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

Filing 91

REPLY Support 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 87 filed by Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, Iliana Llaneras, Raymond Mobrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 38 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 2 Exhibit 39 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 3 Exhibit 40 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 4 Exhibit 41 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 5 Exhibit 42 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 6 Exhibit 43 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 7 Exhibit 44 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 8 Exhibit 45 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 9 Exhibit 46 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 10 Exhibit 47 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin, # 11 Exhibit 48 to Supplemental Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin)(Borodkin, Lisa)

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

Doc. 91 Att. 11

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 [phone] 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

4 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 RECORD. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: LISA BORODKIN FOR PLAINTIFFS. SESSION. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010; 11:06 A.M. THE CLERK: ALL RISE AND COME TO ORDER.

THIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS NOW IN THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. WALSH, UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, PRESIDING. PLEASE BE SEATED. CALLING CASE NUMBER CV 10-1360-SVW(PJWX), ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE VERSUS XCENTRIC VENTURES. COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES FOR THE

MS. BORODKIN. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE

YOU HAVE TO STAND, COUNSEL. TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. MR. BLACKERT: THE COURT:

DANIEL BLACKERT FOR PLAINTIFFS.

MR. BLACKERT. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. GINGRAS:

DAVID GINGRAS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS XCENTRIC VENTURES AND EDWARD MAGEDSON. THE COURT: MS. SPETH: AND WE HAVE SOMEONE ON THE PHONE? YES, YOUR HONOR.

MARIA SPETH ON BEHALF OF XCENTRIC VENTURES AND EDWARD MAGEDSON. WE ALSO HAVE MR. MAGEDSON ON THE LINE. ALL RIGHT. MR. GINGRAS, I'M PRIMARILY

THE COURT:

RULING AGAINST YOU SO WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE TO THE

5 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 SAID NO. MR. GINGRAS: YES. AND I'VE READ THE COURT'S LECTERN AND WE CAN TALK FOR A MINUTE. WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK I'M WRONG. MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: YOUR HONOR -I

YOU WANTED THE DISCOVERY EXPANDED.

RULING, AND, TO BE HONEST, I'M NOT SURE I DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF IT SUBSTANTIVELY. I WOULD NOTE THAT IN OUR JOINT STIPULATION WE INDICATED THAT AS TO THE BIFURCATION ISSUE, WE REALLY DIDN'T OBJECT TO THAT AS LONG -- ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DID NOT WANT TO SEE HAPPEN WAS A TRIAL TAKE PLACE IN AUGUST. WHAT IT IS. THE OUTCOME IS

AND THEN THE JUDGE SAYS, WELL, OKAY, WE'RE GOING

TO SET THE NEXT TRIAL ON A SIMILARLY ACCELERATED BASIS, AND I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE ALL READY BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD MONTHS TO PERFORM DISCOVERY NOW. THE COURT: WELL, IF IT COMES TO THAT, HE'LL READ HE'LL PROBABLY READ IT ANYWAY. AND I THINK

MY ORDER, AND HE'LL SEE. MR. GINGRAS:

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

THE EFFECT OF YOUR ORDER IS ESSENTIALLY TO GIVE ME THE SAME RELIEF I WAS ASKING FOR AS AN ALTERNATIVE ANYWAY, WHICH WAS TO STAY THOSE CLAIMS. IF I CAN'T TAKE DISCOVERY AS TO THESE

CLAIMS, THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY STAYED ANYWAY. SO, I'M SURE THAT THE COURT WILL IN THE FUTURE REALIZE THAT IF A NEW TRIAL DATE IS NEEDED, THAT APPROPRIATE

6 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 TIME WILL BE NEEDED FOR DISCOVERY AS WELL. SO, IN THAT REGARD I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT PART OF YOUR RULING. THE COURT: ON THE WALL. HERE, RIGHT? MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I SEE THE WRITING

YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS AN EXTORTION CLAIM

AND, SO, IF THERE'S NO EXTORTION CLAIM,

THERE'S NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, RIGHT? MR. GINGRAS: DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. I'M NOT SURE -- I THINK THERE'S STILL I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT MATTERS. THE

NON-RICO CLAIMS ARE SUBJECT TO A DEFENSE BASED ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. WE'VE MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SO, I THINK THE

ON THAT, WHICH IS BEING HEARD ON MONDAY.

WHOLE THING IS PIECEMEAL, EITHER GOING TO LIVE OR DIE ON MONDAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? YES. WITH RESPECT TO THE PART OF THE

MR. GINGRAS:

RULING THAT TALKS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE COURT'S STATEMENTS, AND I OFFER THE COURT MY APOLOGIES FOR THE LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM AND MY COMMITMENT TO INCREASING THAT GOING FORWARD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IN

DEPOSITIONS IS THE LAWYERS ASSUME THAT NO ONE IS EVER GOING

7 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. TO REVIEW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND IT'S JUST WHATEVER. KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A STREET FIGHT. I'M GOING TO REVIEW THESE DEPOSITIONS IF I'M ASKED SO, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT. AND RIGHT NOW YOU

THE CONDUCT OF ALL THE LAWYERS IS SANCTIONABLE UNDER BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL RULES AND THE LOCAL RULES. EACH OTHER THAT WAY. IT IS UNETHICAL TO BE UNCIVIL TO THE OTHER SIDE. ALL RIGHT. TELLING THE OTHER SIDE THEY CAN'T TAKE A BREAK TO ALL RIGHT. AND I CHALLENGE YOU CAN'T TREAT

GO TO THE BATHROOM -- UNCIVIL.

