Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 1 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Lisa J. Borodkin (CA Bar #196412) lisa@lisaborodkin.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

For Non-Party Witness Lisa Jean Borodkin
Renaissance One, Two North Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LISA JEAN BORODKIN and JOHN DOE BORODKIN, husband and wife; RAYMOND MOBREZ and ILIANA LLANERAS, husband and wife; DANIEL BLACKERT and JANE DOE BLACKERT, husband and wife; ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California limited liability company, DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Pursuant to Rules 45(c)(1) and 45(c)(3)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, non-party witness Lisa Jean Borodkin (“Ms. Borodkin”) moves for a Protective Order and Order Quashing the deposition subpoena with production of documents served on November 26, 2012 by Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures LLC (“Xcentric”).1 Ms. Borodkin also
Ms. Borodkin voluntarily agreed to accept service of the subpoena by certified mail on November 26, 2012. Ms. Lopez is not authorized to accept service of Ms. Borodkin.
1

No. 2:11-CV-01426-PHX-GMS NON-PARTY WITNESS LISA JEAN BORODKIN’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; DECLARATION OF LISA JEAN BORODKIN (Assigned to the Honorable G. Murray Snow) [Proposed Order Lodged Concurrently Herewith]

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-1-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

moves for lost earnings and attorney fees as sanctions in the amount of $3,712.50. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Xcentric has made clear its intention to circumvent this Court’s Order of November 8, 2012 terminating Ms. Borodkin as a defendant in this case. It seeks to take her deposition with production of documents with categories as broad and harassing as its original notice of deposition to Ms. Borodkin as a party. Xcentric’s counsel has stated that it believes the Court’s November 8, 2012 order is “wrong.” Based on the deposition subpoena, Xcentric surely intends to depose Ms. Borodkin to manufacture a back-door and post hoc justification for seeking to reconsider or set aside this Court’s Order dismissing Ms. Borodkin as a defendant in this case. II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Non-party witness Ms. Borodkin was the attorney for Defendants Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras in the federal action in the Central District of California (the “California Action”) that is the underlying case on which Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”) based its action for malicious prosecution against Ms. Borodkin and her former clients, Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras. See Declaration of Lisa J. Borodkin (“Borodkin Decl.”) ¶2. Xcentric named Ms. Borodkin personally as a defendant on the Second Cause of Action in the Verified Amended Complaint for malicious prosecution and the Third Cause of Action for aiding and abetting tortious conduct. [Doc. 55] Ms. Borodkin is also a blogger and journalist. See id. ¶3. She blogs at her personal blog, lisaborodkin.com, and has written for LAist.com. See id. ¶4. As a web television producer and reporter, Ms. Borodkin created a television show on technology law called “TechZulu Law” and is a recurring guest on “This Week in Law.” See id. ¶5. Ms. Borodkin is a recurring guest lecturer at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism. See id. ¶6. She is also a member of the Los Angeles Press Club. See id. ¶7.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-2-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 3 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On November 8, 2012, this Court granted Ms. Borodkin’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against her for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 146].

In doing so, the Court found, inter alia:
Xcentric’s FAC and the documents cited therein fail to state that Borodkin lacked probable cause to pursue each claim of the California Action. Almost all of the allegations in Xcentric’s FAC center on the extortion claim, but, for the reasons set forth above, those allegations do not support a malicious prosecution claim. As to Borodkin’s legal theories for the other claims, Xcentric’s FAC does not contain the barest of allegations stating why Borodkin lacked probable cause to bring such claims.

