The witness is not a lawyer. A. None of the materials were labeled privileged. Q. Do you have -- do you believe that you have the appropriate training or skills to determine whether the materials on your father's hard drives contained privileged information? A. All of the attorneys I've ever worked with if they were concerned about protecting privilege have pretty bold letters that said, the following contains privileged attorney-client communication and the proceeding contains privileged attorney-client communications. In that I can read when something says that it's privileged, I'm qualified. But, no, beyond that, I think if -- if -- if I just stumbled into a client's file, I would not be able to say which was and wasn't privileged, no. Q. You do not have a law degree, correct? 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would assume privilege, but considering that this is a public matter and it's -- this is a -- this is a -- my understanding of -- of political philosophy and the founding of this republic is that this is -- this concerns the people and, therefore, I would probably err in the direction of it not being privileged if it weren't marked so, if that clarifies. Q. Prior to making the production of the electronic files that you made to Arnold & Porter in response to the subpoena marked as Exhibit 1, did you engage in any sort of review to determine whether the files that you were turning over contained privileged information? MR. JONES: I'll -- I'll object. It's ambiguous, the term privilege. There are lots of privileges. A. Also, I really was -- it had already been kind of clarified that the best way to preserve the integrity of this -- of this data would be not to pick and choose. There were personal files of mine on these hard drives and I left everything exactly as it was. I did not make decisions about what did 62 64 16 (Pages 61 to 64) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 and didn't go specifically for the purpose of a historical documentation of the complete media as it was when I found it. Q. You testified that it was clarified to you that the best way to preserve this data was not to go through and make any selection or remove anything from it, just to turn all of the materials over to Arnold & Porter, correct? MR. JONES: Objection. I think that mischaracterizes the testimony. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. You can answer the question. A. Could you ask it again? Q. You testified that it was clarified to you that the best way for you to preserve the integrity of this data was to just turn over the data in its entirety to Arnold & Porter and not to go through and pick and choose or remove anything from the data, correct? MR. JONES: I'll -- I'll object. It's -A. These are theoretical -MR. SPARKS: Hold on. MR. JONES: Hold on. Hold on. Let 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: Okay. I'll object because it misclar- -- -characterizes the testimony. She has not testified that anyone clarified anything for her. A. Yeah. That's -Q. You may answer the question. A. That's -- I -- yes, I was going to say exactly that. I don't recall that -- that it was -- certainly if I said clarify -- in the discussion that I had with the attorneys Caroline Mackie and Eddie Speas, there was discussion on how it would be best recognized in court as -- as -- as a -- a good chain of custody, transparency. There would be no accusation of picking and choosing, of keeping some things secret and some things not if the media were turned over to a third party in its exact state. Q. Prior to turning over the hard drives and the thumb drives to Arnold & Porter did you ask your counsel to conduct -- well, let me ask this: Did you -- did you have representation at that point in time? A. I did not or did -THE WITNESS: Were we -- were you 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me -THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. JONES: I have to state my objection. So I'll object because it mischaracterizes the testimony and the use of the passive voice makes it ambiguous. MR. SPARKS: Now you can answer. A. I don't think there are any -- I don't think there are any solid lines in this. I think that there was a -- a collective attempt to maintain accuracy, maintain transparency. Q. Who clarified that for you? When you said, it was clarified -A. It wasn't clar- -Q. -- for me -A. Okay. Q. -- who was that? MR. SPARKS: Hold on a second. Please let her finish. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. JONES: Yeah. I'll -MR. SPARKS: Thank you. MR. JONES: Go ahead and -- is the question done? MS. SCULLY: (Nods head). 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 retained yet? A. I don't -- certainly not in this matter. No, I did -- I did not have counsel at that time I don't think. THE WITNESS: Or did I? A. I don't know. I wasn't consulting with an attorney on this matter. Q. I take it from -MR. SPARKS: Do you want me to interject anything here? MS. SCULLY: No, that's all right. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. I take it from your answer that you did not seek counsel from any attorney about whether there were concerns with respect to any privileged information that may be turned over to Arnold & Porter in response to the subpoena? MR. JONES: I'll -- I'll object. I think the question is asking about communications she may or may not have had between herself and one of her lawyers, which would be privileged. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. You testified a moment ago you didn't have 66 68 17 (Pages 65 to 68) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 counsel at that point in time. I'm just clarifying that you never sought any guidance from any attorney as to whether there was a concern about turning over privileged information from your father's business records to Arnold & Porter? MR. SPARKS: And I will object to that because if she did it -THE WITNESS: It would be privileged. MR. SPARKS: -- it would be attorney-client privileged. MR. JONES: Just answer it -instruct -- instruct her not -- you should instruct her not to answer. MR. SPARKS: And don't answer, please. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. I'll ask a more general question. Did you seek any counsel prior to producing the materials in response to Arnold & Porter's subpoena? MR. SPARKS: Same objection and please don't answer that. MR. FARR: Whether -- whether she talked to an attorney is privileged? Are you saying that? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that you had possession of business records of theirs? A. There have been work files on my father's home PC since we had a home PC so, no, in that I asked -- there are other matters concerning contact. Dale isn't exactly easy to get ahold of, but I specifically -- I felt that I had pretty much covered that when I asked everyone involved that knew anything about my father and/or Dale if Dale had gotten everything he wanted and the answer was yes given the fact that some of those backups are from 2009, '10, '11, and that I was in many of those times living at home using that computer as my own and those files were there. Q. You said you asked everyone involved if Dale got everything he wanted and the answer was yes. Who is the everyone involved that you asked? A. The other person that I asked -- there are two other people that I asked other than my mother. I asked my uncle -- oh, and through -- I asked my cousin and I -- I sort of tried to establish that he had come and 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: I think so. MR. SPARKS: I'm sorry. Ask the question again. MR. FARR: Whether she -- whether she talked to an attorney is privileged, just the fact that she talked to an attorney? MS. SCULLY: Just the general thing, not what -- specifically what was discussed. Did she speak with an attorney. MR. SPARKS: I'm -- I'm going to lodge the same objection, yes, and give the same instruction. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. You testified earlier that you understood that your father's business partner, Mr. Oldham, had taken steps to retrieve records related to their business, correct, retrieve one of your father's computers, yes? A. Two -Q. Two? A. -- of his computers. Q. When you realized that there was information related to your father's business contained on these hard drives and thumb drives, did you reach out to Mr. Oldham to let him know 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gone. That was when my mother explained that also when Dale left with the things that were related to Geographic Strategies before my father died, that my father had given him his half of the business, which amounted to around $300,000. Q. Who was your uncle that you asked? What's his name? A. Chris Hartsough. Q. What was his relationship with Dale? A. There -- he did not have a relationship with Dale; rather, he had been present during my parents' move from their house in Raleigh to the retirement community in Raleigh. I was interested in this move because many of my personal possessions went missing at this time. That's my -- was my principle interest in finding out what had happened. Q. And who's your cousin that you spoke with? A. Trudy Harris. Q. Did she have a relationship with Dale? A. No. None of these people had a relationship with Dale. It's just that he had apparently been there during this longer period of time when my family was helping my parents move. 70 72 18 (Pages 69 to 72) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 That's all. Q. If you wanted to know if Dale Oldham had gotten everything that he wanted, why not ask Mr. Oldham directly himself? A. Because he was a part of the litigation that was ongoing with my mother. He was a -- he was an opposing party in that litigation and noncommunicative before that point as well. I did at -- at one point attempt to reach out to him to discuss my mother, but he did not return my calls and resisted all of my attempts to -- to talk to him. Q. When did you attempt to reach out to Mr. Oldham to discuss your mother? A. Twice, once during the first trip to Raleigh and again in the second trip to Raleigh. Oh, and then we sent him notice of -- of certain documents -- family documents that bore his name as those documents had been changed. He got notice of that as well. Q. The first trip to Raleigh, was that the trip in October around -- on or about October 11th, 2018? A. Yes. Q. And when was the second trip? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and his work in -- in public service, not so much about -- about Dale, honestly. Q. Is that, no, you did not communicate with Dale Oldham before you turned over these files to Arnold & Porter to let him know that there were -A. I did not make -Q. -- records related to -THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm sorry. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. -- that there were records related to his business with your father that were being turned over in response to a subpoena? MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead and answer. A. I didn't attempt yet again to contact Mr. Oldham in advance of responding to that subpoena. No, I did not. Q. Did you ever attempt to contact Mr. Oldham and leave any substantive message for him that you had possession of -A. Of my father's stuff. Q. -- business records -A. I'm sorry. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That would have been shortly after. Let's see. The first trip was October -- okay. So I -- I believe that I was then three or four days back in Kentucky, but the situation was -- was serious enough that I felt I had to -- to change my plans to continue my work in Kentucky and actually drop everything in Kentucky and come back to Raleigh to help my mother. That would be -- I think I was back by the 18th. Q. Prior to turning over the hard drives and the thumb drives to Arnold & Porter, is it correct that you never communicated with Dale Oldham to let him know that materials related to his business with your father were being turned over? A. Those were my father's files. I did not assume that any of them or all of them -many of them were there on that hard drive before Geographic Strategies existed. There were files related to my father's work that were there from a time when I'm not even sure that Dale knew my father. I did not really think of this in terms of Dale Oldham, no. I thought of this in terms of my dead father 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- of records related to your father and Mr. Oldham's business and that you intended to turn those records over to Arnold & Porter and Common Cause? MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered. A. I didn't. Q. Turning back to Exhibit Number 2. I believe you testified that you -- sitting here today, you do not know what specific information is contained on the thumb drive that is pictured on Page 4 of Exhibit 2, correct? A. That's correct. Q. If I could turn your attention to Page 7. And is -- do you know what this device is that appears on Page 7? A. It appears to be an external drive. Q. Do you know what the contents were of the -this external drive that appears on Page 7? A. I know that that's my father's handwriting on that label. Beyond that, I don't know offhand. Q. Do you have any specific recollection of reviewing the files that are contained on the hard drive that appears on Page 7 of Exhibit 74 76 19 (Pages 73 to 76) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 2? A. Not specifically that one, no. None of them specifically. They all seem to have sort of a -- a mix -- a mixture of -- of different kinds of data on different matters. All of them were mingle -- mingled. Q. Turning to Page 9, do you know what that is a picture of? A. Once again, it appears to be a picture of -of one of the external drives. Q. I take it similar to the drive that we saw in the picture immediately before that you have no specific recollection of what material is contained on this drive, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Is it fair to say that you do not have any specific recollection of what information is contained on any of the hard drives or the thumb drives that are photographed that appear in Exhibit 2? A. Well, it's very similar with all of them was my impression. So it was -- it would be very difficult to say what was on which. I mean, I don't know offhand -- like there were two -- for example, there were two drives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parents' personal computer, which would contain the files that I was looking for of mine. Q. In the subpoena that you received from Arnold & Porter there was a specific request looking for materials relating to the 2011 or the 2017 North Carolina redistricting. You understood that, correct? A. Yes, I -- yes. Q. Did you undertake any efforts to limit the materials that you were turning over to Arnold & Porter in response to the subpoena to only documents that related to the 2011 or 2017 North Carolina redistricting? MR. JONES: I'll -- I'll -- I'll object. I think it mischaracterizes the scope of the face of the subpoena. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead and answer. A. The request was for any and all materials that might, so I -- since there appeared to be relevant -- relevant data, I -- I think I already answered this question. I think the idea was that it was going to be preserved and that I would not be deciding which files would go and which files wouldn't. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that were identical in appearance, but they seemed to be backups of the same hard drive but at different times. So that would be very hard for me to say which was the 2011 set and which was the 2013 set, for example. Q. You testified earlier when -- under your examination with plaintiffs' counsel that you recognized one of the hard drives because of the blue rubber band that was around it. A. No, the blue cover. Q. Blue cover. Turning your attention to Page 15 of Exhibit 2, is that the blue -- is that a picture of the blue cover you were referring to when you testified earlier? A. It -- it -- I would assume that it is the cover that I was referring to. Q. And what did -- what is it about that cover that stood out in your mind? A. You know, this -- it wasn't an effort at precision. I just remembered that this was a cover that went typically with a brand and type of external storage device that my father liked to use. And I had a hunch -- I was hoping that it would be what it turned out to be and that is a backup of the -- my 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I take it from your answer that you did not review each hard drive and each thumb drive to confirm that each hard drive and each thumb drive, in fact, had any information with respect to the 2011 or 2017 North Carolina redistricting; instead, you just turned it over in its entirety -A. I was answering the subpoena -MR. SPARKS: Let her finish. THE WITNESS: Sorry. BY MR. SPARKS: Q. -- to Arnold & Porter, correct? A. Yes. Yes. Q. You testified earlier when you took the electronic hard drives and thumb drives from your father's home you said you were so thrilled to have precious data of yours. You said mine, but -- what precious data were you referring to? A. Pictures of me and my infant children, pictures of me on my property in West Virginia, pictures of dead friends, music recorded years ago by me and a friend who had a band together, letters that I had written to friends, letters that I wrote to my 78 80 20 (Pages 77 to 80) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 father, documents that I might have otherwise possession of if it weren't for first a house fire that destroyed everything I owned in 2013 and also a divorce in which everything else that I had pretty much was, you know, left in the hands of -- of someone I didn't really feel like communicating with. Q. You didn't consider the records relating to your father's work -- redistricting work to be your data, correct? A. The hard drives were given to me by my -- by my mother, so I would say that I considered everything on those hard drives that my father had left in his room that my mother gave to me unconditionally -- I considered all of it mine at that point when it was given to me by my deceased father's wife. Q. Even if the material related to your father's business with another business partner, you considered it your material, your -A. I considered the stor- -MR. JONES: Ob- -- objection. It's been asked and answered. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead and answer. A. I considered everything that my mother gave 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before you gave them to Arnold & Porter. A. That would be difficult. Do you mean -- you know, I -- for example, I printed out copies of pictures of me and my children. Do you consider me putting those on my wall time reviewing the materials? Q. No. Time spent looking through the electronic files on a computer. A. That would be very difficult to determine. I mean, I don't know. How much time do you spend looking at pictures of your children? Q. Putting aside the amount -- well -A. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at my father's work files if that's what you're driving at. No, I didn't. Q. So let's focus on that point. Putting aside the time you spent looking through files that related to you or photographs related to you or issues that were personal to you, putting all of those personal materials aside, how much time would you estimate you spent reviewing files that related to your father, his redistricting work, his business records, any expert documents he may have created, those materials? 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me that had previously belonged to my father who was now dead mine, yes. Q. Did your father have a will? A. Yes. Q. Do you know if in the will there was any provision with respect to his personal property and who the personal property would be left to? A. My understanding, not being an estate attorney, is my mother was the beneficiary. Q. Have you seen a copy of the will? A. Yes. Q. Did you -- did your father make any direct gifts to you in the will? A. I don't believe he did, no. Q. Did your father in the will address anything related to his -- his business records, business files? A. I don't recall. Q. Prior to turning over the electronic files to Arnold & Porter you said you spent two to three hours immediately before turning them over to Arnold & Porter. I would like to understand how much time in total you spent reviewing the materials at any point in time 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, it's also hard because there were certain situations in some of those backups where there were folders that contained a multitude of mixed documents. In certain cases I would open something thinking that it was one thing and find that it was something different. So there were -- there were both situations where -- for example, news articles that he had in a folder of -- I believe there were a lot of -- of news articles that I actually read through that he had saved, maybe articles even that mentioned him specifically and, of course, I was interested in preserving that. Of course, I wanted, you know, a scrapbook of my father and so -- also, there were -- just looking at the file extensions and having a basic familiarity with my father's work, I knew a lot of them would be file extensions that I wouldn't even be able to open considering that I didn't have the right proprietary software. So -- wow. I really -- it would be very difficult for me to give an estimate. I don't really understand. Maybe -- I mean, not -- not to be snide, but what -- what -- 82 84 21 (Pages 81 to 84) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 what -- what exactly are we driving at? How many hours I spent looking specifically at just the files in folders that contained things like, again, letters to me, old trust documents, letters that my grandfather sent to my father, and interesting stories and maybe a few photographs, some of them of my father and my relatives, some of them my father and my children, some of them me and my children? It would be -- it would be very difficult to give you an estimate of how many of those minutes were spent looking at files that were specifically related to his work, much less specifically related to which -- I mean, I wouldn't be able to distinguish the legislative maps from the congressional district maps. Q. Is it fair to say that the majority of the time you spent reviewing the files was spent reviewing materials related personal to you and that, in comparison, you spent very little time reviewing files related -A. Very little -Q. -- to your father's -A. -- is kind of a -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The specifically work-related stuff, the stuff that would be -- you know, the stuff that he wanted, the stuff that he felt was pertinent. Q. And you said he took two computers from your father's office; is that correct? A. That's what I'm told. Q. You've also testified today that these hard drives and the thumb drives, you understood them to be backups, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Was it your understanding that your father's work-related files that they had on the computer that Dale Oldham had taken or computers that he'd taken were also backed up on any of these hard drives or thumb drives that you received? MR. JONES: Ob- -- objection, calls for speculation. A. Honestly, if I speculated I would speculate that any backups that had been done specifically of the work computers would be already taken by him. I did not -- I did not -- actually, the opposite. I assumed that these were personal backups because they 85 1 MR. SPARKS: Hold, please. 87 1 2 BY MS. SCULLY: 2 3 Q. -- work? Yeah. It's a -- 3 4 A. I'm sorry. 4 5 Q. It's -- my question, is it fair to say that? 5 6 MR. JONES: Objection, asked and 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 answered. 8 MR. SPARKS: Please answer. 9 A. Yes. 10 MR. JONES: We've been going about 11 an -- about an hour. 12 MS. SCULLY: We can take a break. 12 13 MR. JONES: Can we take a break? 13 14 THE WITNESS: This time I am going to 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 smoke a cigarette. 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the 17 record. The time is 11:39 a.m. 18 (Whereupon, there was a recess in the 19 proceedings from 11:39 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the 20 21 record. The time is 11:59 a.m. 22 BY MR. SPARKS: 22 23 Q. Ms. Hofeller, you testified earlier today 23 24 that Dale got all the good stuff. What did 24 25 you mean by that? 25 were there with -- with those things. And, again, it's -- it's always been a little bit -- those lines have always been a bit blurry in the household. MR. BRANCH: All right. I'm -BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Do you -MR. BRANCH: -- going to remind everybody here that under the North Carolina rules, counsel's only supposed to object to the form of the question. There are no speaking objections allowed in North Carolina. This is multiple times now that the witness has changed her answer in response to a speaking objection by Mr. Jones. Now, unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Jones, you do not represent the witness. Under the rules you can object to the form of the question and that's it. You can't instruct her not to answer and she should not be changing her testimony in response to something that you articulate for her. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, do you, in fact, know one way or another if the information that was 86 88 22 (Pages 85 to 88) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 contained on the hard drives and the thumb 1 2 drives that you provided to Arnold & Porter 2 3 were in part duplicative of the information 3 4 that was contained on the computers that Dale 4 5 Oldham took possession of? 5 6 7 8 9 A. I really don't know. I really honestly don't 6 know. 7 Q. Turning back to your communications with 8 Common Cause, you testified earlier that your 9 10 first outreach to Common Cause was a 10 11 communication that you had with someone named 11 12 Bob Phillips, correct? 12 13 A. Correct. 13 14 Q. When did that communication occur? 14 15 A. That would have been in very -- very early 15 16 November, the first week of November. 16 17 18 Q. How many times did you speak with 17 Mr. Phillips? 18 19 A. Once. 19 20 Q. Was your communication with Mr. Phillips in 20 21 person, telephonic? How did you communicate 21 22 with him? 22 23 A. Telephonic. 23 24 Q. What did you know about Common Cause when you 24 25 reached out to Mr. Phillips? 25 concerning maps that had already been redrawn. Q. You knew historically that Common Cause had been antagonistic to the work that your father had done in North Carolina, correct? A. If -- if -- if that's the way to characterize it, then, yes. Q. I believe you testified you reached out to Mr. Phillips to seek a referral for your mother. Did you communicate any specific details to Mr. Phillips about why you were looking for an attorney for your mother? A. Yes, so that I could get the right kind of attorney. Q. What -- can you share with me specifically to the best of your recollection what you said to Mr. Phillips when you communicated with him on the phone? A. That my mother was facing a challenge to her competence. Q. Did you share with Mr. Phillips who had brought the incompetency petition against her? A. No. Q. Did you share with Mr. Phillips any 89 1 A. I knew that they were representing the 91 1 information about who was involved in the 2 interest of voters that felt that this 2 3 redistricting represented a violation of 3 A. Not specifically, no. 4 their constitutional rights. 4 Q. If I recall correctly, you testified that incompetency proceedings? 5 Q. And the redistricting that you're referring 5 6 to, does that include the maps that were 6 7 prepared by your father, Mr. Hofeller, in 7 A. That's correct. 8 North Carolina? 8 Q. Jane Pinsky also works for Common Cause? 9 A. Yes. 9 A. Yes. Mr. Phillips then put you in touch with Jane Pinsky? 10 Q. So you understood that Common Cause was 10 Q. Is Ms. Pinsky a lawyer, if you know? 11 seeking to have the redistricting maps that 11 A. I don't think she is. 12 your father had prepared thrown out, correct? 12 Q. How many times did you speak with Ms. Pinsky? A. In total I believe that we had three -- three 13 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. You knew that Common Cause was antagonistic 14 15 to the work of your father, Mr. Hofeller, 15 16 correct? 16 17 A. I didn't know that they were -- initially, I or four conversations, all on the phone. Q. Do you know what Ms. Pinsky's title is with Common Cause? 17 A. Not offhand, no. Q. I want to go through the three or four 18 did not know that they were antagonistic to 18 19 the new maps. 19 communications that you had with Ms. Pinsky. 20 Do you recall the first communication you had 20 21 22 Q. When you say the new maps, what do you mean by that? 21 A. Well, he's drawn more than one set, so with her -- 22 A. Yes. 23 interesting to know I didn't actually know 23 Q. -- the time period? 24 that there was a new case when I first spoke 24 A. That would have been also very early 25 to Common Cause. I thought that this was all 25 November. Sometime during the first -- 90 92 23 (Pages 89 to 92) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 sometime during the first eight or nine days of November. Q. Was anyone else on the phone during that first communication that you had with Ms. Pinsky? A. Not that I know of. Q. Approximately how long did that first communication with Ms. Pinsky last? A. I'm not -- it wasn't a particularly long conversation. Ten minutes, maybe -- maybe, if that. Q. Tell me what you recall about that conversation, what you said and what she said. A. She had -- she -- we confirmed that this was about the matter of referral and that Bob had said that she would be the one that would -was more familiar with the names of -- of local attorneys. And she had some names for me and so I took down those names, and she wished me luck and expressed condolences for the loss of my father and I think that was about it in that first conversation, I think. Q. When you first communicated with Ms. Pinsky, did she give you the impression that she was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Reply. A. -- for the -- for that. Q. Did you have any e-mail communications with Jane Pinsky? A. I think that I did, yes, because I wanted -we -- we were confirming names and numbers and things. Like I didn't know how do you spell that and I said, can you just e-mail me that? And -- and then I think it was more -I think maybe one more time in e-mail -she -- she really prefers the phone. We -we both kind of felt that way, I think. So any further e-mail was more to the -- to the -- to the -- like, are you going to be at the office? Can I reach you today? Are you busy? That sort of thing. Like the -that -- that predicated the -- a follow-up phone call about those attorneys. It was still pretty much exclusively on that and just sort of incidentals on the topic of -of what this proceeding against my mother really actually was, you know, very -- I didn't know much about what -- what -- what was actually being asserted. It's hard to explain. It wasn't really very detailed. It 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expecting your call? Did you make the call to her? A. I re- -- I think we -- I don't actually know who initiated the call that was the one where we actually spoke. We exchanged a few messages. I got an e-mail from Bob saying that he had told Jane to reach out to me and then exactly what combination of who left who what message, I'm not honestly sure. Q. You had an e-mail communication with Bob. How many e-mail communications did you have with Mr. Phillips? A. One. I mean, one conversation. It was, I think, maybe two, maybe three messages, his saying that and me saying thank you. So I think was -- two, I think, was all. Q. I just want to make sure I understand your testimony. You had one telephone conversation with Mr. Phillips and then you had one e-mail with Mr. Phillips, but the e-mail may have had a couple of threads within it? A. Recalling to my best ability, it was -- the e-mail would have contained his noted that I would be hearing from Jane and my thanks -- 95 1 was just kind of clarifying what kind of 2 attorney I would need, I think, really, 3 whether this is -- is this an estate 4 attorney? Is this a litigation attorney? Is 5 this -- and a lot of my questions she would 6 then say, you know, I would have to -- I 7 would have to ask an attorney what kind of 8 attorney you need for your mother, that sort 9 10 11 12 of thing. Q. Did you share with Ms. Pinsky any of the documents from the incompetency proceedings, any of the legal documents -- 13 A. No. 14 Q. -- court documents? 15 A. No, I don't -- no, I don't think I did, 16 actually. It didn't seem necessary or 17 18 19 20 appropriate since she wasn't the attorney. Q. Approximately how many e-mail communications did you have with Ms. Pinsky? A. I think maybe a grand total of two, if two. 21 I would have to look. It may even be just 22 one thread. I hon- -- I didn't really study 23 it. 24 25 Q. Your first conversation that you had with Ms. Pinsky in early November, first eight or 94 96 24 (Pages 93 to 96) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 nine days, said lasted approximately ten minutes. Can you tell me what you recall specifically about what was discussed during that conversation, what you said to her and what she said to you? A. I don't recall specifics, no. I -- it was -I was just trying to get an attorney for my mother, so I don't remember exactly what I said on the -Q. In that first communication did she give you names of attorneys that you could reach out to? A. Yes. Q. In the first conversation that you had with Ms. Pinsky did you talk substantively about who was involved in the incompetency proceedings? A. No. Q. Did you at any point in time discuss with Ms. Pinsky who was involved in the incompetency proceedings? A. Not that I recall, no. I really said very little other than I felt that the fact that my father had so many friends and coworkers and colleagues and -- and supporters and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that image, when you begin to speak about that person as if they were a human being with multitudes of emotions, contradictions, all of those things, often people get hostile. If you are -- if you are bringing a human image to a hero's image, they -- they sometimes feel that maybe they -- they get angry. Q. How did your father's work in redistricting relate, if at all, to the incompetency proceedings that were ongoing with respect to your mother? A. Many people who only knew my father incidentally or knew him only in one context were resisting the assertion that I had that perhaps my mother and I would know better what it was that my father wanted that was not specifically spelled out. There was a lot of speculation about what your father wanted coming from a variety of sources, some people that really didn't know him very well outside of the context of work, and it was, frankly, a little bit offensive. Q. You did not have any conversations with your father regarding what he wanted to have 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really, frankly, people who really, really, really idolized him and -- and -- and had kind of a -- a nonhuman vision of him, and that was why I was contacting Common Cause. I didn't have any -- I wasn't expecting there to be a discussion about specific names. It seemed to me from the point of view where I was at the time that the specific names were going to have to be people in Raleigh that didn't worship my father. There was no need to -- no need to -- to -- to detail. And also I wasn't really trying to discuss the merits of my mother's matter with -- with -with Common Cause. I was only trying to really seriously just hope that I might find an attorney in Raleigh that was independent of -- of my father and -- and the people he worked for. Q. When you say independent from your father, what do you mean by that? A. I mean that in matters that concern a man as a person, often when you're dealing with people that only know him in a professional context and have a great deal of their personal and professional life mingled with 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 happen with his work related to redistricting upon his death, did you? A. I don't believe I -- I don't believe I ever had a conversation with my father about what he wanted to have happen after his death pertaining specifically to his work. I think he felt that once he was dead, that his work to him at least would be no longer relevant. Q. What led you to that belief? A. He often would say that that was -- you know, if you're going to divide people into -- into camps of how they view death, my father would, whether he was sincere or not, he would often say, you know, sometimes jokingly -- I don't know how well you knew him, but he -- he had a -- he had a penchant for irony and he would often say, well, it won't matter once I'm dead, right? So -- he also said things like, I know that people on their deathbed very rarely look up and say, I wish I'd spent more time at work. Q. At what point in time did you discuss with Ms. Pinsky that you had some of your father's hard drives that you thought might be of interest to Common Cause? 