Landry-Bell v. Various Inc et al Doc.

39
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

SHELLY LANDRY-BELL, Civil Action No. CV05-1526 S

Judge Stagg
Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Hornsby
vs.
DEFENDANT VARIOUS, INC.’s
VARIOUS, INC. and ZACH WILHELM, MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT
Defendants. [Fed.R.Civ.P. 26F]

DEFENDANT VARIOUS, INC.’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Defendant Various, Inc. (hereinafter also referred to as “FriendFinder” or

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

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 2 of 22

A. Plaintiff's Failure to Properly and Efficiently Meet and Confer for the Rule
26 Statement
On June 7th, 2006 FriendFinder’s counsel, Ira P. Rothken, faxed Plaintiff's counsel
a letter requesting a phone conference for 3 pm PST to meet and confer regarding the
Rule 26 Statement (See Exhibit 000001). On June 8th, 2006, Plaintiff's counsel advised
via a return fax that he had already “met and conferred” with FriendFinder's local counsel
(See Exhibit 000001). Given that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to include FriendFinder’s lead
counsel in the meet and confer process this set up the following chain of events.

1. There was a delay in providing electronic documents between counsel to

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

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

2
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 3 of 22

Exhibit 000007)) which sums up the problems the parties have had to date
communicating on substantive issues in the case:

We provided the text to you in both the body of the e-mail

(where you can cut and paste) as well as in rtf format. If
you think we have overlawyered it just tell me where we
disagree and do this in a normal manner and we are happy
to make changes to the short document if upon reflection
we wrote something inapplicable.

It is important that you deal directly with my law firm on

the major issues in this case including all substantive meet
and confers as we are the lead counsel in the case and we
will be handling any trial - we have retained a very able
local counsel but that is not an invitation for you to ignore
or bypass lead counsel and pretend that you had a
substantive meet and confer on the case management issues
- as you did not. If we are unable to agree on a joint
submission to the Court we will advise the court of your
failure to meet and confer with us in a substantive manner
on important issues in this case including those in the last
paragraph below.

Again, we are not so arrogant as to say that our revisions to

the joint document are a work of art but given the notion
that you have refused to meet and confer with us in any
substantive way we were forced to revise it so the Court
could hear both sides on important case management issues
until we heard back from you on the points we raised and
your client's position to see where we agree and disagree.

You should call me and we can go through each of the

issues by phone at 10 am PST time today or if you do not
want to talk you can mark up each section with "plaintiff's
positions" and "FriendFinder’s positions" and e-mail it
back to us and we can make sure each of our views are
accurately represented whatever they may be.

In any event please let us know today your views on why

this case should not be stayed or dismissed if Mr. Wilhelm
is in the military and unavailable overseas given the statute
that protects such military persons from civil litigation and
given that he is likely an indispensable party to a case
where he is the alleged defamer. Also kindly advise us on
what discovery you think your client will need and why in

3
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 4 of 22

light of the CDA immunity statute … in a pragmatic sense

to decide in good faith what narrow discovery "matters"
and is proportional and can change the outcome (by
removing the immunity) and [does] not allow a fishing
expedition. Further, kindly advise us on who your client
may add to the case and why. Also advise if your client is
amenable to a two tiered confidentiality order and if you
can provide an exemplar for our review and edit. Please
advise us on the above and let us know if you will be
calling at 10 am PST today so we can be available. Thanks.

The parties did not have any “real” meet and confer on the above issues. While
plaintiff’s counsel did write a minimalist response to the above in an e-mail response later
that day it is hard to discern where the parties agree and disagree and why and what the
parties will jointly recommend to the Court if anything i.e. stay. Indeed, it is hard to plan
a schedule for discovery and litigation when issues of stay, volume of discovery, who if
anyone else may be joined, and the entry of a two tiered confidentiality order all up in the
air and un-discussed.
This insufficient meet and confer process stems from Plaintiff’s counsel using
informal discussions with local counsel on more than one occasion as a method of
avoiding substantive meet and confer with FriendFinder’s lead counsel. This sort of
technique was used prior to plaintiff filing her motion to strike FriendFinder’s answer.
(See Order of the Court filed on April 4, 2006 at pages 2-3.)

