Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 78

MOTION to Compel and Brief Responses to Cisco System Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Order)(Babcock, Charles) Modified on 7/2/2009 to reflect brief (dmc).

Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 78 Att. 1

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 1 of 52

EXHIBIT "B"

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 2 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOHN WARD, JR.

v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

C.A. NO. 08-4022 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO CISCO SYSTEM, INC.'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO: Cisco Systems, Inc., by and through its attorneys of record, Mr. Charles Babcock, Mr. Richard Griffin and Ms. Crystal Parker, JACKSON WALKER, LLP, 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77010. COMES NOW, John Ward, Jr., Plaintiff, and submits these objections and answers, under oath, to the interrogatories propounded to him by Cisco Systems, Inc., in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. · Nicholas H. Patton State Bar No. 63035 Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP 4605 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, Texas 75503 903.792.7080 / 903.792.8233 (Fax) Patricia L. Peden California Bar No. 206440 LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA L. PEDEN 5901 Christie Ave.. Suite 201 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAENTIFF

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 3 of 52

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on this 11 th day of May, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served electronically via electronic mail: Richard E. Griffin Charles Babcock Crystal Parker JACKSON WALKER, LLP 1401 McKinney Suite 1900Houston, Texas 77010

Nicholas H. Patton

2

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 4 of 52

I.

General Objections I. Plaintiff objects to the extent that the interrogatories seek material reflecting attorneyclient communications, other privileged communications andlor materials protected by the work-product doctrine, each such interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any inadvertent disclosure thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or protection with respect to such information. 7 . Plaintiff objects to the extent that the interrogatories seek information that is confidential, proprietary, covered by a protective order in another case, protected by a confidentiality agreement with a third party, and/or a trade secret or privileged information of a thirdparty. 3. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential or proprietary business data or information, trade secret information, personal financial information, or seek other personal confidential information for which Plaintiff has a right to privacy. 4. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter involved in this litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence. 5. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they are overly burdensome and oppressive, vague and ambiguous, overly broad, annoying, or harassing. Many of the interrogatories fail to specify any responsive time period and seek an identification of any and all information and/or documents without limitation or identification of subject matter. 6. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they call for information not reasonably available to or not within the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff. The responses herein are based on information reasonably available to Ward and documents within Ward's possession, custody, or control, including Ward's knowledge of the same. 7. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that the information requested has already been provided, or is otherwise already within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant. 8. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that the information requested is a matter of public record or is equally avai /able to or readily ascertainable by Defe.ndant. 3

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 5 of 52

9. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories as compound, containing multiple subparts that count towards Defendant's total number of interrogatories. Plaintiff will treat single numbered interrogatories as multiple interrogatories where the interrogatories are compound. 10. Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories, including Defendant's definitions and instructions to the extent that they can be construed to impose obligations upon Plaintiff that are beyond the scope of the Federal Rules, the Court's Scheduling Orders or Docket Control Orders, and/or the Local Rules. Plaintiff has responded to these interrogatories in accordance with those rules and not necessarily in accordance with Defendant's definitions and instructions. 11. Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory as premature to the extent it seeks responses for which discovery has not yet been taken or expert discovery, the schedule for which is set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Orders. To the extent that the interrogatories are premature contention interrogatories, Plaintiff will not respond to those interrogatories until after it has obtained the necessary discovery, after the submission of expert reports, or at another appropriate time during this litigation. 12. Ward objects to Cisco's definition of "You" to the extent it purports to require Ward to respond with information in the possession of any company, individual, or entity not under Plaintiff s control. Ward also objections to Cisco's definition of "You" as being unreasonably broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in seeking to have Ward respond with information in the possession of "past and present agents and representatives, including anyone who has ever acted on behalf of .1ohn Ward. Jr- without any attempt to narrow the definition to persons reasonably connected to the above captioned case or without any attempt to reasonably narrow the temporal scope of the request. 13. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's definition of "Frenkel," which includes any of Frenkel's "respective past and present agents and representatives." Ward is not in a position to know all of Frenkel's past and present agent and representative relationships. 14. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's definition of "Cisco, - which includes any of Cisco's "respective past and present agents and representatives.- Ward is not in a position to know all of Cisco's past and present agent and representative relationships. 15. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's definition of the "Article" to the extent that Cisco's definition seeks to narrow Ward's cause of action to a single Troll Tracker Article. Plaintiff specifically asserts that the Troll Tracker Article dated October 17, 2007 and the two Troll Tracker Articles dated October 18, 2007 (the original October 18 ` " post and the revised version of that post also dated October 18, 2007) are false and defamatory of Ward. Plaintiff specifically contends that all three Troll Tracker Articles, individually 4

