99-1 - Gingras Dec. Re Default Judgment

7/29/2019 99-1 - Gingras Dec. Re Default Judgment

1/21

DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243

PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048

David S. Gingras, #021097Gingras Law Office, PLLC3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243Phoenix, AZ 85048Tel.: (480) 668-3623Fax: (480) 248-3196

[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA JEAN BORODKIN et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS

DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I, David S. Gingras declare as follows:

1. My name is David Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of theState of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other

proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own

personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona andCalifornia, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona and

California and I am admitted to practice and in good standing with the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the

Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California.

3. I represent Plaintiff XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC (Xcentric) in thismatter and I have possession of Xcentrics files relating to this matter which I have

personally reviewed and with which I am personally familiar.

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 99-1 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 21


2/21

2DECLARATION OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243


4. As the Court is aware, this malicious prosecution action arises from a priorlawsuit filed in California in 2010 against Xcentric by RAYMOND MOBREZ (Mr.

Mobrez), ILIANA LLANERAS (Ms. Llaneras) and their entity, ASIA ECONOMIC

INSTITUTE, LLC (AEI; collectively the Mobrez Parties). This prior Californiaaction is generally referred to as the Asia Litigation.

5. I have been licensed to practice law in California continuously since 2001and I represented Xcentric in the Asia Litigation from the first day we received notice of

the case in February 2010 until the entry of final judgment in the case in June 2011

During most of this time Xcentric was also represented by co-counsel, MARIA CRIMI

SPETH (Ms. Speth).

6. During this period, I was actively involved in handling every aspect of theAsia Litigation on behalf of Xcentric. I personally attended every hearing and every

deposition in the case, and I either personally wrote or personally reviewed every

pleading that Xcentric filed in the matter. I also exchanged hundreds of emails with

counsel for the Mobrez Parties, DANIEL BLACKERT (Mr. Blackert) and LISA

BORODKIN (Ms. Borodkin).

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a time sheet summarizing the amount oftime I spent and the tasks performed during the course of the Asia Litigation. As

reflected in this timesheet, I spent at least 593.1 hours representing Xcentric in the Asia

Litigation, although this figure is likely substantially less than the actual amount of time I

spent working on the matter.

8. While the Asia Litigation was pending, I was a W-2 employee of Xcentricserving as the companys General Counsel and I was paid a flat salary on a bi-monthly

basis. As a salaried employee of Xcentric, I did not bill Xcentric on an hourly basis and I

did not typically keep an itemized hourly timesheet of work performed on each matter

Nevertheless, during most of 2010 the Asia Litigation consumed the vast majority of my

time, and for much of the time from April 2010 until October 2010, nearly all of my time

was spent working on the Asia Litigation.



3/21



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243


9. In order to determine the approximate amount of time I spent working onthe Asia Litigation, after the case was over I went through the entire case file, including

the entire court docket, and I reviewed every pleading I created for the case and every

email I sent and received relating to the case. In addition, I also reviewed the itemizedbilling summary created by Xcentrics outside litigation counsel, Jaburg Wilk, P.C. to

compare my own time entries with their time entries.

10. Based on this review and my recollection of the case, I recreated theattached timesheet summarizing the amount of time I spent and the tasks performed

during the course of the Asia Litigation. As reflected in this time sheet, I spent 593.1

hours of time defending Xcentric in the Asia Litigation.

11. Because I reconstructed this time sheet based solely upon my review ofwritten materials (i.e., emails, pleadings, and correspondence), it generally does not

include entries for any non-written work (i.e., phone calls, in-person meetings, etc.)

except in specific instances where a phone call or meeting was documented in writing.

12. For this reason, I believe the amount of hours reflected (593.1) issignificantly lower than the actual amount of time I spent on the Asia Litigation. This is

so because I recall having frequent lengthy meetings and phone calls with Mr. Magedson

and other attorneys regarding the case. However, I did not include any time entries for

such meetings or phone calls unless they were clearly documented in a subsequent

written email or other correspondence. This means that a significant amount of time

spent on the matter is not reflected in the time sheet.