YOU TO TAKE THAT UP TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT WHEN I SANCTION YOU. AND I WILL SANCTION YOU SO THAT IT HAS SOME CONSEQUENCES. OKAY. AND THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES. ALL RIGHT. TAKE IT UP

TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND TELL THEM THAT IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO TELL THE OTHER SIDE THEY CAN'T GO TO THE BATHROOM DURING A DEPOSITION. MR. GINGRAS: YOUR HONOR, THAT PART OF THE

TRANSCRIPT ACTUALLY REFERRED TO MY CO-COUNSEL REQUESTING A BREAK, AND I WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT YOUR HONOR'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN, AND I'M SURE THAT THE CONDUCT WILL RISE TO A HIGHER LEVEL GOING FORWARD. THE COURT: YES. AND I DON'T THINK SECURITY SHOULD IF YOU HAVE A

BE DRAGGING LAWYERS OUT OF DEPOSITIONS.

PROBLEM, YOU GET ME ON THE PHONE AND I'LL RESOLVE IT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? ANY

8 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 WELL. MA'AM? MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. MISTAKES YOU SEE IN THERE THAT I CAN FIX BEFORE I SIGN OFF ON THIS? MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: I DON'T, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

MS. BORODKIN, IS THAT HOW I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME,

COME TO THE LECTERN HERE.

I'VE RULED AGAINST YOU ON SOME ASPECTS OF THIS AS TELL ME WHY YOU THINK I'M WRONG AND HOW I SHOULD

CHANGE IT. MS. BORODKIN: OH, WE DON'T, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE

HAPPY TO SUBMIT ON ISSUES ONE AND FOUR. AND WITH RESPECT TO TWO AND THREE, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF SIMPLE EQUITY. DEFENDANTS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN AND

MADE AMPLE USE OF THE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF MR. MOBREZ. AND WE JUST THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE SAME -- THE SAME. THE COURT: WHEN YOU SAY AMPLE USE, YOU MEAN THEY

FILED IT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION? MS. BORODKIN: CORRECT. AND YOU ARE COMPLETELY

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT IN SOME REGARDS THE MOTION HAS BECOME MOOT. THE REASON WE DIDN'T TAKE IT OFF CALENDAR WAS

THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS AREAS OF DEPOSITION QUESTIONING THAT ARE RELEVANT AND CENTRAL TO THE EXTORTION CLAIM IN AUGUST

9 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 THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE'S A PENDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. AND WE JUST SIMPLY DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE STEPS TO KEEP ANYTHING CONFIDENTIAL. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE

IS IS WHEN YOU FILE THINGS IN THIS COURT, THEY'RE LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL. CAN REQUEST THE OTHER SIDE. BUT EXCEPT FOR THINGS LIKE THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE DON'T FILE THINGS UNDER SEAL HERE. MS. BORODKIN: VERY GOOD. SO, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT. OR YOU

YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE FREE TO FILE THEM IN SUPPORT OR AGAINST MOTIONS THAT ARE FILED AND AT THE TRIAL WITHOUT HAVING TO FILE THEM UNDER SEAL? THE COURT: GOVERN THAT. OKAY. RIGHT. I MEAN, THERE'S RULES THAT

THE DEPONENT'S ADDRESS, HIS TELEPHONE

NUMBER, HIS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, HIS MEDICAL PROBLEMS YOU NEED TO MOVE TO FILE THOSE UNDER SEAL AND ASK ME OR JUDGE WILSON TO MAKE A RULING ON THAT. BUT WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT THE EXTORTION WAS OR WASN'T AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE, WE DON'T SEAL ANYTHING FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM, AND

ALL THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC. SO, THERE'S ALLEGATIONS THAT YOUR CLIENT WAS LESS

10 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 ORDER. THAN CANDID. THAT'S NOT GOING UNDER SEAL. THAT'S BEING

FILED UPFRONT.

IF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PICKS UP ON IT

AND DECIDES THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS PERJURED HIMSELF IN A DECLARATION OR AT HIS DEPOSITION, THEY MAY REFER THAT MATTER TO AN AGENT AND HAVE YOUR CLIENT PROSECUTED. SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SEAL. I'M NOT HERE TO

BUT THAT DOESN'T GET FILED UNDER

THERE'S STATE AND LOCAL RULES THAT GOVERN WHAT IS

PRIVATE AND WHAT ISN'T. THIS FIGHT YOU GUYS ARE HAVING ABOUT WHAT TOOK PLACE OVER THE TELEPHONE IS NOT A PRIVATE FIGHT. PUBLIC FIGHT RIGHT NOW. OKAY? MS. BORODKIN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IT'S A

WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE'RE JUST GOING TO RETAKE THE DEPOSITION OF MR. MAGEDSON. AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO STIPULATE TO A PROTECTIVE

ORDER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR RULING TODAY. THE COURT: YES. WELL, I ENTERED THE PROTECTIVE BUT THE PROTECTIVE ALL RIGHT.

