for the northern district of illinois eastern...

Case: 1:09-cv-07143 Document #: 93 Filed: 09/24/10 of 48 PageID #:1319

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' ) RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually ) and on Behalf of All Others Similarly ) Case No. 1 :09-cv-07 143 Situated, )

) Judge Suzanne B. Conlon Plaintiff,

V. Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES MCNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants.

)

DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE BASIS OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS

BY PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL, ROBBINS GELLER

Declaration of Karim Mustafa.............................................................................A

Declaration of Richard Rosman............................................................................B

Declarationof Juli Meyer..................................................................................C

Declaration of Gurudath Ramabhatt......................................................................D

Declaration of Antonette Ayson ........................................................................... B

Declaration of Lawrence Hall.............................................................................F

Declaration of Michael A. O'Grady......................................................................G

Declaration of Michael Dean Petro......................................................................H


Fj



EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, V.

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES MeNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants.

Case No. I :09-cv-07 143

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon

DECLARATION OF KARIM MUSTAFA

Karim Mustafa hereby declares as follows:

I have worked at The Boeing Company as an engineer since January 1989. 1 am

currently, and have been since July 2008, a lead engineer on the Mid-Body integration Team for

the 787-9 aircraft, which is part of the 787 program. The 787 program has different teams for the

two different models -- the 787-8 and the 787-9. For each model, there are teams for different

parts of the plane. For example, there is a Wing Team, a Mid-Body Integration Team, and a

Forward-and-Aft Fuselage Team for each model. Each of those teams has responsibility for

design and analysis for different sections of the plane. I am now, and have been since July 2008,

responsible for conducting structural analysis on certain portions of the mid-body fuselage of the

787-9 model, which is the center-portion of the body of that plane.

2. The matters set forth in this declaration are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge or


review of documents. If I were called to testify as a witness, I could and would testify

competently to the facts set forth herein.

3. I have reviewed the allegations attributed to the "confidential source" in the Second

Amended Complaint in this case, specifically paragraphs 139 - 142. I understand that Plaintiffs

have identified Mr. Bishnujee Singh as the confidential source. I know Mr. Singh from his time

working as an outside contractor to Boeing.

4. From September 2009 to January 2010, Mr. Singh was employed as an engineer

with Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("Infotech"), an outside contractor that provided

engineering services to Boeing. Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee. Mr. Singh worked as

part of a team of approximately seven Infotech engineers who were performing various lower-

level, stress-analysis tasks for my team related to the mid-body fuselage of the 787-9.

5. I supervised Mr. Singh's work from September 2009 to January 2010. During that

time period, approximately twenty stress engineers, including Mr. Singh, reported directly to me.

I assigned Mr. Singh projects and I personally reviewed his work. To the best of my knowledge,

Mr. Singh's only responsibilities for Boeing through Infotech between September 2009 to

January 2010 were for the 787-9 model, and particularly for the Mid-Body Integration Team. He

was not working on the wing, and he was not working on the side-of-body joint that integrates

the wing and the fuselage.

6. Paragraphs 139— 142 of the Second Amended Complaint contain numerous

misrepresentations regarding Mr. Singh's responsibilities at Boeing and the information to which

he allegedly had access.


Mr. Singh's Role & Responsibilities at Boeing

7. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Singh was a

"former Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer and Chief Engineer." That statement is

false. First, Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee when I worked with him, and as far as I

know, has never been. When Mr. Singh reported to me, he worked for Infotech, an outside

contractor to Boeing, from September 2009 until Infotech terminated him in January 2010.

8. Second, Mr. Singh was neither a "Senior Structural Analyst Engineer" nor a "Chief

Engineer" at Boeing, and he never performed any of the functions of persons in those positions.

He was a stress engineer with Infotech providing stress analysis and review on discrete projects

that I assigned for the 787-9 Mid-Body Integration Team. Colloquially, around Boeing, Mr.

Singh would have been known as a worker bee. At Boeing, "Senior" engineer would refer to a

manager or lead; Mr. Singh was neither of those in his work at Boeing for Infotech and would

not have been characterized as a "Senior Structural Analyst Engineer." Nor was he a "Chief

Engineer," which at Boeing is reserved for executive-level positions at Boeing.

9. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Singh "worked

on the Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing integration Team for the 787 program." That statement is

false. There was no "Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team." There was and is a Wing

Team, which is separate from the Mid-Body integration Team on which Mr. Singh worked. Mr.

Singh was not part of the Wing Team or any "Wing Integration Team." There is also a separate

Side-of-Body Team that includes engineers devoted to analyzing the side-of-body joint that is

prominently mentioned in the complaint. Access to the Side-of-Body Team's workspace, which

is in the 40-88 building, and to the side-of-body data is restricted. Mr. Singh was not a member

of the Side-of-Body Team. Rather, he reported to me in his capacity as an engineer providing

3


services for the 787-9 Mid-Body Integration Team and only worked on the separate mid-body

fuselage portion of the plane.

10. In that capacity, Mr. Singh provided stress analysis of parts of the mid-body

fuselage of the 787-9. Specifically, Mr. Singh provided stress analysis for clip fittings that

attached to a portion of the plane's fuselage that is above the wing. The fittings he analyzed

would attach to an aerodynamic "fairing," which reduces wind resistance around the area where

the wing meets the body of the plane. The clip fittings and fairing are secondary structures that

are not responsible for carrying wing loads.

11. The fairing structure has nothing to do with the side-of-body joint that is the subject

of this lawsuit, other than providing an aerodynamic cover around it. The clip fittings -- which

were Mr. Singh's focus -- had absolutely nothing to do with the side-of-body joint, much less the

stress test data for the side-of-body joint. In fact, the Mid-Body Integration Team on which Mr.

