11]29]12 CmaII - RE: XcentrIc Ventures LLC v.

8orodkIn et aI 2:11-cv-01426-CMS
1]2 https:]]maII.googIe.com]maII]u]0]ZuI=2&Ik=0d9198I21b&vIew=pt&q=gIngras&qs=true&search=query&m.
Lisa Borodkin <Iborodkin@gmaiI.com>
RE: Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Borodkin et aI 2:11-cv-01426-GMS
David S. Gingras <david@gingraslaw.com> Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:38 AM
Reply-To: david@gingraslaw.com
To: Lisa Borodkin <lisa@lisaborodkin.com>
Cc: liana <iliana@asiaecon.org>, raymond@asiaecon.org, david.funkhouser@quarles.com,
llaneras.mobrez@yahoo.com
Lisa,

Because we don't have much longer to pursue discovery, wanted to touch base with you re: a couple of issues.

First, need to schedule your deposition, but didn't want to do that until had received your discovery
responses which are due by Thursday. This leads to my second issue -- understand from speaking to Judge
Bade at the settlement conference that you're planning to file an anti-SLAPP motion. While don't agree that the
anti-SLAPP law applies here, assume that you believe that if you file such a motion, this would stay discovery
in this matter until the motion is resolved.

So, here's my question -- are you planning to file an anti-SLAPP, and if so, when should expect to see this? On
the other hand, if you are not going file the motion, then would appreciate it if you would let me know some
dates that would be convenient for your depo. This will occur in Los Angeles and 'm happy to do it in your office
if you would prefer, or elsewhere if you would rather not have it done in your office.

Finally and just in an abundance of caution -- if you are planning to file an anti-SLAPP, think we will need to
have some sort of emergency hearing with Judge Snow to get a preliminary ruling on the question of whether the
anti-SLAPP law applies at all. My concern is this -- let's say you file the motion and then take the position that it
stays discovery, and as a result you refuse to participate in discovery until the motion is resolved (which will
certainly take several months).

What am concerned about is that Judge Snow has already refused to extend the fast-approaching discovery
deadlines, so it is possible that you could file the motion and Judge Snow could subsequently decide that the
anti-SLAPP law did not apply, and thus your motion would be denied. Of course, by then the discovery cutoff
would have expired and Xcentric would be barred from pursuing any further discovery.

need to make sure this doesn't happen, and want to make sure we use the most efficient mechanism to bring
this issue to Judge Snow so would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that topic. suppose the simplest thing
(assuming you do file the motion and you do take the position that it stays discovery) would be for me to file a
quick Motion to Compel which argues that you can't refuse to participate in discovery since the anti-SLAPP law
doesn't apply.

Anyway, let's please discuss this ASAP so that we both understand each other's position and can find a way to
handle the matter promptly and efficiently.
Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 155-4 Filed 11/29/12 Page 1 of 2
11]29]12 CmaII - RE: XcentrIc Ventures LLC v. 8orodkIn et aI 2:11-cv-01426-CMS
2]2 https:]]maII.googIe.com]maII]u]0]ZuI=2&Ik=0d9198I21b&vIew=pt&q=gIngras&qs=true&search=query&m.

David S. Gingras, Esq.
David@GingrasLaw.com
Tel.: (480) 668-3623
Fax: (480) 248-3196

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