SO, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

ORDER AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IS WHAT IS HERE.

IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND IT OR SOMETHING, YOU WANT ME TO SIGN OFF ON IT, I WILL. IT'S NORMALLY DONE BY A STIPULATION.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED IN THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT'S NOT HERE? MS. BORODKIN: WELL, WE THINK THAT THE PROPOSED

11 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 FORM OF PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US BY DEFENDANTS IS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE AND HAMPERS OUR ABILITY TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. THE COURT: BUT WAIT A SECOND. I'M ISSUING A

PROTECTIVE ORDER RIGHT IN HERE, RIGHT.

AND I'M GOING TO TELL

YOU WHAT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GOING TO PROVIDE, AND YOU TELL ME IF I NEED TO INCLUDE ANYTHING ELSE. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE DISCOVERY PRODUCED TO DATE IN THIS

-- THIS IS THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR -- THERE'S A MISTAKE THERE -PLAINTIFFS ASK FOR A COURT ORDER PERMITTING THEM TO DEPOSE DEFENDANT -IS IT MAGEDSON? MS. BORODKIN: YES, IT IS. THIS

THE COURT: -- WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE ORDER. REQUEST IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS HAVE PRESENTED SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND THE COURT HEREBY ENTERS ONE. THE DISCOVERY IS SUBJECT -- I'M SORRY. THE DISCOVERY PRODUCED TO DATE IN THIS CASE, AND WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE FUTURE, IS SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER. THE PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL ARE PROHIBITED

12 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 FROM DISSEMINATING THIS INFORMATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABSENT COURT ORDER. THIS ORDER DOES NOT RESTRICT THE USE

OF THE INFORMATION FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL RULES GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RECORDS. THAT IS MY PROTECTIVE ORDER. YOU NEED IN THERE. MS. BORODKIN: I THINK WE JUST FOR CLARITY PROBABLY YOU TELL ME WHAT ELSE

NEED AN ORDER STATING THAT WE'RE PERMITTED TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF MR. MAGEDSON AGAIN WITH THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PLACE. THE COURT: SEMANTICS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS ALL

THERE IS A PROTECTIVE -- AS OF AN HOUR FROM NOW IT GOVERNS

WHEN I ISSUE THIS, THAT'S THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.

THE DEPOSITIONS THAT TOOK PLACE ALREADY AND THE DEPOSITIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE. CAN GET THIS TRANSCRIPT. IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION, YOU

IT ALSO GOVERNS ALL DOCUMENTARY THERE'S A PROTECTIVE

DISCOVERY AND ALL THE OTHER DISCOVERY. ORDER IN THIS CASE NOW.

I JUST ENTERED THAT ORDER. YOU IF

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO BY.

CAN DRAW IT UP AND DO YOUR OWN STIPULATION OR SOMETHING.

IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I'VE DONE, I'LL SIGN OFF ON IT FOR YOU. BUT WHEN YOU TAKE HIS DEPOSITION, IT'S SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER. YOU CAN'T SEND IT TO THE L.A. TIMES. IF

13 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 YOU DO, I'M GOING TO SANCTION YOU. OKAY. AND THAT'S GOING

TO BE AT A MINIMUM MONETARY SANCTIONS BUT, LIKELY, EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AS WELL. MS. BORODKIN: UNDERSTAND. THE COURT: OKAY. THEY TOOK YOUR THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WE

AND THE SAME GOES TO YOUR SIDE. CLIENT'S DEPOSITION.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DISSEMINATE IT ALL RIGHT. SO, THEY

TO THE PUBLIC ABSENT A COURT ORDER. CAN'T SEND IT TO THE L.A. TIMES.

AND THEY CAN INCLUDE IT AS

EXHIBITS TO THEIR MOTIONS OR THE REPLY, AND YOU CAN INCLUDE PARTS OF ANY OF THESE DEPOSITIONS TO EXHIBITS IN YOUR MOTION OR YOUR OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION. BUT, NO, YOU -- THE TRIAL TEAM CAN HAVE IT. CLIENTS CAN HAVE IT. ANYBODY ELSE. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. NOW, IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? AND THAT'S IT. YOUR

YOU DON'T SHARE IT WITH

ALL RIGHT.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT YOU'RE BEING BATTERED HERE, AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME YOU WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I'M WILLING TO GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I SIGN

A PROTECTIVE ORDER EVERY WEEK IN THIS COURTHOUSE, AND THAT'S REALLY THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY SAY. MS. BORODKIN: WELL, IF YOUR HONOR WILL BEAR WITH

US, WE'RE HAPPY TO ABIDE BY WHATEVER THE COURT RULES.

14 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 WITH YOU. THE COURT: OKAY. AND WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH IT.

MS. BORODKIN:

WE DO, HOWEVER, FEEL THAT THIS IS A CASE OF TREMENDOUS PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE, AND IT'S LIKELY TO AFFECT MANY OTHER COLLATERAL LITIGANTS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICES OF DEFENDANT, AND WE THINK THERE'S A VERY STRONG PUBLIC INTEREST IN HAVING THIS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. WE THINK AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE EQUITY THIS IS

CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE DEFENDANT PRESENTS TO THE PUBLIC AS A PUBLIC SERVICE. HOWEVER, WE WILL -THE COURT: YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT, AND I AGREE

THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THIS LITIGATION --

ASSUMING YOU'RE RIGHT AND THEY'RE WRONG -- THAT SHOULD BE SHARED. AND I WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE SHARED. OKAY.

