IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC D/B/A RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, THE PAFFRATH ORGANIZATION, and MEETNDONE CORPORATION, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § Case No.: 3:18-cv-01402 District Judge Eli J. Richardson Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN EXCESS OF LOCAL RULE 7.01(a)(2)’S PAGE LIMITATION Come now the Defendants, through counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(a)(2), respectfully move this Court for leave to file a Memorandum supporting their Motion to Dismiss that exceeds twenty-five (25) pages. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.01(a)(1), the Defendants have sought the Plaintiff’s consent regarding this motion, and Plaintiff’s counsel has permitted the undersigned to state that this Motion is unopposed. The Defendants request that the Plaintiff similarly be afforded an opportunity to file a response in opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in excess of Local Rule 7.01(a)(2)’s page limitation. For the Court’s convenience, the Defendants’ proposed Motion to Dismiss is attached hereto as Attachment #1, and the Defendants’ proposed Memorandum in support of that motion is attached hereto as Attachment #2. Additionally, three (3) -1Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1106 exhibits to the Defendants’ proposed Memorandum are attached hereto as Exhibit #1, Exhibit #2, and Exhibit #3. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz__________ Daniel A. Horwitz, BPR #032176 1803 Broadway, Suite #531 Nashville, TN 37203 daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com (615) 739-2888 Counsel for Defendants -2Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 5th day of November, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was served via USPS mail, postage prepaid, emailed, and/or sent via CM/ECF, and to the following parties: E. Todd Presnell Brandon Bundren Thor Urness BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 tpresnell@bradley.com turness@bradley.com bbundren@bradley.com Counsel for Plaintiff the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz_________ Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq. -3Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1108 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC D/B/A RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, THE PAFFRATH ORGANIZATION, and MEETNDONE CORPORATION, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § Case No.: 3:18-cv-01402 District Judge Eli J. Richardson Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT Come now the Defendants, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and (b)(1), respectfully move this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #92). As grounds for this Motion, the Defendants rely upon their contemporaneously filed Memorandum In Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. -1Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-1 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1109 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz__________ Daniel A. Horwitz, BPR #032176 1803 Broadway, Suite #531 Nashville, TN 37203 daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com (615) 739-2888 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 5th day of November, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was served via USPS mail, postage prepaid, emailed, and/or sent via CM/ECF, and to the following parties: E. Todd Presnell Brandon Bundren Thor Urness BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 tpresnell@bradley.com turness@bradley.com bbundren@bradley.com Counsel for Plaintiff the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz_________ Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq. -2Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-1 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1110 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC D/B/A RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, et al. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Case No.: 3:18-cv-01402 District Judge Eli J. Richardson Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION This is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (a “SLAPP-suit”) filed by the Plaintiff, a celebrity and public figure, against the Defendants that centers upon satirical YouTube videos entitled: “Dave Ramsey: Exposed,” “dave Ramsey is suing me,” and “A Message for Dave Ramsey.” Doc. #92, Amended Complaint, pp. 9–12. The Plaintiff is upset, among other things, because Mr. Paffrath’s satirical YouTube videos mocked Dave Ramsey and were well-received by the public. See, e.g., id. at p. 12, ¶¶ 79– 80. In retaliation, the Plaintiff has filed suit against the Defendants over several extravagant claims including: (1) a breach of contract claim; (2) fraud and misrepresentation claims; (3) speech-based “business disparagement” and “unfair competition” claims; (4) a misappropriation of trade secrets claim; and (5) a “false and misleading advertising claim” under the Lanham Act. See id. at pp. 14–18. II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Beyond the fact that the Plaintiff has repeatedly conceded, under oath, that it did -1Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 1111 not lose a single customer, client, agent, or any other business of any kind as a result of the videos at issue, see Exhibit #1, Plaintiff’s Responses & Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory #2, pp. 3–4; Exhibit #2, Galloway Deposition, p. 24, line 18–p. 27, line 16 (indicating absence of any lost customers, clients, or other agents); see also id. at p. 117, line 13—p. 118, line 1 (indicating that Plaintiff’s tax returns and revenue statements would not demonstrate any harm), on its face, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails even to state a cognizable claim for relief for several reasons: First, with respect to its breach of contract claims, the Plaintiff asserts that Kevin Paffrath breached the Parties’ contract prior to its termination because he “refused to meaningfully participate” in enough phone calls with Plaintiff’s “Client Relationship Coach.” See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 49. The Parties’ contract does not even reference a “Client Relationship Coach,” however, and the Plaintiff has judicially admitted that the Plaintiff was the party that breached the contract at issue by refusing to perform prior to the asserted breaches. Additionally, as to the Plaintiff’s claims that Mr. Paffrath breached the Parties’ contract after its termination, these claims, too, fail to state a claim for relief, because the publicity and confidential information provisions that the Plaintiff claims Mr. Paffrath violated did not survive the contract’s termination as a matter of law. Second, with respect to the Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims, they are almost uniformly premised upon claimed misrepresentations about Mr. Paffrath’s intentions and promised future performance, which are not actionable as a matter of law. Further, the Plaintiff’s sole fraud claim based on a past fact—that Mr. Paffrath “supplied Ramsey with false information, including without limitation a false list of zip codes Paffrath allegedly served, in connection with his ELP application,” see Doc. #92, p. 14, ¶ 97—could not plausibly have harmed the Plaintiff. That defect also cannot be cured by -2Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 1112 amendment, given that the witness who verified Plaintiff’s complaint has acknowledged that there was no injury resulting from it. See Exhibit #2, p. 87, lines 2–7. Third, as to the Plaintiff’s speech-based “business disparagement” and “unfair competition” claims, they fail to state a claim for relief and cannot withstand First Amendment scrutiny for several reasons. Additionally, business disparagement is not even a recognized tort in Tennessee. Fourth, with respect to the Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim, it cannot plausibly be maintained. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Paffrath misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trade secrets by publishing Plaintiff’s confidential information on YouTube after the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contract. The Plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets ceased being confidential or subject to any contractual protection at all the moment that the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contract, however, and the Plaintiff’s contract does not reserve the right to—or provide any mechanism to secure the return of—the supposedly confidential information at issue after termination. As a matter of law, then, the Plaintiff did not take reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its alleged trade secrets. Further, given the Plaintiff’s failure to plead with any degree of specificity what actual harm it suffered after its alleged trade secrets were published to more than 100,000 people—and given that the Plaintiff has since acknowledged, under oath, that it did not lose any business of any kind following the mass publication of the alleged trade secrets at issue, see Exhibit #1, Interrogatory #2, pp. 3– 4; Exhibit #2, p. 24, line 18–p. 27, line 16; id. at p. 117, line 13—p. 118, line 1—the notion that the Plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets hold any independent economic value whatsoever is not plausible, and that fatal defect is not curable by amendment. Fifth, with respect to the Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim, it fails for multiple reasons. -3Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 1113 To begin, two essential elements of a Lanham Act claim—that: (i) “the statement actually or tends to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience,” and (ii) “the statement is material in that it will likely influence the deceived customer’s purchasing decisions[,]” Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. Am. Bd. of Podiatric Surgery, Inc., 185 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted)—have not even been pleaded. These defects, too, cannot be cured by amendment, because, as noted, the Plaintiff did not, in fact, lose even a single customer, client, agent, or any other business of any kind as a result of the videos at issue. See Exhibit #1, Interrogatory #2, pp. 3–4; Exhibit #2, p. 24, line 18–p. 27, line 16; id. at p. 117, line 13—p. 118, line 1. Further, as a matter of law, the statements over which the Plaintiff has sued are neither advertising nor even commercial speech, rendering the Lanham Act inapplicable in any regard. Further still, the Plaintiff’s mere “belie[f]” that harm resulted is insufficient to establish that the Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim is plausible. See Doc. #92, p. 18, ¶ 134. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is subject to familiar standards of review: For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must take the factual allegations in the complaint as true . . . . Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 679. A legal conclusion, including one couched as a factual allegation, need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, nor are mere recitations of the elements of a cause of action sufficient. Id. at 678; Fritz v. Charter Township of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010). Moreover, factual allegations that are merely consistent with the defendant’s liability do not satisfy the claimant’s burden, as mere consistency does not establish plausibility of entitlement to relief even if it -4Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 1114 supports the possibility of relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Bunn v. Navistar, No. 3:18-CV-00651, 2019 WL 333552, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 24, 2019). Further, “[t]here are . . . exceptions to th[e] general rule” that “matters outside the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss unless the motion is converted to one for summary judgment[.]” Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737, 745 (6th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). Specifically, “courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007) (emphasis added). Here, given that the Parties’ contract has previously been filed at Doc. #25-1 and is both quoted and referenced repeatedly throughout the Plaintiff’s Complaint, this Court’s consideration of the contract is proper. IV. ARGUMENT A. MR. PAFFRATH COULD NOT HAVE BREACHED THE PARTIES’ CONTRACT AS ALLEGED. 1. All of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims fail as a matter of law when considered against the terms of the actual contract at issue. The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Mr. Paffrath violated the Parties’ contractual agreement both pre-termination and post-termination. Prior to the contract’s termination, the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Paffrath breached the Parties’ contract because he “refused to meaningfully participate” in enough phone calls with the Plaintiff’s “Client Relationship Coach.” See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 49. Additionally, after the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contract, the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Paffrath breached it by “unlawfully disclosing Ramsey’s confidential, proprietary, and other sensitive information” and -5Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 1115 making public statements about the Plaintiff in violation of its publicity clause. See id. at p. 11, ¶¶ 67–68. Critically, though, none of Plaintiff’s claimed breaches was even possible. a. Plaintiff’s Pre-Termination Breach of Contract Claims As the Plaintiff itself pleads, the contract at issue provided that Mr. Paffrath would “[m]aintain open lines of communication and be available for regular calls with Lampo’s team at least once per quarter[.]” Id. at p. 5, ¶ 21(g) (emphasis added). See also Doc. #25-1, p. 6, § 11(g). Critically, though, the Plaintiff never alleges that Mr. Paffrath was unavailable more than “once per quarter.” See Doc. #92. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Paffrath “refused to commit to set aside one hour per month to communicate with Ramsey’s ELP team.” Id. at p. 8, ¶ 50. See also id. at ¶ 53 (complaining that “Paffrath could not value the ELP relationship enough to regular [sic] communications every month”). Such an obligation is nowhere to be found in the Parties’ contract, however, see Doc. #25-1, pp. 1–7, and as such, it could not plausibly have been breached. Further, the Plaintiff’s specific gripe is not even that Mr. Paffrath was not “available” for the once-per-quarter calls required by the Plaintiff’s contract. See Doc. #25-1, p. 6, § 11(g). Instead, the Plaintiff contends that Mr. Paffrath “refused to meaningfully participate in the calls with his Client Relationship Coach.” See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Notably, though, a “Client Relationship Coach” is not mentioned anywhere in the Parties’ contract, either. See Doc. #25-1, pp. 1–7. In sum: The Plaintiff has premised its breach of contract claim upon allegations that Mr. Paffrath breached contractual provisions that do not exist and appear nowhere in the Parties’ actual contract. See id. Fatally, it has also failed to assert any harm whatsoever based on Mr. Paffrath’s allegedly unsatisfactory phone call participation—an essential element of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. See Carpenter v. Cars Recon, -6Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 1116 Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01156, 2018 WL 6446589, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 7, 2018). As a consequence, Plaintiff’s claims that Mr. Paffrath breached the Parties’ contract while it was in effect are not plausible, and they must be dismissed as a matter of law. b. Plaintiff’s Post-Termination Breach of Contract Claims The Plaintiff additionally alleges that it was harmed by the following three specific YouTube videos that mocked Dave Ramsey, all of which the Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Paffrath published after the Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the Parties’ contract: A video entitled “Dave Ramsey: Exposed,” which the Plaintiff alleges was published on November 19, 2018 (see Doc. #92, p. 9, ¶ 57); a second video entitled “Dave Ramsey is suing me . . . .” which it alleges was published on November 21, 2018 (see Doc. #92, p. 12, ¶¶ 76–77); and a third video entitled “A Message for Dave Ramsey . . . . [,]” which the Plaintiff alleges was published on November 24, 2018 (see Doc. #92, p. 13, ¶ 82). Thus, all three of the videos that the Plaintiff claims to have been harmed by 1 were published only after the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contract on October 8, 2018. See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 54 (“[O]n October 8, 2018, Ramsey terminated the Agreement and removed Paffrath from Ramsey’s real estate ELP program, having referred him not a single client.”). According to the Plaintiff, Mr. Paffrath’s November 2018 videos violated the “Publicity” and “Confidential Information” provisions of the Parties’ contract, see id. at p. 11, ¶¶ 67–68, which are set forth at sections 4 and 6 of that contract, respectively. See The Plaintiff does not even allege damage resulting from the September 15, 2018, video or the October 22, 2018, video referenced at paragraph 68 of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, see Doc. #92, p. 11, ¶ 68, neither of which is even mentioned elsewhere in the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. But see Carpenter v. Cars Recon, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01156, 2018 WL 6446589, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 7, 2018) (noting that “damages caused by the breach of contract” is an essential element of a breach of contract claim). Instead, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is focused upon the three post-termination videos that mocked Dave Ramsey. 1 -7Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 1117 Doc. #25-1. These claims also fail as a matter of law, though, for a simple reason: The Parties’ contract unambiguously reflects that neither provision survived the contract’s October 8, 2018, termination, so it was not possible to breach them after October 8, 2018. The Parties’ contract provides without ambiguity that only two specific sections would survive its termination: First, section 7.1 of the contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 7.1 Transaction Fees: ELP shall pay Ramsey thirty percent (30%) of the gross commission, fee or any remuneration whatsoever due to ELP in any referred client transaction. This provision shall expressly survive two years from the termination hereof (“survival period”), requiring ELP to pay the transaction fees for any referred client transaction closing within two years of the termination of this Agreement. “Transaction” as used herein shall mean any purchase, sale, or lease of any real property in which ELP is entitled to receive any remuneration of any kind from a Ramsey referred client. Payment of Transaction Fees shall be made no later than ten (10) days following the transaction closing. Id. at pp. 4–5, § 7.1 (emphasis added). Second, section 10 of the contract, addressing both “Indemnification” and “payment obligations,” provides, in pertinent part, that: 10. Term; Renewal; Termination. The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year from the date hereof. This Agreement will renew automatically for successive one year terms unless either party gives notice of its intention that the Agreement shall not be renewed at the end of its then current term. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause, at any time. The provisions of section 15, “Indemnification,” and payment obligations of this Agreement will survive any such expiration or termination of this Agreement. Id. at pp. 5–6 (partial emphasis added). No other provision of the Parties’ contract—including section 4, governing “Publicity,” and section 6, governing “Confidential Information”—contains a survival clause providing that its obligations would remain effective following the contract’s -8Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 1118 termination. See id. at pp. 1–7. Similarly, no provision of the contract reserved or afforded the Plaintiff the right to recover any “Confidential Information” following the contract’s termination. Id. No provision of the contract obligated the Defendant to return any “Confidential Information” following the Agreement’s termination on October 8, 2018, either. Id. The contract does expressly provide, however, that it is the Parties’ “Entire Agreement,” and that it “contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes and cancels any prior agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect hereof.” See id. at p. 7, § 21. Whether the “Publicity” and “Confidential Information” clauses of the Parties’ contract remained effective after the contract’s October 8, 2018, termination is an issue that “involve[s] the interpretation and construction of written instruments.” Cellco P’ship v. Shelby Cty., 172 S.W.3d 574, 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “‘Issues relating to the interpretation of written instruments involve legal rather than factual issues.’” Id. (quoting The Pointe, LLC v. Lake Mgmt. Ass’n, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 471, 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)). Under Tennessee law, courts also “may not make a new contract for parties who have spoken for themselves,” particularly where—as here—a party seeks relief from the actual terms of a contract “simply because [its] obligations later prove to be burdensome or unwise.” Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 598 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Petty v. Sloan, 277 S.W.2d 355, 359 (1955)). See also Richmond v. Frazier, No. E2008-01132-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2382303, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2009) (same), appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 22, 2010). Instead, a court’s “task is to ascertain the intention of the parties based upon the usual, natural, and ordinary meaning of the contract language.” Carpenter, 2018 WL 6446589, at *3. -9Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 1119 Here, in stark contrast to sections 7.1 and 10 of the Parties’ contract, which did contain survival clauses, sections 4 and 6 of the Parties’ contract—the “Publicity” and “Confidential Information” clauses that the Plaintiff claims the Defendant breached following termination—did not contain survival clauses providing that any of their obligations would continue to remain effective following the contract’s termination. Compare Doc. #25-1, pp. 4–5, § 7.1 & pp. 5–6, § 10, with Doc. #25-1, p. 4, §§ 4 & 6. Further, fundamental rules of construction instruct that the Parties’ decision to include survival clauses with respect to sections 7.1 and 10—but not to do so with respect to sections 4 and 6 (or any other provision of the Parties’ contract)—was deliberate and carries meaning. See Richmond, 2009 WL 2382303, at *7 (“It is also a well known rule of construction that where general and specific clauses conflict, the specific clause governs the meaning of the contract.”); Shipley v. Sofco Erectors, Inc., No. C.A. 743, C.A. 790, 1988 WL 48618, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 16, 1988) (“the phrase, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, means: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another (of the same kind). Whilst the rule is more frequently applied to the construction of statutes and wills, it equally is applicable to other instruments of writing.”), appeal denied (Tenn. May 30, 1989). A near-identical situation regarding a contract’s arbitration provisions—rather than the survival provisions at issue here—was presented in D & E Construction Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co., 38 S.W.3d 513, 518–19 (Tenn. 2001). There, the Tennessee Supreme Court sensibly held, in considerable detail, as follows: It is well settled that courts must examine the content of the entire written agreement to determine the contracting parties’ intent. “Contractual terms should be given their ordinary meaning . . . and should be construed harmoniously to give effect to all provisions and to avoid creating *519 internal conflicts.” Wilson v. Moore, 929 S.W.2d 367, 373 (Tenn. Ct. App. -10Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 1120 1996). In addition, a contract’s provisions must be interpreted in the context of the entire contract, “‘viewed from beginning to end and all its terms must pass in review, for one clause may modify, limit or illustrate another.’” Frizzell Constr. Co. v. Gatlinburg, L.L.C., 9 S.W.3d 79, 85 (Tenn. 1999) (quoting Cocke County Bd. of Highway Comm’rs v. Newport Utils. Bd., 690 S.W.2d 231, 237 (Tenn. 1985)); see also Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Although the arbitration provision in this case gives the arbitration panel very broad authority to decide any claims relating to a breach of contract dispute, when looking at the contract in its entirety, we find no provisions requiring the owner to pay attorney’s fees to the contractor in the event of its breach of the contract. On the other hand, there are two provisions in the contract requiring the contractor to indemnify the owner against certain claims, which include, and specifically mention, the payment of attorney’s fees as part of any related expenses. After reading the contract in its totality, we conclude that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applicable here. “Literally translated, the phrase . . . means: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another (of the same kind). Whilst the rule is more frequently applied to the construction of statutes and wills, it equally is applicable to other instruments of writing.” City of Knoxville v. Brown, 195 Tenn. 501, 260 S.W.2d 264, 268 (1953). We conclude that application of this canon to this case provides further evidence that the parties did not intend to arbitrate the issue of attorney’s fees relating to the owner’s breach of the agreement. Id. (emphases added). This analysis is unimpeachable and directly applicable to the instant case. Here, the Parties’ express intent in executing their contract was that only the Defendant’s Transaction Fees obligations and Indemnification obligations—which do include survival clauses—would survive the contract’s termination, see Doc. #25-1, pp. 4–5, § 7.1 & pp. 5– 6, § 10, but that the balance of the Parties’ obligations to one another—which do not include survival clauses—would not, see Doc. #25-1. Consequently, Mr. Paffrath could not have violated the contract’s “Publicity” and “Confidential Information” provisions by posting satirical YouTube videos mocking the Plaintiff in November 2018—more than a month after the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contractual relationship on October 8, -11Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 1121 2018. Id. As such, the Plaintiff’s post-termination breach of contract claims are fatally implausible and fail as a matter of law. 2. The Plaintiff judicially admits that it failed to perform its obligations under the Parties’ contract, which entitled Mr. Paffrath to “treat it as broken.” Tennessee adheres to the “first-to-breach” rule in breach of contract cases. See Advanced Concrete Tools, Inc. v. Beach, No. 3:10-CV-1139, 2014 WL 1385868, at *19 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 9, 2014). Under the “first-to-breach” rule, “[a] party who has materially breached a contract is not entitled to damages stemming from the other party’s later material breach of the same contract.” White, 395 S.W.3d at 715 (quoting McClain v. Kimbrough Constr. Co., 806 S.W.2d 194, 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)); see also Madden Phillips Constr. Co., Inc. v. GGAT Development Corp., 315 S.W.3d 800, 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (“[A] party who commits the first uncured material breach of contract may not recover damages for the other party’s material breach.”). Id. As the Western District recently observed, Tennessee also “adheres to the general contract principle that ‘[e]ach party has the right to proceed free of hindrance by the other party.’” VJ, LLC v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-2919, 2016 WL 11602001, at *9 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 3, 2016) (quoting ACG, Inc. v. Southeast Elevator, Inc., 912 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 30, 1995)). Consequently, if another party “interfered, hindered, or prevented the performance to such an extent as to render the performance difficult and diminish the benefits to be received, the first party could treat the contract as broken and was not bound to proceed under the added burdens.” Wil-Helm Agency v. Lynn, 618 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). Here, Mr. Paffrath contracted with the Plaintiff in exchange for a clear and specific bargained benefit: That the Plaintiff would “agree[] to provide [him], through its broker, with referral services within [his] assigned territory, as defined and determined -12Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 1122 exclusively by Ramsey.” See Doc. #25-1, p. 3, § 1. The Plaintiff’s performance of this obligation was the entire purpose of the Parties’ contract. See id., p. 3 (“WHEREAS, above-named ELP is a licensed real estate agent engaged in the full time business of representing both buyers and sellers of real estate, and the broker identified above is duly licensed as a principal broker in the the [sic] state in which referrals will be made; and WHEREAS, the ELP desires to market its services through Ramsey and receive referrals through the ELP program . . . .”) (some emphasis added). The contract also required Mr. Paffrath to pay—and he did pay—the Plaintiff consideration in the form of $350 per month in exchange for the referrals at issue, see id. at p. 1, “the receipt of which [was] hereby acknowledged” upon the contract’s execution, see id. at p. 2. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s obligation to provide referral services, though, and despite the fact that Mr. Paffrath paid the Plaintiff in full for such services, the Plaintiff did not perform its obligations under the contract; the Plaintiff judicially admits that it not perform its referral obligations under the contract; and the Plaintiff refers to its admitted non-performance of its referral obligations as a “policy.” Compare Doc. #25-1, p. 3, § 1 (“Ramsey agrees to provide ELP, through its broker, with referral services within ELP’s assigned territory, as defined and determined exclusively by Ramsey.”), with Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 54 (“Ramsey terminated the Agreement and removed Paffrath from Ramsey’s real estate ELP program, having referred him not a single client.”); id. at ¶ 48 (noting that “[i]n furtherance of Ramsey’s policy that it would not begin referring consumers to Paffrath unless and until Ramsey was satisfied that Paffrath was committed to the program and to providing excellent client service . . . .”). This “policy” appears nowhere in the contract itself, however, and the Plaintiff enjoyed no right under the contract to withhold its promised performance as described. See Doc. #25-1, pp. 1–7. -13Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 1123 By its own admission, the Plaintiff’s breach was never cured. See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 54. That admission also flatly forbids the Plaintiff from recovering damages in this action, see Advanced Concrete Tools, Inc., 2014 WL 1385868, at *19 (collecting cases). Further, the Plaintiff’s admitted non-performance diminished Mr. Paffrath’s negotiated benefits to such an extent that he “could treat the contract as broken and was not bound to proceed under the added burdens.” Wil-Helm Agency, 618 S.W.2d at 752. Consequently, because damages are an essential element of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims, see Carpenter, 2018 WL 6446589, at *3, and because a broken contract cannot be enforced, all of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims fail as a matter of law. B. THE PLAINTIFF’S FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION CLAIMS ARE NOT COGNIZABLE. The Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims—which “are synonymous” under Tennessee law, Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901, 905 n.1 (Tenn. 1999)—fall into two distinct categories: (1) Claims that Mr. Paffrath misrepresented his intentions and his future intent to perform, see, e.g., Doc. #92, p. 9, ¶ 55 (“never intended”); id. at p. 10, ¶ 62 (“no intention”); id. at p. 15, ¶ 98 (“clearly had no intentions of doing so”); id. at ¶ 106 (“no intent to perform”); and (2) A claim that Mr. Paffrath misrepresented the zip codes that he served at the time of his application, see id. at p. 14, ¶ 97. The former is not actionable as a matter of law, however, and the latter is not even alleged to have caused the Plaintiff any injury and could not plausibly have done so. 1. Plaintiff’s claims premised upon Mr. Paffrath’s alleged statements of intention and representations concerning future events are not actionable. The first category of Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims is categorically -14Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 1124 inactionable as a matter of law in Tennessee, which does not permit such claims when premised upon statements of intention or representations concerning future events. See, e.g., Henley v. Labat-Anderson, Inc., No. 03A01-9104-CV-126, 1991 WL 120403, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (“statements of opinion or intention are not actionable”) (cleaned up); McElroy v. Boise Cascade Corp., 632 S.W.2d 127, 130 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (“representations concerning future events are not actionable even though they may later prove to be false.” (citing Young v. Cooper, 203 S.W.2d 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1947)). See also Fowler v. Happy Goodman Family, 575 S.W.2d 496, 499 (Tenn. 1978) (“Although a minority view, the rule established by the cases in this state has been that a misrepresentation of intention or a promise without intent to perform is legally insufficient to support a claim for rescission or damages.” (citing A. Landreth Co. v. Schevenel, 52 S.W. 148 (Tenn. 1899)). 2. Plaintiff’s zip-code based fraud claims are both implausible and insufficient. As to the Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Paffrath “supplied Ramsey with false information, including without limitation a false list of zip codes Paffrath allegedly served, in connection with his ELP application,” see Doc. #92, p. 14, ¶ 97—the claim similarly fails for multiple reasons. First, the Parties’ contract—which was their “Entire Agreement” on this issue, Doc. #25-1, p. 7, § 21—reflects that Mr. Paffrath’s “assigned territory” would be “defined and determined exclusively by Ramsey[,]” see id. at p. 3, § 1. Put differently: The zip codes to which referrals would be made were not and could never be determined by Mr. Paffrath. Second, the Plaintiff never made a single referral to Mr. Paffrath in any zip code. See Doc. #92, p. 8, ¶ 54 (“[O]n October 8, 2018, Ramsey terminated the Agreement and removed Paffrath from Ramsey’s real estate ELP program, having referred him not a -15Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 1125 single client.”). Consequently, no plausible harm—an essential element of the Plaintiff’s claim—could have resulted, and the Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that any damages did result from the zip codes at issue. This defect also cannot be cured by any future amendment, because the Plaintiff’s employees have since testified at length that, in fact: (1) The Plaintiff did not suffer any damages as a consequence of the zip codes at issue, Exhibit #2, p. 87, lines 2–7; and (2) the Plaintiff was the party that actually proposed the zip codes in the first instance, Exhibit #3, Riddle Deposition, p. 32, lines 12–14. 3. Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim is fatally implausible. The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is premised upon extensive factual allegations of knowing and deliberate misrepresentation, rather than negligence. See Doc. #92, pp. 9–15, ¶¶ 55, 56, 62, 99, 104, 105, 106. Despite the Plaintiff’s repeated allegations of knowing and deliberate misconduct, though, the Plaintiff has also tossed in, as an afterthought, a claim based on merely negligent misrepresentation. pp. 15–16. See Doc. #92, To support that claim, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint includes the following lone, bare, formulaic, and purely conclusory recital: “Paffrath had knowledge of the representations’ falsity, utter disregard for their truth, or did not exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating the information upon which Ramsey justifiably relied.” See id. at p. 16, ¶ 110 (emphasis added). This bare, conclusory legal allegation— which enjoys no factual support elsewhere within the Plaintiff’s Complaint—is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. “‘[B]are assertions,’ formulaic recitation of the elements, and ‘conclusory’ or ‘bald’ allegations” are not entitled to any presumption of truth. Hasting v. First Community Mortgage, No. 3:17-cv-00989, 2018 WL 5808727, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680). The bare, formulaic, conclusory, and alternatively pleaded legal -16Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 1126 assertion set forth in paragraph ¶ 110 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies these criteria in spades. See Doc. #92, p. 16, ¶ 110. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 110 is not entitled to a presumption of truth, and it may safely be “set[] aside” for purposes of this motion. Hasting, 2018 WL 5808727, at *2 (“Identifying and setting aside such allegations is crucial, because they simply do not count toward the plaintiff’s goal of showing plausibility of entitlement to relief.”). Absent paragraph ¶ 110, there is not a single allegation in the Plaintiff’s Complaint that supports a negligent misrepresentation claim. See generally Doc. #92. Indeed, the balance of the Plaintiff’s Complaint—which is premised upon allegations of Defendant’s knowing and deliberate misrepresentation—flatly contradicts the Plaintiff’s negligence claim. See, e.g., id. at pp. 9–15, ¶¶ 55, 56, 62, 99, 104, 105, 106. Given this context, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, and it has certainly failed to state a plausible claim for relief with respect to negligent misrepresentation. See Hasting, 2018 WL 5808727, at *2 (“The question is whether the remaining allegations – factual allegations, i.e., allegations of factual matter – plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. If not, the pleading fails to meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and thus must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681–83)). As a consequence, the Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation should be dismissed. See id. Further, no future amendment on the matter should be permitted, because the Plaintiff has since clarified that its allegations are, indeed, premised upon knowing and deliberate misconduct. Exhibit #2, p. 79, lines 21–25. C. THE PLAINTIFF’S SPEECH-BASED “BUSINESS COMPETITION” CLAIMS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM. DISPARAGEMENT” AND “UNFAIR 1. Plaintiff’s speech-based claims cannot withstand First Amendment scrutiny. -17Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 1127 Paragraph 63 of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint specifically details that the Plaintiff has sued the Defendants for “Business Disparagement” (Count V) and “Unfair Competition” (Count VII) regarding the following statements that the Plaintiff alleges were tortious: [1] Ramsey requires the estate ELPs to “1. Always be closing… 2. Because if you don’t we’ll kick you out; 3. Pay me my fees. 4. That’s financial peace for me, b*itch!” [2] The vetting process and fee structure is one big sales pitch; [3] Ramsey provides “cold as ice leads” to ELP’s [sic] who aren’t prequalified; [4] Ramsey receives a fee from each ELP for “doing nothing”; [5] Ramsey “fluffs the numbers” of his ELP program; [6] Customers receive “21 calls in 1 week” with “no qualification” and that the ELP program is simply a “handoff service”; [7] Ramsey’s ELP program does “ZERO Vetting,” is “High-Pressure,” has “Dismal Success Rates,” and is a “Profit Driven Sham.” Doc. #92, p. 10, ¶ 63 (time stamps omitted). Thus, as to Counts V and VII, the Defendants have been sued for their speech regarding a public figure based on a smattering of innocuous, hyperbolic statements and opinions included in YouTube videos. 2 See id. Critically, though, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s own characterizations of its Elsewhere throughout its Complaint, the Plaintiff sporadically complains about other non-tortious statements that fail to state a claim for relief for the same reasons presented in this Memorandum. See, e.g., Doc #92, p. 12, ¶ 73 (“Paffrath also maliciously and falsely stated that Ramsey does not ‘vet’ the ELPs.”). In some instances, the Plaintiff’s claims also contradict themselves. Compare Doc #92, p. 11–12, ¶¶ 70, 72 (“Paffrath maliciously and falsely stated that Ramsey does not disclose the fees he receives from the ELP members. . . . These statements are, of course, false because Ramsey affirmative [sic] discloses it receives a fee from an ELP on Ramsey’s website.”), with Doc #92, p. 11, ¶ 66 (asserting that “the fees associated with the program” were “confidential and proprietary”). 2 -18Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 1128 claims, precedent compels this Court to treat the Plaintiff’s speech-based tort claims as common defamation claims. See, e.g., Boladian v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 123 F. App’x 165, 169 (6th Cir. 2005) (“A party may not skirt the requirements of defamation law by pleading another, related cause of action.” (citing Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988))); Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 319–20 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[A] plaintiff may not use related causes of action to avoid the constitutional requisites of a defamation claim.”). Cf. Klayman v. Segal, 783 A.2d 607, 619 (D.C. 2001). The Plaintiff “does not dispute that business disparagement claims are typically analyzed under the same framework as defamation claims,” Doc. #60, p. 7, and it assumes that the same framework governs its unfair competition claim, id. at p. 8. The Plaintiff assumes correctly, Boladian, 123 F. App’x at 169, and Plaintiff’s speech-based claims must satisfy the heightened constitutional requirements that govern defamation claims as a result. The innocuous and plainly hyperbolic, opinion-based statements that the Plaintiff has sued over uniformly fail to clear—or even approach—the heightened constitutional requirements that govern defamation claims. “[T]he Supreme Court of the United States has constitutionalized the law of [defamation].” Press, Inc. v. Verran, 569 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tenn. 1978). See also Clark v. Viacom Int’l Inc., 617 F. App’x 495, 507 (6th Cir. 2015); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964). As a result, defamation claims are subject to heightened pleading standards, and they present threshold questions of law. See Brown v. Mapco Express, Inc., 393 S.W.3d 696, 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). Thus, “ensuring that defamation actions proceed only upon statements which may actually defame a plaintiff ‘is an essential gatekeeping function of the court.’” Pendleton v. Newsome, 772 S.E.2d 759, 763 (Va. 2015) (quoting Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Cos., LLC, 752 S.E.2d 808, 811 (2014)). -19Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 19 of 36 PageID #: 1129 With this “essential gatekeeping function” in mind, see id., “the issue of whether a communication is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court to decide in the first instance . . . .” Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 708 (emphasis added). See also Revis v. McClean, 31 S.W.3d 250, 253 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (“Whether a communication is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning is a question of law.”); McWhorter v. Barre, 132 S.W.3d 354, 364 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (“The question of whether [a statement] was understood by its readers as defamatory is a question for the jury, but the preliminary determination of whether [a statement] is ‘capable of being so understood is a question of law to be determined by the court.’” (quoting Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412, 419 (Tenn. 1978))). Further, this Court is not bound by the Plaintiff’s own characterizations of the statements that it has sued over. See, e.g., Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 708–09 (“The issue of whether a communication is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court to decide in the first instance . . . . To make this determination, courts ‘must look to the words themselves and are not bound by the plaintiff's interpretation of them.’” (quoting Zius v. Shelton, No. E1999–01157–COA–R9–CV, 2000 WL 739466, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2000))). Thus, “[i]f the [allegedly defamatory] words are not reasonably capable of the meaning the plaintiff ascribes to them, the court must disregard the latter interpretation.” See Moman v. M.M. Corp., No. 02A01-9608-CV00182, 1997 WL 167210, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 1997). See also Battle v. A & E Television Networks, LLC, 837 F. Supp. 2d 767, 772 (M.D. Tenn. 2011)). Where, as here, an allegedly defamatory statement is not capable of being understood as defamatory as a matter of law, then a plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. -20Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 20 of 36 PageID #: 1130 Further still, Tennessee 3 has adopted several categorical bars that prevent claimed defamations from being actionable, three of which independently control this case: First, to provide substantial breathing room for free speech, statements that are merely “‘annoying, offensive or embarrassing’” are categorically inactionable. Davis v. Covenant Presbyterian Church of Nashville, No. M2014-02400-COA-R9-CV, 2015 WL 5766685, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2015), appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2016) (quoting Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 708). “[T]he crux of free-speech rights is that generally they can be exercised even if (and perhaps especially when) they cause disruption and disharmony.” Bennett v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., No. 3:17-CV-00630, 2019 WL 1572932, at *12 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2019). Consequently, [f]or a communication to be [defamatory], it must constitute a serious threat to the plaintiff's reputation. A [defamation] does not occur simply because the subject of a publication finds the publication annoying, offensive or embarrassing. The words must reasonably be construable as holding the plaintiff up to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. They must carry with them an element “of disgrace.” Davis, 2015 WL 5766685, at *3 (quoting Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 708). Second, critical commentary and opinions based on non-defamatory facts enjoy constitutional protection under the First Amendment. See generally Zius, 2000 WL 739466, at *3; see also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). Cf. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770, 778 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[A]lthough economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoff’s expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism The Plaintiff insists that Tennessee law governs its Complaint. See Doc. #33, Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Leva to File Anti-SLAPP Motion, p. 3. Defendants disagree and maintain their disagreement on the matter, but for purposes of the instant motion, the Plaintiff’s claims cannot survive under Tennessee law, either, and they should be dismissed for failure to state a claim as a result. 3 -21Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 21 of 36 PageID #: 1131 of a business.”). As a result, “an opinion is not actionable as libel unless it implies the existence of unstated defamatory facts.” Stones River Motors, Inc. v. Mid-South Publ’g co., 651 S.W.2d 713, 722 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983), abrogation recognized by Zius, 2000 WL 739466, at *3 (merely noting “there is no wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion.’”). Third, to be considered defamatory, a statement cannot be mere rhetorical hyperbole, but “‘must be reasonably read as an assertion of false fact[.]’” Grant v. Commercial Appeal, No. W2015-00208-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 5772524, at *11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2015) (quoting Secured Fin. Sols., LLC v. Winer, No. M200900885COAR3CV, 2010 WL 334644, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010), appeal denied (Tenn. Jan. 28, 2010)). This requirement emanates from a long line of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that has constitutionalized the inquiry. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (“[T]he Bresler–Letter Carriers–Falwell line of cases provides protection for statements that cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts’ about an individual . . . This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ [that] has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. (quoting Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 50, 53–55)). Tennessee courts, of course, adhere to Milkovich. See Hibdon v. Grabowski, 195 S.W.3d 48, 63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (“[S]tatements that cannot ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual’ because they are expressed in ‘loose, figurative or hyperbolic language,’ and/or the content and tenor of the statements ‘negate the impression that the author seriously is maintaining an assertion of actual fact’ about the plaintiff are not provably false and, as such, will not provide a legal basis for defamation.”) (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21, 110 S. Ct. 2695); Farmer v. Hersh, No. W2006–01937–COA–R3–CV, 2007 WL 2264435, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2007) (“Mere hyperbole or exaggerated statements intended to make a point are not actionable defamatory statements.”); Shamblin v. Martinez, No. M2010–00974– COA–R3–CV, 2011 WL 1420896, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2011) -22Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 22 of 36 PageID #: 1132 (Statement could not be construed as defamatory because “rhetorical hyperbole and matters of opinion . . . cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about the Plaintiffs.”). Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC, 728 F.3d 592, 597–98 (6th Cir. 2013). Based on these bedrock principles, none of the statements underlying the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint can plausibly be considered defamatory as a matter of law. See Doc. #92, p. 10, ¶ 63. Considered in the most generous fashion possible, the statements are, at worst, “‘merely annoying, offensive or embarrassing’”—a deficiency that renders them categorically inactionable. Davis, 2015 WL 5766685, at *3 (quoting Brown, 393 S.W.3d at 708). Not one of them can plausibly be considered “disgrace[ful]” or “‘a serious threat to the plaintiff’s reputation.’” Davis v. The Tennessean, 83 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Stones River Motors, Inc., 651 S.W.2d at 719). Consequently, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s own characterizations of the statements, none of them is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning as a matter of law. See id. Further, all of the statements that the Plaintiff has sued over are premised upon innocuous commentary and (admittedly unflattering) constitutionally protected opinions. See Doc. #92, p. 10, ¶ 63. All of them, too, are self-evidently based on “‘loose, figurative, [and] hyperbolic language,’” see Clark, 617 F. App’x at 508 (quoting Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 21), which categorically renders the statements inactionable as well. See, e.g., Seaton, 728 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2013) (“First, TripAdvisor’s use of ‘dirtiest’ amounts to rhetorical hyperbole. Second, the general tenor of the ‘2011 Dirtiest Hotels’ list undermines any impression that TripAdvisor was seriously maintaining that Grand Resort is, in fact, the dirtiest hotel in America. For these reasons, TripAdvisor’s placement of Grand Resort on the ‘2011 Dirtiest Hotels’ list constitutes nonactionable opinion.”). The notion, for instance, that Defendant Paffrath’s characterization of the Plaintiff’s leads -23Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 23 of 36 PageID #: 1133 as being “cold as ice” was meant as a verifiable assertion of false fact is ridiculous. See Doc. #92, p. 10, ¶ 63. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Clark, 617 F. App’x at 508: Nor may a speaker incur defamation liability if she does not purport to say something verifiable about the plaintiff. The First Amendment prohibits punishing someone for expressing an idea. Snyder, 562 U.S. at 458, 131 S. Ct. 1207; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974). Thus, the falsity requirement is met only if the statement in question makes an assertion of fact—that is, an assertion that is capable of being proved objectively incorrect. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) (citation omitted). If, by contrast, the statement is not “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false”—because, for instance, it is “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language” or a statement of opinion that does not reasonably imply a false assertion of fact—then it may not form the basis of a state-law defamation action. Id. at 21, 110 S. Ct. 2695 (citation omitted); Seaton, 728 F.3d at 597. Having maintained its speech-based tort claims for nearly a year at this juncture, the Plaintiff has apparently overlooked the self-evident hyperbole of Mr. Paffrath’s statements. Nonetheless, no person of ordinary intelligence would or even could interpret them in the way that the Plaintiff has construed them, rendering any supposed injury to Plaintiff’s reputation resulting from them sufficiently implausible as to be imaginary. Aegis Scis. Corp. v. Zelenik, No. M2012–00898–COA–R3–CV, 2013 WL 175807, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2013) (holding that any allegedly defamatory statement must “be read as a person of ordinary intelligence would understand it in light of the surrounding circumstances[]”). For all of these reasons, none of the statements over which the Plaintiff has sued is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning as a matter of law, and the Plaintiff’s speech-based “Business Disparagement” claim and “Unfair Competition” claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim as a consequence. 2. Tennessee has never recognized the tort of “Business Disparagement.” Further, “with respect to Plaintiff's disparagement claim, disparagement has not -24Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 24 of 36 PageID #: 1134 yet been recognized in Tennessee as a separate cause of action.” Multari v. Bennett, No. 1:05-CV-355, 2006 WL 8442553, at *10 (E.D. Tenn. June 20, 2006). Tennessee courts have been presented with two independent opportunities to do so, and they did not recognize the tort in either case. See Moore Const. Co. v. Story Eng’g Co., No. 01A019606-CV-00267, 1998 WL 382198, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 10, 1998) (noting that “Tennessee courts have not specifically recognized this tort[]” and stating that “[t]his case does not provide an appropriate vehicle for explicitly recognizing disparagement as a separate tort because Moore Construction Company has been unable to demonstrate that it will be able to prove an essential ingredient of the cause of action[]”); McCord v. HCA Health Servs. of Tenn., Inc., No. M201400142COAR3CV, 2015 WL 1914634, at *8 n.18. (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2015) (“As noted in Moore Const. Co., Inc. v. Story Engineering Co., Inc., Tennessee has not specifically recognized disparagement as a tort; however, the court acknowledged that ‘like a claim for defamation, a claim for disparagement must be based on a false statement.’”), appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 115, 2015). For the reasons set forth in the preceding section, because the instant case is premised upon statements that cannot plausibly be considered defamatory as a matter of law, this court should decline to make an Erie guess or recognize the tort of disparagement in the first instance, either. Abstaining from recognizing a new tort for the State of Tennessee is also especially appropriate here, given that this case is a SLAPP-suit aimed at censoring a citizen’s constitutionally protected commentary about a public figure regarding matters of public concern—something that Tennessee has long recognized as being “evil[].” See Residents Against Indus. Landfill Expansion, Inc. v. Diversified Sys., Inc., No. 03A01-9703-CV-00102, 1998 WL 18201, at *3 n.6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 21, 1998) (“The legislature has recently recognized the evils of this type of lawsuit.”); see also id. at -25Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 25 of 36 PageID #: 1135 *3 (“Their lawsuit fits all of the characteristics of a lawsuit filed to intimidate a citizen into silence regarding an issue of public concern.”). Thus, this Court, too, should decline to recognize the new tort of “Business Disparagement” for Tennessee, and the Plaintiff’s “Business Disparagement” claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 3. The Plaintiff’s “Unfair Competition” claim fails as well. The Plaintiff’s “Unfair Competition” claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for multiple independent reasons as well. First, “a claim of unfair competition also requires an underlying tort,” Dominion Enterprises v. Dataium, LLC, No. M2012-02385COA-R3CV, 2013 WL 6858266, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2013), and given that the statements that the Plaintiff has sued over are all constitutionally protected for multiple reasons, there is no underlying tort over which the Plaintiff can sue. Second, “defendants did not have a valid and binding non-compete agreement at the time of the alleged inappropriate and unfair competition,” B & L Corp. v. Thomas & Thorngren, Inc., 162 S.W.3d 189, 216 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), which further prevents the Plaintiff’s “unfair competition” claim from being actionable. Further still, the tort does not plausibly apply to the instant case: In its most common form, the tort of unfair competition requires a showing that: (1) the defendant engaged in conduct which ‘passed off’ its organization or services as that of the plaintiff; (2) in engaging in such conduct, the defendant acted with an intent to deceive the public as to the source of services offered or authority of its organization; and (3) the public was actually confused or deceived as to the source of the services offered or the authority of its organization. Sovereign Order of St. John v. Grady, 119 F.3d 1236, 1243 (6th Cir. 1997). This tort is generally alleged as part of a trademark infringement case. See Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc., v. Elby’s Big Boy, 849 F.2d 1012, 1015 (6th Cir. 1998). -26Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 26 of 36 PageID #: 1136 Dade Int’l, Inc. v. Iverson, 9 F. Supp. 2d 858, 861 (M.D. Tenn. 1998). However, The Tennessee Court of Appeals has considered it appropriate to extend the tort of unfair competition beyond the context of trademark infringement in certain circumstances. In B & L Corp. v. Thomas & Thorngren, Inc., 917 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995), for instance, the court held that an action for unfair competition could be sustained for a breach of a fiduciary relationship by an employee who uses confidential information to the employer’s detriment. Id. at 681. B & L Corp., 162 S.W.3d at 225 n.7 (quoting Dade, 9 F. Supp. 2d at 862). None of these circumstances is present in this case. Nor has the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants owed the Plaintiff any fiduciary duty at the time of the allegedly “unfair competition.” See id. Instead, the apparent basis for the Plaintiff’s claim is that the critical statements in Mr. Paffrath’s YouTube videos mocking Dave Ramsey “have actually deceived or designed [sic] to tend to deceive the public’s purchasing decisions.” See Doc. #92, p. 17, ¶ 128. Critically, however, the Plaintiff has not so much as alleged any likelihood of customer confusion as to their source—an allegation that is essential to comport with the First Amendment and avoid a constitutional conflict. See Taubman, 319 F.3d at 778 (“[A]lthough economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoff's expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism of a business.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s “Unfair Competition” claim similarly fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, and it should be dismissed with prejudice as well. D. THE TERMS OF THE PARTIES’ CONTRACT PREVENT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMED “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” FROM BEING RECOGNIZED AS A TRADE SECRET. The Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim also cannot plausibly be maintained because the alleged “trade secrets” at issue were not confidential at the time -27Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 27 of 36 PageID #: 1137 of their publication. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Paffrath misappropriated the Plaintiff’s trade secrets by publishing the Plaintiff’s confidential information on YouTube the month after the Plaintiff terminated the Parties’ contract. Given the absence of any survival provision with respect to the Parties’ “Confidential Information” clause, however, see Doc. #25-1, p. 4, § 6, the Plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets ceased being confidential— or subject to any contractual protection at all—the moment that the Parties’ contract was terminated, see supra, pp. 7–12. The Plaintiff’s contract also did not reserve the right— or provide any mechanism to secure the return of—the supposed trade secrets at issue at any point following its termination. See generally Doc. #25-1. As a matter of law, then, the Plaintiff’s supposedly “confidential” information cannot be recognized as a trade secret, because the Plaintiff did not take reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its information. See, e.g., ProductiveMD, LLC v. 4UMD, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (M.D. Tenn. 2011) (“[B]y definition, a trade secret requires reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.”); TGC Corp. v. HTM Sports, B.V., 896 F. Supp. 751, 761 (E.D. Tenn. 1995) (‘The voluntary disclosure of ‘any alleged “trade secret” as part of a business transaction without any reservation or agreement of confidentiality prevents recognition of the information as a “trade secret.”’” (quoting Turner v. Great Am. Opportunities, Inc., 716 S.W.2d 40, 44 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986) (same))). See also Am. Nat. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Campbell Ins., Inc., 636 F. Supp. 2d 659, 668 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (noting that “steps taken by [a] corporation to be certain that [recipients] protected the confidentiality of the information and returned it [to the corporation] upon leaving the company” are relevant), dismissed by agreement of the parties, No. 3:08-CV-00604, 2011 WL 6259473 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2011). Further, given the Plaintiff’s failure to plead that it lost even a single customer, agent, or any other business of any kind after Mr. -28Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 28 of 36 PageID #: 1138 Paffrath publicized the alleged trade secrets to more than 100,000 people, the notion that the alleged trade secrets at issue hold any independent economic value—a separate requirement for trade secret recognition, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(4)(A)—is not plausible. As before, this fatal omission also cannot be cured by amendment, given that the witness who verified Plaintiff’s complaint has repeatedly indicated under oath during discovery that the Plaintiff did not lose even a single customer, agent, or any business of any kind as a result of its alleged trade secrets being widely publicized. See Exhibit #1, Interrogatory #2, pp. 3–4; Exhibit #2, p. 24, line 18–p. 27, line 16. See also id. at p. 117, line 13—p. 118, line 1 (stating that Plaintiff’s tax returns and revenue statements do not demonstrate that the Plaintiff suffered any harm). E. THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT. The Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim also fails for multiple reasons. To begin, two essential elements of a Lanham Act claim—(i) that “the statement actually or tends to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience,” and (ii) that “the statement is material in that it will likely influence the deceived customer’s purchasing decisions[,]” Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons, 185 F.3d at 613 (emphases added)—have not even been alleged, see Doc. #92, p. 18. Instead, the Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim is premised upon the Plaintiff’s mere “belie[f]” in some unspecified, undefined damage or future damage, see id. at ¶ 134. But see Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons, 185 F.3d 606 at 613 (“To state a cause of action for misleading advertisement under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must establish the following . . . 2) the statement actually or tends to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; 3) the statement is material in that it will likely influence the deceived consumer’s purchasing decisions . . . . ”). See also Asurion, LLC v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. -29Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 29 of 36 PageID #: 1139 3:18-CV-01306, 2019 WL 4142154, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2019). Yet again, these omissions also cannot be cured by amendment, given that the Plaintiff has repeatedly acknowledged that it did not, in fact, lose even a single customer, agent, or any business of any kind as a result of the publications at issue. See Exhibit #1, Interrogatory #2, pp. 3–4; Exhibit #2, p. 24, line 18–p. 27, line 16; id. at p. 117, line 13—p. 118, line 1. Further, as a matter of law, the statements over which the Plaintiff has sued are neither advertising nor even commercial speech, rendering the Lanham Act inapplicable in any regard. See Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons, 185 F.3d at 613 (holding that a Lanham Act claim must be premised upon “advertisements [] introduced into interstate commerce”) (emphasis added); Taubman, 319 F.3d at 774 (noting that “The Lanham Act is constitutional because it only regulates commercial speech, which is entitled to reduced protections under the First Amendment.”). Here, the statements over which the Plaintiff has sued—set forth at Doc. #92, p. 10, ¶ 63—self-evidently are neither advertising nor commercial speech. See City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 422 (1993) (defining commercial speech as “‘speech which does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.”’” (citing Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66 (1983))). The Plaintiff has also acknowledged during this litigation that the videos present obvious satire. See, e.g., Doc. #51, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, p. 3 (emphasizing that “Paffrath ‘pretends’ to be other characters at certain points in the videos, and the transcript does not reflect when Paffrath speaks as himself and when he speaks as one of these ‘characters.’”). Nor does the Plaintiff’s belief that Mr. Paffrath profited from the videos convert them into commercial speech. See, e.g., Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 384 (1973) (“[S]peech is -30Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 30 of 36 PageID #: 1140 not rendered commercial by the mere fact that it relates to an advertisement.” (citing Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254)). The fact that the statements at issue offend the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff “believes” that it was harmed by them also does not render the First Amendment inapplicable or cure the Plaintiff’s otherwise defective Lanham Act claim. See Taubman, 319 F.3d at 778 (“We find that Mishkoff’s use of Taubman’s mark in the domain name ‘taubmansucks.com’ is purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked. And although economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoff’s expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism of a business. Such use is not subject to scrutiny under the Lanham Act.”). Simply stated: The Plaintiff has not sued over advertising or commercial speech that would enable the Lanham Act to apply to this action. Instead, the statements that it has sued over are properly characterized as “statements of opinion” that are “not actionable as misrepresentations of fact under the Lanham Act.” See Serv. Jewelry Repair, Inc. v. Cumulus Broad., LLC, 145 F. Supp. 3d 737, 747 (M.D. Tenn. 2015). The Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim should be dismissed accordingly for failure to state a claim. F. CALIFORNIA SUBSTANTIVE LAW GOVERNS SEVERAL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS, WHICH PLAINTIFF HAS MAINTAINED EXCLUSIVELY AS TENNESSEE TORT CLAIMS. As Defendants have consistently contended, California substantive law governs all of the Plaintiff’s state-based claims except its breach of contract claim against Kevin Paffrath and, arguably, its trade secrets claim against Kevin Paffrath. The Defendants’ previous briefing on the matter, set forth at Doc. #30, Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Anti-SLAPP Motion, pp. 2–6, is incorporated herein by reference. Well in advance of the Plaintiff’s recent amendment, this Court also notified -31Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 31 of 36 PageID #: 1141 the Plaintiff that its choice of law analysis mischaracterized the relevant inquiry. Doc. #62, Memorandum Opinion, p. 2 n.2. Even so, the Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint that relies on Tennessee tort claims. Because California substantive law governs multiple claims in this matter, however, and because the Plaintiff has chosen not to bring any claims under California substantive law, the Plaintiff’s Tennessee-based claims against the two corporate Defendants, and Claims ## 2-5 and 7 asserted against Defendant Paffrath, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. G. THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMANDED UNCONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES. The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks substantial injunctive relief that cannot be lawfully issued. Doc. #92, p. 19, ¶¶ 138–41. Such claims for relief should be dismissed. First, the Plaintiff seeks to have this Court compel Mr. Paffrath to “remove each of the YouTube videos referenced” and “prohibit Paffrath or anyone acting in concert with Paffrath from posting any further content online that is false, deceptive, and malicious regarding Ramsey or that discloses Ramsey’s Trade Secrets.” Id. at ¶¶ 138–39. Particularly in cases involving a public figure, however, Plaintiff’s desired restraints cannot constitutionally be compelled. See, e.g., Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 33 (1st Cir. 2018) (noting that an “[a]n injunction that prevents in perpetuity the utterance of particular words and phrases after a defamation trial” may still be unconstitutional even after the words and phrases have been found defamatory, because “[b]y its very nature, defamation is an inherently contextual tort,” and “[w]ords that were false and spoken with actual malice on one occasion might be true on a different occasion or might be spoken without actual malice.