Landry-Bell v. Various Inc et al

Filing 39

Landry-Bell v. Various Inc et al

Doc. 39

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION SHELLY LANDRY-BELL, Plaintiff, vs. VARIOUS, INC. and ZACH WILHELM, Defendants. Civil Action No. CV05-1526 S Judge Stagg Magistrate Judge Hornsby DEFENDANT VARIOUS, INC.'s MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT [Fed.R.Civ.P. 26F]

DEFENDANT VARIOUS, INC.'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Defendant Various, Inc. (hereinafter also referred to as "FriendFinder" or "FriendFinder.com") hereby submits a response to plaintiff's Memorandum regarding the filing of the Rule 26 Joint Case Management Report. The FriendFinder defendants provide the following Memorandum and attached exhibits to explain why the filed "Joint" Case Management Report was not signed by both parties. Distilled to its essence plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer on Rule 26 issues and failed to properly print out and file FriendFinder's signed Rule 26 Statement even though they were entrusted to do it and were advised in writing on how to do it such that it manifested the June 21st date for initial disclosures. Plaintiff in their Memo failed to also point out that the parties did indeed exchange initial disclosures on June 21st 2006 so that point is moot. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, FriendFinder joins in the Case Management Report on file herein. This memorandum is designed to explain, from FriendFinder's perspective what happened such that the Court can understand the dynamic between the parties and understand that FriendFinder thought that the fully signed "Joint" report would be filed in a timely fashion by plaintiff's counsel.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 2 of 22

A.

Plaintiff's Failure to Properly and Efficiently Meet and Confer for the Rule 26 Statement On June 7th, 2006 FriendFinder's counsel, Ira P. Rothken, faxed Plaintiff's counsel

a letter requesting a phone conference for 3 pm PST to meet and confer regarding the Rule 26 Statement (See Exhibit 000001). On June 8th, 2006, Plaintiff's counsel advised via a return fax that he had already "met and conferred" with FriendFinder's local counsel (See Exhibit 000001). Given that Plaintiff's counsel failed to include FriendFinder's lead counsel in the meet and confer process this set up the following chain of events.

1.

There was a delay in providing electronic documents between counsel to facilitate the meet and confer process and Joint filings.

On June 15th Plaintiff's counsel provided to Ira P. Rothken, FriendFinder's lead counsel, a draft Rule 26 Statement via fax and was reluctant to provide an electronic copy for FriendFinder's counsel to edit and return thus delaying the "Joint" editing and filing process. Indeed, when FriendFinder's counsel writes "Please email us the Word file so we can make edits with redlines....that is how we do it in every other Federal case ­ thanks..." Plaintiff's counsel responds "Hey Ira that is a pain. How about just marking up the hard copy and faxing me edits?" (See Exhibit 000002).

2.

There was a failure to include each side's lead counsel in the meet and confer process on important issues.

On June 21st FriendFinder's counsel, after converting Plaintiff's version to an editable format and providing a revised draft Rule 26 Statement in electronic format to Plaintiff's counsel (See Exhibit 000003-000005) gets an e-mail from Plaintiff's counsel indicating that he refused to agree to the revised version and that he cannot cut and paste it (See Exhibit 000006). FriendFinder's counsel then writes to Plaintiff's counsel the following e-mail (which was not attached to Plaintiff's exhibits but attached herein as

2

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 3 of 22

Exhibit 000007)) which sums up the problems the parties have had to date communicating on substantive issues in the case: We provided the text to you in both the body of the e-mail (where you can cut and paste) as well as in rtf format. If you think we have overlawyered it just tell me where we disagree and do this in a normal manner and we are happy to make changes to the short document if upon reflection we wrote something inapplicable. It is important that you deal directly with my law firm on the major issues in this case including all substantive meet and confers as we are the lead counsel in the case and we will be handling any trial - we have retained a very able local counsel but that is not an invitation for you to ignore or bypass lead counsel and pretend that you had a substantive meet and confer on the case management issues - as you did not. If we are unable to agree on a joint submission to the Court we will advise the court of your failure to meet and confer with us in a substantive manner on important issues in this case including those in the last paragraph below. Again, we are not so arrogant as to say that our revisions to the joint document are a work of art but given the notion that you have refused to meet and confer with us in any substantive way we were forced to revise it so the Court could hear both sides on important case management issues until we heard back from you on the points we raised and your client's position to see where we agree and disagree. You should call me and we can go through each of the issues by phone at 10 am PST time today or if you do not want to talk you can mark up each section with "plaintiff's positions" and "FriendFinder's positions" and e-mail it back to us and we can make sure each of our views are accurately represented whatever they may be. In any event please let us know today your views on why this case should not be stayed or dismissed if Mr. Wilhelm is in the military and unavailable overseas given the statute that protects such military persons from civil litigation and given that he is likely an indispensable party to a case where he is the alleged defamer. Also kindly advise us on what discovery you think your client will need and why in