13. Since first becoming licensed in California 11 years ago, I have frequentlyhandled a wide variety of litigation matters in both California state and federal courts on

behalf of Xcentric and also on behalf of other clients. For example, considering only

cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, I have

appeared as counsel in the following litigation matters: Colin Farrell v. Nicole Narain et

al., Case No. 2:05-cv-07244-JFW-SH;XPays Inc. v. Internet Commerce Group Inc et al.

Case No. 2:06-cv-05688-DDP-VBK;Kidsart, Inc. v. Kidzart Texas, LLC, Case No. 2:08-



4/21



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243


cv-06185-PA-SS; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. Free-TV-Video-Online.Info et

al.; Case No. 2:08-cv-08484-JFW-FMO; Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric

Ventures LLC, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW;Falcon Foto, LLC v. Domain

Management Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06469-CAS-JC; VividEntertainment, LLC v. I.C.G. Internet Commerce Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-

06731-SJO-VBK;Medical Intermediaries LLC v. American Student Loan Services, Inc.

Case No. 8:08-cv-01059-AHS-MLG. I have also handled a variety of other litigation

matters in other California district courts and state courts.

14. In my experience handling California litigation matters, Californiaattorneys generally charge hourly rates that are significantly higher than the rates charged

by Arizona litigation counsel with the same level of experience. This disparity is even

greater in the Los Angeles market where experienced litigators regularly charge rates of

$500800/hr. or much more.

15. As an Arizona attorney with eight years of experience, I typically charge$200250/hr. for my services in handling litigation matters in Arizona depending on

various factors including the nature and complexity of the case, among other things.

16. For matters in California, my standard hourly rate is $300/hr. This higherrate reflects the fact that I have been admitted to practice law in California longer (11

years vs. 8 years in Arizona). It also reflects the much higher hourly rates generally

charged by California litigation counsel, and it reflects the fact that litigation in California

is often much more complicated and time-intensive than it is in Arizona.

17. Based on my knowledge and experience in handling litigation matters inCalifornia, I believe that $300/hr. is a reasonable rate for the type of services I provided

to Xcentric during the course of the Asia Litigation. In fact, I am aware that this rate is

significantly lower than many California attorneys charge for federal court litigation

matters, and I am aware that this rate is significantly lower than the average rates charged

by California attorneys with a similar number of years of experience. See Krapf v

Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2010 WL 4261444, *5 (C.D.Cal. 2010) (noting that a 2007



5/21



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243


survey of average hourly rates in California, shows that the average hourly rate for

attorneys with eleven to fifteen years of experience is $383.00.) Because I have eleven

years of experience handling complex litigation matters in California, I believe $300/hr

is a reasonable hourly rate for the time spent working on the Asia Litigation.18. At the conclusion of the Asia Litigation, Xcentric applied for and was

awarded taxable costs against Mr. Mobrez, Ms. Llaneras, and AEI in the amount of

$4,949.03. This amount was based on a Bill of Costs which I filed in the matter on June

27, 2011 (Doc. #187-1), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

19. As shown in the Bill of Costs, the taxable costs previously awarded toXcentric were comprised of three separate categories: 1.) reporters transcripts ($127.68)

2.) deposition transcripts ($4,810.35); and 3.) photocopies ($11.00).

20. Of these expenses, Xcentric paid one directlythe deposition transcriptcosts of $4,810.35. Because Xcentric paid this expense directly, that amount is no

reflected in the itemized billing statement of Jaburg & Wilk which is attached to the

declaration submitted by Ms. Speth.

21. The other two items listed in the Bill of Costs (reporters transcripts andphotocopies) represent small amounts totaling $138.68 which were advanced by the firm

of Jaburg & Wilk. Those costs are reflected in the itemized billing statement of Jaburg &

Wilk which is attached to the declaration submitted by Ms. Speth.

22. To be clearbecause the sum of $138.68 for reporters transcripts andphotocopies was included the taxable costs previously awarded to Xcentric in the

California action, Xcentric does not seek to recover this amount in this matter. However

Xcentric does seek to recover the remaining balance of non-taxable costs of $6,137.78

($6,276.46 - $138.68 = $6,137.78) because that sum was not awarded in the prior case.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

EXECUTED ON: July 19, 2012.

/S/ David S. GingrasDavid S. Gingras



6/21



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GINGRAS

LAWO

FFICE,PLLC

3941E.CHAN

DLERBLVD.,#106-243


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2012 I electronically transmitted the attached document

to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Noticeof Electronic Filing to the following:

John S. Craiger, Esq.David E. Funkhouser III, Esq.