Singh worked was not involved in any way in examining the side-of-body joint. That joint is

located inside of the plane's wing and attaches to the center wing box inside the fuselage. The

side-of-body joint is primary structure that is responsible for bearing "wing bending loads,"

which are forces that cause a plane's wing to bend upward or downward while in flight.

12. As a member of the Mid-Body Integration Team for the 787-9, 1 never had nor

needed access to the side-of-body joint stress test data for the April and May 2009 tests that are

mentioned in the complaint, and Mr. Singh likewise would not have had or needed such access.

13. Although Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint says that Mr. Singh

worked on the "787 program," he did not work on the 787-8, which was the model that was the

subject of the side-of-body joint stress tests in April and May 2009 that are the focus of this

4


lawsuit. instead, Mr. Singh worked on the 787-9, which is a different, still-developing model of

airplane than the 787-8.

14. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint also says that Mr. Singh's "job

responsibilities included stress and design review of the 787 wing joints, as well as performing

Finite Element Modeling analyses for other engineers and designers working on the 787 wing

project." That statement is false. Mr. Singh's work did not involve the 787-8 model that was the

subject of the side-of-body joint testing mentioned in this lawsuit; his work did not involve the

wing joints for either the 787-8 or the 787-9; and he did not perform analyses for the Wing Team

for either the 787-8 or -9 or any "wing project." Mr. Singh had no responsibilities for either the

787 wing or wing joints. Mr. Singh had zero involvement in anything involving the 787 side-of-

body issues that led to the delay of the first flight of the 787-8. The first flight of the 787-8 --the

model at issue in the case -- took place in December 2009. The first flight of the 787-9 -- the

model on which Mr. Singh worked -- has not yet occurred and will not occur for many months.

15. Paragraph 139 states that Mr. Singh "reported to Larry Hall, Boeing's Vice

President of the Wing-Body integration Team." That is false. Mr. Hall is not the Vice President

of any "Wing-Body Integration Team"; indeed, there is no such team at Boeing. Nor did Mr.

Singh report to Mr. Hall. Rather, Mr. Singh reported to me, in his capacity as an Infotech

contractor providing services to my team, and he would have had managers within Infotech as

well.

Mr. Singh Did Not Have Access To the Wing Side-of-Body information From the April and May 2009 Side-of-Body Joint Stress Tests

16. Paragraph 139 states that, "as part of [his] job, [Mr. Singh] had direct access to, as

well as first-hand knowledge of the contents of, Boeing's 787 stress test files that memorialize

the results of the failed 787 wing limit load" tests in April and May 2009. That statement is

5


false. First, it was not "part of [his] job" to have access to that information. The jobs that I

assigned to him had nothing to do with any wing side-of-body joint stress test data. Mr. Singh's

responsibilities with Infotech were related to a different portion of the plane entirely and a

different model of the 787. 1 did not have access to that data, I did not need access to that data,

and Mr. Singh neither had nor needed access to that data.

17. Second, in order to obtain access to the side-of-body joint stress test data or results

from the April or May 2009 testing concerning the wing side-of-body issue that is the subject of

this lawsuit, Mr. Singh would have needed multiple approvals. His access would have required

my approval, as well as that of Boeing management. I never gave such approval, and to my

knowledge Mr. Singh never had any such approval. Mr. Singh never asked me for permission to

review wing side-of-body stress test files. He did not need to review that information; it had

nothing to do with Mr. Singh's work for the 787-9 Mid-Body Integration Team. In fact, as a

matter of course, Infotech contractors only have access to a limited amount of Boeing data that is

directly relevant to the specific projects on which they are working. Accessing the side-of-body

joint stress test data was absolutely not "part of [his] job."

18. In addition, in order to gain access to the side-of-body joint stress test data, any

member of the Mid-Body Integration Team (be it Mr. Singh, myself, or someone else) would

have had to secure permission from a manager on the Side-of-Body Team by demonstrating a

need for that data as part of the job. I have never asked for such permission because I have never

had any need to know that information, and it is inconceivable to me that Mr. Singh had or

needed access to those files.

19. Based on my knowledge of Mr. Singh's role at Infotech from September 2009 to

January 2010 and the duties he was assigned at Boeing -- which did not pertain to the wing side-


of-body section at all -- Mr. Singh would not have had access to the "wing test file" referred to in

the Second Amended Complaint, or any of the purported communications that he alleges were

included in that file, as "part of his job."

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Everett, Washington on September 2010.

Karim Mustafa


[ii



EASTERN DIVISION

CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff, V.

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES MeNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants.

Case No. 1 :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF RICHARD ROSMAN

Richard Rosman hereby declares as follows:

I have worked at The Boeing Company for twenty years. I am currently a Senior

Structural Analyst on the Mid-Body Integration Team for the 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft. The 787

program has different teams for the two different models, namely, the 787-8 and the 787-9. For

each model, there are teams for different parts of the plane. For example, there is a Wing Team,

a Mid-Body Integration Team, and a Forward-and-Aft Fuselage Team for each. Each of those

teams has responsibility for the design and analysis of different sections of the airplane. I have

worked on the 787 program since October 2002. Since November 2007, 1 have been responsible

for conducting structural analysis on certain portions of the mid-body fuselage, which is the

center-portion of the body of the plane, of both the 787-8 and 787-9 aircraft. In this capacity,

approximately twenty engineers report directly to me.






3. 1 have reviewed the allegations attributed to the "confidential source" in the Second

Amended Complaint in this case, specifically paragraphs 139 - 142. 1 understand that Plaintiffs

have identified Mr. Bishnujee Singh as the confidential source. 1 know Mr. Singh from his time

working for Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("Infotech"), an outside contractor that provided

engineering services to Boeing.

