ESCRIBERS, LLC 700 West 192nd Street, Suite #607 New York, NY 10040

Transcription

1 0 KNOX COUNTY, ss. CIVIL ACTION EDWARD HARSHMAN, Plaintiff, VS. SHEILA HARSHMAN, Defendant. STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT NO. VI DOCKET NO. ROCDC-FM-0-0 APPEAL NO. KNO--0 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE 0 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE SUSAN SPARACO JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: STEPHEN HAYES, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: SARAH GILBERT, ESQ. RECORDED BY: EILEEN B. JULY, 0 ROCKLAND, MAINE TRANSCRIBED BY: ESCRIBERS, LLC 00 West nd Street, Suite #0 New York, NY 000

2 0 0 (This matter came for hearing before The Honorable Judge Susan Sparaco of the Knox County District Court, Rockland, Maine, on July, 0 at :0 p.m.) THE COURT OFFICER: All rise. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. GILBERT: Good afternoon. MR. HAYES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please be seated. And we're here today in the Harshman v. Harshman, an issue regarding discovery in advance of day two of the trial that began on June st. Both attorneys here and Ms. Harshman is here with her attorney, Ms. Gilbert. And I do have Mr. Hayes' July th, 0 letter. Has anything -- is there any updates since that date of that letter? MR. HAYES: There have been no communications, the only difference being as to the second issue with regard to the trust notifications. I actually have copies of the documents as certified and have provided hard copy today to opposing Counsel with signed copies of the certifications. THE COURT: Okay. So the issue on that is whether the Court will admit them under -- MR. HAYES: 0(). THE COURT: -- 0(). And you object, Ms. Gilbert. Is that my understanding?

3 0 0 MS. GILBERT: Yes. And my objection, if I can be heard on this briefly, my objection is twofold. Number one, as the Court knows we're in the middle of this trial. We've already completed day one. The Plaintiff has already concluded his direct examination and I was in the middle of crossing him when we ran out of time at the last court date. The Court then offered up two additional days in June at which the Court was available and the Defendant was available to finish the trial, and on both occasions the Plaintiff indicated he was unavailable due to employment. So we're now in August looking to have the second or perhaps third day of trial completed. The Court indicated after day one that discovery was complete, and if the Court doesn't recall, these very trust documents in some form were offered up as an exhibit by the Plaintiff and his Counsel as part of his direct and the Court deemed them inadmissible based on the fact that they were hearsay, they were incomplete, and they had been requested in discovery by the Defendant almost a year prior to trial. So here we are now in the very middle of the trial and the Plaintiff, as I had unfortunately suspected might happen, has now since gone and obtained additional pieces of information and is now offering up the very same exhibit in what is alleged as a more complete form. Our objections remain the same.

4 0 0 We have every reason to believe that the Plaintiff's sister, Cecily, who is the trustee, who is supposedly certifying these records, is colluding with her brother in an effort to withhold information from the Defendant. And if there is any further inquiry needed into that part of this I would refer the Court to Exhibit from the interim hearing, which is an between the trustee and her brother, and there's a discussion being had about the Plaintiff failing -- deliberately failing to put things on his financial statement and that he felt he was safe at that point in time from disclosure. So this isn't your ordinary business records indicia of reliability bank teller printing out a statement kind of exhibit. This is a highly testimonial, self-serving chalk, if you will, from the Plaintiff's brother and it's being offered in the middle of trial. So those I suppose are my objections. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. If she were to appear and testify would you object to that if you had an opportunity to cross-examine her? MS. GILBERT: I would not object to that, Your Honor. And she was originally listed as a witness on the Plaintiff's witness list when -- it was only on day one of trial that I realized they were not intending on calling her. I would also add that the additional printouts, or chalks, or statements

