Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
if you think you're NEVER WRONG, perhaps read this again LOL
Post # 96791 https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172746178
re: "headshake from your absurd, wrongheaded, brainless, and utterly misinformed posts"
prediction 1 > The trial is only 1 of many hurdles the plaintiff has to prevail on
prediction 2 > IF the plaintiff can check that box, then the game moves to the BIG League at the CAFC on appeal
prediction 3 > BEST case for plaintiffs - you're talking YEARS.
prediction 4 > possibly a remand to District court for additional proceedings
prediction 5 > one or more additional CAFC appeals
prediction 6 > only if plaintiff wins every single stage to even get that far
prediction 7 > No way COX and other defendants will settle these claims without at least one round thru a CAFC appeal
prediction 8 > case can be remanded to the District court for further proceedings
prediction 9 > The CAFC appeal is really the de facto decider if this turd even makes it past the District court trial stage
prediction 10 > If it ends early, it will be because plaintiff lost all counts.
prediction 11 > that's the most likely outcome
shajandr Sunday, 07/19/20 01:04:35 AM
Post # 81757
The trial is only one of many hurdles the plaintiff has to prevail on - it's somewhere between an opening act at a concert having to pass a physical before basic training - it is a necessary butt knott sufficient conditional for the plaintiff. IF the plaintiff can Czech that boxx, then the game moves to DaBiggLeague at the CAFC on appeal.
So, realistically, BEST case for plaintiffs - yer tawkin' YEARS. And quite possibly a remand to District court for additional proceedings and then one or more additional CAFC appeals. And that's only if plaintiff wins every single stage to even gett that far.
No way COX and other defendants will settle these claims without at least one round thru a CAFC appeal (assuming they lose any count at the District court trial phase - or first phase, as a case can be remanded to the District court for further proceedings). The CAFC appeal is really the de facto decider if this turd even makes it past the District court trial stage.The CAFC is to the US patent litigation system like the Pope and the Vatican are to the Catholic church.
If it ends early, it will be because plaintiff lost all counts. And frankly that's the most likely ~OUTTcome.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157002014
re: "headshake from your absurd, wrongheaded, brainless, and utterly misinformed posts"
you mean like this one, LOL
prediction 1 > The trial is only 1 of many hurdles the plaintiff has to prevail on
prediction 2 > IF the plaintiff can check that box, then the game moves to the BIG League at the CAFC on appeal
prediction 3 > BEST case for plaintiffs - you're talking YEARS.
prediction 4 > possibly a remand to District court for additional proceedings
prediction 5 > one or more additional CAFC appeals
prediction 6 > only if plaintiff wins every single stage to even get that far
prediction 7 > No way COX and other defendants will settle these claims without at least one round thru a CAFC appeal
prediction 8 > case can be remanded to the District court for further proceedings
prediction 9 > The CAFC appeal is really the de facto decider if this turd even makes it past the District court trial stage
prediction 10 > If it ends early, it will be because plaintiff lost all counts.
prediction 11 > that's the most likely outcome
_________________________________________________
shajandr Sunday, 07/19/20 01:04:35 AM
Post # 81757
The trial is only one of many hurdles the plaintiff has to prevail on - it's somewhere between an opening act at a concert having to pass a physical before basic training - it is a necessary butt knott sufficient conditional for the plaintiff. IF the plaintiff can Czech that boxx, then the game moves to DaBiggLeague at the CAFC on appeal.
So, realistically, BEST case for plaintiffs - yer tawkin' YEARS. And quite possibly a remand to District court for additional proceedings and then one or more additional CAFC appeals. And that's only if plaintiff wins every single stage to even gett that far.
No way COX and other defendants will settle these claims without at least one round thru a CAFC appeal (assuming they lose any count at the District court trial phase - or first phase, as a case can be remanded to the District court for further proceedings). The CAFC appeal is really the de facto decider if this turd even makes it past the District court trial stage.The CAFC is to the US patent litigation system like the Pope and the Vatican are to the Catholic church.
If it ends early, it will be because plaintiff lost all counts. And frankly that's the most likely ~OUTTcome.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157002014
219 Letter to The Honorable Gregory B. Williams from Geoffrey Grivner regarding the request for a teleconference to address Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. (Grivner, Geoffrey)
Jun 1, 2023
Main Document
> Letter
MTI DENIED
OMG
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.218.0.pdf
218 MEMORANDUM ORDER re [34] MOTION to Intervene derivatively on behalf of UnifiedOnline, Inc. filed by Gregory Collins, Kamal Mian is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 6/1/23. (ntl)
Jun 1, 2023
Main Document
Memorandum and Order
217 [SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Gregory B. Williams from Geoffrey Grivner regarding opposition to CBV's Motion for Leave to Amend its First Amended Complaint. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A)(Grivner, Geoffrey)
Jun 1, 2023
Main Document
Letter
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 7323
RE: Joint Status Report?
Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Tue 12/20/2022 11:44 AM
To: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>;Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>;Levine, James
H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>;Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>;Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>;Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>;Kody M. Sparks
<kody.sparks@bipc.com>;Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
1 attachments (732 KB)
December 20, 2022 Status Letter to Judge Williams (4865-5653-4341 v1).docx;
All,
Please see our proposed letter. We are still sorting things out on our end and are therefore seeking to keep thestay in place until January 3. We will be in touch regarding the case between now and then.
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 2:22 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kody M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Joint Status Report?
Geoff? We’re closing in on COB
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 7324
From: Geoffrey G. Grivner
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Akiva Cohen; Steve Brauerman; Levine, James H.S.; Kathryn Tewson; Dylan Schmeyer; Mike Dunford; Kody M.
Sparks; Ronald Golden
Subject: RE: Joint Status Report?
Akiva,
I expect to get you a short draft letter to the Court later this morning.
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kody M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
Subject: Joint Status Report?
[This Email Originated From acohen@kusklaw.com Which Is External To The Firm]
Geoff,
I have not heard anything new for a while and our joint status report is due tomorrow. Can you please circulate a draft?