3

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 4 of 22

light of the CDA immunity statute ... in a pragmatic sense to decide in good faith what narrow discovery "matters" and is proportional and can change the outcome (by removing the immunity) and [does] not allow a fishing expedition. Further, kindly advise us on who your client may add to the case and why. Also advise if your client is amenable to a two tiered confidentiality order and if you can provide an exemplar for our review and edit. Please advise us on the above and let us know if you will be calling at 10 am PST today so we can be available. Thanks. The parties did not have any "real" meet and confer on the above issues. While plaintiff's counsel did write a minimalist response to the above in an e-mail response later that day it is hard to discern where the parties agree and disagree and why and what the parties will jointly recommend to the Court if anything i.e. stay. Indeed, it is hard to plan a schedule for discovery and litigation when issues of stay, volume of discovery, who if anyone else may be joined, and the entry of a two tiered confidentiality order all up in the air and un-discussed. This insufficient meet and confer process stems from Plaintiff's counsel using informal discussions with local counsel on more than one occasion as a method of avoiding substantive meet and confer with FriendFinder's lead counsel. This sort of technique was used prior to plaintiff filing her motion to strike FriendFinder's answer. (See Order of the Court filed on April 4, 2006 at pages 2-3.)

3.

There was a failure to cooperate to properly meet and confer by phone.

Plaintiff's counsel has avoided meet and confer by phone and has not responded to invitations to meet and confer by phone. For example, in the initial letter (Exhibit 000001) FriendFinder's counsel requested a telephonic meet and confer, then again in an e-mail (Exhibit 000003) and then one more time in an email (Exhibit 000008) and plaintiff's counsel never cooperated in setting a time for Plaintiff's counsel and FriendFinder's lead counsel to meet and confer via phone --- overt fax and e-mails requesting a date and time for such oral/telephonic meet and confers were not complied with.

4

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 5 of 22

In addition, inconsistent with Plaintiff 's counsel's statements to the Court, Plaintiff's counsel never left a single voice message for FriendFinder's lead counsel's voice mail to meet and confer on the Rule 26 Statement ­ as on the dates plaintiff indicated in their memo FriendFinder's counsel's voice mail was temporarily unavailable ­ that was why FriendFinder's counsel used e-mail to set such time and date for a phone conference to ensure the availability of counsel for the call(s).

B.

Plaintiff Failed to Properly File FriendFinder's Signed Rule 26 Statement 1. There was a failure by the parties to file a Joint document.

Plaintiff's counsel did not properly print out FriendFinder's Rule 26 Statement and failed to print it with "mark ups on", after being advised of Plaintiff's mistake in an email Plaintiff's counsel failed to attach to his "Memo" exhibits Exhibit 000010-000013 herein, which explains the inaccurate date plaintiff's counsel printed out for initial disclosures in the Rule 26 Statement signed by FriendFinder's counsel. Indeed, in Exhibit 000010 FriendFinder's counsel explains to Plaintiff's counsel: David, I have now learned that you printed it incorrectly ­ when your Adobe Acrobat viewer opens and you hit print in the print window you need to select print document WITH markups and it will print the markup change I made to change the date to June 21st.....thanks, Ira P. Rothken Plaintiff's counsel by not following the guidance in the e-mail shown above or providing such e-mail to the Court in its exhibits instead provided this court with a misleading statement of what occurred. In light of the fact that plaintiff's counsel was unwilling to allow FriendFinder's counsel to e-file the Joint Rule 26 Statement under some theory that he was closer to the Courthouse (See Exhibit 000009) Plaintiff's counsel was then entrusted by

5

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 6 of 22

FriendFinder's counsel to file FriendFinder's signed Rule 26 Statement which he failed to do and instead filed their own (manufactured after the fact) Rule 26 Statement and subordinated FriendFinder's signed Rule 26 Statement (printed without "markups on" so thus showing a wrong date for initial disclosures) to an exhibit. See Exhibit 000012000013. The issue of initial disclosures is moot as FriendFinder provided their initial disclosures to plaintiff's counsel on June 21st (See Exhibit 000011) and was agreed on in a number of e-mails including Exhibit (000014-000015). To bring this matter to a close FriendFinder has reviewed the revised Rule Statement filed by plaintiff herein and joins in such statement. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 27, 2006 ________/s/_________________ Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar 160029) ________/s/_________________ Bennett L. Politz (LSBA Bar No. 10573) Attorneys for Defendant Various, Inc. Local Counsel: Bennett L. Politz (LSBA Bar No. 10573) Booth Lockard Politz & LeSage LLC 920 Pierremont Road, Suite 103 P. O. Drawer 1092 Shreveport, LA 71163 [phone] [phone] (fax) email: [e-mail]

Dated: June 27, 2006

Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar 160029) ROTHKEN LAW FIRM LLP 3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 224 Novato, California 94949 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

