Exhibit A

Willie E. Gary, Esquire William C. Campbell, Esquire Maria P. Sperando, Esquire G A R Y , W I L L I A M S , PARENTI, FINNEY, L E W I S , WATSON & SPERANDO 221 E . Osceola Street Stuart, PL 34994 Tel: (772)283-8260 Fax: (772)221-2177 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rowe Entertainment, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F NEW Y O R K

ROWE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al.. Plaintiffs, vs.

NO. 98-CV-8272 (RPP)

THE Wn T JAM MORRIS AGENCY. INC. E T AL., Defendants

EXfflBITS TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM O F L A W IN OPPOSITION TO BOOKING A G E N C Y DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY .JUDGMENT

VOLUME II

lS-02

1 4 . 4 5 FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

ID.

PAGE

2/18

Spade DGOLDFARB colored DGROVER monkey DGROVER spade DGROVER spook DGROVER DRABIEH nrrankey colorecl DTENZER monkey DTENZER negro DTENZER nigger DTENZER spade DTtNZER colored DWATTS monkey DWATTS negro DWATTS nigger DWATTS spade DWATTS spook DWATTS colored EGERSON monkey EGERSON negro EGERSON nigger EGERSON spook EGERSON uncle torn EGERSON colored Eli=VY spade ELEW colored FSALINAS monkey FSALINAS spade FSALINAS FWHITEHEAD colored n-K3nkey FWHITEHEAD spade FWHITEHEAD colored GGURROLA monkey GGURROLA riegro GGURROLA nigger GGURROLA colored GMEREOITH monkey GMEREDITH negro GMEREDtTH spook GMEREOrm colored GPULiS spade. GPULIS colored GROTH monkey GROTH spade GROTH colored GWATERS monkey GWATERS HELPDESKTEMP colored HELPDESKTEMP monkey HELPDESKTEMP spade colored IPJNCUS monkey IPINCUS negro IPlNCUS

3 2 2 2 2 2 14 28 1 1 27 55 35 2 1 26 3 14 7 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 7 2 3 6 22 3 7 1 2 3 19 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 4 A 3 3 6 25 5

jjCT-15-02

14=4B

F R O M . S N R . NEW

YORK

ID"

^^^^

'^^

IPINCUS IPINCUS IPINCUS JADLER JADLER JADLER JADLER JARGIRIOU JARGIRIOU JBARBERO JBARBERO JCAMPISI JCAMPISI JCAMPISI JCARTY JCOHEN JCOHEN JCOHEN JCOHEN JGERSON JGERSON JGERSON JGERSON JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JGRIFFONE JJAC08S JJACOBS JJACOBS JLYWEN JLYWEN JMAGID JMAGIO JMAGID JMAGID JMAGID JPEPITO JPUGER JPLAGER JPLAGER JRINGQUIST JSHUE JSHUE JSHUE KHARTLEY KHARTLEY KHARTLEY

nigger spade spook colored monkey nlgga spade colored spade colored monkey colored monkey spade spade colored monkey nigger spade cotored monkey spade uncle torn cotored monkey negro nigga nigger spade spook uncle torn colored monkey spade colored monkey colored monkey negro nigger spook monkey colored monkey spade spade colored monkey spade colored monkey spade

3 11 1 1 6 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 13 2 14 3 1 2 1 52 54 16 2 18 11 9 2 1 20 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 1 11 12 3 2 2 9 11 4 1

S-02

1 4 . 4 B FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KHUVANE KSACCHI KSACCHI KSEARS KSEARS KSEARS KWHITE KWHITE KWHITE KWHITE KWHITE KWRIGHT LGABLER LGABLER LGABLER LGABLER LGABLER LGABLER LHOROWITZ LHOROWITZ LHOROWITZ LHOROWITZ LKOPEiKlN LLOPEZ LWHfTE MAK MAK MASTER MASTER MBERLINER MBERUNER MBERLINER MCAMACHO MCAMACHO MCAMACHO MEDIALAB MEDIALA8 MEDIALAB MHOIST MHOIST MHOIST MHOIST MHOIST MHOIST MKETTHLEY

colored coon monkey negro nigger spade spook uncle torn colored spook colored negro spade colored monkey negro nigger spade colored cotored monkey negro spade spook uncle torn colored monkey negro spook monkey monkey colored colored monkey monkey negro colored monkey nigger colored monkey spade colored monkey spade colored coon monkey negro spade spook colored

24 1 53 6 2 26 1 1 6 4 1 2 1 14 29 3 11 20 1 8 44 1 1 1 2 3 6 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 11 15 13 2 10 2 12 4 4 2

--

-15-02

1 4 . 4 6 FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

MKEITHLEY MKEITHLEY MKYDD MICTDD MKYDD MMCLAUGHLIN MO'SULLIVAN MO'SULLIVAN MO'SULLIVAN MO'SULUVAN MO'SULLIVAN MPIRANL^N MPIRANIAN MPIRANIAN MPIRANIAN MRIZZO MRIZZO MROSE MROSE MROSE MROSENFELD MROSENFELD MRUBEL MRUBEL MSEMAN MSEMAN MSEMAN MSEYMOUR MSEYMOUR MSEYMOUR MSPANO MWIMER MNWIMER NJONES NJONES NJONES NJONES NJONES NKISS NKiSS NKISS PDILLON PDILLON PETE PIKE PIKE PIKE PIKE PIKE PPALAZZO PPAIAZZO PPALA770

coon nnonkey colored monkey negro monkey colored monkey negro nigger spook colored monkey nigga spook colored spade cotored monkey spook colored monkey colored monkey colored nnonkey nigga colored monkey spade monkey monkey spade co/ored coon monkey negro spade colored monkey negro monkey negro monkey colored coon monkey negro nigger cotored coon monkey

1 8 3 1 1 4 4 16 3 1 9 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 8 1 7 5 1 7 1 35 7 78 6 9 3 4 2 3 5 3 7 4 1 3 i 5

,D, _1B-B2 1 4 . 4 B FROM.SNR.NEW YORK

PAGE

E/ie

PPALAZZO PPALAZZO PPALAZZO PPALAZZO PTORRE RUGHT RPRINZ RPRINZ RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RROSKIN RSCHWEBER RSCHWEBER SADAMS SALEXANDER SALEXANDER SALEXANDER SAPR SAPR SCLIMAN SCUMAN SCLIMAN SCLIMAN SCLIMAN SLAFFERTY SLAFFERTY SUKFFERTY SLAFFERTY SLAFFERTY SLERNER SLERNER SPh i bRSON SPETERSON SPETERSON SPETERSON SPblEHSON SPETERSON SROSENFELD SROSENFFI n SROSENFELD SSELF SSELF SSELF SSELF SSELF SSELF SSELF

negro nigga nigger spade colored colored monkey negro colored coon monkey negro nigga nigger spade spook cotored monkey monkey cotored monkey spade cotored monkey colored coon monkey spade spook colored coon nrwnkey spade spook colored spade cotored monkey negro nigger spook uncle torn colored nxjnkey spade colored monkey negro nigga nigger spade spook

1 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 35 2 41 4 2 4 3 3 1 4 1 4 16 14 4 4 5 3 5 1 1 2 2 1 16 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 17 15 10 1 2 13 2

-lS-02

1 4 . 4 7 FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

ID.

Pf^^^

SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMILEY SSMOOKE SSMOOKE SVISWANATHAN SVISWANATHAN SWEISS SWEISS SWEISS SWEISS SWEISS SWEiSS SWILLCOX SWILLCOX SWILLCOX SWILLCOX SWILLCOX SWILLCOX TDICKERSON TDICKERSON TDORSEY ibrz ItlZ TbI'Z TKAPINOS TMII1 FR TMILLER TMII 1 FR TMURRAY TMURRAY TMURRAY TMURRAY TROSS TROSS TROSS TSTANLEY TSTANLEY

colored monkey negro nigga nigger spade spook colored spade colored nnonkey colored monkey negro nigger spade spook colored monkey negro nigga nigger spade monkey spade colored colored spade uncle torn spook colored monkey spade cotored monkey negro spade colored monkey negro spade uncle torn

30 68 21 1 6 16 2 1 3 7 15 2 9 2 4 1 1 17 79 6 4 2 11 1 2 1 6 4 5 1 1 6 9 2 8 1 14 3 4 1 2 1

lS-02

1 4 . 4 7 FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

Racial slur search terms JGRIFFONE NJONES SSMILEY DWATTS KHUVANE SWILLCOX AHARTLEY RROSKIN BJOEL BVINOKOUR CSIMONIAN DTENZER KWHITE BLONCAR BSIBFRELL LGABLER SSELF DCHUN IPINCUS CPARRJSH BPIKE CKIVOWITZ SALEXANDER ARAUTBORT FWHIIEHEAD JCOHEN MEDIALAB CDUBNER MHOIST EGERSON ADEVEJIAN MO'SULLIVAN TMURRAY ADMINISTRATOR GMERFDITH JPLAGER MCAMACHO SLAt-FERTY SVISWANATHAN JJACOBS JSHUE BGRAHAM SWEISS NKISS PIKE ASKYLER TMILLER TETZ SCLIMAN 128 128 127 121 110 . 108 94 92 84 84 80 71 66 61 58 57 53 45 44 43 39 37 34 33 31 30 30 29 28 27 25 25 25 24 24 24 23 22 22 22 22 20 18 17 17 17 16 15 15

lS-02

1 4 . 4 7 F R O M . S N R . NEW Y O R K

MKEITHLEY LHOROWITZ JMAQID GGURROLA MSEYMOUR SPETERSON DGOLDFARB FSALINAS JADLER HELPDESKTEMP KSACCHI BWAGNbR ABERKOWITZ SROSENFFI n KHARTLEY DGROVER SAPR TROSS MSPANO MRIZZO ANELSON JGERSON GROTH GWATERS BGREENBAUM MWIMER PPALAZZO PDiaON MKYDD RSCHWEBER JARGIRIOU JBARBERO JCAMPISI GPUUS KSEARS ARYAN CHOLLANDER CKINZEL RPRINZ SSMOOKE MMCLAUGHUN MPIRANIAN MAK MSEMAN MROSENFFi P MRUBEL PtIE PTORRE MBERLINER SLERNER TDICKERSON

14 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

-15-B2

1 4 . 4 S FROMrSNR.NEW

YORK

ID.

PAGE

10/18

TSTANLEY CDALSTON ELENA' JRINGQUIST JLYWEN DRABIEH AMCQREGOR MASTER LKOPEIKIN MROSE RLIGHT LLOPEZ LWHIIE TDORSEY TKAPINOS SADAMS ASTAR DCARTE jPEPrro KWRIGHT JCARTY All other search terms CPARRISH DTENZER DWAI IS SSMILEY JGRIFFONE NJONES KHUVANE AHARTLEY BVINOKOUR GMEREDITH SWILLCOX DCHUN MEDIALAB RROSKIN EGERSON BJOEL KWHITE MCAMACHO IPINCUS SVISWANATHAN SSELF GPUUS BLONCAR LGABI FR CSIMONIAN MKEITHLEY DGOLDFARB DGROVER

3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4552 4103 3761 2882 2245 2169 2120 2050 1987 1907 1570 1491 1466 1450 1416 1398 1357 1352 1203 1115 1113 1088 1070 1051 995 958 902 885

X-15-02

1 4 . 4 B FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

ID.

PAGE

11/18

BWAGNER MAK ADEVEJIAN SALEXANDER LHOROWITZ TMURRAY ABERKOWTTZ ARAUTBORT CKIVOWTTZ SCLIMAN SSMOOKE JCOHEN FWHIIEHEAD BSIBERELL IhIZ JJACOBS MHOIST BPIKE SROSENFFI n CDUBNB^ PIKE GGURROLA ADMINISTRATOR MRIZZO ASKYLER JSHUE ARYAN NKISS MSEYMOUR JPLAGER BGRAHAM Sl^FERTY KHARTLEY JADUER PDILLON HELPDESKTEMP JGERSON SPETERSON JRINGQUIST MRUBEL MWIMER FSALINAS TMII 1 FR RPRINZ JARGIRIOU JMAGID TDICKERSON CHOLLANDER RLIGHT CKINZEL TROSS

?36 833 764 762 734 707 693 670 637 631 627 612 601 588 572 534 531 526 524 500 488 486 465 439 427 393 391 368 367 358 357 357 352 342 321 289 285 2/9 274 260 243 241 233 229 217 218 212 210 209 195 187

lS-02

14=48

FROM.3NR.NEW

YORK

ID

PAGE

12/18

PTORRE GROTH JLYWEN MKYDD MO'SULLIVAN PPALAZZO RSCHWEBER SWEI.l? DEATON MBERLINER GWATERS CDALSTON KSACCHI KSEARS ELEVY ANELSON MROSE MSPANO JBARBERO JCAMPISI SADAMS AMCGREGOR SAPR MASTER TSTANLEY MSEMAN SLERNER DCARTE JCARTY LLOPEZ DGENIKY CTARR TDORSEY MPIRANIAN MROSENFELD BGREENBAUM LKOPEIKIN ANEWMAN MMCUUGHUN LRUNKEL JWALDRON SCOVERAGETEMP ASTAR TREADER TKAPINOS Phit KWRIGHT DRABIEH MPARKS JTAYLOR MJOHNSON

183 178 161 159 155 148 120 120 115 113 112 109 106 108 105 100 92 91 90 86 85 81 78 73 67 83 59 58 58 56 53 51 48 47 47 46 45 41 40 40 34 34 32 32 26 26 23 23 22 21 19

-lS-02

1 4 . 4 a FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

GZJMMERMAN MMUNDO NORM JPEPITO PERSONNELDB SBERGER JFOR5EY RNORMAN KSTYKA ECULLEY-LACHAPELLE LOADINGDOCK LWHITE FAXROOM

18 15 15 13 12 9 8 6 3 3 2 2 1

-15-02

14=43

FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

ID .

PAGE

14Xie

UserName ABLASST ABLASST ABLASST ABLASST AGASMER AGASMER AHSASST AHSASST AHSASST AHSASST AHSASST AMGASST AMGASST AMGASST AMSASST AMSASST AMSASST ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE ARCHIVE BARASST BARASST BARASST BGDASST BGDASST BHBUSAl-l-1 hMP BHBUSAFFTEMP BHHRASST BHHRASST BHTVCOORD BHTVCOORD BHTVCOORD BHTVCOORD 6MPC0ASST BMPCOASST BMPCOASST BMPCOASST BSOKOL BSOKOL BSOKOL BSOKOL BSOKOL BWARDELL BWARDELL BWARDELL CBERMAN C8ERMAN

SearchTerm colored monkey negro spade monkey spook colored monkey negro spade uncle torn monkey negro spade colored monkey spade colored coon monkey negro nigga spade spook colored monkey spade nxjnkey spade colored spade colored monkey colored monkey negro spade colored monkey spade uncle torn colored monkey negro nigger spade colored monkey spade colored spade

CountOfHits 7 50 1 \7 1 18 12 1 7 1 2 1 2 5 21 7 26 12 74 9 1 28 5 10 3 2 6 4 1 4 4 1 2 66 1 26 2 27 22 1 26 20 31 1 1 4 . 1 1 1 24

,g-82

1 4 . 4 S FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

ID=

^'^^^

'S''^^

CEASST CEASST CEASST CJW LSHASST CJW_LSHASS 1 CJW LSHASST CNASST CNASST CNASST CSHEA CSHEA CSHEA CSHEA CSHEA CWNASST CWNASST CWNASST DASASST2 DASASST2 0ASASSI2 DASASST2 DASASST2 DGEORGIOUS DGEORGIOUS DGEORGIOUS DGEORGIOUS DKEKST DKEKST DKEKST DKEKST DKEKST DSIKONE2 DSIkONE2 DSTRONE2 DSTRONE2 0SIKONE2 DSTR0NE2 DWRIGHT DWRIGHT EBROWN EBROWN EBROWN EBROWN EHOBSON EHOBSON FWASST FWASST FWASST FWASST FWASST GAILASST GAJLASST

colored monKey unde torn colored monkey spade monkey spade uncle torn colored coon monkey negro spade colored monkey spade colored coon monkey negro spade colored monkey nigger spade colored monkey nigger spade spook colored coon monkey negro spade spook colored monkey colored monkey negro nigga colored negro colored monkey negro spade uncle tom colored spook

1 7 2 2 2$ 11 2 3 1 12 1 4 2 1 7 4 5 3 3 8 4 1 2 15 1 9 4 5 1 3 2 5 5 9 6 11 1 8 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 3 26 4 7 1 .3 2

-15-02

1 4 . 4 3 FROM.SNR,NEW

YORK

I D.

PAGE

IGX 1 8

GEPASST GEPASST GEPASST GLIPASST GLIPASST GLIPASST GLIPSTONE (5IIPST0NE GPEARL GPEARL GPEARL GPEARL GPEARL HOLASST HOLASST HOLASST HOLASST JANDO JBLOOM JBLOOM JBLOOM JDLASST JDLASS'I JDLASST JDLASST JDRASST JDRASST JDRASST JDRASST JECASST JECASST JFASST JFASST JFASST JFERRITER JFERRITER JFERRI1 hR JKIASST JK3ASST JKLASST JKIASST JKOLODNY JKOLODNY JLEIGHTON JLEIGHTON JLEIGHTON JLEIGHTON JLHASST JLHASST JLHASST JPiNOS JPINOS

nnonkey spade uncie torn colored nronkey spade monkey spede colonsd monkey negnD spade uncle tom colored monkey negro spade cotored cotored monkey spade colored monkey spade spook colored nwnkey negro spade monkey spade cotored monkey spade colored monkey spade colored monkey spade uncle tom monkey spade colored rronkey negro spade colored monkey spade nrwnkey negro

7 2 1 1 17 13 7 2 1 27 1 10 2 1 25 2 3 1 1 72 57 8 2 6 1 1 8 1 1 17 7 3 10 3 2 15 8 1 12 26 1 25 3 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 1 9

-}S-02

1 4 . S O FROM.SNR.NEW

YORK

I D.

MPA(5E
MSASST MSASST MSASST MSCASST MSCASST NDASST NDASST NDASST NMIASST NMIASST NNASST NNISENHOLTZ NNISENHOLTZ NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST NOVASST

monkey monkey negro spade monkey spade colored monkey spade colored monkey spade monkey spade cotored monkey negro nigga nigger spade spook uncle torn

1 32 1 5 13 7 2 17 Z 2 3 2 4 2 32 35 6 5 8 i 1 8

Exhibit B

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CASE 13 160 01426 12

Marcus Washington, pro se Claimant

V.

William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC, formerly l<nown as the William Morris Agency, et. al.. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION REGARDING ALL MOTIONS SUBMITTED AND PENDING DECISION

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In my thirty years as an Arbitrator of Labor and Employment Disputes, this case presents the most extensive pre-hearing motion practice that I have encountered. I have carefully read the parties' papers and the available relevant authorities cited therein. In the interests of efficiency, economy, thoroughness, due process, and fundamental fairness, and given an unresolved evidentiary

matter of possibly critical significance, I will not reiterate the parties' arguments in their entirety at this time.

Claimant asserts that Respondents unlawfully discriminated against him in his employment because he is African-American. He was hired by Respondents as an Agent Trainee in mid-August, 2008, began work on September 2, 2008, received a buy-out, having ceased work in April 2010 but remaining on payroll until mid-August 2010. At the inception of employment, and subsequently on July 1, 2009, following the William Morris Agency and Endeavor combining their businesses. Claimant signed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, agreeing to arbitrate, inter alia, claims of unlawful race discrimination. Nevertheless, in early 2011, he endeavored to avoid arbitration, sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and unsuccessfully brought appeal to the Second Circuit. He has yet to meet with any success whatsoever in the federal courts. The federal courts have unequivocally denied Claimant their federal fora.

Respondents moved to compel arbitration in early February 2011. By m i d June, 2012, via the Non-Jurisdiction letter from the Clerk of the Court, Claimant
2

appears to have acquiesced procedurally to the propriety of this AAA arbitration congruent with the two agreements to arbitrate Claimant explicitly executed during his employment with Respondent.

Thus, this matter came to this AAA arbitration, and Respondents counterclaimed for dismissal with prejudice, damages, and attorneys' fees on July 30, 2012. Claimant seeks relief including, but not limited to, money damages of One Hundred Twenty Five Million Dollars ($125,000,000). Respondents unequivocally disagree, deny this and all other claims brought by Claimant. And counterclaim.

