You are on page 1of 75

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 75 Page ID

#:5512

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 75 Page ID


#:5513
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Peter J. Anderson
Malofiy, Francis Alexander
Helene M. Freeman
Skidmore
Friday, March 25, 2016 2:43:00 PM

Francis:
Im following up regarding scheduling expert depositions. Since you havent provided
dates I propose the following (some experts didnt state their place of residence or
business, so please let me know asap if Ive got their cities wrong):
Stewart: April 6 in Burlington, VT, with a 9 or 9:30 a.m. start.
Bricklin, Johnson, Hanson and Somach: April 7 in Philadelphia, as follows:
o
o
o
o

Bricklin at 9 a.m.
Johnson at 11:00 a.m.
Hanson at 3:00 p.m.
Somach at 4:30 p.m.

Einhorn: April 8 in New Jersey, with a 9 or 9:30 a.m. start.


Please let me know if these dates work for you and these gentlemen, and also please
get back to me as to whether they will accept service of their subpoenas.
Thanks.
Peter.
______________________________
The Law Offices of Peter J. Anderson
A Professional Corporation
100 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 2010
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 260-6030
Fax: (310) 260-6040
THE INFORMATION IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED FOR THE PERSON OR
PERSONS INDICATED ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS
PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM
DISCLOSURE BY LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON OR PERSONS
INDICATED ABOVE, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM DISCLOSING,
DISTRIBUTING OR COPYING THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AND YOU
ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY E-MAIL OR
TELEPHONE THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL AND TO PLEASE DELETE
THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.

EXHIBIT 1
11

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 75 Page ID


#:5514
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
Malofiy, Francis Alexander
Helene M. Freeman
RE: Skidmore
Monday, March 28, 2016 2:47:00 PM
Nottice of Subpoenas.pdf

Francis:
Since I didnt hear back from you, attached is a courtesy copy of the notice served
today of the subpoenas issued for your expert witnesses, for the dates proposed
below.
Of course, I remain willing to schedule these for other dates if we can reach
agreement on those dates beforehand.
Finally, I again ask that you let me know if your witnesses will accept service of their
subpoenas. Alternatively, please immediately provide their addresses, which were
not included with their disclosures.
Best regards.
Peter.

EXHIBIT 1
12

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 75 Page ID


#:5515
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Francis Alexander Malofiy


Peter J. Anderson; Helene M. Freeman
Francis Alexander Malofiy; AJ Fluehr; Glen Kulik
RE: Skidmore
Monday, March 28, 2016 2:59:39 PM

Dear Peter,
I will get back to you by Wednesday of this week.

*****
With every good wish, I am,
Francis Malofiy, Esquire
Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com

EXHIBIT 1
13

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 75 Page ID


#:5516
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Peter J. Anderson
"Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"; "Glen Kulik"
RE: Skidmore
Monday, March 28, 2016 3:01:00 PM

Francis:
Okay, but in the meantime please provide the experts addresses so that I can make
arrangements to have them served if they decline to accept service.
Thanks.
Peter.

EXHIBIT 1
14

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 75 Page ID


#:5517

From: Peter J. Anderson [mailto:pja@pjanderson.com]


Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:36 PM
To: 'Francis Alexander Malofiy'
Cc: 'AJ Fluehr'; 'Glen Kulik'; 'Helene M. Freeman'
Subject: RE: Skidmore

Francis:
I do need to hear from you about the expert depositions and their addresses and
subpoenas. If you dont get back to me and dont provide addresses, that will be
another reason we will raise that you cant call your experts.
Also, we havent heard from you regarding conferring re exhibits and such. When do
you want to have that conference?
Best regards.
Peter.

EXHIBIT 1
15

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 75 Page ID


#:5518

From: Francis Alexander Malofiy [mailto:francis@francisalexander.com]


Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:06 PM
To: Peter J. Anderson; Helene M. Freeman
Cc: Francis Alexander Malofiy; AJ Fluehr; Glen Kulik
Subject: RE: Skidmore

