Filed

D.C. Superior Court

10 Sep 29 P06:39
Clerk of Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by

KATHERINE E. WONE,
as Personal Representative

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 008315-08

v. The Honorable Brook Hedge

JOSEPH R. PRICE, VICTOR J.

ZABORSKY, Next Court Event: December 15, 2010
and DYLAN M. WARD Deadline for Discovery Requests

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby

moves pursuant to Superior Court Rule 15(a), with consent of Defendants, for leave to amend its

Complaint. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states:

1. On November 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action.

2. On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff obtained written consent from

Defendants’ counsel to amend its Complaint.

3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court grant its Consent Motion

and enter the attached First Amended Complaint in this action.

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen W. Rodger_________

Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 475946
Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 485518
Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 996100
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 662-6000

Patrick M. Regan (pregan@reganfirm.com)

D.C. Bar No. 336107
REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC
1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 463-3030

Dated: September 29, 2010 Counsel for Plaintiff

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 29, 2010, I caused a copy of the foregoing

Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to be served via CaseFileXpress on

the following counsel:

Craig D. Roswell
Brett A. Buckwalter
Heather B. Nelson
Niles, Barton, & Wilmer LLP
111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400
Baltimore, MD 21202
cdroswell@nilesbarton.com
hbnelson@nilesbarton.com
babuckwalter@nilesbarton.com

Counsel for Defendant Joseph Price

David Schertler
Robert Spagnoletti
Schertler & Onorato LLP
601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
dschertler@schertlerlaw.com
rspagnoletti@schertlerlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

Frank F. Daily
Sean P. Edwards
Larissa N. Byers
The Law Office of Frank F. Daily, P.A.
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza III, Suite 704
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
info@frankdailylaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Victor Zaborsky

_________/s/ Stephen W. Rodger___________

Stephen W. Rodger
 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by

KATHERINE E. WONE,
as Personal Representative,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 008315-08

v. The Honorable Brook Hedge

JOSEPH R. PRICE, VICTOR J. Next Court Event: December 15, 2010

ZABORSKY, Deadline for Discovery Requests
and DYLAN M. WARD,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter coming before the Court on Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone’s

Consent Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, and in consideration of that Motion, it is by the

Court this __ day of ________, 2010,

ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.

2. Exhibit A to that Motion shall be filed as Plaintiff Estate of Robert E. Wone’s

First Amended Complaint.

____________________________
JUDGE BROOK HEDGE
Exhibit A
 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by

KATHERINE E. WONE,
as Personal Representative,
10415 Graystone Court
Oakton, VA 22124,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 008315-08

v. The Honorable Brook Hedge

JOSEPH R. PRICE,
1509 Swann Street, NW FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Washington, D.C. 20009
(Last known address), JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VICTOR ZABORSKY,
1509 Swann Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
(Last known address),

and

DYLAN WARD,
550 NE 94th St,
Miami Shores, FL 33138
(Last known address),

Defendants.

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a civil action for damages under the laws of the District of Columbia for

wrongful death, negligence, spoliation of evidence, and conspiracy.

2. This action arises from Defendants’ conduct prior to, during, and following the

murder of Robert E. Wone on August 2, 2006, while he was a guest at Defendants’ home located

at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. This lawsuit is based on Defendants’
intentional, reckless, and/or negligent acts that caused the death of Robert Wone, Defendants’

negligent failure to rescue Robert Wone after he was injured, Defendants’ destruction of

evidence of Robert Wone’s murder, and Defendants’ conspiracy to destroy evidence and obstruct

the police investigation into Robert Wone’s murder.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-921 (1981 ed. as

amended). Jurisdiction is also vested pursuant to the Survival Act, D.C. Code § 12-101.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to D.C. Code

§§ 13-422 and 13-423(a)(3).

5. Venue in this Court is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

6. Plaintiff Katherine E. Wone is the Personal Representative of the estate of her

deceased husband, Robert Wone, who was murdered while he was a guest in Defendants’ home.

Katherine Wone is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She was married to

Robert Wone from June 7, 2003 until his death in August 2006.

