Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA657452
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/23/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91210158
`Defendant
`Lundy Law, LLP
`MANNY D POKOTILOW
`CAESAR RIVISE BERNSTEIN COHEN & POKOT
`1635 MARKET ST , SEVEN PENN CENTER 12TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@crbcp.com, mlozada@crbcp.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`mlozada@crbcp.com
`/mdp/
`02/23/2015
`L118140003 Lundy Opposition to Pitt request Redesignate with exhibits 02 23
`2015.pdf(1560159 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`Applicant.
`
`:
`'
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`A.S.N. 85/767,757
`
`APPLICANT, LUNDY LAW’S OPPOSITION TO
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION
`
`Opposer, Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. has requested redesignation of documents which
`
`were labeled “Trade Secret/ Commercially Sensitive/ Attorney’s Eyes Only” so that it may show
`
`the documents to the Opposer, a direct competitor of Applicant. On Friday, February 20, 2014,
`
`App1icant’s counsel advised Opposer’s counsel
`
`it would stipulate to the redesignation of
`
`documents from “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to “Confidential”. These documents are stamped Bates
`
`Nos. 1159-1160, 1163, 1164, 1184, 1261-1267, 1270-1281, 1314, 1240, 1245- 1246, 1248-1250,
`
`1380-1384, 1315, 1370 and 1632-1633 to Confidential so that the documents may be shown to
`
`Opposer under the Protective order. Lundy Law, LLP through its managing partner L. Leonard
`
`Lundy has described why in his accompanying Declaration the “Trade Secret/ Commercially
`
`SensitiVe/ Attorneys Eyes Only” designated documents, which contain information on many subjects,
`
`are valuable trade secrets which should not be seen by a competitor. These documents include Bates
`
`Nos. 1128,1133-1138, 1161, 1371,1372, 1376-1378,1388,1389,1393-1536,1443,1450,1162,
`
`

`
`1167, 1168, 1185-1187, 1193, 1260, 1268, 1269, 1282-1288, 1289-1293, 1294-1314, 1630,
`
`1631, 1194-1211, 1234, 1235, 1165, 1166, 1188-1192, 1252, 1254 -1256, 1212-1225, 1226,
`
`1236-1239,1241-1244,1247, 1251-1253,1257-1259, 1379, l3l6,l3l7,l347-1353, 1354-1357,
`
`1358-1359, 1360-1364, 1374, 1375, 1390, 1391,1549-1583, 1583 and 1584.1 Opposer’s Request
`
`for Redesignation should be denied not only because the documents contain highly sensitive
`
`marketing and financial information, but also, Opposer is a direct competitor and the documents have
`
`not even been shown to be relevant to the issues in this case. That is, in the Board’s Order dated
`
`October 31, 2014 the Board granted Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`to dismiss
`
`Opposer’s claims that the mark REMEMBER THIS NAME is generic or descriptive. The Board in
`
`that order allowed Opposer “to file and serve an amended notice of opposition which properly sets
`
`forth a claim that Applicant’s REMEMBER THIS NAME does not function as a service mark.” (At
`
`17) However, all of the documents that remain designated “Trade Secret/ Commercially Sensitive/
`
`Attorney’s Eyes Only” documents are documents that have never been published. Only those
`
`documents that show how the mark REMEMBER THIS NAME has been publicly used are relevant
`
`and Opposer has not even suggested that any of the documents are relevant.
`
`I.
`
`Background of the Document Production
`
`All of the documents that are in issue were produced in compliance with the Board’s
`
`Order dated Feb. 28, 2014 which was entered when the issues included only whether the mark
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME is generic and/or descriptive. The Board in that Order (footnote 8 at
`
`page 9) noted that the parties “have agreed to proceed in this matter without a protective order.”
`
`The Board then imposed upon the parties the standard protective order.
`
`It should be noted that it
`
`was so represented by Opposer in connection with the Motion to Compel which resulted in the
`
`' These documents are discussed in the Declaration of L. Leonard Lundy (Exhibit 1) in the order
`that they are described in Opposer’s Memorandum in Support of Redesignation.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Order dated February 28, 2014 that the parties had agreed to proceed without a protective order.
`
`Applicant respectfully wishes to clarify that alleged agreement.
`
`ln fact, Applicant’s counsel on
`
`June 12, 2013 (Exhibit 2) asked Opposer’s counsel if it would be agreeable to the default
`
`protective order of the TTAB. When counsel for the parties had a telephone conference shortly
`
`thereafter, Opposer’s counsel refused to sign any protective order. Applicant’s counsel advised
`
`that if any documents had to be produced, which were confidential, they would not be produced
`
`without a protective order. See Exhibit 3, Applicant’s counse1’s letter to Opposer’s counsel of
`
`June 14, 2013. As the Board noted in the Order dated February 28, 2014 at pages 6 and 7,
`
`Opposer sought “a broad range of discovery (which the Board find is not necessary to respond to
`
`app1icant’s motion for summary judgment)” The Board did allow the discovery of the
`
`documents Applicant produced under the protective order because they might relate to the issues
`
`of genericness or descriptiveness of the mark REMEMBER THIS NAME. The Board also
`
`ordered that the standard Protective Order be imposed in this case (p. 9, fn 8). Since both of
`
`those issues are no longer part of the case, the relevancy of these documents has yet to be shown
`
`by the Opposer who has failed in its request to even mention the relevancy of the documents
`
`sought to be redesignated.
`
`II.
`
`Information in Documents in Issue are Valuable Trade Secrets of Lundy
`
`Law and Opposer is a Direct Competitor
`
`As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of L. Leonard Lundy (Exhibit 1), managing
`
`partner of the Applicant, Lundy Law, LLP, all of the documents in issue identified in the Request
`
`for Redesignation are highly confidential documents evidencing Lundy Law, LLP’s marketing
`
`strategy and if used by its competitors would be very damaging. See Paragraph 4.
`
`In this
`
`respect, Applicant, Larry Pitt & Associates, is one of many direct, head—to—head competitors of
`
`Lundy Law, LLP and the disclosure of the documents to any one of Lundy Law’s competitors
`
`