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

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

4
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 5 of 22

In addition, inconsistent with Plaintiff 's counsel’s statements to the Court,

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

B. Plaintiff Failed to Properly File FriendFinder's Signed Rule 26 Statement

1. There was a failure by the parties to file a Joint document.
Plaintiff's counsel did not properly print out FriendFinder's Rule 26 Statement and
failed to print it with “mark ups on”, after being advised of Plaintiff's mistake in an e-
mail Plaintiff's counsel failed to attach to his "Memo" exhibits Exhibit 000010-000013
herein, which explains the inaccurate date plaintiff’s counsel printed out for initial
disclosures in the Rule 26 Statement signed by FriendFinder’s counsel. Indeed, in Exhibit
000010 FriendFinder’s counsel explains to Plaintiff’s counsel:

David,

I have now learned that you printed it incorrectly – when

your Adobe Acrobat viewer opens and you hit print in the
print window you need to select print document WITH
markups and it will print the markup change I made to
change the date to June 21st…..thanks,

Ira P. Rothken

Plaintiff’s counsel by not following the guidance in the e-mail shown above or
providing such e-mail to the Court in its exhibits instead provided this court with a
misleading statement of what occurred.
In light of the fact that plaintiff’s counsel was unwilling to allow FriendFinder’s
counsel to e-file the Joint Rule 26 Statement under some theory that he was closer to the
Courthouse (See Exhibit 000009) Plaintiff’s counsel was then entrusted by

5
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 6 of 22

FriendFinder’s counsel to file FriendFinder's signed Rule 26 Statement which he failed to

do and instead filed their own (manufactured after the fact) Rule 26 Statement and
subordinated FriendFinder's signed Rule 26 Statement (printed without “markups on” so
thus showing a wrong date for initial disclosures) to an exhibit. See Exhibit 000012-
000013.
The issue of initial disclosures is moot as FriendFinder provided their initial
disclosures to plaintiff’s counsel on June 21st (See Exhibit 000011) and was agreed on in
a number of e-mails including Exhibit (000014-000015).
To bring this matter to a close FriendFinder has reviewed the revised Rule
Statement filed by plaintiff herein and joins in such statement.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 27, 2006 ________/s/_________________

Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar 160029)

Dated: June 27, 2006 ________/s/_________________

Bennett L. Politz (LSBA Bar No. 10573)
Attorneys for Defendant Various, Inc.

Local Counsel:
Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar 160029) Bennett L. Politz (LSBA Bar No. 10573)
ROTHKEN LAW FIRM LLP Booth Lockard Politz & LeSage LLC
3 Hamilton Landing, Suite 224 920 Pierremont Road, Suite 103
Novato, California 94949 P. O. Drawer 1092
Tel: (415) 924-4250 Shreveport, LA 71163
Fax: (415) 924-2905 (318) 222-2333
Email: ira@techfirm.com (318) 221-1035 (fax)
email: blp@blpld.com

6
Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 7 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 27, 2006, a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT
VARIOUS, INC.’s MEMORANDUM REGARDING RULE 26F JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT REPORT was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the
CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to Ira P. Rothken and Bennett L.
Politz by operation of the court’s electronic filing system. I also certify that I have faxed
and mailed by United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, this filing to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:

David A Szwak
Bodenheimer Jones & Szwak
401 Market St Ste 240
Shreveport, LA 71101
Fax No. (318) 221-6555

Dated: June 27, 2006 ________/s/_________________

Ira P. Rothken (T.A. - Pro Hac Vice, Cal. Bar
160029)
ROTHKEN LAW FIRM
1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: (415) 924-4250
Fax: (415) 924-2905
Email: ira@techfirm.com

7
 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 8 of 22

ROTNKEN L.AWFINM LLP

3 HA'IL'ON L^NDIN6
5(t)r5 e e4
NOvaI9. oA\lPORNr^ F4*{A'ee 4e

Fkc,NE, (4l518a4'425Q
f^xt (4 | 51 8e4.egqr5
EMAIL; lRa(Ot€cHFrnM.c'Jl'i
wcBi |l/$rllt/,TgeHFT|qM,co'9

Juac 7, 2006
11IA FACSIMILE

David A Szwak
Bodenheimcr Jones & Szwak
509 Market St Ste 730
Shreveport,LA 71101
Tcl: 318-221-6444
Fax:318-221-5555

Rs SHELLY LANDRY-BELL vs. VARIOUS, INC. rind ZACTI WILHELM'

U.S. District Couri, W. Dist. of Louisiana,ShreveportDiv', No CV05-1526S
Meet and Confcr Regardiag CaseManagemef,t

Dcar Mr. Szwak,

Pursuantto the Court's order of May 4, 2006, a copy of which is attachtd for your
reference,that the parties were to mcet and co4fel on this caseby today. ordinarily, thc
plaintiff initiates such mc€t and confer. Since we have T!!:1td from yow office ou this mattcr'
wc suggestthat wi m€et a:rfliggier on Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 3:00 P'rn Pacific Time-

Plcase contact us immediately to confrrm your availabiliry for such a call'

