Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JETSMARTER, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSEPH BENSON
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Defendant, Joseph Benson (“Defendant”), pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Motion to Lift Preliminary Injunction and Motion for
Sanctions for Failure to Produce Corporate Representative with Knowledge of Areas of Inquiry
Stated Within Defendant’s Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum and in
Background
On January 20, 2018, the Defendant was served with a Summons and Complaint in the
above-titled action. The Complaint attempts to state claims for injunctive relief pursuant to 18
Duty, Tortious Interference with Business Relationships, Conversion, Theft of Trade Secrets
pursuant to Florida Statute § 688.004, Theft of Trade Secrets pursuant to Florida Statute § 688.003,
1
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 2 of 227
On or about January 29, 2018, JetSmarter file its Verified Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. 10] and requested that this Honorable Court enter an order of preliminary
injunction enjoining Benson from utilizing JetSmarter’s trade secrets, from contacting
JetSmarter’s customers, and from tortuously interfering with JetSmarter’s business relationships.
On or about April 6, 2018, after hearing oral arguments from both parties, the Magistrate
provided a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 27] granting the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. Specifically, the Magistrate found that “Plaintiff has produced evidence showing that
Defendant has been utilizing its Customer List to directly contact its customers in an apparent
effort to terminate or otherwise interfere in their relationships with Plaintiff.” [Doc. 27 at 6].
As indicated in the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, the only evidence provided
by the Plaintiff in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction was screen shots of chat rooms
wherein Benson provided options for private jet services and stated that members of the chat rooms
were JetSmarter members. However, pursuant to the sworn testimony of JetSmarter, it has been
confirmed that JetSmarter has no proof that Benson is in possession of any “Customer List” or that
he has used said “Customer List” to obtain information of persons to discuss private jet services
in the chat rooms. Further, JetSmarter has admitted that it has not suffered a calculable monetary
amount due to Benson’s communications, nor has JetSmarter provided evidence that it has lost
any customers/ members due to any of Benson’s communications and/or alleged actions. Rather
all that JetSmarter alleges is that its customers have questioned its handling of sensitive personal
information and data. However, JetSmarter has not produced any evidence that demonstrates a
causal connection to any of Benson’s alleged actions and damage to JetSmarter’s business
relationships with its customers. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite of what JetSmarter
has claimed – there has been no damage to JetSmarter as a result of Benson’s alleged conduct.
2
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 3 of 227
On or about May 1, 2018, the Defendant served its Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6)
Deposition Duces Tecum (“Notice of Taking Deposition”). That Notice of Taking Deposition
included “Schedule A,” which provided the areas of inquiry for which the Plaintiff’s corporate
deposition, it was clear that the Plaintiff provided a corporate representative who was not privy to
most of the information requested through “Schedule A,” and therefore, wasted time and resources
for Benson to obtain sufficient discovery to defend this lawsuit. According to JetSmarter, this
witness was and is the best person to testify on the areas of inquiry contained in the Rule 30(b)(6)
Notice and the witness, herself, could not provide the name of anyone at JetSmarter with
Therefore, due to the sheer lack of evidence and JetSmarter’s failure to provide such
evidence or even assert that such evidence is available to it, Benson is requesting that this
Honorable Court immediately lift the preliminary injunction and sanction the Plaintiff in the form
of Benson’s attorney’s fees and costs for preparing for the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative
deposition, attending the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative deposition, and preparing this
Motion.
i. Legal Standard
For a movant to secure a preliminary injunction, that party must demonstrate the following:
“(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that they will suffer irreparable injury
unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs whatever
damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, that the injunction
would not be adverse to the public interest.” Lucky Cousins Trucking, Inc. v. QU Energy Resources
3
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 4 of 227
Texas, LLC, 223 F.Supp.3d 1221 (M.D. Fla. 2016). (citing TransUnion Risk & Alternative Data
Sols., Inc. v. MacLachlan, 625 Fed.Appx. 403, 405 (11th Cir. 2015). In Lucky Cousins, the
Defendant set forth the four elements necessary for a preliminary injunction, but they failed to
meet the necessary evidentiary standards and burdens under those four elements. Id. A preliminary
injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and therefore, “Plaintiffs must ‘clearly’
establish the burden of persuasion as to each of the four criteria.” Id. (citing Four Seasons Hotels
and Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting
McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)). The moving party must
prove each factor and “failure to show any [one] of the four factors is fatal.” Allen v. School Bd.
For Santa Rosa County, Fla., 782 F.Supp.2d 1304, 1326 (N.D. Fla. 2011).
likelihood of success on the merits at trial as to its prima facie case and each of the Defendant’s
affirmative defenses. Id at 1225 (citing Canal Authority v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974)).
Further, Plaintiff has been unable to respond to the most basic of questions through the course of
written discovery and deposition testimony from its corporate representative. Florida law clearly
holds that “‘we-don’t-know’ responses can be binding on the corporation and prohibit it from
offering evidence at trial on these points. Phrased differently, the lack of knowledge answer is
itself an answer which will bind the corporation at trial.” QBE Inc. Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises,
As stated above, based upon the discovery obtained to this point, it is clear that Plaintiff
does not and will not have sufficient evidence to support success on the merits at trial to prove that
it has been and/or will be damaged as a result of any of Benson’s actions. Specifically, the Plaintiff
4
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 5 of 227
admitted, through written discovery and deposition testimony, that “the amount of monetary
damages resulting from Defendant’s misconduct is, at present incalculable.” The Deposition
Transcript of Jena Marie (Kilbride) Cuevas as the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A.” Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories are attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
Further, the Plaintiff has not provided evidence that any present or past JetSmarter
customers/members have terminated their relationship or otherwise ceased doing business with
JetSmarter due to Benson’s alleged actions. Specifically, based upon discovery, the Plaintiff does
not know and cannot provide the current number of people on the customer list versus the number
of people on the customer list at the time that Benson was terminated from JetSmarter. See Exhibit
“A” at 118:7-11. Therefore, there is no way for Plaintiff to proffer any evidence or for Benson to
ascertain how many customers/members JetSmarter lost or even the size of the customer list that
Benson allegedly took. Additionally, the Plaintiff cannot provide any evidence regarding how
much revenue was generated by JetSmarter at the time Benson left JetSmarter or whether revenue
increased or decreased since Mr. Benson left JetSmarter. See Exhibit “A” at 69:21- 70:8.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has steadfastly refused to provide Benson with the notorious
“Customer List”, nor has it provided any evidence whatsoever, either in response to written
discovery or deposition testimony, that an actual “Customer List” exists. Rather, the only thing
that Plaintiff has provided Benson with is a redacted “Members in Telegram Chat Rooms with Joe
Benson” list, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” This document, that was ostensibly
generated by Plaintiff only in response to a Request for Production from Benson seeking the
“Customer List”, tells the reader of the document absolutely nothing, is not sufficient evidence to
5
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 6 of 227
Finally, the Plaintiff has not any evidence that Benson in fact has that alleged “Customer
List.” Indeed, during the deposition of Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative, she admitted
that she did not have any evidence that Benson has the “Customer List” other than through
“water cooler” talk that she may have heard at JetSmarter’s corporate offices. Instead, all
the Plaintiff has provided is a vague statement that “JetSmarter clients have complained and
threatened not to renew their memberships over concerns relating to JetSmarter’s security
policies due to the release of their private information such as personal cell phone numbers.”