7. Robert Wone was, at all relevant times, a resident and citizen of the

Commonwealth of Virginia. Prior to his murder, Robert Wone was a successful lawyer

practicing in the District of Columbia as the General Counsel for Radio Free Asia. He was an

active member of the community who served on the board of several non-profit organizations

and was president-elect of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association. He was a loving and

caring husband to Plaintiff Katherine Wone.

-2-
 B. Defendants

8. Defendant Joseph Price, an attorney, was until recently a resident and citizen of

the District of Columbia. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006, Defendant

Price resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. Defendant Price and Robert

Wone first met and became friends in the 1990s when they were undergraduate students at the

College of William and Mary.

9. Defendant Victor Zaborsky was until recently a resident and citizen of the District

of Columbia. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006, Defendant Zaborsky

resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C.

10. Defendant Dylan Ward is believed to be a resident and citizen of Florida, residing

at 550 NE 94th Street, Miami Shores. At the time of Robert Wone’s murder on August 2, 2006,

Defendant Ward resided at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in Washington, D.C. Defendant Ward’s

bedroom was on the same floor as the guestroom where Robert Wone’s body was discovered.

11. Defendants Price and Zaborsky are domestic partners. Defendants Price and

Ward were involved in a personal, intimate relationship at the time of Robert Wone’s murder.

FACTS

A. Robert Wone’s Murder

12. At approximately 10:30 PM on August 2, 2006, Robert Wone arrived at 1509

Swann Street, NW, as Defendants’ invited guest. Robert Wone had previously made plans with

Defendant Price to spend the night as a guest at Defendants’ home.

13. At 11:49 PM, Defendant Zaborsky called 9-1-1 to report that Robert Wone had

been stabbed. Less than 6 minutes into the 9-1-1 call, two emergency medical service (“EMS”)

workers arrived at the scene and found Robert Wone lying on the pull-out couch in the second-

-3-
floor guestroom, with three knife stab wounds in his chest and abdomen. The EMS personnel

detected no pulse or heart activity, and there was no blood coming out of the stab wounds.

14. Robert Wone was taken by paramedics to George Washington University Hospital

where he was officially pronounced dead at 12:24 AM on August 3, 2006.

15. On the night of Robert Wone’s murder, Defendants consistently told EMS

personnel and detectives from the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) that they believed

an “intruder” entered the house and assaulted and killed Robert Wone and that none of the three

Defendants knew the identity of the “intruder.”

16. Days after the murder, Plaintiff Katherine Wone and a group of family and friends

gathered at the Wones’ Oakton, Virginia home to mourn the death of Robert Wone. Defendants

Price, Zaborsky, and Ward were present. In response to Plaintiff Katherine Wone’s questions

about how her husband was killed, Defendant Price said that he and Defendants Zaborsky and

Ward did not know how the murder occurred.

17. On August 3, 2006, Dr. Lois Goslinoski, Deputy Medical Examiner of the Office

of Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia, performed an autopsy on Robert

Wone’s body. Her written report identified the cause of death as stab wounds of the torso.

B. The Criminal Proceedings

18. For over two years following Robert Wone’s murder, there were no arrests or

charges in the case.

19. On October 27, 2008, MPD sought and obtained a warrant for Defendant Ward’s

arrest for obstructing justice in connection with the Robert Wone murder investigation. Ward

was arrested in Florida two days later.

20. In its Affidavit filed in support of the request for a warrant for Ward’s arrest (the

“MPD Affidavit”), MPD provided a wealth of new information about the events of August 2,

-4-
2006, including with regard to Defendants’ conduct and their cover-up of the murder.

Specifically, the MPD Affidavit explained that:

Robert Wone was restrained, incapacitated, . . . and murdered

inside 1509 Swann Street, N.W., on the evening of August 2, 2006.
Moreover, there exists overwhelming evidence, far in excess of
probable cause, that . . . Price, Zaborsky, and Ward . . . obstructed
justice by altering and orchestrating the crime scene, . . . delaying
the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and lying to the
police about the true circumstances of the murder when
interviewed.

21. During the week of November 17, 2008, Defendants Price and Zaborsky turned

themselves in to authorities in Washington, D.C. and were charged with obstructing justice in

connection with the Robert Wone murder investigation.

22. On January 15, 2009, the grand jury returned a three-count superseding

indictment, charging all three Defendants with conspiracy, obstruction, and tampering with

evidence.