98 100 25 (Pages 97 to 100) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 A. That would have been sometime in December. That was later. She -- she called me to ask how things were going with my mother because I also -- one of the things that I -- that comes -- that was coming pretty clear to anyone who talked to me in that time is there was a lot of -- there was a lot of emotion regarding the then still very recent death of my father and that it was -- it was sad that, you know, the principle concern about him, his life, and everything having to do with him was this -- this matter rather than the matter of his family. Q. How many conversations did you have with Ms. Pinsky about your father's hard drives and electronic materials that you had? A. I'm sure -- pretty -- pretty sure it was only one because she said that she really would not be certain -- I mean, really, that was it. I said -- we -- we had that conversation. She said, I'll ask the lawyers. And I think then any further conversation at all about those -- that media was had with the attorneys. Q. When you say Ms. Pinsky said, I'll ask the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thinking of it in terms of -- of evidence for any case. I was thinking of it more just as a -- an archival -- an academic interest. Q. When did you come to the understanding that this action in which you received the subpoena is still at the trial level and not on appeal? A. Actually, what's funny is that I was -- I was a little bit confused and, again, other matters were really, really pressing throughout, so I wasn't spending a lot of time studying what was going on with this. I had somehow gotten the impression that this already was in appeal, but for some reason this was -- because it was going to the lower court that it wasn't. I -- I just -- you know, I'm used to lawyers saying things. Okay, all right, whatever. I didn't even know -- I just thought it was a certain type of appeal that I wasn't even familiar with. I didn't actually understand completely that this was a new matter until it was said so like about a week ago. I -- I just -- all I knew -- all I knew for certain was that unlike the congressional districts that are 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawyers, was that in response to a question you asked her? What do you mean by that? A. That was not a response to a specific question. That was a response to the conversation that had begun with me mentioning the David Daley interview and saying, I have hard drives. And in the context of that article he had -- David Daley had implied that those hard drives would have maps that the state legislators would like. I, once again, didn't really think that it was anything, you know -- I don't know how to describe it. I -Q. Do you -- do you have an understanding of which lawyer she was referring to when Ms. Pinsky said, I'll ask the lawyers? A. The -- the lawyers who were involved in this matter since we were discussing whether or not there would be any use -- any admissibility. Again, I thought -- I wasn't even sure that -- I didn't even understand -at that moment when I spoke to her the first time about it and mentioned that article, I was under the impression that everything in this matter was on appeal so I wasn't 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the U.S. Supreme Court, this matter would -- that new evidence would be allowed. That was what was clear. Q. How did you come to that understanding? A. Because the -- because that first conversation that -- on the matter -- I think Jane mentioned that there might be. I think might be. And, again, she was always saying, you know, I'm not -- you know, I would have to confirm that with the attorneys as a, you know, good public servant. Q. What was Jane having to confirm with the attorneys? A. That there would be -- that -- that the -that the hard drives would be potential -potentially usable as evidence in that the matter was open in that regard. I just, again, initially felt that Common Cause, being not directly affiliated with my father, would be a good -- literally like a repository for the information that I felt had historical value beyond any partisan interest but, rather -- I even used the words insight into the process -- the literal process because I -- I -- again, I'm not an 102 104 26 (Pages 101 to 104) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 expert on redistricting, but I have worked in political demographics and I have alongside my father -- you know, he studied political philosophy in general. So the -- the academic interest in this was -- was paramount to me even above any other potential. I did -- I'm not a North Carolina resident. I'm not a North Carolina voter. I have no personal concern about what happens in this case beyond the fact that this would -- this -- this man was my father and my mother was being -- being -- having a -- a very unpleasant procedure in a town that was not our home where the only people we even -that she even knew were people that had been working with my father. Q. I believe you testified that Jane mentioned there might be some use for your father's materials as evidence, correct? A. She did not put it in terms of use as evidence. She simply stated that the matter in the lower house was not a closed matter as far as evidence was concerned. I think that -- I don't remember her exact words, but there was no implication in that that there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did Ms. Pinsky put you eventually in communication with any of the attorneys in this litigation? A. Yes. Q. Did you initiate the communications with any of the attorneys in this litigation? A. No. Q. Who did you first speak with as an attorney in this litigation? A. I got a text from Eddie Speas. Q. Do you still have a copy of the text message you received from him? A. I don't. Q. When did you receive the text from him, if you recall? A. Shortly after that conversation with Jane. I believe that was December. I'm honestly -- I really -- I didn't -- the phone that I was using was running out of storage so it was -it was kind of -- you know, the phones will tend to dump those text messages. There was really no way for me to -- to track it back to exactly when. Q. So you believe it was sometime in December 2018 you received a text message from Eddie 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be a literal use, just that there's even a possibility that new evidence could be heard on this matter at all. Q. So you did understand based on your communications with Ms. Pinsky that there was a possibility that this information might be useful in the matter, correct? A. Yes. Q. And -MR. SPARKS: I need to clarify one thing. I'm sorry. You said lower house. Did you mean lower court? THE WITNESS: Lower court, yes. I'm sorry. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. And the party you were producing the information that might be useful to was on the opposite side from the work your father had done, correct? MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered. MR. SPEAS: That's not a -A. I understood that Common Cause was representing the voters. 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Speas, Jr. -- 2018, thank you, correct? A. Yes. Q. What do you recall the text message saying? A. Intro- -- he introduced himself and -- and basically said that -- I don't remember exact words. More like, Jane said you might be willing to -- to speak to us, something along those lines, and basically asking permission for contact and doing what is now polite in business and -- if you have a cell phone, you introduce yourself over text so that if he were to call again, I would know what that number was. Q. Did you respond to the text message? A. Yes. Q. How did you respond? A. Yes. I don't know if I said more than just yes. Maybe something polite just to -- to make it not so terse, but -Q. You responded via text; is that correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. Approximately how many text communications have you had with Mr. Speas? A. Not very many. There -- it was really more just an effort to schedule phone calls. 106 108 27 (Pages 105 to 108) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 May 17, 2019 Q. You have had more than one text communication with Mr. Speas, correct? 1 2 A. I think there were may- -- I think there were 3 4 two, one in advance of -- of -- of two phone 4 5 calls, two, you know, are you going to be 5 6 available at such and such a time sort of 6 7 thing. 7 8 9 Q. After you communicated in response to 8 Mr. Speas's first text where you said, yes, 9 10 willing to talk to you, when was the next 10 11 time you spoke with Mr. Speas? 11 12 A. I think that that was about a week or so. It 12 13 was -- you know, it was starting to get close 13 14 to the holidays so, you know, there was time 14 15 between communiques. If -- if, you know, 15 16 research needed to be done or references 16 17 or -- or questions asked, it -- everything 17 18 was starting to take a lot longer because it 18 19 was the holiday season. 19 20 21 Q. The next time you spoke with Mr. Speas, was that a telephone communication? 20 21 22 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Did you initiate the call? 23 24 A. I don't know. I really don't remember. It 24 25 was -- we -- the idea being follow-up 25 recollection what you said and what Mr. Speas said on that first telephone call. A. I said that I had -- I said that I had material that might be relevant to the case. Q. Did you explain in any further detail what material you had? A. Vague detail, external storage devices that -- I don't know whether or not I mentioned -- I -- I don't think I specifically said backups. I just said external storage devices. Q. What do you recall Mr. Speas saying in response to that? A. I believe that he did even in that first phone call want to clarify that these were -that -- that these had been given to me. Q. What specifically did Mr. Speas ask you about the hard drives? A. The -- I think if they'd been given to me. Q. And so your recollection is Mr. Speas said, have these been given to you? A. I don't know what his exact words were. The gist of it was, are they yours, and I said that they had, indeed, been given to me. Q. Did you tell him the circumstances under 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions need to be asked on our end and -and it -- the -- the discussion continued as to whether or not there was -- I don't know. I think I -- I don't know how to -- to explain it any differently than I've already explained it, frankly. Q. On the first telephone call that you had with Mr. Speas, was there anyone else on the call as far as you know? A. No. Q. So just you and Mr. Speas on the first telephone call? A. That's how I remember it. Q. And that's all I can ask you for is the best of your recollection -A. Yeah. Q. -- today. Approximately how long did the first telephone call between you and Mr. Speas last? A. Maybe ten minutes, again, just -- there was not a lot of detail -Q. Tell me -A. -- discussed. It was really more just a friendly business-style conversation. Q. Tell me as -- to the best of your 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which you had obtained them? A. More or less, that along with things that literally belonged to me and things that I took to mean from my father that he wanted me to have, I had -- I had asked for these, you know, and as I said, I asked my mother if I could take my jewelry box, too, even though, of course, the answer would have been yes and many -- many would say that if it was something that I left with my father of mine specifically with the intent that he would hold it for me, that when I came to his apartment after his death, that anything that had belonged to me up till the point of his death was already mine, but I still went to the extra effort to make sure because, you know, I -- I didn't want to -- I didn't what to give anyone the impression that I was there to -- to pick over the corpse. Q. Just to clarify, your -- your father never told you he wanted you to have his external hard drives or these thumb drives, correct? A. He said that he wanted -- that he would keep the data that I had stored on his computer. With that I took to mean -- we didn't really 110 112 28 (Pages 109 to 112) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 get a chance to discuss the details of all of his personal effects because when I last spoke to him he wasn't dying. Q. The information you turned over to Arnold & Porter in response to the subpoena was not limited to the -- your personal data that you discussed with your father that he would preserve for you, correct? A. Correct. Q. You did not have any conversations with your father in which he told you he wanted you to have possession of his hard drives or thumb drives which you've turned over to Arnold & Porter, correct? MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered. A. No. Q. In your initial conversation with Mr. Speas did you share with him your understanding that the external hard drives and thumb drives that you had contained your -contained information regarding your father's redistricting work including his expert consulting work? A. Could -- could you ask the question again? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Poyner Spruill tell you that the best way to proceed would be to give them the entirety of the contents? A. Well, I didn't necessarily know who was and wasn't with Pointer Spruill [sic]. I only knew that these were attorneys that were working on the matter. Q. Did Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie ever tell you that it would be best for you to turn over the entirety -A. They didn't say that it would be best. I'm sorry. They said that it would be a -- a -a better preservation of the integrity, that the chain of custody would be transparent and in that transparency, the integrity of the -of the potential evidence would be preserved. Q. Who told you that, Mr. Speas, Mr. Mackie, or both? MR. FARR: It's Ms. Mackie. A. Ms. Mackie. Q. Ms. Mackie. Sorry. A. I -- I don't recall which one of them said that. I'm sorry. I really don't. Q. This was a discussion you had with Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie prior to your receiving the 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm sorry. Q. Did you share with Mr. Speas any detailed information about what you believed these hard drives and thumb drives -- what the materials were on those hard drives and thumb drives? A. I did not get very specific, no. That is how I'm accustomed to doing things with attorneys is that attorneys decide what's relevant and what isn't and that if there's a chance that it might be relevant to a matter that that attorney is working on, that I would say, this might be relevant to the matter that you're working on. So that was pretty much what I said. I don't recall talking about specific files. I don't think that there was -- already we -- there was a feeling that it would be most proper to say, this might be relevant, and then to not speculate further. Q. Did anyone from Arnold & Porter specifically tell you that would be the better way to proceed, to give -A. I did not have any discussion with anyone from Arnold Porter. Q. Okay. Did anyone from -- I apologize -- 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subpoena, correct? A. I -- I don't know. Now that you ask, I don't know which -- because at some point, honestly, I, once again, had assumed that this had all been seen before and I was really honestly talking about the fact that there was personal information of mine and explaining that, once again, it's that classic, okay, you know, just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to privacy. So I actually did have a -- you know, with my dad echoing in my ear that you ask about that. I was getting ready to potentially turn over data that was personal to me as well so I really wanted to find out what the intentions were. And it was explained to me that -that this was quite clear -- it was quite clear that -- that anyone, either the -- the legislative defendants or the plaintiffs, were only properly entitled to even look at the content of files that were explicitly and obviously related to this case. Q. And that was something that either Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie told you, that the only 114 116 29 (Pages 113 to 116) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 information anyone would be entitled to look at is information related to the redistricting and that no one would be entitled to look at any of your personal -A. Well -Q. -- information? A. -- no -- I'm sorry. No one in this -- in this -- in this matter, yes. Q. Is it your understanding that your personal information to the extent it existed on the hard drives and the thumb drives has been maintained by Poyner Spruill and has not been produced in this litigation? A. You know, I haven't really been keeping up to date on -- I know that it's a matter of contention. I know that I was a little bit -- kind of raised my eyebrows when I found out that the legislative defendants felt that they needed to see everything, but -- I knew that that was probably going to be the end result because I know how litigation goes and I myself have been the subject of, you know, quite a few speculations about whether or not a person is entitled to privacy or confidentiality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 incompetency matter with Eddie Speas or Caroline Mackie beyond the fact that it existed. Q. You do recall the -- having the discussion of the existence of the fact with them in the context -A. You know -Q. -- of the referral? A. -- I -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. I honestly don't know if -- if we discussed it even to that point. The only way in which there would have even been any awareness -- I don't even know if I got as specific as to say that it was incompetency. I think, honestly, I probably used some sort of colloquialism, à la Hofellerism, like, yeah, I got to beat the vultures off the widow. So really I think I put it more in terms like that. It was never my intention to discuss the matter or the merits of the case or anything specific with these attorneys. It was unrelated. Q. And who are the -- the vultures you were referring to? A. Various friends and family. 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Usually the answer ends up somehow being no so with that expectation, I still yet spoke my intention and that was that my personal data be protected, that my mother's personal data be protected, and that my father's personal data be protected, and that the only things that were on these drives that would be -- would be looked at on paper was files that were explicitly and clearly related to this matter. So when the legislative defendants moved to see it all, I -- I went, huh, well, what do you know. Wonder why they want that. That was about the extent of it, but it seemed pretty -- pretty predictable. My father used to often exasperate about, well, they -- they're not entitled to that, it's personal, so... Q. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Speas or with Ms. Mackie about the incompetency proceedings that you were dealing with with your mother? A. No. No. I mean, maybe I might have mentioned that that's how we got into conversation, because I was getting a referral, but, no, I did not discuss the 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Who specifically? A. Trudy Harris, my cousin; a half-uncle who may or may not have been -- you know, there -it's -- it's been very unclear how many friends and family were expressing some sense of entitlement to things like my grandmother's jewelry, you know, things like that. Q. Were either Ms. Harris or your uncle involved at all in the incompetency proceedings? A. Involved, no. And, again, it's still yet unclear exactly. There's been very little transparency. So names of interested parties. That doesn't mean they were involved. It just means that someone, i.e., the petitioner, may have looked on documents including trusts and wills and such and seen names of beneficiaries and simply written them down. I was all very unclear who was and wasn't literally involved. I mean, this is an estate. There's usually a mess when there's an estate that has any -- any interest to anyone at all. Q. During your first telephone call with Mr. Speas sometime in December 2018 did 118 120 30 (Pages 117 to 120) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Mr. Speas during that communication talk about possibility of sending you a subpoena? A. I don't remember in which conversation, but, actually, I believe that it was -- I believe that it was Jane Pinsky that actually said they're going to send -- I think she said, they -- they asked me to let you know so that you would have a heads-up that there was a subpoena out. Q. So you had -- that there was a subpoena out. I don't understand. A. That it had been mailed -Q. Okay. A. -- or whatever. Q. Prior to your receiving the subpoena, it's your recollection that Ms. Pinsky called you to let you know that there was a subpoena being sent out? A. I don't know that that was the specific reason that she called. We had sort of -you know, we were -- we had casual conversation at that point because we -she -- she, once again, was asking me how things were going and was there -- you know, how -- how was my mother feeling, was she -- 1 2 3 re- -- do our research and get back to you. MR. SPARKS: Are you okay? Do you need a break? 4 THE WITNESS: (Nods head). 5 MS. SCULLY: We can take a break. 6 7 8 9 MR. SPARKS: She seems to be tired. Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is 12:47 p.m. 10 (Whereupon, there was a recess in the 11 proceedings from 12:47 p.m. to 1:04 p.m.) 12 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 1:04 p.m. 14 BY MS. SCULLY: 15 Q. Ms. Hofeller, before we went off the record 16 we were talking about the first telephone 17 communication that you had with Mr. Speas and 18 I believe you testified that in conclusion of 19 that conversation, Mr. Speas said something 20 along the lines of, okay, we'll have to do 21 some research. We'll be back in 22 23 communication with you; is that correct? A. As far as I know. I mean, it -- it -- I 24 remember it being very much what I would 25 expect communication with an attorney on a 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 how was she doing, because I'd told her that she was extremely stressed out and -- and emotionally -- emotionally drained and very -- feeling very vulnerable and -- and all because, you know, she really isn't -she isn't prepared for litigation. She was not expecting to be in such a -- an exposed position and, you know, my father had managed to keep her very sheltered from his work up until the point when he was no longer around to do that. Q. In the first telephone call that you had with Mr. Speas you told him that you had some external storage devices. You weren't sure if they were backup or not, but you had these materials. You said he asked you for clarification if they were yours and you said yes, they were yours. What else was discussed during that conversation, if you recall? A. I think at that point really that -- there wasn't much other than that. It was -- as communication with attorneys often is, you know, there was a -- a basic set of questions and then it was let's -- let's consult, let's 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 civil matter to be like as in, tell us about what you have and we will then -- they -- I got the impression that they really wanted to make sure that -- that I was -- that this was a voluntary -- you know, that I was okay with the idea that -- that -- that I might -- you know, that this would be potentially involved in the matter, not just, you know, an aside. And with that they wanted to make sure that it was relevant really, I guess, would be the best word, that it was relevant. And before they even wanted to go into any more of the nuts and bolts, they wanted to make sure that this was even a relevant matter because I think the impression being that they didn't want to discuss -- they didn't want to discuss a lot with me that wasn't specifically relevant to the case. Q. When was the next communication that you recall having with Mr. Speas after this original approximately ten-minute phone conversation that you had with him sometime in December 2018? A. Well, again, my impressions from that time, mostly about the fact that the holidays were 122 124 31 (Pages 121 to 124) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 upon us and so there was a lot of -- there was a lot of phone tag. There was a lot of someone's going to be out of town and then another person's going to be on vacation and things like that. So I think -- I mean, the next -- the next conversation, I believe, that I can really firmly say it happened instead of just leaving messages would have, I think, been after the holidays, sometime -I think sometime in January, I think. Q. That next conversation when you actually spoke with Mr. Speas, not just exchanging voicemail messages, sometime in January, did you make that call or did Mr. Speas call you? A. I don't recall. Q. Regardless of who initiated the call, who was on the call? A. I think that -- I think that it was just -you know, it -- it -- it had come to the point where it was clear to me at least that -- that Eddie and Caroline were the attorneys that -- that were -- at Common Cause that were working on this matter. So, honestly, which -- which step was -- which -which bit of information was given to me by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the -- the media we'd already established was relevant to the -- to the case. Like is there any -- is -- is there anything else that you have that appears to be related to this directly that you would like to -- to mention? And I think -- I think that there was only -- there were things that were related to my father's work in that everything was related to his work, like, you know, certain -- certain statements where the -- the business is mentioned like as a -- like taxes, things like that, but nothing -- you know, nothing specific. I don't -- I don't recall. Q. Do you recall having conversations with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie about the fact that information about your father's taxes were included in these materials that you were discussing producing to them? A. We did not discuss specifically taxes. I had -- we were -- it -- it was established already that this media contained really a -a masala of -- of -- of data that was my personal data, my father's personal data, my father's work data, and, frankly, even my 125 127 1 which one of them, Eddie or Caroline, it's 1 2 kind of hard for me to recall off the top of 2 3 my head, honestly. I'm not trying to be 3 4 evasive. I just don't know who -- who said 4 5 what. I was -- I was already thinking of 5 6 them as interchangeable, you know, so -- 6 7 Q. I understand. 7 8 A. -- it didn't seem relevant to me so I 8 9 10 11 didn't -- I didn't make the point to remember 9 who said what. 10 Q. Did you have any telephone conversations in 11 12 which both Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie were both 12 13 on the line at the same time? 13 14 A. Yes. Yes, we did have at least one, and I 14 15 think that was -- yeah, I think that would 15 16 have been in January. 16 17 Q. What do you recall about that conversation 17 18 with both Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie on the 18 19 phone in January? 19 20 A. I remember that the -- I believe -- I could 20 21 say that the point of the conversation was 21 22 to -- to get a -- an accurate survey of what 22 23 information, what format, anything else that 23 24 might be includable -- I know that's not a 24 25 word but, you know, might be best included 25 work data. There was stuff relevant to my work as well as my personal life on all of them and that it was very -- it was -- I think when I said personal that that pretty much covered everything nonre- -specifically North Carolina redistricting related. What I'm saying is I don't remember saying specifically, his tax returns are on this. I'm pretty sure I never said that. I -- we just -- when -- when we discussed the fact that it was all mingled, personal and work, that I -- I think that was implied that was covered. Q. If I understand your testimony, you discussed with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie that within the materials you were providing to them was both data related to your father's work as well as personal data with regards to your father and personal data for your mother and personal data for yourself, correct? A. Correct. Q. Do you recall what, if anything, Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie said in response to you sharing with them that this data was commingled and contained -- 126 128 32 (Pages 125 to 128) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 A. They addressed it without -- I don't think I even had to really specify what, I think, seemed obvious and that is that obvious -- I wouldn't expect to see a lot of personal data suddenly appearing in this matter because their understanding of the directive to them was that only files that were explicitly, obviously North Carolina redistricting during this period of time related would even be looked at, much less entered into evidence. That was their understanding at that time. Q. And when you say that was their understanding -A. That's what they told me their understanding was. Q. Did you have any conversations with Ms. Mackie without Mr. Speas on the line? A. Yes. Q. How many conversations have you had with Ms. Mackie? A. I don't know. Three, maybe four. It was very -- again, many of these conversations weren't much more than just touch base, here's what we're doing, we're doing the research on this, we will get back to you, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it was going to a third party anyway and that it would be basically not even handled by them. It would go directly to a third party anyway, so it would probably be just as well that I mail it directly to that third party for the -- the forensic IT expert really is what my understanding was. I don't remember the exact words they used, but the idea that this would be someone that could say, this is how it was when we received it and could confirm things like that none of the files had been altered. Q. I thought you testified earlier that you did not mail the materials directly to a third-party vendor; is that correct? A. I mailed them to -- I mean, I thought that Poyner Spruill -- no, not Poyner Spruill. I mean -Q. Is it your understanding that you thought -A. Yes. Q. -- Arnold & Porter was a third-party vendor when you sent them the material? A. Vendor? No. Just another -- a different attorney. I said an attorney in D.C. who is a forensic expert on IT essentially. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just, you know, polite -- if it had been a while or if I called and left a message, like, you know, have you found out whether or not X, X, X, then it was -- a lot of this was voice mail. I don't honestly -- I can't tell you exactly how many conversations and many of them were very brief, like just an attempt to schedule a phone call or something. Q. Did you have any e-mail communications with Ms. Mackie? A. I did and I -- the -- the -- what pops into my mind instantly is she e-mailed me the address to which I -- when it was established that I was not going to be able to get to Raleigh to actually produce the -- the evidence as per the subpoena -- because that was my original intention because I was back and forth, you know, helping my mother between my work in Kentucky and -- and -- and visiting and helping her with -- with her matters. But it -- it -- it became increasingly clear, one, that I wasn't going to make it to Raleigh soon enough to -- to -to -- to -- to get this produced and, two, I think they -- that they had already said that 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. A. I don't remember the exact words, but that was the understanding that I took away from it, that they felt that it would be a -- a -a better -- I don't know how to put it. I don't -- I don't have, as my father would call it, the legalese to -- to repeat exactly what was said. I did not ever get the impression this was a vendor. My understanding this was still a lawyer but that this was somebody who specialized in this sort of thing. Q. Okay. Approximately how many e-mail communications did you have with Ms. Mackie? A. Not very many. I remember that she gave me the address and then she had said that if I was having trouble -- at a certain point because I was having trouble finding a -- a FedEx office close to my house, and also, for a brief period of time, you know, the -it -- it was about a hundred dollars to ship and we had a brief discussion about how I would be reimbursed and I said, well, I'll have to wait till Friday because, you know, my paycheck was clearing and I didn't want to 130 132 33 (Pages 129 to 132) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 spend that money in advance. So, you know, stuff like that. It was very much just how was I going to actually achieve getting it in a box and getting it to that party. So I don't know exactly how many exchanges we had over that. Q. I know we talked about your text messages with Mr. Speas. Did you have any e-mail communications with Mr. Speas? A. I don't know that I had a specific e-mail communication with Mr. Speas. I -- I think he was maybe CC'd on a couple of the things or if not all the things that -- anything -like I said, I was -- I was very quickly aware of the fact that Caroline and Eddie were the attorneys, so, again, I'm accustomed to working with teams of lawyers where everybody is CC'd on everything relevant. So I don't know how many of them were. I just remember seeing who was on the CC list and -like, for example, when I saw the motion, I noticed Mark Braden. I was like, oh, hey, hi, Mark. Q. In your -- you've testified in the conversations that you've had with Ms. Mackie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. At what point did I make the decision to -did we make the decision to mail them -Q. No. A. -- or -Q. Earlier in the process. At what point did you say, yeah, I'm going to give you -- I'm comfortable giving you all of this stuff, you can have it? A. Well, honestly, I wouldn't have brought it up if I wasn't comfortable with the idea that I would eventually give it to somebody. Q. So is it fair to say when you had your initial communication with Mr. Speas, at that point in time you already intended and planned to provide them if they wanted it the hard drives and the thumb drives? A. Yes. Q. Have you had conversations with anyone else at Poyner Spruill besides Edwin Speas and Ms. Mackie? A. No. Q. Is there anything you discussed with Ms. Speas [sic] or Ms. Mackie in your communications with them that we haven't already covered? 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and as well as with Mr. Speas that they've mentioned doing research. Did they say specifically what type of research they were doing? A. As to the relevance and admissibility of this -- potential relevance and admissibility of this evidence. Also, they -- they were -you know, they were very polite and -- and really wanted to make sure that I didn't feel that they were pulling this out of me or that I was on the spot. They were sensitive about the fact that my father had very recently passed and they were just, I mean, like attorneys are, you know, careful, you know, just polite. They didn't -- they didn't want to make me feel like I was under any pressure or -- I don't know how to put it best. I think -- is my -- am I getting my point across? I don't know. Q. When you -- at what point in time did you make the decision that you were going to turn over to Arnold & Porter these hard drives and thumb drives? I know you said you originally had a plan that you were going to hand deliver them in Raleigh and couldn't do that. 135 1 2 3 A. I really don't think so, no. Maybe -- maybe somebody said something about the weather but nothing -- certainly nothing relevant. 4 Q. Other than exchanging of general pleasantries 5 on the communications that you've had with 6 Ms. Speas and Ms. Mackie, have we discussed 7 the substance of the communications that 8 you've had with them? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A. Yes. Q. Have you had any communications with Stanton Jones with Arnold & Porter before today? A. Phone call. THE WITNESS: Were you -- yes, that was -A. I'm sorry. I don't remember all of the names. THE WITNESS: When you called and -- 18 and said, I have a room full of attorneys -- 19 it's, you know, a colloquialism -- that 20 21 was -- what day was that? A. Last week before the weekend. The Thursday, 22 I think it was, there was a conference call 23 where we -- where it was -- it was dropped 24 that there would very likely be a deposition 25 to authenticate. 