Opinion
23-cv-9370 (MKV)(RWL)
01-25-2024
BASECAP ANALYTICS INC. Plaintiff, v. ROBERT K. AMENN Defendant.
ORDER
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Discovery Conference held on 1/25/2024 before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. The Teams transcript is an unofficial and uncertified transcript printed from the Teams recording function.
SO ORDERED.
0:0:0.0 --> 0:0:0.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right.
0:0:2.530 --> 0:0:3.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It is working alright.
0:0:3.460 --> 0:0:5.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We are being recorded and transcribing.
0:0:6.250 --> 0:0:15.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We are here for the matter of the base CAP analytics versus Robert Amen 23CV9370 parties.
0:0:15.50 --> 0:0:17.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Please put in their appearances, starting with the plaintiff.
0:0:19.80 --> 0:0:19.930
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you, your honor.
0:0:20.300 --> 0:0:24.920
Stein, Wendy R.
Wendy Stein from Ballard Spar on behalf of the plaintiff base Cap analytics.
0:0:27.500 --> 0:0:27.790
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:0:27.360 --> 0:0:30.530
Peerce, Marjorie
Runner Marjorie Pierce, also on behalf of Base cap.
0:0:27.770 --> 0:0:30.670
Stein, Wendy R.
Our largely Pierce also when we have a base camp.
0:0:32.690 --> 0:0:33.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right.
0:0:32.540 --> 0:0:35.330
Sivakumar, Madhundra
Maddie Sivakumar, on behalf of base cap as well.
0:0:36.720 --> 0:0:37.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright.
0:0:37.380 --> 0:0:39.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And Mr Hohman, I see you.
0:0:39.340 --> 0:0:40.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
How are you this morning?
0:0:40.830 --> 0:0:41.150
Robert Amenn
Very good.
0:0:41.160 --> 0:0:41.420
Robert Amenn
Thank you.
0:0:41.960 --> 0:0:42.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right.
0:0:42.900 --> 0:0:52.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I see Mr Whitney and Mr Eastham who, or with the firm the Archer firm, is it right?
0:0:54.860 --> 0:0:55.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:0:55.590 --> 0:0:56.300
Jeff Whitney
Yes, I'm with.
0:0:56.310 --> 0:0:57.220
Jeff Whitney
I'm with Archer Hall.
0:0:57.660 --> 0:0:58.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:0:57.630 --> 0:1:0.80
Jeff Whitney
I believe Tom Plunkett may be joining as well.
0:1:1.520 --> 0:1:2.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And there he is.
0:1:4.280 --> 0:1:5.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Mr Plunkett, can you hear you're on mute?
0:1:7.630 --> 0:1:8.480
Tom Plunkett
Yes, I can hear.
0:1:8.490 --> 0:1:9.750
Tom Plunkett
I'm gonna get my video on.
0:1:9.760 --> 0:1:10.810
Tom Plunkett
I apologize for my delay here.
0:1:11.390 --> 0:1:12.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Not a problem.
0:1:14.390 --> 0:1:27.550
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, so uh it is very common in trade secret disputes of this nature to have forensic examinations done of electronic devices.
0:1:27.940 --> 0:1:40.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The parties often and usually are able to agree upon a protocol occasionally, such as in this situation, the parties cannot resolve their dispute and the court is called upon to do so.
0:1:40.540 --> 0:1:54.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I am going to rule on what is in and what is kept and that is just going to be the way it is and Mr Annan, I understand if and you tell me if I'm wrong, that your main concerns appear to be.
0:1:55.0 --> 0:1:55.790
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh.
0:1:56.180 --> 0:2:2.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Information that you consider attorney client privileged or confidential as to third parties.
0:2:2.140 --> 0:2:2.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is that correct?
0:2:3.690 --> 0:2:4.920
Robert Amenn
That's that's my main.
0:2:5.50 --> 0:2:21.740
Robert Amenn
That that's the main thrust I would add that I also like the base cap not to know my client list so that that is another concern of mine because they've I've lost income because of base caps communicating my clients and I prefer not that for that not to happen again.
0:2:22.550 --> 0:2:30.860
Robert Amenn
And I'd also like to preserve on anything that I have to deal with my IP dispute with them and some contracts disputes I have with Basecamp.
0:2:33.400 --> 0:2:47.140
Robert Amenn
Those are secondary concerns, but the primary concerns are making sure that third party confidential information that I signed NDA's not to release is not released and returning current privileges for emails that I sent as part of my business.
0:2:48.90 --> 0:2:49.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, alright.
0:2:49.890 --> 0:2:54.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And and as I understand it, the and you tell me if I'm wrong.
0:2:54.300 --> 0:2:58.0
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The plaintiff doesn't disagree with that in principle, or do you?
0:2:59.240 --> 0:3:0.190
Stein, Wendy R.
Correct, your honor.
0:3:0.200 --> 0:3:14.540
Stein, Wendy R.
We do not wanna see his privilege information, but we will just clarify that there was only one entity that we spoke with about our information, not many entities as defendant just stupid.
0:3:13.820 --> 0:3:17.90
Robert Amenn
No, I apologize for Miss, Miss, I didn't mean to characterize mischaracterize.
0:3:17.100 --> 0:3:23.590
Robert Amenn
I feel that if you find other clients because you keep asking me who I'm working for, you will visit them and that is a concern of mine.
0:3:24.250 --> 0:3:24.490
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
0:3:25.420 --> 0:3:27.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ah, alright.
0:3:25.90 --> 0:3:28.610
Robert Amenn
Base CAP will not miss time when I refer to it's base camp.
0:3:28.990 --> 0:3:41.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, what I'm going first, let me ask have any further has there been any further progress between the time I issued my order and today Miss Stein?
0:3:41.80 --> 0:3:41.810
Stein, Wendy R.
I like to.
0:3:42.120 --> 0:3:42.900
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, thank you.
0:3:42.910 --> 0:3:44.370
Stein, Wendy R.
Are no, there's not been.
0:3:44.480 --> 0:3:46.590
Stein, Wendy R.
We tried to make progress.
0:3:46.700 --> 0:4:4.330
Stein, Wendy R.
We actually circulated to the defendant on January 15th and amended protocol, implementing Your Honor's orders at ECF 54 and the defendant refused to accept those orders in particular refused to accept that Archer Hall was designated as the Examiner.
0:4:4.850 --> 0:4:5.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand.
0:4:4.950 --> 0:4:5.840
Stein, Wendy R.
And then we had.
0:4:5.410 --> 0:4:8.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He he, yeah, alright, he he asked me to reconsider.
0:4:8.950 --> 0:4:20.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand that I'm a overruling the request for reconsideration too much time and effort has been put into working on a protocol with Archil Hall.
0:4:20.390 --> 0:4:22.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Everything appears quite neutral.
0:4:22.750 --> 0:4:36.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They do not appear biased anyway and they appear quite capable of doing what the protocol requires and protecting information that should not be seen by the plaintiffs.
0:4:36.920 --> 0:4:37.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So that is.
0:4:36.930 --> 0:4:39.300
Robert Amenn
You you were on our I I did not.
0:4:39.310 --> 0:4:44.90
Robert Amenn
At this moment in time, I intend to make the request, but I have not made the request at this moment in time.
0:4:43.370 --> 0:4:46.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, you did in your letter that you sent to me and I'm overruling it.
0:4:47.770 --> 0:4:55.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm denying the motion for reconsideration with respect to the terms of the protocol.
0:4:55.970 --> 0:5:17.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I am gonna go through the version that I have which was the version that was sent by Mr Amen to Miss Stein and Mr Pierce on January 5th that had Mr Amends proposed edits to the version that had last been proposed by Miss Stein.
0:5:17.830 --> 0:5:20.170
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Because that's the last version I have.
0:5:20.820 --> 0:5:25.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Will that will that result in any problem this time?
0:5:26.700 --> 0:5:28.70
Stein, Wendy R.
Your Honor, I don't.
0:5:28.220 --> 0:5:34.270
Stein, Wendy R.
The last protocol that I have on the docket IS62-1 I don't know which EF number you're referring to right now.
0:5:34.470 --> 0:5:35.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm looking at 51 three.
0:5:37.200 --> 0:5:38.260
Stein, Wendy R.
51 three.
0:5:45.820 --> 0:5:47.140
Stein, Wendy R.
Sorry, I'm just getting in on it please.
0:5:55.210 --> 0:5:59.560
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm, so that one has all of the red lining from the defendant.
0:5:59.780 --> 0:5:59.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:6:9.320 --> 0:6:9.730
Stein, Wendy R.
And.
0:6:13.420 --> 0:6:13.670
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah.
0:6:13.690 --> 0:6:15.90
Stein, Wendy R.
So there there would be a a.
0:6:16.180 --> 0:6:20.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right, which is the one which is the one that you you are working off of what was?
0:6:20.600 --> 0:6:20.910
Robert Amenn
I'm.
0:6:20.40 --> 0:6:21.630
Stein, Wendy R.
UH-62-1.
0:6:22.290 --> 0:6:23.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm sorry, 62-1.
0:6:24.170 --> 0:6:24.750
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:6:42.820 --> 0:6:43.80
Chuck Easttom (Guest)
The.
0:6:22.890 --> 0:6:47.230
Robert Amenn
To I would object to that usage because the plaintiff has made at least one significant change to an item that they had previously agreed to and that is in the protocol like that is outlined in the protocol that I sent, that you have, your honor, it has to deal with six E they significantly change stuff that we already agreed to.
0:6:48.40 --> 0:6:48.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hey, hold on a SEC.
0:6:53.420 --> 0:7:8.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I still I would find it useful to work off of the 51-3 because it gives me a road map as to what Mr Rahman had last proposed and what his concerns are.
0:7:8.550 --> 0:7:18.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I I also received Mr Ohman, you're filing today that set forth issues that you wanted to raise.
0:7:18.610 --> 0:7:27.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I've looked through that as well and I have it in front of me, but I think this is the most efficient way to proceed.
0:7:28.160 --> 0:7:34.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So in the introduction, there's the issue of the, I guess, who?
0:7:34.840 --> 0:7:35.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The consultant is.
0:7:36.40 --> 0:7:38.990
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're gonna go there with Plaintiffs proposal.
0:7:39.800 --> 0:7:40.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The way it's worded there.
0:7:42.630 --> 0:7:56.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
4th then we get to section 2B and Mr Ohman you introduced a considerable uh new language here.
0:7:56.210 --> 0:7:59.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What were you trying to accomplish and why wasn't it sufficient?
0:8:0.30 --> 0:8:1.130
Robert Amenn
Yeah. Just give me a second.
0:8:1.140 --> 0:8:3.90
Robert Amenn
Let me get my my notes here.
0:8:4.80 --> 0:8:11.590
Robert Amenn
Umm, the concerns that I have are one for the first section the let the let me.
0:8:11.980 --> 0:8:13.430
Robert Amenn
Let me deal with them one at a time.
0:8:13.820 --> 0:8:15.450
Robert Amenn
So I introduced.
0:8:16.550 --> 0:8:19.0
Robert Amenn
I introduced new language on 2B11.
0:8:19.10 --> 0:8:19.320
Robert Amenn
Right.
0:8:19.330 --> 0:8:22.330
Robert Amenn
So my concern is that.
0:8:24.110 --> 0:8:39.190
Robert Amenn
I this is going to trigger additional, umm going to trigger additional potential request to see other hard drives, potentially third party hard drives, third party connections and I want it to be very clear that they're done.
0:8:39.520 --> 0:8:51.370
Robert Amenn
If I actually moved files that are base cap confidential information and those files were materially damaging, like for example, someone sent me a congratulatory email.
0:8:51.640 --> 0:9:8.440
Robert Amenn
If I happen to save that to an external drive, the way I read this section, it would mean that base CAP would be able to I seek access go to the Court and seek access to my other hard drives and my other machines and other third party machines.
0:9:8.630 --> 0:9:11.800
Robert Amenn
So I wanna make sure that that anything that got moved.
0:9:12.620 --> 0:9:24.470
Robert Amenn
Umm, that's gonna trigger this event should be confidential information as defined by the the, the, the, the our agreement and that it's causes material harm like like if it's if it's a base camp.
0:9:25.290 --> 0:9:26.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand the concern.
0:9:24.520 --> 0:9:27.300
Robert Amenn
If if Steve Smith said great job, yeah.
0:9:26.650 --> 0:9:28.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I understand the concern.
0:9:30.250 --> 0:9:30.450
Robert Amenn
Yep.
0:9:28.230 --> 0:9:32.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You don't want this triggered by innocuous documents that you otherwise have the right to possess.
0:9:32.610 --> 0:9:35.60
Robert Amenn
Yes, that's that's one point.
0:9:33.730 --> 0:9:37.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so Miss Stein, can you speak to that concern please?
0:9:38.470 --> 0:9:39.240
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:9:39.470 --> 0:9:48.550
Stein, Wendy R.
So in this search terms, in the beginning on December 6th, we had sent search terms that were much broader than the search terms that we have now.
0:9:49.130 --> 0:9:54.540
Stein, Wendy R.
The search terms that we have now that we agreed to with defendant are file names of base cap files.
0:9:55.130 --> 0:10:2.750
Stein, Wendy R.
So if base cap files were moved anywhere, their base cap files, so we submit that section 2B should stay as it is.
0:10:3.430 --> 0:10:15.550
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Meaning you're saying under the protocol and the search terms that you've narrowed it down to, you believe that no innocuous material would be caught.
0:10:17.490 --> 0:10:37.400
Stein, Wendy R.
With the exception of the base cap search term and that's the one we agreed with defendant that he could have time to look at those and if he believed that things were privileged, for example, we would agree not to look at those, that kind of thing, but the other terms are are actual file names of files that he looked at in his final hours of employment.
0:10:37.410 --> 0:10:39.630
Stein, Wendy R.
And we believe transferred to other devices or accounts.
0:10:40.130 --> 0:10:46.340
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, Mr Mr Rahman, with that narrowing, why should we be concerned with the what?
0:10:46.350 --> 0:10:47.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're you have raised.
0:10:48.250 --> 0:11:5.490
Robert Amenn
So it when I asked the defendant a probing question and I said to the defendant if if some because this happened, if a base cap employee sent me an email by accident because they had access to my my email address and you know they.
0:11:4.940 --> 0:11:7.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right, But that's not going to be caught by this narrow search terms.
0:11:7.920 --> 0:11:8.480
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why would it be?
0:11:9.30 --> 0:11:20.280
Robert Amenn
It would be caught by narrow certain like it it when I read this here they're they're not talking about the search terms, only their.
0:11:20.350 --> 0:11:31.290
Robert Amenn
There's been talk where that if they find the search term within a file that is not a base cap file, that if I renamed one of their files then then that would be.
0:11:31.350 --> 0:11:35.960
Robert Amenn
That would be a hit, and then they would use the file name as an expanded search term.
0:11:36.470 --> 0:11:37.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so hold.
0:11:37.390 --> 0:11:37.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So hold on.
0:11:37.910 --> 0:11:40.170
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, Miss, Miss, Miss Stein, it does appear that.
0:11:42.780 --> 0:11:44.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on. Just.
0:11:48.620 --> 0:11:49.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You mean you?
0:11:49.240 --> 0:11:50.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You, you say in here.
0:11:51.40 --> 0:12:0.540
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Base camp the the the terminology used in this provision is based cap information is that limited to what is found through the search terms.
0:12:1.780 --> 0:12:2.630
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:12:2.640 --> 0:12:6.350
Stein, Wendy R.
The protocol has a list of search terms and we can screen share if you'd like.
0:12:6.360 --> 0:12:6.940
Stein, Wendy R.
They are.
0:12:7.360 --> 0:12:8.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, I don't need to see them.
0:12:7.60 --> 0:12:8.480
Stein, Wendy R.
They are the ones that are gone.
0:12:8.460 --> 0:12:8.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I just.
0:12:11.460 --> 0:12:11.580
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:12:9.60 --> 0:12:13.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I wanna know though in this paragraph too the language is written.
0:12:13.700 --> 0:12:21.220
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What happens it to the base cap information that is located through the search terms on his laptop?
0:12:22.100 --> 0:12:27.10
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
In other words, the way it's it was written by you, it seems like it could apply to any base cap information.
0:12:27.100 --> 0:12:29.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Or does base cap information have a definition of some sort?
0:12:31.0 --> 0:12:31.460
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm.
0:12:31.520 --> 0:12:41.330
Stein, Wendy R.
And so well base cap information is defined in the NDIA, but are you talking about little one now in the event that defendant locates other devices or accounts?
0:12:39.80 --> 0:12:41.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes, yes, yes.
0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:44.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:12:46.340 --> 0:12:47.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Containing base cap information.
0:12:48.830 --> 0:12:49.370
Stein, Wendy R.
Right.
0:12:49.430 --> 0:12:55.400
Stein, Wendy R.
So once the search terms the run and the Archer Hall sees for example, let's say.
0:12:57.340 --> 0:13:2.750
Stein, Wendy R.
Loop task list Dot loop he sent it somewhere like his personal email.
0:13:5.510 --> 0:13:11.360
Stein, Wendy R.
Then we would like to come back and be able to search where he sent our files to.
0:13:12.160 --> 0:13:14.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, I understand, but that's not it doesn't appear.
0:13:14.320 --> 0:13:17.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That's what this says because it says base cap information.
0:13:29.60 --> 0:13:29.540
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, you're.
0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:31.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
If base cap information in this paragraph is limited to the files or search terms that you have implemented, then I think it may be appropriate, but I understand his concern that as written it's too broad.
0:13:32.780 --> 0:13:33.150
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:13:33.160 --> 0:13:39.70
Stein, Wendy R.
So we would agree to define base cap information as results of the search terms as applied.
0:13:40.60 --> 0:13:41.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes, in this paragraph.
0:13:43.260 --> 0:13:45.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, Mr Rahman, what's the you said?
0:13:45.950 --> 0:13:47.0
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There were a few concerns here.
0:13:47.10 --> 0:13:47.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That's one concern.
0:13:47.980 --> 0:13:48.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's the next?
0:13:48.290 --> 0:13:48.720
Robert Amenn
Yes.
0:13:49.110 --> 0:15:3.360
Robert Amenn
So with respect to to be I right, they they they wanted me to like it would be triggered that if I keep in my testimony it's not clear to me is it specific to the testimony on the device or does it specific cover all the testimony that I gave in the hearing like for example if if Miss Stein asked me how many iPhones I have if I actually and I answered four and if I actually had five would that trigger this event and I'd like to restrict the misrepresentation to only regarding the device the device is not not all my testimony because you know I was under tremendous pressure and I've made I've made a may have made a misstatement and I don't want that misstatement a minor misstatement to trigger this this this protocol like to be and so that I'd like to restrict one to be you know hearing regarding like defendant represents as stated at the hearing regarding devices are are are inaccurate if if if I said anything about the devices that are inaccurate then they could trigger this protocol but not if I said something else that was inaccurate because I'm sure I made mistakes in my testimony it was tremendously pressured period.
0:15:4.150 --> 0:15:4.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:15:4.810 --> 0:15:8.0
Judge Robert W Lehrburger And UM, miss stained.
0:15:8.50 --> 0:15:11.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Is that language necessary?
0:15:11.40 --> 0:15:17.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The defendants representations, as stated in the hearing, can't it just be in the event defendant locates other devices or account?
0:15:18.340 --> 0:15:24.730
Stein, Wendy R.
You know, your Honor, because he's made representations at the hearing that the base cap information is only on one laptop.
0:15:24.980 --> 0:15:29.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, I I I understand but essentially.
0:15:28.730 --> 0:15:31.260
Stein, Wendy R.
And he's made other kinds of representations at the hearing.
0:15:31.270 --> 0:15:32.10
Stein, Wendy R.
We we can't.
0:15:32.110 --> 0:15:34.350
Stein, Wendy R.
We do not agree to limit in the way he's suggesting.
0:15:34.760 --> 0:15:42.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, I'm not suggesting that your ability to get other devices would be limited, isn't it?
0:15:43.300 --> 0:15:47.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Just if there any other devices besides the laptop in question?
0:15:49.460 --> 0:15:52.40
Stein, Wendy R.
We had, I think an 84 page transcript.
0:15:52.50 --> 0:15:56.860
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm not sure if they were a lot of questions asked and and I we can't.
0:15:56.870 --> 0:16:5.550
Stein, Wendy R.
I don't think it's fair to the client if they were misrepresentations made about what he's doing with the information where it went, how often he logged on to the device.
0:16:4.170 --> 0:16:5.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, I I I understand.
0:16:6.90 --> 0:16:7.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're talking past each other, I think.