23. On June 29, 2010, after a six-week bench trial on the criminal counts, Defendants

were acquitted. However, in finding that Defendants’ guilt could not be established beyond a

reasonable doubt—the highest standard of proof known to the law—the court noted that “[t]he

government has . . . presented powerful evidence to support its claim that Robert Wone’s

murderer was either one of the defendants, or someone known to them who was able to enter

without breaking.” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 21 (D.C. Sup.

Ct. June 29, 2010). The court then concluded “[i]t is very probable that the government’s theory

is correct, that even if the defendants did not participate in the murder some or all of them knew

enough about the circumstances of it to provide helpful information to law enforcement and have

chosen to withhold that information for reasons of their own.” Id. at 35.

-5-
 C. Defendants’ Conduct and Their Cover-Up of Robert Wone’s Murder

1. Defendants’ Implausible Explanation of Robert Wone’s Murder

24. Each of the Defendants was interviewed by MPD on the night of the murder. In

all of their statements, Defendants maintained that they were the only people at their home that

night with Robert Wone. According to Defendants’ statements, Robert Wone took a shower and

went to sleep on the pull-out couch located in the second-floor guestroom. Defendants Price and

Zaborsky purportedly went to bed in their third-floor bedroom, while Defendant Ward retired to

his second-floor bedroom and promptly took a “sleeping pill.”

25. All three of the Defendants have claimed that an intruder murdered Robert Wone.

Under Defendants’ version of events, Robert Wone was murdered by an unidentified, unknown

person who scaled the 8-foot security fence behind the residence; entered the house through an

unlocked back door; rummaged through the kitchen, found a knife; walked past numerous items

of value on the first floor, including a laptop computer, a flat screen television, and a cordless

telephone; climbed the sixteen, uncarpeted stairs to the second floor; proceeded past a bedroom

containing a sleeping Defendant Ward; walked into the guestroom on the second floor; walked

around to the other side of the pull-out couch; stabbed Robert Wone three times in the chest and

abdomen; retreated back down the stairs; and then escaped from the house—without taking any

of the valuables in plain view, including Robert Wone’s wallet, Blackberry, or wristwatch; and

without having been seen or heard by any of the Defendants, all of whom were present in the

house the entire time.

26. Defendants’ explanation is inconsistent with the evidence. Upon examination of

the crime scene, MPD concluded that “there were absolutely no signs of forced entry.”

“[N]othing was disturbed within the residence, and there was no property missing from the

residence.” In the criminal trial, the court thus rejected Defendants’ contention that an unknown

-6-
“intruder” entered their residence committed the murder, explicitly finding that “the murder of

Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants.” United States v.

Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 20 (D.C. Sup. Ct. June 29, 2010). “Overall, the

defendants’ story that an intruder committed the offense is incredible beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Id. at 34.

2. Robert Wone was Incapacitated at the Time of his Murder

27. According to Dr. Goslinoski, Robert Wone was unable to move at the time that he

was stabbed. Dr. Goslinoski’s finding is based primarily on:

• the perfect, slit-like nature of Robert Wone’s stab wounds, indicating that Robert
Wone was unable to move when each stab wound was inflicted, not even
reflexively;

• the absence of defensive wounds on Robert Wone’s body, indicating that Robert
Wone was entirely unable to respond to the pain of the wounds being inflicted;

• the wounds were identical in depth and orientation, indicating Robert Wone was
not moving at the time all three were inflicted; and

• multiple pre-mortem needle puncture marks to Robert Wone’s body that were not
the product of any legitimate medical treatment or intervention.

28. Based on this and the other evidence she reviewed, Dr. Goslinoski concluded that

“Mr. Wone was alive, but incapacitated, at the time the stab wounds were inflicted.”

29. At the criminal trial, Dr. David Fowler, Chief Medical Examiner for the State of

Maryland, testified that, in his experience with more than 1,000 stabbing cases, he has never seen

wounds this precise, uniform, and lacking in damage.

30. Dr. Fowler further testified that Robert Wone would have been alive for minutes

after he was stabbed, and that he would have been conscious and able to move for at least 45

seconds after being stabbed.