`
`would do substantial financial damage to Lundy Law. This is so even though some of the
`
`documents at issue are several years old because they retain current competitive significance and
`
`would reveal Lundy Law’s current marketing strategy, which has not changed in the interim.
`
`The value of this marketing strategy for Lundy Law’s services is shown by the statements made
`
`by Opposer in a co—pending civil action filed by the Opposer against Applicantz.
`
`°
`
`“The business of a law firm such as Pitt or Lundy is wholly dependent on the
`
`ability of the firm to attract and ultimately sign engagement agreements with, a high volume of
`individual clients. This is because the individual fees collected are often relatively small per case
`
`and sporadically collected.”
`
`°
`
`“Thus, drawing clients into a given small personal
`
`injury and social security
`
`disability and workers’ compensation law firrn’s intake process is, in effect, the most important
`
`component of such a law firm’s business.”
`
`“If a prospective client is not exposed, through the most effective mass reach
`-
`advertising, to the name and contact information of a given small personal injury and social
`
`security disability and workers’ compensation law firm on a routine, consistent, and respective
`
`basis, that prospective client will not know to call that law finn’s intake number when the need
`
`for such services arises and, as a result, that prospective client will not retain that law firm.”
`
`Thus as Opposer itself has stated, it is the marketing strategy of a personal injury firm
`
`that is its most important component. The specific documents that Opposer has alleged in its
`
`Memorandum to contain information that has been published are in fact documents that do not
`
`contain published commercials as set forth in the Declaration of L. Leonard Lundy which are
`
`incorporated by reference herein. Accordingly, not only do the documents contain information,
`
`ideas and strategies for marketing that are trade secrets, the Opposer is a direct competitor who
`
`would benefit at the expense of Lundy Law by being exposed to the information which has no
`
`relevance, in fact or as alleged by Opposer, to the issues remaining in this case.
`
`3 Larry Pitt & Associates, PC. v. Lundy Law, LLP, et al, Civil Action No. l3-2398 in the United
`States District Couit for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Document 68~2, p.8.
`
`4
`
`

