Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
99 1 - David Gingras dec. re default judgment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

99 1 - David Gingras dec. re default judgment

410
views

Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
410
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 David S. Gingras, #021097 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LISA JEAN BORODKIN et al., Defendants. Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT I, David S. Gingras declare as follows: 1. My name is David Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of the State of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. 2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona and California, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona and California and I am admitted to practice and in good standing with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California. 3. I represent Plaintiff XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC (“Xcentric”) in this matter and I have possession of Xcentric’s files relating to this matter which I have personally reviewed and with which I am personally familiar. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 21
  • 2. 2 DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 4. As the Court is aware, this malicious prosecution action arises from a prior lawsuit filed in California in 2010 against Xcentric by RAYMOND MOBREZ (“Mr. Mobrez”), ILIANA LLANERAS (“Ms. Llaneras”) and their entity, ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC (“AEI”; collectively the “Mobrez Parties”). This prior California action is generally referred to as the “Asia Litigation”. 5. I have been licensed to practice law in California continuously since 2001 and I represented Xcentric in the Asia Litigation from the first day we received notice of the case in February 2010 until the entry of final judgment in the case in June 2011. During most of this time Xcentric was also represented by co-counsel, MARIA CRIMI SPETH (“Ms. Speth”). 6. During this period, I was actively involved in handling every aspect of the Asia Litigation on behalf of Xcentric. I personally attended every hearing and every deposition in the case, and I either personally wrote or personally reviewed every pleading that Xcentric filed in the matter. I also exchanged hundreds of emails with counsel for the Mobrez Parties, DANIEL BLACKERT (“Mr. Blackert”) and LISA BORODKIN (“Ms. Borodkin”). 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a time sheet summarizing the amount of time I spent and the tasks performed during the course of the Asia Litigation. As reflected in this timesheet, I spent at least 593.1 hours representing Xcentric in the Asia Litigation, although this figure is likely substantially less than the actual amount of time I spent working on the matter. 8. While the Asia Litigation was pending, I was a W-2 employee of Xcentric serving as the company’s General Counsel and I was paid a flat salary on a bi-monthly basis. As a salaried employee of Xcentric, I did not bill Xcentric on an hourly basis and I did not typically keep an itemized hourly timesheet of work performed on each matter. Nevertheless, during most of 2010 the Asia Litigation consumed the vast majority of my time, and for much of the time from April 2010 until October 2010, nearly all of my time was spent working on the Asia Litigation. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 21
  • 3. 3 DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 9. In order to determine the approximate amount of time I spent working on the Asia Litigation, after the case was over I went through the entire case file, including the entire court docket, and I reviewed every pleading I created for the case and every email I sent and received relating to the case. In addition, I also reviewed the itemized billing summary created by Xcentric’s outside litigation counsel, Jaburg Wilk, P.C. to compare my own time entries with their time entries. 10. Based on this review and my recollection of the case, I recreated the attached timesheet summarizing the amount of time I spent and the tasks performed during the course of the Asia Litigation. As reflected in this time sheet, I spent 593.1 hours of time defending Xcentric in the Asia Litigation. 11. Because I reconstructed this time sheet based solely upon my review of written materials (i.e., emails, pleadings, and correspondence), it generally does not include entries for any non-written work (i.e., phone calls, in-person meetings, etc.) except in specific instances where a phone call or meeting was documented in writing. 