-7-
 3. Defendants’ Delay in Reporting Robert Wone’s Murder

31. There is an unexplained, extended time gap between the stabbing of Robert Wone

and Defendant Zaborsky’s 9-1-1 call.

32. Defendants’ neighbor, William Thomas, heard a scream of “desperation” coming

from Defendants’ guestroom during the Channel 9 News broadcast, which aired between 11:00

and 11:30 PM on August 2, 2006. If this scream was Robert Wone’s, then there was a gap in

time of as little as 19 minutes to as many as 49 minutes between when Robert Wone was

assaulted and the 9-1-1 call. If, as seems more likely, because Robert Wone was incapacitated,

the scream heard by the neighbor was Zaborsky’s upon discovery of Robert Wone’s body, then

Defendants delayed even longer before calling 9-1-1.

33. EMS workers determined when they arrived on the scene that, “[b]ased on a

complete lack of any signs of life, Mr. Wone was dead and appeared to have been dead for some

period of time.” EMS workers reached this conclusion despite the fact that they arrived on the

scene less than six minutes after Defendants called 9-1-1.

34. Defendants’ delay is further demonstrated by Dr. Goslinoski’s observation that

Robert Wone actively digested his own blood for a significant period of time after he had been

stabbed. Dr. Goslinoski found a significant amount of internal bleeding as a result of the stab

wounds, indicating that “Mr. Wone was alive for a considerable period of time after he was

stabbed, as his digestive system continued to operate, forcing blood into his intestine (in other

words, he was digesting his own blood).”

4. Defendants’ Cover-Up and Destruction of Evidence

35. The evidence suggests that, rather than administering aid to Robert Wone or

making a prompt report to authorities, Defendants spent the crucial minutes after the stabbing

coordinating their stories, altering and orchestrating the crime scene, and destroying evidence.

-8-
 36. Within the first 90 seconds of the 9-1-1 call, Defendant Zaborsky offered: “we

heard . . . we think it was somebody, an intruder in the house, we heard a chime, the door.”

These statements (i.e., the repeated references to “we”) indicate that Defendant Zaborsky had

conferred with Defendant Price and/or Defendant Ward prior to calling 9-1-1.

37. Dr. Goslinoski found that Robert Wone’s stab wounds “damaged major vascular

areas and organ[s] and [would] have resulted in a large quantity of blood flowing out of

Mr. Wone’s body, far in excess of the relatively small spots of blood found on the guestroom

bed.” One of the EMS workers was alarmed because “there was no blood whatsoever on the

victim, on the floor, or anywhere in the [guestroom].”

38. Another EMS first responder saw on Robert Wone’s chest “a very light film of

blood with striation marks as if someone had taken a towel and wiped it down Mr. Wone’s

chest.”

39. During the 9-1-1 call, the operator repeatedly instructed Defendant Zaborsky to

put a dry cloth or towel on Robert Wone’s stab wounds and apply pressure. Zaborsky

responded, “my partner is holding it on there . . . he is applying pressure.” Despite this

representation, no towels consistent with an effort to staunch Robert Wone’s bleeding were

found at the crime scene. Moreover, upon arriving at the scene, EMS found Defendant Price

seated in the guestroom—not applying pressure to Robert Wone’s stab wounds, touching him in

any way, or rendering any assistance to him at all.

40. In addition, a police cadaver dog trained to detect human blood and remains

alerted to the lint trap of a dryer just outside the bathroom by Defendant Ward’s bedroom and to

a drain within the secured courtyard area in the back of the residence. This suggests that “bloody

-9-
clothing or items were cleaned off in the backyard stairwell and then placed in the clothes dryer

to dry.”

41. Defendant Price also lied to MPD about the knife recovered from the scene. Price

told MPD that he found the knife lying on Robert Wone’s body. However, on the morning of

August 3, 2006, while waiting for Defendant Ward outside of the police station, Defendant Price

told Defendant Zaborsky and their friend and neighbor, Scott Hixson, that “I had to pull the knife

out of my friend.” A few days after the murder, Defendant Price told a mutual friend of his and

Robert Wone, Tara Ragone, the same thing, telling Ms. Ragone in a telephone conversation that

he had removed the knife from Robert Wone’s chest.