6

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 7 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 27, 2006, a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT VARIOUS, INC.'s MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to Ira P. Rothken and Bennett L. Politz by operation of the court's electronic filing system. I also certify that I have faxed and mailed by United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, this filing to the following non-CM/ECF participants: David A Szwak Bodenheimer Jones & Szwak 401 Market St Ste 240 Shreveport, LA 71101 Fax No. [phone] Dated: June 27, 2006 ________/s/_________________ Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar 160029) ROTHKEN LAW FIRM 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520 San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

7

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 8 of 22

ROTNKEN L.AWFINM LLP
3 HA'IL'ON L^NDIN6 5 ( t ) r 5 e e4 N O v a I 9 . oA\lPORNr^ F4*{A'ee 4e
Fkc,NE, f^xt EMAIL; wcBi (4l518a4'425Q (4 | 51 8e4.egqr5 lRa(OtcHFrnM.c'Jl'i TgeHFT|qM, co'9 |l/$rllt/,

J u a c 7, 2006

11IA FACSIMILE

D a v i d A Szwak B o d e n h e i m c r Jones & Szwak 5 0 9 Market St Ste 730 S h r e v e p o r tLA 71101 , T c l : 318-221-6444 Fax:[phone] Rs SHELLY LANDRY-BELL vs. VARIOUS, INC. rind ZACTI WILHELM' Div', No CV05-1526S U . S . District Couri, W. Dist. of Louisiana,Shreveport Regardiag CaseManagemef,t M e e t and Confcr

D c a r Mr. Szwak, P u r s u a n tto the Court's order of May 4, 2006, a copy of which is attachtd for your r e f e r e n c e ,that the parties were to mcet and co4fel on this caseby today. ordinarily, thc from yow office ou this mattcr' p l a i n t i f f initiates such mct and confer. Since we have T!!:1td a:rfliggier on Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 3:00 P'rn Pacific Timew c suggestthat wi met P l c a s e contact us immediately to confrrm your availabiliry for such a call'

V e r y truly yours,

I r h ?. Rothker

C c : Bennett Politz, local counsel

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000001

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 9 of 22

lra P. Rothken
F r o m : [e-mail] 12:49 PM June S e n t : Thursday, 15,2006 com com; blpld@softdisk blp@blpld [e-mail]; [e-mail] lra P. Rothken; To: [e-mail];[e-mail] Cc: v. et Landry-BellVarious, al S u b j e c t :Re:Shelly writes: [e-mail] Daylight Time, 12:26:33 Central PM dated 6/15/2006 I n a message ar----, other is howwe do it in every withredlines....that ) 1 et"aseemailustheWordfilesowe canmakeedits -.thanks, case I I Feoeral
t

just me up fa Heytra,Thatis a pain.Howabout marking the hardcopyandfaxing edits? A. D a v i d Szwak & Jones Szwak Bodenheimer, 7th Street, FIoor 5 0 9Market Mercantile Building Bank United 71 Louisiana 101 ShreveDort. -6444 318,221 Fax[phone] www.bjslaw.com ** www.MyFaircredit.com Forum out " * Check the Dispute w w wmaxedoutmovie.conVindexl.html . by Out,"the movie/documentary Trueworks " - CheckOut"Maxed Film at By 11, P r e m i e r eMarch 2006, theSouth Southwest Festival s at out C h e c k the clips thesite;I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000002

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P, Rothken
From: sent: To: Cc:

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 10 of 22

lra P. Rothken [[e-mail]] June21,200612i42AM Wednesday, blp@blpld com [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 1507@aol,comi [e-mail]; BJKS [e-mail];[e-mail]

v. et S u b i e c t :RE:ShellyLandry-Bell Various, al David, call meat415- I withour changes please version in and manifested betowis a revised , Hereattached ftf format flexible and stillhave f We andfinalize. are somewhat to around10 am PSTon Wednesday discuss ZOO-1Ztg I' let issues. Please us and unavailablliry, rssues, discovery stay especially military the to thornyissues discuss Thanks, k n o wif you haveany questions. l r a P, Rothken Rothken Law Firm [e-mail] www.,techfirm.com 415-9244250

COURT DISTRICT I]N IT E D STATES OF DISTRICT LOUISIANA IN AND FORTHEWESTERN Shr ev ePoDivision rt
S H E L L Y LANDRY-BELL, Plaintiff, Versus C i v i l Action No. cv05-1526-s V A R I O U S INC., ET AL, D e f e n d a n t s . JUDGESTAGC JIJBY.DEMANDED

MANAGEMENTREPORT R U L E 26[F]CASE
A meetingofcounsel,David Savak, for plaintiff, and Ben Politz, was held on June7, 2006,by telephone.
]. NATURE OF PLAINTIFF''SCLAIMS

p l a i n t i f f c o n t c n d sthat a formcr boyfricndWilhclm dcfamcdhcr and invadcdhcr privacy by postingshc placcdon as rhat Various is responsible the publisherofsuch Wilhelm postings. d e f e n d a nVarious' datingsite. Plaintiff contends t claimshave beenmade. Damage 2. BENCH OR JURY TRIAL A jury trial hasbeenrequested. 3. INITIAL DISCLOSURES

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000003

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 11 of 22

is th to yet initialdisclosures but aie ordered do so by July 2liI, 2006unless case The parties havenot exchanged and Wilhelm'sovrseas militarydutyandunavailability thenotionthathe is is entered givendefendant d i s m i s s e or stay d the Notlvithstanding abovethe Various Incorporated/FriendFiDder l i k e l y an indispensable neiessaryparty to this case, or havedonea diligent searih and havealreadyproducedto plaintiffs counselany and all iftemal documenls defendants were with (aftercommunications plaintiffs counsel) w i t h j ntheirpossession, cusiody, controlit wasab!eto discem or related plaintjff to allegedly 4. JURISDICTION

jurisdiction, choiceof reserve lheir rights relatedto personal Defendants T h e Variouslncorporated.i FriendFinder exists. l a w , arbitrability,andchoiceofforum in this case. Diversity ofcitizenship subjectmatterjurisdictionapparently 5. JOINDER OF PARTIES AND AMENDMENT OF PLEADINCS Plaintiffseeks ninety [90] her parfyto the lawsuitandwillamend pleadings. Plaintiffmay addan additional that to d a y spastthe conference maketheseadditionsor changes.Funher,plaintiff showsthat shehaslearned and on Z a c h Wilhelm is stationed, activemilitary duty, overseas canootbe servedwith summonsand complajnt w h i l e on the military baseor in areasofoperatioDs,Further,the SSRA applies. Plaintiffhas madenulnerous contenc home. Wilhelm'sparents service his parents' at domiciliary including a t t e m p tto haveWiLhelm s served, The by Wilhelm before leavinglo go overseas. used t h a r ii is not his domicileyet that is the laststableaddress and defendants of the view that the issueof necessary indispensable are V a r i o u s lncomorated/FriendFinder (pursuant the SSRA to djsmissed stayed or andlikelythe case parties in needs be examined lightofthe aboye to suasponteupon learnjngofa defendant's a n d its progenywhich providesthat the Court may staythe case and as giventhatdefendant Wilhelmwas alleged the onewho posted coverage underthe SSRA).lndeed on p u b l i s h e d allegeddefamatory statemertandthusthe allegedtortfeasorit aPpears its face that unfair the in prejudice would likelyresultifthis caseis adjudicated his absence.

B.

may seekto add any otherperson[s]who were involved in the defendants P l a i n t i f f a n d the Various/FriendFinder who needto in this iawsuit. Theremay be additionalthird persons giving riseto the damages claimed incidents cannotmakethat defendants b e addedir indemnityclaims br;ught but plaintiffand the Various/FriendFioder takingWilhelm'sdeposition. invoLves preliminary which necessariiy discovery determination absentiome N i n e t y 190ldaysafter the confereoce. D I S C O V E R Y ISSUES for and datawill be necessary plaintiffto computerfunctionsand systems P l a i n t i f f b e l i e v e sthat proprietary and believe stronglydisagree defendants d i s c o v e rto prepare case- the Various [ncorporated/FriendFinder her gjventhe notionthalthe CDA go on an expensive fishingexpedition to not t h a tplaintifishould be al)owed providedby othersaodthat providesjmmunity to Internetierviceprovidersfor contentor statcments defense posting(s)and are not treatedasthe did V a r i o u sincorporated/Frie;dFinder not createthe allegeddefamatory beyondthoseaheadyprovidedby_ . . p u b t i s h e r suchunderthe CDA. Thereforeit is unlikely that documents of evidence bejustified in or to calculated leadto the discoveryof admissible V a r i o u sto plaintiffwill be reasonably discovery natureofsuch requests.Plaintjff antjcipates l i g h t ofthe burdensinvolved andthe inconsequential mechanisms.Various believesthat its and computer systemand database search disputes regardingVarious' given the obvious are mechanisms jnconsequential s p e c i f i cintimal iomputer systemand ditabaseandsearch family of sitesand the stateof e i t e m a l functionalityand intemetserviceprol,jdernatureofthe FriendFinder.com oI t h e caselaw regardingthe cDA immunily in which no repofiedcasehasever needed reponedthe gnmular may be raisedregarding PriYacyissues ofthe irltemetserviceprovider'stechno]ogy. d e t a i l softhe ii.ner w-orkings concemingplaintiff. Plainti'l believesthaataking the depositionof i d e n t i t i e sofpersonsviewing the information defendants blieve that The Various/FriendFinder from assista=nce the courtandthe military. W i l h e l mwil] require to and enteredinto out of cautionin light of plaintifls a two tieredconfidentialityorderneeds be negoliated believethat defendants The s t a t e m e n tabovebeforewritten discoveryis requested. Various/FriendFinder s e-discovery fishing to if needto be explored plaintiffdecides go on an expensive d i s c o v e r costshiftingissues y Wilhelm's in ofstay or dismissal lightofdefendant that VariousbeLieves the issue e x p e d i t i o n . anyevent, In discovery commences. before be should decided m i t i t a r yunavailabiliry

c.
6.