BUT WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, AND NOW MAYBE YOU FOLKS DISAGREE, IS JUDGE WILSON IS GOING TO RULE THIS SUMMER WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A RICO CLAIM. IF

THERE'S NO RICO CLAIM, THE CASE IS GOING TO BE SENT BACK TO THE STATE COURT, I'M ASSUMING. TRY THIS CASE TWICE. JUDGE WILSON DOESN'T WANT TO

HE'S GOING -- IF THERE'S NO RICO CLAIM,

IT'S GOING BACK TO STATE COURT. SO, I'M NOT GOING TO BE -- I'M SHEPHERDING ONE VERY SMALL PART OF THIS CASE IN MY VIEW. GET THE EVIDENCE YOU GET

NEED ON THE MERITS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT RICO CLAIM.

15 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 TRIAL DONE OR THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DONE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE ON, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF THIS GOES FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, AND YOU -FIRST OF ALL, ANY -- YOU KNOW, THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION THAT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO RULE ON THIS SUMMER, THE TRIAL YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, IT IS GOING TO BE PUBLIC. AND THERE

ARE GOING TO BE NO GAG ORDERS AND NO RESTRICTIONS AS FAR AS I KNOW. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I'VE NEVER SEEN IT ON A CASE SO, YOU WILL BE ALLOWED THAT.

LIKE THIS.

BUT RIGHT NOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS GET YOU THROUGH TWO WEEKS OF DISCOVERY. FIGHT ABOUT A DISCOVERY ORDER. OKAY. AND THEY WANT TO

THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS GUY

IS SUBJECT TO THREATS FROM OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT HIS LIFE COULD BE IN DANGER, I'M LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO -MS. BORODKIN: YOUR HONOR, FROM DAY ONE, WE'VE

AGREED TO STIPULATE TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT COVERS EVERY SINGLE CONCERN THAT THEY HAVE ARTICULATED. WE'VE AGREED AND

WE HAVE KEPT THE LOCATION AND TIMES OF THE DEPOSITION CONFIDENTIAL. WE'VE OFFERED TO REDACT ANY IDENTIFYING

INFORMATION ABOUT HIS ADDRESS OR HIS WHEREABOUTS. I THINK THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT WE DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'VE MADE THE NECESSARY SHOWING FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING A BROAD SUBJECT MATTER THAT THEY CLAIM IS CONFIDENTIAL. WE DON'T THINK THAT THEY'VE TAKEN ADEQUATE WE THINK THEY'VE

MEASURES TO KEEP THAT INFORMATION SECRET.

16 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 PERJURY. I'M NOT TAKING A SIDE ON THIS. PROOF IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY. THERE'S NO WAIVED THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT SOME OF THE MATTER THAT WE'RE SEEKING IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PROTECTIBLE AS A TRADE SECRET. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. AND AT A

LATER TIME IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO ME, I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I'M THINKING THIS CASE ISN'T GOING TO BE IN THIS OKAY. AND WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE

COURTHOUSE IN SEPTEMBER.

STATE COURT, YOU KNOW, THE STATE JUDGE CAN DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WANTS DOWN THERE. I'M JUST GETTING YOU THROUGH THERE.

YOU COME BACK TO ME AND TALK ABOUT THIS, AND I'LL LISTEN TO YOU. YOU ARE FIRM IN YOUR CONVICTION THAT YOUR CLIENT IS RIGHT AND HIS CLIENT IS WRONG, AND THAT, THEREFORE, THEY'RE DOING THINGS THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING AND YOU NEED TO EXPOSE THAT. I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THAT FIGHT. WHAT THE ANSWER IS. I DON'T KNOW

AND I'M NOT ABOUT TO RULE THAT YOU'RE YOU HAVE ALLEGATIONS. THERE'S NO

RIGHT AND HE'S WRONG. PROOF RIGHT NOW.

YOU HAVE ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY'RE A BAD

COMPANY AND THEY DO BAD THINGS AND THEY EXTORT MONEY. HE HAS ALLEGATIONS THAT YOUR CLIENTS ARE COMMITTING

THERE'S ALLEGATIONS.

AS WE GET FURTHER DOWN THE LINE, IF YOU SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR TRIAL ON THE RICO, AND THIS CASE IS

17 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 GOING TO PROCEED, YOU COME BACK TO ME AND I WILL ADDRESS IT WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO, MY DECISION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO COME BACK IN THE FALL AND SAY, JUDGE, WE WANT TO DISSEMINATE THIS. WANT TO SEND IT TO THE L.A. TIMES. ALL RIGHT. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. WE

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

INFORMATION THAT YOU DIDN'T GAIN

THROUGH DISCOVERY OR THAT YOU ALREADY HAD, YOU'RE FREE TO SHARE. I'M NOT PUTTING A GAG ORDER ON YOU. YOU WANT TO TALK

TO THE MEDIA OR THE PRESS, YOU CAN. WEBSITE.

THEY CAN GO ON THEIR

YOU CAN GO ON THEIR WEBSITE AND SAY THIS IS WHAT'S YOU CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER LAWSUITS THAT ALL RIGHT.

