Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 6
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Jeffrey Gersh
`Christopher Lavin
`Todd Gregorian; Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team; Michael Sherman; Monique Gonzaque-Dirks
`RE: PWeb - Amazon
`Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:52:52 PM
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
`
`Chris
`
`Further to my email below, let me remind you that Michael Bubman, counsel for certain secured creditors
`of PWeb sent a letter by email on or about September 2, 2021, which you were included on, that called out
`the fact that there is an injunction in place in the LASC receivership action, Case no. 211VECV00575 that
`prohibits Amazon and anyone else from “commencing, prosecuting, continuing or enforcing any suit,
`judgment, lien, levy or proceeding against Defendant PersonalWeb…” It seems to me that your continued
`action to force discovery is a violation of that injunction. If you believe that you/Amazon is entitled to
`continue with the discovery you are seeking please explain to me on what basis you believe you/Amazon is
`entitled to do so. As I told you we are in the middle. I again ask that we speak on Friday and try to sort
`this out.
`
`Regards
`
`JG
`
`
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`818.444.9222 (voice/text/fax) | jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`www.stubbsalderton.com | Attorney Bio
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th FL, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client
`communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
`From: Jeffrey Gersh
`Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:34 PM
`To: Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com>
`Cc: Todd Gregorian <TGregorian@fenwick.com>; Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team <Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team@fenwick.com>; Michael
`Sherman <masherman@stubbsalderton.com>; Monique Gonzaque-Dirks <MGONZAQUEDIRKS@stubbsalderton.com>
`Subject: RE: PWeb - Amazon
`
`Chris
`
`Last week I was out for the Jewish holidays and had eye surgery Wednesday so I have not been able to
`spend too much time reading, including emails as I was getting headaches and from my blurred vision. I
`certainly had not read your email until the weekend and obviously missed your self-imposed deadline
`which was slightly more than 24 hours from your email. Your request under the best of circumstances was
`and would be impossible to meet given the situation with PWeb and the position SAM is in; something we
`repeatedly discussed.
`
` I
`
` am having another eye surgery tomorrow and out for the holiday on Thursday. We are working on
`assembling docs for you and I am working on getting further responses where appropriate. But I have been
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`very limited. My office is attempting to locate docs regarding those areas where that atty client privilege
`was asserted by the client which we are going through and I am told we will have those docs for the client
`to review Friday, assuming I am ok to read what we have located and then send same to the client for their
`input on whether we can send those or not. I just request that you bear with us. We are in the middle
`here and are doing the best we can. Hopefully Friday I will be back on my feet and my eyes will be better.
`
`Regarding the interrogatories I asked that you explain various questions as to what exactly you meant, and
`you will recall that you said you didn’t have to; the interrogatories are clear or that any objection was
`waived. I simply asked for clarification, and you refused to provide such time and again. I tried to go over
`each question with you and your response was the same – that the client responses were inadequate and
`you wanted a narrative response. The docs that you received is all I was provided. I am seeking further
`information as well from PWeb. I am going to try to get you more information and further respond where
`we can but I am limited as to what information I have.
`
` I
`
` will know more Friday and I would ask that we talk then and figure out a plan and timing for all of this.
`
`
`Your cooperation is appreciated.
`
`JG
`
`
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`818.444.9222 (voice/text/fax) | jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`www.stubbsalderton.com | Attorney Bio
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th FL, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client
`communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
`From: Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com>
`Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:30 AM
`To: Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>
`Cc: Todd Gregorian <TGregorian@fenwick.com>; Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team <Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: PWeb - Amazon
`
`
`WARNING: This email originated outside of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP. Do not click on any links or attachments
`unless you know the sender.
`
`Jeff,
`
`We disagree with your below summary of our meet-and-confer call; this e-mail is to summarize that call and correct the record.
`
`At the outset of the call, I stated that PersonalWeb has had our discovery requests for four months since April 2021, was thereafter
`ordered twice by the Court to respond to them, and has been on notice of the deficiencies in its discovery responses and document
`production since August 3, 2021. Yet, despite all of this time and this notice, PersonalWeb has provided insufficient responses, or
`functionally no responses in the instances of the privilege objections, and a minimal production, and not addressed either the past few
`weeks.