0:16:9.810 --> 0:16:16.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Your concern is if there's any other device that has potentially has base cap confidential information.
0:16:16.470 --> 0:16:16.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Now yes.
0:16:17.140 --> 0:16:18.310
Stein, Wendy R.
It's not just that, your honor.
0:16:18.290 --> 0:16:18.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ah, OK.
0:16:21.320 --> 0:16:22.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, OK.
0:16:18.320 --> 0:16:23.50
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm also concerned with the deletions, so the the whole reason we're here is, yeah.
0:16:22.570 --> 0:16:26.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Deletions, 2 deletions 2 why does it but?
0:16:28.270 --> 0:16:38.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm not getting how the clause defendants representations are inaccurate defines the scope and makes a broader than what you would otherwise be entitled to.
0:16:41.160 --> 0:16:45.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Since there's language in there that says in the event that defendant locates other devices or accounts.
0:16:49.150 --> 0:16:53.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why isn't that enough just to say, if he locates other devices or account?
0:16:55.690 --> 0:17:3.920
Stein, Wendy R.
Because if he made an inaccurate statement at the hearing, we need to be able to know what that is and we need to be able to act on that information.
0:17:5.0 --> 0:17:5.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But.
0:17:5.120 --> 0:17:8.250
Stein, Wendy R.
It's not just about devices, it's also about when he deleted things.
0:17:8.560 --> 0:17:12.250
Stein, Wendy R.
It's also about whether he complied with the preservation order, which we believe he has not.
0:17:12.300 --> 0:17:14.330
Stein, Wendy R.
There are many, many statements he made at the hearing.
0:17:14.450 --> 0:17:15.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:17:14.340 --> 0:17:15.180
Stein, Wendy R.
He's trying to limit them.
0:17:15.30 --> 0:17:16.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold, hold, hold.
0:17:16.110 --> 0:17:16.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:17:16.750 --> 0:17:17.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:17:24.210 --> 0:17:31.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Your concern is if there's any device besides the laptop to which this information has been transferred, right?
0:17:35.460 --> 0:17:36.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, ohk.
0:17:32.400 --> 0:17:37.80
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm also concerned with when he deleted our information, when he moved other information.
0:17:36.450 --> 0:17:37.170
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:17:37.340 --> 0:17:51.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, but I'm not getting how defendants representation is stated that the hearing aren't accurate is germane to that as opposed to the mere fact that there are in fact other devices.
0:17:51.740 --> 0:17:53.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger I mean, how would you know?
0:17:53.940 --> 0:17:59.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
How does that predicate part inform this?
0:17:59.80 --> 0:18:5.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Are you saying that through some other evidence you're gonna find these other devices?
0:18:7.400 --> 0:18:7.520
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:18:5.960 --> 0:18:9.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It but the way it's written it says if defendant locates other devices.
0:18:10.660 --> 0:18:19.90
Stein, Wendy R.
Well, well, that he's trying to take out section 5D of the protocol, which would allow us to see where our confidential information went to.
0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:24.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:18:19.340 --> 0:18:27.310
Stein, Wendy R.
So a big part of this case is not only did he download our information at a time when he was not supposed to, but where did he move it?
0:18:27.740 --> 0:18:29.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I I I I I understand.
0:18:29.700 --> 0:18:30.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're entitled to all that.
0:18:31.300 --> 0:18:37.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I just not getting how the your your desire to get any other.
0:18:39.760 --> 0:18:45.10
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Devices that are located by him it maybe I have this wrong but it is little.
0:18:45.20 --> 0:18:52.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
One defendants representations as stated at the hearing, Erin, accurate and then little two are they or.
0:18:53.430 --> 0:18:54.480
Stein, Wendy R.
No, they're different.
0:18:54.690 --> 0:18:55.180
Stein, Wendy R.
It's one.
0:18:55.190 --> 0:18:56.800
Stein, Wendy R.
It's little 1/2 and three.
0:18:57.220 --> 0:18:57.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, hold on.
0:18:57.980 --> 0:18:58.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:18:56.810 --> 0:18:58.330
Stein, Wendy R.
So for example, the way we have it.
0:18:58.330 --> 0:18:58.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:18:58.700 --> 0:18:59.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, so it is or.
0:18:59.720 --> 0:19:1.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, so hold on, hold on.
0:19:1.160 --> 0:19:1.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:19:2.0 --> 0:19:2.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I see.
0:19:2.730 --> 0:19:3.850
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, my bad.
0:19:3.960 --> 0:19:4.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I see it now.
0:19:4.920 --> 0:19:9.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Now that it's taking out the interlineation, it's or so it's additive.
0:19:9.860 --> 0:19:11.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, got it.
0:19:13.140 --> 0:19:22.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, so, so, Mr Ayman, a whether you're representations are inaccurate, would is not defined by this document.
0:19:22.780 --> 0:19:25.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That would be determined in some other way.
0:19:25.220 --> 0:19:35.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So whether this says something is inaccurate doesn't and shouldn't implicate any accusation of misrepresentation.
0:19:37.450 --> 0:19:40.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Because there have to be some other proof of that.
0:19:41.710 --> 0:19:42.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Am I?
0:19:42.70 --> 0:19:43.220
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Am I correct?
0:19:43.470 --> 0:19:44.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I won't miss Stein.
0:19:44.790 --> 0:19:47.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Wouldn't you have to come forward to show that something was inaccurate?
0:19:54.240 --> 0:19:55.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right, right, right.
0:19:55.950 --> 0:19:56.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So.
0:19:56.340 --> 0:19:56.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So.
0:19:56.770 --> 0:20:1.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So in other words, Mr Rahman, it it's just sort of a factual statement.
0:20:1.270 --> 0:20:10.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're not making an admission by entering into this protocol, that something is inaccurate.
0:20:11.150 --> 0:20:17.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But if the plaintiffs are able to show that something was inaccurate, then.
0:20:19.30 --> 0:20:28.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Then they should have the right to pursue it and by using the language in accurate that is neutral as opposed to saying something like a misrepresentation.
0:20:29.420 --> 0:20:32.530
Robert Amenn
So let me put this test case to you to make sure that I understand this.
0:20:32.980 --> 0:20:33.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:20:33.360 --> 0:20:39.270
Robert Amenn
If if I actually want, if I I in my statement, I said I had four iPhones.
0:20:39.710 --> 0:20:41.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm. Umm.
0:20:39.640 --> 0:20:45.920
Robert Amenn
If I actually have five and they fended, defendant found out that I had five, would this trigger this event?
0:20:46.430 --> 0:20:46.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Sure.
0:20:47.900 --> 0:20:49.830
Robert Amenn
And like I.
0:20:47.680 --> 0:20:50.190
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why wouldn't it only only if only?
0:20:51.130 --> 0:20:52.370
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, why not.
0:20:53.310 --> 0:21:2.180
Robert Amenn
So I'd like to limit that because that that was that like First off, the defendant didn't have a like, the judge scolded the defendant and asking me that question.
0:21:16.240 --> 0:21:16.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Woman.
0:21:2.190 --> 0:21:17.910
Robert Amenn
I answered it because I was on the old but, but if I make a small misrepresentation that's not material, then this triggers this event and I like to limit my life being turned upside down for something innocuous, not like, not material.
0:21:19.340 --> 0:21:40.420
Robert Amenn
If you want to say material misrepresentation, I'm OK with that, but I don't want like like if I said ohh, you know I I like if I made a like a minor factual thing, it triggers the event and I wanna avoid that because I I'm sure that I made a mistake and I'm sure it's gonna be easy for them to pick something out of my testimony that I said that was false and therefore this event will be triggered and I.
0:21:39.730 --> 0:21:48.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All we're trying to do is figure out if there's another device that has base cap information as determined by this search protocol.
0:21:48.990 --> 0:21:49.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh.
0:21:49.450 --> 0:21:53.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That right in this time I, I I understand Mr Anas general concern.
0:21:53.830 --> 0:21:54.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He he figures.
0:22:10.820 --> 0:22:11.730
Stein, Wendy R.
Correct. Yeah.
0:21:54.770 --> 0:22:11.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Look, any misstatement that you find is testimony is somehow gonna lead to saying aha, now we get to look at any other devices, but those devices have to contain, there has to be reason to believe they contain base cap information, right? Yeah.
0:22:14.330 --> 0:22:14.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Kit.
0:22:12.690 --> 0:22:19.470
Robert Amenn
So can we add the term regarding devices, my statements regarding devices are inaccurate and is that sufficient?
0:22:18.480 --> 0:22:19.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No, because it's all.
0:22:19.520 --> 0:22:21.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger It's well, it's it's also.
0:22:21.840 --> 0:22:23.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, give me another example, Miss Stein.
0:22:23.480 --> 0:22:24.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Of what you have in mind.
0:22:25.160 --> 0:22:25.690
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:22:30.830 --> 0:22:31.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:22:25.700 --> 0:22:33.130
Stein, Wendy R.
And so, for example, a big part of this is he was supposed to delete our information at the end of his employment, and we believe he did not.
0:22:33.140 --> 0:22:38.80
Stein, Wendy R.
He was also supposed to comply with a preservation order dated October 26th, and we also believe he did not.
0:22:38.870 --> 0:22:39.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:22:39.310 --> 0:22:40.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, hold on.
0:22:39.790 --> 0:22:41.380
Robert Amenn
So that's all related to devices.
0:22:44.170 --> 0:22:44.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:22:45.350 --> 0:22:45.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
0:22:43.120 --> 0:22:45.780
Robert Amenn
It's statements about did I delete a file for devices?
0:22:46.570 --> 0:22:51.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All in all, this does, by the way, as written and you tell me if I'm wrong, miss.
0:22:51.330 --> 0:22:55.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Dined is it's just base cap gets to come back to court and make an application.
0:22:56.190 --> 0:22:56.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Is that right?
0:22:56.870 --> 0:22:57.460
Stein, Wendy R.
Correct.
0:22:57.730 --> 0:22:58.350
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:22:57.880 --> 0:23:1.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So it's not, it's not making a ruling on on anything.
0:23:2.80 --> 0:23:8.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And if they come based on something that's frivolous or immaterial, then the courts not gonna be happy with that.
0:23:9.220 --> 0:23:16.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So they're going to be, they're going to be circumspect in what they would do.
0:23:16.280 --> 0:23:26.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So now that I've gone through that, I am preserving the language as written by the plaintiff here, because I find that it is not posing the.
0:23:28.200 --> 0:23:36.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, the the risk or threat that plaintiff, understandably has.
0:23:36.560 --> 0:23:37.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright then.
0:23:37.320 --> 0:23:42.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
See the defendant reserves the right to request the quarter mutually agreed upon third party to certify.
0:23:45.470 --> 0:23:50.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The whole base, cap information, blah blah blah would cause material harm to base gap.
0:23:50.710 --> 0:23:58.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, cause that the problem with that is then that's that's sort of what's indisputable in the end will be what is a trade secret, what's confidential?
0:23:59.620 --> 0:24:9.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
UM, so we can't have the protocol governed by a term such as material, because then everything becomes potentially subjective.
0:24:9.800 --> 0:24:11.490
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I'm not going to include that provision.
0:24:13.680 --> 0:24:15.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, search terms.
0:24:17.460 --> 0:24:17.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So.
0:24:20.100 --> 0:24:21.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There was a.
0:24:23.240 --> 0:24:28.630
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Portion you struck out in Mr Amend concerning August 14th 2019 to the present.
0:24:28.700 --> 0:24:30.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Why did you strike out that last?
0:24:30.980 --> 0:24:33.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That sentence the search will be conducted level blah.
0:24:36.800 --> 0:24:38.570
Robert Amenn
I'm which set.
0:24:38.580 --> 0:24:39.700
Robert Amenn
You're looking at the search terms.
0:24:39.400 --> 0:24:43.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm looking at 4 Section 4 in the second paragraph.
0:24:45.570 --> 0:24:45.910
Robert Amenn
OK.
0:24:48.70 --> 0:24:48.560
Robert Amenn
Why did I?
0:24:47.820 --> 0:24:49.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You struck the second sentence.
0:24:51.580 --> 0:24:53.250
Robert Amenn
Access a.
0:24:53.440 --> 0:24:57.810
Robert Amenn
The search will be conducted for all activity documents like the whole sentence.
0:24:57.960 --> 0:25:0.530
Robert Amenn
Sure, here's the thing.
0:25:1.0 --> 0:25:2.150
Robert Amenn
I would like this.
0:25:2.160 --> 0:25:6.30
Robert Amenn
This basically is introducing what a search terms will be applied to.
0:25:6.380 --> 0:25:26.680
Robert Amenn
There's two sections that cover what search terms are applied to this section and section 55A or five, Section 5, and what I'd like to be able to do is we're gonna discuss what gets included in Section 5, and if we exclude something, if I am, I'm I'm successful and something is excluded.
0:25:26.790 --> 0:25:36.100
Robert Amenn
I don't want this line to reintroduce it, so my recommendation was to say that they apply to, umm my.
0:25:36.110 --> 0:25:51.430
Robert Amenn
My recommendation is these search terms shall be run against steps listed in the forensics process in Section 5, so we'll cover everything that they're listing in their sentence, but it will make it as a reference and therefore the controlling, controlling ruling.
0:25:51.470 --> 0:25:56.330
Robert Amenn
The controlling searches will be controlled by Section 5 instead of two different sections.
0:25:57.270 --> 0:25:58.20
Robert Amenn
Does that make sense?
0:25:57.110 --> 0:25:59.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, miss, I I understand.
0:25:59.410 --> 0:26:0.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand.
0:26:0.470 --> 0:26:7.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I think what you're saying, I I actually had thought there was a different concern here and I thought that was about the date range.
0:26:8.90 --> 0:26:9.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Do you have any issue with the date range?
0:26:12.550 --> 0:26:13.390
Robert Amenn
No, no, no, no.
0:26:12.630 --> 0:26:15.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Not saying there should be and just wondering.
0:26:17.430 --> 0:26:17.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:26:13.720 --> 0:26:18.50
Robert Amenn
That's I'm no, no, not, not necessarily.
0:26:18.60 --> 0:26:21.720
Robert Amenn
I mean like, it's pretty expensive, but it's fun.
0:26:20.850 --> 0:26:22.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, but that's not why you crossed out.
0:26:22.710 --> 0:26:24.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But that's not why you crossed out the sense.
0:26:23.380 --> 0:26:24.400
Robert Amenn
No, but that's correct.
0:26:24.410 --> 0:26:24.810
Robert Amenn
That's correct.
0:26:24.730 --> 0:26:25.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:26:25.230 --> 0:26:27.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, Miss Stein, what's your thought on this?
0:26:27.880 --> 0:26:28.450
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah.
0:26:31.390 --> 0:26:32.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Your your key.
0:26:28.460 --> 0:26:32.500
Stein, Wendy R.
That we we would like the date range because that's when he began working for baseball.
0:26:32.300 --> 0:26:33.370
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're keeping the date range.
0:26:33.380 --> 0:26:33.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger That's not.
0:26:34.660 --> 0:26:35.60
Stein, Wendy R.
Sir.
0:26:34.0 --> 0:26:35.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That's not why he crossed it out.
0:26:37.40 --> 0:26:37.320
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:26:38.830 --> 0:26:44.560
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm so I I mean I think it I think it's a if your honor up to your honor.
0:26:44.290 --> 0:26:46.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is there any reason it can't be moved to Section 5?
0:26:48.320 --> 0:26:49.50
Stein, Wendy R.
Oh, is there any?
0:26:49.500 --> 0:26:52.60
Stein, Wendy R.
The whole clause can't be moved to Section 5 now I'm fine with that.
0:26:52.620 --> 0:26:53.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:26:53.70 --> 0:26:54.240
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we'll do that for Mr.
0:26:54.250 --> 0:26:59.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Allen, OK, now moving on to five forensic process.
0:27:0.60 --> 0:27:8.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, you in in five a you added non deleted files active, non deleted.
0:27:9.510 --> 0:27:11.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Uh, why did you add that?
0:27:14.20 --> 0:27:22.420
Robert Amenn
Umm, because I wanted to to clearly differentiate their what active files were and files that were not deleted.
0:27:25.280 --> 0:27:26.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, OK.
0:27:26.260 --> 0:27:26.630
Judge Robert W Lehrburger It didn't.
0:27:22.430 --> 0:27:26.740
Robert Amenn
So I wanted to make that click completely clear and and I think.
0:27:26.640 --> 0:27:30.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
In the next, the next paragraph does refer to deleted files and it's done.
0:27:30.510 --> 0:27:34.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is there any reason not to include the little parenthetical in a?
0:27:35.230 --> 0:27:37.600
Stein, Wendy R.
No, I'm not agree to that in 62-1.
0:27:37.620 --> 0:27:38.260
Robert Amenn
Yeah, yeah.
0:27:37.750 --> 0:27:38.500
Stein, Wendy R.
So we agree.
0:27:37.900 --> 0:27:38.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, great.
0:27:38.780 --> 0:27:40.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So the parties are in agreement on that.
0:27:40.320 --> 0:27:40.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Great.
0:27:40.920 --> 0:27:44.630
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What about the the second sentence that Mister Rahman proposed?
0:27:44.640 --> 0:27:48.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Deleted files will be searched in the manner outlined for unallocated space.
0:27:48.960 --> 0:27:52.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Since deleted files are by definition allocated space.
0:27:53.900 --> 0:27:55.560
Robert Amenn
I think we have an agreement on that as well.
0:28:3.910 --> 0:28:6.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Putting put in the new protocol.
0:28:6.150 --> 0:28:6.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, good.
0:27:55.570 --> 0:28:6.790
Robert Amenn
Like if if you wanna the languages Umm, 5B they they changed language in 5B and I'm OK with it, not the language that you have but in their new portal, yeah.
0:28:6.770 --> 0:28:7.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You have agreement on that.
0:28:8.510 --> 0:28:9.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Excellent. Alright.
0:28:9.380 --> 0:28:11.130
Stein, Wendy R.
In 62-1.
0:28:11.200 --> 0:28:12.570
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, just for the record. OK.
0:28:11.460 --> 0:28:12.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, I understood.
0:28:12.650 --> 0:28:13.440
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes. OK.
0:28:13.620 --> 0:28:15.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then in 5C.
0:28:16.490 --> 0:28:24.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, searching for the agreed upon search terms in communication, defined email, etcetera, etcetera.
0:28:24.850 --> 0:28:27.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Have you reached agreement on this subparagraph?
0:28:28.770 --> 0:28:29.90
Robert Amenn
No.
0:28:28.930 --> 0:28:29.710Stein, Wendy R.
No, your honor.
0:28:30.540 --> 0:28:31.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, where's the disagreement?
0:28:33.230 --> 0:28:44.610
Robert Amenn
There's two points of disagreement, and I'll raise one the the the the order does not on from my perspective on a like require this.
0:28:46.160 --> 0:28:50.850
Robert Amenn
And if the order doesn't require it, I'd like it not to be included.
0:28:51.0 --> 0:28:57.100
Robert Amenn
Now, if the court sees otherwise, I have additional changes that I'd like to talk about.
0:28:57.220 --> 0:29:4.930
Robert Amenn
Secondary, but first it would be it would be helpful if the the court could could make that determination.
0:29:5.520 --> 0:29:9.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, I I would like to Miss Stein to explain what this paragraph is doing and why it's necessary.
0:29:10.690 --> 0:29:11.180
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:29:11.190 --> 0:29:11.990
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you, runner.
0:29:12.0 --> 0:29:18.740
Stein, Wendy R.
So this paragraph is necessary because it's looking at emails and also messaging teams.
0:29:19.500 --> 0:29:20.940
Stein, Wendy R.
Outlook chats.
0:29:20.950 --> 0:29:23.790
Stein, Wendy R.
He's the defendant is trying to strike out chat.
0:29:24.450 --> 0:29:35.680
Stein, Wendy R.
But we're aware that he uses some chats and may have transferred our information in a chat, and so chat is there so that we can find our information wherever it resides.
0:29:35.690 --> 0:29:37.750
Stein, Wendy R.
That's always been our goal and it still remains our goal.
0:29:38.20 --> 0:29:46.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so so you you're the purpose of this paragraph is to make clear that communication is understood expansively.
0:29:46.450 --> 0:29:54.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And will include any platform or application through which a communication can be made.
0:29:54.240 --> 0:29:55.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is that a fair statement?
0:29:55.760 --> 0:29:56.770
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:29:56.780 --> 0:29:57.900
Stein, Wendy R.
Much better stated than I.
0:29:57.960 --> 0:29:58.770
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you. Yes.