I accepted the AAA administrative appointment in late July, 2012 to serve as the Arbitrator in this matter, Shortly thereafter, in an August 24, 2012 conference call, the parties indicated that they were amenable to me deciding this matter solely on Motions and without the need for an on-site hearing. The parties seek summary judgment, dismissal of the opposition's claims in their entirety, significant money damages and additional remedies and attorneys' fees and costs.
3

The parties agreed to a briefing schedule, as alluded to in Procedural Orders One through Four. Some respective representative Motion papers included:

Claimant's Reply to Demand for Arbitration, Opposition to Dismiss Respondents' Affirmative Defenses and Counter-Claims, and Request for Full Summary Judgment and Imposition of Sanctions Against Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris for Answer Made In Bad Faith, 55 pages (not including exhibits) dated August 15, 2012;

Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Its Cross Motion to Dismiss, 37 pages (not including hundreds of pages of exhibits) dated November 6, 2012;

Respondents' Motion for Protective Order, 11 pages not including exhibits, dated December 17, 2012;

Claimant's 97 page omnibus Motion, not including Exhibits, dated January 31 2012 (sic) 2013.

On March 30, 2013, I completed receipt from AAA of the Respondents' hard copy Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Respondents' CrossMotion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Claimant's Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings.

INTERIM DECISION, ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION, AND ORDERS

For the reasons set forth below, I am granting in part Claimant's request for a temporary stay, subject to several conditions I am imposing as set forth below. I am persuaded that a particular document is critically important and should be produced and truthfully explained by both parties to the extent that they are realistically able to do so.

Claimant asserts that there were hundreds of despicable, scurrilous uses of the odious "N-word" by decisionmaker agents of Defendants. In a separate
5

proceeding brought by a IVlr. Leonard Rowe, IVlr. Rowe has thus far unsuccessfully urged the federal judiciary to reopen his case in light of subsequently discovered documentary and electronic evidence. The roughly twenty pages referred to as Exhibit 31, the Rowe exhibit, and/or as Exhibit A, and, which I will refer to as Exhibit A hereinafter for consistency's sake, appear be a long list of named

persons correlated to the number of times the named person had any involvement as either a target or communicator of such vile language.

In his papers. Claimant cites some of the influential legal scholarship of Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy (see Claimant's January 31, 2013 Motion, page 88, footnotes 243-246, ultimately culminating in Professor

Kennedy's definitive book "Nigger; The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word" (Pantheon, 2002).

Facially innocuous words can, depending on context, deeply wound, stigmatize, and ostracize. Hence, the infamous case of the "black jelly beans" perverse code of senior officials of Texaco more than a decade ago, when referring to certain Black employees, spurring a class settlement of One Hundred Seventy Six Million Dollars ($176,000,000).

The "N word" per se nevertheless persists. Isaiah Thomas, a college all-star at Indiana University and a professional all-star and multiple world champion with the Detroit Pistons candidly admitted while an executive with the New York Knicks, there is a double standard vis a vis authentic Black usage of the N-word and the awkward misappropriated usage of the N-word by members of any other race. In current contemporary media entertainment, perhaps the most flagrant double standard usage is within the Californication Showtime television program. Hank Moody, a talented but dissolute writer afflicted with substance dependency, indiscriminate promiscuity, and sex addiction, makes the acquaintance of the paradigmatic Black Old Gangster. They develop an unconventional respect for one another, and the OG confers on the white Moody the privilege of using the "N word" in their discourse as a term of solidarity, fraternity, and camaraderie. This is not the present case. Nor is this a treatise on rap, hip-hop, and related artistic genres constructively critiqued via the fine arts of Spike Lee (See, for example, "Bamboozled," 2000, a film accentuating the inexorability of stereotype, with the emphasis on the targets of racism hyper-exaggerating stereotypes in order to counter and freeze the metastasized racism as tepid; or, the scholarship of Dr. Henry Louis (Skip) Gatessee, for example, "The Signifying Monkey: A
7

Theory of African Literary Criticism" (1988 First Edition and post) . In any event, commendable actions institutionally are not necessarily defenses against unlawful actions within the same organization, reflecting some degree of tension between the bottom line defenses of Connecticut v. Teal and various interactions with "same actor" principles.

I grant in part Claimant's Motions, and I deny in part Respondents' Motions, before me as follows:

The parties' requests to dismiss all claims brought by the opposition are premature and are denied at this time. I am amenable to resubmission of such requests at a future appropriate time to be determined.

Respondents' Motion for a protective order is denied at this time. Some lawyers prefer to present their claims in the media. Clarence Darrow, Gerry Spence, Gloria Allred, and some Prosecutors are among the relatively very few who have done so with some success. For the most part, however, this is a losing proposition. It is fraught with hazards. Those party representatives, whther

lawyers or pro se are exquisitely vulnerable to defamation, libel, slander and other communications and conduct not protected by the Constitution.

Respondents fully retain their right to pursue tort remedies against Claimant if they believe they have been defamed/libeled/slandered by Claimant. I am certainly amenable to revisiting, at a subsequent appropriate time, Respondents' request for a protective order. Were it not for the following unresolved

evidentiary issue, I would have granted the requested protective order in part, if not in whole.

I am fully aware of the gravity of Respondents' counterclaims. On the face of the parties' papers. Claimant has situated himself in a paradoxical predicament. He asserts that he is using the legal process as an instrument for social justice. The modern civil rights movement is replete with noble examples of courageous leaders who sought, and ultimately achieved, social change through legal process. See, for example, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his eloquent "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." Likewise, see the magnificent work of Thurgood Marshall and his mentor at the Howard Law School, Vice Dean Charles Hamilton Houston.

While each of these gentlemen pursued aggressive multifaceted initiatives, I am not aware of a single instance wherein they deliberately engaged in libel per se.

Claimant most recently represents his dire personal circumstances, living out suitcases and contemplating the looming spectre of possible homelessness. Assuming arguendo that Claimant were to prevail ultimately with a monetary remedy in part, it could be substantially, if not entirely, vitiated if Respondents were to prevail on their correlative counterclaims.

In employment law, evidence

may be produced sometimes through

unconventional means, such as appeals to the community at large imploring anyone with possibly pertinent information to come forward. The Black Letter of the promises of the parties regarding confidentiality expressly apply only to the publicizing of the arbitration decision; it does not expressly impose a blackout from the inception regarding the parties informing external constituencies of their concerns and possible initiatives regarding rectifying same.

In this case before me at this Arbitration, I need to know more about Exhibit A. Both parties know that Exhibit A exists. Their assessments of Exhibit A

10

dramatically vary. I want to know what Exhibit A is, and who authored it. Is it genuine? Is it relevant? I want to know the context.

Given the nature of the Defendants' business, some significant percentage of the enterprise may be artistically coherent and even compelling, while remaining raw and explicit. See, for example, the pioneering work of Easy E, NWA, (Niggaz with Attitude), and Public Enemy. Flagrant use of objectionable language, such as, for example, graphic chauvinist misogyny can be transmogrified into an omnibus rallying cry for political, social, cultural, and economic tectonic change. See, for example, the proto-punk band from Detroit in the late sixties, the MC 5, and their signature scream to "Kick out the Jams, Motherfuckers," adopted four decades later by, inter alia. Rage Against the Machine. Therefore, to the extent possible, I want to know the particular context in which each of the objectionable term(s) was uttered.

11

I am staying further decisions on the remainder of the still-pending claims at this Arbitration's summary judgment phase at this time. I do so to spur further responsive discovery, in the hope that these measures may facilitate the ascertainment of sufficient contextual clarity regarding Exhibit A. Except for those elements specifically addressed in this interim Decision, I am reserving judgment at this time on all other elements of the parties' Motions before me.

I order the parties to meet and confer and, if possible, to enter into joint stipulations regarding Exhibit A. If the parties are unable to come to some stipulation(s) regarding Exhibit A, I order each party to submit to me a written memo regarding their particular understanding of Exhibit A.

I would prefer the production of the original documents constituting Exhibit A. But, in any event:

At a minimum, I ask that the parties endeavor to provide the full name, title, and dates of employment for each and every person named in whole or in part in Exhibit A. I ask the parties to further identify all named persons within

Exhibit A who are presently employed by Respondents. I ask the parties to identify any such persons named in whole or in part in Exhibit A who was involved
12

in the recruitment, hiring, orientation, training, supervision, discipline, severance, and/or cessation of the employment of Respondent.

I assume that Respondents are the custodians of the email and other communication archival records. This obviously does not preclude Claimant from joint responsibility for compliance with this order to the extent that Claimant also may have pertinent relevant information to helpfully elucidate further the particulars of Exhibit A.

Concurrent with the production of the above, I order Claimant to provide a memo as to how, going forward, he will effectuate his repeated express promise in writing "to keep the award confidential and ... execute all documents necessary to maintain such confidentiality."

If the above memos are not forthcoming, I will be amenable to drawing adverse inferences. I emphasize the axiom that a party seeking equity must first do equity and come to this arbitration with clean hands.

13

I do not believe that the decisions of the federal courts in the Southern District of New York or in the Second Circuit in re this case necessarily have any res judicata or collateral estoppel influence.

Claimant may stand in political solidarity with Mr. Leonard Rowe (see page 14, footnote 14, of Claimant's January 3 1 , 2013 Motion) but Claimant is not

foreclosed by judicial decisions regarding Mr. Rowe's past proceedings. This Arbitration is not a class action. I do not find Judge Patterson's decision regarding Exhibit A in the Rowe matter to have res judiata or collateral estoppel or other preclusive influence on the status of Exhibit A in this arbitration. Putting aside the supercharged rhetoric often dominating some of the 36 paragraphs set forth through page 11 of Claimant's January 31, 2013 Motion, I find enough set forth therein to warrant a stay until June 3, 2013.

Although I do not order either party to submit a memo on these points, I would certainly be interested in the views of the parties on the (non)preclusive influence.

All documents ordered or requested by this interim Decision shall be submitted to AAA by Monday, June 3, 2013, and AAA shall upon receipt forward same to me.

14

Decision as to the antitrust claims is deferred in its entirety at this time,

So Ordered,

David L. Gregory

I, David L Gregory, affirm that, on this IS^*" Day of April, 2013, I have executed this document as my Interim Decision regarding Motions pending before me in this matter.

David L. Gregory

15

Exhibit C

Decision Proposal Flowchart for Arbitrator Gregory:

After compelling W i l l i a m M o r r i s , Loeb & Loeb L L P and Michael Z w e i g to produce hundreds o f fraudulently concealed e-mails i n Rowe containing derogator)' words such as "nigger," the

Arbitrator must detennine whether or not the two arbitration agreements 1 signed as a condition o f employment and/or its 'Delegation Provision' are procedurally & substantively unconscionable,

tainted w i t h illegality, malum in se and were procured through fraud, i n addition to determining whether arbitration is an appropriate forum for this case to achieve the public p o l i c y goals o f the C i v i l Rights A c t o f 1964 and additional human rights and antitrust laws pursuant to Judge Castel's July 19, 2011 order. [Claimant Rep. to Summary Judgment, 26-29.]

No, the arbitration agreement is conscionable and should be enforced. Forum is appropriate.

Yes, the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and should not be enforced. Forum is not appropriate.

If the agreement is upheld after weighing a pyramid of undisputed evidence demonstrating William Morris' I 15 year conspiracy to intentionally discriminate against African Americans, all of Claimant's claims should be dismissed because each claim is interrelated and there's no possible way your decision would be fundamentally fair, impartial, unhiaspH or ethical

Allow case to continue in the S.D.N.Y. Impose monetary sanctions against Respondents and counsel no less than $100 million. Request an expedited trial so a New York City jury can determine whether or not the Respondents violated civil rights and antitrust laws. Additionally request S.D.N.Y. impose disciplinary' sanctions against counsel for serious unethical and criminal conduct.

Given the harmfijl delay and irreparable damage caused by Respondents and counsel's ethical and criminal conduct, grant summary judgment in favor of Claimant on all claims. Impose monetary sanctions against Respondents and counsel no less than $100 million. Request that S.D.M.Y. have oversight in enforcing affirmative relief and request that disciplinary sanctions be imposed against counsel tor serious unethical and criminal conduct.

Seek to vacate the award in the S.D.N.Y. pursuant to statutory grounds articulated under l O o f F A A .

Exhibit D

"Primoff.Richard G." <RGP@RubinBaum.co m> 05/16/02 10:49 AM

To; "'Kanny, Matthew" <mkanny@manatt.com>, "Primoff.Richard G." <RGP@RubinBaum.com> Subject: RE:

M a t t : I t i s o u r i n t e n t i o n t h a t Andrew Rosen o f ASR Data and Chuck K e l l n e r o f EED would d i r e c t these p r o j e c t s . I w i l l w i t h h o l d comment on t h e a s s e r t i o n s made i n y o u r message u n t i l I r e c e i v e your " f i n a l " d e t e r m i n a t i o n . I ask t h a t you p r o v i d e i t t o me p r o m p t l y , however. O r i g i n a l Message From: Kanny, Matthew [mailto:mkannyOmanatt.com] S e n t : Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:43 AM To: P r i m o f f , R i c h a r d G. Cc: b e v e r l y . f r a n k @ w e i l . c o m ; hgavaris@loeb.com; smccallion@loeb.com S u b j e c t : RE: R i c h a r d , I have discussed t h i s m a t t e r w i t h Sandy and B e v e r l y , and t h e y have a u t h o r i z e d me t o respond t o you on t h e i r b e h a l f . F i r s t , you have f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y who a t ASR Data ("ASR") and E l e c t r o n i c Evidence D i s c o v e r y ("EED") w i l l be d e s i g n a t e d t o a s s i s t t h e p a r t i e s w i t h t h i s m a t t e r . Please p r o v i d e us w i t h those names (and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e CVs) as soon as p o s s i b l e . Second, we note t h a t ASR and EED were h i r e d by p l a i n t i f f s t o a s s i s t p l a i n t i f f s i n o p p o s i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' motions f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s . As advocates f o r p l a i n t i f f s , we have some concern t h a t ASR and EED may n o t be n e u t r a l o r s u f f i c i e n t l y cooperative w i t h defendants i n connection w i t h the r e t r i e v a l and c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e d a t a . I n a d d i t i o n , i t i s u n c l e a r t h a t ASR and EED c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e and scope o f work t o be p e r f o r m e d , e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h e i r statements s u b m i t t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o d e f e n d a n t s ' motions f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s . Having s a i d t h a t , we r e s e r v e a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h i s m a t t e r u n t i l we have r e c e i v e d a response from you t o this inquiry. Thank y o u . O r i g i n a l Message From: P r i m o f f , R i c h a r d G. [mailto:RGP@RubinBaum.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Kanny, Matthew; ' b e v e r l y . f r a n k @ w e i l . c o m ' ; 'smccallion@loeb.com' Subject: Dear Counsel: Please note t h a t i t i s o u r i n t e n t i o n t o d e s i g n a t e ASR Data, w i t h r e s p e c t t o Monterey, and E l e c t r o n i c Evidence D i s c o v e r y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o Monterey, W M A and CAA, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h r e c o v e r y o f d e f e n d a n t s ' e m a i l p u r s u a n t t o I I . S . M a g i s t r a t e Judge F r a n c i s ' d e c i s i o n . Please a d v i s e as soon as p o s s i b l e whether defendants have any o b j e c t i o n s t o these d e s i g n a t i o n s .

- InterScan Disclaimer.txt

"Primoff.Richard G." <rprlmoff(gsonnensch ein.com>

08/14/02 04:09 PM

To: "Sandra McCallion, Esq. (E-mail)" <smccallion(gloeb.com>, Andrea Berner/NY/WGM/US@WGM cc: Beverly Frank/NYAA/GM/US(gWGM, "Eulas Boyd, Esq." <eboyd@loeb.com>, "Greg Clarick, Esq." <gclarick@phs-law.com>, "Helen Gavaris, Esq." <hgavarls@loeb.com>, Jeffrey Kessler/NY/WGM/US(gWGM, Jeffrey Klein/NYAA/GM/US@WGM, "John Rosenberg, Esq." <jrosenbe@ebglaw.com>, "Matthew Kanny, Esq." <mkanny(gmanatt.com>, "Michael Zweig, Esq." <mzweig@loeb.com>, "Nicholas Austin, Esq." <naustin@bfca.com> Subject:

Dear Sandy and Andrea: The f o l l o w i n g i s our i n t e n d e d search p r o t o c o l w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e t r i e v a l o f your c l i e n t s ' e m a i l communications i n accordance w i t h the C o u r t ' s o r d e r . A search p r o t o c o l f o r Monterey w i l l be sent separately. We i n t e n d t o examine as an i n i t i a l m a t t e r t h e e m a i l accounts of t h e f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a t each o f W M A and CAA: CAA: Tom Ross, Rob L i g h t , M i c h a e l P i r a n i a n , R i c h a r d L o v e t t , Carole J e f f Frasco. WMA: Peter G r o s s l i g h t , Cara Lewis, R i c h a r d Rosenberg, J e f f Frasco, Schultz. Kinzel, Shelly

With r e s p e c t t o t h e p e r i o d s b e i n g examined, p l a i n t i f f s w i l l r e s t o r e and r e t r i e v e a l l e m a i l communications between and/or among these u s e r s . In a d d i t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s w i l l a p p l y a l i s t of search terms a g a i n s t these accounts, t o c o n s i s t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : blaclc promoter black promoter a s s o c i a t i o n BPA bids concert promoters compete market share competition A l l e m a i l s r e c e i v e d o r sent by the above t o b l a c k promoters ( u s i n g a l i s t names i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e r e c o r d ) . P r o t e s t s , c o m p l a i n t s , d e m o n s t r a t i o n , l a w s u i t , e t c , w/ b l a c k , Negro, African-American, etc. discrimination [ L i s t of r a c i a l s l u r s ] Relationship Club Network Fraternity race, r a c i a l exclusive, exclusively, exclusivity territory history Member Understand Expect Hurt Loss Blackmail Hold up Urban Antitrust

of

monopoly J u s t i c e [Department] CIC Concert I n d u s t r y Consortium Agent system I PA Independent Promoters A s s o c i a t i o n Independent Promoters O r g a n i z a t i o n Tom Ross ATA A s s o c i a t i o n o f T a l e n t Agents Janet Jackson Kenny G Toni B r a x t o n Randy P h i l l i p s P h i l Casey I CM I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r e a t i v e Management Notice Advance n o t i c e Mud I s l a n d Bob K e l l e y Mid-South Mayor w/x Memphis Herenton Susan Green Lionel Ritchie Commodores Eryka Badu N Sync Please n o t e t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f c o n d u c t i n g such an e l e c t r o n i c search a g a i n s t a database w i l l r e q u i r e a d j u s t m e n t of these search terms depending on t h e r e s u l t s o f such searches. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e terms w i l l be a d j u s t e d t o account f o r number, case, word stems and r o o t s , common m i s s p e l l i n g s , and t o i n c l u d e t h e e m a i l addresses, nicknames, o r o t h e r a l i a s e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s ' names. Thus, p l a i n t i f f s w i l l l i k e l y need t o r e f i n e t h e searches, e i t h e r t o broaden or l i m i t them, i n c l u d i n g adding a d d i t i o n a l terms. Since i t i s p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l ' s burden t o r e v i e w same, t h i s should n o t g i v e r i s e t o any ground f o r c o m p l a i n t . F u r t h e r m o r e , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t these searches y i e l d a l a r g e amount o f i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o sample backup tapes on a more i n t e n s i v e b a s i s t h a n t h e i n t e r v a l s c u r r e n t l y a n t i c i p a t e d . For t h i s among o t h e r reasons, i t i s i m p e r a t i v e t h a t defendants do n o t d e s t r o y or o t h e r w i s e a l t e r t h e backup tapes f r o m t h e p e r i o d s i n q u e s t i o n . - InterScan Disclaimer.txt

"Primoff.Richard G." <rprimoff@sonnensch ein com> 08/20/2002 12:58 PM

To: "'smccallion@loeb.com@SNR'" <IMCEANOTES-smccallion+40loeb+2Ecom+40SNR@rubinbaum. >, Beverly Frank/NYA^GM/US@WGM, Andrea Bemer/NY/WGM/US@WGM cc: Subject: RE:

We would c e r t a i n l y p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o d e f e n d a n t s o f changes o r a d d i t i o n s t o search t e r m s . I d i s a g r e e w i t h your p o i n t about t h e c o n n e c t i o n between t h e document r e q u e s t s and t h e search t e r m s , and I d o n ' t i n t e n d t o r e v i e w them f o r you i n advance o f our d i s c u s s i o n . I r e c a l l t h a t d e f e n d a n t s sought t o argue t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' e m a i l r e q u e s t was e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e from t h e document r e q u e s t s . That was t h e b a s i s f o r y o u r argument t h a t d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t waive o b j e c t i o n t o e m a i l d i s c o v e r y . So why s h o u l d p l a i n t i f f s ' e m a i l r e t r i e v a l be bounded by the document r e q u e s t s , even assuming y o u r o b s e r v a t i o n i s c o r r e c t ? I'm j u s t not b u y i n g your argument. The q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v e d by t h e e m a i l search i s r e l e v a n t , o r c o u l d l e a d t o a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . There i s , f u r t h e r m o r e , no i n h e r e n t c o n n e c t i o n between t h e l i s t o f b l a c k promoters t o be used i n t h e e m a i l s e a r c h , and those p r o v i d e d t o p l a i n t i f f s ' e x p e r t . I am c u r i o u s as t o why you t h i n k so. I n any e v e n t , t h a t i s something t o t a k e up w i t h t h e e x p e r t s , n o t something t h a t r e l a t e s t o t h e e m a i l s e a r c h . I s i t y o u r p o s i t i o n t h a t o u r search should be l i m i t e d t o those i d e n t i f i e d by our e x p e r t ? Yes, we should d i s c u s s w i t h CAA's counsel a t t h e same t i m e . I d o n ' t know when y e t , because I am a t t e m p t i n g t o f i r m up t h e Rowe d e p o s i t i o n , which l o o k s l i k e August 2 2 . How about tomorrow? I ' d l i k e t o know your p o s i t i o n (and CAA's) on t h e d e a d l i n e i s s u e a l s o .

