Case 1:16-cv CMA Document Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 1 of 14. Exhibit 14

Similar documents
Case 1:16-cv CMA Document Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 304 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2017 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 257 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 1:16-cv CMA/O Sullivan

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 126 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 276 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2016 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 16-cv CMA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 319 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2017 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 296 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASES

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2016 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2016 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

I. NATURE OF ACTION l. ROSSI is the sole inventor of a revolutionary low energy nuclear reactor, popularly CIVIL COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 7

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/03/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:11-cv CMA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2015 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:17-cv JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2017 Page 1 of 11

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 203 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2017 Page 1 of 39

Case 9:18-cv DMM Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2018 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv MGC Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2018 Page 1 of 21

Case 0:13-cv JIC Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2017 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:18-cv JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2018 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2014 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:16-cv RNS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2016 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

Case 1:08-cv CMA Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff

Case 9:14-cv DMM Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv CMA Document 303 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2017 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Doc 65 Filed 11/08/17 Entered 11/08/17 14:21:15 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case LMI Doc 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 10. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:11-cv JEM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:11-cv RNS Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Number: CIV-MARTINEZ-GOODMAN DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS YOUR YELLOW PAGES. INC., CITY PAGES. INC..

Case 1:16-cv FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2016 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 2926 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2014 Page 1 of 2

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2017 Page 1 of 4

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case 0:13-cv JIC Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

Case 9:03-cv KAM Document 2795 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2014 Page 1 of 8

[FORM OF FINAL DISMISSAL ORDER] UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv FAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:17-mc XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2017 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO.: 3D LT. CASE NO.: CA-13

Case 0:13-cv MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2013 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:08-cv CMA Document 71-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2008 Page 1 of 12 6/16/2008 Sancho, Ion

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

PlainSite. Legal Document. Florida Southern District Court Case No. 1:13-cv Lardner v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. Document 42.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

Plaintiff, Defendant. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1. The following responses are without in any way waiving or intending to waive:

HOROWITZ LAW GROUP PLLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case 0:12-cv WJZ Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/13/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

mew Doc 913 Filed 07/14/17 Entered 07/14/17 17:16:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 16

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

jmp Doc 285 Filed 12/12/11 Entered 12/12/11 14:52:44 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.

Case 9:14-cv WPD Document 251 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv DPG Document 509 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2018 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 2:09-cv KMM Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2010 Page 1 of 9

Case 6:05-cv ACC-DAB Document 56 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Plaintiffs P & S Associates, General Partnership ( P&S ), S & P Associates, General

rdd Doc 381 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 17:18:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 27

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Chapter 11

Case 8:17-cv EAK-JSS Document 114 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2433 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No.:

Case 0:12-cv WJZ Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2017 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA. The Honorable Judge Terri-Ann Miller, by and through undersigned

Case 1:16-cv DPG Document 318 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:18-cv DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2018 Page 1 of 33

Case 1:11-cv MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2011 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:16-cv RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2016 Page 1 of 3

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION., ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant.

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SCl3-1934

FILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 08/15/ :34 AM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/15/2017 EXHIBIT F

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/ :50 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2017. Exhibit A

Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2014 Page 1 of 15

Case 0:13-cv MGC Document 77-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2015 Page 1 of 55 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016

Transcription:

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 1 of Exhibit

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 2 of ANDREA ROSSI, et al., v. Plaintiffs, THOMAS DARDEN, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1:16-CV-21199-CMA/O Sullivan Defendants, / LEONARDO CORPORATION AND ANDREA ROSSI S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT INDUSTRIAL HEAT, LLC S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO LEONARDO CORPORATION AND ANDREA ROSSI Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi ( Rossi ) and Leonardo Corporation ( Leonardo ) (collectively, Plaintiffs ), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, and 36, hereby respond to Defendant Industrial Heat s First Request for Admissions to Leonardo Corporation and Andrea Rossi as follows: I. PREMLIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiffs provide these responses and objections ( Responses ) without waiving any objections as to the admissibility in evidence of these Responses, the information produced pursuant to, or referenced in, these Responses, or the subject matter of the Request or of the information produced pursuant to, or referenced in these Responses. Plaintiffs Responses are also subject to and without waiver of: (i) the right to object to other Discovery directed to the subject matter of the Request or Responses; (ii) the right to make additional objections or to seek protective orders; and (iii) the right to revise, correct, add to, or clarify the Responses or information referred to below in accordance with all applicable rules.

