Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 10

Exhibit B

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 10

Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WANDERING DAGO, INC.,
Civil Action No.
1:13-CV-01053-MAD-RFT
Plaintiff,
V.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF GENERAL
SERVICES, ROANN M. DESTITO, JOSEPH
J. RABITO, WILLIAM F. BRUSO, JR.,
AARON WALTERS, NEW YORK RACING
ASSOCIATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER K.
KAY, STEPHEN TRAVERS, JOHN DOES 1-5
and THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Deposition of BENNETT LIEBMAN, taken by

attorneys for the Plaintiff in the above-entitled
matter, held at the law offices of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, 30 South Pearl Street, Albany, New
York, before Katherine D. Nichols, Registered
Professional Reporter and Notary Public, on February
6, 2015 at 9:35 a.m.

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 10

Page 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. No.
Q. So you went back to your office later
that afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you take any action with respect
to Wandering Dago or have any communication with
anyone that day?
A. I sent an email to Chris Kay.
MR. CARPINELLO: Let's have this marked.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 91 was marked for
identification)
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. Mr. Liebman, you have in front of you
what has been marked Exhibit 91, which appears to
be an email chain on July 19th, 2013. Do you
recognize these as emails that you sent?
A. (Reviewing document) Yes. I think that
-- okay, this has two emails through me. The top
one seems totally accurate. I'm -- I know I sent
basically the second one. I'm just not sure if
that's exactly what I said.
Q. Well, would you have any reason to
believe that it was altered in any way?
A. I don't know. I just don't know.

Page 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. Now, why did you send this email to Mr.
Kay?
A. I sent this email to Mr. Kay to see if
there was some way of working out the situation
where NYRA would not get beaten up in the New York
City tabloids for having a concession there whose
name could be considered anti-Italian.
Q. Did you discuss this email or your
communication with Mr. Kay to anyone in the
executive chamber at any time?
A. Not that day. On the next Monday, when
news broke of that, I sent a note saying that I
had sent this memo to a number of the people in
the executive chamber.
Q. You sent a note to a number of people in
the executive chamber?
A. Yeah. That I was the person probably
referred to as -- that I was the person referred
to as the high state official who had advised NYRA
of the Wandering Dago.
Q. Now, who did you send the note to?
A. As best as I can -- I know I sent it to
Howard Glaser. I'm sure I would have sent it to
Linda Lacewell, who's a special counsel to the

(Bennett Liebman)
Governor, and I sent it to a number of people in
the Governor's press office.
Q. Did you send it to the Governor?
A. No.
Q. Going back to Exhibit 91. After you sent
the first email at 2:58 p.m., did you receive any
response from Mr. Kay?
A. Yes. And one was, Thanks, let me check
on this.
Q. That's the only response you received?
A. Yes.
Q. He responded to you at 3:01. And then at
3:38, you send the email, "Without showing any
desire to micromanage, there are still continuing
complaints which were heard last year as well.
The track is becoming too dusty and dirty. People
want it to be the Disney Universal of the north."
Was that an issue that you had raised
with Mr. Kay earlier?
A. That was not an issue. But basically,
when I was walking around the track on opening
day, the backyard of the track was dusty, dirty,
and did not look the way a facility should open,
especially a shrine like Saratoga should be on the
Page 25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
day that -- on opening day. It should not look
like the Saratoga Performing Arts Center after a
rock concert.
Q. Was this routine for you to make these
kind of comments or suggestions to Mr. Kay?
A. Since I'd only met Mr. Kay the day
before, it would not be routine for me to make
those comments.
Q. Well, was it routine for you to make
comments or suggestions to people in Mr. Kay's
position at NYRA?
A. Yes, at various times. Especially on the
state Racing and Wagering Board, all the time.
Q. Did you have either an in-person or a
telephone conversation with Mr. Kay about this
issue at any point in time?
A. This is July 19th. Two weeks after that,
I had called Mr. Kay -- I called Mr. Kay on a
different matter. The matter involved NYRA's
treatment of the New York State Gaming Commission
at a meeting that the Gaming Commission had held
earlier that week. NYRA had requested the Gaming
Commission to approve a new wager called the
Pick 5. We had Pick 5 consecutive winners, and