42. In the criminal trial, the court found that “Mr. Price very likely tampered with and

altered the murder weapon, and that he lied about his conduct in this regard to police with

obstructive purpose.” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 25 (D.C. Sup.

Ct. June 29, 2010); see also id. at 27 (“I find that it is very likely Mr. Price altered or destroyed

evidence at the scene with the specific intent to reduce its value as evidence in the imminent

investigation of the death of Robert Wone.”).

D. The Ongoing Conspiracy

43. Defendants have conspired to thwart the investigation into Robert Wone’s

murder.

44. In further of the conspiracy, one or more of them has (i) destroyed, altered, hid,

and/or rearranged evidence of the murder; (ii) coordinated stories regarding the circumstances

surrounding the murder; (iii) provided false and misleading information to police investigating

the murder; and (iv) provided false and misleading information to persons interested in

identifying those responsible for the crime, including but not limited to Robert Wone’s family

and friends.

- 10 -
 45. Defendants’ conspiracy is ongoing.

46. To this day, the grand jury investigation has not resulted in any arrests or

indictments for Robert Wone’s murder.

COUNT ONE: WRONGFUL DEATH

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 46 above as if set forth fully herein and asserts that this claim arises under the District of

Columbia Wrongful Death Statute, D.C. Code § 16-2701, et seq.

48. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wrongful acts and/or negligence directly and

proximately caused the death of Robert Wone, as evidenced by:

a. the fact that Defendants are the only known occupants of 1509 Swann Street,
NW, at the time Robert Wone was assaulted and killed;

b. the fact that the knife used to stab Robert Wone was in the custody and
control of Defendants at all relevant times;

c. the utter lack of evidence of an “intruder,” which led the Court in the criminal
case to conclude that “the murder of Robert Wone was not committed by an
intruder unknown to the defendants,” United States v. Price, et al., No. 08-
CF1 27068, Slip Op. at 20 (D.C. Sup. Ct. June 29, 2010);

d. the evidence indicating that Robert Wone was incapacitated at the time of the
stabbing, which is inconsistent with Defendants’ “intruder” theory;

e. the evidence indicating that Defendants altered and staged the crime scene
after Robert Wone was assaulted and murdered;

f. the implausible accounts Defendants provided to EMS and MPD regarding the
events and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s assault and murder; and

g. the false information Defendants provided to EMS and MPD regarding the
events and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s assault and murder.

49. Plaintiff further asserts that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

wrongful acts and/or negligence that caused Robert Wone’s death, Plaintiff has incurred all

damages cognizable under the District of Columbia Wrongful Death Statute, D.C. Code § 16-

- 11 -
2701, et seq., including but not limited to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the

estate’s loss of the decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages

under the applicable statute.

50. Plaintiff asserts that, upon decedent’s death, Defendants fraudulently concealed

the existence of and the facts forming the basis of Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim, including

through the following affirmative acts: cleaning up and staging the crime scene, destroying

evidence, delaying the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and lying to MPD and others

(including, without limitation, Plaintiff Katherine Wone) about the true circumstances of Robert

Wone’s murder.

51. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment, as well as the secrecy of the

ongoing grand jury investigation into Robert Wone’s murder, Plaintiff did not gain knowledge

until reviewing the MPD Affidavit, despite Plaintiff’s reasonable diligence, of the existence and

the facts forming the basis of this wrongful death claim against Defendants.

52. Plaintiff filed this action less than one month after learning from the MPD

Affidavit of Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim against Defendants.

COUNT TWO: NEGLIGENCE

(Failure to Aid)

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 52 above as if set forth fully herein and asserts that this claim arises under the Survival

Act, D.C. Code § 12-101.

54. Defendants had a duty, including as the owners and occupiers of the residence

located at 1509 Swann Street, NW, in the District of Columbia, to render aid to Robert Wone, an

invited guest on the premises, upon discovering his injured and helpless condition and, upon

undertaking to render aid, Defendants had a duty to render such aid reasonably.

- 12 -
 55. Defendants breached their duty of care and were negligent in failing reasonably to

render aid upon discovering Robert Wone in his injured and helpless condition—or,

alternatively, upon undertaking to render such aid, by failing immediately to summon emergency

medical personnel and instead taking time to clean up and stage the crime scene, and construct

and coordinate the fabricated story about an “intruder” committing the murder.