0:29:58.870 --> 0:29:59.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:29:58.700 --> 0:30:0.110
Robert Amenn
You, you, you, you, you, you were on it.
0:30:0.120 --> 0:30:0.530
Robert Amenn
That is not.
0:29:59.870 --> 0:30:0.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And Mr Rahman, yes.
0:30:0.950 --> 0:30:1.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So what's your concern?
0:30:2.330 --> 0:30:4.970
Robert Amenn
That's not what we agreed to. This language.
0:30:4.980 --> 0:30:9.880
Robert Amenn
Email messaging, including but not limited to, teams discord and Outlook was proposed by me.
0:30:10.830 --> 0:30:24.40
Robert Amenn
The chat part I I struck it out not to hide chat, but that because teams and discord and outlook teams and discord are chats and we're we're OK for messaging, messaging and chats are the same thing.
0:30:24.350 --> 0:30:27.940
Robert Amenn
So I struck it out because it was the same and so.
0:30:27.550 --> 0:30:29.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So in other words, it's duplicative in your view.
0:30:30.150 --> 0:30:30.420
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
0:30:30.430 --> 0:30:30.820
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
0:30:30.890 --> 0:30:32.670
Robert Amenn
And we define this to be.
0:30:31.850 --> 0:30:33.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But but what's there's is there.
0:30:33.370 --> 0:30:34.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's the harm in that?
0:30:35.450 --> 0:30:35.750
Robert Amenn
Well.
0:30:37.790 --> 0:30:42.80
Robert Amenn
Any language that you put in there that's open for interpretation chat is one of them.
0:30:42.590 --> 0:30:48.730
Robert Amenn
They I don't know what the defendant, the plaintiff, can do to like what is the definition of chat?
0:30:48.740 --> 0:30:50.230
Robert Amenn
Chat is very broad.
0:30:49.870 --> 0:30:50.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:30:50.580 --> 0:30:51.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:30:51.280 --> 0:30:54.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What you should do is you can include chat but say chat applications.
0:30:55.860 --> 0:31:9.160
Robert Amenn
I'm OK with that and the so but but this clause is specifically to limit the communication to email and messaging systems only, and that is what we negotiated together.
0:31:9.280 --> 0:31:10.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
As opposed to what?
0:31:11.430 --> 0:31:17.970
Robert Amenn
As as opposed to a broad communication tool, communication is a very generic word.
0:31:17.50 --> 0:31:21.590
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Give me an E give me an example of a communication tool that you think would should not be included.
0:31:29.750 --> 0:31:31.540
Robert Amenn
I'm John.
0:31:35.210 --> 0:31:36.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, alright.
0:31:31.630 --> 0:31:38.370
Robert Amenn
Can't think of 1 off the top my head because I I'm only using these communication tools so so like I I don't know like like like like.
0:31:42.20 --> 0:31:42.540
Stein, Wendy R.
FTP.
0:31:40.390 --> 0:31:46.150
Robert Amenn
It like if you like like FTP, would it be communication tool? Yeah.
0:31:47.570 --> 0:31:47.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:31:47.790 --> 0:31:49.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And why shouldn't that be included?
0:31:49.960 --> 0:31:51.150
Robert Amenn
Because they didn't ask for it.
0:31:53.680 --> 0:31:54.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:31:54.660 --> 0:31:55.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, look.
0:31:51.520 --> 0:31:57.110
Robert Amenn
I asked them specifically to define what they wanted to look at and that we came to the agreement that they defined this.
0:31:57.570 --> 0:31:57.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:31:57.880 --> 0:32:0.800
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I'm ordering that it be included that any communication.
0:32:1.70 --> 0:32:10.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I understand, you know you you don't have to exceed to it and agree to it and say you consent, but I'm going to order that be allowed and include it so that it's comprehensive.
0:32:10.410 --> 0:32:12.610
Robert Amenn
Mayor, they ask a clarifying question.
0:32:12.860 --> 0:32:13.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Sure.
0:32:13.740 --> 0:32:20.460
Robert Amenn
If we came to an agreement and we both agreed that it would be limited to this, why would you expand the order to our agreement?
0:32:20.790 --> 0:32:24.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, one thing is Miss Stein is disagreeing that you agreed about that, so.
0:32:24.800 --> 0:32:25.270
Stein, Wendy R.
Correct.
0:32:25.280 --> 0:32:26.670
Stein, Wendy R.
We had the ETC.
0:32:29.450 --> 0:32:29.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Exactly.
0:32:30.760 --> 0:32:30.830
Robert Amenn
The.
0:32:26.680 --> 0:32:33.750
Stein, Wendy R.
For exactly that purpose, we had the etcetera as a casual because because we don't know and we won't know what's on his computer until we see it.
0:32:33.830 --> 0:32:34.140
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
0:32:34.60 --> 0:32:34.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
0:32:33.640 --> 0:32:37.620
Robert Amenn
And it's the Exeter in the original is, is the etcetera in the document that you.
0:32:37.570 --> 0:32:40.180
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Whether it is or isn't, it should be.
0:32:41.670 --> 0:32:41.910
Robert Amenn
OK.
0:32:40.270 --> 0:32:44.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The point is that any communication tool is fair game.
0:32:45.190 --> 0:32:45.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:32:46.270 --> 0:32:59.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright then there is a portion you added that says the search will be limited to using only the agreed upon search terms, and it's limited to linked files et cetera, et cetera.
0:33:1.340 --> 0:33:2.120
Robert Amenn
That's different, right?
0:33:2.130 --> 0:33:3.150
Robert Amenn
It's a different section, right?
0:33:1.160 --> 0:33:3.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And let me yes.
0:33:3.690 --> 0:33:3.930
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:33:3.240 --> 0:33:4.110
Robert Amenn
We're on PC though.
0:33:5.50 --> 0:33:6.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Was there anything else in see?
0:33:6.860 --> 0:33:12.320
Robert Amenn
Yeah, I I asked that all emails that are recovered should follow the process outlined in 6E.
0:33:12.20 --> 0:33:13.720
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Ah, OK, Miss Stein.
0:33:20.620 --> 0:33:20.820
Robert Amenn
But.
0:33:16.330 --> 0:33:25.730
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm, so the process in 6E, but I don't think we have an agreement on that in terms of the defendant getting an opportunity first to review and then our getting an opportunity.
0:33:25.530 --> 0:33:25.730
Robert Amenn
What?
0:33:26.440 --> 0:33:26.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:33:26.940 --> 0:33:28.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold, hold, hold on.
0:33:30.240 --> 0:33:32.430
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It says process outlined in six East.
0:33:34.930 --> 0:33:35.930
Stein, Wendy R.
No, I am not.
0:33:36.200 --> 0:33:37.380
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm fine with it, yes.
0:33:32.440 --> 0:33:38.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Are you disagreeing with the process in six East or are you OK so then leave this.
0:33:38.430 --> 0:33:44.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we'll include this clause here and then discuss 60, OK, what?
0:33:43.460 --> 0:33:49.490
Robert Amenn
So then I'd like the the Court to rule on why the Why does the order from the?
0:33:49.600 --> 0:33:53.340
Robert Amenn
Why does the order from the judge include searching emails?
0:33:53.860 --> 0:34:21.730
Robert Amenn
Because they they specifically the in the testimony of Doctor Eastham, he specifically calls out that they're looking only like they they they went to the court and they outlined what they were looking for and they were looking for deleted files and then the the judge in closing statements ordered us to work together and she references that she's comfortable with the process that Dr Easton outlined this is not in the process that Dr Easton outlined in his testimony.
0:34:22.210 --> 0:34:24.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Are you saying the email shouldn't be included in the search?
0:34:25.320 --> 0:34:28.920
Robert Amenn
Based on their testimony in the court, they did not ask for it.
0:34:28.200 --> 0:34:39.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, that's not the purpose of this is to search for information that has been transferred, if any, or downloaded or communicated to others.
0:34:39.690 --> 0:34:45.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Email is obviously a major application for that and it is to be included.
0:34:46.870 --> 0:34:59.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, let's go to the next part, which is the addition of the search will be limited to using only the agreed upon search terms et cetera et cetera.
0:35:0.450 --> 0:35:1.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, miss.
0:35:1.410 --> 0:35:1.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Stein.
0:35:1.670 --> 0:35:2.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is that something that's been resolved?
0:35:3.710 --> 0:35:4.940
Stein, Wendy R.
It has not, your honor.
0:35:5.310 --> 0:35:5.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But.
0:35:5.530 --> 0:35:6.280
Stein, Wendy R.
We cannot.
0:35:6.290 --> 0:35:15.680
Stein, Wendy R.
We cannot agree to the last that added sentence because he's trying to limit the defendant, is trying to limit the scope of that section to.
0:35:17.70 --> 0:35:21.600
Stein, Wendy R.
Information stored by OneDrive or similar external storage.
0:35:21.810 --> 0:35:23.940
Stein, Wendy R.
It's the same issue that we had in 5C.
0:35:23.950 --> 0:35:31.810
Stein, Wendy R.
We need to be broad because we don't know the means by which he transferred information, and so we can't agree to that second sentence.
0:35:32.580 --> 0:35:34.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And you're just looking for here.
0:35:34.290 --> 0:35:37.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
This is just looking for evidence that it was in fact transferred, right?
0:35:39.940 --> 0:35:40.470
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:35:41.40 --> 0:35:46.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so Mr Aman, help me understand why you think that added sentence should be included.
0:35:47.520 --> 0:35:50.370
Robert Amenn
Well, there's two sentences that I requested to be included.
0:35:50.380 --> 0:35:51.540
Robert Amenn
Which one are we referring to?
0:35:53.770 --> 0:35:55.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I only see one they see.
0:35:51.550 --> 0:36:0.140
Robert Amenn
Forgive me for not understanding there is a I added two I I requested two sentences search terms will be limited to using only the agreed upon.
0:36:0.350 --> 0:36:12.710
Robert Amenn
The search will be limited to using only agreed upon search terms is 1 sentence and I'm referring to the document I sent this morning and the search will be limited to linked files, Windows Registry, hive and any other information stored on the laptop.
0:36:13.440 --> 0:36:13.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:36:13.480 --> 0:36:14.510
Robert Amenn
Umm yeah?
0:36:13.760 --> 0:36:16.850
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, that, that's that's it's one sentence in the document I have.
0:36:16.860 --> 0:36:17.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So yes.
0:36:17.300 --> 0:36:17.630
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why?
0:36:17.410 --> 0:36:17.700
Robert Amenn
Ohh.
0:36:17.640 --> 0:36:18.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why?
0:36:18.360 --> 0:36:19.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why are those?
0:36:19.720 --> 0:36:21.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why are you seeking those terms?
0:36:21.960 --> 0:36:26.690
Robert Amenn
I I would specifically like to split it out into two sentences and I'll deal with each of them individually.
0:36:26.300 --> 0:36:28.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, that's fine.
0:36:26.700 --> 0:36:29.590
Robert Amenn
If the court is OK with that, the first one is this.
0:36:29.840 --> 0:36:48.700
Robert Amenn
All of this, like we agreed upon a set of search terms and it was my understanding that all searches will be used with those search terms that there's not a a random looking at my hard drive that the hard drive will be specific to a set of search terms.
0:36:48.990 --> 0:36:56.10
Robert Amenn
So if there this is this, this information is on my hard drive, it should be limited to the search terms that we agreed upon.
0:36:55.730 --> 0:36:56.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, can can I stop?
0:36:56.930 --> 0:36:58.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Can I stop you for a minute?
0:36:58.410 --> 0:36:59.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The beginning.
0:36:59.130 --> 0:37:5.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
First sentence says searching for evidence that files with the specified terms and this time is that referred to the search terms.
0:37:5.700 --> 0:37:6.960
Stein, Wendy R.
Exactly right, your honor, yes.
0:37:6.970 --> 0:37:7.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:37:7.290 --> 0:37:8.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So that just needs to be clarified.
0:37:8.850 --> 0:37:11.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And why don't you just say the specified terms?
0:37:11.170 --> 0:37:13.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What you say the specified search terms?
0:37:11.800 --> 0:37:14.380
Stein, Wendy R.
Search terms, OK.
0:37:13.450 --> 0:37:16.10
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, Miss Roman, what's the concern with the second part?
0:37:20.410 --> 0:37:20.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:37:16.730 --> 0:37:34.940
Robert Amenn
Can I have a clarifying question here because I wanna probe with an example if if if they find that they they somehow if they determine that base CAP data is enough it I should say this I want to make sure I'm asking it right.
0:37:36.780 --> 0:37:43.30
Robert Amenn
Can they search event log for terms that are not in the search term list?
0:37:43.380 --> 0:37:46.350
Robert Amenn
So event log is basically all applicable record.
0:37:46.360 --> 0:37:47.970
Robert Amenn
A lot of the activity on the computer.
0:37:48.160 --> 0:37:55.610
Robert Amenn
So are they gonna search for the word like moved, or are they gonna search for the term moved?
0:37:55.820 --> 0:38:3.380
Robert Amenn
Like, are they gonna search for the specific search term or are they gonna just be brought in, able to search for the word move which is not in our search team list, can they?
0:38:3.120 --> 0:38:4.190
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I think uh.
0:38:4.200 --> 0:38:5.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Can you hold on?
0:38:5.140 --> 0:38:9.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let me this time I am I correct that it's only the search terms that you'll be using?
0:38:10.180 --> 0:38:10.870
Stein, Wendy R.
Correct, your honor.
0:38:12.630 --> 0:38:12.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Then.
0:38:18.520 --> 0:38:18.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Correct.
0:38:11.680 --> 0:38:19.730
Robert Amenn
OK, so move cannot be used or names of programs that are not in the search term list can't be used to search the event, right.
0:38:19.780 --> 0:38:21.0
Robert Amenn
OK, then I'm fine with it.
0:38:20.180 --> 0:38:22.640
Stein, Wendy R.
Well, I I think we should.
0:38:22.650 --> 0:38:24.910
Stein, Wendy R.
I just would Tom, is that correct? Yeah.
0:38:23.680 --> 0:38:34.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Just to be just to be clear, the the the way this is gonna be worded is it's gonna say with the specified search terms and then we will not have the added sentence.
0:38:35.160 --> 0:38:35.330
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:38:38.440 --> 0:38:38.700
Robert Amenn
So.
0:38:35.80 --> 0:38:40.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let's go on to the next sentence that you have limited to linked files et cetera.
0:38:40.880 --> 0:38:41.160
Robert Amenn
So.
0:38:42.870 --> 0:38:48.540
Robert Amenn
I'm my concern is that there is, I don't know like how should I say this.
0:38:49.990 --> 0:38:54.800
Robert Amenn
Confidential information will more than likely only be in the unallocated space.
0:38:55.470 --> 0:38:59.100
Robert Amenn
Returning college information will be in the only in the unallocated space.
0:39:0.190 --> 0:39:7.410
Robert Amenn
If this the way this clause is written, it gives free rein for anyone to search anywhere in the computer.
0:39:8.190 --> 0:39:8.470
Robert Amenn
Umm.
0:39:9.50 --> 0:39:12.160
Robert Amenn
And I'm concerned that they will.
0:39:15.950 --> 0:39:16.110
Tom Plunkett
And.
0:39:12.170 --> 0:39:20.600
Robert Amenn
They will discover client attorney privilege information and access and and third party confidential information.
0:39:20.200 --> 0:39:27.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But but so help so help me understand then is your is your wording here meant to exclude the unallocated space or what?
0:39:27.100 --> 0:39:28.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I don't understand what it's doing.
0:39:27.910 --> 0:39:35.470
Robert Amenn
The the wording is meant to exclude meant to exclude searching in spaces that that the Archer Hall.
0:39:37.370 --> 0:39:39.760
Robert Amenn
Didn't request because I can't.
0:39:39.70 --> 0:39:39.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So aren't you?
0:39:39.770 --> 0:39:39.950
Robert Amenn
I can't.
0:39:39.770 --> 0:39:40.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Look, look, look.
0:39:40.910 --> 0:39:57.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Archer Hall is the independent neutral forensic uh examiner who is going to essentially search and sift the files if somehow confidential information is exposed to them.
0:39:57.40 --> 0:40:1.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Because it's a file that turns up there, they're not gonna provide that.
0:40:3.70 --> 0:40:9.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And it's gonna be off limits now if I guess if it involves base cap in some way, then the parties can fight about it, but the.
0:40:12.270 --> 0:40:12.440
Robert Amenn
That.
0:40:12.820 --> 0:40:23.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There's that they have a right to be searching anywhere on the computer that this may reside, so we're not gonna limit it to just part of the computer.
0:40:29.900 --> 0:40:30.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:40:25.240 --> 0:40:30.820
Robert Amenn
So let let me sort of address your owner from my perspective.
0:40:30.830 --> 0:40:32.60
Robert Amenn
You made an inaccurate statement.
0:40:32.340 --> 0:40:33.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, go ahead.
0:40:33.930 --> 0:40:41.40
Robert Amenn
So with respect to wave with the way, and I'm gonna talk about unallocated space, because they're gonna search on allocated space, right?
0:40:44.990 --> 0:40:45.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:40:47.140 --> 0:40:47.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:40:41.710 --> 0:41:15.220
Robert Amenn
And with this tool they can search on on allocate space to determine this 5D when when a search term is hidden unallocated space, the they they will use a technique called file carving and the file carving has a sync, a decent probability of capturing data that is not based caps and because there's a section of the file that is based cap specific and they should have that data back.
0:41:15.230 --> 0:41:31.70
Robert Amenn
If that's the case, what they shouldn't have any data that is outside of that, but the way file carving will work is it is potential that third party data will be handed over to base cap because of the way file copying works.
0:41:31.640 --> 0:41:33.580
Robert Amenn
So when they do this.
0:41:33.20 --> 0:41:36.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let me let me just ask a question here of of Miss Stein.
0:41:39.690 --> 0:41:46.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Address his concern, but I had assumed that such information maybe I'm wrong, would be sifted out and it would never make its way to you.
0:41:47.480 --> 0:41:47.730
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:41:47.740 --> 0:41:54.350
Stein, Wendy R.
So I think Tom Plunkett should address this, because he's going to be doing the search and he can speak more technically to the file carving.
0:41:54.360 --> 0:41:55.630
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm not able to address that.
0:41:56.270 --> 0:41:56.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:41:57.660 --> 0:41:58.840
Tom Plunkett
Alright, thank you.
0:41:58.850 --> 0:41:59.440
Tom Plunkett
And thank your honor.
0:41:59.930 --> 0:42:1.340
Tom Plunkett
Uh, so miss?
0:42:1.350 --> 0:42:7.140
Tom Plunkett
Robbins said about or searching of unallocated space is generally correct, correct.
0:42:9.460 --> 0:42:12.490
Tom Plunkett
When we find we, we search unallocated space.
0:42:12.500 --> 0:42:15.90
Tom Plunkett
It's think of it as just a big pile of stuff.
0:42:15.100 --> 0:42:17.990
Tom Plunkett
At this point we find a key term.
0:42:18.40 --> 0:42:20.130
Tom Plunkett
Let's say the key term is base cap.
0:42:20.880 --> 0:42:24.630
Tom Plunkett
That doesn't necessarily start a file or end of file.
0:42:24.680 --> 0:42:26.430
Tom Plunkett
It could be right in the middle of a file.
0:42:26.920 --> 0:42:33.750
Tom Plunkett
Therefore, we have to find the beginning of the file that contains that that key term.
0:42:34.160 --> 0:42:44.840
Tom Plunkett
It's gonna be somewhere before that term and we have to try to find the end of that file in order to export something out that's viewable by Mr Rahman and and Miss Stein.
0:42:46.780 --> 0:42:53.530
Tom Plunkett
His concern is that we may pull out uh data that is maybe after the end of a file.
0:42:56.280 --> 0:43:0.950
Tom Plunkett
That is doubly possible because we're looking at again big pile of stuff.
0:43:0.900 --> 0:43:1.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
0:43:1.280 --> 0:43:1.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So OK.
0:43:1.560 --> 0:43:7.310
Tom Plunkett
What should what should happen is that this unallocated anything coming from an allocated space should be reviewed.
0:43:7.440 --> 0:43:12.510
Tom Plunkett
The content needs to be reviewed and verify that we are only pulling out the content.
0:43:13.270 --> 0:43:13.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Great.
0:43:12.520 --> 0:43:14.430
Tom Plunkett
That's associated with that term.
0:43:14.160 --> 0:43:14.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Who, who, who?
0:43:15.30 --> 0:43:16.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Who would review that?
0:43:17.370 --> 0:43:21.360
Tom Plunkett
It's going to be a combination of us, so let's say.