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 6 of 52

and collectively, are false and defamatory of Ward and create a false and defamatory impression of Ward. 16. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's Definitions of the words "persons," "communications," "evidencing," "relating," "documents" and "identify.- to the extent that they impose duties beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and the court's Scheduling Order. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's definitions as unreasonably broad, unduly burdensome and oppressive in seeking responses from all persons without making an attempt to narrow the definition to persons reasonably connected to the above captioned case or without any attempt to reasonably narrow the temporal scope of the request. 17. Plaintiff objects to Cisco's "rules of construction" to the extent that the application of those rules renders any interrogatory vague, ambiguous. 18. Plaintiff objects that some of the Requests are unintelligible and fail to describe the information sought with reasonable particularity. Plaintiff will nevertheless ernploy his best efforts to construe such interrogatories. 19. Plaintiff objects that some of the Interrogatories are intentionally misleading in seeking, an admission based on incomplete facts. 20. Plaintiff s responses to Defendant's interrogatories are based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case, both on his own and from others, and may discover additional facts, information, and documents through that discovery. 21. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek an appropriate protective order with regard to any of the above general objections or privileges or any of the specific objections or privileges asserted below. Plaintiff incorporates the General Objections stated above into each and every interrogatory responded to separately below as though fully set forth therein. As required by the Local Rules, Plaintiff sets forth his specific objections and responses belovv:

5

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 7 of 52

IL

Specific Objections and Responses To Interrogatories

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each person in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with whom you have communicated in either oral or written form regarding either the ESN Texas Case or ESN Connecticut Case.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory seeks attomey-client privileged information, attorney work product and otherwise privileged information; (2) the interrogatory is overly broad, overly burdensome and oppressive and fails to limit the information sought to a reasonable number of persons or a reasonable time period. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff was counsel of record on a Motion to Enjoin Defendants Cisco and Linksys From Prosecuting Later-Filed Parallel Litigation in Connecticut filed by ESN and submitted to Judge Folsom in the ESN v. Cisco case. On May 1, 2009, Plaintiff had a conference call with Lon Outland. Cisco's local counsel, Mike Jones, was on the call. Plaintiff's response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement his response.

6

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 8 of 52

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Describe in detail each and every instance in which you have requested court personnel (whether state or federal) to change, alter, or modify a court document. Include in your answer the style of the case, court in which the case was pending, court personnel that you spoke with, and specific request that you made.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (I) the interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that communications regarding other cases where Ward is counsel of record are not relevant to any issue in this case; (2) the interrogatory is overly broad, overly burdensome and oppressive and fails to limit the information sought to a reasonable subject matter, a reasonable number of identif ed persons, or a reasonable time period; (3) the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the words "court personnel" and "court document"; (4) the interrogatory is argumentative in its use of the word "alter," which implies criminal conduct. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff has made no such request. Plaintiff s legal assistant has, on occasion, called the administrative clerk's office to have Plaintiff removed from the court's ECF notice system after Plaintiff withdrew from a pending case. Plaintiff specifically recalls asking to be removed from the Court's ECF notice system in Maria Aantos Lopez Dotniguez, et al. v. Gulf Coast Marine & Associates, 9:08-cv-00200-TH, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division and in Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, 6:05-ev-00322-LED, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Plaintiff is

7

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 9 of 52

aware of multiple instances in which his legal assistant has called the administrate clerk's office where a document was tagged by the clerk for being filed in error for failure to attach a certificate of service. Plaintiff s legal assistant has also called the administrative clerk's office to inquire about filing requirements and problems associated with filed pleadings. Plaintiff does not recall the dates and times of those calls. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you contend that any statement in the Article creates a defamatory implication or impression, identify each statement. For each statement you identify, describe with specificity each and every implication or impression that you contend arises from that statement.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory seeks to improperly narrow Plaintiff s cause of action to a single complained-of article, when Plaintiff specifically alleges that the October 17, 2007 Troll Tracker post and both of the Troll Tracker posts dated October 18, 2007 are false and defamatory of Plaintiff (2) the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the words "each and every implication or impression" (3) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintiff s custody and control in that the defamatory impression and implication created by the Troll Tracker posts implicate the 8

