CyberSponse Seeks To Protect Its Ideas and Receives Defamation Suit - Bully Tactics - The Truth Behind What Really Happened..

Case 2:17-cv-00438-DJH Document 13 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 26
3
4
5
Dennis I. Wilenchik, #005350
6 John D. Wilenchik, #029353
Brian J. Hembd, #029817
7 admin@wb-law.com
Attorneys for Defendants
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11 Swimlane, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Case No. 2:17-cv-00438-DJH

company,
12
13 Plaintiff, ANSWER
14 v. (Assigned to the Honorable Diane

Humetewa)
15 CyberSponse, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Joseph Loomis and Kimberly Loomis, (Jury Trial Demanded)
16
husband and wife,
17
Defendants.
18
19 Defendants CyberSponse, Inc. (CyberSponse), Joseph Loomis, and Kimberly Loomis
20 (collectively the Defendants) hereby answer the above-captioned Complaint.
21 1. Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to Plaintiffs allegations in
22 Paragraph 1 and therefore deny the same.
23 2. Defendants deny the allegations therein.
24 3. Defendants admit that Joseph Loomis is the CEO of CyberSponse and deny the
25 remaining allegations.
26
1 82. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 82.

2 83. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 83.
3 84. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 84. Defendants
4 affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has no damages from any conduct by Defendants.
5 COUNT VI
6 (Unjust Enrichment)
7 85. Defendants hereby reallege and incorporate the responses of Paragraph 1 through
8 84.

10 87. Defendants deny the statements in Paragraph 87.
14 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND STATEMENTS
15 91. CyberSponse was incorporated in or around February 2012 in Nevada.
16 92. CyberSponse operates in Scottsdale, Arizona since inception and in Arlington, VA
17 since July 2016.
18 93. CyberSponse has spent significant time and financial investment developing its
19 unique software platform, its business plan, and business practices which provide software and
20 professional services that allow businesses and governmental agencies to respond and remediate
21 cyber, physical, and corporate threats through automation and orchestration.
22 94. In March 2014, CyberSponse began interviewing Arizona law firms to represent
23 the Company in its Intellectual Property matters. CyberSponse met extensively with Snell &
24 Wilmer, PLLC (Snell) Plaintiffs current counsel on a number of occasions to discuss its
25 provisional patents and IP portfolio. Through the course of this process, certain confidential and
26
8
1 proprietary information was shared with Snell to forge a professional and working relationship.
2 This information is believed and alleged to have been subject to an attorney-client privilege
3 under prevailing Arizona law, which the Snell lawyers should have been fully aware of, and
4 sensitive to. Snell expressed a strong interest in working with CyberSponse due to the latters
5 expertise in the Cyber Security field, its incident response platform, and market potential. The
6 Snell lawyers were intrigued with the business model of CyberSponse and how it operated and
7 spent a good deal of time trying to understand the business and business methodology of the
8 Company.
9 95. Snell expressed that it was very interested in building its cyber security law
10 practice, inviting CyberSponse to participate on discussion panels at Arizona technology
11 conferences and advising CyberSponse on its intellectual property. CyberSponse had this
12 strategic and confidential dialogue with more than thirteen attorneys at Snell. In addition to the
13 firms advice concerning its IP strategy, a confidential and privileged product roadmap,
14 CyberSponses business plan, strategy and other confidential communications were shared in the
15 spirit of an attorney-client relationship.
16 96. On or around March 10, 2014, CyberSponse met with Snell again to discuss, inter
17 alia, its product roadmap and business goals for the year and other business objectives.
18 97. On or around April 3, 2014, and after numerous emails and phone calls,
19 CyberSponse had a phone call with a Snell attorney to discuss the upcoming Invest Southwest
20 event, CyberSponses upcoming IP Roadmap, business plan, and the possibility of engaging
21 Snell on various matters, including its business, and government contracts. Again, in the course
22 of these confidential communications, information was shared with these lawyers, with the firm
23 belief that it would not be shared with others, particularly current or future competitors. At no
24 time did the Snell lawyers communicate to Defendants that they represented either Plaintiff or
25 any person affiliated or associated in any way with it or any predecessor in interest.
26
9
1 98. On or around April 22, 2014, CyberSponse and Snell continued engaging in
2 discussions about a potential business partnership and synergies between the law firm and
3 CyberSponse in how each could assist the other as well as refer the other business, through
4 CyberSponses cyber security platform.
5 99. On or around May 9, 2014, two additional Snell attorneys came onsite to
6 CyberSponses facilities to discuss these synergies. Additionally, during these discussions, the
7 other thirteen other lawyers at Snell were made privy to the ongoing communication, and
8 confidential information involving the development and formation of CyberSponses
9 technology, business goals, business plan, business strategy and methods between their existing
10 and potential client bases.
11 100. At this particular meeting referenced above, Snell was further provided a detailed
12 and confidential product demonstration and shown the confidential and proprietary functionality
13 of the platform technology. Each of the attendees believed there might be opportunities to
14 participate in joint presentations and seminars, as each firm played a critical role in the cyber
15 security incident response process managing the legal requirements on breach notification laws.
16 101. In the summer of 2014, CyberSponse was advised that it should partner with a
17 Professional Services organization to provide installation services to its customers, effectively
18 allowing CyberSponse to focus on building and maintaining its cutting-edge technology, rather
19 than on a services-based business model.
20 102. Based on this advice, and towards this purpose, CyberSponse was made aware of
21 Phoenix Data Security, Inc. (Phoenix Data Security), a small professional services cyber
22 security company in the Phoenix-Metro area.
23 103. CyberSponse CEO, Joseph Loomis (Loomis), then learned of Phoenix Data
24 Securitys CEO, Cody Cornell (Cornell), through LinkedIn.com.
25 104. On June 26, 2014, Loomis sent Cornell a direct message via LinkedIn, attached
26
10
1 hereto as Exhibit A stating:
2
Cody,
3
Seems we know a lot of the same people and since Phoenix is a
4 small town, figured why not ask to connect. Would like to learn
more on what youre up to and see about getting together to talk
5 shop. Have some interesting stories to share.
6
Joe
7 105. On June 26, 2014, Cornell replied and stated:
8
Joe,
9
Sounds good. Im going to be on the road until the 21st of July,
10 but we should plan some time to sit down and talk. By the looks
of things, we would have a lot to talk about.
11
12 Thanks,
Cody
13
106. At this time, Swimlane was unknown to CyberSponse, as it had not been a
14
registered or incorporated entity at the time, nor in existence until August 6, 2014
15
(Incorporation Date).
16
107. Defendants recently determined that almost 1 month after Loomis reached out, on
17
July 21, 2014, Cornell acquired the domain name Swimlane.com. Defendants were not aware of
18
this acquisition at that time. The Swimlane.com acquisition date is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
19
108. The last message between Loomis and Cornell occurred on August 5, 2014, as
20
Cornell requested a lunch meeting, coincidently one day before Swimlanes Incorporation Date.
21
Defendants were not aware of Swimlanes incorporation, only learning about it in January,
22
2015.
23
109. Loomis did not meet Cornell for lunch and instead and had no further
24
communications for the remainder of 2014.
25
110. In 2015, there were only four other known businesses in the same cyber security
26
11
1 incident response technology space, which included Resilient Systems (Massachusetts),
2 Hexadite (Israel), CSG Invotas (Colorado), and CyberSponse (Arizona).
3 111. During the week of January 26, 2015, CyberSponse learned that a new competitor
4 had just come into existence, named Swimlane, LLC located in Tempe, Arizona, and
5 coincidentally it was owned by the same Cornell and his partner Brian Kafenbaum
6 (Kafenbaum). Cornell and Kafenbaum are the CEO and COO of Swimlane, respectively.
7 112. On or around January 29, 2015, CyberSponse also learned, and without disclosure
8 to CyberSponse, that Snell was now representing Swimlane, LLC, another alarming concern.
9 113. Snell has taken the position that CyberSponse was not a Prospective Client under
10 Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18.
11 114. On January 28, 2015, Loomis sent Cornell an email advising that he was aware of
12 Swimlane and that CyberSponses in-house counsel was closely tracking the related issues and
13 concerns raised about how this company suddenly formed and was ostensibly competing with
14 CyberSponse given the foregoing concerns.
15 115. After some discussions via email and SMS, CyberSponse and Swimlane agreed to
16 meet face-to-face on February 26, 2015, in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought to light by
17 using a common law firm, as well as a common business consultant named Tom Fulcher that
18 was previously working with CyberSponse.
19 116. The meeting took place at a neutral location and included Cornell (Swimlane,
20 CEO/Phoenix Data Security, CEO), Kafenbaum (Swimlane, COO/Phoenix Data Security,
21 COO), Loomis (CyberSponse, CEO), Tom Zender (CyberSponse, CBO), and Eric Dickson
22 (CyberSponse, CFO/COO).
23 117. At the meeting, CyberSponse asked Swimlane if it had searched or was aware of
24 CyberSponses patent applications. Swimlane responded it that it was not aware of any filings.
25 118. During the meeting, the parties also spoke about how it would be possible to
26
12
1 resolve this issue in that the IP surrounding the CyberSponse platform was already under file
2 with the USPTO and how the Swimlane platform appeared out of nowhere to be incredibly
3 similar to the CyberSponse platform. The Defendants requested that Swimlane offer some
4 reasonable explanation as to how Swimlane suddenly appeared to have been able to develop a
5 virtually identical product to CyberSponse in such a short time frame, and that it was located
6 just a few miles away. After no explanation had been provided, nor how the two individuals
7 from Swimlane came up with the idea or methodology to accomplish it, particularly given their
8 lack of any background in product development or technology, Cornell and Kafenbaum
9 attempted to convince CyberSponse that the market opportunity was large enough for both
10 companies and that there was enough room for competitors. CyberSponse representatives
11 responded that the coincidences of building an extremely similar product raised a lot of red flags
12 for two individuals with no former product development experience and more alarmingly
13 because the law firm representing Swimlane was the same firm that worked with CyberSponse
14 over the course of three months. This conclusion was fair and reasonable deductive reasoning
15 under the circumstances and given the lack of any enlightening detail provided by Cornell or
16 Kafenbaum.
17 119. At the conclusion of the meeting, and while there was no resolution in sight at the
18 time, Cornell stated that the parties should work on coming up with partnership terms and
19 resolve these issues. As a practical matter, this was at least worth considering and pursuing
20 under the circumstances rather than litigation. However, it does not appear that either Cornell or
21 Kafenbaum or their company had any real interest in following through.
22 120. On March 4, 2015, Cornell attended and presented at Venture Madness (formally
23 Invest Southwest in which CyberSponse presented two years prior with business advisor Tom
24 Fulcher), which was an innovative startup competition hosted in Arizona.
25 121. During Cornells public presentation, one of the Venture Madness judges asked
26
13
1 who Swimlanes competitors were.
2 122. Cornell initially attempted to avoid answering the question by stating that various
3 legacy systems were and that nothing currently existed in the market as a competitor.
4 123. After another question regarding competitors was raised, Cornell admitted that
5 CyberSponse is also one of our competitors, and that the two companies were looking to
6 create a partnership together.
7 124. After Cornells Venture Madness presentation, CyberSponse logically reached out
8 to follow up with Cornell's multiple statements of intended partnership, both privately and
9 publicly. Cornell then chose to ignore all these communication attempts made by CyberSponse
10 to move toward some form of resolution to the various and alarming issues in regards to the
11 formation of Swimlane.
12 125. Over the course of the next three months, Swimlane continued to choose to ignore
13 all amicable efforts to resolve these concerns expressed by CyberSponse, or to discuss the
14 partnership possibility of resolution, only escalating the frustrations of the Defendants.
15 CyberSponse then sought the assistance of common business connections to determine how
16 Swimlane had obtained a copy of the CyberSponse platform and to explain why their platform
17 and functionality was nearly identical to the then current version of the CyberSponse platform, a
18 copy of this evidence is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
19 126. Swimlane elected to then move its entire team and headquarters from Tempe,
20 Arizona to Boulder, Colorado, presumably to escape the scrutiny of CyberSponse and from
21 being forced to answer questions raised by the local business investor community about the
22 origins of its business model and technology.
23 127. Following the Swimlane relocation out of Arizona and during the summer of
24 2015, CyberSponse entered into a Proof of Concept (POC) to provide its platform technology
25 and services to a Fortune 1000, publicly traded retailer (Potential Customer 1).
26
14
1 128. For this potential customer, CyberSponse invested more than $25,000 in personnel
2 resources, and for technology features requested along with related travel expenses.
3 129. During the POC process, senior management asked how Potential Customer 1 had
4 learned of CyberSponse, and it stated that it saw CyberSponse at a previous conference, and
5 liked the technology offering, including its novel concept and innovative ideas. During
6 discussions over the month-long free trial period for Potential Customer 1, the retailer asked if
7 CyberSponse had heard of a company called Swimlane. CyberSponse responded that it knew of
8 Swimlane. Potential Customer 1 then asked if CyberSponse had any patents on its proprietary
9 platform and information related to such patentable ideas and stated: in the event that
10 [CyberSponse] has any [patents], to please forward the details asap so that the retailers VP
11 could be advised of this important information.
12 130. On July 12, 2015, CyberSponse provided a letter to Customer 1, attached hereto as
13 Exhibit C, which stated as follows:
14
[Name Redacted],
15
Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me last week on
16 the status of getting CyberSponses POC deployed and tested
within [Potential Customer 1]s Systems and Technology group
17 and our recent news about U.S. Patent Application No.
14/216,570, titled Real-time Deployment of Incident Response
18
Roadmap. After our conversation, I wanted to follow up with
19 our outside patent counsel, A. J. Moss and Lucius Lockwood, at
Squire Patton Boggs, to obtain additional information as you
20 requested to further determine the factual patents status and
ensure that you are receiving the most up to date and accurate
21 information.
22
As I stated last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
23 (USPTO) recently issued CyberSponse a Notice of Allowance.
CyberSponse has paid the issuance fee and is waiting on the
24 USPTO to formally issue this patent in the next two to four
weeks. Squire has informed me there is absolutely no action an
25 outside 3rd party can take to prevent the patent from being issued
26
15
to CyberSponse.
1
2 To be clear, this does not mean the patent is free from all
potential attacks, any patent can be challenged if the challenger
3 has enough funds and time to do so. To plan and prepare for such
potential actions, our legal teams have completed substantial
4 preparatory work in anticipation of any challenge to this patent.
Secondly, any challenger also must overcome a very high
5
standard before the USPTO or court of law, a process that can
6 take years and also be very costly. . . .
7 Attached is a copy of the Patent for your files. I will inform you
as soon [sic] the USPTO issues the patent, including assigning
8 CyberSponse our patent number. Please do not interpret this
communication or any communicative weve had as an
9
indication that we are considering or pursuing patent litigation
10 with potential infringers, thats a decision yet to be determined
because our focus is customer success and growth. If you have
11 any questions, please let me know as I know that Chris is look
[sic] forward to meeting with you and your team on Friday.
12
13 131. On July 31, 2015, Potential Customer 1 notified CyberSponse that it was not
14 chosen for their Cybersecurity Workflow Project. No reasons were given.
15 132. In August 2015, Potential Customer 1 communicated directly with CyberSponse

