EXHI BI T A

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 1 of 61 Page ID

#:13631
1
Janette Dockstader
From: Enoch H. Liang <ehl@ltlcounsel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:07 AM
To: McKown, Aaron M.; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling
Attachments: Proposed 90-day Extension Schedule.xls
DearAaron,

Ihadachancetospeakwiththeteamyesterdayafterthehearing.Inordertonarrowtheissuesthatthepartieshaveto
bringtotheCourtsattention,wewouldliketomakethefollowingproposal:

1. TheAcademywillagreetoextendalldeadlinesinthecaseby90days.Therevisedcasescheduleproposedto
JudgeCollinsisattachedforyourreview/confirmation.PleasecheckthedatesthatIpropose.

2. TheAcademywillagreetoprovidefeebillsfromQEUStotheAcademyfrom2007topresent,unredactedexcept
forclearlyprivilegedorworkproductentries,i.e.thosethatshowspecificallythelegaladviceQEUSwas
providingorthatshowtheareasoflawQEUSwasresearching.

Inotherwords,wewillendeavortounredactthosefeebillssothatGoDaddycanmakeadeterminationofwhat
domainnames/websitesQEUSwasbillingtheAcademyforwithrespecttothattimeentry.

However,itmustbeclearthattheAcademyisnotwaivingitsrighttoclaimattorneyclientprivilegeorattorney
workproductingeneral.WhileGoDaddycancontinuetoassertitswaiverargumentsassetforthinitsSept.9
JointStipulation,GoDaddymustagreenottoarguethattheAcademyfurtherwaivedanyofitsrightsby
providingtheseunredactedfeebillsfrom2007topresent.

3. Inreturn,GoDaddyandtheAcademywillagreetotakethedepositionsinPhoenixnextweekoff
calendar.Giventhe90dayextensionofalldeadlines,GoDaddyandtheAcademywillworktogetherto
reschedulethosedepositionsatalaterdate,possiblyinearlyNovemberaroundtheChristineJonesdeposition.

ThereasoningbehindthedelayinthesedepositionsissothattheAcademycanreviewtheESIbeingproduced
within14days.Thatway,wewillavoidthepossibility(evenifremote)thatthese4witnesseswillneedtobe
redeposed.AsecondaryreasonisthattheAcademywantstocompletetheIowadepositionsbeforeproceeding
withthese4witnesses.

4. Finally,inreturn,wewouldlikeashort5dayextensionoftimetoprovideyouourportionoftheJoint
Stipulation,i.e.,untilWednesdaySeptember21,2011.Giventhe90dayextension,Ithinkthetimeneedisless
pressinghere.

5. However,theAcademywillcontinuetoopposethefollowing:

a. GoDaddysattempttoseekprefilingcommunicationsbetweenQuinnEmanuelandtheAcademy
regardinginvestigationintotheAcademysclaim;

b. GoDaddysattempttoseekpostfilingcommunicationsbetweenQuinnEmanuelandtheAcademy
regardingDefendantsand/orthislawsuit;and

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 2 of 61 Page ID

#:13632
2
c. GoDaddysattempttoseekanadditional20depositionstodeposeRegistrantsintheCPprogram.

6. Asdiscussedyesterday,theAcademywill(a)providearevisedprivilegeloginresponsetoyourSept.8,2011
email;(b)nativeemailsinresponsetoyourSept.8,2011email;and(c)datesforitswitnessesoncewereceivea
30b6noticefromGoDaddy.

7. WelookforwardtoreceivingyourresponsetotheAcademysSeptember9,2011meetandconferletter.

Letmeknowretheforegoingproposal,

Enoch

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 3 of 61 Page ID

#:13633
















































EXHI BI T B
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 4 of 61 Page ID
#:13634
1
Janette Dockstader
From: Enoch H. Liang <ehl@ltlcounsel.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:54 PM
To: McKown, Aaron M.; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: RE: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling
SorryifIwasnotclear.

TheproposalisyourFIRSTunderstandingbelow.Inotherwords,theAcademyisagreeabletoextendingthefact
discoverycutoffby90days,providedthatAMPAScanseekguidancefromtheCourttoaddadditionalDNsdiscovered
inthetimeperiodupto60daysbeforethenewfactdiscoverycutoff,i.e.,astheCourtnotedintheoriginalscheduling
orderinOctober2010.

GoDaddy,ofcourse,willhavetherighttoopposeanythingthatAMPASfileswiththeCourtonthisissue.