12. For this reason, I believe the amount of hours reflected (593.1) is significantly lower than the actual amount of time I spent on the Asia Litigation. This is so because I recall having frequent lengthy meetings and phone calls with Mr. Magedson and other attorneys regarding the case. However, I did not include any time entries for such meetings or phone calls unless they were clearly documented in a subsequent written email or other correspondence. This means that a significant amount of time spent on the matter is not reflected in the time sheet. 13. Since first becoming licensed in California 11 years ago, I have frequently handled a wide variety of litigation matters in both California state and federal courts on behalf of Xcentric and also on behalf of other clients. For example, considering only cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, I have appeared as counsel in the following litigation matters: Colin Farrell v. Nicole Narain et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-07244-JFW-SH; XPays Inc. v. Internet Commerce Group Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05688-DDP-VBK; Kidsart, Inc. v. Kidzart Texas, LLC, Case No. 2:08- Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 21
  • 4. 4 DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 cv-06185-PA-SS; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. Free-TV-Video-Online.Info et al.; Case No. 2:08-cv-08484-JFW-FMO; Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW; Falcon Foto, LLC v. Domain Management Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06469-CAS-JC; Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. I.C.G. Internet Commerce Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv- 06731-SJO-VBK; Medical Intermediaries LLC v. American Student Loan Services, Inc.; Case No. 8:08-cv-01059-AHS-MLG. I have also handled a variety of other litigation matters in other California district courts and state courts. 14. In my experience handling California litigation matters, California attorneys generally charge hourly rates that are significantly higher than the rates charged by Arizona litigation counsel with the same level of experience. This disparity is even greater in the Los Angeles market where experienced litigators regularly charge rates of $500–800/hr. or much more. 15. As an Arizona attorney with eight years of experience, I typically charge $200–250/hr. for my services in handling litigation matters in Arizona depending on various factors including the nature and complexity of the case, among other things. 16. For matters in California, my standard hourly rate is $300/hr. This higher rate reflects the fact that I have been admitted to practice law in California longer (11 years vs. 8 years in Arizona). It also reflects the much higher hourly rates generally charged by California litigation counsel, and it reflects the fact that litigation in California is often much more complicated and time-intensive than it is in Arizona. 17. Based on my knowledge and experience in handling litigation matters in California, I believe that $300/hr. is a reasonable rate for the type of services I provided to Xcentric during the course of the Asia Litigation. In fact, I am aware that this rate is significantly lower than many California attorneys charge for federal court litigation matters, and I am aware that this rate is significantly lower than the average rates charged by California attorneys with a similar number of years of experience. See Krapf v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2010 WL 4261444, *5 (C.D.Cal. 2010) (noting that a 2007 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 21
  • 5. 5 DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 survey of average hourly rates in California, “shows that the average hourly rate for attorneys with eleven to fifteen years of experience is $383.00.”) Because I have eleven years of experience handling complex litigation matters in California, I believe $300/hr. is a reasonable hourly rate for the time spent working on the Asia Litigation. 18. At the conclusion of the Asia Litigation, Xcentric applied for and was awarded taxable costs against Mr. Mobrez, Ms. Llaneras, and AEI in the amount of $4,949.03. This amount was based on a Bill of Costs which I filed in the matter on June 27, 2011 (Doc. #187-1), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 19. As shown in the Bill of Costs, the taxable costs previously awarded to Xcentric were comprised of three separate categories: 1.) reporter’s transcripts ($127.68); 2.) deposition transcripts ($4,810.35); and 3.) photocopies ($11.00). 