Thanks,
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 7325
CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION: This e-mail message (including any attachments) is a private communication sent by a law firm
and may contain confidential, legally privileged or protected information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system.
TRANSLATION ~ "when you're tryna appeal to an empath.. .but you don't understand
that you're actually DEALING WITH A PSYCHOPATH in a negotiation"
> disregarding or violating the rights of others. affirmative, displayed myriad of times
> inability to distinguish between right and wrong. affirmative, proven
> difficulty with showing remorse or empathy. affirmative, clearly displayed
> tendency to lie often. affirmative, proven via legal filings
> manipulating and hurting others. affirmative, displayed often
216 EXHIBIT re [214] Letter / Exhibit C to Letter to Hon. Gregory B. Willams by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane. (Levine, James Harry)
Jun 1, 2023
Main Document
Redacted Document
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 216 Filed 05/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7321
CBV's Settlement Proposal
Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Wed 12/7/2022 4:04 PM
To: Grivner, Geoffrey G. <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>;Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>
Cc: Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>;Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>;Kathryn Tewson
<ktewson@kusklaw.com>;Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Geoff,
Deirdre passed along that Dick and Bob’s opening proposal was that she pay them $7,000,000 to settle, which has me concerned that either you are not providing them with the information they need to make settlement discussions potentially fruitful, or that they are not understanding that information. Let’s walk through it.
We conveyed to you that Deirdre was open to a discussion of nuisance value – essentially a cost of defense type settlement. We took your response to indicate that your clients understood that. Clearly they do not (and their email started by explaining that they don’t consider her a nuisance, LMAO which confirms that lack of understanding).
$7,000,000 is obviously not that.
In fact, $7M is only a little less than we offered at mediation before we knew the outcome of the arbitration award. (We offered you a high-low to hedge against a total loss, with us paying you 9.5M if we won at arbitration and came out above the line, and you paying 4.5M if we lost at arbitration). You said no then. Why in the world would we offer anything near that amount now that we’ve already won and our risk is eliminated? That ship has long since sailed.
As we mentioned at Dick’s deposition, you have no viable claims against Deirdre at all. But even if you did, the maximum you could recover would be $4M and change – because the shortfall from ChanBond if we should be below the line is about 13M and change, and 9M of that shortfall is CBV’s own responsibility; you’re the ones who released those funds to ChanBond for its own use. So if one of us would be taking a 9M hit because those funds are gone, it would be you.
For all these reasons, a $7M demand is not connected to reality. I truly liked Dick as a human being, and I have a lot of respect for your clients as people. But they do not seem to grasp the position they are in, or the amount of goodwill they burnt through by trying to zero Deirdre out. There isn’t going to be a seven-figure offer from Deirdre, no matter how long we spend negotiating. There isn’t going to be a high six-figure offer from Deirdre, no matter how long we spend negotiating. Talking about your clients’ ages and families isn’t going to change that. I can’t even promise you low six-figures.
If your clients want to engage while understanding that predicate, and on the basis of that predicate, terrific, let’s talk. Otherwise, we shouldn’t waste everyone’s time.
Please let me know.
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
$7M of $125M = 0.05 portion of the FAKE, bullshit SETTLEMENT amount
what deirdre & her shady lawyers insinuate is a GENEROUS OFFER
for each SENIOR inventor who've been waiting for decades for reimbursement for their tech
you can very well assess what she thinks shareholders are worthy of.....nada, zilch
GBW best read the latest FILINGS and decipher WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON
& RULE ACCORDINGLY !! (doesn't take a genius to piece together what's goin on in our case)
deirdre lacks credibility (after having read hundreds of documents via legal filings)
I've lost track.. .who she playin this week ~ "good cop or bad cop"
this weeks' con ~ "deirdre blocks earl's emails" (passive aggressive chess move)
just so the bears/CBV concede to her lowball offer SMH
$7M of $125 = 0.05 portion of the FAKE SETTLEMENT amount
SHE'S SO SHADY.. .SHE'D EVEN LIE UNDER OATH
another shareholders perspective ~ I have always maintained that Billy went into the courtroom with a premeditated and agreed upon plan - with a tentative deal in place - but a deal that was 2 tiered.
He would accept a cash settlement that would be low enough so as to deter shareholders (like maybe $125 mil), a number that would probably not have prompted the rich shareholders to amass a legal fund to sue.
Think about it - the announcement says $125 mil. We already knew that Billy had side deals in place, etc., so maybe we were looking at dividing 1.6 billion shares into a diluted $100 mil .... 6 cents a share.
And Billy figured that if he ran off with this money, nobody would go after him since it would cost a lot of money and time and effort to do so.
In other words, 6 cents a share is it. No hope for the big score.
Most of us would have folded the tent.
Obviously, if the settlement were $1.6 billion, everything would change.
So he orchestrated the courtroom drama, knowing he would have his plan in place beforehand.
The deal was resolved at $125 mil and someone or someones bought the patents or some other "assets" of the company for (oh maybe) and additional $950 million.
Let's backtrack:
You are selling your car and you don't want your divorcing wife to know you will be getting money for it. Your car is worth $40,000..... so we make a deal and I buy your car for $15,000, then I give you side cash of $21,000 for the spare tire. Both of us get something and your wife only gets half of the $15,000.
So somebody was willing to buy something from Billy KNOWING that the thing they were buying really had no value (like assets of the corp), but instead they were paying for the settlement of the lawsuit... although not in that form.
If I (Cisco, e.g.) could settle a lawsuit for $10 million instead of $12 million by agreeing to a written settlement of $6 million and then buying something of yours on the side for $4 million, why wouldn't I.
I save $2 million.
I don't even care why you asked me to handle it that way.
I save $2 million.
My only problem would be hiding that $4 million from my books. But hey, if I'm doing $5 billion in gross revenues annually (Cisco/Cox?etc) hiding $4 million (or in OUR CASE $950 million) wouldn't be difficult.