5 0 0 are lengthy, are hundreds of pages, and that the Defendant in preparation for day one has already hired and obtained a forensic accounting opinion from an expert. And if the Defendant is now required to I guess turn over hundreds of additional pages of trust information that we requested a year ago, if we're required to do that in the next day or two she's going to incur substantial expense, if she's even able to obtain further expert opinion on these additional documents. So I think it would be highly prejudicial to give the Plaintiff a second crack at the apple here and to allow him to capitalize on the two-month delay that he in fact played a major role in, given that everybody else was ready to finish the trial in June. And then I'm happy to -- perhaps the Court wants to segregate the issues, but that's the additional exhibit issue. There's also an issue raised by Mr. Hayes with regards to our continuing duty to supplement our own discovery responses, so -- THE COURT: Let's -- yes. Let's deal with them separately -- MS. GILBERT: Save that? THE COURT: -- so I can keep them all in my mind. Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES: Yes. Well, I guess I can now argue -- I'm not sure if this is rebuttal or my primary argument. One, we

6 0 0 haven't rested. I did complete my direct, I did offer the trust documents. The Court rejected them on the basis they were hearsay. And there was a complaint that possibly the information was not as complete as it should be. Even when I identified my exhibits prior to trial, reserved the right to bring up additional exhibits upon proper notice, which is a standard practice, we have not rested, the evidence has not closed, and frankly it would be a rather unusual trial if in fact the people were barred from presenting exhibits when their case had not even closed. THE COURT: Had they been requested prior to trial? MR. HAYES: Actually, Ms. Gilbert didn't request anything. Mr. -- her predecessor counsel made a rather long document request that was appropriately objected to, frankly, because it was without much focus, and as -- you know, you couldn't tell what he wanted, and beyond that, you know, required things that were beyond our ability to get. I objected in a timely fashion. Frankly, no one has ever moved to enforce or to deal with our objection -- THE COURT: Okay. Were they requested prior to trial? MR. HAYES: They were -- there was a request made, but frankly we could not tell from the verbiage, which covered about half a page, what was expressly requested. We objected to it on several bases I don't have right in front of me, but -- and our objection was never challenged. We are dealing

7 0 0 with a third-party trustee. It is his sister, but she is in Florida. She is not under his control, he is not a trustee, and frankly his father still has a great deal of influence over all of this, and I have had to work through lawyers at Cummings & Lockwood to get anything. The discovery requirements require us to provide information that we either possess or are within our control and these trust documents are in neither case, they're not under his control. They've never been under his control. It's been a matter of begging for them. What we have done, and I have the documents now done, is to deal with the hearsay objection and to the, you know, gee, speculation as to conclusion -- collusion. What is being provided is the trustee, under oath, in conformity with Rule 0(), authenticates the documents. The affidavit also includes the provisions required under Rule 0(), I think it is, as to why it satisfies the business records or regularly conducted activity exception to the hearsay rule. What is included in the package is a full copy of each trust proffered to basically show that my client neither established the trust nor is he in control of either trust. It includes annual reports that were prepared and tendered by the trustee pursuant of her statutory duty to provide reports, and we actually had to pull that card to get it, and because of that concern that there's some sort of conclusion here we have

8 0 0 copies of the Charles Schwab account records year-ending for each year in place. These are records that are routinely kept by every trust. Frankly, we had to threaten to get them but we now have them certified. So we have satisfied the authentication exhibit problem that they were addressing and we have satisfied the hearsay objection, because they are records of a regularly conducted activity and they were certified by the trustee in Florida in the presence of a notary. And -- THE COURT: And so why should you get a second chance just simply because you were not able to finish your case in a -- MR. HAYES: Well -- THE COURT: -- within the period of time that you had predicted, to then try to fix the offer after it had been deemed inadmissible? MR. HAYES: Well, I think that every lawyer has an obligation to cure a problem that, you know, the court notes in any particular -- THE COURT: Well, it's not a problem to me. It was a problem for you. MR. HAYES: It was, and which we're trying to cure in a fashion that was available. THE COURT: Well, why isn't that unfair to the other side?