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 10 of 52

understanding that readers of that post obtained from readin g the statements made therein; (4) Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory in that its answer may be determined by examining Cisco Systems, Inc. and Richard Frenkel's documents, in particular the email received by Frenkel by readers who understood the Troll Tracker to accuse Ward of criminal conduct; (5) the interrogatory is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full and cotnplete response, particularly in light of the fact that Cisco has not produced the emails received by Frenkel in which his readers were critical of the criminal accusations he made about Ward. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Frenkel's posts in their entirety are defamatory of PlaintifT. Frenkel's defamatory posts, in their entirety, and when read in context, create the false impression that Ward engaged in criminal behavior, unethical behavior, conduct for which he could be disbarred, and conduct unbefitting a member of the bar. Therefore, the following statements are defamatory of Plaintiff: The Troll Tracker Post of Wednesday, October 17, 2007 "Troll Jumps the Gun, Sues Cisco Too Early." "Well, I knew the day would come. I'm getting my troll news from Dennis
Crouch

now. According to Dennis, a company called ESN sued Cisco for patent infringement

on October 15 th , while the patent did not issue until October 16th . I looked, and ESN appears to be a shell entity managed by the President and CEO of DirectAdvice, and online financial vvebsite. And, yes, he's a lawyer. He clerked for a federal judge in Connecticut, and was an attorney at Day, Berry & Howard. Now he's suing Cisco on behalf of a non-practicing entity. I asked myself, can ESN do this? I would think that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction, since ESN owned no property right at the time of the lawsuit, and the passage of time should not cure that. And, in fact, I was right: A declaratory judgment of "invalidity" or
9

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 11 of 52

"noninfringement" with respect to Elk's pending patent application would have had no legal meaning or effect. The fact that the patent was about to issue and would have been granted before the court reached the merits of the case is of no moment. Justiciability must be judged as of the time of filing, not as of some indeterminate future date when the court might reach the merits and the patent has issued. We therefore hold that a threat is not sufficient to create a case or controversy unless it is made with respect to a patent that has issued before a complaint is filed. Thus, the district court correctly held that there was no justiciable case or controversy in this case at the time the complaint was filed. GAF contends, however, that the issuance of the '144 patent cured any jurisdictional defect. We disagree. Later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing. GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Texas, 90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). One other interesting tidbit: Cisco appeared to pick up on this, very quickly. Cisco filed a declaratory judgment action (in Connecticut) yesterday, the day after the patent issued, it should stick in Connecticut. Perhaps realizing their fatal flaw (as a couple of other bloggers/news items have pointed out), ESN (represented by Chicago firm McAndrews I kid & Malloy and local counsel Eric Albritton and T. Johnny Ward) filed an amended complaint in Texarkana today -- amending to change absolutely nothing at all, by the way, except the filing date of the complaint. Survey says? XXXXXX (insert "Family Feud" sound here). Sorry, ESN. You're on your way to New Haven. Wonder how Johnny Ward will play there? Posted by Troll Tracker at 7:00 PM The Troll Tracker Post of Thursday, October 18, 2007 "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested 10

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 12 of 52

that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas is apparently, wittingly or unwittingly, conspiring with a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. This is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases in the Banana Republic of East Texas. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM The Troll Tracker Post of October 18th Post was later amended to read: "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. 1 checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of
11

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 13 of 52

course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, here s tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas may have, wittingly or unwittingly, helped a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. Even if this was a "mistake," which I can't see how it could be, given that someone emailed me a printout of the docket from Monday showing the case, the proper course of action should be a motion to correct the docket. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). EDIT: You can't change history, but you can change a blog entry based on information emailed to you from a helpful reader. Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM Plaintiff's response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If you contend that the October 17, 2007 Patent Troll Tracker article is defamatory, identify all statements that you contend are defamatory. Do not include in your answer the statements that are not defamatory but that that provide the context for the statements that you contend are defamatory'. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory seeks to improperly narrow Plaintiff's cause °faction to a single complained-of 12