0:43:21.40 --> 0:43:21.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is it?
0:43:21.460 --> 0:43:26.890
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I just want to know is it reviewed by Defense counsel or no?
0:43:26.700 --> 0:43:27.190
Tom Plunkett
It will be.
0:43:27.340 --> 0:43:29.110
Tom Plunkett
It'll be reviewed by defense counsel.
0:43:29.180 --> 0:43:29.880
Tom Plunkett
This should be so.
0:43:30.730 --> 0:43:31.140
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm.
0:43:29.470 --> 0:43:34.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so they can say whether there's information that was overinclusive.
0:43:35.80 --> 0:43:36.40
Tom Plunkett
Yes, and.
0:43:35.510 --> 0:43:37.870
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry, there is no defense council not understanding.
0:43:37.880 --> 0:43:39.10
Stein, Wendy R.
The defendant has not.
0:43:39.20 --> 0:43:40.480
Stein, Wendy R.
His lawyer has not appeared in the case.
0:43:40.490 --> 0:43:41.440
Stein, Wendy R.
So who do you need?
0:43:40.450 --> 0:43:41.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger I'm sorry, plaintiff count.
0:43:41.930 --> 0:43:42.480
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:43:41.770 --> 0:43:43.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger I'm sorry, plaintiff counsel.
0:43:43.170 --> 0:43:44.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Plaintiff counsel.
0:43:42.530 --> 0:43:44.60
Stein, Wendy R.
OK. OK.
0:43:44.30 --> 0:43:44.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger I'm sorry.
0:43:44.150 --> 0:43:44.900
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you. Yes.
0:43:45.250 --> 0:43:53.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So plaintiff council would see it only to verify that there there is an actually overinclusive information, right?
0:43:54.730 --> 0:43:58.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And if there were, what is Plaintiffs council obligated to do?
0:44:2.150 --> 0:44:10.80
Tom Plunkett
There, there'll be obligated to work this information as either relevant or nonresponsive.
0:44:11.990 --> 0:44:15.600
Tom Plunkett
Or they could say that, yeah, this is part of another file, but part.
0:44:15.0 --> 0:44:16.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Well, what, what? What?
0:44:16.120 --> 0:44:17.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger What if there?
0:44:17.160 --> 0:44:20.590
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is there anything in the protocol that addresses what happens in that instance?
0:44:20.600 --> 0:44:21.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Miss Stein is saying yes.
0:44:21.660 --> 0:44:22.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger What is that, Miss Stein?
0:44:22.0 --> 0:44:22.770
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
0:44:23.20 --> 0:44:26.100
Stein, Wendy R.
So in in paragraph.
0:44:34.30 --> 0:44:36.130
Stein, Wendy R.
Sticks E little one.
0:44:37.810 --> 0:44:57.930
Stein, Wendy R.
Both sides would receive a list of files that we're responsive to the search terms and then defendant would have the first opportunity to review the list and identify files he believes are not related to base cap and then he prepares a writing for us and says, you know, OK, these 10 files are not yours, they're not your clients and they're not base caps clients.
0:44:56.870 --> 0:45:0.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But is he only going to see the file name or is he going to see the content of the file?
0:45:1.250 --> 0:45:1.600
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:45:1.610 --> 0:45:10.480
Stein, Wendy R.
So the way we have it set up is he's going to have something like relativity where he could access a file, but he can't have it.
0:45:10.750 --> 0:45:12.460
Stein, Wendy R.
You know he can't possess our files again.
0:45:13.20 --> 0:45:13.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm not.
0:45:13.420 --> 0:45:14.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm not asking about possessing.
0:45:14.770 --> 0:45:25.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm asking will he be able to see the content of the file so that he has the opportunity to say look, there's information here that accidentally was overinclusive and is not actually part of this file.
0:45:26.440 --> 0:45:26.580
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:45:27.770 --> 0:45:28.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:45:28.910 --> 0:45:31.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, Mr Annan, you're going to have that opportunity to do that.
0:45:31.970 --> 0:45:33.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
This is protective.
0:45:33.430 --> 0:45:36.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're not gonna be waiving anything as a result of this protocol.
0:45:36.670 --> 0:45:42.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're not gonna be waving anything because this is gonna be by court order, not by agreement.
0:45:44.790 --> 0:45:47.110
Robert Amenn
So so may I may I have a clarifying point on this?
0:45:43.110 --> 0:45:47.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I find that that is sufficiently protective, yes, yes.
0:45:48.900 --> 0:45:59.110
Robert Amenn
If if that information is attorney client privilege and the Council plaintiffs sees that information, isn't that a violation of attorney client privilege?
0:46:1.670 --> 0:46:2.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The.
0:45:59.200 --> 0:46:11.850
Robert Amenn
And it's not, it's not attorney client privilege with the current attorney on this case, but it's privilege for other other cases, not other cases, but other questions I've had of attorneys and I.
0:46:11.150 --> 0:46:26.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right, so, so so this is not unlike what happens with inadvertent production of privilege material in cases particularly where there are large document production say or electronic information.
0:46:26.520 --> 0:46:35.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The parties will exchange documents and sometimes privileged communications end up getting produced just cuz they pack.
0:46:35.370 --> 0:46:38.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They didn't get caught or they pass through or whatever it was.
0:46:39.320 --> 0:46:52.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
In that case, a party will who receives that will have the obligation to return it unless there's a basis to challenge the privilege, they still they still have to destroy it, but they could.
0:46:52.80 --> 0:46:54.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They could still challenge the privilege.
0:46:54.740 --> 0:47:2.720
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So is there a provision missed on in the protocol that provides for something like that?
0:47:4.120 --> 0:47:5.290
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh, not at this time.
0:47:5.300 --> 0:47:15.960
Stein, Wendy R.
I did wanna present section 7C because that's where it says that defendant could access the extracted data in a program such as relativity.
0:47:16.580 --> 0:47:26.310
Stein, Wendy R.
He could not screenshot it, but we'd be happy to add in this search terms a list of his attorneys and then those hits could be excluded.
0:47:26.920 --> 0:47:29.210
Stein, Wendy R.
But we don't want to see his privileged information.
0:47:29.220 --> 0:47:29.820
Stein, Wendy R.
Absolutely not.
0:47:27.310 --> 0:47:32.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I right so, so that all sounds fine and good and should be done.
0:47:32.320 --> 0:47:43.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But how about adding a provision that says any advertent production of attorney client information will not constitute a waiver? And.
0:47:43.750 --> 0:47:44.110
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
0:47:45.660 --> 0:48:2.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
If either side uh has received what they perceive as attorney client communication, they are to immediately cease looking at it and notify the other party and take it from there.
0:48:5.270 --> 0:48:5.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:48:5.60 --> 0:48:7.590
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, and that's required by the rules anyway.
0:48:7.600 --> 0:48:8.800
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, we can find a place for that.
0:48:9.370 --> 0:48:10.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, great.
0:48:10.840 --> 0:48:12.160
Robert Amenn
There's one of the one.
0:48:10.450 --> 0:48:12.920
Tom Plunkett
But you're honor, my my ask something real quick.
0:48:13.10 --> 0:48:14.740
Tom Plunkett
If we're done with this with this section.
0:48:15.100 --> 0:48:15.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We'll hold on.
0:48:15.410 --> 0:48:16.520
Robert Amenn
I do have one point on it.
0:48:15.660 --> 0:48:16.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Mr Rahman had a comment.
0:48:16.850 --> 0:48:17.40
Tom Plunkett
Or.
0:48:17.770 --> 0:48:20.100
Robert Amenn
So what about client list?
0:48:20.410 --> 0:48:32.790
Robert Amenn
If the client if if if base cap and I'm not base cap sees my client list that's not required for them to exclude and can they can they call that call those clients?
0:48:33.180 --> 0:48:35.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, let me ask Miss Stein, can you help with that?
0:48:36.500 --> 0:48:36.880
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:48:36.890 --> 0:48:48.790
Stein, Wendy R.
So, umm, the defendant is under a non compete and so in the in discovery we would learn who he's working for because we'd be entitled to that since our breach of contract claim extends to that.
0:48:49.50 --> 0:48:54.350
Stein, Wendy R.
And so, yes, in discovery, when you learn the identities of people, you're allowed to contact them.
0:48:54.360 --> 0:48:55.930
Stein, Wendy R.
If we wanted to serve a subpoena, we could.
0:48:57.180 --> 0:49:1.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But what about a comprehensive client list?
0:49:1.80 --> 0:49:4.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let's say that includes clients who are not clients of base cap.
0:49:7.330 --> 0:49:14.930
Stein, Wendy R.
Well, I think what's happening here is there is one client of base cap who is also a client of someone that defendants working for.
0:49:20.10 --> 0:49:20.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:49:21.860 --> 0:49:22.0
Robert Amenn
And.
0:49:32.480 --> 0:49:32.750
Robert Amenn
It.
0:49:15.370 --> 0:49:37.550
Stein, Wendy R.
And so there is kind of a common client and but yes, I mean we we actually presented the defendant with different protective orders early on in the case so that we could have attorneys eyes only provisions he, he we never were able to finalize one but but yes we would be able to see that on an attorneys eyes only basis and in the case generally in discovery we could subpoena those parties.
0:49:38.220 --> 0:49:38.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:49:39.20 --> 0:49:41.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, So what do you think of having?
0:49:42.160 --> 0:49:49.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, the problem with the attorneys eyes only basis, it'd be hard to do two ways if he doesn't have counsel, but are you willing to commit to attorneys?
0:49:49.470 --> 0:49:51.220
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Eyes only for client lists.
0:49:51.900 --> 0:49:52.520
Stein, Wendy R.
Absolutely yes.
0:49:52.890 --> 0:49:54.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, so that's what we'll do.
0:49:54.850 --> 0:50:7.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We'll have a provision that says any client list of the defendant will be subject to attorneys eyes only, meaning only the Council can see it, not business folks.
0:50:7.740 --> 0:50:11.500
Robert Amenn
For now, what about IP that comes back?
0:50:11.510 --> 0:50:12.720
Robert Amenn
Can we make this statement?
0:50:12.730 --> 0:50:16.220
Robert Amenn
Attorneys eyes only to all the information that is discovered.
0:50:16.230 --> 0:50:20.230
Robert Amenn
That's incorrectly, that's not base caps material.
0:50:22.440 --> 0:50:23.810
Stein, Wendy R.
So I can address that, your Honor.
0:50:23.520 --> 0:50:24.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, please.
0:50:24.40 --> 0:50:34.620
Stein, Wendy R.
And then OK, so part of what we think might have happened is he could defend and could have taken base cap information, let's say, a line of code and put it into someone else's code.
0:50:34.630 --> 0:50:40.650
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we'll need an expert witness who's able to see attorneys eyes only information to view that information.
0:50:39.530 --> 0:50:42.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Sure, that that's that's commonly done.
0:50:40.900 --> 0:50:43.530
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we would, yes, yes.
0:50:43.540 --> 0:50:47.310
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we would agree to an attorney's only designation for that information.
0:50:47.320 --> 0:50:49.580
Stein, Wendy R.
But obviously our expert witness could see that information.
0:50:49.880 --> 0:50:50.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:50:50.290 --> 0:50:54.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Expert witnesses are allowed under attorneys eyes only to to review.
0:50:55.410 --> 0:50:55.510
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
0:50:55.460 --> 0:50:55.700
Robert Amenn
OK.
0:50:56.190 --> 0:50:57.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, good.
0:50:57.730 --> 0:51:3.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, so then we get to method of collection and is it still up to three days?
0:51:5.600 --> 0:51:6.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
0:51:6.80 --> 0:51:7.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger And the up two language is fine.
0:51:7.980 --> 0:51:9.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I don't see a problem with that.
0:51:10.810 --> 0:51:11.520
Robert Amenn
Wait, wait.
0:51:11.940 --> 0:51:12.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
0:51:11.570 --> 0:51:12.660
Robert Amenn
Your, your, your.
0:51:15.340 --> 0:51:15.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:51:18.830 --> 0:51:18.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
0:51:9.720 --> 0:51:20.610
Tom Plunkett
But you'd rather, if I may, I I said one more comment on the on the previous sentences under section 55D where it said the source will be limited to linked files.
0:51:20.620 --> 0:51:21.920
Tom Plunkett
Registry hive. Umm.
0:51:22.890 --> 0:51:29.50
Tom Plunkett
In the sentence above that it it calls out certain tools, magnet Axiom, DT search or Excel.
0:51:30.690 --> 0:51:36.70
Tom Plunkett
I provided a list of common tools that we use to do our forensics work.
0:51:36.110 --> 0:51:36.990
Tom Plunkett
However, this is not.
0:51:38.920 --> 0:51:41.290
Tom Plunkett
Not an entire list of everything that we may use.
0:51:41.440 --> 0:51:46.960
Tom Plunkett
I just want to make sure that we are not limited to the use of these three tools here, for our, for our work.
0:51:47.670 --> 0:51:50.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I see Mr Amit, do you have a problem with that?
0:51:50.740 --> 0:51:52.170
Robert Amenn
That's what we agreed upon.
0:51:55.840 --> 0:51:56.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What?
0:51:55.930 --> 0:51:56.330
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry.
0:51:52.260 --> 0:51:56.420
Robert Amenn
That client, plaintiff and I had to limit it to this set of tools. That's.
0:51:56.100 --> 0:51:57.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What other tool hold on?
0:51:57.960 --> 0:51:58.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ohh go ahead and this time.
0:52:0.870 --> 0:52:1.280
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry.
0:52:1.290 --> 0:52:3.480
Stein, Wendy R.
So in section 5D I just want to clarify.
0:52:3.490 --> 0:52:16.0
Stein, Wendy R.
So we're not having that second sentence, we're only having searching for evidence that files with the specified terms have been moved from the laptop to any cloud storage or external storage device using magnet Axiom, DTT server or Excel.
0:52:17.810 --> 0:52:19.110
Stein, Wendy R.
Is that the sentence we're talking about now?
0:52:17.120 --> 0:52:19.670
Robert Amenn
Yes, that's yeah.
0:52:19.680 --> 0:52:20.70
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
0:52:20.130 --> 0:52:30.140
Robert Amenn
And and we specifically the plaintiff and I agreed, based on consultation with Doctor Hall, that this would be the list of tools that would be used.
0:52:32.620 --> 0:52:33.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It's done.
0:52:32.410 --> 0:52:34.360
Stein, Wendy R.
I I guess I'll have to defer to Archer Hall.
0:52:34.370 --> 0:52:42.810
Stein, Wendy R.
I mean, if Archer Hall is saying that they need another tool, then I I mean the bottom line here is to get to the truth, not to make limitations so that we can't access our own information. 0:52:42.550 --> 0:52:42.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:52:42.870 --> 0:52:43.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger So.
0:52:43.170 --> 0:52:45.180
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So Mr Plunkett, what tools would be used?
0:52:46.280 --> 0:52:51.490
Tom Plunkett
Ohh use my magnet axiom that you will provide us a certain amount of data.
0:52:51.600 --> 0:52:58.280
Tom Plunkett
We often will use other tools to verify what we find and say magnant use the tool called Encase or FTK.
0:52:58.290 --> 0:52:59.490
Tom Plunkett
Those are all forensics tools.
0:53:1.190 --> 0:53:1.370
Tom Plunkett
If.
0:53:0.620 --> 0:53:2.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, this is what we're going to do.
0:53:2.60 --> 0:53:12.340
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're going to say and other tools as Archer determines is necessary to conduct their examination.
0:53:12.840 --> 0:53:13.240
Tom Plunkett
Thank you.
0:53:14.90 --> 0:53:14.740
Robert Amenn
You're on it.
0:53:14.750 --> 0:53:17.400
Robert Amenn
Can we have a definitive list?
0:53:17.410 --> 0:53:28.540
Robert Amenn
Because like for the case of when we talked about file carving, I need to understand what data of mine is gonna be invertedly put at risk.
0:53:28.650 --> 0:53:37.90
Robert Amenn
And because I understood file carving and I had conversations with Doctor Hall, I was able to protect my data from file carving.
0:53:37.220 --> 0:53:40.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, so so look this this is a court order.
0:53:41.120 --> 0:53:51.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There are going to be, there are always situations where something might sneak through, but there are provisions that are going to say that has to be returned that has to be destroyed.
0:53:51.860 --> 0:54:3.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we're not and I find that the protections and the methodologies and the personnel of Archer are professional.
0:54:3.200 --> 0:54:11.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Enable enough that they are going to hue as closely as possible to making sure you know information that shouldn't be produced is produced.
0:54:11.460 --> 0:54:21.180
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But I'm not going to limit them in terms of a specific program if they come across something that requires another tool to be used.
0:54:22.520 --> 0:54:27.640
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So that's that alright method of collection.
0:54:27.930 --> 0:54:29.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We had the up to three days.
0:54:31.680 --> 0:54:36.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Then we have that base CAP will pay for the camera monitoring.
0:54:36.820 --> 0:54:38.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It miss done is that agreed to.
0:54:39.30 --> 0:54:39.440
Stein, Wendy R.
Sure.
0:54:39.450 --> 0:54:39.870
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes you are.
0:54:40.320 --> 0:54:40.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:54:41.820 --> 0:54:47.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then we get to the preservation paragraph, and there were a number of changes there.
0:54:47.510 --> 0:54:48.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Or there are still disagreements there.
0:54:51.280 --> 0:54:56.550
Robert Amenn
Yes, there's, there's, there's disagreements, but clarification is really more important.
0:54:57.320 --> 0:54:57.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:54:58.770 --> 0:54:59.110
Robert Amenn
So.
0:54:59.30 --> 0:54:59.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Umm yeah.
0:55:0.820 --> 0:55:14.360
Robert Amenn
In order to alleviate the plaintiffs concerns about me tampering with the hard drive, the the hard disk, umm, at the computer while it was in the possession?
0:55:14.370 --> 0:55:16.50
Robert Amenn
Like while it was in the room for three days.
0:55:16.790 --> 0:55:23.320
Robert Amenn
Umm, I agreed that I would sign an affidavit that would say that I wouldn't tamper with the key.
0:55:26.480 --> 0:55:26.790
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
0:55:23.670 --> 0:55:28.980
Robert Amenn
I wouldn't remotely log into the computer and tamper the computer while it was in the office for three days.
0:55:29.370 --> 0:55:31.670
Robert Amenn
I wouldn't remotely like.
0:55:36.230 --> 0:55:36.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
0:55:31.680 --> 0:55:44.720
Robert Amenn
I wouldn't touch Archer holes equipment and I would not fiddle with the room if if my if my statement certification under penalty of perjury is limited to that.
0:55:45.70 --> 0:55:48.520
Robert Amenn
I am totally on board with section AI.
0:55:48.530 --> 0:56:4.230
Robert Amenn
Don't understand like the the, the, the plaintiff in front of Archer Hall wanted me to expand the the the certification for for beyond that.
0:56:4.400 --> 0:56:19.410
Robert Amenn
And I think that was one of the reasons why I think Archer Hole potentially could be prejudice, because I had to deny repeatedly the request that the plaintiff wanted to expand my gracious offer to certify that I wouldn't mess with the computer while it was in.
0:56:17.940 --> 0:56:20.590
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The well, let me let me make sure.
0:56:20.600 --> 0:56:22.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let's get to the actual issue.
0:56:22.400 --> 0:56:27.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It appears you crossed out language that says nor interfered with any of the steps detailed in this protocol.
0:56:27.680 --> 0:56:29.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is that what you're concerned with?
0:56:29.620 --> 0:56:31.120
Robert Amenn
No, that's no longer in the in the.
0:56:31.40 --> 0:56:34.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ohh OK, so then what's where's the problem?
0:56:33.730 --> 0:56:35.720
Robert Amenn
I I think I think it's best to look for this one.
0:56:35.730 --> 0:56:42.700
Robert Amenn
It's best to look at at language that's in the latest latest protocol that Miss Diane is referenced to.
0:56:43.620 --> 0:56:43.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
0:56:43.580 --> 0:56:44.120
Stein, Wendy R.
It's easy.
0:56:43.920 --> 0:56:44.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Well, I.
0:56:44.130 --> 0:56:45.340
Stein, Wendy R.
F62-1.
0:56:54.120 --> 0:57:4.990
Stein, Wendy R.
I think the issue umm from my perspective from plain's perspective is that we believe he has altered the laptop since October 26th despite a preservation order.
0:57:5.270 --> 0:57:5.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm.
0:57:5.220 --> 0:57:11.240
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we believe the limitations that defendant is trying to place is because he doesn't want to certify that he's not altered.
0:57:18.50 --> 0:57:19.620
Robert Amenn
And that is what I agreed to.
