Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 546 EXHIBIT 1 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 8 PagelD 547 M, ND) M. i} Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Marc Randazza Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:59 PM To: "Paul Berger Esq." Paul, I presume you saw today's order. We think that Judge Covington may have a different view if we remind her of an 11th Circuit case, which she personally handled. Threat to ?le defamation lawsuit in state court against government witness meets test of "course of conduct" amounting to "harassment" under 18 USCS 1514 where threatened civil action is actually designed to help defendants? attorney prepare his defense to federal criminal charges and purpose of lawsuit, or threat, may have been to affect witnesses? criminal trial testimony. United States Tison, 780 F2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1986). We agree that it is not 100% on point, but it is close enough to the bullseye, that we intend to rely upon it when we re-?le on the 26th. That said, I will refrain from ?ling on the 26th, if Roca Labs agrees that it will neither threaten nor sue witnesses until at least October 8. If you decline (or decline to respond), I will rely upon that in ?ling my renewed motion. If you are concerned about statute of limitations issues, and the delay between now and October 8 will arguably cause prejudice to your client, i will modify my position. I would not expect you to delay suit if doing so will cause the statute of limitations to expire in that short delay. Accordingly, if you inform me of a suit that you plan to ?le, and that the SOL would run before Oct. 8, I will remove that particular action from my request. Marc John Randazza, JD, MAMC, Randazza Largest Smut) 3625 South Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 Tel: 702-420-2001 Fax: 305437-7662 Email: mjr@randazza.com Website: 1.3.: 1593185: Philadelphia San Francisco Miami Licensed to practice law in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts. and Nevada. 00&pdr=50&search=apps&msg= 48z?cffl4e97ec. .. l/l 9/26/20l4 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 8 PagelD 548 LEGM GQOUP Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Paul Berger Esq. Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:06 AM To: Marc Randazza Marc: I will speak to counsel and will have a response back to you today. Until I am admitted into the Middle District I am happy to serve as a legal secretary. As part of my secretarial functions, I would like to try to schedule immediate depositions of all witnesses who provided an af?davit in support of your response to our motion. We would like to take Mr. Podolsky's Depo in person in New York (unless he is willing to ?y to Florida) and will schedule video taped deposition of all other witnesses. I estimate that we will need a full day for Mr. Podolsky and two hours for each of the other witnesses. Counsel is available any day this week (including Saturday or Sunday) and any day next week to take the depositions. Please provide me with dates and times that you and the witnesses are available. Thank you, Paul [Quoted text hidden] Paul Berger, Esq. Independent General Counsel Roca Labs, lnc. Direct 3059986150 .google 00&pdr=50&search=apps&msg: l48a7576a5bb59. .. l/l 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID 549 Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Marc Randazza Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM To: "Paul Berger Esq." Cc: jcyoungda@gmail.com, I'm not sure what you mean by you serving as a "legal secretary." I don't see why you would need to be admitted to the MD Fla. to act as a lawyer, or to be treated as one. Sure, you can't appear in the case until you're pro hac. Nevertheless, I'm not going to get pedantic about you not being admitted and require admission before dealing with you as a member of the bar. Furthermore, you are the one who wrote to the witnesses, and that is why I directed my request toward you. As Mr. Young was not the one issuing the letters, it seemed inappropriate to address my email to him. With respect to scheduling depositions, I think that it is inappropriate to discuss that until we have an agreement that Roca Labs (whichever entity) agrees that it will neither threaten to sue nor sue any witnesses until at least October 8. It is not that I wish to be dif?cult, but i think that such an agreement is of tantamount and immediate importance. In fact, I am not sure how you can expect to take an untainted deposition of one of these witnesses if they are more concerned with staving off a lawsuit against themselves than providing clear testimony. So here is what I suggest as a predicate to any conversations about discovery: 1. We ?le a joint stipulation that no further witnesses (or potential witnesses) will be threatened or sued until the court has ruled on the enforceability of the Agreement. 2. There shall be an exception for any lawsuits you are considering where a statute of limitations may run out on you. 3. The stipulation shall not be an admission by you that the Agreement is unenforceable, but will be entered into solely to avoid our ?ling of a renewed motion on Friday. 4. The stipulation must be on ?le by close of business today, as we will require the rest of the time to prepare our motion, if we are unable to secure such a stipulation. [Quoted text hidden] Marc John Randazza, JD, MAMC, Randazza Legs: Camus 3625 South Town Center Drive Las Vegas, NV 89135 Tel: 7024202001 Fax: 305?437?7662 Email: mjr@randazza.com Website: i as; ?zs?egris Philadelphia] San Francisco Miami 00&pdr=50&search=apps&msg= l48a81 l8b277d l. .. 