16 and informed its management that the selected cybersecurity vendor was also not Swimlane but
17 a vendor that had integrations built into their platform, leading CyberSponse to believe it was
18 CSG Invotas that had won the project.
19 133. In or around June 2016, CyberSponse learned that Potential Customer 1

20 misrepresented who it had selected as its cyber security vendor, and had in fact chosen
21 Swimlane for the Cybersecurity Workflow Project. This obviously caused further frustration as
22 to why a Fortune 1000 would misrepresent who won the contact and what Swimlane could have
23 stated to a Fortune 1000 company to obtain the business over CyberSponse or why a publicly
24 traded company would misrepresent facts to CyberSponse. This brought obvious and legitimate
25 concerns to CyberSponse in that Swimlane was possibly misrepresenting the facts about
26
16
1 CyberSponse and its Intellectual Property and trade secrets concerns. At the time, CyberSponse
2 in good faith decided to ignore the ongoing Swimlane dispute, hoping that Swimlane would
3 come forward in an amicable way to resolve its concerns so that the parties could go their
4 separate ways.
5 134. In or around early 2015, CyberSponse was contacted by the United States
6 Department of Justice about the potential use of the CyberSponse platform for their cyber
7 security needs.
8 135. CyberSponse entered into a three month Proof of Concept with the Department
9 of Justice and was in final discussions on pricing for the technology. After providing its pricing
10 and quote for the technology, CyberSponse learned for the first time that Swimlane was also
11 offering a nearly identical platform as CyberSponse but at a deeply discounted price to the
12 Department of Justice. At the conclusion of the Proof of Concept, Swimlane was selected as the
13 cybersecurity vendor for the Department of Justice and CyberSponse decided again to ignore the
14 ongoing Swimlane dispute and focus on building its own business.
15 136. Later the next year, on or around June 9, 2016, CyberSponse participated in a
16 phone call with a current Department of Justice manager and learned that Swimlanes product
17 had failed to perform as promised and their product crashed on almost a daily basis.
18 CyberSponse also learned that when the Department of Justice was looking at the two platforms,
19 the manager said: One, I was shocked at how much Swimlane and CyberSponse look alike, and
20 it underscored what you said shocking how alike they look. Having learned these facts from
21 the Department of Justice and knowing that no other competitor in the industry had a strikingly
22 similar product, CyberSponse in good faith believed that Swimlane had engaged in unethical
23 acts through its management and development team, and had somehow obtained its confidential
24 and proprietary information so as to unfairly compete in the marketplace. When CyberSponse
25 considered that Swimlanes technology was nearly identical in screen views, offering near
26
17
1 identical features and functionalities, it raised serious and valid concerns. In addition to these
2 issues, CyberSponse considered that the two companies also had the same common business
3 advisors, and/or the possibility that a disgruntled employee may have been enticed to provide
4 confidential information to Swimlane in violation of executed secrecy and confidentiality
5 agreements. There was more than a reasonable belief that something untoward and wrongful
6 occurred during the formation and origin of Swimlane and the marketplace and potential
7 customers were being mislead.