B.

a T h e partiespropose period ofat teast180daysfor completionof discoverywith that periodrunningfrom the

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000004

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 12 of 22

suggest JuneI0,2007 unless Therefore, parties the andjoinder ofpanieshaspassed. dare thatamendment ofpleadings t h e caseis stayed. 7. AMOTION PRACTICE Various'smotion to dismisswas denied. Plaintiffs motion to strike Thereare no pendingmotions. Defendant V a r i o u s ' Answerand Statement ofDefenseswas deniedIftlte caseis not stayedor filing dispositivemotionsunlessthe casesettles. Both partiesof recordanticipate d i s m i s i e ddueto Wilhelm's unavailability(which may be broughtvia a fonnal motion if the Court doesnot grant will s u c hstaysuasponte)Various/FriendFinder likely file a motion for summaryjudgment within 90 days. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

B.

8,

by settlement conference Magistrate-hdgein to T h e partiesare amenable ADR. Plaintiff respectfullyrequests to are defendants amenable privatemedjationat JAMS beforea l i e u ofa private mediator. The Various/FriendFinder upon by alltbe the r e t i r e dJudgewith the costsdivided evenlybetween paftiesand in a convenientlocationto be agreed p a r t i e swith all the partiesandtheir counselpresent. 9. TRIAL BY MAGISTRATE at to A l l partiesdo not consent trial by Magistrate-Judge this tjrne.

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000005

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 13 of 22

lra P. Rothken
F r o m : [e-mail] June S e n t : Wednesday, 21,20067:41AM com blp@blpld [e-mail]; i@@techfirm.com; [e-mail]; fra P, Rothken; jared@techf,rm,com; [e-mail] v. Landry-BellVarious, al et S u b j e c t :Re:Shelly To: Gc: gn120Q6214223 Central ira@techfirm, writes: net AM Daylight Time, dated l n a message withour changes pleasecall version belowis a revised in H e r eattached rtf formatand manifested We and to around am PSTon Wednesday discuss flnalize. aresomewhat 10 m e at 415-260-1718 and unavailability, issues, stay especially military the thorny issues discuss to and f l e x i b l e stillhave questions. youhave Thanks, let any Please us knowif d i s c o v e rissues. y it to you report over-lawyered death. and a u s tas I suspected, havetaken verysimple so evencopyand format I cannot Further, is notin a compatible it written. agree whatyouhave on I cannot you waited until you in woulilbe yourstatements seekto include the report.Further, have textwhich append jn, Onceaga Jwouldaskthatyoupermit so t h e 11thhourto sendyouredits as to makeit evenmoreditdcult. y o u rlocal this so counsel handle matter we cangetit filedtimely. to D a v i dA. SzwaK Jones Szwak & Bodenheimer, Street, Floor 7th 5 0 9 Market BankBuilding Mercantile United 71 S h r e v e p o rLouisiana 101 t, 318-221-6444 F a x221555 www.bjslaw.com ** www.MyFaircredit.com Forum out " Check the Dispute w w wmaxedoutmovie.com/indexl.html . * * CheckOut"l\4axed by Out,"the movie/documentary Trueworks FilmFestival at March11,2006, theSouthBy Southwest Premieres at out C h e c k theclips thesite;I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000006

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P. Rothken

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 14 of 22

F r o m : lra P, Rothken [e-mail]] June 8:36 AM S e n t : Wednesday, 21,2006 blp@blpld,c0m [e-mail] [e-mail]; BJKS1507@aol,com; ira@techfirm,com; To: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] cc: et RE:Shelly Landry-BellVarious, al v. Subiect:
David,