So unless someone finds a trail from one or some of the 13 original culprits and follows that trail to the end, we won't know what went down.
But then why would Billy try to hide the $125 million from shareholders right off the bat?
Maybe a ploy to buy time and run us through hurdles and over obstacles while the second part of the deal is winding itself through the corporate books of the 13. Maybe Cisco said "I'll make the deal but I need a year to filter the $950 million through our books". Plausible???
Maybe this isn't the whole/big/true picture, but this is definitely the spirit of what took place.
Maybe that's why Billy isn't too worried about getting whatever settlement funds are being withheld from him via escrow (if that is even true)..... he already has the big bucks in his wallet!!
I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE THINKS SHE & CARTER SETTLED FOR $125 million
re: "doing nothing" ..au contraire, she's been scheming, deceiving, playing, lying, maneuvering, cunning, crafting, calculating, conspiring, conniving, etc
.....it won't go to court, carter/deirdre have TOO MANY SECRETS
re: "That is if Deirdre leaves them enough to afford spaghetti and meatballs."...if they're lucky
As an aside, I have never see a case where one side has been able to put off discovery so well and for so long.
IMPRESSIVE!!!
Discovery is a powerful tool and judges (normal, non-corrupt judges) usually push for it to be done ON TIME !
YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT THE SETTLEMENT AIN'T $125 MILLION
AFTER READING THE 84 PAGE FILING
pensive, deirdre won't share the full settlement documents citing attorney/client privilege LOL
Deidre knows that once she settles with the inventors, she's gone.
If/When GBW decides to make a decision, Deidre will expedite her settlement talks with the inventors and cut a quick deal.
She will get out and the whole thing dies before anyone else can get in.
Does anyone know for sure where Carter is and if he got any money?
He's been awfully quiet these past months.
Deidre's arbitration award was supposed to be in escrow, but there seems to be a notion that she has it in her possession.
Life and the law are different.
Deidre will never give up the settlement number.
There is no one sitting on any judicial bench that has the kahunas to demand it.
There is no entity (outside the current plaintiffs and defendants) who is in a position to obtain it
Deidre is waiting out the inventors knowing they are up there in age and growing desperate by the day.
Inventors' legal fees are mounting.
There is $7 million on the table.
Deidre knows that 2 months or so from now, she can go with a take-it-or-leave-it offer of $8 million and the inventor will cave.
And no, there won't be a trial 2 months from now.
Deidre's minions will make sure of that.
All posturing and game-playing by the children in this litigation and their childish lawyers.
218 EXHIBIT re [214] Letter / Exhibits B through K to Letter to Hon. Gregory B. Williams by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane. (Levine, James Harry)
read in full 84 page FILING
brauerman ~ "such posturing is unnecessary and unhelpful"
"CBV expects to promptly receive from you by return email the executed version(s) of any of your clients’ settlement agreement(s) with ChanBond" (SAY WHAT ??
they STILL HAVE NOT SEEN FULL SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS)
Akiva – "can you call my cell, 484-431-6101"
CBV ~ "Please immediately provide us with: 1) the basis on which you are withholding the agreement itself".. .their response ~ "attorney-client privilege" (OMG ~ LOL)
Geoff,
"This is acceptable to Robocast." (brauerman, a high end attorney charging hundred$ per hour, SMH, talk about ATTENTION TO DETAIL ?)
Thank you,
Steve
"Not sure who Robocast is, but thanks! I will get this filed."
Geoffrey Grivner
May 29, 2023
Main Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff/CounterclaimDefendant,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant/CrossclaimDefendant,
and
DEIRDRE LEANE, and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants/CounterclaimPlaintiffs/CrossclaimPlaintiffs.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-GBW
CBV, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS DIERDRE LEANE
AND IPNAV, LLC’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff CBV, Inc.
(“CBV” or “Plaintiff”), hereby responds to Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Deirdre Leane
(“Leane”) and IPNAV, LLC’s (“IPNAV” and collectively with Leane, “Defendants”) Second Set of Requests for Production (the “Requests” and each individually a “Request”) as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiff objects to the Requests (including without limitation the definitions and
instructions) to the extent they purport to call for the disclosure of information beyond that which
is authorized or contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are overbroad, unduly
burdensome, vague, unintelligible, and seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Plaintiff will not produce otherwise responsive documents if those documents or the contents thereof are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Plaintiff’s inadvertent disclosure of information subject to any applicable privilege, immunity, or protection is not intended to be, and shall not operate as, waiver of any such privilege, immunity, or protection in whole or in part.
4. In furnishing the responses herein, Plaintiff does not concede that any information
provided is relevant to the subject matter of, or admissible in, this litigation.
5. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent they are vague or ambiguous and
therefore require subjective judgment on the part of Plaintiff as to what information is requested.
6. Plaintiff’s responses to the Requests are without waiver or limitation of its right to
object on any available evidentiary grounds to the use at trial or at any hearing of any information or documents provided or referred to in its responses.
7. Plaintiff objects to the definitions contained in the Requests to the extent that they
are overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, speculative and/or inaccurate
8. Plaintiff objects to the Requests to the extent that it does not include a relevant time
period, and therefore are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
9. Any indication that Plaintiff will disclose information in answering any individual
Request does not mean that Plaintiff agrees to the characterization of facts or events set forth in the specific Request.
10. A response indicating that responsive documents will be produced is not an
indication or a representation that any such documents exist, but rather that Plaintiff will, in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules, make or cause to be made a reasonably diligent, good faith search of the files and locations that it reasonably believes contain documents responsive to the Requests (subject to any objections) and will produce documents responsive to the Requests (subject to any objections) which are located therewith.
11. The foregoing General Objections are to be incorporated by reference into each of
the following answers.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, Plaintiff responds and
objects to Defendants’ Requests as follows:
REQUESTS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
A copy of the “confidential agreement” referenced in Geoff Grivner’s email of
March 13, 2023 seeking Leane Defendants’ consent to CBV filing a proposed amended
complaint.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it is vague, unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents which are subject to confidentiality provisions requiring consent of all parties to such agreements prior to being disclosed to any
third party absent a court order.
