to my grey boy Tim
while the wanker sits here shackled in Matts gimp HQ, the Capt is sailing ;) what's that 57 days tic toc ;)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________ X
MADISON STOCK TRANSFER, INC.
Plaintiff,
-
against -
CV06-3926
(Wexler, J.)
(Wall, M.J.)
NETCO INVESTMENTS, INC.,
MARCO CHAVARRIA,
Defendants,
-
and -
AJW PARTNERS, LLC, NEW MILLENNIUM
CAPITAL PARTNERS II, LLC, AJW OFFSHORE, LTD.,
and AJW QUALIFIED PARTNERS, LLC,
Intervenors-Defendants.
_____________________________________________ X
PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
The following is the proposed joint discovery plan, including the parties’ competing
proposals and disagreements on various matters, in the above-entitled action:
1.
Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., are to be made by Plaintiff on June
25, 2007, by Defendant Marco Chavarria (“Chavarria”) on June 25, 2007, and by Intervenors-
Defendants on June 25, 2007.
2.
At this time neither Plaintiff nor Chavarria nor Intervenors-Defendants expects to
present expert testimony. However, subject to the terms of Rule 26(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., they
each reserve the right to present expert testimony and will advise the Court and each other if and
when a decision to do so is made. They do not request a change in the timing, form, or
requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 2:06-cv-03926-LDW-WDW Document 89 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
2
5
400
12-
2
3.
Intervenors-Defendants state that discovery is needed on the following subjects:
Documents and information related to (i) the consideration for, and existence,
negotiation, and delivery of the cognovit note allegedly made and delivered by NetCo
Investments, Inc. to Defendant Chavarria, (ii) the existence of Defendant Chavarria, and (iii) the
judgment entered in favor of Defendant Chavarria in a state court in Pennsylvania, purportedly
based on the cognovit note, and depositions of relevant persons with information related to the
subjects set forth in (i) through (iii) in this sentence. Defendants-Intervenors also state that they
are entitled to documents and depositions of relevant persons with information concerning
Defendant Chavarria’s “counterclaim” against them and the allegations therein, including the
allegation that that they were involved in a “death spiral financing scheme” in regard to NetCo
Investments, Inc., which Defendants-Intervenors deny. Intervenors-Defendants maintain,
however, that discovery on such “counterclaim” should only be had in the event Chavarria’s
“counterclaim” survives a motion to dismiss it.
Defendant Chavarria denies that discovery is appropriate in this action regarding his
identity. He asserts that he should instead be permitted, on an ex parte basis, “to provide an
notarized copy of [his identity] to Judge Wexler under seal.” Such an ex parte filing is
unacceptable to Plaintiff and Defendants-Intervenors. Instead, Plaintiff and Intervenors-
Defendants maintain that they are entitled to discovery on whether Defendant Chavarria exists,
whether he is who purports to be, and whether he is a front for some other person(s).
Defendant Chavarria states that discovery is needed (a) on his “counterclaim” against
Intervenors-Defendants and the allegations therein, including the allegation that that they were
involved in a “death spiral financing scheme relating to NetCo Investments, Inc., (b) on
Intervenors-Defendants’ cross-claim, and (c) on what Chavarria refers to as his defenses in his
Case 2:06-cv-03926-LDW-WDW Document 89 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
3
5
400
12-
2
“Answer” to said cross-claim.
4.
Reserving any objections they may have as to discovery being had on particular
matters or to particular discovery requests, Intervenors-Defendants assert that discovery should
be conducted in phases or be limited to particular issues only to the following extent: discovery
relating to (a) Defendant Chavarria’s “counterclaim” against them and the allegations therein,
namely, that Intervenors-Defendants were involved in a “death spiral financing scheme” in
regard to NetCo Investments, Inc. and other wrongful acts, and (b) any of what Chavarria alleges
are defenses to Intervenors-Defendants’ cross-claim that are based in whole or in part on any the
allegations in the aforesaid “counterclaim,” should only be had, if at all, in the event the Court
denies a motion to dismiss said “counterclaim.” Accordingly, under the approach advocated by
Intervenors-Defendants , whether Defendant Chavarria is entitled to the majority of the
discovery which he seeks would be deferred and determined only if his “counterclaim” survives
a motion to dismiss.
Reserving any objections he may have as to discovery being had on particular matters or
to particular discovery requests, Defendant Chavarria asserts that discovery should be conducted
in phases, namely, no discovery should be permitted (i) on the judgment by confession in the
state court in Pennsylvania by which Defendant claims control of NetCo Investments, Inc. and
(ii) the purported cognovit note on which such judgment is based until after Intervenors-
Defendants file their papers in opposition to Defendant Chavarria’s motion for summary
judgment. Intervenors-Defendants have filed their papers in opposition to said motion.
5.
Demands for return of documents pursuant to an assertion of inadvertent
production of material protected by the attorney-client privilege, or the attorneys’ work product
or trial-preparation material doctrines shall be governed by Rule 26(b)(5)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Case 2:06-cv-03926-LDW-WDW Document 89 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