8 137. In or around late 2015, CyberSponse was in communication with a publicly traded
9 Internet Service Provider (Potential Customer 2). During the course of the engagement, the
10 opportunity stalled due to timing and budget constraints that were outside the control of either
11 party. Then in the fall of 2016, the management of Potential Customer 2 witnessed a
12 presentation of CyberSponses CEO and asked the CyberSponse sales team to reach out to
13 discuss using the CyberSponse technology for their needs. After working with Potential
14 Customer 2, CyberSponse learned that Swimlane was then also in discussions with Potential
15 Customer 2. During this engagement, there were rumors circulating in the industry regarding
16 issues between Swimlane and that CyberSponse was a bully and had sent a Cease & Desist
17 Letter to others. Potential Customer 2 asked CyberSponse about Swimlanes history with the
18 Department of Justice and for an introduction. CyberSponse had learned that Swimlane was
19 representing that the DOJ was its customer but was withholding from the marketplace that the
20 DOJ had in fact cancelled its contract due to product performance issues.
21 138. After learning the information presented herein and attempting to resolve the
22 issues but with little to no cooperation or response by the Plaintiff, on or around July 22, 2016,
23 CyberSponse, through outside counsel and with no other choice, sent Swimlane a Cease &
24 Desist Letter. The strategy here was to influence Swimlane under legal advice, to meet and
25 amicably resolve or explain their side of the story so that CyberSponse in good faith could put
26
18
1 an end to the dispute. This Cease and Desist letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
2 139. Following the sending of the Cease & Desist letter to Swimlane, CyberSponse was
3 conducting business as usual. In the course of their business, most if not all customer contracts
4 require disclosure of any outstanding or ongoing dispute in regards to the validity of the
5 intellectual property of the product being licensed to that customer. Pursuant to this obligation to
6 be truthful in disclosure, in one instance, Potential Customer 2 was provided some of the
7 historical facts and shown the unanswered Cease & Desist Letter sent to Swimlane months prior.
8 CyberSponse assured the management of Potential Customer 2 that CyberSponse was seeking to
9 find an amicable resolution and in no way looking to harm or cause any issues with Swimlanes
10 business.
11 140. Swimlane did not respond to the July 22, 2016, letter until November 22, 2016,
12 four months later where they asked for more explicit detail of the allegations contained herein,
13 while at the same time providing nothing in return. CyberSponse believes that respected industry
14 leaders advised Swimlane to resolve the matter amicably. However, Swimlane continued to
15 reject requests for face-to-face meetings to do so or provide any information to resolve this
16 matter, at times, claiming their attorneys had advised against it.

17 141. Then, on or around November 29, 2016, Loomis and Cornell exchanged emails,
18 attached hereto as Exhibit E, about resolution, and set a time to meet for lunch on December 12,
19 2016, in Scottsdale, Arizona. This meeting was more specifically set to discuss potential
20 settlement outcomes and resolution of the issues contained herein.
21 142. On or around December 11, 2016, Cornell abruptly canceled the lunch meeting
22 and indicated that he would not be able to travel to Scottsdale, Arizona the next day, while
23 Loomis had already traveled to Arizona.
24 143. On or around December 12, 2016, Loomis attempted again to get Cornell to meet
25 with him to resolve this matter, but Cornell again declined to meet in person. Loomis then said
26
19
1 that if Cornell had a legitimate reason to why he was not able to meet, that Loomis would be
2 open to reschedule. Cornell never responded. Loomis then responded that if Cornell was not
3 willing to be transparent and show good faith that it would be best to have legal counsel work
4 out a resolution. This e-mail chain is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit
5 F.
6 144. On or around December 14, 2016, out of frustration with Cornells bad faith
7 actions, Loomis reached out again to attempt to resolve matters, this time via email to
8 Kafenbaum and provided him Loomis mobile number. As a result, the two spoke over the
9 phone for more than an hour. During this call, Loomis indicated that he simply wanted to meet
10 face to face with Cornell and resolve these issues in discussion, rather than wasting further time
11 and resources. In the discussion, Loomis also learned that Cornell had never even told
12 Kafenbaum about the prior communications that Cornell and Loomis had while Cornell operated
13 Phoenix Data Security. Kafenbaum said he first learned of CyberSponse through a mutual
14 friend, much later, and not through Cornell. Loomis explained that Cornell must have hid that
15 from him (Kafenbaum) and that he should also be concerned.
16 145. As a result of the amicable phone discussion, Kafenbaum stated that he would
17 speak with Cornell, and arrange a face-to-face meeting for Loomis and Cornell to resolve this
18 matter.
19 146. Kafenbaum further indicated that Swimlane was not at fault, but he was unable to
20 produce any evidence to CyberSponse indicating as much or answer simple questions to how
21 they came up with the idea or explain how their product looked the same as CyberSponses. To
22 date, Swimlane has still not provided CyberSponse any evidence to support such a claim of
23 innocence, only vague assurances that the entire dispute is a bunch of coincidences and nothing
24 is what it seems.
25 147. On or around December 18, 2016, Loomis emailed Kafenbaum, attached hereto as
26
20
1 Exhibit G, again trying to find a resolution or obtain evidence to find the truth, by stating:
2
Brian,
3
I didn't hear from you. I also do not have your mobile. Let me
4 know if you are of the same mindset to meet and resolve. You
said on our call you would feel the same way I do if you were in
5 my position, but for some reason I cannot get you to help me see
your position.
6
7 Remember the story I told you from my past, truly helpful

advice. Please know, I am not on a witch hunt, you and Cody
8 avoid being transparent or amicable at any costs. I have no
hidden agenda here, do you?
9
148. On or around December 18, 2016, Loomis and David Amsler (Amsler), an
10
investor of Swimlane, further exchanged emails with regard to the same issues. Loomis intended
11
to discuss the Cease & Desist letter and to respectfully request some assistance to get Swimlane
12
to meet face-to-face and resolve these issues.
13
149. On or around December 19, 2016, Loomis and Amsler spoke on the phone about
14
the positions of each party. During the phone call, both parties agreed that litigation of these
15
disputes was not in the best interest of either party and that it was Amslers recommendation to
16
not file any litigation, as it would create a lose-lose situation for both companies. Loomis trusted
17
Amslers advice and agreed that filing a complaint would not be in the best interest of either
18
party, while Amsler agreed that he would get Cornell to meet with Loomis to find an amicable
19
resolution.
20
150. On December 21, 2016, Kafenbaum responded to Loomis December 19 email,
21
attached hereto as Exhibit H, wherein Kafenbaum stated:
22
We will meet, but a face to face as you wanted is difficult to plan
23
through the holidays.
24
Conf call?
25
Brian
26
21
1 151. Loomis then replied via email, attached hereto as Exhibit H, with:
2
Lets meet next week, then no more holiday excuses. Its a short
3 flight. If I was a customer, youd both be on a flight tomorrow.
4 If you dont want to meet, you dont want to resolve this. I am