W e providedthe text to you in both the bodyof the e-mail(whereyou can cut and paste)as well as in rtf format. andwe are and t f you thlnkwe haveoverlawyeredjusttell me wherewe disagree do this in a normalmanner it inapplicable. we if to h a p p yto makechanges the shortdocument uponreflection wrotesomething all with my lawfirmon the majorissuesin thiscaseincluding substantive I t is important you dealdirectly that a any in as m e e tand confers we arethe leadcounsel the caseandwe will be handling trial- we haveretained and pretend thatyou or for but v e r yablelocalcounsel thatis notan invitation you to jgnore bypassleadcounsel to issues as you did not.lf we are unable agree on meetand confer the casemanagement h a da substantive with us in a to the to o n a jointsubmission the Courtwe will advise courtof yourfailure meetand confer below. in thosein the lastparagraph on issues thiscaseincluding s u b s t a n t i vmanner important e are to as we A g a i n , are not so arrogant to saythatour revisions the jointdocument a workof art but giventhe way we were forcedto reviseit so teh n o t i o nthat you have refusedto meet and conferwith us in any substantive issuesuntilwe heardbackfromyou on the points casemanagement C o u r tcouldhearbothsideson important position see wherewe agreeand disagree. and yourclient's to w e raised I t by eachof the issues phoneat 10 am PSTtimetodayor if you do not catl You snoutO me andwe can go through positions" e-mailit positions" "Friendfinder's and and with"plaintiffs wantto talkvou cn markup eachsection whatever theymay be. represented viewsare accurately makesureeachof our b a c kto us ahdwe "un if let t n any eventplease us knowtodayyourviewson why thiscaseshouldnot be stayedor dismissed Mr. persons fromcivil suchmilltary giventhe statute thatprotects and unavailible overseas W i l h e l m in the military is Alsokindly defamor. party an l i t j g a t i o and giventhathe is likely indispendable to a casewherehe is the alleged n as statute we you will a d i r i s e on whatdiscovery thinkyourclient needand why in lightof the CDA immunity us the the your to futtyunderstand writing in othercaseswe havehad involving CDAthat survived a r e unable senseto decidein good to pleading haveordered parties meetand conferin a pragmatic the stagetheiudge(s) (by the the and "matters" is proportional can change outcome removing and i a i t hwh;t nairowdiscovery kindly adviseus on who yourclientmay add to the Further, expedition. i m m u n i t yanddid notallowa fishing ) orderandif you can provide to c a s eand why.Alsoadviseif yourclientis amenable a two tieredconfidentiality at and edit.Please advise on the aboveand let us knowlf you will be calling 10 us our review a n exemplarior Thanks. a m PSTtodayso we can be available, l r a P. Rothken R o t h k e nLaw Firm ira@techfirt0.c.9m www,tPchfirm.gorl

F r o m [e-mail] [e-mail]] [mailto: 7:40 Al4 S e n t : Wed6/2t12006 [e-mail] [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; T o : Ira P.Rothken; [e-mail]; rm.com hal@techfi Cc: et Landry-Bell v. Varlous, al s u b j e c t : Re:Shelly

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000007

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P. Rothken

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 15 of 22

F r o m : lraP. Rothken [e-mail]] S e n t : Wednesday, 21,200612:05 June PM To: BJKS1507@aol,com;ira@techfirm,com;[e-mail]@blpld.com Cc: hal@techiirm,com [e-mail]; Landry-BellVarious, al Final Signature v. et S u b i e c tRE:Shelly : for David, get a T h i swould easier youwould on thephone us- we included we made jurydemand; the be if that with that d i s c o v e rfinaldateis impacted Oecnallldlfli?EB a stayithatplaintiff y believes ne6ds it certain miy d i s c o v e randother y; tweaks make document accurate. to the more you position C a nyoukindly answer questions so the I asked in an email morning we cangetyourclient's this -p r i o r filing document before conference hishonor....here areagain to this they the with below please and procedural a d v i s e we have so some of cooperation ifwe disagree theresults theissues even on raised. please usknow " l nanyevent your let today views whythiscase on should be stayed dismissedMr. not or if given statute proteats military persons W i l h e l m in themilitary unavailable is such from and overseas the that party c i v i llitigation given he is likely lndispendable to a ca$e and where is thealleged he defamor. Also that an you yourclient need whyin ljght theCDAimmunity of kindly advise onwhatdiscovery think us and will your as we had s l a t u t e we areunable iullyunderstand wrlting in other cases have involving CDAthat the to s u r v i v ethepleading d stage judge(s) and in sense to the have ordered parties meet confer a pragmatic the to (by d e c i d e good in Faith what "matters" is proportional canchange outcome and the narrow discovery and r e m o v i ntheimmunity) didnotallow ishingexpedition. g kindly advise onwhoyour us client may a Further, and a d dtothecaseandwhy. order Alsoadvise your if client amenable a twotiered to confidentiality andif you is c a nprovide exemplar ourreview edit." an for and l r a P. Rothken

F r o m : [e-mail] [e-mail]] Imailto: S e n t : Wednesday. June21, 200611:54AM T o : Ira P. Rothken;[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] C c : [e-mail]; hal@techfirm,com S u b j e c t : Re: ShellyLandry-Bell Various/et al Finalfor Signature v. W h a tchanges any weremadeto the lastversion if thatI sentyou? D a v i dA. Szwak B o d e n h e i m eJones& Szwak r. 5 0 9 MarketStreet,7th Floor Mercantile BankBuilding United S h r e v e p o r Louisiana 101 t, 71 318-221-6444 F a x 221-6555 www,bjslaw.com * w w w .lvlyFairCredit.com * * Checkout the Disoute Forum www, maxedoutmovie.comiindexl.html * . CheckOut "Maxed Out,"the movie/documentaryTrueworks by

