EDA counsel accuses Tran/ITFederal defense of withholding requested documents – But motion for immediate production of missing material denied

A motions hearing in the civil liability case of the “Warren Economic Development Authority” versus Truc “Curt” Tran and his ITFederal company began Monday afternoon, July 18, with plaintiff accusations of a willful withholding of defense evidence regarding ITFederal bank records. EDA attorney Karrisa Kaseorg told Judge Bruce D. Albertson that an ongoing effort to acquire missing records indicated by exhibit numbers of materials provided by the defense peaked over the last month to two months.

Consequently, she asked that defense counsel Gregory Melus provide what the plaintiff believes are those withheld materials “by midnight tonight”. Melus told the court that he personally had responded to all inquiries he directly had seen. However, he noted five to six attorneys and paralegals working on the case, adding that having been, like the court, “ambushed” by the short-term request for the allegedly withheld material, he did not know if the by-the-end-of-the-day plaintiff request could be met.

Judge Albertson worried that with jury selection slated for Thursday, and opening arguments and evidence anticipated to start Friday, that the plaintiff request would require a continuation of the start of the trial.

“We’re not asking for a continuance,” Kaseorg replied, “we want to see the documents.” Plaintiff counsel said they had no indication from the defense that the requested documents were subject to withholding as “privileged” information.

“Mr. Tran and the defense have known this was big problem for over a month … and we have been looking for a good faith settlement,” Kaseorg told the court observing she did not put the problem entirely on Melus’s shoulders. “I agree with Mr. Melus – we are looking down the barrel of 19,000 documents,” she said noting that if it was going to be such a problem the defense team could have communicated that on June 1 when the recent round of plaintiff requests began.

After hearing both sides’ explanation of the pre-trial predicament over about 35 minutes, Judge Albertson read some material while considering a decision. Citing the lateness of the plaintiff motion related to the scheduled start of the trial, he denied the motion for an immediate production of the missing material, with the plaintiff’s exception to the ruling noted. Asked if he also was denying the related motion to “compel” production of certain evidence, the judge responded, “Yes, it’s too close to trial … This should have been done earlier.”

Judge Albertson then denied a defense motion asking that material related to “other business enterprises” of Mr. Tran be withheld as not relevant to his EDA dealings. As previously reported by Royal Examiner, during a July 8 motions hearing on this case Judge Albertson noted he had previously expressed some “skepticism” about the defense objection to EDA evidence about Tran and his company’s use of portions of the $12 million it received in two loans related to proposed development here, primarily at the Avtex/Royal Phoenix Business Park site in Front Royal, for other business ventures in Alexandria or elsewhere. The EDA’s compensatory claim is for approximately $9 million, as Tran has kept current on his $40,000-plus a month loan payments over several years.

The EDA contends Tran acquired the EDA loans fraudulently and conspired with then-EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald in doing so. Disputed evidence cited also related to EDA involvement in development of a Criminal Justice Academy and Tran’s Front Royal Farms plan, neither of which came to fruition along with the failed Avtex site business proposal.

Our own local ‘road to nowhere’ – as the smaller than originally proposed ITFederal building, to left on a 30-acre developmental parcel valued publicly at $2.1 million, gifted behind closed doors to ITFed for one dollar to ‘jump-start Avtex redevelopment’ remains empty 7 years later and without a required Town occupancy permit.

Also as previously reported, Tran’s counterclaim appears to revolve around the contention he was taken advantage of by McDonald, and that the EDA Board of Directors at the time should have identified the alleged financial improprieties McDonald is now accused of by the EDA prior to Tran’s involvement. Pointing to a primary disputed aspect of the EDA-Tran/ITFed counterclaims of liability, Judge Albertson observed, “If he’s part of a conspiracy with McDonald, he’s not a victim of the negligent contention.”

And following what is slated to be a two-day trial in the EDA versus William Lambert civil liability case, and one day of jury selection for the EDA vs. Tran and any further motions, we will see the two sides begin their presentations on their respective “roadmaps” of what transpired between McDonald, Tran, ITFederal, and the EDA in the single largest compensatory damages civil case related to the FR-WC EDA financial scandal.