[Doc. 146 at 18:8-13] (emphasis added). This Court did not grant Xcentric leave to amend and terminated Ms. Borodkin
from this action. [Doc. 146 at 19:6-7] Nonetheless, Xcentric continues to pursue overbroad, harassing discovery from Ms. Borodkin and intends to circumvent the Order of November 8, 2012. On November 26, 2012, Ms. Borodkin voluntarily accepted service by certified mail of Xcentric’s Notice Of Intent To Serve Subpoena And Notice Of Deposition (“Deposition Subpoena”). Borodkin Decl. ¶9; Exhibit “1.” The Deposition Subpoena includes the following requests for production of categories of documents: 1.) Produce copies of all non-privileged documents, including but not limited to correspondence, in YOUR position which relate to the Asia Litigation excluding pleadings actually filed with the court, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and documents and correspondence actually provided to or received from Xcentric’s local counsel during the course of the Asia Litigation. Produce copies of all non-privileged documents, including but not limited to correspondence, in YOUR possession which relate to:

2.)

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-3-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 4 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3.)

a. Xcentric Ventures, LLC b. Edward Magedson c. The website www.ripoffreport.com d. The webpage located at: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-anatomy-of-aripoff-report-lawsuit Produce copies of any correspondence you have sent to or received from any of the following people/entities from January 1, 2008 to the present which relate to Xcentric, Edward Magedson, the Ripoff Report website, or the Asia Litigation: a. Daniel Blackert b. Sarah Bird, Esq. c. SEOmoz d. John F. Brewington e. Shawn Richeson f. Darren Chaker g. James Rogers h. Kenton Hutcherson i. Christopher Ingle j. Tina Norris k. Jan Martin Smith l. Fadi Karnaby m. Joe Reed n. Melissa A. Herman o. David Russo

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-4-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 5 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

p. Eric Goldman q. Michael Roberts r. Scott Karosa s. Richard Goddeau 4.) Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to commence the Asia Litigation. 5.) Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to continue the Asia Litigation. See Borodkin Decl. Ex. “1” (emphasis added). These are substantially the same document requests served on Ms. Borodkin while she was still a defendant in this action. See Borodkin Decl. ¶13, Ex. “3.” Among other things, they seek private communications regarding a wide range of people that are not mentioned in any of the allegations in the FAC. In particular, document request 3.) d. seeks Ms. Borodkin’s communications with John Brewington. Xcentric’s manager, Ed Magedson, previously threatened Ms. Borodkin that he would not settle this action against her unless she provided damaging information about John Brewington. See Borodkin Decl. This improper purpose was, among other things, the subject of Ms. Borodkin’s pending motion under Rule 11 for Xcentric, Mr. Magedson’s and their counsel’s improper purpose directed at the filing of the Complaint and FAC. [Doc. 134] On November 26, 2012, Ms. Borodkin telephoned Xcentric’s counsel, David Gingras to meet and confer in a sincere effort to narrow the subpoena or eliminate the need for a discovery motion. See Borodkin Decl. Ex. “2.” Mr. Gingras told Ms. Borodkin that Xcentric intended to seek reconsideration and/or appeal from this Court’s November

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-5-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 6 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

8, 2012 Order dismissing Ms. Borodkin from the action, and that he thought this Court’s order was “wrong.” See Borodkin Decl. ¶¶10-11. When Ms. Borodkin asked Mr. Gingras to identify the relevant topics of deposition testimony, Mr. Gingras said that Xcentric sought information about (1) whether Mr. Mobrez or Ms. Llaneras had probable cause to continue the California Action; (2) Ms. Borodkin’s “thinking” on each and every allegation in the First Amended Complaint in the California Action; and (3) Ms. Borodkin’s communications with Jan Smith, who had provided a declaration in the California Action. See Borodkin Ex. “2.” III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Standard for Motion to Quash or Protective Order.

A non-party witness may make either a motion for a protective order or a motion to quash in response to a deposition subpoena that is unduly burdensome or seeks privileged or otherwise protected matter. In this case, the Deposition Subpoena is overbroad in that Xcentric made little, if any, effort to narrow the document requests. In addition, Xcentric fails to identify any non-privileged testimony of Ms. Borodkin that is relevant to any of the remaining claims in this action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) provides: A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction--which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(c)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) provides: On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person--except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-6-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 7 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held; (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(c)(3). B. The Deposition Subpoena Should Be Quashed as Harassing and Unduly Burdensome.

