Drama in the Rossi V. Darden Case

A recent transcript of a discovery hearing in the Rossi et al. V. Darden et al. case from March 9, 2017 proved to be very informative. The magistrate is clearly rankled with the attorney’s bickering and in a revealing comment, Mr. Pace, for the defendants answered “probably not” when the magistrate asked if they were never going to settle the case. Mr. Pace also predicted a 2-3 week trial this summer. IH and Darden seem very committed to proving Rossi defrauded them and/or breached the agreement they had.

THE COURT: All right. Good.
You guys are never going to settle this case, huh?
MR. PACE: Probably not.
THE COURT: How long is this case going to take to try?
MR. PACE: A couple of weeks.
THE COURT: Really?
MR. PACE: Yes. Two, three weeks.

Rossi and Leonardo lost a tactical battle to disclose to the defendant’s attorneys two deposit transactions into Leonardo Corporation that the plaintiff’s are maintaining are irrelevant to the case. The magistrate upheld an agreement among the parties that will allow these transactions to be revealed for attorney’s eyes only. We may never know who this mystery financier is, but Rossi’s attorney tried very hard to conceal it.

THE COURT: And why is this so sensitive that he
cannot — I mean, why are we spending twenty minutes on this
thing? Why don’t you just show it to them and they will say,
okay, it’s not relevant.
MR. ANNESSER: Your Honor, our company works with
certain parties that has nothing to do with this license
agreement and nothing to do with anything at issue in this
case.

Rossi also lost in a bid to keep his tax records concealed. There is a lot of Internet discussion about Rossi’s purported tax issues in Italy and his agreement with IH made this a condition of their agreement – that Rossi must pay his taxes – so this may come to bearing on this case as well.

THE COURT: All right. I am going to require that tax
returns be provided for attorney’s eyes. It’s alleged in the
complaint. Not even a defense really saying there was a prior
breach. So because of the prior breach serves as a defense to
Plaintiff’s breach because the contract was already breached.

Read the full transcript here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *