Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The

Filing 98

Joint MOTION to Extend Pretrial Schedule by Sixty Days by Thomson Corporation, The, Timebase Pty Ltd, West Publishing Corporation, West Services Inc. (Razavi, Katherine) Modified text on 11/12/2009 (jz).

Timebase Pty Ltd v. Thomson Corporation, The

Doc. 98

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 For the Defendant: APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: ROBBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI DENISE S. RAHNE, ESQ. JENNIFER M. ROBBINS, ESQ. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2015 GASS WEBER MULLINS, LLC RALPH A. WEBER, ESQ. 309 North Water Street Suite 700 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 HALLELAND LEWIS NILAN & JOHNSON ERIK T. SALVESON, ESQ. 220 South Sixth Street Suite 600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4501 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JANIE S. MAYERON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE (MOTIONS HEARING) ----------------------------------------------------------) LeMond Cycling, Inc., ) File No. 08 CV 1010 ) (RHK/JSM) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Saint Paul, Minnesota ) January 15, 2009 Trek Bicycle Corporation, ) 1:00 p.m. ) Defendant/Third-Party ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Greg LeMond, ) ) Third-Party Defendant. ) ----------------------------------------------------------UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR-CSR [phone]
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 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript produced by computer. Court Reporter: CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR 146 Federal Building 316 North Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 THE COURT: Good afternoon. We're here this PROCEEDINGS IN OPEN COURT

afternoon in connection with the matter of LeMond Cycling versus Trek Bicycle Corporation, et al, court file number 08-1010. If the attorneys would identify themselves

starting first with counsel for Plaintiffs. MS. RAHNE: Thank you, your Honor. My name is

Denise Rahne from Robbins Kaplan.

I represent LeMond

Cycling and Greg LeMond, and I have with me from my office Jennifer Robbins. THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Third-Party Plaintiff? MR. WEBER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Ralph I'm sorry, Jennifer? Robbins. And on behalf of Defendants and

Weber and Erik Salveson for Trek. THE COURT: name, please? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Mr. Seltzer? MR. SALVESON: THE COURT: Salveson, S-A-L-V-E-S-O-N. We're here this afternoon W-E-B-E-R. All right. And I'm sorry. It's Ralph and can you spell your last

All right.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 to address three motions filed in this case. 49 is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Docket number Docket 55 is And

Defendant's Motion to Compel a Rule 37 Conference.

docket 61, which is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Written Discovery. Before we begin with these motions, let me say I am going to grant the motion to -- Defendant's Motion to Compel the Rule 37 Conference, and in fact I'm going to require that the parties have their Meet and Confer right now. So having reviewed the papers and reviewed the history

leading up to these motions, I am not satisfied that the parties have engaged in a proper Meet and Confer to try and resolve their various disputes so you're going to do it right now. We're going to go off the record. I'm going to

leave the courtroom here, as is the court reporter, and I'm going to require you to meet and confer on all of the issues that are the subject of your respective motions. And when

you're done meeting, either you have reached agreement on all, some or none, then you can notify me and I will come back in with the court reporter and we will put on the record what you've agreed to, if anything; what remains to be resolved, and I'll hear argument on those issues that need to be resolved. So with that said, we're going to go off the

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 record here and as soon as you all are ready to have me return into the courtroom here I'll return. MS. RAHNE: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Thank you, your Honor. Thanks, Judge. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay?

(Recess taken from 1:04 to 2:30 p.m.) THE COURT: me -- all right. Let me before we go on the record, let

We're back here on the record in the

matter of LeMond Cycling, et al versus Trek Bicycle Corporation. The parties have had a Meet and Confer on both

of their respective Motions to Compel at the requirement of the Court. So let's do this. Let's first address And if Plaintiff's counsel

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.

would come up to the podium and tell me what the status of the resolution of that motion is; that is, what issues have been resolved and what issues, if any, remain to be resolved. And then I'll hear argument on those motions and

then we'll do the same with Defendant's motion. MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: I'm happy to, your Honor. All right. Thank you, your Honor. I think we had

a very productive discussion and we have been able to resolve the set of issues related to Trek's production of documents relating to their efforts to promote the LeMond brand.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 number 11. THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Yes. And request for production number 16. Are all resolved? Are all resolved. All right. And does that mean that resolved? MS. RAHNE: Correct. Request for production THE COURT: Let's go through each interrogatory

and document request that is the subject of your motion and you can tell me whether it's resolved or whether it needs resolution. MS. RAHNE: production number 3. THE COURT: So document request number 3 is Okay. This would address request for

interrogatory number 8 and document 23, along with document request number 24 and the privilege logs and redaction logs are not resolved? MS. RAHNE: Interrogatory number 8 and document We do have an

requests 23 and 24 are not resolved.

agreement regarding the privilege and redaction logs. THE COURT: Okay. So that is resolved as well.

As to the items that are resolved, is it your desire to put the resolution on the record or are you satisfied that each of you know what the resolution is and

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 log? MS. RAHNE: On the privilege and redaction log, I'll simply reflect that the parties have reported that they have resolved those particular discovery requests? MS. RAHNE: I would like to put something briefly

on the record with respect to the results of the issues broadly if I may. THE COURT: All right. Let's then -- why don't

you put on the record then what the resolution is as to document request 3, 11, 16, and the privilege and redaction logs, and then we'll hear about the remaining discovery items. MS. RAHNE: Thank you, your Honor. With regard to

request for production 3, 11 and 16, Trek has agreed to our satisfaction to provide all documents and then confirm that they have done so in sufficient time -- and I don't have the date here. I feel comfortable without putting that on the

record, but within sufficient time for us to get the information to our experts so that we can assess initial discovery that we need to take and have our experts begin their work. THE COURT: All right. And then on the privilege

your Honor, we have an agreement that we will help Trek prioritize which ones they will look at additionally. that for those that we identify, they will provide And

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 additional subject matter information so that we can better assess the privilege and whether we are in a position to make any challenges. THE COURT: So you're going to give them a list of

which ones that you need greater description and they are going to give you a better description as to those. And

then you will be able to decide whether down the road to move on those? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: All right. of those issues? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Yes, it does, your Honor. All right. Then why don't you go That's correct, your Honor. Okay. I'm just making a note here.