Subject to these general and specific objections, Plaintiff will participate in a meet and confer withthe parties to determine what documents, if any, can be produced at this time absent a court order.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the “confidential agreement” referenced in
Geoff Grivner’s email of March 13, 2023 seeking Leane Defendants’ consent to CBV filing
a proposed amended complaint, including but not limited to any COMMUNICATIONS
relating to its purpose, negotiation, drafting, existence, modification, enforceability, and
interpretation.
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent it is vague, unduly burdensome and
seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of information and/or the identification of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity, or otherwise protected or protectable from discovery.
Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents which are subject to confidentiality provisions requiring consent of all parties to such agreements prior to being disclosed to a third party absent a court order.
Subject to these general and specific objections, Plaintiff will participate in a meet and confer with the parties to determine what documents, if any, can be produced at this time absent a court order.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Dated: April 13, 2023 /s/ Geoffrey Grivner
Geoffrey G. Grivner (#4711)
Kody M. Sparks (#6464)
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
(302) 552-4200
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
Geoff, Steve,
Please let us know your availability, as if you each stand on your objections we will need to have our motions to compel filed this week.
In addition, given the black letter rule discussed in Sonnino v. Univ. Kansas Hosp. Auth., 220 F.R.D. 633,
642 (D. Kan.), on reconsideration in part sub nom. Sonnino v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 221 F.R.D. 661
(D. Kan. 2004) (“It is well settled that a concern for protecting confidentiality does not equate to privilege, and that information and documents are not shielded from discovery on the sole basis that the they are confidential”), please be prepared to discuss any basis you would have to contest the imposition of Section 1927 sanctions should you force us to make a motion to compel.
Best,
Akiva
Akiva Cohen
From: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 9:01 AM
To: Akiva Cohen; Steve B. Brauerman; Levine, James H.S.
Cc: Kathryn Tewson; Kody M. Sparks; Ronald P. Golden III; Patrick Keane; Dylan Schmeyer;
Mike Dunford; Kat Farley; Deborah Gaynor
Subject: RE: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant ChanBond
Attachments: CBV - production -.pdf
Akiva,
Further to our meet and confer on Monday April 24, 2023, CBV (with ChanBond’s approval) hereby agrees to provide the attached unredacted, executed agreements between CBV and ChanBond, bates stamped and designated RestrictedConfidential, in response to Leane Defendants’ document requests and pursuant the Protective Order in this Action.
CBV and ChanBond will not be providing anything further in response to your document requests, on the basis that any additional documents that may exist and that may be responsive to your requests, are not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
As discussed at the meet and confer, in the interest of the parties’ cooperation and as a fair, like-kind exchange of documents on this point of settlement agreements, CBV expects to promptly receive from you by return email the executed version(s) of any of your clients’ settlement agreement(s) with ChanBond. Such documents are responsive to CBV’s previously served Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents No. 5, to which you certainly recognize an ongoing duty of production applies.
Amended Complaint:
Disclosure of the attached agreements is pursuant an effort to avoid wasteful and unnecessary motions practice with regard to CBV’s proposed Second Amended Complaint. The attached Settlement Agreement is sufficient for you to provide your clients’ position with respect to not opposing CBV’s Second Amended Complaint.
The current, attached copy of CBV’s proposed Second Amended Complaint was previously provided to you and was discussed at the meet and confer earlier this week. Pursuant CBV’s prior request as raised again during the meet and confer, please confirm by the close of business on Tuesday, May 2, 2023 your clients’ position as to whether a motion for leave to amend on behalf of CBV will be necessary.
We consider our meet and confer obligations with respect to the proposed Second Amended Complaint to be satisfied, and will file a motion for leave if we do not hear from you by Tuesday, May 2.
Regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
Shareholder
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 218 Filed 05/29/23 Page 72 of 84 PageID #: 7398
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
Buchanan
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Case 1:21-cv-014
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Steve B. Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Geoffrey G. Grivner
<geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Kody
M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>; Ronald P. Golden III
<rgolden@bayardlaw.com>; Patrick Keane <patrick.keane@bipc.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>
Cc: Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford
<mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kat Farley <kfarley@kusklaw.com>; Deborah
Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Subject: RE: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant
ChanBond
Steve,
Right now my concern is that Geoff has indicated he intends to file a motion for
leave to amend before this issue is resolved. Given the relevance of the
agreement at issue to our position on that motion, and potential response, we
can’t be in a position where that motion is teed up and the clock is ticking but this one is still waiting to be discussed. If Geoff agrees to hold off on that motion
until this issue is resolved, or to extend our time to respond until two weeks
after this issue is resolved, there’s no urgency and I can extend you as much
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 218 Filed 05/29/23 Page 77 of 84 PageID #: 7403
time as you need. But if CBV intends to press forward and fast on their motion,
this needs to move on the same schedule.
My time next week is generally open, so any time between 10am EST and 5pm
EST, Monday-Thursday, will work for me. James, do you have any conflicts those
days? Geoff, when are you and your team available?
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
From: Steve B. Brauerman
Exhibit to a Document
From: Steve B. Brauerman
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Akiva Cohen; Geoffrey G. Grivner; Kathryn Tewson; Kody M. Sparks; Ronald
P. Golden III; Patrick Keane; Levine, James H.S.
Cc: Dylan Schmeyer; Mike Dunford; Kat Farley; Deborah Gaynor
Subject: RE: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant
ChanBond
Akiva,
I have been tied up with other matters and am preparing for multiple
court appearances that will consume the balance of my week.
We are aware of no emergency that would require the filing of a
motion to compel (even if that were the appropriate procedural vehicle under
Judge Williams’ procedures) this week.