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000008

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH
Subj: Date: From: To:

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 16 of 22

v, R e :ShellyLandry-Bell Varlous,et al Finalfor Signature DaylightTime PM 6 n 1 1 2 A 04:36:07 Central 6 BJKS.1507 com blp@blpld [e-mail], i ( a t e c h fm.net, [e-mail], rm.com. [e-mail] iared@techf

writes: Daylight Time,[e-mail] 4:34:01 Central PM dated 6t21nOOd fn a message to initial e-mall {hem metodayandwe willemajlback dlsclosuresplease W h e r eis yourclien?s disclosures the change dateof theinitial of o u r s . . . . t h ; n k s . . . tshould care theissue....please h a t take for to of i n ourlastversion the Rule26 statement todayandsignjt andfax it overto rnyofflce filing tomonow..,. 'l no That by tomorrow? makes in to here Shreveport mv to / W h v roulOI send siqnature Califomia befiled p.m. outbox 5:00 in afrer the signature I willbefi.ing document thecoun's as Please send-mefaxed a \ sen-r". \ copy as yoursigniture willbefiled withan explanationto whyanda complete ot tne it toO"y.lf youlailto send J / emails. f
D a v i dA. Szwak B o d e n h e i m e rJones& Szwak , 5 0 9 MarketStrcet,7th Floor Mercantile BankBuilding United 711 S h r e v e p o r Louisiana 01 t, 318-2214444 F2D<221$555 www.bislaw.com *" w w w .MyFairCredii.com - Checkout the DisputeForum html w w w .maxedoutmovie.corn/indext, * CheckOut "MaxedOut,"lhe movie/documentary Trueworks by Film Festival Premieres March 11, 2006, d tfle Soulh By Southwest C h e c kout the clipsat the site; I am in the movie!

-7"
W e d n e s d a yJune21,2006 AmericaOr ine: BJKS1507 ,

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000009

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P. Rothken

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 17 of 22

F r o m : lraP. Rothken [ira@techflrm,net] 3:44PM Wednesday, 21,2006 June Sent: [e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];blp@blpldcom To: [e-mail]@techfirm.com cc: Enclosed v, Signature et Landry-BellVarious, al Fjnal S u b j e c tREiShelly :
David,

- when in and opens youhitprint your Acrobat viewer Adobe it nowlearned youprinted incorrectly that I have changemade I print and the youneed select markups it willprint markup WITH to document window t h eprint 21sI.-..,lhanks, to the t o change date June l r aP. Rothken

F r o m : Ira P. Rothken[mailto:[e-mail]] June21, 20063:31 PM S e n t : Wednesday, blp!blPld.com [e-mail]; [e-mail]; T o ; [e-mail]; rm.com hal@techfi C c : [e-mail]; Enclosed v. et Landry-Bell Various/ al FinalSignature S u b j e c t : RE:Shelly we thatand then i useda program havecalledNitro lo W e agreed June21it and lwrote you an emailsaying p D F 6 takethe previously the within PDFto June21stand thatis how it came signedPDFandeditthe date version the PDF....you of to it o u t namely mabethe cliangein the PDFbut unbeknownst us not in the printed and complained I toldyou to writeit in on then and t h e naskedfor clarittcation I toldyou June21st....you further themto us and disclosures you havenot provided .l t h e one I signed,.. thenaskedyou whereare yourinitial theyare due today. e v e nthough l r a P. Rothken

[e-mail]] F r o m : [e-mail] [mailto: June21, 20063:23 PN4 S e n t : Wednesday, [e-mail] [e-mail]; T o : Ira P. Rothken;[e-mail]; rm.com hal@techfi C c : [e-mail]; Enclosed v. S u b j e c t : Re: ShellyLandry-Bell Various/et al FinalSignature writes: Daylight Tlme' [e-mail] 5:18:36 Central Pl\4 dated6l?1l2Qo6 I n a message David, wouldbe I to otherthanthe document signedas suchconduct Y o u are notauthorized fileanything and version .justcrossout July21s!ln my signed to andwill be reported yourstatebar... unethical out are signit andflle it....you frankly of control. w r i t eJune21stand l r a P. Rothken .pdfflleyou sentwhichwouldnot printthe visible the T h a n kyou for youremail, I haveretained curious how and why you wouldemailme a .pdffileand showa th; date, I wouldlikefor you to explain a l t e r a t i 6 of n yet deadline whenwe try to yourrepeated effodto altera court-imposed andtypeoverto correct m a r kthrough "July"remark?Wereyou the p r i n tthe file-, ovbilaiO not printand retains improper textdoes "June" the

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000010

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P, Rothken

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 18 of 22

net] F r o m : lraP. Rothken [ira@techflrm. 5:32 S e n t : Wednesday, 21,2006 June PM BJKS'[e-mail];ira@techfirm,com;[e-mail];[e-mail] To: [e-mail];[e-mail] Cc: v. Various, al FriendFindefs Disclosures Landry-Bell et Initial S u b i e c tShelly :
David,