134 136 34 (Pages 133 to 136) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Q. Last Thursday you had a conference call with Mr. Jones. Was Mr. Sparks on the -A. Yes. Q. -- call as well? Who else was on the call, if anyone? A. I -- Caroline definitely and -THE WITNESS: Eddie, were you part of that, too? A. No. Okay. Q. It's only if you recall. A. I don't. I -- I -- I remember asking for the list, but I was in the car and -MR. JONES: I'll -- I'll just say we're looking blankly at you because -MS. SCULLY: Yes. MR. JONES: -- you have to answer based on your recollection. THE WITNESS: I know. MR. JONES: You're not allowed -THE WITNESS: I know. It's -MR. JONES: -- to ask us questions. THE WITNESS: It's -- it's -- I -MR. JONES: So I don't -THE WITNESS: I -MR. JONES: And we're not trying to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 last? A. It -- it -- it's hard to say because my -- my Bluetooth connection with my car kept dropping calls so there were -- there were a number of -- of drops. There was -- at one point I even continued -- I must have gone on for at least a minute or two before I realized that there was no one on the other end. Basically, it was just about how I came -- the same set of questions that you asked today, basically, how did I come by it, making -- you know, was I -- was it given to me? Yes. All of that. That -- and I -- you know, I spoke a lot about -- actually, in that phone call I ex- -- I spoke a lot about the importance of -- of my father's work and how it was a very -- it seemed to me a very pertinent matter. And I explained at that time that I had throughout my young life been as an only child very involved in -involved in that when my father had a PowerPoint presentation that he had just designed for the state legislators, he would say (indicates). He -- I -- at age 11 I think he felt that I was about at that level. 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rude. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. It's an un- -A. Sometimes I forget that it's not -Q. And it's an unnatural -A. -- a casual conversation. MR. JONES: Yes. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Right. A. This is -- I honestly don't recall the names of -- of everyone that was involved. I do remember because I said, hi, Caroline -because I had spoken to her before. And I think that the other names were names that I did not offhand know so... Q. So to the best of your recollection, on the call was Stanton Jones, Caroline Mackie, and Mr. Sparks. There may have been a few additional individuals whose names you can't recall and you didn't recognize at the time? A. Yes. Q. You were in a car when you received the call you said, yes? A. Yes. Q. Approximately how long did the telephone call 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If you can understand this, then I've done -I've done my job. And -- and any -- any attempts that he made to -- to -- to make the matter understandable to someone who wasn't in, you know, cartography and demographics, he would often test that on me to see because I knew more probably than your average 11-year-old but still wasn't, you know, like one of the programmers. So he thought that if -- if it was clear to me, that that would be a good measure of if he, you know, summarized it accurately. So, you know, I did a little bit of -- of -- of, I don't know, sort of anecdotal tales about what it was like growing up in -- in a -- inside the beltway as it were. Q. Would you say the call lasted more than an hour? A. I don't think it was more than an hour, no. It was about -- as -- as far as the amount of time that I actually spent on the phone, closer to 45 minutes. I mean, I -- as best I can recall. I honestly was kind of trying to find a place to park where people weren't all close by. I had -- you know, wasn't really 138 140 35 (Pages 137 to 140) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 familiar with the area. I just wanted to get somewhere so I wasn't going to be talking and driving at the same time. Q. Did you have any in-person meeting with Mr. Jones or Mr. Speas in advance of today's deposition? A. Nope. This is the first time I've seen either of them. Q. Prior to today's deposition had you ever seen the photographs that were marked as Exhibit 2? A. No. Q. Have you had any other communications with Mr. Jones besides this telephone conversation we were talking about that occurred last Thursday? A. No. No. Messages about everything have been coming to me through my attorney. Q. In your communications with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie, at what point in time did either Ms. Speas or Ms. Mackie address the actual issuance of a subpoena? A. I don't think -- I honestly don't think that -- I'm not sure that I even spoke to them directly in advance of -- well, I think 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. No. Q. In what context did they bring up that a subpoena was issued to Dale Oldham? A. I think it was when I, again, had said something about -- I don't know. I felt like I didn't want to promise that any of this was -- was relevant or new because -- and I kept -- I really did genuinely believe that because of the fact that Dale had had this repeated conversation, this repeated interaction with my father and his -- you know, his possessions that everything that could possibly be at all pertinent had already been collected. Q. Did either Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie tell you that Dale Oldham had produced materials in response to a subpoena? A. No. I -- I did ask. Q. And what did they say? A. And I think it was Caroline that said, he's refusing this -- to accept service. And I said, that's the Dale I know. Q. So it didn't surprise you that Mr. Oldham was not responding to the subpoena? A. That's correct. It's -- 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that -- that -- that it was Jane who mentioned that they wanted to give me the heads-up that there would be -- that that would be out and -- because I had mentioned that the Geographic Strategies computers had been taken already by my father's business partner, I think they mentioned to me that there was a subpoena issued to Dale, to Dalton Oldham, but then at that point it was -- I asked questions like, will I theoretically get this back? Q. Uh-huh. A. And they said yes. And I was just trying to get an idea of -- of what their journey was going to be, you know, considering that it was my property. And it was mostly at that point discussion about just, you know, literally where they should be sent and -and all of that. Q. Who mentioned to you that a subpoena was issued to Dale Oldham? A. I don't remember whether that was Eddie or Caroline. Q. Were you surprised that a subpoena was issued to Dale Oldham? 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SPARKS: Objection -THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. MR. SPARKS: -- mischaracterization. THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead. A. I -- I would say nothing -- nothing surprises me with attorneys. I -- again, you know, my father did not -- no offense to any -- any esquire here, but he did not have a very reverential attitude towards the whole process. He said something about that -along with like a -- a little quip like with legislation -- you know, legislation is like sausage, you -- you shouldn't watch it being made. You know, I think he felt the same about litigation so -- he -Q. You un- -A. -- often used to say that Dale was a very -very -- a good strategist. Q. You understood at the time you were speaking with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie that they had been unable to obtain from Mr. Oldham records relating to your father's work -A. Only -Q. -- correct? 142 144 36 (Pages 141 to 144) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 A. -- because I -THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. SPARKS: Objection, mischaracterization. And just to be specific and not to have a talking -- she said that her -- what she was told is he never accepted service so -- and I'm not trying to shape testimony. That's just what she said. A. Yes. I asked because I was curious because I -- again, the same reason I was curious when I saw all of these files and had a minute to look at them, really my -- my interest in them was a bit more on the academic end than anything else. Q. You understood based on your conversations with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie that they had not received any of your father's business records from Mr. Oldham in the litigation, correct? MR. JONES: Objection. It's been asked and answered. A. It was -MS. SCULLY: It hasn't been answered. A. -- my -Q. You may answer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't feel, charged with maintaining the forensic integrity so I was just -- I wanted to make sure that I had -- that I had everything in that it was mine, in that it was -- I don't have a lot of -- of memento from my father. I was kind of hoping that I would be able to preserve this for posterity if nothing else. And knowing how these things work, even though it was clear that the -- that the intention was that these things would be returned to me, that's another thing my father taught me. You don't count on it. Q. The copies that you made of the -- some of the materials that you provided to Arnold & Porter, where are those copies maintained? A. I have those at home in my home in Kentucky and I have it on a couple of my own thumb drives. Q. And where are the thumb drives kept? A. In the same drawer where I keep pens, pencils, stuff like that. Q. Is the drawer in your home in Kentucky? I'm trying to understand -A. Yes. 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. -- understanding based on a response to my direct question that Dalton Oldham was refusing to accept service on the subpoena. Q. And as a result of his refusing to accept service, you understood he had not turned over any documents, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you retain copies of any of the hard drives and thumb drives that you produced to Arnold & Porter in response to the subpoena? A. Yes. Q. Did you make copies of all of the hard drives and thumb drives? A. I was not actually able to copy everything because I did not at that moment have adequate storage. Q. What -- which files did you copy and maintain? A. I was really principally concerned with -well, first of all, I -- I did -- there was one hard drive I know that had many, many, many, many backups of the same hard drive, so I copied, you know, the first one and the last one only knowing that that was going to be redundant and I was not -- I was not, I 147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. -- physically -Yes. -- where it is. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to -- I -- I wasn't sure what you were asking. Yes, they're -- they're in Kentucky. Q. So all of the copies that you've made are maintained at someplace in your home in Kentucky, correct? A. All of the copies that I made, yes, and -Q. Correct? A. Except, of course -- now, I have some copies of the photographs of me and my children, for example, on -- on -- on like my laptop that is -- it's like -- I -- I don't put pictures as background for desktop, but sometimes I have little decorative things. I was, again, so happy to have these pictures again that I have some of those, but other than that, no, I -- I tried really to keep it separate. I'm not, you know -- have more pressing matters. Q. Have you provided anyone else with any copies of the materials that you turned over to Arnold & Porter? A. Yes. My files, things that were literally 146 148 37 (Pages 145 to 148) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 mine, I have shared with colleagues in my 1 2 work as a research consultant in criminology, 2 3 specifically victimology, specifically with 3 4 an emphasis on gender-based violence. So 4 5 things that were relevant to our study of -- 5 6 of anything involving that topic that were 6 7 there on note files, those -- mine, yes. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Q. Have you shared with anyone any copies of any materials that relate to your father or your 8 9 father's work? 10 A. No, other than communication between him and 11 me on matters that were related to me, but 12 not -- nothing related to his work. 13 14 Q. There was, I understand also, on the files 14 15 you provided to Arnold & Porter personal 15 16 health information about your mother, 16 17 correct? 17 18 A. I -- I honestly don't know. I didn't really 18 19 examine all of the files that appeared to be 19 20 health related to see which of them were Mom 20 21 and which of them were Dad, and honestly, 21 22 right at this moment I -- I don't -- I don't 22 23 know that I really observed -- okay. I think 23 24 there was like a HIPAA form, but one of them 24 25 was mine and I know there are medical records 25 Porter, correct? A. Yes. Q. I'd like to understand if -- putting that information aside -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- have you provided any other information from the materials you provided to Arnold & Porter to anyone else? A. No. Q. You mentioned that Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie talked to you about a subpoena that they'd issued to Dale Oldham. Did either Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie inform you that they had issued a subpoena to your mother as well as to the estate of your father? A. Yes. Q. When did they first tell you about that subpoena that they had issued? A. I think almost immediately after it was issued. Q. Did they tell you in advance of issuing it that they were going to issue it? A. I don't think so. I don't honestly remember. No. I think it was they had just issued it. Q. Did they tell you why they were sharing that 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of mine on that hard drive, one of them. Several, I think. I have some HIPAA release forms that I scanned and sent to hospitals, doctors, to obtain medical records on myself and my children. My children's medical records are part of that archive, vaccination records, things like that. Q. Sitting here today, do you know if -- in the materials that you provided to Arnold & Porter if there was personal health information related to your mother in those materials? A. I don't know. Q. Could have been; you just don't know? A. Exactly. Q. Other than the information related to you personally that you provided to some of your coworkers, have you provided copies of information -- this information that you produced to Arnold & Porter to anybody else? A. I'm -- I'm sorry. Clarify the question again. Q. You've testified that you provided some of your personal information that is contained within the materials you provided to Arnold & 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information with you? A. Because they knew that I was in constant communication with my mother and they -again, this was all -- there was -- there's a lot of talk about being sensitive to the fact that my father had recently deceased and I think that the -- the impression was that they wanted me to know so that I -- so that my mother wouldn't, you know, see another legal document and think that it was, you know, something that she was going to be, you know, directly -- I don't know. That the incompetency got her very understandably -she felt very put upon, very examined, and -and I think the idea was -- I think I had told them that they -- that I would like them to tell me at that point so that I could know that my mother was not going to be scared when -- when she received it and think, you know, she's -- she has some memory -- memory issues as is normal for someone her age. So they knew that I was very sensitive to that and that she -- even if I had told her, which I didn't, that she might not remember that -that that's what that was. So that was 150 152 38 (Pages 149 to 152) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 really pretty much it, so that -- that I 1 2 would -- that my mother wouldn't be caught 2 3 off guard and -- and be frightened and that I 3 4 would have a chance to -- to, once again, 4 5 clarify with her what was going on and that 5 6 that wasn't going to be a -- a problem for 6 7 her. 7 8 9 Q. And when you say it wasn't going to be a 8 problem for her, what do you mean by that? 9 10 A. As opposed to the proceedings that are 10 11 directly -- that were directly challenging 11 12 her competence, which was very much a problem 12 for her. 13 13 14 Q. Did you have conversations with either 14 15 Mr. Speas or Ms. Mackie about the fact that 15 16 your mom had these memory problems? 16 17 A. No, not specifically the memory problems. I 17 18 think it was more casual like, you know, 18 19 she's -- she's -- her emotions are very raw 19 20 right now. She's on edge from everything 20 21 that's been happening. And I think really it 21 22 was more, again, in casual conversation 22 23 the -- neither Eddie nor Caroline was 23 24 expressing any type of interrogatory interest 24 25 in -- in the other matter. We really -- our 25 I just checked around to see if I saw anything untoward I -- looking for, you know -Q. So you shared -- if I understand your testimony correctly, you had shared with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie that between Dale Oldham having the two computers of your father and you having the hard drives and the thumb drives that your mother no longer had possession of any of your father's electronic work files, correct? A. I had said that if there was -- I remember that I was, again, like a -- like a lawyer, you know, I can't say for sure, but it looked to me that the only thing that could possibly even exist in her possession would be most certainly a duplicate of one or two files, a duplicate of something that was already in the matter, i.e., that -- that there might be one or two of the last things that he -- he mentioned to himself on that PC but that -that -- at first glance -- because also, I was looking for things relevant to me, photographs of the family, things that I might have missed, but it appeared as though 153 155 1 conversation really was very much centered on 1 2 this whole -- this, this matter, those 2 3 materials, and my father in his -- in the 3 4 context of his work as a political 4 5 demographer. 5 6 Q. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Speas 6 7 or Ms. Mackie about whether your mom would -- 7 8 had possession of any materials that would be 8 9 responsive to a subpoena? 10 9 10 A. Yes, in that I -- basically, I -- I had said 11 that I -- that between Dale having taken the 11 12 work stuff and I taken the rest of what I 12 13 saw, then that all -- all that remained in 13 14 her home was -- was a personal PC that was 14 15 really relatively new. I don't think that -- 15 16 that my parents even had that PC for more 16 17 than a few weeks before my father died, and 17 18 it did not -- it did not appear to me -- and 18 19 the reason that I was familiar at all with 19 20 the content of my mother's -- now my mother's 20 21 personal computer is because she'd had some 21 22 issue with a virus shortly before I had come, 22 23 so I had -- along with the -- with the -- the 23 24 gentleman that she had -- had come in to help 24 25 her make sure that her -- her PC was secure, 25 there really wasn't anything much new at all on -- on -- on my mother's hard drive. So I -- I did not say for sure that I knew because I -- I didn't feel confident. I wasn't even in Raleigh at that time. I just said, as far as I know, there is nothing on her personal computer and I don't believe there's anything else much there. And I said that I would -- that I would probably be better able to confirm it when I was next in Raleigh. And in answer to your next question, no, I haven't really been -- my mother and I have not really been -- that hasn't been our focus. I only recently found out that there was even going to be a deposition or that -so I haven't actually gone through to -to -- to confirm it, but that's my understanding and that's her understanding, my mother's understanding, as far as I know, too. Q. I want to make sure I understand your testimony. So you -MR. SPEAS: Ms. Scully, your questions about my conversations with this witness have 154 156 39 (Pages 153 to 156) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 now exceeded the length of those conversations. I really think it's time you moved on to something else. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. In your communications with Mr. Speas, did you share with him that you would take it upon yourself to look to determine if your mom in her files had information related to your father's work? A. I really -- it was not -- I don't know -- I mean, I wasn't giving testimony. It was just a casual conversation where I said, as far as I know, there's really nothing there. I can't say for sure because I'm not there, but I'll ask my mother and I'll look just like to see if there's a new computer sitting on the table when I get there. I mean, really, there was very nonspecific tone, but I expressed what I'll go ahead and express again and that is that I really think that I had gotten the -- the survey of everything that could possibly be relevant and it was already in the hands of Poyner Spruill, I guess. No. Which one? I'm -- I'm getting all of you confused. Yes. Okay. Arnold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really have to be worried about this. This is -- this is -- this is about stuff that you gave me, but just -- she's used to the idea that lawyers like to cross their T's and dot their I's, and that's the way I put it to her and she understood it that way, and that was the end of the matter as far as she was concerned. I really didn't want to -- I mean, she -- she's bored with this. She spent 52 years being married to my father. MR. JONES: We've -BY MS. SCULLY: Q. It was your ex- -MR. JONES: We've been going -BY MS. SCULLY: Q. It was your expectation that your mother didn't have any materials to produce and so you told her, you don't have to worry about it because you have no materials to produce in response to the subpoena, correct? MR. SPARKS: Objection, mischaracterization. Go ahead and answer the question. A. I'm really not trying to be evasive. I don't understand what part of your question I 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Porter. Q. Did you at any point in time actually go through your mother's files to determine if she had any information that may be responsive to the subpoena that was served on her? MR. SPARKS: Objection. That has been asked and answered. A. Yes, it has. It -Q. Did you? A. -- really has. I -- I said that I went through her files before -- not her files -again, the personal PC principally to look for any other pictures -- honestly, pictures of family members was specifically what I was looking for. As I did that survey, I didn't notice anything else work related -- my father's work related. So did I go through it with the idea that I was looking for stuff for them? No. Did I go through it? Yes. Q. Did you have a conversation with your mother about the subpoena that was issued by Poyner Spruill on her? A. Yes. A conversation is a little bit an exaggeration. I basically said, you don't 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 Q. A. Q. 7 8 9 A. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. haven't answered yet. Maybe you could clarify what you would like to know so that I can answer -Did you --- your question. -- tell your mother that there -- there were no materials that she needed to produce in response to the subpoena? You know what, no, I didn't put it that way because -- I just told her not to worry about it because my mother's really had enough of all of this and I didn't -- really, it was -it was pointless to -- to trouble her at that moment because we were actually discussing the funding of her trust, whether or not she was going to be able to access funds to come and visit me in Lexington. That was really the meat of our conversation and I -- as she was accustomed to sort of letting things go by with my father's work as married couples often don't pay a lot of attention to each other's work, it was in that tone. So I don't -- I'm really just trying to be accurate. How about -- 158 160 40 (Pages 157 to 160) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 May 17, 2019 1 Q. Are you a member of Common Cause? MR. SPARKS: Do you have any more? 2 A. No. 3 THE WITNESS: No. 3 Q. Have you ever worked for Common Cause? 4 MR. SPARKS: Okay. We need to take a 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you ever told anyone that you were 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. I don't know how important it is... break. She's -- she's tired. Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the 6 record. The time is 1:50 p.m. (Whereupon, there was a recess in the proceedings from 1:50 p.m. to 1:57 p.m.) A. No. 8 Q. Have you ever received any money from Common 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 1:57 p.m. working for Common Cause? 7 10 11 Cause? A. No. Oh, you know, actually, I think there was reimbursement for the FedEx -- 12 BY MS. SCULLY: 12 Q. And the reim- -- 13 Q. Ms. Hofeller, have you had any communications 13 A. -- in the form of a check. Q. The reimbursement for the FedEx -- and you're 14 with a David Gersch? 14 15 A. Not that I can recall, no. 15 16 Q. Have you had any communications with someone 16 17 named Elizabeth Theodore? A. Yes. I provided them with a receipt and they provided me with a reimbursement for that A. No. 18 19 Q. Any conversations or communications with 19 Daniel Jacobson? documents to Arnold & Porter, correct? 17 18 20 referring to the FedEx for shipping the 20 amount. Q. Other than the reimbursement for the shipment 21 A. No. 21 for the box that you sent via FedEx to 22 Q. Any conversations that you can recall with 22 Arnold & Porter, have you received any other 23 anyone that works for Arnold & Porter besides 23 24 Mr. Stanton Jones, the conversation we've 24 25 already discussed? 25 monies from Common Cause? A. No compensations, no considerations, no money. 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Any conversations with anyone working for Poyner Spruill besides the conversations that you've had with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie? A. No. Q. Have you had any conversations or communications with Mark Elias? A. No. Q. Have you had any conversations or other communications with someone named Aria C. Branch? A. No. Q. Have you had any communications or other written communications with Abha Khanna? A. No. Q. Have you had any communications with anyone working for Perkins Coie? A. No. Q. Have you had any communications with anyone at Common Cause besides the communications with Ms. Pinsky and the communication with -MR. JONES: Mr. Phillips. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. -- Bob Phillips? A. No. 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Have you at any point in time received any monies from anyone at Poyner Spruill? A. No. Q. Have you received any monies at any point in time from anyone at Arnold & Porter? A. No. Q. Have you received monies at any time from anyone working for Perkins Coie? A. No. Q. You've talked about the review of the materials that you have conducted of the hard drives and the thumb drives. At any point in time did anyone else have access to and review those materials before you produced them to Arnold & Porter? A. No. Q. Did -- you testified that the materials that you took possession of from the residence where your father and mother resided -- you took those materials -- those electronic materials to your home in Kentucky -A. That's correct. Q. -- before -A. I'm sorry. I -Q. -- before you produced them to Arnold & 162 164 41 (Pages 161 to 164) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 Porter approximately March 13th, 2019, correct? A. Correct. Q. Has anyone else resided in your home in Kentucky during that period of time between October 2018 and March 13th, 2019? A. No. I live alone. Ditched the husband. First time in my life, actually, I have my own place. It's wonderful. I love it. Q. Prior to sending the hard drives and thumb drives to Arnold & Porter, did you provide copies of any of those materials to anyone else? MR. JONES: Ob- -- objection. That's been -A. I already answered that. MR. JONES: -- asked and answered. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Was -A. I already answered that. Q. I just wanted to clarify if it was prior to your -- I know you -- you've testified already that you provided some personal information to a coworker. Was that prior to your sending the information to Arnold & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 done over the phone. I didn't get the impression that there was anyone else there so as far as I know there wasn't, no. MS. SCULLY: Can I have these marked 3 and 4? 3 is on top, 4 is on bottom. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 3 was marked for identification.) (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 4 was marked for identification.) MR. BRANCH: Thank you. MS. SCULLY: We're short one. MR. BRANCH: If you need to -MS. SCULLY: She has it. It's marked. MR. JONES: Why don't we give Tom your copy because -MR. SPEAS: Yeah. MR. JONES: -- he doesn't have one and we can share. So, Tom -- Tom -A. Okay. I see. MR. JONES: -- take a -BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Oh. MR. JONES: -- take a copy for each. MR. SPARKS: Thank you. A. I see that these are two different -- 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Porter or after? A. That was prior and after because there was something else relevant. So, again, my material, exclusively mine, as in may -- I sent a copy of one of those pictures to another one of my colleagues, picture of my son. Q. I just wanted to clarify -A. Yeah. Q. -- so there wasn't a confusion about whether the copies were distributed prior to or after the -- the release of the information to Arnold & Porter. A. Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, you know... Q. You testified earlier that before you made the production of the materials to Arnold & Porter that you did have some conversations with your mother about the fact that you were going to produce those materials to Arnold & Porter, correct? A. Yes. Q. Was anyone else present when you had those communications with your mother? A. No. I don't think so. I mean, these were 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: We'll share. MS. SCULLY: Thank you. I thought I'd made enough copies but apparently not. MR. SPARKS: It's good. We're good. Thanks. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, what's just been put in front of you marked as Exhibit 3 and 4, focusing first on Exhibit 3, do you recognize Exhibit 3 as a copy of the subpoena that was issued to your mother, Kathleen Hofeller, on or about January 15th, 2019? A. I see that it is, but I don't recognize it. Q. Had you ever seen -- I know you testified earlier that you were aware that a subpoena was issued to your mother in this case. Had you ever seen a copy of the subpoena before today? A. Actually, no. Q. Exhibit 4 appears to be a copy -- I'll represent to you is a copy of a subpoena that was issued to the Estate of Thomas Hofeller. I know you testified earlier that you were aware that a subpoena was issued to your father's estate. Had you ever seen a copy of 166 168 42 (Pages 165 to 168) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 the actual subpoena? A. No. Q. Put that aside. You testified earlier that you first learned of your father's passing in -- I apologize -A. September 30th. Q. -- September 30th, 2018. How did you come to learn of your father's passing? A. I typed his name into Google and saw the New York Times article of his obituary. Q. What had prompted you to search for your father's name that day? A. I had a feeling, a hunch something might be -- and, you know, it would -- I think it had -- like a few months ago I was aware of the -- the -- the fact that there was another set of -- another set of districts in court, so, I mean, I figured if nothing else, I'd see if there was anything interesting about that basically really in my role as a -- as a -- as a student of -- of -- of political philosophy and -- and other such things. But, honestly, I -- I -- I had a hunch that maybe something was wrong. Q. Once you found out that your father had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 she hadn't contacted me. Q. Had your father -- had there already been a funeral service for your father at that point in time when you learned of his passing? MR. JONES: Object again. It's -- I think it's inappropriate. A. I know as much about it as anyone who read the New York Times obituary. Q. I take it you did not attend a funeral service for your father; is that correct? MR. JONES: Objection. A. No. Q. You testified that you -- earlier that you had not spoken to your father -- the last time you'd spoken to your father was July 2014 prior to his passing in August of 2018, correct? A. Yes. Q. Had you followed your father's work in any way between July 2014 and August 2018? MR. SPARKS: Now I'm going to object. It's -- my understanding of this proceeding is that this is to authenticate things that she turned over and we're now getting to personal family matters. I'm going to -- are 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 passed away, did you reach out to your mother? A. Yes. Q. Did you ask your mother why she hadn't contacted you to inform you -A. I didn't. Q. -- that your father -A. No. Q. -- had passed? A. No. Q. And why not? You said you didn't -A. I didn't need to because I don't believe that she knew how to reach me. Q. And -- and why do you say that? MR. JONES: I'm -- I'm -- I'll object to this line of questioning. I -- I can't imagine why the -- the circumstances around Ms. Hofeller's communications with her -- her mother relating to her father's death could possibly have any relevance here. It seems -- it seems vexatious. MR. SPARKS: Are you going to instruct the witness not to answer? MR. JONES: She's not my witness. A. I was -- let's see. No, I didn't ask her why 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we going to continue down this line? If we're going to continue down this line, I am going to instruct her not to answer. MS. SCULLY: Not much further, but I just want -- it is important. It is relevant and we can talk outside about whether it's relevant or not, but I'm not going to talk about that in front of the witness. MR. SPARKS: Okay. MS. SCULLY: I'm simply asking if she's kept track of -THE WITNESS: Oh, go on ahead. MS. SCULLY: -- her father's work. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. SPARKS: Go ahead and answer that question. MR. JONES: Can you repeat it? I forgot it. Can you -- can you read back the last question? MS. SCULLY: I can reask the question. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Between July 2014 and August 6 -- I'm sorry, July 2014 and August 16th, 2018, have you followed any of your father's work? 170 172 43 (Pages 169 to 172) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 A. That is a very vague question. Maybe you could be more specific. I was not in communication with him. In what way would I follow his work? Q. Have -- did you read articles about any work your father was doing in redistricting between July 2014 and August 16th, 2018? A. I quite certainly may have read any number of the many, many newspaper articles about my father who was rather well-known including the one I just mentioned, the New York Times article that was his obituary. I read that. Q. Did you read any articles or any statements made by Common Cause about your father's work? A. I do not recall having made note of the name Common Cause until such point as my father was already deceased. I really wasn't that involved. Q. Ms. Hofeller, have you ever been charged with a crime? MR. SPARKS: Objection. Ob- -- this is totally inadmissible. I mean, this is absolutely inadmissible. Don't answer that. Go ahead. 1 2 MR. JONES: These are 5 and 6? MS. SCULLY: Yes. 3 BY MS. SCULLY: 4 Q. Ms. Hofeller, have you had an opportunity to 5 6 review the documents that's been put in front of you marked Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6? 7 A. Let me look quickly at 6. Yes. 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. Yeah. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q. Have you seen the documents marked as Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 before? A. I have never seen this page right here (indicates). Q. When you're pointing to this page right here, which one are -- 16 A. This one on top, the first page -- 17 Q. -- you referring to? 18 A. -- of Exhibit 5, I have never seen this 19 20 21 before. I have seen the -- the -- this page is familiar to me. Q. And when you're saying this page, I just want 22 to reflect for the record on the document 23 marked as Exhibit 5, you're referring to the 24 second page which has the caption, Notice of 25 Hearing on Incompetence Motion in the Cause 173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SCULLY: You're going to instruct her not to answer? MR. SPARKS: I am instructing her not to answer that question. MS. SCULLY: Okay. MR. BRANCH: Okay. MS. SCULLY: Oh, did I give you one that's got any markings on it? I don't think so. MR. SPARKS: Here, you can -MS. SCULLY: That's all right. No, that's all right. I'll give you one in one second. Sorry. I just... THE WITNESS: Oh, more -- you would have -MR. SPARKS: Please. THE WITNESS: Yeah. Okay. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 5 was marked for identification.) MS. SCULLY: I seem to have lost mine. I'm going to have this one marked also at the same time. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 6 was marked for identification.) MR. BRANCH: Thank you. 175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And have you seen the third page of the document? A. No. Q. In the document marked Exhibit 5, the second page that you've seen, did you see that on or about October 29th, 2018, that there was going to be a hearing for your mother regarding her in- -- whether she was incompetent or not? A. On or about. MR. SPARKS: Ask the question again, please. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Do you recall when you first saw the second page of the document marked Exhibit 5? A. Yes. Q. When? A. I think it was a few -- few days later. Q. A few days later from -A. After it was filed. Q. -- when? A. A few days after it was filed. I mean, I guess that it was filed on the 29th 174 176 44 (Pages 173 to 176) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 considering that this is stamped there. Q. And -A. I did not see it on the 29th. Q. Your recollection is that you recall seeing the second page of the document marked as Exhibit 5 a few days after October 29th, 2018, correct? A. Correct. Q. The document marked as Exhibit 6 which states, Petition for Adjudication of Incompetence and Application for Appointment of Guardian or Limited Guardian, have you seen that document before? A. Yes. Q. When did you first see that document? A. A few days after it was filed. Q. You understood that one of the grounds that was asserted by the petitioner for seeking to have your mother found incompetent, if you refer to the -A. Yes, I understand -Q. -- second page -A. -- what's written here. Q. You had knowledge of that? A. I have know- -- I had knowledge of what was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basis for seeking your -- to find your mother incompetent, you understood that those were the grounds that were being alleged, correct? A. I understood that these were the facts set forth that the petitioner alleges are grounds, yes. Q. One of the facts that were set forth that the petitioner alleged that were grounds was that the respondent is believed to be under the influence of a previously estranged child. Since appearance of child financial assistant hired for respondent quit her employment upon concerns of personal safety based on actions of -- actions of previously estranged child. Respondent removed appointed attorney-in-fact over security of funds. Did you disagree with those assertions? MR. JONES: I'll -- I'm going to object. A. The -MR. JONES: I think that you're just -A. The -- you know what -THE REPORTER: One -- one at a time. MR. JONES: Hold on. Hold on. I'm going to object. I -- I think at this point 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written here when I saw the document. Q. And when you're referring to what was written here, you are referring to -- on the second page under Paragraph 5 there are four grounds listed as the grounds for seeking to have your mother found incompetent. You understood those, correct? MR. SPARKS: Objection as to characterization. They're allegations. I understand that I'm parsing -- I'm being a lawyer here, but they are allegations and that -- to the extent that you're saying they're grounds, they're -- they're verified or they're -- they're true... Do you understand they're allegations? THE WITNESS: I understand that they are allegations. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. I'll reask the question, Ms. Hofeller. Did you -- you understood -- when you're saying, I understood what is written here, I'm just trying to make sure we have agreement on the record that the here you're referring to are the four allegations that are set forth on the second page of Exhibit 6 as the alleged 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're just harassing the -- the witness. MR. SPARKS: Yeah. MR. JONES: She's not my witness so I'm not going to -- but it seems -A. This is not for me to say. MR. SPARKS: I believe the same thing. I -- I believe the same thing. If -- if you want to ask about the factual basis of this, I don't understand how it has anything to do with something so we're going to take a break -- or can you answer -- there's a question on the table. Can you answer the question? THE WITNESS: No. MR. SPARKS: Okay. Let's you and I talk, please, if we can take a break. Thanks. Not you -- not you and I. THE WITNESS: Oh, good. Excellent. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. Time is 2:23 p.m. (Whereupon, there was a recess in the proceedings from 2:23 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.) (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 7 was marked for identification.) 178 180 45 (Pages 177 to 180) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 May 17, 2019 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 2:37 p.m. 1 2 3 BY MS. SCULLY: 3 4 Q. Ms. Hofeller, have you had an opportunity to 4 5 review the document that's marked Exhibit 7 5 6 that's in front of you? 6 7 A. Let me -- let me finish. 7 8 Q. Please, take your time. Tell me when you're 8 9 ready. 9 10 A. Hold on. Get my glasses. Is this -- when 10 11 was this filed? What is the date on this? I 11 12 don't see the date that it was filed. Is it 12 on the second page? 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. It's -- the document is dated on Page 4, 14 the -- November 5th, 2018. 15 A. Oh, okay. All right. All right. I've 16 had -- I've reviewed this. 17 Q. Ms. Hofeller, my first question is, have you 18 19 prior to today seen the document that's 19 20 marked as Exhibit 7? 20 21 22 23 A. I don't believe that I did ever see this one, 21 no. No. 22 Q. Were you at any point aware that a guardian 23 24 ad litem had been appointed in the 24 25 incompetency proceedings related to your 25 had concluded that based on the interview of the petitioner's attorney and a review of your mother's medical records, that she believed the petitioner had met the burden to show reasonable cause to believe that your mother was -A. My mother didn't have -Q. -- incompetent? A. -- and attorney. MR. SPARKS: Stop, please. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. SPARKS: Thank you. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. A. No. The answer to your question is no. Q. Did you at any point in time become aware that Ms. Riddick had informed the court that she was concerned that your mother's well-being and estate were at risk without the appointment of an interim guardian? A. Not really, no. No. No. Q. Were you aware that the guardian ad litem had informed the court that you had had until recently an estranged relationship with your mother? A. Was I aware that Erin Riddick specifically 181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mother? A. A guardian ad litem? Q. Yes. A. As in the guardian ad litem, Erin Riddick? Q. Yes. A. At -- ask again. Was I at some point aware that a guardian ad litem had been appointed -Q. Yes. A. -- at -- yes. Yes. Q. When did you first become aware of the appointment of a guardian ad litem? A. I think that that was part of the original petition. Yes, it was. Erin Riddick was appointed guardian ad litem when the petition was filed. When that was served I was aware of the fact that a guardian ad litem had been appointed for my mother. Q. Did you ever have any communications with Ms. Riddick? A. No. She never reached out to me. Q. Did you ever reach out to Ms. Riddick directly? A. No. Q. Did you ever become aware that Ms. Riddick 183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 said that I had a previously estranged relationship? Q. Yes. A. I don't think I was aware specifically that Erin Riddick said that, no. No, I wasn't. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 8 was marked for identification.) MS. SCULLY: Can you provide Exhibit 8, please, to the witness. THE WITNESS: I never saw this. I'm sorry. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, you've had an opportunity to review the document marked as Exhibit 8? A. Uh-huh. Q. I believe you said a moment ago you've not previously seen the document marked as Exhibit 8? A. That's correct. Q. This is the first time you've seen the document marked as Exhibit 8? A. Yep. Q. You were aware, is it correct, that the court had entered an order appointing an interim guardian of your mother, correct? Whether 182 184 46 (Pages 181 to 184) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 you'd seen the document or not, you -- you were aware that the court had appointed an interim guardian for your mother? A. At what point? Q. On or about November 6th, 2018. A. I was aware that the hearing -- the result of the hearing was a interim guardian appointed, I believe, yes. Q. You were aware that there was an interim guardian appointed over both your mother's person and over her estate, correct? A. You know, again, I am reading these documents. I am not an attorney in these matters. In that that is the proper interpretation of these documents, I was aware of what these documents said. My mother's attorney handled the matter from that point forward, so my awareness would extend to reading this as a layperson. So if -- if it says -- if you're asking me was I aware that -- that this was done, I -- yes, I -- I guess. I'm not -Q. Contemporaneous with the proceedings that were ongoing, the incompetency proceedings, were you communicating with your mother's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was after Doug Noreen was retained that I saw the paperwork; otherwise, I would not be -not really -Q. Do -A. -- don't tend to be in communication with the Wake County court as a -- as a matter of course. Q. Did someone represent your mother prior to Doug Noreen entering his appearance and representing her in the incompetency proceeding? A. No. Q. When did Mr. Noreen first begin to represent your mother? A. I think that his first conversation with her was one or two days after the preliminary. Q. What preliminary? A. The one at which apparently the interim guardian -- the one requested in these documents that I explained that I had seen. Q. One or two days after the document that's marked Exhibit 6, the petition for incompetence? A. Yes. Isn't there a -- yeah. I think that -if I -- let's see. November 8th rings a bell 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorney about the proceedings? A. Well, this is a -- this has -- this had been going on -- this was on -- going on for quite a while. At -- at some point I did have communication with my mother's attorney on this matter, yes. Q. And your mother's attorney on this matter I believe you said was Douglas Noreen? A. That's right. Q. Did Mr. Noreen share with you or discuss with you the fact that an interim guardian over your mother's estate and over her person was going to be appointed by the court? A. Going to be? No. Q. Did he share with you that it was, in -- that it did, in fact, occur? A. I don't think that -MR. SPARKS: Objection. You're assuming facts not in -- in evidence and I -you might want to find out when Doug Noreen became her mother's attorney. Just a hint. Go ahead and answer the question to the best -- if you can, please. A. I think that the actual -- the -- the moment when I finally saw the result of that was -- 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for the day that my mother retained Doug Noreen. Q. November 8th -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- 2018? A. Yeah. MS. SCULLY: Can you provide the witness Exhibit 9. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 9 was marked for identification.) BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, actually, before I review Exhibit 9, I had one follow-up question on Exhibit 8. If I could turn your attention back to Exhibit 8. Were you aware that the interim guardian of the estate that was appointed in these proceedings was Everett Bolton? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any communications with Mr. Bolton at any point in time? A. No. Q. No? A. No. Q. Thank you. Were you aware that the Wake 186 188 47 (Pages 185 to 188) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 County Human Services was appointed as the interim guardian over your mom's person? A. Was that the name? I thought it was LifeLinks? Oh, that was the one they suggested, maybe. I -- I was aware that it was a -- a -- a body of some sort rather than a -- an individual. Q. Did you at any point in time have any communications with anyone at Wake County Human Services? A. No. Q. Turning your attention to Exhibit 9, I believe you had an opportunity to review that a few moments ago, correct? A. Yeah. Q. Have you seen the document marked as Exhibit 9 before today? A. I don't -- okay. Report of the -- of the guardian ad litem. I think I reviewed it briefly. Q. It appears on Exhibit 9, last page, there's a certificate of service and it reflects that -- do you see the last page there? A. Oh. Oh, okay. I -- I was going to say, this isn't... 1 Q. At this point -- 2 A. -- all these dates. 3 Q. -- in time, February 6, 2019, was Mr. Sparks 4 representing you in any other matters other 5 than your mom's incompetency proceedings? 6 7 8 9 A. I -- not -- not -- what else was going on then? Q. You were having communications with Mr. Speas and -- 10 A. Oh. Only in that -- 11 Q. -- Ms. Meese [sic]. 12 A. Only in that -- I'm sorry. Only in that 13 he -- he was kind enough to allow me to use 14 his office address as a service address where 15 I could receive service. 16 Q. Did you have any communications with your 17 mother's counsel, Mr. Noreen, about the 18 subpoena that was issued to her in -- in this 19 litigation? 20 A. No, I did not. 21 Q. I take it you didn't have any communications 22 with the interim guardian over her estate 23 about the subpoena that was directed to her 24 in this litigation, correct? 25 A. Yes. 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. On that page it reflects that -- Tom Sparks is listed as your attorney? A. Yes. Q. Yes. At this point in time, No- -- February 6, 2019, was Tom Sparks acting as your attorney in these proceedings? MR. SPARKS: What -- what is this proceeding? I want to make sure you understand. MS. SCULLY: Sorry. BY MS. SCULLY: Q. The incompetency proceedings for your mother. A. Yes. Q. When did you first retain Mr. Sparks in connection with your mother's incompetency proceedings? A. Was it December or January? I don't -- it -it's all a blur. I think it was early January. It was after the hol- -- no. It was -THE WITNESS: I think you -- you got back to me during the holiday -- what I felt was the holiday time. There you go. Thank you. A. I'm sorry. I can't keep track of -- 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And you didn't have any communications with the interim guardian over her person regarding the subpoena that was issued upon her in this litigation, correct? A. That is correct. MS. SCULLY: Can you show the witness Exhibit 10. (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 10 was marked for identification.) BY MS. SCULLY: Q. Ms. Hofeller, have you had -- had an opportunity to review the document marked Exhibit 10? A. Yes. Q. Have you seen the document marked as Exhibit 10 before? A. Yes. Q. When did you first see the document marked as Exhibit 10? A. Sometime after. I really don't know exactly when. My attorney received -MR. SPARKS: Some -- sometime after when? Please tell her. A. The 7th day of February, 2019. Q. Were you aware prior to February -- the date 190 192 48 (Pages 189 to 192) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 on the document marked as Exhibit 7, February 7, 2019, that there was a plan to dismiss the incompetency proceedings and submit to the court the settlement agreement that had been entered into among the interested parties? A. You know, I was represented by my attorney at that time and he was in communication with my mother's attorney. What I was and wasn't aware of, that would be really difficult to say what and when and how and to what degree because it was being negotiated. I was, again, represented by counsel so I wasn't really being spoken to directly on these matters other than my attorney. Q. You understood that Exhibit 10 was a motion to dismiss that was submitted to the court along with a settlement agreement that was in the process of being executed, correct? MR. JONES: And I'll -- I'll -- I'll object. I think the witness has already testified that she was communicating with her attorney here so it seems like anything that she learned from her attorney would be privileged. THE WITNESS: Yes. 1 2 3 4 guardian over your mother's estate and over her person? A. Yes. I'm trusting you that those are the right dates. 5 MS. SCULLY: If I could just have a 6 moment to look through my notes, I believe I 7 don't have any further questions. Might have 8 a couple col- -- follow-ups. 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is 2:57 p.m. (Whereupon, there was a recess in the proceedings from 2:57 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 2:58 p.m. EXAMINATION 15 16 BY MR. BRANCH: 17 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Hofeller. My name is 18 John Branch. I am counsel for the intervenor 19 defendants and with the Shanahan Law Group 20 law firm here in Raleigh. Appreciate you 21 kind of plowing through things today. I know 22 there's been a lot and my hope is that I 23 don't have very many topics for you to cover 24 and we can get out of here on a fairly quick 25 basis. But what -- what's going to happen is 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SPARKS: Your -- your awareness of it -- she's asked about your awareness of it. Will you -A. Yes. At some -MR. SPARKS: -- answer her question. A. -- point I was aware of -- of this, yes. Q. Do you know if the settlement agreement that is attached as Exhibit A to what's been marked as Exhibit 10, do you know if that, in fact, was ultimately signed by all the individuals that are -A. I would -Q. -- listed on -A. -- not -Q. -- Page 6 and 7? A. I'm sorry. I would not be able to tell you if this is exactly like the one that's signed without seeing the signatures on it. I was not a signator. I would not have a familiarity to the point where I would be able to say that this is the one that was signed. Q. Is it correct that you were aware that between the period November 6th, 2018, and February 7th, 2019, there was a interim 195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm going to jump around some because my colleague has covered 95 percent of what I had on my list to cover. So if you would be patient with me if I do that, and if you don't understand any of the questions that I pose, want me to restate anything, please feel free to ask me to do so. I'm happy to accommodate you as best -A. Thank you. Q. -- that I can. My first question is, what's your home address? A. I stated that I wanted that protected. I'm -Q. And -A. -- a survivor of domestic violence and these documents proliferate at an amazing rate. I don't believe that it's in my best interest or -- it's a risk to my safety. That -- that address is -- I've been able to have it sealed with courts in the past. I think it's well established that I'm -Q. Well, and -A. -- at risk. Q. -- with all due respect, ma'am, I -- I don't 194 196 49 (Pages 193 to 196) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 know that part of your personal history and I'm not -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- trying to antagonize you by asking you your home address. However, there's a process that the parties have agreed to with regard to having documents held confidential and highly confidential in the context of this litigation. And so what I would suggest is that if you're asking that the -- your address that you -- that would be -- that the parties would agree that it is confidential or highly confidential, I'm certain that we would not have an objection to it so long as we -MR. SPARKS: She can be served at my office. She's not going to agree to reveal that. If you want to go to the court and -and compel that, you can go to the court and compel that, but -MR. BRANCH: Okay. MR. SPARKS: -- she can be served at my office. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. And just -- just so we're clear, for purposes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: Agree to disagree. If she's outside the range of the -- the subpoena range of the court I think you can't subpoena her. MR. SPARKS: So that we can move on, we've been here for a long time, may I interject with a question or two, please -MR. BRANCH: Uh-huh. MR. SPARKS: -- if -- if that's okay with you because it's out of order? At this time, Ms. Hofeller, are you willing to have -- allow me to accept service of documents on your behalf? THE WITNESS: I am, yes. MR. SPARKS: If that changes, will you provide to me an address at which you can be served, wherever that address is, and give me permission to let all these fine people know and everybody that's -- every attorney involved in this case know where that address might be? THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, as long as it doesn't appear on any of these documents. MR. SPARKS: No. No. No. I didn't ask you for your home address. I said an 197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of any later subpoenas that's served in -that are served in the context of this lawsuit, trial subpoenas or any other documents, you're willing to be served through counsel here as opposed to at your house? MR. JONES: Hold on. MR. SPARKS: At this time are you willing to have that done? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. All right. And in the event that you are -you withdraw that authorization for your lawyer, would you then be willing to provide us with your home address so that we can serve you with process? MR. JONES: I'll object. She's outside -- she lives outside the range of the subpoena range of the court. She already testified -MR. BRANCH: I mean, doesn't mean we can't subpoena her and we have a right to -in the event that we believe that her testimony is necessary at trial to subpoena her to testify and -- 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 address -THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. MR. SPARKS: -- at which you can be served. THE WITNESS: Yes. Absolutely. MR. SPARKS: Okay. Is that -- is that sufficient, sir? 8 MR. BRANCH: Yeah, I think that's fine. 9 MS. SCULLY: Yeah. 10 11 12 13 14 MR. SPARKS: Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt. MR. BRANCH: No. No. Well, that was very helpful so thank you for interrupting. THE WITNESS: Thanks. 15 BY MR. BRANCH: 16 Q. Why did you pick Common Cause to reach out to 17 you -- or to reach out to with regard to 18 finding an attorney to represent your mother 19 in the competency dispute? 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: Objection, asked and answered earlier. A. I answered that question I thought pretty thoroughly. Q. And maybe I missed it, but I'd just like to go back over it just for a little bit. I 198 200 50 (Pages 197 to 200) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 May 17, 2019 mean, why -- again, why Common Cause? 1 MR. JONES: Objection, asked and 2 answered. 3 MR. BRANCH: And, again, she can answer the question. 4 5 A. They are local. They're local and I needed 6 7 to, you know, ascertain who was local as far 7 8 as local attorneys, and their knowledge of 8 9 the politicization of my family affairs as it 9 10 pertains to anyone who is involved on this 10 11 level with politics, it seemed that they 11 12 would comprehend that. 12 13 Q. And why -- why did it seem like Common Cause 13 14 would have a comprehension of the 14 15 politicization of your family's affairs? 15 16 17 18 19 A. Because all of the attorneys involved in all 16 of these matters would have an understanding 17 of it. 18 Q. So that's because Common Cause had attorneys 19 20 that had been involved in legal matters with 20 21 knowledge of the politicization of your 21 22 family's affairs? 22 23 A. How shall I put this? Your average American 23 24 doesn't understand what redistricting even 24 25 is, so attorneys that are involved in matters 25 MR. BRANCH: -- different question. A. -- position. This was just what he did. MR. SPARKS: Please. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. Was your father retained by parties in litigation with Common Cause? MR. JONES: Objection. There's no establishment of any foundation. MR. BRANCH: I'm asking if she has knowledge of that. A. I don't know the details of how my father was actually involved in all of this. I don't know the details. I -- he -- he was all over the country all the time my whole entire childhood. I don't know when he signed on with who in what capacity, whether he was working for the RNC, whether he was a consultant. I don't know those details. It would be very -- I don't know. It seems almost like it -- it -- we're trying to establish that I would misstate. I would rather just go ahead and say that I don't know these details. If you continue to press me to tell you yes or no, eventually there is 201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that pertain to it are much more likely to understand the importance of my father's position on these matters. Q. Okay. And prior to reaching out to Common Cause about the -- about the topics on which you reached out to them, you were aware that they -- that Common Cause was involved in litigation regarding redistricting? A. Yes. Q. And were you -- and you were aware that they had taken positions adverse to those of your father or your father's businesses? A. You know, my father -MR. JONES: Oh, object. Object. MR. SPARKS: She -MR. JONES: Ans and ans -MR. SPARKS: She -MR. JONES: Asked and answered. MR. SPARKS: She actually said that -THE WITNESS: Yeah. MR. JONES: You just changed the word antagonistic to adverse. It's been asked and answered multiple times. MR. BRANCH: Well, then it's a -A. And this wasn't my father's -- 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an idea that I will say that I know something that I wasn't aware of. Q. And I -- to be clear, I don't know is a perfectly valid answer. If you don't know, you don't know. That's fine. I'm not trying to press you for a certain answer. I'm trying to understand what it is you do actually know. A. And, again, I've really tried to -MR. JONES: There's no -THE WITNESS: Okay. A. I tried to address it before. Q. And so are you aware that the redistricting maps at issue in this case are ones that were passed by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2017? A. Passed by? You mean -- no. No, I wasn't aware. Q. Okay. Well, are you aware that redistricting maps are enacted laws by the North Carolina General Assembly in North Carolina? A. No. Q. And you weren't -- I believe you just testified that you weren't aware that the maps that are being challenged by the 202 204 51 (Pages 201 to 204) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 17, 2019 plaintiffs in this lawsuit are ones that were enacted in 2017? A. No. I didn't know -Q. Okay. A. -- any of those state- -- specifics. Q. If -- on the assumption that I'm correct that the General Assembly passed the maps that are at issue in this litigation in 2017, would it be correct to say that you had no communications with your father about those maps that were passed? A. I don't know when he started drawing those maps. My fa- -- I was an only child. My father and I spoke about a lot of matters right up until the point when I didn't speak to him anymore. So I have no idea whether or not the maps that he was drawing the last time I spoke to him were those maps. I would have no way of knowing that. Q. So you have no way of knowing one way or another? A. That's right. Q. Okay. Did you -- what's -- I'm not trying to raise the same concerns you have about your address, but I do have some questions about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. -- a smartphone? -- an Android? Yes. That -Yes, I have a smartphone. Okay. And what kind of a phone is it? Is it an iPhone, Android? MR. JONES: Ob- -- object. This is -this is ri- -- ridiculously irrelevant. MR. BRANCH: It is not. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. You can answer. A. It's -- it's either an iPhone or an Android. Q. All right. And it's one specific device. Is that the same device that you have used since September 30th of 2018? A. No. Q. Okay. How many different devices have you used since September 30th of 2018 associated with your primary telephone number? A. Two. Q. Two? A. Two, I think, yeah. Q. Okay. Do you -A. I don't know. These were not associated with the same phone number. I -- I'm a popular person. I don't tend to just give my phone 205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the use of your phone. So -A. The use of my what? Q. Your -MS. SCULLY: Phone. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. Your cell phone. And so I'm going to ask you what your cell phone number is so... MR. JONES: I'll -BY MR. BRANCH: Q. Are you willing -- are you willing to share that for the -A. No. Q. Okay. Let me ask the question a different way. Have you used the same -- do you have a smartphone that you use -- that is associated with the regular phone number that you use and give out to people? A. Forgive me for being a little bit concerned about where -- I mean, I -- what can I say? I mean, I -- the -- what -- what period of time are we talking about here? I mean... Q. Current -- let's say today do you have an iPhone? A. Do I have -Q. Do you have -- 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 number out and I also tend to -- to find that it's better when you're on Google to -- to not be quite as consistent as most of -- most people are. MR. SPARKS: Do you need to take a break? THE WITNESS: No. No, I don't. A. So, no, it hasn't been the same phone number. Q. Okay. And -- all right. So the question I had was actually as to the device that you use, the physical hardware. And what I was asking, and it was based on an assumption that I think turned out not to be correct, was how many different devices have you used since September 30th of 2018 to present day? A. I think it's two. Two. Q. Okay. Okay. Do you -- did you change phone numbers when you changed devices at some point during that period of time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you tell me approximately when that was? A. Late last year, I think. Q. Towards the -- do you think possibly December? I'm not looking for a specific 206 208 52 (Pages 205 to 208) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 May 17, 2019 date. 1 2 A. Possibly, yeah. 2 3 Q. Okay. Can you tell me why you switched phone 3 4 5 6 numbers and devices? 4 A. Old -- old device, running out of storage. I 5 didn't have a contract so... 6 7 Q. Okay. Did you keep the old device? 7 8 A. For a while I did. 8 9 Q. And where is it now? 10 9 A. I gave it to a friend. Cleared it off, reset 10 11 it to factory settings, and gave it to a 11 12 friend of mine who couldn't afford to buy a 12 new one. 13 13 14 15 Q. Okay. And when did you do that 14 approximately? 15 16 A. January, February, sometime in there. 16 17 Q. All right. And is that -- you testified 17 18 earlier when you were asked about the -- 18 19 being -- whether you're in possession of the 19 20 text messages with Mr. Speas that some of the 20 21 old text messages had been deleted. Were 21 22 they -- when you talked about -- 22 23 A. That's why I got a -- 23 24 Q. -- them being -- 24 25 A. -- new phone. 25 A. I don't think so. Q. Okay. So you wouldn't have lost any of the text messages that have been sent to or from you with regard to the new phone? A. I don't suppose that I would have. Q. Okay. And the old phone, I believe you testified that you gave -- you erased the information that was on the old phone and gave it to a friend of yours in January or February of this year? A. Sometime early this year, yeah. Q. Okay. What -- I'm shifting topics back to the -- the devices that you turned over to Arnold & Porter in connection with the subpoena. What computers or other electronic devices did you use to read the contents of those hard drives or thumb drives? A. A laptop. Q. Was it just one laptop? A. Yes. Q. And do you still have possession of the laptop? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. MR. BRANCH: All right. If we can go 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SPARKS: Let him -THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. SPARKS: Let him answer -THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MR. SPARKS: -- ask the question, please. BY MR. BRANCH: Q. Yeah. Well, I think -- you -- you can go ahead and explain. Can you tell me what happened? A. Yeah. My phone started running out of storage, it couldn't do the updates, and as it ran more and more out of storage, it was dropping -- it was dropping things like text messages and -- yeah. Both the iPhones and the androids do that so... Q. Okay. And then after it was dropping text messages, you went and got a new phone? A. You know, as -- at my earliest convenience I got a new phone. Q. Okay. And -- and to the extent that you've -- well, strike that. Has -- have you encountered the same problems with dropping phone calls and text messages since you've had your new phone? 211 1 off the record for a couple minutes, I'm just 2 about done. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MS. SCULLY: I want to talk about something. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is 3:15 p.m. (Whereupon, there was a recess in the proceedings from 3:15 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the record. The time is 3:18 p.m. 11 MR. BRANCH: Nothing further. 12 MR. SPARKS: Nothing from me. 13 MR. JONES: Nothing from me either. 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the 15 video deposition. Time going off the record 16 is 3:18 p.m. [SIGNATURE RESERVED] 17 18 [DEPOSITION CONCLUDED AT 3:18 P.M.] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 210 212 53 (Pages 209 to 212) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 1 May 17, 2019 A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T OF D E P O N E N T 1 2 3 2 I, STEPHANIE HOFELLER, declare under the 4 penalties of perjury under the State of North 3 5 Carolina that I have read the foregoing 212 pages, 4 6 which contain a correct transcription of answers 5 7 made by me to the question therein recorded, with 6 8 the exception(s) and/or addition(s) reflected on 9 the correction sheet attached hereto, if any. 10 11 7 8 9 Signed this, the _____ day of 10 _________, 2019. 11 12 12 13 13 __________________________ 14 14 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 15 15 16 16 17 State of:______________ 18 County of:_____________ 19 20 17 18 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19 ______ day of _____________, 2019. 20 21 I, LISA A. WHEELER, RPR, CRR, Court Reporter and Notary Public, the officer before whom the foregoing proceeding was conducted, do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing proceeding was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me to the best of my ability and thereafter transcribed by me; and that the foregoing pages, inclusive, constitute a true and accurate transcription of the testimony of the witness. I do further certify that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action and, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereof, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of said action. This the 20th day of May, 2019. 