Very truly yours,

Irh ?. Rothker

Cc: Bennett Politz, local counsel

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000001

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 9 of 22

lra P. Rothken
From: BJKS1507@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June15,200612:49PM
To: lra P. Rothken; ira@techflrm.org;
ira@techfirm.comi com;blp@blpld
blpld@softdisk com
Cc: jared@techfirm.corn;hal@techfirm.com
v. Various,
Subject:Re:ShellyLandry-Bell et al

12:26:33
dated6/15/2006
In a message Time,ira@techfirm.net
PMCentralDaylight writes:
, ar-----
is howwe do it in everyother
) 1 et"aseemailustheWordfilesowe canmakeeditswithredlines....that
I I Feoeralcase -.thanks,
t

fa Heytra,Thatis a pain.Howaboutjustmarkingupthe hardcopyandfaxingme edits?

DavidA. Szwak
Bodenheimer,Jones& Szwak
509MarketStreet,7thFIoor
UnitedMercantileBankBuilding
Louisiana
ShreveDort. 71101
318,221-6444
Fax221-6555
www.bjslaw.com
www.MyFaircredit.com**
"* Checkoutthe DisputeForum
www.maxedoutmovie.conVindexl.html
"- CheckOut"MaxedOut,"the movie/documentary by Trueworks
PremieresMarch11,2006,at theSouthBy Southwest FilmFestival
Checkoutthe clipsat thesite;I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000002

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 10 of 22

lra P, Rothken

From: lra P. Rothken[ira@techfirm.net]

sent: Wednesday, June21,200612i42AM
To: BJKS1507@aol,comi ira@techflrm.org;
ira@techfirm.com; blp@blpld
blpld@softdisk.com; com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfirm.com
v. Various,et al
Subiect:RE:ShellyLandry-Bell

David,

, Hereattachedin ftf formatand manifested betowis a revisedversionwithour changes- pleasecall meat415- I

I ' ZOO-1Ztg around10 am PSTon Wednesday to discussandfinalize.We are somewhatflexibleand stillhave f
stayrssues,and discoveryissues.Pleaselet us
the militaryunavailablliry,
thornyissuesto discussespecially
knowif you haveany questions.
Thanks,

lra P, Rothken
RothkenLaw Firm
ira@techfirm.cqm
www.,techfirm.com
415-9244250

I]NITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT
IN AND FORTHEWESTERNDISTRICTOF LOUISIANA
Division
ShrevePort

SHELLY LANDRY-BELL,
Plaintiff,

Versus
Civil Action No.
cv05-1526-s

VARIOUS INC., ET AL, JIJBY.DEMANDED

Defendants. JUDGESTAGC

RULE 26[F]CASEMANAGEMENTREPORT
A meetingofcounsel,David Savak, for plaintiff, and Ben Politz, was held on June7, 2006,by
telephone.

]. NATURE OF PLAINTIFF''SCLAIMS

plaintiffcontcndsthat a formcr boyfricndWilhclm dcfamcdhcr and invadcdhcr privacy by postingshc placcdon

defendantVarious' datingsite. Plaintiff contendsrhat Various is responsibleasthe publisherofsuch Wilhelm postings.
Damageclaimshave beenmade.

2. BENCH OR JURY TRIAL

A jury trial hasbeenrequested.

3. INITIAL DISCLOSURES

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000003

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 11 of 22

The partieshavenot exchanged initialdisclosures yet but aie orderedto do so by July 2liI, 2006unlessth€ caseis
dismissed is
or stay entered givendefendant Wilhelm's ov€rseas militarydutyandunavailability andthenotionthathe is
or neiessaryparty to this case,Notlvithstandingthe abovethe Various Incorporated/FriendFiDder
likely an indispensable
defendantshavedonea diligent searih and havealreadyproducedto plaintiffs counselany and all iftemal documenls
withjntheirpossession, cusiody,or controlit wasab!eto discem(aftercommunications with plaintiffs counsel)were
allegedlyrelatedto plaintjff

4. JURISDICTION

The Variouslncorporated.iFriendFinderDefendantsreservelheir rights relatedto personaljurisdiction, choiceof

law, arbitrability,andchoiceofforum in this case. Diversity ofcitizenship subjectmatterjurisdictionapparentlyexists.