Quarles & Brady LLPOne Renaissance Square

Two North Central AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85004-2391

Attorney for Defendant Lisa J. Borodkin

Raymond MobrezIliana LlanerasPO BOX 3663

Santa Monica, CA 90408DefendantsPro Se

And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to:HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

United States District CourtSandra Day OConnor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622401 West Washington Street, SPC 80

Phoenix, AZ 85003-215

/s/David S. Gingras



7/21

Exhibit A



8/21

Date Time Description

2/2/2010 2.5 Review new Complaint and Summons inAsiaEconomic Institute v. Xcentric Ventures; discusslawsuit with Ed and determine whether case isremovable; draft email to Maria Speth with plan

for removing case to federal court; review andrespond to severalemails from Maria Speth re:her conversation with Daniel Blackert.

2/3/2010 5.0 Research law re: RICO case statementrequirements; research California Anti-SLAPPstandards and draft meet-and-confer letter toDaniel Blackert discussing CommunicationsDecency Act, Anti-SLAPP, and RICO issues.

2/8/2010 .5 Phone call to Daniel Blackert re: new Asia case.Research additional contact information for Mr.Blackert; email to Maria Speth re: Blackert did

not return call.2/17/2010 3.5 Draft Answer to AEIs Complaint and

supporting documentation (Corporate DisclosureStatement); draft Notice of Removal and CivilCover Sheet; review CCP 425.15 to determinetiming of Anti-SLAPP motion; draft emails toEd & Maria re: strategy and status.

3/1/2010 1.5 Telephone conference with Daniel Blackert re:AEI case; draft email to Mr. Blackert with copyof demand letter dated February 3, 2010 whichMr. Blackert claimed he did not receive; draft

lengthy email to Ed & Maria summarizingconversation with Blackert and his thoughts onthe lawsuit.

3/5/2010 1.8 Review correspondence from Daniel Blackertdated March 3, 2010 re: Ed claimed to live inCalifornia; research removal statute to confirmthis point is irrelevant; draft lengthy email to Ed& Maria summarizing Blackert correspondenceand explaining research on removal.

3/9/2010 8.0 Begin researching and drafting Special Motionto Strike.

3/10/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting SpecialMotion to Strike.

3/11/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting SpecialMotion to Strike.

3/15/2010 .3 Draft email to Daniel Blackert to meet andconfer regarding Special Motion to Strike.

3/15/2010 7.5 Discuss facts of Raymond Mobrezcorrespondence with Ed and begin drafting



9/21

declaration for Ed with supporting exhibits.

3/19/2010 1.5 Review correspondence from Daniel Blackertdated March 19, 2010 re: Anti-SLAPP issues;draft email to Maria & Laura re: discussion ofBlackerts arguments and research assistance.

3/22/2010 1.0 Finalize and file Anti-SLAPP motion andMotion to Require RICO Case statement.

3/23/2010 .6 Review and respond to several emails fromMaria re: case status and motions.

3/29/2010 6.5 Review Plaintiffs Opposition to XcentricsAnti-SLAPP motion and supporting documentsincluding Affidavit of Raymond Mobrezalleging Ed asked for $5k on the phone; begindrafting Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion.

3/29/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiffs 35-page Motion to Remand;draft email to Ed with summary of issues.

3/30/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Daniel Blackert re: arePlaintiffs seeking more than $75,000 indamages; email copy of same to Blackert.

3/31/2010 .8 Review letter from Daniel Blackert confirmingamount in controversy exceeds $75,000; forwardcopy of same with analysis of issues to Ed &Maria.

4/1/2010 .4 Draft email to Daniel Blackert re: Ed resides inArizona and related issues.

4/1/2010 6.0 Being researching and drafting Opposition toMotion to Remand.

4/2/2010 .2 Review and respond to email from DanielBlackert re: Plaintiffs are withdrawing Motion toRemand.

4/2/2010 7.5 Continue researching and drafting Reply ISOAnti-SLAPP motion.

4/5/2010 3.5 Finalize and file Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion;draft email to litigation group re: same.

4/5/2010 2.5 Finalize and file Opposition to Motion toRemand and supporting declarations from DavidS. Gingras and Ed Magedson (Blackert neverwithdrew motion).