9 0 0 MR. HAYES: Well, frankly -- THE COURT: Because of a two-month delay, and both times Ms. Gilbert correctly, in my memory, cites that the Court offered two different times for you to come back in a very quick turnaround, and both times your client -- MR. HAYES: And frankly -- THE COURT: -- chose to -- MR. HAYES: -- we explained -- we explained in those circumstances that my client is a physician, he deals with examinations that have been scheduled long in advance. It wasn't a matter of inconvenience for him to appear, it was a matter of fact that if he were forced to take the time off he probably would have lost -- they would have had to cancel at least a day's worth, if not a whole week's worth of appointments -- THE COURT: Well, why isn't it unfair -- MR. HAYES: -- for people -- THE COURT: Why isn't it unfair to Mrs. Harshman? MR. HAYES: Well, Your Honor, why is it fair that she can basically filibuster my client for an entire afternoon? I put my direct on in two hours, and by the close of the trial date, by :00, she had not even completed her examination with him. She has also had time -- THE COURT: Well, I don't want to get too far off. The issue here is really about --

10 0 0 0 MR. HAYES: Well, you know, I mean, hey, we told you -- we fairly represented to you that we could do the trial in one day. We prepared to put on my client -- THE COURT: But you're getting -- I'm not -- MR. HAYES: -- in one day. THE COURT: -- I'm not trying to fault you for that, for not getting it done. But you did offer it, it was not admitted. You don't usually get another chance to run out and try to do it again. MR. HAYES: Well, most of the time people are not barred from presenting evidence -- THE COURT: You can make an offer of proof but you don't get a chance to go back and try to fix it. What if the evidence closed and -- MR. HAYES: Well, see, that's just it -- THE COURT: -- a decision entered? MR. HAYES: The evidence hasn't closed. THE COURT: It hasn't closed, but, I mean, there is -- the time delay has permitted you to try to cure something. That's really a minor issue, but I -- MR. HAYES: Yeah. The only thing that actually comes up and is presented by Rule 0() is that there is a requirement on us to provide her with reasonable notice of our intent to bring the exhibit. And as soon as those documents were available to us on July th, which was about three weeks

11 0 0 before we were supposed to reconvene, in conformity with Rule 0() we provided her with that notice, and we provided to her with copies of all of the attachments and unsigned copies of the certifications so she would be aware of what was being presented. Rule 0 requires reasonable notice; we have provided reasonable notice. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: And Counsel, at least according to the rules, that part is fair. THE COURT: And if she -- MR. HAYES: In terms of the volume, the -- we also provided right at the very first day, if not before -- I think before, actually, all of these documents are actually perfectly consistent with a summary or chalk or annual reports that were previously provided to her well before the last trial date. We provided copies of the annual accountings of the trustee, we provided a summary of all of the trusts put together in one spreadsheet. So the information contained therein has all been provided several months ago. The only change now is that we have -- and trust documents were provided I think in January, which was actually when we were supposed to reply with the documentation. It wasn't a year ago. Ms. Gilbert is to be excused if she doesn't know the timeline because I don't think she entered an appearance until sometime in December. And the --

12 0 0 THE COURT: Well -- MR. HAYES: -- brother Levine had got in November. So the only thing that's different now is we have -- the trust documents were produced and provided. Now there's a certification as to authentication, and why they're regularly kept records. The annual reports are being provided but they were provided before. Now they're covering certification, it takes care of the hearsay authentication issues. The one thing that's actually new is the Charles Schwab documentation, which in fact supports and is identical to the information that was previously provided. So there's no new information here, it's just the form in which it's being presented. They've -- THE COURT: Then we can exclude it because it's repetitive. Right? MR. HAYES: Well, no. No, because -- THE COURT: Why would we need it? MR. HAYES: Because -- THE COURT: There's no new information. MR. HAYES: Because, as the Court ruled with the trust document itself, even though that's a legal document that has, of course, an effect on its own, the Court considers that hearsay so therefore we needed to address the hearsay exception. THE COURT: Okay.

