## Response to Amway's Motion to Unseal My Deposition

    January 14, 1998

    VIA UPS OVERNIGHT

    Hon. Ronald N. Boyce
    U.S. District Court for the
     District of Utah, Central Division
    350 South Main Street
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

    Re: Procter & Gamble v. Haugen, et al.
        Case No. 95-CV-0094 S
        Our File No. 704679-2

    Dear Judge Boyce:

    I represent Sidney Schwartz, who is the subject of a motion filed with you
    by Amway's counsel in Procter & Gamble, et al. v. Randy L. Haugen, et al,
    Case No. 95-CV-0094 S on December 19, 1997. The motion was not served on me
    or Mr. Schwartz when it was filed and was only very recently sent to me by
    Amway's counsel, Timothy Q. Delaney.

    Mr. Schwartz cannot afford to be represented in the Utah proceeding. He has
    therefore asked me to set forth his position in this letter. This
    communication is in the nature of a special appearance because we do not
    believe Mr. Schwartz is subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in
    Utah and we do not wish to waive that position.

    Mr. Schwartz's involvement in this proceeding stems from a subpoena issued
    from the United States District Court in Oregon and served upon Mr. Schwartz
    at his Oregon residence.

    Mr. Schwartz objected to the subpoena served upon him as permitted under
    FRCP 45 for a number of reasons, including that he had been engaged by
    Procter & Gamble as an expert not expected to testify at trial. Judge Malcom
    Marsh of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
    permitted the deposition to proceed on a limited basis. A portion of that
    deposition is enclosed for your ease of reference (Enclosure No. 1). Amway's
    counsel offered and was instructed to limit the inquiry of Mr. Schwartz to
    matters related to Amway's claim that Procter & Gamble used Mr. Schwartz in
    a disparagement campaign against Amway (Schwartz Depo at 12-13, 15-16, 17-
    19).

    At the conclusion of the deposition, Amway was permitted to have its
    computer expert, EED, make a copy of the hard drive from Mr. Schwartz's
    computer for the purpose of retrieving e-mail communications between Mr.
    Schwartz and Procter & Gamble's outside counsel (Schwartz Depo at 196-201).
    Mr. Schwartz deleted that and other e-mail from his computer as a matter of
    routine (Schwartz Depo at 23-29).

    Amway's computer experts turned over the fruits of the search of Mr.
    Schwartz's hard drive to Judge Jones in December. They retained the copy of
    Mr. Schwartz's hard drive, contrary to the agreement between counsel
    (Enclosure No. 2). Mr. Delaney represented that EED would either return the
    copy of Mr. Schwartz's hard drive to him or destroy it after completing its
    search (Delaney letter of September 24, 1997, Enclosure No. 2). I confirmed
    that the copy should be returned to Mr. Schwartz in my letter of September
    25, 1997 to Mr. Delaney (Enclosure No. 2).

    United States District Judge Robert E. Jones, in his December 19, 1997
    letter to counsel and to Amway's computer expert (Enclosure No. 3) directed
    that the printout of the data from Mr. Schwartz's hard drive be submitted to
    you for review. He further directed that Amway return the copy of Mr.
    Schwartz's hard drive to him within ten days of December 19, 1997. Judge
    Jones permitted Amway's counsel to apply to the Utah court for an expedited
    order "* * * if Amway has reasons pertinent to the underlying lawsuit for
    retaining the hard drive for further investigation * * *".

    The motion Amway's counsel filed in Utah has very little to do with Judge
    Jones' instruction. The only stated justification for retention of Mr.
    Schwartz's hard drive is the false and irresponsible charge that Mr.
    Schwartz "destroyed evidence" called for by subpoena. Amway's counsel
    withdrew its April subpoena shortly after Mr. Schwartz objected to it. The
    later subpoena was substantially limited by agreement. Mr. Schwartz, as a
    matter of routine, deleted e-mails from his computer, all e-mails, not just
    those between him and Procter & Gamble's counsel (Schwartz Depo at 23-30).
    Those e-mails have now presumably been retrieved by EED and that is all EED
    was permitted to do with Mr. Schwartz's hard drive. The copy should now be
    returned to him.

    Now Amway's counsel is asking the Utah court to permit discovery of Mr.
    Schwartz the Oregon court prohibited, such as telephone records not related
    to communications between Mr. Schwartz and Procter & Gamble or its
    representatives or lawyers. It is asking the Utah court to authorize the
    issuance of subpoenas against Mr. Schwartz, an Oregon resident, with respect
    to cases in which the Utah court has not interest or involvement. The
    grotesque impropriety of this request can be swiftly demonstrated by a
    reading of FRCP 45.

    This statement of Mr. Schwartz's position is intended as a special
    appearance for the limited purpose of partially responding to the motion
    directed against Mr. Schwartz without notice to him and not as a submission
    to the personal jurisdiction of the Utah court.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Very truly yours,

    O. Meredith Wilson, Jr.