5. JOINDER OF PARTIES AND AMENDMENT OF PLEADINCS

Plaintiffmayaddan additionalparfyto the lawsuitandwillamendherpleadings.Plaintiffseeksninety [90]

dayspastthe conferenceto maketheseadditionsor changes.Funher,plaintiff showsthat shehaslearnedthat
Zach Wilhelm is stationed,on activemilitary duty, overseasandcanootbe servedwith summonsand complajnt
while on the military baseor in areasofoperatioDs,Further,the SSRA applies. Plaintiffhas madenulnerous
attempts to haveWiLhelmserved,includingdomiciliaryserviceat his parents'home. Wilhelm'sparentscontenc
thar ii is not his domicileyet that is the laststableaddressusedby Wilhelm before leavinglo go overseas.The
Various lncomorated/FriendFinder defendantsare of the view that the issueof necessaryand indispensable
partiesneedsto be examinedin lightofthe aboyeandlikelythe casedjsmissed or stayed(pursuant
to the SSRA
and its progenywhich providesthat the Court may staythe case sua sponteupon learnjngofa defendant's
coverage underthe SSRA).lndeedgiventhatdefendant Wilhelmwas allegedasthe onewho postedand
publishedthe allegeddefamatorystatemertandthusthe allegedtortfeasorit aPpearson its face that unfair
prejudice would likelyresultifthis caseis adjudicated in his absence.

B. defendantsmay seekto add any otherperson[s]who were involved in the

Plaintiffand the Various/FriendFinder
incidentsgiving riseto the damagesclaimedin this iawsuit. Theremay be additionalthird personswho needto
be addedir indemnityclaims br;ught but plaintiffand the Various/FriendFioderdefendantscannotmakethat
determination absentiomepreliminarydiscovery which necessariiyinvoLvestakingWilhelm'sdeposition.

c. Ninety 190ldaysafter the confereoce.

6. DISCOVERY ISSUES

Plaintiffbelievesthat proprietarycomputerfunctionsand systemsand datawill be necessaryfor plaintiffto

discoverto prepareher case- the Various [ncorporated/FriendFinder defendantsstronglydisagreeand believe
thatplaintifishouldnot be al)owedto go on an expensive fishing expedition gjventhe notionthalthe CDA
defenseprovidesjmmunity to Internetierviceprovidersfor contentor statcmentsprovidedby othersaodthat
Variousincorporated/Frie;dFinder did not createthe allegeddefamatoryposting(s)and are not treatedasthe
pubtisherof suchunderthe CDA. Thereforeit is unlikely that documentsbeyondthoseaheadyprovidedby_ . .
Variousto plaintiffwill be reasonablycalculatedto leadto the discoveryof admissibleevidenceor bejustified in
light ofthe burdensinvolved andthe inconsequential natureofsuch requests.Plaintjff antjcipatesdiscovery
disputesregardingVarious' computer system and database and searchmechanisms.Various believesthat its
jnconsequential given the obvious
specificintimal iomputer systemand ditabaseandsearchmechanismsare
eitemal functionalityand intemetserviceprol,jdernatureofthe FriendFinder.com family of sitesand the stateof
the
the caselawregarding cDA immunily in which no repofied casehas ever needed oI reponed the gnmular
detailsofthe ii.ner w-orkingsofthe irltemetserviceprovider'stechno]ogy.PriYacyissuesmay be raisedregarding
identitiesofpersonsviewing the informationconcemingplaintiff. Plainti'l believesthaataking the depositionof
Wilhelmwil] requireassista=nce from the courtandthe military.The Various/FriendFinder defendants b€lievethat
a two tieredconfidentialityorderneedsto be negoliatedand enteredinto out of cautionin light of plaintifls
statements abovebeforewritten discoveryis requested. The Various/FriendFinder defendantsbelievethat
discovery costshiftingissuesneedto be exploredif plaintiffdecides to go on an expensive e-discovery fishing

In anyevent,VariousbeLieves
expedition. thatthe issueofstay or dismissalin lightofdefendantWilhelm's
before
shouldbe decided
mititaryunavailabiliry discoverycommences.

B. The partiesproposea period ofat teast180daysfor completionof discoverywith that periodrunningfrom the

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000004

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 12 of 22
darethatamendment ofpleadingsandjoinderofpanieshaspassed.Therefore, JuneI0,2007 unless
the partiessuggest
the caseis stayed.

7. MOTION PRACTICE

A- Thereare no pendingmotions. DefendantVarious'smotion to dismisswas denied. Plaintiffs motion to strike

Various' Answerand StatementofDefenseswas denied-

B. Both partiesof recordanticipatefiling dispositivemotionsunlessthe casesettles.Iftlte caseis not stayedor

dismisieddueto Wilhelm's unavailability(which may be broughtvia a fonnal motion if the Court doesnot grant
suchstaysuasponte)Various/FriendFinder will likely file a motion for summaryjudgment within 90 days.

8, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The partiesare amenableto ADR. Plaintiff respectfullyrequestssettlementconferenceby Magistrate-hdgein

lieu ofa private mediator.The Various/FriendFinder defendantsare amenableto privatemedjationat JAMS beforea
retiredJudgewith the costsdivided evenlybetweenthe paftiesand in a convenientlocationto be agreedupon by alltbe
partieswith all the partiesandtheir counselpresent.