13 0 0 MR. HAYES: We have not offered the summaries yet, or the annual accountings for the same ruling. So the Court has never ruled on those. And what we're doing now is effectively substituting authenticated records for accountings that were previously identified, not offered, and not rejected, and a summary chalk of the accountings of all five trusts that likewise was not offered and was not rejected. And the summary chalk would still be used but we need to have admissible and into court the underlying document. So the information is all the same, the only difference is the Schwab investment records, which the Court suggested would be appropriate for credibility when we met in conference, and so we provided them. And I can -- now having seen them I can understand why the trust was so reluctant to actually provide them, because basically it has lost, like, 0 percent of its value over the last few years by betting on gold, and gold stocks, and mining stocks, that instead of appreciating, as was expected during the recession, you know, frankly tanked. THE COURT: Okay. I don't -- Mr. Hayes, I don't want a lot of testimony from you -- MR. HAYES: Okay. THE COURT: -- and that's a problem that is creeping into this case. MR. HAYES: Okay. But there is no new information except

14 0 0 for the Schwab. THE COURT: Well, then I'm not going -- well, you're offering today -- you're requesting a ruling on whether the trust investment -- the trust legal documents could then be admitted under 0(), right? What else -- and what is -- the Schwab investment accounts? MR. HAYES: Okay. There are -- THE COURT: No, just follow -- let me -- MR. HAYES: Yes. THE COURT: -- let me sort of drift in my own way of thinking -- MR. HAYES: Okay. Fine. THE COURT: -- just so I don't get confused. They're different documents, they're not part of the trust documents, or are they? MR. HAYES: The trust documents are the same as they were before. Only now they have been identified -- THE COURT: They're trust documents. Now, what's the investment accounts you're talking about? MR. HAYES: Okay. The second set are the annual reports. THE COURT: Did you offer those the last time? MR. HAYES: They were part of our package but they were not offered yet. THE COURT: And what rule are you offering them under now?

15 0 0 MR. HAYES: Okay. Again, these trust reports are documents that are required by law to be maintained by the trustee. And so -- THE COURT: So they're part of the trust legal documents? MR. HAYES: Well, no. What they are is they're financial, okay? The trust legal documents define the terms of the trust. THE COURT: Set up the trust? MR. HAYES: They set up the trust. THE COURT: Right. MR. HAYES: They define -- they identify the trustor, the beneficiaries, terms and conditions, and all of that. The next step are the actual accounting records on an annual basis for each of the five trusts -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: -- set up by the Harshmans -- THE COURT: Prepared by Schwab? MR. HAYES: No, the trustee prepares them. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: And in almost every case Schwab is the only outside investment company but there are some individual stocks that are now shown on the new spreadsheets. THE COURT: So these are documents prepared by a trustee who's not appearing in court to testify? MR. HAYES: Yes.

16 0 0 THE COURT: Is that right? MR. HAYES: And she's certified as custodian of the record. She's down in Florida. I can't subpoena her. THE COURT: I'm not going allow these records in. I agree with Ms. Gilbert that this is not an ordinary situation of business records coming in. 0() allows a party to object in court not to allow them to be entered under that provision and that's what I'm going to do. There's some real concern generated from the first day regarding these -- the funds that are being received by your client, his testimony that -- the dramatic decline of the funds, his testimony regarding his expectation of getting them in the future. These are all critical issues in dispute, and his sister is the trustee. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that she would be testifying about these issues. And if those documents were requested a year ago and they were not provided or objected to it's grossly unfair in my mind that you be allowed to introduce them now, while not producing the witness when her credibility is very much at issue here, as well as the whole issue of finances. That's really what this case is about, as you accurately discussed. And -- MR. HAYES: Again, if I may just correct that -- THE COURT: But there's a lot of issues regarding that trust that were raised in the first day of trial that makes her testimony, I think, very, very important for both of you.