21 __________________________ 22 ____________________________ Lisa A. Wheeler, RPR, CRR Notary Public #19981350007 22 Notary Public 23 24 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) )CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF WAKE ) 23 My commission expires:____________________ 24 25 25 213 1 2 3 ERRATA SHEET Case Name: COMMON CAUSE, ET AL. VS. DAVID R. LEWIS, ET AL. 4 Witness Name: STEPHANIE HOFELLER 5 Deposition Date: FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 6 Page/Line 7 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 8 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 9 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 10 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 11 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 12 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 13 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 14 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 15 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 16 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 17 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 18 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 19 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 20 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 21 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 22 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 23 ____/____ _____________________ ___________________ 24 _______________________ 25 215 Signature Reads Should Read _________________ Date 214 54 (Pages 213 to 215) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER A à 119:16 a.m 1:15 5:3 43:21,23,23,25 86:17,19,19,21 Abha 162:14 ability 94:23 215:10 able 24:20 28:18 28:23 29:8 31:17,17 37:7 62:23 84:20 85:15 130:14 146:14 147:7 156:10 160:16 194:16,21 196:20 absolutely 26:9 63:1 173:24 200:5 academic 103:3 105:5 145:14 accept 143:21 146:3,4 199:12 accepted 145:6 accepting 35:5 access 160:16 164:13 accommodate 196:8 accuracy 66:11 accurate 8:4 126:22 160:24 215:12 accurately 140:12 accusation 67:15 accustomed 55:6 114:8 133:16 160:19 achieve 133:3 Acknowledged 7:20 acting 190:5 action 103:5 215:16,19 actions 179:13 179:14 actual 28:19 May 17, 2019 141:21 169:1 186:24 ad 4:19,22 11:18 176:1 181:24 182:2,4,7,12 182:15,17 183:21 189:19 ad-stick 11:20 ad-sticks 23:21 adapter 29:4 add 19:6 addition(s) 213:8 additional 15:13 21:14 138:19 address 9:20 15:9,10 82:16 130:13 132:16 141:21 191:14 191:14 196:12 196:20 197:5 197:11 198:15 199:16,17,20 199:25 200:1 204:12 205:25 addressed 15:7 44:18 129:1 adequate 146:16 Adjudication 4:16 177:10 admissibility 102:20 134:5,6 admitted 37:17 advance 75:18 109:4 133:1 141:5,25 151:21 adverse 202:11 202:22 affairs 201:9,15 201:22 affiliated 104:19 affirmed 6:11 afford 209:12 afternoon 195:17 age 139:24 152:21 ago 36:22 48:16 68:25 80:23 103:23 169:15 184:16 189:14 agree 197:12,17 199:1 agreed 197:6 agreement 178:22 193:4 193:17 194:7 ahead 8:1 10:20 14:20 34:5 66:23 75:16 79:18 81:24 106:15 144:5 157:19 159:22 172:12,15 173:25 183:12 186:22 203:23 210:9 ahold 71:7 al 1:4,8 5:6,9 214:2,3 Alexandria 24:24 51:25 alive 30:13 Allan 59:10 allegations 178:9,11,15,17 178:24 alleged 178:25 179:3,8 alleges 179:5 allegiance 37:20 allegiances 38:1 allow 191:13 199:12 allowed 88:12 104:2 137:19 alongside 105:2 alter 18:24 altered 131:12 amazing 196:17 ambiguous 64:17 66:6 American 201:23 amount 83:12 140:20 163:19 amounted 72:5 and- 2:6,21 and/or 71:10 213:8 Android 207:2,5 207:11 androids 210:16 anecdotal 32:15 34:15 140:14 angry 99:8 ans 202:16,16 answer 7:19,24 8:1,8 12:22 42:8 48:1 56:22 65:13 66:7 67:6 68:13 69:12,14 69:15,22 71:11 71:18 75:16 79:18 80:1 81:24 86:8 88:14,20 112:8 118:1 137:16 145:25 156:12 159:22 160:3 170:23 172:3 172:15 173:24 174:2,4 180:11 180:12 183:14 186:22 194:5 201:4 204:4,6 207:10 210:3 answered 57:8 75:15 76:6 79:22 81:23 86:7 106:22 113:16 145:21 145:23 158:8 160:1 165:16 165:17,20 200:21,22 201:3 202:18 202:23 answering 80:8 answers 213:6 antagonistic 90:14,18 91:4 202:22 antagonize 197:4 anybody 150:20 anymore 40:12 205:16 anyway 40:7 131:1,4 apartment 20:11 20:16,20,25 22:5,9 23:14 24:10 25:20 26:12 27:6,21 35:19 38:24 47:10 52:21 112:13 apologize 114:25 169:5 apparently 72:23 168:3 187:18 appeal 34:10,23 60:15 102:25 103:7,14,20 appeals 34:12 appear 15:4 46:11 77:20 154:18 199:23 appearance 78:1 179:11 187:9 appeared 12:4 25:9 54:25 79:20 149:19 155:25 appearing 129:5 appears 44:17 45:21 46:10,21 76:16,17,19,25 77:9 127:4 168:20 189:21 215:7 Application 4:17 177:11 appointed 58:24 179:15 181:24 182:8,15,18 185:2,7,10 186:13 188:17 189:1 appointing 176:1 184:24 appointment 4:17,21 177:11 182:12 183:19 Appreciate 195:20 216 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER appropriate 29:2 62:9 96:17 approximately 93:7 96:18 97:1 108:22 110:17 124:21 132:13 138:25 165:1 208:21 209:15 archival 103:3 archive 150:6 area 141:1 Aria 162:10 Arnold 2:3 5:17 6:19 15:8 44:18 45:5,10 45:11,12 46:22 46:24 47:2,17 48:14,18 49:9 59:16 60:8 64:10 65:8,18 67:20 68:17 69:6,19 74:12 75:5 76:3 79:5 79:12 80:12 82:21,23 83:1 89:2 113:4,13 114:20,24 131:21 134:22 136:11 146:10 147:15 148:24 149:15 150:9 150:20,25 151:7 157:25 161:23 163:16 163:22 164:5 164:15,25 165:11,25 166:13,17,20 211:14 arrival 52:13 arrived 49:13 article 33:10,21 59:21 102:8,23 169:10 173:12 articles 84:9,11 84:12 173:5,9 173:13 articulate 88:22 May 17, 2019 ascertain 201:7 aside 83:12,16 83:20 124:8 151:4 169:3 asked 11:2 26:18 30:24 40:2 47:25,25 51:14 57:7 63:13,17 71:5,9,17,20 71:21,22,23,24 72:7 75:14 76:5 81:23 86:6 102:2 106:21 109:17 110:1 112:5,6 113:15 121:7 122:16 139:11 142:10 145:9 145:20 158:8 165:17 194:2 200:20 201:2 202:18,22 209:18 asking 68:20 108:8 121:23 137:11 148:5 172:10 185:20 197:4,10 203:10 208:12 assembled 12:5 Assembly 204:15,21 205:7 assert 51:17 asserted 95:24 177:18 asserting 49:23 assertion 99:15 assertions 36:13 179:17 assistant 179:11 associated 206:15 207:17 207:23 assume 64:1 74:18 78:15 assumed 56:1,19 87:24 116:4 assuming 186:19 assumption 46:17,18 205:6 208:12 assure 29:18 assured 40:8 attached 194:8 213:9 Attachments 4:15 attempt 66:10 73:9,13 75:17 75:20 130:7 attempts 73:12 140:3 attend 171:9 attention 33:7 44:12 55:7 76:14 78:11 160:21 188:14 189:12 attitude 144:10 attorney 5:22 10:1,2,16 27:2 31:18 58:11 59:8,8 68:7,14 69:3,24 70:5,6 70:9 82:10 91:12,14 96:2 96:4,4,7,8,17 97:7 98:16 107:8 114:12 123:25 131:24 131:24 141:18 183:2,9 185:13 185:17 186:1,5 186:7,21 190:2 190:6 192:21 193:6,8,14,22 193:23 199:19 200:18 215:17 attorney-client 62:17,19 69:11 attorney-in-fact 179:15 attorneys 37:15 62:13 67:10 93:19 95:18 97:11 101:24 104:10,13 107:2,6 114:8 114:9 115:6 119:22 122:23 125:22 133:16 134:14 136:18 144:7 201:8,16 201:19,25 August 171:16 171:20 172:23 172:24 173:7 authenticate 136:25 171:23 author 33:2 authorization 198:13 available 54:3 109:6 Avenue 2:4,19 average 140:7 201:23 aware 33:16,17 34:9 40:9 57:10 58:22 59:1 133:15 168:15,24 169:15 181:23 182:6,11,16,25 183:15,21,25 184:4,23 185:2 185:6,9,16,21 188:16,25 189:5 192:25 193:9 194:6,23 202:6,10 204:2 204:13,18,19 204:24 awareness 119:13 185:18 194:1,2 123:12,21 129:25 130:17 142:11 161:10 172:19 181:1 188:15 190:22 195:13 200:25 211:12 212:9 backed 29:14 87:15 background 148:16 backup 11:21 12:6 78:25 122:15 backups 51:23 56:16 71:13 78:2 84:2 87:10,21,25 111:10 146:22 bag 23:19,20 BakerHostetler 2:17 6:5 band 78:9 80:24 bank 54:5 base 129:23 based 106:4 137:16 145:15 146:1 179:13 183:1 208:12 basic 19:24 41:14 50:4 84:17 122:24 basically 108:5,8 131:2 139:9,11 154:10 158:25 169:20 basis 179:1 180:8 195:25 beat 119:17 B begins 5:4 B 4:7 begun 102:5 back 21:12 26:1 behalf 61:25 28:10,13,15 199:13 32:21 38:10 belief 56:14 42:12 43:24 100:9 46:8 51:24 believe 6:25 38:2 55:13,19 59:21 46:7,14 47:24 74:4,8,9 76:8 48:6 52:24 86:20 89:8 53:4,15 58:17 107:22 123:1 62:8 63:8 74:3 217 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 76:8 82:15 84:10 91:8 92:13 100:3,3 105:17 107:17 107:24 111:14 121:4,4 123:18 125:6 126:20 143:8 156:7 170:12 180:6,7 181:21 183:5 184:16 185:8 186:8 189:13 195:6 196:18 198:23 204:23 211:6 believed 35:17 114:3 179:9 183:4 bell 187:25 belonged 12:13 25:21 40:2 50:5 82:1 112:3,14 belonging 13:2 beltway 140:16 beneficiaries 120:18 beneficiary 82:10 benefit 43:11 best 14:1 64:20 65:5,16 67:12 91:16 94:23 110:14,25 115:1,9,11 124:11 126:25 134:17 138:16 140:22 186:23 196:8,18 215:10 better 99:16 114:21 115:13 132:5 156:10 208:2 beyond 62:21 76:21 104:22 105:10 119:2 bias 37:16 bit 33:6 88:3,3 99:23 103:9 May 17, 2019 117:17 125:25 140:13 145:13 158:24 200:25 206:18 blankly 137:14 blue 25:4 78:9 78:10,11,12,13 Bluetooth 139:3 blur 190:18 blurry 88:4 Board 2:11 5:23 Bob 31:15 36:25 89:12 93:16 94:6,10 162:24 body 189:6 bold 62:15 Bolton 188:18 188:21 bolts 124:13 book 24:2 33:16 bookshelf 24:9 bore 73:18 bored 159:9 bottom 10:21 15:19 167:5 box 15:4,21 22:21 23:2 26:3 29:3 44:17,21 45:3 45:4,6,7 112:7 133:4 163:21 box-style 24:2 boxes 23:23 Braden 133:22 Branch 3:3 4:4 5:24,24 88:5,8 162:11 167:10 167:12 174:6 174:25 195:16 195:18 197:21 197:24 198:11 198:21 199:8 200:8,12,15 201:4 202:24 203:1,5,10 206:5,9 207:8 207:9 210:7 211:25 212:11 brand 78:21 break 8:7,9 43:18 47:4 86:12,13 123:3 123:5 161:5 180:11,16 208:6 brief 7:8 25:24 130:7 132:20 132:22 briefly 25:1 42:15 189:20 bring 13:24 143:2 bringing 99:5 Brooks 8:24 brought 32:14 33:6 91:22 135:9 burden 183:4 buried 22:25 30:2 business 27:2 51:9,18 55:1 55:13 56:24 57:4 59:15 60:7 61:7,7,11 69:5 70:15,17 70:23 71:1 72:5 74:15 75:12,24 76:2 81:19,19 82:17 82:18 83:23 108:10 127:11 142:6 145:17 business-style 110:24 businesses 202:12 busy 95:16 buy 209:12 C C 2:1 3:1 5:1 162:10 213:1 215:1,1 cable 29:2 cables 29:4 call 11:20 12:1 94:1,1,4 95:18 108:12 109:23 110:7,8,12,18 111:2,15 120:24 122:12 125:14,14,16 125:17 130:8 132:7 136:12 136:22 137:1,4 137:4 138:17 138:22,25 139:15 140:17 called 101:2 121:16,20 130:2 136:17 calls 62:3 73:11 87:18 108:25 109:5 139:4 210:24 camps 100:12 capacity 1:7 5:7 203:17 caption 175:24 car 137:12 138:22 139:3 card 52:20 53:21 53:23 54:1,5 care 9:24 22:23 37:20 career 61:2 careful 19:6 29:21 134:14 Carolina 1:1,19 2:12,14,24 3:4 3:9,18 5:11,22 8:14 11:8 12:20 13:4,14 33:18 35:24 52:17 79:7,14 80:6 88:9,13 90:8 91:5 105:7,8 128:6 129:8 204:15 204:20,21 213:5 215:1 Carolina's 33:12 34:22 Caroline 67:11 119:2 125:21 126:1 133:15 137:6 138:12 138:17 142:23 143:20 153:23 cartography 140:5 case 5:12 9:2,6 9:17 17:8 31:2 35:4 36:3 38:14 42:12,18 44:9 55:23 58:13,14,17,18 60:11 90:24 103:2 105:10 111:4 116:23 119:21 124:18 127:3 168:16 199:20 204:14 214:2 cases 84:5 cash 53:20 casual 25:24 121:21 138:6 153:18,22 157:12 caught 153:2 cause 1:4 5:6 31:9,14,17,25 32:13 33:24 36:13 37:1,7 38:12 56:12 57:20,24 59:6 59:16 60:7 76:4 89:9,10 89:24 90:10,14 90:25 91:3 92:8,16 98:4 98:14 100:25 104:18 106:24 125:23 162:20 163:1,3,6,9,23 173:14,17 175:25 183:5 200:16 201:1 201:13,19 202:5,7 203:7 214:2 CC 133:20 CC'd 133:12,18 cell 108:10 206:6 206:7 census 43:2 centered 40:6 154:1 218 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER certain 52:25 73:17 84:2,4 101:19 103:19 103:24 127:10 127:10 132:17 197:13 204:6 certainly 42:22 67:9 68:2 136:3 155:17 173:8 certificate 4:14 189:22 certify 215:7,14 cetera 30:19 chain 67:13 115:14 Chairman 1:7 5:7 challenge 91:19 challenged 204:25 challenging 153:11 chance 23:6 113:1 114:10 153:4 change 31:3 74:6 208:17 changed 73:19 88:14 202:21 208:18 changes 19:10 19:18 199:15 changing 88:21 characterizati... 178:9 characterize 91:6 characterizes 67:2 charged 147:1 173:20 charges 52:20 check 49:20 163:13 checked 48:24 155:1 child 139:20 179:10,11,14 205:13 May 17, 2019 childhood 22:21 203:16 children 29:24 30:1 51:3 54:19 80:20 83:4,11 85:9 85:10 148:13 150:5 children's 150:5 choose 64:22 65:19 choosing 67:15 chose 37:21 Chris 72:9 cigarette 86:15 circumstances 111:25 170:17 civil 35:14 61:15 63:24 124:1 clar- 66:14 clarification 49:6 122:17 clarified 64:20 65:4,15 66:12 66:13 67:3 clarifies 64:8 clarify 12:24 36:4 46:4 49:10 67:9 106:10 111:15 112:20 150:21 153:5 160:2 165:21 166:8 clarifying 69:2 96:1 classic 116:9 clean 19:16 clear 12:25 23:19 27:9 56:22 57:13,15 101:5 104:3 116:18,19 125:20 130:22 140:10 147:9 197:25 204:3 Cleared 209:10 clearing 132:25 clearly 35:22,23 118:9 client's 62:23 clients 62:1 close 109:13 132:19 140:25 closed 105:22 closer 140:22 coffin 23:1 Coie 162:17 164:8 col- 195:8 colleague 196:2 colleagues 97:25 149:1 166:6 collected 51:16 143:14 collective 66:10 colloquialism 119:16 136:19 Color 4:11 colors 17:25 combination 94:8 come 25:15 26:21 27:5 36:6 37:16 47:9 71:25 74:8 103:4 104:4 125:19 139:11 154:22 154:24 160:16 169:7 comes 101:5 comfortable 135:7,10 coming 99:20 101:5 141:18 comment 32:22 36:18 59:23 commented 36:11,12 commingled 128:24 commission 213:24 Committee 1:8 5:8 Common 1:4 5:6 31:9,13,17,25 32:12 33:24 36:13,25 37:6 38:12 56:12 57:20,24 59:6 59:15 60:7 76:4 89:9,10 89:24 90:10,14 90:25 91:3 92:8,16 98:4 98:14 100:25 104:18 106:24 125:22 162:20 163:1,3,6,8,23 173:14,17 200:16 201:1 201:13,19 202:4,7 203:7 214:2 communicate 75:3 89:21 91:10 communicated 74:13 91:17 93:24 109:8 communicating 81:7 185:25 193:21 communication 62:17 89:11,14 89:20 92:20 93:4,8 94:10 97:10 107:2 109:1,21 121:1 122:23 123:17 123:22,25 124:19 133:11 135:13 149:11 152:3 162:21 173:3 186:5 187:5 193:7 communicatio... 62:19 68:21 89:8 92:19 94:11 95:3 96:18 106:5 107:5 108:22 130:9 132:14 133:9 135:24 136:5,7,10 141:13,19 157:5 161:13 161:16,19 162:7,10,13,14 162:16,19,20 166:24 170:18 182:19 188:20 189:9 191:8,16 191:21 192:1 205:10 communiques 109:15 community 20:14 72:14 comparison 85:21 compel 197:19 197:20 compensations 163:24 competence 91:20 153:12 competency 200:19 complete 8:4 65:2 completely 43:8 49:3 103:21 comprehend 201:12 comprehension 201:14 computer 12:6,9 26:20,23 27:8 28:23 29:8,15 30:12 71:15 79:1 83:8 87:14 112:24 154:21 156:7 157:16 computers 70:18 70:21 87:5,15 87:22 89:4 142:5 155:7 211:15 concern 61:18 69:4 98:21 101:10 105:9 concerned 29:25 37:18 62:14 105:23 146:19 159:8 183:17 206:18 concerning 219 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 63:25 71:6 91:1 concerns 64:5 68:15 179:13 205:24 concluded 183:1 212:18 concludes 212:14 conclusion 62:4 123:18 conditional 50:24 condolences 93:21 conduct 67:21 conducted 164:11 215:6 conference 136:22 137:1 confident 156:4 confidential 197:7,8,12,13 confidentiality 117:25 confirm 24:20 50:4 80:3 104:10,12 131:11 156:10 156:18 confirmed 93:15 confirming 95:6 confused 42:5 103:9 157:25 confusion 166:10 congressional 85:16 103:25 connect 29:7 31:24 connected 28:23 38:13 Connecticut 2:19 connection 25:2 37:8 38:8 51:11 61:19 139:3 190:15 211:14 connectors May 17, 2019 49:17 consider 81:8 83:5 considerations 163:24 considered 81:12,15,20,21 81:25 considering 64:1 84:20 142:15 177:1 consistent 208:3 consistently 27:22 constant 152:2 constitute 215:12 constitutional 90:4 consult 122:25 consultant 61:20 149:2 203:19 consulting 68:6 113:24 contact 21:25 71:6 75:17,20 108:9 contacted 31:8 31:13 36:25 170:5 171:1 contacting 37:2 37:6 98:4 contain 79:2 213:6 contained 12:19 13:9 46:3 62:11 64:14 70:23 76:11,24 77:14,18 84:3 85:3 89:1,4 94:24 113:21 113:22 127:22 128:25 150:24 containing 15:1 contains 62:16 62:18 Contemporan... 185:23 content 28:20 116:22 154:20 contention 117:16 contents 18:24 28:19 29:9 45:4,6 49:8 76:18 115:3 211:16 context 98:24 99:14,22 102:8 119:6 143:2 154:4 197:8 198:2 continue 74:6 172:1,2 203:24 continued 3:1 34:7 110:2 139:6 contract 209:6 contradictions 99:3 control 40:11 convenience 210:19 conversation 25:24 31:23 36:5 50:14 51:6 56:23 57:2 60:5 93:10,13,23 94:13,19 96:24 97:4,14 100:4 101:21,23 102:5 104:6 107:16 110:24 113:18 118:24 121:3,22 122:20 123:19 124:22 125:6 125:11 126:17 126:21 138:6 141:14 143:10 153:22 154:1 157:12 158:21 158:24 160:18 161:24 187:15 conversations 36:6 38:19,22 59:5 92:14 99:24 101:14 113:10 118:18 126:11 127:15 129:16,19,22 130:6 133:25 135:18 145:15 153:14 154:6 156:25 157:2 161:19,22 162:2,3,6,9 166:18 copied 146:23 copies 30:7 83:3 146:8,12 147:14,16 148:7,10,12,22 149:8 150:18 165:12 166:11 168:3 copy 82:11 107:11 146:14 146:17 166:5 167:15,23 168:10,17,20 168:21,25 corner 24:1 corpse 112:19 correct 7:7 8:15 9:8,22 10:1 12:2,11 19:22 20:18 30:13,14 38:9,15 48:10 48:11 50:19,20 50:22 51:12,13 51:22 58:8,20 58:25 61:8,9 61:13,14,16 62:2,25 63:1,2 63:7,15,16 65:9,20 70:17 74:13 76:12,13 77:14,15 79:8 80:12 81:10 87:6,10,11 89:12,13 90:12 90:16 91:5 92:7 105:19 106:7,20 108:1 108:20 109:2 112:22 113:8,9 113:14 116:1 123:22 128:20 128:21 131:15 143:25 144:25 145:19 146:6 148:9,11 149:17 151:1 155:11 159:20 163:16 164:22 165:2,3 166:21 171:10,17 177:7,8 178:7 179:3 184:19 184:23,25 185:11 189:14 191:24 192:4,5 193:18 194:23 205:6,9 208:13 213:6 correction 213:9 correctly 36:24 92:4 155:5 counsel 2:2,11 2:16 3:2,6 5:13 7:21 38:4 44:14 67:21 68:3,14 69:1 69:18 78:7 191:17 193:12 195:18 198:5 215:15,17 counsel's 88:10 count 147:13 country 203:15 County 1:2 5:11 187:6 189:1,9 213:18 215:2 couple 10:19 16:12 22:15,16 24:21 41:11,14 94:21 133:12 147:18 195:8 212:1 couples 160:20 course 26:5 31:20 32:7 38:21 40:16 41:2 56:9 84:13,14 112:8 148:12 187:7 court 1:1,1 3:16 5:10,10,15 220 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 67:13 96:14 103:16 104:1 106:12,13 169:17 183:16 183:22 184:23 185:2 186:13 187:6 193:4,16 197:18,19 198:19 199:3 215:4 courts 196:21 cousin 71:24 72:19 120:2 cover 25:8 78:10 78:11,13,16,17 78:21 195:23 196:3 covered 71:8 128:5,13 135:25 196:2 covers 33:2 coworker 165:24 coworkers 97:24 150:18 Cox 2:13 5:21 5:21 Crabtree 53:17 created 51:10 83:24 creating 30:21 creative 60:22 credit 52:20 crime 173:21 criminology 149:2 cross 159:4 CRR 1:23 3:17 215:4,23 curious 60:11 145:9,10 Current 206:22 custody 67:14 115:14 cut 119:9 CV 63:11 CVS 1:2 5:12 D D 4:1 5:1 213:1 May 17, 2019 213:1 D.C 2:4,19 15:9 131:24 dad 116:12 149:21 Dad's 55:15 Dale 26:21,22,22 26:23,25 55:1 55:11 60:4 61:8 71:6,10 71:10,17 72:2 72:10,12,21,23 73:2 74:13,23 74:24 75:2,4 86:24 87:14 89:4 142:8,21 142:25 143:3,9 143:16,22 144:18 151:12 154:11 155:6 Daley 32:16,22 33:1,11 59:21 102:6,8 Daley's 33:16,21 Dalton 27:1 142:9 146:2 Daniel 161:20 data 18:12 19:19 28:6 30:20 43:2 64:22 65:5,17,18,20 77:5 79:21 80:17,18 81:10 112:24 113:6 116:15 118:4,5 118:6 127:23 127:24,24,25 128:1,17,18,19 128:20,24 129:4 date 5:3 10:4 117:15 181:11 181:12 192:25 209:1 214:5,25 dated 10:5 181:14 dates 191:2 195:4 David 1:7 5:6 32:16,22 59:20 102:6,8 161:14 214:2 day 21:5 47:2 60:14 136:20 169:12 188:1 192:24 208:15 213:10,20 215:20 days 28:12 52:25 53:5 74:4 93:1 97:1 176:20,21 176:24 177:6 177:16 187:16 187:21 dead 74:25 80:22 82:2 100:7,18 Deakins 2:22 6:2 deal 98:24 dealing 98:22 118:20 death 20:17 21:21,24 27:7 27:15 41:22 42:4 100:2,5 100:12 101:8 112:13,15 170:19 deathbed 100:20 debit 53:21,22 54:1,5 decade 36:22 deceased 20:11 32:21 81:17 152:6 173:18 December 101:1 107:17,24 120:25 124:23 190:17 208:25 decide 114:9 decided 14:1 deciding 79:24 decision 134:21 135:1,2 decisions 64:25 declare 213:3 decorative 148:17 def- 6:2 Defendant-Int... 3:2 defendants 1:9 2:11,16 5:25 6:3,6 44:9 116:20 117:18 118:11 195:19 definitely 137:6 degree 62:25 193:10 delayed 13:25 delete 19:4 deleted 209:21 deliver 134:25 demographer 154:5 demographics 105:2 140:5 Department 2:12 deponent 3:6 6:8 deposition 1:12 5:4 7:9 48:3 136:24 141:6,9 156:16 212:15 212:18 214:5 describe 102:13 DESCRIPTION 4:8 designed 139:23 desk 22:16 desktop 27:8 148:16 destroyed 81:3 detail 98:11 110:21 111:5,7 detailed 95:25 114:2 details 21:14 52:12 60:18 91:11 113:1 203:12,14,19 203:24 determinations 63:12,14 determine 62:10 63:21 64:13 83:9 157:7 158:3 development 36:7 device 18:12 46:25 49:1 54:15 76:15 78:22 207:12 207:13 208:10 209:5,7 devices 11:7,15 11:21 12:7,8 12:13,19 13:9 13:15,16 15:1 15:15,22 17:20 18:19,20,22,25 19:5,13,19,25 20:5,8,24 21:7 21:10,15 23:11 23:15 24:17 25:3,11 27:18 27:20 28:15,19 29:7 30:16,20 31:1,4,8,22 32:9,12 33:24 35:17 36:1 37:3 38:11,23 39:4 41:5 42:11,17 54:15 111:7,11 122:14 207:16 208:14,18 209:4 211:13 211:16 died 21:18 72:4 154:17 different 46:13 77:4,5 78:3 84:7 131:23 167:25 203:1 206:13 207:16 208:14 differently 110:5 difficult 77:23 83:2,9 84:23 85:11 193:9 dig 30:3 direct 82:13 146:2 directed 191:23 direction 64:7 directive 129:6 directly 38:13 221 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 45:9,12 73:4 104:19 127:5 131:3,5,14 141:25 152:12 153:11,11 182:23 193:13 director 31:16 disagree 179:17 199:1 disclosed 35:10 40:13 56:18 discovered 56:25 discoveries 56:21 discovery 3:16 35:11,11,12,12 35:14 40:15 56:19 discriminated 37:18 discuss 31:21 59:13 73:10,14 97:19 98:12 100:22 113:1 118:25 119:20 124:16,17 127:20 186:10 discussed 38:11 41:6 55:22 56:3,14 59:18 70:8 97:3 110:23 113:7 119:11 122:19 128:10,14 135:22 136:6 161:25 discussing 13:16 23:11 32:9 33:11 35:1 36:8 57:19,22 102:18 127:19 160:14 discussion 34:8 40:16 41:2 67:10,12 98:6 110:2 114:23 115:24 119:4 132:22 142:17 discussions May 17, 2019 31:20 32:4,7 33:20 37:1 51:7 57:24 58:3,9 disguised 36:16 dismiss 4:24 193:2,16 displayed 22:23 dispute 200:19 distinguish 85:15 distributed 166:11 district 85:17 districts 32:20 33:13 34:22 35:4 43:3 103:25 169:17 Ditched 165:7 divide 100:11 Division 1:1 5:11 divorce 81:4 doctors 150:4 document 9:15 44:13 46:9 52:21 63:15,18 63:21,22,23 152:10 175:22 176:4,6,17 177:5,9,13,15 178:1 181:5,14 181:19 184:14 184:17,21 185:1 187:21 189:16 192:12 192:15,18 193:1 documentation 65:2 documents 10:22 11:2 29:24 52:16,18 73:18,18,19 79:13 81:1 83:24 84:4 85:5 96:11,12 96:14 120:16 146:6 163:16 175:5,10 185:13,15,16 187:20 196:17 197:7 198:4 199:13,23 doing 8:9 108:9 114:8 122:1 129:24,24 134:2,4 173:6 dollars 132:21 domestic 196:16 door 22:19 dot 159:4 Doug 186:20 187:1,9 188:1 Douglas 59:12 186:8 drained 122:3 draped 23:1 drawer 147:21 147:23 drawers 22:16 23:24 24:4 29:3 drawing 11:8 46:1,1 205:12 205:17 drawn 56:8 90:22 drew 36:20 drive 8:18 11:20 32:24 45:22,25 46:2,3,6,12,13 46:15,20 49:17 54:20,21,22,24 55:10,17,21 56:3 59:23 74:19 76:11,17 76:19,25 77:11 77:14 78:2 80:2,2,3,4 146:21,22 150:1 156:2 drives 11:18,25 12:1 16:2,7,8,9 16:12,23,24 17:21,21 23:20 23:25 24:7,7 29:5 34:7 36:5 46:13,23 47:1 47:14,14 50:10 57:1,5,12 59:22 60:1 62:11 64:24 67:19,20 70:24 70:24 74:11,12 77:10,18,19,25 78:8 80:15,15 81:11,13 87:9 87:9,16,16 89:1,2 100:24 101:15 102:7,9 104:15 111:18 112:22,22 113:12,13,20 113:21 114:4,4 114:5,6 117:11 117:11 118:7 134:22,23 135:16,16 146:9,9,12,13 147:19,20 155:8,9 164:12 164:12 165:10 165:11 211:17 211:17 driving 83:15 85:1 141:3 drop 74:7 dropped 7:3 136:23 dropping 139:4 210:14,14,17 210:24 drops 139:5 due 196:25 duly 215:8 dump 107:21 duplicate 155:17 155:18 duplicative 89:3 dying 27:11 113:3 E E 2:1,1 3:1,1,3,4 4:1,7 5:1,1 213:1,1,1,1,1 214:1,1,1 215:1,1 e-mail 94:6,10 94:11,20,21,24 95:3,8,10,13 96:18 130:9 132:13 133:8 133:10 e-mailed 130:12 e-mails 53:25 ear 116:13 earlier 9:5 30:12 44:8,15 48:6 58:18 61:6,16 70:14 78:6,14 80:14 86:23 89:9 131:13 135:5 166:16 168:15,23 169:3 171:13 200:21 209:18 earliest 210:19 early 50:9 59:4 89:15 92:24 96:25 190:18 211:11 easy 71:6 echoing 116:13 Eddie 5:19 67:11 107:10 107:25 119:1 125:21 126:1 133:15 137:7 142:22 153:23 Edenton 2:14 edge 153:20 Edwin 2:8 135:19 effects 113:2 effort 78:19 108:25 112:16 efforts 55:12 79:10 eight 16:19 93:1 96:25 either 24:22 57:16 60:19 116:19,24 120:9 141:8,20 143:15 151:12 153:14 207:11 212:13 Elections 2:11 222 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 5:23 electronic 10:15 11:6,15 48:9 48:13,17 64:10 80:15 82:20 83:8 101:16 155:10 164:20 211:15 element 38:3 Elias 162:7 Elizabeth 2:18 6:4 44:7 161:17 emotion 25:16 101:7 emotionally 122:3,3 emotions 99:3 153:19 emphasis 149:4 employed 63:6 215:15,18 employee 215:17 employment 179:12 empty 16:12 enacted 204:20 205:2 encountered 210:23 encouraged 21:11 ends 118:1 Enforcement 2:11 engage 64:12 engaged 61:12 entered 58:23 129:10 184:24 193:5 entering 187:9 entire 49:8 56:6 203:15 entirety 65:18 80:7 115:2,10 entitled 116:11 116:21 117:1,4 117:25 118:16 entitlement 120:6 May 17, 2019 erased 211:7 Erin 182:4,14 183:25 184:5 err 64:6 errors 35:3 escully@bake... 2:20 espeas@poyn... 2:10 esquire 9:25 144:9 essentially 29:14 131:25 establish 71:25 203:22 established 127:2,21 130:13 196:22 establishment 203:9 estate 4:13 42:3 58:24 82:9 96:3 120:21,22 151:15 168:22 168:25 183:18 185:11 186:12 188:17 191:22 195:1 estimate 83:21 84:23 85:11 estranged 179:10,14 183:23 184:1 et 1:4,8 5:6,9 30:19 214:2,3 etched 46:6 Ethics 2:11 evasive 126:4 159:24 evening 23:13 54:10 event 198:12,23 eventually 28:10 107:1 135:11 203:25 Everett 188:18 everybody 88:9 133:18 199:19 evidence 14:2 34:13,17 35:2 35:2,5,19 42:21 103:1 104:2,16 105:19,21,23 106:2 115:16 129:10 130:16 134:7 186:19 ex- 139:15 159:13 exact 67:18 105:24 108:5 111:22 131:8 132:2 exactly 15:5 16:10,17,18 23:3 27:10,13 42:9 64:24 67:8 71:6 85:1 94:8 97:8 107:23 120:12 130:6 132:7 133:5 150:15 192:20 194:17 exaggeration 158:25 examination 4:2 4:3,4 6:15 44:5 78:7 195:15 examine 149:19 examined 152:14 example 77:25 78:5 83:3 84:8 133:21 148:14 exasperate 118:15 exceeded 157:1 Excellent 6:24 7:8 18:10 35:25 180:19 exception(s) 213:8 exchanged 94:5 exchanges 133:5 exchanging 125:12 136:4 excited 30:4 51:2 exclusively 95:19 166:4 Excuse 17:5 25:17 executed 193:18 Exhibit 4:9,11 4:12,13,14,16 4:19,20,22,24 9:11,14 14:15 14:18 44:13 45:17,21 46:21 64:12 76:8,12 76:25 77:20 78:12 141:10 167:6,8 168:8 168:9,9,20 174:18,23 175:6,6,10,11 175:18,23 176:6,17 177:6 177:9 178:25 180:24 181:5 181:20 184:6,8 184:14,18,21 187:22 188:8,9 188:13,14,15 189:12,16,21 192:7,8,13,15 192:19 193:1 193:15 194:8,9 exist 155:16 existed 74:20 117:10 119:3 existence 119:5 expect 123:25 129:4 expectation 118:2 159:16 expected 52:3 expecting 94:1 98:5 122:7 experience 35:15 expert 51:11 60:19 61:20,22 62:2 83:24 105:1 113:23 131:6,25 experts 61:12 expires 213:24 explain 34:20,25 95:25 110:5 111:5 210:9 explained 59:10 72:1 110:6 116:17 139:18 187:20 explaining 116:8 explicitly 56:1 56:10 116:22 118:9 129:7 exposed 122:7 express 38:22 157:19 expressed 33:22 51:8 93:21 157:19 expressing 42:19 120:5 153:24 extend 185:19 extended 25:21 extensions 84:17 84:19 extent 47:11 117:10 118:13 178:12 210:21 external 11:18 11:20,25 12:1 12:8 16:7,9,23 17:21 24:6 29:5 54:22,23 56:25 57:5 76:17,19 77:10 78:22 111:7,11 112:21 113:20 122:14 extra 112:16 extremely 122:2 eyebrows 117:17 F F 215:1 fa- 205:13 face 79:17 facing 91:19 fact 32:19 34:21 39:10 46:16 51:13 55:22 57:10,12,20 70:6 71:12 223 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 80:4 88:24 36:20,22 37:17 97:23 105:10 40:10 41:18,22 116:6 119:2,5 42:4,12,13 124:25 127:16 49:4 50:5 128:11 133:15 55:16 56:6 134:12 143:9 60:21 61:7,10 152:5 153:15 71:10 72:4,4 166:19 169:16 74:15,23,25 182:17 186:11 75:12 76:1 186:16 194:10 78:23 81:1,14 factory 209:11 82:1,3,13,16 facts 179:4,7 83:22 84:15 186:19 85:6,8,9 90:7 factual 180:8 90:12,15 91:5 fair 77:16 85:18 93:22 97:24 86:5 135:12 98:10,17,19 fairly 195:24 99:13,17,19,25 fairness 36:14 100:4,12 101:9 familiar 37:21 104:19 105:3 51:25 60:18 105:11,16 61:15 93:18 106:19 112:4 103:20 141:1 112:10,20 154:19 175:20 113:7,11 familiarity 118:15 122:8 84:18 194:20 128:18 132:6 family 25:21 134:12 139:21 58:16 72:25 143:11 144:8 73:18 101:13 147:6,12 149:9 119:25 120:5 151:15 152:6 155:24 158:15 154:3,17 155:8 171:25 201:9 159:10 164:19 family's 201:15 169:25 170:7 201:22 171:2,3,10,14 far 8:17 17:12 171:15 173:6 17:25 105:23 173:10,17 110:9 123:23 202:12,13 140:20 156:6 203:6,12 156:20 157:12 205:10,14 159:7 167:3 father's 11:7 201:7 12:19 13:13 Farr 2:23 6:1,1 21:24 22:12 17:5,13 47:25 23:16 24:10 48:4 69:23 25:17 26:14 70:4 115:19 27:1,7 29:3 father 8:24 30:21 31:5 12:14 13:2 47:10 48:8,25 16:16 20:12,15 50:12 51:9 21:18 27:3,11 54:8 55:1,3,11 27:12 29:19 56:24 57:4,17 30:12 32:21 57:21 59:15 60:7 61:20 62:11 69:5 70:15,18,23 71:3 74:17,21 75:23 76:20 80:16 81:9,17 81:18 83:14 84:18 85:24 87:6,12 99:9 100:23 101:15 105:18 113:22 118:5 127:8,17 127:24,25 128:17 139:16 142:6 144:23 145:17 149:10 155:10 157:9 158:18 160:20 168:25 169:4,8 169:12 170:19 171:19 172:13 172:25 173:14 202:2,12,25 Fayetteville 1:18 2:8 February 10:5 11:1 39:2 190:4 191:3 192:24,25 193:1 194:25 209:16 211:10 FedEx 14:11 45:7 132:19 163:11,14,15 163:21 feel 50:23 81:7 99:7 134:9,16 147:1 156:4 196:7 feeling 114:17 121:25 122:4 169:13 felt 29:17 30:2 38:1 40:4 42:21 60:20,24 71:7 74:5 87:3 90:2 95:12 97:23 100:7 104:18,21 117:19 132:4 139:25 143:5 144:15 152:14 190:22 Fiduciary 3:7 figured 169:18 file 49:11 62:23 84:17,19 filed 5:9 176:22 176:24,25 177:16 181:11 181:12 182:16 files 13:11 19:4 19:8,11,19 20:19 29:13 30:18,20 31:3 35:19 40:1,6 42:22 43:8,12 47:9 48:9,17 49:25 50:3,6 50:12,15,16,18 50:22 51:20,22 52:9 56:11,13 56:18 57:13,14 57:18,21 64:10 64:13,23 71:3 71:15 74:17,21 75:5 76:24 79:2,24,25 82:18,20 83:8 83:14,17,22 85:3,12,19,22 87:13 114:16 116:22 118:8 129:7 131:11 145:11 146:17 148:25 149:7 149:14,19 155:11,17 157:8 158:3,12 158:12 fill 21:13 finally 186:25 financial 43:11 179:11 financially 215:18 find 14:11 23:9 26:6 30:7 31:18 48:8 50:17 51:9 54:24 84:6 98:15 116:16 140:24 179:1 186:20 208:1 finding 72:18 132:18 200:18 fine 7:22 14:20 42:10 199:18 200:8 204:5 finish 7:17,18 8:8 34:3 40:21 66:19 80:9 181:7 fire 81:3 firm 63:7 195:20 firmly 125:7 firms 63:9 first 6:11 9:19 13:1 14:22,23 15:6 20:3 21:17 25:15,16 28:21 31:13,15 32:14 33:14 34:13 36:6 44:12,16 49:16 51:20,22 53:20 54:8,17,24 57:19,25 58:3 73:15,21 74:2 81:2 89:10,16 90:24 92:20,25 93:1,4,7,23,24 96:24,25 97:10 97:14 102:22 104:5 107:8 109:9 110:7,11 110:18 111:2 111:14 120:24 122:12 123:16 141:7 146:20 146:23 151:17 155:22 165:8 168:9 169:4 175:16 176:16 177:15 181:18 182:11 184:20 187:13,15 190:14 192:18 196:11 five-minute 224 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 43:18 fixture 56:5 flag 22:24 23:1 flap 15:12 flip 10:19 14:20 15:12,18,25 17:18 18:10 flipped 18:3 focus 13:6 15:19 83:16 156:15 focused 59:6 focusing 58:10 168:8 folder 55:5 84:9 folders 50:4 55:9 84:3 85:3 follow 173:4 follow-up 44:10 95:17 109:25 188:13 follow-ups 195:8 followed 171:19 172:25 following 62:16 follows 6:14 foregoing 213:5 215:6,8,11 forensic 131:6 131:25 147:2 forget 138:4 Forgive 206:18 forgot 172:18 Forks 2:23 3:17 form 12:21 17:9 37:12 88:11,18 149:24 163:13 formal 63:3 format 10:15 126:23 forms 150:3 forth 130:18 178:24 179:5,7 forward 185:18 found 23:10 29:1,3,12,22 47:12 54:18 58:20 65:3 117:18 130:3 156:15 169:25 177:19 178:6 May 17, 2019 foundation 203:9 founding 64:4 four 16:9,23 24:6 53:5,7 74:3 92:14,18 129:21 178:4 178:24 fourth 46:10 frankly 98:1 99:23 110:6 127:25 free 196:7 Friday 1:16 132:24 214:5 friend 80:23 209:10,12 211:9 friendly 110:24 friends 80:22,25 97:24 119:25 120:5 frightened 153:3 front 45:8,19 168:7 172:8 175:5 181:6 frustrated 36:9 full 6:21 136:18 function 43:2 functional 41:25 funding 160:15 funds 160:16 179:16 funeral 171:3,9 funny 103:8 furniture 25:19 further 95:13 101:22 111:5 114:19 172:4 195:7 212:11 215:14,16 furthest 36:19 G G 5:1 213:1 game 17:6 gasoline 52:20 gender-based 149:4 general 1:1 5:10 61:4 69:17 65:1,6,19 70:7 105:4 66:23 75:16 136:4 204:15 79:18,25 81:24 204:21 205:7 92:18 106:15 General's 5:22 124:12 131:3 gentleman 144:5 157:19 154:24 158:2,18,20 genuinely 143:8 159:22 160:19 Geographic 27:3 172:12,15 72:3 74:20 173:25 183:12 142:5 186:22 190:23 Gersch 161:14 197:18,19 getting 20:24 200:25 203:23 25:11 27:18,20 210:8 211:25 30:3 31:8 goes 117:22 116:14 118:24 going 5:2 14:3 133:3,4 134:18 17:15 21:12 157:24 171:24 26:4,5 36:9 gift 32:24 39:25 40:24 gifts 82:14 43:20,24 56:8 gist 32:19 67:7 70:10 111:23 79:23 86:10,14 give 8:4 28:1 86:16,20 88:8 31:18 42:23 95:14 98:9 70:11 84:23 100:11 101:3 85:11 93:25 103:12,15 97:10 112:18 109:5 117:20 114:22 115:2 121:6,24 123:8 135:6,11 142:2 123:12 125:3,4 167:14 174:7 130:14,22 174:12 199:17 131:1 133:3 206:17 207:25 134:21,24 given 58:1 71:12 135:6 141:2 72:4 81:11,17 142:15 146:24 111:16,19,21 151:22 152:11 111:24 125:25 152:18 153:5,6 139:12 153:8 156:16 giving 40:18 159:14 160:16 41:4 135:7 161:6,10 157:11 166:20 170:22 glance 155:22 171:21,25 glasses 181:10 172:1,2,3,7 go 7:4,8 8:1 174:1,21 176:9 14:12,12,20 179:18,25 17:15 22:2,4 180:4,10,20 22:11,11,13 181:1 186:3,3 28:10 34:5 186:13,14 38:10,10 40:11 189:24 191:6 43:17 49:7 195:9,13,25 52:19 55:13,19 196:1 197:17 206:6 212:5,9 212:15 good 6:17 29:17 60:4 67:13 86:24 104:11 104:20 140:11 144:19 168:4,4 180:19 195:17 Google 169:9 208:2 gotten 26:15 35:18 38:24 71:11 73:3 103:13 157:21 grabbed 48:25 grand 96:20 grandfather 85:5 grandmother's 120:7 grandparents 23:2 great 7:15 8:3,14 9:1,5,24 10:3 10:14,19 12:3 14:4 15:6,12 17:3 18:3 20:3 27:16,20 28:9 29:22 38:18 43:19 98:24 great-grandpa... 25:22 30:6 ground 7:9 grounds 177:17 178:4,5,13 179:3,6,8 Group 3:3,7 5:25 195:19 growing 140:15 grumbles 35:13 grumbling 35:13 guaranteed 40:12 guard 153:3 guardian 4:17 4:18,19,21,22 58:23 176:1 177:12,12 181:23 182:2,4 225 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 182:7,12,15,17 183:19,21 184:25 185:3,7 185:10 186:11 187:19 188:16 189:2,19 191:22 192:2 195:1 guess 124:10 157:24 176:25 185:22 guidance 69:2 May 17, 2019 62:11 64:23 67:19 70:24 74:11,19 76:25 77:18 78:2,4,8 80:2,3,15 81:11,13 84:1 87:8,16 89:1 95:24 100:24 101:15 102:7,9 104:15 111:18 112:22 113:12 113:20 114:4,5 117:11 126:2 H 134:22 135:16 H 4:7,12 214:1 139:2 146:8,12 half 72:5 146:21,22 half-uncle 120:2 150:1 155:8 hand 134:24 156:2 164:11 handle 59:11 165:10 211:17 handled 131:2 hardware 185:17 208:11 hands 18:9 81:6 Hargett 3:4 157:23 Harris 72:20 handwriting 120:2,9 44:18,21,24 Hartsough 8:25 45:1 46:5 72:9 76:20 head 41:1 53:6 handwritten 66:25 123:4 10:4 46:1 126:3 happen 100:1,5 heads-up 121:8 195:25 142:3 happened 56:21 health 149:16,20 72:18 125:7 150:10 210:10 heard 106:3 happening hearing 94:25 153:21 175:25 176:9 happens 105:9 185:6,7 happy 8:9 heirloom 25:19 148:18 196:7 held 54:5 197:7 harassing 180:1 Hello 6:18 hard 11:18,25 help 37:7 74:8 16:7,9,23 154:24 17:21 23:25 helped 59:7,9 24:6 29:5 helpful 200:13 32:24 34:7 helping 72:25 36:5 54:21,22 130:18,20 54:23 55:10,17 hereto 213:9 55:21 56:3,25 hero's 99:6 57:5,12 59:22 hey 133:22 59:23 60:1 hi 133:23 138:12 hide 116:10 highly 197:8,13 highway 14:13 hint 186:21 HIPAA 149:24 150:2 hired 179:12 historical 42:22 65:2 104:22 historically 91:3 history 197:1 Hofeller 1:13 4:8,9,12,13 5:5 6:8,10,17,23 7:1,4 8:24,25 9:11,22 14:15 37:15 44:1,7 86:23 88:24 90:7,15 123:15 161:13 167:6,8 168:7,11,22 173:20 174:18 174:23 175:4 178:19 180:24 181:4,18 184:6 184:13 188:9 188:12 192:8 192:11 195:17 199:11 213:3 213:15 214:4 Hofeller's 170:18 Hofellerism 119:16 hol- 190:19 hold 27:22 65:24 65:25,25 66:18 86:1 112:12 179:24,24 181:10 198:7 holiday 109:19 190:22,23 holidays 109:14 124:25 125:9 home 49:13 51:24 52:1,6,9 55:4 71:4,4,14 80:16 105:14 147:17,17,23 148:8 154:14 164:21 165:4 196:11 197:5 198:15 199:25 hon- 96:22 honest 60:18 honestly 16:10 53:5 75:2 87:20 89:6 94:9 107:17 116:4,6 119:10 119:15 125:24 126:3 130:5 135:9 138:10 140:23 141:23 149:18,21 151:23 158:14 169:23 hope 98:15 195:22 hoped 30:7 hopes 31:16 37:6 hoping 78:24 147:6 hospitals 150:3 hostile 99:5 hotel 28:21 53:4 53:8,10,12 54:11 hour 86:11 140:18,19 hours 49:7,14,24 50:1,2 82:22 85:2 house 1:8 5:8 24:23 52:13 72:13 81:2 105:22 106:11 132:19 198:6 household 88:4 Howerton 3:12 huh 118:12 human 99:2,6 189:1,10 hunch 78:23 169:13,23 hundred 132:21 hundreds 54:18 husband 165:7 I I's 159:5 i.e 120:15 155:19 idea 56:7 79:23 109:25 124:6 131:8 135:10 142:14 152:15 158:19 159:3 204:1 205:16 identical 78:1 identification 9:12 14:16 167:7,9 174:19 174:24 180:25 184:7 188:10 192:9 identified 57:4 identify 5:13 59:7,9 idolized 98:2 ignored 50:11 III 3:3 image 15:19 16:1 18:11 99:1,6,6 images 14:25 18:5,14 imagine 170:17 immediately 22:20 25:6 77:12 82:22 151:19 implication 105:25 implied 102:9 128:12 importance 139:16 202:2 important 161:1 172:5 impression 34:11 77:22 93:25 102:24 103:13 112:18 124:3,15 132:9 152:7 167:2 impressions 124:24 in- 176:10 in-person 141:4 226 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER inadmissible 173:23,24 inappropriate 171:6 Inasmuch 24:18 incident 23:12 incidental 61:3 incidentally 99:14 incidentals 95:20 includable 126:24 include 90:6 included 126:25 127:18 including 43:7,8 47:5 113:23 120:17 173:10 inclusive 215:11 incompetence 4:17 175:25 177:11 187:23 incompetency 38:8 91:22 92:2 96:11 97:16,21 99:10 118:19 119:1 119:14 120:10 152:13 181:25 185:24 187:10 190:12,15 191:5 193:3 incompetent 4:15 58:20 176:11 177:19 178:6 179:2 183:8 increasingly 130:22 independent 38:4 98:16,19 indicate 52:22 indicates 139:24 175:13 individual 189:7 individuals 138:19 194:11 infant 54:19 80:20 May 17, 2019 influence 179:10 inform 151:13 170:5 information 29:10,11 46:20 47:15,16 48:9 48:12 55:14,16 55:20 56:17 62:12 64:15 68:16 69:5 70:22 76:10 77:17 80:4 88:25 89:3 92:1 104:21 106:6,18 113:4 113:22 114:3 116:7 117:1,2 117:6,10 125:25 126:23 127:17 149:16 150:11,16,19 150:19,24 151:4,6 152:1 157:8 158:4 165:24,25 166:12 211:8 informed 60:20 183:16,22 initial 37:1 51:6 113:18 135:13 initially 10:15 50:10 90:17 104:18 initiate 107:5 109:23 initiated 94:4 125:16 inside 16:20 22:23 23:2 140:15 insight 42:23 104:24 instantly 130:12 instruct 69:13 69:13,14 88:20 170:22 172:3 174:1 instructing 174:3 instruction 70:12 instructs 7:24 integrity 14:2 43:6 64:21 65:17 115:13 115:15 147:2 intend 41:13 intended 76:2 135:14 intent 112:11 intention 13:24 118:3 119:19 130:17 147:10 intentionally 51:18 intentions 116:16 interaction 143:11 interchangeable 126:6 interest 33:19 50:9 51:8 55:23 56:13 57:11,21 61:2 72:17 90:2 100:25 103:3 104:23 105:5 120:23 145:13 153:24 196:18 interested 61:5 72:15 84:14 120:13 193:5 215:19 interesting 85:6 90:23 169:19 interim 4:19,21 58:22 183:19 184:24 185:3,7 185:9 186:11 187:18 188:16 189:2 191:22 192:2 194:25 interior 15:20 interject 68:10 199:7 interpretation 185:15 interrogatory 153:24 interrupt 17:6 200:11 interrupting 200:13 intervenor 5:25 195:18 interview 32:16 32:17 102:6 183:1 Intro- 108:4 introduce 108:11 introduced 108:4 involved 37:24 40:14 71:9,17 71:19 92:1 97:16,20 102:17 120:9 120:11,15,20 124:7 138:11 139:20,21 173:19 199:20 201:10,16,20 201:25 202:7 203:13 involving 13:4 149:6 iPhone 206:23 207:5,11 iPhones 210:15 irony 100:17 irrelevant 43:1 207:7 issuance 141:22 issue 42:5 57:23 151:22 154:22 204:14 205:8 issued 142:8,21 142:24 143:3 151:12,13,18 151:20,24 158:22 168:10 168:16,22,24 191:18 192:3 issues 33:3 36:15 83:19 152:21 issuing 151:21 J Jacobson 161:20 Jane 32:3 37:2 92:5,8 94:7,25 95:4 104:7,12 105:17 107:16 108:6 121:5 142:1 January 125:10 125:13 126:16 126:19 168:12 190:17,19 209:16 211:9 jbranch@sha... 3:5 jewelry 22:21 26:3 112:7 120:7 job 140:2 John 3:3 5:24 195:18 joke 59:25 jokingly 100:15 Jones 2:3 4:2 5:17,17 6:16 6:19 9:10,13 14:14,17 15:8 17:14 43:17 44:1 47:19,22 57:7 61:23 62:3 64:16 65:10,21,25 66:3,21,23 67:1 68:19 69:12 75:14 76:5 79:15 81:22 86:6,10 86:13 87:18 88:16,17 106:21 113:15 136:11 137:2 137:13,16,19 137:21,23,25 138:7,17 141:5 