UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[zombywolf]

I wonder what confidential information is being referred to in this order? We know just about everything, the settlement amount, the decision by the arb, the inventors agreements with Deirdre and Chanbond which are the basis of the case.

[shajandr]

Hilarious! She signed it and did nott even give FIngerling time to fill~OUTT another worthless postcard to DaCourt objecting to the PO.

This is great! The Fickle Finger of Fate getts a straightarm to the jaw.

He will still find a way to bill it.

0.8 hrs - Review final protective order
1.6 hrs - Legal research re: appeal of pretrial protective order
0.5 hrs - Draft memo to file re protective order
0.4 hrs - Trip to Post Office for more postcards
3.3 hrs - Subtotal

The KIAN KAMAL KIAN Klubbhaus is such a source of sucker munny that FIngerling must find it nearly impossible to NOTT bill the living crap ~OUTT of this manna from heaven client. Anybuddy who gott rolled by Radar and the Realtor is clearly just a bag of abandoned munny waiting to be billed. Fingerling may as well take it, because if he doesn’t then some other lawdogg will. Often one cannot fix stupid, butt one can take the munny to tell them to try.

Sumbuddy will take the suckers’ munny. May as well be Fingerswipe. They wood just blow the munny on some other Radaresque buffoon.

[long uoip]

144 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/24/2022. (dlw)

Aug 24, 2022

Main Doc­ument

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.144.0.pdf

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of August 2022
_____________________________________
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
United States District Judge

Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 144 Filed 08/24/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 6670

[shajandr]

Whoops-oops! Time for another letter or postcard from Fingerlng to DaJudge objecting to his being ignored again.

0.5 hrs - Review proposed protective order

0.4 hrs - Legal research re: protective orders

0.8 hrs - draft picture postcard to the Court telling judge ’’The weather is great. Wishing you were here. Love, Fingerling’’

0.2 hrs - complete timesheet entries, sundry arithmetic. Get fresh coffee.
1.9 hr - Matter total this billing cycle

’’Just put it in another postcard to the court, Mr. Fingerling. And this time use the correct postage. Bailiff, please seat Mr. Fingerling back in the cheap seats.’’

[long uoip]

143 STIPULATION Stipulated [Proposed] Protective Order by CBV, Inc.. (Grivner, Geoffrey)

(19 page document articulating a HIGH LEVEL of “CONFIDENTIAL” & “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” ....hmm, seems like settlement is bigger than previous assertions)

Aug 24, 2022

Main Doc­ument

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant/Crossclaim
Defendant,
DEIRDRE LEANE, and IPNAV, LLC
Defendants/Counterclaim
Plaintiffs/Crossclaim
Plaintiffs.

C.A. No. 21-1456-MN
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
Whereas, CBV, Inc., ChanBond, LLC, Deirdre Leane, and IPNav, LLC (collectively the
“Parties”) may seek discovery of Documents, information or other materials which may contain
or relate to confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information of another party or of a third party
in the above captioned action (the “Action” or “Litigation”);
Whereas, the Parties have in good faith conferred and have agreed upon the terms of a
Protective Order and for good cause shown; therefore,
The Parties stipulate, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
subject to the approval of the Court, that the following provisions shall govern handling of such
confidential information and documents in these proceedings under this Protective Order:
1. Scope: This Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order (“Protective
Order”) governs the use and dissemination of documents and information produced in discovery
or provided pursuant to subpoena to any person, party, or entity (the “Receiving Party”) in the
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 6634
2
above-captioned action (the “Action” or “Litigation”) when the person, party, or third party
producing or providing the documents or information (the “Producing Party”) designates them as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Protective
Order. It does not apply to (a) documents or information already in the Receiving Party’s
possession; (b) documents or information that the Receiving Party obtains by means other than
discovery served or subpoenas issued in connection with the Litigation;1
or (c) a Producing Party’s
use of its own “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents or
information.
2. Use: A Receiving Party shall use documents and information that a Producing
Party designates as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” under this
Protective Order solely for purposes of the Litigation unless otherwise allowed by Court Order as
set forth in paragraph 1.
3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information: In conjunction with and subject to the
additional protections from or restrictions regarding disclosure as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
of this Protective Order, a Producing Party may designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” any documents
or information that, in good faith, it believes to include trade secrets, proprietary information,
commercial, financial, budgeting or accounting information, business strategies or decisions, and
private information about affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, third parties and employees with whom
the parties to this action have had business relationships.
4. “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information: The parties recognize that there
may be certain discrete categories of sensitive or extremely sensitive confidential or proprietary

