EXHIBIT C
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
State ex rel. STILWELL ASSOCIATES, L.P., ) Case No. 01-02-01777
)
Plaintiff, ) AFFIDAVIT OF NANCIE POTTER ARELLANO
) IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
vs. ) TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
)
CHARLES HENRY ROUSE, )
)
Defendant. )
STATE OF OREGON )
)SS.
County of Multnomah )
I, Nancie Potter Arellano, being first duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am one of the attorneys for defendant Charles Henry Rouse ("Rouse").
The facts stated below are based upon my personal knowledge or upon my personal
review of records maintained by my office in the regular course of business.
2. Throughout this case I have discussed with John Neupert, counsel for
relator Stilwell Associates, L.P., ("Stilwell") my sense that his client's
allegation that Rouse moved to Portland before the end of 2000 has absolutely no
basis in fact. I told Mr. Neupert that I would need to depose Stilwell's
principal, Joseph Stilwell, on this subject. In fact, we discussed the matter at
some length, with Mr. Neupert insisting that his client should not have to come
to Portland to be deposed because "he doesn't know any facts about the case"; as
best I recall, this is a highly accurate paraphrase if not a completely accurate
quotation. Mr. Neupert told me that his client had relied upon an investigation
done by his New York lawyer, Mr. Neupert's co-counsel, Spencer Schneider, for
the allegations in the Complaint. As best I recall, he also told me that I
should first depose the private investigator, because then I would realize that
I would not need to depose Mr. Stilwell himself.
Page 1
3. At my request, Stilwell produced the investigator, Max Whittington, for
a deposition. Selected excerpts from Mr. Whittington's testimony under oath are
attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 1. The testimony reveals that the only
basis for Mr. Whittington's conclusion that Rouse moved from Baker City to
Portland before the end of 2000 was a telephone conversation he had in January,
2001 with "Sheryl at the [Oregon] Tourism Board" that gave him the "impression"
that Rouse had moved to Portland in December before leaving for a vacation in
Australia, but he "couldn't say that for sure." (Whittington Depo., p. 23,
lines10-14; p. 24, line 18- p. 25, line 8; p. 25, line 17; p. 26, line 3.) Mr.
Whittington did not even make a note about this subject, although he was
specifically trying to determine when Rouse moved to Portland. (Id., p. 21,
lines 14-17; p. 24, lines 18-25; p.27, lines 11-15.)
4. All of the documentary evidence produced by Rouse confirms that he moved
to Portland in January, 2001, after he returned from his vacation. His fellow
Oregon Trail Financial Corp. directors have all been deposed, and not one of
them testified that Rouse moved to Portland before January, 2001.
5. Immediately after Mr. Whittington left his May 16, 2001 deposition I
remarked to Mr. Neupert that I found it hard to believe that he had filed the
Complaint and continued to press the case if Mr. Whittington's testimony was the
sole basis for the allegation that Rouse moved to Portland in December, 2000.
Mr. Neupert told me that there was at least one more witness, but that he would
not identify the witness or give me any other information because that was part
of "Spencer's investigation file." On May 22, 2001 I served a formal request
upon Stilwell for the production of "Spencer Schneider's investigation file."
Page 2
6. The May 22 request (Defendant's second formal request) also includes a
request for documents regarding fact witnesses or, in the alternative, a list of
such witnesses. Mr. Neupert and I had previously agreed that I would not have to
formally request the documents or the list, and that he would produce them in
response to an informal request. I confirmed this agreement in a letter sent to
Mr. Neupert by facsimile on April 19. A true copy of the letter is attached to
this affidavit as Exhibit 2. I only served the formal request in May because Mr.
Neupert did not respond to the April 19 letter.
7. A true copy of Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents is
attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3. I do not have a copy of a formal
response in my file.
8. A true copy of Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents is
attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 4.
9. A true copy of Relator's Response to Defendant's Second Request for
Production of Documents is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 5.
10. Mr. Neupert has repeatedly advised me that his client does not know
anything about the facts underlying his lawsuit except for what the client has
been told by Mr. Schneider.
/s/ Nancie Potter Arellano
---------------------------------
Nancie Potter Arellano
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of June, 2001.
/s/ Lillian E. Erwin
---------------------------------
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission Expires: 09/17/01