20. Of these expenses, Xcentric paid one directly—the deposition transcript costs of $4,810.35. Because Xcentric paid this expense directly, that amount is not reflected in the itemized billing statement of Jaburg & Wilk which is attached to the declaration submitted by Ms. Speth. 21. The other two items listed in the Bill of Costs (reporter’s transcripts and photocopies) represent small amounts totaling $138.68 which were advanced by the firm of Jaburg & Wilk. Those costs are reflected in the itemized billing statement of Jaburg & Wilk which is attached to the declaration submitted by Ms. Speth. 22. To be clear—because the sum of $138.68 for reporter’s transcripts and photocopies was included the taxable costs previously awarded to Xcentric in the California action, Xcentric does not seek to recover this amount in this matter. However, Xcentric does seek to recover the remaining balance of non-taxable costs of $6,137.78 ($6,276.46 - $138.68 = $6,137.78) because that sum was not awarded in the prior case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED ON: July 19, 2012. /S/ David S. Gingras David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 5 of 21
  • 6. 6 DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 27 28 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3941E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#106-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 20, 2012 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following: John S. Craiger, Esq. David E. Funkhouser III, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP One Renaissance Square Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391 Attorney for Defendant Lisa J. Borodkin Raymond Mobrez Iliana Llaneras PO BOX 3663 Santa Monica, CA 90408 Defendants Pro Se And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622 401 West Washington Street, SPC 80 Phoenix, AZ 85003-215 /s/David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 6 of 21
  • 7. Exhibit A Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 7 of 21
  • 8. Date Time Description 2/2/2010 2.5 Review new Complaint and Summons in Asia Economic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures; discuss lawsuit with Ed and determine whether case is removable; draft email to Maria Speth with plan for removing case to federal court; review and respond to several emails from Maria Speth re: her conversation with Daniel Blackert. 2/3/2010 5.0 Research law re: RICO case statement requirements; research California Anti-SLAPP standards and draft meet-and-confer letter to Daniel Blackert discussing Communications Decency Act, Anti-SLAPP, and RICO issues. 2/8/2010 .5 Phone call to Daniel Blackert re: new Asia case. Research additional contact information for Mr. Blackert; email to Maria Speth re: Blackert did not return call. 2/17/2010 3.5 Draft Answer to AEI’s Complaint and supporting documentation (Corporate Disclosure Statement); draft Notice of Removal and Civil Cover Sheet; review CCP § 425.15 to determine timing of Anti-SLAPP motion; draft emails to Ed & Maria re: strategy and status. 3/1/2010 1.5 Telephone conference with Daniel Blackert re: AEI case; draft email to Mr. Blackert with copy of demand letter dated February 3, 2010 which Mr. Blackert claimed he did not receive; draft lengthy email to Ed & Maria summarizing conversation with Blackert and his thoughts on the lawsuit. 3/5/2010 1.8 Review correspondence from Daniel Blackert dated March 3, 2010 re: Ed claimed to live in California; research removal statute to confirm this point is irrelevant; draft lengthy email to Ed & Maria summarizing Blackert correspondence and explaining research on removal. 3/9/2010 8.0 Begin researching and drafting Special Motion to Strike. 3/10/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting Special Motion to Strike. 3/11/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting Special Motion to Strike. 3/15/2010 .3 Draft email to Daniel Blackert to meet and confer regarding Special Motion to Strike. 3/15/2010 7.5 Discuss facts of Raymond Mobrez correspondence with Ed and begin drafting Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 8 of 21