Peter,
Im confused by your request.
The Discovery Cut-Off Date identified by Judge Klausners Order was February 11, 2016. See attached
Order.
The deadline to conduct discovery and depositions has long passed.
Kindly review Judge Klausners Orders:
In regards to Discovery Cut-Off:
The Court has established a cut-off date for discovery in this action [February 11, 2016]. All discovery
shall be complete by the discovery cut-off date specified in the Scheduling Order. This is not the date by
which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery is to be completed.
In regards to Depositions:
All depositions shall be scheduled to commence sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date
[February 11, 2016] to permit their completion and to permit the deposing party enough time to bring
any discovery motion concerning the deposition prior the cut-off date.
Peter, if you recall, I had repeatedly reached out to you with the hopes of addressing the expert
discovery issue and extending the discovery deadline so that we would have ample time to conduct
expert depositions. You refused to submit a joint stipulation to extend the deadlines or set the expert
deadlines.
*****
With every good wish, I am,
Francis Malofiy, Esquire
Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com

EXHIBIT 1
16

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 8 of 75 Page ID


#:5519

From: Peter J. Anderson [mailto:pja@pjanderson.com]


Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:22 PM
To: 'Francis Alexander Malofiy'; 'Helene M. Freeman'
Cc: 'AJ Fluehr'; 'Glen Kulik'
Subject: RE: Skidmore

Francis:
Feigning confusion is very dangerous for you and your client, both because the Court
will not buy it and because if you refuse to cooperate and disclose the experts
addresses you are likely, and perhaps certainly, going to be precluded from calling
them.
February 11, 2016 was the fact discovery cut-off and these are expert, not fact,
depositions. Also, since the Court left experts to code, expert disclosures were due
and provided on February 10, 2016. It is absurd for you to suggest that the depositions
of the experts disclosed on February 10, 2016, as well as any rebuttal experts disclosed
in March, 30 days later, were supposed to occur by February 11.
I ask you once again to cooperate in the taking of these expert depositions and, if you
refuse to arrange for them to accept service of their deposition subpoenas, provide the
experts addresses.
Peter.

EXHIBIT 1
17

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 9 of 75 Page ID


#:5520
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Francis Alexander Malofiy; Peter J. Anderson; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:40:46 PM
image001.png

I wasnt directly involved in the scheduling but the order does say Discovery Cut Off Date. If the judge meant percipient
witness cut-off date only then in my experience he would have distinguished, or he would have set a separate date for expert
discovery cut off. Isnt that your experience, too, Peter?
___________________________________________________________________________
Glen L. Kulik, Esq.
KULIK GOTTESMAN SIEGEL & WARE LLP
15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
(310) 557-9200
Main
(310) 557-0224
Fax
___________________________________________________________________________
This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named addressee. Unless you are the
addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please delete
the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (310) 557-9200. Thank you.
To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in this communication is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.

EXHIBIT 1
18

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 10 of 75 Page ID


#:5521
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:46:00 PM
image001.png

He also said that morning that he was leaving experts to code, meaning the FRCP 26 default provisions,
which necessarily means that expert depositions occur after the fact discovery cut-off. Theres no getting
around that Glen.

EXHIBIT 1
19

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 11 of 75 Page ID


#:5522
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson; Francis Alexander Malofiy; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:56:00 PM
image002.png
image003.png

Peter,
What specific language are you referring to in Rule 26?

EXHIBIT 1
20

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 12 of 75 Page ID


#:5523
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:59:00 PM
image001.png

Rule 26(a)(2)(D) It provides that absent the court setting or the parties agreeing to a different schedule, the
default is initial expert disclosures go out 90 days before the trial date, etc., and 90 days before the trial date
was February 10, the day before the discovery cut-off.

EXHIBIT 1
21

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 13 of 75 Page ID


#:5524
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson; Francis Alexander Malofiy; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:03:36 PM
image002.png
image003.png

Ok, Im aware of that language but it has to do with expert disclosures, not expert depositions. I dont recall Rule 26 saying
anything about the timing of expert depositions. When the judge mentioned the default date, I have a faint recollection he
meant for expert designations.
As for whether the schedule was logical, Ive seen a few examples the last two months where I thought the schedule set by the
court did not make sense in hindsight, but the judge does not seem inclined to modify it.

EXHIBIT 1
22

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 14 of 75 Page ID


#:5525
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:07:00 PM
image001.png

Im not sure what to make of your e-mail, but the fact remains that (1) we could not have possibly taken the
expert depositions before the February 11, 2016 discovery cut-off date and (2) we cannot assume that the
Judge meant to prevent the parties from taking expert depositions. That leads inexorably to the conclusion
that the February 11 date didnt apply to experts.

EXHIBIT 1
23

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 15 of 75 Page ID


#:5526
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:09:00 PM
image001.png

And, to add to that: Rule 26(b)(4)(A) expressly directs that parties are entitled to depose those identified as
experts.