See Exhibit “B.” That testimony provides no evidence that the Defendant is in possession of
an alleged “Customer List,” but rather, that the Plaintiff might have an issue with its own
security. The Plaintiff continues to state unsupported claims based upon rumor and
innuendo that Benson “retained and utilized JetSmarter’s Customer List to directly contact
JetSmarter customers and to invite JetSmarter members to join several chat rooms relating
to private jet services, for the purpose of inducing those members to utilize the services of
JetSmarter’s competitors.” Ultimately, not only has Plaintiff has not provided a scintilla of
evidence that Benson possesses any “Customer List,” but, further, has not provided any
As will be discussed below in detail, Plaintiff is bound by and through its corporate
representative’s testimony (See Benson’s Memorandum of Law as to Motion for Sanctions for
Failure to Produce Corporate Representative with Knowledge of Areas of Inquiry Stated Within
Defendant’s Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Duces Tecum). Thus, the preliminary
injunction presently in effect should be lifted immediately as Plaintiff simply has failed to provide
any evidence to support a likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits.
6
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 7 of 227
Although JetSmarter claims that it has already been irreparably harmed, “‘a prayer for
injunctive and declaratory relief requires an assessment, at this stage in the proceeding, of whether
the [movant] has sufficient shown a real and immediate threat of future harm;’ thus, ‘for injury to
suffice for prospective relief, it must be imminent.’” Allen v. School Bd. For Santa Rosa County,
Fla., 782 F.Supp.2d at 1326. Further, “while past exposure to harm suffices to survive a motion
to dismiss on standing ground, it is not enough by itself to warrant preliminary injunctive relief
unless accompanied by ‘continuing, present adverse effects.’” Id. (citing Eland v. Basham, 471
As stated above, based upon the written and deposition discovery, JetSmarter has not
provided a shred evidence that the Plaintiff has suffered any harm through Defendant’s actions.
Also, based upon the evidence in this case, there is zero indication that JetSmarter will ever be
able to support its claims against Benson. Specifically, as indicated above, the Plaintiff has
admitted that it cannot calculate the monetary damages that it has suffered. Further, the Plaintiff
has only made vague reference to some speculative damage indicating that it suffers an
“inestimable loss of consumer good will and confidence of present and prospective customers,
investors, and business partners. JetSmarter’s customers have and will question JetSmarter’s
custody of their sensitive personal information and data and JetSmarter’s own data, thereby
damaging JetSmarter’s business relationships with its customers.” See Exhibit “B.” However, the
Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that JetSmarter’s customers, investors and business
partners have made any inquiry or lost confidence in JetSmarter’s privacy policy to support
this illusory and speculative assertion, nor has it provided evidence that Benson would be
7
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 8 of 227
liable for any inquiry or lost confidence in JetSmarter’s privacy policy or in what tangible
way JetSmarter was even harmed if this alleged “concern” was voiced by its customers.
Further, the Plaintiff has not and likely cannot provide any evidence to show how many, if
any, JetSmarter customers have terminated their relationship or otherwise ceased doing business
with JetSmarter as alleged in its Complaint due to some alleged and unsupported conduct of
Benson.
Thus, the preliminary injunction presently in effect should be lifted for no likelihood of
iv. The Balance of Harms Does Not Weigh in Favor of Granting Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff has not produced one scintilla of evidence to prove that the balance of harm weighs
in favor of granting injunctive relief. At the present, pursuant to the preliminary injunction, Benson
is prohibited from communicating with any of Plaintiff’s customers for any purpose. However,
Benson has been prejudiced because the Plaintiff has not provided Benson with the alleged
“Customer List”, even though it has been requested through discovery. Rather, Benson must
speculate as to whom he may converse with on a daily basis and remain worried that he may be
sanctioned and/or incarcerated at any moment for simply discussing the weather, sports, and/or
any of his other hobbies. Therefore, the preliminary injunction is harming Benson’s livelihood
more than any of Benson’s actions have harmed Plaintiff. Specifically, as stated above, the
Plaintiff cannot articulate or prove any damage that it has suffered other than inquiries regarding
its security and has provided no connection between Benson’s actions in talking to JetSmarter
Therefore, the preliminary injunction should be lifted for failure to prove this element, that
8
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 9 of 227
JetSmarter cites to a case which states that “a preliminary injunction would affirmatively
serve the public interest by protecting business from employees who misappropriate their trade
secrets.” VAS Aero Services, LLC v. Arroyo, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2012).
However, again, JetSmarter has not provided any evidence or testimony that Benson stole a
“Customer List.” Instead, JetSmarter makes mere blanket statements in an attempt to persuade the
Court that it is provided sufficient facts to support its allegations. Now that depositions have been
taken and written discovery has been exchanged it has become increasingly clear that Plaintiff has
When a movant fails to establish that the other party misappropriated trade secrets or that
he or she breached any duty owed to the movant, no public interest is served. Alternative Medicine
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2014), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:13-CV-2909-T-33AEP,
2014 WL 12575821 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2014). Here, JetSmarter has not established that Benson
is in possession of a “Customer List” or that there is a causal connection between the alleged
possession of its “Customer List” and its members, investors, and business partners concerns of
Therefore, the preliminary injunction should be lifted for failure to prove this element that
the public interest would be served in continuing to hold this preliminary injunction.
vi. Conclusion
The instant Motion is based upon evidence (obtained both through written discovery and
deposition testimony) that was discovered throughout the pendency of this litigation. At the time
that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction was argued before the Court, on April 5, 2018, Benson
9
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 10 of 227
was not in possession of any of the evidence discussed throughout the instant motion. It was not
until May 16, 2018 (Ms. Cueva’s deposition testimony) and July 7, 2018 (JetSmarter’s responses
to written discovery), which was after this Court’s April 26, 2018 Order Granting Preliminary
Injunction, that Benson was in a position to support the arguments made in the instant motion.