9. TRIAL BY MAGISTRATE

at this tjrne.
All partiesdo not consentto trial by Magistrate-Judge

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000005

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 13 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: BJKS1507@aol.com
June21,20067:41AM
Sent: Wednesday,
To: fra P, Rothken;i@@techfirm.com;
irc@tecnfttm.org; blp@blpldcom
blpld@softdisk.com;
Gc: jared@techf,rm,com;hal@techfirm.com
v. Various,
Subject:Re:ShellyLandry-Bell et al

datedgn120Q6214223AM CentralDaylight
ln a message netwrites:
Time,ira@techfirm,

Hereattachedin rtf formatand manifestedbelowis a revisedversionwithour changes- pleasecall

me at 415-260-1718 around10 am PSTon Wednesday to discussandflnalize.
We aresomewhat
stayissues,and
themilitaryunavailability,
flexibleandstillhavethornyissuesto discussespecially
discovery issues.Pleaseletus knowif you haveany questions.Thanks,

it to death.
youhavetakena verysimplereportandover-lawyered
ustas I suspected,

I cannotagreeon whatyouhavewritten.Further, it is notin a compatible formatso I cannotevencopyand

append text
which woulil
be yourstatementsyou seek to includein the report.Further,you havewaiteduntil
the 11thhourto sendyoureditsso as to makeit evenmoreditdcult.Onceagajn,Jwouldaskthatyoupermit
yourlocalcounselto handlethismatterso we cangetit filedtimely.

DavidA. SzwaK
Bodenheimer,Jones& Szwak
509 MarketStreet,7th Floor
BankBuilding
UnitedMercantile
Louisiana
Shreveport, 71101
318-221-6444
Fax221€555
www.bjslaw.com
**
www.MyFaircredit.com
" Checkoutthe DisputeForum
www.maxedoutmovie.com/indexl.html
** CheckOut"l\4axedOut,"the movie/documentary by Trueworks
PremieresMarch11,2006,at theSouthBy SouthwestFilmFestival
Checkouttheclipsat thesite;I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000006

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 14 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: lra P, Rothkenlira@techflrm.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June21,20068:36AM
To: BJKS1507@aol,com; ira@techfirm,com; blp@blpld,c0m
blpld@softdisk.comi
ira@techfirm.org;
cc: jared@techfirm.comlhal@techfirm.comiira@techflrm.com
RE:
Subiect: ShellyLandry-Bell
v. Various,
et al

David,

We providedthe text to you in both the bodyof the e-mail(whereyou can cut and paste)as well as in rtf format.
tf you thlnkwe haveoverlawyered it justtell me wherewe disagreeanddo this in a normalmannerandwe are
happyto makechangesto the shortdocumentif uponreflection we wrotesomethinginapplicable.

It is importantthatyou dealdirectlywith my lawfirmon the majorissuesin thiscaseincludingall substantive

meetand confersas we arethe leadcounselin the caseandwe will be handlingany trial- we haveretaineda
veryablelocalcounselbut thatis notan invitation for you to jgnoreor bypassleadcounseland pretendthatyou
hada substantive meetand conferon the casemanagement issues- as you did not.lf we are unableto agree
on a jointsubmission to the Courtwe will advisethe courtof yourfailureto meetand conferwith us in a
substantive manneron importantissuesin thiscaseincludingthosein the lastparagraphbelow.

Again,we are not so arrogantas to saythatour revisions to the jointdocumentare a workof art but giventhe
notionthat you to
have refused meet and confer with us in any substantiveway we were forcedto reviseit so teh
Courtcouldhearbothsideson importantcasemanagement issuesuntilwe heardbackfromyou on the points
we raisedand yourclient'spositionto see wherewe agreeand disagree.

I You snoutOcatlme andwe can go througheachof the issuesby phoneat 10 am PSTtimetodayor if you do not
t wantto talkvou c€n markup eachsectionwith"plaintiffspositions" and "Friendfinder's positions" and e-mailit
backto us ahdwe makesureeachof our viewsare accuratelyrepresented whatever they may be.
"un
tn any eventpleaselet us knowtodayyourviewson why thiscaseshouldnot be stayedor dismissedif Mr.
Wilhelmis in the militaryand unavailibleoverseasgiventhe statutethatprotectssuchmilltarypersonsfromcivil
and giventhathe is likelyan indispendable
litjgation partyto a casewherehe is the allegeddefamor.Alsokindly
adiriseus on whatdiscoveryyou thinkyourclientwill needand why in lightof the CDA immunitystatuteas we
are unableto futtyunderstand yourwriting- in othercaseswe havehad involvingthe CDAthat survivedthe
pleadingstagetheiudge(s)haveorderedthe partiesto meetand conferin a pragmaticsenseto decidein good
iaithwh;t nairowdiscovery"matters"and is proportional and can changethe outcome(by removingthe
immunity) anddid notallowa fishingexpedition. Further,kindlyadviseus on who yourclientmay add to the
caseand why.Alsoadviseif yourclientis amenableto a two tieredconfidentiality orderandif you can provide
an exemplarior our review and edit.Please advise us on the above and let us knowlf you will be callingat 10
am PSTtodayso we can be available, Thanks.