ON THEIR WEBSITE. THEY'VE HAD.

THOSE ARE PUBLIC RECORDS.

I WANT HIM TO HAVE HIS DEPOSITION TAKEN UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND I WANT YOUR CLIENTS' DEPOSITIONS PROTECTED UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER SO WE GET THROUGH THIS SUMMER. AND, THEN, AFTER THAT WE'LL LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE

THEY MAY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY PROTECTIVE ORDER, YOU CAN ASK JUDGE WILSON TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. DAYS TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE 14

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.

29 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 HONOR. THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD TO MAKE WAS THAT REGARDING THE RECORDINGS, THAT CONCERN WAS ALWAYS -- THE STICKING POINT WAS THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. I THINK YOU'VE RESOLVED THAT NOW. -THE COURT: TRANSCRIPT. I DON'T THINK YOU READ JUDGE WILSON'S I'M GENTLE AND NICE. YOU OKAY. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? ONLY THAT THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE CALLS

MR. GINGRAS:

I WANT TO TELL YOU.

GUYS HAVE MET JUDGE WILSON. FRONT OF JUDGE WILSON.

ALL RIGHT.

I'VE PRACTICED IN

I'D JUST SUGGEST THAT YOU FOLLOW THE

RULES IN AS MUCH AS -- I KNOW YOU GUYS BOUNCE BACK FROM STATE AND FEDERAL COURT AND, LIKE, EVERYBODY'S GOT A DIFFERENT RULE. YOU'RE LIKE, HOW COME THEY ALL JUST CAN'T HAVE THE

SAME RULE. I'M WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT THAT IS THE RULE IN THIS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO

COURT, AND YOU GUYS NEED TO FOLLOW IT.

BE IN A POSITION WHERE THE JUDGE IS COMING DOWN ON YOU IN FRONT OF A JURY ABOUT STANDING UP IN HIS COURTROOM AND JUST SIGNALS TO THE JURY THAT THE JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN YOU. FORM. MR. GINGRAS: AND I APPRECIATE THE MOLDING, YOUR SO, I'M TRYING TO MOLD YOU INTO THAT

THAT WILL, I ASSUME, MOVE FORWARD LIKE A HOT KNIFE THROUGH BUTTER.

30 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 THERE'S BEEN AN ISSUE -- BECAUSE THOSE RECORDINGS ARE IMPORTANT. THE PLAINTIFFS. WE'VE NEVER WANTED TO WITHHOLD ANYTHING FROM WE JUST WANTED TO PROTECT PRIMARILY THE

IDENTITY OF THE VENDOR THAT DID THE RECORDINGS SO THAT THAT PARTY ISN'T HARASSED BY SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE US. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. AND I'M SURE THAT THEY

DO RECORDINGS FOR OTHER PEOPLE. ABOUT THAT.

I'M NOT SO MUCH WORRIED THEY'RE

IT'S SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER.

GOING TO GIVE YOU ALL THAT INFORMATION, AND YOU GO WHERE YOU CAN WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WHAT ELSE DID YOU WANT TO

MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: TALK TO ME ABOUT?

ALL RIGHT.

SO, GO GET THAT TO THEM BY FRIDAY. TO GET IT BACK TO YOU BY THURSDAY.

THEY'RE GOING

YOU RESPOND TO THEM. I WANT THE AND MAYBE

JUST LET'S BE FACTUAL ABOUT THIS. ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

IT WASN'T ANSWERED.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT YOU DIDN'T ASK IN THAT FIRST DEPOSITION THAT YOU MAY WANT TO GET ANSWERS TO. AND WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS IF THERE ARE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT YOU DID NOT ASK IN THOSE OTHER DEPOSITIONS, AND YOU WANT ANSWERS TO, I MAY GO ALONG WITH MS. SPETH ON THAT ONE AND ALLOW THEM TO JUST PROVIDE IT THROUGH DECLARATION. BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED, MY

31 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 CELIA. INCLINATION AT THIS POINT WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE RECORD AND NOT READING THE DEPOSITION YET, IS IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED, AND THEY OBJECTED BASED ON THE LACK OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER, I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO GET SOME ANSWERS ASSUMING THEY'RE RELEVANT TO THE EXTORTION ISSUE. DIDN'T CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND GET THE ANSWER. AND YOU

AND MS. SPETH

AND MR. GINGRAS WILL FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE THAT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND SEE ME. YOU GUYS WORK THIS OUT, YOU WORK IT OUT. BUT IF YOU DON'T WORK IT OUT, I WILL BE GONE THE 4TH OF JULY WEEK. BUT I'LL BE BACK THE WEEK AFTER THAT. OKAY. IF

SO, THE WEEK AFTER THAT YOU CAN CALL MY CLERK 8958 IS HER NUMBER. [phone]. THIS IS CELIA.

AND YOU TELL HER WE WEREN'T ABLE TO WORK IT OUT. WE WANT TO FAX THOSE LETTERS TO YOU SO THE JUDGE CAN READ THEM. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET ON THE PHONE WITH THE

JUDGE AND WE'RE GOING TO HASH THIS OUT. ALL RIGHT? MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE SETTLEMENT

MS. BORODKIN: CONFERENCE ON JULY 14TH. THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

YES.