> > > > > > >

>

O r i g i n a l Message From: smccallionloeb.comSNR Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:40 PM To: P r i m o f f . R i c h a r d G. Cc: andrea.berner@weil.com; b e v e r l y . f r a n k @ w e i l . c o m ; Subject: Re: Richard:

hgavaris@loeb.com

> > > > > > > > > >

Thank you f o r t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n of y o u r p o s i t i o n . I w i l l save any further comment u n t i l we meet and c o n f e r on t h e p r o p o s a l except as t o t h e f o l l o w i n g . F i r s t , Iwe need t o u n d e r s t a n d what you mean by " a d j u s t m e n t . " Does t h i s mean t h a t you w i l l tweak t h e search terms t h a t you've g i v e n us depending on t h e r e s u l t s ? Does i t mean t h a t you w i l l , w i t h o u t any n o t i c e t o u s , a p p l y e n t i r e l y new search terms? Please c l a r i f y p r e c i s e l y what i t i s t h a t you i n t e n d . N e i t h e r your i n i t i a l p r o p o s a l nor t h i s e m a i l i s

clear. I t was n o t my i n t e n t t o i m p l y t h a t c e r t a i n search terms were n o t used i n y o u r document r e q u e s t s . Rather, t h e search terms l i s t e d i n my l e t t e r w i l l not y i e l d any documents t h a t are r e s p o n s i v e t o any o f y o u r r e q u e s t s . The e - m a i l d i s c o v e r y i s s t i l l bound by t h e l i m i t s o f p l a i n t i f f s ' document requests. I f i t i s your p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e d terms would g a t h e r r e s p o n s i v e documents, p l e a s e l e t me know which document r e q u e s t s you b e l i e v e are i m p l i c a t e d . I t would be p r e f e r a b l e t o t e l l me b e f o r e we speak so t h a t I may r e v i e w them i n advance o f our d i s c u s s i o n . F i n a l l y , p l e a s e p r o v i d e us w i t h a l i s t o f t h e b l a c k promoters f o r whom you w i l l be s e a r c h i n g , which you w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y have t o p r o v i d e t o your expert. We can d i s c u s s the p r i v i l e g e i s s u e when we speak. Do you agree t h a t we s h o u l d i n c l u d e Andrea and/or B e v e r l y o r do you w i s h t o pursue y o u r d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h CAA on a s e p a r a t e t r a c k . Sandy

"Primoff.Richard G." To: "'smccallionOloeb.com'" < s m c c a l l i o n l o e b . c o m > <rprimoffOsonnens cc: chein.com> Subject: 08/20/02 12:24 PM

Sandy: T h i s i s i n response t o y o u r l e t t e r o f today r e g a r d i n g search methods w i t h r e s p e c t t o e m a i l .

plaintiffs'

I r e c a l l t h a t Judge F r a n c i s ' o r d e r p l a c e d t h e burden o f p r i v i l e g e r e v i e w on d e f e n d a n t s , which was t o be handled e i t h e r by an e l e c t i o n by defendants t o r e v i e w t h e e m a i l i n advance f o r p r i v i l e g e , o r by h a v i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' counsel r e v i e w t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i v e d by t h e search terms, h a v i n g p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l t h e n s e l e c t t h e d e s i r e d communications f o r p r i n t i n g , and h a v i n g d e f e n d a n t s r e v i e w t h a t s m a l l e r subset f o r p r i v i l e g e . As o f now, we have r e c e i v e d no word from you o r CAA's counsel as t o how you w i s h t o proceed on the p r i v i l e g e i s s u e , so I d o n ' t t h i n k i t i s v a l i d f o r you t o express concern about t h i s b e i n g m i s s i n g from our p r o p o s a l . I f you w i s h t o propose something, w e ' l l c o n s i d e r i t .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>

The b l a c k p r o m o t e r s I was r e f e r e n c i n g are those whose names have come up in d i s c o v e r y : i n t e r r o g a t o r y responses, documents, d e p o s i t i o n s , e t c . We w i l l p r o v i d e you w i t h a l i s t o f " r a c i a l s l u r s . " I h a r d l y t h i n k t h i s will c o n s t i t u t e a b a t t l e g r o u n d , I s i m p l y d o n ' t want t o c r e a t e such a l i s t sooner t h a n n e c e s s a r y o r more t h a n once. Mayor w/x Memphis was meant t o convey a boolean s e a r c h , i . e . , w i t h i n some p r o x i m i t y o f each o t h e r . t h e two words

I d o n ' t t h i n k f u t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s necessary on my p o i n t about t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r a d j u s t i n g the search. We a r e g o i n g t o have t o i n s i s t on t h e a b i l i t y t o l e a v e t h e search open-ended, and i t i s n o t reasonable t o i n s i s t t h a t p l a i n t i f f s t a k e one shot i n t o a d a t a b a s e . I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d y o u r l a s t p o i n t about search terms n o t h a v i n g been i n our document r e q u e s t s . Even i f t r u e , so what? I w i l l l e t you know when I am a v a i l a b l e . I must say t h a t I am d i s a p p o i n t e d by y o u r l e t t e r . The burden o f r e v i e w i s on p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l . I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d what b a s i s you b e l i e v e you have t o o b j e c t t o t h e search t e r m s . InterScan_Disclaimer.txt)

> (See a t t a c h e d f i l e : >

> >

>

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: T h i s e - m a i l t r a n s m i s s i o n , and any documents, files o r p r e v i o u s e - m a i l messages a t t a c h e d t o i t may c o n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l information that is legally privileged. I f you are n o t t h e i n t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , o r a person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e l i v e r i n g i t t o t h e i n t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , you a r e hereby n o t i f i e d t h a t any d i s c l o s u r e , c o p y i n g , d i s t r i b u t i o n o r use o f any o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n o r a t t a c h e d t o t h i s t r a n s m i s s i o n i s STRICTLY PROHIBITED. I f you have r e c e i v e d t h i s t r a n s m i s s i o n i n e r r o r , p l e a s e i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i f y t h e sender. Please d e s t r o y t h e o r i g i n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n and i t s a t t a c h m e n t s w i t h o u t r e a d i n g o r s a v i n g i n any manner. Thank y o u , Loeb & Loeb LLP. - InterScan D i s c l a i m e r . t x t << F i l e : I n t e r S c a n D i s c l a i m e r . t x t >>

- InterScan Disclaimer.txt

Andrea Berner n /nAnnno rf^ ar pm 09/04/2002 05:48 PM

To: rprimoff@sonnenschein.com eboyd@loeb.com, gclaricl<@phs-law.com, hgavaris@loeb.com, James.roberts@pipernjdniGl<.com, ml<anny@manatt.com, mzweig@loeb.com, smccallion@loeb.com, Beverly f rank/NY/WGM/US@WGM, Jeffrey Kessler/NY/WGM/US@WGM, Jeffrey Klein/NY/WGM/US@WGM, Pierre Armand/NYA/VGM/US@WGM Subject: Re:

Richard: I am in receipt of your response to our proposal and I believe vje should be able to agree upon a reasonable stipulation. (1) It appears you are willing to agree not to seek to delay the dispositive motion deadlines based on a need to continue or finish email discovery; (2) With respect to 56(f), as I have stated previously, CAA is not willing to jeopardize the timing of the summary judgment motions due to email discovery. We are willing to consent to your request for a 90 day extension as long as you agree not to use email discovery as a basis for a 56(f) motion. If you are not willing to stipulate to this, we can only consent to a 45 day extension. You have had CAA's tapes for over a month at this point and we see no reason why email discovery should interfere with the dispositive motion schedule. (3) As long as we have the right to review the results of all searches yielded by application of the agreed upon search terms prior to review by plaintiffs' counsel or plaintiffs, CAA will agree to produce any non-privileged or non-confidential emails we consider to be non-responsive for counsel-only review as long as it is stipulated that such emails cannot be used in the litigation without resolution of the dispute; (4) CAA is willing to incorporate into the stipulation a deadline by which we would need to provide plaintiffs' counsel with the reviewed emails but, in order to do this, we will need to incorporate in a deadline by which plaintiffs' experts will turn the emails over to us for review. Please provide us with your proposed schedule. CAA remains willing to review emails on an expedited basis so as not to interfere with any other deadlines. Providing them on a rolling basis would assist us in this process. "Primoff.Richard G." <rprimoff@sonnenschein.com> "Primoff.Richard G." <rprimoff@sonnensch eln.com> 09/04/2002 01:01 PM To: Andrea Berner/NYA/VGM/US@WGM, '"smccallion@loeb.com"' <smccaHion@loeb.com> cc: Andrea Bemer/NYMGM/US@WGM, Beverly Frank/NY/WGM/US@WGM, "Eulas Boyd. Esq." <eboyd@loeb.com>, "Greg Clarick, Esq." <gclarick@phs-law.com>. "Helen Gavaris, Esq." <hgavaris@loeb.com>, "James D. Roberts, Esq." <james.roberts@piperrudnick.com>, Jeffrey Kessler/NYMGM/US@WGM, Jeffrey Klein/NY/WGM/US@WGM. "Matthew Kanny, Esq." <mkanny@manatt.com>, "Michael Zweig. Esq." <mzweig@loeb.com>, "Nicholas Austin, Esq." <naustin@bfca.com>, "Sandra McCallion, Esq." <smccallion@loeb.com> Subject:

Andrea and Sandy: W i t h r e s p e c t t o y o u r p r o p o s a l r e g a r d i n g t h e e m a i l d i s c o v e r y i s s u e , y o u r r e f e r e n c e t o 5 6 ( f ) i s t o o ambiguous and b r o a d f o r me t o agree t o i t w i t h o u t f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n from y o u . I t h i n k we can agree, as I s a i d , n o t t o use t h e d a t e o f o u r r e c e i p t o f t h e e m a i l s as an excuse t o move t h e m o t i o n d e a d l i n e , b u t t h e r e are numerous r i g h t s t o a l l p a r t i e s under r u l e 5 6 ( f ) t h a t we do n o t agree t o waive, and which we s h o u l d n o t have t o waive, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s t i p u l a t i o n . What o t h e r i s s u e s d i d you have i n mind on t h i s ?

I am a l s o concerned about t h e i s s u e o f defense c o u n s e l ' s r e v i e w b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f s see t h e e m a i l s . F i r s t , i f we went w i t h t h a t p l a n , we would need some d e a d l i n e s on defense c o u n s e l ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e p l a i n t i f f s w i t h t h e r e v i e w e d m a t e r i a l . Second, I am n o t c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t has been made about an advance r e v i e w f o r r e s p o n s i v e n e s s . I a l s o need t o know whether Andrea's p r o p o s a l i s on b e h a l f o f WMA and CAA, and i f n o t , how WMA's p o s i t i o n d i f f e r s , i f a t a l l . I would p r e f e r t o have one s t i p u l a t i o n , and d o n ' t t h i n k we need t o do i t d i f f e r e n t l y . F i n a l l y , I must express my d i s a p p o i n t m e n t , i f n o t f r u s t r a t i o n , t h a t we have y e t t o r e c e i v e WMA's t a p e s . I u n d e r s t a n d , Sandy, t h a t i t i s y o u r p o s i t i o n t h a t WMA cannot r e l e a s e t h e tapes u n t i l a s t i p u l a t i o n i s c o m p l e t e d . What I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i s why, s i n c e even i f we do n o t agree and must u l t i m a t e l y l i t i g a t e t h e s e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , we w i l l s t i l l need t o have t h e tapes. I t h i n k WMA's p o s i t i o n on t h i s i s unreasonable and has a l r e a d y caused unnecessary d e l a y , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e I have s t i p u l a t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l would n o t see WMA's e m a i l s u n t i l t h e s e i s s u e s a r e resolved.

- lnterScan_Disclaimer.txt

< END>

L O E B S J - O E B i LLP
A LIMITED L I A B I L r r Y l ' M l T O E R S H I P WCLUDJIJC PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 3451'AKK. AVITNUE NEW y0KJ4. NY 10)54-00.17 T E L E P H O N E ; 2l2.'<07.aOOO F A C S I M I L E ; 212.407.4V9owww.locb.com

Direct Dial: 212-407-4936 c-mail: 5mccallion@)och.coni

September 4, 2002 VIA F A C S I M I L E Richard G. Primoff, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1089 Rc: Rowe Entertaimnent, Inc., et al. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., et al.; 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP) (JCF)

Dear Richard: I write on behalf of WMA concerning the production of WMA's tapes containing e-mail communications. To expedite WMA's production, we suggest that we proceed as follows: 1. Consistent with Magistrate Judge Francis' January 15, 2002 Order providing that "[djefendants' counsel may object to any search proposed by plaintiff," I have enclosed a hst, based upon the list you sent us, of the search terms to which we do not object. As we have discussed, before any searches are conducted we will need to see a list of the African American promoters and the racial slurs you intend to use as search terms. 2. The only e-mail boxes you will search are those of Peter GrossHght, Cara Lewis, Richard Rosenberg, Jeff Frasco, and Shelly Shultz. 3. As we have previously advised you, we do not consent in advance to the use by you or your experts of any additional search terms without our prior knowledge and consent. We therefore ask that you provide us with any additional terms you or your experts intend to employ in advance of their actual use. In light of the protocol estabhshed by Magistrate Judge Francis, the use of any additional search terms to which WMA has not been apprised or to which it has not consented would be in violation of this Order.
NEWYOIUC LO.S A N C E L E S NASHVILLC

6S8-d

S O D / 2 0 0d

m-i

dll 9 3 0 1 7a 3 0 1 " ' O J d

uJd8V:90 2002-^D-''BS

LOEB(Sd-OEBLLP

Richard G. Primoff, Esq. September 4, 2002 Page 2

4. You have agreed that the expert will, in pcrfomiing the search, exclude and not retrieve e-mail communication to, from, or concerning the following attorneys and/or paralegals: Michael Zweig Charles or Charlie Miller Helen Gavaris Lisa Horhck Kimberly Williams Sandra or Sandy McCaUion Geri Papa Regan Arkelian David Kekst Eric Zohn Matthew or Matt Burroughs Daniel or Dan Mcintosh William or Bill Rintala Steven or Steve Smith 5. As you have agreed, the expert will turn over to us the documents yielded by the attached search terms so we can conduct a privilege/work produce review in advance of your review. We reserve our right to review and exclude documents on responsiveness grounds; we cannot detennine at this point whether this will be an issue that we may need to raise with the Court. 6. The tape sets you have requested have been collected in WMA's California office and have been sent to your expert's Seattle, Washington office this evening. Very truly yours, Sandra C. McCallion Loeb & Loeb LLP Attachment
05542607596 NY245754,1

cc:

Raymond J. Heslin, Esq. Defense Counsel

B S 6 d 9 0 0 / E D O d Ef;--!

dTl 9301 T a301-"'o-'d

i'"'bv;90 2 0 0 Z t ' 0 < ' B S

black promotci"
black promoter association BPA bids concert promoters compete market share competition AU emails received or sent by the above to black promoters (using a list of names identified in the record). complaints, lawsuit, etc, w/ black, Negro, African-American, etc. discrimination [List of racial slurs] Relationship Club Nerivork Fraternity race, racial exclusive, exclusively, exclusivity territory history Member Hurt Loss Urban Antitrust monopoly Justice [Department] CIC Concert Industry Consortium Agent system IPA Independent Promoters Association Independent Promoters Organization Tom Ross ATA Association of Talent Agents Janet Jackson Kenny G Toni Braxton Randy Phillips

NY2457W,l 05512507596 09/04/2002 5cni

6S8-d sooAoo d zn-i

dn 9 3 0 1 ? a301-io^d

^d6f:30 Z O O Z t O d s s

Exhibit E

LOEB&iLOEB LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CORPORATIONS INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL

345 PARK AVENUE NEW Y O R K , NY 10154-0037

T E L E P H O N E : 212.407.4000 FACSIMILE: 212.407.4990 www.loeb.cora

L&L

%-

Direct Dial; 212-407^813 e-mail: hgavaris@loeb.com

October 29, 2002 BY HAND Richard G. Primoff, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Re: Rowe Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. The William Morris Agency, Inc., et al.; 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP) (JCF)

Dear Richard: Pursuant to the Court's protocol governing e-mail production, enclosed are hard copies of the e-mails which, based on our review, we regard as nonresponsive. These e-mails have been designated for "attorneys-eyes only" and cannot, under any circumstances, be reviewed by anyone other than coimsel. I have also enclosed a log of the unresponsive e-mails for your convenience. Once you complete yotiT review, it is our intention to direct your expert to delete these emailsfromthe disk that will be delivered to you. If you disagree with our designation on a particular email, please let me know. With respect to privileged communications, enclosed is a log of the emails we have designated as privileged. These e-mails will be deletedfromthe disk as well. I look forward to hearingfromyou. Very truly yours,

HG:mr NEW Y O R K LOS ANGELES NASHVILLE 05842607596 NY256784.1

Exhibit F

LOEB&LOEBLLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY INCLUDING PARTNERSHIP CORPORATIONS PROFESSIONAL

345 PARK AVENUE NEW Y O R K . NY 10154-0037

T E L E P H O N E : 212-407.4000 FACSIMILE: 212.407.4990 www.Ioeb.com

^1%
L&L % Direct Dial: 212-407-4813 e-mail: hgavaris@loeb.com

December 4, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE Richard G. Primoff, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Re: Rowe Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., et al.; 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP)(JCF) .

Dear Richard: We received today a CD containing the Lotus Notes e-mailsfromE E D , which reflects the deletions of all documents listed on oiu- privilege log and two nonresponsive logs. We have instructed Geoff Bogie to release this CD to you. This production bear Bates Nos. WMA-RE 000600 0001 through WMA-RE 000600 1079. However, please note that the following Bates numbers were not used by EED and, therefore, do not appear on the CD: 0132 - 0135, 0146-0149, 0945-0949, 0998-1000, 1044-1054, and 1077. We have not heard from you with respect to the Macintosh e-mails, hence we have not given EED any instructions. At your earliest convenience, please let us know whether we should direct EED to delete the non-responsive and privileged e-mailsfromthe CD which contains the Macintosh e-mails.