It appears that you have misunderstood our objections. We are happy
to meet and confer to discuss them. Given the absence of any claims by your
client(s) against ChanBond, the nature and pendency of the claims asserted
against your client(s) by CBV, and the timing of your client’s discovery requests,
we do not understand the relevance of or urgency for your requests. And, for
reasons we are happy to discuss on a meet and confer, we believe our privilege
objections are well-founded.
Your threat of fees is not well taken, and counterproductive to the cooperative approach the parties have taken in this litigation. If, after our meet
and confer, you believe there is a basis for a motion to compel, let alone to seek
fees under Section 1927, we would need you to outline the complete basis for
any such motion before we could productively respond. Although we believe
such posturing is unnecessary and unhelpful, we do not see how nonprecedential decisions from another district could substantiate a motion for
fees.
Since CBV has similar concerns, we believe a meet and confer with all parties
would be most productive to address this potential dispute. We have good
availability next week and invite you to suggest times that would work for you
and CBV.
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 218 Filed 05/29/23 Page 78 of 84 PageID #: 7404
Thank you,
Steve
Stephen B. Brauerman
Director
BAYARD, P.A.
+1 302-429-4232
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
<rgolden@bayardlaw.com>; Patrick Keane <patrick.keane@bipc.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <james.levine@troutman.com>
Cc: Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford
<mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kat Farley <kfarley@kusklaw.com>; Deborah
Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Subject: Re: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant
ChanBond
Your objections don't actually set out a basis to withhold the requested
documents other than privilege, which obviously doesn't apply to the
agreement itself. You have also objected on the basis of privilege to I assume at
least some of the underlying documents related to the agreement but have not
provided a privilege log.
Please immediately provide us with:
1) the basis on which you are withholding the agreement itself;
2) a date by which we can expect to receive a detailed privilege log for anything
withheld on the basis of privilege; and
3) dates and times next week at which you are available to meet and confer on
the objections to production.
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
<image001.png>
From: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:43:51 PM
To: Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Kody M. Sparks
<kody.sparks@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>; Patrick Keane
<patrick.keane@bipc.com>; Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>
Cc: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kat
Farley <kfarley@kusklaw.com>; Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Subject: RE: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant
ChanBond
Counsel,
Please see attached Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Leane Defendants’
Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
Geoff
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 218 Filed 05/29/23 Page 80 of 84 PageID #: 7406
10
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 218 Filed 05/29/23 Page 81 of 84 PageID #: 7407
11
From: Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:24 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Kody M. Sparks
<kody.sparks@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>; Patrick Keane
<patrick.keane@bipc.com>; Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>
Cc: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kat
Farley <kfarley@kusklaw.com>; Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Subject: Re: Leane Defendants' Second RFPs to Plaintiff CBV and Defendant
ChanBond
All,
The previously-served discovery requests were inadvertently served without
Delaware counsel's signature. Attached please find the same documents over
Delaware counsel's signature; please disregard the previous documents.
Kathryn Tewson, Paralegal
Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein P.C.
206-940-3701
217 EXHIBIT re [214] Letter / Exhibit D to Letter to Hon. Gregory B. Williams by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane. (Levine, James Harry)
May 29, 2023
Main Document
Exhibit to a Document
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 7323
RE: Joint Status Report?
Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Tue 12/20/2022 11:44 AM
To: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>;Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>;Levine, James
H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>;Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>;Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>;Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>;Kody M. Sparks
<kody.sparks@bipc.com>;Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
1 attachments (732 KB)
December 20, 2022 Status Letter to Judge Williams (4865-5653-4341 v1).docx;
All,
Please see our proposed letter. We are still sorting things out on our end and are therefore seeking to keep the stay in place until January 3. We will be in touch regarding the case between now and then.
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 2:22 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kody M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Joint Status Report?
Geoff? We’re closing in on COB
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 7324
From: Geoffrey G. Grivner
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Akiva Cohen; Steve Brauerman; Levine, James H.S.; Kathryn Tewson; Dylan Schmeyer; Mike Dunford; Kody M.
Sparks; Ronald Golden
Subject: RE: Joint Status Report?
Akiva,
I expect to get you a short draft letter to the Court later this morning.
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>; Steve Brauerman <SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Levine,
James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Kathryn Tewson <ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer
<dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kody M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>;
Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
Subject: Joint Status Report?
[This Email Originated From acohen@kusklaw.com Which Is External To The Firm]
Geoff,
I have not heard anything new for a while and our joint status report is due tomorrow. Can you please circulate a
draft?
Thanks,
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 217 Filed 05/29/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 7325
CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION: This e-mail message (including any attachments) is a private communication sent by a law firm
and may contain confidential, legally privileged or protected information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system.
opening proposal was that deirdre pay CBV $7,000,000 to settle
216 EXHIBIT re [214] Letter / Exhibit C to Letter to Hon. Gregory B. Willams by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane. (Levine, James Harry)
May 29, 2023
Main Document
Exhibit to a Document
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 216 Filed 05/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7321
CBV's Settlement Proposal
Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Wed 12/7/2022 4:04 PM
To: Grivner, Geoffrey G. <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>;Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>
Cc: Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>;Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>;Kathryn Tewson
<ktewson@kusklaw.com>;Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Geoff,
Deirdre passed along that Dick and Bob’s opening proposal was that she pay them $7,000,000 to settle, which has me concerned that either you are not providing them with the information they need to make settlement discussions potentially fruitful, or that they are not understanding that information. Let’s walk through it.
We conveyed to you that Deirdre was open to a discussion of nuisance value – essentially a cost of defense type settlement. We took your response to indicate that your clients understood that. Clearly they do not (and their email started by explaining that they don’t consider her a nuisance,
me ~ LMAO which confirms that lack of understanding).
$7,000,000 is obviously not that.
In fact, $7M is only a little less than we offered at mediation before we knew the outcome of the arbitration award. (We offered you a high-low to hedge against a total loss, with us paying you 9.5M if we won at arbitration and came out above the line, and you paying 4.5M if we lost at arbitration). You said no then. Why in the world would we offer anything near that amount now that we’ve already won and our risk is eliminated? That ship has long since sailed.