7 (Pages 22 to 25)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 10

Page 26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
they wanted it at a lower take-out rate than other
similar exotic wagers.
NYRA had been talking about this bet for
years, but they finally applied for it right after
opening day. And they were begging us to do it so
that it would be ready by August 3rd, I think
that's the Saturday, because that was Whitney Day
and it was the 150th anniversary of the track, and
they were begging us to do this.
And we bust everything to get this ready.
And after -- and we begged the gaming
commissioners to pass this, because we think this
is good for racing and for fans. And after they
pass it, NYRA says we won't have it ready until
next September. We're just like, Why didn't you
guys have the common courtesy to tell us that -that this bet wouldn't be ready? So I was calling
up to complain about NYRA's activities.
To start off the conversation, he
calls -- says, Oh, sorry to get you involved with
the Wandering Dago. You had nothing to do with
this. They didn't have Health Department
approval, and that's why we got rid of them.
Q. What was your response to that?

Page 28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. None.
Q. Did you believe his statement, that they
had gotten rid of them because they didn't have
Health Department approval?
A. I had no idea.
Q. Now, in your answer, you said that NYRA
was begging us -A. Us. Basically the Gaming Commission to
approve this wager.
Q. You had no position on the Gaming
Commission?
A. No. But I'm the program person
overseeing the Gaming Commission.
Q. So you make recommendations to the Gaming
Commission about actions they should take?
A. I try to.
Q. Are they usually followed?
A. They are usually followed by whoever the
executive director is. They are not necessarily
followed by the Gaming Commission itself, which in
this case was the first or second meeting, so that
there was no guarantee what we wanted would get
through.
Q. The Gaming Commission, was this a

(Bennett Liebman)
successor to the Racing and Wagering Board?
A. A combination of the Racing and Wagering
Board and the State Lottery Commission.
Q. Did it have members from each of those
former agencies?
A. No. It had four new members.
Q. How many are on the Gaming Commission?
A. By statute, seven. Right now, six.
Q. And at that time, that is, in the summer
of 2013, it had four?
A. It had four. It needed every member to
vote for this.
Q. And those are people appointed by the
Governor?
A. Five of the seven are appointed by the
Governor. One is appointed by the Senate Majority
Leader and one is -- one. And there's a vacancy
that's supposed to be appointed by the Speaker of
the Assembly. All have to be approved by the
Senate.
Q. The four that were on in the summer of
2013, were they all gubinatorial appointments?
A. They were all gubinatorial appointees,
but they had been confirmed by the Senate in June
Page 29

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
of 2013.
MR. CARPINELLO: Let's have this marked.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 92 was marked for
identification)
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. Mr. Liebman, you have what's been marked
as Exhibit 92, which has what appears to be your
original email from July 19th referencing the
Wandering Dago. And in response, the next day at
7:12 p.m. from Christopher Kay, stating, "The food
truck in question was removed from the premises
before Saturday's races. Thank you for your
concern."
Do you recall receiving this response?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Kay
at the time you got this email?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss Mr. Kay's email with
anybody in the executive chamber?
A. No.
Q. Either that day or at any point in time?
A. This particular email, the general
subject of this came up on Monday when I sent out

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 10

Page 30

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
an email to the people in the Governor's office.
Q. You say it came up in the context of your
email. Did you have any discussions with anybody
in the executive chamber about this?
A. No.
Q. What discussions have you had with anyone
in the executive chamber generally about the
Wandering Dago issue from the first time you
discovered the truck up until today?
MS. GALLIGAN: I'm just going to caution
the witness to answer the question, except to
the extent that it requires you to reveal any
conversations with counsel.
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. I'm entitled to know whether you had
conversations -A. Other than talking about this meeting,
general level, basically none. This did not
generally come up, except after the hearing on
this in September in Federal Court. At that
point, Fran Reiter passed me in the hall one day
and said -- just pointed her finger at me and
said, "Troublemaker."
I had a conversation in November of 2013