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 3 of Plaintiffs Responses are based upon the information and documents acquired and reviewed to date, which may or may not be inclusive of all documents relevant to the matters in dispute in this case. Accordingly, the present response is offered without prejudice to supplementation or modification at a later date. II. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION RESPONSE REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that You did not test the Six Cylinder Unit that is the subject of the Proposed Second Amendment during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs admit that the Guaranteed Performance Test was carried out using the 1MW Unit. Plaintiffs deny the remainder of Request No. 1. REQUEST NO. 2: Admit that You have provided a sample or samples of the E-Cat fuel to, or allowed a sample or samples of the E-Cat fuel to be taken by, one or more of the scientists who prepared the Lugano Report. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 2. REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that on at least one occasion during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test, the 1MW Unit was shut down for mechanical repairs. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 3. REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that You have not filed within the time prescribed by law or regulations and paid all taxes required by any jurisdiction, subdivision or agency on the $1.5 million payment made to You by Industrial Heat under the License Agreement. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 4 on the grounds that the request is vague as to what is meant by time prescribed by law or regulations. Taxes can be filed by April 15, by extension, or by any number of various times prescribed by law or regulation. Plaintiffs are 2

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 4 of unable to determine to which date Industrial Heat, LLC s request refers. Moreover, the request is vague in that it is unclear whether Defendant refers to payment of taxes on the full $1.5 million or only the portion on which payment of taxes was required. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiffs deny Request No. 4. REQUEST NO. 5: Admit that You have not filed within the time prescribed by law or regulations and paid all taxes required by any jurisdiction, subdivision or agency on the $10 million payment made to You by Industrial Heat under the License Agreement. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 5 on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by time prescribed by law or regulations. Taxes can be paid by April 15, by extension, or by any number of times prescribed by law or regulation. Plaintiffs are unable to determine to which date Industrial Heat, LLC s request refers. Moreover, the request is vague in that it is unclear whether Defendant refers to payment of taxes on the full $10 million or only the portion on which payment of taxes was required. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Plaintiffs deny Request No. 5. REQUEST NO. 6: Request No. 6 is omitted from Industrial Heat, LLC s First Request for Admissions and, as such, no response is provided thereto. REQUEST NO. 7: Admit that You have not transferred or disclosed all the E-Cat IP to either Industrial Heat or IPH. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 7. REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that You caused either J.M. Products, Inc. or J.M. Chemical Products, Inc. to be created. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 8 on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by caused. Plaintiffs admit that, on behalf of the beneficial owners of J.M. Products, 3

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 5 of Inc. and/or J.M. Chemical Products, Inc., Plaintiffs provided direction to Henry Johnson to file the necessary documents with the State of Florida. REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that Rossi represented to the Fire and Rescue Department with jurisdiction over the Doral Location that Rossi was the owner or representative of J.M. Products. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 9. REQUEST NO. 10: Admit that since October 26, 2012, You have sold or proposed to sell E-Cat Products to Persons in the territory covered by the License Agreement other than Industrial Heat or IPH. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 10. REQUEST NO. 11: Admit that You have disclosed information about the E-Cat fuel to Norman Cook without a modification to the License Agreement allowing you to disclose information about the E-Cat fuel to Norman Cook. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 11. Any and all disclosures made to Norman Cook were made with the knowledge, consent and encouragement of Defendants. REQUEST NO. 12: Admit that since October 26, 2012, You have designed or developed E-Cat Products in the territory covered by the License Agreement with Persons other than Industrial Heat or IPH. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 12 on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by with Persons. Plaintiffs have had others assist with the design and development of E-Cat Products, but such persons acted under non-disclosure agreements and not for the benefit of anyone other than Defendants within the territory covered by the License Agreement. 4