4. From September 2009 to January 2010, Mr. Singh was employed as an engineer

with infotech. Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee. Mr. Singh worked as part of a team of

approximately seven Infotech engineers that was performing various lower-level, stress-analysis

tasks related to sections of the mid-body fuselage.

5. 1 supervised Mr. Singh's work from September 2009 to January 2010, although

Karim Mustafa, who reports to me, had more day-to-day interaction with Mr. Singh during this

time. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Singh's only responsibilities through Infotech between

September 2009 to January 2010 were with the Mid-Body Integration Team on the 787-9. He

was not working on the 787-8, which is the airplane referenced in this lawsuit; he was not

working on the wing; and he was not working on the side-of-body joint that integrates the wing

center section to the outboard wing.

6. Paragraphs 139 - 142 of the Second Amended Complaint contain numerous

misrepresentations regarding Mr. Singh's responsibilities at Boeing and the information to which


2


Mr. Singa's Role & Responsibilities at Boeing


"former Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer and Chief Engineer." That statement is

false. First, when I worked with him, Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee, and I am not aware

that he ever has been. Mr. Singh worked for Infotech, an outside contractor to Boeing, from

September 2009 until Infotech terminated him in January 2010.

8. Second, Mr. Singh was not a "Senior Structural Analyst Engineer" or a "Chief

Engineer" at Boeing, and he never performed any of the functions of persons in those positions.

He was a stress engineer with Infotech providing stress analysis and review on discrete projects

for the Mid-Body Integration Team. Mr. Singh was simply a low-level stress engineer. At

Boeing, "Senior" engineer would refer to a manager or lead; Mr. Singh was neither of those in

his work at Boeing for lnfotech, and would not have been characterized as a "Senior Structural

Analyst Engineer." Nor was he a "Chief Engineer," which at Boeing is reserved for executive-

level positions at The Boeing Company,

9, Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Singh "worked

on the Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team for the 787 program." That statement is

false. There was no "Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team." There is a Wing Team,

which is separate from the Mid-Body Integration Team on which Mr. Singh worked. Mr. Singh

was not part of the Wing Team or any "Wing Integration Team." There is also a separate Side-

of-Body Team that includes engineers devoted to analyzing the joint integrating the wing-center

section to the outboard wing that is mentioned in the complaint. Access to the Side-of-Body

Team's workspace, which is in the 40-88 building. and the side-of-body data, is restricted, as the

side-of-body issue involves competitively sensitive and highly proprietary intellectual property.

3


Mr. Singh was not a member of the Side-of-Body Team. Rather, he reported to Mr. Mustafa and

me as part of the Mid-Body Integration Team and only worked on the separate mid-body

fuselage portion of the 787-9.

10. In that capacity, Mr. Singh provided stress analysis of parts of the mid-body

fuselage of the 787-9. Specifically, Mr. Singh provided stress analysis for clip fittings that

attached to a portion of the plane's fuselage that is above the wing. The fittings he analyzed

would attach to an aerodynamic "fairing," which reduces wind resistance around the area where

the wing meets the body of the plane. The clip fittings and fairing are secondary structures that

are not responsible for carrying wing loads.

11. The fairing structure has nothing to do with the side-of-body joint that is the subject

of this lawsuit, other than providing an aerodynamic cover around it. The clip fittings -- which

were Mr. Singh's focus -- had absolutely nothing to do with the side-of-body joint, much less the

stress test data for the side-of-body joint. In fact, the Mid-Body Integration Team on which Mr.

Singh worked was not involved in any way in examining the side-of-body joint. That joint is

located inside of the plane's wing and attaches to the center wing box inside the fuselage. The

side-of-body joint is primary structure that is responsible for bearing "wing bending loads,"

which are forces that cause a plane's wing to bend upward or downward while in flight.

12. As a member of the Mid-Body Integration Team, I never had nor needed access to

the side-of-body joint stress test data for the April and May 2009 tests that are mentioned in the

complaint, and Mr. Singh likewise would not have had or needed such access.

13. Although paragraph 139 of the Second Amended , Complaint says that Mr. Singh

worked on the "787 program," he did not work on the 787-8, which was the model that was the

subject of the side-of-body joint stress tests in April and May 2009 that are the focus of this

4


lawsuit. instead, Mr. Singh worked on the 787-9, which is a different, still-developing model of

airplane than the 787-8. If Mr. Singh had worked on the 787-8, 1 would known it, because I have

worked on Mid-Body Integration projects on both models, and would have been the person who

would have assigned him the work on the 787-8. 1 never assigned Mr. Singh any work on the

787-8.

14. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint says that Mr. Singh's "job



project." That statement is false. Mr. Singh's work did not involve the 787 wing joints, and he

did not perform analyses for the 787 Wing Team or any "wing project." Mr. Singh had no

responsibilities for either the 787 wing or wing joints. Mr. Singh had zero involvement in

anything involving the 787 side-of-body issues that led to the delay of the first flight of the 787-

8. The first flight of the 787-8 -- the model at issue in the case -- took place in December 2009.

The first flight of the 787-9 -- the model on which Mr. Singh worked - has not yet occurred and

will not occur for many months.

15. Paragraph 139 states that Mr. Singh "reported to Larry Hall, Boeing's Vice

President of the Wing-Body Integration Team." That is false. Mr. Hall is not the Vice President

of any "Wing-Body Integration Team"; indeed, there is no such team at Boeing. Nor did Mr.

Singh report to Mr. Hall. Rather, Mr. Singh reported to Mr. Mustafa and me, in his capacity as

an Infotech contractor providing services to the Mid-Body Integration Team (although he would

have had managers within Infotech as well).