17 0 0 And expecting to slide this in under -- without her here given the issues, you know, this family trust, that as I recall he's always received substantial sums from every year, has made plans on future expectation of income every year, and the sum issues here of credibility that are being raised, that bleed into this trustee's administration of the trust. And so I think just to present it under a 0 certification would not be fair given the issues that are at play here. So I'm not going to allow it. If you produce her as a witness and you offer them again through her as testifying, I probably will allow her to go forward and testify. Ms. Gilbert indicates she's not going to object and I probably am not going to stand in the way of you offering that through her. But I think her presence here for purposes of cross-examination regarding these documents are critical because this is a family trust that can be manipulated in certain ways that are not necessarily true in other scenarios. So I'm not going to allow it under that rule. MR. HAYES: Okay. I accept -- THE COURT: So we can go to the second issue. MR. HAYES: Yeah, I accept that. I would just note that the discovery was posed in November, not a year ago, and was objected to and never -- you know, so, I mean, it's not a discovery violation. But I accept your ruling on the 0.

18 0 0 THE COURT: Well -- right. MR. HAYES: Okay? The other issue, on June th we were ordered by the magistrate to update all of our discovery. It was in the pretrial order of -- excuse me, May th. THE COURT: It's the supplement and interrogatories -- MR. HAYES: Right. THE COURT: -- and document requests -- MR. HAYES: Yes. THE COURT: -- is what I think is -- right? MR. HAYES: Yeah. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HAYES: And the schedule got dramatically accelerated beyond what we expected on the th of May, I understand, because we ended up going to trial not on June, which was actually almost a week before even the June trial date. We did manage to provide supplemental materials to all of our discovery. I got some of the Defendant's discovery on the day before trial but there was a lot that was missing. And the -- so following the first day of trial I sent a detailed letter to Ms. Gilbert explaining what material specifically we had received, because there seemed to be some confusion on that, and what materials were obviously still missing and asked her to -- not for new discovery, which was what we discovered, which we talked about, you know, back in chambers, but simply to uphold her obligation under Rule in the May

19 0 0 order to fully supplement the prior discovery. A bunch of what was missing were recent credit card statements, which probably could have been reasonably provided with the download but weren't, and are only relevant simply for the biggest reason that long before we proposed our first discovery, which was in November, the Defendant has started a process of borrowing on property that is located down in Nantucket. We were given copies of appraisals the day before trial. They're each dated October 0. What we were not given is any of the loan documents or loan applications other than what was filed on record down in Nantucket, which frankly we had discovered on our own. In February the Defendant closed on a half million dollar loan from a bank in Nantucket and apparently received a large portion, if not all, of the half million dollars. But what she has failed to do is provide us with any updated bank account statements since November. That's the most recent that we've gotten. She had almost $0,000 in credit card debt. We don't know if, you know, maybe some of that has been paid off out of the half million dollars that she received. We don't know what she disclosed to the bank in her loan application identifying sources of income and other things that were -- would justify a bank loaning her a half million dollars. We don't know what happened to the money after the fact.

20 0 0 0 That material, that is very material, very relevant, and seems to have been intentionally withheld and is now still being resisted in terms of being produced even though it was very clearly requested six months before. So we are asking that, you know, that documentation as listed in that -- I think it was the June th letter -- be provided to us in advance on the next -- well, in advance, at least a week in advance, or a week kind of before the next trial date, which I guess we're going to set in about an hour, and so that we will have it in hand and have an opportunity to digest that material and use it when we examine the Defendant. THE COURT: So it looks like you're looking for the credit card statements, her loan documents on the / loan, and bank statements since November? MR. HAYES: Yes, and everything related to that, you know, loan package, which obviously for a loan this size would include not only the application -- there would probably be a commitment letter from the bank that would have, you know, a better explanation of what was going on. This may be some kind of construction loan for development of a property, I don't know, but the commitment loan would be there. There would be disclosure statements; there would be a settlement statement that would show, you know, everything else, particularly in terms of what happened to the money, to what extent its available for any purpose, et cetera. So the whole