Enoch

From: McKown, Aaron M. [mailto:aaron.mckown@bryancave.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:40 PM
To: 'Enoch H. Liang'; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: RE: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling

Enoch,

I want to make sure that I understand your point regarding No.1 as it appears inconsistent with me and ultimately,
I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. First, you say that you are agreeable provided AMPAS can seek
guidance from the Court to add additional domain names discovered in the next 90 days (assuming we do not
extend the cutoff?). Then, you say that either party should have the right to seek guidance regarding handling of
additional domain names (assuming we don't extend the cutoff?). I'm not certain I understand what we would be
agreeing to that would ultimately be any different than agreeing to extend the deadline for new domain names.

My proposal below was to provide certainty so that the parties can prepare for and finalize their discovery
efforts. It is not at all uncommon for parties to agree to extend certain deadlines while not agreeing to extend
others, especially where certain deadlines have already passed. I was stating below that in light of the fact that the
deadline to add domain names has now passed, that should not be a date included in the 90-day extension. The 90-
day extension issue arose as part of Defendants' meet and confer efforts before filing a motion with the Court. If
we were to file a motion to continue in order to conduct additional discovery relating to the contributory
cybersquatting claim, we would not be asking the Court to continue the claims deadline. In fact, our position would
be that the claims deadline has passed and should not be extended. AMPAS has had nearly 18 months to identify
additional domain names, 2 extensions of the deadline, and has served 2 supplements since filing this lawsuit. That
is more than ample time to identify the universe of domain names at issue in this case. The biggest problem, which
necessitate this discussion in the first place, was that by allowing AMPAS to add a contributory cybersquatting
claim, we now need to take third-party depositions, including several overseas once service is effectuated through
the time consuming Hague process. By continually moving the claims deadline, we will not be able to finalize our
efforts to conduct third party discovery, particularly if newly named registrants live abroad, thereby likely requiring
us to seek another extension. Of course, if we seek a further extension and that extension includes another
extension of the claims deadline, we could be repeating the same cycle all over again. In order to avoid this
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 5 of 61 Page ID
#:13635
2
scenario, it makes much more sense to exclude the new claims/domain names deadline from the 90-day extension
as that date has passed and AMPAS has had ample time to identify.

Regards,
Aaron

Aaron M. McKown
Bryan Cave LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Ste 1500
Irvine, CA 92612
Direct Line: 949.223.7134
Facsimile: 949.223.7100
aaron.mckown@bryancave.com


From: Enoch H. Liang [mailto:ehl@ltlcounsel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:02 PM
To: McKown, Aaron M.; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: RE: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling
DearAaron,

Ourcommentsarebelow.

From: McKown, Aaron M. [mailto:aaron.mckown@bryancave.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:09 PM
To: 'Enoch H. Liang'; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: RE: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling

Enoch,

I had a chance to discuss the terms of your proposal below with my client. We are amenable to the
proposal as follows:

1. The 90-day continuance is acceptable, including the dates you proposed, with one exception -- the
deadline to add new domain names to this lawsuit. We received AMPAS' second supplement yesterday,
which was the deadline to add. At this point, there is no date to continue as the deadline has passed. The
parties have considerable discovery upcoming, including depositions, so having certainty regarding the
universe of domain names is critical so that these witnesses can adequately prepare. AMPAS has had nearly
a year and a half to identify and name additional domain names. It is now appropriate to cut off any
additional names in light of yesterday's deadline.
Weareamenabletoagreeingto#1,providedthatneithersideisagreeingthatAMPAScanNOTseekCourt
guidanceonitsabilitytoidentifyadditionalinfringingdomainnames(shouldanypopupintheParking
Programsinthenext90days).

Theoriginalschedulingorder(attached)gaveAMPASuntil60daysbeforethefactdiscoverycutofftoidentify
additionalinfringingdomainnames.Ifthefactdiscoverycutoffisextended90days,thenAMPASshouldhave
therighttoidentifyadditionalinfringingdomainnames.

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 6 of 61 Page ID

#:13636
3
Ourproposalisnotwithstandingthe90daycontinuance,eitherpartycanseekguidancefromtheCourtonthis
issueandbriefthisissueifnecessary.Ifthatworks,pleasesendoveraproposedJointStipulation.