0:57:11.250 --> 0:57:20.480
Stein, Wendy R.
The laptop he wants to limit that certification to, just he hasn't altered it during the three day examination and and so that's the issue, OK.
0:57:20.50 --> 0:57:21.580
Robert Amenn
Yeah, I agree to that.
0:57:21.690 --> 0:57:22.320
Robert Amenn
I do not.
0:57:22.330 --> 0:57:24.440
Robert Amenn
I didn't agree to have a scope beyond that.
0:57:24.450 --> 0:57:28.480
Robert Amenn
That's not necessary for this preservation article.
0:57:28.650 --> 0:57:29.500
Robert Amenn
You, you, you.
0:57:29.550 --> 0:57:36.200
Robert Amenn
You were concerned that I would interfere with the laptop while it was in the room and I to short circuit things and to move things forward.
0:57:36.300 --> 0:57:39.420
Robert Amenn
I agree to swear with because I have no intention of doing any of that.
0:57:39.610 --> 0:57:40.440
Robert Amenn
It's not necessary.
0:57:41.560 --> 0:57:42.170
Stein, Wendy R.
Right, right.
0:57:40.450 --> 0:57:52.850
Robert Amenn
It's not like and you and enjoyed like to make sure that this clause is specific to what we agreed to and what I did to alleviate your concerns and not.
0:57:51.980 --> 0:57:53.660
Stein, Wendy R.
So we haven't reached an agreement.
0:57:54.120 --> 0:57:55.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold, hold, hold on.
0:57:53.790 --> 0:57:55.170
Stein, Wendy R.
We've never reached an agreement on this.
0:57:55.140 --> 0:57:55.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:57:55.580 --> 0:57:55.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:57:55.980 --> 0:57:56.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:57:56.400 --> 0:57:56.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
0:57:56.750 --> 0:58:13.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold what's past is past, so all that can be done at this point in terms of this protocol is that he sign a certification that from this point onward he has not altered or tampered with the laptop.
0:58:13.210 --> 0:58:22.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
If there was some altering or tampering that already occurred, then that's something that may come up in the forensic investigation or through other discovery.
0:58:23.110 --> 0:58:32.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But if he he it can't be a condition of this, that he has to sign that he hasn't already done anything, because then what's, what's going to happen here?
0:58:35.350 --> 0:58:42.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I mean, if if he, in other words, if he were, if if he had tampered realtor, I guess he could condition could be have to tell us.
0:58:42.470 --> 0:58:49.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But that's forcing him to make an admission in connection with just getting the protocol, and I don't think he should have to do that.
0:58:51.650 --> 0:58:56.520
Stein, Wendy R.
Well, then, we're agreeable to adding the clause while they are contained.
0:59:2.990 --> 0:59:4.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Mr yeah.
0:58:56.750 --> 0:59:10.350
Stein, Wendy R.
I mean, I think it has to be, though, not just the three days I I guess can it be then from this point forward because we with without prejudice to our right to argue in the case that that this laptop was altered since October 26th?
0:59:10.710 --> 0:59:14.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Of course, that so, Mr Amend, do you have any problem with that?
0:59:15.40 --> 0:59:15.910
Robert Amenn
No, I I don't.
0:59:16.180 --> 0:59:18.970
Robert Amenn
I'm I I do have.
0:59:18.980 --> 0:59:46.870
Robert Amenn
I just wanna call out one of the reasons why I have concern about Archer Hall, not because they're unprofessional, but because they've they witnessed a significant conversation around this and I feel that if I were in their shoes, my refusal to to agree to things before on would make it difficult for them to not think that I'm hiding things and and that doesn't like.
0:59:46.880 --> 0:59:51.240
Robert Amenn
That's one of the reasons why I would have I I didn't like when it didn't happened.
0:59:51.250 --> 0:59:57.520
Robert Amenn
They they were born on the meeting for under different pretexts and then this this issue came up and it was spent the whole entire meeting on it.
0:59:57.530 --> 1:0:6.10
Robert Amenn
I think it potentially could produce anyone when when you call someone you know when you're saying that I violated orders and and it's concern of mine.
1:0:5.850 --> 1:0:7.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, not look none.
1:0:7.310 --> 1:0:8.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand your point.
1:0:8.830 --> 1:0:23.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Nothing has been proven yet and there is no reason for anybody to draw any assumptions and all that
Archer is going to do is actually conduct the forensic examination.
1:0:24.40 --> 1:0:24.990
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There's nothing.
1:0:25.0 --> 1:0:26.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I mean, that's pretty.
1:0:26.780 --> 1:0:33.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
In other words, they're not gonna be, umm, doing anything else other than searching and seeing what they can find.
1:0:34.580 --> 1:0:37.190
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And that's what we need to do.
1:0:37.240 --> 1:0:41.0
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I'm not troubled by the issue that you raised.
1:0:41.10 --> 1:0:53.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I understand it and and I'm confident that that will not affect Archers ability to objectively do what they are tasked with doing.
1:0:55.30 --> 1:1:5.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm, alright, so the UM so there's going to be a signed certification of no altering or tampering sense from this date forward.
1:1:6.190 --> 1:1:9.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh and I and with reservation, with with.
1:1:9.830 --> 1:1:16.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Without that being a waiver of any, anything that the plaintiff wants to challenge, that may have happened beforehand.
1:1:16.770 --> 1:1:19.420
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm, your Honor, can I just make one clarification?
1:1:19.430 --> 1:1:27.240
Stein, Wendy R.
There was something in the defendants submission today that also leads us to believe it's on page two of eight and three of eight.
1:1:27.250 --> 1:1:30.160
Stein, Wendy R.
There's some kind of partial view of unallocated space.
1:1:30.170 --> 1:1:32.640
Stein, Wendy R.
Figure one is that from the laptop Mr Amen.
1:1:34.80 --> 1:1:35.810
Robert Amenn
No, that's an example.
1:1:37.220 --> 1:1:39.550
Robert Amenn
Let me let me make sure we're before I answer.
1:1:44.830 --> 1:1:46.930
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, umm.
1:1:39.770 --> 1:1:46.960
Robert Amenn
I should so are you talking about the diagram partial view of unallocated space and figure one?
1:1:52.270 --> 1:1:52.470
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:1:58.490 --> 1:1:58.890
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Got it.
1:2:2.520 --> 1:2:2.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:1:47.50 --> 1:2:4.730
Robert Amenn
No, this is completely made up like frig for educational purposes to to explain how how how file, how file covering works and how it potentially could pull in information from other beyond what what is in base caps file.
1:2:3.200 --> 1:2:12.720
Stein, Wendy R.
Oh, OK then can I seek one other clarification, Your Honor, if I may, instead of instead of it going from October 26th or today, could we have a middle ground?
1:2:12.730 --> 1:2:16.310
Stein, Wendy R.
So, for example, since Thanksgiving when we started negotiating this protocol.
1:2:17.90 --> 1:2:18.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, it depends, Mr Rahman.
1:2:18.510 --> 1:2:19.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Are you comfortable with that?
1:2:19.30 --> 1:2:19.880
Robert Amenn
I.
1:2:19.950 --> 1:2:20.540
Robert Amenn
No, I'm.
1:2:21.710 --> 1:2:22.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, fine.
1:2:20.550 --> 1:2:23.810
Robert Amenn
I'm not comfortable with expanding this right like like like.
1:2:23.210 --> 1:2:23.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:2:23.930 --> 1:2:24.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That that's fine.
1:2:24.610 --> 1:2:27.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You don't need to explain further, so no, it's gonna be from today.
1:2:30.180 --> 1:2:32.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right, so UM.
1:2:35.340 --> 1:2:35.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right.
1:2:35.760 --> 1:2:45.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then there was some additional language at issue about rich preserving the right to return to court will go with plaintiffs language.
1:2:45.530 --> 1:2:49.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There they get to preserve that right and it does incorporate the.
1:2:51.570 --> 1:3:1.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Concept of negotiating to collecting at an alternative location and they have to come to court so the court has to make the decision.
1:3:3.390 --> 1:3:4.510
Robert Amenn
So ohk OK.
1:3:7.560 --> 1:3:35.140
Robert Amenn
I want to make sure I understand this the the the Court order allows me to choose where this happens and do I like in order for them to like we the, the defendant and I the plaintiff and I have negotiated this protocol specifically to make sure that the laptop doesn't the laptop or its contents leaves my possession.
1:3:35.510 --> 1:3:39.860
Robert Amenn
That's not Basecamp, so this their language.
1:3:40.90 --> 1:3:41.940
Robert Amenn
They have to get a court order to change that.
1:3:42.210 --> 1:3:42.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All.
1:3:41.950 --> 1:3:42.550
Robert Amenn
Is that correct?
1:3:42.530 --> 1:3:44.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All they're doing is reserving their rights.
1:3:44.740 --> 1:3:44.960
Robert Amenn
OK.
1:3:44.770 --> 1:3:49.340
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So you guys can still negotiate so they can avoid going to court.
1:3:49.450 --> 1:3:51.540
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They only go to court if you guys can't reach agreement.
1:3:52.680 --> 1:3:52.980
Robert Amenn
OK.
1:3:53.430 --> 1:3:55.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, application identification.
1:3:56.250 --> 1:3:57.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger What was your concern there?
1:3:59.650 --> 1:3:59.940
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It.
1:3:59.470 --> 1:4:1.350
Robert Amenn
I don't have any more concern with it.
1:4:1.790 --> 1:4:2.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, fine.
1:4:3.70 --> 1:4:5.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let's move on then. Processing.
1:4:6.130 --> 1:4:7.470
Robert Amenn
Oh, actually, let me.
1:4:7.480 --> 1:4:8.620
Robert Amenn
Let's go back to that.
1:4:8.800 --> 1:4:9.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:4:8.690 --> 1:4:9.800
Robert Amenn
This was added.
1:4:9.870 --> 1:4:35.220
Robert Amenn
This was added because the only applications that that our base CAP can search or applications that meet this criteria, and I don't see that that in the list so that they can't like your your order like base cap agreed that the only only application search would be the ones that have been installed.
1:4:37.820 --> 1:4:38.170
Robert Amenn
So.
1:4:39.730 --> 1:4:42.20
Robert Amenn
Ah, give me.
1:4:42.30 --> 1:4:43.620
Robert Amenn
I'm sorry, I'm trying to try to catch my thoughts.
1:4:45.30 --> 1:4:57.670
Robert Amenn
This language is the the language is not complete, that it that the applications that that can be investigated are restricted to this list and and I'd like to make sure that the language is, is, is accurately represents that.
1:4:58.920 --> 1:5:12.480
Robert Amenn
All this does is say that they're going to look at the the look at what, what what files are installed, but that doesn't that like the other thing that we agreed to is that they would only be able to look at applications in their searching to the ones that have been installed.
1:5:37.910 --> 1:5:38.230
Robert Amenn
Right.
1:5:13.170 --> 1:5:41.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, so the way that I just want to make sure we're looking at the same thing I see the examiner will open the image and look at the installed applications in and then there's an added portion, although all of it struck out the standard installation folders, program files and program files, there's a parenthesis with X86 folders and as documented in all registry hives was that was that the additional language you wanted in there or not?
1:5:43.960 --> 1:5:44.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:5:41.690 --> 1:5:57.220
Robert Amenn
It's there right now that language is as it exists, but the the language that needs to be added was that the forensic examiner will only examine applications that have been installed and that's not that's not included in it like this, it's.
1:5:56.840 --> 1:5:57.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
As opposed to what?
1:5:59.270 --> 1:6:1.520
Robert Amenn
The This this basically they're gonna look at the list.
1:6:1.650 --> 1:6:2.420
Robert Amenn
They don't need to look.
1:6:2.430 --> 1:6:5.140
Robert Amenn
There's no need to look at the list that we we put this.
1:6:5.150 --> 1:6:9.770
Robert Amenn
This clause is incompletely put in what we agreed to is not represented by this clause.
1:6:9.640 --> 1:6:9.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:6:9.980 --> 1:6:13.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So let me just ask Miss Stein, what's the status of this from your perspective?
1:6:14.40 --> 1:6:17.250
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm, I'd like to defer to Tom Plunkett, but I will.
1:6:17.260 --> 1:6:24.410
Stein, Wendy R.
Just add that this is another example of the defendant trying to limit what we can look at on the laptop and I defer to Tom.
1:6:23.610 --> 1:6:29.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, I understood, but he he has a right to be concerned about that and he is concerned about.
1:6:30.890 --> 1:6:33.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Protecting confidential and attorney client information.
1:6:33.770 --> 1:6:38.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So it's a it's fine to ask and for him to raise that concern.
1:6:40.220 --> 1:6:42.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so you wanted, yeah.
1:6:40.840 --> 1:6:44.320
Stein, Wendy R.
So Tom can can can Tom just speak to that briefly though that Section B?
1:6:45.180 --> 1:6:59.20
Tom Plunkett
Yes, the intention of that Section B is to identify those files that may potentially the chat applications or other file transfer applications that may be installed, which should be subject to the analysis.
1:7:1.100 --> 1:7:1.490
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:7:1.500 --> 1:7:5.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But but Mr Rahman has raised a concern about the scope of that.
1:7:5.940 --> 1:7:11.630
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm not sure I understand what would be included or could be included beyond applications installed.
1:7:11.850 --> 1:7:13.930
Robert Amenn
The that.
1:7:13.420 --> 1:7:14.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Do you understand what this concern is?
1:7:17.70 --> 1:7:18.260
Robert Amenn
We yeah.
1:7:18.330 --> 1:7:18.570
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
1:7:20.140 --> 1:7:20.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Good.
1:7:18.580 --> 1:7:20.620
Robert Amenn
OK. So.
1:7:16.730 --> 1:7:29.390
Tom Plunkett
I I I do not understand that or no because we are looking to to identify those applications that are installed which gives us the information we need to go and search those applications.
1:7:29.640 --> 1:7:29.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
1:7:29.980 --> 1:7:30.240
Robert Amenn
Sure.
1:7:29.960 --> 1:7:30.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, Mr Rahman, what?
1:7:30.980 --> 1:7:33.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's not here that needs to be here?
1:7:33.420 --> 1:7:40.870
Robert Amenn
What we agreed to was that the search would be limited to the files that were in the applications that they discovered in.
1:7:40.980 --> 1:7:43.260
Robert Amenn
In this search and that's missing.
1:7:42.690 --> 1:7:44.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
As opposed as opposed to what?
1:7:44.310 --> 1:7:46.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's the problematic language here?
1:7:47.580 --> 1:7:48.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It says.
1:7:47.420 --> 1:7:48.650
Robert Amenn
The It's not the problem.
1:7:48.660 --> 1:7:49.990
Robert Amenn
There's no language problematic.
1:7:50.0 --> 1:7:53.400
Robert Amenn
It's the the the limit, the exclusion of language that we agreed to.
1:7:54.500 --> 1:7:55.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And that language is.
1:7:56.390 --> 1:8:5.240
Robert Amenn
That the search that the forensic search on of applications will be listed limited to those those that have been installed.
1:8:5.730 --> 1:8:13.200
Stein, Wendy R.
And I'd like to object because I think what the defendant is saying is that applications that were already there can't be searched.
1:8:13.210 --> 1:8:14.660
Stein, Wendy R.
I mean, we obviously can't agree to that.
1:8:14.670 --> 1:8:17.230
Stein, Wendy R.
We need to find the information wherever it resides on the laptop.
1:8:17.970 --> 1:8:18.960
Robert Amenn
No, that's not.
1:8:18.970 --> 1:8:19.890
Robert Amenn
That's not what I'm saying.
1:8:19.900 --> 1:8:23.790
Robert Amenn
Because Archer holes if if an application has been installed, there will be a record in there.
1:8:25.740 --> 1:8:26.550
Stein, Wendy R.
It doesn't matter.
1:8:26.560 --> 1:8:29.320
Stein, Wendy R.
We need to find our information wherever it resides in the laptop.
1:8:29.270 --> 1:8:29.720
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:8:29.730 --> 1:8:30.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold.
1:8:30.90 --> 1:8:30.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:8:28.280 --> 1:8:30.780
Robert Amenn
But but you're backing away from what you agreed.
1:8:30.530 --> 1:8:31.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Stop, stop, stop.
1:8:33.700 --> 1:8:47.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
The version I have has is all crossed out, but I assumed that that crossed out was by Mr Ahmet and it's titled Application Identification, the language that's there.
1:8:47.450 --> 1:8:52.720
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It says the examiner will open the image and look at the installed applications.
1:8:52.730 --> 1:8:57.550
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So it seems that that language was already there in what the plaintiff proposed.
1:8:57.560 --> 1:8:58.790
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And am I wrong this time?
1:8:58.220 --> 1:9:1.910
Stein, Wendy R.
It they're they're looking at it, but they're not limited to anything.
1:9:2.140 --> 1:9:3.210
Stein, Wendy R.
They're just looking at it.
1:9:3.760 --> 1:9:4.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:9:7.30 --> 1:9:8.660
Robert Amenn
But that's not what we agreed to.
1:9:10.220 --> 1:9:13.920
Stein, Wendy R.
Unfortunately, we've not reached agreement on most terms in this protocol.
1:9:15.400 --> 1:9:15.790
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:9:12.940 --> 1:9:15.930
Robert Amenn
No, no, we did it reach agreement and and I'll defer to doctor Hall.
1:9:15.800 --> 1:9:17.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But but but but but but it.
1:9:17.480 --> 1:9:27.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But again, Mr Rahman I I'm not fully getting exactly what it is that you're trying to not include here.
1:9:28.310 --> 1:9:29.640
Robert Amenn
I'm not trying, yeah.
1:9:28.100 --> 1:9:30.900
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's something that's not in an installed application?
1:9:31.860 --> 1:9:32.180
Robert Amenn
So.
1:9:35.70 --> 1:9:40.800
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Were you want or is your concern that you somehow you think this goes beyond what they're allowed to search for?
1:9:41.170 --> 1:9:42.300
Robert Amenn
Yes, that's correct.
1:9:42.590 --> 1:9:43.60
Robert Amenn
That's correct.
1:9:40.810 --> 1:9:43.640
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
In other words, whatever they've agreed, OK, so this.
1:9:43.650 --> 1:9:48.430
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But this is just telling us where they're going to look.
1:9:48.520 --> 1:9:52.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Doesn't tell us that they can go beyond the information they can look for.
1:9:59.380 --> 1:10:2.530
Robert Amenn
I for the for the for the there's more important issues.
1:10:3.710 --> 1:10:4.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:10:4.130 --> 1:10:4.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, let's, let's.
1:10:2.540 --> 1:10:5.140
Robert Amenn
For expediency, I'm OK leaving it.
1:10:4.830 --> 1:10:5.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let's move on.
1:10:5.150 --> 1:10:5.630
Robert Amenn
Leaving it.
1:10:5.780 --> 1:10:6.420
Robert Amenn
Let's move on.
1:10:6.70 --> 1:10:7.180
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, OK.
1:10:7.230 --> 1:10:8.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So then there's processing.
1:10:9.80 --> 1:10:13.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, and there were a few things you wanted here.
1:10:16.60 --> 1:10:19.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Has any of this in this section been resolved misdoing?
1:10:20.640 --> 1:10:21.370
Stein, Wendy R.
No, it's not her.
1:10:21.960 --> 1:10:22.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
1:10:20.390 --> 1:10:24.370
Robert Amenn
Let no it's what?
1:10:24.380 --> 1:10:26.330
Robert Amenn
What section is this on six?
1:10:26.380 --> 1:10:27.650
Robert Amenn
Look my thing, OK?
1:10:26.400 --> 1:10:28.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger This is this is processing.
1:10:31.370 --> 1:10:32.200
Robert Amenn
Yeah, I'm looking.
1:10:35.110 --> 1:10:35.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Again.
1:10:32.530 --> 1:10:35.860
Robert Amenn
For just one second here I I don't.
1:10:35.910 --> 1:10:38.160
Robert Amenn
I I don't have any more issues with this.
1:10:38.170 --> 1:10:39.440
Robert Amenn
Let me just double check it.
1:10:39.450 --> 1:10:40.480
Robert Amenn
I'm gonna look at what?
1:10:40.650 --> 1:10:41.240
Robert Amenn
Like what?
1:10:41.250 --> 1:10:42.840
Robert Amenn
Miss, like we're gonna.
1:10:42.850 --> 1:10:43.160
Robert Amenn
I'm.
1:10:43.210 --> 1:10:45.890
Robert Amenn
I'm gonna ask that we include what?
1:10:46.30 --> 1:10:51.70
Robert Amenn
What Miss Stein submitted with with her letter yesterday for this section.