1 For the avoidance of doubt, discovery taken in the American Arbitration Association Arbitration
captioned Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC v. ChanBond, LLC and UnifiedOnline, Inc., AAA Case
No. 01-20-0015-0793, is deemed taken in this action and is subject to this Protective Order.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 6635
3
information, the disclosure of which may more severely compromise or jeopardize the business
interests of the party producing such information. The producing party may designate such
information as “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” and limit disclosure to the persons listed in
paragraph 6 below.
5. Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information: Subject to any additional
protection from or restrictions regarding disclosure that may be imposed in accordance with the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Protective Order and unless otherwise allowed by Court
Order as set forth in paragraph 1 of this Protective Order, a Receiving Party may disclose
documents and information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” only to the following persons:
a. three employees of the Receiving Party with a need to see such information for
the purposes of this Litigation and who agree to be bound by the terms of this Order and who
first execute a certification attached hereto as Exhibit A;
b. counsel representing or advising a named party regarding the prosecution or
defense of the Litigation, whether or not as counsel of record, and partners, associates, paralegals,
clerical, and other employees who are working under the direct supervision of such counsel and
who are directly involved in the prosecution or defense of the Litigation;
c. court reporters, interpreters, translators, copy services, graphic support services,
document imaging services, and database/coding services retained by counsel, provided these
individuals or an appropriate company official with authority to do so;
d. experts or consultants who (i) are retained by an attorney for a named party in the
Litigation, (ii) are actively involved in the preparation for trial or trial in the Litigation, and (iii)
first execute a certification attached hereto as Exhibit A;
e. during depositions or during preparation for depositions or hearings, witnesses
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 6636
4
who appear reasonably likely to have relevant knowledge or information relating to the document
or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or to the specific events, transactions, or
discussions referenced, provided that, if such witnesses are not employees of the Producing Party,
they first execute the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and do not retain copies;
f. the Court, Court personnel, and any Special Masters and/or Mediators appointed
by the Court, under seal;
g. Authors or drafters, addressees, anyone who received the documents or information
prior to the commencement of this Litigation, or anyone who received the document or information
during this Litigation but only if they obtained the document or information independently and
outside of this Litigation and not in violation of this Order; and
h. Any other person authorized to receive Confidential Information by order of the
Court or by written agreement of the parties.
6. Disclosure of “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information: Subject to any
additional protection from or restrictions regarding disclosure that may be imposed in accordance
with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Protective Order, a Receiving Party may disclose
documents and information designated as “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” only to the
following persons:
a. legal counsel representing or advising a named party regarding the prosecution or
defense of the Litigation, whether or not as counsel of record, and partners, associates, paralegals,
clerical, and other employees who are working under the direct supervision of such counsel and
who are directly involved in the prosecution or defense of the Litigation;
b. court reporters, interpreters, translators, copy services, graphic support services,
document imaging services, and database/coding services retained by counsel, provided these
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 6637
5
individuals or an appropriate company official with authority to do so first executes a certification
attached hereto as Exhibit A;
c. experts or consultants who (i) are retained by an attorney for a named party in the
Litigation, (ii) are actively involved in the preparation for trial or trial in the Litigation, and (iii)
first execute a certification attached hereto as Exhibit A;
d. the Court, Court personnel, and any Special Masters and/or Mediators appointed
by the Court, under seal;
e. Authors or drafters, addressees, anyone who received the documents or
information prior to the commencement of this Litigation, or anyone who received the document or
information during this Litigation, but only if they obtained the document or information
independently and outside of this Litigation and not in violation of this Order;
f. William Carter, Deirdre Leane, Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, and Robert Stine;
and
g. Any other person authorized to receive Restricted Confidential Information by
order of the Court or by written agreement of the parties.
The use of “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” information or documents in connection
with the examination of witnesses during depositions, in hearings, or at trial, if sought, shall be the
subject of further stipulation or Order of Court in conformance with paragraphs 2, supra.
7. Manner of Designation: A Producing Party may designate all or any part of a
document, tangible item, discovery response or pleading that is disclosed, produced, or filed as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” by placing the term
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL,” as appropriate, on the face of the
document and each page so designated. If the document or item cannot be marked in this manner,
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 6638
6
the Producing Party may provide the Receiving Party with appropriate written notice of the
designation. The designation of all or any part of a document, tangible item, discovery response
or pleading as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” shall not waive a
party’s right to or preclude a party from seeking such further protection from or restrictions
regarding disclosure as set forth in paragraphs 2 of this Protective Order; nor shall such designation
preclude any Party’s rights to challenge a designation pursuant to paragraph 14 of this Protective
Order.
8. Maintenance, Storage, and Copies: The Receiving Party’s counsel shall maintain
and store documents and information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” in a secure and safe area and is responsible for employing reasonable measures
to control duplication of, access to, and distribution of copies of documents and information
designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL.” A Receiving Party’s
files, containers, drawers or other receptacles containing documents or
information that a Producing Party has designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” shall be marked on the outside as follows: “THIS FILE CONTAINS
MATERIALS SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN CBV, INC. v. CHANBOND, et al.”
Copies of documents or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” in whatever form, as well as materials compiled or prepared by the Receiving
Party that contain or reflect documents or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL,” as appropriate (including but not limited to summaries,
compilations, notes, and electronic images or databases), are subject to the same restrictions and
limitations as originals.
9. Depositions and Hearings: Documents and information previously designated as
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6639
7
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” that are used in or made exhibits to a
deposition or hearing shall retain their designated status and need not be redesignated. A Producing
Party also may designate testimony and exhibits (or portions thereof) as “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” by advising the court reporter and all parties of such fact
either (a) on the record during the deposition or hearing or (b) in writing within fifteen (15) days
after the Producing Party’s counsel receives a copy of the deposition or hearing transcript.
Transcripts of depositions and hearings that contain testimony or exhibits designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” shall bear a legend on their cover
page stating “THIS TRANSCRIPT CONTAINS MATERIALS OR INFORMATION SUBJECT
TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN CBV, INC. v. CHANBOND, et al.” Deposition and hearing
transcripts and exhibits shall provisionally be deemed “CONFIDENTIAL” for fifteen (15) days
after the Producing Party’s counsel receives a copy of the deposition or hearing transcript. If no
already-designated materials are exhibits, no designations were made on the record during the
deposition or hearing, and no Producing Party makes a “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” designation within the fifteen (15) day period, the deposition or hearing
transcript and exhibits shall be deemed not to contain “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information. If any portion of a videotaped deposition is
designated pursuant to this Paragraph, the videocassette or other videotape or digital recording
shall be labeled with the appropriate legend.
10. Court Filings: Any documents or pleadings to be filed with the Court that contain
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information shall be
filed under seal and marked with the title of the action. “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” Information may be included with, or referred to in, papers filed with the Court
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 6640
8
where this case is now pending or in any other court only in accordance with the following
procedures:
(a) Both “CONFIDENTIAL” and “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information
must be filed under seal. Counsel for all parties shall follow all applicable local rules and customs
for the Court when filing “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information
underseal.
(b) All papers filed with the Court, including but not limited to pleadings and
memoranda of law, which include, in their entirety or in part, any “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information must be filed under seal in accordance with the
terms and procedures set forth in this Order. Counsel for the party filing papers with
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information shall be responsible for
appropriately designating the papers filed with the Court as having “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information. Such papers shall be subject to the terms of this
Order.
11. Redacted Filings of Papers With Confidential Information. Redacted versions of
papers with “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information filed under
seal may be filed with the Court in accordance with normal procedures and made publicly
available provided that:
(a) All “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information
set forth in the papers is deleted or obscured; and
(b) Redacted versions of the papers are clearly marked “Public Version Confidential
Material Omitted.” Redacted versions of the papers also must clearly identify each place where
information or exhibits have been deleted.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 6641
9
12. Notice Of Requests: Any Receiving Party that receives a request or subpoena for
the production or disclosure of documents or information that a Producing Party has designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Protective
Order shall, within three (3) business days after receipt of the subpoena or other compulsory
process, give the Producing Party written notice of the request or subpoena and forward a copy of
the request or subpoena. Provided that the Producing Party makes a timely motion or other
application for relief from the subpoena or other request in the appropriate forum, the Receiving
Party shall not produce or disclose the requested information without consent of the Producing
Party or until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction and after all appeals have been
exhausted.
13. Closed Proceedings: During portions of depositions at which documents or
information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” are used,
persons who are not entitled to access to the “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information under the terms of this Protective Order shall be
excluded.
14. Contesting Designations: Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed to
alter or affect the burdens of production, proof, or persuasion, nor shall anything in this Protective
Order be construed as a finding that documents or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”
or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” were properly designated as such. Any Receiving Party
may object to a Producing Party’s designation by specifying the documents or information in issue
and the basis for questioning the designation in a written objection. A Receiving Party is not
obligated to challenge the propriety of a designation at the time made, and a failure to do so does
not preclude any subsequent challenge. If a Receiving Party objects in writing and the Producing
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 6642
10
Party does not agree to withdraw or alter the designation, the Receiving Party and the Producing
Party shall first attempt to resolve the issue informally. If the dispute is not resolved within ten
(10) days of service of a written Objection, the Receiving Party may file a motion contesting the
designation made relating to the documents or information at issue. The burden of establishing
that information has been properly designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” is on the party making such designation. This Protective Order does not alter
the burden imposed by law on any party seeking to uphold any limitation on the production or
dissemination of materials. Pending a Court Order overruling the designation the information,
documents or materials shall continue to be subject to and treated as designated under the terms of
this Protective Order.