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 6 of REQUEST NO. 13: Admit that You never had a meeting with the Health Office of Ferrara, Italy during which You were told that Validation testing could not be performed in accordance with the Validation Protocol. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 13. REQUEST NO. : Admit that You manipulated a test of the E-Cat performed for Hydrofusion. Plaintiffs object to Request No. on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by manipulated. Definitions of manipulate range from handle or control to control or influence cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously. It is unclear which definition Plaintiffs should apply. REQUEST NO. 15: Admit that at the time the Term Sheet was executed, your representation to Industrial Heat that J.M. Products was a real Customer in the Chemical Industry that had a need for the steam power the 1MW Unit could produce to process [its] chemical products was a false representation. See 3rd Amended AACT, Ex. 16. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 15. REQUEST NO. 16 Admit at the time you drafted the email contained in Ex. 16 to the 3rd Amended AACT, Your representation to Industrial Heat that there was a real Customer in the Chemical Industry that had a need for the steam power the 1MW Unit could produce to process [its] chemical products was a false representation. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 16. REQUEST NO. 17: Admit that You have posted comments on Internet articles or blogs discussing the E-Cat using names other than Andrea Rossi, AR, Andrea, Rossi or Dr. Rossi. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 17. 5

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 7 of REQUEST NO. 18: Admit that Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire at some point has been a party to the License Agreement. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 18. REQUEST NO. 19: Admit that AmpEnergo, Inc. has never executed the Proposed Second Amendment. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 19. REQUEST NO. 20: Admit that Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire assigned the License Agreement to You without Industrial Heat or IPH s prior written consent. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 20 in part. Leonardo Corporation has not assigned the License Agreement, although Leonardo Corporation of Florida retains interest in the License Agreement as the result of a merger of the two entities. REQUEST NO. 21: Admit that Andrea Rossi owned Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire in 2013. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 21. REQUEST NO. 22: Admit that Andrea Rossi no longer owned Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire in 20. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 22. REQUEST NO. 23: Admit that Andrea Rossi has never owned Leonardo Corporation of Florida. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 23. 6

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 8 of REQUEST NO. 24: Admit that the measurements conducted by Penon in connection with Validation did not comply with each requirement in the Validation Protocol. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 24 on the grounds that it is misleading. The Validation Protocol to which the request refers was modified by agreement of the parties and, as such, Request No. 24 is denied. REQUEST NO. 25: Admit that since October 26, 2012, Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire at some point has not been an active entity in New Hampshire. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 25. REQUEST NO. 26: Admit that since October 26, 2012, You have filed at least one Patent Application relating to the Licensed Patents in the territory covered by the License Agreement without informing Industrial Heat or IPH in advance. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 26. REQUEST NO. 27: Admit that since October 26, 2012, You have abandoned at least one Patent Application relating to the Licensed Patents without Industrial Heat or IPH s prior written consent. Plaintiffs admit that they did not pursue the Patent Applications made and/or submitted without Plaintiffs authorization, including those designating T. Barker Dameron as co-inventor. REQUEST NO. 28: Admit that the operation of the 1MW Unit that you claim to be Guaranteed Performance began over one (1) year after the 1MW Unit was delivered to Industrial Heat in North Carolina. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 28. 7

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 9 of REQUEST NO. 29: Admit that prior to executing the Term Sheet, You represented to Industrial Heat or IPH that J.M. Products was a subsidiary or affiliate of Johnson Matthey. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 29. REQUEST NO. 30: Admit that Your representation to Industrial Heat or IPH that J.M. Products was a subsidiary or affiliate of Johnson Matthey was false. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 30 for lack of predicate. No such representation was made by Plaintiffs. REQUEST NO. 31: Admit that You denied Joseph Murray access to the Doral Location in July 2015. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 31 as phrased. Plaintiffs admit that Andrea Rossi informed Defendants that Joseph Murray was not welcome to visit the Doral Location at that time. REQUEST NO. 32: Admit that during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test You prohibited Industrial Heat or IPH from accessing the area of the Doral Location where J.M. Products purportedly operated. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 32. REQUEST NO. 33: Admit that during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test You control the portion of the Doral Location occupied by J.M. Products. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 33 on the grounds that the request is vague as to what is meant by control. Plaintiffs admit that Andrea Rossi controlled the portion of the Doral Location occupied by J.M. Products with respect to access thereto. Plaintiffs deny that Leonardo Corporation maintained any such control. 8