Where a deposition subpoena is served for the purpose of annoying or harassing the court may grant a non-party’s motion for a protective order or to quash. See Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions (9th Cir. 2003) 353 F.3d 792, 814. Affirming the district court’s grant of the motion to quash and award of sanctions, the Ninth Circuit in Mattel wrote, “a pattern is clear in this case that [Mattel’s counsel] files these oppressive subpoena requests against the employer of anyone who dares to submit a declaration even when it's clear that the declaration says the employer is not speaking for the party.” See id. The court concluded that the Subpoena was “served for the purpose of annoying and harassment and not really for the purpose of getting information.” See id. In this case, the Deposition Subpoena’s document requests are not narrowly drafted to elicit information relevant to Xcentric’s claims, and are unduly burdensome. The Requests seek to have Ms. Borodkin: 2.) Produce copies of all non-privileged documents, including but not limited to correspondence, in YOUR possession which relate to: a. Xcentric Ventures, LLC b. Edward Magedson c. The website www.ripoffreport.com d. The webpage located at: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-anatomy-of-aripoff-report-lawsuit

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-7-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 8 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

They are oppressive in that they are overbroad in scope. Document Request 1 is only a vague rehash of anything that is not already in the public record about the California Action. Like the other categories, it has no discernable relevance to Xcentric’s claims against Ms. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras. Ms. Borodkin’s possession of documents regarding such broad categories as “documents which relate to RipoffReport.com” are unduly burdensome as they relate to Xcentric’s claims against Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras. Xcentric’s Requests also overbroad in time. Request 3 seeks to have Ms. Borodkin “Produce copies of any correspondence you have sent to or received from any of the following people/entities from January 1, 2008 to the present: is The FAC alleges that Ms. Borodkin did not become involved in the California Action under April 19, 2010. See Doc. 55 at ¶30. Even the California Action itself was only commenced on January 27, 2010. See Doc. 55 at ¶27. Document Request 3 Shawn Richeson, John Brewington and Sarah Bird. These are people with whom Xcentric has previously been in litigation unrelated to the California Action. In particular, Xcentric’s use of this action to “fish” for damaging information about John Brewington is the subject of Ms. Borodkin’s pending Rule 11 motion. See Ms. Borodkin’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. [Doc. 134] Document Request 3 also identifies 4 people who submitted declarations in the California Action: • Joe Reed provided an expert witness declaration regarding the HTML coding of the RipoffReport.com website. • Kenton Hutcherson provided a declaration regarding Xcentric’s claim never to remove reports (and became the subject of a “Ripoff Report” written by Ed Magedson for doing so. • Jan Smith provided a declaration in the California Action.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-8-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 9 of 20

1

• Tina Norris provided a declaration in the California Action.

2 See Borodkin Decl. ¶15. 3 4 5 6 7 Document Request 3 also identifies people who either consulted Ms. Borodkin for potential legal representation or had communications of “[legal] professional advice to those who can act on it.” These are protected communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Ms. Borodkin’s communications with these declarants and people are of no

8 relevance to this action, or are covered by the attorney work product doctrine. Their 9 declarations are public record. Xcentric can attempt to obtain the information from those 10 sources directly. In addition, this Court may find, as in Mattel, that the overbreadth of the 11 Deposition Subpoena supports an inference that Xcentric’s seeking their documents from 12 Ms. Borodkin is intended to harass, intimidate, or chill witnesses from exercising their right 13 to make statements regarding Xcentric’s business. 14 In addition to its burdensome document requests, Xcentric failed to identify any 15 relevant testimony that could be elicited from Ms. Borodkin. Each of the categories 16 identified by Xcentric for deposition are protected by attorney client privilege or work 17 product doctrine. See Borodkin Decl. at Ex. “2.” Clearly, Xcentric intends to use the 18 deposition of Ms. Borodkin as a nonparty witness to pull her back into its dragnet of 19 20 21 22 23 24 litigation. Accordingly, the Deposition Subpoena should be quashed. See Ms. Borodkin’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. [Doc. 134] C. A Protective Order Should Be Granted Regarding Ms. Borodkin’s Communications with Eric Goldman, Sarah Bird and Michael Roberts Under the California Constitution’s Reporter’s Shield Law.