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 14 of 52

article, when Plaintiff specifically alleges that the October 17, 2007 Troll Tracker post and both of the Troll Tracker posts dated October 18, 2007 are false and defamatory of Plaintiff; (2) the interrogatory improperly seeks to have Plaintiff limit his response by not including the -context" for Defendant's defamatory statements when Plaintiff has alleged that the consecutive posts, together and in their entirety, are false, defamatory, and create a defamatory impression of Plaintiff, which necessarily requires the context of the allegations made; (3) the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and misleading with respect to the phrase not defamatory but that provide the context for the statements" (4) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintiff s custody and control in that the defamatory impression created by the Troll Tracker posts implicate the understanding that readers of that post obtained from reading the statements made therein; (5) Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory in that its answer may be determined by examining Cisco Systems, Inc. and Richard Frenkel's documents, in particular the email received by Frenkel by readers who understood the .f roll Tracker to accuse Ward of criminal conduct; (6) the interrogatory is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full and complete response, particularly in light of the fact that Cisco has not produced the emails received by Frenkel in which his readers were critical of the criminal accusations he made about Ward. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Frenkel's October 17, 2007 Post in its totality, and in context when read in context of the two October 18, 2007 posts, is defamatory of Plaintiff. Frenkel's defamatory posts, in their entirety, and when read in context, create the false impression that Ward engaged in criminal behavior, unethical behavior, conduct for which he could be disbarred, and conduct unbefitting a member of the bar. Therefore, the following statements are defamatory of Plaintiff: 13

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 15 of 52

The Troll Tracker Post of Wednesday, October 17, 2007 "Troll Jumps the Gun, Sues Cisco Too Early." "Well, I knew the day would come. I'm getting my troll news from Dennis Crouch now. According to Dennis, a company called ESN sued Cisco for patent infringement on October 15 th , while the patent did not issue until October 16 th . I looked, and ESN appears to be a shell entity managed by the President and CEO of DirectAdvice, and online financial website. And, yes, he's a lawyer. He clerked for a federal judge in Connecticut, and was an attorney at Day, Berry & Howard. Now he's suing Cisco on behalf of a non-practicing entity. I asked myself, can ESN do this? I would think that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction, since ESN owned no property right at the time of the lawsuit, and the passage of time should not cure that. And, in fact, I was right: A declaratory judgment of "invalidity" or "noninfringement" with respect to Elk's pending patent application would have had no legal meaning or effect. The fact that the patent was about to issue and would have been granted before the court reached the merits of the case is of no moment. Justiciability must be judged as of the time of filing, not as of some indeterminate future date when the court might reach the merits and the patent has issued. We therefore hold that a threat is not sufficient to create a case or controversy unless it is made with respect to a patent that has issued before a complaint is filed. Thus, the district court correctly held that there was no justiciable case or controversy in this case at the time the complaint was filed. GAF contends, however, that the issuance of the `144 patent cured any jurisdictional defect. We disagree. Later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing. GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Texas. , 90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). One other interesting tidbit: Cisco appeared to pick up on this, very quickly. Cisco tiled a declaratory judgment action (in Connecticut) yesterday, the day after the patent issued, it should stick in 14

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 16 of 52

Connecticut. Perhaps realizing their fatal flaw (as a couple of other bloggers/news items have pointed out), ESN (represented by Chicago firm McAndrews Held & Malloy and local counse( Eric Albritton and T. Johnny Ward) filed an amended complaint in Texarkana today -- amending to change absolutely nothing at all, by the way, except the filing date of the complaint. Survey says? XXXXXX (insert "Family Feud" sound here). Sorry, ESN. You're on your way to New Haven. Wonder how Johnny Ward will play there? Posted by Troll Tracker at 7:00 PM. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify all statements that you contend are defamatory in the October 18, 2007 Article referred to in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Original Complaint. Do not include in your answer the statements that are not defamatory but that that provide the context for the statements that you contend are defamatory.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory seeks to improperly narrow Plaintiff s cause of action to a single complained-of article, when Plaintiff specifically alleges that the October 17, 2007 Troll Tracker post and both of the Troll Tracker posts dated October 18, 2007 are false and defamatory of Plaintiff; (2) the interrogatory improperly seeks to have Plaintiff limit his response by not including the -context" for Defendant's defamatory statements when Plaintiff has alleged that the entirety of the 15