not being unreasonable here Brian.
5
152. On or around December 22, 2016, another phone call occurred between Loomis,
6
Amsler, and Ross Meyer, General Counsel of CyberSponse.
7
153. During this phone call, the parties indicated again that litigation would not be in
8
the best interests of either party and that a meeting should take place to resolve these disputes.
9
Loomis offered to travel to Florida to meet with Amsler face-to-face if that would help resolve
10
the matter. Amsler stated that he would speak to Cornell again.
11
154. On December 31, 2016, it was announced that Amsler led another major
12
investment round in Swimlane.
13
155. After attempting to meet face-to-face to resolve these issues, more than eight
14
different times since receiving Swimlanes November letter, CyberSponse asked its legal
15
counsel to prepare a response to the Swimlane letter in response to the CyberSponse Cease &
16
Desist Letter.
17
156. On or around February 13, 2017, 8:13 AM (Pacific Time), while Loomis was
18
attending an important cybersecurity conference (RSA), he emailed Amsler, attached hereto as
19
Exhibit I, stating:
20
Are you attending? Like to sit down with you if you are
21
available. Like to find a resolution here vs. let this spiral, I'm
22 sorry it's come to this, I believe we can work something out but I
need to see these guys show some good faith.
23
157. To date, Amsler has not responded.
24
158. On or around February 13, 2017, 8:24 AM (Pacific Time), CyberSponse, through
25
outside counsel, responded to Swimlanes letter, approximately two months after receipt, thus
26
22
1 providing requested evidence showing Swimlanes nearly identical GUI clone of the
2 CyberSponse Platform. This letter is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
3 159. Also on or around February 13, 2017, at 8:20 AM (Pacific Time), unbeknownst to
4 Defendants, and without prior notice, Swimlane, through the same Snell firm, filed for litigation
5 with this Court, against CyberSponse. It is CyberSponses belief that Swimlane filed this action
6 in response to Loomiss email to Amsler and their unwillingness to resolve this dispute
7 amicably. Swimlane also named Loomis and even his wife personally as a defendant, who had
8 not participated in any of these matters whatsoever causing unnecessary stress, embarrassment,
9 and humiliation.
10 160. On or around February 13, 2017, 1:16 PM (Pacific Time), Loomis emailed
11 Amsler, attached hereto as Exhibit K, after learning of the Complaint filed before this Court.
12
Dave,
13
Against your advice, since it was your advice to me, Swimlane
14 filed a complaint. I thought we were going to try to resolve this
as I showed all the evidence? I emailed you if you were at RSA,
15 and I also emailed previously.
16
I'm sorry but once we subpoena all their customers and show
17 details, isn't this going to be the destruction that you said wasn't
worth it? I thought so, it's clear as day to our team they copied us.
18 We sent the letter of the evidence over this morning too, I guess
4 minutes after their complaint was filed, it surely looked
19 planned while I was hoping to see Cody as the show.
20
What happened to you trying to help us (did you think I was
21 making this up, I wasn't), I guess it's full on nuclear war now. I
do not believe you mislead me in your advice, I know you are
22 solid guy, but I'm concerned this was a bad move for the
industry, just like you said.
23
24 I'm happy to take a call, you know I've been nothing but
reasonable to resolve this matter but every attempt has been
25 ignored or diverted by Swimlane.
26
23
1 161. The week of February 13, 2017, was an important one to both companies, as it
2 began one of the industrys largest conferences, RSA, in San Francisco, California, which the
3 two companies respectively attend, meet with prospective customers and present their
4 technologies. The timing of the filing of the Complaint appears to have been intended for an
5 ulterior purpose, i.e. solely to damage and harm CyberSponse. While CyberSponse was engaged
6 in explaining its position and working out an amicable resolution, Plaintiff was instead intending
7 to sue CyberSponse by preparing a Complaint to be made public during this important event.
8 162. Defendants have always had legitimate and significant concerns with regard to
9 Phoenix Data Security and Swimlanes background as cyber security professionals in unfairly
10 obtaining information and competing with CyberSponse. CyberSponse has elected to share this
11 information rather than litigate the dispute. CyberSponse sought evidence of how Plaintiff came
12 to obtain a product with strikingly similar features and capabilities within a short amount of time
13 and with a staff a fraction of that size of CyberSponse. CyberSponse remains also seriously
14 concerned because the same lawyers who had obtained confidential information from
15 CyberSponse, now represented the Plaintiff in this Complaint. Rather than address these
16 concerns with evidence to remove doubt as to these issues, Plaintiff instead filed this lawsuit.
17 163. CyberSponse has attempted in good faith to resolve this dispute via face-to-face
18 meetings, emails, phone calls and legal letters as it has elected to grow its business legitimately
19 without trying to harm either business through costly litigation.
20 164. CyberSponse has identified individuals who may have obtained and copied
21 CyberSponses protected trade secrets.
22 165. Defendants do not file a counterclaim at this time, but Defendants reserve their
23 right to file an amended answer and/or a counterclaim based on the discovery process if it in fact
24 proves that confidential and proprietary information that constitutes trade secrets, copyright,
25 trademark or other infringements have been used to unfairly compete with CyberSponse.
26
24
1 Defendants also reserve the right to file any other appropriate counterclaim based on the
2 discovery in this matter.
3 166. In answering, Defendants do not waive their claim that Plaintiffs counsel should
4 be disqualified due to a conflict of interest in previously representing Defendants.
5 167. Defendants specifically deny any and all claims made in the Complaint that were
6 not specifically admitted herein.
7 168. Defendants place Plaintiff on notice that they preserve the following affirmative
8 defenses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 8(c): contributory negligence; estoppel; fraud; illegality;
9 laches; license; statute of frauds; statute of limitations; and waiver.
10 169. Defendants also place Plaintiff on notice that it may raise the following possible
11 affirmative defenses which, through subsequent discovery, may be supported by the facts: lack
12 of jurisdiction over the subject matter; lack of jurisdiction over the person; failure to join
13 necessary and indispensable parties pursuant to Rule 19; failure to state a claim; insufficient
14 service of process; estoppel; set-off; recoupment; failure to mitigate damages; avoidable
15 consequences; and lack of an agency relationship. Defendants plan to raise other defenses,
16 based on the outcome of discovery, including but not limited to, the fact that the alleged
17 defamatory statements are true.
18 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

19 WHEREFORE, having answered Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants pray for judgment
20 of the Court as follows:
21 A. That Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and that Plaintiff take nothing thereby;
22 B. For trial of this matter to a jury;
23 C. That Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S.
24 12-341.01 or 12-349 and their taxable court costs incurred herein pursuant to
25 A.R.S. 12-342; and,
26
25
1 D. For such other and further relief as to the Court appears just and proper under the
2 circumstances.
3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED March 22, 2017.
4 WILENCHIK & BARTNESS, P.C.
5
/s/ Dennis I. Wilenchik
6 Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.
John D. Wilenchik, Esq.
7 Brian J. Hembd, Esq.
Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C.
8 2810 North Third Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
9
admin@wb-law.com
10 Attorneys for Defendants
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
18 I hereby certify that on March 22, 2017, I electronically transmitted the attached
19 document using the CM/ECF system for filing, and which will be sent electronically to all
20 registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing, and paper copies will be
21 sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.
22
/s/ Christine M. Ferreira
23
24
25
26
26
Case 2:17-cv-00438-DJH Document 13-1 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 42
EXHIBIT A

-RVHSK/RRPLV
)URP -RVHSK/RRPLV
6HQW :HGQHVGD\-DQXDU\30
7R
&RG\&RUQHOO
&F
&RG\:DPVOH\
6XEMHFW 5(&RG\SOHDVHDGGPHWR\RXU/LQNHG,QQHWZRUN
,PSRUWDQFH +LJK

:t

//
/^

z//W

/,
E/
/

W

Z

:

)URP&RG\&RUQHOO>PDLOWRFRG\FRUQHOO#SK[GDWDVHFFRP@
6HQW7KXUVGD\-XQH30
7R-RVHSK/RRPLV
6XEMHFW5H&RG\SOHDVHDGGPHWR\RXU/LQNHG,QQHWZRUN

-RH

6RXQGVJRRG,
PJRLQJWREHRQWKHURDGXQWLOWKHVWRI-XO\EXWZHVKRXOGSODQVRPHWLPHWRVLWGRZQDQG
WDON%\WKHORRNVRIWKLQJVZHZRXOGKDYHDORWWRWDONDERXW

7KDQNV
&RG\

&RG\&RUQHOO_3KRHQL['DWD6HFXULW\,QF_ZZZSK[GDWDVHFFRP_FRG\FRUQHOO#SK[GDWDVHFFRP_0_2
_#ZRUNKDUGU

2Q7KX-XQDW30-RVHSK/RRPLVYLD/LQNHG,QPHPEHU#OLQNHGLQFRP!ZURWH

&RG\

6HHPVZH
NQRZDORWRI
WKHVDPH
SHRSOHDQG
VLQFH
3KRHQL[LVD
VPDOOWRZQ
ILJXUHGZK\
QRWDVNWR
FRQQHFW
:RXOGOLNHWR
OHDUQPRUHRQ
ZKDW\RX
UH

XSWRDQGVHH
DERXWJHWWLQJ
WRJHWKHUWR
WDONVKRS
+DYHVRPH
LQWHUHVWLQJ
VWRULHVWR
VKDUH

-RH

$FFHSW
9LHZ3URILOH

<RXDUHUHFHLYLQJ,QYLWDWLRQHPDLOV8QVXEVFULEH

7KLVHPDLOZDVLQWHQGHGIRU&RG\&RUQHOO0DQDJLQJ
3DUWQHU 3ULQFLSDO&RQVXOWDQWDW3KRHQL['DWD
6HFXULW\/HDUQZK\ZHLQFOXGHGWKLV
/LQNHG,Q&RUSRUDWLRQ6WLHUOLQ&W0RXQWDLQ9LHZ
&$86$