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) authorizes protection for good

25 cause shown "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden 26 and expense." The State of California has a journalist’s shield law. Article I, section 2(b) of

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-9-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 10 of 20

1 the California State Constitution provides that a newsperson “shall not be adjudged in 2 contempt ... for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 connected or employed [as a newsperson] ... or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.” (Italics added.). California’s Journalist Shield Law is codified at California Evidence Code § 1090.2 California Evidence Code Section 1090 protects, in relevant part, “a person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association” or “a television news reporter” from contempt in civil actions for refusing to disclose “gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.” See Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 796 [268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 758, 789 P.2d 934, 939]. The shield law applies to confidential and non-confidential information. Eric Goldman, Sarah Bird and Michael Roberts are reporters and bloggers with

14 respect to which Xcentric seeks Ms. Borodkin’s private communications. They have written 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 “(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Cal. Evid. Code § 1070
2

(“Refusal to disclose news source”).

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-10-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 11 of 20

1 in the media about the activities of Xcentric’s website, Ripoff Report. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The attorney work product doctrine applies to an attorney’s original “brain work” and the fruits of her labors. See Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, 512 [67 S.Ct. 385, 394, 91 L.Ed. 451]. “[T]he general policy against invading the privacy of an D. The Deposition Subpoena Seeks Information Covered by the Attorney Work Product Doctrine and Attorney-Client Privilege. In the course of preparing for her recurring appearances on “This Week in Law,” (a web television show), and in writing her own blog, Ms. Borodkin is constantly gathering information for reporting to the public. See Borodkin Decl. ¶4. She regularly communicates with the general community of technology bloggers and journalists such as Eric Goldman, and Michael Roberts for her appearances on “This Week in Law” and her blog. These communications are not relevant to the California Action. Sarah Bird is a blogger for SEOmoz, a search engine optimization company, and part of the general legal blogging community with which Ms. Borodkin is connected. Ms. Borodkin has never had any communications with Sarah Bird. See Borodkin Decl. ¶7. Ms. Borodkin has never blogged about the California Action, or this action, with the exception of one Tweet not in her possession. See id. Thus, good cause exists to grant Ms. Borodkin’s motion for protective order because her sources and unpublished information are protected under the reporter’s shield embodied in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution, California Evidence Code Section 1070 and the reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The reporter’s privilege protects Ms. Borodkin from disclosing the source of any information procured in connection with her journalistic endeavors, as well as any unpublished information obtained or prepared while gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public. Accordingly, this motion for a protective order or to quash should be granted.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-11-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 12 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

attorney's course of preparation is so well recognized and so essential to an orderly working of our system of legal procedure that a burden rests on the one who would invade that privacy to establish adequate reasons to justify production through a subpoena or court order.” Id. The attorney work product doctrine is also a clearly articulated California state substantive policy. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.020 provides: "It is the policy of the state to do both of the following: (a) Preserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects of those cases. (b) Prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts." Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.020 (emphasis added). See also State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1091 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 284, 292] ("As to documents generated by counsel for his or her own reference, only the attorney has standing to assert the qualified or absolute privilege.") Accordingly, the attorney work product doctrine is separate and broader than the attorney-client privilege. With respect to oral testimony, Xcentric does not, and cannot, identify any relevant subject matter for oral examination of Ms. Borodkin. See Borodkin Decl. ¶10-11. The pleadings in the California Action are in the public record. Any additional information regarding Mr. Mobrez’ or Ms. Llaneras’ probable cause to continue the California Action are subject to protection from discovery under either the attorney work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. Any uncommunicated information regarding Ms. Borodkin’s thinking on the First Amended Complaint is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-12-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 13 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The Deposition Subpoena seeks, in Document Requests 4 and 5: 4.) Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to commence the Asia Litigation. Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to continue the Asia Litigation.