Page 32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
with Mylan Denerstein, who is the counsel to the
Governor.
MS. GALLIGAN: I'm going to ask you to
not reveal what -THE WITNESS: It's not a -BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. Let me ask you this question: Were you
seeking legal advice?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Did he give you legal advice?
A. No, she did not.
Q. She. Okay.
A. She basically said -- she thanked me and
said, You know, you're my hero.
I had no conversations about this, and
I've had no conversations about this with Howard
Glaser.
Q. At any time?
A. No, I haven't had a conversation with
him. But in April of 2014, Mr. Kay had a meeting
with Howard Glaser about his plans for the Belmont
Stakes in 2014 to which -- which I attended.
Q. And the Wandering Dago came up?
A. Mr. Kay raised the issue of the Wandering

(Bennett Liebman)
Dago.
Q. What did Mr. Kay say?
A. Mr. Kay said, We did this on our own. We
were having problems with them. We were having
dinner, and we decided to get rid of them.
Q. Did he reference who was having dinner?
A. He did not. That's the only -- but I had
no conversation with Mr. Glaser about this.
Q. Did Mr. Glaser say anything in this
meeting about Wandering Dago?
A. No.
Q. Did you say anything?
A. No.
Q. At any time, had you received any
complaints from anyone about the Wandering Dago
name?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Kay ever advise you that they had
received complaints about the Wandering Dago name?
A. From Mr. Kay, no. There was some -- I
think there was a newspaper article in which Eric
Wing, who was NYRA's PR man, that had mentioned
that.
Q. You never heard firsthand any complaints?
Page 33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. I did not.
Q. Did you even hear secondhand of specific
people making complaints?
A. No.
Q. The only knowledge you have about
complaints having been made is from a newspaper
article?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what did you do to prepare for your
deposition today?
A. Basically talk with Colleen yesterday.
Q. Was anyone else present at that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Have you discussed the fact that you're
being deposed today with anyone other than your
counsel?
A. My wife.
Q. Anyone else?
A. Other than that, no.
Q. You haven't discussed it with anyone in
state government?
A. No.
Q. Did you review documents in preparation
for your deposition today?

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 10

Page 50

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. What was her title?
A. I don't know her exact title, but it's
like -- it would be like an assistant director of
state operations or something like that.
Q. And I don't know if we got a title for
Fran Reiter. What's her title at this time?
A. Deputy director of state operations.
Q. Who was the director of state operations?
A. Howard Glaser.
Q. You did these weekly?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's every week until you left?
A. Yes.
Q. So then you did one on July 26th on Bates
Page 5?
A. Yes.
Q. You say, "Reaction to the removal has
been mixed, but a New York Times' article
highlighted the offensive nature of the term."
What did you mean by "reaction to the
removal" had been -A. Based on the media reactions, some
thought it was, you know, an over-restriction of
free speech rights by NYRA. And some people

Page 52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 51

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
thought of it as a generally offensive term.
Q. So you were referring to press reactions?
A. I was referring to press reaction.
Q. It says, "The Times has also filed a FOIL
request for any communications between the chamber
and NYRA on this issue."
How did you know that?
A. Because I was asked to supply documents
to the Freedom of Information Law officer in the
Governor's office.
Q. What did you do to look for and supply
documents?
A. I supplied them with the documents that
had previously been marked in this case as
documents 91 and 92.
Q. Any other documents?
A. No.
Q. What did you do to determine whether you
had documents related to Wandering Dago either in
response to the FOIL requests or in response to
our discovery request in this case?
A. Two questions. For the FOIL request, it
was, you know, like three days after the incident,
so I knew exactly what we had and what I had, so

(Bennett Liebman)
that was very easy.
In terms of the deposition, I basically
hit my computer for Wandering Dago and to see what
I have.
Q. Did anyone else independently go through
your computer and search for documents?
A. I don't think so.
Q. When you say "your computer," what are
you referring to?
A. My computer at work.
Q. And at the time you were asked to produce
documents, you were still employed by the
executive chamber?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Are your emails retained in another place
other than on your computer?
A. No.
Q. There's no backup in the executive
chamber for emails?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Are you familiar with a 90-day retention
policy?
A. Yes, unfortunately.
Q. And describe for me what you understand
Page 53

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
the policy to be.
A. After 90 days, all our emails -- at 90
days, all our emails are discarded from the
system.
Q. That includes emails on your own personal
computer?
A. Yes.
MS. GALLIGAN: Object to form.
A. At work, yes.
Q. What kind of computer did you have at
work?
A. My normal PC.
Q. Was it a laptop?
A. No.
Q. It was a desk PC?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you take any steps to retain any
of the documents relating to the Wandering Dago
episode?
A. Only after Governor's counsel's office
advised me to keep them.
Q. When was that?
A. I'm not exactly sure, but I think it may
have been June or July of 2014.