Then does that describe the resolution

ahead and make argument with respect to the remaining discovery issues. MS. RAHNE: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor,

I've been -- over the last 24 hours when I have been getting ready for this, I have been struggling to reconcile Trek's position with regard to the discovery we're seeking as to Trek's business relationship with Mr. Armstrong with its own request and what it's asking of LeMond Cycling. I think

we're speaking in broad terms with both motions, and I obviously won't address Mr. Weber's motion right now, but some reasonable amounts of discovery that seeks admissible

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 and Trek. THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: All right. There's a fairly well-founded record meaning? MS. RAHNE: The contract between LeMond Cycling information related to the parties' contract, the performance of the contract, and motives with regard to that exact issue. THE COURT: I'm sorry. The parties' contract

and we've tried not to overwhelm the Court with the entire back story on all of the major players in this dispute. But

there's a fairly well-established record and we've tried to give a flavor of it in terms of the relationship and the entanglements between Trek, Mr. Armstrong and LeMond Cycling. Mr. Armstrong has inserted himself as early as

2001 and Trek has repeatedly claimed its business relationship with Mr. Armstrong as a basis for restricting or attempting to restrict Mr. LeMond's conduct in some instances and restricting it in others and making claims as to what was appropriate and not appropriate under the contract. THE COURT: Mr. LeMond? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Correct, your Honor. All right. Under the contract between it and

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 shift. MS. RAHNE: They have claimed at times that

Mr. Armstrong is a business asset and I think we've provided the Court with an illustration of that. I think in an

effort to avoid providing the information related to its agreement with Mr. Armstrong, they have now moved away from saying that they are claiming any damage relating to him. That, first off, we find that an interesting Secondly, it doesn't negate the fact that we're

entitled to discovery as to Trek's motives for its treatment of the LeMond brand in light of Mr. Armstrong's involvement. THE COURT: bears on liability? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Absolutely, your Honor. And that would address interrogatory All right. So you're saying it still

number 8 and document request number 3 where you were seeking to have them to identify any contractual relationships or agreements with Mr. Armstrong and to produce them? MS. RAHNE: That's correct, your Honor. I think

it's actually request for production number 23. THE COURT: All right. And then I have down that

interrogatory 8 asks them to describe the agreements; is that right? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: That's correct, your Honor. And then document request number 4,

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 24, I'm reading my notes here, sought documents showing any telephone conferences made to or from Mr. Armstrong regarding Trek including calls from Mr. Burke on August 13, 2001. MS. RAHNE: Yeah. And I should correct the

record, I think, on that.

Mr. Weber probably would when he

had a chance anyway, but it's our understanding from our Meet and Confer actually that we could call this one resolved because Trek is claiming that they have produced everything they have. I mean, obviously we reserve our

right to explore that, but we are taking them on their word at that. THE COURT: So that's resolved as well so we're

really down to interrogatory 8 and 23? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: That's correct, your Honor. Anything further that you wish to say

regarding your motion then? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: response by Trek. MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Thank you, Judge. Thank you. As to the Armstrong contracts -First of all, before you get into No, your Honor. All right. Then I'll hear the

interrogatory 8 and 23, has counsel for Plaintiffs

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 accurately described the resolution of their motion with respect to interrogatory -- I'm sorry, document requests 3, 11, 16, 24, and the privilege and redaction logs? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: I believe she has, yes. Then I'll go ahead and hear your

responses to interrogatory 8 and document request 23. MR. WEBER: Thanks, Judge. It's important on the

Armstrong issue to distinguish between what Trek is producing and what Trek is asking not to have to produce. What Trek has produced are any documents reflecting interchanges, discussions, communications, with Mr. Armstrong concerning Mr. LeMond. And there were

discussions back in 2001 when Mr. LeMond suggested Mr. Armstrong was a fraud and Mr. Armstrong was very upset about that and contacted Trek. And Trek in turn, Mr. Burke,

contacted Greg LeMond and what came out of it was a press release. So there's no secret that that happened. And some

materials that relate to that, those communications, have been identified and produced, including Mr. Burke's handwritten notes of various conversations, including conversations with Mr. LeMond on that topic back in 2001. What Trek is asking not to turn over are separate contractual agreements with Mr. Armstrong as a spokesperson, as a sponsored athlete of Trek, because those agreements and those contracts between Trek and Mr. Armstrong are not

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 implicated in this dispute. The point of Trek's damage

claim is that Mr. LeMond's, as you've seen in the papers, comments were very damaging to his own brand and his line of bikes. And as a result -THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Go ahead. As a result, Trek sold a lot fewer

LeMond brand of bicycles than they otherwise would have. So Plaintiffs in seeking materials suggest that they were entitled to the Armstrong contracts on the grounds that it related to Trek's damages, and our point of clarification response is that it does not. THE COURT: moment here. I want to find -- just hang on a

I understand from your responsive papers that

you say that Plaintiffs are not seeking any -- Trek is not seeking any damages with respect to what impact, if any, Mr. LeMond's alleged comments had on its business with Mr. Armstrong. It's not -- to the extent, for example, it

may have affected the sale of bikes with Mr. Armstrong's name on it or other products with Mr. Armstrong's name on it. But when I read your answer and counterclaim, it seems

to me that throughout it it seems to imply or suggest that Mr. LeMond's alleged comments impacted the Trek brands, of which Mr. Armstrong's products, to the extent his name is on those brands as well, would suggest to me are implicated as well. So if you could address that.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 brand. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. And there were indeed customer MR. WEBER: Mr. Armstrong doesn't have his name

on -- there is not an Armstrong line of bicycles. THE COURT: Is there an Armstrong line of any

products that are sold by Trek? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Not to my knowledge, no. So to the extent that Mr. Armstrong

has a relationship with Trek, what does it have to do with? MR. WEBER: It enhances and promotes the Trek

comments that said things like, As long as Trek is associated with LeMond, we won't have anything to do with Trek at all. Not just the LeMond brand of bikes.