15. No Waiver: Review of documents or information designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” by persons permitted access under the
terms of this Protective Order shall not waive the confidentiality of the documents or information.
The inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of or failure to designate “CONFIDENTIAL” or
“RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information shall not be deemed a waiver, in
whole or in part, of the Producing Party’s claims of confidentiality. If a Producing Party fails to
designate “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information
as such at the time of production or during the fifteen (15) day period for review of depositions,
the Producing Party may designate such documents under the terms of this Protective Order by (a)
notifying each Receiving Party in writing that “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information were disclosed without having been designated as
such within ten (10) business days of learning of that fact, specifically identifying the
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents or information that were
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 6643
11
disclosed and advising each Receiving Party of the appropriate designations and (b) providing
each Receiving Party with properly redesignated documents or information within ten (10)
business days of having provided such notice. Once the Producing Party provides notice as
outlined above, the materials shall be treated in accordance with the designation specified in the
Producing Party’s notice. Upon receipt of properly redesignated documents, the Receiving Party
shall return or certify the destruction of all unmarked or incorrectly designated documents and
other materials still under its control to the Producing Party within twenty (20) business days.
Other than as specified in this Protective Order, the taking of or the failure to take any action
to enforce the provisions of this Protective Order, or the failure to object to any designation or any
such action or omission, will not constitute a waiver of any right to seek and obtain protection or
relief in this action or any other action, such right including, but not limited to, the right to claim
that any information is or is not proprietary to any party or entitled to particular protection. The
procedure set forth herein does not affect the rights of parties to object to discovery on grounds
other than those related to confidential or proprietary information claims, nor does it relieve a party
of the necessity of proper response to discovery devices.
16. Unauthorized Disclosure: If a Receiving Party discovers that, whether through
inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed or provided documents or information designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” to any person or entity not authorized
to review it under the terms of this Protective Order, the Receiving Party shall promptly (a) make
reasonable, best efforts to seek the return of the documents or information, (b) inform the
Producing Party of the disclosure and the relevant circumstances (including the identity of the
person or entity to whom disclosure was made), and (c) advise the recipient(s) of the provisions of
this Protective Order and request that they agree to its terms in writing by signing the certification
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 6644
12
attached as Exhibit A. This paragraph does not limit the remedies that the Producing Party may
pursue for breach of this Protective Order.
17. Termination of the Litigation: After termination of the Litigation, counsel for a
Receiving Party may, subject to the terms of this Protective Order, retain (a) deposition transcripts
and exhibits, Court transcripts and exhibits, and documents and other materials submitted to the
Court that were designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL”; and
(b) attorney work product based on, containing, or reflecting documents or information designated
as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” under this Protective Order. Except
as provided above, within sixty (60) days after the termination of the Litigation, the Receiving
Party’s counsel shall either (i) return to the Producing Party's counsel or (ii) provide written
certification of the destruction of all documents or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”
or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL,” including any copies. Termination, as used in the prior
sentence, includes the conclusion of any appeal(s) and the time for filing any appeal(s).
18. Non-Parties: A person or entity that is not a party in the Litigation shall be entitled
to the protections afforded herein by signing a copy of this Protective Order and serving same on
all counsel of record.
19. Certifications: Executed copies of the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A
shall be maintained by the person or party who caused the certification to be executed.
Certifications executed by any individual other than a consultant to a party shall be served upon
all other counsel within ten (10) business days of execution.
20. Admissibility and Discoverability: Nothing in this Protective Order shall be
construed to be an admission of relevance or to affect, in any way, the admissibility or
discoverability of any documents, testimony or other evidence in the Litigation. This Protective
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 6645
13
Order is without prejudice to the right of any party to bring before the Court at any time the
question of whether any particular information is or is not admissible or discoverable.
21. Other Relief: Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent a party from applying
to the Court for relief therefrom, from applying to the Court for modification of this Order, or from
seeking additional or different protections for confidential information.
22. Trial or Hearings: The parties contemplate that procedures for the treatment and
use of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” documents and information at
trial or other hearings before the Court. Counsel shall confer with the Court regarding procedures
to protect the confidentiality of any material marked, labeled, or otherwise designated
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” that a party or any of its witnesses
may use, refer to, disclose, or admit into evidence during trial or any hearing in this Litigation.
23. Confidential Information of Third Parties: This Protective Order does not
address, authorize, or require a Producing Party to disclose confidential information regarding
third parties where such disclosure is barred by statute, rule, regulation, common law, or written
agreement. If discovery is sought of a person not a party to this Litigation (third party) requiring
disclosure of such third party’s “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL”
Information, the “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information
disclosed by any such third party will be accorded the same protection as the parties’
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL”, and will be subject to the same
procedures as those governing disclosure of the parties’ “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED
CONFIDENTIAL” Information pursuant to this Order.
24. Expert Materials. Discovery of communications between counsel and any
independent expert retained or specially employed by that counsel for purposes of this Litigation
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 6646
14
shall be limited to the factual information, analyses, documents, and/or data relied on by the expert
in rendering the opinions expressed in an expert report or at trial. Except as otherwise provided
herein, all communications between counsel and the expert relating to the process of preparing an
expert report or developing opinions for trial, including all preliminary or draft reports, expert
working papers, notes, and communications relating thereto, shall be deemed exempt from
discovery and use at trial.
(a) Experts and Consultants. Prior to a party giving, showing, disclosing, making
available or communicating “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL”
Information to any expert or consultant (e.g., a person or entity that conducts testing or other
analysis but does not prepare an expert report) under Paragraph 2 above, the party shall do the
following. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision does not apply to the categories of
individuals listed in Paragraphs 6(f) above:
(i) Serve a notice on all other parties, identifying the expert or consultant and the
expert’s or consultant’s business address, business telephone numbers, present employer and
position (along with a job description), consulting activities and job history for the past three years,
and past or present relationship, if any, with any parties in this Litigation and their affiliates.
Furthermore, the most recent curriculum vitae or resume of the expert or consultant shall be
provided under this section. If the most recent curriculum vitae or resume of the expert or
consultant provides the information required under this paragraph, then the information need not
be separately provided.
(ii) Include with such notice, a copy of the Acknowledgment of Protective Order, in
the form shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto, signed by the expert or consultant and
including all the information to be completed therein. The notified parties shall be entitled to
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 6647
15
object to disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information to
the expert or consultant within five (5) business days after receipt of the Acknowledgment of
Protective Order by stating specifically in writing the reasons why such expert or consultant should
not receive “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information.
(iii) If the parties are unable to agree on disclosure to the expert or consultant, the party
objecting to such expert or consultant may apply to the Court for an order that disclosure is
improper within ten (10) business days of its objection. The burden of establishing the validity of
such written objections rests with the objecting party. If the objecting party does not apply to the
Court within the prescribed period, the objection shall be deemed withdrawn.
(iv) No disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL”
Information shall be made to the proposed expert or consultant until the time for serving objections
to that expert or consultant has passed, or, in the event that a written objection is timely served and
a motion to prevent disclosure is filed, until such time as the Court has made a ruling thereon, and
then, only in accordance with such ruling.
(v) The filing and pendency of objections shall not limit, delay, or defer any disclosures
of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL” Information to persons as to whom
no such objection has been made, nor shall it delay or defer any other pending discovery unless
the level of confidentiality bears directly on the objecting party’s ability to conduct such discovery.
25. Modification of This Protective Order: This Protective Order is without prejudice
to the right of any Producing Party to seek relief from the Court, upon good cause shown, from, or
to seek to modify, any of the provisions contained herein. This Protective Order is also without
prejudice to the right of any Producing Party to assert that certain confidential business information
should be protected from disclosure altogether, which assertion shall be made through motion
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 6648
16
practice should the discharge of meet-and-confer obligations by the parties fail to resolve any
dispute regarding the assertion. In the event that any party in this Litigation seeks a court order
that in any way seeks to vary the terms of this Protective Order, said party must make such request
in the form of a written stipulation or noticed motion to all parties that must be served and filed in
accordance with the local rules. This Protective Order may be amended by way of a proposed
Consent Order agreed to by the parties and subject to the Court's approval and entry, or, if the
parties do not consent, by way of motion filed and served in accordance with the local court rules,
or as otherwise directed by the court.
26. Privileged and Protected Information: This Protective Order does not authorize or
require a Producing Party to disclose documents or information protected by or subject to claims
of privilege or protection, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, work product
protection, and joint defense or common interest privilege. If a Producing Party inadvertently or
mistakenly produces documents or information subject to a claim of privilege or protection, such
production will not waive applicable claims of privilege or protection. After (a) written notice
identifying privileged or protected documents that were inadvertently or mistakenly produced and
(b) receipt of a privilege log relating to such documents, the Receiving Party shall: (i) return or
certify the destruction of all such documents within ten (10) business days and (ii) destroy any
work product or portions of any work product containing or reflecting their contents.
27. Other Proceedings. By entering this order and limiting the disclosure of
information in this case, the Court does not intend to preclude another court from finding that
information may be relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or party subject
to this order who becomes subject to a motion to disclose another party’s information designated
“confidential” [the parties should list any other level of designation, such as “highly confidential,”
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 6649
17
which may be provided for in the protective order] pursuant to this order shall promptly notify that
party of the motion so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and be heard on whether
that information should be disclosed.
28. Binding: This Protective Order is binding on the parties to the Litigation and their
attorneys, successor attorneys, personal representatives, executors, administrators, special
administrators, legal representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, employees, and agents.
29. Survival: This Order and the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce it shall survive the
termination of the Litigation and shall continue in full force and effect thereafter.
The Court directs the Clerk to forward a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank. Signatures Appear on Following Page.]