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C


EXHIBIT D

R R
S T
U R R
X Y Z [ \ \ ] \ ^ _ `
a b c d a e f g b h i j k e l b a e f m
n o p q
Z r s t u u v w x y v y z [ v y { s t Z Z
| p | n n p
_ } ~ v y s y { z r { t _ ^ t r { Z { t t ] Y t \ _
q |
t t ] } \ } \ y Y Z z t { ] v } ^ ^ \
p n o p q
t v t r t t y Z r s t u u v
t r { { v y { s t Z Z
p n n p q p p
u t { u u { t { t t s v [ t { y s t ] s w ] r w [ t { t w Y { [ w y r s [ r t z s { y s r
p o p p q q o p
r { y z t y r { t r s z { y t y s r Z t { w t t Z r y { t Z r y { r Z Z y Y s t t
q p p p
r s z y t { s t s r Z t s t y { t y s z y r s z { t t s w [ t { ] [ w r Z ] r s z w y { y { r t { t r
q p p p q q p
r Z y t { s t { s r Z w [ t { t w Y { [ t r y Z r s r s z r Y y r t t w Y { [ { t Z r t z t t s
n p p o p q
v [ t { y s t r r s t r s t y { y Z y w r t t s z t t Z y t z y t { r s [ [ t r { ]
p p n p q p p
s w Z Y z s r t s w Y { { t s Z [ t y { t t ] { r z t t w { t ] r s z w y [ { w y { s t
q n o p p n q p
Z r y { v [ t { y s t r s w y { y { r t z s t r z r y s t t t { \ ] \ ^ _ _ ] r s z
p p
t r z Y r { t { t z s { y s r
p q n o p q p p
v y z [ v y { s t Z Z r s z { r s r t s r Y y Y s z t z Z r s t r Z y s { y s r y s Y Y ` ] \ ^ _ ]
p n p p p p
y { Z [ r t { t s w y s r w t z [ v [ t { y s t w y s w t { s s r y t s r Z Y s t y y { Y s [
n o p q p q p p p q q q p
Z r s t Y t Y t s Z [ t r s y t { s r w y t s t w Y { [ y t { r y s r s r t t s Z r y { s
n o p q p p
y { r y Y X r s Y r { [ \ ^ _ Z r s t { t r y s y { s t y s t
p p p | q p p p
v t s t { r s r t { r t r { s t r { Z [ z t s w r Z y t { y s y t Z r y { s r r y s ] w y s ]
p p o p p q p n p
Y s w y s r Z [ ] t t ] Y t { s y { r y s ] r s z { y z Y w Y v [ t { y s t r Y { t { { t w t t z
p q p n o p q q q p p q p o o q p
s y { r y s r Z r s t { y z Y w z t y s { r t r Z r { s Z [ Z r { y { Z y r s z r Y y r y s
p q p q p p q p p p p p p p
Z y w s z r s r s z w [ t { t w Y { [ { y z Y w r Y y r y s r s z s t { r y s w r r Z t
p q p p q
[ t y w [ t { t w Y { [ Z r y { r t Y r s r Z t r s z { t y Y { w t y z t t Z y r s z w y Y Z z s y r t
p n o p q p q o q
t t s r w t t z [ Z r s t s r r t { y r t y s
p n q p q
s t { Y r { [ \ ` ] \ ^ _ ] { t { t t s r t y v [ t { y s t X y t u y y v ~ ] y t s z t {
p p q o p n o p q p p
v ] r s z ~ { w w y s v x v t Z r s t { t { t t s r t v y z [ v y { s t Z Z r s z { r s
q q p o p p n
r t s r Y t t t s r t Z z r r s t Y { r Z Z y w r y s s w y z r Z t y { t Y { y t y
p p p q p p q p
z w Y s r y Z t t Z t t s y t s { s t t s r s z w y s t { y s y r s z y Y { w t w y z t
n p n o p q p p p p
r Z Z t t z [ v [ t { y s t r r s Z r s t Z y Y t r { t r { t t z y w y s s Y t z w Y y s
o p q p p q p n q q p p
y Z Z y s t t t s ] v y { s t Z Z Y Z r t Z [ y t z { t y s z s y v [ t { y s t w y Y s w r y s
p q p q q o p
w y s w t { s s t y { Y Z r y s y r t Z t t s r { t t t s t t t s t r { t
n p q p n o p q p n
y { Z [ r t { t t s ] Z r s t t s r t z s r s r r { t s t y { y r { t v [ t { y s t
p q p n q p
w Y { { t s ] { y t w t r s z { y y y w y s w t w Y y t { y { w s v [ t { y s t y w y t t r r s
p o p p n p p p q
y s { y z Y w y { t y t { ] z t t y s w Z y Y { t ] y s y Z w r y s ] r s z y s v y t t
q o n p q q n o p q
{ t t t s t t t s v [ t { y s t r s z t Z y [ t t ] w y s { r w y { ] r s z w Y y t { ] Z r s t
p n q p p o p |
r t r { y r t r w Y { t z v [ t { y s t w Y y t { Z r s z r s s z t s y Z t z t y t { y s
q p p q p p p p p
y t Z r y { s y { r y s t Z t t z y r t t t s y r s t z { y Y Y s r Y y { t z r w w t
p n q q p p o p n
{ y z t z [ r v [ t { y s t t Z y [ t t ] w Y y t { y { w y s { r w y { s t { t { s v [ t { y s t
p p p p p q
t s Y s t { t Z r y s r s z { t Z r t z r { t t t s
! " # $ ! " % & ' '
( ) ' $ * * + * , - .
1
/ & 0 "
2 1 3 4 3 4 3 3 6 3 4 6 3 3 7 6 3 3 3 6
' / % & / % 5 & & & % ' $ & % / & # % & # / " $ + / % 5 " & & 5 % " " # ) 5 /
3 3 4 3 3 4 2 6 3 3 6 6 3 7
/ / # / " % " & ' / " % & " " / & " ! $ & " % & & % / % # " & 5 &
4 4 6 3 2 6 1 3 6 3 4 6 1
5 ) " & " & / ' & + % ( ) ' $ * , - + ! $ & " % & / 5 5 " ) % / ' / & ) ' 5 5 " / % $ /
2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 6 6 3 3 4
' " " ' / % & + & 5 / ) & ' / % & / / ' & " ) % # & 5 ) ! $ & " % & 5 % " & / & " /
3 3 3 6 3 2 6 1 3 4 3
% & / ' $ # & % 5 / ' / % # ) % 5 " % / ' " # ) 5 0 ' & ! $ & " % & ' / & ' " & / % # ) % # & % & #
4 1 2 6 6 7 3 1 3 3 4 3
" % " " / ! $ & " % & / # & " ) ' $ 5 " % # ) 5 & # 5 ) " & % &
3 3 3 3 4 2 1 3 4 3 3 1 3
5 " % ) / " % / % # % & / " % " & ' / " % / $ * , - . + ' / % & & / % % & & %
2 6 1 3 6 3 4 6 3 2 6
/ % " & ! $ & " % & / 5 5 " ) % / ' / & ) ' 5 5 " / % $ 0 & % + % ( ) % & * , - . + ! $ & " % &
1 3 4 7 4 4 2 1 3 4
/ % " & # $ / " & % & % / & % 5 $ / % " & & % / & & % " ' & % $ ' / % & /
2 1 3 4 6 3 3 3 4 3 3 8 4 3 1 3 4
' / % & " # ) 5 & & ' $ ' / " & " % " & ' / " / % # ' / 5 & # & / &
3 3 3 3 3
/ 5 & 5 ) / ' ) / % # % / ' &
4 1 3 3 6 3 3 4 3
7 $ " ) ) % " + & ) & " 5 " % # & % / ' + / # & & 5 & + / % # 9 " 5 " $ & # % " / " % + # / / +
3 4 3 1 3 4 6 3 2 6
/ ' " + / 5 & 5 ) & + / % # " / & 5 " # % + " 5 " & & / / % ! $ & " % & ) & 5
2 1 3 4 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 4 6 3
' / % & " % 5 / % ' & / ' & " ) & + % 5 ' ) # % 5 ' / " 5 " $ / % # / # & & 5 &
3 3 4 3 7 3 3 3 4 6 3 3 3 3 7 3
% % & & % + / % ) " ' / " % + ) % / 5 " & " % + " " ) % & & & % 5 & + 5 " % & " % + / ) # + / % #
4 3 3 4 6 2 1 3 4 3 3 7 7 3
% ) & " ) " & 0 5 " " ) % # & # $ & / 5 / ' / % & & ' & & # " / & " / % & # /
6 2 6 4 3 3 3 3 2 6 1 3 3
5 " $ " ! $ & " % & 5 ) " & ' / % # ) % " / & / % # ) % # & 5 ) ! $ & " % &
1 4 4 3 6 7 3 4 3 2 1 3 4 3
" % 5 ) " & : & / ' & & # & " ) 5 / 5 5 " ) ' # " # & # / / & / / % ' / % & ) % % %
3 3 3 3 3 2 6
% " & ) % # & # " " ) / % # + % / # # " % " / " % & $ & & / % # 5 " % 5 ) & # $ ! $ & " % &
2 6 4 2 1 3 4 3 2 6 3 3
! $ & " % & # & / % # / ' / % & 5 & / & / % # # & / ' ' ) & " ! $ & " % & 5 " % # & % / ' +
6 3 3 4 3 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
/ # & & 5 & + / % # 5 " $ & # % " / " % + 5 % 5 ' ) # & + ) % " ' & # " + 5 ) " & ' +
1 3 3 4 6 4 3 3 3 3 4 3
" / & 5 " # & + / 5 & 5 ) & + / ' " + 5 ) & % ' / " ) % 5 " % / ' $ + # / / + / & 5 % " / " % +
4 3 6 3 6 6 3 2 6
/ 5 5 & " & ' / " " ) # / & + / % # " & " & / $ / & ! $ & " % & ) &
4 2 1 3 4 3 1 3 6 3 3
# & / % # ' / % & 5 & / & / % # # & 5 " % / 5 / ' ' & " % / % # & % & ) & 5 " " %
3 2 3 3 3 4 6 4 1 3 2 6 2 6
; 5 ' " ) & + " % " ' 5 / " % + " " % ! " & & 7 & & & % ! $ & " % & ! $ & " % &
4 2 1 3 4 3 4 3 4 4
) & # & / % # / ' / % & 5 & / & / % # # & / % # & / / " $ / % # # & " / " $ / & & %
3 2 6 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 6
5 " % 5 & % % ! $ & " % & / % # / % / & & % & / % 5 ' ) # % ) % " ' & # " ! < + ( " &
4 3 3 3 2 1 3 4 4 3 4
: " " " ) ) % # & / % # % / ' / % & / " % % ) & " ) " 5 5 / " % / # & / ' & / % #
4 4 3 6 6 3 7 3 7 6
# & " / " $ / & & % / " ) : " " " 5 ) & % / % # " & 5 & % & " + / % & / % #
4 1 3 7 3 1 3 2 6 3
5 ) " & + 5 / & % & & & # ! $ & " % & ) % &
2 6 3 6 7 3 4 3 2 1 3 4 3
! $ & " % & % & % # " ) ) & / % $ / % # / ' ' / / ' / ' & ' & / ' & & # & " ) ' # ' / % & / ' "
3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 6 3
5 & / & / % # # & % % & & % " & ' / " + % 5 ' ) # % / # & & 5 & + 5 " $ & # + / % #
3 3 3 4 3 3 6 4 2 6 3 4 4 4
5 " % # & % / ' % " / " % + / % # 9 " & # / / & & % " ! $ & " % & / % # / % / & & % & /
7 3 3 3
) & + " & & & % / $ " ) / & % " # " % & " / ' & / # $ + ' & & / ' ' 5 " % ) & % " 5 & "
2 1 3 4 6 4 3 6 3 3 6 7
' / % & " ) & % # / % $ # " 5 ) & % # & ) 5 " % / 5 5 & / % # " & / % / % # & & & / ' '
4 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3
# " 5 ) & % + / # 5 " $ / % # & ' & 5 " % 5 + & ' / & # " " / % " ) " # ) & % 5 ' ) # % ) % "
3 4 3 6 7 3 2 1 3 4 1 6 4 3
' & # " 5 ) & % / % # / & " % " & ' / % & " / & 5 " # & / % # ' / " / 5 & 5 ) &