Please e-mail faxus or Incorporated's Initial H e r eattached a PDF, Various , as are / FriendFinder's Disclosures. your any Thanks, client's let if initial disclosures it is only as fair.Please usknow youhave questions.
t r a H. KolnKen R o t h k e n Law Firm

wl4ary.techfirm.com ira@techf,rm,com 415-924425A

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000011

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 19 of 22

Prinler Nime. S t a t u s ; Feady T y p e : HP Eolor LeserJet3F0ll Print Bange

l f -fuF."',.,
E o n r m e nandFoms: ts ' Documenl Markups and PrE,/iEW

OAil view $ [urrent
Q [urrentpege Q Pagesirom.i S u b s e tAllpages range : in t,r 4 :wiLlFeverse peqes

E-B'5_____________i

Peqe Hendling Dopi*: .t F a g eSca nq

ii:

: . , ., -

'tl

HeducE Frirter to MErg rrs w

ond I Auto-Fotate Center PEFer Saur,re PDF by sizE L l [h,]o$e Fdtle Print lile to

!

U n i t st:n c n e s 1 / 4[ 1 ]

tf '!-,irqlEl Fqtlr,rral

I rr[--l t-E""d-l

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000012

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 20 of 22

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000013

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P. Rothken
From: Sent: To: Cc:

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 21 of 22

lra P. Rothken [e-mail] W e d n e s d a J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 : 1 1P [ 4 y, 3 [e-mail];ira@techfirm,[e-mail];[e-mail] [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Enclosed v. et S u b j e c t :RE:ShellyLandry-Bell Various, al FinalSignature you l overwrote to say June21st.....like wanted. it

F r o m ; [e-mail] [e-mail]] lmailto: June21, 20063:08 Plvl S e n t : Wednesday, [e-mail] [e-mail]; [e-mail]; T o : Ira P. Rothken; [e-mail]; Cc: hal@techfi rm.com Enclosed v. et Signature s u b j e c t : Re:Shelly Landry-Bell Various, al Final provided the court by you me withthe document emailed in .pdf. The deadline explain whatoccurred Ptease to a p p e a r e d havebeenmarked to overor typedover. lt appears showJuneand JulyoveMritten. D a v i dA. Szwak B o d e n h e i m eJones& Szwak r, 5 0 9 MarketStreet.7th Floor BankBuilding United Mercantile 71 S h r e v e p o r Louisiana 101 t, 318-221-6444 F a x 221$555 y'/vw.bjsLq.W,.Aom w w w . M y F a i r C r e d i t . c ** om . * Checkout the Dispute Forum www, maxedoutmovie.com/indexl.html * - CheckOut "Maxed by documentary Trueworks Out,"the moviei FilmFestival P r e m i e r e March11,2006,at the SouthBy Southwest s C h e c kout the clipsat the site:I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000014

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH lra P. Rothken

Document 39

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 22 of 22

F r o m : lra P. Rothken [e-mail]] June 2:34PM S e n t : Wednesday, 21,2000 [e-mail]; [e-mail] To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];[e-mail] cc: Landry-Bell for v. Various, al Final Signature et S u b i e c tRE:Shelly :
David,

- please to and back W h e r e yourclient's is initial e-mail disclosures them metoday wewillemail disclosuresourlast in the of o u r s . . . . t h a n k s . . . should care theissue.., t h a t take of .please change date theinitial fof to tomorrow... . v e r s i o n theRule statement today signit andfaxit over myoffice flling of 26 and to l r aP. Rothken

F r o m :[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] S e n t : Wednesday, June2lt 20062:77PM [e-mail] T o : Ira P.Rothken; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] C c :[e-mail]; for S u b i e c t : Re:Shelly Landry-Bell Various, al Final Signature v. et writes: [e-mail] l n a message dated 612112006 PM Daylight Time, 3:25:51 Central internal document responded yoursubpoena youhave theVarious all to so B e s i d ewe already s your impacted notgetting client's by related plaintiff. aretheones to whowillbe more allegedly We d i s c l o s u r e s away. right
from you. You need to complyor be preparedto have a motionfiled l r a , We have not receivedany documents are responses notappreciated. with to i n connection yourfailure do as ordered.Yourcavalier D a v i dA. Szwak B o d e n h e i m eJones& Szwak r. 5 0 9 MarketStreet,7th Floor BankBuilding United Mercantile 71 S h r e v e p o r Louisiana 101 t, 318-221-6444 F a x221-6555 uA&w.bjslaw.com www.MyFaircredit.com "' Forum " * Checkout the Dispute www. maxedoutmovie.com/indexl,html * * CheckOut "lvlaxed by Out,"the movie/documentaryTrueworks '1, FilmFest,val P r e m i e r e March1 2006,at the SouthBy Southwest s C h e c kout the cliosat the site:I am in the moviel

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000015