LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

discovery and various other tasks, yes.

      Q. And for a portion of that case at least Mr. Cymrot was the attorney of record for Prevezon Holdings; is that correct?

      A. For the entirety of the time that I worked on the case he was—I believe he was the attorney of record.

      Q. And did you understand the instructions you received from him to be originating from his client, from Prevezon Holdings?

      A. The ultimate direction, of course, would have been from the ultimate client, but the client was outside the United States for most of its time. ​So, you know, a lot of instruction came from him and he was the person who formulated the legal strategy, undertook all of the legal efforts to work the case.

      Q. And when did Fusion GPS cease working on the Prevezon Holdings case?

      A. I can't say exactly. It was mid to late 2016.

      Q. Which of Fusion's associates and employees have worked on the Prevezon or Magnitsky issues?

      A. For the most part it was myself and one of my analysts, . There may have—from time to time issues may have come up about trying to find records or other issues where I conferred with or enlisted someone else in the office, but I don't specifically recall.

      MR. FOSTER: To follow up on the previous answer, you said mid to late 2016 is when the investigation ended, generally speaking. Do you have any records that could refresh your recollection about the exact date at a later time?

      MR. SIMPSON: I'm sure we do, yes. I am—we have a division of labor and I don't do a lot of things like invoicing. So this is not going to be my strong suit.

      ​MR. FOSTER: But you could figure it out later for us?

      MR. SIMPSON: We maintain books and records.

      MR. FOSTER: Could you maybe just describe quickly what kind of record would constitute the end of the engagement?

      MR. SIMPSON: That's a good question. You know, in some cases there's no specific termination letter. So I don't know whether there's a termination agreement or termination letter in this case. I mean, generally speaking, you know, when we stop billing the case is over.

      (Exhibit 2 was marked for

       identification.)

      BY MR. DAVIS:

      Q. I'd like to introduce an exhibit. It's one of two privilege logs that your attorneys provided us. This will be Exhibit 2.

      Mr. Simpson, on the third page of this document, the last two entries appear to be e-mails sent on October 27, 2016 from Peter Fritsch to Mark Cymrot CC'g you. To the best of your recollection, was Fusion GPS still working for Mr. Cymrot on—still working for Baker Hostetler on the Prevezon case as of the date of this e-mail?

      ​A. I don't know.

      Q. The privilege asserted was attorney work product. Do you know what the basis of that was?

      A. Well, it was a legal—

      MR. LEVY: This is a judgment that his lawyers made and any knowledge he would have about whether it was attorney work product or not likely would come from communications with counsel, which obviously are privileged.

      BY MR. DAVIS:

      Q. Did Fusion ever work with subcontractors on its Prevezon or Magnitsky efforts?

      A. Yes.

      Q. Who were they?

      MR. LEVY: Just to clarify that, your question was—can you repeat the question, please?

      MR. DAVIS: Sure. Did Fusion ever work with subcontractors on its Prevezon or Magnitsky efforts?

      MR. LEVY: What do you mean by "Magnitsky efforts"?

      MR. DAVIS: I mean all matters related to the efforts with the media, government officials, and campaigns—or campaigns to overturn the Magnitsky ​Act, prevent the passage of the global Magnitsky Act, remove the word Magnitsky from the law—from either law, as well as the Russian ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

      MR. LEVY: And you were also asking about subcontractors for Prevezon as well?

      MR. DAVIS: I'm asking whether Fusion ever worked with subcontractors on those issues.

      BY THE WITNESS:

      A. Well, I object to the question the way the question is framed. You've sort of built into the question the sort of inference that we were doing something other than working on a legal case, and there's extensive public record, documentation in Pacer of the work that we did and it was a legal case. So I don't—it's going to be difficult because it's really hard for me to answer questions where you lump in all these things that other people were doing and impute them to me.

      Q. Let's break them down by category.

      A. Let's do that.

      Q. Did Fusion ever work with subcontractors—did Fusion ever hire subcontractors as part of its legal work on the Prevezon case?

      ​A. Yes.

      Q. And whom did you hire?

      A. I think the primary, possibly only one was a guy named Edward Baumgartner. There may have been others. I just don't recall.

      Q. And what type of work did Mr. Baumgartner undertake for Fusion?

      A. Discovery mostly, helping locate witnesses. He speaks Russian. So he would work with the lawyers on gathering Russian language documents, gathering Russian language media reports, talking to witnesses who speak Russian, that sort of thing. He may have dealt with the press. I just don't remember.

      MR. FOSTER: What is his professional background?

      MR. SIMPSON: He has a degree in Russian.

      MR. FOSTER: So his primary role was as a Russian speaker? Is he a private investigator? What does he do?

      MR. SIMPSON: He runs a consulting firm like me and deals with issues more in Ukraine than Russia, but in both. Yeah, he was doing Russian language things. The case revolved around, centered on events in Russia. So a lot of what we ​needed to find out were things that were in Russia or there were documents in the Russian language. I don't speak Russian, I've never been to Russia. So it would be ordinary course of business for me to identify a specialist who could supply me with that kind of specialized expertise.

      BY MR. DAVIS:

      Q. And how did you come to hire him for this engagement?

      A. I met him on a previous engagement and I was impressed by his knowledge of the region and his general abilities.

      MR. FOSTER: What was the previous engagement?

      MR. LEVY: We're not going to get into prior engagements. It's outside the scope.

      MR. FOSTER: Generally speaking, what was it?

      MR. SIMPSON: It was something involving Russia.

      MR. FOSTER: A little more specifically speaking.

      MR. SIMPSON: It's my understanding that I was not required to talk about my other cases at this interview.

      MR. DAVIS: Again, it's a voluntary interview ​and you are not under compulsion to answer any questions, but, again, the extent to which you cooperate will help the committee members evaluate whether further compulsory process is necessary.

      MR. LEVY: He's been answering questions and we're here all day for you.

      MR. SIMPSON: I'm here to cooperate.

      BY MR. DAVIS:

      Q. Did anyone from Fusion ever work with other subcontractors hired by Baker Hostetler for the Prevezon case?

      A. That would have been ordinary. I don't specifically remember doing that, but it wouldn't have been out of the ordinary. It's not particularly noteworthy. I've worked

Скачать книгу