14 (Pages 50 to 53)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 7 of 10

Page 54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. You were aware that litigation had been
commenced in the summer of 2013 relating to the
exclusion of the Wandering Dago at Saratoga?
A. Yes.
MS. GALLIGAN: Objection to form.
Q. And you were aware that litigation had
been commenced with regard to the exclusion of
Wandering Dago from the Empire State Plaza lunch
program?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any effort, at the time
those lawsuits were brought, to preserve any
documents relating to Wandering Dago?
A. No.
Q. And you received no indication from
counsel, any counsel, to preserve any documents;
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So if there were any documents, they
would have been erased by virtue of the 90-day
policy?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there such documents that were
erased by virtue of the 90-day policy?

Page 56

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. 91 and 92 were.
Q. How did it happen that you were able to
produce those in this action?
A. I was not. I think these are from NYRA.
I had assumed incorrectly that the Governor's
office would preserve documents that had been the
subject of a FOIL request, but apparently that was
not the case.
Q. How did you know that?
A. Because when -- when the request for
documents for emails came in and it said none, I
was sort of aghast that these documents were not
available.
Q. When you say "the request came in," are
you talking about the FOIA request?
A. Not from The Times, no.
MS. GALLIGAN: He's referring to the
subpoena.
A. The subpoena, yeah.
Q. Okay.
A. I just could not believe that they would
not have preserved records that were subject to a
FOIL request.
Q. Did you make any inquiries as to what

(Bennett Liebman)
efforts were made to preserve them?
A. No. But basically, what I said was,
Wait. A, I can't believe they're not there, but
NYRA should have them.
Q. Did you create any emails, other than 91
and 92, relating to Wandering Dago?
A. Other than the ones that I think are in
the Monday documents, the Monday after, I don't
remember anything beyond that.
Q. Do you recall whether you sent any
internal emails to other people in the executive
chamber about Wandering Dago in 2013 that may not
have been preserved?
A. I don't believe there are.
Q. What inquiries did you make when you
learned that there were no documents responsive to
our discovery request in this case?
A. I'd do anything other than to hit my
head -- shake my head in disbelief.
Q. Did you talk to anyone in the executive
chamber?
A. The only person I talked I think about
this was Brad Allen, who was the assistant counsel
with Racing and Wagering at the time.
Page 57

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. Did you seek legal advice from Mr. Allen?
A. No.
Q. What did you tell Mr. Allen?
A. I said basically, I can't believe we
don't have these documents.
Q. And his response was?
A. None.
Q. Did anyone in the executive chamber
preserve the communications with regard to the
FOIA request and the documents produced pursuant
to the FOIA request?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Did you make any inquiry into that?
A. No, I did not. Yes, in the sense that
when I could not respond to the subpoena, I asked
what about -- what about the FOIL request, because
I thought, you know, I would be able to point to
these documents. And I was told that they did not
maintain those documents.
Q. I'm sorry, did not maintain the documents
that were produced to The New York Times -A. Right.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I believe -- I believe Brad Allen did.

15 (Pages 54 to 57)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 8 of 10

Page 62

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. Now, the next entree is dated
September 20th, and on Bates Page 14, you
reference that the Court heard oral arguments that
week on Wandering Dago and that you were
specifically named as the person who told NYRA
that it might have a problem with the name of the
truck.
Again, you got no response from this?
A. I got no response from this.
Q. You got no requests to preserve any
documents at this time either?
A. No.
Q. And no effort was made to preserve
documents; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. Then on September 27th, you have a
reference to the lawsuit again, and then a
reference to the Governor's remarks. On Tuesday
of that week, protesting, ethical slurs and saying
the statements seemed to have lessoned the local
media interest.
You're just commenting there generally on
the absence of further newspaper articles or news
stories about the Wandering Dago?