1:10:53.470 --> 1:10:53.820
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:10:53.840 --> 1:10:54.380
Robert Amenn
Let me look at the.
1:10:53.830 --> 1:10:56.750
Stein, Wendy R.
So that's for six for 6C.
1:10:56.760 --> 1:11:3.200
Stein, Wendy R.
And we also just like to clarify the record that the defendant agreed to 6B as it stated in E CF62-1.
1:11:3.580 --> 1:11:5.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, alright.
1:11:6.20 --> 1:11:8.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we resolved that. Umm.
1:11:8.520 --> 1:11:16.280
Robert Amenn
Let me let me let me give me a second to read like through six, I don't have any of my notes at there's no issues, but I wanna double check if you don't mind, it should take me a couple minutes.
1:11:15.530 --> 1:11:17.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Sure, go ahead.
1:11:30.190 --> 1:11:32.930
Robert Amenn
I I wanna clarification to make sure that this is the case.
1:11:35.130 --> 1:11:38.670
Robert Amenn
Unallocated space and umm.
1:11:39.210 --> 1:11:47.10
Robert Amenn
Slack space will not be indexed or searched if none like the way this is written. Umm.
1:11:48.440 --> 1:11:53.920
Robert Amenn
None of the uh see allocated space on the laptop.
1:11:53.930 --> 1:12:9.30
Robert Amenn
Will unallocated space will be indexed if the analysis of allocated space confirms transfer of base cap files to a source not owned or controlled by base cap, what is the definition of for for the purpose of this clause allocated space?
1:12:12.170 --> 1:12:14.250
Stein, Wendy R.
Believe it's active files, but I defer to Tom.
1:12:14.480 --> 1:12:24.60
Tom Plunkett
Yes, uh allocated space is the area on the disk that contains the files that are accessible by the general user of that computer.
1:12:25.50 --> 1:12:25.520
Robert Amenn
Cool.
1:12:25.670 --> 1:12:32.480
Robert Amenn
So if there's something in unallocated space, he will not like you.
1:12:32.490 --> 1:12:34.680
Robert Amenn
You're not gonna initially search it or index it.
1:12:34.870 --> 1:12:35.340
Robert Amenn
That's fine.
1:12:35.410 --> 1:12:36.900
Robert Amenn
OK, I'm I'm good with this section.
1:12:38.600 --> 1:12:41.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, the next section is forensic analysis.
1:12:45.400 --> 1:12:49.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And you had some language that you would wanted at the end is have.
1:12:49.920 --> 1:12:50.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Has this been resolved?
1:12:51.470 --> 1:12:53.480
Robert Amenn
What was the language that I required at the end?
1:12:53.490 --> 1:12:54.880
Robert Amenn
I I don't have it handy, I'm sorry.
1:12:58.740 --> 1:12:59.120
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What?
1:12:55.140 --> 1:13:2.860
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, we we can't agree to what he was trying to impose the limit of 5D about linked files, yeah.
1:13:1.770 --> 1:13:15.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, OK, so so the language is all analysis will be limited to what is outlined in Section 5 of this document, particularly section 5D and Miss Stein.
1:13:16.230 --> 1:13:18.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What is it that that excludes then for example?
1:13:19.840 --> 1:13:29.350
Stein, Wendy R.
So if it's, I think what he it was initially meant to limit things to OneDrive and the limit he proposed to section 5D, which has been rejected.
1:13:29.360 --> 1:13:38.600
Stein, Wendy R.
So we're fine with this language in light of the fact that 5D is now written as it appears in EC F62-1.
1:13:39.130 --> 1:13:39.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:13:50.20 --> 1:13:50.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:13:52.200 --> 1:13:52.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
1:13:40.510 --> 1:13:53.410
Stein, Wendy R.
Although with the with the addition that you're honor made that there could be additional ah, 5D is now been edited because they can use something beyond axiom T search or Excel I guess.
1:13:58.720 --> 1:13:59.390
Robert Amenn
Yes, that's fine.
1:13:53.400 --> 1:13:59.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, so we've resolved the forensic analysis subsection Miss Doctor.
1:13:59.890 --> 1:14:0.310
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, Sir.
1:13:59.730 --> 1:14:0.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, good.
1:14:0.850 --> 1:14:3.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, review of files and activity.
1:14:4.130 --> 1:14:9.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm, the little one files.
1:14:9.350 --> 1:14:13.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There were a couple of additions that Mister Amen proposed.
1:14:13.410 --> 1:14:14.930
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Where are we on this, Miss Stein?
1:14:18.190 --> 1:14:19.30
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh, so?
1:14:24.740 --> 1:14:39.830
Stein, Wendy R.
This this relates to so he would be getting the list first, he would have the 14 days and then give us an affidavit of files he believed do not relate to our client or its business or its clients. Uh.
1:14:41.340 --> 1:14:44.640
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And what about the items that he had proposed to be added?
1:14:46.30 --> 1:14:47.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is there anything still in contention?
1:14:49.760 --> 1:14:50.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Some of them seemed innocuous.
1:14:57.390 --> 1:14:58.720
Stein, Wendy R.
So this is a different.
1:14:58.730 --> 1:15:4.610
Stein, Wendy R.
So if you're looking at 51-3, it's different language than 62-1.
1:15:4.910 --> 1:15:5.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so where is?
1:15:5.970 --> 1:15:14.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Where is the disagreement now on and tell me what the disagreement is in the relevant section.
1:15:15.0 --> 1:15:28.730
Stein, Wendy R.
OK, so I believe one disagreement is that he would like to add a third party review mechanism and we've taken that out of 6E1 as set forth and E CF62-1.
1:15:28.740 --> 1:15:32.280
Stein, Wendy R.
It just has him having a 14 day period and then us having a 14 day period.
1:15:32.820 --> 1:15:33.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
1:15:33.110 --> 1:15:35.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Him, him or his counsel, if he has counsel, who appears.
1:15:37.600 --> 1:15:38.120
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
1:15:37.400 --> 1:15:38.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But you know what?
1:15:38.580 --> 1:15:40.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why would there be third party review Mr Newman?
1:15:43.0 --> 1:15:56.320
Robert Amenn
This this section is completely changed to what we agreed to, and my major concern, which I mean maybe you're not gonna be very sympathetic towards, but the plaintiff was sympathetic.
1:15:56.410 --> 1:15:57.980
Robert Amenn
And now they're changing.
1:16:4.930 --> 1:16:5.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
1:16:9.40 --> 1:16:9.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:15:57.990 --> 1:16:11.300
Robert Amenn
It was that they assured me that I would be able to review the contents first to it called out any files before they got to look at it before they got to look at it.
1:16:11.310 --> 1:16:12.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Isn't OK.
1:16:13.30 --> 1:16:28.130
Robert Amenn
And and then if I if if I called out files that contained information that was not theirs, that they agreed that some neutral party would decide whether it was that they wouldn't see it, that a neutral party would see it.
1:16:28.890 --> 1:16:35.200
Robert Amenn
And that made me very comfortable with the process and I'd like to stick to that.
1:16:35.210 --> 1:16:39.980
Robert Amenn
But they're changing it because they got me like we swapped something.
1:16:39.990 --> 1:16:50.70
Robert Amenn
I agreed to email search and I agreed to search things that I wouldn't have agreed to if that clause wasn't given to me.
1:16:50.80 --> 1:16:57.630
Robert Amenn
So now they got what they wanted with that, and now they're changing it unilaterally on after they already agreed to it.
1:16:58.150 --> 1:16:58.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I.
1:16:57.980 --> 1:17:8.710
Robert Amenn
They sent that document over and I'd like them to keep to what they originally agreed because it it protects my data better than the cord is allowed to further protection.
1:17:5.990 --> 1:17:9.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, what so so, so hold on.
1:17:11.730 --> 1:17:13.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I just want to read this provision as it's written.
1:17:13.970 --> 1:17:14.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
1:17:35.10 --> 1:17:52.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And so just looking back at the version I was looking at, you would want it to include a provision along the lines of if an agreement cannot be reached, the parties can request the court or mutually agreed upon third party mediator to settle any disputes was was that what you were looking for.
1:17:52.750 --> 1:17:53.410
Robert Amenn
Yeah, yeah.
1:17:54.130 --> 1:17:54.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:17:54.930 --> 1:17:59.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And so let me ask Miss Stein, what happens if there is a dispute?
1:18:0.730 --> 1:18:1.40
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
1:18:1.50 --> 1:18:13.580
Stein, Wendy R.
So I think if we merge the two, so if both sides get the list of files at the same time, which is more fair and then defendant still has the 1st 14 days as we've presented in 62-1.
1:18:14.210 --> 1:18:20.430
Stein, Wendy R.
The way we have it there is if we agree that files do not relate to base cap, such files will be destroyed.
1:18:22.580 --> 1:18:24.380
Judge Robert W Lehrburger And what if you don't agree?
1:18:25.820 --> 1:18:27.690
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, I mean then we would have a dispute.
1:18:27.700 --> 1:18:33.790
Stein, Wendy R.
I mean our issue with going to mediation is that this has been an incredibly expensive.
1:18:34.820 --> 1:18:36.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You we wouldn't be mediation.
1:18:36.580 --> 1:18:40.170
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You would just be come back to court to solve the dispute like any other dispute.
1:18:40.150 --> 1:18:42.660
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, that that would be fine and that would be the default.
1:18:42.670 --> 1:18:44.40
Stein, Wendy R.
We would have to come to court, your Honor.
1:18:44.50 --> 1:18:45.680
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, if there were a display.
1:18:44.420 --> 1:18:45.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, so that's what we'll do.
1:18:46.570 --> 1:18:53.260
Robert Amenn
So but can I have the requirement that they dangled before me that I get the review the files first?
1:18:53.350 --> 1:18:54.940
Robert Amenn
Why did they need to review them? First?
1:18:54.950 --> 1:19:3.340
Robert Amenn
I will be able to and and then I will call out the issues that I have and then they they can dispute it and that protects me.
1:19:9.840 --> 1:19:10.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, wait, wait, hold on.
1:19:3.350 --> 1:19:11.310
Robert Amenn
It adds a level of protection that they offered to me and I agreed to give them things in return, and I'd like that to be preserved.
1:19:10.960 --> 1:19:11.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, so.
1:19:11.820 --> 1:19:12.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So hold on.
1:19:12.420 --> 1:19:14.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I I do want to make sure I understand.
1:19:14.620 --> 1:19:16.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I see the way it's written here.
1:19:16.160 --> 1:19:28.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Each side at the gets the the list of files and other data, but you then have 14 days to identify and they have 14 days after that.
1:19:28.570 --> 1:19:30.490
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But but what's wrong with them getting a list?
1:19:30.500 --> 1:19:31.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They're not getting the content.
1:19:33.260 --> 1:19:35.400
Robert Amenn
My understanding is that they will have the content as well.
1:19:35.380 --> 1:19:35.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ohk.
1:19:35.710 --> 1:19:36.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:19:36.140 --> 1:19:38.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Let me ask Miss Stone help me understand.
1:19:40.830 --> 1:19:41.120
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah.
1:19:41.130 --> 1:19:44.200
Stein, Wendy R.
So I think this relates to Section 7.
1:19:44.210 --> 1:19:47.620
Stein, Wendy R.
So I think it might have to be reviewed in tandem with this.
1:19:48.340 --> 1:19:48.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:19:48.600 --> 1:19:49.90
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm.
1:20:0.980 --> 1:20:1.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Period.
1:19:49.130 --> 1:20:9.590
Stein, Wendy R.
So in seven a once the search is completed, Archer Hall would place extracted data on a USB drive and then all the extracted data in section 7B gets designated highly confidential and then in section C the plaintiff does get a copy of the extracted data drive and then defending gets to access it by relativity.
1:20:11.440 --> 1:20:15.830
Stein, Wendy R.
And and then a copy of any report is provided to both sides.
1:20:16.110 --> 1:20:19.130
Stein, Wendy R.
So this has to be read in conjunction with the other section.
1:20:21.20 --> 1:20:24.530
Stein, Wendy R.
So we we both get a list of files and then we also get the content.
1:20:24.540 --> 1:20:26.930
Stein, Wendy R.
But again, the content is attorneys eyes only.
1:20:27.500 --> 1:20:33.180
Stein, Wendy R.
We we had it as the default, highly confidential everything we can change that to attorneys eyes only if you like.
1:20:33.430 --> 1:20:39.600
Stein, Wendy R.
But we need to, I mean these search terms, we worked very hard to limit them to just file names of base cap.
1:20:39.610 --> 1:20:46.90
Stein, Wendy R.
So the proposition that we couldn't then see our own files is is is not what should happen here.
1:20:46.590 --> 1:20:47.310
Robert Amenn
I can.
1:20:47.360 --> 1:20:47.930
Robert Amenn
I can.
1:20:48.400 --> 1:20:53.690
Robert Amenn
I can review the files in in in in one day, so you will not.
1:20:54.160 --> 1:20:58.550
Robert Amenn
You will not have an issue of having them separated from you.
1:20:58.660 --> 1:21:7.110
Robert Amenn
The the thing that we agreed upon and the thing that I would very much like is to be able to see no one else to see the contents of the files on the plaintiff side.
1:21:7.210 --> 1:21:10.620
Robert Amenn
And that I would call out the ones that were in.
1:21:10.20 --> 1:21:16.890
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But if, but if they, if they don't have the opportunity to see some content, then they don't know whether they have something, a challenge or not.
1:21:17.60 --> 1:21:19.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And whether there's a dispute? No.
1:21:19.860 --> 1:21:20.50Stein, Wendy R.
And.
1:21:17.970 --> 1:21:27.670
Robert Amenn
Ohh, that is why that was true and that's why we agreed that a third party person would make the the determination they agreed to them.
1:21:27.810 --> 1:21:28.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on.
1:21:26.450 --> 1:21:30.600
Stein, Wendy R.
Your Honor, unfortunately, section Section 7 was never.
1:21:30.610 --> 1:21:39.650
Stein, Wendy R.
If you look even at E CF51-3, the defendant did not have any changes to the conclusion of the inspection a through D, which I just read into the record.
1:21:40.310 --> 1:21:41.800
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, well, I understand.
1:21:41.810 --> 1:21:46.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And he I think he said he then had concerns with other things.
1:21:46.150 --> 1:21:54.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He was and and I see that in the version he had back in January 5th, he had no changes to that agreed.
1:21:54.930 --> 1:22:9.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I think with the assurance that it's going to be attorneys eyes only so that they can identify disputes that the defendant is sufficiently protecting.
1:22:9.990 --> 1:22:11.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we're going to leave it as it is.
1:22:14.170 --> 1:22:14.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
1:22:11.970 --> 1:22:18.420
Robert Amenn
May I call out an object we the the whole purpose of this is the court.
1:22:18.950 --> 1:22:21.660
Robert Amenn
The court ordered us to negotiate.
1:22:21.870 --> 1:22:24.340
Robert Amenn
I negotiated in good faith.
1:22:24.570 --> 1:22:27.20
Robert Amenn
I made concessions to the plaintive.
1:22:27.140 --> 1:22:29.700
Robert Amenn
I received concessions from the plaintiff.
1:22:30.150 --> 1:22:33.820
Robert Amenn
Now those concessions, two of them have been withdrawn.
1:22:34.550 --> 1:22:45.810
Robert Amenn
And I've given up things that I would have not given up if, if if I did not give like like if I didn't receive those concessions so.
1:22:45.40 --> 1:22:51.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I I understand the point and I'm not, but I the the thing here is I'm not resolving what was agreed to or not.
1:22:59.130 --> 1:22:59.910
Robert Amenn
OK, that's fine.
1:22:51.280 --> 1:23:5.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm resolving what's going to be done with the protocol because there is disagreement and I'm determining what I find to be sufficiently protective and and fair, and that's the basis for it.
1:23:4.940 --> 1:23:5.790
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh, your honor.
1:23:5.360 --> 1:23:6.170
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What? Yeah.
1:23:6.40 --> 1:23:8.290
Stein, Wendy R.
Your Honor, I could just clarify the record just because.
1:23:8.520 --> 1:23:27.870
Stein, Wendy R.
So when we have a transcript, it's clear so so that section 6E will be as it appears in EF62-1 with the addition, your Honor, made that if an agreement cannot be reached at the end of E1, we would come to court for resolution.
1:23:27.360 --> 1:23:28.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Current correct.
1:23:28.460 --> 1:23:28.970
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
1:23:29.600 --> 1:23:29.960
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
1:23:33.670 --> 1:23:34.130
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
All right.
1:23:36.990 --> 1:23:50.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Then the there was file deletion and an additional provision that the defendant added that the hard drive would be wiped clean by the consultant.
1:23:50.240 --> 1:23:55.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
After the analysis is complete, Miss Don wants the status of that.
1:23:56.600 --> 1:23:57.840
Stein, Wendy R.
I think we have an agreement on that.
1:23:58.430 --> 1:23:59.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, great.
1:24:1.20 --> 1:24:5.590
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, so anything that left because based on what I have here, we've reached in.
1:24:8.640 --> 1:24:14.320
Stein, Wendy R.
I think from our perspective, just the search terms, I believe there is a complete agreement.
1:24:14.750 --> 1:24:24.590
Stein, Wendy R.
There's just one search at row 36 if, if if defendant is not going to agree to that, we can screen share it or otherwise we have an agreed upon list of search terms.
1:24:25.0 --> 1:24:32.230
Robert Amenn
I I'd like to share that document because there there is one thing that I thought we agreed to.
1:24:32.620 --> 1:24:34.130
Robert Amenn
And you withdrew it.
1:24:34.480 --> 1:24:39.490
Robert Amenn
And I wanna make sure that we're because if that's the case, then maybe we don't have an agreement on search terms.
1:24:39.750 --> 1:24:41.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so if you can share it, go ahead.
1:24:50.190 --> 1:24:51.580
Stein, Wendy R.
I believe Maddie is going to share.
1:25:8.600 --> 1:25:14.440
Robert Amenn
First off, there was sections of there was language above that seems to be missing.
1:25:15.380 --> 1:25:16.320
Robert Amenn
Can you go up to the top?
1:25:21.680 --> 1:25:29.470
Robert Amenn
We we agreed in principle umm to language that you have taken out and I need to find.
1:25:31.390 --> 1:25:32.970
Robert Amenn
My what I sent you?
1:25:49.470 --> 1:25:50.120
Robert Amenn
Bear with me.
1:25:50.130 --> 1:25:51.650
Robert Amenn
I'm sorry I have to find that on my computer.
1:25:52.320 --> 1:25:52.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No problem.
1:26:11.850 --> 1:26:17.400
Robert Amenn
So in our in our language you asked me.
1:26:21.810 --> 1:26:24.620
Robert Amenn
We have language above that has been excluded.
1:26:25.20 --> 1:26:30.820
Robert Amenn
All search terms will be searched using exact match and no other type of matching will be allowed.
1:26:31.330 --> 1:26:35.600 Robert Amenn
You have removed that from the document that you're displaying.
1:26:35.870 --> 1:26:38.640
Robert Amenn
We agreed that that was what we were gonna include.
1:26:38.680 --> 1:26:39.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:26:43.380 --> 1:26:43.750
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah.
1:26:39.240 --> 1:26:43.990
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so this Stein is what is it going to be included or is it?
1:26:43.760 --> 1:26:52.360
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, yes, this this was just a chart that we made showing how much we compromised from the initial terms to the to the terms that are operative.
1:26:52.370 --> 1:26:54.400
Stein, Wendy R.
Now that we're agreeable to that.
1:26:53.160 --> 1:27:1.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, so in other words, the language that Mister Ahmed has just referred to will be included on the search term list, OK.
1:27:1.140 --> 1:27:7.10
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, it will say all search terms will be searched using exact match and no other type of matching will be allowed.
1:27:7.20 --> 1:27:7.250
Stein, Wendy R.
Where?
1:27:7.260 --> 1:27:8.540
Stein, Wendy R.
We're we do have an agreement on that.
1:27:8.890 --> 1:27:16.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so now let's talk about what's the issue with the the list and can you share that again?
1:27:20.620 --> 1:27:21.260
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, in honor.
1:27:20.450 --> 1:27:29.570
Robert Amenn
Can can is it possible for you to share the document that we agree to instead of this list that I'd like to work from the document as we agreed to.
1:27:30.510 --> 1:27:33.20
Stein, Wendy R.
But we we just had an agreement on E1.
1:27:33.30 --> 1:27:34.330
Stein, Wendy R.
So there's just really.
1:27:33.900 --> 1:27:34.550
Robert Amenn
No, no, no.