& $ ) ' $ $ " ) +
/ 7 / # & / )

/ % &
EXHIBIT E

Ross Meyer <ross@cybersponse.com>
Discussion - Communication under Rule 408 - Settlement Purposes only

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:05 PM
To: cody@swimlane.com
Bcc: ross@cybersponse.com
Cody,
In the past, Ive tried more than 5 times to contact you (emails, texts) to resolve this, all with no response. If you truly want
to avoid litigation (as stated in your last letter), then we should have a discussion in person in AZ the week of Dec 13
(make it happen on your end), i.e. face to face or this door closes. This is the only window of time that will be open given
my schedule.
Secondly, based on your counsels letter, the language and tone only motivates our Company to move in another direction
than resolving our dispute in this manner. Regardless of what your counsel demands or threatens, we are not going to
turn over our evidence prior to filing our complaint. If your counsel wants to pick a fight or make threats, they certainly are
setting you up for nuclear destruction with a costly tuition expense too. Maybe you dont know, but attorneys get paid to
fight, no matter what they say. Take it from someone thats paid millions in legal fees, its all a game.
PS. If you continue to tell folks negative things about me (just heard more last week), things will get personal pretty quick.
Do we really want to call all your customers as witnesses and employees to flush out the facts? I already have a list of
folks that have agreed to testify.
Ball is in your court whether you want to resolve this
Joe
___
Joseph Loomis
Founder & CEO
CyberSponse, Inc.
Scottsdale, AZ | Plano, TX | Arlington, VA
c: 801.792.7988 | o: 480.378.3488 | e: Joe@CyberSponse.com | w: CyberSponse.com

**************Confidentiality Notice****************
This electronic message contains information from CyberSponse, Inc. which may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed
above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message.
EXHIBIT F


Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:06 PM
To: "cody,cornell@swimlane.com" <cody.cornell@swimlane.com>
Cc: Brian Kafenbaum <brian.kafenbaum@swimlane.com>
Forget it Cody, I understand your priorities.
Mobile Sent, Errors Likely.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:57 PM -0700, "cody,cornell@swimlane.com" <cody.cornell@swimlane.com> wrote:
Joe,
I've got a couple things that came up that are going to keep me from making it to Phoenix tomorrow. Still would like the
opportunity to discuss, even if it requires a change in venue/location.
This week is pretty shot schedule wise, and I'm not sure what your end of year schedule looks like, but we could still
target before end of year.
Are you going to be in the office the next few weeks?
Thanks,
Cody
On Nov 29, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> wrote:
I presume you mean Monday?
Set assist two hours.
From: Cody Cornell [mailto:cody.cornell@swimlane.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:12 PM
To: Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com>
Subject: Re: Discussion - Communica!on under Rule 408 - Se"lement Purposes only
Thanks, let's do noon at the Culinary Dropout in Tempe.
~Cody
--
Cody Cornell | Swimlane | www.swimlane.com | M: 928-587-0170 | O: 303-862-9251 | @workhardr
[Quoted text hidden]



Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:43 PM
Cody,
I understand the point youre trying to make but unfortunately from my view it comes down to priori!es and its clear
you dont consider this a priority. In my previously email, I made it clear that this was the only !me that I could meet
with you given I am not based in Arizona, its a short "ight for you, and your equity partner is also located in AZ. I been
in business long enough to know what a stall tac!c is.
Since our #rst Cease & Desist le$er and no!ce of pending li!ga!on in 2015, you have avoided numerous a$empts to
resolve this dispute and right now youre just doing the same thing again. Secondly, your counsels most recent
response to our second C&D le$er (a$ached for reference) said that wanted to avoid li!ga!on. I am !red of how you
avoid our good faith a$empts and then say false nega!ve statements about me. Wouldnt it be nice if they all knew
the truth? Lets just let the lawyers deal with it now, I think thats the best route since I do not have good faith you
have any interest in resolving this dispute amicably.
Joe
From: cody,cornell@swimlane.com [mailto:cody.cornell@swimlane.com]

Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion - Communica!on under Rule 408 - Se$lement Purposes only
I'd appreciate the chance to discuss, but as I'm sure you know, things come up. If you genuinely would like to discuss, a
single meeting reschedule should not be enough to keep that from happening, we both are extremely busy personally and
professionally.
Let's try to schedule some time, if you don't want to discuss...well I obviously can't make you.
Thanks,
Cody



<image001.png>
This electronic message contains information from CyberSponse, Inc. which may be
confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you
are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for
delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error,
please immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the original
message.
confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are
neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this
electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message.
confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are
neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this
electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please immediately
notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message.
This electronic message contains information from CyberSponse, Inc. which may be confidential and is
intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the
employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please immediately
notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message.
Cybersponse -- Cease & Desist to Swimlane.pdf