Page 64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 63

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you have any discussions with anyone
in the executive chamber about the Wandering Dago,
other than what you have already testified, before
the Governor made these remarks?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any discussion with anyone
in the executive chamber after the Governor made
these remarks, other than what you have already
testified to?
A. I think someone -- I don't remember -said, Hey, the Governor really backed you up
there. But I don't recall anything beyond that.
Q. Who said that?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Now, you have a number of similar
comments for several weeks. And then on
January 17th, 2014 -- this appears on Bates Page
66 -- you say, "Federal court case against NYRA
will largely proceed after the district court
judge refused to dismiss the claim against NYRA."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you get any comments or reaction from

(Bennett Liebman)
that?
A. No.
MR. CARPINELLO: Let's have this marked.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 96 was marked for
identification)
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. You have what's been marked as
Exhibit 96. Do you recognize this document?
A. I was shown this document by counsel
yesterday.
Q. Were you shown it in redacted form or
were you shown it in the original form?
A. I think I saw an original.
MS. GALLIGAN: I believe that's true.
Q. Did this document refresh your
recollection with regard to the retention policy?
A. No.
Q. And that's because you knew what the
retention policy was?
MS. GALLIGAN: Object to form.
You can answer the question.
A. The memo is dated November 19th, 2007 to
me, when I was working at Albany Law School, so it
didn't refresh any memory because I had not seen
Page 65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
this memo until yesterday.
Q. You were not an employee of the executive
chamber when you received this memo in 2007?
MS. GALLIGAN: Object to form.
A. On the purported date. In fact, I do not
ever remember seeing this memo.
Q. Do you have any idea why you would have
gotten the memo with regard to retention policies?
Let me ask you this question: Do you
believe that you got this in November of 2007?
A. I did not get it in 2007.
Q. Did you get it when you joined the
executive chamber?
A. I don't believe I got it when I joined
the executive chamber.
Q. Is it your belief that you never received
this document?
A. It's my belief that I never received this
document.
Q. Do you have any explanation for the fact
that it appears to be dated November 19th, 2007
and addressed to you?
A. I do not know.
Q. Did you make any inquiries to determine

17 (Pages 62 to 65)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 9 of 10

Page 66

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
why you would reportedly be receiving a document
date November 19th, 2007 when you were not an
employee of the executive chamber?
A. I can only guess that this is the date
that they announced their 90-day retention policy
in the Governor's office.
Q. And do you recall that you ever received
a memo like this during your tenure at the
Governor's office?
A. I do not recall it. I did learn about
this policy by -- in 2011, when, having been
accustomed to using my email inbox as a filing
system, suddenly found my older emails gone. And
I went to the -- to the computer services office
and was told about the 90-day retention period.
Q. But you don't believe you've ever
received a written document?
A. I do not remember ever receiving a
written document.
MR. CARPINELLO: Colleen, what's the
basis for the redactions?
MS. GALLIGAN: They relate to things
other than the email policy. It's a document
that relates to operation of the computer

Page 68

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 67

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
systems that are totally not relevant.
I provided this with Judge Tress; he
directed me to provide your office with the
executive chamber's email retention policy,
so I redacted everything that was not
responsive to that.
MR. CARPINELLO: Can you tell me where
the document came from?
MS. GALLIGAN: It was provided to me by
the executive chamber when I specifically
asked them to provide me with a copy of the
email retention policy that was in place
during Mr. Leibman's tenure.
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. To the best of your recollection, you
never saw this document until you were preparing
for deposition today?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. And in fact, in 2011, you were unaware of
the policy?
A. I learned of the policy -- when I
started, I was not aware of the policy. I learned
after my emails started getting evaporated after
90 days.

(Bennett Liebman)
Q. Did you inquire as to whether there was
any method by which you could retain emails?
A. I actually did saying, What do I do? And
the only thing they said was, You really can't.
But what you can do, if you really need to retain
it, is make a copy of it and put it in a word
document.
Q. Did you start doing that with regard to
certain documents?
A. I really didn't.
MS. GALLIGAN: George, I can represent
to you that I did inquire as to the date, and
I was advised that it was a typo. So for -whether that's helpful or not, that's -MR. CARPINELLO: Do I have to take a
deposition to find out what the date was?
MS. GALLIGAN: I don't know that the
actual date is relevant because, really, it's
provided for -- you know, there was a
question as to what the policy was and why
Mr. Leibman's emails were not still on his
computer, so it was provided to me to answer
that question as to what the policy is.
MR. CARPINELLO: Unless the document was
Page 69