1/2 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case g-eva?gled 09/26/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID 550 Licensed to practice law In Arlzo I 00&pdr=50&search=apps&msg= l48a8 18b277dl. . . 2/2 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID 551 RANDAZZA GROUP Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Paul Berger Esq. Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM To: Marc Randazza jcyoungda Dear Marc, Respectfully, until am admitted in the Middle District, i cannot be participating in the matter. However, to expedite communication as I know time is of the essence for you, please be advised that Roca Labs will not agree to any conditions on its ability to take discovery in this case that are not set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. in addition because i am not yet admitted, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment on your legal strategy or the case that you cited. lam sure that you will continue to zealously represent your client in the path that you believe is appropriate. Best, Paul [Quoted text hidden] .google .com&psize=20&pmr= 00&pdr=50&search=apps&msg= 48a8738a7665d. .. l/l 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 7 of 8 PagelD 552 A i? Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Marc Randazza Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:30 AM To: "Paul Berger Esq." Cc: jcyoungda As you wish. I've never met an attorney who claimed to represent a client, but felt that they could not participate in conversations on behalf of that client, especially when that attorney is also the general counsel for the client, and signing letters on behalf of that client. But, I respect any attorney who wishes to impose higher ethical standards upon himself than the rules and custom permit. So, how about Mr. Young? Does he wish to comment? And perhaps (simply to clarify for Mr. Young and you) you misunderstand my request. I am not asking you to limit your ability to take discovery. lf you have the right to take discovery, then take it. The terms of the proposed stipulation do not even mention discovery. Here they are again, for Mr. Young's reference: 1. We file a joint stipulation that no further witnesses (or potential witnesses) will be threatened or sued until the court has ruled on the enforceability of the Agreement. (This does not limit your right to take discovery, if appropriate and permitted under the Federal Rules) 2. There shall be an exception for any lawsuits you are considering where a statute of limitations may run out on you. 3. The stipulation shall not be an admission by you that the Agreement is unenforceable, but will be entered into solely to avoid our filing of a renewed motion on Friday. 4. The stipulation must be on file by close of business today, as we will require the rest of the time to prepare our motion, if we are unable to secure such a stipulation. Please note that it is my intention, upon ?ling my renewed motion, to include my proposal to you. I can not predict what the judge's position will be on that, but it would seem that my request has no down side to you, except depriving Roca Labs of the ability to unlawfully intimidate witnesses in this case. That said, you've always presented your views with clarity, so if you would like to articulate another perspective, that I may have missed, I would entertain it with the utmost respect. Further, since this seems to be more of a matter of your pursuit of state law claims than federal ones, I think you can comment upon it. But, if not, I am sure that Mr. Young will be willing to do so on your behalf. Finally, I remind you that you inquired as to whether I would oppose your pro hac admission, and I assured you that I would not. I will reiterate that now, so perhaps we can move toward with that, and then you and I can resume our enjoyable direct conversations with each other, without your concerns that you might be committing UPL. [Quoted text hidden] . . 1/1 9/26/2014 Randazza Legal Group Mail - Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Case Document 19-1 Filed 09/26/14 Page 8 of 8 PagelD 553 LEGM. Order (Roca Labs adv. Pissed Consumer) Paul Berger Esq. Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM To: Marc Randazza jcyoungda Marc: always try to hold myself to the highest ethical standards and believe that I am acting appropriately by deferring to Mr. Young. I will request that he responds to your email as soon as he is available. As an update, per local rules I cannot appear Pro Hac Vice (I am a Florida resident) but must become a member of the middle district. I am in the process of completing that paperwork and hope to be sworn in on Oct. 8. In regards to potential state court actions, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to discuss former Roca customers as it is not relevant to this case. However, if you are representing any former Roca Labs customers and would like to discuss previous notices to these customers indicating that they had breached their contract with the company and/or defamed the company, I would be happy to schedule time to discuss these other matters. Please advise me of whom you are representing and we can schedule a call to address their cases on an individual basis. These are separate issues that have no relevance to the case between PC Roca Labs. Best, Paul [Quoted text hidden] edded. . . l/l