The Truth

Part I

The following is taken from the court filings and summarizes the factual basis underlying the civil actions according to Plaintiff. You are welcome to view them in their entirety. You can also find the defendants’ responses. At this stage, Plaintiff believes with dignity that it is justified to replace his name with 'X' in the following account.

It is long, please bear it.

1. Plaintiff has a PhD in molecular biology. In 2003, Emory University (“Emory”) entered into an employment contract to employ Plaintiff as a postdoctoral trainee, or fellow, to conduct molecular biology research for its Medical School Department of Neurosurgery in the laboratory of Robert E. Gross (“Defendant Gross”), for a period of one year. This contractual agreement, signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Gross, on Emory’s behalf, clearly stated “[y]ou (Plaintiff) may view the benefits and policies associated with your employment by accessing Emory’s postdoctoral program website. www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/POSTDOC/index/html” (now changed), Plaintiff’s “appointment is annually renewable, contingent upon satisfactory performance, and the availability of funding. At the close of each academic year, I will provide you with a performance evaluation that will determine your eligibility for a merit pay increase based on the quality of your performance”, “[y]our (Plaintiff’s) endorsement and return of this appointment offer to me (Defendant Gross) will serve as evidence of your acceptance of this position and its conditions”. Using the provided link, Plaintiff located the documents referred to, including, but not limited to, “Policy for Postdoctoral Fellows/Emory University School of 1

Medicine”, “Performance Management”, “Standards of Conduct”, “Corrective Discipline”, “Procedure for Handling Complaints & Grievances Not Involving Discrimination”.

2. Emory’s “Policy for Postdoctoral Fellows” stated “[u]nsatisfactory job performance or failure to comply with University Standards of Conduct should be discussed with the fellow and documented in writing (by mentor)”, “[i]f disputes arise between postdoctoral fellow and mentor or others of the University community…the grievance may be pursued … as outlined in Emory University Human Resources Policies & Procedures: Procedure for Handling Complaints and Grievances Not Involving Discrimination. Resolution may be sought for matters that are not otherwise covered by grievance procedures of the University through the Office of the Dean, School of Medicine”.

3. The “Policy for Postdoctoral Fellows” further provided “[p]ostdoctoral research opportunities at Emory University School of Medicine are intended to foster the training of basic and clinical research scientists. Included within this goal is the concept that postdoctoral fellows, with the guidance of their mentors, will develop a scientific project that utilizes the creativity and independence of the fellow. In this spirit, the mentor will provide adequate facilities, funds, and the appropriate guidance to achieve the agreed upon goals of the project. In addition, mentors should provide guidance in critical review of scientific information, grant writing, manuscript writing and preparation, presentation of scientific information, and in the art of performing research. Mentors should also advise and as possible, aid fellows in decisions regarding future employment potential and career paths”.

2

4. In addition, “Corrective Discipline” provided “[a]ll communications with employees regarding discipline should clearly identify the issues of concern and should be clear and direct. Discipline should be timely and consistent and it should not be administered in haste or anger”.

5. From April 2003 to 2006, based on documented satisfactory evaluations of Plaintiff’s work performance, signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Gross, Emory repeatedly renewed Plaintiff’s employment contract from year to year with merit pay increases. Using Plaintiff’s research results, Defendant Gross applied for and was granted research funds. Collaboration with researchers within and outside Emory was actively sought by Defendant Gross to benefit from Plaintiff’s findings. On February 17, 2006, Defendant Gross signed a third contract renewal to employ Plaintiff till February 26, 2007. As the wording of each agreement and the intentions of both signing parties indicated, contracts signed in 2004, 2005 and 2006 were mere renewals or extensions of the one signed in 2003. Both parties did not express an intention to change the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment with Emory. During the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Emory including when Emory terminated and breached Plaintiff’s employment contract, Plaintiff was continually employed and consistently dealt with as a postdoctoral trainee, notwithstanding sometimes referred to as postdoctoral fellow, or postdoctoral biologist.

6. As a postdoctoral researcher, Plaintiff’s research was intended to support the effort to improve the outcome of transplantation treatment for Parkinson’s disease and included molecular biology lab work to study the mechanism of axonal growth inhibition of neural stem cells and developing strategies to counteract inhibitory influences. Plaintiff’s research project was, until May 2006, a work-in-progress near completion, as evidenced by a written manuscript for publication entitled, 3

“Enhancement of Neurite Outgrowth From Primary and Stem-cell Derived Neurons by Lentiviral-vector Mediated Modulation of Rho GTPase”.

7. Enrique Torre (“Defendant Torre”), an employee of Emory Medical School’s Neurosurgery Department in Defendant Gross’ laboratory, had unduly resulted in verbal conflicts with Plaintiff on several occasions since he joined to work for Defendant Gross in 2004, albeit Plaintiff’s effort to maintain a courteous professional relationship with him. Although being purely his own misperceptions, Defendant Torre regarded his faculty status giving him some superiority over Plaintiff in scientific discussions and use of laboratory facilitates, etc. On the morning of May 17, 2006, without providing notice or any justifications whatsoever, expressed or implied, then and even to this day to any party, Defendant Torre ignored a written standing reservation of a dissecting bench posted by Plaintiff in performing Plaintiff’s contractual duties and intended to occupy Plaintiff’s reserved workplace. Plaintiff’s reservation read “[i]f you have to use this bench on any Wednesday from 9 AM through 12 PM, please let me know. Appreciate it. XX” and was posted inside the bench at least ten days prior to May 17. Since Plaintiff’s research work was very time-sensitive (had to be completed by noon) and involved about four weeks of scheduled work prior to and following each Wednesday, Plaintiff could not drop his planned work without great loss. Therefore, to avoid a confrontation as well, Plaintiff initiated an effort to seek a solution. Plaintiff asked Defendant Torre whether he had to utilize the bench on that morning. Defendant Torre responded affirmatively but did not explain. Then Plaintiff reminded Defendant Torre that it had been a routine for Plaintiff to do the dissecting work on Wednesdays, as Defendant Torre was previously orally made aware by Plaintiff, and asked why Defendant Torre did not inform Plaintiff about his plan in advance. Defendant Torre replied “you talk to me” while pointing his finger. Plaintiff looked for Defendant Gross to report the situation. 4

However, Defendant Gross was doing a surgery and not available for intervention. Plaintiff went back to talk out a solution with Defendant Torre. During the entire period, Plaintiff did not provoke Defendant Torre orally and/or physically. Plaintiff only insisted on obtaining justifications for Defendant Torre’s disregard of Plaintiff’s reservation and asserted that, without good cause on Defendant Torre’s part, Plaintiff would proceed with his reservation. Out of a sudden, Defendant Torre leaned against Plaintiff and put his face over Plaintiff’s. He’s about 6’3” in height and Plaintiff’s 5’8”. Defendant Torre wiggled all his fingers over Plaintiff’s face while quivering his lips with tongue tip exposed to insult Plaintiff. He repeated doing this three times. In between, Defendant Torre provoked Plaintiff verbally “What can you do about it?” repeatedly to Plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff was deeply offended and infuriated. Out of anger, frustration and impulse to end Defendant Torre’s provocation, Plaintiff tumbled Defendant Torre’s mice cage which was by Plaintiff’s hand on a table. Defendant Torre did stop making faces, but he suddenly slapped Plaintiff on the left side face and neck forcefully. After being struck and facing continued physical threats, Plaintiff used necessary force to defend himself. Realizing not being able to take advantage of his height and only after Plaintiff’s warning, Defendant Torre stopped physical provocations and retreated. While bearing bruises and feeling sever pain in his left-side face and neck, Plaintiff completed his scheduled work with delay. After completing his work, Plaintiff left the bench to be used by Defendant Torre. Around 1 PM on May 17, Plaintiff showed his injuries to Ms. E who worked in an adjacent laboratory.

8. Shortly after the incident occurred, Defendant Gross became aware. Since there was no eyewitness of the event, no record showed that Defendant Gross was then able to determine what had occurred on May 17 and who was to blame. However, instead of seeking the truth as a responsible laboratory director would act, Defendant Gross almost immediately decided that 5

Plaintiff was to be fired and Defendant Torre was to be excused purely based on calculation of his own interest. In order to portray Plaintiff as being not only guilty but the sole trouble-maker, Defendant Gross solicited and orchestrated, with others including Defendant Torre and investigators from Emory Neurosurgery Department, a conspiracy plot to defame Plaintiff, terminate Plaintiff’s employment with Emory and unjustly benefit from Plaintiff’s research. Their actions included, without limitation, the following,

(1) On May 18, 2006, as Plaintiff later became aware, Defendant Gross e-mailed to Jae Schmidt (“Schmidt”), Administrator of Neurosurgery Department, to introduce the parties involved in the May 17 incident, “XX XXX (post doc; history of interpersonal problems in the lab) and Enrique Torre (Asst Prof)”. Unmistakably, Defendant Gross was making a false and undocumented allegation with a clear intention. A conspiracy against Plaintiff was taking shape.

(2) Being misled by Defendant Gross or acting as a co-conspirator, Schmidt consequently launched his inquiry into the May 17 incident with an undeniable bias. On May 22, during his first meeting with Schmidt, Plaintiff received a letter informing him being placed on Administrative Leave without pay pending Schmidt’s investigation “of the review of the physical altercation you had” with Defendant Torre. Plaintiff provided Schmidt with his full recount of the May 17 incident. Noticeably, nothing other than the incident was inquired or discussed. As Plaintiff later became aware, Schmidt’s memo of Plaintiff’s meeting with him contained numerous miscounts and was not a truthful record of what was said by Plaintiff. In addition, Schmidt’s wording was not neutral.On the other hand, although Schmidt subsequently met Defendant Torre on May 22, no similar letter was delivered.

6

(3) On May 22, as Plaintiff later became aware, during his meeting with Schmidt, Defendant Torre lied about the May 17 incident and attacked Plaintiff with fabricated interpersonal problems. (i) Defendant Torre asserted that he “had noted a sign in the area” and mistakenly thought it was for a specific Wednesday. However, Defendant Torre further stated that another employee clarified “every Wednesday” to him later, which meant that Plaintiff’s note could be correctly received by others. (Yet, on May 30, Defendant Torre told Daniel Barrow that he had “no prior knowledge” regarding Plaintiff’s reservation of the bench for Wednesday mornings. See below). Nonetheless, Schmidt did not question Defendant Torre why he had not clarified his confusion with Plaintiff before the dissection and, instead, he went ahead with a risk running into a conflict without any justifications and why Defendant Torre continued to obstruct Plaintiff’s scheduled work after being informed on the morning of May 17. (ii) Defendant Torre replied to Schmidt’s question “if he waved his hands in jest of Dr. XXX” with “I don’t know. . . maybe.. . it’s possible”. As described, Defendant Torre provoked and insulted Plaintiff with his hands and mocking faces repeatedly. However, five days later, Defendant Torre selectively lost his memory but did not dare to totally deny it. (iii) Defendant Torre alleged to Schmidt that he “pushed” Plaintiff “backwards with his right hand”. Defendant Torre’s confusion between “pushing” and “slapping” was as appalling as his untruthfulness. Nonetheless, Schmidt did not question Defendant Torre’s integrity and did not verify with Ms. E. who witnessed Plaintiff’s injuries shortly after the incident (see below). (iv) Defendant Torre complained to Schmidt about Plaintiff “refusing to share the workspace”. However, such statement was as illogical as untruthful since not only Defendant Torre never intended to negotiate a solution and never suggested sharing of the workspace but more noticeably the dissection bench deemed merely to be used by one person at a time. Plaintiff could not have refused a non-existing and impractical 7

request. (v) Defendant Torre contended, “despite his (Defendant Torre’s) efforts to help advance Dr. XXX’s career through mentorship and enforcement of scientific methods Dr. XXX perceived such feedback as criticism”, “Dr. XXX could not work in a team, and preferred to work alone without feedback from colleagues”, “having disagreements/arguments with Dr. XXX on occasion related to scientific methods, but without physical contact prior to the incident on 5/17”, “neither he, nor other lab members are able to share with Dr. XXX because he is ‘prone to explosions’”. Up to now, Defendant Torre refused to provide any evidence to justify his abovecited allegations. Unmistakably, Defendant Torre’s fraudulent and malicious slander was committed for a self-serving goal, to defame Plaintiff and evade responsibility. Deliberately or negligently, Schmidt documented Defendant Torre’s accusations without further verification. In fact, they were never disclosed to Plaintiff. Noticeably, (a) Defendant Gross not only was present during the entire meeting but met Defendant Torre before Schmidt did; (b) prior to meeting Defendant Torre, Defendant Gross had already received information concerning what was communicated at Plaintiff’s earlier meeting with Schmidt. Up to this day, Emory and other defendants have refused to disclose the time and content of Defendant Gross’ conversations with Defendant Torre regarding the May 17 incident and Plaintiff after May 17, 2006.

(4) Throughout Schmidt’s investigation from May 22 till June 12, 2006, Defendant Gross never conferred with Plaintiff to seek information, not even through e-mail communication. Defendant Gross did not even mention a word regarding the May 17 incident during or after a meeting in his office where all laboratory members, including Plaintiff and Defendant Torre, attended on May 19, 2006. Noticeably, as Plaintiff later became aware, Defendant Gross assured to Schmidt that he had spoken to all laboratory members except Plaintiff from May 17 till May 23 regarding

8

the “situation”. Yet, to this day, Emory and other defendants have refused to disclose to Plaintiff what was communicated during such conversations.

(5) On May 23, 2006, as Plaintiff later became aware, Defendant Gross disgracefully made further false and malicious assertions to Schmidt in an e-mail regarding Plaintiff’s job performance and working relations with co-workers, albeit the facts that Defendant Gross himself repeatedly renewed Plaintiff’s employment, signed three satisfactory annual evaluations of Plaintiff’s job performance (no issue was mentioned whatsoever), and promised in Summer 2005 to provide employment reference for Plaintiff. Defendant Gross stated, “over the last 3 years there have indeed been ongoing problems with Dr. XXX’s work. He is neglectful of scientific rigor and takes any criticism of his work very personally. He is very difficult to mentor. He is obstinate to an extreme. It takes a great deal of coddling and explaining to have him accept criticism of his results” “In sum, it has been a difficult experience with Dr. XXX”. Meanwhile, Defendant Gross stated, Defendant Torre “is an outstanding scientist and has been an excellent mentor to several students. He is extremely dedicated and impeccable in his approach to science and the scientific method”. In the same e-mail, Defendant Gross not only recklessly used anonymous and unverified “hearsay” allegations to attack Plaintiff, but also bet on his own reputation to pardon an offender by stating “I’m sure he (Defendant Torre) regrets it, but I am not sure that if I was myself in his shoes I would not have reacted in the same way”. Although being the lab director and “mentor” of Plaintiff, Defendant Gross never conferred with Plaintiff to seek information regarding the May 17 incident or any alleged issues from May 17, 2006 till this day. Yet beyond comprehension and as a supreme insult to human conscience, Defendant Gross alleged to Schmidt, “I have gone to great lengths to help him (Plaintiff) succeed”, “I must conclude that the culpability lies to the far greater share in Dr. XXX’s behavior. Although more 9

restraint should have been exhibited by Dr. Torre, I feel he was provoked beyond reason, and this is not part of any ongoing difficulty on his part”. Evidently, Defendant Gross’ fictitious allegations were used by Schmidt and others without verification, to reach their decision against Plaintiff and intentionally concealed from Plaintiff since their existence. The Neurosurgery Department did not even present Defendant Gross’ e-mails to Emory Medical School appeal committee to be reviewed (see below). To this day, Emory and Defendant Gross have refused to provide any factual base for Gross’ allegations and Plaintiff’s annual evaluations.

(6) In addition, as Plaintiff later became aware, on the second day of Schmidt’s investigation, if not earlier, Defendant Gross already unmistakably affirmed to Schmidt his determination to terminate Plaintiff but pardon Defendant Torre in his May 23 e-mail. Defendant Gross wrote, “[w]hatever conclusion as to culpability one might make, it is clear to me that the situation [the incident] would not exist were it not for Dr. XXX’s obstinate, argumentative, and abusive approach to his co-workers”, “[p]ersonally, I regret the effects that dismissal would have on Dr. XXX’s career, … In contrast, I would be personally distraught if the current altercation were to negatively impact Dr. Torres career”. Evidently, Gross was divulging his plot and soliciting Schmidt to join the conspiracy against Plaintiff.

(7) On May 30, 2006, as Plaintiff later became aware, in addition to lies and fabrications, Defendant Torre admitted to Daniel Barrow (“Defendant Barrow”), Chair of Emory Neurosurgery Department, in a meeting that he did “not have as tight a time window” and “he needed 2-3 hours that day”. Since Plaintiff’s reservation was only for 9-12 on Wednesday mornings, therefore, Defendant Torre confessed to Defendant Barrow and Schmidt about his complete lack of justification to invoke the confrontation and insult Plaintiff on the morning of 10

May 17. Deliberately or negligently, Defendant Barrow kept this confession from Plaintiff throughout his investigation. Nonetheless, Defendant Torre dared to assert, according to Schmidt’s memo, “he (Defendant Torre) has avoided confrontation to the best of his ability” and Schmidt was willing to believe that Defendant Torre “remained remorseful”.