Pursuant to Rule 30(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party who, expected a
deposition to be taken, attends in person or by an attorney may recover reasonable expenses for
attending, including attorney’s fees, if the noticing party failed to (1) attend and proceed with the
deposition.” Further, Rule 37(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[t]he
court where the action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if: (i) a party or a party’s officer,
director, or managing agent – or person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4) – fails, after
being served with proper notice, to appear for that person’s deposition.” Further, “[t]he failure to
properly designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness can be deemed a nonappearance justifying the
imposition of sanctions.” QBE Inc. Corp., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690. In fact, in QBE Inc. Corp., the
court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6) for
the Plaintiff’s failure to adequately prepare its corporate representative for certain topics and
entered a costs and attorneys fee award against the Plaintiff as a sanction. 277 F.R.D. 676, 698.
Finally, the Court in QBE Inc. Corp., provided a summarized what the Court described as
a de facto “Bible” governing corporate depositions and provided litigation commandments and
10
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 11 of 227
Because of the facts described above and below, the Plaintiff’s corporate representative
effectively did not attend the deposition. Specifically, the witness could not respond a majority of
the areas of inquiry within the Notice of Taking Deposition, which is in direct contradiction of
what is required of a corporate Defendant and its corporate representative as described in QBE Inc.
“Schedule A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition contained the following areas of inquiry:
11
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 12 of 227
“Customer List.”
10. The Plaintiff’s damages, monetary and non-monetary, as a result of
the Defendant’s alleged actions, which resulted in this lawsuit and
how those damages were determined and calculated.
11. Former JetSmarter clients who have terminated their relationship
with JetSmarter, the dates that those clients have terminated their
relationships and, if known, the reason for those terminations.
12. The Defendant’s job titles and job duties while employed by
JetSmarter, Inc.
13. How JetSmarter’s mobile application is run, including who can send
messages to JetSmarter customers.
14. JetSmarter’s current and former business relationship with Fly
Blade.
15. The factual basis of all claims, causes of action and allegations made
in the Complaint filed by JetSmarter against Joe Benson.
16. The action filed by “Grace Lamey on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated” against JetSmarter in US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida bearing Case Number 17-cv-61217-
BLOOM/VALLE.
17. All documents upon which were attached to the Complaint.
18. Joe Benson’s employment with JetSmarter, including his title and
job duties with JetSmarter from the time he was hired until the time
of his termination.
19. All communications, whether written or verbal, between Plaintiff
and Joe Benson.
20. JetSmarter’s responses to discovery propounded by Joe Benson in
this matter.
21. Joe Benson’s responses to discovery propounded by Plaintiff in this
matter.
22. JetSmarter’s employee rules that Plaintiff contends were violated by
Joe Benson while he was an employee with JetSmarter, whether part
of an employee handbook, contained in other writings or verbal.
23. Joe Benson’s complete employee file.
24. Any information, whether in writing or not, related to Joe Benson’s
termination from JetSmarter.
25. Any information to support any contentions by Plaintiff that Joe
Benson is working with, earning money from or redirecting former
or current JetSmarter customers to FlyBlade or any other company
that Plaintiff contends is a competitor of JetSmarter.
26. All written agreements between Joe Benson and JetSmarter upon
which JetSmarter is relying in bringing this action against Joe
Benson.
27. All documents brought with you to the deposition in compliance
with Schedule B to the Deposition Notice.
12
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 13 of 227
At her deposition, the Plaintiff confirmed that she was being presented as the Corporate
Representative of JetSmarter, but she had no knowledge as to at least 14 of the 27 requested areas
of inquiry within Benson’s Notice of Taking Deposition. See Exhibit “A” at 5:2-4.
Regarding number 1 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas did
not know who the officers of JetSmarter are or how the departments within JetSmarter are run/
work with each other and/or names of the managers of those departments. See Exhibit “A” at
17:16-22.
Regarding number 2 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas did
not know the name of the system where the database/ “Customer List” is maintained or if the
system allowed a person to download information from it. See Exhibit “A” at 113:9-17.
Regarding number 6 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas did
not know if Benson had a password while he was on the Shuttle Team or the Business
Regarding number 7 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas did
not know the number of individuals on the “Customer List” at the time Benson was terminated.
Regarding number 8 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas did
not know the current number of people on the “Customer List” versus the number of people on the
“Customer List” at the time that Benson was terminated from JetSmarter. See Exhibit “A” at 118:7-
11.
Regarding number 10 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know how much revenue was generated by JetSmarter at the time Benson left JetSmarter
or whether revenue increased or decreased since Benson left JetSmarter. See Exhibit “A” at 69:21-
13
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 14 of 227
70:8. Further, Ms. Cuevas indicated that she did not know a dollar amount that JetSmarter has lost
as a result of anything Benson may or may not have done following his termination. See Exhibit
“A” at 126:2-7.
Regarding number 11 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know the number of JetSmarter clients who have terminated their relationship with
JetSmarter as well as those dates of termination. See Exhibit “A” at 58:3-11, 58:17-21, 64:1-16,
66:6-10, 67:16-19.
Regarding number 12 and 18 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms.
Cuevas did not know Benson’s job title when he first started with JetSmarter and did not know the
reason that Benson was moved from Inside Sales to Business Development. See Exhibit “A” at
73:1-4.
Regarding number 15 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know if JetSmarter had evidence that it has lost any customers as a result of Benson’s
actions following his termination or if JetSmarter had evidence that Benson misappropriated trade
secrets or any support for that claim. See Exhibit “A” at 124:16-125:1. Further, Ms. Cuevas could
not indicate one member that has left JetSmarter, lost trust in JetSmarter, or failed to renew its
membership with JetSmarter as a result of Benson’s alleged actions. See Exhibit “A” at 125:23-
126:2. Finally, Ms. Cuevas did not have knowledge of customer names who are allegedly
concerned about security, which would supposedly prove that Benson knowingly, intentionally,
and unjustifiably utilized JetSmarter’s customer list to induce members to terminate their
Regarding number 20 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know if information was being compiled to respond to Benson’s Request for Production
14
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 15 of 227
Regarding number 23 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know whether the documents provided to Benson was his complete employee file. See
Regarding number 24 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know the reason that Benson was terminated from JetSmarter, did not meet with Benson
before he was terminated from JetSmarter, and was not involved in the termination from
Regarding number 25 of Schedule “A” of the Notice of Taking Deposition, Ms. Cuevas
did not know what customers complained or reported that Benson contacted or promoted Fly
In summary, JetSmarter is bound by the fact that it has no knowledge as to the corporate
structure of JetSmarter, when Benson gained access to the “Customer List,” when Benson lost
access to the “Customer List,” the number of customers/ members who were on the “Customer
List” when Benson was terminated from JetSmarter, the number of customers/ members who are
currently on the “Customer List,” how much revenue was generated by JetSmarter at the time
Benson left JetSmarter or whether revenue increased or decreased since Benson left JetSmarter,
the amount of monetary damages that JetSmarter has suffered, or members that have left
JetSmarter, lost trust in JetSmarter, or failed to renew its membership with JetSmarter as a result
Further, JetSmarter did not create a corporate representative to provide all necessary and
Ms. Cuevas did not talk to anyone in the Human Resources Department at JetSmarter to
15
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 16 of 227
determine whether any other documents made up Benson’s employee file with JetSmarter and
advised that she could only speak for her department. See Exhibit “A” at 46:24-48:2.