AND ANY OTHER ISSUES

WE NEED TO RESOLVE THERE. WHAT ARE THE CHANCES WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE THIS

32 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 CASE? IS THERE ANY DESIRE TO SETTLE THIS CASE? I MEAN, YOU -- I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE TRYING TO POINT OUT TO THE COURT IS THIS IS ALMOST A PUBLIC SERVICE LAWSUIT IN WHICH YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPOSE THE DEFENDANTS FOR CONDUCT THAT YOU THINK IS INAPPROPRIATE. AM I RIGHT? MS. BORODKIN: WE HAVE MADE A DEMAND UNDER THE

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTE UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE LAW. WE THINK IT'S A MATTER OF EQUITY THAT THEY HAVE A BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE EXPOSES. AND WE JUST WANT

TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS EXACTLY THAT THEIR BUSINESS IS BASED ON. THE COURT: BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE NO VINDICATION THEY'RE NOT -- IF THERE'S

FOR YOU IF YOU SETTLE THIS CASE.

ANY SETTLEMENT, ASSUMING THEY WANTED TO SETTLE, AND THEY HAVEN'T SIGNALED TO ME THEY DO, YOU KNOW HOW SETTLEMENTS GO. THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT ADMIT ANY LIABILITY, NO WRONGDOING. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. WE'RE JUST SETTLING BECAUSE IT'S

CHEAPER TO SETTLE THAN GO TO TRIAL. MS. BORODKIN: THESE CASES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. AND WE ARE ABOUT TO MEET AND CONFER THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR SETTLING

MS. BORODKIN:

THOROUGHLY UNDER RULE 16 AT OUR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANKS, MS. BORODKIN.

33 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 CASE. MS. SPETH: RIGHT. SO, THAT PART IS CLEAR. HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FINE. MS. BORODKIN: THANK YOU, MR. -- THANK YOU, YOUR

MR. GINGRAS? MR. GINGRAS: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. MS. SPETH

MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT ON SETTLEMENT. THE COURT: MS. SPETH: MS. SPETH. YOUR HONOR, A LITTLE CLARITY ON THE

PROTECTIVE ORDER IF I MAY. I UNDERSTOOD IT. AND NOW THAT I KNOW THAT MS.

BORODKIN IS GOING TO BE ASKING SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WERE REFUSED TO BE ANSWERED, FOR INSTANCE, THE VENDOR OR THE RECORDINGS, IF I UNDERSTOOD THE PROTECTIVE ORDER CORRECTLY, WHAT YOU'VE GOT IS THEY CAN'T SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE. SO,

THEY CAN'T TURN AROUND AND MAIL THAT INFORMATION OR EMAIL THAT INFORMATION OFF TO ONE OF THEIR BUDDIES WHO -THE COURT: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MS. SPETH: THE COURT: YES. THIS IS GOING TO BE LIMITED TO THIS RIGHT. CO-COUNSEL IN ANOTHER CASE OR

BUT, THEN, YOU ALSO SAY THAT THEY OF COURSE CAN USE IT IN THIS CASE, AS WELL THEY SHOULD. BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD

YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WE DON'T FILE THINGS UNDER SEAL.

34 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 SO, IF MS. BORODKIN WERE TO ASK HIM, FOR INSTANCE, THE VENDOR'S NAME. AND HE ANSWERS THE QUESTION UNDER COURT AND, THEN, SHE TURNS

ORDER AND UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER.

AROUND AND SHE FILES THAT AS A PUBLIC RECORD IN THE CASE. NOW THAT VERY, VERY SENSITIVE INFORMATION IS NOW PUBLIC. THE COURT: OKAY. AND THE ONLY DISPUTE I WOULD

HAVE WITH YOU, MS. SPETH, IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER VERY SENSITIVE. OKAY. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, TOP SECRET CASES HERE. WE HAVE EVERY KIND OF CASE. WE

WE HAVE TRADEMARK CASES. HAVE MURDER TRIALS.

WE HAVE EVERYTHING. IN OTHER

NONE OF THOSE ARE TOO SENSITIVE TO SHARE. WORDS, IF YOU'RE CLAIMING THE OTHER SIDE STOLE YOUR

TRADEMARK, AND YOU END UP IN TRIAL -- WHICH THEY RARELY DO. BUT YOU END UP IN A MARKMAN HEARING OR SOMETHING, THE L.A. TIMES SITS IN THE FRONT SEAT -- IN THE FRONT ROW AND WRITES DOWN EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS AT THE TRIAL. SO, TRADE SECRETS AREN'T FILED UNDER SEAL. WHY IS

THE NAME OF A VENDOR IN CHARGE OF A RECORDING UNDER SEAL? MS. SPETH: BECAUSE WE HAD A YEAR-LONG SITUATION

WITH A GUY NAMED WILLIAM STANLEY WHO'S VERY -- NO DISPUTE FROM ANYBODY -- IS A CRIMINAL. THE AUTHORITIES, THE WORKS. I MEAN, I'M TALKING WANTED BY

AND MR. STANLEY HAS A GOOD

RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. BREWINGTON WHO WE KNOW THAT MS. BORODKIN'S CLIENT IS TALKING TO BECAUSE HE ADMITTED IT IN HIS DEPOSITION.