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s already unconstitutional demands are further exacerbated by the fact that the Plaintiff has not -32Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 32 of 36 PageID #: 1142 even bothered to restrict its demanded speech injunction to speech that is tortious. See Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 54 (“Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate.”); State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n v. 119 Vote No! Comm., 957 P.2d 691, 695 (Wash. 1998) (“[T]he Supreme Court has recognized that to sustain our constitutional commitment to uninhibited political discourse, the State may not prevent others from ‘resort[ing] to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church and state, and even to false statement.’” (quoting Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (1940))); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 722 (2012) (plurality) (“The Government has not demonstrated that false statements generally should constitute a new category of unprotected speech . . . .”). Second, the Plaintiff seeks to have this Court “require Paffrath and anyone acting in concert with him to immediately return Ramsey’s Trade Secrets to Ramsey.” Doc. #92, p. 19, ¶ 140. The Plaintiff seeks to have the Court provide this relief—and the Court, similarly, is unable to provide it—because no such right exists in the Parties’ contract, which the Court may not redraft. See Doc. #25-1; Realty Shop, 7 S.W.3d at 597–98 (“The courts may not make a new contract for parties who have spoken for themselves, see Petty v. Sloan, 197 Tenn. 630, 640, 277 S.W.2d 355, 359 (1955), and may not relieve parties of their contractual obligations simply because these obligations later prove to be burdensome or unwise.”). Third, the Plaintiff “requests that the Court require Paffrath to issue corrective advertising.” Doc. #92, p. 19, ¶ 141. Compelling speech is forbidden, however, and the Court cannot constitutionally oblige the Plaintiff’s demand. See, e.g., United States v. -33Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 33 of 36 PageID #: 1143 United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 410 (2001) (“Just as the First Amendment may prevent the government from prohibiting speech, the Amendment may prevent the government from compelling individuals to express certain views”); Kramer v. Thompson, 947 F.2d 666, 682 (3d Cir. 1991) (“[We find no support for the various retractions and withdrawals forced upon Thompson by the district court. Consequently, those orders of the district court compelling such retractions and withdrawals, and the associated contempt citations, must be reversed.”); W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”). H. THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS. “The general practice among federal courts has been to permit any party to challenge (or for the court to question sua sponte) the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the proceedings.” Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1074 (6th Cir. 1990). “The language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) suggests that courts have a positive duty to undertake the jurisdictional inquiry: ‘Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.’” Id. Although the actual amount in controversy in this matter has never been specified, this action was removed to this Court because of what appeared to be a claim of actual damages that exceeded $75,000.00. See Halsey v. AGCO Corp., 755 F. App’x 524, 526– -34Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 34 of 36 PageID #: 1144 27 (6th Cir. 2018). The Plaintiff’s claim of actual damages has since been clarified, however, and the actual damages sought do not even approach $75,000.00. See Exhibit #1, Plaintiff’s Responses & Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatory ## 1-2, pp. 3–4 The Plaintiff’s only specified claim of damages is for $4,200.00 arising from an alleged breach of contract. Id. The Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, which are constitutionally limited by the actual damages incurred, and disgorgement of supposed unjust enrichment, which is not an available remedy for speech-based torts. See Ventura v. Kyle, 825 F.3d 876, 887 (8th Cir. 2016); Alharbi v. Theblaze, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 3d 334, 361 (D. Mass. 2016); Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov, 162 A.3d 102, 126 (Del. Ch. 2017). Under these circumstances, the Defendants can no longer represent or maintain the position that “the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional amount.” See Havener v. Richardson, 198 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, following dismissal of the Plaintiff’s newly-added Lanham Act claim, this court should exercise its discretion to dismiss, without prejudice, the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed. -35Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 35 of 36 PageID #: 1145 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz__________ Daniel A. Horwitz, BPR #032176 1803 Broadway, Suite #531 Nashville, TN 37203 daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com (615) 739-2888 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 5th day of November, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was sent via CM/ECF, and to the following parties: E. Todd Presnell Brandon Bundren Thor Urness BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 tpresnell@bradley.com turness@bradley.com bbundren@bradley.com Counsel for Plaintiff the Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions By: /s/ Daniel A. Horwitz_________ Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq. -36Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-2 Filed 11/05/19 Page 36 of 36 PageID #: 1146 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC D/B/A RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, THE PAFFRATH ORGANIZATION, and MEETNDONE CORPORATION, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 3:18-cv-01402 Judge Richardson Magistrate Judge Holmes PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rules 26, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff The Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions serve the following responses and objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1147 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS & INSTRUCTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to Definition No. 5 because it seeks information that is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff will interpret these terms to refer to the Plaintiff in this action and no one else. 2. Plaintiff objects to Definition Nos. 9 and 10 because they seek information that is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff will interpret the term “document” to mean hard copy, paper documents and electronically stored information— including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, and/or control. 3. Plaintiff objects to Instruction No. 15 because it seeks information that is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. To the extent documents are produced in response to the requests below that have not previously been produced either in PDF format or natively, Plaintiff will produce documents in searchable PDF format. 4. Plaintiff objects to these interrogatories because they exceed the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). 2 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1148 INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY 1 [1-2]. [1] Identify the specific amount of damages that you claim you sustained or are owed for each separate category of damages listed in Section C of the Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, and [2] describe in detail how you calculated the amount of damages that you claim you sustained or are owed with respect to each category. ANSWER: Objection. Section (C) of Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures states that Plaintiff seeks all profits gained by the Defendants as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Plaintiff has sought this information in discovery from the Defendants but Defendants have objected to producing this information. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because Defendants have prevented Plaintiff from accessing the documents and information necessary to answer it. Once Defendants fully and completely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests seeking this information, Plaintiff will be in a position to answer this compound interrogatory. Subject to this objection, [1] Plaintiff seeks as damages the $350 monthly administrative fee for term of the ELP agreement, which Plaintiff would have been entitled to receive had Defendant not breached it, [2] which for the full term of the ELP agreement amounts to $4,200. [1] Ramsey further seeks to recover punitive and/or exemplary damages as allowed by law. [1] Ramsey further seeks to recover as damages its attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action pursuant to section 12 of the ELP agreement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and all costs of court. INTERROGATORY 2 [3]. [3] Identify all of the “business Lampo lost” and the name, address, and telephone number of each and every customer, client, or agent you claim to have lost in connection with Lampo’s ELP Program as a result of Defendants’ alleged actions. 3 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1149 ANSWER: [3] As a result of Defendant’s breach of the ELP agreement, Plaintiff would have received the $350 monthly administrative fee for term of the ELP agreement from the Defendant had Defendant not breached the ELP agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks as damages the $350 monthly administrative fee for term of the ELP agreement. INTERROGATORY 3 [4]. [4] Identify the monthly revenue generated by Lampo’s ELP Program for each month spanning September 2015 through September 2019. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action. Plaintiff further objects because this interrogatory also seeks information that is proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in time, especially considering the time Defendants were associated with Plaintiff’s ELP program. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. INTERROGATORY 4 [5]. [5] Identify the monthly profits earned by Lampo’s ELP Program for each month spanning September 2015 through September 2019. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this action. Plaintiff further objects because this interrogatory also seeks information that is proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad in time, especially considering the time Defendants were associated with Plaintiff’s ELP program. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. 4 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1150 INTERROGATORY 5 [6-9]. [6] Identify all documents relevant to the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint that Jack Galloway reviewed or was provided in advance of his December 3, 2018, verification under oath that “I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and have personal knowledge of the factual allegations set forth therein unless otherwise indicated and that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” In your answer, specifically identify the name or title of the documents, [7] how Jack Galloway obtained a copy of the documents, and [8] when Jack Galloway reviewed or was provided the document, and [9] identify anyone other than Jack Galloway who reviewed or saw any portion of the documents and when such person reviewed or saw it. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product immunity. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. Subject to these objections, [6] Mr. Galloway reviewed the videos referenced in the Complaint. [8] Mr. Galloway reviewed the videos prior to executing the verification attached to the Complaint. INTERROGATORY 6 [10-23]. [10] Indicate all “personal knowledge” that Jack Galloway swore, under oath, that he had on December 3, 2018, regarding the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 67, [11] 93, [12] 98, [13] 99, [14] 100, [15] 104, [16] 105, [17] 110, [18] 113, [19] 114, [20] 115, [21] 119, [22] 120, and [23] 129 of the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to track all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking “all” information, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly 5 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1151 broad, burdensome, and requires the equivalent of a narrative account of Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it improperly seeks “conclusions of law.” [See Doc. 46 (Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint), ¶¶ 67, 99, 100, 104, 105, 110, 113, 114, 115, 119, 120, 129 (alleging paragraphs “contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required”.] Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until after Defendants have fully responded to written discovery and oral discovery has been completed. Requiring an answer to an interrogatory at this stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Subject to these objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: [10] Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff refers Defendants to the ELP agreement and Defendants’ “Dave Ramsey: Exposed” video. Defendants used Plaintiff’s confidential information in Defendants’ “Exposed” video, which advertises for Defendants’ various real estate businesses, including Defendants’ online real estate investment course. [11] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 [1-2]. [12] Plaintiff refers Defendants to Defendants’ “Exposed” video, during which Defendants admittedly “infiltrated” Plaintiff’s ELP program and posted false statements about the ELP program in an effort to generate business for Defendants. [13] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [12]. [14] Paffrath represented he would abide by the terms of the ELP program when he entered into it. Had Plaintiff known of Paffrath’s true intentions in entering into the ELP program to “infiltrate” it, Plaintiff would have never permitted Paffrath to be a part of the ELP program. 6 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1152 [15] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [14]. [16] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [12]. [17] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [14]. [18] Defendants’ videos contained many false statements, including those referenced in paragraphs 63, 70, 71, 73, 81, 85, 86, and 87 of the Complaint. See also Answer to Interrogatory No. 1 [1-2]. [19] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [12]. [20] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [12, 18]. [21] Plaintiff considers the information Defendants displayed in the “Exposed” video to be confidential and proprietary information that has been developed by Plaintiff’s ELP team over time. [22] Plaintiff’s ELP HUB information is shared with parties who have agreed to keep it confidential pursuant to the ELP program agreement. Plaintiff provides this information to an ELP provider through its password-protected ELP HUB, as it did in this case with the Defendants, who then displayed screenshots of this information in Defendants’ “Exposed” video. [23] See Answer to Interrogatory No. 6 [10, 12]. INTERROGATORY 7 [24]. [24] Indicate whether the Plaintiff performed its contractual obligation to “to provide [Paffrath], through its broker, with referral services within ELP’s assigned territory, as defined and determined exclusively by Ramsey,” as set forth in Section 1 of the Real Estate ELP Agreement, previously filed at Doc. #25-1, Page ID #242. ANSWER: [24] As described in the Complaint, Paffrath refused to participate in the required conference calls until he had “an opportunity to start trying to interact with some 7 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1153 referrals.” Because of Defendants’ non-compliance with the ELP program, Plaintiff terminated the ELP agreement before sending any referrals. INTERROGATORY 8 [25]. [25] Indicate whether you claim that, prior to October 8, 2018, Kevin Paffrath shared with any third party any information that you claim is confidential. In your answer, specifically identify the confidential information that you claim Kevin Paffrath shared with any third party prior to October 8, 2018, and the time and date that you claim he shared it. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until after Defendants have fully responded to written discovery and oral discovery has been completed. Requiring an answer to an interrogatory at this stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Subject to this objection, Plaintiff responds as follows: [25] At this time, Plaintiff is unaware of an instance where Defendants shared Plaintiff’s confidential information with a third party prior to October 8, 2018. INTERROGATORY 9 [26-27]. [26] Indicate whether, prior to September 2018, any ELP Agreement or other contract between the Plaintiff and an ELP provider or agent contained a clause that reserved or afforded the Plaintiff the right to recover or otherwise secure the return of any “Confidential Information” following the agreement’s or contract’s termination, [27] and if so, how many ELP agreements or other contracts between the Plaintiff and an ELP provider contained a clause that reserved or afforded the Plaintiff the right to recover or otherwise secure the return of any “Confidential Information” following the agreement’s or contract’s termination. 8 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 1154 ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff’s ELP agreements or other contracts with other ELP providers are irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case and is unduly burdensome and overly broad in that it would require Plaintiff to review every single contract it has entered into “prior to September 2018” which is also overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 10 [28]. [28] Indicate the total number of “ELP Agreement[s]” or other contracts between the Plaintiff and an ELP provider or agent that the Plaintiff executed prior to September 2018. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff’s ELP agreements or other contracts with other ELP providers are irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case and is unduly burdensome and overly broad in that it would require Plaintiff to review every single contract it has entered into “prior to September 2018” which is also overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff 9 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1155 further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 11 [29]. [29] Identify in detail the Plaintiff’s process for generating “leads” and referring them to Plaintiff’s ELP Agents. In your answer, specifically identify whether the Plaintiff or any employee of the Plaintiff speaks to a prospective lead before making a referral to an ELP Agent and the average length of time, if any, that the Plaintiff or any employee of the Plaintiff speaks to a prospective lead before making a referral to an ELP Agent. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 12 [30-31]. [30] Indicate what Mitch Riddle’s annual salary is, identified by both salaried or hourly compensation and compensation paid on commission, and [31] the approximate number of hours that Mitch Riddle works each year. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Mr. Riddle’s annual salary and hours worked is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks confidential information of Mr. Riddle and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 13 [32]. [32] Identify in detail the Plaintiff’s process for vetting and hiring prospective ELP Agents and all facts known to Plaintiff that would support 10 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1156 Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 74 of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint that “Ramsey carefully vets the providers in Ramsey’s ELP program.” ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to track all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking “all facts known” information, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad, burdensome, and requires the equivalent of a narrative account of Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 14 [33]. [33] Identify in detail whether and how “leads” generated by the Plaintiff and referred to the Plaintiff’s ELP providers would know or learn how much money, specifically, the Plaintiff makes on a successful sale. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 15 [34]. [34] Identify those persons, witnesses, documents, items, things, or other evidence that would support the allegation in paragraph 56 of the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint that Kevin Paffrath “fraudulently induced Ramsey into the Agreement as a ruse to infiltrate Ramsey’s ELP program, steal Ramsey’s confidential and proprietary information, and unlawfully compete with Ramsey by posting false and malicious statements about Ramsey’s ELP program on the internet as clickbait so that Paffrath could increase page views and resulting business with Paffrath and his affiliated companies, The Paffrath Organization and MeetNDone.” ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to track all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s 11 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 1157 Complaint seeking all “persons, witnesses, documents, items, things, or other evidence,” which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad, burdensome, and requires the equivalent of a narrative account of Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it improperly seeks “conclusions of law.” [See Doc. 46 (Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint), ¶ 56 (alleging paragraph 56 of the Complaint “are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required”.] Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until after Defendants have fully responded to written discovery and oral discovery has been completed. Requiring an answer to an interrogatory at this stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 16 [35-36]. [35] Identify all documents, items, or things that would establish the identity of the persons or entities other than Kevin Paffrath who signed up with or participated in Ramsey’s real estate ELP program and were given Ramsey’s confidential and proprietary information from September 1, 2015, to the present, and [36] indicate whether there was a decrease in the number of people of who signed up with or participated in the program during, after, or as a result of Kevin Paffrath’s alleged conduct, and if so, the extent of the decrease. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The identity of the persons or entities other than the Defendant who participate in Plaintiff’s ELP program are irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this compound 12 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 1158 interrogatory seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case and is unduly burdensome and overly broad in that it would require Plaintiff to review every single contract it has entered into “since September 1, 2015, to the present” which is also overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 17 [37]. [37] Indicate which provision of Kevin Paffrath’s ELP Agreement, if any, you claim affords you the right to secure the return of information that you claim is confidential following termination of the Agreement. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it improperly seeks a conclusion of law. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 18 [38]. [38] Identify the date, time, and contents of all non- privileged communications between Dave Ramsey and The Lampo Group, LLC regarding Kevin Paffrath or relating to this litigation. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 19 [39-40]. [39] Identify all documents (referenced by Bates number) that Plaintiff intends to introduce as exhibits in its case-in-chief in this matter and [40] 13 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1159 the specific allegation or allegations in the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint that you contend the documents support. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to require Plaintiff to tie “all” documents it intends to introduce in its case-in chief to each allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad, and burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until after Defendants have fully responded to written discovery and oral discovery has been completed and after Plaintiff has identified its trial exhibits pursuant to this Court’s Order. [See Doc. 14, PageID #159.] Requiring an answer to an interrogatory at this stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 20 [41-42]. [41] Identify all persons that the Plaintiff intends to call as witnesses in its case-in-chief in this matter and [42] the specific allegation or allegations in the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint regarding which those witnesses will testify. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to require Plaintiff to tie “all” witnesses it intends to call in its case-in chief to each allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad, and burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until September 14, 2020. [See Doc. 14, PageID #159.] Requiring an answer to an interrogatory at this 14 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1160 stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Plaintiff further objects to this compound interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 21 [43]. [43] Identify all correspondences in your possession, without regard to form, between the Plaintiff and any Defendant in this action. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 22 [44]. [44] Identify and describe all of the Plaintiff’s “reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its Trade Secrets,” as alleged at paragraph 120 of the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because is not proportional to the needs of the case. This interrogatory attempts to track the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking “all” information, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad, burdensome, and requires the equivalent of a narrative account of Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it improperly seeks “conclusions of law.” [See Doc. 46 (Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint), ¶ 120 (alleging the allegations of this paragraph “contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required”.] Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of Interrogatory No. 6 [22]. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). 15 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1161 INTERROGATORY 23 [45]. [45] Identify and provide the name, address, and phone number of each and every person to whom the Plaintiff has provided any of the allegedly “confidential, proprietary, and other sensitive information, including but not limited to Ramsey’s client lists, vendor lists, customer lists, ELP lists, business plans, computer programs, developing products, internal reports, marketing strategies, metrics, marketing data or other information not available to the general public, whether communicated in writing, electronically or orally” or “confidential and proprietary data” referenced at paragraphs 65 and 66 of the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The identity and contact information of those individuals or entities that have received Plaintiff’s confidential information are irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory in that it attempts to track the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking “all” information, which is an abuse of the discovery process, unduly broad and burdensome. Plaintiff further objects because this interrogatory seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case and is unduly burdensome and overly broad in that it would require Plaintiff to identify every single individual or entity who has been provided Plaintiff’s confidential information and is further overly broad in that it is unlimited in time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it improperly seeks “conclusions of law.” [See Doc. 46 (Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint), ¶¶ 65-66 (alleging the allegations of these paragraphs “contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required”.] Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of 16 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 1162 interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 24 [46]. [46] Identify all persons, including attorneys, who were involved in drafting, filing, or otherwise approving any component of or allegation in the ex parte Temporary Restraining Order filed on December 3, 2018, at 3:35 p.m. in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee, available at Doc. #1-5. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The identity and contact information of those individuals or entities that drafted, filed, or otherwise approved of the Complaint in this matter is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, and is harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). INTERROGATORY 25 [47-48]. [47] Identify The Lampo Group, LLC’s auditor, bookkeeper, accountant (including those accountants or CPAs within the Lampo Group, LLC and those accountants or CPAs who are part of a separate firm, sole proprietorship, company, or other entity, such an accounting firm), and [48] any other persons who have within the period of September 2015 to the present prepared, possessed, and/or filed The Lampo Group, LLC’s state and/or federal tax returns and/or other financial records, and state which records each possesses. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this compound interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The identity and contact information of Plaintiff’s auditor, bookkeeper, or accountant or those who have prepared, 17 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 1163 possessed, or filed Plaintiff’s tax returns or other financial records is irrelevant to any party’s claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it exceeds the number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33.01(b). 18 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 1164 VERIFICATION OF THE LAMPO GROUP. LLC RAMSEY SOLUTIONS STATE OF TENNESSEE COUNTY OF WILLIAMSON 1, Jack Galloway, after ?rst being duly sworn, state as follows: I am Jack Galloway. I am the Executive Vice President of the plaintiff in this matter, The Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions (the ?Company?). I am authorized to make this veri?cation on behalf of the Company. I have read the answers to Interrogatory Numbers 1 2 5 6 [10-23], 7 8 These answers are based upon the Company?s knowledge and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. LUVPD (New Jack allo "g cutive Vice President The Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions Sworn to and subscribed before me on this the 23rd day of October, 2019. ?mum, Notary Public: 9? S. - - - STATE I, My Commissmn Ex Z7 21/ ll TENNESSEE )1 NOTARY 5? *3 6? 644/14 .. 19 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 19 of 30 PageID 1165 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1: Please produce all documents identified in response to the First Set of Interrogatories or upon which you, or anyone acting on your behalf, relied on or referred to in preparing the answers to the First Set of Interrogatories. RESPONSE: To the extent any documents were identified in response to Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories, those documents have been previously produced. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 2: Please produce all non-privileged communications between Dave Ramsey and any member of the The Lampo Group, LLC regarding Kevin Paffrath or relating to this litigation. RESPONSE: No documents are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: Please produce copies of all documents comprising The Lampo Group, LLC’s state and federal income tax returns, with all schedules, for the years 2015 to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because Plaintiff’s tax returns and schedules are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 4: Please produce copies of all financial statements or financial reports generated by or for The Lampo Group, LLC for 2015 to the present. 20 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 1166 RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because Plaintiff’s financial statements or reports are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 5: Please produce all documents evidencing the monthly revenue and profits generated by Lampo’s ELP Program for each month spanning September 2015 through September 2019. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because Plaintiff’s monthly revenues and profits are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 6: Please produce all documents used to calculate the revenues and profits generated by Lampo’s ELP Program for each month spanning September 2015 through September 2019. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because Plaintiff’s monthly revenues and profits are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. 21 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 1167 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: Please produce all documents or communications relevant to any of the factual allegations in paragraphs 89–130 of the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. RESPONSE: Plaintiff has produced documents responsive to this request, including without limitation the ELP agreement and all videos made the subject of this action and all comments by the Defendants to those videos that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 8: Please produce all documents relevant to each separate category of damages listed in Section C of the Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff has sought some of this information in discovery from the Defendants—as that information is solely within Defendants’ possession, custody, and/or control—but Defendants have objected to producing this information. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to this request because Defendant has prevented Plaintiff from accessing the documents and information necessary to respond to it. Once Defendant fully and completely responds to Plaintiff’s discovery requests seeking this information, Plaintiff will be in a position to produce additional information and supplement this response. Subject to this objection, Plaintiff has produced documents responsive to this request, including without limitation the ELP agreement and all videos made the subject of this action and all comments by the Defendants to those videos that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 9: Please produce all contracts prior to September 2018 between the Plaintiff and any ELP provider or agent who had access to any material that the Plaintiff claims is confidential or proprietary. 22 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 1168 RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. “All” of Plaintiff’s ELP contracts with other ELP providers is irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this request seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case, is unduly burdensome, harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 10: Please produce all documents indicating the individuals who participated in the Plaintiff’s ELP Program prior to September 2018. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. “All documents” relating to other ELP providers is irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this request seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case, is unduly burdensome, harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 11: Please produce all documents that Plaintiff intends to introduce as exhibits in its case-inchief in this matter. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until September 14, 2020 pursuant to the Court’s Order. [See Doc. 14, PageID #159.] Subject to this objection, Plaintiff has produced documents responsive to this request, including without limitation the ELP agreement, correspondence 23 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 1169 between the parties, and all videos made the subject of this action and all comments by the Defendants to those videos that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 12: Please produce all documents, items, or things that would establish the identity of persons or entities other than Kevin Paffrath who were given access to Ramsey’s allegedly confidential and proprietary information from September 1, 2015, to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. “All documents” relating to other ELP providers and what those providers were provided is irrelevant to this case and the contract at issue here. Plaintiff further objects because this request seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case, is unduly burdensome, harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13: Please produce all documents that would demonstrate that persons or entities other than Kevin Paffrath disclosed or published any of Ramsey’s allegedly confidential and proprietary information to any third party. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it assumes facts not in existence. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. It is the Defendants’ improper disclosure of information that is relevant to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to this request because it is not proportional to the needs of this case, is unduly burdensome, harassing, an improper fishing expedition and is overly broad in time. Subject to these objections, no documents are responsive to this request. 24 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 1170 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 14: Please produce all documents containing allegedly confidential and proprietary information that you contend Kevin Paffrath disclosed in violation of his ELP Agreement. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information contained within the ELP HUB and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Subject to this objection, Plaintiff has previously produced a copy of the “Exposed” video, during which Defendant disclosed Plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary information in violation of his ELP Agreement. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 15: Please produce all documents that demonstrate that the documents responsive to Request for Production 14 derive independent economic value from being generally unknown to others. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information contained within the ELP HUB and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. Plaintiff further objects to this request because is not proportional to the needs of the case in that it would require production of every document related to the ELP program, which is unduly broad, burdensome, and unlimited in time. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 16: Please produce all documents that demonstrate that the documents responsive to Request for Production 14 were disclosed to any other person or entity without any reservation or agreement of confidentiality. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it assumes facts not in existence. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. It is the Defendants’ improper disclosure of information that is relevant to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to this request because it is not proportional to 25 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 1171 the needs of this case, is unduly burdensome, harassing, an improper fishing expedition and is overly broad in time. Subject to these objections, no documents are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Please produce all documents that demonstrate that Kevin Paffrath shared any information that you claim is confidential or proprietary with any third party prior to the Plaintiff terminating Kevin Paffrath’s ELP Agreement. ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it prematurely seeks information that need not be answered until after Defendants have fully responded to written discovery. Requiring an answer to this request at this stage of the case given the information requested is an improper attempt to require Plaintiff to marshal the entirety of its evidence before having an opportunity to fully explore its case. Subject to these objections, Plaintiff is unaware of an instance at this time where Defendants shared Plaintiff’s confidential information with a third party prior to October 8, 2018. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 18: Please produce all documents sufficient to identify anyone who has stated that they intend or intended to leave the ELP program in response to the videos related to Ramsey. RESPONSE: Plaintiff has produced documents responsive to this request, including all videos made the subject of this action and all comments to those videos that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 19: Please produce all documents used to calculate the revenues and profits of the ELP Program between September 2015 and the present. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it is duplicative of Request for Production No. 5. Plaintiff further objects to this request because “all documents used 26 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 1172 to calculate” Plaintiff’s revenues and profits are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20: Please produce all documents containing statements against interest or admissions concerning the subject matter of this action or the facts and circumstances at issue herein made by Ramsey or any of its agents, employees, or representatives. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it is not proportional to the needs of the case in that it seeks “all documents” from Plaintiff and its entire workforce. Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to this request because it is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Subject to these objections, no documents are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21: Please produce all documents that would establish in what way and in what amount you incurred a decrease, reduction, or loss of any business, income, or profits during or after Kevin Paffrath’s alleged conduct and what you did, if anything, to mitigate such decrease, reduction, or loss. RESPONSE: Plaintiff has produced documents responsive to this request, which include but are not limited to comments posted by individuals in response to the videos at issue in this case as well as the Complaint in this matter and the Agreed Order. 27 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 1173 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 22: Please produce all documents that would tend to establish that there were potential applicants that would have but did not sign up for or participate in the Plaintiff’s real estate ELP program because of the conduct of Kevin Paffrath alleged in the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. RESPONSE: Plaintiff has previously produced documents responsive to this request, which include but are not limited to comments posted by individuals in response to the videos at issue in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 23: Please produce all documents that would tend to establish that there were ELP Agents, sales leads, or buyers who would have, but did not, close any sale relating to the Plaintiff’s real estate ELP program because of the conduct of Kevin Paffrath alleged in the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, RESPONSE: Plaintiff has previously produced documents responsive to this request, which include but are not limited to comments posted by individuals in response to the videos at issue in this case. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 24: Regarding your claim for attorney’s fees, please provide all documents indicating what has been billed or invoiced to you by, and what you have paid to, any attorneys or other legal professionals related to this action or the events prior to the filing of this action, including the invoices sent to and paid by you related to this action. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to this request because it seeks information that is not relevant at this stage of the case and has been lodged for an improper propose and is harassing. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it clearly seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product immunity. Subject to these 28 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 1174 objections, Plaintiff will provide the necessary support for an award of attorneys’ fees in accordance with Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54.01. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 25: Please produce all non-privileged documents in your possession generated between August 2018 and the present that contain the word “Paffrath.” RESPONSE: Plaintiff has previously produced documents responsive to this request, which include but are not limited to the ELP agreement, correspondence between the parties, the videos made the subject of this action, and comments posted by individuals in response to the videos at issue in this action. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 26: Please produce all weekly, monthly, or other periodic statements from your financial accounts (checking, savings, money market, credit union accounts, or other such cash or other financial management accounts) in which you have had any legal or equitable interest from September 1, 2015, to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. Plaintiff objects to the extent this request is duplicative of prior requests. Plaintiff further objects to this request because Plaintiff’s “weekly, monthly, or other periodic statements” from Plaintiff’s financial accounts are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this request in that it is a clear abuse of the discovery process, has been lodged for an improper purpose, is harassing, and is overly broad in time. Plaintiff further objects to this request because it seeks Plaintiff’s confidential commercial information and should only be produced pursuant to a protective order. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 27: Please produce all documents referenced in Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures. 29 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 1175 RESPONSE: Plaintiff has previously produced documents referenced in Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures pursuant to the Court’s Initial Case Management Order. [Doc. 13, PageID #153.] Respectfully submitted, s/ R. Brandon Bundren E. Todd Presnell (#17521) R. Brandon Bundren (#30985) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Tel: 615.244.2582 Fax: 615.252.6380 tpresnell@bradley.com bbundren@bradley.com Attorneys for Plaintiff The Lampo Group, LLC d/b/a Ramsey Solutions CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 23, 2019, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing to counsel of record as follows: Daniel A. Horwitz (daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com) Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz Counsel for Defendants s/ R. Brandon Bundren R. Brandon Bundren 30 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-3 Filed 11/05/19 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 1176 THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, et al. vs. PAFFRATH, et al. JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR. October 29, 2019 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 1177 Page 3 ·1· · · ·2· ·3· · · ·4 · · ·5 · · ·6 · · ·7· · · ·8 · · ·9· 10 11 12 13 14· 15· 16· · · 17 18 19 20 21 · · 22 · · 23· · · 24· · · 25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · · · · ·FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE ·________________________________________________________________ ·THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, D/B/A ·RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No. 3:18-CV-01402 · ·KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, THE · ·PAFFRATH ORGANIZATION, and · ·MEETNDONE CORPORATION, · · · · · · · ·Defendants. · ·________________________________________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Deposition of: ·JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR. ·Taken on behalf of the Defendants ·October 29, 2019 · ·________________________________________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Elite Reporting Services www.elitereportingservices.com · · Sarah N. Linder, LCR · · ·Post Office Box 292382 · Nashville, Tennessee 37229 · · · · (615)595-0073 ·1 ·2· ·3· · · ·4· ·5 ·6· ·7· ·8· · · ·9· 10· · · 11· · · 12 · · 13· · · 14· · · 15 · · 16· · · 17 · · 18· · · 19· · · 20 · · 21· · · 22 · · 23· · · 24 · · 25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·I· N· D· E X · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page Examination By Mr. Horwitz· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · E· X· H· I· B· I· T S · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page No. 1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 12 Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures No. 2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 13 E-mail from Brandon Bundren to Daniel Horwitz dated 9/27/2019 Re: Lampo v. Paffrath, et al. · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. 3, Late-Filed· · · · · · · · · · · 15 Any Document Providing that Jack Galloway Knew that the Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures Were Updated Prior to 10/29/2019 · Exhibit No. 4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 32 · · · · · Subpoena and Notice of Deposition · · · · · to Jack Galloway · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. 5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 33 Letter from Brandon Bundren to Daniel Horwitz in Response to Production of Documents to be Produced by Jack Galloway · Exhibit No. 6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 41 · · · · · Transcript from the YouTube Video · · · · · Dave Ramsey is Suing Me · Exhibit No. 7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 41 · · · · · Transcript from the YouTube Video · · · · · A Message for Dave Ramsey · Exhibit No. 8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 42 · · · · · Transcript from the YouTube Video · · · · · Dave Ramsey Exposed Page 2 ·1 ·2· ·3 ·4 · · ·5 · · ·6· · · ·7· · · ·8· · · ·9· · · 10 11 · · 12 · · 13· · · 14· · · 15· · · 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · · · · · · ·A· P· P· E· A· R· A· N· C· E S · ·For the Plaintiff: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · MR. BRANDON BUNDREN MR. THOR Y. URNESS Attorneys at Law Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings, LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN· 37203 (615)252-2352 Bbundren@bradley.com Turness@bradley.com · ·For the Defendant: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · MR. DANIEL A. HORWITZ Attorney at Law Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz 1803 Broadway, Suite 531 Nashville, TN· 37203 (615)739-2888 Daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com Page 4 ·1· ·2· · · ·3· · · ·4· ·5· · · ·6· ·7· · · ·8 · · ·9· · · 10 · · 11· · · 12· · · 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page No. 9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·120 Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents No. 10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 120 ELP Agreement Between Kevin Paffrath and The Lampo Group No. 11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 120 Verified Complaint · Exhibit No. 12· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 121 · · · · · ELP Real Estate Promotional Suite · · · · · Usage Guide · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. 13· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 121 The Daily Beast Article Titled Spies, Cash, and Fear:· Inside Christian Money Guru Dave Ramsey's Social Media Witch Hunt Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 1178 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 5 ·1· · · · · · · S· T· I· P· U· L· A· T· I· O· N S ·2 ·3 ·4· · · · · · The deposition of JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR., ·5· · was taken by counsel for the Defendants, at Bradley ·6· · Arant Boult & Cummings, LLP, 1600 Division Street, ·7· · Suite 700, Nashville, Tennessee, on October 29, 2019, ·8· · for all purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil ·9· · Procedure. 10· · · · · · All formalities as to caption, notice, 11· · statement of appearance, et cetera, are waived.· All 12· · objections, except as to the form of the questions, 13· · are reserved to the hearing, and that said deposition 14· · may be read and used in evidence in said cause of 15· · action in any trial thereon or any proceeding herein. 16· · · · · · It is agreed that SARAH N. LINDER, LCR, 17· · Notary Public and Court Reporter for the State of 18· · Tennessee, may swear the witness, and that the 19· · reading and signing of the completed deposition by 20· · the witness are not waived. 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · Is it fair for anyone reading this transcript ·3· · after it's complete to assume that you understood a ·4· · question if you answered it and didn't ask me to ·5· · clarify it? ·6· · A.· · · Yes. ·7· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Y'all ready to begin? ·8· · · · · · · · (No response.) ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Will you please state your full name for the 11· · record? 12· · A.· · · Jack Boone Galloway, Jr. 13· · Q.· · · And where are you employed, sir? 14· · A.· · · Ramsey Solutions. 15· · Q.· · · Is that also The Lampo Group? 16· · A.· · · Lamper -- Lampo Group, d/b/a, Ramsey 17· · Solutions. 18· · Q.· · · To your knowledge, is that the plaintiff in 19· · this matter? 20· · A.· · · Yes. 21· · Q.· · · So if we refer to The Lampo Group, or the 22· · plaintiff, or Ramsey Solutions, we're all talking 23· · about the same entity, right? 24· · A.· · · Yes. 25· · Q.· · · Have you ever been involved in litigation as Page 6 Page 8 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·*· ·*· ·* ·2· · · · · · · · · ·JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR., ·3· · was called as a witness, and having first been duly ·4· · sworn, testified as follows: ·5 ·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION ·7· · QUESTIONS BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Good morning, Mr. Galloway. ·9· · A.· · · Good morning. 10· · Q.· · · My name is Daniel Horwitz.· I represent the 11· · defendants in this matter.· Just a couple of ground 12· · rules before we get started.· Have you ever been 13· · deposed before? 14· · A.· · · No. 15· · Q.· · · So when I ask a question, I'm gonna ask that 16· · you please let me finish my question and then give 17· · your answer to the question.· I won't interrupt you; 18· · you won't interrupt me, it'll make the court 19· · reporter's life a lot easier.· If I ask you a 20· · question to which the answer is yes or no, I'm gonna 21· · ask you to please give an audible response rather 22· · than shaking your head yes or no because it's not 23· · gonna be able to come down on the transcript. 24· · Additionally, if I ask you a question that you don't 25· · understand, will you tell me? ·1· · a witness before? ·2· · A.· · · No. ·3· · Q.· · · Never testified at a deposition? ·4· · A.· · · No. ·5· · Q.· · · Never testified at a trial? ·6· · A.· · · No. ·7· · Q.· · · Have you ever been sued before? ·8· · A.· · · No. ·9· · Q.· · · To your knowledge, has The Lampo Group ever 10· · been sued before? 11· · A.· · · No. 12· · Q.· · · How long have you been employed at The Lampo 13· · Group? 14· · A.· · · 19 years, 4 months. 15· · Q.· · · During the past 19 years and 4 months, has 16· · The Lampo Group ever been involved in other 17· · litigation outside of this matter? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation. 19· · · · · · · · You can answer. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· Is it okay to change 21· · an answer that I gave previously if I -- it's -22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· If you need to correct 23· · something -24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- on the record, go ahead. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 1179 www.EliteReportingServices.com 5..8 YVer1f Page 9 Page 11 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It's not -- you asked if we ·2· · had ever been sued.· We may have been sued once by a ·3· · radio station in Montana. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Approximately when would that have occurred? ·6· · A.· · · 2010. ·7· · Q.· · · And what was the nature of that litigation? ·8· · A.· · · Radio affiliate contracts. ·9· · Q.· · · And that's the only piece of litigation that 10· · you're aware of since you've been employed? 11· · A.· · · Yes. 12· · Q.· · · Have you ever sent cease and desist letters 13· · to anyone during your employment? 14· · A.· · · I -15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · You don't know? 18· · A.· · · I do not. 19· · Q.· · · Could you tell me who would know the answer 20· · to that? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, speculation. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · If you know, can you tell me who would know 24· · the answer? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·1· · speculation. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He knows that we are in ·3· · litigation with Mr. Paffrath over our ELP contract ·4· · and he's aware that I'm here today. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Given these objections, I'm gonna back up and ·7· · do something that I should have done at the ·8· · beginning.· Sir, I've just handed you a document. ·9· · Will you read the title of that document to me, 10· · please? 11· · A.· · · This part up here (indicating)? 12· · Q.· · · No, the part that says plaintiff's Rule 26. 13· · A.· · · Plaintiff's rules -- plaintiff's Rule 14· · 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. 15· · Q.· · · And will you please read the bolded section 16· · A? 17· · A.· · · The -18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· We'll -- objection.· We'll 19· · stipulate to what exhibit -- what section A says. 20· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd still like -21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· You can -22· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· -- to read it for the 23· · record. 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· You can ask him what he 25· · knows or if he participated in drafting these Page 10 Page 12 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · You can answer these questions. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do I answer when you ·4· · object? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yeah. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay. ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Unless I tell you not to. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It would be Matt Blackburn ·9· · who was our general counsel and is no longer employed 10· · by the company. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Would anyone else know the answer to that 13· · information? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, speculation, 15· · foundation. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· Dave would be 17· · familiar with any cease and desist we had sent. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Dave Ramsey? 20· · A.· · · Yes. 21· · Q.· · · Is Dave Ramsey aware of this litigation? 22· · A.· · · Yes. 23· · Q.· · · What does he know about this litigation to 24· · your knowledge? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation, ·1· · disclosures.· That's fair game.· But to have him sit ·2· · here and read the document, if that's how you want to ·3· · use your seven hours, go right ahead. ·4· · · · · · · · Go ahead. ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Are you done? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yeah. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Will you please read the bolded section A? ·9· · A.· · · The name and, if known, the address and 10· · telephone number of each individual likely to have 11· · discoverable information along with the subjects of 12· · that information that the disclosing party may use to 13· · support its claims or defenses, unless the use would 14· · be solely for impeachment. 15· · Q.· · · And, sir, would you agree with me that below 16· · that section you are not listed? 17· · A.· · · Yes, I would agree.· Are you talking about 18· · anywhere in the document? 19· · Q.· · · I'm talking about on page 1 or 2 under 20· · subsection A. 21· · A.· · · I do not see my name on page 1 or 2. 22· · Q.· · · Okay. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to tender this as 24· · Exhibit 1, please. 25· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 1180 www.EliteReportingServices.com 9..12 YVer1f Page 13 Page 15 ·1· · was marked as Exhibit Number 1.) ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Sir, I've just handed you another document. ·4· · This is an e-mail from your counsel to me.· Would you ·5· · please read the highlighted portion of that e-mail? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Go ahead. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Lampo has not listed Mr. ·8· · Galloway on its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures; yet, it is ·9· · willing to produce him for a deposition.· Please note 10· · that the failure to include Mr. Galloway was an 11· · inadvertent mistake.· Lampo will supplement its 12· · disclosures and include Mr. Galloway who was relevant 13· · information -- who has relevant information as he 14· · verified the complaint filed in this matter. 15· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to tender this as 16· · Exhibit 2, please. 17· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 18· · was marked as Exhibit Number 2.) 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · Mr. Galloway, to your knowledge, has the 21· · plaintiff ever updated its Rule 26 disclosures prior 22· · to this deposition taking place? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation, 24· · relevance, harassing but you can answer. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have knowledge of ·1· · · · · · · · To the extent you can answer the ·2· · question, you can answer. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Please repeat the question. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · If you come to find that initial disclosures ·6· · were updated prior to today's date, will you please ·7· · send them to the court reporter and we will have them ·8· · filed as Late-Filed Exhibit 3? ·9· · A.· · · Yes. 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· Same objection. 11· · · · · · · · Go ahead, answer.· Let me object first. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· So go ahead and answer the 14· · question. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 16· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 17· · was designated to be marked as Late-Filed Exhibit 18· · Number 3, when provided.) 19· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Thank you.· And I'm just 20· · gonna place this on the record:· This is a time limit 21· · deposition. 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Uh-huh. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· All of these spoken 24· · objections are improper.· I'd like to continue with 25· · this and get this done so that we can do so that we Page 14 Page 16 ·1· · that. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Would you have any reason to disagree with me ·4· · if I represented to you that it had not? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation, ·6· · personal knowledge, and harassing, but you can ·7· · answer, and relevance. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have knowledge of ·9· · that so I would not disagree. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · If you come to have knowledge that your -12· · that the plaintiff's initial disclosures were updated 13· · prior to today's date, will you send any document to 14· · that effect to the court reporter which we'll tender 15· · as Late-Filed Exhibit 3? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· We don't file late-filed 17· · exhibits here so I would object to that.· If he -18· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Brandon, I'm gonna object 19· · to all the -20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· If any exhibits you want to 21· · mark in this deposition, you mark them today; 22· · otherwise, they will not be marked to this 23· · deposition.· If you want to seek leave to take his 24· · deposition later, you have more than your ability to 25· · do so.· So we would object to that. ·1· · can get out of here.· How about that? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I would disagree with you ·3· · about the objections being improper.· I'm entitled ·4· · under the Rules to state my objections for the record ·5· · so the Court can consider them.· I would like to get ·6· · this deposition done too quickly, but we are going to ·7· · make our objections and protect the record. ·8· · · · · · · · You may continue. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · I mention all of this just so that you know I 11· · don't know what you know because your attorneys 12· · haven't told me.· So as part of this deposition, 13· · there may be times that I ask you questions that you 14· · don't know the answer to.· So if I ask you a question 15· · that you don't know the answer to, will you tell me? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, compound, vague, 18· · and ambiguous. 19· · · · · · · · You can answer. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Additionally, if I ask you a question that 23· · you don't have personal knowledge about, will you 24· · tell me that? 25· · A.· · · Yes. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 1181 www.EliteReportingServices.com 13..16 YVer1f Page 17 Page 19 ·1· · Q.· · · And just so that we're operating under the ·2· · same understanding, what does personal knowledge mean ·3· · to you? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a ·5· · legal conclusion. ·6· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Personal knowledge means I ·8· · was personally involved or had firsthand or ·9· · secondhand knowledge. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · If you have secondhand knowledge, will you 12· · tell me where you got it from? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Sir, you mentioned a moment ago that Dave 17· · Ramsey was aware of this litigation; is that correct? 18· · A.· · · Yes. 19· · Q.· · · Is Dave Ramsey interested in litigation where 20· · he is criticized? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 22· · speculation, vague, ambiguous. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · I've just handed you an article.· Will you ·1· · claims made in this case.· If we need to call the ·2· · Judge, we will so I wouldn't spend much time on this. ·3· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Is it fair to say that Dave Ramsey does not ·7· · like being criticized online? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, foundation, ·9· · argumentative, and harassing. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He does not dislike it more 11· · than any other person that I know. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Are you familiar with the allegations made by 14· · former employees within this article? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, lack of 16· · foundation. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Very vaguely.· I could not 18· · tell you what they are sitting here today without 19· · reading the article. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Well, take a -- take a moment to familiarize 22· · yourself with them because I'd like to go through 23· · some of them. 24· · A.· · · (Reviews document.)· Is there a particular -25· · it's a long article.· Is there a particular piece of Page 18 Page 20 ·1· · please read the title of that article? ·2· · A.· · · Spies, Cash, and Fear Inside Christian Money ·3· · Guru Dave Ramsey's Social Media Witch Hunt. ·4· · Q.· · · Have you ever seen this article before, sir? ·5· · A.· · · (Reviews document.)· Yes. ·6· · Q.· · · And when did you first come to see this ·7· · article? ·8· · A.· · · When it was made public on The Daily Beast. ·9· · Q.· · · Was there internal discussion about this 10· · article? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, relevance, 12· · harassing. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Did you ever discuss this article with Dave 16· · Ramsey? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I was in meetings where it 19· · was discussed and Dave was there.· Dave and I did not 20· · sit down and have one-to-one meetings about this. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Has Dave Ramsey ever pulled a gun out of a 23· · bag to try to teach a lesson about gossip? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, harassing, and 25· · relevance.· We're getting pretty far afield from the ·1· · it you'd like me to read? ·2· · Q.· · · Has Dave Ramsey ever offered a cash bounty ·3· · for information related to criticism of him online? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection. ·5· · · · · · · · Don't answer the question. ·6· · · · · · · · We're gonna adjourn the deposition and ·7· · call the Court at this point.· You're free to record ·8· · and type the -- what we talk about with the Court but ·9· · I just -- we're -- don't answer the question. 10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Can you explain the nature 11· · of that objection? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yeah, relevance, harassing. 13· · It has nothing to do with this case so we're gonna 14· · call the Court and we're gonna see if the Judge 15· · thinks it's relevant.· And if she does, then we 16· · can -- you can proceed and ask him questions but -17· · is that what you want to do? 18· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· It's your objection. 