_________________

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC
/s/ Geoffrey G. Grivner
Geoffrey G. Grivner (No. 4711)
Kody M. Sparks (No. 6464)
500 Delaware Avenue
Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys Plaintiff CBV, Inc.
BAYARD, P.A.
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Ronald P. Golden III (No. 6254)
600 North King Street
Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant ChanBond, LLC
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
/s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (No. 5355)
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Deirdre Leane and IPNAV,
LLC
IT IS SO ORDERED, on this ____ day of _______________, 2022,
_____________________________________
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 143 Filed 08/24/22 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 6651

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.143.0.pdf

[shajandr]

Mundae knight - and the gentle humm of timekeeping software and mechanical keystrokes as time is entered is bathing the scene. Bizzy bees are billing at home as the little ones are now in bed and daddy can rev up the billing machine again.

The various lawyers for Chanboned, UOIP, DEIRDRE, Billy, and CBV are all clicking away, billing the crap ~OUTT of this beaten horse series of cases.

Meanwhile. back at Chanboned, the small back of chump coins and GTFOH shekels dwindles and dwindles, as the billable hours and accrued innerest tick up and up and up.

Radar and the Realtor are ~OUTT looking for new work (anyone willing to give them a credit card to run up?):


Bag of GTFOH shekels

[shajandr]

I smell Billing today! Yup, that is it. Munny being drained from the pott of residue and remainder in the dwindling pot of munny.

Perhaps Fingerling is working on a new crib note to pass to DaJudge mentioning that Fingerling is nott a potted plant and that he needs something to show his victims ... err ... clients some progress or they may DUMP him like happened to the Radar and the Realtor Show which was cancelled due to rain in Orange county or some other feeble excuse he gave to his victims ... err ... KIAN KAMAL KIAN and Das Klubbhaus (aka The House of Pain) for accomplishing exactly NOTHING and having this UltraVires diaper kicked to DaCurb by the OC judge.

And the crowd went wild!!

[shajandr]

The correct statement is that the Kllubbhaus and KIAN KAMAL KIAN are hoping and begging to intervene, butt despite the passage of many months since the motion to intervene there are zero signs that such a wish is likely to be granted, and several signs indicating that it will nott succeed.

In this matter both Chanboned and UOIP have separate, independent legal counsel repping them. Their is no ripe claim for UOIP shareholder-victims to bring. Shareholders cannot show that they have suffered any injury or have any right to any portion of the dwindling pot - at this time. Fingerling and his funders have no standing to intervene. As you have pointed ~OUTT previously, DEIRDRE is the one with a shareholder derivative suit pending in NC, so the Federal District court in Delaware has no basis to join Das Klubbhaus and KIAN KAMAL KIAN to the CBV case as derivative representatives standing in for UOIP.

And, DaCourt has had this intervention motion since it was first raised by Radar and the Realtor - and all Judge Norieka does is basically ignore it. Everything just moves forward and the motion to intervene is ignored. This is nott an impleader situation - none of the parties to the action support the Fingering/Klubbhaus motion nor have any of them brought such an impleading motion.

The fact that she has ignored the Radar/FInger motions and letters while she lets discovery, motions practice, and a potential scheduling order to proceed with~OUTT indicates that if she were somehow forced to rule now, she would deny the motion. However, she has no reason to do this now when she can always do it later - in case something unforeseen happens whereby circumstances change and Klubbhaus/KIAN KAMAL KIAN do in the future develop standing to intervene. AND with the DEIRDRE derivative suit pending in NC, IF there was or became a basis for shareholder-victims to intervene in the CBV case via a shareholder derivative claim vs UOIP, the judge in DE would be unlikely to recognize Fingering and the KIAN/Klubbhaus gang as the appropriate representatives in view of DEIRDRE’s already-pending derivative claim in NC.

At some point, she will rule, and unless something unforeseeable occurs whereby UOIP shareholders have a ripe claim to a direct financial interest they have (and remember, there is no duty on UOIP to just hand over the residual shekels to all the common stock shareholders - UOIP can spend the munny (if ANY) any way it chooses - and Billy has majority share votes), then I strongly expect that she will deny the motion to intervene.

Butt, as you korreckly stated, the fun never stops here. At least from my standpoint.

[zombywolf]

This is not our case, other than an inventors win frees up about 11% of the settlement for the shares. So we root for them while we intervene to become a defendant in the case. The fun never stops in this case.

[justus1]

It warms our heart to know the inventors will get a fair shake either way! And if and when they do hopefully the facts in their case will also make sure all parties involved will also equally receive a fair shake! Let the truth be told and all parties be made to do the right thing for every one of us!

[shajandr]

Yeah, trial schedules never slippp.

BTW, there is no provision for FIingerling to CONduct any discovery as he reps no party to this case. Where is there time for him?

Hell, they did nott even bother to axe Fingerling is he is available for May 2023! Poor Fingerling - everyone is just ignoring him. He sends motions and a letter to DaJudge and nobuddy notices him or responds to him. Poor guy gottsa feel left~OUTT.

LOLOL!!









The Lawyer’s Billing Anthem

[shajandr]

I remember when we used paper timesheets. For trivial matters you could bill in 0.1 hour increments, including just using 0.1 hrs for an entry.