43K

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:05 AM
Provide me your reason you cannot come to Phoenix. That will show me if
you're being transparent and acting in good faith.
Secondly, a phone call is not appropriate, this something that gets

resolved in person or we just go other routes. I want to get to know the
real Cody.. I am tired of the games, the disappearing acts, the ignoring
of communication, the defamation (like what you told Nehemiah Security),
the drama and the nervous acts. I really just hope you understand the
implications of such decisions you are making.
This will be my last communication. Tomorrow is my only window and you're

a 50 min flight, your decision. I will meet you in Scottsdale Airpark,
just you and I (take an uber if you have to)
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: cody,cornell@swimlane.com [mailto:cody.cornell@swimlane.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion - Communication under Rule 408 - Settlement
Purposes only
Given I can't be in Phoenix tomorrow, and you feel there is an opportunity

to discuss, beyond simply turning to a legal path, what is your
recommendation to resolve? I'd assume you had something in mind when you
asked to meet.
I'm still open to meeting, even if I means a change in venue or a phone

call, but happy to keep this dialog open and going.
Thanks,
Cody
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> wrote:
>
> <mime-attachment.html>
> <Cybersponse -- Cease & Desist to Swimlane.pdf>
--

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:22 AM
To: Cody Cornell <cody.cornell@swimlane.com>
You didnt answer my ques!on Cody, your inability to be transparent and upfront is going to be your downfall.
I also wouldnt reschedule a mee!ng that is a priority, so I disagree with your perspec!ve.
If you think missing 1 day spending 2 hours with me and mee!ng with your partner is too much to ask, then like I said,
you do what you think is best.
As for reschedule, I have no con"dence that you will follow through. For now, lets just let the lawyers deal with it. I
have tried to meet or talk to you for a year Cody, so lets stop with the poker game.
Joe
From: Cody Cornell [mailto:cody.cornell@swimlane.com]

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Discussion - Communica!on under Rule 408 - Se#lement Purposes only
Joe,
As I've mentioned repeatedly, we are happy to meet in person, and I'll look at tomorrow, but as I mentioned, this week is
full getting fuller. Be it a fifty minute or four hour flight, as I'm sure you know, a flight monopolizes the entire day, and
much like you, I have limited windows of available time. I'm sure a rescheduled meeting is not an anomaly in your life.
In regards to getting the chance to talk, I hope that you do get the chance to know me, both of us having military
backgrounds, ETs none the less, business owners and security professionals for the last couple decades, I'd assume we
have a lot in common. I truly believe there is a lot of opportunity in the space and that rising tides, can raise all ships.
If tomorrow doesn't work, the DC metro area might be an option depending on your calendar and mine.
Thanks,
Cody
--
Cody Cornell | Swimlane | www.swimlane.com | M: 928-587-0170 | O: 303-862-9251 | @workhardr

EXHIBIT G

No update to settlement discussion?

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 8:51 AM
To: Brian Kafenbaum <brian.kafenbaum@swimlane.com>
Brian,
I !dn't hear from you. I also do not have ur mobile, let me know if you are of the same mindset to meet and
resolve. You said on our call you would feel the same way I do if you were in my position, but for some
reason I cannot get you to help me see your position.
Remember the story I told you from my past, truely helpful advice. Please know, I am not on a witch hunt,
you and Cody avoid being transparent or amicable at any costs. I have no hidden agenda here, do you?
This electronic message contains information from CyberSponse, Inc. which may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed
above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the original message.
EXHIBIT H

No update to settlement discussion?

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:30 AM
To: Ross Meyer <ross@cybersponse.com>
From: Joseph Loomis [mailto:joe@cybersponse.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:55 AM
To: 'Brian Kafenbaum' <brian.kafenbaum@swimlane.com>
Subject: RE: No update to se!lement discussion?
Lets meet next week, then no more holiday excuses. Its a short "ight. If I was a customer, youd both be on a "ight
tomorrow.
If you dont want to meet, you dont want to resolve this. I am not being unreasonable here Brian.
From: Brian Kafenbaum [mailto:brian.kafenbaum@swimlane.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: No update to se!lement discussion?
We will meet, but a face to face as you wanted is difficult to plan through the holidays.
Conf call?
Brian
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 8:51 AM Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> wrote:
Brian,
I didn't hear from you. I also do not have ur mobile, let me know if you are of the same mindset to meet
and resolve. You said on our call you would feel the same way I do if you were in my position, but for
some reason I cannot get you to help me see your position.
Remember the story I told you from my past, truely helpful advice. Please know, I am not on a witch hunt,
you and Cody avoid being transparent or amicable at any costs. I have no hidden agenda here, do you?

This electronic message contains information from CyberSponse, Inc. which may be confidential and is intended
solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent
responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by replying to this message and delete the
original message.
--
---
Brian Kafenbaum | Swimlane | www.swimlane.com | brian.kafenbaum@swimlane.com | M: 623-225-8034

EXHIBIT I

O
P Q

EXHIBIT J

] ^ _ [ ]
] ` [ ] a [
b c d e e
f f g h i h
j c d e e
f f g g i h
k l m n o p o q r s t u v r w
x y z { | z y } z ~ x { ~ y | z y }
l p p p p

l l o

l o p l l o

v v p p n o l o l l

n l r v v

l t o p v v u u v u

l l p l l p l
l p o o p

l l o o l q n o l m l o u u t u v r t l l o l o l p t q t p o n l

m q p l l p n p p p q m l o l n o q o n p n p p

l o p p p m l l l l m q q m l o l q n o l l o t q n o l n l l p

q m l o l o l o p o l p o l p n o l l o o l p n p

q n p l l l o l l p n p k o t n o o l l q n m l p l p p

p l o p q l o l q n p q n o p o p q p l p m l p p l

n o l o l o p l m l o q n o o l q m l o l p l l o m n l

p p o n l t p l q p o l p m q n l l l q n o p l n l o p l m l p

p l o p o n p o q l p n p o q l p o l p l m p l n o p l o l

o q m l o l l p l l o l l o o l q q n o l p o l l l l

n l t m n l l o p o l l p n o l p l p q n l q t l l p n o o q

l o l l m n l l o l l p l l l l t n l p o l l l m l

n m l o p t p l l o p l l p l q n p o l p l q

n o l l o l p p l p p l p p p l p o o n q l

q m l o l l l n p o l o q p l o m l m n l o n l

n o l p q p p o p p l l p p l o l l p n o l t

n q m n l p l l o l n l l o p t p

p l l p l l p p p m q p n p q l q m l o l

p l p p p o n l o n l l p l l p l p q p p o n

l l o l l o l p l l p p m l p l o n o p p o n

l l n n l p o n p t l p l o p t p l p t p

n l o o p l t p o p l n p p l l m q l o o l l l m

q l o q m q m l o l t l o o o p q m l l l l o

l l l l p p l l p l o q l q m l o l n o q p o l t l l p q p

l p p m q o p p o p l p l l o n p q l o p l n o q

p p q l p o l o n m l p l p l o p p o l n o q

l o l p q m l o l n o q l l l q l l l o l p p l o l o p

m l m n n p l o l l q l t p q m o o

o l l l q l p l o p l l l m q l l l l

q m l o l p o t p l p p o p p p l p l o o o o l o l p l

n p q p o p l l p l n p l l l l p o p

o l p p k o l p l t l q n l l m l t q n p n l o p p l
! " # $ % & ' ! ( $
) % * + ( , - . / 0 1 - 2
( % #

$ , $ % $ ( $ % & / ( , # + ( % ( $ # ( * % # % ' % % $ # ( $ # ' ( $ % & ( ' %

+ % , ( * + % $ # ' % # ( ! ' $ ( # $ ' % + $ # ( # # % ( ' $ % & ' ( ( + (

& ( , * # # # % % $ & # $ % & ( ' % % ' % ( % / % % $ & # $ % & ( # ! ' % & ( , * # # $

( ( $ # * + # # # ( # # * % ( * % # % % % / # % ( & % / $ ( + $ / ( % ' % $ %

$ % & $ ' $ $ ( ( ( % / ' % ( % ' % $ % $ % & $ / $ ( ( ( / ' % ( % ' % $ % $ % & $ ! % ,

$ % % ( + % / + # ( , ( ' % # % ( # % & $ # & % * , ( % ! ' % ' (

# # $ ' ( & % $ / $ % ( + # ( , ( % $ !

! $ $ % ( & ' % , * % & # $ % ( ( $ ' # $ ( # & + % / # # ' % % ( %

( $ $ % ( & ( + $ ( % $ ' ( ( $ $ % $ # $ / ( # $ / ' % ( % % % ( # $ / $ / (

% # # % , * % % % ( # ' % $ % ( * + % $ ( # & + % ( ' % $ / ' ( ( % ( # ' %

+ ( % # % $ ! ' % , * % & # $ % & ( # $ % % $ ' # ( $ # # % $ ( $ # ( ' % ( $ $ % $

' % + $ ( # ( # ( $ # ' ( $ % ( $ , # $ # ( % ( ( ' % ' ( + $ $ + ( ,

+ % $ ( ' % % ( # $ ' & $ * % % % ' % ( * + % $ ! ) # % ( & % / ' % & ( # $ ' # ' (

( % ( % $ # ( ' % ( ( ' % $ % ( % # % $ # ! / $ ' # # % # $ * % % %

( $ $ % $ $ ( # ( $ & % % * ! ( % $ # # $ / # ( ( % $ / ' ( $ ' / $ #

% ( ( ' % # # & + % ( $ $ % $ / % * $ % $ ( ' % ' # $ % ( ' % $ ' # ' % # # $

$ + ' ( $ ' % ( % % % % % $ / $ ' ( $ $ # ( % # & + % ( $ $ % $ / ' ( ( % (

$ + ( ( # ! # ' # # $ + % ( & & # $ ' # % ( # $ ' & $ ( $ % ( % (

+ # ( , ( % ( # $ ' & $ !