EXHIBIT 1
24

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 16 of 75 Page ID


#:5527
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson; Francis Alexander Malofiy; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:10:26 PM
image002.png
image003.png

I dont know what was intended but I know what the order says, and it refers to discovery cut-off without making any
distinction between expert discovery and percipient witness discovery.
That said, I see that youve proposed Friday to meet and confer with Francis so hopefully hell be available and youll work
something out.

EXHIBIT 1
25

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 17 of 75 Page ID


#:5528
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson; Francis Alexander Malofiy; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:11:44 PM
image002.png
image003.png

Of course there is a right to depose experts, just as there is the right to depose percipient witnesses. But there is a cut-off.

EXHIBIT 1
26

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 18 of 75 Page ID


#:5529
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19:00 PM
image001.png
image002.png

Rule 26(b)(4)(A) is specific to deposing experts, and that confirms experts are treated separately from
percipient witnesses. Otherwise, there would be no need for Rule 26(b)(4)(A).
And, with all respect, it makes no sense to acknowledge that we have the right to depose the experts you
identified on February 10, 2016 but, as Francis and perhaps you contend, we had to do so by February 11,
2016.
The position plaintiff is taking is untenable and the consequences of taking that untenable position include
adding to the reasons plaintiff is properly precluded from calling these experts.

EXHIBIT 1
27

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 19 of 75 Page ID


#:5530
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Francis Alexander Malofiy


Peter J. Anderson; Helene M. Freeman
Francis Alexander Malofiy; AJ Fluehr; Glen Kulik
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:00:04 PM
image001.png
image005.png
image006.png
image010.png

Dear Peter,
It was Plaintiff who complained that expert discovery would not be completed before the February 25, 2016 deadline for
dispositive motions. This was an issue we discussed at length. Both sides attempted to come up with a proposed schedule for
expert disclosures and depositions. In the end you, Peter, refused to enter into a joint stipulation to set the expert disclosures
and depositions so that both sides with have time to conduct the depositions.

Plaintiff was forced to file a motion with the court to extend expert disclosures and depositions.

You, Peter, opposed that motion and opposed setting a time for expert disclosures and depositions.
In fact, Judge Klausner was clear that he would not entertain any of the set deadlines including Expert Reports or Expert
Depositions. See below:

EXHIBIT 1
28

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 20 of 75 Page ID


#:5531

Theres no getting around the fact that Plaintiff addressed the exact issue of Expert Depositions with the Court, you opposed
the extensioneven as it related to expert depositions! The Court ruled and DENIED any extension of Expert Depositions.
Theres no getting around that fact Peter.
You cant decide that the Courts ruling is no longer applicable because it no longer favors your client. That would be
gamesmanship. Plaintiff will not agree to violate Judge Klausners Order.

*****
With every good wish, I am,
Francis Malofiy, Esquire
Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005

EXHIBIT 1
29

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 21 of 75 Page ID


#:5532
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"; "Glen Kulik"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:03:00 PM
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png

Francis:
You are confusing issues: the judges denial of your request to move the dates, including when expert
disclosures would be provided, has nothing to do with deposing experts after they have been identified.
Defendants have the express right under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) to take the depositions of those you identified as
experts. If you continue to refuse to cooperate and dont provide their addresses, you solidify yet another
reason that you cant call the experts. Its that simple.
Best regards.
Peter.

EXHIBIT 1
30

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 22 of 75 Page ID


#:5533
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson; Francis Alexander Malofiy; Helene M. Freeman
AJ Fluehr
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:09:29 PM
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png

You havent provided any authority that you have a right to conduct expert depositions after the discovery cut-off date set by
the court. You have given us authority on the default date to disclose experts. You have given us authority that parties have a
right to take expert depositions, just as they have a right to depose percipient witnesses. You are correct on both of those
points. But youve given us no authority which says that you have a right to take discovery after the deadline set by the court
for discovery cut off.

EXHIBIT 1
31

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 23 of 75 Page ID


#:5534
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Peter J. Anderson
"Glen Kulik"; "Francis Alexander Malofiy"; "Helene M. Freeman"
"AJ Fluehr"
RE: Skidmore
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:13:00 PM
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png

This is not productive. It is patently absurd for you to suggest that the Court cut off expert discovery on
February 11, with expert disclosures left to code and initial expert disclosures due February 10 and
rebuttal disclosures due a month later. But, if thats the position you and Francis continue to take, you take
the position knowing full well the consequences.