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 17 of 52

consecutive posts, together and in their entirety, are false, defamatory, and create a defamatory impression of Plaintiff, which necessarily requires the context of the allegations made; (3) the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and misleading with respect to the phrase "not defamatory but that provide the context for the statements" (4) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintiff s custody and control in that the defamatory impression created by the Troll Tracker posts implicate the understanding that readers of that post obtained from reading the statements made therein; (5) Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory in that its answer may be determined by examining Cisco Systems, Inc. and Richard Frenkel's documents, in particular the email received by Frenkel by readers who understood the Troll Tracker to accuse Ward of criminal conduct; (6) the interrogatory is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full and complete response, particularly in light of the fact that Cisco has not produced the emails received by Frenkel in which his readers were critical of the criminal accusations he made about Ward. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Frenkel's two October 18, 2007 Posts in their totality and in context when read in context of the October 17, 2007 post, are defamatory of Plaintiff. Frenkel's defamatory posts, in their entirety, and when read in context, create the false impression that Ward engaged in criminal behavior, unethical behavior, conduct for which he could be disbarred, and conduct unbetitting a member of the bar. Therefore, the following statements are defamatory of Plaintiff The Troll Tracker Post of Thursday, October 18, 2007 says "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email
16

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 18 of 52

suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date. rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas is apparently, wittingly or unwittingly, conspiring with a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. This is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases in the Banana Republic of East Texas. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM The October 18 th Post was later amended to read: "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple 17

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 19 of 52

of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas may have, wittingly or unwittingly, helped a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. Even if this was a "mistake," which I can't see how it could be, given that someone emailed me a printout of the docket from Monday showing the case, the proper course of action should be a motion to correct the docket. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). EDIT: You can't change history, but you can change a blog entry based on information emailed to you from a helpful reader. Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify each statement that "accused Plaintiff of committing a crime" verbatim referred to in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Original Complaint. Do not include in your answer the statements that you contend do not accuse Plaintiff of a crime but that that provide the context for the statements that you contend accuse him of a crime.

18

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 20 of 52

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory seeks to improperly narrow- Plaintiffs cause of action to a single complained-of article, when Plaintiff specifically alleges that the October 17, 2007 Troll Tracker post and both of the Troll Tracker posts dated October 18, 2007 are false and defamatory of Plaintiff; (2) the interrogatory improperly seeks to have Plaintiff limit his response by not including the -contextfor Defendant's defamatory statements when Plaintiff has alleged that the entirety of the consecutive posts, together and in their entirety, are false, defamatory, and create a defamatory impression of Plaintiff, which necessarily requires the context of the allegations made; (3) the interrogatory is vague, ambiguous and misleading with respect to the phrase "not defamatory but that provide the context for the statements" (4) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintiff's custody and control in that the defamatory impression created by the Troll Tracker posts implicate the understanding that readers of that post obtained from reading the statements made therein; (5) Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory in that its answer may be determined by examining Cisco Systems, Inc. and Richard Frenkel's documents, in particular the email received by Frenkel by readers who understood the Troll Tracker to accuse Ward of criminal conduct; (6) the interrogatory is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full and complete response, particularly in light of the fact that Cisco has not produced the emails received by Frenkel in which his readers were critical of the criminal accusations he made about Ward. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: The Troll Tracker Post of Wednesday, October 17, 2007 "Troll Jumps the Gun, Sues Cisco Too Early." "Well, I knew the day would come. I'm getting my troll news from Dennis 19

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 21 of 52

Crouch now. According to Dennis, a company called ESN sued Cisco for patent infringement on October 15 th , while the patent did not issue until October 16th . I looked, and ESN appears to be a shell entity managed by the President and CEO of DirectAdvice, and online financial website. And, yes, he's a lawyer. He clerked for a federal judge in Connecticut, and was an attorney at Day, Berry & Howard. Now he's suing Cisco on behalf of a non-practicing entity. I asked myself, can ESN do this? 1 would think that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction, since ESN owned no property right at the time of the lawsuit, and the passage of time should not cure that. And, in fact, I was right: A declaratory judgment of "invalidity" or "noninfringement" with respect to Elk's pending patent application would have had no legal meaning or effect. The fact that the patent was about to issue and would have been granted before the court reached the merits of the case is of no moment. Justiciability must be judged as of the time of filing, not as of some indeterminate future date when the court might reach the merits and the patent has issued. We therefore hold that a threat is not sufficient to create a case or controversy unless it is made with respect to a patent that has issued before a complaint is filed. Thus, the district court correctly held that there was no justiciable case or controversy in this case at the time the complaint was filed. GAF contends, however, that the issuance of the `144 patent cured any jurisdictional defect. We disagree. Later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing. GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Texas, 90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). One other interesting tidbit: Cisco appeared to pick up on this, very quickly. Cisco filed a declaratory judgment action (in Connecticut) yesterday, the day after the patent issued, it should stick in Connecticut. Perhaps realizing their fatal flaw (as a couple of other bloggers/news items have pointed out), ESN (represented by Chicago firm McAndrews Held & Malloy and local counsel 20

