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
Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al Doc. 87 Att. 20 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: COURT REPORTER: COURTROOM DEPUTY: TRANSCRIBER: SEE NEXT PAGE RECORDED; COURT SMART CELIA ANGLON-REED DOROTHY BABYKIN COURTHOUSE SERVICES 1218 VALEBROOK PLACE GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA (626) 963-0566 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, ET AL., ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) ) VS. ) ) ) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, ) ET AL., ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ______________________________) CASE NO. CV 10-1360-SVW(PJWX) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA JUNE 24, 2010 (11:06 A.M. TO 11:45 A.M.) HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 91740 PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING; TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE. Dockets.Justia.com 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: (CONTINUED) FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE LLC BY: LISA J. BORODKIN DANIEL F. BLACKERT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11766 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 260 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: GINGRAS LAW OFFICE BY: DAVID SCOTT GINGRAS ATTORNEY AT LAW 4072 EAST MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85048 JABURG & WILK PC BY: MARIA CRIMI SPETH ATTORNEY AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 (APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY) EDWARD MAGEDSON, DEFENDANT (APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY) 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX CASE NO. CV 10-1360-SVW(PJWX) PROCEEDINGS: JUNE 24, 2010 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY, ET CETERA 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ADD? MR. BLACKERT: WAS COVERED. THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. NO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK EVERYTHING MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: WE DON'T DISAGREE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. BLACKERT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO MR. BLACKERT: THE COURT: MS. SPETH: MS. SPETH, ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. JUST THAT MR. MAGEDSON'S DEPOSITION WAS, IN FACT, TAKEN AFTER THIS WAS FILED. AND, SO, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN YOU SAID YOU CAN TAKE HIS DEPOSITION, YOU DON'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN TAKE IT A SECOND TIME. KNOW THAT IT WAS ALREADY TAKEN. THE COURT: WELL, WE'RE IN FIGHT NUMBER TWO NOW. YOU JUST DIDN'T BECAUSE MS. BORODKIN I THINK -COME ON UP HERE, MS. BORODKIN. -- WANTS TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION AGAIN. AM I RIGHT? MS. BORODKIN: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. WE SUSPENDED IT BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAD AN UNRESOLVABLE DISAGREEMENT BASED ON WHETHER MR. MAGEDSON SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS BASED ON THE PENDING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER. THE COURT: HOW LONG WAS THE DEPOSITION? 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HOURS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S MS. BORODKIN: I BELIEVE WE CONSUMED ABOUT FIVE MORE THAN JUST HIM SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WITH A PROTECTIVE ORDER. HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU WANT? MS. BORODKIN: WE COULD DO IT IN AN HOUR OR DEFINITELY WITHIN THE SEVEN-HOUR LIMITATION OF RULE 30. THE COURT: TO ANSWER? MS. BORODKIN: HE REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND WHAT TYPES OF QUESTIONS DID HE REFUSE HE REFUSED TO BRING DOCUMENTS UNDER A SUBPOENA TO THE DEPOSITION REGARDING THE CONTRACT THAT PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS OF THE CAP APPLICATION ARE OFFERED AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EXACT STEPS THAT APPLICANTS OR POTENTIAL APPLICANTS OF THE CAP APPLICATION GO THROUGH WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO JOIN THE CAP. THE COURT: OKAY. WE HAVE THE -- MS. BORODKIN: MS. SPETH: WE DISAGREE -- WE DISAGREE, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE THE PORTIONS OF THE MS. BORODKIN: DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS TABBED AND HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOUR HONOR IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AFTER THIS HEARING -- ON WHICH HE WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER BASED ON THE LACK OF PROTECTIVE ORDER. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: MS. SPETH: ALL RIGHT. YES. MS. SPETH. HE EXTENSIVELY ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND THE WAY THE PROGRAM WORKS, YOUR HONOR. SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE ITEMS THAT WE DID -- OR DAVID DID INSTRUCT THE WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER CERTAIN ITEMS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PLACE. BUT THE ONES THAT MS. BORODKIN JUST DESCRIBED, FOR THE MOST PART WERE ANSWERED. ALSO, I THINK THE SUBPOENA IS A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE THAT MR. GINGRAS CAN ADDRESS. DEFECTIVE IN MANY, MANY WAYS. BUT THAT SUBPOENA WAS AND IT WAS ISSUED LIKE THE NIGHT BEFORE -- A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOUR HONOR, MR. MAGEDSON'S DEPOSITION WAS EXTENSIVE. IT WENT ON FOR FIVE HOURS. PLUS, THEY TOOK A 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION FOR -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY HOURS, BUT IT WAS CLOSE TO THE LIMIT. SO, THEY'VE HAD HIM IN DEPOSITION FOR FAR, FAR MORE THAN TEN HOURS. AND -I UNDERSTAND. AND I THE COURT: AND I'LL LET YOU HAVE A CHANCE, MR. GINGRAS. SAW -- I'LL PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME -- THERE'S ONLY ONE "S" IN YOUR NAME THOUGH, RIGHT? MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: CORRECT. BECAUSE I READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM JUDGE WILSON'S HEARING WHERE YOU TOLD HIM HOW TO PRONOUNCE 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IT. (LAUGHTER.) MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: THANK YOU. SO, I'M FOLLOWING ALONG HERE. FIVE MS. SPETH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. HOURS OF ONE DEPOSITION AND ANOTHER FIVE AND A 30(B)(6) IS A LONG TIME. BUT MS. BORODKIN IS MAKING A POINT HERE. IF SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS WERE NOT ANSWERED BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE ORDER -- IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEPOSITION COULD HAVE GONE 20 HOURS. IF THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY NEEDED ANSWERED TO GO FORWARD ON THESE EXTORTION CLAIMS AND/OR OPPOSE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WERE NOT ANSWERED BASED ON THAT OBJECTION, THEN, I THINK SHE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. TELL ME WHY I'M WRONG. MS. SPETH: YOU'RE WRONG. WELL, I THINK WHAT -- I DON'T THINK I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT SHE'S POINTING OUT AREAS THAT SHE DID, IN FACT, COVER AND HE DID, IN FACT, ANSWER. AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IS THERE WERE CERTAIN PLACES IN THE DEPOSITION WHERE MR. MAGEDSON ORIGINALLY REFUSED TO ANSWER AND THEN SHE CIRCLED BACK AROUND, AND HE ULTIMATELY ANSWERED THEM. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THERE 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RIGHT. TIME. ANY REAL ISSUE THAT SHE TRULY NEVER GOT AN ANSWER TO THAT SHE STILL NEEDS. THAT OUT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S THESE BROAD CATEGORIES. IN FACT, I'M SURE THAT HE ANSWERED SOME OF THE AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE CAN PROBABLY WORK EXACT QUESTIONS THAT MS. BORODKIN JUST TOLD YOU HE DIDN'T ANSWER. THE COURT: MS. SPETH: OKAY. MR. GINGRAS WAS THERE FOR THE WHOLE HE'S PROBABLY BETTER EQUIPPED TO ADDRESS ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GINGRAS. MR. GINGRAS: YOUR HONOR, I THINK MS. SPETH IS I THINK -- FIRST OF ALL, SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT THE FACT THEY COVERED TWO ALMOST WHAT I THINK -- THAT THERE WERE TWO DEPOSITIONS. FULL DAYS. THERE WAS A LOT COVERED. THE COURT: I GUESS WHAT I WANT EVERYBODY TO FOCUS THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT. AND, YOUR HONOR, MY ONLY -- ON IS WHAT WASN'T COVERED. MR. GINGRAS: RIGHT. MY MAIN COMMENT -- AS I WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING TO YOU TALKING TO MS. SPETH, MY MAIN COMMENT IS I'M NOT SURE HOW TO SQUARE THE ORDER THAT YOU JUST ENTERED STAYING DISCOVERY AS TO NON-RICO MATTERS. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO SQUARE THAT WITH THE EXPLORATION THAT MS. BORODKIN WANTS TO DO ON OTHER 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ISSUES. BECAUSE I'M QUITE SURE THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT SHE ASKED, SOME OF THEM RELATED TO EXTORTION AND SOME DID NOT. SOME RELATED TO DAMAGES. YOU'VE ALREADY STAYED THAT. THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED -- THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED -- WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SEEK DISCOVERY FROM THEM ON THOSE ISSUES. THAT SHOULD BE A TWO-WAY STREET. THE COURT: ISSUES HERE. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ABOUT 15 AND THERE'S FIVE I THINK THERE'S NO BRIEFING ON IT. HOURS OF DEPOSITION OR MAYBE 10 HOURS. RESOLVE THIS. GO AHEAD. MR. GINGRAS: I DON'T KNOW HOW I MY COMMENT, YOUR HONOR, WOULD BE THAT THE WAY I THINK WE SHOULD HANDLE THIS, RATHER THAN SITTING HERE AND GUESSING AS TO WHAT THE ISSUES ARE, I THINK THAT IF PLAINTIFFS WANT TO MOVE TO COMPEL A SECOND DEPOSITION AS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THEY OUGHT TO FILE A MOTION ON THAT. US RESPOND TO IT. LET I DON'T THINK IT'S URGENT -- I DON'T THINK -- LIKE I'VE SAID, WE'VE ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE A LOT OF LEEWAY IN DEPOSING OUR CLIENT. MS. BORODKIN: TRANSCRIPTS RIGHT HERE. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE THE DEPOSITION THERE'S ONE-PAGE SUMMARIES OF THE TOPICS THAT MR. MAGEDSON AND ALSO AS THE XCENTRIC 30(B)(6) WITNESS WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER. SOME OF THEM GO DIRECTLY TO THE HEART OF THE EXTORTION CLAIM. WE JUST NEED TO SEE HOW THE CONTRACT IS PRESENTED 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO PEOPLE. THE COURT: OKAY. BUT NOW MS. SPETH SAYS THAT YOU CIRCLED BACK ON SOME OF THOSE, WHERE THEY SAID DON'T ANSWER AND THAT HE, IN FACT, ANSWERED. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO, WE NEED TO RESOLVE THAT. OKAY. THAT'S A FACTUAL DISPUTE, AND WE NEED TO RESOLVE IT. AND HANDING ME TWO FIVE-HOUR DEPOSITIONS AND HAVING ME READ THEM AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE THINKING AND WHAT EVERYBODY DID, THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO RESOLVE IT. HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THIS. YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A LIST OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO ASK IN THIS CONTINUED DEPOSITION. AND YOU PUT PAGE AND LINE NUMBER WHERE YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY OBJECTED AND DID NOT ANSWER BASED ON THE PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUE. SEND IT TO THE OTHER SIDE. NEED ANOTHER JOINT STIPULATION. OKAY. I DON'T LETTER FORMAT. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHAT OKAY. THE LAW IS ON TAKING DEPOSITIONS. YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT TO ASK AND WHY YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T ANSWER IT. YOU. THEY'RE GOING TO RESPOND TO THEN, YOU CAN FILE WHATEVER I'LL SET SOME DEADLINES. IS LEFT IN DISPUTE. RULING. YOU SEND IT TO ME, AND I'LL MAKE A I'LL GET YOU ON THE PHONE IF I NEED TO. MS. SPETH: YOUR HONOR, CAN I SUGGEST MAYBE PERHAPS IF MS. BORODKIN WANTS TO SEND US A GOOD RESOLUTION TO THIS. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THAT LIST, AND IF IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN ANSWERED, THE OTHER THING WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IS WE'D BE WILLING TO HAVE MR. MAGEDSON, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS OF HER REQUEST PROVIDE A DECLARATION OR AN AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OF EXACTLY THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT. THE COURT: IT MIGHT BE MORE EFFICIENT, BUT YOU THAT MIGHT BE A KNOW BETTER THAN I DO THAT YOU DON'T WANT -- YOU DIDN'T WANT A DECLARATION FROM THE OTHER SIDE. IN FACT, YOU GOT DECLARATIONS FROM THE OTHER SIDE THAT YOU BELIEVE WERE INACCURATE. SO, I'LL CONSIDER THAT. AND IF MS. BORODKIN WANTS BUT THE VALUE OF HAVING TO GO ALONG WITH THAT, THAT'S FINE. THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE IS THEY CAN FOLLOW UP ON THESE ANSWERS AND THEY CAN PROBE FURTHER. BUT HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. HOW LONG, MS. BORODKIN, DO YOU NEED TO GET YOUR LETTER OVER TO MS. SPETH AND MR. GINGRAS? MS. BORODKIN: I CAN DO IT BY THE END OF TODAY. I HAVE EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE THAT YOU JUST ARTICULATED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO IT BY TOMORROW NIGHT, BY, LET'S SAY, FIVE O'CLOCK TOMORROW NIGHT LOS ANGELES TIME. AND, MS. SPETH AND MR. GINGRAS, I WANT YOU TO RESPOND -- TODAY IS THE 24TH OF JUNE. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A WEEK UNTIL JULY 1ST. BY JULY 1ST, PLEASE, YOU RESPOND AND TELL THEM WHY THOSE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED OR WHY THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT -- BECAUSE I'M ONLY HAVING DISCOVERY ON THE EXTORTION PORTION OF THIS CLAIM. LET HER RESPOND. AND IF YOU CANNOT RESOLVE IT, YOU CAN SEND ME THE LETTERS FROM BOTH SIDES, AND I'LL GET YOU ON THE PHONE AND LET YOU ARGUE, AND THEN I'LL MAKE A RULING. MS. BORODKIN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE COLLATERAL ISSUE THAT IS TECHNICALLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF YOUR ORDER BIFURCATING DISCOVERY, AND THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TELEPHONE RECORDINGS THAT WERE MADE. DEFENDANTS ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE RAISED THAT IN THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THEY CONTINUE TO RAISE IT IN EVERY SINGLE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT. WE'VE ASKED THEM CERTAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THEIR PRACTICES OF RECORDING TELEPHONE CALLS. AND I WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT THE COURT ALSO INCLUDE IN THE LIST OF QUESTIONS WE COULD FOLLOW UP ON WITH MR. MAGEDSON ASPECTS THAT GO TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE TELEPHONE RECORDINGS. THE COURT: ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO TALK TO THEM BUT YOU'VE HAD A SIT-DOWN WITH YOUR CLIENT -- RIGHT? -- AND YOU SAID, IS THIS YOUR VOICE, IS THIS WHAT YOU SAID, IS THAT WHAT THEY SAID, IS THIS WHAT YOU SAID, IS THAT 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHAT THEY SAID. YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T BRAIN SCIENCE, RIGHT. YOUR CLIENT RECOGNIZES HIS OR HER OWN VOICE AND SAYS, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THEY RECOGNIZE THE OTHER GUY'S VOICE, AND THEY SAY, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE THEY'VE DOCTORED THE TAPES OR SOMETHING? MS. BORODKIN: WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. THERE'S A FACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER THE RECORDINGS THAT ARE IN EVIDENCE OR IN THE RECORD AT THIS TIME ARE ALL OF THE RECORDINGS THAT WERE EVER MADE. THERE'S ALSO A DISPUTE ABOUT -THE COURT: ABOUT THAT. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S ONE OF THE CORE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU PROBING ABSOLUTELY. ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO RIDE THAT HORSE IN THROUGH TRIAL IN AUGUST, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ASK THEM ABOUT THAT IN DISCOVERY. NO PROBLEM. WHETHER IT'S DONE BY A DECLARATION OR WHATEVER TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION. BUT, ULTIMATELY, IF YOUR CLIENT RECOGNIZES HIS VOICE, AND HIS WIFE RECOGNIZES HER VOICE ON THAT TELEPHONE, AND THOSE ARE THE CONVERSATIONS, AND THEY KIND OF TIE INTO THE PHONE RECORDS THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DIG UP, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT A PROBLEM. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAINTAIN. THE COURT: OKAY. BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME CELL MAY BE. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. SO, MAYBE THE RECORD. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. DON'T THANK ME FOR YOUR PROBLEM. IT'S NOT -- JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE MS. BORODKIN: IT'S NOT A DISPUTE OVER WHAT'S THERE. THE COURT: OKAY. IT'S A DISPUTE OVER WHAT ELSE THERE MS. BORODKIN: CONVERSATIONS WERE EXCERPTED, OR MAYBE THERE WERE OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE ALSO RECORDED THAT THEY HAVEN'T SHARED WITH YOU. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? MS. BORODKIN: AMONG OTHER THINGS. BECAUSE WE'VE ASKED HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CELL PHONES. ANSWER. THE COURT: CELL PHONE? MS. BORODKIN: OKAY. HE REFUSED TO WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM ABOUT HIS HOW MANY CELL PHONES DOES HE PHONE CALLS BETWEEN YOUR CLIENT AND MR. MAGEDSON, RIGHT? MS. BORODKIN: YES. AND HE HAS ARTICULATED A CONCERN ABOUT NOT WANTING TO BE TRACKED, AND WE ARE SENSITIVE TO THAT CONCERN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

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?