`
`III.
`
`The Designation of “Trade Secret/ Commercially Sensitive/ Attorney's Eyes
`
`Only” is Appropriate for the Documents at Issue
`
`Unlike the cases cited by Opposer, there is a substantial question as to the relevance of
`
`the documents sought by Opposer to be redesignated. This lack of evidence of relevance of the
`
`documents to the issue in the case is exacerbated by the fact that Opposer is a head-to—head
`
`competitor of Lundy Law.
`
`In addition, the documents at issue contain trade secrets relating to
`
`highly sensitive marketing plans and ideas for future commercials. And, the redesignation is
`
`sought by the Opposer so that Opposer may review these documents.
`
`In such a case, the legal
`
`standard for determining whether an “attorneys eyes only” designation is appropriate is set forth
`
`in a recent decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in
`
`Pinterest, Inc. v Pintrips, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149497, attached as Exhibit 4 for the
`
`convenience of the Board.
`
`In determining that House Counsel was not entitled to see documents
`
`designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALMATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” the court stated (at
`
`pages 1 and 2):
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(l) permits "discovery regarding any
`nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." The
`information sought "need not be admissible at
`the trial" so long as it
`"appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence." Id. A producing party may ask the Court to minimize its burden
`to turn over discoverable information by ordering "that a [*3]
`trade secret
`or other confidential research, development, or commercial information
`need not be revealed or revealed only in a specified way." Fed. R. Civ. P.
`26(0). In that instance, the producing party bears the burden of showing
`that such protection is warranted. City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals,
`LLC, No. C 11-1446 YGR (MEI), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56757, 2012
`WL 1414075, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2012). The Court must balance
`the risk of inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets to competitors against the
`risk that the protection of such information will impair a plaintiffs ability
`to prosecute its case. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d
`1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (no abuse of discretion where magistrate judge
`held an evidentiary hearing, during which in—house counsel testified, prior
`
`

`
`to issuing a protective order limiting access to attoriieys' eyes only
`information).
`
`The Court in Pinterest fuither noted that "The concern for inadvertent [*5] disclosure is
`
`particularly acute where the party seeking access to the information is a direct competitor."
`
`Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Davachi, No. C 10-03575 SC (LB), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71296, 2011
`
`WL 2610170, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) (citing U.S. Steel Corp., 730 F.2d at 1468 11.3).
`
`Because both parties were competitors the mere risk of inadvertent disclosure by house counsel
`
`was sufficient to deny access to the documents designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL»
`
`ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY”.
`
`In the instant case, Opposer is asking the Board to permit the direct competitor of Lundy
`
`Law, not its house counsel, to have access to the documents of Lundy Law containing future
`
`commercials, marketing strategy, when and where to advertise, etc. for the same business,
`
`personal injury law.
`
`This balancing of divergent interests requires that when a competitor is seeking discovery
`
`and the opposing party has shown that the discovery sought is coininercially sensitive and
`
`confidential information, and that its disclosure is potentially harmful, the competitor must then
`
`“show that
`
`this information is relevant and necessary in the prosecution of the litigation.”
`
`DuracellL Inc. v. SW Consultants, Inc., 126 F.R.D. 576 (N.D. Ga. 1989), (In balancing the
`
`potential harm to the paity from disclosure against the need of the party seeking marketing data,
`
`the court denied disclosure until evidence was submitted of its relevance.) See also Empire of
`
`
`Carolina Inc. v. Mackle, 108 F.R.D. 323, 327 (S.D. F1. 1985), where production of confidential
`
`financial strategy was denied because such information was protectable and the materials sought
`
`were of limited relevance. Thus, without showing substantial relevance of discovery sought,
`
`6
`
`

`
`potentially harmful discovery to a party are protected from disclosure. Further, Opposer must
`
`show why its counsel is not capable of handling this case without its assistance.
`
`As seen by Pinterest, and the cases cited therein such as U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States,
`
`730 F.2d 1465, 1467(Fed. Cir. 1984) and the Duracell and Empire of Carolina cases, a court
`
`must balance the interests of maintaining valuable trade secrets against the risk that the other
`
`party’s ability to prosecute its case will be limited. Here it is clear, there is not any evidence that
`
`the documents are relevant to the issue. As set forth above, the issue in this case is whether the
`
`mark REMEMBER THIS NAME has been used as a service mark for legal
`
`services.
`
`Accordingly it is highly unlikely that any of the documents in issue, none of which have been
`
`published, would be ‘used in the prosecution of this case by Opposer. Compared with the value
`
`of the trade secrets and the irreparable harm that would be caused by use of the marketing
`
`strategies of Lundy Law against it in marketing by a competitor, it is respectfully requested that
`
`access to the documents designated “Trade Secret/ Commercially Sensitive/ Attorney’s Eyes
`
`Only” be denied to the Opposer and the requests for redesignation denied.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in the L. Leonard Lundy Declaration incorporated
`
`herein, Applicant Lundy Law respectfully requests that Opposer be denied access to the
`
`documents designated “Trade Secret/ Commercially Sensitive/ Attorney’s Eyes Only”. Opposer
`
`has yet to claim, much less show any relevance of the documents so designated while Applicant
`
`has made a very specific showing that the documents contain information which are valuable
`
`trade secrets, the misuse of which would not only be costly, such misuse could cause irreparable
`
`harm. When balancing the competing interests, it is respectfully submitted they weigh heavily in
`
`favor of Applicants request that Opposer’s request for redesignation be denied of the documents
`
`