(8) Subsequently on May 30, during his only meeting with Plaintiff, Defendant Barrow merely sought information from Plaintiff regarding the May 17 incident. Nothing regarding job performance and interpersonal issues as alleged by Defendants Gross and Torre was either discussed or verified. Job performance of other lab members was also not addressed. Since he had already received fraudulent allegations from Defendants Gross and Torre regarding Plaintiff and known Defendant Gross’ proposition of terminating Plaintiff’s employment before the meeting, Defendant Barrow was deliberately as depriving Plaintiff of a right to defend his righteous reputation as avoiding Plaintiff’s challenge and revelation. Evidently, Defendant Barrow entered Defendant Gross’ conspiracy against Plaintiff.

(9) On May 30, 2006, as Plaintiff later became aware, during her subsequent meeting with Defendant Barrow, Lissa Jackson (“Jackson”), a technician in Defendant Gross’ laboratory, made fraudulent allegations regarding Plaintiff’s interpersonal problems with her and two former co-workers voluntarily or by invitation. Noticeably, Jackson purposely failed to report the conflicts between her and Defendant Torre. As a publicly known fact, Jackson openly complained about Defendant Torre having “stolen” her tissue culture medium more than once and quarrelled with Defendant Torre over other issues in front of co-workers on several occasions. Jackson was one of the lab members who Defendant Gross spoke to before May 23, 2006 and information communicated between them has never been disclosed to this day. 11

(10) On May 30, as Plaintiff later became aware, in a further attempt to solicit Schmidt’s and Defendant Barrow’s participation in his conspiracy plot, Defendant Gross wrote to Schmidt, “if at all humanly possible I would like this issue resolved today. I will be out of town on Thursday and Friday. I would like to leave knowing that Dr. Torre is happily reinstated. Please let me know what I need to do”. Defendant Gross went on to add, “[i]ronically, I received an email asking for a reference for Dr. XXX. Much as it would seem best for he and my lab just to help him get that job. I will need to be honest if I fill it out. I would like advice on how to give him the option on saying there is no reference available from me”. Defendant Gross never mentioned such e-mailed request to Plaintiff. However, Defendant Gross did put Defendant Torre, a party being investigated at that time, in the cc-list of the said e-mail. To this day, Emory and Defendant Gross have refused to provide any justifications for Defendant Gross’ act.

(11) Late on May 30, as Plaintiff later became aware, within hours of meeting Defendant Torre, Plaintiff and Jackson, Defendant Barrow met Defendant Gross and already announced Plaintiff’s “departure” and Defendant Torre’s retention. Defendant Barrow alleged, “Dr. XXX’s chronic problem successfully interacting with others while Dr. Torre has not had such difficulties, and there have been no prior complaints about him”, “Dr. XXX’s track record of personality conflicts coupled with his marginal scientific performance lead him to recommend Dr. XXX’s departure from the job”. Unmistakeably, Defendant Barrow knew that Plaintiff was never given a chance to defend his reputation and work. Defendant Barrow also knew that Defendant Torre’s record was “clean” because he and Schmidt along with Defendant Gross misled lab members including Plaintiff not to say a word or say otherwise. Noticeably, as documented by Schmidt, Defendant Barrow noted that “Dr. XXX did have an appropriate sign in place which Dr. Torre disregarded”.

12

Barrow also noted that “perhaps Dr. Torre could have waited for Dr. XXX to complete his timesensitive work prior to beginning his own experiments”.

(12) Facing lack of information, Plaintiff e-mailed Defendant Barrow and Schmidt on June 3 and June 5, 2006, respectively, requesting being “informed and updated about the ongoing process” and questioning “if in any way I can assist to expedite the ongoing process”. Defendant Barrow did not respond and Schmidt replied merely with promises.

(13) On June 12, 2006, Schmidt delivered to Plaintiff a letter signed by Defendant Barrow on June 9 allegedly terminating Plaintiff’s employment with Emory. Defendant Barrow’s letter accomplished the goal of the conspiracy plotted and orchestrated by Defendant Gross. In his letter, Defendant Barrow asserted to Plaintiff “[a]s you know, we recently investigated the events of your altercation with Dr. Enrique Torre on May 17th, 2006. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the outcome of that investigation and our decision regarding your employment status”. Defendant Barrow went on to allege, (i) Plaintiff used “physical force” against Defendant Torre, but failed to acknowledge that such alleged force was in self-defense against an aggressor’s assaults; (ii) Plaintiff had “numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory” and Plaintiff’s “inability to consistently work in a collaborative and communicative manner is a hindrance to the efficiency and ultimate success of the laboratory and Department’s research enterprise”, but failed to provide any factual base; (iii) there have been “other concerns regarding your (Plaintiff’s) performance”, but failed to mention even one; (iv) Plaintiff had a “reluctance to accept criticism and guidance from your (Plaintiff’s) supervisors”, but failed to realize that Defendant Gross was the only director of the laboratory and the only “supervisor” with whom Plaintiff had done business with. 13

(14) Despite of Emory and other defendants’ intentional concealment, Plaintiff later obtained a copy of Defendant Barrow’s letter to Torre dated “June 9, 2006”. Therein, Defendant Torre was “severely punished” or “penalized with” loss of one week of pay. Noticeably, Defendant Barrow explicitly reprimanded Defendant Torre for complete lack of justifications to obstruct Plaintiff’s planned research and to insult and provoke Plaintiff on May 17, 2006. Yet, intentionally, Defendant Barrow did not mention a word about Defendant Torre’s physical assaults on Plaintiff on May 17, 2006 albeit (1) Barrow terminated Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment partly on alleged “physical force” toward Defendant Torre; (2) Plaintiff demonstrated Defendant Torre’s physical assaults on Plaintiff including the forceful swing of right hand during Plaintiff’s meetings with Schmidt and Defendant Barrow and Ms. E negated Torre’s false contention of “pushing Plaintiff” (see below).

(15) Evidently, Defendant Barrow and others knew that their decisions regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Torre could not be justified by parties’ actions in the May 17 incident. Behind Plaintiff’s back and in concert under a common plot, they fraudulently alleged issues regarding Plaintiff’s job performance and interpersonal relations. As Plaintiff later became aware, Schmidt summarized to others, Defendant Barrow “would like to offer Dr. XXX the option of resigning prior to termination based on his history of personality conflicts and poor scientific performance”.

(16) On June 12, after Plaintiff expressed his determination to appeal Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s decisions to higher authorities, Schmidt firmly asserted “[t]here is no appeal. The decision is final”, “[n]o one is going to change the decision”. Schmidt was as depriving Plaintiff of a due right as attempting to conceal the conspiracy. Only because Plaintiff was confident in 14

his scientific competence and professionalism and outraged by Defendant Barrow’s irresponsible allegations and fraudulent “investigation”, Plaintiff persistently contacted Emory’s Human Resources personnel and was finally instructed about the procedures of appealing to Dean Office of Emory Medical School.

(17) On June 12, 2006, after knowing Plaintiff would formally initiate an appeal process, Schmidt sent e-mails to others including personnel in Medical School Dean Office and Emory Human Resources Department, with questionable intentions, asserting “I do not believe he (Plaintiff) could return to be a constructive member of the staff” and fraudulently alleging “[a]fter Dr. XXX’s behavior today, and the attempted intimidation of our administrative staff, the reasoning behind the action was reaffirmed for me”, “[h]e (Plaintiff) was reluctant to leave my area today to the point that I had to have the police escort him out”, “you may need to again alert the authorities if he becomes indignant”. In fact, Schmidt failed to point out the fact that Plaintiff was, first in Neurosurgery Department’s common kitchen then in a public waiting room, anticipating Defendants Gross’ and Barrow’s secretaries to pass on both individuals’ response and preparing a written request of conference to Defendant Barrow when Schmidt called Emory police. Schmidt also failed to mention that his “attempted intimidation” allegation was only referring to the fact that Plaintiff, who was forced out to the street by Schmidt and did not carry a cell-phone, used a payphone to contact Defendants Gross’ and Barrow’s secretaries.

(18) On June 12, 2006, after receiving the termination letter, Plaintiff made several attempts to confer with Defendant Gross and in late afternoon received a reluctant reply phone call. During the conversation, Plaintiff emphasized the fact that no one had discussed with him about the alleged personal conflicts and job performance issues and, more importantly, Department’s 15

investigators should not have based their decisions on the false allegations made by, as then assumed by Plaintiff, Defendant Torre. In response, Defendant Gross asserted that he was not involved in the Department’s investigation and he only accepted whatever decisions that were made by the Department. When Plaintiff expressed his intent to appeal such decisions to Emory Medical School, Gross suggested Plaintiff to challenge Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s bias of conducting their investigation. Plaintiff also pointed out the profound adverse impact of the Department’s decision on his reputation and career. In reply, Defendant Gross assured Plaintiff that he would accept Plaintiff back to his laboratory if Plaintiff’s appeal was successful. Defendant Gross also assured that Plaintiff’s paper manuscript would be published with Plaintiff as the first author. From the conversation, Plaintiff believed that Defendant Gross had no biased views against Plaintiff and was merely reluctant to be personally involved in any aspects of the development ensuing the incident on May 17. Plaintiff maintained such assessment until February 2007 (see below). Evidently, Defendant Gross was attempting to conceal his role in the conspiracy against Plaintiff. Noticeably, there is evidence showing that, before he spoke to Plaintiff, Defendant Gross already knew Plaintiff’s appeal to Dean of Emory Medical School was inevitable.

9. On June 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed an written appeal to Thomas Lawley, Dean of Emory Medical School (“Defendant Lawley”), requesting a thorough review of Neurosurgery Department’s investigation and its decisions. Plaintiff enumerated unfairness and injustice during Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s investigation. Plaintiff also provided a detailed recount of the May 17 incident between Plaintiff and Defendant Torre, which was the only written full account on record by any party of what happened on the morning of May 17, 2006.

16

10. After June 16, 2006, Plaintiff constantly contacted Defendant Lawley’s Office regarding his response to Plaintiff’s appeal letter. In mid-July, Defendant Lawley set up a three-member review committee to supply him with an advisory report. Only then, Plaintiff obtained documents prepared by Schmidt and knew for the first time the information contained therein (some has been cited in the foregoing).

11. On July 20, 2006, Plaintiff had his only meeting with the appeal committee for an hour and a half. Since only a few questions were raised by the three members during the entire period, Plaintiff highlighted the May 17 incident and the ensuing investigation and urged a fair and thorough review with his detailed written comments on the documents the committee was reviewing. Each member was provided with a copy of Plaintiff’s comments. Defendant Lawley was also delivered a separate copy through the committee. In his comments, Plaintiff expressed his deep disappointment that neither Schmidt nor Defendant Barrow had documented their factual understanding, albeit untrue or partial, of what had happened on May 17 and wondered how it would be possible to reach their decisions without such views. In addition to stressing his disagreement with the alleged facts, Plaintiff unmistakeably challenged the integrity, truthfulness and impartiality of Schmidt and raised a doubt as whether Schmidt had forged a document (see below). Equally unmistakeably, Plaintiff raised questions over Defendant Barrow’s moral standard, judgement and competence as he had exhibited an appalling level of being irresponsible to base his decision regarding a researcher’s reputation and career merely on the documents to be reviewed. In his comments, Plaintiff also unmistakeably pointed out that Defendant Torre was as a liar as a bully. Plaintiff urged that individuals’ misconducts were to be examined and held accountable accordingly. Plaintiff was addressing as to the appeal committee

17

as to Defendant Lawley who, as Dean of Emory Medical School, had the authority to examine the integrity of Medical School administrators and employees.

12. On August 3, 2006, Defendant Lawley sent a letter to Plaintiff upholding Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s decision. Defendant Lawley wrote, “I would first like to say that the individuals I appointed to the committee are senior faculty and administrators, all respected for their wisdom, knowledge and experience. I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination. The committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you provided to the committee directly. I have evaluated the committee’s findings and recommendations”. As the integrity of Defendant Lawley and his committee members exhibited through the review was concerned, nothing could be further from the truth! Noticeably, Defendant Lawley failed to proclaim the uncompromised moral integrity and uncorrupted human conscience of either his “appointed individuals” or his own, which were indispensable from a moral and just process by common sense. There is evidence that Defendant Lawley’s review of Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s investigation and decisions was nothing other than intentional furtherance of an existing conspiracy plot against Plaintiff. The facts included, without limitation, the following,

(1) Although Plaintiff, in his appeal letter and comments on documents to be reviewed, repeatedly alerted Defendant Lawley about Defendant Torre’s questionable integrity and unacceptable misconducts, Defendant Lawley excluded Defendant Torre’s actions and Defendant Barrow’s whatever decisions regarding him from the review process without justifications. Unmistakably, Defendant Lawley was, in the least, preventing it seeing the light 18

that there were cover-ups favoring Defendant Torre during Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s investigation and Defendant Torre’s “punishment” did not fit his crime. Noticeably, to this day, Emory has refused to disclose whatever disciplinary actions Defendant Torre received. Yet, Defendant Lawley still entitled himself to claim that Defendant Barrow’s investigation was fair.

(2) In February 2007, through a court authorized discovery, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant Lawley’s review committee reported their findings on August 2, 2006. For the first time, Plaintiff undoubtedly realized that it was no wonder for Defendant Lawley to emphasize such report as “confidential”. In spite of obviously spending time only on coining crafty statements of findings and recommendations other than on verifying facts, the review committee unmistakably documented several inevitable conclusions undermining Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s investigation and integrity, all of which was deliberately kept from Plaintiff by Defendant. Only through deceit, Defendant Lawley was then able to reaffirm the base for Defendant Barrow and Schmidt’s decision regarding Plaintiff and justify his upholding. Therefore, Defendant Lawley knowingly joined and expended a conspiracy against Plaintiff. In addition to defaming Plaintiff once more, Defendant Lawley was covering up the misconducts of Defendant Barrow and others.

(3) In their report, the review committee craftily stated, albeit irresponsibly, “in our opinion the inquiry into this altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policy”. However, in his August 3 letter, Defendant Lawley asserted to Plaintiff that “the committee concluded that the Department of Neurosurgery’s inquiry into your termination was reasonable, fair and consistent with University’s policies”. As “altercation” was only alleged as partly the base for termination, Defendant Lawley’s misrepresentation was committed not by mistake but 19

to purposely mislead Plaintiff to cease challenging Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s false allegations and his upholding.

(4) In their August 2 report, the review committee noted without verifications of their own, “Barrow’s termination letter to Dr. XXX notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review”. Since job performance and interpersonal relations were where Defendant Barrow and others alleged the base to terminate Plaintiff but spare Defendant Torre, only through concealment, Defendant Lawley then dared to claim to Plaintiff on August 3, 2006, “the Department of Neurosurgery’s inquiry into your termination was reasonable, fair and consistent with University’s policies”. Defendant Lawley completely ignored that he as Dean of Emory Medical School, not the appeal committee, ultimately had a duty to protect Plaintiff’s righteous reputation and safeguard the integrity of Medical School administrators and employees as the truth and justice demanded. Unmistakably, Defendant Lawley was as conspiringly covering up as unconscionably defaming Plaintiff one more time.

(5) In their report, the review committee also craftily noted, “[t]he parties involved often have very different opinions as to what was communicated during the interviews to investigate these events”. The committee went on to suggest, “[i]t would be very helpful in the future to have an uninvolved third party present during interviews, which would allow for verification of the facts verbally communicated”. As “senior faculty and administrators, all respected for their wisdom, knowledge and experience”, the committee members should have no problem to realize their brutal but inescapable responsibility of verifying facts. They should also have realized that the issue in question was who told the truth about what really happened on May 17 and during 20

Department’s investigation. In fact, Plaintiff did openly question whether Schmidt was an unbiased and truthful note-taker. However, most of Plaintiff’s doubts were cast on Schmidt’s memo of his meeting with Plaintiff on May 22, 2006. As noted in Schmidt’s memo, a third party other than Plaintiff and Schmidt was indeed present during the entire meeting. There’s no record showing that verification from that person was sought by the review committee. There’s also no record showing that either the review committee or Defendant Lawley took any action to clarify controversies and seek the truth. Yet, Defendant Lawley dared to claim to Plaintiff, the appeal committee “performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination” on August 3, 2006.

(6) In his Comments on documents to be reviewed, Plaintiff unmistakably alerted the review committee and Defendant Lawley that Schmidt had forged one document fraudulently alleging that he interviewed Ms. E. Although Plaintiff had presented her to Schmidt and Defendant Barrow as the only person who closely examined Plaintiff’s injuries, Ms. E was never interviewed by either individual. Out of her own conscience, Ms. E dropped by Schmidt’s office on June 5, 2006 and provided her insight that the injuries inflicted on Plaintiff could not be resulted by “push” as Defendant Torre claimed. However, Ms. E did not know at the time that Defendant Barrow had already made his final decisions days before her visit. Disgracefully, Schmidt claimed he “interviewed” Ms. E but dated his half-page memo of such conversation as “July 7”, four weeks after Defendant Barrow ended his investigation and two weeks after Plaintiff filed his appeal. Ignoring Plaintiff’s accusation without verification, the review committee claimed Department’s investigation included the interview of Ms. E and, therefore, “an attempt was made to identify the facts by interviews or written documents from the critical

21

parties involved”. Defendant Lawley also disregarded Plaintiff’s challenge. Unmistakably, Defendant Lawley was as conspiringly covering up for Schmidt as evading his responsibility.