lra P. Rothken
RothkenLaw Firm
ira@techfirt0.c.9m
www,tPchfirm.gorl

FromruKS1507@aol.com BJKS1507@aol.com]
[mailto:
Sent: Wed6/2t120067:40 Al4
To: Ira P.Rothken;
ira@techfirm.com;ira@techfirm.org; blp@blpld.com
blpld@softdisk.com;
Cc:jared@techfirm.com;
hal@techfirm.com
subject: Re:ShellyLandry-Bell et al
v. Varlous,

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000007

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 15 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: lraP. Rothkenlira@techflrm.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June21,200612:05PM
To: BJKS1507@aol,com;ira@techfirm,com;ira@techfirm.orgtblp@blpld.com
Cc: hal@techiirm,com
.lared@techflrm.com;
Subiect:RE:ShellyLandry-Bell
v. Various,
et al FinalforSignature

David,
Thiswouldbeeasierif youwouldgeton thephonewithus- we includedthatwe madea jurydemand; thatthe
discovery miy Oecnallldlfli?EB a stayithatplaintiffbelievesit ne6dscertain
finaldateis impacted
discovery;
andothertweaksto makethedocument moreaccurate.
Canyoukindlyanswer thequestions sowe cangetyourclient's
I askedyouin an emailthismorning position
priorto filingthisdocument
andbeforetheconference theyareagainbelow-- please
withhishonor....here
advisesowe havesomeprocedural cooperation
evenifwe disagree ontheresults
of theissuesraised.
"lnanyeventpleaseletusknowtodayyourviewsonwhythiscaseshouldnotbe stayedor dismissed if Mr.
Wilhelm is in themilitary
andunavailable overseas giventhestatute thatproteats persons
suchmilitary from
civillitigation andgiventhathe is likelyan lndispendable partyto a ca$ewherehe is thealleged defamor. Also
kindlyadviseusonwhatdiscovery youthinkyourclientwillneedandwhyin ljghtof theCDAimmunity
slatuteaswe areunable to iullyunderstand yourwrlting- in othercaseswe havehadinvolving theCDAthat
survived thepleading stagethejudge(s) haveordered theparties to meetandconferin a pragmaticsenseto
decidein goodFaith whatnarrow discovery andis proportional
"matters" andcanchangetheoutcome (by
removing theimmunity) anddidnotallowa ishingexpedition. Further, kindlyadviseus onwhoyourclientmay
addtothecaseandwhy.Alsoadviseif yourclientis amenable orderandif you
to a twotieredconfidentiality
canprovide anexemplar forourreviewandedit."
lra P. Rothken

From: BJKS1507@aol.com Imailto:BJKS1507@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday. June21, 200611:54AM
To: Ira P. Rothken;ira@techfirm.com; ira@techfirm.org; blp@blpld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com; hal@techfirm,com
Subject: Re: ShellyLandry-Bellv. Various/et al Finalfor Signature

Whatchangesif any weremadeto the lastversionthatI sentyou?

DavidA. Szwak
Bodenheimer.Jones& Szwak
509 MarketStreet,7th Floor
UnitedMercantile
BankBuilding
Shreveport,
Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 221-6555
www,bjslaw.com
*
www.lvlyFairCredit.com
** Checkout the DisouteForum

www,maxedoutmovie.comiindexl.html
*. CheckOut "MaxedOut,"the movie/documentary
by Trueworks

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000008

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 16 of 22
Subj: Re:ShellyLandry-Bellv, Varlous,et al Finalfor Signature
Date: 6n112A06 4:36:07PMCentralDaylightTime
From: BJKS.1507
To: ira@lechfirm.org,
i€(atechfm.net, lIa@techfirm.com, com
blp@blpld
iared@techfrm.com.hal@techfirm.com

4:34:01PMCentralDaylight
dated6t21nOOd
fn a message writes:
Time,ira@techflrm.net

- pleasee-mall{hemto metodayandwe willemajlback

Whereis yourclien?sinitialdlsclosures
change
shouldtakecareof theissue....please
ours....th;nks...that thedateof theinitialdisclosures
to todayandsignjt andfax it overto rnyofflcefor filing
in ourlastversionof the Rule26 statement
tomonow..,.