2. We agree not to use or otherwise argue that the production of unredacted fee bills itself constitutes a
waiver of any privilege understanding that we continue to maintain that AMPAS' claim of incurring
attorneys' fees for investigating its claims in this action as a basis for standing under 17200 is what
constitutes a waiver, which we will continue to pursue as set forth in the Joint Stipulation provided last
week.
Fine.

3. We are agreeable to taking the depositions next week off calendar and for rescheduling them for a
mutually convenient time after the completion of the next and final round of Iowa depositions. However,
given my upcoming calendar, I don't anticipate that we'll be able to travel to Iowa and Phoenix for a week
or so each within the next 60 days. In light of the 90-day continuance, and in order to minimize expenses,
perhaps we should consider continuing Ms. Jones' deposition for a later date to proceed in conjunction with
the ones that were scheduled for next week.
Fine.WecancontinuetheChristineJonesdepositiontoamutuallyagreeabledatesowedonthavetotravelto
Phoenixmultipletimes.

4. We are agreeable to the 5-day continuance you requested provided you are willing to grant a similar
request in the future.
Ofcourse.IunderstandthatwehaveworkedtogetheroncontinuancesforJointStipsinthepastandwill
continuetodosogoingforward.

5. I understand AMPAS' intent to maintain its challenge to those matters and agree that nothing in this
proposal constitutes a waiver of AMPAS' position with respect thereto.
Ok.

6. Thank you. Please provide a date for Ms. Clarke's deposition at your earliest convenience.
November 7 or 8 work. Send us a depo notice with the date that you pick.

7. I am working on the response now. Your letter was longer than I anticipated so I will likely not have a
response for you until Monday.
Ok.

Please confirm our agreement at your earliest convenience so that I can cancel pre-arranged travel plans,
notify our Phoenix office to cancel the conference rooms, and inform the witnesses that they will not need
to attend depositions next week.

Regards,
Aaron


Aaron M. McKown
Bryan Cave LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Ste 1500
Irvine, CA 92612
Direct Line: 949.223.7134
Facsimile: 949.223.7100
aaron.mckown@bryancave.com

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 7 of 61 Page ID
#:13637
4

From: Enoch H. Liang [mailto:ehl@ltlcounsel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:07 AM
To: McKown, Aaron M.; Zecchini, Paula L.
Cc: acpa@ltlcounsel.com
Subject: Academy v. GoDaddy Proposal on Scheduling
DearAaron,

Ihadachancetospeakwiththeteamyesterdayafterthehearing.Inordertonarrowtheissuesthat
thepartieshavetobringtotheCourtsattention,wewouldliketomakethefollowingproposal:

1. TheAcademywillagreetoextendalldeadlinesinthecaseby90days.Therevisedcase
scheduleproposedtoJudgeCollinsisattachedforyourreview/confirmation.Pleasecheckthe
datesthatIpropose.

2. TheAcademywillagreetoprovidefeebillsfromQEUStotheAcademyfrom2007topresent,
unredactedexceptforclearlyprivilegedorworkproductentries,i.e.thosethatshowspecifically
thelegaladviceQEUSwasprovidingorthatshowtheareasoflawQEUSwasresearching.

Inotherwords,wewillendeavortounredactthosefeebillssothatGoDaddycanmakea
determinationofwhatdomainnames/websitesQEUSwasbillingtheAcademyforwithrespect
tothattimeentry.

However,itmustbeclearthattheAcademyisnotwaivingitsrighttoclaimattorneyclient
privilegeorattorneyworkproductingeneral.WhileGoDaddycancontinuetoassertitswaiver
argumentsassetforthinitsSept.9JointStipulation,GoDaddymustagreenottoarguethatthe
Academyfurtherwaivedanyofitsrightsbyprovidingtheseunredactedfeebillsfrom2007to
present.

3. Inreturn,GoDaddyandtheAcademywillagreetotakethedepositionsinPhoenixnextweek
offcalendar.Giventhe90dayextensionofalldeadlines,GoDaddyandtheAcademywillwork
togethertoreschedulethosedepositionsatalaterdate,possiblyinearlyNovemberaroundthe
ChristineJonesdeposition.

ThereasoningbehindthedelayinthesedepositionsissothattheAcademycanreviewtheESI
beingproducedwithin14days.Thatway,wewillavoidthepossibility(evenifremote)that
these4witnesseswillneedtoberedeposed.AsecondaryreasonisthattheAcademywantsto
completetheIowadepositionsbeforeproceedingwiththese4witnesses.