4/6/2010 .2 Draft email to Daniel Blackert re: status ofpending motions.

4/7/2010 .3 Review Notice of Withdrawal of Motion toRemand; email to Maria re: status.

4/7/2010 .5 Revise Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP motion; filesame with Notice of Errata.

4/9/2010 1.5 Review email from Daniel Blackert re: variousissues and draft lengthy response to same with



10/21

Xcentrics theory of the case and position onsettlement; note, informed Blackert: FYI mostof the time, the discovery phase of cases like thislasts about 18 months to 2 years.

4/12/2010 8.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles to attend status

conference.4/13/2010 1.0 Draft lengthy email to litigation group withexplanation of yesterdays status conference.

4/14/2010 .9 Review and respond to several emails fromAdam Kunz re: status of Anti-SLAPP motion;draft lengthy responses to same.

4/14/2010 .3 Review minutes of status conference andforward copy of same to Debbie Gower.

4/19/2010 8.0 Prepare for and travel to/from Los Angeles forhearing on Anti-SLAPP motion.

4/21/2010 .5 Review catalyst letter from Daniel Blackert

with settlement proposal; respond via emailrejecting proposal.

4/21/2010 1.8 Draft Defendants Initial Rule 26 Disclosures;prepare lengthy email to Daniel Blackert withdiscussion of discovery plan.

4/21/2010 4.5 Begin drafting Defendants Initial Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiffs (RFPs, Roggs,RFAs); draft email to Maria re: RICO casestatement issues.

4/22/2010 5.0 Continue extensive research re: RICO legalissues; draft email to litigation group with

comments re: Chang v. Chen was recentlyoverruled and is no longer good law.

4/22/2010 2.4 Review and respond to lengthy email from LisaBorodkin re: AEI case; review SedonaConference literature from Ms. Borodkin;research issue of RICO damages.

4/23/2010 .7 Review and respond to several emails fromDaniel Blackert re: case status and LisaBorodkin appearance.

4/26/2010 2.5 Finalize Xcentrics First Set of DiscoveryRequests and email copy of same to Blackert an

Borodkin; draft email to Plaintiffs counselrequesting expedited responses to discovery.

4/27/2010 1.8 Draft email to Lisa Borodkin re: analysis of whyMonex case is not helpful to Plaintiffs position;draft email to Maria requesting input on strategy;draft follow-up email to Ms. Borodkin re:deposition location of Ed Magedson.

4/28/2010 .3 Draft email to counsel requesting meet-and-



11/21

confer re: Defendants Motion for SummaryJudgment.

4/28/2010 .8 Telephone conference with Paul Berra re: localcounsel needed for AEI case to get Mariaadmitted PHV; discuss status of case and draft

email to Mr. Berra with copy of Complaint.4/28/2010 8.0 Begin researching and drafting Motion forSummary Judgment.

4/28/2010 .8 Draft lengthy email to litigation group withoutline of MSJ and questions re: various RICOissues.

4/29/2010 3.5 Draft proposed Protective Order; email copy ofsame to Plainitffs counsel.

4/29/2010 6.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion forSummary Judgment.

4/29/2010 .7 Draft Notice of Deposition for Mobrez and

Llaneras and Deposition Subpoena for Mobrez;email copies of same to Plaintiffs counsel.

4/30/2010 2.5 Listen to copies of audio recordings of telephonecalls between Ed and Mobrez; draft table of callsand research California eavesdropping statute.

5/1/2010 1.5 Review draft Case Management Report fromMs. Borodkin and input Xcentrics comments tosame; draft email to Ms. Borodkin re: missingdamages disclosures from Plaintiffs anddiscussion of protective order.

5/3/2010 2.0 Review and respond to lengthy emails from Lisa

Borodkin re: summary judgment issues; draftnumerous emails to litigation group withdiscussion of strategy and issues includingMagedson deposition.

5/3/2010 5.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion forSummary Judgment.

5/4/2010 8.0 Begin preparing for deposition of RaymondMobrez and Iliana Llaneras; select exhibits and

produce deposition binders for both witnesses.

5/5/2010 3.5 Review transcript from prior hearing in LosAngeles; emails to Ms. Borodkin re: payment of

cost of transcript; draft email to DanielBlackert re: notes of phone conversations areillegible; continue preparing for depositions onFriday.