'l
/Whv roulOI sendmvsiqnature to Califomiato befiledherein Shreveportby tomorrow? Thatmakes no
\ sen-r".Please send-me a faxedsignatureas I willbefi.ingthedocumentin thecoun'soutboxafrer5:00p.m. \
lf
toO"y. youlailto sendyoursigniture
it willbefiledwith an asto whyanda complete
explanation copyot tne
J /
emails.
f
DavidA. Szwak
Bodenheimer,Jones& Szwak
509 MarketStrcet,7th Floor
BankBuilding
UnitedMercantile
Shreveport,
Louisiana 71101
318-2214444
F2D<221$555
www.bislaw.com
*"
www.MyFairCredii.com
- Checkout the DisputeForum

www.maxedoutmovie.corn/indext, html
* CheckOut "MaxedOut,"lhe movie/documentary by Trueworks
PremieresMarch 11, 2006, d tfle Soulh By SouthwestFilm Festival
Checkout the clipsat the site; I am in the movie!

-7"
Wednesday,June21,2006 AmericaOr ine: BJKS1507

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000009

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 17 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: lraP. Rothken[ira@techflrm,net]

Sent: Wednesday, June 21,20063:44PM
To: BJKS1507@aol.com;ira@techfirm.com;ira@techfirm.org;blp@blpldcom
cc: jared@techfirm.comihal@techfirm.com
v, Various,
Subject:REiShellyLandry-Bell Enclosed
et al FjnalSignature

David,

I havenowlearnedthatyouprinted - whenyourAdobeAcrobat
it incorrectly vieweropensandyouhitprintin
you
theprintwindow needto select print document WITH and
markups it will changeI made
printthemarkup
to changethedateto June21sI.-..,lhanks,

lraP. Rothken

From: Ira P. Rothken[mailto:ira@techfirm.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June21, 20063:31 PM
To; BJKS1507@aol.com; ira@techfirm.com; ira@techfirm.org;blp!blPld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfi rm.com
Subject: RE:ShellyLandry-Bell Enclosed
v. Various/et al FinalSignature

We agreedlo June21it and lwrote you an emailsayingthatand then i useda programwe havecalledNitro
pDF 6 takethe previously signedPDFandeditthe datewithinthe PDFto June21stand thatis how it came
out namely it mabe the cliange in the PDFbut unbeknownstto us not in the printedversionof the PDF....you
thenaskedfor clarittcation and I toldyou June21st....you
thenfurthercomplained and I toldyou to writeit in on
.l thenaskedyou whereare yourinitialdisclosures
the one I signed,.. and you havenot providedthemto us
eventhoughtheyare due today.

lra P. Rothken

From: BJKS1507@aol.com [mailto:BJKS1507@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June21, 20063:23 PN4
To: Ira P. Rothken;ira@techfirm.com; ira@techfirm.org; blp@blpld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfi rm.com
Subject: Re: ShellyLandry-Bellv. Various/et al FinalSignatureEnclosed

writes:
5:18:36Pl\4CentralDaylightTlme' ira@techfirm.net
In a messagedated6l?1l2Qo6
David,

You are notauthorized to fileanythingotherthanthe documentI signedas suchconductwouldbe

unethicalandwill be reported to yourstatebar....justcrossout July21s!ln my signedversionand
writeJune21stand sign it andflle it....youare franklyout of control.

lra P. Rothken
Thankyou for youremail, I haveretainedthe curious.pdfflleyou sentwhichwouldnot printthe visible
alterati6nof th; date, I wouldlikefor you to explainhow and why you wouldemailme a .pdffileand showa
markthroughandtypeoverto correctyourrepeatedeffodto altera court-imposed deadlineyet whenwe try to
printthe file-,the ovbilaiO"June"textdoesnot printand retainsthe improper"July"remark?Wereyou

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000010

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 18 of 22

lra P, Rothken

From: lraP. Rothken net]

[ira@techflrm.
Sent: Wednesday, June21,20065:32PM
To: BJKS'1so7@aol.com;ira@techfirm,com;ira@techfirm.org;blp@blpld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techflrm.com
v. Various,
Subiect:ShellyLandry-Bell et al FriendFindefs
InitialDisclosures

David,

Here,attached asa PDF,areVarious Incorporated's Pleasee-mailor faxus

InitialDisclosures.
/ FriendFinder's
yourclient's as it is onlyfair.Please
initialdisclosures letusknowif youhaveanyquestions. Thanks,
tra H. KolnKen
Rothken Law Firm
wl4ary.techfirm.com
ira@techf,rm,com
415-924425A