35 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: I READ ALL THAT. OKAY. SO, THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS

THAT MR. STANLEY FOR A YEAR SPENT ALMOST A YEAR OF HIS TIME ATTACKING EVERYBODY WHO PROVIDED ANY SERVICES TO RIPOFF REPORT. NASTY. AND THE ATTACKS WERE VERY PERSONAL. THEY WERE DDOS ATTACKS. THEY WERE

THEY WERE HACKING COMPUTERS.

THEY ACTUALLY HACKED MY COMPUTER, YOUR HONOR, BY THE WAY. HACKING COMPUTERS, DOING DDOS ATTACKS, SOCIALLY ATTACKING ANYONE WHO PROVIDED ANY SERVICES TO RIPOFF REPORT. SO, THERE'S CERTAIN SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT IF THEY GET -- YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT WORTH IT. MAKING ENOUGH MONEY. YOU'RE NOT

IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET ATTACKED AND

HARASSED, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANY MORE BUSINESS WITH YOU. ANOTHER VENDOR. AND THIS IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO RIPOFF REPORT IN 2007, FROM JANUARY THROUGH APPROXIMATELY THE NINTH MONTH OF THE YEAR, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY SPENT $400,000 MOVING FROM SERVICE PROVIDER TO SERVICE PROVIDER IN EVERY AREA BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD PROVIDE SERVICES TO THEM. AND THERE'S A CONNECTION DIRECTLY FROM THAT PERSON BACK TO MR. MOBREZ. AND, SO, MY CONCERN IS THAT THEY WILL YOU JUST GO FIND

INTENTIONALLY PUT THIS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THEN JUST TELL PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SEND IT TO YOU DIRECTLY, BUT COME LOOK AT IT.

36 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 WOULDN'T. THE COURT: MS. SPETH: UH-HUH. SO, THAT'S -- I WAS JUST HOPING TO HAVE

THE ABILITY TO HAVE CERTAIN THINGS PUT UNDER SEAL JUST TO PROTECT RIPOFF REPORT, GIVE IT THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF ITS VENDORS HARASSED. THE COURT: WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I DON'T DO I DON'T RULE THAT ANYTHING IS WE HAVE ANOTHER RULE, LOCAL

WITH THESE PROTECTIVE ORDERS. GOING TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL.

RULE 79-5, THAT TELLS HOW TO FILE THINGS UNDER SEAL. MS. SPETH: THE COURT: UH-HUH. AND I SUPPOSE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO

DO IS PUT THE BURDEN ON THE PLAINTIFFS HERE THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO EXPOSE THE VENDOR IN THE PLEADINGS, THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE TO FILE IT UNDER SEAL. AND WHOEVER THE MOTION IS GOING

TO BE IN FRONT OF, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE ME OR JUDGE WILSON, THEN, WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE

DON'T MAKE BLANKET UNDER SEAL RULES HERE. MS. SPETH: OF COURSE. AS I WOULD EXPECT YOU

THAT MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO, WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO IS IF

THEY'RE GOING TO EXPOSE ANY OF THE VENDORS OR ANY OF THOSE FOLKS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, YOU WANT THEM TO ASK THE COURT TO LET YOU FILE IT UNDER SEAL? MS. SPETH: YES.

37 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 DO. THE COURT: THINK ABOUT THAT? MS. BORODKIN: WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE'RE ALL RIGHT. MS. BORODKIN, WHAT DO YOU

NOT INTERESTED IN THE VENDOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO, HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING

I'M GOING TO AMEND THE PROTECTIVE ORDER SLIGHTLY. AND THAT IS THAT, MS. SPETH, YOU AND MR. GINGRAS

CAN GIVE MS. BORODKIN A LIST OF THE FOLKS THAT YOU -- THE INFORMATION YOU DON'T WANT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD; FOR EXAMPLE, THE NAME OF THE VENDOR WHO PROVIDES THE RECORDING SERVICE, WHATEVER. AND YOU'RE GOING TO -- AND WHEN YOU GIVE HER THAT LIST, SHE'S GOING TO HAVE IT, AND SHE'S GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING, AND WHAT I'M ORDERING, IS THAT BEFORE SHE DOES THAT, BEFORE SHE PUTS THAT INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, SHE HAS TO MOVE TO FILE THAT UNDER SEAL. YOU CAN PROVIDE HER THE SUPPORT THAT SHE NEEDS. MS. BORODKIN: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY. I ONLY MEANT AND

IT WITH RESPECT TO THE VENDOR.

I THINK MS. SPETH

DELIBERATELY CHOSE A VERY TANGENTIAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT NOW IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DESIGNATE A LOT OF CATEGORIES THAT ARE INTENTIONALLY BURDENSOME TO THE PLAINTIFF. THE COURT: LIKE WHAT? WELL, BASED ON THE TYPES OF

MS. BORODKIN:

38 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 NUMBER. PHONES. QUESTIONS THAT THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER IN DEPOSITION, WE BELIEVE BASED ON PREVIOUS CASES THAT WE ARE AWARE OF, THEY MAY CLAIM THAT THE NUMBER OF CELL PHONES HE HAS IS CONFIDENTIAL. DESIGNATE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE OVERLY WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO

MS. BORODKIN: BURDENSOME. VENDOR. THE COURT:

I WAS SIMPLY RESPONDING WITH RESPECT TO THE

OKAY.