  • 9. declaration for Ed with supporting exhibits. 3/19/2010 1.5 Review correspondence from Daniel Blackert dated March 19, 2010 re: Anti-SLAPP issues; draft email to Maria & Laura re: discussion of Blackert’s arguments and research assistance. 3/22/2010 1.0 Finalize and file Anti-SLAPP motion and Motion to Require RICO Case statement. 3/23/2010 .6 Review and respond to several emails from Maria re: case status and motions. 3/29/2010 6.5 Review Plaintiff’s Opposition to Xcentric’s Anti-SLAPP motion and supporting documents including Affidavit of Raymond Mobrez alleging Ed asked for $5k on the phone; begin drafting Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion. 3/29/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiff’s 35-page Motion to Remand; draft email to Ed with summary of issues. 3/30/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Daniel Blackert re: are Plaintiffs seeking more than $75,000 in damages; email copy of same to Blackert. 3/31/2010 .8 Review letter from Daniel Blackert confirming amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; forward copy of same with analysis of issues to Ed & Maria. 4/1/2010 .4 Draft email to Daniel Blackert re: Ed resides in Arizona and related issues. 4/1/2010 6.0 Being researching and drafting Opposition to Motion to Remand. 4/2/2010 .2 Review and respond to email from Daniel Blackert re: Plaintiffs are withdrawing Motion to Remand. 4/2/2010 7.5 Continue researching and drafting Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion. 4/5/2010 3.5 Finalize and file Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion; draft email to litigation group re: same. 4/5/2010 2.5 Finalize and file Opposition to Motion to Remand and supporting declarations from David S. Gingras and Ed Magedson (Blackert never withdrew motion). 4/6/2010 .2 Draft email to Daniel Blackert re: status of pending motions. 4/7/2010 .3 Review Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Remand; email to Maria re: status. 4/7/2010 .5 Revise Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion; file same with Notice of Errata. 4/9/2010 1.5 Review email from Daniel Blackert re: various issues and draft lengthy response to same with Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 9 of 21
  • 10. Xcentric’s theory of the case and position on settlement; note, informed Blackert: “FYI – most of the time, the discovery phase of cases like this lasts about 18 months to 2 years.” 4/12/2010 8.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles to attend status conference. 4/13/2010 1.0 Draft lengthy email to litigation group with explanation of yesterday’s status conference. 4/14/2010 .9 Review and respond to several emails from Adam Kunz re: status of Anti-SLAPP motion; draft lengthy responses to same. 4/14/2010 .3 Review minutes of status conference and forward copy of same to Debbie Gower. 4/19/2010 8.0 Prepare for and travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on Anti-SLAPP motion. 4/21/2010 .5 Review “catalyst” letter from Daniel Blackert with settlement proposal; respond via email rejecting proposal. 4/21/2010 1.8 Draft Defendants’ Initial Rule 26 Disclosures; prepare lengthy email to Daniel Blackert with discussion of discovery plan. 4/21/2010 4.5 Begin drafting Defendants’ Initial Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs (RFPs, Roggs, RFAs); draft email to Maria re: RICO case statement issues. 4/22/2010 5.0 Continue extensive research re: RICO legal issues; draft email to litigation group with comments re: Chang v. Chen was recently overruled and is no longer good law. 4/22/2010 2.4 Review and respond to lengthy email from Lisa Borodkin re: AEI case; review “Sedona Conference” literature from Ms. Borodkin; research issue of RICO damages. 4/23/2010 .7 Review and respond to several emails from Daniel Blackert re: case status and Lisa Borodkin appearance. 4/26/2010 2.5 Finalize Xcentric’s First Set of Discovery Requests and email copy of same to Blackert an Borodkin; draft email to Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting expedited responses to discovery. 4/27/2010 1.8 Draft email to Lisa Borodkin re: analysis of why Monex case is not helpful to Plaintiffs’ position; draft email to Maria requesting input on strategy; draft follow-up email to Ms. Borodkin re: deposition location of Ed Magedson. 4/28/2010 .3 Draft email to counsel requesting meet-and- Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 10 of 21