4. Finally,inreturn,wewouldlikeashort5dayextensionoftimetoprovideyouourportionof
theJointStipulation,i.e.,untilWednesdaySeptember21,2011.Giventhe90dayextension,I
thinkthetimeneedislesspressinghere.

5. However,theAcademywillcontinuetoopposethefollowing:

a. GoDaddysattempttoseekprefilingcommunicationsbetweenQuinnEmanuelandthe
AcademyregardinginvestigationintotheAcademysclaim;

b. GoDaddysattempttoseekpostfilingcommunicationsbetweenQuinnEmanueland
theAcademyregardingDefendantsand/orthislawsuit;and

Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 8 of 61 Page ID

#:13638
5
c. GoDaddysattempttoseekanadditional20depositionstodeposeRegistrantsintheCP
program.

6. Asdiscussedyesterday,theAcademywill(a)providearevisedprivilegeloginresponsetoyour
Sept.8,2011email;(b)nativeemailsinresponsetoyourSept.8,2011email;and(c)datesfor
itswitnessesoncewereceivea30b6noticefromGoDaddy.

7. WelookforwardtoreceivingyourresponsetotheAcademysSeptember9,2011meetand
conferletter.

Letmeknowretheforegoingproposal,

Enoch

This electronic message is from a law firm. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you received
this transmission in error, please reply to the sender to advise of the error and delete this transmission and any
attachments.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that
any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written
to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
bcllp2011
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 9 of 61 Page ID
#:13639
















































EXHI BI T C
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 10 of 61 Page ID
#:13640
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC
James M. Lee, California Bar No. 192301
Enoch H. Liang, California Bar No. 212324
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4025
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-3737
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
E-mail: ehl(a)tlcounsel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE
ARTS AND SCIENCES, a California
nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
GODADDY.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; THE GODADDY GROUP
INC., a Delaware corporation;
DOMAINS BY PROXY, INC., a
Delaware Corporation;
GREENDOMAINMARKET.COM, an
unknown entity; BDS, an unknown
entity; and XPDREAMTEAM LLC, a
California limited liability corporation,
________ D __ e[i_e_n_d_an_t_s_.
Case No. CVIO 3738 ABC (CW)
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING
DOMAIN NAMES IDENTIFIED
BY PLAINTIFF ACADEMY OF
MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND
SCIENCES
rPursuant to June 9, 201 1 Court
Order]
Action filed: May 18, 2010
TO THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff the Academy of Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences hereby identifies the following additional infringing domain
names. Should the Comi later extend the discovery deadlines in this matter,
Plaintiff reserves the right to identify additional infringing domain names 60
days before the new discovery cut-off.
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 11 of 61 Page ID
#:13641
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES
2 WWW.201 lTHEOSCARS.COM
3 WWW.2012ACADEMYAWARDS.COM
4 WWW.20 13ACADEMY A WARDS.COM
5 WWW.24HOURSA TOSCARS.COM
6 WWW.24HOURSATTHEOSCARS.COM
7 WWW.20SCARS.COM
8 WWW.ACADEMY A WARDS2011 WINNERS. COM
9 WWW.ACADEMY A WARDS2012WINNERS.COM
10 WWW.ALLOSCAR.COM
11 WWW.ALLOSCARWINNERS.COM
12 WWW.BILL YCRYSTAL2012ACADEMYA WARDS.COM
13 WWW.BILL YCRYST AL20 120SCARS.COM
14 WWW.LISTOFACADEMY A WARDW1NNERS.COM
15 WWW.MYOSCARORNOT.COM
16 WWW.MYOSCARSORNOT.COM
17 WWW.NIGHT ATOSCARS.COM
18 WWW.OSCARBUZ.COM
19 WWW.OSCARCAP.COM
20 WWW.OSCARGOODIEBAGS.COM
21 WWW.OSCARIMAGES.COM
22 WWW.OSCARMOMINEE.COM
23 WWW.OSCARMOMINEES.COM
24 WWW.OSCARMONLINE.COM
25 WWW.OSCARMOVIEPOSTERS.COM
26 WWW.OSCARREDCARPET.COM
27 WWW.OSCARS-EMPORIUM.COM
28 WWW.OSCARWINNERS2009.COM
-2-
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 12 of 61 Page ID
#:13642
WWW.OSCARWINNERS2012.COM
2 WWW.OSCARWINNINGMOVIES.COM
3 WWW.THEOSCARS20 11.COM
4 WWW.TWOOSCARS.COM
5 DATED: December 12, 2011
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&
for Plaintiff
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE
ARTS AND SCIENCES
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER,
LLP
Stumi Singer (pro hac vice)
David Nelson (pro hac vice)
Josh Riley (pro hac vice
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Fmi Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 356-0011
Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
E-mail : ssinger@bsfllp.com;
dnelson@bsfllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE
ARTS AND SCIENCES
FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE &
FLOWERS LLC
Robert M. Foote (pro hac vice)
Kathleen Chavez (pro hac vice)
Matthew Herman (pro hac vice)
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: ( 630) 232-6333
Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES JDENTJFJED BY PLAINTIFF
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 13 of 61 Page ID
#:13643
E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com;
kchavez@footemeyers.com;
2
mherman@foote-meyers.com
3
Attorneys for Plaintiff
4
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE
5
ARTS AND SCIENCES
6
7
8
9
10
I 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
ADDJTJONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 14 of 61 Page ID
#:13644
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 l hereby certify that on December 12, 2011, I caused a copy of the
3 foregoing document to be served pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
4 Procedure upon the counsel listed below, via-electronic mail and via pre-
5 paid U.S. First-Class Mail, by placing the same in an envelope correctly
6 addressed, sealed and with postage fully prepaid thereon, and depositing
7 the same in the United States Post Office Box in the City of St. Charles,
8 Illinois.
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
]9
20
21
22
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Gregory D. Trimarche, Esq.
Aaron M. McKown, Esq.
Paula L. Zecchini, Esq.
3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 1500
Irvine, California 92612-4414
Email:
gregory. trimarche@bryancave.com
aaron.mckown@bryancave.com
paula.zecchini@bryancave.com
GODADDY.COM, INC./DOMAINS
BY PROXY, INC.
Christine Jones, Esq.
Kelly Lewis, Esq.
14455 North Hayden Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Email: cjones@godaddy.com;
klewis@godaddy.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Kara Cenar, Esq.
161 Nmih Clark Street, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60601-3315
Email: kara.cenar@bryancave.com
23
I ce1iify under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the United States
24 of America that the foregoing is true on December
25 12,2011.
26
27
28
ADDITIONAL INFRINGING DOMAIN NAMES IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 15 of 61 Page ID
#:13645
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 16 of 61 Page ID
#:13646
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 17 of 61 Page ID
#:13647
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 18 of 61 Page ID
#:13648
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 19 of 61 Page ID
#:13649
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 20 of 61 Page ID
#:13650
















