But we are not attempting to quantify and seek damages for damage that -- lost sales of Trek brand of bikes. Our damage claim relates to the reduction in sales

of LeMond branded bikes. What happened during this period was road bike sales after 1999 went up at a precipitous rate associated with the public attention for road cycling that occurred in that time period, particularly associated with Mr. Armstrong's success in the Tour de France. roadside sales going like this. much lower trajectory. So you have

The LeMond sales went at a

And what we expect to prove to the

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 jury is had Mr. LeMond not damaged his brand, his bike line would have followed the industry road bike increases but did not because of the negative consumer and dealer reactions that Mr. LeMond's comments generated. THE COURT: All right. So your view is that

whatever the contractual relationship is, it has no bearing on damages and it has no bearing on liability? MR. WEBER: Right. It would be things, what are

the terms of the compensation that Mr. Armstrong is to receive as being a Trek-sponsored athlete. What are his It's a

obligations in turn to Trek under that agreement.

spokesperson sponsored-athlete agreement with the terms and conditions accordingly; and we don't see any interplay between those terms and conditions and the issues that would be before the jury. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: All right. To the contrary, as I've said at the

outset, to the extent that Mr. Armstrong said things to Trek about Mr. LeMond, I think those are fair game and we have turned them over. THE COURT: All right. Okay. Anything further on

interrogatory number 8 and document request number 23? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: I don't think so. All right. And as to the -- let me respond to one

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 other comment made. contract action. She's trying to inject motive into a

And I think the question for the jury And motive is the

would be did the parties perform or not. stuff of torts, not contracts. THE COURT: MR. WEBER:

I'm sorry, motive is? The stuff of torts, not contracts. And here we

You either performed or you did not perform.

have competing breach of contract actions and I think the jury will be asked to assess did LeMond perform on its part; did Trek perform on its part. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anything further on behalf of the

Plaintiffs on this part of the motion? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Not at this time, your Honor. All right. Then let's go ahead and

hear -- I'll come back to Mr. LeMond's motion in a moment but I do want to hear Trek's Motion to Compel, so whoever will be arguing on behalf of Trek. MR. WEBER: resolution first? THE COURT: Yes, I do. Same protocol. If you Do you want to hear the points of

could share with me what's resolved and what's left to resolve. MR. WEBER: Sure.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 THE REPORTER: THE COURT: increase the volume. MR. WEBER: I'll try to speak louder. Sorry. It's that I'm having trouble hearing you.

Do we have -- the let's see if I can

midwestern understated approach. All right.

Interrogatory 2, 3 -- 2 and 3 are

resolved insofar as Plaintiff has agreed to provide additional information or confirm they have given all the information with respect to businesses and employees and agents thereof that they identify as cycling-related businesses. We have a point of disagreement for the Court

on our efforts to inquire into Mr. LeMond's business activities outside of areas that they define as cycling related. THE COURT: So in fact interrogatories 2 and 3 are

not yet resolved; is that right? MR. WEBER: skipped over. Resolved in part. And I'm sorry. I

So it's 1 and 2.

There is a remaining issue

as to the scope of business interests that they need to identify. 1, 2 and 3. THE COURT: So in other words to the extent that

you sought information having to do with bicycling-related interests, you have resolved that? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Correct. But to the extent you're seeking

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 information about any business entities owned by LeMond or Greg LeMond, those aren't yet resolved? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Correct. All right. Yes. All right. And now we're onto And that's 1, 2 and 3?

interrogatory number 4. MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: interrogatory. Number 4 relates to taping. Yes. And they have agreed to answer the

Identify everyone that Mr. LeMond taped and

what the current status is of those tapes. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: So that's resolved? That's resolved. In its entirety? There is an issue that we're going to

work on later as to whether a particular tape that has been withheld is going to be turned over. to be raised -THE COURT: That's the issue relating to whether But that's not going

the assertion of work product was appropriate or not? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: I think resolved. Exactly. Okay. Interrogatory number 5. I'm sorry.

Resolved and unresolved.

You're going to confirm that all lawsuits

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 resolved? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Yes. Okay. Number 6 and 7 have been resolved. and arbitrations have been -MS. RAHNE: With our understanding about not

interested in product liability lawsuits. MR. WEBER: Right. Exactly. There are some

product liability lawsuits that Mr. LeMond was named as a Defendant nominally, I suppose, and we're not interested in those. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: So interrogatory number 5 is resolved? Yes. So as I understand it -- if I'm taking

you out of order it's the way I organized it based on your presentation -- document request 15 sought all documents related to any lawsuits and arbitrations that he was involved in. Has that been resolved? It has. So document request 15 has also been

MR. WEBER: THE COURT:

They have agreed to supplement the information response to that. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. Number 8, Internet service providers,

they have agreed to supplement and produce that information.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 resolved? THE COURT: MR. WEBER: So that's resolved. All right.

Number 9, they have agreed to

supplement by identifying -THE COURT: Hang on just a second. This is

interrogatory number 9? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Yes. I must have missed it in my notes. Page 16 of our brief. Let me grab that then. It just asks them to identify and

preserve all documents; and if there are any documents that are missing, what happened to them. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Right. And they have agreed to identify a

couple of limited instances in which documents are possibly missing or in fact missing. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: All right. Yes. Okay. Turning to the document requests, 1, 2 So that's resolved?

and 3, they have agreed to resolve and confirm that there are not any documents being withheld on the grounds of relevance. THE COURT: Just a moment. Okay. So that's

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Yep. All right. Number 6, they have agreed to

supplement, see if there's some additional documentation concerning bike transactions and accounting for bike transactions. There were some additional fees charged to

some people for bike transactions above what Trek charged Mr. LeMond. He added a fee and they are going to see if

there's documentation concerning what happened to that money. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: So that's resolved? That's resolved. All right. Number 7. They have agreed to confirm

that they are not withholding the documents on the grounds of relevance. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. So that's resolved.