  • 11. confer re: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 4/28/2010 .8 Telephone conference with Paul Berra re: local counsel needed for AEI case to get Maria admitted PHV; discuss status of case and draft email to Mr. Berra with copy of Complaint. 4/28/2010 8.0 Begin researching and drafting Motion for Summary Judgment. 4/28/2010 .8 Draft lengthy email to litigation group with outline of MSJ and questions re: various RICO issues. 4/29/2010 3.5 Draft proposed Protective Order; email copy of same to Plainitffs’ counsel. 4/29/2010 6.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion for Summary Judgment. 4/29/2010 .7 Draft Notice of Deposition for Mobrez and Llaneras and Deposition Subpoena for Mobrez; email copies of same to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 4/30/2010 2.5 Listen to copies of audio recordings of telephone calls between Ed and Mobrez; draft table of calls and research California eavesdropping statute. 5/1/2010 1.5 Review draft Case Management Report from Ms. Borodkin and input Xcentric’s comments to same; draft email to Ms. Borodkin re: missing damages disclosures from Plaintiffs and discussion of protective order. 5/3/2010 2.0 Review and respond to lengthy emails from Lisa Borodkin re: summary judgment issues; draft numerous emails to litigation group with discussion of strategy and issues including Magedson deposition. 5/3/2010 5.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion for Summary Judgment. 5/4/2010 8.0 Begin preparing for deposition of Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras; select exhibits and produce deposition binders for both witnesses. 5/5/2010 3.5 Review transcript from prior hearing in Los Angeles; emails to Ms. Borodkin re: payment of ½ cost of transcript; draft email to Daniel Blackert re: notes of phone conversations are illegible; continue preparing for depositions on Friday. 5/6/2010 1.5 Review new copy of phone call notes disclosed by Plaintiffs; finalize deposition questions and forward copy of same to litigation group; forward copy of phone call #7 to Maria with Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 11 of 21
  • 12. summary of conversation. 5/7/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for deposition of Raymond Mobrez (suspend deposition of Iliana Llaneras); review and respond to emails from Daniel Blackert re: California ethical issues and obligation to withdraw from case; lengthy telephone conference with Ed & Maria re: outcome of Raymond’s deposition. 5/8/2010 1.5 Review email from Lisa Borodkin re: she does not know what happened at Raymond’s deposition; draft lengthy email to Ms. Borodkin with copies of recorded phone calls and summary of Xcentric’s position re: same. 5/9/2010 7.5 Research and draft demand letter to Daniel Blackert and Lisa Borodkin re: AEI litigation; forward copy to litigation group for input/comment. 5/10/2010 1.5 Review lengthy email from Lisa Borodkin responding to email from Saturday re: Mobrez deposition; review attached draft Case Management Report; add Xcentric’s changes to draft report. 5/10/2010 2.0 Draft affidavit for Ed Magedson correcting mistaken testimony re: Mobrez threatened him. 5/10/2010 1.0 Conference call with all counsel re: case status. 5/10/2010 1.5 Draft lengthy email to Lisa Borodkin re: Xcentric’s additions to Joint Report with additional comments re: Plaintiffs intend to submit “corrected affidavits”. 5/11/2010 .7 Review correspondence from Ms. Borodkin objecting to certain discovery requests from Xcentric. 5/11/2010 3.5 Finalize demand letter to Daniel Blackert and Lisa Borodkin re: perjury by Plaintiffs and potential settlement proposal; email copy of same to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 5/11/2010 2.5 Draft and file Affidavit of Ed Magedson re: extortion allegations per court order. 5/11/2010 1.5 Review court minutes re: settlement conference has been scheduled for July 14 in Los Angeles; review and respond to numerous emails from Maria re: case status and Pro Hac Vice admission. 5/17/2010 9.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion for Summary Judgment; begin drafting Statement of Facts ISO same; review deposition transcript Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 12 of 21
  • 13. from Mobrez depo for inclusion in motion; finalize MSJ and forward initial draft to litigation group for review. 5/18/2010 7.5 Review 30(b)(6) deposition notice from Lisa Borodkin for Xentric; continue drafting Statement of Facts and supporting docs for MSJ; draft email to Paul Berra re: help with ex parte procedure issue; draft lengthy email to Plaintiffs’ counsel with proposed protective order. 5/19/2010 8.0 Continue working on Statement of Facts and exhibits supporting MSJ. 5/20/2010 2.5 Review Draft 37 Stipulation from Lisa Borodkin re: Plaintiffs’ proposed Motion to Compel; discuss same with Maria & Ed. 5/20/2010 2.0 Review “corrected affidavits” from Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras; discuss same with Maria & Ed. 5/21/2010 1.5 Draft “Notice re: Corrected Declarations” with comment re: sham affidavit rule. 5/21/2010 6.5 Draft multiple declaration ISO MSJ (Kim J, Lynda C, and Amy T); revise Ed Magedson affidavit ISO MSJ; draft affidavit of Ben Smith ISO MSJ. 5/23/2010 3.5 Final revisions to all supporting MSJ documents; emails to/from Ed and Ben re: same. 5/24/2010 1.0 File MSJ and supporting documents; draft email to litigation group with copies of same; email copies of same to Plaintiffs’ counsel. 