% $ ( $ ' * # ( ' % , * % & # $ % $ , $ % ( $ * + # ( ( ' % + % ' (

# % $ + $ # ( # # $ & ( # ( ( $ & ( % $ / % $ / ( $ ' * # ( $ / % $ ( , # + $ / $ /

( * % / & ( % ( & ' $ / % ! ' $ # + & % ' % ( ( % % ( $ , * % $ % + ,

# # & ( , * # # % % $ ' ( ( % ( % ( , % % ( # ' ( # # ' % ( % & ( , % #

# & % # ' ( ( ' % % ! # $ , * % $ % + , & ( # $ % % / ( ' % % / $ ( ( + ( * % # * %

' ( % # % % ! ' $ $ % % $ ' # $ ' # $ ' ( ( % % & ( % ' % , * % & # $ % & ( # /

+ ' % ( * , # + $ # % # ' % + ( + $ % ! # ' & ( % $ $ ' # % # # % $ / ' %

$ ( + $ # ' % $ % % $ / ( / , & % # % / # ( # # % / ( % # % !

( % ' ( $ ( % ( # & , # ' % & ( % ( , # + / + # ( , ( % % / ( & # + ' (

# % $ ' % ( % ! ( % $ & ( % ( $ # $ ' # $ $ ( , # % ( $ ' * # ( $ # & # %

% % + # ( , / + $ % , * % & # $ % & # % ' $ & ( # !

$ ( & & ( % # % % ( + $ # , % % # ' % ( % & ( # ( ' % ( ( ' % ' * !

' ( ( % ' ( $ $ % # , * % & # $ % $ & # & % ( , / # % ( , $ % $ % / ( # ( %

$ % % # ( # ! ) + ' % / ( % ' ( $ + $ % $ + ' # ( # # % % # & ( # & %

# % ( & ( # / ' ' $ ( # & $ ' % ' # + ' & ( ( $ # * # ' % ( $ ( # % / ( $

* % + $ % # + # ' # ' % % % + ( & # & % , ' ( $ % $ % # # $ , $ % $ ' (

% % # * $ % % ( % $ * % ( , * % & # $ % ! ' $ / * % # % $ ( & & ( % ' ( + & % $ ( + # ,

( # # ( ( $ ( $ % # ' $ + ( + ( % ( * % ' ( # * , ( % ( $

+ ( % & % $ % ( % $ !

! , % + % $ $ # + ' % # ( # ( , * % % % # , ( % # ! , * % & # $ % % $ #

& + $ + % ( , ( ( ( ( ( * % % ( % % % $ $ ' # + ( % ( # % ( $ % ( % $ $ $

% % # ' % , * % & # $ % & ( # ! % % % ( % ' % % ( ' ( ( % % ' $

* + $ % $ $ % / ( ' % % * , ( % % ( ' ( + ' % # + $ + & & # # ' $ % ( * + $ % $ $

% % & $ % & % $ % ( # ( + # ( # # ' % ( $ % # + % % % / (

* # ' % ( $ % ( $ & + % ( ( % $ !
! " # $ % & ' ! ( $
) % * + ( , - . / 0 1 - 2
( % ' % %

% ( $ # ( % $ & # $ % ' % - 1 ( , $ ' % % # ( $ ' $ $ $ + % ' ( $ * % % & % ( $ $ +

, * % & # $ % ' ( ( % $ ( ' % % % $ $ ( , $ % & $ # % ' $ * + $ % $ $ % ! ) ( ' ( /

, * % & # $ % ( % ' ( % % % ( ( # % % $ ( & & # & ( % # ' ( ' % & ( ( $ /

% % / ( + ( # & % # !

% , + , , # + $ /

! ( # 3 # # (
( ( % ( + / $ !

3 % # % , $ $ ( $ / $ !
EXHIBIT K

Fwd: I guess too late.

Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:33 PM
To: Ross Meyer <ross@cybersponse.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: "Joseph Loomis" <joe@cybersponse.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:16 PM -0800
Subject: I guess too late.
To: <dave@amslerfamily.com>
Dave,
Against your advice, since it was your advice to me, Swimlane !led a complaint. I thought we were going to
try to resolve this as I showed all the evidence? I emailed you if you were at RSA, and I also emailed
previously.
I'm sorry but once we subpoena all their customers and show details, isn't this going to be the destruction
that you said wasn't worth it? I thought so, it's clear as day to our team they copied us.
We sent the letter of the evidence over this morning too, I guess 4 minutes after their complaint was !led, it
surely looked planned while I was hoping to see Cody as the show.
What happened to you trying to help us (did you think I was making this up, I wasn't), I guess it's full on
nuclear war now. I do not believe you mislead me in your advice, I know you are solid guy, but I'm
concerned this was a bad move for the industry, just like you said.
I'm happy to take a call, you know I've been nothing but reasonable to resolve this matter but every attempt
has been ignored or diverted by Swimlane.
Joe

EXHIBIT L


CyberSponse Seeks To Protect Its Ideas and Receives Defamation Suit - Bully Tactics - The Truth Behind What Really Happened..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CyberSponse Seeks To Protect Its Ideas and Receives Defamation Suit - Bully Tactics - The Truth Behind What Really Happened..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-00438-DJH Document 13 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 26

9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11 Swimlane, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Case No. 2:17-cv-00438-DJH

14 v. (Assigned to the Honorable Diane

19 Defendants CyberSponse, Inc. (CyberSponse), Joseph Loomis, and Kimberly Loomis

20 (collectively the Defendants) hereby answer the above-captioned Complaint.

21 1. Defendants lack sufficient information to respond to Plaintiffs allegations in

22 Paragraph 1 and therefore deny the same.

23 2. Defendants deny the allegations therein.

1 82. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 82.

9 86. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 86.

21 cyber, physical, and corporate threats through automation and orchestration.

15 spirit of an attorney-client relationship.

4 CyberSponses cyber security platform.

10 and potential client bases.

19 than on a services-based business model.

22 security company in the Phoenix-Metro area.

1 hereto as Exhibit A stating:

1 incident response technology space, which included Resilient Systems (Massachusetts),

2 Hexadite (Israel), CSG Invotas (Colorado), and CyberSponse (Arizona).

18 was previously working with CyberSponse.

21 Kafenbaum or their company had any real interest in following through.

24 Fulcher), which was an innovative startup competition hosted in Arizona.

1 who Swimlanes competitors were.

6 create a partnership together.

18 copy of this evidence is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

22 origins of its business model and technology.

11 could be advised of this important information.

15 132. In August 2015, Potential Customer 1 communicated directly with CyberSponse

18 CSG Invotas that had won the project.

19 133. In or around June 2016, CyberSponse learned that Potential Customer 1

24 and proprietary information so as to unfairly compete in the marketplace. When CyberSponse

4 confidential information to Swimlane in violation of executed secrecy and confidentiality

7 customers were being mislead.

16 matter, at times, claiming their attorneys had advised against it.

20 settlement outcomes and resolution of the issues contained herein.

23 Loomis had already traveled to Arizona.

15 from him (Kafenbaum) and that he should also be concerned.

7 Remember the story I told you from my past, truly helpful

4 If you dont want to meet, you dont want to resolve this. I am

19 without trying to harm either business through costly litigation.

2 discovery in this matter.

9 laches; license; statute of frauds; statute of limitations; and waiver.

18 PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

21 sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.

! " # $ ! " % & ' '

Ross Meyer <ross@cybersponse.com>

Discussion - Communication under Rule 408 - Settlement Purposes only

Ball is in your court whether you want to resolve this

Scottsdale, AZ | Plano, TX | Arlington, VA

c: 801.792.7988 | o: 480.378.3488 | e: Joe@CyberSponse.com | w: CyberSponse.com

Ross Meyer <ross@cybersponse.com>

Discussion - Communication under Rule 408 - Settlement Purposes only

Forget it Cody, I understand your priorities.

Mobile Sent, Errors Likely.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:57 PM -0700, "cody,cornell@swimlane.com" <cody.cornell@swimlane.com> wrote:

Are you going to be in the office the next few weeks?

On Nov 29, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Joseph Loomis <joe@cybersponse.com> wrote:

I presume you mean Monday?

Set assist two hours.

From: Cody Cornell [mailto:cody.cornell@swimlane.com]

Thanks, let's do noon at the Culinary Dropout in Tempe.