Then, sometime in the early 90s we switched to a computer-based timekeeping system on the network and the minimum time for any entry became 0.2 hours. The bullshit reason given was that no billable task really takes 6 minutes or less - even if it is a 30 second phone call. The real reason was that it was a way to squeeze more $$$ from clients by doubling the minimum billing entry for any billable work (lawyers, paralegals, specialists, etc.).

I still have a few pads of the old paper timesheets kept just for posterity. They are in some box in storage. New kidds like Akiva prolly have never seen a pad of timesheets. Just as I never saw inkwells and quill pens and just gott in at the tail-end of Dictaphones and needing to spend time in the law lieberry for research. Newbies like Akiva prolly have no idea about such thangs (DaLieberry is still used for certain thangs, butt way less than it used to be).

Yett despite all the huge efficiencies that computerization has brought to DaLawBizz, oddly the total hours per project has gone uppp - even accounting for the general rate of inflation.

Weird, huh?

Oh well, these various lawyuhs re: Chanboned/UOIP will bill until the bucket of munny is drained dry.

Why?

Because they can.

4.2 might be an underestimate for GRIVNER. Butt for Radar The Magnificent, he might bill 30 hours because he might never have had to draft a scheduling order and may nott even have the boilerplate text on his computer. Radar never made it to Bigg Law so he never had the opportunity to download and archive all the forms, filings, boilerplate, legal research, and cases that are available on Bigg Law servers - just to download and use or archive on a removable drive - take it with you when you leave just don’t mention it. Radar does nott have this, so he rightly wood knead more heures to accomplish a task that a Bigg Law dude like Akiva (and mebbe GRIVNER) can do quickly because they have both experience at doing it AND oodles of boilerplate he can use from other draft or final scheduling orders he has in computer files available to him at a keystroke.

So what might take GRIVNER 4.2 heures could legitimately take Radar 10x as long (he will need to spend time locating examples and studying what is needed and how such a scheduling order is composed and presented). And GRIVNER’s draft will still be significantly superior to Radar’s.

And that is ONE reason why it is foolish to think one saves munny by using a lawyer with a cheaper billing rate. The Radars will actually wind up costing substantially more for the same matter than a higher rate Bigg Law lawyer (or alumnus like Akiva) would.

NEVER cheap~OUTT on doctors, lawyers, accountants - it will usually wind up costing more (and often a LOTT more - potentially costing your life, freedom, business, or worse) than if you simply buy the best available service provider right from the start. In general, a low billing rate lawyer will have to bill you for the time it takes them to LEARN what the higher billing rate lawyer already knows and thus is much, much more efficient (and better at).

KIAN KAMAL KIAN (or whatever his/her name is) screwed uppp by selecting Radar and the Realtor.

[zombywolf]

At least the trial will be in May instead of December. No soccer moms on this one, will be heard by the judge. And that judge takes no prisoners, the inventors will get a fair shake either way.

[shajandr]

I wunner how much GRIVNER billed (bilt/bilked) CBV for drafting and filing that proposed order.

I put the over/under at 4.2 hours.

Most is boilerplate butt he did have to noodle up the section about sealed documents and a few other special tweaks.

So a few grand for that charged to CBV (for now).

Drip, drip, drip goes the remaining $$$ in DaPott


Gee, where’d it all go?</>


Fingerling is still waiting for any recognition by DaCourt - dead silence - DaJudge rightly has Fingering on Ignore


ABB - Always Bee Billing!

[VC3]

Thanks for continuing to keep up with the proceedings.....much appreciated.

[long uoip]

