United States Of America v. Apple Inc.

Filing 1

CASE TRANSFERRED IN from the United States District Court - Western District of Washington at Seattle; Case Number: 12-mc-186. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket entries received.Document filed by Amazon.Com.(sjo) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/19/2012: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (sjo). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/19/2012: # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit) (sjo).

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12

IN RE ELECTRONIC BOOKS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
Action Pending in:
United States District Court, Southern District
of New York (11-md-02293-DLC)

13

Case No.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E.
KIPLING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO QUASH OR MODIFY
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2012

14
15
16

I, MICHAEL E. KIPLING, do hereby declare:

17

1.

I am counsel for Amazon.com (“Amazon”), the moving party in this proceeding.

18

2.

On July 6, 2012, in connection with several lawsuits pending in the United States

19

District Court for the Southern District of New York (“the Litigation”), this Court, at the request

20

of Defendant Apple, issued a subpoena duces tecum to non-party Amazon (“the Subpoena”). A

21

true and correct copy of that Subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

22

3.

I have reviewed the transcript of a case management conference in the Litigation

23

held on June 22, 2012. A true and correct copy of the cover page and relevant pages from that

24

transcript are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

25
26

4.

Prior to filing their complaints in the Litigation, the Department of Justice and the

Texas Attorney General conducted lengthy formal investigations into the pricing of eBooks; the

27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 1

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 2 of 38

1

State of Connecticut also investigated eBook pricing. In connection with these investigations,

2

this firm represented Amazon and I was personally involved in Amazon’s response to three

3

different Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”), as well as to other more targeted discovery

4

requests from the regulators.

5

5.

In addition to responding to the CIDs, Amazon responded to inquiries from the

6

United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission in conjunction with

7

their investigations of the same companies that are defendants in the Litigation regarding price-

8

fixing of eBooks in Europe.

9

6.

In response to the CIDs, Amazon’s attorneys interviewed Amazon employees,

10

collected, reviewed and produced thousands of documents, and responded to repeated requests

11

for highly sensitive data. This effort was quite expensive, costing Amazon hundreds of

12

thousands of dollars in legal fees and fees to the outside vendor we retained to process, search

13

and redact the electronically stored information. These costs relate solely to our response to the

14

U.S. investigations and do not include the costs of responding to the European investigations,

15

which were also significant.

16

7.

The material already produced by Amazon in connection with the government

17

investigations includes the most sensitive, high-level planning documents regarding Amazon’s

18

eBook business; a massive amount of extremely sensitive, anonymized data regarding Amazon’s

19

sales of eBooks and physical books; non-privileged documents relating to Amazon’s

20

negotiations and communications with the Publishers who are defendants in the Litigation; and

21

other confidential, internal documents relating to the impact of the conspiracy on Amazon.

22

8.

It is my understanding that in late June 2012 the DOJ produced all of the

23

documents and data it had gathered during its investigation, including the Amazon documents

24

and data, to Apple and the other parties in the Litigation. I understand that the state Attorneys

25

General have since produced all documents they received from Amazon that were not included

26
27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 2

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 3 of 38

1

in the DOJ production. As a result, Apple and the other Defendants have the benefit of the

2

earlier document and data production.

3

9.

The July 2012 Subpoena from Apple is enormously broad in its scope, both as to

4

the documents and the data it requests. See Exhibit A. The subpoena duplicates many of the

5

requests that the CIDs already covered, but also adds requests for new types of documents and

6

data, many of which, in my opinion, have little to no relevance to the issues in the Litigation,

7

which Judge Cote has described as “a straightforward, horizontal price-fixing conspiracy[.]”

8

United States v. Apple, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127034, *20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2012).

9

10.