EXHI BI T D
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 21 of 61 Page ID
#:13651
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 22 of 61 Page ID
#:13652
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 23 of 61 Page ID
#:13653
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 24 of 61 Page ID
#:13654
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 25 of 61 Page ID
#:13655
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 26 of 61 Page ID
#:13656
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 27 of 61 Page ID
#:13657
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 28 of 61 Page ID
#:13658
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 29 of 61 Page ID
#:13659
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 30 of 61 Page ID
#:13660
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 31 of 61 Page ID
#:13661
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 32 of 61 Page ID
#:13662
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 33 of 61 Page ID
#:13663
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 34 of 61 Page ID
#:13664
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 35 of 61 Page ID
#:13665
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 36 of 61 Page ID
#:13666
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 37 of 61 Page ID
#:13667
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 38 of 61 Page ID
#:13668
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 39 of 61 Page ID
#:13669
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 40 of 61 Page ID
#:13670
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 41 of 61 Page ID
#:13671
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 42 of 61 Page ID
#:13672
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 43 of 61 Page ID
#:13673
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 44 of 61 Page ID
#:13674
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 45 of 61 Page ID
#:13675
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 46 of 61 Page ID
#:13676
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 47 of 61 Page ID
#:13677
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 48 of 61 Page ID
#:13678
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 49 of 61 Page ID
#:13679
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 50 of 61 Page ID
#:13680
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 51 of 61 Page ID
#:13681
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 52 of 61 Page ID
#:13682
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 53 of 61 Page ID
#:13683
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 54 of 61 Page ID
#:13684
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 55 of 61 Page ID
#:13685
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 56 of 61 Page ID
#:13686
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 57 of 61 Page ID
#:13687
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 58 of 61 Page ID
#:13688
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 59 of 61 Page ID
#:13689
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 60 of 61 Page ID
#:13690
Case 2:10-cv-03738-ABC-CW Document 381-2 Filed 04/01/13 Page 61 of 61 Page ID
#:13691