141:14 145:20 159:11,14 161:24 162:22 165:14,17 167:14,17,20 167:23 168:1 170:15,24 227 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 171:5,11 95:12 96:1,1,7 172:17 175:1 98:3 107:20 179:18,21,24 117:17 126:2 180:3 193:19 140:23 147:6 198:7,17 199:1 191:13 195:21 200:20 201:2 207:4 202:14,16,18 kinds 29:21 202:21 203:8 56:11 60:23 204:10 206:8 77:5 207:6 212:13 knew 12:25 13:1 journalist 33:2 29:19,20 36:21 journalistic 37:15,22,25 34:14 43:4 49:21 journey 142:14 71:9 74:23 Jr 2:8 108:1 84:18 90:1,14 judgment 42:24 91:3 99:13,14 July 41:23 100:15 103:24 171:15,20 103:24 105:15 172:23,24 115:6 117:20 173:7 140:7 152:2,22 jump 196:1 156:3 170:13 Justice 1:1 2:12 know 8:7,19 5:10 11:18 12:6 13:8 16:9,11 K 16:13,14 25:6 K 213:1 25:7,18,21,24 Kathleen 4:12 26:10,11 29:19 8:25 168:11 29:20 32:14 Kaye 2:3 33:7,15 35:7 keep 49:2 37:14,20,22 112:23 122:9 38:3 42:3,8 147:21 148:20 45:1 46:9,12 190:25 209:7 46:16,19,23 keeping 67:16 47:6 49:15,25 117:14 51:21 52:7,11 keepsake 22:20 55:14 56:10 keepsakes 22:17 59:2 60:1 Kentucky 8:13 63:20,24 68:6 8:16 14:11 70:25 73:2 28:11,13,16 74:14 75:5 74:4,7,8 76:10,15,18,20 130:19 147:17 76:21 77:7,24 147:23 148:6,9 78:19 81:5 164:21 165:5 82:5 83:3,10 kept 139:3 143:8 84:15 87:2 147:20 172:11 88:24 89:6,7 Khanna 162:14 89:24 90:17,18 kind 23:24 24:2 90:23,23 92:10 32:15 64:20 92:15 93:6 85:25 91:13 94:3 95:7,22 95:23 96:6 98:23 99:16,21 100:10,14,15 100:19 101:10 102:12,12 103:17,19 104:9,9,11 105:3 107:20 108:12,17 109:5,13,14,15 109:24 110:3,4 110:9 111:8,22 112:6,17 115:4 116:2,3,9,12 117:14,15,16 117:21,23 118:12 119:7 119:10,13 120:3,7 121:7 121:17,19,21 121:24 122:5,8 122:24 123:23 124:5,7,8 125:19 126:4,6 126:24,25 127:10,13 129:21 130:1,3 130:18 132:5 132:20,24 133:1,5,7,10 133:19 134:8 134:14,14,17 134:19,23 136:19 137:18 137:20 138:15 139:12,14 140:5,8,11,12 140:14,25 142:15,17 143:5,12,22 144:7,13,15 146:21,23 148:21 149:18 149:23,25 150:8,13,14 152:8,9,11,12 152:12,17,20 153:18 155:3 155:14 156:6 156:20 157:10 157:13 160:2,9 161:1 163:10 165:22 166:14 166:15 167:3 168:14,23 169:14 171:7 179:22 185:12 192:20 193:6 194:7,9 195:21 197:1 199:18 199:20 201:7 202:13 203:12 203:14,16,19 203:20,24 204:1,3,4,5,8 205:3,12 207:23 210:19 know- 177:25 knowing 55:11 146:24 147:8 205:19,20 knowledge 177:24,25 201:8,21 203:11 known 56:17 L L 213:1 la 53:14,19 119:16 label 18:12 45:3 45:7 46:6 76:21 labeled 13:11 35:23 62:6 Lamar 27:1 laptop 26:19,22 27:8 29:1 49:3 148:14 211:18 211:19,22 lasted 97:1 140:17 Late 208:23 laugh 28:5 laughed 36:23 law 3:3 5:25 35:3 62:25 63:6,9 195:19 195:20 laws 204:20 lawsuit 6:20 34:21 198:3 205:1 lawyer 37:8 38:6 62:5 92:10 102:15 132:10 155:13 178:11 198:14 lawyers 13:17 15:22 16:3 17:22 18:22 19:21 24:8 27:23 31:1 36:2 38:14 41:6 42:11,17 43:13 57:15 68:22 101:22 102:1,16,17 103:17 133:17 159:4 layperson 185:19 leading 12:22 learn 21:17 169:8 learned 21:20,24 169:4 171:4 193:23 leave 75:21 leaving 125:8 led 100:9 left 9:21 22:15 22:22 23:3 64:24 72:2 81:6,14 82:8 94:8 112:10 130:2 legal 3:16 62:4 63:2 96:12 152:10 201:20 legalese 132:7 legislation 144:13,13 legislative 2:16 6:2,5 12:20 33:13 34:22 35:4 44:9 85:16 116:20 117:18 118:10 228 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER legislators 32:25 102:10 139:23 legislature 11:9 length 157:1 let's 7:16 13:6 38:10 74:1 83:16 122:25 122:25,25 170:25 180:15 187:25 206:22 letters 30:19 50:8 62:15 80:24,25 85:4 85:5 letting 160:19 level 103:6 139:25 201:11 Lewis 1:7 5:6 214:3 Lexington 160:17 life 29:25 56:6 58:16 98:25 101:11 128:2 139:19 165:8 LifeLinks 189:4 light 49:15 liked 78:23 limit 79:10 limited 4:18 113:6 177:12 line 126:13 129:17 170:16 172:1,2 lines 66:9 88:3 108:8 123:20 lining 25:5 Lisa 1:23 3:17 215:4,23 list 10:22 11:1 133:20 137:12 196:3 listed 178:5 190:2 194:13 litem 4:19,23 176:1 181:24 182:2,4,7,12 182:15,17 183:21 189:19 literal 104:24 106:1 literally 104:20 112:3 120:20 142:18 148:25 litigation 2:13 3:7 35:14,21 37:14,24 56:4 56:5,7 61:16 61:17 63:24 73:5,7 96:4 107:3,6,9 117:13,22 122:6 144:16 145:18 191:19 191:24 192:4 197:9 202:8 203:7 205:8 litigations 51:12 61:13 little 25:15 33:6 33:8 85:22,23 88:2 97:23 99:23 103:9 117:16 120:12 140:13 144:12 148:17 158:24 200:25 206:18 live 8:12,14,16 165:7 lived 20:12 lives 198:18 living 20:16,21 24:23 56:6 71:14 Lizon 4:10 7:1,2 7:4 9:22 LLP 15:8 local 93:19 201:6,6,7,8 located 53:8 location 20:9 lockbox 24:13 lodge 70:10 long 53:1 93:7,9 110:17 138:25 197:14 199:6 199:22 longer 72:24 100:8 109:18 122:10 155:9 May 17, 2019 look 10:3,12 12:12 14:22 15:7 18:1 23:4 26:13 28:18,24 29:8 50:16 52:4 54:9 60:1 96:21 100:20 116:21 117:1,4 145:12 157:7 157:15 158:13 175:7 195:6 looked 24:18 28:20 36:22 48:7,16 50:3,9 118:8 120:16 129:10 155:14 looking 16:22 22:17,18 25:10 25:18 26:8 29:13,23 44:15 51:8 54:23 57:16,17 59:22 79:2,6 83:7,11 83:13,17 84:16 85:2,12 91:12 137:14 155:2 155:23 158:16 158:19 208:25 loss 21:23 93:22 lost 174:20 211:2 lot 35:12 83:13 84:10,19 96:5 99:19 101:7,7 103:11 109:18 110:21 124:17 125:1,2,2 129:4 130:4 139:14,15 147:5 152:5 160:21 195:22 205:14 lots 64:18 Louise 6:23 7:2 love 165:9 lower 103:15 105:22 106:11 106:12,13 luck 93:21 M M 2:8,13 213:1 ma'am 196:25 Mackie 38:16 67:11 115:8,17 115:19,20,21 115:25 116:25 118:19 119:2 126:12,18 127:16 128:15 128:23 129:17 129:20 130:10 132:14 133:25 135:20,23 136:6 138:17 141:20,21 143:15 144:21 145:16 151:10 151:13 153:15 154:7 155:6 162:4 maiden 7:6 mail 49:21 130:5 131:5,14 135:2 mailed 121:12 131:16 main 22:18 mainstream 33:7 maintain 66:11 66:11 146:18 maintained 117:12 147:16 148:8 maintaining 147:1 majority 85:18 making 16:13 33:7 46:17,18 49:14 51:14 64:9 139:12 man 61:1 98:21 105:11 managed 122:8 manipulate 31:3 Map 33:17 maps 11:8 12:20 30:22 36:23 85:16,17 90:6 90:11,19,20 91:1 102:10 204:14,20,25 205:7,11,13,17 205:18 March 14:5 165:1,6 mark 9:10 14:14 133:22,23 162:7 marked 9:11,14 10:20 14:15,18 44:13 45:16 63:18 64:8,11 141:10 167:4,6 167:8,13 168:8 174:18,21,23 175:6,10,23 176:6,17 177:5 177:9 180:24 181:5,20 184:6 184:14,17,21 187:22 188:9 189:16 192:8 192:12,15,18 193:1 194:9 markings 174:8 married 7:1 159:10 160:20 masala 127:23 Massachusetts 2:4 material 46:2 51:16 56:2 77:13 81:18,20 111:4,6 131:22 166:4 materials 11:11 11:23 14:5 30:10,16 45:9 45:13 47:13 48:7,13 49:8 51:10 54:7,9 54:25 61:21,22 61:25 62:6,10 65:8 69:19 74:14 79:6,11 79:19 82:25 83:6,20,25 85:20 101:16 105:19 114:5 229 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 122:16 127:18 128:16 131:14 143:16 147:15 148:23 149:9 150:9,12,25 151:7 154:3,8 159:17,19 160:7 164:11 164:14,17,20 164:21 165:12 166:17,20 matter 5:5 51:13 57:23 60:16 64:2 68:2,7 93:16 98:13 100:18 101:12 101:13 102:18 102:25 103:22 104:1,6,17 105:21,22 106:3,7 114:11 114:13 115:7 117:8,15 118:10 119:1 119:20 124:1,8 124:14 125:23 129:5 139:18 140:4 153:25 154:2 155:19 159:7 185:17 186:6,7 187:6 matters 29:25 34:10,11 43:8 59:12 61:18 63:25 71:5 77:5 98:21 103:10 130:21 148:21 149:12 171:25 185:14 191:4 193:14 201:17,20,25 202:3 205:14 may- 109:3 mean 17:5 23:4 35:17 48:21 55:19 58:4,5 63:16 77:23 83:2,10 84:24 85:15 86:25 90:20 94:13 May 17, 2019 98:20,21 101:19 102:2 106:12 112:4 112:25 116:10 118:22 119:9 120:14,20 123:23 125:5 131:16,18 134:13 140:22 148:4 153:9 157:11,17 159:9 166:14 166:14,25 169:18 173:23 176:24 198:21 198:21 201:1 204:17 206:19 206:20,21 means 120:15 meant 49:5 measure 140:11 meat 160:18 media 49:12 65:3 67:17 101:23 127:1 127:22 medical 149:25 150:4,5 183:3 Meese 191:11 meeting 141:4 member 163:1 members 2:11 158:15 memento 147:5 memory 152:20 152:20 153:16 153:17 mention 32:8 127:6 mentioned 34:13 35:3 51:1 57:10 84:12 102:23 104:7 105:17 111:9 118:23 127:11 134:2 142:2,4 142:7,20 151:10 155:21 173:11 mentioning 102:6 merely 49:11 50:3 merits 98:13 119:20 mess 120:21 message 23:8 75:21 94:9 107:11,25 108:3,14 130:2 messages 94:6 94:14 107:21 125:8,13 133:7 141:17 209:20 209:21 210:15 210:18,25 211:3 met 44:7 183:4 metal 46:7 miles 8:19 mind 78:18 130:12 mine 22:17,20 28:7 29:13 47:6 50:7 64:23 79:3 80:18 81:16 82:2 112:10,15 116:7 147:4 149:1,7,25 150:1 166:4 174:20 209:12 mingle 77:6 mingled 77:6 98:25 128:11 minute 139:7 145:12 minutes 85:12 93:10 97:2 110:20 140:22 212:1 mischar- 47:20 mischaracteri... 144:3 145:4 159:22 mischaracteri... 37:13 47:22 65:11 66:5 79:16 misclar- 67:2 missed 155:25 200:24 missing 72:16 misstate 203:22 mistaken 88:16 mistakenly 47:7 48:25 mix 77:4 mixed 47:7 84:4 mixture 77:4 modify 19:8 mom 55:14,20 59:6 149:20 153:16 154:7 157:8 mom's 189:2 191:5 moment 10:17 14:19 17:18 48:16 60:13 68:25 102:22 146:15 149:22 160:14 184:16 186:24 195:6 moments 189:14 money 133:1 163:8,25 monies 163:23 164:2,4,7 month 13:22 20:4 monthly 53:22 months 52:14 57:25 58:4 169:15 morning 6:17 44:8 mother 8:25 12:17 13:2 20:12,15,21 21:1,6,25 22:10,11 25:12 25:25 26:18 27:4,13 31:19 36:10 37:25 38:5,7 39:21 40:17,18 41:3 42:1 50:13,14 50:21 51:7,14 52:23 53:2 55:24,25 56:11 56:24 57:3,10 57:20 58:10,20 58:23 59:14 60:5 61:1,1 71:23 72:1 73:6,10,14 74:9 81:12,14 81:25 82:10 91:10,12,19 95:21 96:8 97:8 99:12,16 101:3 105:12 112:6 118:21 121:25 128:19 130:18 149:16 150:11 151:14 152:3,9,18 153:2 155:9 156:13 157:15 158:21 159:16 160:6 164:19 166:19,24 168:11,16 170:2,4,19 176:9 177:19 178:6 179:1 182:1,18 183:6 183:7,24 184:25 185:3 187:8,14 188:1 190:12 200:18 mother's 37:9 50:23 52:6,9 52:13,21 98:13 118:4 154:20 154:20 156:2 156:20 158:3 160:11 183:3 183:17 185:10 185:17,25 186:5,7,12,21 190:15 191:17 193:8 195:1 motion 4:20,24 133:21 175:25 193:15 move 72:13,15 72:25 199:5 moved 53:14 230 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 118:11 157:3 multiple 88:13 202:23 multitude 84:4 multitudes 99:3 music 80:22 N N 2:1 3:1 4:1 5:1 213:1,1,1,1 N.W 2:19 name 6:21 7:1,6 9:20 53:10,12 54:12 72:8 73:19 169:9,12 173:16 189:3 195:17 214:2,4 named 89:11 161:17 162:10 names 93:18,19 93:20 95:6 97:11 98:6,8 120:13,18 136:16 138:10 138:14,14,19 Nash 2:22 nature 56:4 NC 2:9 18:12 near 28:7 52:20 53:17 necessarily 115:4 necessary 96:16 198:24 need 12:9 55:8 55:25 96:2,8 98:10,11 106:10 110:1 123:2 161:4 167:12 170:12 208:5 needed 109:16 117:19 160:7 201:6 negotiated 193:11 neither 153:23 215:14 never 49:3 60:17 63:4,6,12 69:2 May 17, 2019 74:13 112:20 119:19 128:9 145:6 175:12 175:18 182:21 184:10 new 17:6 34:12 35:2,2,5 60:16 60:16 90:19,20 90:24 103:22 104:2 106:2 143:7 154:15 156:1 157:16 169:9 171:8 173:11 209:13 209:25 210:18 210:20,25 211:4 news 84:8,10 newspaper 173:9 nice 58:1 night 28:21 53:12,20,21 54:16,17,24 nights 53:7,7 nine 16:19 93:1 97:1 No- 190:4 Nods 41:1 66:25 123:4 noncommunic... 73:8 nonhuman 98:3 nonre- 128:5 nonspecific 157:18 Nope 141:7 Noreen 59:12 186:8,10,20 187:1,9,13 188:2 191:17 normal 52:15 152:21 North 1:1,19 2:12,14,24 3:4 3:9,18 5:11,21 8:14 11:8 12:19 13:4,14 33:12,18 34:21 35:24 52:17 79:7,14 80:5 88:9,12 90:8 91:5 105:7,8 128:6 129:8 204:15,20,21 213:4 215:1 Notary 6:12 213:23 215:5 215:24 note 23:8 149:7 173:16 noted 94:24 notes 195:6 noteworthy 55:18 63:10 notice 73:17,20 158:17 175:24 noticed 25:14 55:3,9 133:22 notification 53:25 November 58:6 59:4,4 89:16 89:16 92:25 93:2 96:25 181:15 185:5 187:25 188:3 194:24 number 4:8 5:12 45:16,17,21,22 46:21 76:8 108:13 139:5 173:8 206:7,16 207:18,24 208:1,8 numbers 95:6 208:18 209:4 nuts 124:13 NW 2:4 O O 5:1 213:1,1 oath 7:12 Ob- 61:23 81:22 87:18 165:14 173:22 207:6 obituary 169:10 171:8 173:12 object 7:21 21:6 39:6,7,15 64:16 65:21 66:4 67:1 68:19 69:7 79:16 88:10,18 170:15 171:5 171:21 179:19 179:25 193:20 198:17 202:14 202:14 207:6 objection 7:25 12:21 37:11,12 39:10,18 47:19 57:7 62:3 65:10 66:4 69:21 70:11 75:14 76:5 81:22 86:6 87:18 88:15 106:21 113:15 144:1 145:3,20 158:7 159:21 165:14 171:11 173:22 178:8 186:18 197:14 200:20 201:2 203:8 objections 17:7 17:8 88:12 observed 49:11 149:23 obtain 144:22 150:4 obtained 112:1 obvious 13:12 129:3,3 obviously 116:23 129:8 occur 89:14 186:16 occurred 59:3 141:15 October 20:6,20 21:3 22:6,9 52:7,10,11 58:6 59:21 73:22,22 74:2 165:6 176:8 177:6 October/Nove... 58:9 59:5 offense 144:8 offensive 99:23 offer 32:11 offhand 16:6 76:22 77:24 92:17 138:15 office 5:22 14:12 45:7 87:6 95:15 132:19 191:14 197:17 197:23 officer 215:5 official 1:7 5:7 42:3 Ogletree 2:22 6:1 oh 13:8 28:22 34:4 47:21 49:13 71:23 73:16 133:22 144:2 163:10 167:22 172:12 174:7,14 180:19 181:16 189:4,24,24 191:10 200:2 202:14 okay 7:3,8,10 8:10,16,19,22 9:3,9,19,24 10:3,8,25 11:5 11:11,14,17,23 12:3,8,12,16 13:20 15:25 16:6,25 17:13 18:10,21 19:2 19:10,23 20:1 20:3,7,13,15 20:19,24 21:1 21:3,6,9,9,12 21:15,17,20 22:4 23:10,14 23:17 24:6,12 24:16,25 25:12 26:4,11,20 27:4,16,16,18 28:1,4,14,18 28:22 29:6 30:15,18,24 31:7,12,20,24 231 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 32:2,7,11 33:5 37:5,5 38:6,10 38:16,18,21 39:2,6,10,14 39:24 40:16,19 40:24,25 41:5 41:9,9,15,16 41:17,21,24 42:3,6,10,15 43:16 45:9,18 49:6 66:16 67:1 74:2 103:18 114:25 116:9 121:13 123:2,20 124:5 132:1,13 137:9 149:23 157:25 161:4 167:19 172:9 174:5,6 174:17 176:3 180:15 181:16 189:18,24 197:21 199:9 200:6 202:4 204:11,19 205:4,23 206:13 207:4 207:16,22 208:9,17,17,21 209:3,7,14 210:17,21 211:2,6,12,24 old 85:4 209:5,5 209:7,21 211:6 211:8 Oldham 27:1,5 55:2,12 61:8 61:11 70:16,25 73:2,4,14 74:14,24 75:4 75:18,20 87:14 89:5 142:9,21 142:25 143:3 143:16,23 144:22 145:18 146:2 151:12 155:7 Oldham's 76:2 once 40:9,10 73:15 77:9 May 17, 2019 89:19 100:7,18 102:11 116:4,8 121:23 153:4 169:25 ones 16:15 204:14 205:1 ongoing 73:6 99:11 185:24 oOo-- 3:19 open 23:17 24:5 49:11,19 50:2 84:5,20 104:17 opened 42:4 49:25 60:17 operating 17:12 Operation 33:16 opinion 36:17 opportunity 175:4 181:4 184:13 189:13 192:12 opposed 46:5 153:10 198:5 opposing 73:7 opposite 46:14 87:24 106:19 order 4:20 58:22 176:1 184:24 199:10 organization 31:9 original 124:21 130:17 182:13 originally 13:23 36:25 134:23 other's 160:22 outcome 215:19 outreach 89:10 outside 15:14 99:22 172:6 198:18,18 199:2 overnight 47:4 overwhelmed 25:16 owned 81:3 P P 2:1,1 3:1,1 5:1 213:1 p.m 123:9,11,11 123:13 161:7,9 161:9,11 180:21,23,23 181:2 195:10 195:12,12,14 212:6,8,8,10 212:16,18 package 14:25 15:10,14 16:3 16:21 18:9 pad 63:10 page 4:1,8 9:19 10:20,21 14:23 15:6,13,18,25 18:10 44:16 45:21 46:10,21 76:12,14,16,19 76:25 77:7 78:11 175:12 175:14,16,19 175:21,24 176:3,7,17 177:5,22 178:4 178:25 181:13 181:14 189:21 189:23 190:1 194:15 Page/Line 214:6 pages 10:19 17:16 213:5 215:11 paid 53:20,20,21 paper 118:8 paperless 53:24 papers 23:25 paperwork 187:2 par 56:9 Paragraph 178:4 paramount 105:6 Pardon 34:1 parents 8:23 24:23 41:12 72:25 154:16 parents' 22:22 26:12 27:21 29:15 30:11 35:18 51:24 52:1 72:13 79:1 park 140:24 parsing 178:10 part 73:5 89:3 137:7 150:6 159:25 182:13 197:1 particularly 93:9 parties 37:23 120:14 193:5 197:6,12 203:6 215:16,18 partisan 36:14 36:17 104:22 partner 27:2 55:1 61:8 70:15 81:19 142:7 party 14:3 38:2 67:18 73:7 106:17 131:1,3 131:5 133:4 passed 134:13 170:1,9 204:15 204:17 205:7 205:11 passing 169:4,8 171:4,16 passive 66:6 patient 196:4 Paul 2:13 5:21 pay 53:18 160:21 paycheck 132:25 paying 55:6 PC 51:24 52:1 55:4 71:4,4 154:14,16,25 155:21 158:13 pcox@ncdoj.g... 2:15 penalties 213:4 penchant 100:16 pencils 147:22 pending 34:12 pens 147:21 people 11:19 48:2 61:18 64:6 71:22 72:22 98:1,9 98:17,23 99:4 99:13,21 100:11,19 105:14,15 140:24 199:18 206:17 208:4 percent 196:2 perfectly 204:4 period 28:2 50:11 52:22 58:5 59:2 72:24 92:23 129:9 132:20 165:5 194:24 206:20 208:19 perjury 213:4 Perkins 162:17 164:8 permission 40:2 40:18 41:4 50:22,23,25 108:8 199:18 person 9:20 31:13 58:24 60:21 71:21 89:21 98:22 99:2 117:24 185:11 186:12 189:2 192:2 195:2 207:25 person's 125:4 personable 33:8 personal 29:9,11 30:10,18 33:8 42:13 47:15 48:10,12 50:17 55:17 63:25 64:23 72:16 79:1 82:6,7 83:19,20 85:20 87:25 98:25 105:9 113:2,6 116:7,15 117:4 117:9 118:3,4 118:6,17 127:24,24 232 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 128:2,4,11,18 128:19,19 129:4 149:15 150:10,24 154:14,21 156:7 158:13 165:23 171:25 179:13 197:1 personally 35:11 43:12 45:3 150:17 pertain 202:1 pertained 13:13 pertaining 100:6 pertains 201:10 pertinent 35:6 35:16,20 40:6 87:4 139:18 143:13 petition 4:16 58:19 91:22 177:10 182:14 182:15 187:22 petitioner 120:16 177:18 179:5,8 183:4 petitioner's 183:2 phase 34:24 Phillips 31:15,21 31:24 36:25 89:12,18,20,25 91:9,11,17,21 91:25 92:5 94:12,19,20 162:22,24 philosophy 60:23 64:4 105:4 169:22 phone 49:2 91:18 92:14 93:3 95:11,18 107:18 108:10 108:25 109:4 111:15 124:21 125:2 126:19 130:8 136:12 139:15 140:21 167:1 206:1,4 206:6,7,16 May 17, 2019 207:4,24,25 208:8,17 209:3 209:25 210:11 210:18,20,24 210:25 211:4,6 211:8 phones 107:20 Photocopied 4:11 photograph 14:24 15:20 17:16 44:16 photographed 77:19 photographs 4:11 14:24 15:14 16:22 17:17,20 18:4 29:10,23 30:9 30:19 46:11 50:8,18 83:18 85:7 141:10 148:13 155:24 physical 20:9 208:11 physically 13:24 148:1 pick 64:22 65:19 112:19 200:16 picking 67:15 picture 15:7 23:1 45:22 77:8,9,12 78:13 166:6 pictured 76:11 pictures 26:7 30:4,5,5 51:3 54:18 80:20,21 80:22 83:4,11 148:15,18 158:14,14 166:5 Pinsky 32:3,5,8 32:12 33:21,23 34:20 35:25 36:7 37:2 38:11,12 92:6 92:8,10,12,19 93:5,8,24 95:4 96:10,19,25 97:15,20 100:23 101:15 101:25 102:16 106:5 107:1 121:5,16 162:21 Pinsky's 92:15 place 140:24 165:9 plaintiff 36:19 plaintiffs 1:5 2:2 5:18,20 6:20 9:6,17 39:3 44:15 116:20 205:1 plaintiffs' 13:17 15:21 16:3 17:22 18:22 19:20 24:8 27:23 31:1 36:2 38:14 41:6 42:11,17 43:13 78:7 plan 134:24 193:2 planned 135:15 plans 74:6 plastic 23:20 play 37:16 pleasantries 136:4 please 5:13 6:21 20:3,7 46:4 49:10 66:18 69:15,21 86:1 86:8 174:16 176:14 180:16 181:8 183:10 184:9 186:23 192:23 196:6 199:7 203:3 210:6 pleasure 44:4 plowing 195:21 plug 12:9 PNC 54:6 point 12:23,24 13:8 31:7 34:15 50:6 51:14,19 55:22 57:9 59:13 67:23 69:1 73:8,9 81:16 82:25 83:16 97:19 98:7 100:22 112:14 116:3 119:11 121:22 122:10 122:21 125:20 126:9,21 132:17 134:18 134:20 135:1,5 135:14 139:6 141:20 142:9 142:17 152:17 158:2 164:1,4 164:12 171:3 173:17 179:25 181:23 182:6 183:15 185:4 185:18 186:4 188:21 189:8 190:4 191:1 194:6,20 205:15 208:19 Pointer 115:5 pointing 175:14 pointless 160:13 points 57:9 poke 55:8 polite 108:9,18 130:1 134:8,15 political 37:19 42:25 60:23 61:5 64:4 105:2,3 154:4 169:21 politicization 201:9,15,21 politicizing 58:16 politics 38:3 201:11 pops 130:11 popular 207:24 Porter 2:3 5:18 6:19 15:8 44:19 45:5,10 45:11,12 46:22 46:24 47:2,17 48:14,18 49:9 59:16 60:8 64:11 65:8,18 67:20 68:17 69:6 74:12 75:5 76:3 79:5 79:12 80:12 82:21,23 83:1 89:2 113:5,14 114:20,24 131:21 134:22 136:11 146:10 147:16 148:24 149:15 150:10 150:20 151:1,8 158:1 161:23 163:16,22 164:5,15 165:1 165:11 166:1 166:13,18,21 211:14 Porter's 69:19 portion 10:4 pose 196:6 position 37:19 122:8 202:3 203:2 positions 202:11 positive 41:18 41:24 possessed 60:25 possession 16:13 57:6 71:1 75:22 81:2 89:5 113:12 154:8 155:10 155:16 164:18 209:19 211:21 possessions 72:16 143:12 possibility 51:2 59:14 60:6 106:2,6 121:2 possibly 143:13 155:15 157:22 170:20 208:24 209:2 posterity 147:7 potential 104:15 105:7 115:16 233 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 134:6 potentially 26:14 104:16 116:14 124:7 PowerPoint 139:22 Poyner 1:17 2:7 5:19 115:1 117:12 131:17 131:17 135:19 157:23 158:22 162:3 164:2 precious 28:6 80:17,18 precision 78:20 predicated 95:17 predictable 118:14 prefer 11:19 prefers 95:11 preliminary 187:16,17 prepare 45:3 prepared 40:14 90:7,12 122:6 prepares 61:21 61:25 present 3:12 72:12 166:23 208:15 presentation 139:22 presented 43:5 preservation 115:13 preserve 64:21 65:5,16 113:8 147:7 preserved 29:18 43:6,7 79:23 115:16 preserving 14:1 84:14 press 203:24 204:6 pressing 57:23 103:10 148:21 pressure 134:16 presume 34:16 May 17, 2019 pretty 19:24 52:2,15,15 62:15 71:8 81:5 95:19 101:5,17,17 114:14 118:14 118:14 128:4,9 153:1 200:22 previously 6:25 12:13 56:20 82:1 179:10,14 184:1,17 primary 207:18 principally 11:22 37:3 146:19 158:13 principle 72:17 101:10 printed 45:8 83:3 prior 64:9 67:19 69:18 74:11 82:20 115:25 121:15 141:9 165:10,21,24 166:2,11 171:16 181:19 187:8 192:25 202:4 privacy 116:11 117:25 privilege 17:9 62:15 64:1,17 privileged 61:22 62:7,11,16,18 62:21,24 63:15 63:19,22,23 64:7,14 68:16 68:23 69:4,9 69:11,24 70:5 193:24 privileges 64:18 probably 64:6 117:20 119:15 131:4 140:7 156:9 problem 39:11 39:18 40:4 153:6,9,12 problems 153:16 153:17 210:24 procedure 105:13 proceed 114:22 115:2 proceeding 4:15 38:8 62:18 95:21 171:22 187:11 190:8 215:6,8 proceedings 43:23 86:19 92:2 96:11 97:17,21 99:11 118:20 120:10 123:11 153:10 161:9 180:23 181:25 185:23 185:24 186:1 188:18 190:6 190:12,16 191:5 193:3 195:12 212:8 process 40:5 42:24,25 49:23 60:22,22 61:5 104:24,25 135:5 144:11 193:18 197:6 198:16 produce 48:12 130:15 159:17 159:19 160:7 166:20 produced 10:23 11:3 48:17,21 117:13 130:24 143:16 146:9 150:20 164:14 164:25 producing 69:18 106:17 127:19 production 64:9 166:17 professional 98:23,25 profit 43:14 programmers 140:9 progress 36:12 proliferate 196:17 prominently 22:24 promise 143:6 prompted 169:11 proper 11:19 29:4 114:18 185:14 properly 116:21 property 80:21 82:7,7 142:16 proprietary 84:21 protected 118:4 118:5,6 196:13 protecting 62:14 provably 40:6 provide 32:12 33:23 38:23 41:5 42:16 135:15 165:11 184:8 188:7 198:14 199:16 provided 49:9 89:2 147:15 148:22 149:15 150:9,17,18,23 150:25 151:6,7 163:17,18 165:23 providing 39:7 39:12,18 43:12 128:16 provision 82:6 pry 41:13 public 6:12 61:4 61:4 64:2 75:1 104:11 213:23 215:5,24 pulled 12:5 pulling 134:10 pullout 23:23 purchase 52:20 purpose 65:1 purposes 197:25 pursuant 10:23 put 16:2 18:9 19:23 34:25 36:1 45:4,6,8 49:16 92:5 105:20 107:1 119:18 132:5 134:17 148:15 152:14 159:5 160:9 168:7 169:3 175:5 201:23 putting 49:21 83:5,12,16,19 151:3 Q qualified 62:21 question 7:18,24 8:8 14:22 17:10 40:22 48:1 65:13 66:24 67:6 68:20 69:17 70:3 79:22 86:5 88:11,19 102:1,4 113:25 146:2 150:21 156:12 159:23 159:25 160:5 172:16,20,21 173:1 174:4 176:13 178:19 180:12,13 181:18 183:14 186:22 188:13 194:5 196:11 199:7 200:22 201:5 203:1 206:13 208:9 210:5 213:7 questioning 170:16 questions 7:22 9:1 19:24 21:13 27:17 41:10,11,14 44:2,10 96:5 109:17 110:1 122:24 137:21 139:10 142:10 156:24 195:7 196:5 205:25 234 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER quick 195:24 quickly 133:14 175:7 Quinta 53:14,19 quip 144:12 quipped 34:6 59:20 quit 179:12 quite 116:18,18 117:23 173:8 186:3 208:3 May 17, 2019 33:21 62:20 84:11 171:7 172:19 173:5,8 173:12,13 211:16 213:5 214:6 reading 185:12 185:19 Reads 214:6 ready 116:14 181:9 realized 60:13 R 60:14 70:22 R 2:1,3 3:1 5:1 139:8 15:8 214:1,1,2 really 13:3 22:15 215:1 25:9,10 27:13 rainbow 17:25 29:12,17 30:3 raise 205:24 32:15,18 34:14 raised 117:17 43:3,4 50:6 Raleigh 1:19 2:9 55:6 58:13 2:14,24 3:4,9 59:25 60:17,20 3:18 8:17 61:2 64:19 13:25 22:5,9 74:23 81:7 28:9,12,21 84:22,24 89:6 38:2 52:25 89:6 95:11,22 53:8 72:13,14 95:25 96:2,22 73:15,16,21 97:22 98:1,1,1 74:8 98:9,16 98:2,12,15 130:15,23 99:21 101:18 134:25 156:5 101:19 102:11 156:11 195:20 103:10,10 ran 210:13 107:18,22 range 198:18,19 108:24 109:24 199:2,3 110:23 112:25 rarely 100:20 115:23 116:6 rate 196:17 116:16 117:14 raw 153:19 119:18 122:5 re- 30:20 94:3 122:21 124:3 123:1 124:10 125:7 reach 70:25 73:9 127:22 129:2 73:13 94:7 131:6 134:9 95:15 97:11 136:1 140:25 170:1,13 143:8 145:12 182:22 200:16 146:19 148:20 200:17 149:18,23 reached 31:15 153:1,21,25 89:25 91:8 154:1,15 156:1 182:21 202:6 156:13,14 reaching 202:4 157:2,10,13,17 read 32:17 33:11 157:20 158:11 159:1,8,24 160:11,12,17 160:23 169:20 173:18 183:20 187:3 192:20 193:9,13 204:9 reask 172:21 178:19 reason 8:3 33:19 103:14 121:20 145:10 154:19 reasonable 183:5 reasons 22:18 42:13 reassured 40:7 recall 10:9 13:20 18:14 35:10 46:2,25 53:6 53:13 54:12 67:8 82:19 92:4,20 93:12 97:2,6,22 107:15 108:3 111:12 114:15 115:22 119:4 122:20 124:20 125:15 126:2 126:17 127:14 127:15 128:22 137:10 138:10 138:20 140:23 161:15,22 173:16 176:16 177:4 recalling 59:22 94:23 receipt 163:17 receipts 52:24 receive 39:3 53:25 107:14 191:15 received 9:2,5 9:16 10:11,25 13:7,23 14:5 16:21 18:23 58:11 60:8 79:4 87:17 103:5 107:12 107:25 131:10 138:22 145:17 152:19 163:8 163:22 164:1,4 164:7 192:21 receiving 10:9 115:25 121:15 receptionist 63:9 recess 43:22 86:18 123:10 161:8 180:22 195:11 212:7 reclaim 55:12 recognize 9:15 14:23 15:13,19 16:1 17:19,23 18:4 25:1 138:20 168:9 168:13 recognized 24:21 25:5 51:24 67:12 78:8 recollection 76:23 77:13,17 91:16 110:15 111:1,20 121:16 137:17 138:16 177:4 record 5:2,14 6:22 8:1 19:16 21:22 43:17,21 43:25 86:17,21 123:9,13,15 161:7,11 175:22 178:23 180:21 181:2 195:10,14 212:1,6,10,15 recorded 80:23 213:7 records 51:10 55:13 56:24 57:4 59:15 60:7 69:6 70:17 71:1 75:8,11,24 76:1,3 81:8 82:17 83:23 144:22 145:18 149:25 150:4,6 150:7 183:3 recount 52:12 Red 33:16 Redistrict 5:8 redistricting 1:8 5:9 13:14 33:3 35:23 36:15 60:19 79:7,14 80:6 81:9 83:23 90:3,5 90:11 99:9 100:1 105:1 113:23 117:3 128:6 129:8 173:6 201:24 202:8 204:13 204:19 redraw 32:20 33:12 redrawn 91:2 redundant 146:25 refer 37:7 177:20 reference 32:15 references 109:16 referral 31:18 58:11,11 91:9 93:16 118:25 119:8 referrals 58:2 referred 59:10 59:12 referring 58:19 78:14,16 80:19 90:5 102:15 119:24 163:15 175:17,23 178:2,3,23 reflect 46:11 52:16,24 63:23 175:22 reflected 213:8 reflects 189:22 190:1 refusing 143:21 146:3,4 regard 104:17 197:7 200:17 235 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 211:4 regarding 99:25 101:8 113:22 176:10 192:3 202:8 Regardless 125:16 regards 128:18 regular 56:5 206:16 reim- 163:12 reimbursed 132:23 reimbursement 163:11,14,18 163:20 rejected 32:20 relate 99:10 149:9 related 29:25 30:21 31:4 47:6 48:19 50:17 54:25 55:5,10,15,16 55:20 58:15 70:17,23 72:3 74:14,21 75:8 75:11 76:1 79:13 81:18 82:17 83:18,18 83:22 85:13,14 85:20,22 100:1 116:23 117:2 118:9 127:5,8 127:9 128:7,17 129:9 149:12 149:13,20 150:11,16 157:8 158:17 158:18 181:25 215:15 relating 34:21 79:6 81:8 144:23 170:19 relationship 41:12,18,25,25 72:10,11,21,22 183:23 184:2 relative 36:14 215:17 May 17, 2019 relatively 154:15 relatives 85:8 release 150:2 166:12 relevance 134:5 134:6 170:20 relevant 35:20 48:20 79:21,21 100:8 111:4 114:9,11,13,19 124:10,11,14 124:18 126:8 127:2 128:1 133:18 136:3 143:7 149:5 155:23 157:22 166:3 172:5,7 remained 154:13 remember 13:22 16:6,10,17,18 18:1,2 31:12 54:21 97:8 105:24 108:5 109:24 110:13 121:3 123:24 126:9,20 128:7 131:7 132:2,15 133:20 136:15 137:11 138:12 142:22 151:23 152:24 155:12 remembered 78:20 remembers 27:13 remind 88:8 removable 24:4 25:8 remove 65:7,20 removed 47:15 179:15 repeat 132:7 172:17 repeated 143:10 143:10 Reply 95:1 Report 4:19,22 189:18 Reported 3:16 reporter 5:15 6:12 7:15 179:23 215:5 Reporters 3:16 repository 104:21 represent 5:15 6:20 14:4 16:20 37:21 44:8 88:17 168:21 187:8 187:13 200:18 representation 67:22 represented 90:3 193:6,12 representing 6:7 48:3 90:1 106:25 187:10 191:4 republic 64:5 request 79:5,19 requested 187:19 requesting 11:6 requests 11:12 11:24 research 109:16 123:1,21 129:25 134:2,3 149:2 reseat 49:17 reserved 17:8 212:17 reset 209:10 resided 164:19 165:4 residence 164:18 resident 105:8 resisted 73:11 resisting 99:15 respect 59:6 68:15 80:5 82:6 99:11 196:25 respond 39:25 108:14,16 responded 108:20 respondent 179:9,12,15 responding 75:18 143:24 response 13:17 15:3,16,22 16:4 17:23 18:23 19:21 24:8 27:24 31:2 39:8,12 39:19 41:7 64:11 68:17 69:19 75:13 79:12 88:15,21 102:1,3,4 109:8 111:13 113:5 128:23 143:17 146:1 146:10 159:20 160:8 responsive 11:12,24 154:9 158:5 rest 154:12 restate 196:6 restaurants 52:19 result 117:21 146:4 185:6 186:25 retain 146:8 190:14 retained 61:12 62:1 68:1 187:1 188:1 203:6 retirement 20:14 72:14 retrieve 70:16 70:18 return 73:11 returned 147:11 returns 128:8 reveal 197:17 reverential 144:10 review 11:1 47:1 49:8 54:14,15 64:13 80:2 164:10,14 175:5 181:5 183:2 184:14 188:12 189:13 192:12 reviewed 46:19 46:23 55:10 181:17 189:19 reviewing 76:24 82:25 83:6,22 85:19,20,22 ri- 207:7 Riddick 182:4 182:14,20,22 182:25 183:16 183:25 184:5 ridiculously 207:7 right 6:24 7:5 8:11 9:7 11:14 12:12 14:6 17:1 20:17 22:24 24:11,15 31:7,10 33:1 33:22 36:12 38:6,12 68:11 84:21 88:5 91:13 100:18 103:18 138:9 149:22 153:20 174:11,12 175:12,14 181:16,16 186:9 195:4 198:12,22 205:15,22 207:12 208:9 209:17 211:25 rights 90:4 rings 187:25 risk 183:18 196:19,24 RNC 203:18 Road 2:23 3:17 role 169:20 room 16:17 22:20 23:16 24:10 25:17 28:21 48:8 49:1 50:13 54:8 81:14 136:18 236 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER root 50:4 roughly 8:19,21 13:20 RPR 1:23 3:17 215:4,23 rubber 25:4 78:9 rude 138:1 rules 7:9 88:10 88:18 running 107:19 209:5 210:11 May 17, 2019 61:24 65:12 66:25 68:11,12 68:24 69:16 70:7,13 75:10 86:2,12 88:6 88:23 106:16 123:5,14 137:15 138:2,8 145:23 156:24 157:4 159:12 159:15 161:12 162:23 165:18 167:4,11,13,21 S 168:2,6 172:4 S 2:1 3:1 4:7 5:1 172:10,13,21 214:1 172:22 174:1,5 sad 101:9 174:7,11,20 safe 24:13 175:2,3 176:15 safety 179:13 178:18 181:3 196:19 184:8,12 188:7 sausage 144:14 188:11 190:10 saved 84:12 190:11 192:6 saw 13:1 22:20 192:10 195:5 30:15 77:11 200:9 206:4 133:21 145:11 212:3 154:13 155:1 se 34:19 169:9 176:16 sealed 45:6 178:1 184:10 196:21 186:25 187:1 search 169:11 saying 60:1 season 109:19 69:25 94:6,15 second 15:12 94:15 102:7 66:18 73:16,25 103:17 104:8 174:13 175:24 108:3 111:12 176:6,16 177:5 128:7,8 175:21 177:22 178:3 178:12,20 178:25 181:13 says 9:21,24 secret 67:16 10:22 62:20 secure 154:25 185:20 security 179:16 scanned 150:3 see 9:19 10:5,21 scared 152:18 18:8,11 29:9 schedule 108:25 30:4,19 33:1 130:8 34:18 44:20,21 Scholer 2:3 45:23 52:5 scope 79:17 74:2 117:19 scrapbook 84:15 118:11 129:4 Scully 2:18 4:3 140:6 149:20 6:4,4 12:21 152:9 155:1 37:12 44:6,7 157:16 167:19 47:24 48:5 167:25 168:13 169:19 170:25 176:7 177:3,15 181:12,21 187:25 189:23 192:18 seeing 63:18 133:20 177:4 194:18 seek 68:14 69:18 91:9 seeking 38:7 90:11 177:18 178:5 179:1 seen 24:16 36:19 82:11 116:5 120:17 141:7,9 168:14,17,25 175:10,12,18 175:19 176:3,7 177:13 181:19 184:17,20 185:1 187:20 189:16 192:15 Select 1:8 5:8 selection 65:6 send 13:15 42:10 45:4,9,13 121:6 sending 16:14 18:21 19:20 30:25 49:22 121:2 165:10 165:25 Senior 1:7 5:7 sense 7:19 120:5 sensitive 134:11 152:5,22 sent 13:20 14:5 14:25 15:5,10 15:15,21 16:3 17:22 18:15 24:7 27:23 32:20 39:4 45:11,12 46:22 46:24 47:2,16 48:13 73:17 85:5 121:18 131:22 142:18 150:3 163:21 166:5 211:3 separate 148:20 September 21:19 169:6,7 207:14,17 208:15 serious 74:5 seriously 98:15 servant 104:11 serve 198:16 served 158:5 182:16 197:16 197:22 198:1,2 198:4 199:17 200:4 service 4:14 75:1 143:21 145:7 146:3,5 171:3 171:10 189:22 191:14,15 199:12 Services 189:1 189:10 set 78:5,5 90:22 122:24 139:10 169:17,17 178:24 179:4,7 settings 209:11 settlement 193:4 193:17 194:7 seven 16:19 Shanahan 3:3 5:24 195:19 shape 145:7 share 91:15,21 91:25 96:10 113:19 114:2 157:6 167:18 168:1 186:10 186:15 206:10 shared 60:12 149:1,8 155:4 155:5 sharing 128:23 151:25 she'd 154:21 sheet 213:9 shelf 23:16,18 23:22 24:3 sheltered 122:9 shelves 24:3 shifting 211:12 ship 132:21 shipment 163:20 shipping 163:15 short 24:22 167:11 shortly 10:17 27:14,15 74:1 107:16 154:22 show 183:5 192:6 showing 9:14 14:18 sic 115:5 135:23 191:11 side 9:21 19:23 48:3 57:16 106:19 sides 46:14 signator 194:19 signature 10:5 212:17 214:25 signatures 194:18 signed 194:10,17 194:22 203:16 213:10 significant 37:25 sim- 33:25 similar 56:5 77:11,21 simply 34:6 36:17 105:21 120:18 172:10 sincere 100:13 single 17:15 sir 200:7 sitting 23:17 76:9 150:8 157:16 situation 37:9 74:4 situations 84:2,8 Six 2:23 3:17 skeptical 35:8 skepticism 42:19 skills 62:9 63:21 slower 49:18 smartphone 206:15 207:1,3 237 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 Smoak 2:22 66:7,18,22 smoke 86:15 68:9 69:7,10 snapshot 43:10 69:15,21 70:2 snide 84:25 70:10 75:16 software 84:22 79:18 80:9,11 solid 66:9 81:24 86:1,8 somebody 86:22 106:10 132:11 135:11 106:15 123:2,6 136:2 137:2 138:18 someone's 125:3 144:1,3,5 someplace 148:8 145:3 158:7 son 166:7 159:21 161:2,4 soon 130:23 167:24 168:4 sorry 18:17 170:22 171:21 19:14 21:22 172:9,15 28:5 34:4 173:22 174:3 40:23 47:21 174:10,16 58:8 60:4 63:5 176:13 178:8 66:2,20 70:2 180:2,6,15 75:9,25 80:10 183:10,12 86:4 106:11,14 186:18 190:1,5 114:1 115:12 190:7,14 191:3 115:21,23 192:22 194:1,5 117:7 119:9 197:16,22 136:15 145:2 198:8 199:5,9 148:4 150:21 199:15,24 164:24 172:14 200:3,6,10 172:23 174:13 202:15,17,19 183:11,13 203:3 208:5 184:11 190:10 210:1,3,5 190:25 191:12 212:12 194:16 200:10 speak 39:21 70:9 203:4 210:2,4 89:17 92:12 sort 23:8 24:12 99:1 107:8 25:18,22,23 108:7 205:15 33:6 36:17 speaking 35:25 64:12 71:24 88:12,15 77:3 95:16,20 144:20 96:8 109:6 Speas 2:8 5:19 119:15 121:20 5:19 17:11 132:12 140:14 38:16 48:2 160:19 189:6 67:11 106:23 sought 69:2 107:10 108:1 sound 14:6 108:23 109:2 Sounds 43:19 109:11,20 sources 99:20 110:8,11,19 South 3:8 111:1,12,17,20 Sparks 3:8 6:7,7 113:18 114:2 9:25 34:2 115:8,17,24 37:11 65:24 116:24 118:18 119:1 120:25 121:1 122:13 123:17,19 124:20 125:12 125:14 126:12 126:18 127:16 128:15,22 129:17 133:8,9 133:11 134:1 135:13,19,23 136:6 141:5,19 141:21 143:15 144:21 145:16 151:10,12 153:15 154:6 155:6 156:24 157:5 162:4 167:16 191:8 209:20 Speas's 109:9 Special 2:13 specialized 132:11 specific 31:12 33:19 57:2 76:10,23 77:13 77:17 79:5 91:10 98:6,8 102:3 114:7,16 119:14,21 121:19 127:13 133:10 145:4 173:2 207:12 208:25 specifically 20:8 23:7 26:17 29:12 33:14 50:7 51:15 52:8 59:11,18 61:17 65:1 70:8 71:7 77:2 77:3 84:13 85:2,13,14 87:1,22 91:15 92:3 97:3 99:18 100:6 111:10,17 112:11 114:20 120:1 124:18 127:20 128:6,8 134:3 149:3,3 153:17 158:15 183:25 184:4 specifics 55:7 97:6 205:5 specify 129:2 speculate 87:20 114:19 speculated 87:20 speculation 87:19 99:19 speculations 117:24 spell 95:8 spelled 99:18 spend 83:11,13 133:1 spending 103:11 spent 82:21,24 83:7,17,21 85:2,12,19,19 85:21 100:21 140:21 159:10 spite 42:13 spoke 41:21 50:13 72:19 90:24 94:5 102:22 109:11 109:20 113:3 118:2 125:12 139:14,15 141:24 205:14 205:18 spoken 138:13 171:14,15 193:13 spot 134:11 Springmoor 20:12,13,14,16 20:20,25 22:5 22:9 24:10 26:13 27:6,21 35:19 38:25 Spruill 1:17 2:7 5:20 115:1,5 117:12 131:17 131:17 135:19 157:23 158:23 162:3 164:2 Square 2:18 stack 23:21 stamped 177:1 standard 55:3 Stanton 2:3 5:17 6:19 15:8 136:10 138:17 161:24 stanton.jones... 2:5 start 19:15 started 23:5 205:12 210:11 starters 20:10 starting 109:13 109:18 state 1:1 2:11 5:23 6:21 7:25 8:12 10:17 32:25 35:4 66:3 67:18 102:10 139:23 213:4,17 215:1 state- 205:5 stated 42:21 56:1 105:21 196:13 statement 32:18 54:1 statements 53:22 127:10 173:13 states 177:10 stay 28:9 53:1,1 53:18 stayed 28:12 53:3,4,11,12 54:11 staying 24:22 step 125:24 Stephanie 1:13 4:9 5:5 6:8,10 6:23 7:1,2,4 9:21 213:3,15 214:4 steps 70:16 Stewart 2:22 stipulations 17:7 stood 78:18 Stop 183:10 238 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER stor- 81:21 storage 11:7,15 11:21 12:13,18 13:15,16 15:1 15:15,22 17:20 18:11,19,20,21 18:25 19:5,13 19:19 23:11,15 24:16 25:3,11 28:14 29:7 30:16,20 31:1 31:4,8,22 32:8 33:24 35:17 37:3 38:11,23 39:4 41:5 42:11 46:25 49:1 78:22 107:19 111:7 111:11 122:14 146:16 209:5 210:12,13 stored 30:11 112:24 stories 85:6 straight 14:3 24:3 Strategies 27:3 72:3 74:20 142:5 strategist 144:19 street 1:18 2:8 2:14 3:4,8 63:5 stressed 122:2 strictly 60:15 strike 210:22 stuck 54:17 student 169:21 studied 105:3 study 96:22 149:5 studying 103:12 stuff 26:21 60:4 75:23 86:24 87:1,2,2,3 128:1 133:2 135:7 147:22 154:12 158:19 159:2 stumbled 62:22 subject 117:23 May 17, 2019 submit 193:3 submitted 193:16 subpoena 4:9,12 4:13 9:2,6,16 10:9,11,23,25 11:6,12,25 13:7,18,23 15:3,16,23 16:4 17:23 18:23 19:21 24:9 27:24 31:2 39:3,7,8 39:11,12,15,19 39:22,25 41:3 41:7 57:11 59:17 60:9 64:11 68:18 69:20 75:13,19 79:4,12,17 80:8 103:6 113:5 116:1 121:2,9,10,15 121:17 130:16 141:22 142:8 142:20,24 143:3,17,24 146:3,10 151:11,14,18 154:9 158:5,22 159:20 160:8 168:10,15,17 168:21,24 169:1 191:18 191:23 192:3 198:19,22,24 199:3,4 211:15 subpoenaed 9:20 subpoenas 198:1 198:3 Subscribed 213:19 substance 136:7 substantive 75:21 substantively 97:15 suddenly 129:5 sufficient 200:7 suggest 197:9 suggested 189:5 Suite 1:18 2:8,18 2:23 3:4,8,17 summarized 140:12 Superior 1:1 5:10 supporters 97:25 suppose 211:5 supposed 23:4 88:10 Supreme 104:1 sure 13:3 16:14 47:5 48:18,20 48:24 49:14,20 51:14 74:22 94:9,17 101:17 101:17 102:21 112:16 122:14 124:4,9,13 128:9 134:9 141:24 147:3 148:5 154:25 155:14 156:3 156:22 157:14 178:22 190:8 surprise 143:23 surprised 14:13 142:24 surprises 144:6 surrounding 37:24 survey 25:14 126:22 157:21 158:16 survivor 196:16 swear 5:16 switched 209:3 sworn 6:11 213:19 215:8 T T 4:7 213:1,1 214:1,1 215:1 215:1 T's 159:4 table 157:17 180:12 tag 125:2 take 8:9 10:11 14:19 17:17 19:6 21:1,10 25:13 26:4,6,8 26:14,21 27:12 28:14 43:18 47:3 49:7 50:22 51:1,4 68:8,13 77:11 80:1 86:12,13 109:18 112:7 123:5 157:6 161:4 167:20 167:23 171:9 180:10,16 181:8 191:21 208:5 taken 5:5 7:12 27:7,10 55:12 57:6 70:16 87:14,15,23 142:6 154:11 154:12 202:11 215:9 tales 140:14 talk 7:17 73:12 97:15 109:10 121:1 152:5 172:6,7 180:16 212:3 talked 55:7 69:24 70:5,6 101:6 133:7 151:11 164:10 209:22 talking 114:15 116:6 123:16 141:2,15 145:5 206:21 taught 40:10 147:12 tax 128:8 taxes 127:12,17 127:20 teams 133:17 telephone 94:18 109:21 110:7 110:12,18 111:2 120:24 122:12 123:16 126:11 138:25 141:14 207:18 telephonic 89:21 89:23 tell 6:12 7:13 8:22 17:19 20:3,7 24:25 39:6,14,17,24 42:15 55:13,19 57:3 93:12 97:2 110:22,25 111:25 114:21 115:1,8 124:1 130:5 143:15 151:17,21,25 152:17 160:6 181:8 192:23 194:16 203:25 208:21 209:3 210:9 telling 27:5 temp 63:8 ten 93:10 97:1 110:20 ten- 8:18 ten-minute 124:21 tend 107:21 187:5 207:25 208:1 tendency 29:20 term 64:17 terms 14:6 43:4 74:24,25 103:1 105:20 119:19 terse 108:19 test 140:6 testified 6:13 48:6 58:18 61:6,15 63:19 65:4,15 67:3 68:25 70:14 76:9 78:6,14 80:14 86:23 87:8 89:9 91:8 92:4 105:17 123:18 131:13 133:24 150:23 164:17 165:22 239 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 166:16 168:14 96:9 106:11 168:23 169:3 109:7 132:12 171:13 193:21 147:12 155:15 198:20 204:24 180:6,7 209:17 211:7 things 10:22 testify 198:25 11:2 22:12 testimony 8:5 23:5 25:20,25 37:13 47:23 26:7,14,17 65:11 66:5 29:21,22 30:6 67:2 88:21 30:10 34:14 94:18 128:14 47:9 50:17 145:8 155:5 55:8,24 56:8 156:23 157:11 60:24 67:16,16 198:24 215:7,9 72:2 85:4 88:1 215:13 95:7 99:4 text 107:10,11 100:19 101:3,4 107:14,21,25 103:17 112:2,3 108:3,11,14,20 114:8 118:7 108:22 109:1,9 120:6,7 121:24 133:7 209:20 125:5 127:8,12 209:21 210:14 131:11 133:12 210:17,24 133:13 147:9 211:3 147:11 148:17 thank 17:13 148:25 149:5 27:16 41:9 150:7 155:20 44:1,2 49:6 155:23,24 66:22 94:15 160:19 169:22 108:1 123:7 171:23 195:21 161:5 167:10 210:14 167:24 168:2 think 8:21 26:2 174:25 183:12 26:6 27:13 188:25 190:23 30:24 32:23 196:9 200:10 34:25 35:6 200:13 49:14,23 52:18 thanks 8:11 53:5,20,24 94:25 168:5 59:20 60:10,12 180:17 200:14 62:22 63:25 theirs 71:2 65:10 66:8,8,9 Theodore 68:4,20 70:1 161:17 74:9,24 79:16 theoretical 79:21,22 92:11 65:23 93:22,23 94:3 theoretically 94:14,16,16 142:11 95:5,9,10,12 thereof 215:18 96:2,15,20 they'd 59:7 100:6 101:22 111:19 151:11 102:11 104:6,7 thing 23:22 105:23 109:3,3 25:23 70:7 109:12 110:4 84:6 95:16 111:9,19 114:16 119:15 119:18 121:6 122:21 124:15 125:5,9,10,10 125:18,18 126:15,15 127:6,7 128:4 128:12 129:1,2 130:25 133:11 134:18 136:1 136:22 138:14 139:25 140:19 141:23,23,25 142:7 143:4,20 144:15 149:23 150:2 151:19 151:23,24 152:7,10,15,15 152:19 153:18 153:21 154:15 157:2,20 163:10 166:25 169:14 171:6 174:8 176:20 179:21,25 182:13 184:4 186:17,24 187:15,24 189:19 190:18 190:21 193:20 196:21 199:3 200:8 207:21 208:13,16,23 208:24 210:8 211:1 thinking 84:5 103:1,2 126:5 third 14:3 15:18 67:17 131:1,3 131:5 176:3 third-party 131:15,21 Thomas 2:23 4:13 8:24 168:22 thomas.farr@... 