5


Mr. Singh Did Not Have Access To Side-of-Body information From the April and May 2009 Side-of-Body Joint Stress Tests


well as first-hand knowledge of the contents of, Boeing's 787 stress test files that memorialize

the results of the failed 787 wing limit load" tests in April and May 2009. That statement is

false. First, it was not "part of [his] job" to have access to that information. The jobs that were

assigned to Mr. Singh had nothing to do with any side-of-body joint stress test data. I did not

have access to that data, I did not need access to that data, and Mr. Singh neither had nor needed

access to that data.

17. Second, in order to obtain access to the side-of-body joint stress test data or results

from the April or May 2009 testing concerning the wing side-of-body issue that is the subject of

this lawsuit, Mr. Singh would have needed multiple approvals. His access would have required

approval of either Karim Mustafa or me, as well as Juli Meyer, to whom I report. Mr. Singh

never asked me for permission for him to review side-of-body joint stress test tiles. I never gave

such approval, and to my knowledge Mr. Singh never had any such approval. Mr. Singh never

asked me for permission for him to review side-of-body joint stress test files. He did not need to

review that information; it had nothing to do with Mr. Singh's work for the Mid-Body

Integration Team. in fact, as a matter of course, Infotech contractors only have access to a

limited amount of Boeing data that is directly relevant to the specific projects on which they are

working. Accessing the side-of-body joint stress test data was absolutely not "part of [his] job."

18. In addition, in order to gain access to the side-of-body joint stress test data, any

member of the Mid-Body Integration Team (be it Mr. Singh, myself, or someone else) would

have had to secure permission from a manager on the Side-of-Body Team by demonstrating a


need for that data as part of the job. I have never asked for such permission because I have never

had any need to know this information, and it is inconceivable to me that Mr. Singh had or

needed access to those files.

19. Based on my knowledge of Mr. Singh's role at Infotech and the duties to which he

was assigned -- which did not concern the wing side-of-body section at all -- Mr. Singh would

not have had access to the "wing test file" referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, or any

of the communications that he alleges were included in that file, as part of his job.

J declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Everett, Washington on September , 2010.

/,, , Rman

7


C



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff, V.

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES MeN ERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants

Case No. 1:09cv-07143

Judge Suzanne B. ('onion

DECLARATION OF JULI MEYER

Juli Meyer, being duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. 1 have worked at The Boeing Company for twenty years. I currently serve as the

Front Line Manager for the Mid-Body Joints for the 787 Program. I have served in that role

since October 2009. The 787 program has different teams for the two different models -- the

787-8 and the 787-9. For each model, there are teams for different parts of the plane. For

example, there is a Wing Team, a Mid-Body Integration Team, and a Forward-and-Aft Fuselage

Team for each model. Each of those teams has responsibility for design and analysis for

different sections of the plane. As Front Line Manager, I am responsible for overseeing the

design and analysis of the mid-body fuselage joints of both the 787-8 and 787-9. The mid-body

is the center portion of the aircraft's fuselage. Approximately 44 engineers report directly to me,

including Richard Rosman and Karim Mustafa.


knowledge, information, and belief. This declaration is based on my Personal knowledge or






have identified Mr. Bishnujee Singh as the confidential source.

4. It is my understanding that from September 2009 to January 2010, Mr. Singh was

employed as an engineer with Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("lnfbtech), an outside

contractor that provided engineering services to Boeing. Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee

during that time. Mr. Singh worked as part of a team of several Infotech engineers who

performed various lower-level, stress-analysis tasks for my 787-9 team related to the

joints/integration of the mid-body fuselage. The work did not involve the wing or wing oints. It

involved portions of the fuselage inboard of and around the wing.

5. 1 began work in my current position in October 2009. In that capacity, I supervised

Karim Mustafa and Richard Rosman, who in turn supervised Mr. Singh. As a result, Karim

Mustafa and Richard Rosman are more familiar with the actual work performed by Mr. Singh, as

they assigned and oversaw his work. However, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Singh's only

responsibilities through Infotech between September 2009 to January 2010 were to perform

engineering services for the Mid-Body Integration Team on the 787-9. Throughout this period,

he was not working on the wing; he was not working on the side-of-body joint that integrates the

wing and the fuselage; and he was not working on anything related to the side-of-body oint of

the 787-8 that was the subject of the stress tests in April and May of 2009 mentioned in the

complaint. The Mid-Body Integration Team was not involved in those projects.


6. Paragraphs IN -- 1 42 of the Second Amended Complaint contain numerous

misrepresentations regarding Mr. Singh's responsibilities at Boeing and the intbrmalion to which


Mr. Siugh's Role & Responsibilities at Boeing


"fbrmer Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer and Chief Engineer." That statement is

false. First, Mr. Singh was not a Boeing employee and, as far as I know. has never been. When

Mr. Singh performed services for the Mid-Body Integration Team, he was employed by lnfhtech.

an outside contractor for Boeing.

8. Second, Mr. Singh was not a "Senior Structural Analyst Engineer" or a "Chief

Engineer" at or for Boeing. Rather, Mr. Singh was a stress engineer with lnfbtech providing

stress analysis and review on discrete projects that were assigned to him from the Mid-Body

Integration Team. Infotech employees did not receive formal Boeing titles, and certainly were

not regarded as "Senior" or "Chief' engineers at Boeing. In fact, the title "Chief Engineer" is

reserved for executive-level positions at Boeing.

9. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Singh "worked

on the Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team for the 787 program." That statement is

false. There is no "Mid-Body Fuselage/Wing Integration Team." Although there is a Wing

Team. it is an entirely different team than the Mid-Body Integration Team that Mr. Singh

supported. Mr. Singh was not, as the complaint alleges, part of the Wing Team or any "Wing

Integration Team." There is also a separate Side-of-Body Team that includes engineers devoted

to analyzing the side-of-body joint that is prominently mentioned in the complaint. Access to the

workspace where the Side-of-Body Team works (the 40-88 building) and to the side-of-body


data is restricted, and Mr. Singh did not have access to either. Mr. Singh was not a member of

the Side-of-Body Team. Instead, he ultimately reported to me on the Mid-Body Integration

Team and only worked on the mid-body fuselage portion of the plane.

10. During the relevant period in 2009-10, Mr. Singh provided engineering services to

the Mid-Body Integration Team, which is responsible for the separate mid-body

joints/integration. More specifically, Mr. Singh provided stress analysis of parts of the mid-body

joints of the 787-9. The Mid-Body Integration Team was not involved in any way in examining

the side-of-body issues that are the subject of this lawsuit. I never had nor needed access to the

side-of-body joint stress test data for the April and May 2009 tests that are mentioned in the

complaint, and Mr. Singh likewise would not have had or needed such access.

11. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint says that Mr. Singh's "job



project." That statement is false. Mr. Singh's work did not involve the 787-8 model of the

aircraft, which was involved in the April and May 2009 side-of-body joint stress tests at issue in

this lawsuit; his work did not involve the 787 wing joints; and he did not perform analyses for

the 787 Wing Team or any "wing project." Mr. Singh had no responsibilities for either the 787

wing or wing joints. Mr. Singh had zero involvement in anything involving the 787 side-of-body

issues that led to the delay of the first flight of the 787-8. The first flight of the 787-8 -- the

model at issue in the case -- took place in December 2009. The first flight of the 787-9 -- the

model on which Mr. Singh worked -- has not yet occurred and will not occur for many months.

4


12. Mr. Singh's responsibilities related to a different portion of the plane (the mid-body

fuselage as opposed to the side-of-body joint) and a different model of the 787 (the 787-9 as

opposed to the 787-8) than that described by the Second Amended Complaint.

13. Paragraph 139 states that Mr. Singh "reported to Larry Hall, Boeings Vice

President of the Wing-Body Integration Team." That is also not true. Mr. Hall is not the Vice

President of any "Win(,,,-Body Integration Team"; indeed, there is no such team. Nor did Mr.

Singh report to Mr. Hall. Rather, Mr. Singh reported to me (as well as to managers within

lnfbtech). as he and Infotech were providing services to my team.

Mr. Singh Did Not Have Access To Side-of-Body Information From the April and May 2009 Static Tests


well as first-hand knowledge of the contents of, Boeing's 787 stress test tiles that memorialize

the results of the failed 787 wing limit load" tests in April and May 2009, That statement is

false. First, it was not "part of [his] job" to have access to that information. I oversaw Mr.

Singhs work, and even I did not have access to that data and had no need to obtain access. Mr.

Singh certainly had no need to obtain access to that data. That information had nothing to do

with his work for the Mid-Body Integration Team. In fact, as a matter of course. lnfotcch

contractors only have access to a limited amount of Boeing data that is directly relevant to the

specific projects on which they are working.

15. Second, Mr. Singh would have needed to obtain multiple levels of approval to

access the 787-8 side-of-body stress test files. He would have needed my approval, in addition

to the approval of either Karim Mustafa or Richard Rosman, who were his direct supervisors.

Mr. Singh never asked me for permission for him to review the side-of-body joint stress test

5


files. I never gave such approval, and to my knowledge Mr. Singh never had any such approval.

16. In addition, Mr. Singh would have needed manager approval from the Side-of-Body

Team to obtain access to the side-of-body joint stress test data or results from April or May 2009.

Similarly, I also would have to secure permission from a manager on the Side-of-Body Team in

order to gain access to that data by demonstrating that I had a need for the data as part of my job.

I. have never asked for such permission because I had and have no need to know that information.

17. Based on my knowledge of Mr. Singh's role at Infotech and the duties he was

assigned at Boeing -- which did not pertain to the side-of-body section at all -- Mr. Singh would

not have had access to the "wing test file" referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, or any

of the purported communications that he alleges were included in that file, as "part of his job."


Executed in Everett, Washington on September Z/ 2010.

Jul iAcieyer

6


it



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff,

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES McNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants.

Case No. I :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF CURUDATH RAMABHATT

Gurudath Rarnabhatt hereby declares as follows:

My name is Gurudath Rarnabhatt. Since August 7, 2007, I have been working as

a Design Engineer Specialist for Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("Infotech"), a corporation

headquartered in Hartford. Connecticut. Infotech offers engineering, information technology,

and geospatial services to clients and partners in North America. The Boeing Company

("Boeing") is one of Infotech's clients. Since July 2008, I have worked as lead engineer for the

infotech engineering group that supports Boeing's Mid-Body Integration Team in connection

with its work on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. In that capacity, the other Infotech engineers and I

work out of office building 40-87 on Boeing's campus in Everett, Washington.

2, Bishnujee Singh was an lnfotech engineer who supported Boeing's Mid-Body

Integration Team between September 4, 2009 and January 15, 2010. That was Mr. Singh's only

Boeing-related assignment while at Infotech. In my role as lead engineer for the lnfotech

engineers supporting Boeing's Mid-Body Integration Team, I was Mr. Singh's direct supervisor


at Infotech while he performed assignments for Boeing's Mid-Body Integration Team. I am

familiar with the work Mr. Singh performed and the access he had to Boeing proprietary

information while at Infotech.





infotech's Work for Boeing on the 787 Dreamliner

4. During my time at Infotech, Infotech has served as an outside contractor

providing engineering services to Boeing primarily for the 787-9 model of Boeing's 787

Dreamliner. Those services concerned the mid-body fuselage and the nose portion of the

fuselage of the 787-9. With respect to the mid-body fuselage projects on the 787-9, Infotech

engineers supported Boeing's Mid-Body Integration Team.