Shortly after receiving the Subpoena from Apple, I began to negotiate with

10

Apple’s counsel, during which time it became clear that Apple had not even reviewed the prior

11

production before serving the Subpoena, because they asked us for information that was in our

12

earlier production. Although we pointed out to Apple’s counsel that much of the key data and

13

the significant documents covered by their subpoena, including the documents from the time

14

period when the conspiracy was formed, had already been produced to DOJ and ultimately to the

15

Defendants, Apple nonetheless insisted that Amazon’s earlier production was inadequate and

16

that Amazon would have to repeat its search for responsive documents. Apple insists that

17

Amazon review again the same universe of documents that we reviewed before and found to be

18

non-responsive to the CIDs.

19

11.

Amazon timely served objections to the Subpoena on July 20, 2012.

20

12.

Notwithstanding its view that the earlier production of documents and data should

21

suffice, Amazon participated in a lengthy negotiation with Apple regarding compliance with the

22

subpoena. I certify that these negotiations complied with any obligations of Amazon pursuant to

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). As a result of the meet-and-confer process, Amazon conditionally

24

agreed to supplement its earlier production by providing numerous additional categories of

25

documents and data including:

26
27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 3

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 4 of 38



1




2
3
4
5



6



7



8



9
10

Detailed (anonymous) data on a per-transaction level data regarding every eBook
sale since the launch of the Kindle store in November 2007;
Similar data for sales of physical books;
Non-privileged documents from the files of the key custodians (Russ Grandinetti,
Steve Kessel, David Naggar, Laura Porco) regarding communications and
negotiations with the Publisher Defendants and the impact of the conspiracy on
Amazon;
Copies of all agency agreements between Amazon and any publisher, and any
communications with publishers regarding agency;
Copies of any communications between Amazon and any regulator regarding the
conspiracy challenged in the Litigation;
Any communications with publishers found in the files of Amazon’s CEO, Jeff
Bezos; and
Copies of all non-privileged documents produced to the European Commission
(which production includes all materials produced to the UK’s Office of Fair
Trading).

11

These commitments by Amazon were conditioned upon Apple’s agreement to reimburse

12

Amazon for the costs of complying with this Subpoena, as required by FRCP 45, including its

13

outside counsel and vendor costs but excluding the cost associated with Amazon’s employees or

14

in-house attorneys.

15

13.

The volume of the data that Amazon has agreed to produce is enormous. I have

16

been informed that other eBook retailers have also been asked to produce transaction-level data.

17

If the other retailers provide the same level of data that Amazon is willing to provide, the parties

18

will be in the remarkable position of having an anonymous record of every eBook that has ever

19

been purchased in the United States, through the date the underlying litigation commenced. I

20

have been involved in antitrust litigation for 35 years and I do not recall any case before this

21

when the parties had access to such comprehensive data. This data alone should be more than

22

sufficient for the parties and their experts to prepare their claims or defenses. I note that the

23

expert for the Plaintiff States in the underlying litigation was able to analyze the effects of the

24

conspiracy and provide evidence to the Court with data alone, and the data to which he had

25

access is less complete than Amazon has now agreed to provide. See Mem. In Supp. of Plf.

26
27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 4

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 5 of 38

1

States’ Mot. for Prelim. Approval of Settlements, Appendix E (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-cv-6625, docket

2

no. 11, att. 6. (Relevant pages are attached as Exhibit C).

3

14.

Because of the sensitivity of the materials that Apple is seeking in the Subpoena,

4

and the requirements of the Protective Order in the Litigation, Amazon will incur substantial

5

legal fees prior to production in order to review documents, determine whether they are

6

responsive or privileged, and determine the need for (and the level of) confidentiality as to each

7

responsive, non-privileged document. The cost of complying with this Subpoena in the manner

8

to which Amazon has conditionally agreed might exceed the cost of complying with the three

9

CIDs discussed above, because the scope of the subpoena is greater, the time period covered is

10

longer and the search terms are more onerous. Based on our prior experience, complying with

11

Apple’s demands as to the subpoena would likely cost Amazon several times more.

12

15.