5/6/2010 1.5 Review new copy of phone call notes disclosedby Plaintiffs; finalize deposition questions andforward copy of same to litigation group;forward copy of phone call #7 to Maria with



12/21

summary of conversation.

5/7/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for deposition ofRaymond Mobrez (suspend deposition of IlianaLlaneras); review and respond to emails fromDaniel Blackert re: California ethical issues and

obligation to withdraw from case; lengthytelephone conference with Ed & Maria re:outcome of Raymonds deposition.

5/8/2010 1.5 Review email from Lisa Borodkin re: she doesnot know what happened at Raymondsdeposition; draft lengthy email to Ms. Borodkinwith copies of recorded phone calls andsummary of Xcentrics position re: same.

5/9/2010 7.5 Research and draft demand letter to DanielBlackert and Lisa Borodkin re: AEI litigation;forward copy to litigation group for

input/comment.5/10/2010 1.5 Review lengthy email from Lisa Borodkin

responding to email from Saturday re: Mobrezdeposition; review attached draft CaseManagement Report; add Xcentrics changes todraft report.

5/10/2010 2.0 Draft affidavit for Ed Magedson correctingmistaken testimony re: Mobrez threatened him.

5/10/2010 1.0 Conference call with all counsel re: case status.

5/10/2010 1.5 Draft lengthy email to Lisa Borodkin re:Xcentrics additions to Joint Report with

additional comments re: Plaintiffs intend tosubmit corrected affidavits.

5/11/2010 .7 Review correspondence from Ms. Borodkinobjecting to certain discovery requests fromXcentric.

5/11/2010 3.5 Finalize demand letter to Daniel Blackert andLisa Borodkin re: perjury by Plaintiffs and

potential settlement proposal; email copy ofsame to Plaintiffs counsel.

5/11/2010 2.5 Draft and file Affidavit of Ed Magedson re:extortion allegations per court order.

5/11/2010 1.5 Review court minutes re: settlement conferencehas been scheduled for July 14 in Los Angeles;review and respond to numerous emails fromMaria re: case status and Pro Hac Viceadmission.

5/17/2010 9.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion forSummary Judgment; begin drafting Statement ofFacts ISO same; review deposition transcript



13/21

from Mobrez depo for inclusion in motion;finalize MSJ and forward initial draft tolitigation group for review.

5/18/2010 7.5 Review 30(b)(6) deposition notice from LisaBorodkin for Xentric; continue drafting

Statement of Facts and supporting docs for MSJ;draft email to Paul Berra re: help with ex parteprocedure issue; draft lengthy email to Plaintiffscounsel with proposed protective order.

5/19/2010 8.0 Continue working on Statement of Facts andexhibits supporting MSJ.

5/20/2010 2.5 Review Draft 37 Stipulation from Lisa Borodkinre: Plaintiffs proposed Motion to Compel;discuss same with Maria & Ed.

5/20/2010 2.0 Review corrected affidavits from RaymondMobrez and Iliana Llaneras; discuss same with

Maria & Ed.5/21/2010 1.5 Draft Notice re: Corrected Declarations with

comment re: sham affidavit rule.

5/21/2010 6.5 Draft multiple declaration ISO MSJ (Kim J,Lynda C, and Amy T); revise Ed Magedsonaffidavit ISO MSJ; draft affidavit of Ben SmithISO MSJ.

5/23/2010 3.5 Final revisions to all supporting MSJ documents;emails to/from Ed and Ben re: same.

5/24/2010 1.0 File MSJ and supporting documents; draft emailto litigation group with copies of same; email

copies of same to Plaintiffs counsel.5/26/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiffs response to Xcentric first set

of discovery requests; begin drafting JointStipulation re: Motion to Compel; email copiesof same to litigation group.

5/27/2010 .8 Review and respond to email from LisaBorodkin re: 30(b)(6) deposition of Xcentric andthreat to bring Motion to Compel even thoughLisa cancelled deposition herself.

5/27/2010 2.5 Finalize Xcentrics portion of Rule 37 JointStipulation re: discovery disputes and email copy

of same to Ms. Borodkin.5/27/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel to

meet and confer re: Plaintiffs discoveryresponses.