142 PROPOSED ORDER Scheduling Order [Non-Patent] by CBV, Inc.. (Grivner, Geoffrey)

Aug 19, 2022

Main Doc­ument

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant
and
DIERDRE LEANE and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
SCHEDULING ORDER [NON-PATENT]
This _______ day of _________________, 2022, the Court having conducted an initial
Rule 16(b) scheduling conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(b), and the parties having
determined after discussion that the matter cannot be resolved at this juncture by settlement,
voluntary mediation, or binding arbitration;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and E-Discovery Default Standard. The parties
shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within
five (5) days from the date the Court enters this Order. If they have not already done so, the
parties are to review the Court's Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"), which is posted at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov (see
Other Resources, Default Standard for Discovery) and is incorporated herein by reference.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6625
2
2. Application to Court for Protective Order. Should counsel find it will be necessary
to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the disclosure of
confidential information, counsel should confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed
form of order and submit it to the Court within five (5) days from the date the Court enters this
Order. Should counsel be unable to reach an agreement on a proposed form of order, counsel
must follow the provisions of Paragraph 7(g) below.
[color=blue]Any proposed protective order must include the following paragraph:
Other Proceedings. By entering this order and limiting the
disclosure of information in this case, the Court does not intend to
preclude another court from finding that information may be
relevant and subject to disclosure in another case. Any person or
party subject to this order who becomes subject to a motion to
disclose another party's information designated "confidential" [the
parties should list any other level of designation, such as "highly
confidential," which may be provided for in the protective order]
pursuant to this order shall promptly notify that party of the motion
so that the party may have an opportunity to appear and be heard on
whether that information should be disclosed.[/color]
3. Papers Filed Under Seal. In accordance with section G of the Revised
Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by Electronic Means, a redacted version
of any sealed document shall be filed electronically within seven (7) days of the filing of the sealed
document.
4. Courtesy Copies. The parties shall provide to the Court two (2) courtesy copies of
all briefs and any other document filed in support of any briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits,
declarations, affidavits etc.). This provision also applies to papers filed under seal. All courtesy
copies shall be double-sided.
5. ADR Process. This matter is referred to a magistrate judge to explore the possibility
of alternative dispute resolution.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 6626
6. Discovery.
(a) Discovery Cut Off. All discovery in this case shall be initiated so that it
will be completed on or before November 21, 2022.
(b) Cross-Use of Discovery. The parties hereby agree that any discovery taken
in the arbitration referenced in the Complaint shall be deemed to have been taken in this action,
and Defendants shall expeditiously provide Plaintiff with copies of any discovery requests, written
discovery responses, documents, and deposition transcripts exchanged or taken in that arbitration.
(c) Document Production. Document production shall be substantially
complete by October 3, 2022.
(d) Requests for Admission. Absent good cause, a maximum of Twenty (20)
requests for admission are permitted for each side.
(e) Interrogatories.
i. Absent good cause, a maximum of Twenty (20) interrogatories,
including contention interrogatories, are permitted for each side.
ii. The Court encourages the parties to serve and respond to contention
interrogatories early in the case. In the absence of agreement among the parties, contention
interrogatories, if filed, shall first be addressed by the party with the burden of proof. The adequacy
of all interrogatory answers shall be judged by the level of detail each party provides (i.e., the more
detail a party provides, the more detail a party shall receive).
(f) Depositions.
i. Limitation on Hours for Deposition Discovery. Each side is limited
to a total of Thirty-Five (35) hours of taking testimony by deposition upon oral examination.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 6627
4
ii. Location of Depositions. Any party or representative (officer,
director, or managing agent) of a party filing a civil action in this district court must ordinarily be
required, upon request, to submit to a deposition at a place designated within this district.
Exceptions to this general rule may be made by order of the Court. A defendant who becomes a
counterclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff shall be considered as having filed an
action in this Court for the purpose of this provision.
(g) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.
i. Identification of Experts. The Parties shall disclose the identity of
any proposed affirmative expert they intend to use on a given subject matter, regardless of which
party has the initial burden of proof on that subject matter, on October 21, 2022. The disclosure
shall include the identity and CV of the expert, for conflicts purposes, and a general description of
the intended subject matter of the expert’s report. The identity and CV of any rebuttal expert shall
be disclosed on November 20, 2022.
ii. Expert Reports. For the party who has the initial burden of proof on
the subject matter, the initial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert
testimony is due on or before December 21, 2022. The supplemental disclosure to contradict or
rebut evidence on the same matter identified by another party is due on or before January 20,
2023. Reply expert reports from the party with the initial burden of proof are due on or before
February 3, 2023. No other expert reports will be permitted without either the consent of all
parties or leave of the Court. Along with the submissions of the expert reports, the parties shall
advise of the dates and times of their experts’ availability for deposition.
iii. Objections to Expert Testimony. To the extent any objection to
expert testimony is made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 6628
5
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, it
shall be made by motion no later than fourteen (14) days after the close of expert discovery,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court’s Local
Rules.
iv. Expert Discovery Cut Off. All expert discovery in this case shall be
initiated so that it will be completed on or before March 20, 2023.
(h) Discovery Matters and Disputes Relating to Protective Orders.
i. Any discovery motion filed without first complying with the
following procedures will be denied without prejudice to renew pursuant to these procedures.
ii. Should counsel find, after a reasonable effort pursuant to Local
Rule 7.1.1 that they are unable to resolve a discovery matter or a dispute relating to a protective
order, the parties involved in the discovery matter or protective order dispute shall contact the
Court's Judicial Administrator to schedule an argument.
iii. On a date to be set by separate order, generally not less than four (4)
days prior to the conference, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed
three (3) pages, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues. On a date to be set
by separate order, but generally not less than three (3) days prior to the conference, any party
opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining that
party's reasons for its opposition.
iv. The parties shall provide to the Court two (2) courtesy copies of its
discovery letter and any other document filed in support of any letter (i.e., appendices, exhibits,
declarations, affidavits etc.). This provision also applies to papers filed under seal. All courtesy
copies shall be double-sided.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 6629
6
v. Should the Court find further briefing necessary upon conclusion of
the conference, the Court will order it. Alternatively, the Court may choose to resolve the dispute
prior to the conference and will, in that event, cancel the conference.
7. Motions to Amend / Motions to Strike.
(a) Any motion to amend (including a motion for leave to amend) a pleading
or any motion to strike any pleading or other document shall be made pursuant to the discovery
dispute procedure set forth in Paragraph 7(g) above.
(b) Any such motion shall attach the proposed amended pleading as well as a
"redline" comparison to the prior pleading or attach the document to be stricken.
8. Case Dispositive Motions.
(a) Case dispositive motions, an opening brief, and affidavits, if any, in support
of the motion shall be served and filed on or before December 20, 2022. Briefing will be presented
pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules. No case dispositive motion under Rule 56 with respect to
this Paragraph 9(b) may be filed more than ten (10) days before the above date without leave of
the Court.
(b) Concise Statement of Facts Requirement. Any motion for summary
judgment shall be accompanied by a separate concise statement, not to exceed six (6) pages, which
details each material fact which the moving party contends is essential for the Court’s resolution
of the summary judgment motion (not the entire case) and as to which the moving party contends
there is no genuine issue to be tried. Each fact shall be set forth in a separate numbered paragraph
and shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
Any party opposing the motion shall include with its opposing papers a response to the
moving party’s concise statement, not to exceed six (6) pages, which admits or disputes the facts
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6630
7
set forth in the moving party’s concise statement on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. To the extent
a fact is disputed, the basis of the dispute shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
Failure to respond to a fact presented in the moving party’s concise statement of facts shall indicate
that fact is not in dispute for purposes of summary judgment. The party opposing the motion may
also include with its opposing papers a separate concise statement, not to exceed four (4) pages,
which sets forth material facts as to which the opposing party contends there is a genuine issue to
be tried. Each fact asserted by the opposing party shall also be set forth in a separate numbered
paragraph and shall be supported by specific citation(s) to the record.
The moving party shall include with its reply papers a response to the opposing party's
concise statement of facts, not to exceed four (4) pages, on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Failure
to respond to a fact presented in the opposing party’s concise statement of facts shall indicate that
fact remains in dispute for purposes of summary judgment.
9. Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any application to
the Court shall be by written motion. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement
required by Local Rule 7.1.1.
10. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine shall not be separately filed. All in limine
requests and responses thereto shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order. Each party shall be
limited to three (3) in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The in limine
request and any response shall contain the authorities relied upon; each in limine request may be
supported by a maximum of three (3) pages of argument, may be opposed by a maximum of three
(3) pages of argument, and the party making the in limine request may add a maximum of one (1)
additional page in reply in support of its request. If more than one party is supporting or opposing
an in limine request, such support or opposition shall be combined in a single three (3) page
Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 142 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 6631
8
submission (and, if the moving party, a single one (1) page reply), unless otherwise ordered by the
Court. No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted
by the Court.
11. Pretrial Conference. On April ___, 2023, the Court will hold a pretrial conference
in Court with counsel beginning at _____. The parties shall file with the Court the joint proposed
final pretrial order in compliance with Local Rule 16.3(c) and the Court's Preferences and
Procedures for Civil Cases not later than seven (7) days before the pretrial conference. Unless
otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall comply with the timeframes set forth in Local
Rule 16.3(d)(1)-(3) for the preparation of the joint proposed final pretrial order. The Court will
advise the parties at or before the above-scheduled pretrial conference whether an additional
pretrial conference will be necessary.
The parties shall provide the Court two (2) double-sided courtesy copies of the joint
proposed final pretrial order and all attachments. The proposed final pretrial order shall contain a
table of contents.
12. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a 3 day bench trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on
May ___, 2023, with the subsequent trial days beginning at 9:00 a.m. The trial will be timed, as
counsel will be allocated a total number of hours in which to present their respective cases.
_________________
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
United States District Judge

Counsel Shall Provide a Chart of All Relevant Deadlines
EVENT DEADLINE
Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures Five (5) days after entry of Scheduling
Order
Application for Protective Order Five (5) days after entry of Scheduling
Order
Discovery Cutoff November 21, 2022
Document Production Substantial Completion October 3, 2022
Identification of Affirmative Experts October 21, 2022
Identification of Rebuttal Experts November 20, 2022
Plaintiff’s Expert Report December 21, 2022
Defendants’ Rebuttal Expert Report January 20, 2023
Plaintiff’s Reply Expert Report February 3, 2023
Expert Discovery Cut Off March 20, 2023
Objections to Expert Testimony Fourteen (14) days after the close of
expert discovery
Case Dispositive Motions December 20, 2022
Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine Seven (7) days before the Pretrial
Conference
Pretrial Conference April ___, 2023
Trial May ___, 2023

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.142.0.pdf

[shajandr]

Ah, Akiva Cohen was evidently part of the BILLING BUZZ I heard yesterday. Chomping away at the dwindling remaining settlement funds until they are G-O-N-E. Then the bees will move on to another flower.

DaBizzyLegalBees be a billing away - buzz, buzz, buzz - BILLABLES!!