As we mentioned at Dick’s deposition, you have no viable claims against Deirdre at all. But even if you did, the maximum you could recover would be $4M and change – because the shortfall from ChanBond if we should be below the line is about 13M and change, and 9M of that shortfall is CBV’s own responsibility; you’re the ones who released those funds to ChanBond for its own use. So if one of us would be taking a 9M hit because those funds are gone, it would be you.
For all these reasons, a $7M demand is not connected to reality. I truly liked Dick as a human being, and I have a lot of respect for your clients as people. But they do not seem to grasp the position they are in, or the amount of goodwill they burnt through by trying to zero Deirdre out. There isn’t going to be a seven-figure offer from Deirdre, no matter how long we spend negotiating. There isn’t going to be a high six-figure offer from Deirdre, no matter how long we spend negotiating. Talking about your clients’ ages and families isn’t going to change that. I can’t even promise you low six-figures.
If your clients want to engage while understanding that predicate, and on the basis of that predicate, terrific, let’stalk. Otherwise, we shouldn’t waste everyone’s time.
Please let me know.
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
IT'S GETTING UGLY >
Akiva ~ "This type of harassing insanity is not going to move the ball forward."
"What in the world are you guys thinking?"
"You can let Earl know that Deirdre now has his email blocked and should not bother with further communications.
"..this is ridiculous".
_______________________________________
215 EXHIBIT re [214] Letter / Exhibit B to Letter to Hon. Gregory B. Willams by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane. (Levine, James Harry)
May 29, 2023
Main Document
Exhibit to a Document
EXHIBIT B
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 215 Filed 05/29/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 7316
Akiva Cohen
From: Akiva Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 9:29 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner
Cc: Levine, James H.S.; Mike Dunford; Kathryn Tewson; Dylan Schmeyer; Deborah Gaynor;
Patrick Keane; Kody M. Sparks; sbrauerman; Ronald Golden
Subject: Re: 408 Settlement Communication
Geoff,
We are OK with this. But I want to make sure that your clients are fully aware that Deirdre is functionally looking at contributing nuisance value here, not anything particularly significant. If your clients are willing to engage on that basis, then a stay to see if this can get resolved makes sense. If not, then we should just continue pushing forward and get this finished.
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 8:06:46 PM
To: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Cc: Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kathryn Tewson
<ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>;
Patrick Keane <patrick.keane@bipc.com>; Kody M. Sparks <kody.sparks@bipc.com>; sbrauerman
<SBrauerman@bayardlaw.com>; Ronald Golden <rgolden@bayardlaw.com>
Subject: 408 Settlement Communication
Akiva/Steve,
I understand the parties are interested in discussing a resolution of this matter and that a withdraw of our Motion for Clarification and related filings may be necessary to facilitate such discussions. We do believe that a stipulation staying all proceedings (without withdraw of prior filings) will adequately facilitate such discussions, but we have also drafted
the attached for your consideration. Please let me know if we can agree to a general stay of all proceedings, or if the attached proposed documents will be necessary to fully satisfy the interests of the parties. We are happy to arrange a meet and confer to discuss further.
Regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey Grivner
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-7407
302 552 4207 (o)
484 431 6101 (c)
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
vCard | Bio | BIPC.com | Twitter | LinkedIn
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 215 Filed 05/29/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 7317
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
From: Akiva Cohen <acohen@kusklaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 4:49 PM
To: Geoffrey G. Grivner <geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com>
Cc: Levine, James H.S. <James.Levine@Troutman.com>; Mike Dunford <mdunford@kusklaw.com>; Kathryn Tewson
<ktewson@kusklaw.com>; Dylan Schmeyer <dschmeyer@kusklaw.com>; Deborah Gaynor <dgaynor@kusklaw.com>
Subject: FW: Distribution of funds
[This Email Originated From acohen@kusklaw.com Which Is External To The Firm]
Geoff,
This type of harassing insanity is not going to move the ball forward. Neither is filing a frankly sanctionable new motion by letter, without meet and confer, asking for affirmative TRO relief that had never previously been requested, on the basis of a payment that the Court specifically refused to enjoin.
What in the world are you guys thinking?
You can let Earl know that Deirdre now has his email blocked and should not bother with further communications. I understand your desire to lean on the 1 of the 3 CBV principals apparently still on board with your firm’s litigation strategy, but this is ridiculous.
Be well,
Akiva M. Cohen
Kamerman Uncyk Soniker & Klein
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
212-400-4930
From: Earl Hennenhoefer <earl@hennenhoefer.org>
Subject: Distribution of funds
Date: Dec 1, 2022 at 1:37 PM
To: dleane@icloud.com
Deirdre
It came to my attention that you received the funds for your Arbitration Award contrary to the agreement in both the PPA and the RRC. This action requires CBV's pre-approval before funds would be distributed. As a result, our attorneys feel obligated to inform the court of this action.
CBV has been involved in this legal action for the last seven years and has yet to receive its fair share of the settlement as documented in the PPA. I would like to get the matter resolved.
Please give me your response on this matter.
Earl Hennenhoefer
President and CEO CBV
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 215 Filed 05/29/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 7319
CONFIDENTIAL/PRIVILEGED INFORMATION: This e-mail message (including any attachments) is a private communication sent by a law firm and may
contain confidential, legally privileged or protected information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system.