Number 9, the documents regarding a They have

number of witnesses on their Rule 26 list.

confirmed as to most that they have not withheld any documents on the grounds of relevance. Number 2 as to one

individual, Betsy Andreu, they have withheld some documents and they will confirm that none of those documents have any impact on any issues relating to the lawsuit. There's a

personal relationship between Mrs. LeMond and Mrs. Andreu.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 THE COURT: MR. WEBER: So that's resolved? Yes. They are going to see if there's

any such documents for Frankie Andreu and confirm one way or another, and the same with David Walsh. In other words,

with the exception of Betsy Andreu, they are not aware of withholding any documents. As to Betsy Andreu, they will That some of

confirm that they are not withholding any.

them are personal, and they will confirm that they are not withholding any non-personal ones that have issues that relate to the lawsuit. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. Number 11, they have confirmed as to

damages that they have produced documents they have related to damages. schedule. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: are still an issue. LeMond Cycling, Inc. THE COURT: not resolved? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: request is resolved? MR. WEBER: Yes. Correct. Otherwise the balance of that document So as to Mr. LeMond personally, that's Okay. Number 13, tax returns for Mr. LeMond They have produced tax returns for the They are not waiting simply for the expert

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 26. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. And 15 is resolved. That's the

documents concerning lawsuits.

There are some additional

documents relating to a lawsuit with PTI/Target and they are going to see if they can identify those and produce them. THE COURT: request 14? All right. What about document

That was all financial statements for LeMond

and all entities identified. MR. WEBER: versus his businesses. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: All right. That implicates two of the remaining Same issue as to Mr. LeMond personally

issues, one is non-cycling business interests on the one hand, and personal financial information on the other. THE COURT: All right. And then document request

That's the individual and joint tax returns for

Greg LeMond? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: That's still an issue. So that's not resolved? Yes. All right. So it looks like the

issues that remain have to do with the issue that Mr. LeMond produce information about non-cycling interests and number two, tax returns? MR. WEBER: Right.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 THE COURT: address those issues? MR. WEBER: Yes. As to tax returns, Mr. LeMond is Do you want to go ahead then and

an individual Defendant.

In connection with his handling of

bicycles that he was buying from Trek, Trek had extended him the privilege of purchasing bikes at employee discount, a price that is far below what dealers can pay. And

Mr. LeMond, in turn, was, we have learned, taking those bikes and as to some of them bartering them for goods and services. People that he owed money to, he would give a

bike or bikes in payment of amounts that were otherwise due. For example, a builder. And I believe it may have occurred So

with respect to some other services like website design. he was using his bikes as currency. Secondly, he was, as to some people that were getting bikes, he was adding a markup. That he would get

the bike at employee price from Trek at X, and he would mark it up in the range of 100 or more dollars and keep that money. As he described it, it was to compensate him for the

costs he incurred in ordering the bike for this third person and getting them the bike. So he saw it, if I'm

characterizing his testimony correctly, as a recoupment of his costs. And thirdly, he used bikes to generate goodwill for his other business interests. So, for example, his

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 principal current other business is a LeMond Fitness business where they sell bikes to health clubs, recumbent bikes and exercise equipment to health clubs. So there were

a number of instances where he was getting bikes at employee pricing and passing them along to the owners of health clubs in an attempt to generate goodwill for his LeMond Fitness business. People -- in one instance the e-mail reads something like so and so is a very wealthy person. He can

get whatever he wants and that's why we have to get him this bike. And that, of course, are the exact kind of people the That

dealers want to sell these LeMond branded bikes to.

dealer has the expense of bricks and mortar employees and with the idea that they are going to sell these bikes to a people in a position to buy them. So that with respect to

his individual -- he's an individual Defendant in those areas. In addition, he had personally guaranteed his obligations of LeMond Cycling under the contract since LeMond Cycling is really nothing more than Greg LeMond's corporate vehicle for licensing his name. He was asked to

and did personally guarantee the obligations of LeMond Cycling, Inc. Now, how does this impact what we're asking the Court to have them do? First of all, with respect to the

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 personal tax returns, I would like to be able to see whether any of these transactions with the bicycles, for example, show up on the personal tax returns. He is realizing He is realizing And I didn't see

revenue by using the bikes as currency. revenue by adding a markup to the bike.

any reflection of that in the LeMond Cycling tax returns. If it was there I missed it. And I would like to see if in

turn in his personal returns he is acknowledging whatever amounts of money he's making off of these transactions through barter or for cash. THE COURT: And what relevance does that have to

this breach of what you've characterized as a breach of contract suit? Let's assume he either is recognizing the

revenue or what you find out is it doesn't show up on his personal tax return. How will that lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence at trial? MR. WEBER: Well, it would not surprise me to find

that the transactions are not reflected in either the personal or corporate tax returns. And I think it will

undercut his justification to the jury that these were normal transactions and he was simply recouping business expenses by adding this markup. THE COURT: And, again, what relevance does that

have to whether he breached the contract or whether Trek breached the contract?

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 MR. WEBER: That he breached his agreement with

Trek by abusing his privilege of purchasing bikes at employee prices. his name to Trek. He agreed -- he sold his -- he licensed He said, Here, Trek. You get to use my

name to sell and distribute bikes. What we've learned is he set up his own distribution channel distributing LeMond branded bikes as if he were a dealer and earned revenue, direct and implicit revenue, from his self-designated position as a dealer which was in breach of his agreement with Trek that Trek was the exclusive distributor of his bicycles. He can't

simultaneously license his name with exclusivity to Trek for bicycle products and then have a sideline of distribution. THE COURT: I understand if you -- the revenue You've already indicated

shows up on his personal return.

