IN a declaration filed in the federal court, attorney Juan Lizama said there was no miscommunication with Cui Li Jie nor with her interpreter, How Yo Chi, over the requirements to preserve Electronically Stored Information or ESI.
“If there was any miscommunication, I wasn’t aware of it,” Lizama added.
On Tuesday, he filed a motion to withdraw from representing former Imperial Pacific International Holdings chair Cui Li Jie in the lawsuit of seven construction workers over labor abuse and human trafficking allegations.
Cui is a third-party witness in the lawsuit of the seven workers against IPI and its former contractor and subcontractor, MCC International and Gold Mantis Construction Decoration, both of which have settled with the plaintiffs.
She recently told the District Court for the NMI that she was not satisfied with the representation of Lizama and had asked the court for additional time to look for a “competent attorney.”
In his declaration, Lizama stated that he began to represent Cui in February 2021 when she was deposed.
He said he filed an entry of appearance in this lawsuit as discovery and contempt issues developed.
“Ms. Cui signed a retainer agreement with me as a condition to serve her as counsel of record in this matter,” he said.
“Because I do not read or speak Chinese, through [IPI senior vice president for public affairs] Mr. Tao Xing, I was referred to How-Yo Chi as my link of communication to Ms. Cui,” Lizama added.
He said Chi is fluent in English as he grew up in the State of Washington and is a graduate of Washington State University.
“After the first court appearance of Ms. Cui…I believe that Mr. Chi understood fully the requirement for Ms. Cui to tender her phone to me for forensic analysis.
“Mr. Chi understood fully, as I informed him, that pursuant to court order Ms. Cui was to preserve all ESI information (we-chat communications and others) that existed in her phone from the day of her first court appearance in this matter.
“I believe that Mr. Chi was made fully aware in advance of all communications that came from plaintiffs’ attorney; I believe that Mr. Chi also was fully aware of the difficulty of getting Ms. Cui to turn over her phone to me in advance to ensure protection of ESI information.
“Through telephones, emails, and in person communications, I believe that clearly and unequivocally Mr. Chi understood the ramification and the potential of the court issuing a harsher penalty than a mere fine when there is a knowing failure to comply with court order,” Lizama said.
Despite the requirement to tender her phone, Lizama said Cui kept her phone or phones, and delivered one phone only after the status conference on May 14, 2021 but without the SIM card.
“On information and belief, when Mr. Chi delivered the phone he knew already that the SIM card was not in the phone,” Lizama said.
“There was no miscommunication with…Mr. Chi nor with Ms. Cui over the requirements to preserve ESI information. If there was any miscommunication, I wasn’t aware of it.”
Lizama also told the court that the former IPI chair has not paid any legal fees for work that he has performed in litigation.
He said if called to testify, he would.
Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI last week ordered Cui to provide the court with her cell phone data and submit an affidavit detailing her use of ESI.
IPI recently announced Cui’s resignation as board chair and executive director.
But Aaron Halegua, the lawyer of the seven workers who sued IPI, said Cui’s resignation does not change or modify her obligation to comply with the court’s orders.
On May 24, 2021, Judge Manglona entered a $5.9 million default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against IPI.
Juan T. Lizama