5/27/2010 1.5 Review and respond to lengthy email from Ms.Borodkin re: discovery disputes re: 30(b)(6)deposition issues.

5/29/2010 1.7 Review and respond to lengthy email from Ms.



14/21

Borodkin arguing that Xcentrics discoveryrequests were served too early; re-serve copy ofsame on Ms. Borodkin.

5/30/2010 .8 Review and respond to several emails from Ms.Borodkin re: discovery disputes.

5/31/2010 3.5 Review Plaintiffs Motion for Bench Trial; beginresearching and drafting response to same.

6/1/2010 2.5 Review and respond to numerous emails fromAdam, Maria and Ed re: deposition tomorrow;review all previous affidavits from Ed to preparefor deposition.

6/2/2010 9.0 Travel to/from and attend 30(b)(6) deposition ofEd Magedson at Jaburg Wilk offices.

6/3/2010 1.5 Make final revisions to Rule 47 Joint Stipulationand email copy of same to Ms. Borodkin withDSG comments.

6/3/2010 .9 Review and respond to email from Ed Magedsonre: need to file emergency motion to stop AEIcase due to fraud.

6/4/2010 4.5 Review Plaintiffs first set of Request forAdmissions; draft lengthy email to litigationgroup with comments about same; final revisionsto Rule 37 Joint Stip (59 pages total) and filesame.

6/5/2010 .4 Draft email to Ed re: Plaintiffs first set ofRequest for Admissions.

6/8/2010 8.0 Prepare for and travel to/from deposition of

Edward Magedson at Jaburg Wilk offices; draftobject to Plaintiffs subpoena to Ed.

6/10/2010 .4 Review and respond to numerous emails fromLisa Borodkin re: possible Motion to Striketelephone recordings

6/11/2010 1.2 Continue meeting and conferring with Ms.Borodkin re: possible Motion to Strike telephonerecordings.

6/15/2010 3.9 Review Plaintiffs untimely response to Motionfor Summary Judgment and supporting material;review Plaintiffs evidentiary objections to MSJ;

draft lengthy emails to litigation group re: casestatus and strategy.

6/16/2010 8.5 Begin researching and drafting Reply ISO MSJ;emails to litigation group with request forassistance.

6/17/2010 8.0 Continue researching and drafting Reply ISOMSJ; begin drafting Opposition to PlaintiffsEvidentiary Objections



15/21

6/21/2010 2.2 Review 150 pages of disclosure from Plaintiffsincluding bank statements; draft email tolitigation group re: same.

6/21/2010 5.0 Continue finalizing Reply ISO MSJ.

6/22/2010 1.0 Review Plaintiffs First Request for Production

of Documents; email to litigation group re: same.6/22/2010 2.5 Final revisions to Reply ISO Statement of Facts;

email to Maria Speth re: same.

6/22/2010 4.5 Continue drafting supplemental affidavit of EdMagedson re: MSJ; telephone conference withBen Smith re: Google meta tag issues.

6/23/2010 3.0 Begin drafting affidavit of Ben Smith addressingPlaintiffs allegation that rebuttals posted onROR do not show up in Google search results;forward draft affidavit to Mr. Smith via email.

6/23/2010 2.5 Review extensive new disclosures from

Plaintiffs including SEO expert designation andmaterials regarding Fadi (Sebastian) Karnaby.

6/23/2010 4.8 Draft objection to Daniel Blackert declaration;finalize Response to Plaintiffs EvidentiaryObjections, Response to Statement of AdditionalFacts, Affidavit of Ben Smith, Affidavit of EdMagedson, Declaration of David S. Gingras.

6/24/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing onPlaintiffs Motion to Compel.

6/25/2010 .3 Review and respond to email from LisaBorodkin re: Sebastian Karnaby.

6/26/2010 .8 Review tentative ruling from magistrate judgere: Motion to Compel; draft email to Ed withcomments.

6/28/2010 7.0 Review demand letter from Lisa Borodkin re:third deposition of Ed Magedson; forward copyof same to Ed & Maria; begin reviewing 500+

pages of deposition transcripts to determinevalidity of positions in Borodkin letter re:questions Ed allegedly refused to answer; reviewand respond to numerous emails from Ms.Borodkin re: Plaintiffs want to bring Rule 56(f)

motion.6/29/2010 7.5 Complete full analysis of both prior Magedson

depositions; draft letter (16 pages) responding toLisa Borodkin correspondence re: thirddeposition of Ed Magedson; email draft tolitigation group; review and respond to multipleemails from Ed & Maria commenting on draftletter.