21 0 0 loan package, and frankly under consumer protection laws Sheila's probably required to be given something that in all likelihood was between a half inch and an inch thick. THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Gilbert, on that issue? MS. GILBERT: Yes, thank you. First and foremost, I would -- with regards to the last issue I -- if the Court doesn't mind I'd like to just formally offer for purposes of today my request for documents related to the trust. They're very specific and they were sent back in February. I believe Mr. Levine's original request for November, so this is our second request for documents related to the trust, and I think that they're contrary to what was just stated. So if I could offer that up for the record, I'd be happy to do that. THE COURT: Mr. Hayes, have you seen this, before I look at it? MR. HAYES: No. MS. GILBERT: Do you need the date? February th. MR. HAYES: Yeah. I'm actually looking at it, Your Honor, and the -- it cites some pieces under Florida law which ask us to provide a complete copy of the trust instrument, which we did. It asks us to provide accountings, which we have prepared, and we did. And there were some that -- most of the questions actually dealt with the Mary H. Harshman 00 Irrevocable Family Trust by name, and there's actually five of them. So we provided fully everything that was requested.

22 0 0 There weren't any documents requested, for example -- let's see, the Harshman Family Trust, which was in, the Harshman Irrevocable Trust, or, you know, the Richard H. Harshman Irrevocable Trust. Everything was provided with regard to the Mary Harshman 00 Irrevocable Trust, nothing requested as to the Richard 000 Irrevocable Trust. We did end up providing them all of the accounting records and all the trust documents, whether they were requested or not. They did not request the underlying Schwab records, and frankly we didn't have them within our control. But if you look at the original package we submitted to the Court in terms of the trust documents and in terms of the accountings, those were all provided to her in advance of trial, whether she asked for them or not. MS. GILBERT: I mean, I think our request speaks for itself. It wasn't to complied with. I sent a Rule (g) letter specifically related to the transfer from the Schwab account. Mr. Hayes received that back on January th. The Plaintiff himself testified that he had no Schwab accounts at the interim hearing. We have that transcript as an exhibit for final trial. So it has been quite a struggle -- MR. HAYES: Your Honor -- MS. GILBERT: -- to get an assessment. And if I may finish, the Plaintiff originally disclosed three trusts to Mr. Levine. Later, in response to my request, he found an

23 0 0 additional two trusts that were then disclosed, making the grand total five at that point, which I believe is what he's saying he has -- his family has now. We have reason to believe that that's not accurate either, that there are in fact more than five trusts out there. So anyway, if the Court doesn't need it, that's fine, but I would like to perhaps rebut the statements made that we didn't ask for these things well in advance, because we did, multiple times. THE COURT: What part of this discovery record. MR. HAYES: Yeah, I don't mind. She asked for the three. He only received money from three of the trusts. That was provided then. The other two are actually of interest only because they borrowed money from the other trusts and lost it, and have to do with the overall value. MS. GILBERT: And then if I can address the supplemental request, it tracks our prior objection to some degree. I received a letter five days after the first day of trial was completed in which the Plaintiff for the first time asked for additional credit card statements, checking account statements, et cetera, and it's quite a lengthy letter. This again was five days after the trial had already begun. My reliance upon the Court's representation after the first day of trial that discovery was complete led me to the conclusion that my client, who already is struggling to pay her attorney's fees, should not go to the additional expense to

24 0 0 produce all of these other requested documents since the trial had already begun. THE COURT: Well, let me just -- let me see and make sure if I'm following. MS. GILBERT: Okay. THE COURT: So the items that Mr. Hayes is talking about have not previously been requested, or -- MS. GILBERT: There were -- so the letter that we received on June th references a slew of documents that we've produced that were perhaps I think either fuzzy, like they were PDFs and they were illegible in some way. So he references his need to have those resent, which we're happy to do. And then he also requests at this point for the first time credit card statements, checking account statements, and additional documents basically continuing through -- I think he wants everything through today. THE COURT: So that's not supplementing, you're saying, that's a new discovery? MS. GILBERT: On one hand I would think a part of the requests are new, and then I went back and I looked at Rule and the duty to supplement in general, because it's not something I've reviewed all that frequently. But the civil rules are pretty clear that if a party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made has no duty to supplement. And so again, it was kind of