5, The 787-9 is made up of several fuselage sections with numerous components.

For the middle sections of the 787-9 (the "mid-body"), infotech's engineers assisted Boeing's

Mid-Body Integration Team by analyzing whether particular components or designs could

handle the requisite stress levels. Infotech engineers supporting Boeing's Mid-Body Integration

Team worked only on joints and components on the mid-body of the 787-9 fuselage. We never

worked on the joint between the 787-9's wing and the body of the plane, also known as the side-

of-body joint. That includes Mr. Singh, who was part of my group of Infotech engineers for the

entire time, and who worked exclusively on the mid-body portion of the 787-9. Mr. Singh did

not work on the side-of-body joint where the wing attaches to the fuselage. The side-of-body

joint is not part of the work of Boeing's Mid-Body Integration Team. Side-of-body joint stress


test data was not relevant to the work that Infotech engineers performed for Boeing's Mid-Body

Integration Team.

6. Until June 2010 when a new project involving the 787-8 began, Infotech had

worked on only a single, discrete project involving the 787-8. That project related to the wheel

well and other locations toward the aft (or back) of the mid-body fuselage. Two Infotech

employees worked on that project for one month between September and October 2009. Mr.

Singh, however, did not work on that project and was not involved in it in any way. That project

did not relate to the side-of-body joint on the 787-8, and side-of-body joint stress test data was

not relevant to it.

7. In sum, no Infotech engineers, including Mr. Singh, have provided engineering

support for Boeing's work on the side-of-body joint on either the 787-8 or the 787-9,

Infotech Employees' Lack of Access to Side-of-Body Joint Stress Test Data

8. Access to side-of-body joint stress test data was controlled by Boeing and

required the approval of supervisors and others at Boeing. I never had nor needed access to the

side-of-body joint stress test data for the April and May 2009 tests that are mentioned in the

complaint, and Mr. Singh likewise would not have had or needed such access. If an Infotech

engineer in my group had wanted such access, I would have known about it. None of the

Infotech engineers in my group ever sought access to those results.

9. If an Infotech employee wished to obtain access to side-of-body joint stress test

data related to the 787-8, he or she would first request permission from me. I would then request

permission from Karim Mustafa or Richard Rosman, the Boeing employees to whom I reported.

I believe Mr. Mustafa or Mr. Rosman then were required to request permission from additional


individuals in the chain of command at Boeing before access to such test results would he

granted.

Bishnujee Singh's Work for Infotech

10. Based on information and documents that I have received from Infotech's human

resources department, I know that on May 26, 2009, Bishnujee Singh began working at lnthtech

as an engineer. At that time, Mr. Singh supported a different customer, not Boeing. He was

terminated by Infotech on January 15, 2010. At no time that I am aware of was Mr. Singh an

employee of Boeing.

11, Mr. Singh worked on the Mid-Body integration Team for the 787-9 model at the

Boeing campus between September 4, 2009 and January 15, 2009. I was Mr. Singh's direct

supervisor at Infotech during this period. Like all members of the Mid-Body Integration Team at

infotech, Mr. Singh worked only on the 787-9 and did not work on the 787-8. He did not work

on any issues related to the side-of-body joint or on any team known as the "Wing Integration

Team" - either on the 787-9 or on the 787-8. Nor did he ever work on any issues related to side-

of-body joint stress testing on either the 787-8 or the 787-9. If Mr. Singh had performed any

such work, I would have known.


12. Thus, like all Infotech employees, Mr. Singh had no access as part of his job to

side-of-body joint stress test data on the 787-8. in particular, Mr. Singh had no access as part of

his job to any results of side-of-body joint stress tests on the 787-8 in April or May 2009. Mr.

Singh never requested access to such test results from me and I never granted him such access.


Executed in Everett, Washington. on September 2010.

Gurudath Ramahhatt



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff, V.


Defendants.

Case No. I :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF ANTONETTE AYSON

Antonette Ayson hereby declares as follows:

1. 1 have been employed by The Boeing Company since 1994. 1 am currently an

Engineering Manager for the 747-8 program.





3. Between 2004 and 2006, Mr. Bishnujee Singh was a contract employee with CTS

Technical, an outside firm that does engineering work for Boeing. On April 1, 2005, 1 became

Stress Manager for the interior Responsibilities Center, a division within Boeing that oversees

certain internal aspects of aircraft, such as linings, sidewalls, ceilings, and closets. CTS

Technical and Mr. Singh were performing stress work for the Interior Responsibilities Center at

that time. Thus, as of April 1, 2005, 1 oversaw Mr. Singh's work and monitored his


performance. Mr. Singh's duties related to lower-level stress analysis on the types of interior

components listed above; that stress analysis is designed to examine the amount of load that

these components can bear.

4. Shortly after I became Stress Manager for the Interior Responsibilities Center, I

learned from my direct reports at Boeing that there were concerns with Mr. Singh's performance.

Specifically, my direct reports told me that while Mr. Singh's resume highlighted proficiency in

the various engineering tasks that were expected of contract employees doing engineering work

for Boeing, Mr. Singh in fact lacked that level of proficiency. For example, Mr. Singh was not

adequately performing Finite Element Modeling (FEM) analyses and had difficulty with basic

stress analysis. Because of his lack of proficiency, some of Mr. Singh's assignments had to be

assigned to others. I also learned that Mr. Singh was known to have an arrogant and

unprofessional style of communication.