56. Defendants’ negligence in failing to aid or in negligently administering such aid to

Robert Wone cost him the chance of survival that he would have otherwise had.

57. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in and was a direct and proximate

cause of Robert Wone’s death.

58. Plaintiff further asserts that, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

negligent conduct, Plaintiff has incurred all damages cognizable under the Survival Act, D.C.

Code § 12-101, including but not limited to the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the

estate’s loss of the decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages

under the applicable statute.

COUNT THREE: SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 58 above as if set forth fully herein.

60. Since August 2, 2006, Plaintiff has had potential civil causes of action against the

person or persons responsible for the assault, battery, and murder of Robert Wone under the laws

of the District of Columbia, including a wrongful death claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-2701

and various survival actions of the Estate of Robert Wone pursuant to D.C. Code § 12-101.

61. At all relevant times, Defendants have been under a legal duty not to destroy

evidence of Robert Wone’s murder or otherwise interfere with official proceedings relating to

- 13 -
Robert Wone’s murder. Further, upon undertaking to give statements to police investigating

Robert Wone’s murder, Defendants have been under a duty not to provide deliberately false or

misleading statements.

62. Defendants breached their duty, individually or in concert, either intentionally,

recklessly, or negligently, when they altered and orchestrated the crime scene, and destroyed,

altered, hid, or rearranged evidence relevant to the investigation. Defendants also breached their

duty, individually or in concert, by providing false or misleading statements to police

investigating the murder of Robert Wone and by failing to correct past false statements.

63. Defendants’ breach has materially impacted the chances and speed of identifying

Robert Wone’s killer(s) and discovering all of the circumstances of the murder. Defendants’

breach also has, until now, prevented Plaintiff from bringing civil actions against Defendants.

But for Defendants’ conduct described herein, Plaintiff already would have recovered substantial

monetary damages as a result of the assault, battery, and murder of Robert Wone.

64. Defendants’ spoliation of evidence has directly and proximately caused—and

continues directly and proximately to cause—damages to Plaintiff, including but not limited to

lost potential recovery for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, the estate’s loss of the

decedent’s future income, funeral and burial expenses, and any other damages under the

applicable statute, as well as any other damages cognizable under the law of the District of

Columbia under any or all of the potential civil claims described herein.

COUNT FOUR: CONSPIRACY

(All Claims)

65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 64 above as if set forth fully herein.

- 14 -
 66. Defendants are parties to an ongoing conspiracy that was conceived no later than

the night of Robert Wone’s murder, went into effect on that night, and continues to this day.

67. Each of the Defendants has, to varying degrees, participated in planning and

carrying out the objectives of the conspiracy, but all are nevertheless liable for the concerted

actions of their fellow co-conspirators.

68. The objects of the conspiracy are to (1) prevent the imposition of criminal and/or

civil liability on the Defendants for their actions on August 2, 2006; and (2) prevent law

enforcement, Robert Wone’s family and friends, and the public at large from knowing all

persons who bear responsibility for Robert Wone’s murder and the circumstances surrounding

the murder.

69. In furtherance of the conspiracy, one or more Defendants have thwarted the

investigation of Robert Wone’s murder by hiding and destroying evidence, altering and

orchestrating the crime scene, delaying the reporting of the murder to the authorities, and

providing false and misleading information to EMS and MPD about their conduct and the events

and circumstances surrounding Robert Wone’s murder—all of which constitutes spoliation of

evidence.

70. The concerted actions of one or more Defendants prevented the Defendants from

reasonably aiding Robert Wone after the stabbing, contributing in substantial part to his death.

71. This ongoing conspiracy of obstruction and obfuscation continues to impede

efforts to bring those responsible for Robert Wone’s murder and the cover-up of his murder to

justice.

- 15 -
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and

severally, in the full and just amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000), plus interest and

costs.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, through counsel, requests a trial by jury on all of the above claims.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen W. Rodger_________

Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 475946
Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 485518
Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com)
D.C. Bar No. 996100
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 662-6000

Patrick M. Regan (pregan@reganfirm.com)

D.C. Bar No. 336107
REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC
1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 463-3030

Dated: September 29, 2010 Counsel for Plaintiff

- 16 -