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
created in response to your inquiry.
MS. GALLIGAN: It's not my belief that
that's what -- that it was created in
response to my inquiry. But I did inquire as
to why the date -- you know, why it has an
'07 date on there, and I was just advised
that it was a typo.
So I don't think there's any question as
to what the policy was at this point. I
think Mr. Liebman is confirming that, when
his emails starting disappearing or he
started noticing they were disappearing, he
inquired and he was advised of the deletion
policy.
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. Were you aware of the fact that the
Wandering Dago had been advertised in various
brochures or releases that the Saratoga Race Track
or NYRA had issued prior to the opening day in
2013?
A. I was not aware of that.
Q. Are you aware of any regulatory
supervision that the Office of General Services
has with regard to any of the NYRA facilities?

18 (Pages 66 to 69)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-2 Filed 02/20/15 Page 10 of 10

Page 70

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
A. NYRA -- OGS does permitting at all video
lottery facilities, and OGS is the landlord for
NYRA at the tracks.
Q. You testified that OGS is the landlord at
Saratoga?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that because the state owns the land?
A. Since 2008, it's clear that the state
owns the land.
Q. And who at OGS has responsibility with
regard to its role as landlord at the Saratoga
track?
A. I don't know.
Q. Can you identify any OGS officials that
have any involvement with regard to OGS' role as a
landlord at the track?
A. I don't know.
Q. Have you ever dealt with any OGS
officials with regard to the operation of the
Saratoga track?
A. In 2011, I think in maybe the last summer
or early fall, I had convened a meeting of people,
also with the criminal justice people, in the
Governor's office regarding fire safety at the

Page 72

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 71

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
NYRA tracks, because I've always been concerned
about the issue of fire safety at Saratoga.
I know OGS people were at that meeting,
although it turned out that fire safety was under
the purview of Homeland Security rather than OGS.
I thought it might have been under the OGS, but we
were there trying -- basically trying to make sure
that the race track was not a fire trap.
Q. Who did you meet -- who from OGS was
present at that meeting?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you know whether anyone at the race
track or NYRA had any conversations with anyone at
OGS about Wandering Dago at any time?
A. I wouldn't know.
MR. CARPINELLO: Let's take a short
break.
(Break taken)
MR. CARPINELLO: Ready?
BY MR. CARPINELLO:
Q. Mr. Liebman, I think you testified
earlier that you had sent -- you said you sent an
email around the executive chamber saying, I was
the state official that was quoted in some

(Bennett Liebman)
article.
MS. GALLIGAN: Object to form.
Q. Did I recall correctly?
A. Not so much -- in general, yes, but it
wasn't the person quoted, but that I assumed that
I had to be the official referred to as talking to
NYRA about the Wandering Dago.
Q. And you sent this email to whom?
A. My best recollection is that I sent it to
Howard Glaser. I sent it to -- a copy to Linda
Lacewell and probably a number of people in the
Governor's press office.
Q. And that email we don't have here today;
right?
A. You do not have it.
Q. And you testified that you learned in
2011 that your emails were deleted according to a
policy?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any inquiry as to whether
they could be retrieved on a hard drive or some
server or some other method?
A. In 2011, when I asked them, What do I do
to retain this, all I was told by the people in
Page 73

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Bennett Liebman)
the computer services unit was that I needed to
make a copy of it and put it on a word document.
Q. Well, I'm asking a slightly different
question. Other than a method of retaining
something that's already on your computer, did you
inquire as to whether there was a way of
retrieving emails that had been deleted?
A. No. Actually, I did. I said, How do I
find this document? And they said, Sorry, it's
gone.
Q. They said there was no way to retrieve
it?
A. They said I couldn't retrieve it.
Q. Who did you talk to about the deletion of
your emails?
A. One of the people in the computer
services unit. A number of people who work for
Thomas Irvin. I don't remember who I spoke to in
particular.
Q. Thomas Irvin is whom?
A. Is the chief of computer services in the
Governor's office.
Q. The Governor's office has its own
computer services office?

19 (Pages 70 to 73)

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-3 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit C

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-3 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 8

Exhibit D

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 7 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-4 Filed 02/20/15 Page 8 of 8

2*6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit E

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 141-5 Filed 02/20/15 Page 6 of 6