16/21

6/30/2010 .5 Draft correspondence to Clerk of Courtrequesting permission for Ed to appear atsettlement conference by telephone; telephoneconference with clerk re: request.

6/30/2010 2.5 Conduct research re: availability of attorneys

fees under California Private Attorney Generalstatute, CCP 1021.5; draft lengthy email tolitigation group with findings.

6/30/2010 1.5 Review voicemail from former AEI employeeasking to discuss case; forward copy ofvoicemail to litigation group with email; returncall to employee w/ lengthy phone conversationre: Mobrez/Llaneras/AEI.

7/1/2010 3.5 Draft Xcentrics Response to Plaintiffs FirstRequest for Admissions; email draft of same tolitigation group.

7/1/2010 3.5 Draft Defendants settlement conference memo.7/1/2010 1.9 Review and respond to numerous (15+) emails

from litigation group re: case status, settlementconference status, and trial preparation order.

7/8/2010 7.8 Research and draft Defendants pre-trialMemorandum of Contentions of Fact And Law.

7/9/2010 8.0 Review Plaintiffs ex parte Motion forDiscovery Continuance per Rule 56(f); begindrafting emergency response to same; numerousemails to/from local counsel re: emergency filingof response; draft Declaration of David S.

Gingras ISO Defendants opposition to Rule56(f) motion.

7/12/2010 10.0 Prepare for hearing on Defendants MSJ; travelto/from Los Angeles for hearing on same.

7/13/2010 1.5 Email to litigation group re: outcome ofyesterdays MSJ hearing; draft email to PaulBerra re: ex parte request to vacate settlementconference in light of courts granting MTD and

partial summary judgment.

7/13/2010 .3 Draft email to Lisa Borodkin with copy of 2ndquestionnaire.

7/13/2010 .8 Draft lengthy email to magistrate judges clerkre: we would like to continue settlementconference.

7/13/2010 .7 Review email from Maria Speth to LisaBorodkin requesting that Plaintiffs NOT re-filewire fraud claim; draft correspondence to Ms.Borodkin re: Hemi Group case from U.S.Supreme Court.



17/21

7/13/2010 .5 Conference call with Magistrate Walsh and LisaBorodkin re: settlement conference.

7/14/2010 2.7 Draft very lengthy email to Lisa Borodkin re:Shaluly issue of ROR removing name of 16year-old girl from report as a courtesy.

7/14/2010 1.7 Review and respond to several lengthy emailsfrom Lisa Borodkin re: possible amendedcomplaint and possible liability for malicious

prosecution.

7/15/2010 4.5 Review email from Lisa Borodkin withLaymans Description of Wire Fraud Claim;

begin researching issues identified for possible12(b)(6) motion.

7/19/2010 1.0 Review MSJ ruling from court (53 pages); draftemail to litigation group with analysis.

7/19/2010 3.5 Complete Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs

production requests and interrogatories.7/20/2010 5.0 Travel to/from and attend settlement conference

with Plaintiffs and Ed Magedson at Jaburg Wilkoffices; telephone conference with MagistrateWalsh re: Eds third deposition.

7/27/2010 7.5 Review Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (84pages) with exhibits (345 pages); draft lengthyemail to litigation group withobservations/comments and strategy discussion.

7/29/2010 3.5 Review Request for Judicial Notice filed byDaniel Blackert which contained false allegation

that Gingras lied to Blockowicz counsel and thatSpeth lied to Seventh Circuit in Blockowicz oralargument; prepare lengthy email to Maria Spethwith timeline of events surrounding Blockowiczand Sternberg cases.

7/29/2010 6.0 Continue researching and drafting Motion toDismiss re: First Amended Complaint.

7/30/2010 .3 Draft email to Laura Rogal re: Rule 11 motionagainst Lisa Borodkin for false comments re:Shaluly issue.

7/30/2010 9.5 Continue researching and drafting Response to

Motion to Dismiss.8/2/2010 8.5 Continue researching and drafting Motion to

Dismiss; review draft Rule 11 motion.