On July 25, 2012 Amazon was served with another subpoena duces tecum, issued

13

by the Class Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation on behalf of all Plaintiffs (i.e, DOJ, State

14

Attorneys General). That Subpoena overlaps Apple’s Subpoena, but it is significantly less

15

burdensome and Plaintiffs—to date—have been more reasonable in working to mitigate the

16

burden on Amazon. We have made it clear to all parties from the outset that Amazon will

17

ultimately conduct only one search for ESI in order to respond to both Subpoenas. Based on our

18

negotiations to date, I believe that the Proposed Order we are submitting with this Motion will go

19

a long way towards satisfying the Plaintiffs’ requests and Amazon continues to negotiate with

20

the Plaintiffs, notwithstanding the filing of this Motion, regarding any additional materials

21

Plaintiffs feel they need from Amazon.

22
23

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

24

EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington this 14th day of September 2012.

25
26

s/ Michael E. Kipling , WSBA #7677
Michael E. Kipling

27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 5

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 6 of 38

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this 14th day of September, 2012, I caused to be served a true

3

and correct copy of the foregoing Declaration of Michael E. Kipling in Support of Motion to

4

Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum by method indicated below and addressed to the

5

following:

6
7
8
9

Christopher Wells
Lane Powell PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Delivery Via:
[ ] U.S. Mail
[ ] Overnight Mail
[ ] Facsimile
[ ] Hand Delivery
[ X ] E-Mail Only
[ ] CM/ECF

Andrew Frackman
Edward N. Moss
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

Delivery Via:
[ ] U.S. Mail
[ ] Overnight Mail
[ ] Facsimile
[ ] Hand Delivery
[ X ] E-Mail Only
[ ] CM/ECF

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATED this 14th day of September, 2012.

22

s/ Michael E. Kipling
Michael E. Kipling, WSBA #7677
Marjorie A. Walter, WSBA #40078
KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 Fremont Avenue N., Suite 414
Seattle, WA 98103
206.545.0345
206.545.0350 (fax)
E-mail: [e-mail]

23

Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.

19
20
21

24
25
26
27
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 6

KIPLING LAW GROUP PLLC
3601 FREMONT AVE N, SUITE 414
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
telephone [phone]
fax [phone]

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 7 of 38

Exhibit A

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 7

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 8 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 8

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 9 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 9

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 10 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 10

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 11 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 11

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 12 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 12

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 13 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 13

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 14 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 14

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 15 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 15

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 16 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 16

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 17 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 17

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 18 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 18

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 19 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 19

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 20 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 20

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 21 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 21

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 22 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 22

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 23 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 23

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 24 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 24

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 25 of 38

Exhibit B

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 25

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 26 of 38

In The Matter Of:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
APPLE, INC., et al.,

June 22, 2012

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
500 PEARL STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
212 805-0330

Original File C6M5appA.txt

Min-U-Script® with Word Index

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 26

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 27 of 38

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
APPLE, INC., et al.,
C6M5appC

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

June 22, 2012
Page 17 C6M5appC

violation requires a horizontal agreement. I can't find that,
I don't believe, as a matter of law, and if we go to the rule
of reason test, again, I don't see how I'm going to make my

findings as a matter of law.
So, I think we are facing a trial and I think the
parties would be well-advised to forego summary judgment
practice here which is why I would urge your consideration -careful consideration of my option 1, June 3 trial date. But,
we will talk about that this afternoon and make a choice. I
don't think we can or should have summary judgment practice --

and I'm sure no one would suggest this -- for the purpose of
delay. There should be some utility in bringing summary
judgment motion. I grant summary judgment motions. I enjoy

working with summary judgment motions. I consider them
carefully. I'm happy to have summary judgment motions. I
assure you that's not my point. My point is in this case does

it make sense.
So, let's talk a little bit about the schedule. One
of the other things you are going to notice, there are several
things that I did in the proposal here which is move up class

certification briefing. If we are going to have not a class
going out because of the settlement in the state's action, I
think it would be lovely to be sending out notice at the same
time about the class so that if people are opting out they can
figure out what they're opting out of and so everybody, for