Loe& Loeb LLP

HG:ggp 05842607596 NY261008.1

NEW Y O R K LOS ANGELES NASHVILLE

cc:

Geoff Bogie Geri G. Papa

LOEB&LOEBLLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CORPORATIONS INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL

345 PARK AVENUE NEW Y O R K , NY 10154-0037

T E L E P H O N E : 212.407.4000 FACSIMILE: 212.407.4990 www.Ioeb.com

Direct Dial: 212-407-4813 e-mail: hgavaris@loeb.com

December 10, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE Richard G. Primoff, Esq. Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Re: Rowe Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., et al.; 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP)(JCF)

Dear Richard: We received today a CD containing the Macintosh e-mailsfromE E D , which reflects the deletions of all documents listed on our privilege and nonresponsive logs. We have instructed Geoff Bogie to release this CD to you. This production bear Bates Nos. WMA-RE 000600 1080 through WMA-RE 000600 1089.

HG;ggp
05842607596 NY262331.1

cc:

Geoff Bogie Geri G. Papa

Exhibit G

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE DISCOVERY, INC. Litigation Services Memorandum To: Via: From: Re: Date: Leonard Rowe UPS I Next Day Air Jose G. Baquero, EED Seattle Rowe Productions Wednesday, January 22, 2003

This shipment consists of 1 box of printed WMA and CAA Non-Privileged Racial Slur emails and their respective attachments in the Rowe matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact your Project Manager, Geoff Bogie at'(206) 343-0131.

Exhibit H

"Washington acknowledges that Judge Patterson has repeatedly ruled that 'Exhibit 3 1 " is 'irrelevant material,' yet, Washington inexplicably claims, without a whit o f substantiation, that there are emails that underlie Exhibit 31 and that those emails are somehow relevant to his claims. Yet he does not deny that Exhibit 31 was dismissed by the Court as 'an unidentified and unauthenticated document.' The author o f this document was never identified, nor was the source o f the 'information' allegedly contained therein. None o f the individuals whose names are listed on this document are named in this suit, nor does Washington allege that those individuals were involved in any way in the facts giving rise to his claims. Exhibit 31 - the basis for Washington's 'emergency motion' - has already been discredited by a Federal court and is wholly irrelevant to Washington's claims." [Resp. Reply To Cross M o t i o n to Dismiss, 16-17.]

On April 18, 2013, Arbitrator David Gregory compelled W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P and/or Michael P. Z w e i g to produce the e-mails that they obtained from E E D . [Arbitrator Interim Decision,

My Analysis.
Based on the pyramid o f evidence and totality o f circumstances I ' v e presented throughout all o f my motions, it is without question that "Exhibit 3 1 " is a genuine and authentic document obtained by SNR in or around September o f 2002 - surreptitiously or not - as a result o f Electronic Evidence Discovei"y's search into the databases o f t w o o f H o l l y w o o d ' s biggest talent agencies - the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and Creative Artists Agency. The Respondents have mischaracterized "Exhibit 3 1 " as being possibly "bogus," but based on the additional reasons provided below, I believe that any impartial and reasonable person would agree that it's impossible for this document to be so. Here are a few reasons w h y "Exhibit 3 1 " has to be an authentic document; I t cannot be disputed that in or around September 2002, Electronic Evidence Discovery ( n o w known as Discovery Technology, Inc.) "createrdl and searchfedl mirror images of Defendants' computer hard drives" and was the only company in Rowe that were given access to the backup tapes o f two o f H o l l y w o o d ' s most prestigious institutions - the W i l l i a m Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency. The counsel that paid and retained E E D on behalf o f the black concert promoters should have received the search results and underlying e-mails to "Exhibit 3 1 " first Pursuant to Judge Francis' Order, the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants were O N L Y supposed to receive the e-mails from the plaintiffs' counsel that they felt were material. These e-mails were supposed to be produced in "hard copy, w i t h Bates stamps." The Defendants fought tooth and nail to have the costs shifted to Plaintiffs, therefore it is clear that the class o f black concert promoters should have received the search results and underiying e-mails before W i l l i a m M o r r i s and C A A . However, this did not happen. Also, Judge Francis' order clearly states that i f the Defendants wanted to assert privilege before the e-mails were produced by the Plaintiffs, they were responsible for paying the costs o f production. Although W i l l i a m Morris and C.A.A were allowed to assert privilege before SNR viewed the e-mails, they did not have to pay the costs o f production. There is no way SNR made this decision in the best interest o f their clients. This is a definite sign o f collusion. Raymond Heslin states "the search was conducted by the vendor on its own accord and [ S N R ] was provided w i t h the results only ( I am unawaie as to whether the Gary F i r m received the emails)." However, E E D was also bound by Judge Francis protocol. They could have only provided the parties w i t h the results that were agreed upon or else objections would have been raised to SNR in writing i f the e-mails received contained user names that had not been agreed upon. From the time the Defendants received the e-mails to the time S N U filed motions to withdraw from the case, no objections were raised on the record by the Defendants that more user names had been searched

-12-

than had been agreed to. These arguments were not raised until after SNR withdrew from the case. This is further reason w h y W i l l i a m M o r r i s should produce the e-mails they received because the only e-mails they should have in their possession should only be from the five music Agents agreed to: Peter Grosslight, Cara Lewis, Richard Rosenberg, Jeff Frasco, and Shelly Shultz. None o f these names are included on "Exhibit 3 1 S e e Exhibit I . Although Raymond Heslin states that the Gary F i r m was "involved in all phases o f discovery, including the electronic search o f defendants' emails," there are numerous indications throughout the record which supports that the Gary Firm was never involved in the electronic phase o f discovery - aside from being faxed "Exhibit 3 1 " and trying to retrieve the underlying e-mails from SNR and E E D . Chuck Kellner only mentions Richard P r i m o f f by name in his October 2001 Affidavit. None o f the letters or e-mails sent between M a y and December 2002 regarding ediscovery are addressed to any o f the attorneys at the Gary Firm. Neither are they carbon copied. See Exhibits F , H-1, K . Discovery ended in or around November 23, 2002. I f the Gary Firm was involved in "all phases o f discovery," w h y did it take nearly a month for SNR to fax "Exhibit 3 1 " to the Gary Firm? Better yet, w h y was this document faxed only after Leonard Rowe found this document on Raymond Heslin's desk when he was originally told by Richard Primoff that no derogatory terms were discovered? The Fax I D on "Exhibit 3 1 " is the biggest indicator o f w h o sent the Gary F i r m this document. I t ' s completely consistent w i t h Leonard Rowe's testimony. I retrieved various faxes from the record submitted by Leonard Rowe's former attorneys - before and after RubinBaum L L P merged w i t h Sonnenschein to become Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal L L P in or around M a y 2002. See Exhibit S. Before September 19, 2002, Sonnenschein's fax I D header still contained RubinBaum L L P ' s information. B y October 11, 2002, the fax I D read: " S N R N e w Y o r k . " "Exhibit 3 1 " was faxed on October 15, 2002 and it appears identical to October 1 1 * and November 1, 2002 faxes I obtained, the latter fax being a partial copy o f the settlement agreement that was between the class o f black concert promoters and Monterey Peninsula Artists ( " M P A " ) . The Respondents also made this observation in the Reply to their M o t i o n for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed on June 6, 2005. In footnote 18, they state: " A closer examination o f Exhibit 31 reveals a facsimile line at the top o f all pages from ' S N R ' which, we believe, refers to Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal. Thus, it would appear that Sonnenschein prepared this document in violation o f the Court's Order." See Exhibit T. I t is without question that the Gary F i r m could have only received "Exhibit 3 1 " from SNR...and SNR could have only received "Exhibit 3 1 " from Electronic Evidence Discovery. In the M a y 5, 2005 Affidavit o f B i l l Campbell in support o f the Plaintiffs and The Gary F i r m ' s Opposition to the Defendants' Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, he states in ^ 5: "Because the Gary F i r m was not in charge o f directing the e-mail searches o f W M A ' s and C A A ' s backup tapes, we cannot respond to the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants' charge that PlainrifTs' counsel 'intentionally violated this Court's e-mail Order' dated January 16, 2002, 'by conducting surreptitious e-mail searches o f [those tapes]....'" See Exhibit U . I n the August 2, 2005 Opinion and Order o f Judge Patterson denying the Defendants' request for attorneys' fees and costs, he responds to M r . Campbell's statement: "The Court accepts this explanation and does not find this violation o f the January 16, 2002 Order o f Magistrate Francis to constitute bad faith on the part o f counsel, but rather to indicate a failure o f new counsel to adequately review the case materials and orders o f Court." See Exhibit V. A n d just like the W i l l i e Gary firm did not know about "Exhibit 3 1 " until Leonard Rowe notified them about what he saw on Raymond Heslin's desk, there is no possible way they received all o f the underlying e-mails (including those that were privileged), compact discs which contained the metadata or the privilege logs from SNR after they withdrew the case because SNR, as o f M a r c h 2012, continues to maintain that "no derogatory terms" were found. I f W i l l i e Gary had been

-13-

actively involved in electronic discovery as claimed, there would have been no need for SNR to allegedly send them these documents, once they withdrew from the case nearly five months after "Exhibit 3 1 " was faxed by SNR because they w o u l d have already had them. A t no time did W i l l i a m Morris, Creative Artists Agency, Loeb & Loeb L L P , W e i l Gotshal & Manges L L P or SNR send the Gary F i r m hard copies o f underlying e-mails containing derogatory terms such as "nigger" or the CDs containing the additional metadata. "Exhibit 3 1 " is very detailed and contains more than 195 user names o f various W M A and C A A employees and departments. The class o f black concert promoters barely had a relationship w i t h the few music Agents they sought to do business w i t h because o f their race-based conspiracy to discriminate, so it would have been impossible for the black concert promoters, or any person for that matter, to know the names o f that many Agents, assistants, support staff or departments (e.g. M A S T E R , SSELF, M E D L V L A B , etc.) - aside from employees o f the I T department (whose names also appear on "Exhibit 31"). I t is clear that eveiy user name listed on "Exhibit 3 1 " belongs to W M A and C A A . I n the Declaration o f Beverly Frank, she never denies that these user names are accurate. Instead, she argues: "Plaintiffs' failure to produce any o f the e-mails purportedly identified in Exhibit 31 further violates the January 16 Order insofar as it would require C A A and W M A to undertake the expense and burden o f restoring and retrieving the e-mail boxes o f every user listed on Exhibit 31 " .S'ce Exhibit O .

E E D ' s search o f W M A and C A A ' s electronic files were never limited to racially derogatory terms. I f one were to assume that the final list o f terms that were to be searched are contained in the September 4, 2002 letter o f Sandra M c C a l l i o n to Richard Primoff, page 10 o f "Exhibit 3 1 " reflects the responsive results o f "all other search terms." This had to be a major source o f the emails W M A felt were "non-responsive." See Exhibit I . On January 22, 2003, Leonard Rowe received a memorandum from Jose G. Baquero o f Electronic Evidence Discovery stating that "[t]his shipment consists o f 1 box o f printed W M A and C A A Non-Privileged Racial Slur emails and their respective attachments in the Rowe matter " See Exhibit W . Raymond Heslin states that "all documents (including emails) were turned over to co-counsel W i l l i e Gaiy once the Court approved SNR's withdrawal." [Heslin Declaration, ^ 2.] However, he also contradicts himself by claiming that E E D only provided SNR w i t h "the results only" o f the search and the "only e-mails received from the defendants pre-dated [Exhibit 31]. We know this is a lie because W M A and C A A received the e-mails from E E D first I f the W i l l i e Gary firm was involved in e-discovery as claimed by SNR, w o u l d n ' t they have received the e-mails and compact discs (CDs) at the same time as SNR or shortly after? According to the testimony o f Chuck Kellner, SNR originally sought to search the e-mails o f 27 music Agents from W i l l i a m Morris. That number then increased to 56 in an effort to also search the e-mails o f each music Agent's assistant. B y September 2002, that number was reduced to 5. Yet, zero o f the names that appear on "Exhibit 3 1 " include those five music Agents - who happened to represent a lot o f African American artists, dealt w i t h a lot o f African American promoters looking to book these acts and possibly had a greater likelihood o f generating responsive e-mails based on the search terms that were listed. This is fiirther reason w h y W i l l i a m Morris should produce whatever e-mails were received from E E D . SNR has never made the claim that "Exhibit 3 1 " is a fraudulent or "bogus" document created by the W i l l i e Gary Firm or the class o f black concert promoters. Additionally, Loeb & Loeb L L P nor any o f the other counsel for the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants have made the claim that the attorneys from the W i l l i e Gary Firm or the class o f black concert promoters fraudulently created this document. The relationship between W i l l i a m Morris and Loeb & Loeb L L P goes back to the

-14-

early 1900s and w i t h W i l l i a m M o r r i s being one o f their biggest clients, they would [Leonard Rowe Affidavit, % 10.]

have

rigorously fought to vindicate W i l l i a m M o r r i s ' reputation i f this document were fraudulent. A n d i f this document had been fi-audulently produced, why would the class o f black concert promoters who originally intended to search the e-mails o f all o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s ' music Agents not include any names o f W M A music Agents on "Exhibit 31"? I f SNR claimed that no derogatory terms existed, how could W i l l i a m M o r r i s and C A A ' s suggest that the e-mails in question could have been from the lyrics o f rap artists or be from movie scripts? I t ' s either one or the other. Either the derogatory terms exist or they don't exist at all - there's no in between. A t this stage, it's clear that derogatoty terms were found in their e-mails. There w o u l d have been absolutely no harm in producing those e-mails i f the words were contained in movie scripts or i f a predominately all W h i t e / ' J e w i s h " group o f employees were allegedly quoting rap lyrics throughout the course o f business at a prestigious, H o l l y w o o d talent agency. I n some instances, it is quite possible that this could be true. However, as an urban music aficionado, I can tell you that I ' v e heaid very few rap songs over the last two decades using words such as "spook" or "coon." This is further reason w h y all o f the e-mails need to be produced - in order to determine i f their claims are true or not. The Defendants knew their co-conspirators at SNR never provided the W i l l i e Gary F i r m w i t h the compact discs and/or underlying e-mails that had been discovered or the Gary F i r m would have also included the actual e-mails in their opposition. Therefore, the Defendants knew it was impossible for the Gary F i r m to comply w i t h the January 16, 2002 order o f Magistrate Judge Francis because without access to all o f the responsive e-mails that were discovered, they could not have been able to identify or produce the e-mails in "hard copy w i t h Bates stamps" that were "material" to their claims. U p until M a r c h 15, 2012, Leonard Rowe never had possession o f "Exhibit 3 1 . " W i t h o u t knowing that Rowe would soon acquire "Exhibit 3 1 " after his former attorneys submitted their Declarations between March 14-15, 2012, all four o f his former attorneys at SNR stated under "penalty o f perjui7" that "no derogatory terms" existed. Raymond Heslin stated: " A l l files including the email discovery were provided to M r . Gary's firm which i f they contained the derogatory language M r . Rowe claims, I assume M r . Gar>''s firm would have used in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion." [Heslin Declaration, % 1 5 ] M a r t i n Gold stated: " I had no knowledge that the w o r d 'nigger' appeared in documents produced by defendants.. .Notably, M r . R o w e has produced no such documents." [Gold Declaration, H I I . ] The reason these attorneys continued to lie is largely because Rowe didn't have possession o f "Exhibit 3 1 . " Letters sent to Richard P r i m o f f from counsel o f the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and C A A between October 29, 2002 and December 10, 2002 clearly contradict the M a r c h 14, 2002 testimony o f Richard P r i m o f f in w h i c h he attempts to make it appear that only "a preliminary statistical report prepared bv Plaintiffs' electronic evidence consultants...was used to decide whether it was worthwhile for plaintiffs to pay additional tand substantial) sums to initiate a second, wider search of defendants' email files, according to protocol established by I I . S . Magistrate Judge Francis in the case. " N o Plaintiff would agree to pay $200,000.00 for e-mail search results O N L Y . The Affidavit o f Charles Kellner contradicts PrimofFs statements because it is clear that the company was hired to retrieve responsive e-mails. I f this "preliminary statistical report" is not "Exhibit 3 1 , " where is this "preliminary statistical report" and w h y wasn't it provided to the black concert promoters or the Gary Firm? W i l l i a m Morris should provide this document as well. The letters referenced in the preceding paragraph also contradict the June 27, 2012 statements o f Raymond Heslin, in which he states that.the "only e-mails TSNRI received from defendants predated this list." To make this suggestion is absurd because it is clear from the record that W i l l i a m

-15-

Morris and C A A ' s counsel received the actual e-mails obtained from the "preliminary statistical report" provided by E E D . Although the attorneys from SNR were supposed to receive the e-discovery evidence immediately after W M A and C A A ' s backup tapes were retrieved by E E D , they did not receive the metadata from W i l l i a m M o r r i s ' until t w o months after it was in the possession o f Loeb & Loeb L L P . I n that span o f time, Loeb & Loeb L L P had considerable time to tinker with evidence, as w e l l as collude w i t h attorneys from SNR to determine an appropriate monetary amount to have this damaging "smoking gun" evidence concealed. After the conspiracy between Leonard Rowe's attorneys at SNR and the Defendants was cemented, SNR began to slowly exit from the case and their motion to withdraw was granted on March 28, 2003.

Even i f "Exhibit 3 1 " were a fraudulent or "bogus," it is impossible for anyone to say that this document was created by the Gary L a w Firm or any o f the black concert promoter Plaintiffs. U p o n closer inspection o f the names that appear on "Exhibit 3 1 , " I w i l l propose in the next section that it's quite possible that SNR surreptitiously had E E D conduct t w o or more searches on the hard drives o f W i l l i a m Morris and C A A and that "Exhibit 3 1 " contained the results o f a "master" or frill search o f W M A and C A A ' s backup tapes (although none o f the five WMA music Agents names appear). It's also quite possible that SNR never received the actual e-mails to "Exhibit 3 1 . " That doesn't change the fact that the underlying e-mails to "Exhibit 3 1 " do exist and that W i l l i a m M o r r i s should be responsible for paying the costs o f having these documents produced during discovery o f this case i f the arbitration agreement is enforced or summary judgment isn't granted in my favor. A n important point to always remember is this: Just because tlie document was "unauthenticated," doesn't mean that "Exhibit 3 1 " is not genuine or inauthenlic. .Big difference. The document was deemed an "inadmissible and unauthenticated d o c u m e n f because the protocol set forth in Magistrate Judge Francis' January 16, 2002 decision was iinproperly followed by SNR without the knowledge or consent o f the black concert promoters or the Gary Firm. However, that is also irrelevant to my case because I ' m not bound by the protocol set forth by Judge Francis. Additionally, your determination that res judicata and collateral estoppel don't apply fiarther support this fact. [Arbitrator Interim Decision, 14.] Therefore, the fact that the document was deemed "inadmissible" by a formalist district judge in Rowe. does not mean that "Exhibit 3 1 " is not admissible in Washington. It is without question that "Exhibit 3 1 " is relevant to essentially all o f the claims I have raised throughout this nearly three year legal battle against this H o l l y w o o d cabal. Although I have always asserted that I could prove my initial claims o f pattern and practice ("systemic disparate treatment"), disparate impact, pre and post-hiring discrimination, failure to promote, retaliation, aiding & abetting and conspiracy to maintain this racialized monopoly throughout H o l l y w o o d without "Exhibit 3 1 , " I would be a fool not to use this smoking gun evidence to my advantage, especially in support o f my claims antitrust.^ Given that you have already compelled W i l l i a m M o r r i s to produce e-mails containing the derogatory terms listed on "Exhibit 3 1 " based o f f the arguments raised in our various pleadings concerning this issue, I don't understand how the Arbitrator could then ask questions about the document's authenticity and/or not understand how this evidence is relevant to my case. Over the next six pages, I briefly discuss how "Exhibit 3 1 " is relevant to my claims. Due to time restrictions, I simply copied and pasted many o f the points made throughout my Reply for Summary Judgment. For each section, I cite the corresponding page numbers to read these arguments in frill.

