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

Filing 87

EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue the determination of, or denying, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from July 12, 2010 to At the Court's discretion Re: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Entire Case 40 , EX PARTE APPLICATION to Enforce Order to Compel Continued Deposition of Defendant Edward Magedson, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Sanctions Local Rule 83.7, Local Rule 37-4, and this Court's inherent authority filed by Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, Iliana Llaneras, Raymond Mobrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 3 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 4 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 5 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 6 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 7 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 8 Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 9 Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 10 Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 11 Exhibit 11 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 12 Exhibit 12 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 13 Exhibit 13 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 14 Exhibit 14 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 15 Exhibit 15 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 16 Exhibit 16 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 17 Exhibit 17 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 18 Exhibit 18 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 19 Exhibit 19 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 20 Exhibit 20 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 21 Exhibit 21 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 22 Exhibit 22 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 23 Exhibit 23 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 24 Exhibit 24 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 25 Exhibit 25 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 26 Exhibit 26 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 27 Exhibit 27 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 28 Exhibit 28 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 29 Exhibit 29 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 30 Exhibit 30 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 31 Exhibit 31 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 32 Exhibit 32 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 33 Exhibit 33 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 34 Exhibit 34 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 35 Exhibit 35 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 36 Exhibit 36 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 37 Exhibit 37 to Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin)(Borodkin, Lisa)

Download PDF
Gmasla Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al A i i - Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric (C.D. Cal. No. 10-cv-1360) ... https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0d9198f21b&Dow=pt&q=d14i... viec. 87 Att. av Lisa Borodkin <lborodkin@gmail.com> Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric (C.D. Cal. No. 10-cv-1360) Request to Meet and Confer Re: Bifurcation of Discovery Lisa Borodkin <lborodkin@gmail.com> T ue, May 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM To: david@ripoffreport.com Cc: Maria Crimi Speth <mcs@jaburgwilk.com>, Daniel Blackert <blackertesq@yahoo.com> David, This is to confirm that we will meet and confer on discovery issues today at 2 p.m. by telephone. In addition to bifurcated discovery, we would like to meet and confer on the following: 1. Protective order regarding confidentiality We do not believe a protective order regarding confidentiality is necessary. Our position is that we would stipulate to a narrow protective order to facilitate Mr. Magedson's deposition to keep the location and time confidential and to redact from the transcript any information identifying his location or address if used in a public filing. 2. Jury trial Our position is that Defendants have waived the right to a jury trial by not timely making, serving and filing such demand. We do not believe the Court ordered a jury. The Court's trial setting order provides for both jury and non-jury procedure. We believe the reference in the minutes by the clerk of the Court from the April 19, 2010 proceeding are a clerical error and do not constitute a final order. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by a jury trial, as Defendants did not demand it, case management preparation has been proceeding on the assumption it is not a jury trial, and a request for bench trial was contained in the draft Rule 26(f) report. 3. Defendants' Initial Rule 26(a) Disclosures Y esterday I asked you if there are any more recordings of phone calls. I don't believe I got an answer. We would like a response today. Our position is any recordings of phone calls are central to your defense. They should be identified in Defendants' Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a). In general, we request that you disclose and identify, without awaiting specific request, any and all other major pieces of evidence you intend to use in your defense. Holding back the fact that your client has a regular business practice of recording calls until last Friday afternoon impeded orderly discovery, was overly contentious, and delayed the hasty resolution or settlement of this case. We could have worked with you to identify the dates or recordings you should be focused on and conserved time and valuable court resources had you earlier disclosed those. In any event, we think the existence of more recordings of conversations is central to the extortion claim. We would like you to identify if you know that any such recordings exist, and also any witnesses that you know of who were party to those or any other evidence of those exchanges. I believe our client testified in the deposition Friday that he recalled having a conversation with a "fast talker." There is also evidence in emails that our client invited Mr. Magedson to a meal. If you know of anything memorializing of of these, please disclose it as a supplement to your Rule 26(a) disclosures. 4. Extensions 1 of 2 Dock7/t8/.2010ia.com e s Just 5:19 AM Gmail - Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric (C.D. Cal. No. 10-cv-1360) ... https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0d9198f21b&view=pt&q=davi... We will probably be requesting extensions to respond to the discovery that is identified in my May 6, 2010 letter. 5. Conduct of depositions In a review of the rough deposition transcript from Friday, it appears you cut short our client's answers, attempts to answ er or fully explain his answers to your questions. Our position is that you should allow the deponent to finish and not attempt to create a false record. I will send you a case about that. I also requested authority supporting the position you took last Friday that you are entitled to determine which of us between Daniel Blackert and myself would be able to make objections to questions and defend our client's deposition. You stated something to the effect that I should get an order from the judge and that otherwise you would have me escorted out of the building. I agree that only one objection per question is reasonable, and I apologize if my co-counsel or I interrupted or stepped on each other's objection during the deposition. However, our position is that a client's right to be represented by counsel of choice is a fundamental right. There is nothing I am aware of in the California Code of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules that prevents a deponent from being defended by two attorneys. We informed you in advance that both Mr. Blackert and I would be appearing on Friday. I objected, but I was intimidated by the idea of being forcibly removed from the building. I felt I had to make a choice between observing the deposition and defending it. I chose to place an objection on the record. There is a possibility that such conduct prejudiced the outcome of the deposition, and we may make a motion to exclude it. That's all I can think of for now. Speak to you at 2 p.m. Lisa [Quoted text hidden] 05 06 10 LJB to DG.doc 29K 2 of 2 7/8/2010 5:19 AM

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?