5.)

Likewise, these requests do not seek relevant information, They were obviously cut and pasted from the written discovery served on Ms. Borodkin as a defendant. Nonparty Ms. Borodkin has no “allegations.” Accordingly, this motion for a protective order or to quash should be granted. IV. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) permits a court to impose sanctions against any party that issues a subpoena on behalf of the Court but “fails to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena.” Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(c)(1). American Intern. Life Assur. Co. of New York v. Vazquez (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2003, 02 CIV. 141 (HB)) 2003 WL 548736, is directly on point. In American Intern., the defendant served an overbroad deposition subpoena on the counsel for the insurance company who had interpled disputed funds after the insurance company had been dismissed as no longer a necessary party to the action. The subpoena sought ““[a]ny and all records” pertaining to the interpleader action.” See American Intern. Life Assur. Co. of New York v. Vazquez (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2003, 02 CIV. 141 (HB)) 2003 WL 548736 at *1. The court found that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to avoid undue burden to the insurance company’s counsel, and awarded sanctions of $4,436.00 directly to the counsel for lost earnings and attorneys’ fees. See also Builders Ass'n of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2002, 96 C 1122) 2002 WL 1008455.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-13-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 14 of 20

1

Ms. Borodkin has incurred over 7.5 hours of time meeting and conferring,

2 researching, filing and drafting this motion. Her commercial hourly rate is $495 an hour. 3 Accordingly, she requests $3,712.50 in lost earnings or attorneys fees as a sanction, or for 4 this Court to set a briefing schedule on a motion for discovery sanctions under Rule 5 45(c)(1). 6 IV. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Borodkin respectfully requests that this motion for protective order or to quash Xcentric’s Deposition Subpoena be granted, and that Ms. Borodkin be awarded $3,712.50 as a sanction for lost wages or attorney fees. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of November, 2012. By /s/ Lisa J. Borodkin Lisa J. Borodkin Admitted Pro Hac Vice for nonparty witness Lisa Jean Borodkin

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-14-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 15 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION OF LISA JEAN BORODKIN I, Lisa J. Borodkin, declare: 1. I have first-hand, personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if

called as a witness, would and could testify competently thereto. 2. I was the attorney for Defendants Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras in

the federal action in the Central District of California (the “California Action”) that is the underlying case on which Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”)’s action for malicious prosecution is predicated. 3. I am also a blogger and journalist. I blog at my personal blog and have been

a contributing reporter for LAist.com. 4. As a web television producer and on-air reporter, I created a television show

on technology law called “TechZulu Law.” I am a recurring guest on another web television show, “This Week in Law,” for which I am constantly gathering news regarding technology law between episodes. 5. I am a recurring guest lecturer at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism in the graduate level classes for online journalism. 6. 7. I am a member of the Los Angeles Press Club. I have never had any communications with Sarah Bird. I have never blogged

or reported on the California Action, or this action, with the exception of one Tweet, which is not in my possession or control. 8. On November 8, 2012, this Court granted my motion to dismiss the Verified

First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6 and terminated me as a defendant in this action. [Doc.146] 9. On November 26, 2012, I voluntarily agreed to accept service by certified

mail of the Notice Of Intent To Serve Subpoena And Notice Of Deposition attached as