Ms. Cuevas had no knowledge of JetSmarter’s recruiting of Benson and did not discuss
that with anyone at JetSmarter prior to her deposition. See Exhibit “A” at 53:13-54:7.
Ms. Cuevas did not know Benson’s job titles and job duties while employed at JetSmarter.
Benson has been prejudiced by Ms. Cuevas lack of knowledge, JetSmarter’s failure to
adequately prepare her, and its inability to obtain testimony from JetSmarter. Therefore, Benson
is requesting that this Honorable Court sanction the Plaintiff for effectively failing to appear at the
May 16, 2018 deposition of its Corporate Representative in the form of Benson’s attorney’s fees
and costs for preparing for the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative deposition, attending the
CONCLUSION
Defendant, Joseph Benson, requests that this Honorable Court lift the preliminary
injunction based upon the evidence presented in this case. JetSmarter has affirmatively
demonstrated that it cannot prevail on the merits of the instant action and that it cannot support its
claims against Benson. Specifically, JetSmarter has no knowledge of when Benson gained access
to the “Customer List,” when Benson lost access to the “Customer List,” the amount of monetary
damages that JetSmarter has suffered, or members that have left JetSmarter, “lost trust” in
JetSmarter, or failed to renew its membership with JetSmarter as a result of Benson’s alleged
actions.
Benson also requests that this Honorable Court sanction the Plaintiff in the form of
Benson’s attorney’s fees and costs for preparing for the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative
16
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 17 of 227
deposition, attending the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative deposition, and preparing this
Motion.
Defendant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the Plaintiff in an effort
to resolve the dispute without court action. Further, this Motion has not been filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and the instant motion is supported
_____________________________
Harris B. Katz
Florida Bar No. 2331
hkatz@gadclaw.com
bboltz@gadclaw.com
4800 N. Federal Highway
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Telephone: (561) 368-9200
Fax: (561) 395-7050
Attorney for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
17
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 18 of 227
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 29th, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the
following:
Jeff Ostrow,
Kopelowitz, Ostrow, P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Ostrow@kolawyers.com
18
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 19 of 227
EXHIBIT “A”
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered
JenaonCuevas
FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 20 of 227
May 16, 2018 ·
·4
·9· · · · · ·Defendant.
· · ·___________________________________/
10
11
12
13· · · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF
· · · · · · · · · ·JENA MARIE (KILBRIDE) CUEVAS
14
19
20
21
24
25
·1· ·APPEARANCES
10
· · ·ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
11
· · · · · ·Harris B. Katz, Esq.
12· · · · ·Goede Adamczyk Deboest Cross
· · · · · ·4800 N. Federal Highway
13· · · · ·Suite 307D
· · · · · ·Boca Raton, Florida 33431
14· · · · ·hkatz@gadclaw.com
· · · · · ·bboltz@gadclaw.com
15
18· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
20· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
· · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION
21· ·BY MR. KATZ.......................................... 4
22· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION
· · ·BY MR. SCHWARTZ.................................... 133
23
· · ·READ AND SIGN LETTER............................... 137
24· ·ERRATA SHEET....................................... 138
· · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH................................ 139
25· ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER............................ 140
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
·2
· · ·TESTIMONY OF JENA M. CUEVAS
·3
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page
·4
· · ·Defendant's Exhibit Number 1
·5· ·Notice.............................................. 23
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· ·members.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Are there differences in those different
·3· ·departments that you oversee in terms of your role?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· Member Services and Concierge is based
·5· ·out of headquarters there in our office, and Shuttle
·6· ·Experience Managers are based on the ground at the
·7· ·airports that we do our shuttle program.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·What is the address of your corporate office?
·9· · · ·A.· ·500 East Broward Boulevard, my office is Suite
10· ·1620, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Now, you said your office is JetSmarter and
12· ·there's more than one office or is that the offices for
13· ·JetSmarter?
14· · · ·A.· ·We do have more than one office.· We have an
15· ·office in London and we have an office in Dubois.
16· · · ·Q.· ·And in regard to the main corporate office, it
17· ·would be the one here in Fort Lauderdale?
18· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Where is JetSmarter, Incorporated?
20· · · ·A.· ·Delaware.
21· · · ·Q.· ·And how long have you been with JetSmarter?
22· · · ·A.· ·I just made my three years in April.
23· · · ·Q.· ·You said you're currently the head of Member
24· ·Experience.· When you started three years ago, what was
25· ·your title?
·1· ·Sergey, but you didn't really have any other information
·2· ·about any of the other officers as it existed either
·3· ·today or at the particular time when Joe was with the
·4· ·company?
·5· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· Objection.· Form.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Is that correct?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So are you able to speak to number one
·9· ·in anymore detail than what you previously responded to
10· ·in terms of the questions I asked?
11· · · ·A.· ·I don't understand the question.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Meaning, you said that you knew Lolita.· And
13· ·what was Lolita's last name?
14· · · ·A.· ·Frangulyan.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Sergey's last name?
16· · · ·A.· ·Petrossov.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Other than the two of them -- other than Sergey
18· ·and Lolita, can you tell me again any other corporate
19· ·officers present that currently are part of the company?
20· · · ·A.· ·No.
21· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· Perhaps if you asked her by
22· · · ·title such as account or things like that, she
23· · · ·might have that.
24· · · · · · MR. KATZ:· Maybe.
25· · · ·Q.· ·How about at the time that Joe was with the
·1· ·company, during that period of time that you are aware
·2· ·that Joe worked with the company, do you know any of the
·3· ·officers beyond Sergey and Lolita?
·4· · · ·A.· ·If you can say the titles and maybe that would
·5· ·relate to it, but I don't know them by officer.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·So we have CEO Sergey, CCO Lolita?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh, but that's now.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·That's now.· Did her title change from the time
·9· ·that Mr. Benson left the company to today?
10· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Has she always been CCO, as far as you are
12· ·aware?
13· · · ·A.· ·No.· She had a different title.
14· · · ·Q.· ·So what was her title before CCO?
15· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Did her role with the company change during
17· ·that change in titles?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · · ·Q.· ·What did she do originally -- when you first
20· ·started working with the company, what did she do?
21· · · ·A.· ·Everything.
22· · · ·Q.· ·What does that mean "everything"?