`
`wit11 Bates Numbers 1128, 1133-1138, 1159-1160, 1161, 1371, 1372, 1376-1378, 1388, 1389,
`
`1393-1536, 1443, 1450, 1162, 1167,
`
`1168, 1185-1187, 1193, 1260, 1268, 1269, 1282-1288,
`
`1289-1293,1294-1314,1630,1631,1194-1211,1234,1235,1165,1166,1188-1192,1252,1254
`
`-1256, 1212-1225, 1226, 1236-1239, 1241-1244, 1247, 1251-1253, 1257-1259, 1379, 1316,
`
`1317,1347-1353,1354-1357, 1358-1359, 1360-1364,1374,1375, 1390, 1391,1549-1583, 1583
`
`and 1584 (see paragraphs 7 through Slof the L. Leonard Lundy Declaration).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN,
`COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD.
`
`Dated: February 23, 2015
`
`By
`
`/MPokotilow/
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`1635 Market Street
`
`12th Floor - Seven Penn Center
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
`Attorneysfor Applicant Lundy Law, LLP
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`the within APPLICANT, LUNDY LAW’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION is
`
`being electronically filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Via the Electronic System
`
`for Trademark Trial and Appeals (ESTTA) on this day, February 23, 2015.
`
`/MPokoti1ow/
`
`Manny Pokotilow
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`the within APPLICANT, LUNDY LAW’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES’ REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION is
`
`being served upon Opposer, on this 23"d day of February, 2015 Via First Class Mail
`
`in an
`
`envelope addressed to:
`
`Jacqueline Lesser
`Nancy Frandsen
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`Cira Centre — 12”‘ Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`/MPokotil0w/
`
`Manny Pokotilow
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`LUNDY LAW,LLP
`
`Applicant.
`
`:
`'
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`A.S.N. 85/767,757
`
`DECLARATION OF L. LEONARD LUNDY
`
`I, L. Leonard Lundy, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am the managing partner of Lundy Law, LLP, the Applicant in this matter.
`
`I submit
`
`this declaration in support of Lundy Law, LLP’s Opposition to
`
`Opposer’s Request
`
`for Redesignation of Documents Marked “Trade Secret/Commercially
`
`Sensitive/Attorneys’ Eyes Only”, filed herewith.
`
`3.
`
`In particular,
`
`I wish to respond to Opposer’s assertions on pages 7-10 of its
`
`Request for Redesignation.
`
`4.
`
`As a preliminary matter, all of the documents referred to in the Request for
`
`Redesignation are highly confidential documents evidencing Lundy Law, LLP’s marketing
`
`strategy and could be used by its competitors to cause competitive harm to Lundy Law, LLP.
`
`Opposer Larry Pitt & Associates is one of many direct, head—to—head competitors of Lundy Law,
`
`LLP. The disclosure of the documents at issue to any one of Lundy Law’s competitors would do
`
`substantial financial damage to Lundy Law. This is so even though some of the documents at
`
`