(7) In another crafty attempt to justify Defendant Barrow’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the review committee and Defendant Lawley relied back on Plaintiff’s actions on May 17, 2006. On August 3, 2006, Defendant Lawley wrote to Plaintiff, “[b]ased on your conduct at the time of the altercation and statements made by you, the committee determined that your violence toward Dr. Torre was not motivated primarily by concerns of self-defense”. However, Defendant failed to mention that Defendant Barrow and Schmidt had never made such determination when making their decisions. Defendant Lawley failed to mention that the committee and himself had made no determination as what had occurred on May 17. In fact, to this day, there’s no record from a party other than Plaintiff that has reconstructed, albeit being true or false, the events on the morning of May 17, 2006. Defendant Lawley also failed to cite any of Plaintiff’s statements suggesting that Plaintiff was not acting in self-defense on the morning of May 17, 2006. In fact, to this day, Emory and Defendant Lawley have refused to provide evidence in this regard. Ironically, by a court order, Defendant Lawley conceded that none of his committee members took notes during their only meeting with Plaintiff.

(8) Defendant Lawley and the review committee also made another unconscionable attempt to save their leaky conspiracy. On August 3, 2006, Defendant Lawley wrote to Plaintiff, “[t]he committee also noted that in the course of the altercation, your actions resulted in a cage containing mice to fall to the floor, allowing the mice to escape”. However, Defendant Lawley failed to mention that an independent investigation into this affair, as pronounced by Defendant

22

Barrow, was never conducted, which would reveal the extreme circumstances of Plaintiff’s action and Defendant Torre’s causal evil insults and provocations.

(9) Although Plaintiff repeatedly alerted Defendant Lawley about Defendant Torre’s questionable integrity, unacceptable misconducts including obstructing co-workers’ job performance, insulting co-workers’ dignity, violently causing Plaintiff bodily injuries and making false statements to Neurosurgery Department’s investigators, Defendant Lawley took no actions to investigate, let alone to correct such serious problems. Defendant Lawley even concealed from Plaintiff Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s whatever decisions against Defendant Torre and the fact that Defendant Torre was allowed to continue working in Defendant Gross’ laboratory. Defendant Lawley completely ignored that he as Dean of Emory Medical School had a duty to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of Medical School employees.

13. Unmistakably, Defendant Lawley was not conducting an honest and just review with solemn responsibilities as Dean of Emory Medical School. Instead, Defendant Lawley was, as a coconspirator with preset goals against Plaintiff, acting in complete neglect of his duties owed to Plaintiff and determinations truth and justice would authorize. As Emory’s agent, Defendant breached the employment contract between Plaintiff and Emory.

14. As Emory’s authorized agents, Defendants were fully aware of his duties, as defined by Emory’s pertinent policies and applicable laws including those governing confidential relationships, to Plaintiff during their dealing with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s employment. The duties owed to Plaintiff by the defendants included without limitation: (a) the duty to permit Plaintiff to duly complete and utilize results of his research project for career and related purposes; (b) the duty not to falsely disparage Plaintiff’s performance as a researcher or 23

otherwise take any improper action intended to, or that would have the effect of, impairing his career or future employability; (c) the duty to follow and abide by contractually binding Emory’s published policies and procedures concerning employment and discipline; (d) the duty of due diligence and care when conducting business and dealing with Plaintiff; (e) the duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing. All of the foregoing duties and others were breached by Defendant.

15. As direct results the defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff sustained severe damages to his career and personal well-being, including, without limitation, (1) Plaintiff’s employment contract with Emory was breached and Plaintiff was deprived of due right to publication of his work and fair reference for future employment; (2) Plaintiff’s reputation as a scientist and a person was injured; (3) Plaintiff’s scientific career founded on long-time diligent efforts was ruined; (4) Plaintiff’s dignity and emotion was brutally crushed.

24

Part II Although the following only contains samples of the defendants’ “defense”, it is long. Fortunately, the defendants’ answers only need to be read once. For some, with a sense of black humor, the following could be part of leisure reading.

NOTE: Plaintiff agreed to talk to an assistant of the defense attorneys for more than two hours to clarify the defendants’ (Emory, Barrow and Gross) alleged confusion on all discovery requests, one by one. It was the defense attorney who promised to respond and never delivered.

Defendant Emory's responses to Plaintiff's questions:

Q: Defendant Emory specifies, prior to May 22, 2006, what Jae Schmidt and Robert Gross had known factually about the incident on May 17 between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre and specifies the sources. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Note: Plaintiff agreed to talk to an assistant of defense attorneys over the phone for more than two hours to clarify Defendants’ alleged confusion on all discovery requests, one by one. It was Defendants’ attorney who promised to respond and never delivered.

25

Q: Defendant Emory specifies whether, on May 17, 2006, Enrique Torre did the following: struck Plaintiffs left side face with his swinging right hand and later he pushed Plaintiff on the chest several times, attempted to force into the dissection bench then used by the Plaintiff and only left after Plaintiff gave warnings. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies which co-worker except Enrique Torre had complained about inability to share lab space and equipment with Plaintiff and provides factual recounts of such incidents. Defendant Emory also specifies whether the clean bench in the inner chamber of the tissue culture room on the 6th floor of Woodruff Memorial Research Building was sharable by two persons and how. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory produces the attachment sent with Enrique Torre's e-mail to Jae Schmidt on June 1, 2006 (3:41PM). Specify the reason if it is not supplied to Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the 26

grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request. Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory produces all documents and communication that would indicate Jae Schmidt scheduled to interview [Ms. E] on June 5, 2006 or any time. Indicate any information that is not supplied to Plaintiff and specify the reasons. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged

Defendant Emory to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory produces Jae Schmidt's or Neurosurgery Department's written notice to Enrique Torre informing him being placed on Administrative Leave around May 22, 2006. Specify the reasons if it is not supplied to Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27

evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory

to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory produces the written document from the Neurosurgery Department to Enrique Torre around June 12, 2006 informing him about the outcomes of its investigation of the incident between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre on May 17, 2006. Specify the reasons if it is not supplied to Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request. Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies the factual grounds and purpose for the following underlined remarks in Jae Schmidt's e-mails to Robert Gross, etc. on June 12, 2006 (7:56PM) and to Jane/Linda on June 12, 2006 (6:59PM), respectively, that "Dr. [XXX]’s behavior today, and the attempted intimidation of our administrative staff", "he (Plaintiff) was reluctant to leave my area today to the point that I had to heave the police escort him out", "you ma[y] need to again alert the authorities if he becomes indignant". 28

A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory produces Neurosurgery Department's letter to Thomas Lawley reporting their disciplinary actions against Enrique Torre as suggested by Daniel Barrow on May 30, 2006. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies the rationale for Thomas Lawley not reviewing Neurosurgery Department's handling and decisions against Enrique Torre in Medical School's appeal process. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies whether Thomas Lawley and members of the Defendant Emory's Medical School Appeal Committee (Linda Beard, Thomas C. Pearson, Jeanne Thigpen) 29

verified if Jae Schmidt scheduled his talk with Ms. E on June 5, 2006 and the date on which Jae Schmidt prepared his memo of such conversation. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies, according to Thomas Lawley and members of the Defendant Emory's Medical School Appeal (Linda Beard, Thomas C. Pearson, Jeanne Thigpen), whether Jae Schmidt and Defendant Barrow had discussed with Plaintiff regarding his job performance and "prior problems with other lab members" during their investigation. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies the contents of the "statements" therein referred by members of the Defendant Emory's Medical School Appeal Committee in their report to Thomas Lawley on August 2, 2006 and their logic link to the conclusion, 'in our opinion the primary motivating factor for Dr. [XXX]'s physical contact with Dr. Torre was not self defense. This is based on Dr. [XXX]'s statements during this interview with us and the written statement from Ms. Jackson."

30

A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further responding, Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is duplicative and because Emory has already produced documents in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that contain information responsive to this interrogatory.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory to locate

the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies whether members of the Defendant Emory's Medical School Appeal Committee (Linda Beard, Thomas C. Pearson, Jeanne Thigpen) had the authorization to interview all parties involved including Defendant Emory's administrators to clarify any factual discrepancy and whether they took such actions as they noted in their report to Thomas Lawley on August 2, 2006 that "the parties involved often have very different opinions as to what was communicated during the interviews to investigate these events." A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory produces Jae Schmidt's (May 22, 2006), Daniel Barrow's (May 30, 2006), Claudia R. Adkinson's (June 13, 2006), Appeal Committee members' (Linda Beard, Thomas C. Pearson, Jeanne Thigpen) (July 20, 2006) written notes taken during their interviews with 31

Plaintiff on the specified dates. Indicate the reasons if any information is not supplied to Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request. Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory produces documents on file with Defendant Emory, signed by both Plaintiff and Robert Gross, recording the annual performance evaluations of Plaintiff in 2004, 2005, 2006. Specify the reasons if they are not supplied to Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Emory shows that it has already produced documents in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Emory that are responsive to this request.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Emory

to locate the allegedly provided information. Emory has not responded.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies, according to Robert Gross, the scientific undertakings and achievements of Plaintiff during April 2003 and May 2006 in his laboratory as well as the 32

grounds for him to repeatedly renew Plaintiffs employment and increase Plaintiffs financial compensation ("salary", "reimbursement", "remuneration"). A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is excessive in its temporal scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies, as related to his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on May 30, 2006 (6:20:30 AM EDT), from whom Robert Gross received an e-mail request for reference regarding Plaintiff and how he responded. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory specifies Robert Gross' response following a request for employment reference regarding Plaintiff from Sarstedt around February 7, 2006. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

33

Q: Defendant Emory specifies Robert Gross' communication with Dr. [J] at Washington University in late 2006 regarding employment reference for Plaintiff. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory confirms whether Lissa Jackson made such remark to lab members as Robert Gross was "a master of non-communication". A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Emory confirms whether Lissa Jackson said to Plaintiff that Enrique Torre might consider himself having a privileged right over Plaintiff to use lab space and equipment due to his faculty status when Plaintiff complained about Enrique Torre did not respect others' plan to utilize shared space and equipments. A: Emory objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Emory also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

34

Q: Defendant Emory produces all documents and communications that were related to all research grant applications(s) submitted and/or awarded enlisting Plaintiff as a researcher or contributor. Indicate any information that is not supplied to Plaintiff and specify the reasons. A: Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Emory from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Emory further objects on the grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further responding, Emory objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and excessive in its temporal scope.

Defendant Daniel Barrow’s responses to Plaintiff's questions:

Q: Defendant Barrow specifies his understanding of what factually occurred on May 17, 2006 between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre. A: Defendant Barrow objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by this interrogatory. Defendant Barrow further objects to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and because he has already produced documents in response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Barrow that contain information responsive to this interrogatory.

Note: Plaintiff

has challenged Defendant Barrow to locate the allegedly provided information. Defendant Barrow has not responded.

35

Q: Defendant Barrow specifies whether and when he became aware, if ever, of Ms. [E]'s conversation with Jae Schmidt on June 5, 2006. A: Defendant Barrow objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Defendant Barrow from reasonably ascertaining the information sought. Defendant Barrow further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Barrow specifies the factual grounds for his remarks during his meeting with Robert Gross on May 30, 2006 that "both men (including Plaintiff) are guilty of immaturity and pettiness", "Dr. [XXX]'s chronic problem successful interacting with other while Dr. Torre has not had such difficulties and the have been no prior complaints about him", "Dr. [XXX]'s track record of personality conflicts coupled with his marginal scientific performance". A: Defendant Barrow objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude Defendant Barrow from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Barrow also objects to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and because he has already produced documents in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Barrow that contain information responsive to this interrogatory.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Barrow to locate the allegedly

provided information. Defendant Barrow has not responded.

Q: Defendant Barrow specifies the factual grounds for the following remarks in his letter to Plaintiff dated June 9, 2006, "our investigation has highlighted numerous prior personal 36

conflicts with other members of the laboratory before this current dispute. Your inability to consistently work in a collaborative and communicative manner is a hindrance to the efficiency and ultimate success of the laboratory and the Department's research enterprise", "there have been other concern regarding your performance. Specifically, Dr. Gross has discussed your reluctance to accept criticism and guidance from your superiors and has counseled you on several occasions". A: Defendant Barrow objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by this interrogatory. Defendant Barrow further objects to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and because he has already produced documents in response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Barrow that contain information responsive to this interrogatory.

Note: Plaintiff

has challenged Defendant Barrow to locate the allegedly provided information. Defendant Barrow has not responded.

Defendant Robert Gross’ responses to Plaintiff's questions:

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the time and place of the conversations and what had been communicated to him by lab members and Jae Schmidt as he stated in his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on May 23, 2006 (9:51 PM), "After investigating the situation by speaking to all lab members (except Dr. [XXX], who spoke with you while I was in the OR, but whose account you told to me)" as well as the reasons for him not to speak to Plaintiff when "investigating the situation". 37

A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory because it is duplicative, as Plaintiff already has in his custody documents and information produced to Plaintiff in his lawsuit against Emory that are responsive to this interrogatory. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged Defendant Gross to locate the allegedly provided

information. Defendant Gross has not responded.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the purpose and factual grounds to use differentiating wordings in introducing Plaintiff and Enrique Torre in his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on May 18, 2006 (6:33 PM), "[XX XXX] (post doc; history of interpersonal problems in the lab) and Enrique Tones (Asst Prof)". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

38

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the factual grounds and purpose for each of the following remarks in his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on May 23, 2006 (9:51 PM), "He (Enrique Torre) is an outstanding scientist and has been an excellent mentor to several students. He is extremely dedicated and impeccable in his approach to science and the scientific method. Dr. Torre has no history as far as I know of difficulty in working with others, and in fact his work in my lab supports exactly the opposite", "I feel he was provoked beyond reason, and his is not part of any ongoing difficulty on his part," I'm sure he (Enrique Torre) regrets it, but I am not sure that if I was myself in his shoes would not have reacted in the same way", "I would be personally distraught if the current altercation were to negatively impact Dr. Torre's career, and feel that he should be reinstated as soon as possible". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifics the meaning and purpose of the remark made in his e-mail to Jae Schmidt, etc. on June 12, 2006 (4:34 PM), "Recommendations? I am 'willing' to call him (Plaintiff) if you think that is not unwise". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to 39

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the meaning and purpose of the remark made in his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on June 12, 2006 (7:18 PM), "if she (Ms. [E]) supports him (Plaintiff), it might alter the balance that led to the current decision (termination)". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the meaning and purpose of making the following statements in his e-mail on June 12, 2006 (7:18 PM), "No 'allies' of [XX]'s were interviewed because there did not appear to be one, but he (Plaintiff) may consider her (Ms. E) to be so", "I am very saddened by the effects it has on Dr. [XXX]'s career", "If more information is gathered that leads to consideration of a different outcome, I am not averse to reversing course. I don't want to preside over the destruction of someone's career if it is possible to avoid it". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to 40

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies, as related to his e-mail to Jae Schmidt on May 30, 2006 (6:20:30 EFT), from whom he received an e-mail request for employment reference regarding Plaintiff as well as how he responded and reasons for his response. A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies his response following a request for employment reference regarding Plaintiff from Sarstedt on and about February 7, 2006. A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies all his communication with Dr. J at Washington University in late 2006 regarding reference for Plaintiff. 41

A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies whether he agreed to and had provided employment reference regarding Plaintiff till May 2006. A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross will attempt to provide a supplemental response after clarification from Plaintiff as to the information sought.

Q: Defendant Gross specifics whether he added Enrique Torre in the "cc" list of his e-mail sent to Jae Schmidt on May 30, 2006 (6:20:30 EDT) and the purpose of so doing.

Note: In that

e-mail, Defendant Gross wrote, "if at all humanly possible I would like this issue resolved today. I will be out of town on Thursday and Friday. I would like to leave knowing that Dr. Torre is happily reinstated. Please let me know what I need to do", "[i]ronically. I received an email asking for a reference for Dr. [XXX]. Much as it would seem best for he and my lab just to help him get that job. I will need to be honest if I fill it out. I would like advice on how to give him the option on saying there is no reference available from me".

42

A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross shows that Plaintiff already has in his custody documents and information produced to Plaintiff in his lawsuit against Emory that are responsive to this interrogatory.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies, according to him, the scientific undertaking and achievements of Plaintiff during April 2003 and May 2006 in his laboratory. Defendant Gross also specifies how he regarded Plaintiff's "scientific understanding", "technical fluency", "working morale", "professionalism" and "work relationship" during the same period and factual grounds for such views. A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the reasons for his to have signed an employment contract with Plaintiff in 2003 and renewed it in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Were Plaintiff's "scientific understanding", "technical fluency", "working morale", "professionalism", and "work relationship" considered by him? A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant 43

Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Gross further objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative and not a proper interrogatory.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies what parts of data and writing in Plaintiff's paper manuscript entitled "Enhancement of neurite outgrowth from primary and stem-cell derived neurons by lentiviral vector mediated modulation of Rho GTPase" were contributed by others and in what ways and also specifies the current status of the manuscript toward publication. A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Gross specifies the truthfulness of the following statements, "in February 2006, after making a renewal offer during a meeting, Gross told Plaintiff one of his personal stories. He mentioned that he once received a disproval of ability and performance from his supervisor likely when he was a resident. He proved him wrong a few months later and became friends. He was glad that Plaintiff did the same thing". A: Defendant Gross objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Gross also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

44

Q: All documents and communications that were related to Defendant Gross' remarks in his email to Jae Schmidt on May 23, 2006 (9:51 PM).

