Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al

Filing 137

REPLY in support MOTION to Strike Material from Documents 118 and 121 and Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,, 94 118 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 121 MOTION to Strike Material from Documents 118 and 121 and Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,, 94 118 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 121 124 filed by Defendants Edward Magedson, Xcentric Ventures LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Speth, Maria)

Download PDF
Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al Doc. 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 Maria Crimi Speth, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) mcs@jaburgwilk.com JABURG & WILK, P.C. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 248-1000 David S. Gingras, CSB #218793 David.Gingras@webmail.azbar.org Gingras Law Office, PLLC 4072 E Mountain Vista Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David.Gingras@webmail.azbar.org Attorneys for Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No: 2:10-cv-01360-RSWL-PJW DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL FROM DOCUMENTS 118 AND 121 Hearing Date: Time: Courtroom: September 20, 2010 1:30 p.m. 6 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Never once in their twelve-page Opposition do Plaintiffs address the actual request made by Defendants in the Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs "Introduction" and "Relevant Procedural Background" are nothing more than an attack on Defendants business, devoid of any reference to the issue before the Court. When Plaintiffs finally address Rule 408 in their Opposition, their response addresses an exception to Rule 408 related to threats. However, the two pleadings which Defendants identified in the Motion to Strike as being in violation of Rule 408 contain no threats. Defendants seek to have stricken and sealed: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 10297-70/MCS/MCS/826694_v1 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 Document 118, Motion for Reconsideration. Page 4, lines 1-3; Document 120, Declaration of Raymond Mobrez, Paragraphs 8-12, 15-16. Defendants have not quoted these provisions in the pleadings because to do so would defeat the very purpose of the Motion to Strike. However, even a cursory review of the pages and lines of the documents makes abundantly clear that there are no "threats" contained in the identified materials. Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that the Court did not order a "confidential" settlement conference on July 20, 2010. Defendants did not represent in the Motion to Strike that Magistrate Wilson ordered that the settlement conference be kept confidential. Defendants pointed out that it was a Court-ordered settlement conference and that the parties expressly agreed that the discussions at the settlement conference would be kept confidential. Plaintiffs argue that such an agreement (to keep settlement negotiations confidential) is void as against public policy and is unenforceable. As is made abundantly clear in the case law interpreting Rule 408, public policy favors settlement and favors fostering frank discussions between parties to a dispute. It is ludicrous to argue that confidentiality in settlement negotiations is against public policy. Finally, Plaintiffs once again repeat in their pleadings the confidential settlement discussions. During the good faith discussions pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, undersigned specifically cautioned Plaintiffs against doing to. My motion will not disclose the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substance of the discussions. In an email dated August 19, 2010, undersigned stated, "Be advised that if you disclose the substance of the negotiations in your response to my motion, you must file it under seal or I will move to strike your response to my motion. If, in your response, you simply cross-reference the content from documents 118, 120 or 1211, without repeating the allegations, that will be one less pleading that will have to be stricken." (Exhibit "A") Following the meet and confer, Defendants narrowed the scope of the motion from three documents (118, 120 and 121) to two documents (118 and 120). 1 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 10297-70/MCS/MCS/826694_v1 2 2:10-cv-01360-RSWL-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 Despite that request, Plaintiffs twice referenced in their Opposition (Document 132) the very statements that are the subject of the within Motion to Strike and seal. Accordingly, Defendants modify the original Motion to Strike by including a request for this Court to seal Document 132 along with Documents 118 and 120. DATED this 7th day of September, 2010. JABURG & WILK, P.C. /s/Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth Attorneys for Defendants 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 10297-70/MCS/MCS/826694_v1 3 2:10-cv-01360-RSWL-PJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 7th day of September, 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Ms. Lisa Borodkin, Esq. Mr. Daniel F. Blackert, Esq. Asia Economic Institute 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attorneys for Plaintiffs lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.edu daniel@asiaecon.org And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson U. S. District Court /s/ Janet A. Sauer 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 10297-70/MCS/MCS/826694_v1 4 2:10-cv-01360-RSWL-PJW

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?