C6M5appC

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

conference

conference

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

1
2
negotiations in a lawsuit. And we certainly need to know who
3
is in or who is out of the case in terms it of opt-outs before
4
we do the trial. If we are going to have a June trial we have
5
to have early enough motion practice so the motion can be 6
resolved, notice can be sent out, people have a chance to opt
7
out and then you have a chance to crunch the numbers.
8
So, I think moving up class certification, the motion
9
practice makes a lot of sense here too. And, of course, as we 10
have heard, there has been a reference to the need for the 11
states to figure out how to provide notice. The class needs to 12
do that too. There is no reason they couldn't share experts 13
and at least have a common approach if they don't share 14
experts. I'm not quite sure what the defense to class 15
certification would be here. I have denied class
16
certification, I just did it this week. I'm not afraid of 17
doing that either in the appropriate case. But I'm not sure I 18
see the arguments for denying class certification in this case. 19
Again, I'm happy to be educated but that's why I moved it up 20
front for all of these efficiencies.
21
And, I hope you saw right next to July 20th that I 22
have asked Judge Wood to assist the parties in settlement 23
discussions -- and she has very generously and graciously 24
agreed. She has a lot of expertise in the field of antitrust. 25

what the state settlement covers. That often drives further

Page 19

She is an extraordinary jurist and I think we are all very
fortunate that she would be willing to assist the parties in
settlement discussions. I know you took a variety of positions
about when you would be ready for such discussions but whether

or not you feel you are ready, I want you to enter into
discussions in good faith this fall at the latest. She would
be ready to take your calls today if you wanted to set up
discussions to arrange some times to get together but I want
you to call her chambers no later than July 20th to arrange

settlement discussions for the fall.
I also made a judgment that a lot of expert discovery
was not dependent on concluding all fact discovery and that we

could run expert discovery concurrently, in part, with fact
discovery. So, I hope you had a chance to think about that.
Some of the impressions that I have from your submissions that

have driven my proposal to you are the following: We are
fortunate here that the Department of Justice documents are
being made available to all the parties so that that factual
record permits us to expedite discovery and have a 2013 trial.
I don't think we could have had a 2013 trial without that early
production of documents. I think we would have been looking at

2014, at the earliest.
I am assuming that the plaintiffs will be proceeding
on both a per se theory and a rule of reason theory at trial
and that both will be charged to the jury no matter what their

Page 18 C6M5appC

settlement purposes going forward, knows how big the class is,

conference

conference

Page 20

verdict on one might be, and therefore that the discovery has
to be broad enough to encompass, including expert discovery,

both approaches.
I'm assuming that damages discovery can be concurrent
with liability discovery. I think they're largely independent
of each other. Again, I'm saying these things so that if my
perceptions are way off base you will have an opportunity to
tell me that and help me shape a different schedule for this
case. If we are going to have summary judgment practice we
absolutely need time for the motions to be considered and
decided and for the parties to have the benefit of any opinion

before they prepare for trial. So, it adds months to the
litigation.
So, I am at the point where we can start going through
your initial report and attachments B and C and addressing the
issues with specificity. I will give you my rulings on each of
them and we can circle back and decide on schedule or we can

talk about a schedule first. I'm not seeing any clear
indication from the parties which you prefer so let's go to the

initial report.
MR. FLOYD: I am certainly prepared to discuss the
schedule.
THE COURT: Counsel, if you could identify yourself.
MR. FLOYD: I'm sorry. Daniel Floyd, Gibson Dunn on
behalf of Apple.

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
Min-U-Script®
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 27

(5) Pages 17 - 20

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 28 of 38

Exhibit C

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 28

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 29 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 29

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 30 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 30

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 31 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 31

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 32 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 32

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 33 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 33

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 34 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 34

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 35 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 35

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 36 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 36

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 37 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 37

Case 2:12-mc-00186-MJP Document 1-4 Filed 09/14/12 Page 38 of 38

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. KIPLING IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - 38