214 [SEALED] Letter to The Hon. Gregory B. Williams from James H.S. Levine regarding opposition to motion for leave to amend. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A)(Levine, James Harry)
May 29, 2023
Main Document
Letter
213 [SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re [212] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by CBV, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 6/7/2023. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A, (2) Exhibit B)(Grivner, Geoffrey)
May 24, 2023
Main Document
Brief - Opening Brief in Support
212 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - filed by CBV, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Grivner, Geoffrey)
May 24, 2023
Main Document
Leave to File Document
Attachment 1
Text of Proposed Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
and
DEIRDRE LEANE and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-GBW
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff CBV, Inc. (“CBV” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and
pursuant Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for leave to
amend its Amended Complaint. In support, pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Court’s Scheduling
Order in this action, Plaintiff submits herewith a letter brief in support of this Motion.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Dated: May 24, 2023 /s/ Geoffrey Grivner
Geoffrey G. Grivner (#4711)
Kody M. Sparks (#6464)
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
(302) 552-4200
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
* * *
Case 1:21-cv-01456-GBW Document 212 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7218
Patrick C. Keane, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314-2727
(703) 836-6620
patrick.keane@bipc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
and
DEIRDRE LEANE and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-GBW
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
(the “Motion”) and any oppositions thereto, and the Court finding that sufficient cause to grant the
relief requested in the Motion appearing therefor; after due deliberation; it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED;
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Second Amended Complaint within three (3)
business days from entry of this Order
Dated: __________________, 2023 ___________________________________
Wilmington, Delaware The Honorable Gregory B. Williams
United States District Judge
211 MOTION to Withdraw [209] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - filed by CBV, Inc.. (Grivner, Geoffrey)
May 24, 2023
Main Document
Withdraw
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
and
DEIRDRE LEANE and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-GBW
NOTICE OF WITHDRAW
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, Plaintiff, CBV, Inc., by and through their undersigned
attorneys, hereby withdraws their Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (D.I.
209). Simultaneous with this Notice, Plaintiff is filing a renewed Motion with a letter brief in
compliance with Paragraph 4 of the Scheduling Order in this Action.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
Dated: May 24, 2023 /s/ Geoffrey Grivner
Geoffrey G. Grivner (#4711)
Kody M. Sparks (#6464)
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
(302) 552-4200
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
Patrick C. Keane, Esq.
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
1737 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314-2727
(703) 836-6620
patrick.keane@bipc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
re: CBV FILING ~ "Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint"
If you need to add important information to your civil complaint then you can ask for permission.
This permission takes the form of a 'Motion for Leave 2nd Amended Complaint'.
> There are several reasons to amend (such as new evidence, new cause of action, etc.)
What is a motion for leave to file 2nd amended complaint?
A motion for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint is a pleading to assert a claim for punitive damages shall make a reasonable showing, by evidence in the record or evidence to be proffered by the claimant, that provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.
A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
For example, a motion for leave might ask the court to accept a document after the filing deadline.
The decision to grant a motion for leave is at the discretion of the court. The subject of the request is not a right under the law and the court can determine that it should not be granted, given the available information. The motion usually presents information which is designed to be compelling for the court. The judge weighs the information and makes a determination, which may be offered with an opinion explaining why the motion was denied or approved.
The decision to grant a motion for leave is at the discretion of the court.
Judges are allowed considerable discretion on the bench. While they cannot make rulings which violate the law and they must follow the rules of the court, the rules do provide room for judges to make decisions about how matters should proceed. This is done with the understanding that every trial is different and it is impossible to come up with rules for every occasion. If judges were bound by utterly inflexible rules, miscarriages of justice might result.
Essentially, this type of motion asks permission to do something. The court considers what is being asked, why the request is being made, and what the outcome of denial or approval will be. For instance, someone may file a motion for leave asking for permission to file an amicus brief after the deadline has expired. The judge may determine that the brief includes important information which is highly relevant to the trial, and thus that the motion should be granted. On the other hand, the judge might argue that the brief contains no substantially new material and thus there is no benefit to granting the motion.
Like other legal motions, a motion for leave is sometimes used as a stalling tactic. While the motion is being considered, court cannot proceed, and this may buy time to work on an aspect of a case. Judges are well aware of this and may frown upon lawyers who try to use too many stalling tactics in the course of a trial. In the United States, this can interfere with the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial.
ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT re: ATTORNEY STANDARDS, ATTRIBUTES & VALUE
145 SCHEDULING ORDER:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.145.0.pdf
Aug 25, 2022
Fact Discovery completed by 11/21/2022.
Opening Expert Reports due by 12/21/2022.
Rebuttal Expert Reports due by 1/20/2023. Reply Expert Reports due by 2/3/2023.
Expert Discovery due by 3/20/2023.
A Pretrial Conference is set for 7/10/2023 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 4A before Judge Maryellen Noreika.
A 3-day Bench Trial is set for 7/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4A before Judge Maryellen Noreika.
Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 8/25/2022. (dlw) (Entered: 08/25/2022)
Main Document
Scheduling Order - General
210 Letter to The Hon. Gregory B. Williams from David L. Finger regarding pending Motion to Intervene - re {96} Request for Oral Argument, {34} MOTION to Intervene derivatively on behalf of UnifiedOnline, Inc.. (Finger, David)
May 18, 2023
Main Document
Letter ~ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.210.0.pdf
__________________________________________________________________
long uoip
Re: long uoip post# 96334
Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:35:54 AM
Post# 96335of 96621
..GOING FORWARD my ONLY FOCUS IS THE DOCKET
WILL NOT RESPOND to B.S.
everything else currently posted is nonsense, speculative, delusive, fictitious, hypothetical, fictionalized, theoretical.. .
