Cross-examination by Chad Hagan, Counsel for EchoStar
BY MR. HAGAN: Q Mr. Hasak, youâre â youâre aware that your company has made some allegations that Ray Adamsâs hard drive was stolen and the information contained on that hard drive was stolen, correct?
A Stolen from $$$, yeah.
Q You donât believe, though, sir â as you testified at your deposition, you donât believe that either EchoStar or NagraStar had any involvement in stealing that hard drive, correct?
A No, I donât think I did â I did say so, I said that they didnât have any â any proof that it was done.
Q Okay. And if â if I understood your testimony on direct examination, you donât even believe that that hard drive was stolen from Mr. Adamsâs car; is that correct?
A From Mr. Adams? From â yes, I donât believe it.
Q Do you believe that Mr. Adams distributed that information on his own?
A Yes.
Q Do you think that Mr. Adams was acting as a whistle-blower to expose $$$âs involvement in the piracy of Canal+ and EchoStar?
A You have to repeat your question.
Q You testified that you believe Mr. Adams distributed those documents in the hard drive himself, correct?
A He gave it to somebody, yeah.
Q And prior to him leaving $$$, he was the head of security for the United Kingdom, correct?
A Correct.
Q Now, do you believe that Mr. Adams distributed those materials as a whistle-blower to expose $$$âs involvement in the piracy of the Canal system and the EchoStar system?
A For me, a whistle-blower is a positive term. I donât think that Mr. Adams was a whistle-blower.
Q Did $$$ ever sue Mr. Adams based on his disclosure of these documents?
A I donât know.
Q Did â and you testified that your company never filed a police report about the stolen laptop, correct?
A Yeah, but I explained why.
Q Did you ever follow up with the authorities on that?
A Authorities? What do you â Q Any of the authorities.
A No, but the only thing I said was that after we are over with this trial, I am going to sue him, yes.
Q And other â THE COURT: Just a moment. I donât think we got that.
Would you repeat your answer, sir?
THE WITNESS: Yes. That I said that after we are finished with this case, I am going to go after Ray Adams and sue him, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. HAGAN: Q And when did Mr. Adams report that his hard drive was taken out of his laptop and out of his car; what year was that?
A 2002, I think; no?
Q 2002, the best that you can recall?
A You know that Iâm not very good in year. We know each other already, so I think itâs 2002.
Q It â itâs been more than â A When he retired, okay?
Q And weâll go back to his retirement in a minute, but just right now I am trying to establish the time frame for the jury. Itâs been more than half a decade; fair?
A Half a decade?
Q Since Mr. Adams said his laptop was â or hard drive was taken â A Oh, more than half a decade, yes, six years ago.
Q Now, other than those documents being distributed to Canal+ and to EchoStar and used in the litigation against $$$, has your company been damaged in any other way by the distribution of those documents?
A Yes.
Q How?
A First of all, it included many documents referring to anti-piracy. And I have mentioned before, exposing our modus operandi, exposing our names, exposing our agent, our informants, et cetera, itâs a big dimension. It puts people under risk.
Secondly, Ray Adams had in his possession, also, all kind of marketing and other communications with people within $$$.
Q Can you identify any specific instance where one of those marketing documents were â were used in a way to injure $$$?
A Market â marketing papers, sensitive information belongs to $$$, so why to show it to others, sure.
Q So it â it could cause damage, but you are not aware of any specific instance?
A I am not aware of any specific, but in general, I can tell you that itâs a damage, yes.
Q Now, you said a moment ago that Mr. Adams retired from $$$; is that correct?
A Yes, yes.
Q Isnât it true, sir, that he was forced out of the company?
A (No audible response.) Q Isnât it true, Mr. Hasak, that Ray Adams was forced out of the company?
A No.
Q Isnât it true that Mr. Adams was forced out of the company, because he knew of $$$âs involvement in the publication of the Canal code on Mr. Menardâs website?
A Wrong.
Q Isnât it true that he was forced out of the company after Oliver Kommerling gave a declaration in the Canal+ lawsuit?
A No, I told you that he was not forced out.
Q Letâs take a look at Exhibit 624. Now, this is an e-mail exchange between you and Mr. Adams, among other people, correct?
A Yes.
MR. HAGAN: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 624 into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. SNYDER: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
(Plaintiffsâ Exhibit No. 624 is received into evidence.) BY MR. HAGAN: Q Now, on the bottom portion of page 1 is an e-mail from you dated May 2nd, 2002, correct?
A Yes, yes.
Q And youâre sending that e-mail to a number of $$$ employees?
A Yes.
Q And in that e-mail you state, âRay Adams, the head of the UK operational team, expressed his wish to retire on May 2002âł; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And then Mr. Adams responded to this e-mail, and thatâs the e-mail that we have at the top. And in his response, he says, âAnnouncements of my retirement are prematureâ; do you see that?
A Yes.
Q What was Mr. Adams referring to when he said announcements of his retirement are premature?
A To my note, to my e-mail.
Q Now, did there come a time when there was a dispute about â A Excuse me. Do you leave this paper? Now, we are done with this, with this paper?
Q Yes, sir, weâre done.
A I want to tell you that he is lying here.
Q Okay. I â A â in this paper. You showed me the paper, and he writes here that I was going to meet him. Itâs a full lie.
Q You donât believe that Mr. Adams is an honest person, correct?
A No, I donât believe so.
Q And you didnât believe that he was an honest person in 1997 when he was sending you those memorandums, correct?
A No. I thought that he was a big politician and manipulation â manipulator. Today I know that he is not an honest person.
Q And besides your opinion that Mr. Adams was a manipulator and he was sending you reports that included language that you considered âblah, blah, blah,â you never terminated his employment, and that employment didnât end until 2002, correct?
A I took the simple steps, and then I was tolerate with him, because he â he was holding â Oliver Kommerling was a big asset to us.
Q Now, after Mr. Adams departed from the company, there was a dispute about his department, correct?
A Between the lawyers.
Q Now, letâs take a look at Exhibit 626.
24 This is a letter from Mr. Adamsâs counsel, Nabarro Nathanson (phonetic), dated May 21st, 2002.
A Yes.
Q Which is a couple weeks after you sent the e-mail saying Ray Adams expressed a wish to retire from the company, correct?
A Yes.
Q And in this letter from Mr. Adamsâs counsel, it states âThe position was compounded by the issues which were raised by the company at the meeting with our clientâ â A I â Q â âon May 13thâ â A I have to find it.
Q Sure.
13 Itâs on the first page, the third paragraph down.
A Third paragraph?
Q Yes, sir.
A Yes.
Q It says âThe position was compounded by issues which were raised by the company at the meeting with our client on 13 May, 2002.â A What does it mean âthe position was compoundedâ?
Q Weâre getting there.
A Okay.
Q âIn particular, the companyâs completely unacceptable threat to our client, that unless he resigned, the company would implement its disciplinary procedure against our client on grou$$$ which are nothing short of spurious and without foundation.â 3 Now, do you understand that language to be referring to the dispute between $$$ and Mr. Adams when he left the company?
A Itâs the dispute between the lawyers, yes.
Q And you understand from reading that language that Mr. Adamsâs position, consistent with what he said in his e-mail, Exhibit 624, was that he was being forced out of the company, not voluntarily retiring, correct?
A No, I donât think I agree with the fact that â to say that he was forced out.
MR. HAGAN: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 626.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. SNYDER: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
(Plaintiffsâ Exhibit No. 626 is received into evidence.)