`
`Interrogatories
`
`
`As to Interrogatory Nos. 1-10, we reiterated our positions conveyed to you by August 3, 2021 e-mail and August 19, 2021 letter
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`that the responses are deficient and requested that you provide a complete narrative response and identify the specific
`documents that are responsive to a particular interrogatory per FRCP. You and I discussed the deficiencies in each interrogatory
`response. As an example, you and I discussed how the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8 do not provide all of the
`requested information. As another example, you and I discussed how the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3-4 likewise do not
`directly respond to the interrogatory and provide all of the requested information. Because Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 depend
`upon the responses to earlier interrogatories, Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 need to be re-addressed as well. You stated that you
`would review the responses, but did not commit to supplement.
`
`Specifically, as to Interrogatory Nos. 9-10, I again reiterated our request for a substantive response—and not an objection based
`on privilege—as the Court has ordered. You acknowledged our position, but stated that PersonalWeb instructed you to assert
`privilege. I stated that we disagreed that PersonalWeb could rely on privilege given the Court’s order.
`
`
`Requests For Production
`
`
`At the top of the discussion, I stated that we believe that PersonalWeb’s document production is deficient, as numerous
`categories of documents clearly responsive to our requests have not been produced, including, but not limited to:
`
`
`Any PersonalWeb meeting minutes/bylaws;
`Any promissory notes, including any drafts, executed versions, and amendments thereof, between PersonalWeb and the
`creditor-investors;
`Any PersonalWeb internal financial statements, including the supporting documents for income, expenses, assets,
`liabilities, debits, credits, transfers, deductions, etc.;
`Any supporting documents concerning PersonalWeb bank statements, such as assets, liabilities, debits, credits, transfers,
`deductions, etc.;
`Any supporting documents concerning PersonalWeb tax returns, such as income, revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities,
`losses, deductions, etc.;
`Any documents on PersonalWeb assets, including at least on the information contained in the response to Interrogatory
`No. 3 and regarding the patent litigations that PersonalWeb has identified are now its primary assets, such as any financial
`analyses, valuations, amounts of any expected recoveries, any securitizations/collateral against the litigations, etc.;
`Correspondence between PersonalWeb and the creditor-investors, including any demand letters for repayment of
`promissory notes
`
`You did not deny that such documents would exist, be responsive and have not been produced. I stated that, given the above
`documents have not been produced, that we overall question the veracity of PersonalWeb’s document production in response
`to all of our Requests for Production Nos. 1-43. When I asked you how a search for responsive documents was conducted, you
`stated that you forwarded the requests for production to PesonalWeb and left it to your client to collect and provide you with
`responsive documents. I stated that we thought that method of collection was insufficient and we would like another, more
`thorough search to be conducted for responsive documents and to produce any new documents.
`
`More specifically, we reviewed my August 19, 2021 letter to you, which expanded on an earlier August 3, 2021 e-mail, identifying
`numerous requests for production that we believe there have been insufficient or no responsive documents produced and you
`raised with me on the call some of the requests as you felt necessary. You raised a few objections throughout our discussion.
`First, you complained that the requests were poorly written because they were often duplicative. Second, you repeatedly asked
`me to define terms in requests that you claimed to not understand. Third, you repeatedly raised one-off examples of documents
`that you believed would fall within the literal scope of a request but believed shouldn’t have to be produced, seemingly eluding
`to the burden or lack of relevance (e.g., a receipt for a $10 McDonalds business lunch, Staples receipt for office supplies from 8
`years ago, etc.). In response, I stated that the time to meet and confer regarding scope was four months ago upon receipt of the
`requests and these points were now belated. Nevertheless, I addressed your objections. I stated, overall, that we want a
`reasonable and proportional production of documents for the current disposition of this matter and that the current production
`was not even close. I stated that the requests seek different documents, but that there could be overlap among requests, which
`indeed is common practice in litigation, but that documents only had to be produced once and there was no additional burden to
`PersonalWeb. I stated that we believe the requests are intelligible and easily understood, but nonetheless defined terms for you.
`I further stated that we are not seeking documents at the margins of the requests, that I believe you understood the current
`disposition of this matter, and requested you give us PersonalWeb’s best document production. You stated that you would
`review the requests with PersonalWeb, but did not commit to make a supplemental production.