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 22 of 52

Eric Albritton and T. Johnny Ward) filed an amended complaint in Texarkana today -- amending to change absolutely nothing at all, by the way, except the filing date of the complaint. Survey says'? XXXXXX (insert "Family Feud" sound here). Sorry, ESN. You're on your way to New Haven. Wonder how Johnny Ward will play there'? Posted by Troll Tracker at 7:00 PM. Frenkel's two October 18, 2007 Posts in their totality and in context when read in context of the October 17, 2007 post, are defamatory of Plaintiff. Frenkel's defamatory posts, in their entirety, and when read in context, create the false impression that Ward engaged in criminal behavior, unethical behavior, conduct for which he could be disbarred, and conduct unbefitting a member of the bar. Therefore, the following statements are defamatory of Plaintiff The Troll Tracker Post of Thursday, October 18, 2007 says "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" 1 got a couple of anonymous emai Is this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there s tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas is apparently, wittingly or unwittingly, conspiring with a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture 21

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 23 of 52

subject matter ju · isdiction. This is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases in the Banana Republic of East Texas. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get v%, nd of this, making this post completely irrelevant). Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM The October 1 8 th Post was later amended to read: "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed' I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN tiled on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas may have, wittingly or unwittingly, helped a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. Even if this was a "mistake," which I can't see how it could be, given that someone emailecl me a printout of the docket from Monday showing the case, the proper course of action should be a motion to correct the docket. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). EDIT: You can't change history, but

22

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 24 of 52

you can change a blog entry based on information emailed to you from a helpful reader. Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify all false and defamatory statements referred to in paragraphs 16-20 of Plaintiffs Original Complaint.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory as a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full and complete response, particularly in light of the fact that Cisco has not produced the emails received by Frenkel in which his readers were critical of the criminal accusations he made about Ward. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: The Troll Tracker Post of Wednesday, October 17, 2007 "Troll Jumps the Gun, Sues Cisco Too Early." "Well, I knew the day would come. I'm getting my troll news from Dennis
Crouch now. According to Dennis, a company called ESN sued Cisco for patent infringement

on October 15 th , while the patent did not issue until October 16 th . I looked, and ESN appears to be a shell entity managed by the President and CEO of DirectAdvice, and online financial 23

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 25 of 52

website. And, yes, he's a lawyer. He clerked for a federal judge in Connecticut, and was an attorney at Day, Berry & Howard. Now he's suing Cisco on behalf of a non-practicing entity. I asked myself, can ESN do this? I would think that the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction, since ESN owned no property right at the time of the lawsuit, and the passage of time should not cure that. And, in fact, I was right: A declaratory judgment of "invalidity or Thoninfringement" with respect to Elk's pending patent application would have had no legal meaning or effect. The fact that the patent was about to issue and would have been granted before the court reached the merits of the case is of no moment. Justiciability must be judged as of the time of filing, not as of some indeterminate future date when the court might reach the merits and the patent has issued. We therefore hold that a threat is not sufficient to create a case or controversy unless it is made with respect to a patent that has issued before a complaint is filed. Thus, the district court correctly held that there was no justiciable case or controversy in this case at the time the complaint was filed. GAF contends, however, that the issuance of the '144 patent cured any jurisdictional defect. We disagree. Later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing. GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Texas, 90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). One other interesting tidbit: Cisco appeared to pick up on this, very quickly. Cisco filed a declaratory judgment action (in Connecticut) yesterday, the day after the patent issued, it should stick in Connecticut. Perhaps realizing their fatal flaw (as a couple of other bloggers/news items have pointed out), ESN (represented by Chicago firm McAndrews Held & Malloy and local counsel Eric Albritton and T. Johnny Ward) filed an amended complaint in Texarkana today -- amending to change absolutely nothing at all, by the way, except the filing date of the complaint. Survey

24

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 26 of 52

says? XXXXXX (insert "Family Feud" sound here). Sorry, ESN. You're on your way to New Haven. Wonder how Johnny Ward will play there? Posted by Troll Tracker at 7:00 PM. Frenkel's two October 18, 2007 Posts in their totality and in context when read in context of the October 17, 2007 post, are defamatory of Plaintiff. Frenkel's defamatory posts, in their entirety, and when read in context, create the false impression that Ward engaged in criminal behavior, unethical behavior, conduct for which he could be disbarred, and conduct unbefitting member of the bar. Therefore, the following statements are defamato y of Plaintiff. The Troll Tracker Post of Thursday, October 18, 2007 says "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas is apparently, wittingly or unwittingly, conspiring with a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. This is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases in the Banana Republic of East Texas. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back 25