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 10 of REQUEST NO. 34: Admit that during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test You could have allowed Industrial Heat or IPH to have access to the portion of the Doral Location occupied by J.M. Products. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 34. REQUEST NO. 35: Admit that neither Industrial Heat nor IPH ever agreed to modify in writing the Guaranteed Performance test start date. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 35. REQUEST NO. 36: Admit that You did not commence the Guaranteed Performance Test in 2013. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 36. REQUEST NO. 37: Admit that You did not commence the Guaranteed Performance Test in 20. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 37. REQUEST NO. 38: Admit that certain steam traps installed by T. Barker Dameron at the Triangle Drive Facility to be used with the 1MW Unit were not used with the 1MW Unit during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 38 REQUEST NO. 39: Admit that there was no flow meter or flow rate sensor on the pipe designed to carry steam from the 1MW Unit to the J.M. Products side of the Doral Location during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 39. 9

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 11 of REQUEST NO. 40: Admit that there was no operational flow meter or flow rate sensor on the pipe designed to carry steam from the 1MW Unit to the J.M. Products side of the Doral Location during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 40 REQUEST NO. 41: Admit that there was no flow rate sensor on the return line from the J.M. Products side of the Doral Location to the 1MW Unit during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 41. REQUEST NO. 42: Admit that there was no flow meter or flow rate sensor on the piping between the 1MW Unit s feed water tank and E-Cat heater tank during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs admit Request No. 42. REQUEST NO. 43: Admit that the pressure on the 1MW Unit s output steam line that was routed to J.M. Products had a continuously zero (0) pressure gauge. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 43 on the grounds that the request is vague as to what is meant by continuously zero (0) pressure gauge. To the extent Defendants refer to the report of Fabio Penon, Plaintiffs state that the report speaks for itself and Plaintiffs are otherwise without personal knowledge. REQUEST NO. 44: Admit that the pressure on the 1MW Unit s output steam line that was routed to J.M. Products was reported as continuously zero (0) pressure gauge. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 44 on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by reported. To the extent Defendants refer to the report of Fabio Penon, Plaintiffs state that the report speaks for itself. 10

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 12 of REQUEST NO. 45: Admit that the 1MW Unit was not configured to provide the ability to continuously monitor or automatically control the water level in the E-Cat heater tank during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs deny Request No. 45. REQUEST NO. 46: Admit that no record was made of the observed, rather than estimated, amount of water introduced into the E-Cat heater tank during the purported Guaranteed Performance Test. Plaintiffs object to Request No. 46 on the grounds that it is vague as to what is meant by introduced into the E-Cat heater tank. Notwithstanding such objection, and without waiving the same, Plaintiffs state that the flowmeter measured from the J.M. Products side. Dated: February 27, 2017. Respectfully submitted, /s/brian W. Chaiken John W. Annesser, Esq. (FBN 98233) jannesser@pbyalaw.com Brian Chaiken, Esq. (FBN 118060) bchaiken@pbyalaw.com D. Porpoise Evans, Esq. (FBN 576883) pevans@pbyalaw.com 283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305.377.0086 Facsimile: 305.377.0781 Counsel for Plaintiffs, Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation 11

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page 13 of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served in the manner specified below on February 27, 2017 on all counsel or parties of record on the attached Service List. /s/brian W. Chaiken Brian W. Chaiken 12

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 207- Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2017 Page of SERVICE LIST Christopher R.J. Pace, Esq. (FBN 721166 cpace@jonesday.com Christopher M. Lomax, Esq. (FBN 56220) clomax@jonesday.com Christina T. Mastrucci, Esq. (FBN 113013) cmastrucci@jonesday.com Erika S. Handelson, Esq. (FBN 91133) ehandelson@jonesday.com JONES DAY 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 - and - Bernard P. Bell, Esq. (PHV) bellb@millerfriel.com MILLER FRIEL, PLLC 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Defendants, Darden, Vaughn, Industrial Heat, LLC, IPH Int l B.V., and Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC Service via: E-Mail Francisco J. León de la Barra, Esq. (FBN 105327) fleon@acg-law.com Fernando S. Arán, Esq. (FBN 349712) faran@acg-law.com ARÁN CORREA & GUARCH, P.A. 255 University Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants, JMP, Johnson, and Bass Service via: E-Mail Rodolfo Nuñez, Esq. (FBN 016950) rnunez@acg-law.com RODOLFO NUÑEZ, P.A. 255 University Drive Coral Gables, Florida 333 Attorney for Third-Party Defendants, Fabiani and USQL Service via: E-Mail 13