8/3/2010 7.5 Review new ex parte Motion for TRO (44pages) filed by Lisa Borodkin and supportingdocuments set for hearing on August 5;telephone conference with Maria Speth re: needto immediately respond; begin researching and



18/21

drafting response to same.

8/4/2010 3.5 Complete and file response to ex parte TROapplication.

8/5/2010 6.5 Continue researching and drafting Motion toDismiss; email copy of initial draft of same to

Maria Speth.8/6/2010 .8 Conference call with magistrate judge re: ex

parte TRO application.

8/6/2010 5.0 Finalize and file Motion to Dismiss.

8/16/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend,Motion for Judicial Notice and Motion forReconsideration with supporting documentation;email to litigation group with comments.

8/30/2010 4.5 Research and draft Response to PlaintiffsMotion for Reconsideration.

9/7/2010 2.5 Research and draft Reply ISO Motion to

Dismiss.9/20/2010 9.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on

Motion to Dismiss and related motions (noruling).

9/21/2010 8.5 Begin researching and drafting Anti-SLAPPMotion re: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

9/22/2010 12 Begin researching and drafting DefendantsSecond Motion for Summary Judgment.

9/23/2010 12 Continue researching and drafting DefendantsSecond Motion for Summary Judgment andsupporting documentation.

9/24/2010 12 Continue researching and drafting Anti-SLAPPMotion re: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint;review and respond to numerous emails fromLisa Borodkin re: new Anti-SLAPP Motion.

9/25 7.0 Continue researching and drafting DefendantsSecond Motion for Summary Judgment andsupporting documentation.

9/26 7.0 Continue researching and drafting DefendantsSecond Motion for Summary Judgment andsupporting documentation.

9/27 8.5 Finalize and file Defendants Second MSJ and

Second Anti-SLAPP Motions.10/1/2010 .5 Telephone conference with Lisa Borodkin re:

Plaintiffs request for 1-week extension of timeto respond to MSJ; draft email to Ms. Borodkinre: same.

10/5/2010 2.5 Review numerous new filings from Plaintiffsincluding: Motion for Judicial Notice andnumerous supporting materials; review and



19/21

email litigation group with summary of recentfilings.

10/6/2010 1.5 Review Plaintiffs Response to DefendantsStatement of Facts ISO MSJ; draft and fileRequest for Waiver of Oral Argument on MSJ as

motion is unopposed.10/6/2010 .3 Review Plaintiffs Opposition to DefendantsRequest to Waive Oral Argument.

10/7/2010 1.3 Review Plaintiffs Request for Enlargement ofTime and draft opposition to same.

10/12/2010 .2 Draft and file Reply ISO MSJ.

10/13/2010 .5 Review and respond to numerous emails fromEd re: Lisa Borodkins ex parte contact withJames Rogers; review California ethical rules re:same.

10/13/2010 1.0 Review Plaintiffs Opposition to Anti-SLAPP

Motion #2; email to litigation group re: same.10/18/2010 5.0 Research and draft Reply ISO Anti-SLAPP #2.

10/22/2010 1.5 Review and respond to numerous lengthy emailsfrom Ms. Borodkin re: deposition of JamesRogers.

11/1/2010 10.0 Travel to/from Los Angeles for hearing on MSJ#2 (hearing vacated due to last-minute Rule56(f) filing from Ms. Borodkin).

11/3/2010 7.5 Begin researching and drafting Opposition toPlaintiffs 2nd Rule 56(f) Motion and Motion forSanctions.

11/8/2010 1.5 Finalize and file Opposition to Plaintiffs 2nd

Rule 56(f) Motion and Motion for Sanctions.

11/15/2010 .8 Review Plaintiffs Reply ISO Motion for Rule56(f) relief and supporting documentation.

5/4/2011 1.5 Review ruling on Defendants Second MSJ andother pending motions; draft lengthy email tolitigation group re: summary of ruling and status.

5/19/2011 1.0 Prepare Proposed Final Judgment and Notice ofLodging same.

6/27/2011 1.5 Prepare and file Bill of Costs and Notice ofApplication to Tax Costs and Supporting

Documentation.TOTAL 593.1



20/21

Exhibit B



21/21

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW -PJW Document 187-1 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#:5110