5/26/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiff’s response to Xcentric first set of discovery requests; begin drafting Joint Stipulation re: Motion to Compel; email copies of same to litigation group. 5/27/2010 .8 Review and respond to email from Lisa Borodkin re: 30(b)(6) deposition of Xcentric and threat to bring Motion to Compel even though Lisa cancelled deposition herself. 5/27/2010 2.5 Finalize Xcentric’s portion of Rule 37 Joint Stipulation re: discovery disputes and email copy of same to Ms. Borodkin. 5/27/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer re: Plaintiffs’ discovery responses. 5/27/2010 1.5 Review and respond to lengthy email from Ms. Borodkin re: discovery disputes re: 30(b)(6) deposition issues. 5/29/2010 1.7 Review and respond to lengthy email from Ms. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 13 of 21
  • 14. Borodkin arguing that Xcentric’s discovery requests were served too early; re-serve copy of same on Ms. Borodkin. 5/30/2010 .8 Review and respond to several emails from Ms. Borodkin re: discovery disputes. 5/31/2010 3.5 Review Plaintiffs’ Motion for Bench Trial; begin researching and drafting response to same. 6/1/2010 2.5 Review and respond to numerous emails from Adam, Maria and Ed re: deposition tomorrow; review all previous affidavits from Ed to prepare for deposition. 6/2/2010 9.0 Travel to/from and attend 30(b)(6) deposition of Ed Magedson at Jaburg Wilk offices. 6/3/2010 1.5 Make final revisions to Rule 47 Joint Stipulation and email copy of same to Ms. Borodkin with DSG comments. 6/3/2010 .9 Review and respond to email from Ed Magedson re: need to file “emergency motion to stop AEI case due to fraud”. 6/4/2010 4.5 Review Plaintiff’s first set of Request for Admissions; draft lengthy email to litigation group with comments about same; final revisions to Rule 37 Joint Stip (59 pages total) and file same. 6/5/2010 .4 Draft email to Ed re: Plaintiff’s first set of Request for Admissions. 6/8/2010 8.0 Prepare for and travel to/from deposition of Edward Magedson at Jaburg Wilk offices; draft object to Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Ed. 6/10/2010 .4 Review and respond to numerous emails from Lisa Borodkin re: possible Motion to Strike telephone recordings 6/11/2010 1.2 Continue meeting and conferring with Ms. Borodkin re: possible Motion to Strike telephone recordings. 6/15/2010 3.9 Review Plaintiffs’ untimely response to Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting material; review Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections to MSJ; draft lengthy emails to litigation group re: case status and strategy. 6/16/2010 8.5 Begin researching and drafting Reply ISO MSJ; emails to litigation group with request for assistance. 6/17/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting Reply ISO MSJ; begin drafting Opposition to Plaintiffs’ “Evidentiary Objections” Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 14 of 21
  • 15. 6/21/2010 2.2 Review 150 pages of disclosure from Plaintiffs including bank statements; draft email to litigation group re: same. 6/21/2010 5.0 Continue finalizing Reply ISO MSJ. 6/22/2010 1.0 Review Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents; email to litigation group re: same. 6/22/2010 2.5 Final revisions to Reply ISO Statement of Facts; email to Maria Speth re: same. 6/22/2010 4.5 Continue drafting supplemental affidavit of Ed Magedson re: MSJ; telephone conference with Ben Smith re: Google meta tag issues. 6/23/2010 3.0 Begin drafting affidavit of Ben Smith addressing Plaintiffs’ allegation that rebuttals posted on ROR do not show up in Google search results; forward draft affidavit to Mr. Smith via email. 6/23/2010 2.5 Review extensive new disclosures from Plaintiffs including SEO expert designation and materials regarding Fadi (Sebastian) Karnaby. 6/23/2010 4.8 Draft objection to Daniel Blackert declaration; finalize Response to Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections, Response to Statement of Additional Facts, Affidavit of Ben Smith, Affidavit of Ed Magedson, Declaration of David S. Gingras. 6/24/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 6/25/2010 .3 Review and respond to email from Lisa Borodkin re: Sebastian Karnaby. 6/26/2010 .8 Review tentative ruling from magistrate judge re: Motion to Compel; draft email to Ed with comments. 