EXHIBIT 1
32

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 24 of 75 Page ID


#:5535

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 25 of 75 Page ID


#:5536
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Peter J. Anderson
Francis Alexander Malofiy
Helene M. Freeman; Glen Kulik; AJ Fluehr
Re: Skidmore
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 7:00:11 AM

Francis:
I'm leaving for a mediation and will be out of the office all day, and I haven't had a chance to
review your filings, but please send us a Word copy of your exhibit and witness lists so that
we can shoot for getting you back revised joint versions tomorrow.
I won't comment on the rest of your e-mail, but please also note that I'll be re-noticing the
depositions of Dr. Stewart et al. and, accordingly, their depositions won't be proceeding this
week.
Best regards.
Peter.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Francis Alexander Malofiy
<francis@francisalexander.com> wrote:
Dear Peter,

As you know, I was under the weather and Plaintiff was under time constraints to get the
Contentions of Fact & Law filed, along with the Witness List and Exhibit List.

In regards to the Witness List which Plaintiff filed:


I combined Plaintiffs Witness List with Defendants Witness List. I labeled it as follows and filed it
with the Court:
WITNESS LIST (COMBINED) FILED BY PLAINTIFF MICHAEL SKIDMORE, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RANDY
CRAIG WOLFE TRUST

Please note that I did not call it a Joint Witness List because you didnt have the opportunity to
review it and for that reason I also did not put your name to the bottom of it.

In regards to the Exhibit List which Plaintiff filed:


I combined Plaintiffs Exhibit List with Defendants Exhibit List. I labeled it as follows and filed it
with the Court:

EXHIBIT 2
33

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 26 of 75 Page ID


#:5537
EXHIBIT LIST (Combined)

Please note that I did not call it a Joint Witness List because you didnt have the opportunity to
review it and for that reason I also did not put your name to the bottom of it.

Additionally, please notice that I initially broke down our Exhibits by Deposition. Additionally, I
started Defendants Exhibit at 1000 rather than 1 so that there would not be overlap with the
Exhibits which we marked and used throughout the depositions and throughout the case. So,
Plaintiffs Exhibits are 0-999. Defendants are 1000 on up. I figured this would make it easier for
the Court and for both sides in working with the exhibits, depositions, and at time of trial.

I will be filing either Declaration and/or Notice of Errata with the Court tomorrow to address the
above. I would still like to get a Joint Witness List and Joint Exhibit List to the Court. I am hoping
we can work together in the coming days/weeks towards this goal. Of course, we will need to do
so for trial, regardless, as the final Meet & Confer regarding Exhibits is Friday, April 29, 2016.

Will you be available to discuss the above tomorrow? Please share with me a time that works for
you. Thank you.

*****
With every good wish, I am,
Francis Malofiy, Esquire
Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com

EXHIBIT 2
34

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 27 of 75 Page ID


#:5538

EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 28 of 75 Page ID


#:5539
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Francis Alexander Malofiy


Peter J. Anderson; Helene M. Freeman
Francis Alexander Malofiy; AJ Fluehr; Glen Kulik
LED ZEPPELIN - EXPERT REPORTS (SERVED)
Monday, May 02, 2016 11:58:36 PM
2016.05.02 - FINAL - Amended Expert Report of
2016.05.02 - FINAL - Amended Expert Report of
2016.05.02 - FINAL - Amended Expert Report of
2016.05.02 - FINAL - Amended Expert Report of
C.V. Alexander Stewart 2016 (selected).pdf

Erik Johnson (SERVED).pdf


Brian Bricklin (SERVED).pdf
Kevin Hanson (SERVED).pdf
Alexander Stewart (SERVED).pdf

Dear Peter,
Please see attached expert reports.

*****

NOTE: ADDRESS CHANGED TO SUITE 1


*****
With every good wish, I am,
Francis Malofiy, Esquire
Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 1
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com