you've looked at his corporate tax return and you can't find his revenue from these bartering-type transactions or other uses that you've found that supposedly he's been involved in with these bikes. So if the revenue shows up on his

personal tax return, I can understand how that would be related to your theory that he was in breach of your contract and the exclusivity provision of the contract. the revenue doesn't show up, what's the relevance? MR. WEBER: It looks like he's running a side If

business and putting money in his pocket to benefit himself

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 without regard to the impact on Trek and its dealers. It's

not a, as he's now saying, a well-known proper use of his employee pricing agreement. that I have been doing this? wasn't surprised. Why is Trek surprised to learn Trek shouldn't be surprised, If the

It's all above board.

documentation shows no, it wasn't documented, it was done secretly, there's e-mails that say don't let the Trek employees know we're doing this, I think the jury will draw inferences from that. But, again, I'm at a bit of a

disadvantage telling the Court what the admissibility basis is until I see the documents. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: requests 13 and 26? MR. WEBER: Right. In addition, the tax returns Okay. So that addresses the --

Tax returns. -- The tax returns under document

are discoverable and may be admissible on the grounds of mitigation of damage issues. Trek believed Mr. LeMond's

actions ended the agreement for all practical purposes, for legal purposes, when the -- when he served a lawsuit on Trek on the several days after the death of the founder of Trek's memorial service. And if they, on the other hand, establish

to the jury's satisfaction that, no, Trek was not correct in ending the agreement, then there is a question of his damages and his mitigation of damages.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 And given the interplay between his personal ventures and LeMond Cycling, Inc., we would like to explore what he has been doing and what he should have been doing or what he was or wasn't doing in the period after the termination of the Trek agreement in mitigation of his damages or not. So we want to get a picture of Mr. LeMond's

business activities and we think we need both his personal and broad form business interests in order to explore this mitigation of damage issue. THE COURT: You terminated or Trek terminated the

business relationship and notified him that they were terminating it in 2007? MR. WEBER: describe it this way. No, in November 2007 -- let me Under the agreement, which expired

under its terms in 2010, Trek in the fall of 2008 had to give Mr. LeMond two years' heads up we're going to renew or we're not. I assume the evidence will be the notion was it

would give Mr. LeMond time to find a new business partner before the expiration of the agreement. A year early in the fall of 2007, Mr. LeMond asked John Burke of Trek, Have you decided what you're going to do in 2010? Can I have early notice which way you're going?

And Mr. Burke told Mr. LeMond in November 2007, We are going to continue the contract through 2010 but we will not be extending it beyond that pursuant to a five-year option that

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 Trek had. So they were giving him early notice at

Mr. LeMond's request, but saying we will continue with the line through that period. At that time Mr. LeMond did two things. He began

preparing a lawsuit that brings us here and he began exploring other business ventures for LeMond branded bikes and other things. Now, as to the second category, he had asked Trek, Okay, is it all right if I go out and look and see if I can find other businesses, and Trek said sure. And in fact

Mr. Burke, after the November conversation, followed up in December saying, Greg, have you decided? Do you want us to

continue the contract through 2010 or are you going to take your brand back early? And what we see in the e-mails is Mr. LeMond putting in place a strategy to serve this lawsuit on Trek, and I believe the evidence will show he expected Trek not to face the publicity associated with the lawsuit but to pay him millions of dollars as he had demanded in 2004 if Trek was going to end the contract then. jury will conclude. '07. THE COURT: All right. As I look at document I think that's what the

So that's what happened in the fall of

request number 13, it asks for all tax returns of -- I'm going to focus on Greg LeMond, in response to interrogatory

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 number 1. Interrogatory number 1 asks him to identify all

business entities in which he had an ownership interest in since 1985. So putting the two together it appears you're

looking for tax returns dating back to -- I don't know if you're seeking it back to 1985? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Is it '85 or '95, Judge? It says here in your brief since 1985.

What interrogatory number 1 asks for, document request number 26 asks for all individual and joint -- individual or joint state and federal tax returns filed by Greg LeMond from 1995 to '97. time. So, first of all, let's talk about the

How far back are you seeking these tax returns? MR. WEBER: Tax returns since '95 would be fine,

which is the beginning of the relationship with Trek. THE COURT: And why do you need -- on any theories

with relevancy, whether it be mitigation of damages, looking to see if he was acting contrary to the terms of the contract in its exclusivity, why do you need tax returns dating back 13 years? MR. WEBER: Just to get a picture, be able to put And then depending on

a picture together for ourselves.

what we find, for the jury of, this is what -- this is the LeMond, Inc., which is really Greg LeMond. business empire over these years. Here is his

It may be, it may well

be, that things from '95 to 2000 are of limited relevance.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 We may not seek their admission. But there are important

events that do go back to 1999, two years before the flare up with Armstrong. period as well. THE COURT: When does he -- based on the evidence So there may be material in that time

that you have collected to date, when do you find that he is beginning -- the earliest in which he uses his employee discount to get these bikes at basically below market and be able to use them either to barter the bikes for goods and services, use them as currency? date? MR. WEBER: back several years. They have produced documents going The contract changed in the year 1999, How far back does that

and I know that there's been an extraordinary amount of activity in the last three years. Before that, sitting here

today, I can't tell you off the top of my head. THE COURT: So when you say the contract changed

in 1999, is that what -- is that when there was a provision put in place that allowed him to buy bikes at an employee discount? MR. WEBER: respect to free bikes. He had expanded rights in 1999 or with I don't remember standing here today

when he began exercising employee-pricing purchasing. Sorry. It's my belief he's been doing that for at least six

or seven years; but it's been in the past several years that

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 the numbers have gotten extreme. THE COURT: of tax returns. All right. That addresses the issue

What about the financial statements of all

of the entities that he owns? MR. WEBER: Right. That relates to this

distinction they are drawing between cycling and non-cycling where they do business. And as I described, where you have

a celebrity athlete with multiple business interests, what he is selling is really his name, his brand, to these various business partners. That's what draws them to him.