`
`issue are several years old. They retain current competitive significance and would reveal Lundy
`
`Law, LLP’s current marketing strategy, which has not materially changed in the interim.
`
`5.
`
`In a co—pending civil action filed by the Opposer against Applicant, the Opposer
`
`has explained why, in its view, a law finn would consider documents revealing its marketing
`
`strategies Trade Secret/Coininerically Sensitive/Attorneys’ Eyes Only. In particular, Opposer
`
`stated:
`
`-
`
`“The business of a law firm such as Pitt or Lundy is wholly dependent on the
`
`ability of the firm to attract and ultimately sign engagement agreements with, a high
`
`volume of individual clients. This is because the individual fees collected are often
`
`relatively small per case and sporadically collected.”
`
`-
`
`“Thus, drawing clients into a given small personal
`
`injury and social security
`
`disability and workers’ compensation law firm’s intake process is, in effect, the most
`
`important component of such a law firm’s business.”
`
`-
`
`“If a prospective client is not exposed, through the most effective mass reach
`
`advertising, to the name and contact information of a given small personal injury and
`
`social security disability and workers’ compensation law firm on a routine, consistent,
`
`and respective basis, that prospective client will not know to call that law firm’s intake
`
`number when the need for such services arises and, as a result, that prospective client will
`
`not retain that law firm.”
`
`6.
`
`As I understand it, the Opposition is now limited to whether or not Lundy Law
`
`has been using the Service Mark REMEMBER THIS NAME as a service mark, and under the
`
`Lanham Act, a service mark is “in use in commerce” if the mark is used or displayed in the sale
`
`or advertising of services. Accordingly it is my understanding that the manner in which the mark
`
`

`
`has actually been shown to the public is what is at issue in this case.
`
`I do not believe any of the
`
`documents for which redesignation is sought in this motion are in any way relevant to that issue.
`
`7.
`
`Opposer has identified the categories of documents which it seeks to redesignate.
`
`The first category is Spot Calendars and Confirmation of Spots. With respect to document Bates
`
`Nos. 1128, it is a schedule which is not available to the public and which schedules are not made
`
`public.
`
`In addition, the public would never know, nor would a competitor know, what our
`
`schedules are or whether any specific commercial ran or did not run. Revealing this document
`
`to Opposer would not only reveal Lundy Law, LLP’s scheduling strategy, it would be providing
`
`to Opposer, a direct business competitor, the marketing strategy used by Lundy with respect to
`
`when and where it places commercials.
`
`8.
`
`With respect to document Bates Nos. 1133-1138, my answer is the same as the
`
`answer to Bates No. 1128.
`
`9.
`
`With respect to document Bates Nos. 1159-1160, I understand that the parties
`
`have already agreed to redesignate these documents.
`
`10. With respect to document Bates No. 1161, disclosure would reveal confidential
`
`marketing plans of Lundy Law, LLP and show how Lundy Law apportions placed ads by
`
`practice areas. This is not information that Lundy Law, LLP’s competitors could derive from
`
`public sources.
`
`11. With respect
`
`to document Bates Nos. 1371-1372, such documents contain
`
`information relating to placing of ads and show the marketing strategy of Lundy Law, LLP as
`
`well as the name of its contacts — all of which are trade secrets. Lundy Law takes appropriate
`
`steps to protect all of its confidential documents from being revealed to its competitors and limits
`
`the disclosures to only employees with a need to know.
`
`

`
`12. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1376-1378 and 1388-1389,
`
`1 repeat the
`
`comments made with respect to document Bates Nos. 1371-1372.
`
`13. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1393-1536, these emails when taken as a
`
`whole represent
`
`internal and outside communications detailing our marketing plans and
`
`strategies. These documents represent valuable trade secrets.
`
`14. With respect to document Bates No. 1443, it represents a commercial that has
`
`never aired or published and is a trade secret.
`
`15. With respect
`
`to document Bates ‘No. 1450, as with the remainder of the
`
`documents in this grouping, of documents categorized by Pitt as “Spot Calendars and
`
`Confirmation of Spots”, it represents an idea script that was never used.
`
`In this respect, this
`
`group of documents shows how Lundy Law decides what commercials to run, and where to air
`
`them. This group of documents also show “spot codes” which is how Lundy Law numerically
`
`labels a spot, and how it proportions and sets its schedules of advertising.
`
`It is also the internal
`
`designation, of the type of legal service for which the advertisement
`
`is written and then
`
`scheduled, none of which is available to the public or competitors. These documents also show
`
`internal call trend, internal costs and other sensitive dollar amounts, very sensitive economic
`
`numbers, competitor information and traffic information with respect to commercials, websites,
`
`yellow page information, financial information and a substantial amount of strategy information
`
`that would be very valuable to a competitor and represents trade secrets of highly detailed
`
`information on Lundy Law’s marketing and clients. The documents of this series not only are
`
`extremely confidential, they contain dollar amounts Lundy Law planned to spend on marketing.
`
`These documents also contain bills from the production companies and show how much Lundy
`
`