Note: In that e-mail, Defendant Gross

maliciously attacked Plaintiff's scientific abilities, job performance and interpersonal relationship with false assertions. Also, Defendant Gross labeled Enrique Torre therein as "an outstanding scientist" " impeccable in his approach to science and the scientific method". A: Defendant Gross objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Defendant Gross also objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Gross shows that Plaintiff already has in his custody documents and information produced to Plaintiff in his lawsuit against Emory that are responsive to this request. Further responding, Defendant Gross will attempt to supplement this response upon clarification from Plaintiff as to the information requested.

Note: Plaintiff has challenged

Defendant Gross to locate the allegedly provided information. Defendant Gross has not responded.

Defendant Thomas Lawley’s responses to Plaintiff's questions:

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies all the information regarding the May 17 (2006) incident between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre received by his Office prior to Plaintiffs appeal letter (June 16, 2006) and the sources of identified information. 45

A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of his personal knowledge.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies all the information regarding the May 17 (2006) incident between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre received by his Office from June 19, 2006 through August 3, 2006 and the sources of identified information. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of his personal knowledge.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies his and his appointed ad hoc committee’s factual understanding of what occurred on the morning of May 17, 2006 between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and to be not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory in that it appears to seek information beyond the 46

scope of his personal knowledge. Without waiving and subject to said objections, Defendant Lawley shows that he does not have personal knowledge as to the ad hoc committee’s factual understanding of what occurred on May 17, 2006 other than the August 2, 2006 report that the ad hoc committee provided to him with its findings.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies all the information regarding job performance of Plaintiff and Enrique Torre received by his Office prior to August 3, 2006 and the sources of identified information. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of his personal knowledge.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies all actions taken by his Office including himself, Claudia R. Adkison and his appointed ad hoc committee from receiving Plaintiff appeal letter on June 19, 2006 through August 3, 2006 and the timeline of actions. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him hom reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and to he not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information beyond the scope of his

47

personal knowledge and, in particular, asks Defendant Lawley to describe all the actions taken by third parties.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies whether he upheld the termination of Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment by Neurosurgery Department (Emory University Medical School) on different factual bases. If the answer is affirmative, Defendant specifies the reasons. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and as to not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies the justification for his Office not to review the disciplinary actions of Neurosurgery Department against Enrique Torre, if any, when reviewing Neurosurgery Department’s investigation into the May 17 (2006) incident, especially after Plaintiff’s repeated alert of Enrique Torre’s misconducts from June 16, 2006 on. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of his personal knowledge.

48

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies the disciplinary actions of Neurosurgery Department against Enrique Torre, if any, and the propriety, fairness and compliance with Emory University’s policies of such actions according to him. A: Defendant Lawlev objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it seeks confidential personnel information of third parties without any provision for limitation of the dissemination of such information.

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies the justifications for his Office not to investigate Jae Schmidt’s and Daniel Barrow’s misconducts including concealment, forgery and negligence during their investigation into the May 17 (2006) incident after Plaintiffs repeated alert from June 16, 2006 on. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and to not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond the scope of his personal knowledge.

49

Q: Defendant Lawley specifies the investigative actions taken by him after receiving his appointed ad hoc committee’s report stating “Barrow’s termination letter to Dr. [XXX] notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review” and “[t]he parties involved often have very different opinions as to what was communicated during the interviews to investigate these events”. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and to be not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant Lawley also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Q: Hand-written notes taken by Defendant’s Office staff Claudia R. Adkinson and members of Defendant’s appointed ad hoc committee when meeting Plaintiff on June 13, 2006 and July 20, 2006, respectively. A: Defendant Lawley objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the request. Defendant Lawley also objects to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that, if they exist, would be in the possession of third parties.

Note: By a court order, Defendant Lawley admitted that none

of his committee members took note.

50

Part III

Since Defendants Emory, Robert Gross, Daniel Barrow and Thomas Lawley have gathered some witnesses around them to defend their cases with sworn affidavits, their efforts should not be let go unnoticed. Also, since they have dared to submit the false testimonies to the court, it is up to the conscionable minds to judge whether the defendants and their witnesses are defending the truth or insulting the American justice system.

Defendants’ witnesses who testified with affidavit are all interested persons, either the defendants or Defendant Emory University’s employees.

Without a dispute, the defendants’ witnesses who testified with affidavit in support of Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment are all employees of Defendant Emory and all involved in the factual occurrences that gave rise to the civil actions. All but Jeanne Thigpen (“Thigpen”) are employees of Defendant Emory’s Medical School for years, where Thomas Lawley (“Defendant Lawley”) is the Dean. Among them, Elizabeth (Lissa) Jackson (“Jackson”), Claire-Anne Gutekunst (“Gutekunst”), Enrique Torre (“Defendant Torre”), Robert Gross (“Defendant Gross”), Jae Schmidt (“Schmidt”) are employees of Defendant Emory’s Neurosurgery Department for years, where Defendant Daniel Barrow (“Defendant Barrow”) is the Chairman. Jackson, Gutekunst and Defendant Torre work in a laboratory where Defendant Gross is the director.

51

Testimonies of the defendants’ witnesses were (self-)contradicted by proven facts and their own testimonies and the credibility of them will be challenged as to whether perjury has been committed.

Example 1. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt

The evidence shows that Schmidt alleged to individuals including the staff in Dean Office of Defendant Emory’s Medical School and Human Resources Department on June 12, 2006, the day Plaintiff received the termination letter and when Schmidt knew that Plaintiff initiated an appeal of his and Barrow’s decisions, “[h]e (Plaintiff) was reluctant to leave my area today to the point that I had to have the police escort him out”, “[h]e may appear on WHSCAB 3rd floor once he learns where the Dean’s office is located. If so, you may need to again alert the authorities if he becomes indignant”, “[a]fter Dr. XXX’s behavior today, and the attempted intimidation of our administrative staff, the reasoning behind the action was reaffirmed for me” (emphasis added).

However, Schmidt failed to point out that Plaintiff was, first in Neurosurgery Department’s common kitchen then in a public waiting room, anticipating Defendants Gross’ and Barrow’s secretaries to pass on both individuals’ response and preparing a written request of conference to Defendant Barrow when Schmidt called Emory police. Schmidt also failed to mention that his “attempted intimidation” allegation was only referring to the fact that Plaintiff, who was forced out to the street by Schmidt and did not carry a cell-phone, used a payphone to contact Defendants Gross’ and Barrow’s secretaries.

In his affidavit, however, Schmidt testified under oath, “Dr. XXX did not leave the building in which the Department of Neurosurgery is located, as I had instructed him to do at the conclusion 52

of the meeting on June 12. 2006. Dr. XXX refused to leave the building when I again told him that he needed to leave the building. Accordingly, it was necessary for me to call the police and have the police escort Dr. XXX out of the building” (emphasis added). Noticeably, Schmidt did not make further testimonies in this regard. No word of “behavior” or “attempted intimidation” was present in Schmidt’s affidavit. Additionally, the e-mails of Defendant Gross’ secretary unequivocally confirmed the reasons for Plaintiff “not leaving the building” or “Schmidt’s area”. She wrote to Defendant Gross, “[h]e (Plaintiff) is here and wants to know if you are willing to speak with him?”, “Are you willing to call him? He is just going to continue trying reach you”. One e-mail also indicated that Schmidt knew Plaintiff was not “attempting to intimidate” anyone. Defendant Gross’ secretary wrote to Schmidt, “[s]he (Defendant Barrow’s secretary) answered and said that he (Plaintiff) is still asking to speak to Barrow, and he is continuing to call me so I am sure it is for the same thing”. To a reasonable mind, whether Schmidt had and has a serious credibility issue and whether Schmidt’s false remarks were made for specific purposes are genuine questions.

Example 2. Concerning the Credibility of Schmidt, Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Lawley In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath that he “interviewed all employees who had personal knowledge of the incident” (emphasis added).

53

Without a dispute, Ms. E met with Schmidt around June 5, 2006 and provided him with her knowledge regarding the May 17 incident. However, Plaintiff and the defendants certainly dispute over whether Schmidt made self-contradictory statements regarding the nature and significance of such conversation. In his alleged “memo to file”, Schmidt labeled such conversation, actually initiated by Ms. E’s voluntary drop-by, as a “meeting” between Ms. E and him and such conversation was also allegedly considered as one of Schmidt’s “interviews” by the ad hoc committee of Defendant Emory Medical School. In their affidavits, the three members of the ad hoc committee also testified under oath, “I believed the evidence showed that the Department of Neurosurgery’s investigation of the altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policies. The information provided to the ad hoc committee demonstrated that the Department of Neurosurgery interviewed all the relevant witnesses, obtained statements and made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to ascertain what transpired on May 17, 2006”. However, the court record undisputedly shows that Schmidt himself once alleged in another occasion, his “notes of conversation” with Ms. E were “typed” “on July 7, 2006 so that the information from Ms. E would be included in the record for consideration of Dr. XXX’s appeal of his termination”. Noticeably, on June 12, 2006, Plaintiff received Defendant Barrow’s letter ending their “investigation”. Consistently, Schmidt and Defendant Barrow did not wait until June 5, 2006, the day when Schmidt’ alleged “interview” or “meeting” with Ms. E occurred, to make their final decisions. On May 30, 2006, Defendant Barrow already announced his decisions at his meeting with Defendant Gross that he “recommend[ed] Dr. XXX’s departure from the lab” and 54

Defendant Torre to “receive one week without pay and letter to Dean noting the incident as formal reprimand”. On June 1, 2006, Schmidt wrote to others, Defendant Barrow “would like to reprimand Dr. Torre with a formal letter copied to the Dean, as well as one week without pay. He would like to offer Dr. XXX the option of resigning prior to termination”. Therefore, evidently, Schmidt’s “memo to file” did not exist, in the least, until July 7, 2006 and he did not document Ms. E’s information as base for Defendant Barrow’s decisions as so alleged by him and the ad hoc committee. Additionally, whether Schmidt “typed” his “memo to file” based on his hand-written notes or unreliable memory and invention is another disputed material issue when Defendant Emory has failed and refused to confirm the existence of Schmidt’s handwritten notes and, if existed, produce a copy to Plaintiff. In any event, the credibility of Schmidt, even with a sworn affidavit, is itself a genuine issue to be determined. Since the ad hoc committee ignored Plaintiff’s unequivocal written alert about Schmidt’s fishy “memo to file” and Defendant Barrow’s haste and irresponsible decisions and falsely concluded that Schmidt and Defendant Barrow had “made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to ascertain what transpired on May 17, 2006” without evidence and verification, the credibility of the committee’s members, Thigpen, Thomas Pearson (“Pearson”) and Linda Beard (“Beard”), even with sworn affidavits, is itself a genuine issue. In his letter to Plaintiff, Defendant Lawley asserted, “I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination. The committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you

55

provided to the committee directly”. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Lawley is an issue to be determined. Additionally, the contentions of the ad hoc committee members that “the Department of Neurosurgery interviewed all the relevant witnesses, obtained statements and made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to ascertain what transpired on May 17, 2006” and of Defendant Lawley that the ad hoc committee “performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination” are further negated by the evidence. First, evidently, the Department of Neurosurgery had already mad up its mind to terminate Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment not only before Ms. E’s drop-by around June 5, 2006 but even before Defendant Barrow met Plaintiff for the first and only time. For instance, at 2:05 PM on May 30, 2006, Defendant Gross wrote to Schmidt, “[t]here needs to be a mechanism for continued communication with Dr. XXX with regard to writing his results up for publication”. Bearing his earlier “dismissal” affirmation (on May 23, 2006) in mind, evidently, Defendant Gross was discussing with Schmidt how to benefit from Plaintiff’s research results after Plaintiff was fired. Schmidt replied at 4:13 PM before he attended Defendant Barrow’s meeting with Plaintiff, “we can discuss this at our meeting”. Without a dispute, on May 30, 2006, Defendant Barrow met with Plaintiff around 4:15 PM in his office. The record shows that Defendant Barrow announced Plaintiff’s “departure” and Defendant Torre’s retention at his meeting with Defendant Gross and Schmidt later that day. Second, according to their own words and actions, Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s “investigation” including “interviews” was mere a pretentious show serving the goal of a conspiracy against Plaintiff. For instance, on June 12, 2006 after meeting Plaintiff, Schmidt wrote to Defendant Gross, “he (Plaintiff) accused us of an unfair investigation and outcome”, and “would take his appeal to ‘higher levels’”. In reply, Defendant Gross wrote, “Ah. . . .due 56

process in the end will be our salvation” (supplied in its entirety). Third, evidently, the ad hoc committee also reached its conclusion hastily and irresponsibly without proof and verification. For instance, on the morning of July 21, 2006, just hours after the ad hoc members met with Plaintiff for the first and only time (Plaintiff’s meeting with the committee ended shortly after 7 PM on July 20), Joshua Barwick, a staff member in Dean’s Office of Defendant Emory’s Medical School, wrote to Schmidt, “having talked with Dr. Pearson (chair of the ad hoc committee) this morning, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to provide anything additional. The committee was able to reach a decision based on the materials and information it reviewed yesterday”. Accordingly, the credibility of Schmidt, Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Defendant Lawley, even with sworn affidavits, is a genuine issue to be determined.

Example 3. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt, Gutekunst, Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Defendant Lawley In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath, “[a]ttached as Exhibit B are my notes of my meeting with Dr. XXX on May 22. 2006” and “[t]hese notes accurately summarize my statements and questions to Dr. XXX and Dr XXX’s statements to me”. Claire-Anne Gutekubst (“Gutekunst”) also testified under oath, “Mr. Schmidt’s notes accurately summarize Mr. Schmidt’s statements and questions to Dr. XXX and Dr. XXX’s statements to Mr. Schmidt”. In the above-referred memo of his meeting with Plaintiff, Schmidt noted Plaintiff’s “statements” to him, “Dr. XXX posted a sign over his dissection bench requesting that area be designated for 57

his express use on specific days (including Wednesday mornings) and times (9am to 12pm)” and “I witnessed a sign in the laboratory that describes this request”. Plaintiff faithfully informed Defendant Lawley in his appeal letter in June 2006 that Plaintiff’s reservation note actually read “[i]f you have to use this bench on any Wednesday from 9 AM through 12 PM, please let me know. Appreciate it. XX”. Convincingly, Defendant Torre confirmed Plaintiff’s truthfulness in this regard. According to a memo prepared during his “investigation”, Schmidt documented, Defendant Torre “had noted a sign in the area, but misunderstood the sign to be for a specific Wednesday a couple weeks prior, and didn’t interpret the sign to mean every Wednesday, nor did he understand that Dr. XXX expected this equipment to be designated for his exclusive use on Wednesdays. Dr. Torre noted that it wasn’t until another employee clarified ‘every Wednesday’ that he understood the ongoing nature of the sign’s request”. In addition, the court record undisputedly shows that Jackson stated in another occasion, “XX has posted a sign in the clean bench requesting that he ha[s] use of the bench on Wednesday mornings, 9-12. This sign is ‘open-ended’ in my opinion”. Evidently, Schmidt’s own statements in two sworn documents self-contradicted with each other and were further contradicted by the statements of Jackson, one of the defendants’ witnesses. To a reasonable mind, there’s no identifiable reason for either Plaintiff or Defendant Torre or Jackson to have made untrue statements regarding Plaintiff’s reservation only on “every Wednesday”. Therefore, the doubt of credibility can only be cast on Schmidt. Likewise, the doubt of credibility can only be cast on Gutekunst. 58

The ad hoc committee of Defendant Emory’ Medical School was advised by Plaintiff that Schmidt was not a truthful note-taker. The committee itself also acknowledged, “[t]he parties involved often have very different opinions as to what was communicated during the interviews to investigate these events”. The committee went on to state, “[i]t would be very helpful in the future to have an uninvolved third party present during interviews, which would allow for verification of the facts verbally communicated”. Yet, as Defendants admitted, without verification by themselves with Gutekunst, “a third party”, the committee bluntly concluded, “[i]n our opinion the inquiry into this altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policy”. In their affidavits, the committee members also testified under oath, “I believed the evidence showed that the Department of Neurosurgery’s investigation of the altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policies. The information provided to the ad hoc committee demonstrated that the Department of Neurosurgery interviewed all the relevant witnesses, obtained statements and made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to ascertain what transpired on May 17. 2006”. Therefore, the credibility of the committee’s members, Thigpen, Pearson and Beard, even with sworn affidavits, is itself a genuine issue. In his letter to Plaintiff, Defendant Lawley asserted, “I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination. The committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you provided to the committee directly”. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Lawley is an issue to be determined.