MS. SPETH, SHE'LL GO ALONG ON THE VENDOR. MS. SPETH: THE COURT: YOUR CLIENT HAS? MS. SPETH: I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CELL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CELL PHONES

I CERTAINLY CARE ABOUT THE CELL PHONE NUMBER. THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR JUDGE WILSON.

AGREE TO PUT UNDER SEAL.

HE MAKES HIS OWN DECISIONS ON THOSE ISSUES. YOU KNOW, THE FACT -- YOU MAY NOT EVEN NEED THE YOU CAN DO WHAT THEY DO WHEN THE AGENTS COME IN TO THEY JUST

GET A SEARCH WARRANT FROM ME ON THE TELEPHONE.

BLANK OUT MOST OF THE NUMBERS AND LEAVE THE LAST FOUR OR SOMETHING. SO, THERE'S SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THAT.

39 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 SO, WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT FOR ME, MS. BORODKIN. DON'T PUT HIS CELL PHONE NUMBERS IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. RIGHT. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. IDENTIFY IT. ALL

NOT THE WHOLE NUMBER.

AND MAYBE CELL PHONE NUMBER 1.

OR PUT JUST AN XXX FOR THE

AREA CODE AND XXX FOR WHATEVER THE FIRST THREE NUMBERS ARE. AND THEN PUT THE LAST FOUR IN OR SOMETHING. MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: MS. SPETH: NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU.

MS. SPETH, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

AND, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD SAY RIGHT ALONG THESE SAME LINES IS SOME OF THESE THINGS I QUESTION WHY MS. BORODKIN EVEN NEEDS THEM TO BEGIN WITH. ASSUMING SHE NEEDS THEM, AND ASSUMING IT'S RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM, THEN, WE SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM. AND IF

THEY REALLY ARE SENSITIVE, THEN, WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK THAT THEY BE ONLY FILED UNDER SEAL IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE FILED. BUT I DON'T WANT TO SORT OF PRESUPPOSE THAT EVERYTHING THAT SHE'S ASKED FOR IS EVEN RELEVANT TO THE RICO CLAIM. BECAUSE I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER

HAS TO DO WITH -THE COURT: WELL, HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER MIGHT HAVE

NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, BUT YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THESE

40 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 EXTORTIONS -- OR, IN FACT, YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THESE LACK OF EXTORTIONS OCCURRED OVER THE TELEPHONE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO CALL THAT INTO QUESTION. AND THEY WANT TO CHALLENGE YOU MAYBE THERE WERE OTHER

AND SAY, HE'S GOT A LOT OF PHONES. CALLS. MS. SPETH: RIGHT.

EXCEPT MR. MOBREZ SAID THAT HE

NEVER CALLED ANY OTHER NUMBER OTHER THAN THE MAIN LINE, AND HE NEVER HAD ANY OTHER NUMBER. AND THAT MR. -- HE DOESN'T

RECALL THAT MR. MAGEDSON EVER CALLED HIM. THE COURT: MS. SPETH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL --

SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I DON'T -- I'M AND I I REALLY

A LITTLE BIT LEERY OF THE FISHING EXPEDITION.

APPRECIATE THAT DISCOVERY HAS TO BE OPEN AND BROAD. DO.

BUT I DO HAVE A CLIENT THAT'S JUST GOT A LONG, LONG

HISTORY OF, YOU KNOW, THE DEATH THREATS, THE HARASSMENT. AND, SO, I HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFUL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. GET ME ON THE PHONE IF YOU CAN'T WORK OKAY?

OUT THINGS, AND I'LL TRY TO RESOLVE THEM. MS. SPETH: THE COURT: THANK YOU.

BUT WHATEVER YOU CAN RESOLVE ON YOUR IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T ENJOY IT'S JUST THAT I HAVE A LOT GOING

OWN, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. TALKING WITH YOU, COUNSEL. ON HERE.

41 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 TIME. HONOR. THE COURT: THANKS, MR. BLACKERT. AND I THINK MOST OF THESE ISSUES -- AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE AN ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT FROM BOTH SIDES. I THINK MOST

OF THESE ISSUES WITH EVEN A MINIMAL EFFORT CAN BE RESOLVED BY THE LAWYERS WITHOUT THE COURT'S INTERVENTION. HOPE. MS. SPETH: THE COURT: WE APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR. OKAY. THAT'S MY

MS. BORODKIN, ANYTHING MORE BEFORE WE GO TODAY? MS. BORODKIN: THE COURT: NO, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BLACKERT? I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD, YOUR

MR. BLACKERT:

MR. GINGRAS? MR. GINGRAS: THE COURT: MS. SPETH: THE COURT: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

MS. SPETH. NO, NOTHING, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THANKS FOR YOUR

I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO YOU ON JULY 14TH, IF

NOT BEFORE THEN. THANK YOU. MS. SPETH: THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MS. BORODKIN: THE CLERK:

COURT IS ADJOURNED.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED 11:45 A.M.)

42 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 DOROTHY BABYKIN ______________________________ FEDERALLY CERTIFIED TRANSCRIBER DOROTHY BABYKIN 7/1/10 ___________ DATED I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. CERTIFICATE