That's what he brings to the table, whether that is necessarily cycling related or not. And what we would like to explore with these various business partners he's had over the years, and I think the evidence will show that many of these relationships have ended in acrimony and litigation, and I would -- we would like to explore these other business partners and see, number one, do they have -- did they experience an impact in their business negative as Trek did as a result of Mr. LeMond's attacks on a fellow American athlete. Number two, did Mr. LeMond engage in a pattern of

conduct in the business relationships with those other entities that is similar to the pattern with Trek. Now, I appreciate Rule 404, the evidentiary rule, may -- requires me to show that such activity fall within

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 certain evidentiary admissibility standards. But until I

have the information, I can't tell the Court whether it fits within one of these 404 exceptions, absence of mistake and so on. But we need to explore these other business

relationships for that reason. Thirdly, it may be that we learn from these business partners that Mr. LeMond was saying or doing things, sharing things with them about his business practices with Trek and/or his thoughts about Trek, Mr. Burke, Mr. Armstrong, in a way that likewise could produce admissible evidence. THE COURT: The negative comments that supposedly

Mr. LeMond made about Mr. Armstrong started in 2001? MR. WEBER: Yes. In the summer of 2001 as

Mr. Armstrong was tying Mr. LeMond's American record, Mr. LeMond for the first time came out and accused Mr. Armstrong as being either the greatest comeback or the greatest fraud. and immediate. And the reaction of the public was extreme That was the time at which Mr. LeMond then

asked for permission not to attend the Trek dealer meeting because he knew that the Trek dealers were so angry at him for his comments. THE COURT: You've talked about it, both sides

talk about this, that this is really just a contract dispute on both sides, either you performed or you didn't perform.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 So I'm still trying to understand. Let's assume Mr. LeMond

has terrible relationships with all the business arrangements he's been in. Let's assume you're right. What

relevance is that going to have to what you've characterized as simply a contract dispute, either there's performance or not, breach or not? MR. WEBER: Yes. It depends on what the Number

relationship of these terrible relationships is.

one, if it in turn ties to his public disputes with other athletes, it shows -- it makes it more credible when Trek says, Our business was hurt. Our sales were hurt. Our

LeMond brand of bicycles sales were hurt because of what he did, if other business partners say, Yeah, we took a hit too when he was doing these things. That's number one.

Number two, it depends on what the nature of the terrible relationship was. It may be that we will have the

basis for the admissibility of pattern and practice evidence that fits within exception to the Rule 404 that meets one of those exceptions like absence of mistake. It may be that

the jury -- that the Court would permit us to put before the jury this evidence to negate arguments of some misunderstanding in the way this is played out. So, again, we appreciate we have to show its ultimate admissibility, but we believe that it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 does. MR. WEBER: If they want to object and say they THE COURT: With interrogatory number 2,

interrogatory number 1 is asking you to identify basically all the business entities that were owned by him since 1985. And then interrogatory number 2 wants him to identify basically anybody that was associated with those businesses that were compensated by him or those businesses. MR. WEBER: Right. The reason as I'm standing

here I go to Y85 is because that's when his real -- his cycling businesses, when his -- I should say his professional business really took off as opposed to his simply a cycling career. THE COURT: So that's why we picked '85.

And why do you need to know every --

identify each person and company who has been compensated by him in connection with his business activities, including but not limited to agents, representatives, independent contractors and employees? Just theoretically what that

means is if he employs a cleaning lady, you're asking for him to identify that person. MR. WEBER: for cleaning ladies. THE COURT: But right now the way it's worded it I think it's fair that we wouldn't ask

won't provide information about cleaning staff, we're fine with that. What we're looking for is -- first of all, we

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 think it's a fairly discrete group of people. He had a

personal assistant by the name of Muffy Haigh for a number of years. More recently his personal matters are being

attended to for -- his business/personal matters are being attended to by someone else. list. So I think it's a fairly short

We would like to know who they are. Now, we do know that he has had a number of

different agents over the years.

During his cycling career

and thereafter he has had different agents represent him in an effort to sell his name to various companies. like to know who all those people are because -THE COURT: Didn't they agree to give you the We would

information with respect to any of his cycling activities so aren't you going to be getting that anyway? MR. WEBER: Well, no, because if I'm an agent for, Or there may be

for example, ING I think is a big company.

other representatives that represented him in non-cycling areas selling his name to General Mills or Kellogg's or things like that. burdensome list. So, again, I don't think it's a I would just like to know who they are.

Who have his employees and agents been over the years. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. And they haven't said there are I would just like to

hundreds, and I don't think there are. know who they are.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 entity. 2. THE COURT: That addresses interrogatories 1 and

And then let me just look to see which ones -- I think

then the remaining issue -MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Three is another one. Right, 3. Gross earnings of each

Tell me why you want -- so you want to know how

much he was earning with these non-business entities? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Right. And you've asked for it since 1999? Right. What's the relevance there? It gives us a way to know how If it's a thousand

significant a business venture it was.

dollars of gross earnings for this business entity, we're not going to pursue it. If it's a million dollar business

entity, then it's something of significance so we're going to look into it more. THE COURT: What's the relevance? Let's assume What's

he's got a business entity that sells golf clubs.

the relevance of knowing the gross revenue of that golf club business? MR. WEBER: importance to him. We're trying to assess its relative

If it's a million dollars business

during the same time period selling LeMond branded golf clubs, it would be of interest to us to go and see have

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 LeMond branded golf clubs experienced a similar hit on sales as did LeMond branded cycles. If it's a thousand dollar

entity, we're not going to waste our time. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: Okay. Again, so the --

So the relevance, the reason we asked

for it, for earnings, was to get an assessment of its relative importance in his overall business ventures as a way to narrow discovery going forward. THE COURT: Okay. And then I think the next item

had to do with all financial statements of all of his entities. And they have agreed to provide those for -- they

were identified in interrogatory number 1, which goes back to 1985; and he has agreed to provide those that are cycling related but not non-cycling related. So why do you need all

of the financial statements for any entities that he has going back to 1985, 23 years? MR. WEBER: Same thing. To get an assessment of

their relative importance as a guide toward future discovery. THE COURT: MR. WEBER: All right. And I'm not sure. Perhaps I could ask

Ms. Rahne which side of the line LeMond Fitness falls in, cycling or non-cycling? MS. RAHNE: MR. WEBER: In terms of? The subject we've been talking about.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 MS. RAHNE: We have been open about that. I'm sorry?