59

Example 4. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt and Gutekunst In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath, “[a]ttached as Exhibit B are my notes of my meeting with Dr. XXX on May 22. 2006” and “[t]hese notes accurately summarize my statements and questions to Dr. XXX and Dr XXX’s statements to me”. Gutekubst also testified under oath, “Mr. Schmidt’s notes accurately summarize Mr. Schmidt’s statements and questions to Dr. XXX and Dr. XXX’s statements to Mr. Schmidt”. In the above-referred memo, Schmidt noted, “Dr. XXX asked Dr. Torre ‘why he needed to use the space today’”. Evidently, Plaintiff only reserved and needed the dissection bench from “9am to 12pm”. To a reasonable mind, there’s no identifiable reason for Plaintiff to have raised a senseless question to Defendant Torre. In fact, Plaintiff rather asked Defendant Torre why he needed the bench “right away”. Therefore, the doubt of credibility can only be cast on Schmidt. Likewise, the doubt of credibility can only be cast on Gutekunst.

Example 5. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt and Defendant Barrow In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath, “[a]ttached as Exhibit F are my notes of the meeting between myself, Dr. XXX and Dr. Barrow on May 30, 2006 and the meeting between me, Dr. Torte and Dr. Barrow on May 30, 2006. These notes accurately summarize Dr. Barrow’s statements and questions to Dr. XXX, Dr. XXX’s statements to me and Dr. Barrow”. Defendant 60

Barrow also testified under oath, “I have reviewed Mr. Schmidt’s notes of this meeting attached as Exhibit C. These notes accurately summarize my statements and questions to Dr. XXX, Dr. XXX’s statements to me and Mr. Schmidt”. During the above-mentioned meeting, in addition to his recount of the May 17 incident, Plaintiff was only requested to provide information on “door locking” issue in absence of any reference to “events leading up to the altercation”. Schmidt documented Plaintiff’s “recount” as, Plaintiff and Defendant Torre “had an initial disagreement about keeping the lab doors locked at night. In Brief: Dr. Torre asked Dr. XXX to lock doors if he’s last to leave; Dr. XXX agreed and did so, but Dr. Torre was then frequently locked out without his keys; Dr. Torre often called to Emory Police to regain access to the locked lab; Dr. Torre requested Dr. XXX ‘look for him’ prior to leaving and locking the doors so Dr. Torre would not be locked out; Dr. XXX asked Dr. Torre to carry his keys so this wouldn’t be necessary; Dr. Torre didn’t want to carry his keys because they are ‘bulky’”. During Plaintiff’s appeal to Defendant Emory’s Medical School, Schmidt’s recount of Plaintiff’s statements was challenged by Plaintiff, which was itself not negated by neither Schmidt nor Defendant Barrow: Therein, Plaintiff rebutted, “[a]s to the ‘door locking’ disagreement, Mr. Schmidt did not recount my words faithfully. He again put his words in my mouth. I never said that Enrique was locked out ‘frequently’ and Enrique had to ‘often’ call the Emory police. I don’t even know the existence of the word ‘bulky’ before I read [his] memo”. “The following is my recount of that event and its background: Before Enrique joined the lab, 61

I used to be the last person to leave. I always locked the door. After he joined, he also left late. On one occasion, thinking he was still around, I left without locking the door. The next morning, someone in the lab mentioned to me the door was open before the first person came. So since then, I closed the door whenever I left. Later one morning Enrique approached me and complained he was locked out the night before. I suggested him to bring his key with him. Some time after that, Enrique approached me another morning and complained he was locked out again. I suggested him again to bring his key. He replied, to the effect, why should he, and I should search everywhere for him before I locked the door. I regarded his demand as being unreasonable and inconsiderate. He started arguing with me in a mocking and teasing tone. He only stopped verbally bothering me when I left the room. He resumed mocking and teasing when I returned into the room. Even when I blocked my ears with my fingers, he didn’t stop. Facing the lasting bothering from him, I shouted to him ‘Shame on you’ several times in an attempt to stop him. I did not use coarse language all the time. On the contrary, Enrique called me ‘Bastard!’ in the lab in public. After he was quiet down, he apologized and said ‘There won’t be any burst like this’”. Evidently, whether Schmidt fabricated Plaintiff’s “statements” in his memo and Schmidt and Defendant Barrow falsely affirmed such fabrications in their affidavits is disputed. Again, the credibility of Schmidt and Defendant Barrow as witnesses, even with sworn affidavits, can only be determined.

Example 6. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt, Defendant Barrow and Jackson 62

In their affidavits, Schmidt and Defendant Barrow testified under oath that Schmidt’s memo of the meeting between Jackson and Defendant Barrow “accurately summarize” Defendant Barrow’s statements and questions to Jackson and her statements to Defendant Barrow and Schmidt during this meeting. In Schmidt’s referred memo, he documented, “Lissa noted her original disagreement with Dr. XXX where he yelled at her for questioning his scientific method. Lissa was brought to tears by this encounter”, “Lissa remarked that ‘Enrique gives assistance to everyone else in the lab’…Then notes two previous post-doc’s who had arguments with XX—one of whom said ‘XX’s crazy’”. However, in her own affidavit, Jackson testified under oath, “[d]uring this meeting, I also described my previous argument with Dr. XXX and told Dr. Barrow and Mr. Schmidt that two previous postdoctoral researchers also had arguments with Dr. XXX”. There’re no words about “questioning Plaintiff’s scientific method”. As rebutted by Plaintiff during his appeal to Defendant Emory’s Medical School, which was itself not negated by Jackson. “Assuming Lissa did note ‘her original disagreement with Dr. XXX where he yelled at her for questioning his scientific method’. This was not true. Lissa and me was working together to analyze the viability of a cell sample for a clinical trial. We did not agree with each other’s counts. Likely thinking her having more experience counting those cells, she put down her number on the recording book. After she left the room, I looked the sample under the microscope more carefully trying to 63

understand the difference. When she reentered the room later, seeing me sitting in front of the scope, without saying anything, she wave one of her fingers in a disrespectful manner suggesting me (without words) to stand immediately. Combined with her facial expression, she clearly expressed her impatience suggesting I was wasting time. Felt a need to stop her pattern of disrespectful behavior (I let her go free in several prior similar situation), I raised my voice and told her ‘if you do not respect me, you will not get my respect’. She left the room without [any verbal] response. Normally when she felt she was right, she would respond with harsh comments. I personally did not see her crying. When I came back to the main lab a short while later, she started a conversation with me regarding a non-urgent matter. Everyone who knows her can tell she has a very strong personality and if someone offends her with no reason, he will not get away with it easily. That she talked to me first that early was definitely an indication that she was not mistakenly warned. If necessary, please check on her personality”. As regard to Plaintiff’s “arguments” with “two previous post-docs”, Plaintiff rebutted, “I wonder what she (Jackson) referred to as arguments and their nature. I wonder what circumstance resulted in the ‘crazy’ comment and what on earth it could mean. If Mr. Schmidt think[s] this means something to him, please explain to me and the committee”. Neither Schmidt nor the ad hoc committee responded in this regard. Additionally, when Plaintiff contacted Jackson for verification, the following e-mail chain occurred on August 10, 2006: Plaintiff to Jackson: 64

Hi Lissa, Please verify if you made some statements as according to Jae Schmidt or what actually you said regarding relevant issues during your meeting with Daniel Barrow on May 30, 2006. 1. Schmidt documented that you said “neither (XX and Enrique) values the others work”. 2. He also noted that you said “Enrique gives assistance to everyone else in the lab”, “XX has had interaction with previous people”, “two previous post-doc’s had arguments with XX and one said ‘XX’s crazy’”. If Schmidt missed out some relevant comments you made, please indicate. Thanks. XX Jackson to Schmidt: Jae, I got this email from XX. I do not think I should answer any of these questions as I do not have a transcript of our conversation. I guess I thought our discussion was not to be disclosed to XX. I do not think this discussion should be by email. From this communication, it seems there is not a firm decision. I would appreciate any advise etc.

65

Thanks, Lissa According to Jackson, at the time of e-mailing to Schmidt, she did not know that Defendant Lawley had ended his “review”. Bearing this in mind, Jackson simultaneously stated that, at the time of making her statements when meeting Defendant Barrow on May 30, 2006, she “thought” that whatever she said would not be disclosed to Plaintiff. Whether such belief was only her personal perception or an assurance from Schmidt and/or Defendant Barrow and whether such belief affected Jackson’s ability to provide truthful information are genuine material issues to be raised and determined. Evidently, Plaintiff faithfully cited Jackson’s own statements as documented by Schmidt and sought Jackson’s verification. That is to say, anyone who reads Schmidt’s memo will conclude that Plaintiff did not either alter or quote Jackson’s alleged remarks out of context. Evidently, Jackson did “not think” that she “should”, or rather could in August 2006, confirm the cited statements to be hers because she did “not have a transcript of” her conversation. To a reasonable mind and the jury, it would be very hard to understand that, in January 2008 when nearly 18 months have passed by, Jackson “should” or “could” be so positive to testify that the very same transcripts were true summary of her words. In addition, Defendant Emory has failed and refused to provide any evidence to support mere allegations of Jackson in her meeting with Defendant Barrow. Therefore, the credibility of Jackson, even with a sworn affidavit, is itself a genuine issue to be only determined. Likewise, the credibility of Schmidt and Defendant Barrow, even with sworn affidavits, is itself a genuine issue. 66

Example 7. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Barrow To justify his termination decision, Defendant Barrow (1) accused that Plaintiff used “physical force” toward Defendant Torre; (2) alleged that Plaintiff had “numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory” and an “inability to consistently work in a collaborative and communicative manner is a hindrance to the efficiency and ultimate success of the laboratory and Department’s research enterprise”; (3) alleged that there have been “other concerns regarding your (Plaintiff’s) performance”; (4) alleged that Plaintiff had a “reluctance to accept criticism and guidance from your (Plaintiff’s) supervisors”; (5) asserted that Plaintiff could no longer work for Defendant Emory because of a “pattern of ineffective personal skills, a recent fist fight, mistreatment of animals, and concerns regarding your scientific method”; (6) stated that due to a “pattern of behavior and severity of your recent actions, you will be ineligible for future employment at Emory University”. However, in his affidavit, Defendant Barrow testified under oath, “[e]ven assuming that Dr. XXX did not have any prior job performance problems or prior interpersonal conflicts with others in the lab, as uncovered in the investigation, I would have made the same decision to terminate Dr. XXX’s employment”. Evidently, Defendants Emory and Barrow have failed and refused to provide any evidence other than mere allegations of Defendant Gross, Defendant Torre and Jackson to support Defendant Barrow’s allegations in his letter terminating Plaintiff. In this regard, the ad hoc committee noted, Defendant Barrow’s “termination letter to Dr. XXX notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review”. 67

Bearing this in mind, Defendant Barrow’s testimony of “assuming that Dr. XXX did not have any prior job performance problems or prior interpersonal conflicts with others in the lab”, instead of proving otherwise, raises a genuine issue of his credibility. In his affidavit, Defendant Barrow testified under oath, although Torre’s “involvement in this altercation was inappropriate, Dr. Torre did not commit an act of violence”. However, on May 22, 2006, Torre alleged to Schmidt that he “became physically angry” “‘pushing’ Dr. XXX backwards with his right hand on Dr. XXX’s neck and shoulder”. However, according to Schmidt’s notes of the conversation between him and Ms. E, which was sworn to accurately summarize such conversation, Ms. E provided her opinion that “these marks [on Plaintiff] could not have come from a ‘push’ as claimed by Dr. Torre”. In addition, Lawley’s committee noted albeit with crafty wording, Torre “had physical contact with Dr. XXX”. Therefore, the credibility of Defendant Barrow even with a sworn affidavit is itself a serious question to be determined.

Example 8. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Gross In his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified under oath that he prepared a “note to file” (in 2004) and e-mailed to Plaintiff in reference to his “concerns regarding Dr. XXX’s job performance as a researcher”, “serious deficiencies in his (Plaintiff’s) performance”, “difficulty understanding scientific principles and objectives and critically evaluating his work”.

68

Evidently, Plaintiff has asserted that he was not aware of the existence and content of Defendant Gross’ “note to file” until Plaintiff filed his appeal with Defendant Emory’s Medical School in mid-July 2006. Evidently, once Plaintiff was aware, he disputed Gross’ remarks. Additionally, Plaintiff did not respond to Gross’ e-mail due to its absurdness and frivolity. During his appeal, Plaintiff rebutted, 1. Please note both (Gross’ “note to file” and e-mail) were written in late 2004. At that time, my project ran into a major obstacle that expression of C3 protein (an enzyme) in viral infected cells could not be unequivocally confirmed through immunoassaying. Seeing firsthand the striking morphological changes in infected cells, I was certain about the presence of the C3 protein. However, others in the lab were not so sure due to limited exposure to my results. Both Dr. Gross and me were frustrated and sought solutions. I understood that he was harshly critical towards me due to misunderstanding and impatience. He set a time for me to solve this. Before the deadline, I was able to undoubtedly prove that C3 was expressed through several lines of evidence including RT-PCR and improved immunoassaying (Enrique helped me with the latter). As a note, the previous problem of C3 staining was later agreed to likely arose from its cytotoxicity, thus low level in surviving cells. 2. If he (Gross) had not changed his view later on and been satisfied with my ability and performance, it would be difficult to note that he extended my employment status twice in February 2005 and February 2006 (a letter is enclosed), respectively.

69

3. With the data I generated, Dr. Gross applied for and was awarded grant(s) and has been actively seeking grant renewal and collaboration with other researchers. 4. I have presented my research data in national meetings. A manuscript of my work for publication was prepared in fall 2005 and has been in revision by Dr. Gross and me. Dr. Gross thought it could go out with a bit more in vivo results. 5. In February 2006, during an individual meeting with Dr. Gross, he told me one of his personal stor[ies]. He mentioned that he once received a disproval of ability and performance from his supervisor likely when he was a resident. He proved him wrong a few month[s] later and became friends. He was glad that I did the same thing. I appreciated his openheartedness and his changed impression of me. Without a dispute, whether Defendant Gross’ remarks were sound and founded on facts is disputed. Considering his subsequent actions including his two additional renewals of Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment, the credibility of Defendant Gross in his words is certainly a genuine issue to be determined.

Example 9. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Gross, Defendant Torre and Gutekunst In his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified, “I asked Dr. Enrique Torre and Dr. Claire-Anne Gutekunst” “to become more involved with Dr. XXX’s research during 2005 and early 2006 in hopes of improving Dr. XXX’s work. Dr. XXX was not receptive to their involvement with the

70

research he performed”, “his (Plaintiff’s) continued reluctance to accept criticism or feedback from me, Dr. Torre or Dr. Gutekunst regarding his research”. Likewise, in his affidavit, Defendant Torre testified under oath, “[a]t the request of Dr. Gross, I became more involved with Dr. XXX’s work in 2005 and early 2006 and attempted to provide Dr. XXX with supervision, direction and advice concerning his research. Dr. XXX, however, was resistant to my input and advice concerning his research and appeared to perceive my feedback as criticism. It appeared to me that Dr. XXX resented my involvement with his research and preferred to work alone without my feedback or input”. Also, in her affidavit, Gutekunst testified under oath, “[a]t the request of Dr. Robert E. Gross, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery, I became more involved with Dr. XXX’s work in 2005 and early 2006 and attempted to provide Dr. XXX with supervision, direction and advice concerning his research. Dr. XXX, however, was resistant to my input and advice concerning his research and appeared to perceive my feedback as criticism. It appeared to me that Dr. XXX resented my involvement with his research and preferred to work alone without my feedback or input”. First, without a dispute, Plaintiff is a trained molecular biologist with a Ph.D. degree. Notwithstanding that Plaintiff will prove to the jury his scientific ability and professionalism, Defendants are challenged to dispute the fact that Plaintiff was the most experienced researcher in lentiviral gene therapy in Defendant Gross’ lab. Defendants are challenged to dispute the fact that Defendant Gross’ lab only began lentiviral gene therapy research after Plaintiff joined and single-handedly started from the scratch. Defendants are challenged to dispute the fact that Plaintiff’s scientific competence has been proven beyond doubt by his research manuscript. In 71

this regard, Defendant Emory has failed and refused to assert contribution of any other individuals in Defendant Gross’ lab to Plaintiff’s scientific achievement exhibited in his manuscript. And yet, it is beyond comprehension and as a supreme insult to the spirit of science and the modesty of honest scientists, Defendant Torre and Gutekunst dared to claim that they were there to provide “supervision, direction and advice” concerning Plaintiff’s research even they knew little about gene therapy. To a reasonable mind and the jury, the credibility of persons with such inflated egos and disproportional arrogance, even with sworn affidavits, is certainly a genuine and serious issue. As a noble man and honest scientist, Plaintiff appreciated the importance of scientific discussions among colleagues for mutual benefits. Accordingly, Plaintiff actually invited in lab meetings suggestions to his research and adequately acknowledged such feedback and input in his research manuscript. Defendant Gross, Defendant Torre, Gutekunst and Jackson were all named therein as co-authors. On the contrary, whether Defendant Torre and Gutekunst have decently acknowledged Plaintiff’s contribution to their research since their joining in Defendant Gross’ lab is disputed. Second, the record speaks against them. Defendants has not provided any evidence other than Defendant Gross’ 2004 “note to file”, whose truthfulness has been negated, to substantiate mere assertions in testimonies of Gross, Defendant Torre and Gutekunst in this regard. Third, Defendant Gross’ own words contradicted the testimonies of these individuals. In his email to Schmidt on May 23, 2006, Defendant Gross alleged, “I have involved him (Defendant Torre), and Dr. Claire-Anne Gutekunst, in Dr. XXX’s work to improve its quality, and indeed it has”. Similarly, in his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified, “I decided to offer Dr. XXX 72

employment in my lab for one final year for 2006-2007 because he did make some progress on his research (with the assistance of Dr. Torre and Dr. Gutekunst)”. To a reasonable mind, it is very hard to understand, if not impossible, why Defendant Gross gave credits to Defendant Torre and Gutekunst for Plaintiff’s “improved work” while he and these two individuals alleged that Plaintiff was “not receptive to” or ‘resented” Defendant Torre and Gutekunst’s involvement, “resistant” to Defendant Torre’s and Gutekunst’s “input and advice”, “preferred to work alone without [their] feedback or input”. Therefore, an issue of the credibility of Defendant Gross, Defendant Torre and Gutekunst, even with sworn affidavits, has to be raised and determined.