25 0 0 a weird area since the trial had already started, we were receiving additional requests for things to happen and we just -- we didn't follow through with that because we didn't feel we had to at this point. So I guess to the extent, again, that there were any statements that were illegible, we're happy to get those to Mr. Hayes, but if he's requesting, you know, an additional three or four or five months' worth of credit card statements and checking account statements, that's going to be very difficult for us to do now if we're going to have trial next week. And I would -- I guess if the Court were inclined to make that order today I would ask that the Plaintiff have the correlating responsibility to then provide us with, you know, the past three months' worth of his credit card and checking account statements. Because -- again, because the trial had started it never occurred to me that I could even ask at this point in time -- THE COURT: Are they complete -- MS. GILBERT: -- for additional -- THE COURT: -- up until June? MR. HAYES: No. MS. GILBERT: Yes. MR. HAYES: No. MS. GILBERT: Well -- MR. HAYES: And if you actually look at page and of

26 0 0 my letter you will see what's missing, and for the most part there are large debts that predate June, as well -- MS. GILBERT: And I guess -- MR. HAYES: -- through all the documents with regard to the loan. The loan was closed in February. THE COURT: Did you ask -- when did you ask for the loan documents? MR. HAYES: In my first set I asked for all information with regard to mortgages, loans, et cetera. THE COURT: And when was that sent? MR. HAYES: That was November. And the -- and we got -- you know, basically we were told that there weren't any. And then we discovered, you know, not only that there was a loan closing for a half million in February, which I discovered only because I updated the title -- THE COURT: Okay. I understand. MR. HAYES: But it had -- THE COURT: Let me -- I'm just trying -- MR. HAYES: -- started back probably in September because of the October appraisals. MS. GILBERT: So I guess I'm left wondering why we need to have -- why there wasn't a discovery conference requested prior to the first day of trial and why again we're doing this midstream. I -- it's difficult. THE COURT: Well, I think he did -- Mr. Hayes, to be

27 0 0 fair, has talked about getting the loan documents at the last -- June, in June. It shouldn't be -- I wouldn't think it would be difficult to update the credit card statements to June. MS. GILBERT: We can certainly try. It's going to be tight if we're going next week. It's going to be tight. THE COURT: When you go next week -- MS. GILBERT: We're going to be -- THE COURT: -- yeah. MS. GILBERT: Thank you. Thank you. THE COURT: But she should have her credit card statements -- MS. GILBERT: We can certainly try. THE COURT: -- and it should be easily available. She should have them herself, I would think. MS. GILBERT: Correct. THE COURT: That makes sense. The loan documents -- so she has a package of what she received when she closed. MS. GILBERT: Right. THE COURT: That shouldn't be a burden to produce those. MS. GILBERT: Right. And we produced some -- THE COURT: But we're not -- you know, I'm not keeping this thing going -- MS. GILBERT: Yeah. THE COURT: -- for purposes of these issues. Bank

28 0 0 statements, those are usually routinely updated and I think the duty to supplement includes updating credit card statements, includes updating bank statements, because those all -- all those are important issues in the equitable distribution of property, and spousal support, attorney's fees, and to see what the person's financial picture is at the time of trial. And so the time of the trial fairly probably should be considered June st, just to have a clear-cut date. MR. HAYES: I have no objection to June being the cutoff date. And we did provide the information available then. I mean, in terms of a gap of time to request a discovery conference between when some of the documents were provided on May st and June st, I'm not sure, but that would have been credibly possible. But the purpose of page and -- THE COURT: The only issue -- MR. HAYES: -- of the letter is they outline exactly what we were looking for. THE COURT: So I'm assuming that credit card statements, bank statements, and loans -- loan information had previously been requested. I do think there's a duty to supplement those requests, assuming they're ongoing -- you know, continuing to incur credit card debt or statements. So I read the rule that way as opposed to a transaction, the one-time transaction that's been responded to. There's no need to say there's been