23· · · ·A.· ·Well, we were a start-up, so everyone kind of
24· ·worked together on everything at that point, it wasn't
25· ·as structured, which is why I don't really understand
·1· ·transfers?
·2· · · ·A.· ·To my knowledge.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·And at some point, that relationship ended?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know when it ended?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I don't.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know the reason for the termination of
·8· ·the relationship?
·9· · · ·A.· ·I don't.
10· · · ·Q.· ·When did you first learn that the relationship
11· ·was no longer going to be moving forward?
12· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
13· · · ·Q.· ·Does JetSmarter currently have a helicopter
14· ·company they work with that performs the same function
15· ·as Fly BLADE?
16· · · ·A.· ·Currently, no.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Did you ever -- did JetSmarter ever partner
18· ·with any other companies to do similar type of service
19· ·that BLADE was providing?
20· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · · ·Q.· ·What other companies did JetSmarter work with
22· ·other than BLADE?
23· · · ·A.· ·Helicopter Flight Offices and Liberty.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Liberty.· And where were those services --
25· ·well, with BLADE specifically, where were the services
·1· ·know?
·2· · · ·A.· ·I mean, essentially, if someone was a BLADE
·3· ·member and a JetSmarter member, they could have been on
·4· ·the same helicopter.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Your team that's on the Shuttle
·6· ·Experience Team, so at the time that Joe Benson came on
·7· ·board with your group, did he have any sort of a
·8· ·different relationship with BLADE than any of the other
·9· ·people on your team, meaning, as far as his job role,
10· ·did he work closely with them more than the other
11· ·members, did he deal with them more directly than the
12· ·other -- I'm sorry, employees on your team?
13· · · ·A.· ·I don't understand.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Well, did everyone on your team, the Shuttle
15· ·Experience Team, did they all do the same thing, the
16· ·people that worked under Torrie, did they all have the
17· ·same role, the meet and greet role?· Do you follow what
18· ·I'm saying?
19· · · ·A.· ·Well, you -- it's a different question.
20· · · ·Q.· ·Well, I'm going to lead up to the other
21· ·question.· We're going to start with that.
22· · · · · · Did everyone on your team that worked under
23· ·Torrie have -- the Shuttle Experience Team, we're going
24· ·to talk about that team because I know you said you have
25· ·multiple teams, but that one team, did all the employees
·1· ·on that team have the same role, the same job function?
·2· · · ·A.· ·There were some employees that helped with
·3· ·events and different projects within JetSmarter.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·The events and the projects within JetSmarter,
·5· ·were those all through the Shuttle Experience Team or
·6· ·were there -- was that something that was outside of
·7· ·their role with the Shuttle Experience Team?
·8· · · ·A.· ·It related to it.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· At the time that Mr. Benson worked on
10· ·your team, who were some of the other Shuttle Experience
11· ·Team members?
12· · · ·A.· ·Where?
13· · · ·Q.· ·At the locations where Mr. Benson was working?
14· ·Well, which airport did Mr. Benson work at, which
15· ·airports?
16· · · ·A.· ·He was based in South Florida.
17· · · ·Q.· ·So which airport is that, is that all the
18· ·airports in South Florida that you mentioned earlier?
19· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
20· · · ·Q.· ·So from West Palm down to Miami?
21· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Did he ever go up to New York or deal with any
23· ·of the New York shuttles?
24· · · ·A.· ·He lived in New York at one point and working
25· ·for us.
·1· ·app.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·When you say "operators," you mean owners of
·3· ·jets or what kind of operators?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Operators of aircraft.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Owners or -- of private --
·6· · · ·A.· ·I don't know exactly how --
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Well, what was -- does Joe still work for the
·8· ·company?
·9· · · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, yes.
10· · · ·Q.· ·What is Mr. Gnaster's current title or job
11· ·responsibility with the company?
12· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
13· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· So in regard to Mr. Benson's
14· ·employment at JetSmarter, do you know when he was first
15· ·hired?
16· · · ·A.· ·I believe December 2014.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I'm going to show you a document that
18· ·you brought with you today, Amended Offer Letter for
19· ·Employment dated December 22nd, 2015 and it's Bates
20· ·stamped Benson RFP Response 00001.· Are you familiar
21· ·with that document?
22· · · ·A.· ·I've seen it.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Let me ask you -- I'll mark this as
24· ·Exhibit 2.
25· · · · · · (Thereupon, Defendant's Exhibit Number 2,
·1· ·JetSmarter?
·2· · · ·A.· ·I can only speak for my department.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Is there an HR Department for JetSmarter?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Who is in charge of the HR Department?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Shant.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Shant?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Shant.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·What is Shant's last name?
10· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
11· · · ·Q.· ·How long has Shant been Director of HR or
12· ·Manager of HR?· What's her title?
13· · · ·A.· ·I don't know his title.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Oh, it's a him.· Sorry.· So he runs the HR
15· ·Department--Shant?
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · · ·Q.· ·You don't know his last name?
18· · · ·A.· ·No.· I believe it starts with an E.· It should
19· ·be on our website.
20· · · ·Q.· ·I'm asking you today as Corporate
21· ·Representative for the company what your knowledge is in
22· ·regard to people that work for the company, so I don't
23· ·know that you have total knowledge of everybody's
24· ·titles, roles, you know, all the names of the various
25· ·corporate officers.· I know you've given me a few.
·1· ·Mr. Gnaster about Joe before the deposition today, other
·2· ·than in the presence of your attorney?
·3· · · ·A.· ·No.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Did you speak to Lolita about Mr. Benson and
·5· ·his employment with the company other than maybe with
·6· ·the lawyer present?
·7· · · ·A.· ·No.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Did you speak --
·9· · · · · · MR. KATZ:· What were you going to say?· In
10· · · ·preparation for her deposition today.
11· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· You're just talking about in
12· · · ·preparation for the deposition, not at any time?
13· · · · · · MR. KATZ:· Of course not.· Right.· Right.
14· ·BY MR. KATZ:
15· · · ·Q.· ·The questions that I'm asking you about are in
16· ·preparation for your deposition, which is, I think, I
17· ·prefaced --
18· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· I just wanted to be clear.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Obviously, I know you've talked to those
20· ·people in other capacities, right, on other subject
21· ·matters?
22· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· Or about Mr. Benson.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Or Mr. Benson in general.· But in terms of
24· ·preparation, knowing that we were going to be asking you
25· ·questions today about Mr. Benson and his employment with
·1· ·have?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Well over 10,000.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Those 10,000 customers, are they all
·4· ·paying customers or are those just individuals who have
·5· ·downloaded the app?
·6· · · ·A.· ·There's a mix of both.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry?
·8· · · ·A.· ·There's a mix of both.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·How many individuals -- how many individuals
10· ·out of the 10,000 are paid customers of JetSmarter?
11· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
12· · · ·Q.· ·So the 10,000 is the number of people that have
13· ·downloaded the app, you don't know how many of them are
14· ·paid customers?
15· · · ·A.· ·I do not.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Is that correct?· When you give me a number of
17· ·"10,000," that's an approximation of the number of
18· ·people that have downloaded the app, correct?
19· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
20· · · ·Q.· ·And out of those 10,000 people, you don't know
21· ·how many are actual customers of the company?
22· · · ·A.· ·Over 50 percent of them.
23· · · ·Q.· ·So you believe that over 5,000 people are paid
24· ·JetSmarter customers currently?
25· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
·1· · · ·Q.· ·And what are you basing that number on, is that
·2· ·just what you feel or is there some documentation that
·3· ·you're relying on or some source you're relying on to
·4· ·give me that response?
·5· · · ·A.· ·Just from what I hear.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Well, I understand you're here as the Corporate
·7· ·Representative for JetSmarter today.· Anything that you
·8· ·say is going to bind JetSmarter to those responses and
·9· ·you're here under oath.· You're giving me vague numbers
10· ·in response to simple questions, and I'm trying to
11· ·figure out where you're getting this information from
12· ·and you're just telling me that's what you "hear," you
13· ·know, in quotes.· So where is it that you hear that
14· ·from?
15· · · ·A.· ·From our sales team.
16· · · ·Q.· ·That's currently, right?
17· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
18· · · ·Q.· ·The current sales team?
19· · · ·A.· ·Right.
20· · · ·Q.· ·Who is on the sales team?
21· · · ·A.· ·I don't know everyone.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Well, give me a name.
23· · · ·A.· ·David Sheridan.
24· · · ·Q.· ·What is David Sheridan's role, is he Inside
25· ·Sales or is he part of Business Development?
·1· ·I've been asking you about for the last few minutes.
·2· · · ·A.· ·Probably our Renewals Team.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Who runs the Renewals Team?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Nicole.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Nicole what?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Vreeland.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·What does the Renewals Team do?
·8· · · ·A.· ·They reach out to members that are up for
·9· ·renewals.
10· · · ·Q.· ·Now, I'd asked you earlier, when I said how
11· ·many customers did JetSmarter have and you had said
12· ·10,000 and we figured out that that's really just 10,000
13· ·people that have downloaded the app, right?
14· · · ·A.· ·I estimated.
15· · · ·Q.· ·You estimated, give or take, right.· Not paid
16· ·customers.· So the Renewals Team led by Nicole Vreeland,
17· ·they work with paid customers when it comes time for
18· ·them to renew their paid membership, right, people that
19· ·generally download the app?
20· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Who is on the Renewals Team other than Nicole
22· ·Vreeland?
23· · · ·A.· ·I don't know everyone.· I know Nicole Warman is
24· ·on it.· That's all.
25· · · ·Q.· ·Is that W-O-R-M-A-N?
·1· · · ·Q.· ·So was he the same as Torrie Greene who was
·2· ·director of South Florida, but is that different than
·3· ·Shuttle Experience Manager?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yeah.· Shuttle Experience Managers report to
·5· ·the Director.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·I'm sorry?
·7· · · ·A.· ·They report to the Director.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·How many Shuttle Experience Managers are there
·9· ·currently?
10· · · ·A.· ·I don't know the exact number.
11· · · ·Q.· ·But it's your team, right, it's part of your
12· ·team?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·You can't tell me how many Shuttle Experience
15· ·Managers there are on your team?
16· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.· Around 30.
17· · · ·Q.· ·At the time Mr. Benson left, how many people
18· ·were on the team?
19· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
20· · · ·Q.· ·At the time he joined your team, how many
21· ·people were on the team?
22· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
23· · · ·Q.· ·As the shuttle experience manager -- actually,
24· ·I take that back.
25· · · · · · As the head of the Shuttle Experience Team and
·1· ·have any forms that you would fill out to either give a
·2· ·reprimand or a positive review of an employee?
·3· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·When you said you had some positive things
·5· ·about Mr. Benson, did you put them in emails, did you
·6· ·write them on paper, did you fill out a form of some
·7· ·sort?
·8· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Well, how many times did you write a positive
10· ·something about Mr. Benson?
11· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Can you tell me some of the positive things
13· ·you've written about Mr. Benson?
14· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Can you tell me any of the negative things
16· ·you've written about Mr. Benson?
17· · · ·A.· ·I don't know if I wrote them down, but I have
18· ·said, when he was a Shuttle Experience Manager that I
19· ·received complaints about his performance from other
20· ·Shuttle Experience Managers.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So Mr. Benson's co-workers, the people
22· ·that were on the same level as him, not people that were
23· ·superiors but other Shuttle Experience Managers had the
24· ·same job as Mr. Benson, is that what you're talking
25· ·about?
·1· ·document?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· I've seen it before.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Were you involved in putting it together?
·4· · · ·A.· ·No.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·I'm going to mark that as exhibit -- you can
·6· ·hold on to it, Exhibit 3 to your deposition.
·7· · · · · · (Thereupon, Defendant's Exhibit Number 3,
·8· · · ·9/28/16 Amended Offer Letter, was marked for
·9· · · ·identification.)
10· ·BY MR. KATZ:
11· · · ·Q.· ·How did you find out Joe was going to be part
12· ·of your team, did you get a call from Lolita or did he
13· ·just show up one day and say, "Hey, I've been
14· ·transferred," how did that work?
15· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember exactly how I was told, in
16· ·what form of communication.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know the reason he was moved from
18· ·Business Development to Membership Specialist?
19· · · ·A.· ·Because he wasn't doing his job.
20· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Can you tell me what your knowledge is
21· ·regarding that about him doing his job or not doing his
22· ·job when he was doing Business Development?
23· · · ·A.· ·I don't know exact details.
24· · · ·Q.· ·So you're telling me he was moved because he
25· ·wasn't, quote, "doing his job."· Can you tell me who
·1· ·members.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·So do you know what partnerships, if any, Joe
·3· ·Benson was involved in?
·4· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
·5· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know if the Business Development people
·6· ·would get any sort of compensation for developing
·7· ·partnerships?
·8· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know anything about the pay structure of
10· ·Business Development employees?
11· · · ·A.· ·I do not.
12· · · ·Q.· ·And at the time that Joe worked in that
13· ·department?
14· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know currently how it works?
16· · · ·A.· ·I do not.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know if they got commissions as part of
18· ·the Business Development Team?
19· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
20· · · ·Q.· ·How about as part of your team, the Shuttles
21· ·Team, do they -- how does the payment structure work for
22· ·Shuttle Experience employees?
23· · · ·A.· ·They're salary.
24· · · ·Q.· ·No commissions at all?
25· · · ·A.· ·No, not to my knowledge.