" I discovered "Exhibit 3 1 " seventeen months after I filed my complaint w i t h the Southern District o f N e w Y o r k . Although my claims o f employment discrimination have never been dependent on this "smoking gun" evidence, I w i l l undoubtedly use it to my advantage as a reflection o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s and its employees' discriminatory state o f mind." [Claimant Reply Summaiy Judgment, 18.] -16-

Exhibit I

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION X MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON, Claimant, -againstWILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, fonnerly known as the WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC., JEFF MEADE and SARAH VAN HOVEN, Respondents. X
S T A T E OF G E O R G I A C O U N T Y OF F U L T O N ) ) ) SS.:

AAA Case No. 13 160 01426 12

: : : AFFIDAVIT OF LEONARD ROWE : :

L E O N A R D R O W E , being duly sworn, hereby deposes and states:

I , Leonard Rowe, have been a concert promoter for 37 years. 1 am fully familiar w i t h the matters set

forth herein and respectfully submit this .AiFidavit in support o f the Claimant's reply to the Arbitrator's Interim Decision which requests more information concerning "Exhibit 3 1 , " and most importantly, compels the Respondents to produce the underlying emails which contain racially inflammatory language in reference to African Americans by executives and other employees at two o f H o l l y w o o d ' s biggest and most influential talent agencies in not only H o l l y w o o d , but throughout the w o r l d - the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency ( n o w known as W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment) and Creative Artists Agency ( " C A A " ) . Aside from the corrupt attorneys involved in this conspiracy to interfere w i t h the civil rights o f myself and all individuals o f African descent, I am probably the most knowledgeable person that can discuss this document and vouch for its authenticity. I personally paid $200,000.00 for this evidence to be retrieved during the electronic discovery phase o f my case, but the underlying emails have been concealed from me and the court for nearly eleven years by my former attorneys, Michael Z w e i g , Loeb & Loeb L L P , and others in a conspiracy that is still on-going. In the interests o f justice, these emails must be brought forward and all involved in this sinister conspiracy must finally be held accountable for their egregious and morally reprehensible actions.

GENERAL BACKGROUND.
2. I have worked in the entertainment industry for over 30 years and during those years, I have dealt with

practically all major talent agencies that represent performing musical entertainers o f all kinds. I also served as president o f the Black Promoters Association ( B P A ) from 1996 to 2006. I have toured entertainers all over America and abroad, such as Michael Jackson, The Jacksons, Prince, R. Kelly, and many others. D u r i n g m y entire career in the music industry, I have dealt w i t h the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency on an on-going basis and have first-hand knowledge o f the racist and discriminatory principles, policies and practices o f that agency.

3.

I n 1998,1 - along w i t h three other African American concert promoters - brought an action against the rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and other claims for relief After

W i l l i a m Morris Agency and 32 other defendants alleging various causes o f action including, but not limited to, anti-trust violations, civil incriminating evidence was revealed during discovery, 28 o f the defendants decided to settle. Three years after extensive discovery, pre-trial motion practice, and oral argument for summary judgment. Judge Robert P. Patterson o f the Southern District o f N e w Y o r k granted summary judgment to the remaining five defendants. The court's opinion made only a small footnote mention o f the derogatory utilization o f the terms "nigger" (which were found in the W i l l i a m Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency's email records some 349 times), "nigga", "spook," "coon," "monkey," and other blatant evidence contained in "Exhibit 3 1 " which undeniably established that racism in H o l l y w o o d is not a myth or a figment o f one's imagination. The W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and H o l l y w o o d collectively have been, and continue to operate with a deep animus directed towards persons o f African descent and other historically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, Judge Patterson's opinion did not mention substantial documentary evidence that was presented. This evidence contained over 2,000 contracts which showed systemic disparities in contracting between z\frican Americans, who are members o f a protected class, versus white promoters who were given more favorable terms and conditions (e.g. 0 - 10% deposits for whites and 50% deposits for blacks) a clear violation o f 42 USC 1981. He also did not mention that the W i l l i a m Morris .Agency could not produce one contract showing that they have allowed an African American promoter to engage in a contract with one o f the white artists on their roster for a concert in their over one hundred plus year history o f doing business. Not one. Judge Patterson also made no mention in his opinion that a hand written note that was discovered where an agent stated, " D o not divulge guarantee to black promoters," and hundreds o f other pieces o f damaging evidence showing discrimination and violation o f the anti-trust laws by W M A and C A A . I t is extremely important to note that while Judge Patterson weighed certain evidence during the summary judgment phase o f our case, he did not consider "Exhibit 3 1 " or the underlying emails because o f the criminal actions and ethical misconduct o f my former attorneys, Michael Z w e i g , Loeb & Loeb L L P , the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and others that were involved in this heinous conspiracy. In short, the underlying emails to "Exhibit 3 1 " were improperly and illegally concealed from me and the court.

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY IN ROWE VS. THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY; HOW I DISCOVERED "EXHIBIT 31" AND WHY THE UNDERLYING EMAILS WERE NEVER PRODUCED BY MY FORMER ATTORNEYS AT SNR.
4. As our case proceeded and evidence was being discovered, I was unaware o f the depth and extent o f

corruption and collusion that was developing between my former attorneys at Sonnenschein N a t h & Rosenthal L L P ("SNR") (formerly known as RubinBaum and now known as Dentons US L L P ) - M a r t i n Gold, Raymond Heslin, Richard PrimolT, Christine Lepera and Carl Aaron - and attorneys for the Defendants, case as well. 5. I asked my attorneys during discovery o f our case to file a motion to retrieve the emails o f the W i l l i a m including Michael P. Z w e i g o f Loeb & Loeb L L P who ser\'ed as the lead attorney for the W i i l i a m Morris Agency in my

M o r r i s Agency and Creative Artist Agency. After our motion was granted by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, my attorneys at SNR informed me that it w o u l d cost approximately $200,000.00 to retrieve the emails from the W i l l i a m Morris Agency and C A A for discovery purposes in our on-going litigation, in which I agreed to pay. We continued to use the services o f Electronic Evidence Discovery ( n o w known as Discovery Technology, Inc.) - a company from Seattle, Washington - to perform the duty o f retrieving the emails. I was then asked by M r . Martin Gold and Richard P r i m o f f at SNTl to provide the names o f agent's emails that we wanted E E D to search. For the W i l l i a m Morris Agency, I provided the names o f the f o l l o w i n g music agents: Cara Lewis and Jeff Frasco, as well as the heads o f the M u s i c Department, Richard Rosenberg and Peter Grosslight. I also provided the names o f agents whose emails were to be searched at C A A . 1 was then asked by

-2-

my attorneys at SNR to provide derogatory words to be searched for, which I also provided and are found on "Exhibit 3 1 . " 6. On the day I was told that the results would be in, I began calling SNR early that morning. I was unable

to reach anyone at SNR...no one would pick up my call. There were five attorneys working on our case at SNR and I found this to be highly unusual because this had never happened before. A t 6pm that afternoon, knovv'ing that it was time for everyone to go home for the day, I decided to make one final attempt to reach attorney Richard Primoff. He was the attorney that was overseeing email discovery in our case. M r . P r i m o f f finally answered my call. I then asked him about the emails and had the results returned. H e informed me that they had returned and nothing o f substantiality was found as a result o f the email search. He then stated that 1 had lost my $200,000.00 and that it was wasted. When this was being told to me, I could tell that he was not being trutltilil, but at the time 1 had no proof o f this. I later asked for SNR to send all o f the email search results and findings, as well as all documents, to me in Georgia. I received the non-privileged emails about one week later at my home in Atlanta. After careftilly examining each document that my former attorneys at SNR provided to me, I found nothing o f use that would help us in proving our claims against the W i l l i a m Morris Agency or C A A . H a v i n g worked in that industry for over 25 years at the time and experiencing the racism that I and other African Americans had to endure from the W i l l i a m Morris .Agency, 1 found this to be totally impossible to believe.

7.

A few weeks later, I was called to the office o f SNR in N e w Y o r k for a meeting with another attorney

that was w o r k i n g on our case by the name o f Raymond Heslin. W h i l e waiting outside o f M r . Heslin's office for him to finish a phone conversation he was having, I overheard him on the phone w i t h someone discussing a meeting that they had with opposing counsel in my case, a few days prior. This was very alarming to me because I , nor any o f the other Plaintiffs, had been informed o f this meeting. After he finished his call, 1 went into his office and as I was sitting down, he received another phone call. H e then turned his back to me for privacy. 1 happened to glance down on his desk and I saw a small stack o f papers. On the cover page o f that stack, was the heading 'Rowe Entertainment vs. The W i l l i a m Morris Agency Email Results'. I t was then that I observed that the word "nigger" was lined down the entire first page o f the report. When Attorney Heslin finished his call, I asked him "What is that?" pointing to the email results report on his desk. M r . Heslin then turned the report over in my face and told me that I was not supposed to see that. I then asked "Why?" since it pertained to my case. Heslin then got very angry and argumentative w i t h me. I immediately left out o f his office and called our co-counsel in Florida, M r . W i l l i e Gary o f the Gary L a w Firm, and told him about what I saw on attorney Heslin's desk. M r . Gary then called SNR and asked that the email report, now known as "Exhibit 3 1 , " be faxed to him immediately. This is how and w h y the report shows the fax I D o f SNR at the top o f each page o f the report. They only sent the email results summary report to the Gary Firm. To my knowledge, the actual emails were never sent to the Gary F i r m and remain fraudulently concealed to this very day. This is how the Gary F i r m eventtially gained possession o f "Exhibit 3 1 . " I truly believe God intended for me to see that document. Before "Exhibit 3 1 " was faxed on October 15, 2002, my attorneys at the W i l l i e Gary F i r m said that they had no knowledge that this document existed. Therefore, SNR attempted to conceal this smoking-gun evidence from my co-counsel as w e l l . 8. "Exhibit 3 1 " was introduced to the court some time after I discovered the document on the desk o f M r .

Raymond Heslin. Discovery in our case was closed at the time in which I discovered it. M y attorneys at the Gary Firm argued to have "Exhibit 3 1 " admitted into the record as evidence. A t oral argument on the motion, no one from Loeb & Loeb L L P or any o f the other defendants claimed that "Exhibit 3 1 " was unauthentic. They claimed the e-discovery protocol had been violated and suggested that my former counsel "surrepufiously conducted searches o f mailbox users without C A A ' s or W M A ' s prior knowledge or consent." Therefore, they argued, "Exhibit 3 1 " couldn't be "authenticated" and was "inadmissible." Additionally, they argued that discovery was now closed and this document could represent the lyrics from rap music or movie scripts. During

-3-

that hearing, there was never any mention that this document was fraudulent. The fax I D at the top o f each page o f the document clearly shows that it was faxed from N e w Y o r k office o f SNR. SNR has never disputed this fact. N o w , Michael Z w e i g and Loeb & Loeb L L P continue to quote the erroneous decision o f Judge Patterson, saying that "Exhibit 3 1 " is an "unidentified and unauthenticated document," thus insinuating that it could be inauthentic or "bogus." I f anyone would pay close attention to "Exhibit 3 1 , " they w i l l find that this document is too detailed to be fraudulent. "Exhibit 3 1 " gives precise information - including user names for more than 190 agents, assistants and departments - that no one would be privileged to have other than the company itself or EED - the company that conducted electronic discoveiy on the backup tapes provided by the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and C A A . I t ' s mind boggling what these attorneys and judges have done in order to ensure diat racism and racial inequality throughout this industry and America persists. The level o f fraud that has been perpetrated upon the court in my case is beyond the level o f criminal prosecution.

9.

When I was in Florida at the W i l l i e Gary Firm helping my attorneys prepare our reply to the

Defendants' summary judgment motion in April 2 0 0 3 , 1 personally saw "Exhibit 3 1 " in its entirety. I t contained all pages, including 1 and 17 which are now mysteriously missing. A t that time, it contained the word "nigger" 349 times, but now, the document submitted to the court reflects a drastically lower number: 76. L i k e other situations in my case, fraud has occurred somewhere w i t h this document. I t is very difficuk for me to believe that a qualified attorney such as M r . B i l l Campbell - who received an undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University and a law degree from D u k e University, was also a former US prosecutor, as well as the former t w o term mayor o f Atlanta, Georgia - could make a mathematical error o f this magnitude. His accounting o f the w o r d being used was o f f some 273 times, and 1 find this very hard to believe knowing M r . Campbell, and how detailed and thorough he is when engaging in his work. Although the w o r d "nigger" being used once is one fime too many, the Respondents should simply come forth w i t h the entire exhibit, including pages 1 and 17. This w i l l put the entire issue o f how many times the despicable word "nigger" was used to rest. I t w i l l also demonstrate the total amount o f times the other racially derogatory terms searched for were found as well.

10.

Michael Z w e i g and his co-conspirators have made many excuses for the email result findings. Their first

excuse, when first discussed in open court, on the record, was "this evidence could be the results o f rap lyrics or from movie scripts." This excuse is laughable because i f that were true, why are the emails being concealed? There would be no harm in bringing the actual emails forward because that would prove that the contents are from the lyrics o f rap artists or the scripts o f movies. This would totally extinguish our allegations and claims against their clients concerning "Exhibit 3 1 " and would also put all allegations concerning "nigger" and other despicable words being used in their emails to rest. As o f yet, they have not done so and they never w i l l , without being forced to do so, because they k n o w that their excuses are totally false and perjurious. The latest excuse they have used is that this document "may be bogus." I f that was true, then fraud has been perpetrated against C A A and the W i l l i a m Morris Agency, w h o is probably one o f Loeb & Loeb L L P ' s biggest clients. This fi"aud w o u l d have had to be perpetrated by not only myself and other black concert promoters, but by the W i l l i e Gary L a w F i r m as well, because they are the ones who submitted this document to the court. W h y wouldn't Loeb and Loeb file criminal charges against us i f they truly believed that fraud took place against their largest client, especially since they adamantly maintain that their client has never engaged in unlawfijl discrimination? They should have demanded a full investigation take place concerning this document. They also could have subpoenaed the files o f E E D and the fax phone line records o f SNR to find out i f this document was fraudulent, but they didn't. The reason they didn't do any o f this is very simple: they are lying and i f they called in the US Attorney's office or reported this to the F B I , their unlawful conduct, as well as the numerous crimes they have committed, would be revealed. I have asked Judge Patterson, as well as Chief Judge Loretta Preska o f the Southern District o f N e w Y o r k , on numerous occasions, by personally w r i t i n g letter after letter and having other concerned American citizens o f all races and color do the same, to please refer this case to the US Attorney's Office o f the Southern District o f N e w Y o r k , the F B I , as well as to all state and bar disciplinary committees where these attorneys are licensed to practice law. They both have refiised these requests and have allowed

-4-

these criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt individuals to go unpunished for the millions o f lives they have destroyed. 11. As o f M a r c h 2012, my former attorneys at SNR were still denying that any derogatory vs'ords existed in

the emails o f the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and C A A . I n their perjurious declarations which they provided to the court under the "penalty o f perjury," Attorney Richard Primoff stated in his signed declaration that since I did not include "Exhibit 3 1 " in my motion papers, he could not be certain about what I am referring to. H e fiirther stated that on the contran,', his recollection was that the emails received from the Defendants yielded nothing o f use in proving our case. After "Exhibit 3 1 " was retrieved from my case files at the Southern District o f N e w Y o r k in Manhattan, I immediately answered their Declarations with a copy o f "Exhibit 3 1 " - which was faxed from SNR to the W i l l i e Gary L a w Firm - showing the derogatory words that had been used and found in the emails o f executives at W M A and C A A . Neither my former attorneys nor the court responded for weeks. Finally, attorney Raymond Heslin responded with a continuation o f false statements to the court. They knew that they had been caught lying under oath. W i t h this damaging evidence presented to Judge Robert P. Patterson, along with their perjurious declarations, Judge Patterson still refijsed to honor my request for an oral hearing on the matter and denied my FRCP 60 M o t i o n . For nearly eleven years, M r . M a r t i n Gold, M r . Heslin and others at the law firm o f SNR have refused to honor my request for the hundreds o f email documents that rightfiiUy belong to me. Despite my numerous requests for property in w h i c h I paid $200,000.00 to obtain, they still refuse to turn over the actual emails to their rightful owner.

BRIEFLY ADDRESSING THE WILLIE GARY FIRM'S INVOVLEMENT IN THIS CONSPIRACY.

12. Given that the W i l l i e Gary F i r m was not involved in electronic discovery, they cannot be held

responsible for violating the protocol o f Judge James C. Francis. Since E E D and SNR refiJsed to provide them with all o f the responsive emails, including the underlying emails to "Exhibit 3 1 " and/or the emails contained on compact discs, it was impossible for them to produce to the Defendants emails in "hard copy form w i t h Bates stamps." Hov/ever, one question that I have been frequently asked is why d i d n ' t Attorney W i l l i e Gary pursue the actual emails after "Exhibit 3 1 " was faxed to him by SNR showing the derogatoP)' words being used. The answer to this question is very simple. .After reviewing his actions and reviewing the evidence, 1 truly believe in retrospect that he was also a part o f the conspiracy. I believe that he also was compensated by the defendants to do the bare minimum in having these documents produced and just walk away quietly after judgment was made against us. M r . Gary could have easily filed a motion alleging fraud against his clients by our former attorneys at SNR, but he didn't. The main reason for my beliefs is that M r . Gary worked on a contingency basis and allowed this type o f fraud to take place against his clients. Not only were we defrauded as Plaintiffs, but i f he were not involved in this conspiracy, he and his firm would have been defrauded as well. However, he allowed this fraud to be perpetrated against us, threw us under the bus, and hasn't said a w o r d about the injustices that have transpired in this case since. H i s silence speaks volumes.

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF FRAUD BY THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY AND LOEB & LOEB LLP EV ROWE.
13. Concealing "Exhibit 3 1 " and its underlying emails isn't the only example o f fraud that occurred

throughout my case. Fraud was also committed by the W i l l i a m Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency during our on-site inspection o f their documents. D u r i n g our inspection - which I was present and actively involved in - we w o u l d label all documents that we believed were material to our case so that they could be copied and sent to our attorneys as evidence. We started noticing that the Defendants began removing highly incriminating documents such as the Spice Girls promoter settlement breakdown showing a $70,000 pay out to

-5-

each o f the white promoters that were invovled. This demonstrated collusion and supported our claims o f antitrust. Also, they concealed a letter from Cara L e w i s - a Jewish music agent at the W i l l i a m Morris Agency that deals predominately w i t h African American artists - to a Jewish-white promoter by the name o f D i c k Kloctzman showing race-based disparate treatment, as well as other evidence that proved our claims against them to ensure that w e did not receive those documents. After we noticed this was occurring, one o f our attorneys from the Gary F i r m - Laura L . M a l l - began manually copying the documents that were viewed by us as highly important on her laptop computer before we would send them down to be copied. This is how w e finally caught them in the act o f removing and concealing evidence. When our attorneys from the Gray F i r m confronted them and we were able to give them precise information about the documents that were missing, and threatened to go to the court, they fmally decided to send over to us the documents that they had removed and attempted to conceal.

14.

Another example o f fraud being perpetrated upon the court occurred after discovery ended in my case.

In or around March 2003, Loeb & Loeb L L P presented a taped phone conversafion to the court allegedly between myself and Cara Lewis. I was asked by my attorneys from the W i l l i e Gary L a w F i r m to listen to the recorded conversation to verify its authenticity. Immediately it became obvious that a voice that was clearly not mine had been inserted into the conversation. The strange voice made racial and vulgar statements to say the least. When I informed my attorneys at the Gary F i r m o f the fraud that I felt had been perpetrated, they decided to send the taped conversation to a forensic scientist - Steve Cain - to see i f it had been altered or changed in any manner. Approximately t w o weeks later, we received a written report from M r . Cain, in w h i c h he stated that the tape had been altered in numerous places and that insertions had been made to the tape as well. The Gary Firm then filed a motion to the court alleging that the tape that was presented was fraudulent and they also submitted the written report from the tape specialist. M y attorneys from the Gary F i r m also asked the court to order Loeb and Loeb L L P and the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency to produce the original tape recording o f the conversation in question. The court refrised our request during oral argument on June 1, 2003, stating that discoveiy was now closed. Finally, the court decided to not allow the tape into evidence. This was another attempt to perpetrate fraud upon the court in my case by Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb L L P , and the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency.