29 0 0 a lot of transactions, but these are ongoing statements regarding accounts that have been inquired about. So I'm going to ask Defendant -- order Defendant to update credit card statements and bank statements through June. They shouldn't take a lot of time to look at, will they? I don't see any reason to delay trial. I would -- I'm not -- I'll be calling the docket at, but looking at -- preliminarily looking at Peoples' request for protections and given the requirements of hearing the PC cases as priority, that I would expect, unless changes between now and the end of the day, that your case is going to be Friday, at the end of the last -- end of the week. MR. HAYES: We did talk beforehand, and given the pace of the first day it may require more than one day. THE COURT: No. You're going to finish -- you get one day. MS. GILBERT: Okay. THE COURT: You should plan accordingly. No is a soft no, but I would -- I'm expecting this to conclude and I would urge you to do what you need to streamline the presentation of exhibits to meet that goal. But we need to sort of kick this up a little bit. MR. HAYES: Yeah. THE COURT: Because it'll just get delayed another month. MR. HAYES: Yeah. For point of clarity what I'm really

30 0 0 0 looking for is on pages and of that June th letter. So if -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to try clarifying more than I'm doing right now. And if there's any questions, then please let me know, but what I'm ordering is Defendants to update credit card statements and bank statements through June. MS. GILBERT: And could I ask that there be a reciprocal duty for the Plaintiff to do the same, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MR. HAYES: I believe that we've done it. THE COURT: I'm -- yeah, I'm assuming you've been doing that -- MR. HAYES: Yes. THE COURT: -- supplementing, right? MR. HAYES: Uh-huh. We did it before trial. THE COURT: So you've provided everything through June? MR. HAYES: As far as I know. I haven't heard to the contrary. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: And we did it, frankly, the prior week. THE COURT: Okay. So parties to update credit card statements and bank statements through June, and Defendant shall produce all documents pertaining to the / loan, okay? Now, assuming your case is heard on Friday, and given the

31 0 0 short timeframe -- this is Tuesday -- do you think you could do it by Monday or Tuesday of next week? MS. GILBERT: I'm sorry, Your Honor? THE COURT: Monday or Tuesday of next week? MS. GILBERT: For the -- THE COURT: Produce these documents? MS. GILBERT: Oh, yes. Yeah. We will certainly do our best. MR. HAYES: Most of these documents should be available for download. I mean, it will certainly create a cleaner -- THE COURT: Right. MR. HAYES: -- copy. THE COURT: Uh-huh. Good. So by August. Okay. Have we covered the bases we needed to cover today? MR. HAYES: Yes. MS. GILBERT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: Yeah, given your pronouncement, Friday you want us here for call of the docket too? THE COURT: I have your protections, and -- MR. HAYES: Yeah, mine was August st; hers was for the first three days of her list. THE COURT: Probably not going to be August st because I have the PC case I really probably should address. I don't think you necessarily need to be here unless you want to make

32 0 sure that I don't -- MR. HAYES: Well, if you think it's going -- THE COURT: -- make a left turn and give you Monday, but I don't intend to. I really -- MR. HAYES: Yeah. I mean -- THE COURT: Something might come up that requires -- MR. HAYES: Well, then I'll wait. THE COURT: But I really will expect yours is going to be Friday at this point MR. HAYES: Yeah. Well, I'll wait -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HAYES: -- and see if there are surprises. THE COURT: All right. Very good. Thank you. THE COURT OFFICER: All rise. (Proceedings concluded at :0 p.m.) 0

33 CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing, pages through, is a true transcript of a CD recorded on Tuesday, July, 0, at the Knox County District Court located at Rockland, Maine, of the case entitled, EDWARD HARSHMAN V. SHEILA HARSHMAN, to the best of my professional skills and abilities. October, 0 0 Joseph Janowiak Court-Approved Transcriber 0