·1· ·would write into that person that was helping you with
·2· ·that charter request.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·There was a lawsuit filed against JetSmarter
·4· ·regarding Florida Labor Standards Practices Act, an
·5· ·overtime wage lawsuit brought by Grace Lamey and other
·6· ·employees that were in your department.· Are you
·7· ·familiar with that lawsuit?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·And I know there was a -- there's a
10· ·confidentiality agreement in place on that.· You know
11· ·that Mr. Benson was part of that lawsuit?
12· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · · ·Q.· ·You were not deposed in that matter?
14· · · ·A.· ·No.
15· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know -- you had mentioned earlier that
16· ·Grace Lamey had made some negative comments about
17· ·Mr. Benson.· Can you tell me when those statements were
18· ·made?
19· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
20· · · ·Q.· ·Real quick about the documents we're here
21· ·about, because we're running short of time, but the
22· ·documents that are marked -- Bates stamped three through
23· ·37, let me show you these real quick and take a look at
24· ·them.
25· · · · · · You can tell me, other than the documents that
·1· ·right?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·He was on your team.· Were you involved in the
·4· ·decision to terminate him?
·5· · · ·A.· ·No.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Were you consulted with by anybody at
·7· ·JetSmarter about the termination?
·8· · · ·A.· ·No.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Were you surprised when he was terminated?
10· · · ·A.· ·No.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Were you expecting him to be terminated?
12· · · ·A.· ·I had no thoughts on it.
13· · · ·Q.· ·He worked on your team and you had no thoughts
14· ·on whether he should have been terminated?
15· · · ·A.· ·No.
16· · · ·Q.· ·And you weren't surprised by it?
17· · · ·A.· ·No.
18· · · ·Q.· ·So had he stayed on the job, you wouldn't have
19· ·been surprised either; is that correct?
20· · · ·A.· ·There was a lot going on in the company at that
21· ·point so --
22· · · ·Q.· ·What was going on in the company at that point?
23· · · ·A.· ·Just a lot of growth.
24· · · ·Q.· ·What do you mean "growth"?
25· · · ·A.· ·There was a lot of services that we were
·1· · · ·Q.· ·Well, you said there was a lot going on in the
·2· ·company.· You're here as the Corporate Representative of
·3· ·the company.· Please describe what was going on in terms
·4· ·of the growth and the issues you were alluding to.
·5· · · ·A.· ·As I said, there was a lot of changes in
·6· ·services.· There were probably a lot of members that
·7· ·were added at that time.· There was just a lot going on.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Why would that have impacted your ability to
·9· ·know what was going on with someone on your team?
10· · · ·A.· ·I don't know.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Did your job role change during that period of
12· ·time or did you keep the same job title?
13· · · ·A.· ·I've had the same job title.
14· · · ·Q.· ·So your job -- did your job duties change
15· ·during that period of time?
16· · · ·A.· ·They've always been changing.· We're a
17· ·start-up.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Were you doing the same job the day or the week
19· ·before Joe was terminated as you were the day or so
20· ·after he was terminated?
21· · · ·A.· ·I don't remember.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Can you tell me what -- strike that.
23· · · · · · What type of growth issues were happening at
24· ·the company at the time?
25· · · ·A.· ·What do you mean "growth issues"?
·1· · · ·Q.· ·I don't know.· You said you were growing.· I'm
·2· ·asking you about what you're testifying to.· If you're
·3· ·going to make statements and respond to my question a
·4· ·certain way, I'm going to have follow-ups.
·5· · · ·A.· ·I understand.
·6· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· Just for the record, you can
·7· · · ·answer all of his questions.· I'm going to
·8· · · ·object because 90 percent of these questions
·9· · · ·have no relevance to the issues in the case.
10· · · ·It's not a wrongful termination case.· All of
11· · · ·the issues occurred after termination and, you
12· · · ·know, you're focusing all of your time on
13· · · ·pre-termination issues.
14· · · · · · MR. KATZ:· There's a list of -- first of
15· · · ·all, I appreciate the speaking objection, but
16· · · ·she is here as the Corporate Representative.
17· · · ·I'm asking her very basic questions of things
18· · · ·she should probably know if she's going to be
19· · · ·presented as a Corporate Representative, and if
20· · · ·she didn't have that knowledge, then maybe she
21· · · ·shouldn't have been presented in that capacity
22· · · ·today.
23· · · · · · MR. SCHWARTZ:· I told her -- I said I'm not
24· · · ·objecting to her answering.· I just want it to
25· · · ·be clear on the record that --
·1· ·terminated?
·2· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·And you do not know the number of people on the
·4· ·customer list at the time he started with the company,
·5· ·right?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I do not.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And you cannot tell me the current number of
·8· ·people on the customer list, as we sit here today,
·9· ·versus the number of people on the customer list at the
10· ·time that Mr. Benson was terminated from the company?
11· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
12· · · ·Q.· ·There are some emails here that you brought
13· ·with you Bates stamped number 39 through 43.· Can you
14· ·tell me what these represent?· I'll mark them as
15· ·Composite Exhibit 7.
16· · · · · · (Thereupon, Defendant's Exhibit Number 7, Email
17· · · ·Chain, etc., was marked for identification.)
18· · · ·A.· ·Do you want me to read them?· This is
19· ·communication about Benson's company shares.
20· ·BY MR. KATZ:
21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I don't have any specific questions for
22· ·you on those.· Actually, I do.· Do you know if
23· ·Mr. Benson ever took advantage of the company shares in
24· ·terms of did he ever get any?
25· · · ·A.· ·I do not know.
·1· · · ·copy.
·2· · · · · · (The taking of the deposition was concluded at
·3· ·3:22 p.m.)
·4
·5
·6
·7
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·2
·3
· · ·May 24, 2018
·4
·5
·9
· · ·IN RE:· · · ·JetSmarter v. Benson
10· ·DEPO OF:· · ·JENA M. CUEVAS
· · ·TAKEN ON:· · May 16, 2018
11· ·AVAILABLE FOR READING UNTIL: July 5, 2018
· · ·U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT JOB NO. 1733710
12
18· ·Sincerely,
19
· · ·Lynda Royer, R.P.R.
20· ·Registered Professional Reporter
22
23
24
25
24
25
·2
·3
· · ·STATE OF FLORIDA· )
·4· · · · · · · · · · ·)· ·ss.
· · ·COUNTY OF BROWARD )
·5
10
12
13· · · · · · · · · · ·________________________________
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·2
·3
· · ·STATE OF FLORIDA· )
·4· · · · · · · · · · ·)· ·ss.