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 27 of 52

once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM The October 18 th Post was later amended to read: "ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed" I got a couple of anonymous emails this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One email suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened -- the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Albritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN filed on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history, and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas may have, wittingly or unwittingly, helped a non-practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. Even if this was a "mistake," which I can't see how it could be, given that someone emailed me a printout of the docket from Monday showing the case, the proper course of action should be a motion to correct the docket. (n.b.: don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higher-ups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). EDIT: You can't change history, but you can change a blog entry based on information emailed to you from a helpful reader. Posted by Troll Tracker at 1:13 PM.

26

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 28 of 52

Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: With respect to your allegation in paragraph 11 of the Petition that Frenkel accused you of a crime, state all crimes (including the specific statute) that you allege Frenkel accused ,you of. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory cannot be answered based on first-hand knowledge but rather calls for speculation, (2) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintifrs custody and control; (3) the information requested is in Defendant's possession, custody or control; (4) the interrogatory imposes obligations upon Plaintiff that exceed his obligations under the Federal Rules; (5) the interrogato y is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full response. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Frenkel's October 17, 2007 and two October 18, 2007 posts include accusations that a reasonable reader of his posts would have understood to accuse Plaintiff of criminal behavior. Frenkel specifically used the words "alter" "conspiracy" "witnesses" "subpoenas" and "proof' all to allege and to create the impression that Ward conspired with others to alter official governmental records. Those facts, if true, could have subjected Ward to criminal prosecution. The particular criminal statutes that serve as the basis of Frenkel's statements are known only to Frenkel and Cisco. 27

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 29 of 52

Frenkel's readers also understood him to accuse Ward of criminal conduct. The particular criminal statutes that serve as the basis of Frenkel's readers' understanding are known only to those yet unidentified third-parties, and perhaps to Frenkel and Cisco. Cisco has not produced the emails Frenkel received critical of his criminal accusations concerning Ward. Therefore, Ward is unable to identify any criminal statute that Frenkel's readers identified as the basis of Frenkel's criminal allegations. Frenker s accusations of criminal conduct are false and defamatory of Ward, irrespective of whether his assertions technically violated a statute, or whether or not Ward could have been prosecuted for the conduct that Frenkel alleged to be criminal. Although no criminal statute need be violated before Defendant can be held accountable for Cisco and Frenkel's false and defamatory statements about Ward, several criminal statutes may cover the type of conduct that Frenkel alleged to have occurred, including but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, Texas Penal Code 37.10(a)(1); Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-54-121. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to your allegation in paragraph 11 of the Petition that Frenkel accused you of engaging in conduct that could result in disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar of Texas, state the rules or regulations that you allege Frenkel accused you of violating (including the specific rule or regulation) and all statements from the Article that accuse you of such violation.

28

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 30 of 52

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (I) the interrogatory cannot be answered based on first-hand knowledge but rather calls for speculation, (2) the interrogatory seeks information outside of Plaintiff s custody and control; (3) the information requested is in Defendant's possession, custody or control; (4) the interrogatory imposes obligations upon Plaintiff that exceed his obligations under the Federal Rules; (5) the interrogatory is a premature contention interrogatory for which discovery has not yet been taken and for which Plaintiff cannot yet provide a full response. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Frenkel's October 17, 2007 and two October 18, 2007 posts include accusations that a reasonable reader of his posts would have understood to accuse Plaintiff of unethical behavior. The incorrect facts alleged in the Troll Tracker's posts, if true, could have subjected Ward to disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar of Texas. The Troll Tracker posts state that ESN's counsel, including Ward, convinced the EDTX court clerk to alter documents to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction where none existed, that he had been successful in improperly convincing the court clerk "alter" the record, including the filing date stamp, to benefit his client at Cisco's expense, and that Ward's conduct was abusive litigation conduct that would be corrected by the "higher-ups" in the Court. Frenkel went on to say that Ward's conduct could not have been a "mistake" and that Ward acted improperly by not filing a motion to correct the docket instead of contacting the clerk's office. Those accusations, taken in context and in conjunction with the statements made in all three Troll Tracker posts accuse Ward of unethical conduct. Additionally, any attorney convicted of a felony is subject to disciplinary

29

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 31 of 52

proceedings before the state bar. Thus, Frenkel's accusations that Ward engaged in criminal conduct also accuse him of unethical conduct. The particular ethical violations that serve as the basis of Frenkel's statements are known only to Frenkel and Cisco. Likewise, the particular ethical violations that serve as the basis of any of the Troll Tracker's readers' understanding that Ward engaged in unethical conduct are known only to those yet unidentified third-parties, and perhaps to Frenkel and Cisco. Cisco has not produced the emails Frenkel received critical of his criminal accusations concerning Ward. Therefore, Ward is unable to identify any ethical violation that Frenkel's readers may have identified as the basis of Frenkel's allegation that Ward was acting unethically and improperly in the ESN case. Frenkel's accusations of unethical conduct are false and defamatory of Ward, irrespective of whether his assertions technically violated an ethical rule, or whether or not Ward could have been disciplined by the State of Texas for the conduct that Frenkel alleged to be unethical. Although no ethical rule need be violated before Defendant can be held accountable for Cisco and Frenkel's false and defamatory statements about Ward, several ethical rules may cover the type of conduct that Frenkel falsely alleged occurred, including but not limited to, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 3.03, 3.04, 3.05, 5.03, and 8.04. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

30

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 32 of 52

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: If you contend that Amie Mathis was not working on your behalf when she contacted the clerks of the Eastern District of Texas regarding the ESN Texas filing, state all facts supporting your contention. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory is overly broad, overly burdensome and oppressive and fails to limit the information sought to a reasonable subject matter or time period; (2) the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the words "ESN Texas filing": (3) the interrogatory fails to describe the information requested with reasonable particularity. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Amie Mathis is not employed by Plaintiff. Arnie Mathis was not working under his direction or supervision at the time she filed the ESN Complaint on October 16, 2007. Amie Mathis was an employee of the Albritton Law Firm, Ward's co-counsel in the ESN v. Cisco litigation. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances. Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify all actions undertaken by you or at your direction to retain, locate, and produce documents requested in Cisco System Inc.'s First Request for Production or any other information that may be relevant to this case, and separately and for each action identify the persons involved, the date of the action, and describe the documents and communications that were obtained.

31

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 33 of 52

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: ( I) the interrogatory seeks privileged information; (2) the interrogatory is overly broad, overly burdensome and oppressive and fails to limit the information sought to a reasonable time period; (3) the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous with respect to the words "or any other information" "may be relevant" and "describe"; (4) the interrogatory imposes obligations upon Plaintiff that exceed his obligations under the Federal Rules. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff s documents are located on a single document server system to which only Plaintiff and his limited office staff have access. In response to Defendant's First Request for Production, Plaintiff reviewed all files in his possession, custody and control, including all email correspondence. Plaintiff reviewed all emails sent and received on his computer system. In an abundance of caution, Plaintiff reviewed his deleted emails accounts to ensure that no relevant documents had been deleted from his records. Plaintiff also reviewed his case files for both the above captioned case and the ESN v. Cisco litigation to ensure all responsive, relevant, and nonprivileged documents were located. Plaintiff undertook these efforts within days of receiving Cisco's First Request for Production of Documents. The persons involved in collecting Plaintiff's documents include Plaintiff and his counsel. All relevant, responsive and nonprivileged documents located have either been produced or will be produced in Plaintiffs upcoming document production. Plaintiff s response is based on the information and documents available at this time and upon such investigation as is reasonable for Plaintiff to undertake under the circumstances.

32

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 Page 34 of 52

Plaintiff anticipates conducting additional discovery in this case and he reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each person or company with whom you communicated or from whom you received any communication regarding the Article, and separately for each communication, identify the date, time, persons involved, the purpose of the communication, the substance of the communication and identify any documents related to that communication. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Plaintiff specifically objects to Defendant's interrogatory for the following reasons: (1) the interrogatory improperly seeks to limit Plaintiff s cause of action to a single complained-of article when Plaintiff asserts that all three Troll Tracker posts are false and defamatory; (2) the interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable privileges; (3) the interrogatory seeks confidential or proprietary information for which Plaintiff has an obligation to third-parties not to disclose; (4) the interrogatory seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (5) the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous regarding the phrase "communication regarding the article"; (6) the interrogatory, which asks for communications regarding the article" fails to describe the information requested with reasonable particularity. Plaintiff has nevertheless employ his best efforts to construe Defendant's interrogatory. Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:

33

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 78-2

Filed 07/01/09 P