6/28/2010 7.0 Review demand letter from Lisa Borodkin re: third deposition of Ed Magedson; forward copy of same to Ed & Maria; begin reviewing 500+ pages of deposition transcripts to determine validity of positions in Borodkin letter re: questions Ed allegedly refused to answer; review and respond to numerous emails from Ms. Borodkin re: Plaintiffs want to bring Rule 56(f) motion. 6/29/2010 7.5 Complete full analysis of both prior Magedson depositions; draft letter (16 pages) responding to Lisa Borodkin correspondence re: third deposition of Ed Magedson; email draft to litigation group; review and respond to multiple emails from Ed & Maria commenting on draft letter. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 15 of 21
  • 16. 6/30/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Clerk of Court requesting permission for Ed to appear at settlement conference by telephone; telephone conference with clerk re: request. 6/30/2010 2.5 Conduct research re: availability of attorney’s fees under California Private Attorney General statute, CCP § 1021.5; draft lengthy email to litigation group with findings. 6/30/2010 1.5 Review voicemail from former AEI employee asking to discuss case; forward copy of voicemail to litigation group with email; return call to employee w/ lengthy phone conversation re: Mobrez/Llaneras/AEI. 7/1/2010 3.5 Draft Xcentric’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions; email draft of same to litigation group. 7/1/2010 3.5 Draft Defendants’ settlement conference memo. 7/1/2010 1.9 Review and respond to numerous (15+) emails from litigation group re: case status, settlement conference status, and trial preparation order. 7/8/2010 7.8 Research and draft Defendants’ pre-trial Memorandum of Contentions of Fact And Law. 7/9/2010 8.0 Review Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Discovery Continuance per Rule 56(f); begin drafting emergency response to same; numerous emails to/from local counsel re: emergency filing of response; draft Declaration of David S. Gingras ISO Defendants’ opposition to Rule 56(f) motion. 7/12/2010 10.0 Prepare for hearing on Defendants’ MSJ; travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on same. 7/13/2010 1.5 Email to litigation group re: outcome of yesterday’s MSJ hearing; draft email to Paul Berra re: ex parte request to vacate settlement conference in light of court’s granting MTD and partial summary judgment. 7/13/2010 .3 Draft email to Lisa Borodkin with copy of 2nd questionnaire. 7/13/2010 .8 Draft lengthy email to magistrate judge’s clerk re: we would like to continue settlement conference. 7/13/2010 .7 Review email from Maria Speth to Lisa Borodkin requesting that Plaintiffs NOT re-file wire fraud claim; draft correspondence to Ms. Borodkin re: Hemi Group case from U.S. Supreme Court. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 16 of 21
  • 17. 7/13/2010 .5 Conference call with Magistrate Walsh and Lisa Borodkin re: settlement conference. 7/14/2010 2.7 Draft very lengthy email to Lisa Borodkin re: Shaluly issue of ROR removing name of 16 year-old girl from report as a courtesy. 7/14/2010 1.7 Review and respond to several lengthy emails from Lisa Borodkin re: possible amended complaint and possible liability for malicious prosecution. 7/15/2010 4.5 Review email from Lisa Borodkin with “Layman’s Description of Wire Fraud Claim”; begin researching issues identified for possible 12(b)(6) motion. 7/19/2010 1.0 Review MSJ ruling from court (53 pages); draft email to litigation group with analysis. 7/19/2010 3.5 Complete Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ production requests and interrogatories. 7/20/2010 5.0 Travel to/from and attend settlement conference with Plaintiffs and Ed Magedson at Jaburg Wilk offices; telephone conference with Magistrate Walsh re: Ed’s third deposition. 7/27/2010 7.5 Review Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (84 pages) with exhibits (345 pages); draft lengthy email to litigation group with observations/comments and strategy discussion. 7/29/2010 3.5 Review “Request for Judicial Notice” filed by Daniel Blackert which contained false allegation that Gingras lied to Blockowicz counsel and that Speth lied to Seventh Circuit in Blockowicz oral argument; prepare lengthy email to Maria Speth with timeline of events surrounding Blockowicz and Sternberg cases. 7/29/2010 6.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion to Dismiss re: First Amended Complaint. 7/30/2010 .3 Draft email to Laura Rogal re: Rule 11 motion against Lisa Borodkin for false comments re: Shaluly issue. 7/30/2010 9.5 Continue researching and drafting Response to Motion to Dismiss. 8/2/2010 8.5 Continue researching and drafting Motion to Dismiss; review draft Rule 11 motion. 8/3/2010 7.5 Review new ex parte Motion for TRO (44 pages) filed by Lisa Borodkin and supporting documents set for hearing on August 5; telephone conference with Maria Speth re: need to immediately respond; begin researching and Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 17 of 21