EXHIBIT 3
35

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 29 of 75 Page ID


#:5540

EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 30 of 75 Page ID


#:5541

EXHIBIT 4
36

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 31 of 75 Page ID


#:5542

EXHIBIT 4
37

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 32 of 75 Page ID


#:5543

EXHIBIT 4
38

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 33 of 75 Page ID


#:5544

EXHIBIT 4
39

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 34 of 75 Page ID


#:5545

EXHIBIT 4
40

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 35 of 75 Page ID


#:5546

EXHIBIT 4
41

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 36 of 75 Page ID


#:5547

EXHIBIT 4
42

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 37 of 75 Page ID


#:5548

EXHIBIT 4
43

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 38 of 75 Page ID


#:5549

EXHIBIT 4
44

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 39 of 75 Page ID


#:5550

EXHIBIT 4
45

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 40 of 75 Page ID


#:5551

EXHIBIT 4
46

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 41 of 75 Page ID


#:5552

EXHIBIT 4
47

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 42 of 75 Page ID


#:5553

EXHIBIT 4
48

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 43 of 75 Page ID


#:5554

EXHIBIT 4
49

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 44 of 75 Page ID


#:5555

EXHIBIT 4
50

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 45 of 75 Page ID


#:5556

EXHIBIT 4
51

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 46 of 75 Page ID


#:5557

EXHIBIT 4
52

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 47 of 75 Page ID


#:5558

EXHIBIT 4
53

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 48 of 75 Page ID


#:5559

EXHIBIT 4
54

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 49 of 75 Page ID


#:5560

EXHIBIT 4
55

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 50 of 75 Page ID


#:5561

EXHIBIT 4
56

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 51 of 75 Page ID


#:5562

EXHIBIT 4
57

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 52 of 75 Page ID


#:5563

EXHIBIT 4
58

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 53 of 75 Page ID


#:5564

EXHIBIT 4
59

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 54 of 75 Page ID


#:5565

EXHIBIT 4
60

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 55 of 75 Page ID


#:5566

EXHIBIT 4
61

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 56 of 75 Page ID


#:5567

EXHIBIT 4
62

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 57 of 75 Page ID


#:5568

EXHIBIT 4
63

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 58 of 75 Page ID


#:5569

EXHIBIT 4
64

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 59 of 75 Page ID


#:5570

EXHIBIT 4
65

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 60 of 75 Page ID


#:5571

EXHIBIT 4
66

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 61 of 75 Page ID


#:5572

EXHIBIT 4
67

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 62 of 75 Page ID


#:5573

EXHIBIT 4
68

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 63 of 75 Page ID


#:5574

EXHIBIT 4
69

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 64 of 75 Page ID


#:5575

EXHIBIT 4
70

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 65 of 75 Page ID


#:5576

EXHIBIT 4
71

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 66 of 75 Page ID


#:5577

EXHIBIT 4
72

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 67 of 75 Page ID


#:5578

EXHIBIT 4
73

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 68 of 75 Page ID


#:5579

EXHIBIT 4
74

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 69 of 75 Page ID


#:5580

EXHIBIT 4
75

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 70 of 75 Page ID


#:5581

EXHIBIT 4
76

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 71 of 75 Page ID


#:5582

EXHIBIT 4
77

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 72 of 75 Page ID


#:5583

EXHIBIT 4
78

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 73 of 75 Page ID


#:5584

EXHIBIT 4
79

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 74 of 75 Page ID


#:5585

EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 210-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 75 of 75 Page ID


#:5586
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Glen Kulik
Peter J. Anderson
hfreeman@phillipsnizer.com; Francis Alexander Malofiy (francis@francisalexander.com)
Expert Depositions
Saturday, May 07, 2016 8:40:41 AM
image001.png

Peter,
We respond again on the subject of your request to take expert depositions. We have been consistently telling you since
March that your right to do so expired. The discovery cut-off date was in February. At that time we sought your cooperation
in extending the deadline. Not only did you decline to cooperate, you opposed our efforts to obtain more time for the
parties to complete discovery and the court denied our application. In addition, you withdrew your subpoenas for expert
depositions, failed to file a motion to extend the deadline, did not raise the issue with Court at the Pretrial Conference, and
are now attempting to take advantage of the unexpected continuance of the trial date. When we were notified of the trial
continuance, the court said nothing about re-opening discovery.
If you intended to raise this issue again you should have brought it to the attention of the judge at the Pretrial Conference.
Francis and I raised certain issues at that time but you did not. Thus, we respectfully repeat what we told you before, that
absent a court order re-opening discovery or extending the Court-mandated deadline,
it is our position that the right to take expert depositions has expired.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Glen Kulik
___________________________________________________________________________y
Glen L. Kulik, Esq.
KULIK GOTTESMAN SIEGEL & WARE LLP
15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
(310) 557-9200
Main
(310) 557-0224
Fax
___________________________________________________________________________
This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named addressee. Unless you are the
addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please delete
the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (310) 557-9200. Thank you.
To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in this communication is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein.

EXHIBIT 5
80

You might also like