5. As a result of the concerns that my direct reports raised with me concerning Mr.

Singh's performance as a contract engineer, I arranged a meeting with Mr. Singh. When I

identified my concerns, Mr. Singh reacted negatively and informed me that he was qualified for

his position based on his resume. I informed Mr. Singh that his performance would need to

improve consistent with Boeing's expectations of contract engineers.

6. After approximately a month, Mr. Singh's performance had not improved and he

was not adequately performing the engineering tasks that were assigned to him. As a result of

his poor performance, I decided that Mr. Singh could no longer continue performing services for

Boeing. I informed Mr. Singh of my decision, requested his Boeing security badge, and

personally escorted him off Boeing property.

2


7. Mr. Singh is the only individual (whether a Boeing employee or a contract

employee) that I have ever terminated for poor performance in my time as a Boeing manager. At

the time I terminated Mr. Singh, Boeing had an exceptional need for stress engineers. I thus did

not take the decision lightly, but believed it was warranted based on Mr. Singh's performance.

8. I understand that in Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint in this

lawsuit, Mr. Singh is referred to as "a former Boeing Senior Structural Analyst Engineer and

Chief Engineer." During his stint as a contractor between 2004 and 2006, Mr. Singh held neither

of those titles. He was during that time an employee of a service provider to Boeing, and had

neither those titles nor such responsibilities.


Executed in Vee , Washington, on September L, 2010.

Antonette Ayson

3


It



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff, V.

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES McNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT E. CARSON,

Defendants.

Case No. I :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE HALL

Lawrence R. Hall hereby declares as follows:

I am the Chief Engineer for Structures Design within Boeing Commercial Airplanes

at The Boeing Company. I have been employed at Boeing for 30 years, and have served as the

Chief Engineer for Structures Design—Boeing Commercial Airplanes for the last nine years.

2. During the last nine years, my responsibilities with Boeing Commercial Airplanes

involve ensuring that Boeing programs are adequately staffed and supported to ensure

completion of their statements of work. Because my position is "functional" and not

"programmatic," I am not assigned to, and have not for nine years been assigned to, any

particular Boeing program, such as the 787 program. The last program I was assigned to was the

777-300ER program, which I left in 2001.






4. I have reviewed paragraphs 139 - 142 of the Second Amended Complaint filed in

this lawsuit. I understand that the Plaintiffs in this action have identified Mr. Bisimujee Singh as

the "confidential source" referenced in those four paragraphs.

5. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint says that "[t]he CS [Confidential

Source] reported to Larry Hall, Boeing's Vice President of the Wing-Body Integration Team."

That statement is false in several respects. First, I am not on any "Wing-Body Integration

Team." To my knowledge, there is no such team at Boeing. I am not a member of a "Wing-

Body" or "Wing Integration Team"; I am also not the "Vice President" of any such team.

Indeed, I am not and have never been a Vice President of Boeing at all. In addition, Mr. Singh

has never reported to me. To the best of my recollection, I have never met Mr. Singh and do not

know who he is.

6. Paragraph 140 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that "the Wing

Integration Team members included Larry Hall, Terry Pham (who reported directly to Larry

Hall) and Mike Denton (Vice President of Engineering for the 787 Program, who reported

directly to defendant Carson)." That statement is also false. First, as stated, I am not a member

of a "Wing Integration Team" and am not assigned to the 787 program. Second, I do not know

any "Terry Pham." I know of a Boeing supervisor named "Terri Pham," but she does not match

the allegations in the complaint. Terri Pham was working directly in support of the 747-8

program during the time period of the allegations. The 747-8 program is a completely

independent program from the 787 program, and Terri Pham would not have had any connection

with the 787 program, much less the 787 side-of-body program, throughout 2009. Third, Mike

2


Denton is also not a member of a "Wing Integration Team." Like me, during the time periods in

the allegations, Mr. Denton was not assigned to the 787 program or any other airplane program.

He was Vice President for Engineering at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

7. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint says that Mr. Singh was a former

"Boeing. . . Chief Engineer." That statement is false. Typically, the title "Chief Engineer,"

which is part of my current title, is reserved for executive-level positions at The Boeing

Company. It is my understanding that during the period of September 2009 to January 2010, Mr.

Singh was an employee of Infotech Enterprises America, Inc.. an outside contractor that

provided engineering services to Boeing. Based on my thirty years of experience at Boeing and

my understanding of Boeing's staffing procedures and job titles, a contract employee such as Mr.

Singh would never have the title "Chief Engineer" at Boeing. To my knowledge, Mr. Singh has

never had such a title. Furthermore, I have checked with Boeing Human Resources, and Mr.

Singh has never been a direct employee of Boeing.

8. Given my responsibilities at Boeing, and because I am not and have never been

assigned to the 787 program or any "Wing Integration Team," I have no specific knowledge of

the April and May 2009 test results that are the subject of Plaintiffs' Second Amended

Complaint. To the extent the complaint alleges or suggests that I knew of the results, analyzed

the results, and/or communicated with others—including Boeing's top executives—about them,

those allegations are false. My position at Boeing did not involve analyzing the side-of-body

joint on the 787 or any static testing regarding the 787. The Second Amended Complaint falsely

states or implies that I was on a team that performed those functions.



Executed in Everett, Washington on September ,& 2010.

ance R. Hall

ri


G



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff, V.


Defendants.

Case No. I :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. O'GRADY

Michael A. O'Grady hereby declares as follows:

I have worked at The Boeing Company since January 1984 and have served as

Stress Manager for the Side of Body for the 787-8 and 787-9 since July 1, 2009. In that role, I

am responsible for managing the stress analysis performed on the side-of-body section of the

787-8 and -9 aircrafis.







have identified Mr. Bishnujee Singh as their "confidential source."