  • 18. drafting response to same. 8/4/2010 3.5 Complete and file response to ex parte TRO application. 8/5/2010 6.5 Continue researching and drafting Motion to Dismiss; email copy of initial draft of same to Maria Speth. 8/6/2010 .8 Conference call with magistrate judge re: ex parte TRO application. 8/6/2010 5.0 Finalize and file Motion to Dismiss. 8/16/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Motion for Judicial Notice and Motion for Reconsideration with supporting documentation; email to litigation group with comments. 8/30/2010 4.5 Research and draft Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 9/7/2010 2.5 Research and draft Reply ISO Motion to Dismiss. 9/20/2010 9.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on Motion to Dismiss and related motions (no ruling). 9/21/2010 8.5 Begin researching and drafting Anti-SLAPP Motion re: Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 9/22/2010 12 Begin researching and drafting Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment. 9/23/2010 12 Continue researching and drafting Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documentation. 9/24/2010 12 Continue researching and drafting Anti-SLAPP Motion re: Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; review and respond to numerous emails from Lisa Borodkin re: new Anti-SLAPP Motion. 9/25 7.0 Continue researching and drafting Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documentation. 9/26 7.0 Continue researching and drafting Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting documentation. 9/27 8.5 Finalize and file Defendants’ Second MSJ and Second Anti-SLAPP Motions. 10/1/2010 .5 Telephone conference with Lisa Borodkin re: Plaintiffs’ request for 1-week extension of time to respond to MSJ; draft email to Ms. Borodkin re: same. 10/5/2010 2.5 Review numerous new filings from Plaintiffs including: Motion for Judicial Notice and numerous supporting materials; review and Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 18 of 21
  • 19. email litigation group with summary of recent filings. 10/6/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts ISO MSJ; draft and file Request for Waiver of Oral Argument on MSJ as motion is unopposed. 10/6/2010 .3 Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Request to Waive Oral Argument. 10/7/2010 1.3 Review Plaintiffs’ Request for Enlargement of Time and draft opposition to same. 10/12/2010 .2 Draft and file Reply ISO MSJ. 10/13/2010 .5 Review and respond to numerous emails from Ed re: Lisa Borodkin’s ex parte contact with James Rogers; review California ethical rules re: same. 10/13/2010 1.0 Review Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion #2; email to litigation group re: same. 10/18/2010 5.0 Research and draft Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP #2. 10/22/2010 1.5 Review and respond to numerous lengthy emails from Ms. Borodkin re: deposition of James Rogers. 11/1/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on MSJ #2 (hearing vacated due to last-minute Rule 56(f) filing from Ms. Borodkin). 11/3/2010 7.5 Begin researching and drafting Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 2nd Rule 56(f) Motion and Motion for Sanctions. 11/8/2010 1.5 Finalize and file Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 2nd Rule 56(f) Motion and Motion for Sanctions. 11/15/2010 .8 Review Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Motion for Rule 56(f) relief and supporting documentation. 5/4/2011 1.5 Review ruling on Defendants’ Second MSJ and other pending motions; draft lengthy email to litigation group re: summary of ruling and status. 5/19/2011 1.0 Prepare Proposed Final Judgment and Notice of Lodging same. 6/27/2011 1.5 Prepare and file Bill of Costs and Notice of Application to Tax Costs and Supporting Documentation. TOTAL 593.1 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 19 of 21
  • 20. Exhibit B Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 20 of 21
  • 21. Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 187-1 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:5110 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 21 of 21