`
`Law paid for commercials, e mails to members of Lundy Law and its vendors all of which is
`
`very sensitive and proprietary about how Lundy Law markets and operates.
`
`16. With respect to the category of documents Opposer classifies as Story Boards,
`
`contrary to Opposer’s statement, these do not show previously released advertisements. They
`
`show possible advertisements which were not released and may be used in the future.
`
`In this
`
`respect, with respect to document Bates No. 1162, the advertisement has not been released and
`
`this advertisement is still a trade secret. All of the unreleased advertisements and story boards of
`
`commercials, ideas and advertisements not yet released are trade secrets.
`
`17. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1163-1164, I understand the parties have
`
`stipulated to the redesignation of such documents.
`
`18. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1167-1168, Lundy Law has not released
`
`advertisements based on these story boards.
`
`19. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1184-1187,
`
`I understand document No.
`
`1184 is part of the stipulation to redesignate. Document No. 1185 is not a released
`
`advertisement. Document Nos. 1186-1187 have never been released.
`
`20. With respect to document Bates No. 1193,
`
`the advertisement has never been
`
`released.
`
`21. With respect to document Bates No. 1260, this is a never released advertising
`
`idea.
`
`22. With respect to document Bates No. 1261-1267, I understand these are part of the
`
`stipulation to redesignate.
`
`23. With respect
`
`to document Bates Nos. 1268-1269,
`
`these are never released
`
`advertisements and remain trade secrets.
`
`

`
`24. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1270-1281, , I understand these are part of
`
`the stipulation to redesignate.
`
`25. With respect
`
`to document Bates Nos. 1282-1288,
`
`these are not previously
`
`released advertisements.
`
`In fact, they have not been published and remain trade secrets.
`
`26. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1286-1288, I understand these documents
`
`are part of the stipulation to be redesignated.
`
`27. With respect
`
`to document Bates Nos. 1289-1293,
`
`these are not previously
`
`released advertisements, but rather unreleased and not yet aired.
`
`28. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1294-1314 these are combined story boards
`
`which have not been used or released as advertisements. Story boards do not necessarily become
`
`commercials. They are pictorials which are reviewed and may or may not be approved for
`
`commercial release. They represent ideas and planning which have substantial value for future
`
`advertising and are trade secrets.
`
`29. With respect to document Bates No. 1314, I understand it is part of the stipulation
`
`to redesignate.
`
`30. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1630-1631, these represent ideas and story
`
`boards which have not been released and which contain confidential and highly valuable ideas
`
`which have not yet been released.
`
`31.
`
`Documents categorized by Opposer as Advertising Schedules - document Bates
`
`Nos. 1194-1211 and 1234-1235 are schedules that are not available to the public, which show the
`
`highly confidential marketing strategies used by Lundy Law, LLP and represent highly valuable
`
`commercial information relating to how and why Applicant successfully advertises its services.
`
`These are valuable trade secrets.
`
`

`
`32. With respect to the category referred to as Old, Outdated Marketing Plans and
`
`Proposals, the first Bates Nos. referred to are 1165-1166. Bates No. 1165 shows marketing
`
`strategy and ideas which are trade secrets.
`
`33. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1188-1192, these documents are highly
`
`confidential advertising proposals which include marketing strategy in addition to the sales
`
`figures which Opposer has recognized as trade secrets.
`
`34. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1252 and 1254-1256, these documents are
`
`part of the planning process of making commercials for Lundy Law, LLP including ideas, story
`
`boards of commercials that have not been aired and script changes and ideas. These are trade
`
`secrets.
`
`35. With respect to documents which are listed as Scripts for Previously Released
`
`Ads, document Bates Nos. 1212-1225 are transcripts of recordings of my statements which were
`
`edited in parts for commercials. These transcripts contain very sensitive information and much
`
`of this has never been used. There are production questions and notes, all of which are highly
`
`confidential trade secrets and this information is used to create a series of commercials.
`
`It is
`
`highly proprietary and if released will permit a competitor to use Lundy Law’s ideas.
`
`36. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1226 and 1236-1239, these have never been
`
`aired. They are highly confidential ideas which are used for planning and which may be aired in
`
`the future.
`
`37.
`
`1 understand Document Bates No. 1240 is part of the stipulation for redesignation.
`
`38.
`
`Document Bates Nos. 1241-1244, 1 do not believe they have been released and
`
`consider them highly confidential trade secrets.
`
`39.
`
`I understand Document Bates Nos. 1245-1246 are part of the stipulation.
`
`