CONCLUSION.
15. I believe the agency Defendants financed this entire conspiracy and would have never done so without

seeing "Exhibit 3 1 , " the actual damaging emails, as well as other devastating evidence that proved our claims against them. M y attorneys, as well as the Defendants and their counsel, violated a number o f federal laws including, but not limhed to, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations A c t ( R I C O ) as codified 18 U.S.C. 1961 ei seq., conspiracy to interfere w i t h civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985, and fraud and illegal tampering o f evidence under 18 U.S.C. 1506. They also committed numerous ethical violations as well. The conspiracy that has been perpetrated in my case could not have happened without the participation o f all parties on both sides. I f any o f my many attorneys from SNR or the Gary Firm had raised an issue w i t h the court about the fraud that had occurred, not only w i t h regards to the concealed emails, but also w i t h other matters, this conspiracy could not have taken place or been successful. A l l were handsomely rewarded to the tune o f millions o f dollars, and they all quietly walked away with their riches hoping that this case would never surface again. They did not care about the lives and families they have devastated and destroyed. I have been continuously meeting w i t h the F B I in Washington D . C . and N e w Y o r k demanding that something is done about the awful crimes that have been committed in my case. L i k e all tax paying American citizens, 1 am entitled to equal protection under the law without regard to my race and 1 w i l l not stop pursuing that right, nor w i l l 1 tire from fighting, until all o f these immoral and unethical individuals are brought to justice for the suffering they have caused millions o f people.

!6.

! personally pra\ that the Arbitrator will continue to remain impartial and substantially reward the

Claimant in this case. .Also, 1 pray that sanctions will be brought against Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig to the point that it will punish and serve as a deterrent to all others in the legal community who take an oath to be ethical, then consider engaging in this type o f e\il behavior. The\t be held accountable for intentionally using the judicial system to subvert the law in order to deprive .African .Americans o f their human and civil rights under the color o f the law - a violation o f 1 8 LSC 242. They must understand that the repercussions for engaging in this type o f unethical and criminal conduct are severe and they are not above the law. To repeat, the document in question. "E.xhibit 3 1 . " is an authentic document. 1 know without a shadow o f any doubt or reservation that the Respondents and their legal counsel are the orchestrators o f this conspiracy because they have continued to benefit from these despicable and egregious crimes against humanity - hence the reason for Marcus Washington's lawsuit. Their awful conduct has allowed William .Morris and others throughout Hollywood to continue their discriminator) practices b\g minorities an equal opportunity to advance in the entertainment industry. 17. Whether the masses realize this or not, their unlawful and unethical actions have violated the ci\'il and

human rights o f millions o f .Americans and it's onl_\ matter o f time before the truth is exposed on a world scale. I have hired a new team o f attorneys that will be going after each individual attorney, law firm and Hollywood talent agenc\d in this corrupt conspirac> to fraudulenth conceal smoking gun evidence in niy case. In similar fashion to your Interim Decision, we will also demand that William Morris. Loeb & Loeb LLP. .Michael P. Zweig and other Defendants in my case produce and deliver the actual emails underK ing 'Exhibit 3 r ' to its rightful owner, which is myself Leonard Rowe.

Leonard Rowe

1. Leonard Rowe, sign this under the penalty o f perjun. this

davofJune 2013.

-7-

Exhibit J

Qualiricatioiis of Myself < & Similarly Sifiiated White/"Jewish" Agent Trainees That Began Working At the New Y o r k office of William Morris in September 2008. Original Area of Interest at William Morris

Nsime

Raee/Ethnicit> & Sex

Start Date of Employment

Hometonn

Birthday/Age On First Day.

College/Universltj

Relevant Work Experience

Four years' relexanl work experience as a music journalist for Ego Miami/Six Degrees, publicist for music producer Danjahandz (Juslin Timberlake, Nelly Furlado. K.eri Hilson), two years co-managing and establishing the career of J Records' recording artist Jazmine Sullivan, and GRAMMY U Student Rep. for Florida Chapter of The Recording Academy. No experience to my knoxvledge. At most, online journal isl/blogger. Applied and was rejected for an Assistant position for Cara Lewis before applying lo Agent Trainee Program. Failed test the first time.

Where Are Thev Now?

Marcus [saiali Washington

African American, male.

September 2, 2008

Music

Orlando and Miami, F L

September 21, 1984 (23, going on 24 years old later thai month.)

Bachelor's in Media Management and Psychology in May 2006 and Master's in Music Business and Entertainment Industries in May 2008, both from (he University of Miami.

Constrticlively discharged in April 2010 after raising complaints of racial discriminaOon lo upper management and Human Resources with no action being taken by organization. Blacklisled for blowing whistle on cabal's unlawfully discriminatory practices. Unemployed for nearly three years.

Agent Trainee No. 1 (JDF)

WhitcrJcwish," male.

September 2, 2008

Music

Long Island, N Y

July 23, 198.5 (23 years old)

Bachelor's in May 2007. College unknown.

Voluntarily left the company to pursue other career ambitions sometime in 2009. Now an online journalist.

Agent Trainee No. 2 ( L D )

While, female.

September 2. 2008

Theater

Boston, M A

September 25. 1986 (21, going on 22 years old later that month.)

Bachelor's in Production/Stage Management from Emerson College in May 2008. Referred by former co-COO of New York office, Wa>iie Kabak.

Production Intern at The Public Theater in May to September 2006.

Foniier Assistant throughout Theater Department. Now Assistant in (he Television Department. Assistant in Commercial Department between March 2009 and June 2010. Promoted lo Coordinator in or around June 2010. By age 23, promoled to Agent sometime in 201J. Now, working on endorse m ent/b landing opportunities for company's established Hispanic clients.

Agent Trainee No. 3 (MG)

White/"Jevvish," male.

In or around September 22, 2008.

Music

New Paltz, N Y

June 4. 1988 (20 years old)

Bachelor's in Music Business and Spanish from S U N Y Oneonla in May 2008.

No experience.

Exhibit K

Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Agency (September 9, 2008).

Total: 52
White: 51, 98.1% African American: 0, 0' Hispanic: 0, 0% Asians: 1, 1.9%

Total: 10*
White: 10, 100% African American: 0, 09 Hispanic: 0, 0% Asian: 0, 0%

Total: 56*
White: 46, 82.1% African American: 5, 8.9% Hispanic: 2, 3.6% Asian: 2, 3.6%

Total: 56*
White: 51, 91.1% African American: 1, l . i Hispanic: 1, 1.8% Asian: 3, 5.3%

Indian: 1,1.8%

Support Staff (HR, accounting, Total: 11

White: 2, 18.2% African American: 4, 36.4% Hispanic: 5, 45.4% Asian: 0, 0%

reception, IT, special sen/ices, etc.)

Total: 31
White: 19, 61.3% African American: 8, 25.! Hispanic: 3, 9.7% Asian: 1,3.2%

Mailroom Staff

*Double counting occurs at the Agent Trainee, Assistant/Floater and Coordinator levels. In the classic "glass ceiling" pattern of occupational segregation, African Americans and other minorities are restricted and disproportionately clustered into the lowest levels o f responsibility, authority and influence w i t h i n t h e organization.

Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Endeavor Ent. (April 10, 2010).

Total: 50
White: 49, 98% African American: 0, 0! Hispanic: 0, 0% Asian: 1, 2%

Total: 8*
White: 8,100% African American: 0, 0' Hispanic: 0, 0% Asian: 0, 0%

Total: 65'
White: 58, 89.2% African American: 3, 4.6 Hispanic: 2, 3 . 1 % Asian: 2 , 3 . 1 %

Total: 30*
White: 26, 86.7% African American: 2, 6.7% Hispanic: 1, 3.3% Asian: 1, 3.3%

Support Staff (HR, accounting, Total: 7

White: 2, 28.6% African American: 2, 28.6 Hispanic: 3, 42.8% Asian: 0, 0%

reception, IT, special services, etc.

Total: 23
White: 13, 56.5% African American: 7, 30.4% Hispanic: 2, 8.7% Asian: 1, 4.3%

Mailroom Staff

After telling former co-workers that I was going t o sue the company for discrimination, I was informed that the company hired five African American (and other minorities) floaters in July 2010. This Is neither coincidence nor a panacea for a century long history o f institutional racism and discriminatory practices.

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : A g e n t

September 2008

April 2010

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : C o o r d i n a t o r

September 2008

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : A s s i s t a n t / F l o a t e r

September 2008

April 2010

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : A g e n t T r a i n e e

Alter the merger of the William Morris Agency (WMA) and Endeavor in June 2009, William Morris Endeavor Ent. discontinued the WMA's Agent Trainee program. New hires became known as "floaters" and after three months of being an agent's assistant, you could then apply to join the WME Agent Trainee program. At the time of my leaving, no floaters from NYC were inducted into the WME Agent Trainee program. So while there appears to be an increase in the number of minority agent trainees, it's illusory because the total pool of agent trainees decreased from 57 to 28.

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : S u p p o r t S t a f f

Racial D e m o g r a p h i c s a t t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y o f f i c e o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s B a s e d o n P o s i t i o n : M a i l r o o m

September 2008

April 2010

Total Number of Floaters, Assistants, Agent Trainees, Coordinators, Agents & HR by Race at the New York office of the William Morris Agency in September 2008
140 , . ^ . W h i t e , 123 (89.8%)

Total Number of Floaters, Assistants, Agent Trainees, Coordinators, Agents & HR by Race at the New York office of William Morris Endeavor Ent. in April 2010
140

120

White, 117 (93.6%)

100

o. E

80

.2
E

60

3
40

20 African American, 3 (2.4%) Hispanic, 2 (1.6%) Asian, 3

(2.4%)

Exhibit L

M.Washington
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject Flag Status: M.Washington <humanrights.areamust@gmaii.com> Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:51 PM 'AAA Carol Placella' mzweig@loeb.com; ccarbone@loeb.com RE: ***Document for Case: 13 160 01426 12 Flagged

I want to put this in writing right now. After closely reading both Interim Decisions, I believe that fraud is officially occurring in this proceeding. Arbitrator Gregory has done a complete about face, similar to the egregious actions o f Judge Patterson in Rowe Entertainment v. Wiiliam Morris Agency et al. I w i l l submit an Answer showing all of his inconsistencies in order to support this fact, but in the meantime, I ask that discovery be stayed until this issue is resolved by the A A A and Arbitrator Gregory, Marcus

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, fjies or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBrTED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediateiy notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

From: AAA Carol Placella [mailto:CarolPlacella@adr.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:54 PM To: 'M.Washington' Cc: ccarbone@loeb.com; mzweig@loeb.com Subject: RE: ***Document for Case: 13 160 01426 12 Mr. Washington ~ It was received after I left on Friday, July 12, I was out of the office yesterday and it was sent to the parties today when I returned to the office. Thank you Linda Hendrickson Case Administrator with

American Arbitration Association T:401 431 4890 F:866 644 0234 E:CarolPlacella@adr.org 950 Warren Ave. East Providence. Rl 02914-1414

Carol Placella Manager of ADR Services

wvw.adr.orq

Heather Santo, Director Northeast Case Management Center

Exhibit M

[1

13 iV\o\^o^

f^qc^f^c^'*^ / ^ o e ^ f

fVev-vjfje.^^

A m e r i c a n A r b i t r a t i o n Association
Dispute Resolution Services Worldwide

/\4/2A> rfi
r I

Northeast Case Managemem

Center

July 16, 2013 Via Email Only

950 Warren Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914 telephone: 866-293-4053 facsimile: 401-435-6529 internet: hUp://vvw\v.adr.org/

Marcus 1. Washington 54 Boerum Street Apattment 6M Brooklyn, NY 11206 Christian D. Carbone, Esq. Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Michael Zweig, Esq. Loeb & Loeb, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154-1895 Re: 13 160 01426 12 Marcus Washington and William Morris Endeavor Entertainment and JefF Meade and Sarah Van Hoven

Dear Parties: Per direction of Arbitrator Gregory, attached pleasefindthe Interim Decision 2 in this matter. Very Truly Yours,
Linda Hendrickson

Case Administrator with Carol A. Placella Manager of ADR Services 4014314890 CarolPlacella@adr.org Heather Santo Director 401 431 4702 SantoH@adr.org cc: David L. Gregory, Esq.

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CASE 13 160 01426 12

Marcus Washington, pro se Claimant

V.

William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC, formerly known as the William Morris Agency, et. al.. Respondents

I INTERIM DECISION 2 (INTERIM DECISION 1 INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN)

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

M / 7

Claimant asserts, and ultimately must prove, that Respondents unlawfully discriminated against him in his employment because he is African-American.

J i l S ^ l

^''^ hired by Respondents as an Agent Trainee in mid-August, 2008, >^'/Ui-^ f \ A ^

JUjc^^^'^^h-^

wR-i^ k-' ^; Allocs p ^c^

began work on September 2, 2008, and received a buy-out in 2010 (liaving

ceased work in April 2010 but remained on payroll until mid-August 2010, after a lunch at Claimant's invitation in New York City with Respondents' Ms. Carole Katz, the Los Angeles based head of Human Resources.

Vv-|<^ ^Vi/t^H

o^c( <z^ (

7W|3ro-Ap_

In early in the United J 2011,, Claimant unsuccessfully , sued Respondents , . ,^ j,

'

States District Court tor the Southern District of New York, and unsuccessfully appealed to the Second Circuit. He has yet to meet with any success whatsoever

pA<>fcii '^^^f AT- 4-^^=*^

u^c
-k i t-ivvv

in the federal courts; they have unequivocally repudiated all of Claimant's initiatives to avoid arbitration and instead obtain a jury trial in federal court.

uua'

Respondents moved to compel arbitration in early February 2011. In mid- ts^c

(>

/rvoa.fc;<?:((i'i||une, 2012, the Clerk of the Court issued a Non-Jurisdiction Letter.

'-j
-^Hl5^ of

I accepted the AAA administrative appointment in late July, 2012 to serve

::lta,M

ajdi- V^s the Arbitrator in this matter. Shortly thereafter, in an August 24, 2012

t *.-oCocp

2^e^tfv|conference call, the parties indicated that they were amenable to me deciding this matter solely on Motions and without the need for an on-site hearing. Via their extensive Motion papers, the parties seek summary judgment, dismissal of

"^^^

^-^c^ p p ^ ^ p-c^^.

the opposition's claims in their entirety, significant money damages and additional remedies and attorneys' fees and costs.

1 ' ^ ^ j*^"^

ARBITRATION HEARING SHOULD PROCEED

^'r^/^\j.jv>fo^^^^^^^^^^^^

August 24, 2012 conference call, on December 21,

^ ^ 2 0 1 2 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a District Court's grant of Summary Judgment to defendant employer without a ^ , ,

^.
hearing and expressed jurisprudential unease with decisions regarding
j^vv^^j

'^^^ r-K
~su^-^<^

employment law issues rendered solely via Summary Judgment papers. Rivera ^' Rochester and Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, F.3d, No. 11-762 '(December 21, 2012)

\o W W

vskoj .fitv*.

United States Senator from New York, Daniel Moynihan, often

V^^ ^,1" ^ -^^l^

H'^ci'^ 't^- said that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, we are not each entitled to our own facts. The facts respectively marshaled thus far make Summary Judgment rendered exclusively by Motion practice not viable. There are deep genuine disputes of material facts between the parties. Furthermore, the continuing troubling indeterminacy of potentially very important possible evidence ("Exhibit A") may be more thoroughly and, hopefully, finally resolved

ixc ^fo^ v^4aj

lj^)t-^

p^fgj

p^ae^'J.

by sworn testimony in a hearing. In any event, subsequent to the August 24, 2012 conference call, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit expressed jurisprudential apprehensions about the propriety of Summary Judgment on submitted papers alone serving as the instrument to resolve employment disputes.

erf C-^CQ^-H:. i ? < w t v ' ^ ; / ' ^ e^'MCvtC ,

xic^^: r c v n e j C i ' " j c^vv-t^jv^^^

i i - 1

^ '

5
0 ^ ytA-^(KY Ci4eA^

THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

ricviv^f^^ 4,v- Claimant expressly reiterates that he wants a jury trial in federal court, '-^ ^ ^cfr v p O A -fvi^ _ >f-five
tr^c^j

absent Summary Judgment entirely in his favor in this Arbitration forthwith. He regards the 2008 and 2009 arbitration agreements he signed as unconscionable, tainted with illegality, malum in se, and signed under duress in the depths of the

SP^va^^

Great Recession.

{\r^c^

While rhetorically rich, this language ultimately is merely conclusory rote, ^3^^^ j> however, unless and until the larger factual context explicates Claimant's adjectivalcascade with tangible, credible, objective facts sufficient to authenticate "Exhibit A" and establish its relevance. M

^^CA-\Me^^[^ Vt

Lay.

"UNCONSCIONABIHTY''

^c i c d ^ c ^ .

e^^^^i^

A facially legitimate employment arbitration agreement could be rendered unconscionable if the agreement is used to obstruct, rather than "allow for adequate discovery."
'-fa .f.x^^ S I A C C ' v c

f v ^ ^ A h o ^ 't ^'^'f

At the inception of employment, and subsequently on July 1, 2009,

o^(^uoA&.HtL

]^J^'fe^"^ollowlng the William Morris Agency and Endeavor combining their businesses, Claimant signed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, agreeing to arbitrate, inter ;xf 5A^ U Zvaccnxni>rKji

<?j>j<^.

alia, claims of unlawful race discrimination. The agreements sweep broadly. In 2009 in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 129 S,.Ct. 456 (2009), the United States Supreme Court upheld an arbitration agreement quite similar to those in this arbitration. '^J^^J^^^ See, David L. Gregory, Mandatory Labor Arbitration of Statutory Claims and the v^cuoJ Future of Fair Employment, 19 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 4 2 9 - 4 5 8 (2010)(with E. McNamara).

p-^^jf
%c>^<-

c ^ c ^ 4

^v^-)^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^

7 ' ; ^ ^ ^

"c^c^^Wt^*^ y The parties' Mutual Arbitration Agreement provides that if any provision (i'pr^if jT^Njd. of the Agreement "is held by a court to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall be severable and continue in full force and effect." I need not address the

-^..^/on
)a^^J-

s^^i. "he.

:^>J7i

f " " - ^ ^ 4-

/^UU4.c. Y e e - . c 4

-hU c<jc-

potential nonviability of this portion of the Agreement at this time, since there has not been any finding of the Agreement's purported "UnconscionabllltY'' The parties' Agreement is otherwise thus far largely unexceptional. HucU,

-fk-ef

j^cS(laity,

"EXHIBIT A"

Claimant remains free throughout continuing discovery and at the i'> ^ k i c ^ -^r^ forthcoming arbitration hearing to continue to try to provide credible
J<eJi.

^'^^tictl^^^'itjle
^ ^ [ j ^ ^ ^

U '"^'''^3^'0" about Exhibit A: e.g., after the Rowe/Heslin meeting, who retained the document that Rowe saw on Heslin's desk? Were copies made or distributed? If so, by and to whom? When? ^ ''^'+ 1^ Mv <i -tvs

^f^^ 1^'^^

^ ^f-J^^tSc
^ . i ^ ^ v ^

C < ^ > i ^ \(.

Federal Judges Patterson and Castel have Issued rulings adverse to

iMo^^

Claimant. In 2003, Judge Patterson found Exhibit A, in its earlier incarnation aka , , Exhibit 31, "unidentified and unauthenticated," "irrelevant" and l^^^l "inadmissiW7^ On page 2 of his 43 page decision of November 8, 2012 denying^ yv^ded^ Mr. Rpwe's Motion to reopen his case. Judge Patterson unambiguously says h * ^ v^K^Pc|/^, 'Mr. towe's claim is meritless.