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000011

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 19 of 22

Prinler

Nime. l
f -fuF."',.,
Status; Feady andFoms:
Eonrments
Type: HP EolorLeserJet3F0ll ' Documenl
andMarkups

PrintBange PrE,/iEW
OAil E-B'5_____________i
view
$ [urrent
Q [urrentpege
Q Pagesirom.i t,r 4

Allpagesin range
Subset: :wiLlFeverse peqes

PeqeHendling
'tl
Dopi*: .t ii: : . , ., -

FageSca nq to FrirterMErgrrs w
HeducE

I Auto-Fotate
ondCenter

Ll [h,]o$ePEFer byPDFFdtlesizE
Saur,re

! Printto lile
Units:tncnes

1 / 4[ 1 ]

tf '!-,irqlElFqtlr,rral I rr[--l t-E""d-l

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000012

Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 20 of 22

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000013

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 21 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: lra P. Rothkenlira@techfirm.netl

Sent: W e d n e s d a Jy u 3 : 1 1P [ 4
, ne21,2006
To: BJKS1507@aol.com;ira@techfirm,comiira@techfirm.org;blp@blpld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;
hal@techfirm.com
v. Various,et al FinalSignatureEnclosed
Subject:RE:ShellyLandry-Bell

you wanted.
l overwroteit to say June21st.....like

From; BJKS1507@aol.com lmailto:BJKS1507@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June21, 20063:08 Plvl
To: Ira P. Rothken;ira@techfirm.com;
ira@techfirm.org; blp@blpld.com
Cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfirm.com
subject: Re:ShellyLandry-Bellv. Various,et al FinalSignatureEnclosed

Pteaseexplainwhatoccurredwiththe documentyou emailedme in .pdf. The deadlineprovidedby the court

appearedto havebeenmarkedoveror typedover. lt appearsto showJuneand JulyoveMritten.

DavidA. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones& Szwak
509 MarketStreet.7th Floor
UnitedMercantile BankBuilding
Shreveport, Louisiana
71101
318-221-6444
Fax 221$555
y'/vw.bjsLq.W,.Aom

www.MyFairCredit.com **
.* Checkout the DisputeForum

www,maxedoutmovie.com/indexl.html
*- CheckOut "MaxedOut,"the movieidocumentary by Trueworks
PremieresMarch11,2006,at the SouthBy SouthwestFilmFestival
Checkout the clipsat the site:I am in the movie!

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000014

 Case 5:05-cv-01526-TS-MLH Document 39 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 22 of 22

lra P. Rothken

From: lra P. Rothkenlira@techflrm.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June21,20002:34PM
To: BJKS1507@aol.com; ira@techflrm.com;ira@techflrm.org;
blp@blpld.com
cc: jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfirm.com
Subiect:RE:ShellyLandry-Bell
v. Various,
et al FinalforSignature

David,

Whereis yourclient's - pleasee-mailthemto metodayandwewillemailback

initialdisclosures
ours....thanks...that
shouldtakecareof theissue.., changethedateof theinitialdisclosures
.please in ourlast
version
of theRule26 statement to todayandsignit andfaxit overto myofficefof fllingtomorrow...
.
lraP. Rothken

From:UKS1507@aol.com [mailto:BJKS1507@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday,June2lt 20062:77PM
To: Ira P.Rothken;ira@techfirm.com;
ira@techfirm.org; blp@blpld.com
Cc:jared@techfirm.com;hal@techfirm.com
Subiect: Re:ShellyLandry-Bell et al Finalfor Signature
v. Various,

ln a messagedated612112006 3:25:51PMCentral
Daylight writes:
Time,ira@techfirm.net
Besideswe already responded to yoursubpoena
soyouhavealltheVarious
internal
document
related
allegedly to plaintiff.
Wearetheoneswhowillbe moreimpacted by notgetting
yourclient's
disclosures
rightaway.
lra, We have not receivedany documentsfrom you. You need to complyor be preparedto have a motionfiled
in connectionwithyourfailureto do as ordered.Yourcavalierresponsesare notappreciated.

DavidA. Szwak
Bodenheimer.Jones& Szwak
509 MarketStreet,7th Floor
BankBuilding
UnitedMercantile
Louisiana
Shreveport, 71101
318-221-6444
Fax221-6555
uA&w.bjslaw.com
www.MyFaircredit.com "'
"* Checkout the DisputeForum

www.maxedoutmovie.com/indexl,html
** CheckOut "lvlaxedOut,"the movie/documentary by Trueworks
PremieresMarch1'1,2006,at the SouthBy SouthwestFilmFest,val
Checkout the cliosat the site:I am in the moviel

FF RULE 26(f) Memo - Exhibit 000015