`
`40.
`
`Document Bates No. 1247 has not been used or released and is considered highly
`
`confidential and is a trade secret.
`
`41.
`
`I understand Document Bates Nos. 1248-1250 are part of the stipulation.
`
`42. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1251-1253, 1257-1259, these have never
`
`been published and are trade secrets.
`
`43. With respect to document Bates No. 1379, it is for a commercial that has never
`
`been aired. Again, it is part of proposed scripts and lines that are part of the creative process for
`
`commercials and thus trade secrets.
`
`44. With respect to document Bates No. 1380-1384, I understand they are part of the
`
`stipulation for redesignation.
`
`45. With respect to the category of documents referred to as Outdated Marketing
`
`Emails Discussing Publicly Released Plans and Materials, I understand the first document Bates
`
`No. 1315 is part ofthe stipulation. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1316-1317 and 1347-
`
`1353 and 1354-1357 these are highly confidential emails between Lundy Law, LLP and its
`
`vendors relating to commercials and Lundy Law’s website. They are part of the creative process
`
`which is highly detailed and highly confidential. They are trade secrets.
`
`46. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1357-1359, these documents contain highly
`
`confidential
`
`information concerning proposed changes to marketing strategy,
`
`in addition to
`
`showing how the strategy is arrived at. All of this is highly confidential and constitutes trade
`
`secrets.
`
`47. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1360-1364, these are highly confidential
`
`emails relating to the manner in which commercials are created.
`
`

`
`48. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1370, I understand this document is part of
`
`the stipulation.
`
`49.
`
`With respect to Bates Nos. 1374-1375, 1390-1391, 1549-1583, these are emails,
`
`schedules, spot codes of what was run, when it was run, script ideas not published as
`
`yet,
`
`commercials which were never run, cost of ads, costs of spots on TV,
`
`the cost per specific
`
`commercials to be run in specific shows on television stations.
`
`These are all trade secrets for
`
`the reasons set forth above.
`
`50. With respect to Bates No. 1583-1584, these are highly confidential emails
`
`between Lundy Law and its ad agency which are trade secrets for the reasons set forth above.
`
`51. With respect to document Bates Nos. 1632-1633, I understand these documents
`
`are part of the stipulation.
`
`52.
`
`The documents stamped Bates Nos. 1128, 1133-1138, 1161, 11371 and 1372,
`
`1376-1378, 1388 and 1389, 1393-1536, 1443, 1450, 1162, 1167 and 1168, 1185-1187, 1193,
`
`1260, 1268 and 1269, 1282-1288, 1289-1293, 1294-1314, 1630-1631, 1194-1211, 1234-1235,
`
`1165,1166,1188-1192,1252,1254-1256,1212-1225,1226,1236—1239,1241-1244, 1247,1251-
`
`1253, 1257-1259, 1379, 1316 and 1317, 1347-1353, 1354-1357, 1357-1359, 1360-1364, 1374-
`
`1375, 1390 and 1391, 1549-1584, in the order I discussed above reveal valuable trade secrets of
`
`Lundy Law and for that reason, access to these documents is given to its employees only on a
`
`need to know basis. If the information contained on these documents were given to a competitor
`
`of Lundy Law, LLP, not only would there be substantial damage to Applicant, but also it would
`
`be irreparably harmed.
`
`

`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`/ L
`
`. Leonard Lund , Managing Partner
`
`Executed on February 23, 2015
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`
`Maggie Lozada
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`.
`
`Jackie,
`
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:32 PM
`Jackie Lesser (jIesser@woodcock.com)
`
`Pitt v Lundy Opposition Protective Order
`991231_1.docx
`
`I am enclosing a default order that is from
`One of the items on tomorrow's agenda is agreeing to a protective order.
`the PTO website and which my secretary has added the caption for this case.
`
`Please let me know if you are agreeable to the protective order and/or would like to make any changes.
`
`Best regards, Manny
`
`Manny Pokotilow
`
`
`
`§oI?s«rasMou‘“” ‘T
`
`Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, Ltd
`1635 Market S