Example 10. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Gross In his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified, “Dr. XXX showed some minor improvements in his research by January 2005. Although he did not substantially improve his research methods nor resolve in a meaningful way the concerns that I had, I decided to give Dr. XXX the opportunity to continue his research for another year”, “[e]ven after January 2005, I had frequent discussions with Dr. XXX explaining to him the flaws in his research and his data, and the fact that these flaws would be exposed in a far harsher manner by outside peer reviewers if a paper were published without correcting these flaws”, “I counseled Dr. XXX on numerous occasions regarding the need for him to work more collegially with other lab employees”, “I was reluctant to offer Dr. XXX employment in my lab after his current contract expired” (on February 2006), “[n]evertheless, I decided to offer Dr. XXX employment in my lab for one final year for 200673

2007 because he did make some progress on his research”, “I did not intend to offer Dr. XXX employment in my lab after this contract expired on February 26, 2007”. Evidently, Defendant Gross’ testimonies were self-contradictory. If he was “reluctant to offer Dr. XXX employment” before February 2006, then why did he “nevertheless” make the offer in February 2006? If he did it because Plaintiff “did make some progress on his research”, then why did Defendant Gross allege that Plaintiff “did not substantially improve his research methods nor resolve in a meaningful way the concerns” that he had? One has to wonder whether Defendant Gross realized that his afterthoughts did nothing more than ridiculing his own sanity and judgment. Additionally, to a reasonable mind and the jury, it is very hard to understand, if not impossible, why Defendant Gross “reluctantly” offered postdoctoral employment to Plaintiff time after time. Ironically, Defendant Gross himself provided the answer. In his e-mail to Schmidt on May 23, 2006, Defendant Gross wrote, “[s]urprisingly, he (Plaintiff) accomplished most of what I challenged him to do by 1/2005 and I extended him for another year. It seemed to me that his work had improved considerably in the ensuing year”. Also in this regard, his own words speak against him repeatedly. In February 2005, Defendant Gross wrote to Plaintiff, “[i]t is a pleasure to renew your position as a post-doctoral Research biologist in the Department of Neurosurgery at Emory University beginning March 1, 2005 through February 27, 2006. This is a one-year appointment contingent on continued satisfactory performance”, “[w]e look forward to having you on our staff and hope that you find the work environment here both stimulating and enjoyable”. 74

In February 2006, Defendant Gross wrote to Plaintiff, “[i]t is a pleasure to offer you a position as a post-doctoral Research Biologist in the Department of Neurosurgery at Emory University, beginning February 27, 2006 through February 26, 2007. This position is for one year, with the possibility of renewal for additional years upon mutual agreement (as per accompanying letter)”, “[w]e look forward to your continued productivity”. As for “some minor improvements by January 2005”, Defendant Gross’ own words speak against him again. In his e-mail to Schmidt on may 23, 2006, Defendant Gross asserted, “[s]urprisingly, he (Plaintiff) accomplished most of what I challenged him to do by 1/2005 and I extended him for another year”. As for “frequent discussions after January 2005” and “counseled on numerous occasions regarding the need for him to work more collegially with other lab employees”, Defendants Emory and Gross have failed and refused to provide any evidence other than Defendant Gross’ 2004 “note to file” to support such mere allegations. Defendant Gross’ own words speak against him again. In his e-mail to Schmidt on May 23, 2006, Defendant Gross alleged, “I was aware of an altercation with Lissa Jackson, my senior tech., but I do not recall whether I discussed this with Dr. XXX”. By his own statements, Defendant Gross could not claim, with mere assertion after 20 months, that he “counseled” Plaintiff on “an altercation” with Jackson. In his affidavit, Defendant Gross also testified under oath, “I also learned from Ms. Jackson that the relationship between Dr. XXX and another lab employee, Lincoln Jimenez, had deteriorated to the point where they were not on speaking terms outside of lab meetings”. Again, by his own 75

words, albeit purposely crafted, Defendant Gross did not claim that he “counseled” Plaintiff on “deteriorated” relationship with Jimenez. In his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified, “[b]ased on the information conveyed by Dr. Torre to me and Mr. Schmidt during the May 22, 2006 meeting and the information conveyed to me by Ms. Jackson, it became apparent to me that Dr. XXX’s interpersonal conflicts with other employees in the lab was significantly worse than I had realized previously”. Again, by his own words, Defendant Gross did not claim that he reached his conclusion after verification of the allegations made by Defendant Torre and Jackson, who had personal motives and interests to attack Plaintiff, with Plaintiff, let alone “counselled” Plaintiff in this regard. Whether it was representative of Defendant Gross’ pattern of dealing with Plaintiff during 2003-2006 or just one exception is a genuine issue to be raised and determined. Additionally, the following e-mails further disprove Defendant Gross’ assertions. On July 7, 2006, Joshua Barwick, a staff in Dean’s Office of Defendant Emory’ Medical School e-mailed to Schmidt, “I’m wondering if there are any progress notes or other relevant documents regarding Dr. XXX’s performance from 2005 or early 2006? I’m guessing probably not, and that’s okay”. In reply, Schmidt wrote, “[t]here were not additional documentation materials in my file, although Dr. Gross had spoken with Dr. XXX on a few occasions without reporting it to my office”.

76

Even according to Schmidt, Defendant Gross only spoke with Plaintiff “on a few occasions” but not “numerous occasions”. Importantly, Schmidt admitted that no documents other than Defendant Gross’ 2004 “note to file” existed to substantiate his mere assertions. Therefore, the credibility of Defendant Gross, even with a sworn affidavit, is certainly a genuine and serious issue to be determined.

Example 11. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Torre In his affidavit, Defendant Torre testified, “I have reviewed Mr. Schmidt’s notes of the May 22, 2006 meeting between me, Mr. Schmidt and Dr. Gross, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Schmidt’s notes accurately reflect Dr. Gross’ and Mr. Schmidt’s statements and questions to me, my statements to Dr. Gross and Mr. Schmidt and my demeanor during this meeting. The statements I made to Dr. Gross and Mr. Schmidt during this meeting and the sentiments I expressed to them during this meeting, as documented by Mr. Schmidt’s notes, are true and correct”. Similarly, Defendant Torre testified under oath, “I have reviewed Mr. Schmidt’s notes of the May 30, 2006 meeting between me, Mr. Schmidt and Dr. Barrow, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mr. Schmidt’s notes accurately summarize Dr. Barrow’s statements and questions to me and my statements to Dr. Barrow and Mr. Schmidt during this meeting. The statements I made to Dr. Barrow and Mr. Schmidt during this meeting and the sentiments I expressed to them during this meeting, as documented by Mr. Schmidt’s notes, are true and correct”.

77

However, Defendant Torre’s testimonies were either self-contradictory or contradicted by the record. First, according to one of Schmidt’s above-referred memos, on May 30,2006, Defendant Torre alleged that he had “no prior knowledge” regarding Plaintiff’s reservation of the bench for Wednesday mornings. But according to Schmidt’s another above-referred memo, on May 22, 2006, Defendant Torre admitted that he “had noted a sign in the area” and “misunderstood the sign to be for a specific Wednesday a couple weeks prior” until “another employee clarified ‘every Wednesday’” to him later. Second, on May 30, 2006, Defendant Torre asserted that “he has avoided confrontation to the best of his ability”. Yet, according to the same memo, Defendant Torre also admitted that he did “not have as tight a time window [as Plaintiff]” and “he needed [the bench] 2-3 hours that day”. Since Plaintiff only reserved and needed the bench “9-12” on Wednesdays mornings, Defendant Torre was admitting to Defendant Barrow about his complete lack of justification to obstruct Plaintiff’s planned work and invoke but not “avoid” an unnecessary confrontation. Third, on May 22, 2006, Defendant Torre replied to Schmidt’s question “if he waved his hands in jest of Dr. XXX” with “I don’t know. . . maybe.. . it’s possible”. Yet, on May 30, 2006, when Defendant Barrow asked Defendant Torre what “he was doing immediately prior to Dr. XXX’s throwing of the animal cage?”, Defendant Torre replied that “he was ‘yelling’ and ‘some taunting’”. Forth, on May 22, 2006, Defendant Torre alleged that he “became physically angry” “‘pushing’ Dr. XXX backwards with his right hand on Dr. XXX’s neck and shoulder”. However, according 78

to Schmidt’s notes of the conversation between him and Ms. E, which was sworn to accurately summarize such conversation, Ms. E provided her opinion that “these marks [on Plaintiff] could not have come from a ‘push’ as claimed by Dr. Torre”. In light of the foregoing, to a reasonable mind, a serious issue of the credibility of Defendant Torre has to be raised and determined.

Example 12. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt, Defendant Gross, Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Defendant Lawley In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath, “I did not believe that Dr. Gross’ email was intended to be an invitation to ‘conspire’ with him to terminate Dr. XXX, and I did not construe Dr. Gross’ email in that manner”. First, Schmidt’s statements were mere denials. He did not provide any justifications for not verifying with Plaintiff on Gross’ allegations and his bias throughout his “investigation”. Second, Defendants have failed and refused to disclose all communications among Defendant Emory’s employees related to Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s “investigation” into the May 17 incident between Plaintiff and Defendant Torre. The referred e-mail(s) between Defendant Gross and Schmidt were as follows: Gross: “Jae, Have had a problem with personnel in the lab that has come to blows, literally (hmmm, sounds like a Van Meir situation!) I need to be in contact with HR for help in resolving it. Can you help? Bob” 79

Schmidt: “absolutely, who’s involved? we can make intervention tomorrow. I’ve cc’d yvette hart in HR who is assisting with our other lab issues. Jae” Gross: “XX XXX (post doc; history of interpersonal problems in the lab) and Enrique Torre (Asst Prof).” Plaintiff was informed in his meeting with Schmidt on May 22, 2006, with a pre-signed letter, to be placed on Administrative Leave without pay pending an investigation of the May 17 incident. During his subsequent meeting with Schmidt on May 22, 2006, Defendant Torre was only told that “he may be placed on Administrative leave”. Importantly, Defendant Emory has failed and refused to either confirm the existence of such a letter or produce a copy to Plaintiff. According to his sworn affidavit, Defendant Torre rather received a letter placing him “on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of the investigation” “[a]t some point later in the day on May 22, 2006 after my meeting with Dr. Gross and Mr. Schmidt”. Additionally, Defendant Torre’s false allegations regarding Plaintiff’s interpersonal conflicts, made at Defendant Torre’s own will or others’ invitation, were documented by Schmidt even though Schmidt testified under oath, Defendant Barrow “instructed me to review the situation, including interviewing employees with information regarding the altercation”. More importantly, Defendant Torre’s documented false allegations were neither disclosed to nor verified with Plaintiff by Schmidt or Defendant Barrow throughout their “investigation”. Similarly, Defendant Gross’ false assertion (“XX XXX (post doc; history of interpersonal problems in the lab[)]”) was neither disclosed to nor verified with Plaintiff. The defendants have also failed and refused to produce any evidence, except now with impeachable affidavits, to support mere personal allegations of Defendants Gross and Torre. 80

Yet, in their affidavits, the three members of the ad hoc committee also testified under oath, “I believed the evidence showed that the Department of Neurosurgery’s investigation of the altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policies. The information provided to the ad hoc committee demonstrated that the Department of Neurosurgery interviewed all the relevant witnesses, obtained statements and made a reasonable and good-faith attempt to ascertain what transpired on May 17. 2006”. In his letter to Plaintiff, Defendant Lawley asserted, “I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination. The committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you provided to the committee directly”. Therefore, the credibility of Schmidt, even with a sworn affidavit, is a genuine issue to be determined. Likewise, the credibility of Thigpen, Pearson and Beard, even with sworn affidavits, is a genuine issue. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Lawley is an issue to be determined.

Example 13. Concerning the credibility of Schmidt and Defendant Gross In his affidavit, Schmidt testified under oath, “[o]n May 23, 2006, I received an email from Dr. Gross” and “I did not construe this email by Dr. Gross to be advocating that Dr. XXX be terminated. But rather that, if Dr. XXX were terminated, Dr. Gross would regret the negative impact such a termination would have on Dr. XXX’s career”. Likewise, in his affidavit, Defendant Gross testified under oath, “I did not suggest or recommend that Dr. XXX’s 81

employment should be terminated, but rather I commented that, if Dr. XXX were terminated, I would regret the negative impact such a termination would have on his career”. However, in the referred e-mail, Defendant Gross wrote, “[a]fter investigating the situation by speaking to all lab members (except Dr. XXX, who spoke with you while I was in the OR, but whose account you told to me), and based on the history of Dr. XXX’s and Dr. Torre’s tenure in the lab, with long consideration I must conclude that the culpability lies to the far greater share in Dr. XXX’s behavior. Although more restraint should have been exhibited by Dr. Torre, I feel he was provoked beyond reason, and this is not part of any ongoing difficulty on his part. Personally, I regret the effects that dismissal would have on Dr. XXX’s career, and I have gone to great lengths to help him succeed. However, I feel that most of the current and past problems are of his own creation. In contrast, I would be personally distraught if the current altercation were to negatively impact Dr. Torres career, and feel that he should be reinstated as soon as possible, upon the conclusion of any further investigation deemed necessary by the Dean”. Thus, there’s no identifiable reason for a reasonable mind not to determine as a fact that, by making contrasting comparison, Defendant Gross was indeed affirming to Schmidt his justifications, albeit false, for terminating Plaintiff but pardoning Defendant Torre. His “regret” over “the effects that dismissal would have on Dr. XXX’s career” was merely pretentious and instantly buried by his subsequent assertions that “I have gone to great lengths to help him succeed. However, I feel that most of the current and past problems are of his own creation”. Importantly, without a dispute, Defendant Gross’ forgoing statements were made on the second day of Schmidt’s “investigation” and before Defendant Gross conferred with Plaintiff regarding the May 17 incident. In fact, Defendant Gross never conferred with Plaintiff during Schmidt and 82

Defendant Barrow’s “investigation” and alleged to Plaintiff his non-involvement in the “investigation” and a “friendly” stance toward Plaintiff on June 12, 2006 when reluctantly answered Plaintiff’s repeated phone calls. Therefore, the credibility of Schmidt in this regard, even with a sworn affidavit, is to be determined. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Gross in his statements in a sworn affidavit is to be determined.

Example 14. Concerning the credibility of Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Defendant Lawley In their affidavits, the three members of the ad hoc committee testified under oath, “I believed the evidence showed that the Department of Neurosurgery’s investigation of the altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policies”. However, in the exhibits of the same affidavits, the three individuals also acknowledged, “University policy requires that employees placed on administrative leave without pay be informed of the final decision regarding their employment within 14 calendar days. In the case of Dr. XXX, this time period was 18 days”. Defendant Lawley also acknowledged to Plaintiff, “[i]n reviewing the inquiry process, the committee noted that University policy requires that employees placed on administrative leave without pay be informed of the final decision regarding their employment within 14 calendar days, and that you were not informed of your termination until 18 calendar days after you had been placed on administrative leave without pay”.

83

Although the committee and Defendant Lawley miscounted (Plaintiff was placed on the leave on May 22, 2006 and informed about the final decision on June 12, 2006. There were 22 days in this period), without a dispute, Schmidt and Defendant Barrow violated Defendant Emory’s policy regarding Administrative Leave. Evidently, the committee’s own statements self-contradicted with each other. Therefore, the credibility of the committee’s members, Thigpen, Pearson and Beard, even with sworn affidavits, is itself a genuine issue to be determined. In his letter to Plaintiff, Defendant Lawley asserted, “I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination”, “the Department of Neurosurgery’s inquiry into your termination was reasonable, fair and consistent with University’s policies”. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Lawley is an issue to be determined.