THE REPORTER: MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: to LeMond Fitness? MS. RAHNE:

We've been open about that. You're producing information related

To the degree that it's in

Mr. LeMond's possession. MR. WEBER: Fitness's possession? MS. RAHNE: No, I don't represent LeMond Fitness. Well, wait, but not in LeMond

I'd work with you if you want to take discovery from them. Mr. LeMond is a shareholder, but that's an entirely separate entity. If Mr. LeMond has financial information related to

him or his business, we're not withholding that. THE COURT: are at issue? MR. WEBER: THE COURT: I believe you have. All right. We're going to take a I have a All right. Have I covered those that

short recess here, actually about ten minutes.

conference call that was coming in at 3:30 that I need to take. So I think we'll do it right now and come back and

address your responses. MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Thank you, your Honor. All right.

(Recess taken from 3:20 to 3:40 p.m.)

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 thought. THE COURT: All right. We'll hear from Actually before you

Plaintiff's counsel with a response.

respond, let me just ask one question of Trek's counsel just to clarify. Document request number 18, which is all

contracts between LeMond and/or Greg LeMond since 1995, was that resolved or no? MR. WEBER: I think it would be the same cycling, Meaning resolved as to cycling.

non-cycling distinction. THE COURT: All right. MS. RAHNE:

But not as to -- that's what I Go ahead. Thank you, your Honor. I'm struck, as

I was when we started this hearing, by the remarkable contrast between Trek's interpretation of the rules of relevance in terms of what it might be required to produce in response to our requests, which we really feel like we have worked to refine and tailor to our case, and Trek's suddenly very broad interpretation of what it thinks is relevant to its case, which we have similarly sought to find compromise on in order to provide Trek with what it fairly needs in order to prove its case without opening the door to what can only be harassment and disparagement to my client. This is a pattern that began when Trek very publicly filed its lawsuit with a PowerPoint presentation which we've provided to your Honor that included, just by example, statements such as Greg informs Trek that no

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

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 suppliers are interested. Not true, not a true My

characterization of the conversation that happened. client is going to dispute it. But Trek felt very

comfortable with a conclusory statement of what happened and what the facts were and what the business relationships were being presented to the media, and then being posted on YouTube. This pattern of practice Mr. Weber wants to talk

about has continued into discovery. I see no basis for the things that we're holding our position on. Mr. LeMond and Mrs. LeMond's tax returns The bike sale issues which they

have no bearing on this.

try to characterize as some distribution network that Mr. LeMond has set up, I need to tell you a little bit about those bike sales. Mr. LeMond had a longstanding right over

13 years to purchase bikes at an employee discount through Trek. He did it openly with them. They participated. He

never once distributed bikes.

He made very open purchases

through Trek, Trek sales, that then were sent to people completely with Trek's knowledge. Mr. LeMond also had the right to purchase initially -- not purchase, but to get for free 10 bikes pursuant to their contract, and then it was 15 starting in 1999. Although due to a misunderstanding between the He only got 10 until

parties he wasn't allowed to get 15. only the last couple years.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

43 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 As my client has frequently said, I'm not sure what they thought Mr. LeMond was going to do with all of these free bikes. He didn't sell them to make money. He didn't make a profit. He There

gave them away frequently.

are a couple instances which he has testified openly to where he may have given a bike to somebody who then helped him with his cabinets or helped him with his lighting. It's

our pretty stalwart position that they were Mr. LeMond's bikes at that point and if he decided to give a free bike to somebody who would then interchange them and help him with something on two instances, it doesn't constitute a breach of the agreement. On the employee bike purchasing similarly. The

charges that Trek is now trying to force into some breach of contract, they tended to be things like a $25 administration fee that Mr. LeMond's assistant charged to cover her time and her effort. returns. It's accounted for on LeMond Cycling's tax And if

It has no bearing on LeMond's tax returns.

Trek can't find it, it's probably because it's a very small admin cost, maybe a couple of hundred dollars a year, maybe $500 a year. That isn't significant enough to stand out

when the accountant is doing the taxes. The end result, and why I think this has become an issue, is Trek needs something to continue to perpetuate its legal theory that the way it's going to get out of its

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

44 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 contract with Greg LeMond and protect itself is to prove that he is a bad businessman and to further disparage him and make their own case through their own rhetoric. We see it in their briefs, your Honor. We see

unfounded statements such as Trek is entitled to an identification of all of LeMond's business ventures to demonstrate LeMond's serial failure to abide by his obligations to his business partners. This is the entire

pattern and this is what the discovery is tailored to do to somehow show that Mr. LeMond is a bad businessman, although I'm not sure how it's relevant to the contract anyway. I do

know it's inflammatory, I do know it's personal, and I do know that this case has a very personal aspect. We are fighting tooth and nail to keep this on the higher road. And we are fighting very hard to keep it to

the confines of the contract, to focus in on where we need discovery to prove what's really going on. And there is a

back story and it will become known as the case is developed. But the bottom line is this is a breach of contract action. And if Trek has damage related to Greg

LeMond being a bad businessperson, they would know it by now. They are not entitled to delve into every single one

of his personal other business relationships. Cycling-related businesses we have drawn a line and it is

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

45 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 reasonable. he is. It is Mr. LeMond's bread and butter. It is who

But the rest of it is just there to further harass

and try to further disparage my client. I want to make just one other comment and then if your Honor has any questions. My colleague has a tendency

to make rhetorical statements that are painful to my client who is sitting here in the audience, and which I would like to correct but I don't think there's time here. But I do

want to just for background provide your Honor with the information on what started all of this. Trek has since 2002 perpetuated the idea that Mr. LeMond at one point called Mr. Armstrong a fraud. THE COURT: Let me ask -- I understand that you

would like to be able to let this Court know that your client vehemently disagrees with the characterization that Trek has foisted upon him regarding him personally and business-wise. But what relevance does this have to the In other words, I'm concerned about how

Motions to Compel? we use our time.