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-15-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 16 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Exhibit “A.” (Although Ms. Lopez works at my work address, she is not authorized to accept service for me. The Deposition Subpoena includes requests for production of categories of documents. They are: 1.) Produce copies of all non-privileged documents, including but not limited to correspondence, in YOUR position which relate to the Asia Litigation excluding pleadings actually filed with the court, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and documents and correspondence actually provided to or received from Xcentric’s local counsel during the course of the Asia Litigation. Produce copies of all non-privileged documents, including but not limited to correspondence, in YOUR possession which relate to: a. Xcentric Ventures, LLC b. Edward Magedson c. The website www.ripoffreport.com d. The webpage located at: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-anatomy-of-aripoff-report-lawsuit 3.) Produce copies of any correspondence you have sent to or received from any of the following people/entities from January 1, 2008 to the present which relate to Xcentric, Edward Magedson, the Ripoff Report website, or the Asia Litigation: a. Daniel Blackert b. Sarah Bird, Esq. c. SEOmoz d. John F. Brewington e. Shawn Richeson f. Darren Chaker g. James Rogers

2.)

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-16-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 17 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

h. Kenton Hutcherson i. Christopher Ingle j. Tina Norris k. Jan Martin Smith l. Fadi Karnaby m. Joe Reed n. Melissa A. Herman o. David Russo p. Eric Goldman q. Michael Roberts r. Scott Karosa s. Richard Goddeau 4.) Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to commence the Asia Litigation. 5.) Produce copies of any documents which YOU allege are evidence that RAYMOND MOBREZ, ILIANA LLANERAS, and/or ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC had probable cause to continue the Asia Litigation. 10. I consulted with Xcentric’s counsel, David Gingras, in telephone conversations on November 26, 2012 and November 27, 2012 and in emails dated November 6, 2012 and November 27, 2012, regarding Xcentric’s. Copies of my email correspondence to Mr. Gingras are attached as Exhibit “2.” 11. Mr. Gingras told me that Xcentric intended to seek reconsideration and/or appeal from this Court’s November 8, 2012 Order dismissing me from the action, and that he thought this Court’s order was “wrong.” 12. Mr. Gingras told me that the relevant topics of deposition testimony he seeks from me are (1) whether Mr. Mobrez or Ms. Llaneras had probable cause to

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-17-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 18 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

continue the California Action; (2) my “thinking” on each and every allegation in the First Amended Complaint in the California Action; and (3) my communications with Jan Smith, who had provided a declaration in the California Action. 13. Categories 1 through 3 of the document requests attached to the Notice Of

Intent To Serve Subpoena And Notice Of Deposition are identical to Categories 1 through 3 of Xcentric’s First Set Of Requests For Production served on me November 6, 2012, which is attached as Exhibit “3.” 14. Joe Reed provided an expert witness declaration regarding the HTML

coding of the RipoffReport.com website in the California Action. Kenton Hutcherson provided a declaration in the California Action regarding Xcentric’s claim never to remove reports (and became the subject of a “Ripoff Report” written by Ed Magedson after doing so). Jan Smith provided a declaration in the California Action. Tina Norris provided a declaration in the California Action. 15. I am an attorney of 14 years experience specializing in copyright,

defamation and Internet litigation and counseling. I graduated from Columbia Law School in 1995 and was admitted to the California State Bar in 1998. My hourly rate of $325 an hour was held reasonable six years ago in 2006 in In re Marshall (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006) 14 Misc.3d 1201(A) [831 N.Y.S.2d 360]. My current commercial hourly rate for litigation is $495 an hour. 16. I spent over 7.5 hours meeting and conferring and researching, writing and

filing this motion. I have lost employment opportunities to oppose Xcentric’s Deposition Subpoena. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 29th day of November, 2012.

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-18-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 19 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
/s/ Lisa J. Borodkin Lisa J. Borodkin

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-19-

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-2 Filed 11/29/12 Page 20 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 29, 2012, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant: David S. Gingras, Esq. (David@GingrasLaw.com) Attorneys for Plaintiff Raymond Mobrez (Raymond@asiaecon.org) Pro se Iliana Llaneras (iliana@asiaecon.org) Pro Se /s/ Lisa J. Borodkin

QB\145800.00002\18242358.1

-20-

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful