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

Filing 173

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to Under Rule 56(f) to Take Discovery and Continue Determination of Defendants' SUmmary Judgment Motion filed by Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, Iliana Llaneras, Raymond Mobrez. Motion set for hearing on 11/29/2010 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Transcript of Sept. 20, 2010), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Def's Discovery Responses to RFD July 22, 2010), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Draft Powerpoint for Verified Safe and CAP Program), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Sept. 23 2010 emails))(Borodkin, Lisa)

Download PDF
Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al Doc. 173 Att. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 David S. Gingras, CSB #218793 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 Maria Crimi Speth, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 248-1000 Fax: (602) 248-0522 mcs@jaburgwilk.com Attorneys for Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of individuals or businesses who enrolled in YOUR Corporate Advocacy Program ("CAP") from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which has been determined to be irrelevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 2. DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of applicants to CAP from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. DOCUMENTS consisting of a complete copy of each version of a representative agreement(s) between YOU and a representative individual or entity that enrolled in the CAP from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which has been determined to be irrelevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the relationship of YOU to Creative Business Investments Concepts, Inc. ("Creative"). RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 2 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 5. DOCUMENTS relating to Creative's ownership interest in YOU from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 6. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to Creative's duties and responsibilities to YOU from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY all owner(s) of Xcentric Ventures, LLC from 2001-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 3 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 8. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY all members(s) of YOU from 2001present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 9. All YOUR employment agreements with ED MAGEDSON from 2005present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the owner of Creative from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 4 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 11. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to David Bedore's duties and responsibilities for Xcentric from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 12. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to David Bedore's duties and responsibilities for Creative from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to the rates/fees that YOU charge for the CAP from 2005-present RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information already within the possession of Plaintiffs. 5 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 14. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR INVESTIGATION of a representative individual or entity that has enrolled in the CAP since 2005. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 15. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the person(s) or entity(s) responsible for INVESTIGATING individuals or businesses once they have enrolled in the CAP from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR use of META TAGS on ROR from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request is unintelligible insofar as it refers to "YOUR use of META TAGS". All 600,000+ pages on the website www.RipoffReport.com contain meta tags. To the extent this request requires Defendants to produce documents referring to every page on the website www.RipoffReport.com, Defendants object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). 6 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 Defendants further object on the basis the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 17. All communications between YOU and Google relating to search indexing or search authority between 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the person(s) or entity(s) that designed the user interface for "RipoffReport.com." RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 19. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the person(s) or entity(s) most knowledgeable about how HMTL is generated for a Report on RipoffReport.com RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 20. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY all computer programmers, coders or code developer that created the input screens and output for reports as they currently operate on RipoffReport.com RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY all computer programmers, coders or code developer that created the input screens and output for reports as they operated on RipoffReport.com from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 22. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the HTML, META TAGS, META ELEMENTS, and source code for all web pages displaying reports about PLAINTIFFS at issue in this action. RESPONSE: Objection, the request seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 8 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 23. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to either written or oral communications between DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFFS from 2008present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks information subject to attorney-client privilege. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, all non-privileged documents have previously been produced. 24. All audio recordings (including those played by DEFENDANTS at Mr. Mobrez's Deposition of May 7, 2010) of communications between DEFENDANTS and PLAINTIFFS from 2008-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. Recordings sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR outgoing voice prompts prior to notification of callers that calls may be recorded. RESPONSE: Defendants are not in possession of any such recordings. 26. Recordings sufficient to IDENTIFY YOUR outgoing voice prompts after YOU began notifying callers that calls may be recorded. RESPONSE: Defendants are not in possession of any such recordings. Plaintiffs may obtain this information by calling (602) 539-4357 and reviewing the prompts. 9 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 27. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to any instance of YOU deleting posts on ROR from 2005-present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 28. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the HTML, META TAGS, META ELEMENTS, and source code for web pages displaying reports about a representative CAP member after joining CAP. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the HTML, META TAGS, META ELEMENTS, and source code for web pages displaying reports about a representative CAP member as they existed before the member joined CAP. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). 10 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 30. DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY the individual or entity that revises web pages including reports about a CAP member after the member joins CAP. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 31. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS that evidence that you have been contacted by Governmental agencies as stated on YOUR website at RipoffReport.com. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 32. DOCUMENTS that evidence YOUR participation in class action lawsuits against businesses or individuals reported on ROR as stated on YOUR website RipoffReport.com. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). 11 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 33. DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to your relationship to the class action lawyers listed on your website. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 34. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY all individuals or entities who have an ownership interest in Xcentric Ventures, LLC from its inception to the present. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 35. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by DEFENDANTS to create, add, remove, edit or alter the TITLE META TAG of reports against members of the CAP, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). 12 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 36. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by Defendants to create, add, remove, edit or alter the DESCRIPTION META TAG of the complaints against members of the CAP, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 37. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by Defendants to create, add, remove, edit or alter the KEYWORD META TAG of the complaints against members of the CAP, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: Objection; the request seeks evidence which is not relevant to any fact at issue in this case and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to the request as overbroad and unduly burdensome within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). The request also seeks information within the scope of the discovery stay entered in this matter on June 24, 2010. 13 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 38. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by Defendants to create, add, remove, edit or alter the TITLE META TAG of the complaints against PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: No such documents exist. 39. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by Defendants to create, add, remove, edit or alter the DESCRIPTION META TAG of the complaints against PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: No such documents exist. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40. DOCUMENTS relating to, referring to, or evidencing any actions taken by Defendants to create, add, remove, edit or alter the KEYWORD META TAG of the complaints against PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to documents evidencing changes in the Web page's HTML source code. RESPONSE: No such documents exist. DATED July 22, 2010. GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC /S/ David S. Gingras David S. Gingras Attorneys for Defendants Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC 14 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 22, 2010 I mailed the original of the foregoing to: Mr. Daniel F. Blackert, Esq. Ms. Lisa J. Borodkin, Esq. Asia Economic Institute 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attorneys for Plaintiffs /s/David S. Gingras 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST RFPs CV10-01360 SVW

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?