MS. RAHNE: one example, if I may. THE COURT: MS. RAHNE:

I just have one -- I just want to give

All right. In 2001 Mr. LeMond was interviewed by

David Walsh from the Times of London, Sunday Times of London; and Mr. Walsh asked Mr. LeMond regarding

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

46 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 Mr. Armstrong, who was at that time a very prominent cyclist. And he said, "Isn't it true that if Lance

Armstrong is clean, this is the greatest comeback in the sport?" And Mr. LeMond said, "That is true." And then he said, "And wouldn't it be true that if he isn't clean, it would be the greatest fraud?" Mr. LeMond said, "Yes, that's true, too." That statement was printed. That statement And

started all this, and here is how it's relevant, your Honor. LeMond Cycling had an agreement with Trek. promote and support the brand. They were to

Trek knows that what in fact But because of

Mr. LeMond said is what I just said to you.

the complexity of these personalities, Trek chose instead of trying to correct and supporting Mr. LeMond, they instead have participated in the perpetuation that Mr. LeMond is a Lance Armstrong basher. It's simply not true. But it also

is why we're seeking discovery into the business relationship between Trek and Mr. Armstrong because we think that has implications on their choices in terms of how to affect, promote, and treat Mr. LeMond's brand. it impacts our Motion to Compel. In terms of how it impacts Trek's Motion to Compel, I just want to make the point that the only thing they are trying to do is to find some sort of causes of action that aren't -- there's nothing tied to the contract. That's how

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

47 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 But they are using things that they know not to be true in order to try to create a general sense that he is a bad business person and if we don't get this reigned in now in discovery, it's -- I mean, I don't know where this is going to go. It's -- the personal aspect of this case is just too

sensitive to not be reigned in at this point. THE COURT: MS. RAHNE: THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

No, your Honor. All right. Let me just ask -- I was Is there a protective

starting to look and then stopped. order in this case yet? MS. RAHNE: THE COURT:

There is, your Honor. And I haven't looked for it yet. Are

there different levels of protection, meaning is there an attorneys' eyes only level of protection? MS. RAHNE: We have a public designation, a

confidential and a highly confidential, I would cite attorneys' eyes only. THE COURT: understood that. All right. MR. WEBER: THE COURT: Anything further on Trek's motion? No, your Honor. All right. We're going to just take a I just wanted to make sure I

very short recess again.

I do want to give the parties my

decision here on both Motions to Compel now so I just want

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

48 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 look through my notes to make sure I've got this down correctly and then I'll come back on the bench and give you my decision at that time. (Recess taken from 3:49 to 3:54 p.m.) THE COURT: All right. First of all, with respect

to Plaintiff's motion as it relates to interrogatory number 8 and document request number 23, which has to do with the identifying of any agreement between Lance Armstrong and Trek and then the production of any such agreements, I'm going to deny that motion. I don't find that the underlying

contracts between Mr. Armstrong and Trek have any relevancy or are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Both parties have characterized this

basically as a contract dispute; and notwithstanding that, are attempting to get at information that, as I hear your argument, does not appear relevant to me as to whether there's a breach of contract or is there not. by whom. And, if so,

And taking a look at the underlying agreement that

Mr. Armstrong may have or agreements with Trek, I simply am not convinced that that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. part of the motion. As to Trek's motion against Plaintiffs, I'm going to be granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part as follows: And so that motion is denied, that

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

49 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 respect to interrogatory number 1, 2, 3, and document request number 18, I'm denying that motion for the same reason. I simply do not find to the extent that Trek

is seeking information or documents about other business entities that Mr. LeMond may have owned, that this has any relevancy to this breach of contract action or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. basis I am denying the motion. With respect to document requests number 13 and 26, which are seeking tax returns, I am going to grant the motion to this extent and that is that the individual or joint tax returns of Mr. LeMond -- and obviously you have already agreed about the bicycle-related entities -- will be produced dating back to 1999. attorneys' eyes only. As to the tax returns of other entities that are owned by Mr. LeMond, again, I don't see any relevancy to this action or that it could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And I don't see any basis to require There's been no And they will be produced And on that

the tax returns prior to 1999 be produced.

evidence submitted to me or even argument of counsel that suggests that conduct prior to 1999 has any bearing on any of the theories that are being put forth by Trek. I do think finding out what Mr. LeMond has done to the extent at all in terms of declaring income or revenues

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

50 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 these employee-related purchases or free bicycles is fair game. evidence. Could lead to the discovery of admissible Perhaps they are all accounted for on the LeMond A variety of representations have been I'm not

Cycling returns.

made by counsel as to whether they are or aren't. in a position to determine that, but I do find the

individual tax returns of Mr. LeMond or joint tax returns that may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence but only dating back to 1999. Again, those will be produced

attorneys' eyes only and not shared outside of counsel or experts. order. With respect to document request number 14, which is all financial statements of any entities owned by Mr. LeMond, I'm denying that motion. Again, I don't find In other words, as laid out in your protective

that that information is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. While I can certainly

understand why you would like to find out how big these entities are, I simply don't find that the information about these other business entities, whether they be people or revenues or financial statements, are relevant to this breach of contract action. And so I'm denying the request

as to document request number 14. And I think that that, therefore, resolves all of the outstanding issues between the parties.

CARLA R. BEBAULT, RPR, CSR [phone]

51 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 Now, in terms of what you've agreed to or what I've ordered be produced, have you talked among yourselves as to, for example, on what you've agreed to, as to what the timeline will be for production? MR. WEBER: We've had some discussions on timing

as to certain documents but I'm confident that we will be able to work that out. THE COURT: All right. What about the ones I'm

ordering be produced here, which really are the tax returns. That's the only thing that I'm ordering be produced dating back to 1999. If we set a two-week deadline on that, will

that be appropriate? MR. WEBER: MS. RAHNE: That's fine, Judge. I obviously need to confer with my

client