1:27:34.560 --> 1:27:42.650
Robert Amenn
I I would like the document like we agreed to a document and I don't understand why you don't.
1:27:41.640 --> 1:27:42.890
Stein, Wendy R.
You would do that agreement.
1:27:42.670 --> 1:27:43.850
Robert Amenn
You don't wanna show that document.
1:27:41.320 --> 1:27:44.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Do you have business, Miss Stein, Miss Stein?
1:27:46.460 --> 1:27:56.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Do you have a copy of the search terms that has the language on it that he wants and does not show what it was in earlier iterations?
1:27:58.900 --> 1:27:59.510
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, your honor.
1:27:59.520 --> 1:28:1.540
Stein, Wendy R.
We will locate it and Matt and my colleague Maddie hasn't.
1:28:2.140 --> 1:28:3.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, let's get that up.
1:28:16.720 --> 1:28:18.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is this the document, Mr Annan?
1:28:18.740 --> 1:28:20.110
Robert Amenn
Yes, that looks like the document.
1:28:20.390 --> 1:28:22.540
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, alright.
1:28:22.150 --> 1:28:24.670
Robert Amenn
So there.
1:28:24.920 --> 1:28:27.250
Robert Amenn
So the disagreements and I wanna make sure.
1:28:30.60 --> 1:28:33.960
Robert Amenn
The the base cap had a disagreement on one beat.
1:28:38.320 --> 1:28:39.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger 1B ohh I see.
1:28:39.640 --> 1:28:39.970
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
1:28:39.980 --> 1:28:43.350
Robert Amenn
They, they they, they said that they like at the time that we were talking.
1:28:43.780 --> 1:28:52.240
Robert Amenn
I recall that they they said that they that the search term would be namespace base cap.
1:28:54.960 --> 1:28:57.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
As opposed to just base cap by itself.
1:28:59.920 --> 1:29:0.60
Stein, Wendy R.
But.
1:28:58.440 --> 1:29:13.790
Robert Amenn
Yes, because like like it it it's restricting like like the goal is to like with C sharp files when we were like that name space based cap will find all of base caps C files.
1:29:16.340 --> 1:29:16.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Miss Stein.
1:29:18.10 --> 1:29:21.790
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, I believe Archer Hall confirmed that that this was acceptable.
1:29:22.680 --> 1:29:23.310
Robert Amenn
OK.
1:29:23.430 --> 1:29:23.870
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
1:29:23.880 --> 1:29:24.290
Robert Amenn
No.
1:29:23.990 --> 1:29:25.540Stein, Wendy R.
But I I need to have Tom.
1:29:24.340 --> 1:29:27.160
Robert Amenn
So you you you never got back to me on whether you agreed to it or not.
1:29:27.710 --> 1:29:33.560
Stein, Wendy R.
Tom, is that correct that it will capture any source code that defendant may have taken a base caps?
1:29:35.450 --> 1:29:41.400
Tom Plunkett
It's it should umm, assuming it was all written properly and spelled exactly the same, yes.
1:29:45.80 --> 1:29:45.310
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:29:45.320 --> 1:29:46.550
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, Miss Stein, you're good with that.
1:29:49.850 --> 1:29:56.860
Stein, Wendy R.
That, Tom, do you think that a different if if a misspelling was made then it will not capture our information?
1:29:56.820 --> 1:30:1.110
Robert Amenn
It's it's Orchard Hall, a neutral party, or is an Archer Hall giving advice to the plaintiff.
1:30:1.990 --> 1:30:3.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Neither did they.
1:30:3.70 --> 1:30:4.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm sorry, not the latter.
1:30:4.310 --> 1:30:5.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They are neutral.
1:30:5.260 --> 1:30:18.200
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They are helping determine what will be captured or not captured and so they provided an accurate answer and it's frankly something I was wondering about.
1:30:18.210 --> 1:30:19.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What happens if there's a misspelling?
1:30:20.580 --> 1:30:24.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm, so uh, I think Miss Stein.
1:30:24.360 --> 1:30:25.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What was your question?
1:30:25.330 --> 1:30:29.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Again it so well you were confirming that misspelling would not be captured.
1:30:30.40 --> 1:30:39.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I have no idea what you know the likelihood of that is, but is there a something that would address that short of just base camp?
1:30:40.560 --> 1:30:43.260
Stein, Wendy R.
And that's a technical question for Mr Plunkett.
1:30:43.270 --> 1:30:43.920
Stein, Wendy R.
I I'm not sure.
1:30:43.740 --> 1:30:54.690
Tom Plunkett
But the the types of typos that I I would I would expect could happen or release the the space between namespace and base cap.
1:30:57.190 --> 1:30:58.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, alright.
1:30:54.740 --> 1:30:58.520
Tom Plunkett
So if there's two spaces, for instance, or have.
1:30:58.70 --> 1:31:2.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So that can be certain that can be accommodated by searching for something like that, right?
1:31:2.520 --> 1:31:3.50
Tom Plunkett
Yes it can.
1:31:3.740 --> 1:31:4.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:31:4.780 --> 1:31:14.630
Robert Amenn
Will it be as an additional search term, because the the the protocol as agreed upon are exact matches only?
1:31:15.160 --> 1:31:16.970
Robert Amenn
So how will you search for two spaces?
1:31:16.980 --> 1:31:20.780
Robert Amenn
You have another search term that says name, space, space, space, space cap.
1:31:21.750 --> 1:31:35.50
Tom Plunkett
I think one thing we might want to consider here is what we call a proximity search, which would be, umm namespace within a certain number of characters, let's say 3 characters of base cap.
1:31:35.180 --> 1:31:39.990
Tom Plunkett
I I would expect those would be on the same line and that would be everything that's on that line.
1:31:41.70 --> 1:31:45.320
Tom Plunkett
I'm and that that covers most conditions.
1:31:45.330 --> 1:31:48.970
Tom Plunkett
Where were those items would be together and that namespace line.
1:31:54.460 --> 1:31:55.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Not well.
1:31:49.590 --> 1:31:55.880
Robert Amenn
A proximity search would end our up end our entire agreement, because I specifically reviewed.
1:31:55.150 --> 1:31:56.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Hold on, Mr Ohman.
1:31:56.390 --> 1:31:56.660
Tom Plunkett
But.
1:31:56.340 --> 1:32:12.190
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Mr Ahmed, before you go to that conclusion, just concentrate and focus on this specific solution that he's suggesting, which is just to capture a couple extra spaces between the name and base cap.
1:32:12.200 --> 1:32:15.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Why would that be so?
1:32:15.150 --> 1:32:20.440
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
How would that be so much more inclusive than just picking up a situation where there's an extra space?
1:32:21.270 --> 1:32:26.840
Robert Amenn
So the proximity search, if it's restricted to this item, I'm fine with it.
1:32:27.640 --> 1:32:27.800
Tom Plunkett
Yeah.
1:32:26.930 --> 1:32:28.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, that's what we're talking about.
1:32:28.330 --> 1:32:29.140
Robert Amenn
OK, that's fine.
1:32:29.250 --> 1:32:33.220
Robert Amenn
If it's, if the proximity search is like like special.
1:32:32.540 --> 1:32:39.430
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, we're just talking about for this item 1B and for the name namespace issue.
1:32:39.580 --> 1:32:41.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger So that's gonna be within.
1:32:41.440 --> 1:32:42.760
Judge Robert W Lehrburger That's gonna be a proximity.
1:32:43.460 --> 1:32:48.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh factor of 3/3 within three spaces.
1:32:48.450 --> 1:32:49.430
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Name space.
1:32:50.90 --> 1:32:55.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, then base cap and the point is the space can be 1, two or three spaces.
1:32:55.990 --> 1:32:59.680
Robert Amenn
That's fine if it's restricted to three spaces, and if it could be documented that way.
1:32:59.790 --> 1:33:4.310
Robert Amenn
Are there any other permutations that you wanna deal with for this this search term?
1:33:4.180 --> 1:33:4.510
Tom Plunkett
Umm.
1:33:4.880 --> 1:33:9.300
Tom Plunkett
A potentially a tab I would prefer for to say within any 3 characters.
1:33:10.80 --> 1:33:11.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
3 characters.
1:33:11.240 --> 1:33:12.150
Tom Plunkett
3 characters, yeah.
1:33:11.580 --> 1:33:13.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK, OK.
1:33:14.380 --> 1:33:15.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Sounds fine, Mr Rahman.
1:33:18.400 --> 1:33:21.650
Robert Amenn
I'm trying to think of this would like 3 characters.
1:33:21.660 --> 1:33:22.690
Robert Amenn
No, I don't have a problem with the.
1:33:23.230 --> 1:33:23.620
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Great.
1:33:24.250 --> 1:33:24.500
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm.
1:33:24.10 --> 1:33:26.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, then it'll be within 3 characters.
1:33:26.170 --> 1:33:26.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes, Miss Stein.
1:33:27.310 --> 1:33:28.620
Stein, Wendy R.
Just to see clarification.
1:33:28.630 --> 1:33:34.700
Stein, Wendy R.
So I just wanna clarify that this was a document that the defendant withdrew when he we didn't agree to other things.
1:33:34.710 --> 1:33:44.890
Stein, Wendy R.
So we just want to state for the record that what's in the additional comments in section one and seven no longer governs what we just agreed to and E1 would govern.
1:33:45.0 --> 1:33:48.710
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we're just talking about the actual terms that are gonna be searched now.
1:33:49.990 --> 1:33:50.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
1:33:50.200 --> 1:33:50.870
Robert Amenn
I don't follow.
1:33:50.880 --> 1:33:51.420
Robert Amenn
Can you explain?
1:33:52.490 --> 1:33:52.770
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
1:33:52.770 --> 1:33:56.240
Stein, Wendy R.
So the only term that issue from our perspective is 36.
1:33:56.300 --> 1:33:58.480
Stein, Wendy R.
So I don't know if Mattie can Scroll down to 36.
1:33:58.490 --> 1:34:6.420
Stein, Wendy R.
The only actual term that the parties or or maybe defendant agrees to and just I'm not aware is the 36.
1:34:6.890 --> 1:34:10.330
Stein, Wendy R.
There were four different searches and he wanted those to be separated.
1:34:10.940 --> 1:34:11.860
Robert Amenn
And we agreed to that.
1:34:12.400 --> 1:34:12.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
1:34:12.810 --> 1:34:21.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And when you say, OK, so when you say separated meaning just as independent searches without the use of war.
1:34:21.780 --> 1:34:22.170
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes.
1:34:22.110 --> 1:34:22.250
Robert Amenn
Yes.
1:34:22.180 --> 1:34:33.490
Stein, Wendy R.
So they'll just be 4 independent searches, but just to to clarify the record we're we're no longer doing third party review on one and seven because we've now reached an agreement on E1.
1:34:33.500 --> 1:34:37.440
Stein, Wendy R.
So that's going to be taken out of the search term list that we're going to include as an exhibit to the protocol.
1:34:41.180 --> 1:34:42.70
Robert Amenn
One and seven.
1:34:46.890 --> 1:34:48.80
Stein, Wendy R.
There, there were.
1:34:48.470 --> 1:34:51.680
Stein, Wendy R.
All we're saying is there's no additional there's.
1:34:51.790 --> 1:35:0.90
Stein, Wendy R.
We've agreed now on the procedure in Section 6 and seven, so these comments that were additional comments are no longer applicable, just yeah.
1:34:58.560 --> 1:35:0.240
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
They don't correct.
1:35:0.440 --> 1:35:2.720
Robert Amenn
So so I I do have a question, your Honor.
1:35:4.180 --> 1:35:38.420
Robert Amenn
The the the base cap and I'm I'm not making any accusations right now, but peace cap, I've been talking to other people that have that have similar situations that myself at base camp and there's a commonality of of of treatment and there's other other people are seeking legal redress with base cap based on their base caps actions we have been communicating.
1:35:40.200 --> 1:36:8.480
Robert Amenn
If if base CAP is searched and there's no third party, review the communication between us will be discovered by base caps plaintiff and then Basecamp will have information about future cases that may, may, may be taken against base cap and the third party review was specifically there to support that base camp like no.
1:36:10.130 --> 1:36:12.120
Robert Amenn
Cook shoot information.
1:36:12.130 --> 1:36:13.620
Robert Amenn
Base CAP would get advanced knowledge of.
1:36:17.920 --> 1:36:19.970
Robert Amenn
Does that make sense like this?
1:36:19.370 --> 1:36:20.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger I understand you're.
1:36:26.100 --> 1:36:26.480
Robert Amenn
So so.
1:36:20.510 --> 1:36:28.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm I understand your concern, but I'm as I was just hearing that one in seven.
1:36:29.980 --> 1:36:31.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You miss Stein.
1:36:31.360 --> 1:36:32.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You said those are no longer issues.
1:36:32.720 --> 1:36:37.690
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Were you saying that search terms are out in one in seven or just the comments?
1:36:41.880 --> 1:36:42.80
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Would.
1:36:38.520 --> 1:36:44.980
Stein, Wendy R.
Just the comments this this was comments that we had and then he later withdrew and those are not applicable anymore so.
1:36:44.910 --> 1:36:45.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger OK.
1:36:45.620 --> 1:36:48.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And what about his concern that he just raised?
1:36:48.190 --> 1:36:57.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Because that is, uh discussion of something that does not involve uh, confidential information that he may have taken necessarily.
1:36:57.540 --> 1:36:58.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I suppose it could.
1:36:58.410 --> 1:37:14.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But he he's talking about communications with third parties that might implicate certain strategies and intent or concerns regarding base cap that you prefer, you know see.
1:37:16.20 --> 1:37:17.890
Peerce, Marjorie
Your Honor, this is Margie Pierce.
1:37:17.980 --> 1:37:27.670
Peerce, Marjorie
UM and the answer is that this will be subject to attorneys claws on attorneys eyes only, and then the courts review.
1:37:28.220 --> 1:37:29.90
Peerce, Marjorie
If we don't agree.
1:37:29.870 --> 1:37:34.80
Robert Amenn
But the same attorneys potentially could be defending base cap.
1:37:34.150 --> 1:37:40.700
Robert Amenn
The attorneys can advise base cap like for example, there's communication between and.
1:37:40.710 --> 1:37:42.20
Robert Amenn
I'll give you this as an example.
1:37:42.30 --> 1:37:47.660
Robert Amenn
Communication between a former employee before she was former employee where Base Gap?
1:37:47.670 --> 1:37:55.940
Robert Amenn
Asked her to change her address, even though they knew that she was not living at that address to to Umm.
1:37:58.160 --> 1:38:9.90
Robert Amenn
To avoid like problems with respect to taxes, and that information will require a discovery.
1:38:9.520 --> 1:38:21.740
Robert Amenn
And if base CAP is aware of that, they may be able to delete the chats where they they told that person that information and they will potentially delete the emails that that information is so it would ruin discovery.
1:38:23.410 --> 1:38:29.320
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, you're assuming that they would delete, in which case they might be in violation of certain requirements.
1:38:29.330 --> 1:38:34.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But Miss Diane, can you speak to it or whoever was speaking to it, his peers?
1:38:37.710 --> 1:38:37.950
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:38:34.820 --> 1:38:38.490
Peerce, Marjorie
Your, your Honor, Miss Stein and I are in the same room because we're actually away.
1:38:38.700 --> 1:38:39.910
Peerce, Marjorie
So there's there's.
1:38:40.200 --> 1:38:41.550
Peerce, Marjorie
That's why you're here in Echo.
1:38:41.560 --> 1:38:42.740
Peerce, Marjorie
So I apologize for that.
1:38:42.700 --> 1:38:42.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Not.
1:38:44.160 --> 1:38:50.130
Peerce, Marjorie
So first one on litigation hold, so and we're lawyers and we're not gonna delete anything.
1:38:50.440 --> 1:39:2.50
Peerce, Marjorie
And your Honor already addressed the fact that this would be attorneys eyes only and we are not going to disclose to our client things that we are not allowed to as attorneys.
1:39:2.500 --> 1:39:5.120
Peerce, Marjorie
And if there's a dispute, it'll come to the court.
1:39:8.220 --> 1:39:8.640
Robert Amenn
Umm.
1:39:8.980 --> 1:39:18.900
Robert Amenn
I sort of understand that, but all of this could be easily avoided if I can look at the material ahead of time.
1:39:19.670 --> 1:39:29.90
Robert Amenn
You don't have to have the the attorney like you're you're basically the whole purpose of one of the purposes of you, like you wanting to get your files back.
1:39:29.990 --> 1:39:32.580
Robert Amenn
I find it hard to believe that you're doing all this.
1:39:33.250 --> 1:39:36.520
Robert Amenn
I have legitimate suits against you on IP.
1:39:36.630 --> 1:39:38.100
Robert Amenn
I've legitimate suits against you.
1:39:38.110 --> 1:39:41.220
Robert Amenn
On contract breach, I have legitimate suits about you.
1:39:41.260 --> 1:39:50.350
Robert Amenn
You on harassment now you're going to look at all my emails and you're going to find information that's gonna benefit your client.
1:39:50.940 --> 1:39:55.550
Robert Amenn
I'm not saying that you will turn it over to them, but I don't wanna run that risk.
1:39:55.620 --> 1:40:3.510
Robert Amenn
I don't want the risk of my case and my like protect like my case beats be spoiled.
1:40:3.940 --> 1:40:5.350
Robert Amenn
Put in and trust of your hands.
1:40:5.360 --> 1:40:12.770
Robert Amenn
I I I I I I I I don't I'm not saying that you don't have integrity and I'm not saying that you would do it but there's constant mistakes.
1:40:17.0 --> 1:40:18.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, Mr Ohman.
1:40:13.20 --> 1:40:18.410
Robert Amenn
People's there's there's, like, there's like a ship.
1:40:18.80 --> 1:40:20.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're I I you're concern is.
1:40:20.530 --> 1:40:23.640
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I hear your concern and and I understand it and it makes sense.
1:40:24.210 --> 1:40:37.820
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Ohm and I there is something about, you know, outside counsel seeing things of that nature could easily lead to.
1:40:37.880 --> 1:40:38.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You.
1:40:41.610 --> 1:41:1.370
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I don't know it advice or strategy or things that might not otherwise happen if they hadn't seen it, not because they'd be doing anything improper, but just because they would know things that would enable them to act or advise in a way that ohm might raise concerns.
1:41:1.380 --> 1:41:15.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I understand that that that concern UM at the same time we can't just put in Mr Rahman's hand the decision of which documents get turned over in debt.
1:41:16.10 --> 1:41:27.670
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So let me ask Miss Pierce and uh whether you have any thoughts on how that can, how we can ameliorate both sides concerns on that?
1:41:30.630 --> 1:41:31.30
Robert Amenn
You.
1:41:30.300 --> 1:41:35.610
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, I believe that emails with third party former employees.
1:41:35.620 --> 1:41:41.10
Stein, Wendy R.
So I believe he's talking about someone named Sharon and he.
1:41:40.160 --> 1:41:41.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, whoever it is.
1:41:41.480 --> 1:41:42.290
Stein, Wendy R.
Yeah, he could.
1:41:42.360 --> 1:42:4.110
Stein, Wendy R.
We would agree that he could, like when when both sides get the list of emails and the emails if he give us a list of emails of the third party former employees that he's speaking with those we would be agreeable to him reviewing first because there's just an isolated number of people and we also object and don't agree with any of his characterizations of our client today.
1:42:4.760 --> 1:42:6.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, so so so hold on.
1:42:5.480 --> 1:42:7.340
Peerce, Marjorie
Or or of us, honestly.
1:42:6.400 --> 1:42:7.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So, OK, OK.
1:42:7.990 --> 1:42:8.360
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No ones.
1:42:8.160 --> 1:42:8.700
Robert Amenn
I wasn't.
1:42:8.780 --> 1:42:9.730
Robert Amenn
I didn't anyway miss.
1:42:8.650 --> 1:42:10.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He's he?
1:42:9.740 --> 1:42:10.120
Robert Amenn
Miss, miss.
1:42:10.140 --> 1:42:10.750
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:42:11.180 --> 1:42:12.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I take it totally.
1:42:11.670 --> 1:42:12.670
Robert Amenn
Say anything bad about you?
1:42:13.20 --> 1:42:14.490
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I take it totally neutrally.
1:42:14.900 --> 1:42:23.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
These are all valid concerns and I thought he was expressing himself actually very uh, neutral.
1:42:24.280 --> 1:42:35.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, this could have characterized it, in which, uh, different ways and where he was advocating or using certain words.
1:42:35.910 --> 1:42:38.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I they don't influence the court.
1:42:39.300 --> 1:42:48.30
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Umm, so the idea would be then he would have an opportunity to first look at the material.
1:42:48.40 --> 1:42:54.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So he can take out those emails or bring them to your attention and say those are the ones that I'm taking out.
1:42:55.120 --> 1:42:56.960
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Is that the Idms time?
1:42:57.350 --> 1:43:7.600
Stein, Wendy R.
Umm, so I think what we could do is put in to E1 where it says both sides will receive the list of files and other data including but not limited to emails.
1:43:7.890 --> 1:43:20.570
Stein, Wendy R.
We could just draw clause like a comma, except that emails with former based CAP employees named and he's going to have to name them, will be reviewed by him first.
1:43:20.580 --> 1:43:21.190
Stein, Wendy R.
Something like that.
1:43:23.680 --> 1:43:25.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, yeah, go ahead and explore it.
1:43:23.280 --> 1:43:27.20
Robert Amenn
Just 22 point I'd like to make that one is.
1:43:26.220 --> 1:43:28.590
Stein, Wendy R.
Because can I just say one other thing that before?
1:43:28.980 --> 1:43:29.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:43:28.640 --> 1:43:43.470
Stein, Wendy R.
Because, your Honor, another another, another issue we have is he could claim that a former employee is off limits and we shouldn't see emails with them because they're, you know, gonna be in litigation with us when really they're transferring our confidential information.
1:43:43.480 --> 1:43:43.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Right.
1:43:43.840 --> 1:43:48.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, I I understand that that could be, you know that crossed my mind as well.
1:43:48.300 --> 1:43:49.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That could certainly happen.
1:43:49.760 --> 1:43:51.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Not necessarily that he did so, but it could happen.
1:43:51.840 --> 1:43:55.590
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And you have to be aware of that, UM and.
1:43:54.990 --> 1:43:58.980
Stein, Wendy R.
And so we would propose that they be submitted, perhaps in camera, to your Honor.
1:43:58.990 --> 1:44:0.160
Stein, Wendy R.
If they were a large volume.
1:43:58.710 --> 1:44:0.460
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes, that's exactly.
1:44:0.580 --> 1:44:2.540
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That's exactly what I was about to say.
1:44:2.770 --> 1:44:3.10
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:44:2.870 --> 1:44:21.740
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
That any such documents that the defendant believes should not be produced because they are communications with other or former employees, base cap and don't implicate the information at issue here.
1:44:21.850 --> 1:44:30.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Then those documents need to be submitted to me for review, and I'll make a determination as to whether they should be produced, if at all.
1:44:31.50 --> 1:44:31.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And don't.
1:44:32.930 --> 1:44:33.380
Robert Amenn
So.
1:44:33.390 --> 1:44:35.740
Robert Amenn
So there's there's two points of clarification.
1:44:35.360 --> 1:44:36.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, go ahead.
1:44:41.120 --> 1:44:41.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You. You.
1:44:36.150 --> 1:44:42.980
Robert Amenn
One is that means I have to submit a list of people or or could I just declare it like?
1:44:42.990 --> 1:44:45.860
Robert Amenn
Do I get to look at, like, speak?
1:44:45.930 --> 1:44:50.710
Robert Amenn
We solved this problem with allowing me to look at things first and maybe.
1:44:50.270 --> 1:44:52.800
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
This is this is this is what we're doing.
1:44:53.130 --> 1:45:21.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You are gonna have an opportunity to look at the materials 1st to take out or set aside and identify the communications with other base camp employees, former base camp employees that you think should be off limits and any of those you are going to submit to me to review and make it a termination on whether they are properly withheld or or not.
1:45:22.460 --> 1:45:33.160
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And that's called in camera review, so that a third party is reviewing those and to put a finer point on this steines.
1:45:34.90 --> 1:45:34.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Uh.
1:45:34.950 --> 1:45:41.890
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Recommended suggestion where you said there was this exception in which he will have the opportunity to look at it first.
1:45:41.900 --> 1:45:47.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I mean, he needs an opportunity to conduct a full review first in order to locate such documents, right?
1:45:49.240 --> 1:45:54.230
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, he and in Section 7 he does get the relativity access to the documents.
1:45:54.300 --> 1:45:55.530
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No, but I just mean that.
1:45:55.540 --> 1:46:8.450
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So you'd have to rewrite the provision in a way that says you don't get to look at anything until that time period expires, where he has looked set aside and submitted for in camera view.
1:46:8.500 --> 1:46:9.840
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I've made a determination.
1:46:10.650 --> 1:46:11.580
Stein, Wendy R.
Well, do so.
1:46:11.590 --> 1:46:12.590
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm in E1.
1:46:12.590 --> 1:46:24.100
Stein, Wendy R.
Just because it'll be easier to write it out like if where it says both sides will receive the list of files and other data, but not limited to, you know, and then it says the list comma.
1:46:24.150 --> 1:46:40.120
Stein, Wendy R.
Then we would put a comma, except that any emails with former base cap employees identified by defendant on should we put a date today?
1:46:43.260 --> 1:46:43.600
Robert Amenn
Uh.
1:46:42.200 --> 1:46:52.430
Stein, Wendy R.
On January 25th will be accessible first to defendant only and to the court.
1:46:53.490 --> 1:46:53.720
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh.
1:46:55.20 --> 1:47:5.520
Stein, Wendy R.
If Defendant believes any such emails should be inaccessible to basically something like that.
1:47:6.630 --> 1:47:12.70
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, as long as you its language that accomplishes that, he gets to review them first.
1:47:13.670 --> 1:47:14.180
Judge Robert W Lehrburger So.
1:47:14.250 --> 1:47:24.300
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So he gets to review material first to make determination if there are such emails and decide if there are any that he believes should be submitted to the court for review.
1:47:24.660 --> 1:47:26.310
Stein, Wendy R.
Yes, it just emails with those people.
1:47:24.450 --> 1:47:28.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So we're not, we're not well, yes.
1:47:28.880 --> 1:47:29.110
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:47:28.790 --> 1:47:33.110
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But again, just we're not going to decide on the exact language on that right now.
1:47:33.850 --> 1:47:34.90
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:47:34.80 --> 1:47:37.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, you're going to have to wordsmith you.
1:47:37.240 --> 1:47:59.570
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And Mr I'll give you and Mr Amen a certain period of time to nail down the final language of the protocol and uh, any remaining issues you'll submit to me with a a a draft with any red lines that were main.
1:48:0.520 --> 1:48:14.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And I will make a decision and issued the OR let the parties know what the final version is and this should be done relatively quickly.
1:48:14.400 --> 1:48:19.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So I will give you a week in order to finalize the.
1:48:22.150 --> 1:48:31.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, the protocol based on the rulings today and then submit it to me again with uh.
1:48:31.860 --> 1:48:36.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I guess any red lining of anything that's in dispute?
1:48:38.660 --> 1:48:40.10
Robert Amenn
Point of clarification, your honor.
1:48:40.560 --> 1:48:40.680
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
1:48:41.580 --> 1:48:50.500
Robert Amenn
One is do I am I required to give a list of people that these emails would be excluded or can I just review all emails because?
1:48:50.140 --> 1:48:51.20
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You can just.
1:48:51.90 --> 1:48:51.560
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You can.
1:48:51.670 --> 1:48:52.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, I miss Stein.
1:48:52.930 --> 1:48:55.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It was not my thought that he has to provide a list.
1:48:56.660 --> 1:49:4.870
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He he he can review the email, he will provide them for in camera and we'll go from there.
1:49:7.290 --> 1:49:8.180
Robert Amenn
Excellent.
1:49:8.250 --> 1:49:9.120
Robert Amenn
All right, now.
1:49:8.480 --> 1:49:9.210
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry.
1:49:9.440 --> 1:49:9.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:49:9.920 --> 1:49:10.290
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:49:10.300 --> 1:49:10.540
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Hold on.
1:49:9.280 --> 1:49:11.130
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry, I I missed you for a moment.
1:49:11.140 --> 1:49:12.190
Stein, Wendy R.
I couldn't hear what you said.
1:49:11.520 --> 1:49:12.370
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:49:12.440 --> 1:49:12.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:49:12.360 --> 1:49:12.680
Stein, Wendy R.
I'm sorry.
1:49:12.670 --> 1:49:18.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I was just saying, yeah, he gets to review he he doesn't have to provide a list of people in advance.
1:49:18.720 --> 1:49:30.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He will have to provide the emails that he thinks are off limits and he'll have to submit those to the court, but he shouldn't have to in advance.
1:49:30.480 --> 1:49:41.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Just give a list and say here are you know four people that I have in mind and then you go and investigate those four people and it just it he should have the opportunity.
1:49:41.960 --> 1:49:44.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I don't understand why he would need to provide a list in advance.
1:49:45.660 --> 1:49:52.390
Stein, Wendy R.
So I just don't understand how that works then with E1 so he gets just the emails or he gets all emails before we get them.
1:49:54.110 --> 1:49:56.920
Judge Robert W Lehrburger He gets to look at them first.
1:49:58.860 --> 1:49:59.280
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Why not?
1:50:0.730 --> 1:50:1.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
What's wrong with that?
1:50:2.100 --> 1:50:6.340
Stein, Wendy R.
So he he gets to look at them for the 1st 14 so we get everything else and then.
1:50:7.280 --> 1:50:7.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, no.
1:50:7.720 --> 1:50:8.10
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So.
1:50:8.20 --> 1:50:8.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So he gets.
1:50:8.900 --> 1:50:10.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah, you get everything else.
1:50:10.200 --> 1:50:26.230
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
He gets to look through the emails for a certain period of time, pull the ones that he thinks are communications with former base camp employees that are of concern, and then if he says those shouldn't be produced, then he's going to have to go through me.
1:50:27.0 --> 1:50:27.310
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:50:27.320 --> 1:50:31.120
Stein, Wendy R.
But, your honor, he said he could look at them in a day, and I just want to. Yeah.
1:50:29.780 --> 1:50:31.370
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Oh, no, I I we're not gonna wait.
1:50:31.380 --> 1:50:32.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
This is not gonna be extended.
1:50:34.70 --> 1:50:35.100
Stein, Wendy R.
So how long would he have?
1:50:33.220 --> 1:50:36.400
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
This is going to be, yeah, he'll have three days.
1:50:37.490 --> 1:50:41.80
Stein, Wendy R.
He will have three days, OK, because we've waited a long time to get our.
1:50:41.130 --> 1:50:44.310
Stein, Wendy R.
We were supposed to get our information back in July, so it's been six months.
1:50:43.460 --> 1:50:45.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I I I I I I understand.
1:50:46.60 --> 1:50:47.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're not gonna drag things out.
1:50:47.950 --> 1:51:2.280
Robert Amenn
So, so a couple points of clarification on it, because I I'm I don't know who like if I email my wife and there's discussion of strategy on the case, that would also be an email that I could put for in camera review.
1:51:2.350 --> 1:51:5.230
Robert Amenn
I can pick any email that I think would would like.
1:51:4.560 --> 1:51:5.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, you you.
1:51:5.770 --> 1:51:8.390
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, I'm not saying you can pick any email right now.
1:51:8.400 --> 1:51:12.710
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're talking about communications with former employees.
1:51:12.900 --> 1:51:22.910
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
If there is something, yeah, that you think is legal advice or something of that nature, then you can put that aside.
1:51:23.40 --> 1:51:27.140
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But there shouldn't be much of anything.
1:51:28.440 --> 1:51:28.700
Robert Amenn
What?
1:51:39.380 --> 1:51:39.850
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Right.
1:51:29.630 --> 1:51:42.0
Robert Amenn
Uh, OK, I I just want to make sure that no information about my strategies on the the cases that I will be bringing when I get to get to go back to work.
1:51:40.300 --> 1:51:43.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, I understood well, it depends.
1:51:42.210 --> 1:51:43.280
Robert Amenn
Yeah, it's.
1:51:43.220 --> 1:51:43.850
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It depends.
1:51:48.370 --> 1:51:49.60
Robert Amenn
Yeah. Yep.
1:51:43.860 --> 1:51:58.50
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There may be communications in there that implicate the issues and items in the screens and also have that, but I think it's appropriate for you to have the chance to identify those and to submit them to the court.
1:51:58.820 --> 1:51:59.410
Robert Amenn
Excellent.
1:51:59.480 --> 1:52:0.790
Robert Amenn
So this this this is fine.
1:52:1.20 --> 1:52:6.790
Robert Amenn
Then I would like to different go back to a different topic.
1:52:6.860 --> 1:52:10.910
Robert Amenn
Could we use the same in camera review for all information that's found?
1:52:11.530 --> 1:52:11.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No.
1:52:11.800 --> 1:52:12.750Robert Amenn
And I would review it.
1:52:15.810 --> 1:52:15.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No.
1:52:16.150 --> 1:52:17.870Robert Amenn
OK, that's fine.
1:52:18.220 --> 1:52:19.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger That's what we are about.
1:52:18.0 --> 1:52:21.470
Robert Amenn
I I that's OK.
1:52:21.520 --> 1:52:21.950
Robert Amenn
Thank you.
1:52:20.20 --> 1:52:22.830
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, I I OK. Alright.
1:52:22.20 --> 1:52:24.630
Robert Amenn
I had to ask because I'd I'd like to protect my information.
1:52:23.880 --> 1:52:24.770
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Oh, no, there's nothing.
1:52:24.780 --> 1:52:26.210
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
There's nothing wrong with asking.
1:52:26.600 --> 1:52:27.780
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're entitled to do that.
1:52:28.760 --> 1:52:33.350
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, I need to wrap things up because I have a 130 conference.
1:52:33.360 --> 1:52:35.980
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
So is there anything left, Miss Stein?
1:52:37.530 --> 1:52:39.180
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh, just a procedural issue.
1:52:45.130 --> 1:52:45.250
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yes.
1:52:39.190 --> 1:52:46.190
Stein, Wendy R.
Uh, are we permitted to file under seal the search terms because they have base cap client names and other client information?
1:52:46.200 --> 1:52:46.700
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
1:52:46.790 --> 1:52:47.420
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
1:52:47.510 --> 1:52:47.900
Stein, Wendy R.
OK.
1:52:48.10 --> 1:52:48.590
Stein, Wendy R.
That's all from us.
1:52:48.480 --> 1:52:48.860
Robert Amenn
So.
1:52:49.360 --> 1:52:49.550
Jeff Whitney
Uh.
1:52:48.680 --> 1:52:50.600
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Mr On on anything else from you.
1:52:53.690 --> 1:52:56.590
Robert Amenn
I I have a question I don't if you were asking me, I didn't hear.
1:52:57.300 --> 1:53:0.430
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, I just saying anything else from you.
1:53:1.640 --> 1:53:2.700
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Otherwise, we're adjourned.
1:53:1.780 --> 1:53:5.580
Robert Amenn
I would like I would like to understand.
1:53:5.690 --> 1:53:7.320
Robert Amenn
You're gonna document.
1:53:8.10 --> 1:53:11.980
Robert Amenn
It seems like Miss Stein's gonna make changes to the document based on your order.
1:53:12.610 --> 1:53:14.0
Robert Amenn
Do I get a chance to review it?
1:53:14.10 --> 1:53:15.260
Robert Amenn
And if we disagree, do we?
1:53:14.890 --> 1:53:15.500
Judge Robert W Lehrburger Oh yeah.
1:53:15.310 --> 1:53:16.890
Robert Amenn
Can we can have another session?
1:53:15.570 --> 1:53:17.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger No, no, no. That's yeah.
1:53:17.590 --> 1:53:20.40
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
No, that's what I'm saying has to be done within a week.
1:53:20.430 --> 1:53:23.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
She's gonna provide a revised document.
1:53:23.870 --> 1:53:25.610
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
When do you think you can provide that miss time?
1:53:27.290 --> 1:53:28.690
Stein, Wendy R.
And today.
1:53:29.450 --> 1:53:29.880
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:53:30.70 --> 1:53:41.520
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then, uh Mr Amen, you should be prepared on Monday to respond with anything you think is not correct based on today.
1:53:41.810 --> 1:53:46.510
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And you will then meet and confer with each other.
1:53:46.750 --> 1:53:58.580
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then by Thursday of next week, the parties will submit to me, Miss Stein will submit to me a document that is the proposed draft, with any redlining that you are not agreeing with.
1:54:8.790 --> 1:54:9.650
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It's in the.
1:54:10.60 --> 1:54:11.330
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It's in the problem, yes.
1:54:0.40 --> 1:54:17.680
Robert Amenn
And that that applies to the, the, the, the, the Protocol, the search terms and are are email language or the email like the I guess it's in the protocol the protocol will have that new language so so all language in the protocol document is subject to review and potential redlining not violating.
1:54:16.700 --> 1:54:19.190
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Only only only if.
1:54:21.300 --> 1:54:21.420
Robert Amenn
Yes.
1:54:23.520 --> 1:54:25.560
Robert Amenn
That's fine and and the same.
1:54:19.200 --> 1:54:25.810
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
It doesn't accurately capture what was beside it today, in your view, we're not reading it.
1:54:25.820 --> 1:54:26.410
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're not.
1:54:26.420 --> 1:54:28.260
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
You're not reading negotiating anything.
1:54:28.860 --> 1:54:30.290
Robert Amenn
No, I I don't intend to.
1:54:30.600 --> 1:54:36.790
Robert Amenn
I just want to get clarification and then the same thing for the search terms because I like to look at them like like a final document.
1:54:36.800 --> 1:54:38.550
Robert Amenn
So we could review with to make sure that it occur.
1:54:38.560 --> 1:54:39.760
Robert Amenn
Represents what we discussed today.
1:54:44.520 --> 1:54:44.970
Robert Amenn
Yeah.
1:54:38.870 --> 1:54:45.100
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Well, you will get a chance to see it and the same rules apply again, no renegotiating.
1:54:45.120 --> 1:54:45.810
Robert Amenn
Perfect. Perfect.
1:54:45.430 --> 1:54:52.90
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
But if there's something that's not correct from today, then I will deal with it, OK?
1:54:51.990 --> 1:54:53.250
Robert Amenn
Alright, that sounds good.
1:54:51.880 --> 1:54:58.810
Jeff Whitney
That, your Honor, I didn't want to interrupt anybody to do it, but I do have a I was hoping to get a quick clarification on the searches.
1:54:59.700 --> 1:54:59.860
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Yeah.
1:55:0.360 --> 1:55:4.570
Jeff Whitney
And so I understand that I was looking at the search list.
1:55:4.580 --> 1:55:10.320
Jeff Whitney
I noticed that there is some syntax in there which is commonly used like quotations which.
1:55:12.190 --> 1:55:14.980
Jeff Whitney
Means you're searching for a phrase multiple keywords together.
1:55:15.420 --> 1:55:24.960
Jeff Whitney
I also noticed that there is exclamation point which I understand to represent a wild card could be any number of characters.
1:55:25.310 --> 1:55:29.160
Jeff Whitney
I just wanna make sure that when we're running the searches, we don't run into any issues.
1:55:29.300 --> 1:55:38.40
Jeff Whitney
Some tools use syntax a little bit differently and exclamationpoint might be a different character in a different depending on the tool.
1:55:38.50 --> 1:55:39.150
Jeff Whitney
So I just want to make sure that.
1:55:43.80 --> 1:55:43.300
Jeff Whitney
OK.
1:55:38.40 --> 1:55:47.660
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Alright, you'll have you'll you'll have to talk that out just because obviously the the point is if there's a different character that accomplishes the same thing.
1:55:48.770 --> 1:55:48.940
Jeff Whitney
Yep.
1:55:48.410 --> 1:55:50.240
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Uh, that then what's in the protocol?
1:55:50.250 --> 1:55:51.470
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
And then that's what should be used.
1:55:53.920 --> 1:55:55.730
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK, alright.
1:55:55.740 --> 1:55:58.270
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I'm gonna leave the parties to do what they need to do.
1:55:58.280 --> 1:56:4.970
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
I will look forward to seeing a virtually finalized protocol next week.
1:56:5.100 --> 1:56:6.420
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
By Thursday. All right.
1:56:7.320 --> 1:56:7.900
Peerce, Marjorie
Thank your honor.
1:56:7.580 --> 1:56:8.60
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
OK.
1:56:8.400 --> 1:56:8.780
Tom Plunkett
Thank you.
1:56:8.530 --> 1:56:8.890
Robert Amenn
Thank you.
1:56:8.580 --> 1:56:8.960
Stein, Wendy R.
Thank you.
1:56:8.420 --> 1:56:9.150
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
We're adjourned.
1:56:9.460 --> 1:56:9.800
Judge Robert W Lehrburger
Thank you.