4. Paragraph 139 of the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Singh worked on

a "Wing integration Team" and that his "job responsibilities included stress and design review of

the 787 wing joints." His job responsibilities could not have included stress and design review

of the "787 wing joints," if what is meant is the side-of-body joint that, I understand, is the

subject of this lawsuit. That joint is located inside of the plane's wing and attaches to the center

wing box inside the fuselage. The side-of-body joint is responsible for carrying "wing bending

loads," which are loads due to wing upbending or downbending.

5. Mr. Singh was not and has never been a member of the Side-of-Body Team and did

not have responsibility for "stress and design review of the 787 wing joints." Approximately 35

stress engineers (including Boeing employees, industry assists and contractors) reported to me on

the Side-of-Body Team in 2009. Mr. Singh was not among them, and I do not know him. I

would have known any stress engineer (from Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("Infotech") or

elsewhere) who worked on the Side-of-Body Team, and 1 do not know Mr. Singh. There was, in

fact, no one from lnfotech on the Side-of-Body Team.

6. Data and information concerning the side-of-body joint of the 787 is very

competitive sensitive, and access is thus restricted, both physically and electronically. Until

January 29, 2010, the Side-of-Body Team on which I work was physically segregated in a

separate section of a separate building (the 40-88 building) in Everett, Washington, from other

members of the 787 program. Because the section of the 40-88 building where the Side-of-Body

Team worked was designated a "red" area of the campus, access to that section of the building

was restricted to those people working on the side-of-body issue. The area where the Side-of-

Body Team worked was enclosed behind locked doors. Only individuals with special clearance

could gain access by swiping Boeing-issued identification badges at the door. Mr. Singh, who


was not part of the Side-of-Body Team, would not have had access to that section of the 40-88

building using his work identification badge. Even Boeing employees with badges would not

have had access, unless they also had special clearance to that section.

7. The Side-of-Body Team stores its information and data on six restricted servers.

The April and May 2009 test data, results, and analysis concerning the side-of-body issue are

stored on those servers. I am the principal approver of access to those six servers; access is

restricted to those people who have a need to know such information as part of their job

responsibilities. in order to access those servers, Mr. Singh would have had to complete a form

requesting permission and obtain written authorization from me or another Boeing manager on

the Side-of-Body Team. I never approved any access by Mr. Singh. To my knowledge,

Mr. Singh never sought or obtained permission to access the Side-of-Body Team servers.

8. 1 understand that Mr. Singh worked as an Infotech contractor on the Mid-Body

Integration Team from September 2009 until January 2010. The Mid-Body Integration Team

was not involved in the side-of-body issue that ultimately led to a delay in the first flight of the

787-8. As stated, all stress engineers doing stress analysis on the side-of-body design during that

time frame reported to me on the Side-of-Body Team, and Mr. Singh was not on that team and

did not report to me. Given his role on the Mid-Body Integration Team, Mr. Singh would not

have had access to the Side-of-Body Team's physical workspace in the 40-88 building or any

April and May 2009 test data, results, and analysis that resides on the Side-of-Body Team

servers, including side-of-body joint stress test data. And I absolutely would not have authorized

Mr. Singh to have access to the Side-of-Body Team's shared servers.



Executed in Everett, Washington on September , 2010.

ichael A. O'Grady

ru


lil



EASTERN DIVISION


Plaintiff, V.

THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES McNERNEY, JR. and SCOTT F. CARSON,

Defendants.

Case No. 1 :09-cv-07 143


DECLARATION OF MICHAEL DEAN PETRO

Michael Dean Petro hereby declares as follows:

I have been employed by The Boeing Company for eighteen years in various

technical support roles. In my current capacity, I am the Technical Support Specialist who

oversees the share drives and files for the 787 Program's Side-of-Body ('SOB") Team. As the

Technical Support Specialist, my job is to support Boeing engineers by overseeing the

management, maintenance, and housing of their data and files.





3. The Side-of-Body Team stores its data and information on six servers at Boeing.

Those servers have the code "SOB" in their names.


4. Access to those Side-of-Body Team servers is restricted. An individual cannot

simply access those servers on his own without obtaining the appropriate authorization. If an

individual needs access to those Side-of-Body Team servers, he must first obtain permission

from an authorized Boeing manager. Only eight managers at Boeing are currently authorized to

grant access to those Side-of-Body Team servers. In practice, Michael O'Grady, the Stress

Manager for the 787 Side of Body, provided and provides most of the authorizations for access

to these servers.

5. While I myself cannot authorize access to the Side-of-Body Team servers, as the

Technical Support Specialist I am entrusted with making access available once a Boeing

manager has approved it. If an individual requests access, I provide that individual with forms to

fill out. Those forms require the digital signature of an authorized Boeing manager. I will not

grant access until a Boeing manager has approved it. Once I receive that approval, I enable

access to the servers.

6. 1 have been informed that Mr. Bishnujee Singh worked as an employee for

Infotech Enterprises America, Inc. ("Infotech"), an outside contractor that provided engineering

services to Boeing for the 787 program. During September 2009 to January 2010 when Mr.

Singh worked at Infotech, access to the Side-of-Body Team servers I support was restricted, and

required the authorization procedures set forth above. I maintain a list of all individuals who

have been granted access to those Side-of-Body Team servers. Mr. Singh does not appear on my

list, and I have no record of Mr. Singh being given access to those servers.

2


I have reviewed a list of the nine servers to which Mr. Singh had access between

September 2009 and January 2010. This list of servers does not include any of the six Side-of-

Body Team servers and does not include any servers containing the code "SOB."

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Everett, Washington, on September____ 2010.

Michael Dean Petro

3

for the northern district of illinois eastern...

Documents