[long uoip]

141 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Leane Defendants' First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant ChanBond, LLC filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)

Aug 17, 2022

Main Doc­ument

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC, DEIRDRE LEANE,
and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN
NOTICE OF SERVICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 17, 2022, Leane Defendants’ First Set Of
Interrogatories To Defendant ChanBond, LLC was served via electronic mail on:

Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for CBV, Inc.

Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq.
BAYARD, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC

OF COUNSEL:
Akiva M. Cohen
Dylan M. Schmeyer
KAMERMAN, UNCYK,
SONIKER & KLEIN P.C,
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
212.400.4930
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Dated: August 17, 2022

/s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (DE No. 5355)
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.141.0.pdf
___________________________________

140 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Leane Defendants' First Set Of Interrogatories To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)


Aug 17, 2022

Main Doc­ument

[shajandr]

A reason is billing!!! Today was a heavy billables day. I could hear the roar of timesheet entries all day being billed to (bilt to) Chanboned, UnitedOnline, CBV, DEIRDRE, and possibly even a slight hum from non-party rep Finger billed to DaKlubbHaus.

And there sits DaKlubbhaus with Finger up their ... oopps-whoops!!!

I gottsa laff when thinking of KIAN KAMAL KIAN and Klubbhaus still cuttttting Czechs to lawyahs for this nonsense.

I wunder whut FInger bilt for the cheesy letter to DaJudge. Mebbe 1.2 hours? It is a very short letter. I will be overgenerous to him and say 1.2 hrs is nott ~OUTTside the bounds if he rolls in prep time, review & revise draft, etc. in the time description. It all depends on how you describe the billing entry as to whether or nott a particular client may question that item or nott.

OTOH, he could bill he same time this way:

0.5 Review file and pending party motions.

0.4 Draft letter to court re: outstanding motions and sealed case records

0.3 Review and revise draft letter and attachment.

Getts you the same 1.2 hours butt might be more palatable to KIAN or KAMAL and the Klubbhaus.

Law skools ought to have a course on the Art and Science of Timesheet Billing. You do learn this stuph from yer mentors once you graduate and gett into a Bigg Firm, butt a formal law skool class would be good for those who do nott make DaCutt and do nott gett BiggLaw mentors to teach then DaRopes of DaBizzz post-graduately (sic).

Today the roar of timesheet entries being made on this case from all DaLawyahs working onit required me to put on hearing protection.

[TonyJoe1957]

Well, there is a reason. It is just not a "reasonable" reason.

[I-Glow]

Keep the pinky fantasyland alive with hopes and wishes of a Billion plus settlement.

Cox can't keep the settlement out of their financials because of a NDA - look at the cox financials - the settlement was for all defendants.

I have never seen a patent infringement case with a patent troll where retail shareholders receive anything - just like bankruptcy cases.

But a few will be posting several years from now about a huge payout that never happens - remember if Chanbond wins everyone wins.

IG

[imp82]

I mean, I don't disagree with this. There is no reason to keep the documents sealed at this point.

[shajandr]

LOLOL!!! And CBVs lawyers just totally forgot that, eh? Did not even plead it on an information and beleef lotto ticket unfounded assertion? And DEIRDREs crack legal team missed this also when they went thru the arbitration (with discovery!)?

LOLOL!!! Ya, OK, shure.

And this is DaKlubbhaus bleef system???

Ahahahahhaa!!! This is almost as wacky as the shit that getts posted, for example, on the BIOAQ board - a liquidated company that was liquidated years ago and shareholder-victims cling on despite reality and ticker cancellation. Humans just cannot accept reality and are in denial about the total loss so they invent the most crazy implausible excuses for.why the munny is nott gone when indeed it is G-O-N-E.

[AllinFun]

There is a very clear reason why they continue to keep everything sealed, but leak this $125 million settlement garbage to the public. You really think they are stupid enough to risk another lawsuit from the defendant for leaking settlement details when there was a NDA in place. Not to mention why keep everything sealed at this point if your willing to announce the most important detail... the value of the settlement. It's pretty amazing this is even a debate.

[AllinFun]

And again, you don't pursue a lawsuit for $130 million+ from the 1 infringer you are currently at court with (who happens to be a small amount of infringement amongst the group of 13) to then accept $125 million globally. If Carter wanted and needed money so bad that he was willing to accept $125 million, he would have got that a long time ago. The defendant had zero leverage giving up on the first day of trial realizing they were going to get their butts fried. There were other powers that be here and Carter had to make sure he got everything he could to pay off all of those he owes in his honorable lifestyle.

[AllinFun]

On the contrary, do you have any proof the settlement was with anyone outside of Cox? I guess you wouldn't as none of us would and that is why we are pursuing all information and details. But yet for some reason many here continue telling us it is absurd to continue pursuing.

Another note: Do you have any proof there was not a separate agreement in place with any of the defendants including but not limited too: Arris, Cisco, Comcast, etc. A purchase agreement contingent upon the settlement agreement with Cox (covered by their providers indemnification clauses). This is very standard information that is missing, but yet we are told to stop looking LOL!

[papa p]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/p5LsPyhNCMHA9sbX61/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e474s1o8rypylbyostqj0bguxmzduyi0j83dj9e1jtt&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

[I-Glow]

Carter was negotiating with the defendants for himself - funders of legal expenses - the Attorneys.

Carter wanted/needed money so he accepted the offer of $125 Million.

Now the latest storyline is the settlement is in the Billions.

The retail shareholders are last in line to be paid. They are unsecured creditors

Do you have any proof that the settlement was only with Cox?

IG

[TonyJoe1957]

Trust Billy.

[long uoip]

139 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Deirdre Leane And IPNAV, LLC's First Set Of Requests For Production To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane.(Levine, James Harry)

Aug 12, 2022

Main Doc­ument

Notice of Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC, DEIRDRE LEANE,
and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-MN

NOTICE OF SERVICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2022, Defendants Deirdre Leane And
IPNAV, LLC’s First Set Of Requests For Production To Plaintiff CBV, Inc. were served via
electronic mail on:

Geoffrey G. Grivner, Esq.
Kody M. Sparks, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for CBV, Inc.

Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq.
BAYARD, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC

Case 1:21-cv-01456-MN Document 139 Filed 08/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6619
-2-

OF COUNSEL:
Akiva M. Cohen
Dylan M. Schmeyer
KAMERMAN, UNCYK,
SONIKER & KLEIN P.C,
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
212.400.4930
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Dated: August 12, 2022

/s/ James H. S. Levine
James H. S. Levine (DE No. 5355)
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
302.777.6500
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.139.0.pdf

[zombywolf]

NC case info from Pacer Monitor-There is life there. Sorry clubhouse.