Example 15. Concerning the credibility of Thigpen, Pearson, Beard and Defendant Lawley In exhibits of their affidavits, the committee members acknowledged, Defendant Barrow’s “termination letter to Dr. XXX notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review”. Plaintiff also advised the committee that Defendant Barrow’s false allegations were neither verified nor discussed with Plaintiff during the “investigation”. However, in their affidavits, the committee members testified under oath, “I believed the evidence showed that the Department of Neurosurgery’s investigation of the altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policies” and “[b]ecause the ad hoc 84

committee concluded that Dr. XXX’s conduct on May 17, 2006 justified his termination, it did not reach any conclusions or make any recommendations regarding the allegations that Dr. XXX’s job performance as poor and that Dr. XXX had a history of interpersonal conflicts with others in the lab”. Whether the committee members actually reached a conclusion and did not state the true reasons for no verification is disputed. Nonetheless, evidently, the testimonies of the ad hoc committee members self-contradicted with each other. Therefore, the credibility of the committee’s members, Jeanne Thigpen, Thomas Pearson and Linda Beard, even with sworn affidavits, is itself a genuine issue to be determined. In his letter to Plaintiff, Defendant Lawley asserted, “I believe that their report, which is advisory and confidential to me, indicates that they performed a thorough and comprehensive review of your termination. The committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you provided to the committee directly”, “the committee concluded that the Department of Neurosurgery’s inquiry into your termination was reasonable, fair and consistent with University’s policies”. Likewise, the credibility of Defendant Lawley is an issue to be determined.

Example 16. Concerning the credibility of Defendant Lawley In his affidavit, Defendant Lawley testified under oath, “I did not instruct the ad hoc committee to review the personnel decision Dr. Barrow made concerning Dr. Torre. I did not receive any request to review Dr. Barrow’s personnel decision concerning Dr. Torre”. 85

However, during his “review”, Plaintiff unequivocally advised Defendant Lawley in writing, “[b]ased on Mr. Schmidt’s records, I have serious doubts over Enrique’s moral standard and integrity. Enrique clearly lied numerously and irresponsibly damaged the reputation of me, an Emory employee. According to Enrique’s own words, he initiated an unnecessary personal conflict and obstructed another [Emory] researcher’s work without any justifications. During the conflict, all Enrique did was verbal and physical insults and assaults towards me. Due to Enrique’s complete lack of will to discuss, I was only forced to respond to his provocations all the time. His misconducts should be disciplined by the University accordingly”. Additionally, on July 12, 2006, Plaintiff e-mailed to Defendant Lawley, which was responded by Claudia Adkison on behalf of the Dean’s office, “[i]n my view, all the information gathered by the investigators, including allegations, should be presented to and addressed by both parties before they can be acted upon. I would also like this fact to be appreciated that justice delayed is justice denied. I greatly appreciate your office taking time to review the incident, the departmental investigation and its decisions regarding both parties”. Therefore, the credibility of Defendant Lawley as a witness, even with a sworn affidavit, is a genuine issue to be determined.

Example 17. Concerning the credibility of Speck, Defendants Barrow and Lawley In his affidavit, Samuel Speck (“Speck”) testified under oath, “[t]he humane care and proper use of laboratory research animals is a very serious matter in the School of Medicine”, “I received a letter dated May 31, 2006 from Jae Schmidt, the Administrator for the Department of 86

Neurosurgery at the Emory University School of Medicine reporting an act of violence that Dr. XXX committed towards laboratory mice”, “[t]he Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee did not complete an investigation into Dr. XX XXX’s reported mistreatment of Dr. Enrique Torre’s research animals because Dr. XXX was terminated from his employment”. Without a dispute, the incident involving alleged mistreatment of mice occurred on May 17, 2006 and Schmidt started his “investigation” no later than May 22. According to Speck, he only received Schmidt’s letter on May 31. To a reasonable mind, it needs more than mere assertions to prove that Defendant Emory administrators were “very serious” about animal’s welfare. Defendant Emory has failed and refused to provide any evidence that its Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee initiated an investigation into the alleged animal mistreatment. Thus, a mere assertion of “did not complete” an investigation of “a very serious matter” only cast doubt of credibility on Speck as a witness even with a sworn affidavit, which is only to be determined. Additionally, Plaintiff was terminated partially for alleged mistreatment of mice and such termination was upheld primarily for such alleged actions. Yet, according to Speck’s sworn testimony, “an investigation” into such actions was “not completed” because Plaintiff was already terminated for such actions. Evidently, the testimonies of Speck, Defendants Barrow and Lawley contradicted with each other. Therefore, the credibility of them, even with sworn affidavits, is a genuine issue to be determined.

87

Part IV

As you may remember, on June 12, 2006, the day Plaintiff received Defendant Barrow’s letter of termination, Defendant Gross reluctantly replied Plaintiff’s phone call and asserted his noninvolvement in Barrow’s investigation and decisions, which were pure lies. You may also remember that Defendant Gross even assured that he would manage to publish Plaintiff’s firstauthored research article, which also turned out to be fraudulent. Defendant Gross had since then refused to disclose the status of Plaintiff’s manuscript towards publication. However, in early 2008, it was discovered that Defendant Gross did successfully publish an article highlighting Plaintiff’s lentiviral data in a scientific journal. Yet, Defendant Gross entitled himself to be the first author (“Defendant Gross’ article”).

For the reasons to be followed, there is no need to challenge the claimed credit or denounce a despicable act of defaming and discrediting a researcher’s work behind his back but later cashing in to advance self’s interests. Rather, the issue has become whether Defendant Gross and other co-authors (Defendant Torre and Gutekunst) committed scientific misconducts by publishing fabricated and falsified results in a scientific journal. Logically, the question has further become whether there could be any truth in the allegations against Plaintiff of persons whose integrity as human beings and professionals are hard to defend and who all benefited from the conspiracy. Likewise, the question has further become whether it is ethical and conscionable for Defendants Barrow and Lawley to cling to their unsupported termination and upholding at all costs just to save face. Ultimately, the question has become how Emory administrators can “defend” the personal misconducts of each defendant without tainting Emory University’s image. 88

1

As being described in Defendant Gross’ article (“we have chosen to express C3 transferase from a self-inactivating lentiviral vector (Fig.5)”), self-inactivating lentiviral vectors were used in Plaintiff’s research. By definition, a deletion in the U3 region of the 3’ LTR in “selfinactivating” vectors rendered the 5’ LTR of the integrated provirus transcriptionally inactive. Therefore, the diagrams of vectors in Figure 5A (below) mistakenly failed to depict the deletion in the 3’ LTR (one might even be misled by the diagrams to think that the 3’ LTR was longer than the 5’ LTR).

In Plaintiff’s original manuscript, the vectors were depicted as follows.

Since the Lenti-GFP vector was obtained from Dr. David Baltimore’s lab (California Institute of Technology) as a gift and the Lenti-C3 vector was generated by substituting a myc-tag C3 exoenzyme gene for the GFP in the Lenti-GFP construct, the accurate description of the vector is 89

described in Lois, C., Hong, E.J., Pease,S., Brown, E.J. and Baltimore D. Germline transmission and tissue-specific expression of transgenes delivered by lentiviral vectors. Science 295, 868-872 (2002). For your convenience, the diagram of the Lenti-GFP or Baltimore’s GFP vector is shown below,

Noticeably, the Ubiquitin-C promoter and HIV-1 flap (or cPPT) were incorporated in the backbone of the Baltimore’s GFP vector. Therefore, the depiction of “RRE” and “mPGK prom” in Figure 5A in Defendant Gross’ article was also factually mistaken and scientifically misleading.

This was an unacceptable error as it infringed the very basic concepts of the lentiviral gene therapy. As you may remember, Claire-Anne Gutekunst and Defendant Enrique Torre testified to the court that they were there to provide “supervision, direction and advice” concerning Plaintiff’s research. Both individuals were also listed as co-authors. Unlike Plaintiff, they should have read Defendant Gross’ manuscript before its submission and, noticeably, they did not correct such simple error.

2 Moreover, the rat embryonic hippocampal explants (cut in small pieces), not dissociated cells, were infected with lentiviruses and then dissociated prior to in vivo injection. Otherwise, there 90

would not be sufficient viable cells for transplantation after viral infection due to cell death. Therefore, the “schematic of procedures” in Figure 6A (“Embryonic primary neurons are dissociated and infected with lentivirus prior to injection into the adult rat brain”, below) was factually baseless and scientifically irresponsible.

More importantly, the infected hippocampal cells were not injected into the “corpus collossum” as described in Defendant Gross’ article (“Rat hippocampal primary neurons were infected with either Lenti-GFP (B) or a combination of Lenti-C3/Lenti-GFP (C) and implanted into adult rat corpus collossum”). Such misrepresentation was totally unacceptable.

91

The original results were shown below and you should be able to draw a conclusion as to the injection sites (within the red circles in the coronal sections of the rat brains).

92

As the injection sites were mistakenly described, Defendant Gross’ conclusions that “lentiviralC3 neurons elaborated lengthy processes that coursed within the callosum to the contralateral side” and “we have observed long-distance neurite growth in the inhibitory white matter of the CNS after engraftment of lentiviral-C3-infected hippocampal neurons” were also factually unfounded and scientifically misleading.

93

Additionally, there were no scale bars in the original images. It was a wonder that Defendant Gross and others could impose them on the pictures without consulting Plaintiff, the sole creator of the data. That was apparently not good enough for the authors of Defendant Gross’ article. With careful comparison of the two original slides (10X images) with Figure 6 B.C, one can only conclude that the image of the lenti-C3 infected cells were artificially enlarged and cropped but attached with an unchanged “scale bar”. In other words, in Defendant’s Gross’ article, research data were purposely manipulated to “boost up” his conclusions.

Moreover, although Plaintiff was encouraged by the promising results (as shown in slides) and was diligently conducting more in vivo studies (On May 17, 2006, Defendant Torre unjustifiably disregarded Plaintiff’s written notice and sabotaged Plaintiff’s such effort making it the last of Plaintiff’s attempts), the images shown in Defendant Gross’ article was one-time best shot. Noticeably, such important fact was not mentioned and discussed in Defendant Gross’ article.

3

In addition, Defendant Gross’ article contained other factual misrepresentations.

In Defendant Gross’ article, it was alleged, “[i]n every instance, C3 had similar or more robust effects on neurite outgrowth (length of neurites, percent of cells with neurites, and number of branches) than Rho-kinase antagonist Y27632”. In fact, the opposite was true. The cellular transduction efficiency for lentiviral vectors was and has always been a challenge in lentiviral gene therapy research. The cyto-toxicity also limited the number of viral particles to be 94

transduced. The latter was in particular true with Lenti-C3 since C3 exoenzyme halted, if not ceased, cell division. On the other hand, Y27632 is a small molecular and readily permeable to the cell membrane. In addition, Y27632 can be administered at various concentrations to achieve desirable effects.

In Defendant Gross’ article, it was alleged, “[i]n addition to the effects on basal neurite outgrowth, lentiviral-C3 markedly increased the outgrowth of neurites on inhibitory substrate containing either myelin or CSPG (Fig. 5)”. This was also not true. In lentiviral research, only CSPG was used as an inhibitory substrate. Myelin was never used and should not be so claimed.

Without a question, the false misrepresentations like the ones in Gross’ Article breach the trust among the researchers in the scientific community and have dire consequences on the authors’ reputation. As a wrongfully accredited “author”, it is even more hurtful and harmful to Plaintiff. On the one hand, Plaintiff’s name was listed in the Article without consent and knowledge. On the other hand, the integrity and significance of Plaintiff’s three-year legitimate findings were destroyed by Gross’ Article. However, when Defendant Gross was contacted with demand for correction in reference to the false allegations in his Article, he has never responded and has not taken any action for months. Neither has Defendant Gross denied the falsity of his assertions.

The Editorial Board of Cell Transplantation has been contacted. It is said that the journal has transferred the issues regarding Gross’ Article to Emory University’s Office of Research Compliance for investigation. However, for at least over four months, there has been no

95

indication that Emory is conducting such an inquiry. Yet, the damages have been accumulated for two years and no ending is in sight.

As Defendant Gross committed the above, one has to seriously doubt whether he had any moral authority, let alone any factual base, to insult Plaintiff in 2004, “if I could teach you one thing only, it would be that you should be the harshest critic of your own work. You shouldn’t be trying to sell your data to us, you should be trying to sell it to yourself. As part owner of this work I am so critical of it because I am being my own harshest critic, rather than having reviewers do that for me”. (Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant Gross’ arrogant and disgraceful slur. Instead, as Defendant Gross explicitly acknowledged in February 2006, Plaintiff proved with evidence that Plaintiff’s scientific judgment was sound.)

Similarly, one has to further doubt the integrity and credibility of Claire-Anne Gutekunst and Enrique Torre as persons and researchers as their roles in Defendant Gross’ article and the conspiracy are yet to be fully revealed.

Considering that Defendant Gross covertly attacked Plaintiff’s reputation and scientific competence and further self-degradingly alleged to the court that Plaintiff had a history of harassing and intimidating co-workers but refused to provide any supporting evidence till this day with the aid of Emory-funded lawyers, one has to further seriously question the ethics and accountability of Emory administrators including President James W. Wagner and his cabinet for having so far turned a blind eye and “defended” such an “egregious” and “ludicrous” (examples

96

of words used by Emory-funded attorney representing the defendants to describe Plaintiff) “mentor” and “scientist”.

Apparently, as they conspired with Defendant Gross to defame and terminate Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment, Defendants Daniel Barrow and Thomas Lawley have no reasons to abandon Gross anytime soon. Realizing the broken lies have nullified their “defense”, the defendants turned to their last straw. Defendant Barrow testified to the court, “[e]ven assuming that Dr. XXX did not have any prior job performance problems or prior interpersonal conflicts with others in the lab, as uncovered in the investigation, I would have made the same decision to terminate Dr. XXX’s employment based on the conduct he engaged in during his altercation with Dr. Torre”. Defendant Lawley testified, “I upheld Dr. XXX’s termination solely on the basis of his conduct in the altercation on May 17, 2006”.

Let alone being afterthoughts and factually unfounded, more importantly, their own actions nullify their disgraceful assertions. When asked by Plaintiff to provide their factual understanding of what occurred on the morning of May 17, 2006 between Plaintiff and Enrique Torre, Defendant Barrow replied, “Defendant Barrow objects to this request on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought”. To the same question, Defendant Lawley replied, he “objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is so vague as to preclude him from reasonably ascertaining the information sought by the interrogatory and to be not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”. Therefore, one with a reasonable mind has to conclude that Defendants Barrow and Lawley have confessed that their decision and upholding were all factually baseless. 97

Part V

Plaintiff has asserted the existence of a conspiracy against him during Emory University Neurosurgery Department’s “investigation” and Medical School Dean Office’s “review”, in which Enrique Torre, Robert Gross, Jae Schmidt, Daniel Barrow, and Thomas Lawley and his staff all participated. To those who may have doubts over the involvement of Dean Office in the scandalous conspiracy, the following facts should be persuasive.

Upon receiving Defendant Barrow’s termination letter on June 12, 2006, Plaintiff contacted Emory University Human Resources and was finally instructed to appeal to Medical School Dean Office. The next day, Claudia Adkison, Executive Associate Dean, met Plaintiff and was provided with a full recount of the May 17 incident. By a recent court order, Defendant Lawley reluctantly provided a copy of Adkison’s 4-page hand-written notes taken during the meeting. Needless to say, the contents were opposite to Defendant Torre’s story. It was also significantly and materially different from Schmidt’s version of Plaintiff’s “recount” on May 22, 2006. By common sense, it would be a suicidal act for a postdoc to lie or assert contradictory recounts to the management while challenging some of their own. However, it would not be unimaginable for conspirators to lie to accomplish their goals.

Nevertheless, after reading Adkison’s note of Plaintiff’s detailed recounts, it would be impossible for any conscionable man not to be seriously troubled by how Plaintiff was mistreated by Defendant Torre and the Departmental administrators and not to realize the seriousness of the matter (in the least, a junior scientist’s research may have been sabotaged by a 98

faculty member and his reputation and career would be destroyed by possible unjust and irresponsible handling of departmental managers).

Thanks to the defendants’ persistent refusal, many acts and statements may never see the light. However, even by the tip of the iceberg, it is not very difficult for one to come to the conclusion, after whatever struggle of conscience and duties, if ever, Dean Office staff decided to act as coconspirators instead of being objective and conscionable reviewers.

For instance, Plaintiff stressed to Defendant Lawley and Adkison the urgency of a timely and just review process as his research including in vivo study had been completely on hold since May 22 and each round of the in vivo study involved at least 4-week planed work. In addition, Plaintiff told Dean Office that he had to leave Emory in February 2007 (end of the contract) and he wanted to obtain a bit more convincing in vivo data for a well-deserved publication as he had been working diligently since April 2003. However, Plaintiff had to call and e-mail Dean Office staff, mostly Adkison, time and time again and even stress to her that “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Under Plaintiff’s protest, five weeks after Plaintiff met Adkison, the three-member committee finally met Plaintiff on July 20. Yet, Defendant Lawley alleged to Plaintiff, “I have taken very seriously your concerns about the termination of your employment as a post-doctoral fellow”.