2:25 thoroughly 200:23 thought 23:6 43:3 47:14 49:12 52:3 74:25 90:25 100:24 102:20 103:19 131:13 131:16,19 140:9 168:2 189:3 200:22 thread 96:22 threads 94:21 three 48:4 49:14 49:24 50:1,2 53:6 74:3 82:22 92:13,13 92:18 94:14 129:21 thrilled 28:6 80:17 thrown 90:12 thumb 11:20 12:1 16:2,8,12 16:24 17:21 23:20 24:7 45:22,25 46:2 46:3,11,13,13 46:15,20 47:13 54:20 67:20 70:24 74:12 76:11 77:19 80:2,4,15 87:9 87:16 89:1 112:22 113:12 113:20 114:4,5 117:11 134:23 135:16 146:9 146:13 147:18 147:20 155:9 164:12 165:10 211:17 Thursday 136:21 137:1 141:16 till 112:14 132:24 time 10:9 13:6 14:9 20:19,22 22:8 28:2,12 33:15 34:8 35:8 41:21 43:10,21,25 44:3 50:11 52:22 53:2,3,3 58:4 59:2,13 67:23 68:3 69:1 72:17,24 74:22 82:24,25 83:5,7,10,13 83:17,21 85:19 85:22 86:14,17 86:21 92:23 95:10 97:19 98:8 100:21,22 101:6 102:23 103:12 109:6 109:11,14,20 123:9,13 124:24 126:13 129:9,11 132:20 134:20 135:14 138:20 139:19 140:21 141:3,7,20 144:20 156:5 157:2 158:2 161:7,11 164:1 164:5,7,13 165:5,8 171:4 171:15 174:22 179:23 180:21 181:2,8 183:15 184:20 188:21 189:8 190:4,23 191:3 193:7 195:10,14 198:8 199:6,11 203:15 205:18 206:21 208:19 212:6,10,15 times 29:16 52:13 71:14 78:3 88:13 89:17 92:12 169:10 171:8 173:11 202:23 tired 123:6 161:5 title 92:15 titled 56:19 today 7:9,13,22 8:5 44:2,11 240 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 76:9 86:23 87:8 95:15 110:17 136:11 139:11 150:8 168:18 181:19 189:17 195:21 206:22 today's 5:3 141:5,9 told 50:15 87:7 94:7 112:21 113:11 115:17 116:25 122:1 122:13 129:14 145:6 152:16 152:23 159:18 160:10 163:5 Tom 3:8 6:1,7 9:24 48:2 167:14,18,18 190:1,5 tom@fidlitlaw... 3:10 tone 157:18 160:22 top 9:21 15:7 53:6 126:2 167:5 175:16 topic 95:20 149:6 topics 195:23 202:5 211:12 total 82:24 92:13 96:20 totally 173:23 touch 36:1 92:5 129:23 touched 49:4 town 37:22 105:13 125:3 track 107:22 172:11 190:25 Trae 3:12 training 62:9 63:2,3 transcribed 215:10 transcription 213:6 215:12 transparency May 17, 2019 66:11 67:14 115:15 120:13 transparent 115:14 treasure 30:2 trial 34:24 103:6 198:3,24 tried 71:25 148:20 204:9 204:12 trip 73:15,16,21 73:21,25 74:2 trips 24:22 trouble 132:17 132:18 160:13 Trudy 72:20 120:2 true 178:14 215:12 trust 85:4 160:15 trusting 195:3 trusts 120:17 truth 6:12,13,13 7:13 truthful 8:4 try 7:16 55:12 trying 97:7 98:12,14 126:3 137:25 140:23 142:13 145:7 147:24 159:24 160:23 178:22 197:4 203:21 204:5,7 205:23 turn 44:12 65:7 65:17 76:3,14 115:9 116:14 134:21 188:14 turned 67:17 68:16 74:16 75:4,13 78:24 80:7 113:4,13 146:5 148:23 171:24 208:13 211:13 turning 43:2 45:16 59:14 60:6 64:14 67:19 69:4 74:11 76:8 47:12 61:19 77:7 78:11 82:24 84:24 79:11 82:20,22 94:17 102:21 89:8 189:12 103:21 106:4 Twice 73:15 121:11 126:7 two 13:10,11 128:14 140:1 46:10,12,14 147:24 149:14 49:14,24 50:1 151:3 155:4 50:2 57:25 156:22 159:25 58:4 70:19,20 177:21 178:10 71:22 77:25,25 178:15,16 82:21 87:5 180:9 190:9 94:14,16 96:20 196:5 201:24 96:20 109:4,4 202:2 204:7 109:5 130:24 understandable 139:7 155:7,17 140:4 155:20 167:25 understandably 187:16,21 152:13 199:7 207:19 understanding 207:20,21 26:16 36:24 208:16,16 50:21 60:25 type 52:21 78:22 64:3 82:9 103:19 134:3 87:12 102:14 153:24 103:4 104:4 typed 169:9 113:19 117:9 typically 78:21 129:6,11,13,14 131:7,19 132:3 U 132:10 146:1 U.S 104:1 156:19,19,20 Uh-huh 27:19 171:22 201:17 44:22 142:12 understood 151:5 184:15 12:18 27:4 188:4 197:3 61:6,10 70:14 199:8 79:8 87:9 ultimately 90:10 106:24 194:10 144:20 145:15 un- 7:23 138:3 146:5 159:6 144:17 177:17 178:7 unable 144:22 178:20,21 uncle 71:23 72:7 179:2,4 193:15 120:9 undertake 79:10 unclear 120:4,12 unfolded 25:25 120:19 unfortunate unconditionally 58:16 81:15 unique 60:25 underlying uniquely 60:20 36:15 unnatural 138:5 understand 7:12 unpleasant 7:23 8:2 11:5 105:13 40:17 41:3 unrelated 43:9 49:3 119:22 untoward 155:2 updates 210:12 usable 104:16 USB 49:16 use 26:10 29:1 49:2 51:5 66:5 78:23 102:19 105:18,20 106:1 191:13 206:1,2,15,16 208:11 211:16 useful 106:7,18 usually 55:4 118:1 120:21 V vacation 125:4 vaccination 150:6 vague 111:7 173:1 vaguely 51:25 valid 204:4 value 34:16 42:23,24 104:22 variety 99:20 Various 119:25 vendor 45:10,14 131:15,21,23 132:9 verified 178:13 versus 5:6 vexatious 170:21 victimology 149:3 video 5:4 212:15 Videographer 3:12 5:2 43:20 43:24 86:16,20 123:8,12 161:6 161:10 180:20 181:1 195:9,13 212:5,9,14 Videographers 3:16 VIDEOTAPED 1:12 241 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER view 34:15 98:7 100:12 viewpoint 43:1 violation 90:3 violence 149:4 196:16 Virginia 24:24 80:22 virus 154:22 vision 98:3 visit 22:2,4 160:17 visiting 22:10 29:15 52:23 130:20 voice 66:6 130:5 voicemail 125:13 voluntary 124:5 voter 105:8 voters 90:2 106:25 voting 43:2 vs 1:6 214:2 vulnerable 122:4 vultures 119:17 119:23 W W 213:1 wait 132:24 Wake 1:2 5:11 187:6 188:25 189:9 215:2 walked 22:19 25:16 wall 83:5 want 8:7 34:2 41:10 42:16 68:9 92:18 94:17 111:15 112:17 118:13 124:16,16 132:25 134:15 143:6 156:22 159:8 172:5 175:21 180:8 186:20 190:8 196:6 197:18 May 17, 2019 212:3 wanted 26:2,24 33:23 36:4 38:23 48:20 50:16 71:11,18 73:2,3 84:15 87:3 95:5 99:17,20,25 100:5 112:4,21 112:23 113:11 116:16 124:3,9 124:12,13 134:9 135:15 141:1 142:2 147:2 152:8 165:21 166:8 196:13 Washington 2:4 2:18,19 15:9 wasn't 10:16 12:25 13:2 16:14 22:13 23:22 24:3 27:9 47:6 48:19,21,23 55:18 59:25 60:15 62:24 66:14 68:6 78:19 93:9 95:25 96:17 98:5,12 102:20 102:25 103:11 103:16,20 113:3 115:5 120:20 122:22 124:17 130:22 135:10 140:4,8 140:25 141:2 148:5 153:6,8 156:1,5 157:11 166:10 167:3 173:18 184:5 193:8,12 202:25 204:2 204:17 watch 144:14 way 12:10 13:12 17:11,24 19:8 29:17 34:25 36:21 42:20 43:5 59:21 64:20 65:5,16 88:24 91:6 95:12 107:22 114:21 115:1 119:12 159:5,6 160:9 171:20 173:3 205:19 205:20,20 206:14 we'll 8:8 12:1 123:20,21 168:1 we're 8:9 16:21 129:24,24 137:13,25 167:11 168:4 171:24 172:2 180:10 197:25 203:21 we've 13:16 17:11 23:11 32:9 41:6 86:10 159:11 159:14 161:24 199:6 weather 136:2 week 89:16 103:23 109:12 136:21 weekend 136:21 weeks 154:17 well-being 183:18 well-known 173:10 went 6:25 28:13 28:15 44:14 51:13 52:6,8 72:16 78:21 112:15 118:11 123:15 158:11 210:18 weren't 24:12 64:8 81:2 122:14 129:23 140:24 204:23 204:24 West 2:14 3:8 80:21 Wheeler 1:23 3:17 215:4,23 widow 119:18 wife 81:17 willing 108:7 109:10 198:4,9 198:14 199:12 206:10,10 wills 120:17 wish 51:17 100:21 wished 93:21 withdraw 198:13 witness 5:16 34:1 43:19 44:4 47:21 62:4 66:2,20 67:25 68:5 69:9 70:1 75:9 80:10 86:14 88:14,17 106:13 123:4 136:13,17 137:7,18,20,22 137:24 144:2,4 145:2 156:25 161:3 170:23 170:24 172:8 172:12,14 174:14,17 178:16 180:1,3 180:14,19 183:11,13 184:9,10 188:8 190:21 192:6 193:20,25 198:10 199:14 199:22 200:2,5 200:14 202:20 203:4 204:11 208:7 210:2,4 214:4 215:7,9 215:13 witness's 37:13 wonder 32:23 118:12 wonderful 165:9 word 124:11 126:25 202:21 words 42:16 104:23 105:24 108:6 111:22 131:8 132:2 work 11:8 12:19 13:4,13 26:18 26:20,22 30:21 31:5 51:11 55:1,5,11,15 55:17,21 56:13 57:21 61:20 63:8 71:3 74:6 74:21 75:1 81:9,9 83:14 83:23 84:18 85:13 86:3 87:22 90:15 91:4 99:9,22 100:1,6,7,21 106:19 113:23 113:24 122:9 127:8,9,25 128:1,2,12,17 130:19 139:16 144:23 147:9 149:2,10,13 154:4,12 155:11 157:9 158:17,18 160:20,22 171:19 172:13 172:25 173:4,5 173:15 work-related 51:15 56:2 57:12,14,18 87:1,13 worked 62:13 63:4,6 98:18 105:1 163:3 working 105:16 114:12,14 115:7 125:23 133:17 162:2 162:17 163:6 164:8 203:18 works 92:8 161:23 worried 159:1 worry 159:18 242 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER 160:10 worship 98:10 wouldn't 79:25 84:20 85:15 129:4 135:9 152:9 153:2 211:2 wow 57:22 84:22 written 80:24 120:18 162:14 177:23 178:1,2 178:21 wrong 16:15 169:24 wrote 50:8 80:25 0 014001 1:2 5:12 1 1 4:9 9:11,15 64:12 1:04 123:11,13 1:50 161:7,9 1:57 161:9,11 10 4:24 71:13 192:7,8,13,16 192:19 193:15 194:9 10:24 43:21,23 10:46 43:23,25 1000 3:17 X 1050 2:19 X 4:1,7 130:4,4 11 71:13 139:24 130:4 11-hour 8:18 11-year-old Y 140:8 yeah 10:13 11:39 86:17,19 16:25 17:2,4 11:59 86:19,21 17:11 19:15 1100 2:18,23 34:5 49:24 114 2:14 61:17 66:21 11th 52:10,11 67:5 75:9 86:3 73:23 110:16 119:17 12:47 123:9,11 126:15 135:6 128 3:4 144:2,4 166:9 13th 10:6 14:6 166:14 167:16 165:1,6 174:17 175:9 14 4:11 180:2 187:24 15 78:12 188:6 189:15 15th 168:12 200:8,9 202:20 167 4:12,13 207:21 209:2 16th 172:24 210:8,11,15 173:7 211:11 17 1:16 214:5 year 9:5 20:4 174 4:14,16 41:22 208:23 17th 5:3 211:10,11 18 1:2 5:12 years 30:12 16:24,25 24:7 41:19,20 61:13 180 4:19 80:23 159:10 184 4:20 Yep 184:22 188 4:22 York 169:10 18th 74:10 171:8 173:11 1900 1:18 2:8 young 139:19 192 4:24 195 4:4 Z 19981350007 May 17, 2019 215:24 20th 215:20 212 213:5 2 223 3:8 2 4:11 10:20 229-0845 3:9 14:15,19 44:13 23 18:10 45:17,22 46:21 27601 2:9 3:4 76:8,12 77:1 27603 2:14 3:9 77:20 78:12 27609 2:24 3:18 141:11 29th 176:8,25 2:23 180:21,23 177:3,6 2:36 180:23 3 2:37 181:2 2:57 195:10,12 3 4:12 167:4,5,6 2:58 195:12,14 168:8,9,10 20001-3743 2:4 3:15 212:6,8 20036-5403 2:19 3:18 212:8,10,16 2009 71:13 212:18 2011 78:4 79:6 300 3:4 79:13 80:5 300,000 72:6 2013 78:5 81:4 301 1:18 2:8 2014 41:23 30th 21:19 169:6 171:16,20 169:7 207:14 172:23,24 207:17 208:15 173:7 4 2017 79:7,14 4 4:13 15:25 80:5 204:16 45:16,21 46:21 205:2,8 76:12 167:5,5 2018 20:6,21 167:8 168:8,20 21:4,19 22:6 181:14 22:10 52:7 4208 2:23 3:17 58:7,9 73:23 44 4:3 107:25 108:1 120:25 124:23 45 140:22 165:6 169:7 5 171:16,20 5 4:14 174:18 172:24 173:7 175:1,6,11,18 176:8 177:7 175:23 176:6 181:15 185:5 176:17 177:6 188:5 194:24 178:4 207:14,17 50 17:16 208:15 52 159:10 2019 1:16 5:4 5th 181:15 10:6 39:2 165:1,6 168:12 6 190:5 191:3 6 4:2,16 172:23 192:24 193:2 174:23 175:1,6 194:25 213:11 175:7,11 177:9 213:20 214:5 178:25 187:22 215:20 190:5 191:3 202 2:5,20 194:15 601 2:4 649-9998 3:18 650 8:21 6th 185:5 194:24 7 7 4:19 76:14,16 76:19,25 180:24 181:5 181:20 193:1,2 194:15 716-6900 2:15 783-6400 2:9 787-9700 2:24 7th 192:24 194:25 8 8 4:20 184:6,8 184:14,18,21 188:14,15 856-9494 3:5 861-1500 2:20 8th 187:25 188:3 9 9 4:9,22 77:7 188:8,9,13 189:12,17,21 9:38 1:15 5:3 900 3:8 919 2:9,15,24 3:5,9,18 942-5000 2:5 95 196:2 243 DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 EXHIBIT OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK STEWART, RC. 0 qIEtree Attorneys at Law 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-787-9700 Facsimile: 919-783-9412 Phillip J. Strach 919-789-3179 phillip.strach@ogletree.com May 31, 2019 Mr. Stanton Jones Via Email Arnold Porter 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 RE: Common Cause, et al. v. David R. Lewis, et al. Wake County Superior Court Case No. 18-cvs-01400] Dear Stanton: We write today on behalf of legislative defendants in the following cases arising out of North Carolina: Dickson v. Rucho, 11?cvs?16896 (N .C. Sup. Ct.) NC NAACP v. McCrory, (1:13-cv-00658 (M.D.N.C.) Currie v. North Carolina, 13-cvs-1419 (N.C. Sup. Ct.) Harris v. Cooper, 1:13-cv-00949 (M.D.N.C) Covington v. North Carolina, 1:15-cv-00399 (M.D.N.C.) Common Cause v. Rucho, 1:16- cv-01026 (M.D.N.C) the matter referenced above, and any cases consolidated or combined with the foregoing matters. Our clients are extremely concerned and disturbed about recent revelations regarding the materials produced by Stephanie Hofeller in response to the document subpoena issued to her by Plaintiffs on February 13, 2019. These materials were not made available to us until the evening of Friday, May 3rd, after the Court in the referenced matter ordered Plaintiffs to produce the entirety of the materials to all parties as clearly required by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Now that we have been able to process our own complete index of the data taken by Ms. Hofeller, we make several observations. First, it is apparent that the index of the ?les you deem ?sensitive personal information? is woefully incomplete. For instance, even simple searches of our complete index reveal that ?les containing con?dential ?nancial information were left out of the 1,001 ?les Plaintiffs designated ?Highly Con?dential/Outside Attorney?s Eyes Only.? As a result, and for the additional reasons discussed below, Legislative Defendants hereby designate the entirety of the materials produced by Ms. Hofeller as ?Highly Con?dential/Outside Attorney?s Eyes Only? pursuant to the Consent Protective Order in force in the referenced action. Next, our clients are deeply concerned that Plaintiffs and/or their counsel have been reviewing ?les in the Hofeller materials without ?rst providing Legislative Defendants or the rightful owner of the materials an opportunity to conduct a privilege review. That there are many ?les in these materials that are protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege, or protected expert witness Atlanta I Austin I Berlin (Germany) I Birmingham I Boston I Chadeston I Charlotte I Chicago I Cleveland I Columbia I Dallas I Denver I Detroit Metro I Greenville I Houston Indianapolis I Jackson I Kansas City I Las Vegas I London (England) I Los Angeles I Memphis I Mexico City (Mexico) I Miami I Milwaukee I Minneapolis I Morristown Nashville I New Orleans I New York City I Oklahoma City I Orange County I Pans (France) I Philadelphia I Phoenix I Pittsburgh I Portland, NEE I Portland, OR I Raleigh Richmond I St Louis I St Thomas I Sacramento I San Antonio I San Diego I San Francisco I Seattle I Stamford I Tampa I Toronto (Canada) I Torrance I Tucson I Washington May 31,2019 Page2 materials, is beyond dispute. As just an example, the following ?lepath names from our index contain protected North Carolina case?related materials: 2015 Backup\NC Jan 2015 Expert Report\2014 GENERAL ELECTION 2015 Backup\NC Jan 2015 Expert Report\CVAP ACS 2009-2013.xlsx 1 2015 Backup\NC Jan 2015 Expert Report\North Carolina Declaration January 8 2014 1430.doc 2015 Backup\NC Jan 2015 Expert Report\North Carolina Declaration January 17 2014 2300.doc - Named Plaintiffs For The ?le names alone clearly reveal that these are expert witness materials created by Dr. Hofeller in connection with North Carolina legal matters. These materials may not be accessed or Viewed by Plaintiffs or their counsel unless and until our clients or the rightful owner of the materials have had an opportunity to determine whether these and other North Carolina-related ?les are covered by any applicable privilege. While Dr. Hofeller was not an attorney, he often worked with North Carolina attorneys in developing expert reports and other materials for use in litigation. In this work Dr. Hofeller communicated with attorneys and developed drafts, most or all of which would be privileged and not discoverable, much less reviewable by opposing lawyers. Not only have you apparently been reviewing likely privileged materials, Plaintiffs actually ?led some of them in their April 26, 2019 ?ling in this case. Moreover, the manner in which Plaintiffs came into possession of these ?les raise grave questions for our clients. At her deposition in the referenced case on May 17, 2019, Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that she took the storage devices that she ultimately turned over pursuant to the subpoena while visiting her mother on October 11, 2018 at her mother?s apartment at Springmoor Retirement Community (52:6- 15). Ms. Hofeller asked her mother if she could take the drives because she was looking for pictures and other documents of hers that she thought might be on the drives. (2615-10; Notably, however, Ms. Hofeller testi?ed that she was aware that a guardian had been appointed over both her mother and her mother?s estate shortly after this encounter with her mother. (19423-1952). This casts serious doubt on her mother?s ability to consent to Ms. Hofeller?s taking of the devices and Ms. Hofeller?s providing of those devices to counsel for Plaintiffs after her mother was placed under guardianship. Worse still, is that Ms. Hofeller testi?ed she assumed that there would be work ?les on the devices, and wasn?t surprised when she found such work materials on the drive as Dr. Hofeller ?always had information related to his work on the personal hard drive.? (5523-18). Yet, Ms. Hofeller had no discussions with her mother regarding if there was any business information contained on the drives as she ?didn?t wish to assert [herself] into the business intentionally? (5116-18). Moreover, upon plugging the drives into her own laptop, Ms. Hofeller found information pertinent to Dr. Hofeller?s work. (29:12?30:23) She testi?ed that despite not discussing the business materials with her mother May 31, 2019 Page 3 that she ?was more like, Common Cause may have an interest in these work ?les.? Further, Ms. Hofeller reviewed all of the drives prior to sending them to counsel for Plaintiffs. (46: 19- 24). There is no doubt, then, that Ms. Hofeller was aware that she was delivering Dr. Hofeller?s con?dential work ?les to counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. Indeed, when Ms. Hofeller ?rst reached out to Bob Phillips at Common Cause, it was for a referral to ?nd an attorney for her mother during the incompetency proceedings. She stated that she contacted Common Cause because she wanted ?independent? counsel for her mother, and was concerned about potential political allegiances of lawyers she did not know in Raleigh. (37:14- 38:9). She originally spoke with Bob Phillips in early November, 2018 by phone. However, she also indicated that at the time she reached out, she knew that Common Cause was ?representing the interest of voters that felt that this redistricting represented a violation of their constitutional rights? including maps that were drawn by Dr. Hofeller. (89224?9029). She also understood that she knew that Common Cause had historically been antagonistic to Dr. Hofeller?s work. (9113?7). Ms. Hofeller was referred by Mr. Phillips to Jane Pinsky, another employee of Common Cause. Ms. Hofeller ?rst brought up the drives in an ?anecdotal? way in December, 2018 to Pinsky, indicating she had some hard drives of Dr. Hofeller?s. (32:14-35:24; Pinksy then explained to Ms. Hofeller that a current case was on appeal, but that in a new case about state legislative districts they would be ?accepting new evidence.? Ms. Hofeller praised Common Cause for their ?progress? in that this was ?the furthest [she had] ever seen a plaintiff get with anything [her] father drew.? (36: 12-20). Ms. Pinksy then put Ms. Hofeller in touch with Eddie Speas and Caroline Mackie. Mr. Speas texted Ms. Hofeller shortly after her conversation with Ms. Pinksy in December 2018 and Ms. Hofeller then spoke with Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie around the holidays. (38:10?17; 108-110). At the time of these conversations, Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie were aware that there were issues regarding Mrs. Hofeller?s competency. (118219?1193). In those calls, Ms. Hofeller indicated that she had material that might be relevant to the case, speci?cally external storage devices, she wanted to provide to them. (111:3-16; 38221-3911). She also disclosed that these drives contained information regarding personal data for herself and her parents in addition to the work data (127: 15?128: 20). Some of this personal data included personal health information about both Tom and Kathy Hofeller as well as Stephanie Hofeller?s children. (149114-1507). Rather than advise Ms. Hofeller to seek the advice of an attorney for herself or her mother, Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie told her that it would be best to turn over the data in its entirety rather than piece meal. (11528?20). Ms. Mackie and Speas also told her that ?anyone? including plainti?s or legislative defendants, could only look at the content of items that were explicitly and obviously related to this case, and as a result, she should not be concerned about a privacy issue with her or her mother. (115224-11728). May 31, 2019 Page4 When asked whether Ms. Hofeller engaged in any sort of review to determine whether the ?les on the drives contained privileged information, she testi?ed that she had been told that the best way to ?preserve the integrity? of the data was not to pick and choose and to leave everything as it was (64:9- 6525). Speci?cally, ?in the discussion that I had with the attorneys Caroline Mackie and Eddie Speas, there was a discussion on how it would be best recognized in court good chain of custody, transparency. There would be no accusation of picking and choosing, of keeping some things secret and some things not if the media were turned over to a third party in its exact state.? (67:7-18; 79:19- 25). These are just the facts our clients know from Ms. Hofeller?s deposition and other evidence so far. It appears that serious questions exist as to whether Kathy Hofeller was competent to give any alleged consent to Stephanie Hofeller to take Kathy Hofeller?s property, or the property of any other individuals or entities, or whether Kathy Hofeller was taken advantage of by her estranged daughter. Even if Kathy Hofeller was competent to give Stephanie Hofeller permission to take these materials, which we doubt, grave questions exist as to whether Kathy Hofeller could even give permission to her daughter to take drives containing information belonging to Dr. Hofeller?s business. Serious questions also exist as to whether Plaintiffs? counsel should have advised Ms. Hofeller to seek counsel in transferring this property and whether Ms. Hofeller was misled as to what aspects of that property, if even properly in her possession, should be turned over to the Plaintiffs. Serious questions also exist as to whether Plaintiffs? counsel encouraged Ms. Hofeller to transfer this property despite knowing that it contained or likely contained privileged information. At a minimum, North Carolina counsel would be familiar with NO R. Civ. P. which protects draft reports and expert communications with counsel from discovery. Ms. Hofeller herself appears to have understood that such materials and communications existed on these drives yet counsel for Plaintiffs took no steps to ensure they did not come into possession of, much less review, such privileged materials and communications. As our forensic vendor is continuing the process of processing the vast amount of data Ms. Hofeller took, we have not yet had an opportunity to examine all of the North Carolina-related ?les that may exist. Therefore, we reserve the right to identify and communicate any additional improper conduct that we may discover as we review the ?les. In the meantime, based on the undisputed facts known to the parties thus far, we demand that Plaintiffs and their counsel do the following immediately: (1) immediately cease and desist reviewing all materials produced by Ms. Hofeller, and particularly all ?les unrelated to North Carolina. Plaintiffs? counsel Speas and Mackie assured Ms. Hofeller that only ?les related to this case could be reviewed, but it is clear based on recent events that Plaintiffs have not kept their word with Ms. Hofeller; (2) immediately cease and desist providing any or all of these materials to third parties unrelated to this case, as you have apparently recently done in a matter pending in New York; (3) return all of the produced materials to the Trustee for the Kathleen H. Hofeller Irrevocable Trust to allow for a privilege review of Dr. Hofeller?s documents; May 31, 2019 PageS (4) identify by name all individuals you employ who have reviewed the produced materials, the date(s) on which they reviewed those materials, and which materials they reviewed with suf?cient speci?city that we can determine which materials are at issue; (5) inform us which of these wrongfully produced materials have been shared outside your ?rms, including but not limited to any expert witnesses in this case, and, if so, with whom and which materials with suf?cient speci?city to allow us to assess the scope of the intrusion into protected materials; and, (6) attest that all copies of the materials wrongfully produced by Ms. Hofeller are no longer in your possession and have been destroyed. We remain willing to meet and confer on these issues, but must insist on your compliance with the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Professional Responsibility. Should you persist in neglecting your professional responsibilities, our clients are considering all options available to them to enforce their rights. We appreciate your attention and compliance with the steps outlined above by June 5, 2019. Sincerely, 9? wig/b Phillip J. Strach CC: All Counsel of Record PJ :amr 38739743.1 EXHIBIT R. Stanton Jones +1 202.942.5563 Direct Stanton.Jones@arnoldporter.com June 5, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Phillip J. Strach Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27609 phillip.strach@ogletree.com Re: Common Cause v. Lewis, 18 CVS 0140001 (Wake County Sup. Ct., N.C.) Dear Mr. Strach: On behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-captioned lawsuit, I write in response to your May 31, 2019 letter on behalf of Legislative Defendants in both this case and several other cases concerning certain electronic storage devices produced by Stephanie Hofeller to Plaintiffs in response to their February 13, 2019 subpoena to Ms. Hofeller (the “Hofeller files”). Your letter (1) purports to designate the entirety of the Hofeller files as “Highly Confidential/Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the Consent Protective Order in this case, (2) asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel have “likely” reviewed “privileged materials” of Legislative Defendants contained on the devices at issue, (3) expresses concern about the manner in which Plaintiffs received the devices from Ms. Hofeller in response to their subpoena, (4) makes several specific demands, and (5) suggests, without specificity or elaboration, that Plaintiffs’ counsel have been “neglecting [their] professional responsibilities.” Your letter is not only baseless in every respect, but also troubling in its own right. We are concerned that Legislative Defendants are attempting—unilaterally and without authorization—to designate evidence produced by a third party in discovery pursuant to a lawful subpoena as Highly Confidential under the Court’s Consent Protective Order, apparently in an effort to conceal their own wrongdoing. Such wrongdoing appears to include false statements made by Legislative Defendants to federal courts, the Superior Court in this case, and the people of North Carolina. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 www.arnoldporter.com Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 2 I. Legislative Defendants Have No Authority to Unilaterally Designate the Hofeller Files as Highly Confidential Under the Consent Protective Order Your letter purports to “designate the entirety of the materials produced by Ms. Hofeller as ‘Highly Confidential/Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ pursuant to the Consent Protective Order in” this case. But the Consent Protective Order does not authorize Legislative Defendants to designate any of the Hofeller files as Highly Confidential, let alone all of them. Paragraph 1 of the Order states: “To fall within the scope of this Agreement, any such Confidential material shall be designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL/OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,’ by the Party producing the material.” 4/5/19 Consent Protective Order ¶ 1 (emphasis added). Paragraphs 2 and 3 confirm that only “[t]he producing Party may designate” materials as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 3 (emphasis added). Specifically, “[t]he producing Party may designate as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ any materials that it produces in the litigation” subject to meeting certain confidentiality criteria, id. ¶ 2, and “[t]he producing Party may designate as ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL/OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY’ (a) any non-public personal information, or (b) any CONFIDENTIAL material that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes” meets certain additional criteria. Id. ¶ 3; see also id. ¶ 13 (stating that the Order applies equally to “information produced by a non-Party”). Thus, the Consent Protective Order does not authorize anyone other than the party or non-party “producing the material” to designate such material as either Confidential or Highly Confidential. Legislative Defendants are not “the producing Party” of the Hofeller files, but instead are a “receiving party” of those files. Ms. Hofeller produced the Hofeller files, and she did not designate any of them as Confidential or Highly Confidential. To the contrary, Ms. Hofeller has testified to her desire that her father’s political and redistricting work be made available to serve as “a snapshot in time” and a “repository for . . . historical value” to provide “insight into the process -- the literal process.” S. Hofeller Dep. at 42:10-43:16; 104:12-105:16. Furthermore, Legislative Defendants’ stated justification for attempting to designate the Hofeller files as Highly Confidential is pretextual. Your letter asserts that, in addition to the 1,001 files designated Highly Confidential pursuant to the Court’s May 1, 2019 Order, the devices include additional files containing “confidential financial information.” But your letter does not identify any such files, nor have you even attempted to establish that the number of such files is more than a small fraction of the total Hofeller files. If you are genuinely concerned about the privacy of files containing “confidential financial information,” you should identify each such file, and Plaintiffs will consider joining in a motion asking the Court to designate such files as Confidential Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 3 or Highly Confidential, as appropriate. But your invocation of some small, unidentified number of files containing unspecified “confidential financial information” as a basis to designate hundreds of thousands of other files as Highly Confidential is unreasonable. The pretextual nature of your purported concern for the Hofeller family’s privacy is further laid bare by the fact that you attempted to designate “the entirety” of the files as Highly Confidential just one day after several of the Hofeller files—which exposed misconduct by federal government officials—were submitted to a federal district court and the United States Supreme Court in a case of national public importance. While Plaintiffs would consider, as stated, jointly moving the Court to designate as Confidential or Highly Confidential any specific additional files containing “confidential financial information” for which a confidentiality designation would be appropriate, Legislative Defendants’ attempt to unilaterally designate “the entirety” of the Hofeller files as Highly Confidential is not authorized under the Consent Protective Order and is therefore without legal effect. II. Legislative Defendants’ Privilege Claims Are Meritless A. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Have Acted Properly and Responsibly At All Times and Have Not Reviewed Any Conceivably Privileged Materials Your letter asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel have “apparently been reviewing likely privileged materials” of Legislative Defendants. That assertion in wrong on every level. First, while your letter asserts that there are “many” privileged materials among the Hofeller files, your letter identifies only five specific documents that you say are “expert witness materials created by Dr. Hofeller in connection with North Carolina legal matters.” Plaintiffs’ counsel have no intention of reviewing any of those five documents. Nor have Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed—or have any intention of reviewing—any other draft expert report or draft declaration prepared in connection with litigation. Second, your letter asserts that Plaintiffs “actually filed some” “likely privileged” materials in their April 26, 2019 Supplemental Reply Brief. You do not identify which of the files included in Plaintiffs’ April 26 reply brief are supposedly “likely privileged,” and for good reason. Legislative Defendants’ own April 29, 2019 response to Plaintiffs’ reply brief precludes Legislative Defendants from claiming privilege over the files included in the reply—or, indeed, over any draft maps or analyses of draft maps in the Hofeller files that existed before July 1, 2017. In their April 29 response, Legislative Defendants asserted that they had no “knowledge” of Dr. Hofeller’s work creating draft maps and analyses of draft maps before July 1, 2017, and Legislative Defendants Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 4 specifically denied that they “authorized or were aware of any of the maps or charts Plaintiffs highlighted.” Having taken these positions that they had no knowledge of and did not authorize the creation of the material by Dr. Hofeller, Legislative Defendants cannot now contend that the materials are privileged as to them. Moreover, if Legislative Defendants had authorized Dr. Hofeller to draft these maps, they should be public records under state law and responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in this case. Additionally, in the more than one month since Plaintiffs’ April 26 reply, Legislative Defendants never sought a protective order as to any materials included in the reply or asked that the reply be placed under seal. B. Legislative Defendants Have Waived Any Privilege Claim In any event, Legislative Defendants have waived any privilege they may have held over any information on the Hofeller files, several times over. 1. Legislative Defendants’ Failure to Object to Plaintiffs’ Subpoena or Move to Quash Waived Any Privilege Claim As you know, we sent Legislative Defendants’ counsel written notice of Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Ms. Hofeller on February 13, 2019, the same day we served the subpoena. The subpoena sought “[a]ny storage device in [Ms. Hofeller’s] possession, custody, or control that contains” either any documents relating to Dr. Hofeller’s work on the challenged state House and state Senate Plans or any information “related to” any such documents. Legislative Defendants could have filed protective objections or a motion to quash, but they did not do so. As the Court has acknowledged: “No objection to or motion to quash the subpoena was filed by any party to this action or Ms. Hofeller.” 5/1/19 Order at 1; see also S. Hofeller Dep. at 39:2-20. Legislative Defendants’ failure to object to the subpoena or move to quash—even though the subpoena on its face sought materials related to Dr. Hofeller’s work for Legislative Defendants—constitutes a clear waiver of any privilege. A party “waive[s] its privilege by its own inaction” when it “fail[s] to act to protect any privilege when served with copies of [a third-party] subpoena.” Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Fremont Indem. Co., 1993 WL 426984, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 1993). “Where a party is aware” that a subpoenaed third party may possess the party’s privileged information, “the burden falls on that party to take affirmative steps to prevent the disclosure in order [to] preserve the privilege as to itself.” Id. at *4. “The failure to act to prevent or object to the disclosure of confidential communications when a party knows or should know that privileged documents may be disclosed by another party waives the privilege with respect to the Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 5 party failing to act.” Id.; see also Ravenswood Inv. Co., L.P. v. Avalon Corr. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 11443364, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 18, 2010) (“Because Defendant did not state its claim of privilege within fourteen days of service of the subpoena on [a third party], the Court concludes Defendant has waived any such claim.”); Patterson v. Chicago Ass’n for Retarded Children, 1997 WL 323575, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 1997) (“By failing to object” to third-party subpoena, party “essentially waived her claim to privilege, and the information gleaned via the subpoena may be used.”); Scott v. Kiker, 59 N.C. App. 458, 461, 297 S.E.2d 142, 145 (1982) (“Defendant . . . waived his privilege because he failed to object to the testimony.”). Here, “[t]he broad scope of that subpoena” to Ms. Hofeller “should reasonably have alerted” Legislative Defendants “to the possibility that [Ms. Hofeller] might produce the [allegedly] privileged documents.” Am. Home Assur., 1993 WL 426984, at *4. Legislative Defendants’ “failure to take any steps to prevent the disclosure of [allegedly] privileged documents waived the privilege they seek to assert.” Id. 2. Legislative Defendants’ Successful Demand That Plaintiffs Transmit Complete Copies of All of the Hofeller Files to the Other Defendants Waived Any Privilege Claim Legislative Defendants independently waived any privilege by demanding that Plaintiffs transmit complete copies of all of the Hofeller files to State Defendants and Intervenor Defendants. Following the Court’s April 30 hearing, Plaintiffs transmitted complete copies of the full contents of the storage devices—without filtering out any of the files—to Intervenor Defendants and State Defendants, neither of which holds any privileged relationship with Legislative Defendants. Legislative Defendants successfully requested that the Court order Plaintiffs to transmit complete copies of the devices to all Defendants even though weeks earlier, on April 9, 2019, Plaintiffs sent you a searchable index of file names and file paths that made apparent the devices contain files involving Dr. Hofeller’s work for Legislative Defendants in litigation and other contexts. Legislative Defendants could have requested protective measures before these files were provided to the State Defendants and Intervenor Defendants, but they did not. Given that “the documents were revealed to third parties without objection”—at Legislative Defendants’ request, no less—Legislative Defendants have waived any claim of privilege over them. Durham Indus. Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co., 1980 WL 112700, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1980): see also Scott v. Glickman, 199 F.R.D. 174, 179 (E.D.N.C. 2001) (finding waiver where no “reasonable protective measures were employed in order to safeguard claims of privilege” or “to ensure confidentiality” before documents were produced); Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. Kittinger/Penn. House Grp., Inc., 116 Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 6 F.R.D. 46, 50 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (“the privilege may be lost even by inadvertent disclosure when a person fails to take affirmative action and institute reasonable precautions to ensure that confidentiality will be maintained”). Not only did Legislative Defendants demand that Plaintiffs disseminate the Hofeller files to the other Defendants, Legislative Defendants did so knowing that State Defendants have not been aligned with them in this litigation. In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir. 1988) (finding waiver where party disclosed documents to government actors who were “adverse during the proceedings at issue”); Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Co., 255 F.R.D. 37, 48 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding waiver where a party placed allegedly privileged materials “in the hands of” a potentially adverse party). 3. Any Work-Product Protection Is Defeated by Plaintiffs’ Substantial Need for Information and Inability to Obtain It Elsewhere Any possible claim of work-product privilege over materials related to Dr. Hofeller’s work during the Covington remedial phase and/or in drawing the 2017 Plans is also defeated by Plaintiffs’ substantial need for the materials and the prejudice to Plaintiffs and the public interest that would ensue were they concealed. “The work product doctrine” is “a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney acting on behalf of his client in anticipation of litigation.” State v. Hardy, 293 N.C. 105, 126, 235 S.E.2d 828, 841-42 (1977). It does not protect materials if a party shows “a ‘substantial need’ for the document and ‘undue hardship’ in obtaining its substantial equivalent by other means.” Evans v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 142 N.C. App. 18, 28, 541 S.E.2d 782, 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3)). Even based on a limited review of non-privileged materials, it is clear that Plaintiffs have a substantial need for the Hofeller files related to Dr. Hofeller’s work during the Covington remedial phase and/or in drawing the 2017 Plans, and that Plaintiffs—and the public—would suffer an extreme hardship if they were concealed. The files reveal evidence of false statements and material omissions to the federal district court in Covington, which will be highly relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims as well as any remedial process. Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 7 a. Legislative Defendants Made False Statements to the Covington Court to Avoid Special Elections in 2017 The Hofeller files reveal that Legislative Defendants made false statements to the Covington district court about when the 2017 Plans were created. As a result of those false statements, the court did not order special elections in 2017 that would have jeopardized Republican super-majority control of the state House and state Senate.1 As you know, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Covington on June 5, 2017, the Covington district court ordered briefing on whether to conduct special elections under remedial state House and state Senate plans in 2017 or instead wait until the 2018 elections to implement remedial plans. In a brief submitted to the Covington court on July 6, 2017, Legislative Defendants repeatedly stated that no work on remedial plans had yet begun, and that Legislative Defendants therefore needed a long period of time to draft new plans. For instance, Legislative Defendants told the court: 1  The General Assembly had not “start[ed] the laborious process of redistricting earlier” than July 2017. Covington, ECF No. 161 at 28.  It had not been “necessary to begin the process” of drawing new districts “until at, the earliest, the end of the current Supreme Court term” on June 30, 2017. Id. at 29.  “The General Assembly could begin the process of compiling a record in July 2017 with a goal of enacting new plans by the end of the year.” Id. at 28-29.  In the “interim” between the Supreme Court’s stay of the district court’s judgment on January 10, 2017 and the end of the Supreme Court term on June 30, 2017, rather than engage in “drawing remedial legislative districts,” “the North Carolina General Assembly did just what the Supreme Court allowed it to do – enact policies and legislation that benefit the State as a whole.” Id. at 28. In their April 29, 2019 filing in the instant case, Legislative Defendants asserted that certain of the Hofeller files from before October 31, 2016 may be privileged because they may have been prepared in connection with a declaration that Dr. Hofeller submitted in Covington on October 31, 2016. Legislative Defendants provided no support for this claim of possible privilege, but in any event, all of the Hofeller files underlying the discussion in this section post-date October 31, 2016. Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 8  “This Court should not short-circuit that process [of redistricting] by forcing the General Assembly to draw new maps without first engaging in the legislative and public consultation that this inherently policy-driven task necessitates.” Id. at 4.  “Proceeding on [its proposed] timeline will allow the General Assembly to receive public input, engage in internal discussions about the design of remedial districts, prepare draft remedial plans, receive public responses to those draft remedial plans, and incorporate public feedback into the final plans.” Id. at 2.  “Investigating, drawing, debating, and legislatively enacting satisfactory redistricting plans in time to hold elections in November 2017 or January 2018 would not even begin to allow [for sufficient] input by the public and other members of the General Assembly. And if the process and evidence relied upon by the General Assembly in 2011, developed over five months, was insufficient, it would be impossible for the General Assembly to establish a proper record in just a few days or weeks.” Id. at 13. Similarly, at a July 27, 2017 hearing, Legislative Defendants’ counsel stated: “[R]edistricting is a very arduous, difficult task. It takes a lot of time and attention.” ECF No. 181 at 87:18-19. Based on these statements by Legislative Defendants, the Covington court denied the plaintiffs’ request to order special elections in 2017. The court credited Legislative Defendants’ assertion that “Plaintiffs’ proposed August 11, 2017, deadline will provide them with insufficient time to conduct public hearings and engage in the robust deliberations necessary to develop districting plans.” Covington v. North Carolina, 267 F. Supp. 3d 664, 666 (M.D.N.C. 2017). While the court admonished Legislative Defendants for not having started the process sooner, the court agreed with Legislative Defendants that “there are many benefits to a time line that allows for the General Assembly (1) to receive public feedback on the criteria to be used in drawing the remedial districts and proposed remedial districting plans applying those criteria; (2) to revise the proposed plans based on that feedback; and (3) to engage in robust deliberation.” Id. at 667. Thus, the court concluded, an expedited schedule for adopting remedial plans, as needed to hold special elections in 2017, “[did] not provide the General Assembly with adequate time to meet their commendable goal of obtaining and considering public input and engaging in robust debate and discussion.” Id. During the remedial phase through the fall of 2017, Legislative Defendants continued stating that no work had been done—including by Dr. Hofeller—to create new districts before July 2017: Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 9  Representative Lewis made the following statement at a July 26, 2017 hearing of the Joint Redistricting Committees (ECF 184-7 at 11-12): REP MICHAUX: Are there any other maps that have not yet been released? For instance, anything that has been drawn by Dr. Hofeller or anybody else that you know of that have not yet been released? REP. LEWIS: Not that I know of, sir.  Representative Lewis made the following statements at an August 4, 2016 hearing of the Joint Redistricting Committees (ECF 184-8 at 72-73): REP. MICHAUX: Can you assure this body right now that no redistricting maps have yet been drawn? REP. LEWIS: I can assure this body that none has been drawn at my direction and that I have direct knowledge of. The only map I’m aware of was submitted by an independent group and presented to this committee last week. ... REP. MICHAUX: Just to be clear, I’m talking about anything that any chairman or members of the Republican Party or anybody. No map has yet been drawn that should be handed out here? I’m -- people are concerned about the fact -- they think you’ve already drawn the maps. I want to make sure, coming from you, that you have not yet drawn maps. REP. LEWIS: Thank you for the question. I have not yet drawn maps nor have I directed that maps be drawn, nor am I aware of any other entity operating in conjunction with the leadership that has drawn maps. On September 7, 2017, Legislative Defendants submitted the hearing transcripts containing these statements to the district court in connection with securing the court’s approval of the 2017 Plans. In a September 22, 2017 submission to the Covington court seeking approval of the 2017 Plans, Legislative Defendants further stated: “Shortly following this Court’s order of July 31, 2017, the legislative leaders, Senator Ralph Hise and Representative David Lewis, met with the map drawing consultant, Dr. Hofeller. Redistricting concepts Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 10 were discussed with Dr. Hofeller as leaders made plans to comply with the Court’s Order.” ECF No. 192 at 6. Likewise, in this case, Legislative Defendants have stated to the Superior Court that no draft maps existed prior to July or August 2017. For instance:  In response to one of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories asking about any “draft or copy” of “all or parts of the 2017 Plans before August 10, 2017,” Legislative Defendants responded: “To the best recollection of [Legislative] Defendants, no drafts of the 2017 Plans existed prior to August 10, 2017.”  On April 26, 2019, Legislative Defendants stated in a Superior Court filing that “no legislative redistricting was occurring prior to July 2017,” and that “July 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017 represented the period of time that the legislature was actually engaged in and preparing for legislative redistricting.”  At an April 30, 2019 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that July and August 2017 were the “timeframes when the redistricting actually occurred.” The Hofeller files reveal, however, that Dr. Hofeller had not only created numerous iterations of draft maps before July 2017, but that he had substantially completed the 2017 Plans by the end of June 2017. Specifically, the files show that Dr. Hofeller had already completed over 97% of the new Senate plan and over 90% of the new House plan by June 2017. These facts are inconsistent with Legislative Defendants’ prior statements to courts and the public that they had not “start[ed] the laborious process of redistricting” before July 2017, that “no legislative redistricting was occurring prior to July 2017,” that “no drafts of the 2017 Plans existed prior to August 10, 2017,” that they wanted to “first engag[e] in . . . legislative and public consultation” before “draw[ing] new maps,” that they needed “[]sufficient time” in July and August 2017 “to conduct public hearings and engage in the robust deliberations necessary to develop districting plans,” that they only began discussing “redistricting concepts” with Dr. Hofeller in August 2017, and so on. The inaccuracy of the above statements, and the fact that the entire public redistricting process in the fall of 2017 appears to have been a charade, are obviously relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, as well as the procedures to be used in any remedial process should Plaintiffs prevail. Plaintiffs cannot obtain this evidence from any other source, and there would be substantial hardship to Plaintiffs and the public interest were the truth concealed. Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 11 b. Legislative Defendants Made False Statements to the Covington Court About the 2017 Redistricting Process and the Criteria Used to Create the Remedial Plans In its July 31, 2017 order declining to order special elections in 2017 and allowing more time for the creation and enactment of remedial plans, the Covington court ordered Legislative Defendants to file, within seven days of enacting new plans, the following:  “a description of the process the Senate Redistricting Committee, House Redistricting Committee, and General Assembly followed in enacting the new plans, including the identity of all participants involved in the process”;  “any alternative district plans considered by the Senate Redistricting Committee, House Redistricting Committee, or the General Assembly”; and  “the criteria the Senate Redistricting Committee, House Redistricting Committee, and General Assembly applied in drawing the districts in the new plans.” Covington, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 668. The Hofeller files reveal that statements in Legislative Defendants’ September 7, 2017 submission to the Covington court are false or misleading. In purporting to give a “Description of the 2017 Redistricting Process,” Legislative Defendants suggested that the process began “[o]n June 27, 2017,” when Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore approved a contract with Dr. Tom Hofeller as a mapdrawing consultant for Rep. David Lewis and Sen. Ralph Hise, the forthcoming chairs of the 2017 redistricting committees in the House and the Senate.” ECF No. 184 at 4. In reality, Dr. Hofeller had been drawing draft remedial maps since at least August 2016, and the new maps were substantially complete by June 27, 2017. In describing “Alternative Districting Plans Considered,” Legislative Defendants listed various alternative maps proposed by other members of the General Assembly, but did not list the numerous iterations of alternative draft maps that Dr. Hofeller had created. Id. at 9-10. In the same submission, under the heading “Criteria Applied in Drawing the 2017 House and Senate Districts,” Legislative Defendants stated that the criteria “used to draw new districts in the 2017 House and Senate Redistricting plans” were those adopted by the House and Senate Redistricting Committees “[o]n August 10, 2017.” Id. at 6, 10. Of course, Dr. Hofeller had already completed drawing many of the districts by June 2017, over a month-and-a-half before August 10, 2017. Therefore, the criteria adopted by Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 12 House and Senate Redistricting Committees on August 10, 2017 definitively were not the actual criteria “used to draw” these districts. Again, the fact that the “Adopted Criteria” of the General Assembly were not the real criteria used by Dr Hofeller to create the 2017 Plans is highly relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims as well as any remedial process should Plaintiffs prevail, and there would be prejudice to Plaintiffs and the public interest if these facts were covered up. c. Legislative Defendants Made False Statements About the Use of Racial Data in Creating the Remedial Plans Legislative Defendants made additional false statements to the Covington court and the public concerning the use of racial data during the 2017 redistricting process. As you know, after the prior plans were invalidated as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.N.C. 2016), Legislative Defendants adopted a formal criterion prohibiting use of racial data for the 2017 Plans: “Data identifying the race of individuals or voters shall not be used in the drawing of legislative districts in the 2017 House and Senate plans.” ECF No. 184-37 at 2 (emphasis added). Further, Legislative Defendants repeatedly stated to the court and the public that there was not any racial data in the map-drawing software or other databases, and that they and Dr. Hofeller accordingly did not know the racial composition of the new districts. As just a few examples, Legislative Defendants said the following:  “[D]ata regarding the race of voters was not used in the drawing of the districts, and, in fact, was not even loaded into the computer used by the map drawer to construct the districts.” ECF No. 192 at 28 (court filing) (emphasis added);  “[W]e have not had and do not have racial data on any of these districts.” ECF 184-17 (8/24/17 Senate Hr’g Tr. at 66 (statement of Sen. Hise)).  “Race was not part of the database. It could not be calculated on the system[.]” Id. at 102 (statement of Sen. Hise).  “There was no racial data reviewed in the preparation of this map.” ECF 184-18 (8/25/17 Hr’g Tr. at 20 (statement of Rep. Lewis)). The Hofeller files reveal that none of the above statements were true. Dr. Hofeller did have “data on the race of voters” “loaded into the computer” he used to “construct the districts.” Dr. Hofeller’s computer in fact appears to have had data Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 13 regarding the racial composition of the proposed districts for each and every iteration of his draft maps. Every Maptitude file with draft House or Senate districts from 2017— including draft maps from August 2017 after Legislative Defendants signed an engagement letter formally retaining Dr. Hofeller to create new maps—appears to have had racial data for the districts. Images from some of the Maptitude files even reveal that Dr. Hofeller apparently was displaying the black voting age population or “BVAP” of the new districts in some of the drafts. Dr. Hofeller also had racial data on the draft districts in Excel spreadsheets. Legislative Defendants’ statements that racial data “was not even loaded into the computer used by the map drawer to construct the districts,” that “[r]ace was not part of the database,” and so on were not true. The full details of all of the above false statements will be made clear at trial, but in light of their existence, any work-product protection that could conceivably apply to the files at issue is defeated by Plaintiffs’ need for the materials and the inability to obtain substantially equivalent evidence elsewhere. Hardy, 235 S.E.2d at 841-42. Legislative Defendants’ apparent attempt to cover up this evidence, including by ineffectually designating “the entirety” of the Hofeller files as Highly Confidential under the Consent Protective Order, is troubling. *** Notwithstanding the above, if you believe that there are additional draft expert reports similar to the specific files identified in your letter, we are willing to meet and confer about such files. As mentioned, we have no intention of reviewing any such files and would be willing to consider an accommodation to address your concerns, notwithstanding your clear waiver of any privilege. To facilitate such a meet-and-confer process, you should identify each such file, specify the privilege that you believe applies, and provide appropriate legal and factual support for your contention that the file is privileged. III. Plaintiffs Properly Received the Hofeller Files in Response to their Subpoena Your letter expresses concerns about “the manner in which Plaintiffs came into possession of” the devices. But as you know, on February 13, 2019, Plaintiffs served a lawful subpoena to Ms. Hofeller, through her lawyer, seeking the entire storage devices, and Ms. Hofeller produced the devices to Plaintiffs in response to the subpoena. As you also know from Ms. Hofeller’s deposition on May 17, 2019, when your co-counsel Ms. Scully questioned Ms. Hofeller about these issues for several hours, Ms. Hofeller testified that she properly obtained possession of the devices on October 11, 2018 from her parents’ home in Raleigh, with her mother Kathleen Hofeller’s knowledge and approval. Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 14 S. Hofeller Dep. at 20:3-26:10; 52:6-10; 81:8-82:2; 110:17-11:24. Ms. Hofeller testified that her mother did “not object to [her] taking the devices,” and when asked whether her mother said “it was okay to take the devices,” Ms. Hofeller testified, “Yes. She encouraged me too.” Id. at 21:6-11; see id. at 26:3-10 (when Ms. Hofeller asked “Can I take these?” her mother “said absolutely”). Ms. Hofeller testified that “[her] mother gave to [her] unconditionally” “everything on those hard drives that [her] father had left in his room”—the devices were “given to [her] by [her] deceased father’s wife.” Id. at 81:882:2. Ms. Hofeller further testified that she properly produced the devices to Plaintiffs in March 2019 in response to Plaintiffs’ February 13, 2019 subpoena, again with her mother’s knowledge and approval. Id. at 39:21-41:8. When asked whether her mother had given “her permission or her okay [for Ms. Hofeller] to provide the storage devices . . . to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in response to the subpoena,” Ms. Hofeller testified, “Yes.” Id. at 41:2-8. The following responds to the specific “concerns” raised in your letter: First, your letter asserts that there is “serious doubt on [Ms. Hofeller’s] mother’s ability to consent to Ms. Hofeller taking of the devices and Ms. Hofeller’s providing of those devices to counsel,” because a temporary guardian was appointed for Kathleen Hofeller “after” she gave the devices to her daughter. That is wrong. As described, Ms. Hofeller testified that her mother gave her the devices containing the Hofeller files on October 11, 2018. S. Hofeller Dep. at 52:6-10. It was only weeks later, on November 6, 2018, that an interim guardian ad litem was appointed for Kathleen Hofeller in a then-ex parte proceeding, in response to a Petition for Adjudication of Incompetence that had been filed one week earlier. On February 7, 2019, the incompetency petition with respect to Kathleen Hofeller was dismissed for failure to prosecute—without any finding of incompetency—after the parties reached a settlement. See In re The Matter of Kathleen H. Hofeller, 18 SP 2634 (N.C. Super. Feb. 7, 2019). That settlement, among other things, precludes the parties from bringing future incompetency proceedings against Kathleen Hofeller. Plaintiffs issued their subpoena to Stephanie Hofeller on February 13, 2019— after the incompetency proceeding was dismissed. The incompetency proceeding thus did not begin until after the date when Ms. Hofeller obtained possession of the devices with her mother’s permission, and the incompetency proceeding concluded (with no finding of incompetency) before the date when Ms. Hofeller sent the devices to Plaintiffs in response to their subpoena again with her mother’s permission, Second, Ms. Hofeller’s deposition testimony contradicts your assertion that “Ms. Hofeller had no discussions with her mother regarding if there was any business Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 15 information contained on the drives.” When asked whether she had “a specific conversation with [her] mother to tell her that [she] identified business records of [her] father’s on” the devices, Ms. Hofeller testified: “All of those points were at some point mentioned. My mother was aware of the fact that . . . the subpoena for these hard drives was, in fact, for work-related files only. So not only was it clear to her that there were work-related files, but it was clear to her that the lawyers that would be looking at it on either side would not be looking at anything other than my father’s work-related files.” S. Hofeller Dep. at 56:22-57:18 (emphases added); see id. at 59:13-18 (“Q. At what point in time did you discuss with your mother the possibility of turning over your father’s business records to Common Cause or to Arnold & Porter? A. The subpoena. That -that would be when we specifically discussed that.”). Third, your letter’s suggestion that Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie should have “advise[d] Ms. Hofeller to seek the advice of an attorney for herself or her mother” is nonsensical. As you know, Stephanie Hofeller testified that she originally contacted Common Cause specifically to request a referral to an attorney independent of her father who could represent her mother in the incompetency proceeding. S. Hofeller Dep. at 31:7-19; 36:24-38:9. Common Cause provided such a referral, leading to Ms. Hofeller’s mother retaining an attorney to represent her in the incompetency proceeding. Id. at 59:5-12. As to Ms. Hofeller, she is the one who proactively contacted Common Cause, raised the fact that she had the electronic storage devices, and affirmatively offered to provide the devices to Common Cause. Id. at 31:7-38:17. We are aware of no obligation of a lawyer to advise a non-adverse third party like Ms. Hofeller to obtain counsel in these circumstances, and your letter does not identify any such obligation. In any event, the point is moot because Plaintiffs served their subpoena on Ms. Hofeller through her attorney, Tom Sparks, who later defended her deposition in this case. Ms. Hofeller was represented in connection with Plaintiffs’ subpoena. Finally, your letter asserts that Mr. Speas and Ms. Mackie “told [Ms. Hofeller] that ‘anyone,’ including plaintiffs or legislative defendants, could only look at the content of items that were explicitly and obviously related to this case, and as a result, she should not be concerned about a privacy issue with her or her mother.” But Plaintiffs’ counsel have in fact attempted to shield sensitive personal information of the Hofeller family from disclosure, including through the designation of such materials as Highly Confidential pursuant to the Court’s May 1, 2019 Order. It is Legislative Defendants who successfully insisted that personal sensitive information in the Hofeller files be shared with other parties in the case, rather than filtered out and never reviewed by anyone. Beyond that, we understand from Ms. Hofeller that she approves of Plaintiffs’ review and use of the Hofeller files pertaining to Dr. Hofeller’s political and redistricting work. In any event, while Ms. Hofeller testified that she and her mother “felt . . . that the Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 16 process would most likely be centered around provably pertinent files,” Ms. Hofeller also testified that she “assured her [mother] that she should be aware that once you -- and, again, this is something my father taught me. Once you let go of it, you don’t have control of it anymore so you can’t be guaranteed what will and won’t be disclosed, so it’s something you should be prepared for when you are involved with discovery.” S. Hofeller Dep. at 40:1-15. IV. Legislative Defendants’ Assertions Regarding Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Professional Responsibilities Are Frivolous and Improper Your letter states that you “insist on compliance with the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Professional Responsibility,” and that Legislative Defendants “are considering all options available to them to enforce their rights” “[s]hould [Plaintiffs’ counsel] persist in neglecting [their] professional responsibilities.” But you do not identify a single rule of professional conduct purportedly implicated by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions. Your nonspecific references to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s “professional responsibilities” appear to be nothing more than an attempt to intimidate. We note that frivolous claims of professional ethics violations made to obtain an advantage in a civil matter are impermissible, and we refer you to District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) and North Carolina Rule of Professional Responsibility 3.1. Under Rule 3.1, “a threat to file disciplinary charges is . . . improper if the disciplinary charges are frivolous.”2 V. Legislative Defendants’ Specific Demands Are Baseless and Unreasonable First, your letter demands that Plaintiffs “immediately cease and desist reviewing all materials produced by Ms. Hofeller and particularly all files unrelated to North Carolina.” But Legislative Defendants, as leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly, have no legal interest in, and no standing to make demands regarding, files that are “unrelated to North Carolina.” Moreover, while this demand is predicated on Legislative Defendants’ (erroneous) understanding of Ms. Hofeller’s intent in producing the devices in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, Ms. Hofeller’s attorney recently confirmed in writing—prior to the filings in the federal census case—that Ms. Hofeller consents to use of the Hofeller files in connection with matters outside North Carolina. Second, your letter demands that we “immediately cease and desist providing any or all of these materials to third parties unrelated to this case, as [we] have apparently 2 Suzanne Lever, I’m Telling Mom! Reporting Professional Misconduct, N.C. State Bar Journal (June 2014), https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/ethics-articles/im-telling-mom-reporting-professionalmisconduct. Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 17 recently done in a matter pending in New York.” Again, Legislative Defendants have no standing to make demands regarding materials unrelated to North Carolina. Anyway, your demand is contrary to hornbook law. “The general rule . . . is that information produced in discovery in a civil case may be used in other cases.” United States v. Comstock, 2012 WL 1119949, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2012). Sharing discovery with litigants in other cases is not just permissible, but courts “have overwhelmingly and decisively endorsed the sharing of discovery information among different plaintiffs, in different cases, in different courts.” Burlington City Bd. of Educ. v. U.S. Mineral Prod. Co., 115 F.R.D. 188, 190 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (emphasis added). Absent a protective order to the contrary (and there is no such order here with respect to the files at issue), nothing “prevent[s] [a litigant] who lawfully has obtained discovery . . . from using the discovery elsewhere.” In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 869 F.3d 121, 135 (2d Cir. 2017); see also Parkway Gallery Furniture, Inc. v. Kittinger/Pennsylvania House Grp., Inc., 121 F.R.D. 264, 268-69 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (“[A] party needs to present good cause for prohibiting the dissemination of non-confidential discovery information or from prohibiting the utilization of such discovery in other litigation.”); Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Elk Run Coal Co., 291 F.R.D. 114, 122 (S.D. W. Va. 2013) (“[T] he potential use of the fruits of discovery in other litigation is not, alone, a basis for a protective order.”); FTC v. Digital Interactive Assocs., Inc., 1996 WL 912156, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 18, 1996) (“[D]issemination of information to litigants in other forums is often encouraged for purposes of judicial economy.”); United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 90 F.R.D. 421, 426 (W.D.N.Y. 1981) (“Use of the discovery fruits disclosed in one lawsuit in connection with other litigation, and even in collaboration among plaintiffs’ attorneys, comes squarely within the purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); Patterson v. Ford Motor Co., 85 F.R.D. 152, 153-54 (W.D. Tex. 1980) (similar). Third, your letter demands, bizarrely, that Plaintiffs “return all of the produced materials to the Trustee for the Kathleen H. Hofeller Irrevocable Trust.” You cite no legal authority, and we can think of none, for the notion that a litigant can demand that subpoenaed electronic files be returned to the “Trustee” of a financial trust of the mother of the subpoenaed individual. Even if Kathleen Hofeller rather than Stephanie Hofeller had produced the files in response to the subpoena (which she did not), Kathleen Hofeller is legally competent, and you do not explain why the materials would go to a “Trustee” rather than to her. It appears that you are making this odd request because Kathleen Hofeller herself does not want return of the materials. Fourth, your letter asks that Plaintiffs identify all “individuals [Plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firms] employ” who have reviewed the “produced materials.” As stated above, we can represent that no one at our law firms has any intention of reviewing any of the five specific files identified in your letter as purportedly privileged. We have no Phillip J. Strach June 5, 2019 Page 18 obligation to provide you further information regarding names of attorneys who have worked on this matter. Fifth, your letter also asks which of the files that you characterize as “wrongfully produced materials have been shared outside [Plaintiffs’ counsel’s] firms.” While we have no obligation no respond, we can advise you of the following: As you know, on May 6, 2019, we provided complete copies of all of the Hofeller files to all three sets of Defendants, including Legislative Defendants represented by you, Intervenor Defendants represented by separate private counsel, and State Defendants represented by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office. We provided complete copies of all of the Hofeller files to each set of Defendants because you demanded that we do so. We have no information about whether and to what extent Defendants may have shared files with others. Lastly, your letter demands that Plaintiffs “attest that all copies of the materials wrongfully produced by Ms. Hofeller are no longer in []our possession and have been destroyed.” Legislative Defendants have offered no legitimate basis for this demand. Moreover, given that the Hofeller files reveal wrongdoing by government officials, “destoy[ing]” the files could constitute spoliation. Sincerely, /s/ R. Stanton Jones R. Stanton Jones