In early November 2010, the Commission noticed the depositions of Tungwongsathong and Glisson for December 10 and 11, 2010. Additionally, in early November 2010, the Commission served document requests upon both Glisson and Tungwongsathong. However, both Glisson and Tungwongsathong refused to provide testimony until January 10 and 11, 2011. Similarly, no emails were produced until January 10, 2011, when Tungwongsathong finally showed up for her deposition. Not a single financial document (i.e., bank statement, cancelled check) has ever been produced.
2 These refusals to comply with discovery obligations plainly delayed and impeded the Commission’s discovery efforts. In his Opposition Brief, Glisson attempts to justify decision of him and his wife to cavalierly ignore their discovery obligations for over a month, by referencing Tungwongsathong’s purported medical condition. Additionally, he makes the wholly erroneous assertion that the Commission agreed to their 30 day sojourn from discovery. However, as the Commission has exhaustively detailed, the medical excuses offered by Glisson and Tungwongsathong are entirely devoid of candor. (See Docket Entry Nos. 41-1, 41-2-41-13,) Indeed, within a week of Tungwongsathong’s December 8, 2010 medical procedure, she by her own January 10, 2011 deposition admission was back at work. And yet, an additional three weeks pasts before she (or even more inexplicably, before Glisson) appeared for deposition testimony or made any attempt to produce entire categories of documents, such as emails. Finally, in attempting to mitigate its damages by agreeing to the January 10 and 11, 2011 depositions in addition to moving to compel deposition testimony the Commission in no endorsed Glisson’s delays, as his disingenuously suggests in his Opposition Brief.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