Respondents emphasize that after 55 depositions and over two million documents produced in the Rowe litigation, Respondents and their lawyers 0^ It^^^ li-'f continue to adamantly maintain that they never saw or knew of such emails and never received any such email from Rowe litigants. While those decisions may j ^ ^ ^ ^ t^^^-^vt-j

v^cw^^^W not necessarily have res judicata or collateral estoppel consequences as a ^pi/) formal matter in this Arbitration, the federal courts are nevertheless entitled to

i '^t^^tk^

Judge Castel found that the 2009 arbitration agreement trumps the 2008 agreement. I agree. On their face, neither the 2008 nor the 2009 arbitration agreements appear problematic. The California Supreme Court and its progeny explain how an Initially facially adequate arbitration agreement can be
/ > i ^ ^ ^

-P^-^Bl)

c.u-u.^sf^6ei

-p^jj^jv^^f

rendered unconscionable by subsequent (in)action by a party. See, Leasa

b^ipvus^

Compton V. Superior Court of Los Angeles County and American Management Services, 214 Cal. App. 4 873 (March 19, 2013), reviewing Armendariz v. Foundation Health Sych-Care Services, 24 Cal. 4*^ 83 (2000) andjits progeny, summarizing "the [arbitration] agreement must allow for adequate discovery.']
cL'^iCff^c^ [^^-^k'^

Claimant is not Mr. Rowe. Claimant is entitled to have this proceeding on

^^.J^^*^

Claimant's merits. Likewise, although Claimant openly considers Mr. Rowp an ^^f^^^^^Jf^ cXfsc*'^'^. -icA cio^t^J

'^ff^l-

i.\oO\}\<AA/C

t^ftiS^fe^qAt^

'^^g^CJ^'/j

ally, Claimant must present Claimant' t's case. While I appreciate Respondent's I
^" 'Vj

T^^^'^
oh H^aJ

difficult position of seemingly having to prove the proverbial negative, I expect Respondents reasonable^Dertmerrt'Sisb^ery r i c a p w i i w c i K to \ Iremain e m a i l I openI to facilitating iav.iiiia(.iiig i ca^wiiauic p c i iiiiciit. uiscuvci y

^cj^^f
/|>V^' H^"^^'

c/iy^^Af-i<frequests regarding particular persons named on the current version of Exhibit A.

r^/e,

j o - i f ^^^^^f^

The parties in this arbitration have agreed to be bound by New York law. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
'^^'^'^'^ jkt^<*

^ N e w York, thus far, has not adopted California's often overt anti-arbitration ethos of past few decades. The arbitration agreements in this Arbitration ^ f i i vjoi/j^ provide that the law of the state where the employee works(ed) governs.

A^C|V4K

/.^

Oy^^^si-'^i

'

The broad principle remains true in every jurisdictionif the facially fair

il'^

M O * . U

arbitration agreement frustrates rather than facilitates a fundamentally fair tf^/Jx.^w.<^^.^ arbitration, the facially legitimate arbitration agreement can become unconscionable and unenforceable by the operative conduct of a party. 7 ^ jo^^ia^

Tk^s: \ 1 Cc^. ^^^^^"^

Lc

Claimant has asserted from the inception that, for more than a decade,

C / V i ' | ft,QKf-j

^i^g odious "N-word" has been used by superior agents of Respondent regarding employees of color. By pure fortuitous circumstance in another case

^j^^^^J
yry'^

cori^-ccoj \^ (Rowe) more than a decade ago, the "N-word" list was inadvertently seen on
^iOCri^i'V^. ' " ~ - - ~ '

the desk of SNR [Sonnenschein, Nath, and Rosenthal] attorney Raymond Heslin. Mr. Leonard Rowe, in an Affidavit in another proceeding, affirms: "I personally

saw [the] Exhibit... in its entirety. It contained all pages including 1 and 17....At

y^^y,^

that time, it contained the word 'nigger' 349 times." Exhibit A may have become J Tg!^ I both considerably more, and less, informational than in previous Incarnations. One constant remains Claimant sees It as the classic evidentiary "smoking
/Bt tl/f^

'^^\\^-^
^CMV|

gun," while Respondents remain adamant regarding its inauthenticity, +1^^*^^/

^r^^

^ .ji^

^tT^'^pjS^f.^.'^

ey^^li-

^Irrelevance, and inadmissibility.

i^(>^o^^

-/j-wl'^'N

Respondents continue unequivocal denials.

/^^V^.A

-fJlJp^

pc^iu^^^i AC/VA.KO/!

pi&c

erv^c^)\f

In response to Claimant's persistence that Respondents and their lawyers

'^'D^^-^ ^'^ust have the infamous "nigger" emails, thus involving more than a dozen ^ lawyers and three law firms suppressing evidenceRespondents reiterate: "This is utter nonsense." (Respondents' Response at pages 2-3, footnote 2, to , NJ*^

-^^'-^Hfiterlm Decision 1) "Claimant's persistent contention that Rowe's expert and "^^^^ piUiV" o Rowe's counsel produced to WMA (and its counsel Loeb & Loeb) what Claimant - f v ' now refers to as 'nigger' emails, and then concealed such documents for'^a^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^ years, is calumny. It is, demonstrably, an outright and knowing lie. Not a single such email was ever produced, or is even known ever to have existed." (Respondents' Reply at page 5 to Interim Decision 1) '^'^ rv^^Ss^^ o p ^Vir^

Within a few days of receipt of my Interim Decision 1, Claimant expressly states in his email writing to Mr. Michael Zweig, Esq. that "I [Claimant] refuse to communicate any further with him [Mr. Christian A. Carbone, Esq., a lawyer colleague of Mr. Zweig at Loeb & Loeb, the law firm representing Respondents ] i-j^oLoPs'Y II ' M ifi^ilvj O^f^'^ /c^io. "...."Based on Christian's arrogant and defiant response to my request to 'meet and confer,' coupled with the fact that he was not involved in Rowe and clearly knows nothing about what actually occurred in electronic discovery."

(I^espondents' Reply to Interim Decision 1, Exhibit 2)

^li^^e ^^^j ;

ve^oKf-^"^' W

Each party has the right to be represented by the person{s) of their choosing. Neither party has a veto regarding the opposing party

^pe*^P "t^ f l i u d aogi/^akr

^ > p W r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Claimant, not Respondents, summarily truncated this most ^ptl'jl't-o^ recent opportunity to potentially authenticate Exhibit A^. The (non)admissibility '^'^ ^i^S>-

Ci^d.'p-t^ of Exhibit A in the present arbitration could have significant Influence.

'^'^CL^i^W'

i/^fpof\Scj

' e'^Plain in Interim Decision 1, "I am staying further decisions on the ^

^c^tAij-

remainder of the still-pending claims at this Arbitration's summary judgment phase at this time. I do so to spur further responsive discovery. In the hope that these measures may facilitate the ascertainment of sufficient contextual clarity

10

regarding Exhibit A...I order the parties to meet and confer and, if possible, to enter into joint stipulations regarding Exhibit A." ^i^p+f?^
of-\^j<

I expect Claimant to take the initiative, as the proponent of Exhibit A "f^lVt^ k-fco^-'^f* coming into evidence. I take Arbitral notice of the stunning advances in e-"^^^^^i^ >f^ discovery retrieval forensics, and the corresponding reductions in cost over the course of more than a decade since, for example, the inception of the Rowe litigation. Claimant asks that Respondents and their lawyers provide $200,000 to cover the ediscovery costs Incurred In prior litigation. That request is denied. ^
\c^A<*a

'P^4^J*i' ^ |

^A-f

I am, however, amenable to a more specific, narrow, carefully focused, and cost ^^^2^ effective request by Claimant for EED materials (including, but not limited to, emails) within Respondent's custody and control that may helpfully elucidate and answer current and continuing questions regarding Exhibit A. ^ ^ ^ ' ^ j ^ ^
^

^!^~\ ^ ^
^^\s

Sc.

There is less than a handful of

named persons meeting all of the

^f^^^*i^
^ ^1 r

conditions set forth in Interim Decision 1, with the consequence that Exhibit A ^cflv|v-(\..appears to be losing some of whatever possible evidentiary traction It may
I CC ^( HKLJ '

<^4^J 4^

ianov^v^
'^/^l^

bave previously had, in the absence of a critical mass of current employees who were also named on both the earlier, and the more contemporary, versions of , '^^^<^ci^l'^.'r^,A,c^c4\c^d,w^^
) ^

X/^?^^^1^^xhlbitA.

In this case before me at this Arbitration, I continue to need to know ^^^.^more about proposed Exhibit A. The parties' assessments of Exhibit A
'1/1 \JC^)V^C:,Y

^^/-o

dramatically vary, to say the least. The author(s) have not been definitively

3>^o'Th'> identified. I still want to know who authored it. Is it genuine? Is it relevant? , * -^^M^xvi''c!>f The possible testimony of Messrs. Kaymond Heslin, Esq. and Mr. Leonard "^owe seems essential in clarifying the chain of custody and control regarding
. y ^\f^,\ji'u

^<KcW>^

Exhibit A.

r - r - ^ l

f^dc^c^sjcU'^

-vNoj^i*^povviC

The arbitration should not be further delayed indefinitely while the

logjam regarding proposed Exhibit A is being resolved.

i^4 ^VN

V^p^WHj

I r . ^ ' l ^ """Seders l^io^^r'T^ti^"^'^ the AAA, on June 20, 2013 I completed receipt of the parties' responses to my April 18, 2013 Interim Order 1, whereby I granted Claimant's Motion in part to temporarily stay the Arbitration.

( A W I ^ I ^ ^ <^c^is-fc

5) z"-

In light of the voluminous materials generated in the context of this Intricate Motion practice, although I do not formally order it, I am certainly

'^coz ( C O J , ^fc.

12

amenable to the parties respectively filing amended claims/counterclaims/answers via AAA by August 2, 2013. c<^s pi-^ ft

71 rryj

Ai^V)'*'/

Claimant seek reinstatement among his remedies? If so, under any

l^^p^t^ {'^i^

c ^ ^ ^ j - K ^ f particular proposed conditions? Please reply via AAA by August 2, 2013.

^^A^

(<^K)For the reasons set forth above, I ORDER:

i-i^.s'fy

af-cc^'^^W

As to the Stay of the Arbitration, it is lifted.

o^-oc^/n-ej. ~

jU_5cj^I/IA4C!OA
n '^h'c^

As to the Motions for Summary Judgment and Cross Motions to Dismiss,

i^c^\\ic(

including the dismissal of certain named individuals from this case. Decision is "deferred l^sefec^SsfeWiifeiLQ^feA^^
'T^
dec^cp-.

^f^?,

iW^'^^^f

-^ad^oc^

o/if^ctyncf.^

The convening and commencement of the arbitration hearing at the offices of the American Arbitration Association, 120 Broadway, 2 l " floor. New York City, NY 10271 shall proceed forthwith. Av jvj}^1?13

J^2^^2f

As to Exhibit A and any and all potentially forthcoming proferred evidence, I continue my April 18, 2013 First Interim Decision Order in full force and effect. Each party has the continuing duty of facilitating discovery. Pursuant ' ^ ' ^ ^ to New York law, discovery requests, and the statutory law against unlawful employment discrimination, shall be liberally construed.

13

Further as to Exhibit A, Claimant is to provide with specificity by August 9, 2013 via AAA a list of additional persons, if any, situated analogous to Tom Ross through Paola Palazzo as set forth on page 34 of Claimant's Reply to the First Interim Decision. ffip^^
"j"^ 4^k-> ca^^fcji^^ ^ccXoX di:>c^^\^x^o^ <^

cJ^rcov^
^ic^tc.

<^'\^4^jt

The parties shall cooperate in scheduling and taking depositions. The parties shall endeavor to complete taking primary depositions by Friday,
^^^^^^^^^mf3m> ^<"^^ ^'^'"^^'

September 13, 2013, 5 p.m. EST.

vk/<MVt

parties shall cooperate in ascertaining mutually conducive days for

A-^^^'*^'^i\^Q arbitration hearing. By Friday, August 2, 2013, 5 p.m., the parties shall notify \<.>\rj\^i^^(.^AAA in writing of any s[x dates between September 23 and December 16, 2013 0^ f^^wti^ Jp\/e selected by the parties as mutually conducive for convening the arbitration hearing. Upon receipt, AAA shall promptly notify me. I will endeavor to

^oHIrfccommodate the parties' proposed dates and will confirm two dates for the AAA notice of hearing.

^^^^iiio/i

p>^o^\<^tS

As to Respondents' Motion for a Protective Order: Respondents may draft ^

i^oo-oo

4 - , ( 2 ^ 0 g ^ ^ submit a proposed Protective Order for my consideration that both i'^f'^^,

\oi-\r\s and protects the rights of Respondents and their counsel while also

g\drso{

protecting Claimant's constitutional rights.

^ ^ ^ ^ c i . . t o ^ , r .

(r^p^^i^^c U

Ini^rr.UaS']^
^ ^ ^ ^

^ " ' ^ ^ j

As to the Antitrust claims, Decision remains deferred. H i So Ordered,

0 4 '^^VA'f'K^-f,

> i>

^ o ^ \ r d

' /<

David L. Gregory

I, David L. Gregory, affirm that, on this 12th Day of July, 2013, I have executed this document as my Second Interim Decision In this matter.

David L. Gregory

15

Ci^\^^JU

'f-<^ ^ ^ u ^ v ^ C * ^

r^kj-i

I Ir^^t-

nCM.

Kcot -WelTO-sx ^t'

" ( { ^ ^/

'^c'f < \l

"4 *

f^vj

c r t H -

W A S H I N G T O N v. W i li a mM o r r i sS E C O N DI N T E R I MD E C I S I O NJ U L Y1 22 0 1 3

<;,/^ < i / ^ ; ^ v ! S --^^i'iyf A P ^ ' c * ^

\ 0-f

16

(^\;>- 'Vt-t "^o.V

P\^MA1

^/IM'-(<^ Kr,P.\eS

CV-^f-o

o f 5^J) I

-Z^c^a
p A ^ ^ ^ i ' t^k.'t'f Af<^ e

[^MM

^^^ceA)

A ^ 4 ^

ftt-V -fi^ ttPt- ' c ^ poii, C S S . ' i e > -

no

Jon
'(2e%^j^'^^i I loe^': ice)'

B/icu i 2 | P PCI K

/vi rk^^/t?! ^ b i ' ^ '/LTSI''

^v^Or.

Exhibit N

relied heavily on a myriad o f sources (e.g. the personal testimony o f Leonard Rowe, the Declarations o f his former attorneys at SNR, Judge Patterson's November 8, 2012 decision denying M r . Rowe's FRCP 60 M o t i o n and common sense amongst other sources) to demonstrate that "Exhibit 3 1 " is both genuine and relevant to further establish my claims o f pre and post-hiring disparate treatment, systemic disparate treatment, disparate impact and other violations o f the hue-man rights and antitrust laws. I submit this reply in hopes o f answering any unresolved questions about "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " and shed more light on the conspiracy^ that has and continues to take place in both Rowe and Washington.

Attempts to Meet and Confer & Agree on Stipulations.

Pursuant to the instructions contained in the Interim Decision, I immediately reached out to Michael Z w e i g and Loeb & Loeb L L P on A p r i l 19, 2013 to meet and confer and reminded them that the "nigger" e-mails needed to be produced. See Exhibit B. M y request was denied by Christian Carbone, who stated that I should instead forward any proposed stipulations to them. He then stated that my e-mail was "needlessly and baselessly provocative" and that "Exhibit 3 1 " "may be bogus, given that the author o f this document was never identified by the attorneys for M r . Rowe." Given that Carbone was not involved in electronic discovery in Rowe. 1 replied that I would no longer entertain discussions w i t h h i m about "Exhibit 3 1 " and asked that he cease from making any further false statements or misrepresentations on behalf o f Zweig, Loeb & Loeb L L P and/or W i l l i a m Morris. On M a y 13, 2013, 1 submitted my proposed stipulations to Michael Zweig. See Exhibit C. M y statement o f facts were essentially a recitation o f the same facts contained in Judge Patterson's November 8, 2012 decision since it provided me w i t h new information regarding electronic discovery in Rowe. As w i t h the Reply to my M o t i o n for Summary Judgment, I used these facts to establish that it was clear that E E D ' s search for derogatory racial terms produced responsive e-mails and W i l l i a m M o r r i s , Loeb & Loeb L L P and/or Michael P. Z w e i g should still be in possession o f the underlying e-mails to "Exhibit 3 1 " - whether or not they were ever produced. I reminded them a second time that the e-mails received by E E D needed to be produced. Once again, Carbone replied. He stated that they did not agree to the proposed stipulations and felt it was best for both parties to submit their o w n individual replies to the Arbitrator by the original June 3, 2013 deadline. See Exhibit C. On M a y 28, 2013, I requested a four day extension because my stress related gastrointestinal health issues temporarily put me out o f commission and I was unable to adequately w o r k on my case. M y request was immediately granted by Arbitrator Gregory. For the third time, I reiterated to the Respondents that the "nigger" emails needed to be produced with their reply on June 7, 2013 and for the first time, Carbone stated that they "disagreed w i t h [ m y ] interpretation o f Arbitrator Gregory's interim decision." See Exhibit D. On that same day, I asked the Arbitrator to clarify his Interim Decision so that any "difference" w o u l d be resolved and to make sure there was a meeting o f the minds on producing the e-mails that were received from E E D . The next day, Carbone stated: " A s we do not perceive that Arbitrator Gregoiy's Interim Decision was written in an ambiguous manner, we see no need for clarification." I insisted on the clarification since it was obvious the Respondents felt they were not obligated to produce the e-mails they received from E E D . The Arbitrator never responded. Given that the deadline was approaching and no answer was provided, I requested a second extension o f time. The Arbitrator also didn't

^ A n agreement between t w o or more people to commit an illegal act, along w i t h an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. M o s t U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. A n overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States. 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense." Conspiracy generally carries no penalty on its own. Instead, punishment derives from the illegal acts carried out by the conspiracy. Where one or more members o f the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members o f the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy Under the Federal Rules o f Evidence, "a statement by a coconspirator o f a party during the course and in furtherance o f the conspiracy" is an admission o f a party-opponent, not hearsay, when offered against that party. FRE 801(d)(2)(E). [Claimant Reply Summary Judgment, 15-17.]

-2-

respond to this request and according to the A A A , he could never be reached. Therefore, the A A A had to grant my second extension, in which the new date to submit our replies became Friday, June 14, 2013. See Exhibit E . In good faith, I attempted to comply w i t h the various orders contained in Arbitrator Gregory's Interim Decision.^ But in typical fashion, Michael Z w e i g and Christian Carbone's chauvinistic and obstinate attitudes have prevented them from being cooperative and professional. Although Z w e i g has continuously referred to his most prized alibi - Judge Patterson's January 5, 2005 decision which granted summary judgment in their favor and deemed "Exhibit 3 1 " to be an "unidentified and unauthenticated document" - he conveniently fails to mentions that this decision was the byproduct o f extreme "fraud upon the Court." [Resp. Reply Cross M o t i o n to Dismiss, 15-17.] Since the Arbitrator has already determined that I am not "foreclosed by judicial decisions regarding M r . Rowe's past proceedings" and "Judge Patterson's decisions regarding Exhibit A in the Rowe matter [did not] have res judicata or collateral estoppel or other preclusive influence on the staOis o f Exhibit A in this arbitration," I ask that any portion o f the Respondents' reply that reverts back to this bogus decision be stricken from the record. [Arbitrator Interim Decision, 14.] N o w that Z w e i g knows that I am aware that W i l l i a m M o r r i s is in possession o f these e-mails, he has gone ghost and was nowhere to be found when it came time to discuss facts and honestly engage in discussion about "Exhibit 3 1 . " Based on the continued "bad faith" actions o f Carbone on behalf o f Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb L L P and W i l l i a m Morris, there is a strong likelihood that they w i l l not produce the actual e-mails that were received by E E D because the legal ramifications and consequences are beyond imagination. Before I answer your questions regarding "Exhibit 3 1 , " I ask that you put yourself in the shoes o f a lawyer who has adamantly denied allegations o f illegally tampering w i t h evidence and engaging in other serious unethical conduct after the truth has been revealed and he has been compelled to produce fraudulently concealed evidence from a prior proceeding? What is the likelihood o f the lawyer admitting the truth after telling a lie for eleven years i n an effort to help its client - the oldest talent agency in not only America, but the world - maintain institutional racism throughout H o l l y w o o d ? I f four attorneys that engaged in this conspiracy w i t h Z w e i g have already submitted perjurious Declarations, would it be in his best interests to j o i n them by becoming perjured attorney no. 5 or would it be more beneficial to continue remaining silent and deny any wrongdoing? The next sections w i l l prove that no matter what Zweig, Carbone, Loeb & Loeb L L P and/or W i l l i a m Morris say, I w i l l still be able to demonstrate that "Exhibit 3 1 " is authentic and they are in possession o f hundreds o f concealed e-mails containing highly offensive words such as "nigger," "nigga," "coon," "Uncle T o m " and "spade."