Monday, August 08, 2022
28 notice Notice of Mailing Recommendation Mon 08/08 2:55 PM
Notice of Mailing Recommendation. Objections to R&R due by 8/22/2022. Objections to R&R for Pro Se due by 8/25/2022. (Bowers, Alexis)
27 motion Recommended Ruling - Magistrate Judge Mon 08/08 2:48 PM
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 08/08/2022, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. #16 ] be DENIED, without prejudice to further consideration of statute of limitation issues after discovery. IT IS ORDERED that this case is set for an Initial Pretrial Conference on September 22,2022, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 3 of the Federal Courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. (Bowers, Alexis)
utility Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings Mon 08/08 3:03 PM
Set Hearings: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 9/22/2022 09:30 AM in Winston-Salem Courtroom #3 before MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE. (Bowers, Alexis)

[AllinFun]

As explained prior - $125 million settlement makes zero sense. The $125 million settlement was likely a settlement with only Cox and then there was a separate agreement in place with the settlement to buy the patents. This is why the patents were "sold". Otherwise there would be ongoing royalties attached to the settlement. They wouldn't just settle for $125 million and allow these companies to continue using the tech for free. Not to mention $125 million is less than they were pursuing just for Cox ALONE. Cox is a tiny fraction of the problem in reference to Comcast. This is why there is a search for more information.

Again you don't get to the very end at trial where the defendant gave up on day 1 with valuation experts at trial showing at minimum $ billions in damages and then settle for $125 million. The defendant had zero leverage at that point and the defendant is loaded with cash troves. This is why there is a search for more information.

[zombywolf]

It is clear from multiple sources that the settlement was $125 million. It seems that Finger wants more than that info in the intervention. I can tell you that that settlement number has been confirmed by those that are inside this case. What he wants outside of that is unknown.

[shajandr]

Have you seen that the attached complaint does NOTTT support Finger's claim that it disclosed the settlement amount?

One cannot calculate the gross or net settlement amount from that document that Finger claims discloses it.

If I am wronGGG on this, please 'splain how you or Finger calculate it from the document (attachment to Finger's letter to DaJudge) and run the numbers for me showing your work. For Finger's sake I hope I have just mist it and there is some basis in the doc to support Finger's claim, otherwise he will end up like Radar. Making factually incorrect statements to DaCourt is frowned upon. Since Finger often practices in the US District Court in Wilmington, it wood bee a badd career move if he claimed the attachment discloses something that it does nott. It is weird, butt most Federal judges do knott like lawyahs stating that a document shows (or stands for) something that it does knott.

Read it carefully.

Mebbe I just mist it - hepp me ~OUTT here. How does one compute the gross or net settlement amount from the cited complaint?

TIA.

shajtastique one

[AllinFun]

Let's be clear, their take was to finance Deidre and Billy's lifestyles as they awaited the bigger payout and screwing the inventors and shareholder's for everything.

[zombywolf]

I believe somewhere in the 20-25% range, on top of the 28% percent going to the Chanbond lawyers on contingency. Their take was to be for financing the legals. How do legals in a contingency case need financing at the same level? Why are we paying twice for the same legals?

[shajandr]

How much went to Bentham?

BTW, FInger s letter is wronGGG. Read the attached complaint carefully.

It is NOTT there.

Read closely.

[TonyJoe1957]

Enjoy reading the posts.
Just a reminder...inflation is running double-digit.
Stay well.

[zombywolf]

Their win would add approximately $13.75 million to the $54 million=$67.75 million/1.6B=.0423 per share maximum. This number would be reduced by costs, unknown at this point. I would not bet on their win in total, as I think they will settle the $27.5 million between them. Then there will be the legal costs in either derivative action as well. We would be be incredibly fortunate to get the .021 that was the share price before we got delisted, years from now.

[long uoip]

here's hoping CBV win BIG vs. deirdre

[zombywolf]

Well everyone would have to be happy with the .0337, as that would be the maximum available, unless the inventors take their case to finality and win vs Deirdre. I have discussed the situation with them, so we will see what they will do.

[long uoip]

re: "Carter isn't really involved in the CBV case".. .I hear you, I was insinuating re: his pending involvement down the line re: all the fraud/malfeasance kamal case highlighted in previous documents thus far and deirdre has been accused of misleading information via CBV lawyers' previous filings

I hope the 3 inventors get reimbursed for their tech before more health issues ensue

re: " $54 million divided by 1.6B shares=.0337 per share.. I am sure everyone would be happy with a return here in that range".. .NONE of the uoip shareholders I'm in contact with would be "per se" be happy with 0.03 per share, after all these years following this case

[zombywolf]

According to the recent revelation, the legals cost 28% of the settlement= $35 million. With the CBV case $27.5 million divided up between the inventors and Deirdre=$62.5 million of $125 million leaves about half, plus some extras. So let's cap that at a couple million= about $60 million left. The inventors got some last fall, let's assume a mil or two each= $54 million left over. That should be the amount we need to fight for as the amount for UOIP. Whether it's Deidre in NC, or a case at the Chancery Court in DE, that would seem to be what should happen. How Billy can create a separate distribution, or why excess financing was needed on a contingency case, needs to go in front of a judge. $54 million divided by 1.6B shares=.0337 per share. I am sure everyone would be happy with a return here in that range.

[zombywolf]

Carter isn't really involved in the CBV case, it is the inventors vs the agreement Deidre created as an advisory contract for 22% of the settlement. She would have nothing if it wasn't for their work. Neither side gets paid until it is worked out. There is $27.5 million at stake, you would think someone would figure out the fact that this goes on forever without a deal. IMO, 9 million for the inventors of the $27.5 million will get this done, and Deirdre gets about $17 million for doing nothing. Then we can get to work on Billy.

[shajandr]

Why nott? They both went thru it in the arbitration (which is already part of the current US District Court in Delaware case).

[long uoip]

..highly doubt deirdre or carter will go through DISCOVERY, deposition stage

[zombywolf]

Let's hope with all this that Deirdre and the inventors can settle this. There is $27.5 million at stake, and I cannot believe that those two camps can't divvy that up between themselves fairly. Once they do that, it clears the deck for a derivative case for shareholders for anything left.

[shajandr]

DaJudge knows deaf people are witnesses all DaTime in litigation. The request by Earl's fourth-rate lawyer was nearly (butt knott kwite) as stoopid as Radar's request to appear at his own hearing because he was skert to fly to the Filly airport. Just a waste of court time - and DaJudge Shirley wasted no time in shutting it down.

Finger's doomed request is next for either continued ignoring by DaCourt and let him linger (and bill!!) until the case is CLOSED or just, if he getts to be too pestering, shuttt him down too.

Friday night is veal spezzato night at Mrs. Robino's

[long uoip]

138 ORAL ORDER re 136 Letter - Having reviewed the parties' letter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will not bifurcate the issues. If the parties wish to depose Mr. Hennenfoefer to preserve his testimony, they shall meet and confer to come to an agreement regarding such. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court adopts Defendant's proposed dates in the scheduling order and, on or before 8/19/2022, the parties shall file a revised proposed scheduling order. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/5/2022. (dlw) (Entered: 08/05/2022)


Aug 5, 2022

Main Doc­ument

[long uoip]

137 Letter to The Hon. Maryellen Norieka from David L. Finger regarding addressing new information relevant to the pending motions - re [34] MOTION to Intervene derivatively on behalf of UnifiedOnline, Inc., [100] MOTION to Intervene and Unseal Documents. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Complaint in Mishcon De Reya New York LLP v. ChanBond, LLC, et al.)(Finger, David)

LINK > Letter to The Hon. Maryellen Norieka from David L. Finger

Aug 5, 2022

Main Doc­ument

Letter

Attach­ment 1

Exhibit Complaint in Mishcon De Reya New York LLP v. ChanBond, LLC, et al.