For instance, before the court, Defendant Lawley testified, “I upheld Dr. XXX’s termination solely on the basis of his conduct in the altercation on May 17. 2006. The allegations that Dr. XXX performed poorly as a researcher and had a history of interpersonal conflicts with others in 99

the lab were not factors in my decision to uphold Dr. XXX’s termination”. However, on Aug. 3, 2006, Defendant Lawley asserted to Plaintiff in writing, “[t]he committee carefully considered not only the background materials I provided with the committee’s charge, but also the written materials and oral information you provided to the committee directly. I have evaluated the committee’s findings and recommendations”, “[b]ased on the committee’s findings and on the record, my decision is to uphold the termination of your employment as a post-doctoral fellow”. Clearly, Defendant Lawley provided Schmidt and Barrow’s notes to the committee with his charge. Therefore, one has to wonder whether Defendant Lawley had to subject himself to the liabilities of perjury. In fact, his review committee supplied an answer. While Defendant Lawley asserted to Plaintiff that “[t]he committee concluded that the Department of Neurosurgery’s inquiry into your termination was reasonable, fair, and consistent with University policies”, in their report to Defendant Lawley (deemed “confidential” by Defendant Lawley and only made public through litigation), the committee had to admit, “Dr. Barrow’s termination letter to Dr. XXX notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review”. As for the “poor performance”, the facts speak for themselves: (1) Plaintiff’s written employment contract was renewed by Defendant Robert Gross three times with merit pay increase; (2) No issues whatsoever were ever mentioned in the three annual performance reviews; (3) Defendant Gross promised to provide employment reference for Plaintiff; (4) Defendant Gross listed Plaintiff as the second author of his published “article”. Evidently, Defendant Lawley was fully aware of the facts except the last. Between admitting his unconscionable and irresponsible role in the conspiracy and admitting his actions and statements were illogical and contradictory, Defendant Lawley preferred the latter. 100

For instance, as Plaintiff later realized, Schmidt and Barrow’s whatever decisions regarding Torre were never an issue for review. Defendant Lawley later testified before the court, “I did not receive any request to review Dr. Barrow’s personnel decision concerning Dr. Torre” (which was already proved to be false). According to Adkison, the decisions regarding Plaintiff and Torre were “separate” even they were the results of the same incident and the same “fair and reasonable” process.

For instance, notwithstanding the fact that it was Schmidt and Barrow’s mishandling of their “investigation” was appealed, Schmidt was allowed or instructed to fix their “errors”. Example 1: On July 6, 2006, a Dean Office staff reported to Adkison that Schmidt did not document his “interview” with Ms.E (who closely examined Plaintiff’s injuries on May 17 and voluntarily went to see Schmidt around June 5, 2006 when Defendant Torre was already back to work for Defendant Gross) and would promptly type in his “notes” of the “interview” for being included in the “record” that Plaintiff and the committee would see. Consequently, Schmidt’s half-page note of such “interview” was considered as a proof by the committee that “an attempt was made to identify the facts by interviews or written documents from the critical parties involved”. However, Schmidt truthfully, this time, noted the date when his note was prepared. The defendants must have regretted that Schmidt’s rare “truthfulness” was noticed. They must be even more surprised that one of Schmidt’s e-mails would one day see the light. On June 1, Schmidt wrote to others, Defendant Barrow “would like to reprimand Dr. Torre with a formal letter copied to the Dean, as well as one week without pay. He would like to offer Dr. XXX the option of resigning prior to termination based on his history of personality conflicts and poor 101

scientific performance”. Setting aside the reasons for termination, by “preparing” and dating his note “July 7, 2006”, Schmidt was in fact admitting that (1) he or Defendant Barrow needed to “interview” Ms. E as a witness; (2) he or Defendant Barrow did not “interview” Ms.E before the final decisions were made. Example 2: On July 6, the Dean Office staff also wrote to Adkison, “I discussed with Jae the strategy of paying Dr. XXX for the week-long extension of his leave, and Jae agreed that made sense and will look into the mechanics.” A “strategy” to undo the wrongs if found or a “strategy” to further the conspiracy? When Adkison met Plaintiff on June 13, 2006, she paused a moment after Plaintiff noted that Schmidt and Defendant Barrow did not inform Plaintiff about their decision or an extension within 14 days. Adkison then stated to Plaintiff, “I’m thinking what could be the remedy.” Retrospectively thinking, no doubt in Plaintiff`s mind, Dean Office already made up its mind before the committee met Plaintiff for the first and the last time on July 20.

For instance, although Defendant Lawley asserted his seriousness about the review, although Adkison was provided with a detailed recount of the May 17 incident and the ensuing Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s “investigation”, Adkison assured the committee members that they only needed to meet together no more than twice. Adkison wrote, “I anticipate there will be one meeting, two at the most”. Yet, the committee’s ability and efficiency to reach their “decision” must have exceeded Dean Office’s expectations. Summarized by Plaintiff, “there’s no record showing that the committee’s reviewing effort went further than ‘listening’ to Plaintiff’s oneand-half-hour monologue and ‘reading’ Schmidt and Barrow’s documents”. The committee members, Thomas Pearson, Jeanne Thigpen, Linda Beard, met Plaintiff during 5:30-7 PM on July 20. By a recent court order, Defendant Lawley admitted that the three-member committee 102

had “no notes” concerning the meeting (ironically, the committee members themselves were not concerned if very different opinions as to what was communicated during their interview with Plaintiff would be a problem for others to review-their only “criticism” to Schmidt and Barrow’s “investigation”). On the morning of July 21, just hours after Plaintiff met the committee, a Dean Office staff informed Schmidt that the committee already had reached its decisions. One of the decisions was “[i]n our opinion the inquiry into this altercation was reasonable, fair and consistent with Emory University policy. Specifically, an attempt was made to identify the facts by interviews or written documents from the critical parties involved, Human Resources was involved in the process and the issues of concern were communicated in letters to Dr. XXX in a clear and direct fashion”. Clearly, the committee members turned blind eyes to the facts, (1) Plaintiff informed Dean Office and the committee in witting that none of the alleged issues regarding his job performance and prior interpersonal problems were brought up and discussed by either Schmidt or Defendant Barrow; (2) Ms. E voluntarily provided her knowledge to Schmidt and Schmidt’s note was prepared four weeks after Plaintiff’s termination. The committee even disregarded their own findings that “[t]he parties involved often have very different opinions as to what was communicated during the interviews to investigate these events”, “Dr. Barrow’s termination letter to Dr. XXX notes ‘numerous prior personal conflicts with other members of the laboratory before the current dispute’. We can not find documentation of this in the records that we have for review”. Setting aside their solemn responsibilities, even by common sense, one could not say a process was “fair, reasonable” if the defamatory allegations regarding a scientist’s reputation were found to be unfounded. Besides, honorable persons, let alone “senior faculty and administrators, all respected for their wisdom, knowledge

103

and experience”, would refrain from making any conclusions before verifying the “very different opinions”. On the other hand, the conspirators were bound by no restraints.

For instance, before the court, while bluntly insisting that Schmidt and Defendant Barrow’s “investigation” was reasonable and fair, Defendant Lawley receded to allege as an afterthought that the “sole justifications” to terminate Plaintiff were mistreatment of animal and violence against a co-worker. However, Defendant Lawley must have forgotten the facts, (1) his review committee only concluded, “Dr. XXX’s actions appeared to have caused the cage of mice to fall to the floor and the mice to escape”; (2) Samuel Speck, the Chair of Emory Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, testified that he did not “complete” his investigation into the alleged animal incident because Plaintiff was already terminated; (3) Unlike Defendant Torre, Plaintiff never denied that he used physical force on May 17 and solemnly informed each of the managers he encountered that he was defending himself alone from a 8” higher and much larger bully who was persistently physically attacking Plaintiff; (4) Even working on the wording of their report for more than ten days after they made their decisions, the committee admitted, Defendant Torre “had physical contact with Dr. XXX” (certainly, physical contact of what kind and in what nature was not an issue for their review). But “[i]n our opinion the primary motivating factor for Dr. XXX’s physical contact with Dr. Torre was not self defense” because “[t]his is based on Dr. XXX’s statements during his interview with us and the written statement from Ms. Jackson”. The committee certainly mis-accredited Plaintiff for bravery or insanity more than he deserves. The committee must have also failed to realize that Jackson was not an eye-witness of the May 17 incident but a possible conspirator. Besides, the committee did not refer to any of Jackson’s

104

“statements”. In addition, since “no notes”, the committee did not or could not cite any of Plaintiff’s “statements”.

To understand all the contradictions like the above-mentioned, instead of questioning the intelligence of those self-claimed “senior faculty and administrators, all respected for their wisdom, knowledge and experience”, Plaintiff rather looks into the moral turpitude and interest calculations of the involved parties for the answers. Consistently, the following facts add further support.

On the evening of the first Saturday of March 2008, in reference to the instant civil actions, the “Emory University’s Associate General Counsel” Amy Adelman e-mailed to Emory Medical School faculty alleging, “we assure you that there was no wrongdoing on Emory’s part, either in connection with the underlying facts or in the conduct of the litigation.” She further assured, “[i]f you are concerned about the emails or would like additional information about the case, please do not hesitate to contact Amy Adelman in the Office of the General Counsel” as if Emory and other defendants had nothing to hide.

However, on April 24, 2008, Defendants Emory, Barrow, Gross and Lawley through their counsels asked the court to “prohibit Plaintiff from contacting Emory community and others regarding cases”. Embarrassingly and purposely, the defendants asked the court to allow such motion to be filed “under seal”. Meaning? Plainly put, the defendants did not want their arguments as well as several e-mails to the Emory Medical School faculty (identical to the

105

previous parts) to be included in the court open record and to be viewed by the public for generations to come.

When rejecting the defendants’ request to file their motion under seal, the court decided that, without just reasons, the defendants’ filing should be made accessible to the public. The court also decided that the defendants’ legal argument was inapposite and the e-mails contained the statements similar to those in the court record. The court finally returned the defendants’ motion.

Even though it is pitiful and wasteful to entertain the defendants’ motion, the arguments of the defending “Emory administartors and professors” should not be prohibited from being exposed and rebutted. In their failed “filing under seal” motion, the defendants accused the sender of the e-mails of (1) “sending ex parte communications to the Emory community”; (2) “making false, inflammatory and simply outrageous statement about Defendants, Emory administrators and professors”; (3) “harassing” and “threatening” the defendants’ witnesses; (4) intending to “interfere with Defendants’ right to a fair trial and influnce the minds of hundreds of potential jurors”, so on and on.

However, in fact, (1) Emory and the defendants had and have more means to “communicate” to Emory community or the general public if they so choose. As a matter of fact, they already did. In addition, the recipients of the e-mails were actually advised to view the court record filed by parties should they choose to do so. (2) The Emory community members or the general public certainly have the wisdom to see the truth. In order to discredit the stinging statements, the defendants had better defend with evidence but not merely repeat their unfounded and self106

degrading personal attacks. The defendants should also realize that it was their own actions that define their true beings. (3) One of the e-mails did point out that the defendants’ witnesses were all interested persons and did challenge the thruthfulness of their testimonies. However, that was done with evidence. By common sense, the truth is only a threat to liars and conspirators as they feel being harassed by revelation of the truth. (4) As Defendant Emory’s employees, none of Emory community members will not be selected as a juror to try the defendants. However, the defendants were partially unmistaken when they complained to the court, the e-mails “clearly manifest an intent to subject Defendants to a trial before their peers”. The defednants should have added, “not in a court of law but in a court of human conscience”. As they have dared to unjustly destroy a researcher’s reputation and career and dared to defend such actions before court with false testimonies, why shoud they fear a “trial” by the Emory community or the general public?

In addition, the defendants viewed the revelation of Defendant Robert Gross’ scientific misconducts as having an “obvious implication” “that anyone else in the Emory community who ‘dares’ to sign an affidavit or otherwise provide testimony that Plaintiff views as unfavourable to Plaintiff’s case will have their character and professional competence trashed in additional scathing emails sent by Plaintiff to hundreds of his or her colleagues, peers, friends and coworkers”. To rebut, Plaintiff in his opposition only stated, “the Editorial Board of Cell Transplantation has been contacted”.

The defendants’ unconscionable acts and frivolous defense certainly did not end there. To justify his opposition to Plaintiff's discovery from Cell Transplantation, Defendant Lawley through his 107

Emory-retained attorneys contended before the court, Defendant Robert Gross “performed most of the research described in the article” and Plaintiff was listed as a co-author by Gross only “because he contributed a few diagrams that were included in the article”. Considering (1) Defendant Gross, being also a surgeon with Emory Hospital, mostly came to the lab once a week or once every a few weeks to discuss research projects of others including Plaintiff's; (2) Defendant Gross’ understanding of the gene therapy field was limited evidenced by the diagrams and discussion in his Cell Transplantation article; (3) the defendants including Lawley submitted Plaintiff's manuscript describing his three-year research findings and methods with detailed descriptions and pictures, whose altered version constituted significant part of Defendant Gross’ Cell Transplantation article, to support Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, one with a sense of decency and dignity will be outraged and offended by what Defendant Lawley hides inside the prestigious robe of Emory University Medical School Dean.

In addition to rebutting the defendants’ frivolous defense and fraudulent testimonies, Plaintiff has to fight for his right to a fair trial. In this regard, a simple fact should be sufficient to an understanding mind. The previous presiding judge, who once dismissed Defendant Torre (the new judge deemed him as a defendant again after Plaintiff's motion) and dismissed some claims against the defendants (the new judge reinstated a claim upon reconsideration and some are still pending), disqualified herself after Plaintiff's motion revealing that the judge’s spouse was an current employee of Defendant Emory University Medical School and the judge herself was an alumnus of Defendant Emory University. However, till her disqualification, the previous trial judge never disclosed the facts and had been on the cases for one whole year!

108

As the defendants had the guts, when under seal, to call the statements in the e-mails “despicable”, they should have the guts to tell the Emory community or the general public that it was Defendant Thomas Lawley, through his attorneys, who recently objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests to the editors of Cell Transplantation. Defendant Lawley’s “effort” dooms to fail as “the truth is on the march and nothing can stop it”. In the meantime, one with a conscience has to sadly conclude that some individuals including some of the defendants have already degraded to the level not worthy to be despised as the human contempt solemnly concerns to human beings. The general public are invited to observe how lower they are going to sink.

109

Part VI The following is a copy of Defendant Daniel Barrow’s letter to Defendant Enrique Torre.

110

Evidently, although Defendant Torre’s physical assaults and threats on Plaintiff were intentionally omitted, Defendant Barrow inevitably acknowledged (however, never to Plaintiff) the complete lack of justifications to obstruct Plaintiff’s planned research and to insult Plaintiff by Defendant Torre. Considering (1) Defendant Barrow alleged Plaintiff’s “violence” towards Torre to terminate Plaintiff’s postdoctoral employment and Defendant Thomas Lawley contended Plaintiff’s “not primarily self-defensive” motivation to uphold the termination; (2) Jae Schmidt and Defendant Barrow contended that they “interviewed” Ms. E. as part of their “investigation” and “considered” her insights that Defendant Torre did not just “pushed” Plaintiff on May 17, 2006; (3) Defendant Lawley’s ad hoc committee noted Defendant Torre’s “physical contact” with Plaintiff on May 17, 2006; (4) Defendant Lawley contended that Defendant Barrow’s “investigation” was “reasonable, fair, consistent with Emory’s policies”; (5) Defendant Barrow even went before the court to testified, although Defendant Torre’s “involvement in this altercation was inappropriate, Dr. Torre did not commit any acts of violence”, one with an uncorrupted conscience has to be outraged and offended by the defendants’ unmoral statements and deeds.

111

Part VII Some e-mails wrote by Defendant Robert Gross: 1

Please note: During the entire process of the Neurosurgery Department’s “investigation”, Schmidt met Plaintiff once on May 22, 2006. Defendant Daniel Barrow also met Plaintiff once on May 30, 2006 at 4:15 PM. Yet, Defendant Gross had already contemplated, on May 30, 2006 at 2:05 PM, how to benefit from Plaintiff’s work after Plaintiff’s “dismissal” (proposed by Defendant Gross to Schmidt on May 23, 2006). Although he never conducted such “communication”, Defendant Gross published an article on Plaintiff’s work (with unfounded claims) after he trashed Plaintiff’s ability and professionalism.

112

2

113

Please note: This message was sent to Schmidt and cc-ed to Defendant Torre just over an hour after Defendant Barrow was done interviewing Plaintiff. As Defendant Gross never sought Plaintiff’s information regarding the May 17 incident or other issues by any means (not even through an email), he prejudged the “investigation” and was eager to sell his conviction. Yet, on June 12, 2006, Defendant Gross asserted to Plaintiff about his non-involvement in the process and willingness to accept Plaintiff back to his lab if Plaintiff’s appeal was successful. In addition, notwithstanding his customary gesture of offering help, Defendant Gross did not fill out the reference albeit “honestly” and never indicated to Plaintiff his refusal to provide employment reference, let alone justifications. Only until obtaining a copy of this message, Plaintiff knew that Defendant Gross did not respond to one such request regarding a promising job opportunity (without Defendant Gross’ “help”, Plaintiff did not get the job), albeit Defendant Gross’ promise to do so a few months earlier before Plaintiff agreed to work one more year in his lab.

114

3

115

Please note: After making remarks like these, Defendant Gross finally returned Plaintiff’s calls and asserted his non-involvement and no objection to Plaintiff’s back to his lab. Defendant Gross also expressed his “support” to Plaintiff’s appeal to Emory Medical School. After obtaining Plaintiff’s “grounds” for the upcoming appeal, Defendant Gross conveyed them to Schmidt, etc.

116