· · ·COUNTY OF BROWARD )
·5
12
17
19
20
21· · · · · · · · · · ·________________________________
24
25
EXHIBIT “B”
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 207 of 227
JETSMARTER, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH BENSON,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
pursuant to Federal of Civil Procedure 33, hereby serves its Answers to Defendant’s First
Respectfully submitted,
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 208 of 227
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 5th day of June, 2018, I electronically emailed the
foregoing to:
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 209 of 227
JETSMARTER, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH BENSON,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
As Plaintiff’s investigation and discovery of all relevant facts in this action is ongoing,
these Answers and all information contained herein is based solely upon the information and
evidence as is presently available and known to Plaintiff upon information and belief. Plaintiff
expressly reserves the right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of such
Answers and all other information contained herein into evidence. Plaintiff expressly reserves
the right to clarify, revise, or correct any or all of its Answers and objections.
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
1. What is the name and address of the person answering these interrogatories, and, if
applicable, the person’s official position or relationship with the party to whom the
interrogatories are directed?
ANSWER:
Jena Cuevas
Head of Member Experience
JetSmarter Inc.
500 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 1900
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 210 of 227
2. List the names and contact information of all persons who are believed or known by you,
your agents, or your attorneys, to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this
lawsuit; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.
ANSWER:
Jena Cuevas
Head of Member Experience
c/o JetSmarter Inc.
500 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 1900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
This witness has knowledge regarding Defendant’s employment with JetSmarter,
including his positions held, job responsibilities, and access to JetSmarter’s Customer
List.
Lolita Frangulyan
Chief Commercial Officer
c/o JetSmarter Inc.
500 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 1900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
This witness has knowledge regarding Defendant’s employment with JetSmarter,
including his positions held, job responsibilities, and access to JetSmarter’s Customer
List.
Joseph Gnaster
c/o JetSmarter Inc.
500 E Broward Blvd., Ste. 1900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
This witness has knowledge regarding Defendant’s employment with JetSmarter as a
Business Development Manager.
Robert Weisenthal
CEO Fly Blade, Inc.
499 East 34th Street
New York, New York 10016
This witness has knowledge regarding Defendant’s relationship with Fly Blade, Inc.
Evan Licht
Blade Heliport Manager
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 211 of 227
3. Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark made by or on behalf of any
party to this lawsuit, other than yourself, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? If so, state the
name and address of each person who made the statement or statements, the name and
address of each person who heard it, and the date, time, place, and substance of each
statement.
ANSWER: No.
4. Please state the names and contact information for all persons who have had access to the
Customer List since the first date that a Customer List was first maintained by JetSmarter, the
date that they were provided access to the Customer List and the date that their access was
revoked.
ANSWER: Objection. This Request is overbroad, not sufficiently limited in time, and
not proportional to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff maintains its
Customer List on a password-protected system and provides access to the Customer
List to its employees solely on a need-to-know basis. Less than 50% of JetSmarter
employees have such access. Defendant was provided access to JetSmarter’s Customer
List on or about December 2014. JetSmarter revoked Defendant’s access to the
password-protected system and requested Defendant return the information stolen
from JetSmarter’s Customer List upon termination of his employment on June 23,
2017.
5. Please describe, in detail, how the Customer List is [sic] was compiled during the time that
Benson allegedly had access to same and describe in detail in what ways that has changed, if
any, since Benson ceased to have access, including the names and contact information of all
those who have contributed to adding the names, telephone numbers and email addresses to
the Customer List.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, the information and
preferences of a member or prospective member who registers through JetSmarter’s
mobile application are automatically uploaded into the password-protected system.
JetSmarter employees with access to Console may also input data into the system
internally to facilitate members’ travel experiences, e.g., travel partners, service animal
information, preferred routes, preferred seating, catering preferences, dietary
restrictions, etc.
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 212 of 227
6. Please provide the first date (“start date”) that Benson had access to JetSmarter’s Customer
List and the last date (“end date”) that Benson had access to JetSmarter’s Customer List, as
well as the names of all persons, customers, clients, entities and/or any other entries on the
Customer List on both the proved start date and end date.
7. Please state, with specificity, the actions that the Defendant took that lead to
“misappropriation of trade secrets.” Specifically, please explain how he “utilized the
misappropriated information to improperly solicit JetSmarter’s members and otherwise
interfere with JetSmarter’s business relationships,” as alleged in the Complaint.
8. Please state the amount of monetary damages, if any, that You are alleging as a result of the
Defendant’s alleged actions and please state, with specificity, how you arrived at that
amount, including all calculations and a detailed basis supporting those calculations.
9. Please describe, with specificity, how You have been damaged, other than monetary
damages. Specifically, please specifically describe how Your relationships with clients have
been affected based on the Defendant’s alleged actions.
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 213 of 227
10. If you contend that you have lost any clients as a result of Benson’s alleged actions since his
termination, please describe in detail the reason why those clients left JetSmarter, as well as
the names and contact information for those clients.
11. Please describe, with specificity, how the Defendant’s alleged actions caused JetSmarter
clients to terminate their relationship or otherwise cease doing business with JetSmarter, as
alleged in the Complaint, and please state the name and contact information for those clients.
12. Please state, with specificity, how the Defendant intentionally interfered with business and
contractual relationships, as alleged in the Complaint, and what specific damages resulted
from same.
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 214 of 227
sensitive personal information and data and JetSmarter’s own data, thereby damaging
JetSmarter’s business relationships with its customers.
13. Please state the name, address and telephone number and duties of the Chief Technology
Officer of JetSmarter, Inc.
ANSWER:
Mikhail Kirsanov
Chief Technology Officer
c/o JetSmarter Inc.
500 E. Broward Bld., Ste. 1900
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 984-7538
The Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) is responsible for overseeing all technical
aspects of the company. The CTO works with Executive Management to grow the
company through the use of technological resources, to establish the company’s
technical vision, and lead all aspects of the company’s technological development. The
CTO also directs all employees in Engineering and IT departments to attain the
company’s goals as established in the company’s strategic plan.
14. Please provide a detailed description of all of Benson’s title and job duties while he was
employed by JetSmarter, as well as the compensation that he received. If Benson’s title
and/or job duties changed during the course of his employment with JetSmarter, please
specifically describe same and the dates when each of those changes took place.
ANSWER:
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 215 of 227
Primary responsibilities include building long term relationships with new and existing
customers, developing a growth strategy, conducting research to identify new markets
and customer needs, meeting with prospective clients, and keeping records of sales,
revenue, invoices, etc.
Title: Consultant
Date: On or about February 2017 – June 2017
Salary: Defendant is searching for this information and will supplement this Answer if
and when additional information is obtained.
Primary responsibilities included managing and overseeing various chat groups.
{R6136395_1}
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 216 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 217 of 227
EXHIBIT “C”
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 218 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 219 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 220 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 221 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 222 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 223 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 224 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 225 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 226 of 227
Case 0:17-cv-62541-FAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2018 Page 227 of 227