209 [SEALED] MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - filed by CBV, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint, (2) Redline, (3) Text of Proposed Order, (4) Local Rule 7.1.1 Certification, (5) Certificate of Service)(Grivner, Geoffrey)
May 17, 2023
Main Document
Motion for Leave to File
SEALED ON PACER
_________________________________
long uoip
Re: long uoip post# 96334
Tuesday, February 28, 2023 10:35:54 AM
Post# 96335of 96621
..GOING FORWARD my ONLY FOCUS IS THE DOCKET
WILL NOT RESPOND to B.S.
everything else currently posted is nonsense, speculative, delusive, fictitious, hypothetical, fictionalized, theoretical.. .
we're simply supposed to BELIEVE all these characters that have proven concurrently to be malfeasant, fraudulent, methodical, deceitful, cunning, manipulative.. .
i.e. have faith cuz "if chanbond wins, we ALL win"
have faith cuz "carter is a polite, courteous southern gentleman"
ANY REASONABLE, RATIONAL SHAREHOLDER WOULD BE WILLING TO CONCEDE TO $125MILLION as the settlement
WE SIMPLY WANT TO VIEW ALL THE DATA, FACTS, DOCUMENTS
...additionally ANY REASONABLE, RATIONAL SHAREHOLDER WOULD HAVE A MYRIAD OF QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THIS CASE.... .
question is WHY IS DEIRDRE NOT GETTING THE DISCOVERY that she REQUESTS ?
discovery was supposed to be COMPLETED LAST YEAR !
if carter has nothing to hide, why are there 2nd REQUESTS for DOCUMENTS months LATER ?
in today's filing ~ WHY IS carter & co. OBJECTING REQUESTS for Production ?
page 5, mz. ying filing ~ "First, Mishcon de Reya only revealed the total settlement amount. By contrast, UOI seeks to have the entirety of the settlement agreement made public."
page 3 ~ "Therefore, the UOI Shareholders’ request that the “Court unseal all records filed in this case, including a fully unredacted version of the Settlement Agreement” (D.I. 120) (emphasis added), is meaningless with respect to a full version of the underlying settlement agreement since it has not been filed, and thus cannot be unsealed by motion.4"
208 NOTICE OF SERVICE of CBV, Inc's Responses and Objections to Defendants Dierdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC's Second Set of Requests for Production filed by CBV, Inc..(Grivner, Geoffrey)
Apr 14, 2023
Main Document
Notice of Service
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff/CounterclaimDefendant,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant/CrossclaimDefendant,
DIERDRE LEANE, and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants/CounterclaimPlaintiffs/CrossclaimPlaintiffs.
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01456-GBW
NOTICE OF SERVICE
I, Geoffrey G. Grivner, hereby certify that true and correct copies of CBV, Inc.’s
Responses and Objections to Defendants Dierdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC’s Second Set of
Requests for Production were served on the 13th day of April, 2023 on the following counsel of record by electronic mail:
Stephen B. Brauerman
Ronald P. Golden, III
Bayard, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Email: sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
Email: rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC
..I'm not privy to future "timeline release dates" regarding data requested
unless specified via documents filed
it would be prudent for shareholders named in suit ~ greg/kamal to PUBLICLY POST for ALL shareholders the attached documents from October 5th 2022 Memorandum Opinion that carter was very trepidatious to be UNSEALED, RELEASED PUBLICY (billy inferred in filing that FULL SETTLEMENT could be REVERSE ENGINEERED from footnote 3 attachments)
207 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Chanbond, LLC's Objections and Responses to Deirdre Leane and IPNAV, LLC's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents [Nos. 21-22] to Defendant Chanbond, LLC filed by ChanBond, LLC.(Golden, Ronald)
Apr 13, 2023
Main Document
TO NOTE ~ I POST AS SOON AS DOCKET UPDATES ARE AVAILABLE ON PACER,
I NEVER KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHEN DOCUMENTS WILL BE POSTED on COURT DOCKET
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CBV, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHANBOND, LLC,
Defendant/Crossclaim
Defendant/Crossclaim
Plaintiff,
DEIRDRE LEANE, and IPNAV, LLC,
Defendants/Counterclaim
Plaintiffs/Crossclaim
Plaintiffs/Crossclaim
Defendants.
)
)
)
C.A. No. 21-1456-GBW
NOTICE OF SERVICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on April 13, 2023, a copy of Chanbond, LLC’S
Objections and Responses to Deirdre Leane and IPNav, LLC’S Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents [Nos. 21-22] to ChanBond, LLC and this Notice of Service were served on the following counsel of record via email.
Geoffrey G. Grivner
Kody M. Sparks
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 720
Wilmington, DE 19801-3036
geoffrey.grivner@bipc.com
kody.sparks@bipc.com
James H. S. Levine
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
1313 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1709
Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
james.levine@troutman.com
Akiva M. Cohen
Dylan M. Schmeyer
KAMERMAN, UNCYK, SONIKER & KLEIN P.C.
1700 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019
acohen@kusklaw.com
dschmeyer@kusklaw.com
Dated: April 13, 2022
BAYARD, P.A.
/s/ Ronald P. Golden III
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Ronald P. Golden III (No. 6254)
600 North King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 655-5000
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Attorneys for ChanBond, LLC
....380 days does not equal 2 years !!
34 March 21, 2022
MOTION to Intervene derivatively on behalf of UnifiedOnline, Inc. - filed by Gregory Collins, Kamal Mian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Crawford, Brian) Modified on 3/22/2022 (dlw). (Entered: 03/21/2022)
Main Document
Intervene
________________
"schedule a hearing date" ....assuming that hasn't ALREADY BEEN DONE ? investors CANNOT CONTROL the speed that legal system works (this case would be finished by now if it was up to shareholders)
re: "only DATA/FACTS/LEGAL DOCUMENTS BACK CLAIMS" ...i.e. NOT self written
34 days.. .still waiting for a response re: RULE OF LAW where judges DON'T HAVE TO RULE
meanwhile, if any shareholders have the attachments to footnote 3 where carter alludes to REVERSE ENGINEERING and/or CALCULATING.. .FEEL FREE TO POST PUBLICLY ON IHUB so we may all VIEW the documents
page 4 March 28th, 2023 Memorandum Opinion ~ ChanBond argues that justice "requires the Court to seal the amount of the settlement and any associated information by which that amount can be calculated" from any of the documents identified in footnote 3 Id. In response to the Court's October 5, 2022 Memorandum Opinion, ChanBond reiterated that good cause exists to maintain the settlement amount, or amounts from which the settlement amount can be reverse engineered, that is disclosed in the filings identified in footnote 3 and the Court's October 5, 2022 Memorandum Opinion under seal or redacted."