"In this case before me at this Arbitration, I need to know more about Exhibit A. Both parties know that Exhibit A exists. Their assessment of Exhibit A dramatically var|ies]. I want to know what Exhibit A is, and who authored it, is it genuine? Is it relevant? I want to know the context." [pg. 10-11]
I f an all-White/" Jewish" group o f attorneys and judges, including .Michael Z w e i g o f Loeb & Loeb L L P , conspired to conceal smoking gun evidence more than ten years ago which demonstrated the "unvarnished racial animus" o f W i l l i a m M o r r i s and C A A towards people o f African descent (including their clients), then i t should be quite obvious why the assessment o f "Exhibit 3 1 " dramatically varies between myself and the Respondents. W i t h five competing and sometimes conflicting sides to this stoi-y from W i l l i a m M o r r i s and C A A (also known as the "Booking Agency Defendants"), Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, the W i l l i e Gary F i n n , Leonard Rowe and Judge Robert P. Patterson, I had the difficult task o f not only trying to uncover the truth about the authenticity o f this document, but articulate that truth in a way that any reasonable and somewhat intelligent person could understand. Although most o f the facts contained below have already been presented on pages 5 through 11 in my Reply for Summary Judgment, I spent a

I find this pretty funny given that Michael Z w e i g made the f o l l o w i n g comment in Rowe on M a y 17, 2001: "Our responsibility as counsel is to meet w i t h them and to only bring before you [Judge James C. Francis] what we cannot agree to and what we have a good faith dispute about. That's not happened here. Your Honor." Docket no. 672.

Exhibit O

M.Washington
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Flag Status:
Christian Carbone <ccarbone@loeb.com> Friday, April 26, 2013 5:29 PM FRCHoldContact Michael Zweig RE: Meet and Confer [Untitled].pdf Flagged

Please see the attached.

Christian D, Carbone Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Tel: 212.407.4852 Fax; 212.937.3683

From: M.Washington [mailtoihumanriqhts.areamust^qmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:43 AM To: Michael Zweig; Christian Carbone Subject: Meet and Confer
Hi

Pursuant to David Gregory's decision, 1 want to know when the two of you are available to meet and confer so that we can "enter into joint stipulations regarding Exhibit A" and the production of these nigger emails. Anytime between April 29 and May 3 works for me. Best, Marcus

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

CHRISTIAN D. CARBONE

Partner

345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154

Direct 212.407,4852 Main 212.407.4000 Fax 212.937,3683 ccarbone@loeb.com

Via Email (humanrights.areamust@gmail.com) April 26, 2013 Marcus I. Washington 54 Boerum Street Apt. 6M Brooklyn, New York 11206 Re: Dear Mr. Washington; Your email (attached) is needlessly and baselessly provocative. In accordance with Arbitrator Gregory's decision, when and if you have a proposed stipulation you wish for us to consider, please forward it. In response to Arbitrator Gregory's request, we intend to set forth in a written communication to him the information that was (and is) known to WME or its attorneys regarding the "Exhibit A" you have inquired about, however basic that information may be. As you are aware, neither WMA nor its attorneys had anything to do with creating Exhibit A. The document itself may be bogus, given that the author of this document was never identified by the attorneys for Mr. Rowe, who (unsuccessfully) introduced it as an exhibit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed in 2002 in the Rowe litigation. Its contents wereneve( explained, verified or authenticated and it is for this reason that the federal court has twiefe |iera that the Exhjbjt was inadmissible as evidence of anything. Washington v. WME. et al.

Christian p ^ a r o o n e Loeb & Loeb LLP Enclosure

Los Angeles

New York

Chicago

Nashville

Washingio.n, D C

Beijing

NY 1192836.1 05.S426-I0022

Exhibit P

M.Washington
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
M.Washington <humanrights.areannust@gmail.com>

Monday, May 13, 2013 8:47 PM mzweig@loeb.com Stipulations re: David Gregory's Interim Decision and the Production of Concealed N! gger Emails Stipulation Signature Page.pdf; Washington v. WME Nigger Email Stipulations.pdf

Michael, Unfortunately, you were unwilling to meet and confer with me so we could amicably discuss the Arbitrator's Interim Decision. As a result, my proposed stipulations are attached. Keep in mind that the concealed W M A and C A A e-mails containing racially derogatory language in reference to African Americans must be produced by June 3, 2013. I look forward to your response. Marcus

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE; This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain

confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the originai transmission and its attachments without reading or saving In any manner. Thank you.

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION -X MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON, Claimant, against WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, fonnerly known as the WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC., JEFF MEADE and SARAH VAN HOVEN, Respondents. X
S T A T E M E N T OF FACTS Pursuant to Arbitrator David Gregory's Interim Decision on April 18, 2013, he has compelled W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment (formerly known as the W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency) and their counsel Loeb & Loeb L L P to produce the actual e-mails that were to accompany "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " - the 18 page, search results summary obtained after electronic discovery was conducted in Rowe Entertainment v. W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency which shows executives from the W i l l i a m Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency ( C A A ) referring to African Americans as "nigger," "nigga," "coon," "monkey" and other racially derogatory terms hundreds of times A l t h o u g h the Respondents have denied the existence o f this "smoking gun" evidence for more than ten years, the details contained in ludge Robert P. Patterson's decision denying Leonard Rowe's FRCP 60 M o t i o n on November 8, 2012 reveals that this is in fact, an elaborate and well calculated lie. As a result, the following facts below can no longer be contested: 1. On Januaiy 16, 2002, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis issued "a lengthy opinion" in Rowe which "outlined a detailed protocol for determining which e-mails were relevant to Defendants' selections o f concert promoters and appropriate for production, and ordered the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants to produce the computer hard drives containing those e-mails in accordance w i t h that protocol." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 9.] 2. In accordance w i t h Magistrate Judge Francis' discoveiy protocol, the Plaintiffs paid $200,000.00 to retain Electronic Evidence Discovery (now known as Documents Technology, Inc.) to "create and search mirror images o f Defendants' computer hard drives for e-mails to support the Plaintiffs' claims and to provide those e-mails to Plaintiffs' attorneys. " (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 6.] 3. Judge Francis' protocol involved six step-by-step procedures. In step three. Plaintiffs' counsel would formulate a search procedure includin2 any specific word searches the Plaintiffs wished to conduct and were then to notify the Defendants, who "could obiect to any search proposed by Plaintiffs." Step four involved the implementation o f the Plaintiffs' search and allowed "Plaintiffs' counsel [to] review the documents generated by the search on an attorney's eves only basis." Under step five, "once Plaintifis' counsel identified those e-mails they considered material to this litigation, they would provide those documents to Defendants' counsel in hard copy form with Bates stamps." (emphasis added) In the final step, the "Defendants w o u l d then have the opportunity to review the documents produced in order to

AAA Case No. 13 160 01426 12

STIPULATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED EVIDENCE CONCEALED IN ROWE ENTERTAINMENT V. WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY PURUSANT TO ARBITRATOR DAVID GREGORY'S APRIL 18,2013 INTERIM DECISION.

designate those that are confidential and to assert any privilege " (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 9-10.] 4. On August 14, 2002, Richard Primoff o f Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal L L P ("SNR") (now known as SNR Denton) sent an e-mail to the Defendants' counsel detailing their "intended methodology for searching the e-mail accounts o f the relevant employees o f the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 10.] Included in the e-mail, it stated that the Plaintiffs intended to search the emails o f "six named employees o f C A A and five named employees o f W M A . " I d . This letter also explained how the e-mail search would be conducted: " W i t h respect to the periods being examined, plaintiffs w i l l restore and retrieve all email communications betv/een and/or among these users. I n addition, plaintiffs w i l l apply a list o f search terms against these accounts, to consist o f the following: [long list o f terms including "[.List o f racial slurs]"]." I d . 5. I n a letter dated September 4, 2002, counsel for Defendant W M A , Sandra M c C a l l i o n , notified Richard Primoff o f SNR that "[t]he tape sets you have requested have been collected in W M A ' s California office and have been sent to your expert's Seattle, Washington office this evening." Elsewhere in the letter, M s . M c C a l l i o n discussed agreed upon changes between the parties that were i n clear violation o f Judge Francis' e-discovery protocol, stating: " [ A ] s you have agreed, the expert will turn over to us the documents yielded bv the attached search terms so we can conduct a privilege/work produce IsicI review in advance of your review " (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 10-11.] 6. "Per Magistrate Judge Francis' protocol. Plaintiffs' experts. E E D , then retrieved and restored e-mails from the computer accounts of the specific employees designated by the parties. After reviewing the e-mails produced by E E D . counsel for W M A . Helen Gavaris fof L o e b & Loeb L L P L provided Plaintiffs with hard copies of the e-mails that W x \ L \d as 'nonresponsive' and designated as 'attornevs-eyes 7 IsicI only,' as well as a privileged log indicating the e-mails W M A designated as privileged." (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 11.] ''By letters dated December 4. 2002. and December 10. 2002. W M A instructed Plaintiffs' expert to release the compact discs ("CDs") containing the non-privileged and non-responsive e-mails to Plaintiffs' counsel." (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 11.] 8. 9. 10. "On M a r c h 28, 2003, the Court granted SNR's motion to be relieved as Plaintiffs' counsel." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 12.] I n A p r i l o f 2003, the Booking Agency Defendants moved for summar)' judgment under .Rule 56 o f the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure. [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 1 3 ] The Plaintiffs' co-counsel the W i l l i e Gar)' F i r m - sent "Exhibit j l / E x h i b i t A " to the Defendants "on some date between April 2, 2003 and M a y 1, 2003." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 2.] 11. In a letter sent to the Gaiy Firm dated M a y 1, 2003, counsel for C A A , Beverley Frank, asserted: " I n accordance w i t h the Court's protocol, by e-mail dated August 14, 2002, plaintiffs' counsel, Richard Primoff, proposed search terms for the retrieval o f C A A ' s and V^TvIA's e-mails, including names o f the specific C A A and W M A personnel whose e-mail accounts would be subject to search. In a subsequent email dated August 20, 2002, M r . P r i m o f f agreed the [sic] plaintiffs would provide proper notice to C A A and W M A o f any changes or additions to the search tenns. B o t h C A A and W M A agreed to plaintiffs' proposal that the search be limited to the mailboxes o f those individuals identified in M r . P r i m o f f s August 14 e - m a i l and plaintiffs never notified defendants that they intended to alter or expand the established search protocol." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 1 5 ] 12. In that same letter, M s . Frank stated: "Moreover, Exiiibit 31 identifies the e-mails o f C A A and W M A employees w h o have nothing to do w i t h the music business (e.g., the list includes numerous employees from [the] television and motion picture departments). To the extent plaintiffs searched the mailboxes o f these employees without the knowledge and consent o f C A A and W M A , plaintiffs clearly have gone beyond the scope o f the established protocol and violated Judge Francis' January Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 16.] 16 Order." [Judge

-2-

13. "On M a y 23, 2003, M s . Frank submitted to tlie Court a Declaration in support o f the .Booking Agency Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment in which she state[d] that 'plaintiffs have not provided C A A or W M A w i t h any information regarding who prepared Exhibit 31 or how it was generated, and have not produced any o f the actual e-mails purportedly identified in Exhibit 3 1 . " ' [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 14.] She also stated the Gap>' F i r m "never produced to C A A , in hard copy w i t h Bates numbers (or in any form) the e-mails they believed to be 'material to this litigation.'" [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 12-13.] 14. On July 23, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " in their Opposition to the Booking Agency Defendant's motion for summary judgment. [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 2.] 15. In opposition to the Gary F i r m ' s submission o f "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A , " the Defendants' counsel pretended as i f they never received the actual e-mails from Electronic Evidence Discovery. The B o o k i n g Agency Defendants raised a number o f arguments that created doubt in Judge Patterson's mind as to document's authenticity The "Booking Agency Defendants stressed that without the actual e-mails. Exhibit 31 did not constitute competent or relevant evidence." (emphasis added) [Judge Patterson FRCP Order, 1 5 ] 16. The B o o k i n g Agency Defendants also "asserted that it was impossible for them to determine whether the alleged racial slurs were indicative o f racial animus by the Defendants." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60, 14.] They "noted that Exhibit 31 contain[ed] no indication o f whether the terms in question were found in incoming or outgoing email messages. In addition, without access to the underlying emails at issue, which were never produced by Plaintiffs, the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants argued that they could not assess the context in w h i c h the terms were used, specifically whether the terms were used by their employees in connection w i t h Plaintiffs' conceit promotion business. In fact, the Booking Agency Defendants contended that it is equally plausible that the terms were innocuously contained in 'song lyrics, scripts, screen plays, or newspaper articles' written by others and shared over e-mail w i t h employees o f the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants or ' i n the course o f everyday conversation having no racial animus whatsoever,' such as in phrases like '"monkey wrench,' 'monkey business,' 'ace o f spades,' or 'Sam Spade.'" Consequently, the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants stressed that without the supporting underlying e-mails, Exhibit 31 did not constitute competent or relevant evidence." [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 14-15.] 17. On January 5, 2005, Judge Patterson granted summary judgment in favor o f the Booking Agency Defendants. In regaids to "Exhibit 3 1 , " he stated in a footnote that "Exhibit 3 1 " was "an unidentified and unauthenticated document." The Court "determined that the document was too ambiguous to be o f any assistance to the evidentiary determinations that the Court had to make and 'disregard[ed] Exhibit 31 in its entirety as irrelevant material.'" [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 4-5, 16.] 18. Seven years after Judge Patterson issued his decision, .Leonard Rowe filed a FRCP 60 M o t i o n as a pro se litigant on March 2, 2012 alleging that his former attorneys from SNR colluded and conspired with the B o o k i n g Agency Defendants to "conceal and destroy vital evidence" - the actual e-mails that were to accompany "Exhibit 3 1 , " [Judge Patterson FRCP 60 Order, 1,] 19. On M a y 14, 2012, Leonard Rowe's former aftorney Richard P r i m o f f - w h o conducted electronic discovery on behalf o f the black concert promoters - stated under "penalty o f perjury": "I can assure you that M r . Rowe's allegation is completely untrue. On the contrary, my recollection was that the email production Plaintifls received from defendants yieldledl nothing of use in proving Plaintiffs' case against Defendants. " (emphasis added) [Primoff Declaration, ^ 3 . ] 20. On M a y 14, 2012, Leonard Rowe's former attorney Ray Heslin stated under "penalty o f perjury" that "no derogatory terms (232. 349. or 400) were located in the emails of the defendants. " (emphasis added) [Heslin Declaration, H 2.] He also stated: "SNR's Richard P r i m o f f conducted the email discovery and informed me that nothing o f consequence had been found....Mr. R o w e was told this and certainly never found anything to the contrary on my desk. Furthermore, his assertion that the word 'nigger' was found 232. 349 or 400 times in this discovery is surprising especially since he swears that we never gave him this material" (emphasis added) [Heslin Declaration, % 7.] 21. On M a y 15, 2012, Leonard Rowe's original attorney Martin R. Gold stated under "penalty o f perjury": "The substance o f M i . Rowe's allegations - that I and other attorneys at my firm uncovered extensive

-3-

damaging evidence in discovery w h i c h w e withheld from h i m and the other plaintiffs because w e were conspiring w i t h the defendants, and that w e wrongfully withdrew from the case to allow the defendants to prevail in their summary judgment motions - are, in all events, utterly false." [Gold Declaration, ^ 10.] H e states, " I had no knowledge that the word 'nigger appeared in documents produced by defendants, and 1 still have no knowledge that the word so appears. Notably, M r . Rowe has produced no such documents, (emphasis added) [ G o l d D e c l . ^ 10-11.] 22. The only attorney in this proceeding w i t h first-hand knowledge about what actually occurred during electronic discovery in Rowe is Michael P. Z w e i g o f Loeb & Loeb L L P . These details were summarized in the Reply to my M o t i o n for Summary Judgment on January 3 1 , 2013 and W i l l i a m Morris Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P nor any o f their representatives including Michael P. Z w e i g disputed these facts in the Reply to their Cross-Motion to Dismiss filed w i t h the A A A on March 15, 2013. Although Christian Carbone continued to make misrepresentations on behalf o f W i l l i a m Morris, Loeb & Loeb L L P and Michael Z w e i g in a private correspondence w i t h me on April 26, 2013 that "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " "may be bogus," the Respondents must now acknowledge these facts as truth for the purpose o f this case. COMPLYING WITH THE ARBITRATOR'S INTERIM DECISION In order to fully comply w i t h the numerous requests made w i t h i n the Arbitrator's Interim Decision, I am asking that the Respondents supply the f o l l o w i n g documents and/or information to both the Arbitrator and I : 23. W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P , Michael Z w e i g and other counsel are

responsible for producing aU o f the actual e-mails received by Electronic Evidence Discovery which corresponds with "Exhibit 31/'Exhibit A " in their original form. [Arbitrator Interim Decision, 5, 11-12.] This includes e-mails (and its metadata) containing derogatory terms used by executives at W i l l i a m Morris such as "nigger," "nigga," "coon," "monkey" and "Uncle T o m " to name a few so that all parties can " k n o w the particular context in w h i c h each o f the objectionable term(s) was uttered." This also includes the production o f e-mails corresponding to the antitrust key w o r d search as well. 24. Pages 1 and 17 aie missing from "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A . " These pages were included in the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendants M o t i o n for Summary Judgment, but are now mysteriously missing from the record. W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P , Michael Zweig and other counsel are responsible for also producing "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " in its entirety. 25. W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P , Michael Z w e i g and other counsel are also responsible for producing any compact discs ( C D s ) that were received by Electronic Evidence Discovery, as well as the compact discs (CDs) given to Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal L L P "containing the nonprivileged and non-responsive e-mails" and its metadata. 26. W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor Entertainment, Loeb & Loeb L L P , M i c h a e l Z w e i g and other counsel are responsible for providing the "full name, title, and dates o f employment for each and every person named in whole or in part in Exhibit A , " "to fiirther identify all named persons w i t h i n Exhibit A w h o are presently employed by the Respondents" and "identify any such persons named in whole or in part in Exhibit A who was involved in the recruitment, hiring, orientation, training, supervision, discipline, severance, and/or cessation o f the employment o f Respondent." [Arbitrator Interim Decision, 12-13.] Please take notice that whether or not you agree to the statements o f fact, you have been compelled to produce the concealed evidence pertaining to "Exhibit 31/Exhibit A " by June 3, 2013 or else an adverse inference w i l l be drawn against W i l l i a m Morris, Loeb & Loeb L L P , Michael P. Z w e i g and Christian Carbone for your intenfional noncompliance w i t h the Arbitrator's Interim Decision.. See Baxter v. Palmigiano. 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) ("[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify i n response to probative evidence offered against t h e m " )

-4-

Dated: New York, New York May 13, 2013 Marcus I. Washington Pro Se Litigant 54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M Brooklyn, NY 11206 (646) 504-6497 humanrights areamust@gmail.com

Michael P. Zweig Altoniey for Respondents Loeb & Loeb L L P 345 Park Avenue New York, N Y 10154 (212)407-4960 mzweig(loeb.com

CHRISTIAN D. CARBONE Partner 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 Direct 212.407.4852 Main 212.407.4000 Fax 212.937.3683 ccarbone@loeb.com

Via E-mail (humanrights.areamust@gmail.com) May 17, 2013

Marcus I. Washington 54 Boerum Street Apt. 6M Brooklyn, NY 11206 Re: Washington v. WME. et al.

Dear Mr. Washington: I have reviewed your proposed stipulation, transmitted on May 13. Most of the factual assertions made in the document are wholly inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. Based on what you have submitted, there is no basis to reach agreement with you. We note that the two decisions of the Federal District Court as to this matter, and Magistrate Judge's Francis decision, are all reported. They speak for themselves and therefore are not an appropriate or necessary subject for stipulation. We will stipulate that those decisions were issued by those Courts, and that the reported decisions accurately reflect the content of the decisions. In light of the tenor of your communications, we see no purpose to any further meet and confer communication, and believe that it will be most appropriate and efficient for each side to submit the memorandum requested by the arbitrator, which is due on June 3, 2013. Very truly yours,

Christian D. Carbone Loeb & Loeb LLP

LosAngeies

New York

Chicago

Nashville

Washington, DC

Beijing NY1203299.1 05S426-10022

A limited iiibiliry partnership including professiorsal corporacicn,-;