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Compel/For Sanctions
`
`
`I notified you that, given the deficient discovery responses (including improper assertions of privilege objections) and incomplete
`document production despite having had the requests for over four months and receiving two court orders to produce, and us
`alerting you to the deficiencies on August 3, we intended to move to compel and for sanctions against PersonalWeb and Stubbs
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`Alderton as the district court previously expressly authorized us to do. After our conference you sent the below email on August
`27 stating you would follow up with your client to address the deficiencies, yet you have apparently done nothing despite the
`passage of two more weeks.
`
`
`Please provide your response by noon on Friday, September 10.
`
`Regards,
`Chris
`
`Chris Lavin
`Fenwick | Associate | +1 415-875-2287 | CLavin@fenwick.com | Admitted to practice in California.
`
`From: Todd Gregorian <TGregorian@fenwick.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 6:06 PM
`To: Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com>; Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>
`Cc: Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team <Amazon_PersonalWeb_Team@fenwick.com>
`Subject: Re: PWeb - Amazon
`
`
`
`
`On Aug 27, 2021, at 9:04 PM, Todd Gregorian <TGregorian@fenwick.com> wrote:
`
`J
`
`eff,
`
`
`Personalweb made a minimal and deficient production at the deadline, and has produced no additional documents in
`weeks despite representations stating that you would follow up. This new gambit of claiming confusion about what
`documents reflect, e.g., financial account information or assets or transfers of PersonalWeb, is just more obstruction. You
`haven’t identified the records PersonalWeb has located but withheld, you left collection entirely to the client and do not
`even know, and you want instead to engage in an academic discussion, as shown by the fact that you held Chris on the
`phone for an hour and forty minutes today to discuss the meaning of words in the individual requests. Chris will follow up
`with a fuller statement of our position, but as counsel of record you have an obligation to ensure compliance with the
`court’s orders and have not done so, and so we plan to move forward with a motion and sanctions request unless there is
`immediate and complete compliance.
`
`Thank you,
`-t
`
`
`On Aug 27, 2021, at 8:26 PM, Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com> wrote:
`
` F
`
`rom: Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:25 PM
`To: Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com>
`Cc: Michael Sherman <masherman@stubbsalderton.com>; James Ponce <jponce@stubbsalderton.com>
`Subject: PWeb - Amazon
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
`
`Chris
`
`In follow-up to our lengthy meet and confer call, you told me at the end of the call
`that despite the fact that we were finally able to meet and confer today and went over
`some 40+ Request for Production of Docs and 20+ Interrogatories, many of which I
`asked for and needed explanation from you as to what it was you thought was
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 742-6 Filed 04/22/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`deficient and you refused to explain, (in fact you simply said “I am not going to parse
`out the questions”), you told me that you intend to move to compel further responses
`and seek sanctions against SAM and PWeb. I asked you why you thought you had a
`basis to seek sanctions against SAM when I told you that we have complied as best we
`could with the court’s order based upon our situation with our client, you simply said
`we have had the discovery for months and your firm intends to move to compel
`without allowing us to even speak with the client further and try to get more
`information for you or supplement. I told you I was out Monday, but I thought we
`could get information no later than Wednesday with what we would be able to
`supplement and when and you said that did not matter - you were going to be moving
`“in parallel”. I remind you that your letter asked us to meet and confer the week of
`August 23, this week and we did so. It was on August 25 that you asked for a call on
`August 26 and I told you that was OK and thought you were going to call me but you
`didn’t – you apologized for not being able to do so. I told you I was available today
`August 27 and we spoke. We have not been dilatory at all in responding to your meet
`and confer letter. I also explained to you that we are doing what is asked of us in light
`of our client situation, yet it made no difference. You obviously had your marching
`orders from your “team” as you call it.
`
`In any event, the reasonable thing to do is to allow us time to talk to the client, see
`what the client’s position is based on what information we have already provided and
`then we can work to supplement the responses where appropriate and if necessary. I
`am suggesting to you again that you hold off on any further action until we can
`determine early next week what the client’s response is and then if you are not
`satisfied you can do what you think is necessary. Not giving us time to deal with what
`we just discussed is inappropriate. Throwing sanctions around against anyone let
`alone SAM is not appropriate. We are stuck in the middle, and you know it.
`
` I
`
` ask that you reconsider your position.
`
`
`JG
`
`
`<image001.png>
`
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`818.444.9222 (voice/text/fax) | jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`www.stubbsalderton.com | Attorney Bio
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th FL, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`<image002.gif>
`
`<image003.gif>
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This
`message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not
`the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
`document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
`communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
`
`