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I'm instructing him not to 20· · answer.· So do you want to call the Court?· We're 21· · happy to do it. 22· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· If you'd like to call the 23· · Court to sustain that objection -24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Hey, this is your -- this 25· · is your deposition.· If you want to proceed with Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 1182 www.EliteReportingServices.com 17..20 YVer1f Page 21 Page 23 ·1· · asking questions about this article that has ·2· · absolutely nothing to do with this case, then that's ·3· · what we're gonna have to do.· If you want to stop ·4· · asking questions and start to move on to stuff that's ·5· · relevant in this case, then we can do that.· How ·6· · would you want to proceed? ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · When did Dave Ramsey first become aware of ·9· · this litigation to your knowledge? 10· · A.· · · My best guess would be, of the litigation, 11· · when it was filed and I don't know that date but... 12· · Q.· · · Was this litigation filed at Dave Ramsey's 13· · direction? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 15· · speculation, foundation. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It was a group decision by 17· · our executive leadership of which Dave is the CEO. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Was that decision made in a meeting? 20· · A.· · · My recollection of it is poor.· My best 21· · recollection would be that Dave, our general 22· · counsel -- not the entire group in a board meeting 23· · but that they would have been made aware of.· But the 24· · decision would have been between Dave, myself, our 25· · general counsel.· It's possible there were other ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Sir, what documents did you review before ·4· · verifying the complaint? ·5· · A.· · · The YouTube videos.· And to my knowledge, ·6· · that's -- that's the documents. ·7· · Q.· · · Sir, a couple of days ago, did you verify any ·8· · interrogatory responses in this matter? ·9· · A.· · · Yes. 10· · Q.· · · And you verified them under oath; is that 11· · correct? 12· · A.· · · Correct. 13· · Q.· · · There's no reason why you would have given a 14· · false answer under oath, correct? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Correct. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · So these interrogatories are true and correct 19· · to the best of your knowledge? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, lack of 21· · foundation.· The witness hasn't been presented with 22· · all the interrogatories that he verified, only a 23· · portion of them. 24· · · · · · · · Go ahead.· You can answer. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Correct. Page 22 Page 24 ·1· · people in that conversation but I don't have memory ·2· · of who they would be. ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· And I would remind the ·4· · witness that communications involving the general ·5· · counsel are privileged and not to be disclosed. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay.· All communication ·7· · included general counsel. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Approximately when did this meeting take 10· · place? 11· · A.· · · Shortly before it was filed.· I don't know 12· · the date. 13· · Q.· · · And you were the one who verified the 14· · complaint that was filed in this matter; is that 15· · correct? 16· · A.· · · Correct. 17· · Q.· · · Who did you talk to at Lampo before verifying 18· · the complaint? 19· · A.· · · General counsel.· To my knowledge, 20· · communication was done via e-mail with general 21· · counsel, myself, and Dave Ramsey. 22· · Q.· · · Is it fair to say that Dave Ramsey is 23· · familiar with the allegations in this complaint? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 25· · foundation, speculation. ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Your answers were also verified on behalf of ·3· · the entire The Lampo Group, not just your own ·4· · personal knowledge; is that correct? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · compound. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Please re-ask the question. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · I'm not trying to confuse you.· The 10· · verification that you signed, I'm just reading it out 11· · loud.· I am authorized to make this verification on 12· · behalf of the company.· These answers are based upon 13· · the company's knowledge and are true and correct to 14· · the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 15· · A.· · · Correct. 16· · Q.· · · Does that sound right? 17· · A.· · · Yes. 18· · Q.· · · I'd like to direct your attention to 19· · Interrogatory Number 2.· It's on the first page of 20· · the document that I just handed you.· Will you please 21· · read -- well, I'll read it for you.· The question, 22· · the interrogatory, states:· Identify all of the 23· · business Lampo lost and the name, address, and 24· · telephone number of each and every customer, client, 25· · or agent you claim to have lost in connection with Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 1183 www.EliteReportingServices.com 21..24 YVer1f Page 25 Page 27 ·1· · Lampo's ELP program as a result of defendant's ·2· · alleged actions.· Did I read that correctly, sir? ·3· · A.· · · Yes. ·4· · Q.· · · Can you flip to the following page and read ·5· · the answer that was given? ·6· · A.· · · As a result of the defendant's breach of the ·7· · ELP agreement, plaintiff would have been -- would ·8· · have received the $350 monthly administrative fee for ·9· · a term of the ELP agreement from the defendant had 10· · defendant not breached the ELP agreement. 11· · Accordingly, plaintiff seeks as damages the $350 12· · monthly administrative fee for the term of the ELP 13· · agreement. 14· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that there is no 15· · customer named in that answer? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 17· · · · · · · · You can answer. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that there is no 21· · client named in that answer? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative 23· · but you can answer. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · A.· · · No. ·2· · Q.· · · Do you have the name of a lost client as a ·3· · result of the allegations giving rise to this matter? ·4· · A.· · · No. ·5· · Q.· · · Do you have any knowledge of any other ELP ·6· · agent that you lost as a result of the allegations ·7· · giving rise to this matter? ·8· · A.· · · I do not have a list of names.· Our brand is ·9· · built on trust and integrity, and Mr. Paffrath's 10· · attacks on YouTube were attacks on our integrity and 11· · trust, but I do not have a list of names that made 12· · decisions based on that. 13· · Q.· · · Do you know of any other agent that you lost 14· · as a result of the allegations giving rise to the 15· · facts of this matter? 16· · A.· · · No. 17· · Q.· · · Sir, can you please turn back to the first 18· · page of the document that I handed you?· I'm gonna 19· · read the question into the record.· Identify the 20· · specific amount of damages that you claim -21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I'm sorry, where are you 22· · reading for the record?· You said read the question. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I am.· Interrogatory 1. 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Thank you. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 26 Page 28 ·1· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that the only agent ·2· · named in that answer is Kevin Paffrath? ·3· · A.· · · I do not see Kevin Paffrath's name in the ·4· · answer. ·5· · Q.· · · Sir, if I represented to you that the ·6· · defendant referenced in your answer was Kevin ·7· · Paffrath, would you disagree with me? ·8· · A.· · · I would not disagree. ·9· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that other than the 10· · defendant being named in that answer there is no 11· · other agent listed in it; is that correct? 12· · A.· · · Correct. 13· · Q.· · · So in terms of all of the business that Lampo 14· · claims to have lost in this matter, that does not 15· · include a single customer, does it? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form and 17· · argumentative. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· There are not individual 19· · customers named in this answer. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Do you know of any customers that you lost as 22· · a result of the allegations giving rise to this 23· · litigation? 24· · A.· · · I do not have a list of names. 25· · Q.· · · Do you have a single name? ·1· · Q.· · · Identify the specific amount of damages that ·2· · you claim you sustained or are owed for each separate ·3· · category of damages listed in section C of the ·4· · plaintiff's 26(a)(1) disclosures and describe in ·5· · detail how you calculated the amount of damages that ·6· · you claim you sustained or are owed with respect to ·7· · each category.· Did I read that correctly? ·8· · A.· · · Yes. ·9· · Q.· · · Now, a moment ago, you referenced harm to 10· · your company's reputation; is that a fair 11· · characterization? 12· · A.· · · Yes. 13· · Q.· · · Will you tell me where in this answer you 14· · claim damage resulting from harm to your company's 15· · reputation? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 17· · argumentative, vague, and ambiguous. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.)· I do 19· · not. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · It's fair to say it's not listed? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative -23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- calls for a legal 25· · conclusion. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 1184 www.EliteReportingServices.com 25..28 YVer1f Page 29 Page 31 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Sir, the answer that you verified in response ·3· · to Interrogatory 1 states that plaintiff seeks all ·4· · profits gained by the defendants as a result of ·5· · defendant's wrongful conduct, does it not? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·7· · That's exactly not what it says.· The answer is ·8· · listed under subject to this objection.· Above the ·9· · objection -- or above that are objections. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Let's do this:· Why don't you read your 12· · entire answer to this interrogatory? 13· · A.· · · Answer:· Objection.· Section C of plaintiff's 14· · Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures states that plaintiff seeks 15· · all profits gained by the defendants as a result of 16· · the defendant's wrongful conduct.· Plaintiff has 17· · sought this information in discovery from the 18· · defendants but defendants have objected to producing 19· · this information. 20· · · · · · Accordingly, plaintiff objects to this 21· · compound interrogatory because defendants have 22· · prevented plaintiff from accessing the documents and 23· · information needed to answer it.· Once defendants 24· · fully and completely respond to plaintiff's discovery 25· · requests seeking this information, plaintiff will be ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind to repeat the ·2· · question? ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · Do you have any personal knowledge that the ·5· · defendants acquired any of the plaintiff's customers ·6· · as a result of the videos that were published? ·7· · A.· · · No. ·8· · Q.· · · Do you have any personal knowledge the ·9· · defendants acquired any customers at all as a result 10· · of the videos that were published? 11· · A.· · · No. 12· · Q.· · · Do you have any personal knowledge the 13· · defendants profited in any regard as a result of the 14· · videos that were published? 15· · A.· · · I'm aware that YouTube pays fees to anyone 16· · who has high traffic on their pages, but I do not 17· · have personal knowledge of Mr. Paffrath receiving 18· · money. 19· · Q.· · · Just to clarify, do you have any personal 20· · knowledge that Mr. Paffrath received any money as a 21· · result of the videos that were published? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and 23· · answered. 24· · · · · · · · You can answer again. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. Page 30 Page 32 ·1· · in a position to answer this compound interrogatory. ·2· · · · · · Subject to this objection, one, plaintiff ·3· · seeks as damages the $350 monthly administrative fee ·4· · for a term of the ELP agreement which plaintiff would ·5· · have been entitled to receive had defendant not ·6· · breached it.· Two, which for the full term of the ELP ·7· · agreement amounts to $4,200. ·8· · · · · · One, Ramsey further seeks to recover punitive ·9· · and/or exemplary damages as allowed by law. 10· · · · · · One, Ramsey further seeks to recover as 11· · damages its attorneys' fees and costs in connection 12· · with this action pursuant to section 12 of the ELP 13· · agreement, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest 14· · and all costs of court. 15· · Q.· · · I'm interested now in the first paragraph of 16· · that answer.· Sir, do you have any personal knowledge 17· · that the defendants acquired any of your customers as 18· · a result of the videos that were published? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the preface. 20· · If you want to ask him if he's aware of that, then 21· · that's perfectly fine.· But the witness did not 22· · verify that portion of the answer which the 23· · verification so states.· So it's vague, confusing, 24· · compound, and irrelevant. 25· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·1· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· A little bit of ·2· · housekeeping.· Brandon, I'm just gonna show you this. ·3· · This is the subpoena -·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Sure. ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· -- and the notice of ·6· · deposition.· I'm just gonna tender it as an exhibit ·7· · if that's okay. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yeah. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Sir, there were some documents that the 11· · notice of -12· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· One question.· I know 13· · there was an objection to 3 so are we making this 3 14· · or 4? 15· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· 4. 16· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Sorry. 17· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 18· · was marked as Exhibit Number 4.) 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · There were some documents that we had asked 21· · you to bring for this deposition.· Do you have those 22· · with you today? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Or does your counsel have them with him Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 1185 www.EliteReportingServices.com 29..32 YVer1f Page 33 Page 35 ·1· · today? ·2· · A.· · · I do not have documents with me today. ·3· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Y'all brought them, though, ·4· · right? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· That's exactly what I ·6· · handed you and what I e-mailed you before the ·7· · deposition but, yes, I have an extra copy if you want ·8· · it. ·9· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· No.· I just want to make 10· · the documents an exhibit. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Sure. 12· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· And just make sure that 13· · this is complete before I tender it as an exhibit. 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· (Reviews document.)· Yes. 15· · This is what Mr. Galloway's producing in response to 16· · the subpoena. 17· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Okay.· I'm going to make 18· · these the next exhibit, please. 19· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 20· · was marked as Exhibit Number 5.) 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Sir, you had mentioned a moment ago that you 23· · have no personal knowledge that Mr. Paffrath got any 24· · clients as a result of the videos that he publish; is 25· · that a fair characterization? ·1· · based on his personal knowledge but I don't think ·2· · that cures the objections. ·3· · · · · · · · But if you can answer, go ahead. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· My personal knowledge would ·5· · include him verbally saying in a video that he should ·6· · infiltrate the ELP program. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Okay.· But before he contracted with your ·9· · company, you didn't have any personal knowledge about 10· · his intentions, did you? 11· · A.· · · No. 12· · Q.· · · You mentioned that you had watched the videos 13· · before filing this compliant; is that correct? 14· · A.· · · Correct. 15· · Q.· · · Would those be the Dave Ramsey Exposed video, 16· · the A Message for Dave Ramsey video, and the Dave 17· · Ramsey is Suing Me video? 18· · A.· · · Correct. 19· · Q.· · · And you've alleged that there were false 20· · statements made within those videos; is that correct? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Correct. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Sir, what statements to the best of your 25· · recollection were false in those videos? Page 34 Page 36 ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · Do you believe that he got clients as a ·3· · result of this, the publication of the videos, I ·4· · mean? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · You have no idea? ·9· · A.· · · Correct. 10· · Q.· · · It would be pure speculation? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the 12· · speculation. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, it would be. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Sir, have you ever spoken to Kevin Paffrath? 16· · A.· · · No, I have not. 17· · Q.· · · That would include prior to him forming a 18· · contractual relationship with your company; is that 19· · correct? 20· · A.· · · That's correct. 21· · Q.· · · Do you have any personal knowledge of his 22· · intentions with respect to contracting with your 23· · company? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 25· · speculation, foundation.· You can ask him if it's ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I just want to be clear ·2· · just for the record that this witness is appearing as ·3· · a fact witness based on his personal knowledge of the ·4· · facts contained in this case and not as a corporate ·5· · representative. ·6· · · · · · · · But you can answer. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He made statements that ·8· · Dave Ramsey lies; that any numbers that we had used ·9· · in describing our ELP program had been exaggerated or 10· · falsified; that it was a scam; that the quality of 11· · the program was terrible. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Would you consider these objectively false 14· · facts? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 16· · conclusions, foundation. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · That the quality of program was terrible is 20· · an objectively false fact? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 22· · It's a conclusion of law.· The witness isn't an 23· · attorney. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 1186 www.EliteReportingServices.com 33..36 YVer1f Page 37 Page 39 ·1· · Q.· · · In the responses you just gave, are those ·2· · direct quotes from the videos? ·3· · A.· · · They are not direct quotes. ·4· · Q.· · · I'm going to hand you some YouTube generated ·5· · text transcripts. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Brandon, just for the ·7· · record, these have previously been filed under seal. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · I'd like you to highlight each specific 10· · statement that you claim is false. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I -- first of all, I would 12· · object to this because as we've pointed out in our 13· · filings, this filing is misleading and incomplete. 14· · But if you want the witness to go through this 15· · exercise, he is more than welcome to based on his 16· · personal knowledge and not as a corporate 17· · representative. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Go through all three 19· · documents -20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Yes, please. 22· · A.· · · -- highlight any statements I feel like are 23· · false. 24· · Q.· · · I would like you to highlight the statements 25· · that you asserted in your complaint were false and ·1· · attempted to make applicable as a corporate rep ·2· · deposition.· This is not what that is. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· There are no highlights on ·4· · this document. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Do the same thing for the transcript of the ·7· · video entitled A Message for Dave Ramsey.· Will you ·8· · please read the highlighted portions into the record? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Dave hides behind loopholes 11· · that essentially allow him not to disclose how much 12· · money he collects as a fee and doesn't really 13· · actually vet anybody.· The vetting process for 14· · SmartVestors is simply a fee.· They pay your company 15· · for the stamp of approval.· We take money from any 16· · idiot out there that says he's an advisor and then we 17· · send all of you people to them.· A cease and desist 18· · letter which is basically big company, big corporate 19· · America stepping on the little guy.· My goal is to be 20· · a consumer advocate.· I'm not trying to slap people's 21· · names and titles to get more views.· My sincere goal 22· · is to share perspective. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Which was the last one? 25· · A.· · · (Indicating.) Page 38 Page 40 ·1· · damaging. ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Complies.) ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· You can take your jacket ·5· · off if you want. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind if I get a cup ·7· · of coffee? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Oh, please. ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Go off the record?· Take a 10· · break? 11· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Sure. 12· · · · · · · · (Short break.) 13· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let's go back on the 14· · record. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Sir, I just asked you to highlight portions 17· · of certain video transcripts that you consider false 18· · and damaging; is that correct? 19· · A.· · · That's correct. 20· · Q.· · · I'm handing you back the transcript you 21· · highlighted from the video entitled Dave Ramsey is 22· · Suing Me.· Will you please read the portions that you 23· · highlighted into the record? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· And again, we'd object to 25· · this exercise to the extent that any highlights are ·1· · Q.· · · Thank you.· I can't remember which one I gave ·2· · you one first. ·3· · A.· · · This was the first one. ·4· · Q.· · · This is the first.· This is the third.· Will ·5· · you please do the same thing with the third? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · And, sorry, what's the name of the video on ·9· · that? 10· · A.· · · Dave Ramsey Exposed.· I infiltrated the Dave 11· · Ramsey network not with the intent to expose them 12· · but, rather, once I was inside and I discovered what 13· · I saw, the deceit and the lies, I felt compelled to 14· · come out and expose them.· Their vetting process and 15· · their fee structure is basically one big sales pitch. 16· · They get cold as ice leads.· With 567 agents -- oh, 17· · wait, 566, that puts Dave Ramsey's passive income at 18· · 2.3 million dollars per year.· One, the agents suck 19· · or, two, Dave Ramsey's cold as ice leads suck or, 20· · three, Dave Ramsey's just throwing spaghetti against 21· · the wall to see what'll stick. 22· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to make each of 23· · these an exhibit, please. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Excuse me. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Individually or -- Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 1187 www.EliteReportingServices.com 37..40 YVer1f Page 41 Page 43 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Oh, I didn't realize you weren't done with ·3· · that.· I apologize. ·4· · A.· · · Holy smokes, I got a lead from Dave Ramsey. ·5· · Any poor sap that fills out the Dave Ramsey form is ·6· · getting 21 phone calls within one week thanks to ·7· · putting their information on Dave Ramsey's website. ·8· · And what kind of qualification did anyone get from ·9· · Dave Ramsey's staff?· Nothing.· It's simply a 10· · hand-off service.· Dismal success. 11· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to make the first 12· · one, the Dave Ramsey is Suing Me transcript that he 13· · was asked to highlight, the next exhibit. 14· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 15· · was marked as Exhibit Number 6.) 16· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· And the A Message for Dave 17· · Ramsey transcript that he was asked to highlight the 18· · next exhibit. 19· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 20· · was marked as Exhibit Number 7.) 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Is that 7? 22· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Correct. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· And finally, the Dave 24· · Ramsey Exposed transcript that he was asked to 25· · highlight the next exhibit. ·1· · not see that it does. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Fair to say that your answer does not reflect ·4· · that Lampo lost business as a result of any of the ·5· · statements that you highlighted? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Did Lampo lose any business as a result of 10· · the statements that you highlighted? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· Again, this 12· · individual is not testifying as a Rule 30(b)(6) 13· · witness on damages. 14· · · · · · · · But you can answer. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have personal 16· · knowledge of business that was lost. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Do you have any secondhand knowledge? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Sir, you verified the complaint that was 23· · filed at the outset of this matter, correct? 24· · A.· · · Correct. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and Page 42 Page 44 ·1· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document ·2· · was marked as Exhibit Number 8.) ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · Sir, I'd like to direct your attention back ·5· · to Interrogatory Number 1.· Will you please tell me ·6· · where in your answer to that interrogatory you claim ·7· · that the statements that you just highlighted and ·8· · read into the record damaged you? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.)· I do 11· · not see that it does. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me if I said that the 14· · plaintiff has not claimed damages based on those 15· · statements? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 17· · argumentative. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · With respect to your answer to Interrogatory 21· · 2, will you please tell me where in your answer you 22· · claim that Lampo lost business as a result of the 23· · statements that you highlighted? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.)· I do ·1· · answered. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Do you recall asserting that Lampo lost ·4· · damages -- or lost business and was damaged by the ·5· · statements made in Mr. Paffrath's videos? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a ·7· · legal conclusion. ·8· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you have the complaint? 10· · I can... 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · I'm asking if you recall it. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection.· I'd ask 14· · that the witness be provided with the document if 15· · he's going to be asked about it. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not recall it without 17· · the document. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · On December 3rd, 2018, did you have any 20· · knowledge that The Lampo Group lost business as a 21· · result of the statements that were contained in the 22· · videos that Mr. Paffrath published? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 24· · legal conclusion. 25· · · · · · · · You can answer. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 1188 www.EliteReportingServices.com 41..44 YVer1f Page 45 Page 47 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Sir, I've just handed you a document entitled ·4· · ELP agreement.· Do you recognize this document? ·5· · A.· · · Yes. ·6· · Q.· · · And what is it? ·7· · A.· · · It is the real estate ELP agreement. ·8· · Q.· · · And tell me what that is. ·9· · A.· · · It is an agreement between a real estate 10· · agent and our company that we will send them fans of 11· · our company and they will help them buy or sell a 12· · home.· There is the referral fee sharing outlined and 13· · how they will -- some of the boundaries on how they 14· · will conduct business, some of the expectations. 15· · Q.· · · Is this a standard formal contract? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, vague, 17· · and ambiguous. 18· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry. 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Vague and ambiguous. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Let me ask that -- I'll withdraw that and ask 22· · it in a different way.· Do all ELP agents sign the 23· · same contract? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 25· · foundation. ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not dispute. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Without giving me a precise number, would you ·4· · agree that many ELP agents have signed this ·5· · agreement? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·7· · vague and ambiguous. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Perhaps hundreds, is that possible? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 11· · · · · · · · You can answer. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Perhaps thousands, is that possible? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Now, we're getting far 16· · afield. 17· · · · · · · · Don't answer the question. 18· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· You're instructing the 19· · witness not to answer that question? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I'm instructing the witness 21· · not to answer because it implies how many -- at least 22· · how many people are in the ELP program, which the 23· · plaintiff, Lampo Group, considers confidential and 24· · proprietary information.· I'm okay with how you've 25· · done it so far, but if you are insisting on an answer Page 46 Page 48 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Approximately how many ELP agents have signed ·4· · a version of this contract? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·6· · We've objected to this information in discovery on ·7· · relevance.· We've also objected to this information ·8· · in that it calls for information that's proprietary ·9· · and sensitive of the plaintiff and will not be 10· · provided until a protective order is entered in this 11· · case.· So on that basis, we'd ask the witness not 12· · answer the question. 13· · · · · · · · If you want to continue this line of 14· · questioning with respect to those subjects that we've 15· · said are either irrelevant or need a protective 16· · order, then we will -- we can either adjourn the 17· · deposition now and move for a protective order on 18· · those issues or you can move on to other questioning 19· · and we can adjourn the deposition later.· It's up to 20· · you. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Sir, do you dispute that other persons beyond 23· · Kevin Paffrath signed this agreement? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 25· · vague and ambiguous. ·1· · to that question, then we can either adjourn the ·2· · deposition now or you can continue.· Please let me ·3· · know. ·4· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'm just curious why ·5· · perhaps hundreds was a proper question but perhaps ·6· · thousands was an improper question. ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Because I'm trying not to ·8· · be unreasonable here and I'm trying to let you go as ·9· · far as you can without breaching confidentiality on 10· · behalf of The Lampo Group. 11· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let me do this:· I'm gonna 12· · ask the question again.· I'm gonna let you instruct 13· · the witness not to answer and then we'll move on. 14· · How about that? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Is it your -- are you 16· · intending to ask the question to elicit an answer? 17· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· No.· I'm gonna let you 18· · instruct him not to answer. 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Well, then we'll 20· · move for a protective order on this issue. 21· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'm trying to get through 22· · this deposition.· Do you -23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Very well. 24· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· -- understand what I'm 25· · trying to do there? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 1189 www.EliteReportingServices.com 45..48 YVer1f Page 49 Page 51 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I understand. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Is it possible that thousands of ELPs agents ·4· · have signed this agreement? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· For the reasons I just ·6· · stated on the record, I will instruct the witness not ·7· · to answer.· I will -- we will -- at the end of the ·8· · deposition, we will move for a protective order on ·9· · this issue promptly. 10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let's move on. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please turn to page 6 of the 13· · agreement ELP? 14· · A.· · · (Complies.) 15· · Q.· · · Will you please read 11(g) for me into the 16· · record? 17· · A.· · · Maintain open lines of communication and be 18· · available for regular calls with Ramsey's team, which 19· · in no event shall be less frequent than once per 20· · quarter. 21· · Q.· · · Sir, to your knowledge, how many phone calls 22· · did Mr. Paffrath have with Lampo after executing the 23· · ELP agreement? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 25· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·1· · Q.· · · Sir, I'm gonna ask the question again.· Do ·2· · you have any personal knowledge that Mr. Paffrath was ·3· · not available more than once per quarter after ·4· · singing the ELP agreement? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and ·6· · answered. ·7· · · · · · · · You can answer again. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· My personal knowledge is ·9· · not directly from speaking with Mr. Paffrath or his 10· · representative, Mitch Riddle, but it was that he was 11· · not agreeable to the coaching and the calls that was 12· · required and -13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Sir, I'm not trying to confuse you.· I'm just 15· · trying to figure out what you know personally.· Do 16· · you have any personal knowledge that Mr. Paffrath was 17· · not available more than once per quarter? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· And do -- objection, asked 19· · and answered, unduly repetitious, and now it's 20· · becoming harassing but you can answer. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· My understanding earlier of 22· · personal knowledge was first or secondhand and I 23· · would describe my knowledge as secondhand. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Do you have any firsthand knowledge that Mr. Page 50 Page 52 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Was it more than one? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· The ·5· · witness says he does not know. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · (Indicating.) ·8· · A.· · · I do not know. ·9· · Q.· · · Sir, do you have any personal knowledge that 10· · Mr. Paffrath was not available more than once per 11· · quarter? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 13· · This witness has asked and answered a variation of 14· · this question.· He said he did not know how many Mr. 15· · Paffrath were on with the defendants -- or with the 16· · plaintiff. 17· · · · · · · · To the extent you can answer the 18· · question, go ahead. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· My understanding at the 20· · time of the complaint was that he was unavailable for 21· · calls required by the contract.· Between the signing 22· · of the contract and receiving referrals, he was not 23· · agreeable to the commitment of time spent with one of 24· · our representatives. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · Paffrath was not available for phone calls more than ·2· · once per quarter? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and ·4· · answered, unduly repetitious, and harassing. ·5· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Sir, you've alleged in your complaint that ·9· · Mr. Paffrath was not available for calls with a 10· · relationship coach; is that correct? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 12· · This is not Mr. Galloway's complaint but you can 13· · answer. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is correct. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Mr. Galloway, I'm handing you a document. 17· · Will you please read the title of that document. 18· · A.· · · The Lampo Group, LLC -19· · Q.· · · No, the part that says verified complaint, 20· · please.· Just is that your verified complaint? 21· · A.· · · Yes, it is. 22· · Q.· · · Will you turn to the final page of that 23· · complaint? 24· · A.· · · (Complies.) 25· · Q.· · · Can you read me that, please? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 1190 www.EliteReportingServices.com 49..52 YVer1f Page 53 Page 55 ·1· · A.· · · I, Jack Galloway, being duly sworn make oath ·2· · and verify that I am an executive vice president of ·3· · The Lampo Group, LLC, d/b/a, Ramsey Solutions, the ·4· · plaintiff in this action; that I have read the ·5· · foregoing verified complaint and I have personal ·6· · knowledge of the factual allegations set forth ·7· · therein, unless otherwise indicated, and that the ·8· · same are true and correct to the best of my ·9· · knowledge. 10· · Q.· · · Fair to say that you're the one that signed 11· · that? 12· · A.· · · Yes. 13· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please read paragraph 49 of 14· · your verified complaint? 15· · A.· · · Paffrath, however, refused to meaningful -16· · to meaningfully participate in the calls with his 17· · client relationship coach. 18· · Q.· · · In the ELP agreement, can you identify where 19· · Mr. Paffrath agreed to participate in calls with a 20· · client relationship coach? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 22· · legal conclusion. 23· · · · · · · · You can answer. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I would need to spend a few 25· · minutes with this. ·1· · A.· · · Okay. ·2· · Q.· · · Will you please read section 10 for me which ·3· · continues on the page afterward? ·4· · A.· · · The term of this agreement shall be one year ·5· · from the date hereof.· The agreement will renew ·6· · automatically for successive one-year terms unless ·7· · either party gives a notice of its intention that the ·8· · agreement shall not be renewed at the end of its then ·9· · current term.· Either party may terminate this 10· · agreement without cause at anytime.· The provisions 11· · of Section 15, indemnification and payment 12· · obligations of this agreement, will survive any such 13· · expiration or termination of this agreement. 14· · Q.· · · Sir, to your knowledge did either party to 15· · this contract terminate this agreement? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · And who was that? 18· · A.· · · The Lampo Group. 19· · Q.· · · When did they terminate the agreement? 20· · A.· · · My best estimate is mid to late November 21· · 2018. 22· · Q.· · · If I represented to you that the date was 23· · October 8th, would you have reason to disagree with 24· · me? 25· · A.· · · I would not have reason to disagree. Page 54 Page 56 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Is a relationship coach mentioned in that ·3· · contract, sir? ·4· · A.· · · I would need to read the agreement again. ·5· · Q.· · · Please do. ·6· · A.· · · Okay.· (Reviews document.)· The only mention ·7· · I see is in 11(g):· Maintain open lines of ·8· · communication and be available for regular calls with ·9· · Ramsey's team, which in no event shall be less 10· · frequent than once per quarter. 11· · Q.· · · Did the provision that you just read include 12· · mention of a relationship coach, sir? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Would you agree that no provision of the 17· · contract that you have alleged that Mr. Paffrath 18· · breached contains mention of a relationship coach? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, argumentative. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please turn to page 5 of the 23· · contract? 24· · A.· · · Is that this page? 25· · Q.· · · Yes. ·1· · Q.· · · After this agreement was terminated, The ·2· · Lampo Group no longer had any obligations to Mr. ·3· · Paffrath; is that correct? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, asks ·5· · for a legal conclusion. ·6· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is correct. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · After the termination of this agreement, Mr. 10· · Paffrath no longer had any obligations to The Lampo 11· · Group; is that correct? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 13· · calls for a legal conclusion but you can answer. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· There are parts of the 15· · contract that survive termination of the contract. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · And which parts are those, sir? 18· · A.· · · The provisions of section 15, indemnification 19· · and payment obligations of this agreement, will 20· · survive any such expiration or termination of this 21· · agreement. 22· · Q.· · · Is that section 15; is that correct? 23· · A.· · · I was reading from the top of page 5, I 24· · believe, section 10, term renewal, termination -- the 25· · last sentence of term renewal, termination.· Here Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 1191 www.EliteReportingServices.com 53..56 YVer1f Page 57 Page 59 ·1· · (indicating). ·2· · Q.· · · But section 15 is the one that's mentioned; ·3· · is that correct? ·4· · A.· · · That's correct. ·5· · Q.· · · Is section 4 mentioned? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection -·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- to the form, calls for a ·9· · legal conclusion. 10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Did you get the answer? 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 12· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· (Nods head affirmatively.) 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Is section 6 mentioned? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Can you please turn to page 4 of the 19· · agreement.· Will you please read section 4 to me? 20· · A.· · · I may not be on that page, section -- you 21· · said page 4, section 4? 22· · Q.· · · Yes, please. 23· · A.· · · One, two, three, four.· Section 4:· No 24· · publicity or license other than as expressly provided 25· · herein.· Neither party shall make any public ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · And why is that? ·4· · A.· · · Your question was did he breach this after ·5· · the contract? ·6· · Q.· · · I'm trying to figure out when you think the ·7· · obligations under section 4 end. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·9· · That's a compound question and calls for a legal 10· · conclusion.· And this witness is not the corporate 11· · representative on that issue because there hasn't 12· · been a corporate representative notice served. 13· · · · · · · · But you can answer to the extent you can. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have the answer to 15· · when that obligation ends based on this contract. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Is it your position that Kevin Paffrath is 18· · prohibited from mentioning Dave Ramsey's name for 19· · eternity? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· That's on the 21· · same basis I stated in the previous question. 22· · · · · · · · You -23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · So when does his obligation end? Page 58 Page 60 ·1· · statement, press release, or marketing material that ·2· · uses the other's name, likeness, brand, or associated ·3· · marks without the expressed written permission of the ·4· · other. ·5· · Q.· · · That says neither party; is that correct? ·6· · A.· · · Yes. ·7· · Q.· · · And when do the parties' obligations to one ·8· · another under this provision end? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 10· · calls for a legal conclusion. 11· · · · · · · · You can answer. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not -- I do not know. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · After the agreement was terminated, did 15· · either party have any obligations to one another 16· · under this provision? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · calls for a legal conclusion. 19· · · · · · · · You -20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Is it your position that Mr. Paffrath 23· · breached this provision of the agreement after it was 24· · terminated? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please read section 6 to me? ·5· · A.· · · Section 6, confidential information:· In the ·6· · event Ramsey shares any confidential, proprietary, or ·7· · other sensitive information with ELP (although such ·8· · sharing is not required by this agreement) ELP agrees ·9· · not to use for its own benefit or the benefit of 10· · third parties, copy or reverse engineer any 11· · proprietary or confidential information of Ramsey. 12· · Confidential information shall include any client 13· · list, vendor list, consumer customer list, ELP list, 14· · business plans, computer programs, developing 15· · products, Ramsey internal reports, marketing 16· · strategies, metrics, marketing data, or other 17· · information not available to the general public, 18· · whether communicated in writing, electronically, or 19· · orally. 20· · Q.· · · Sir, does any portion of the provision that 21· · you just read me provide for agents to return 22· · confidential information after the agreement 23· · concludes? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asks -- calls 25· · for a legal conclusion. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 1192 www.EliteReportingServices.com 57..60 YVer1f Page 61 Page 63 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, it does not. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · And this is the same ELP agreement that you ·4· · previously indicated that perhaps hundreds of ELP ·5· · agents have signed; is that correct? ·6· · A.· · · That is correct. ·7· · · · · · This bother you (indicating)? ·8· · Q.· · · (Shakes head negatively.) ·9· · A.· · · Okay. 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· If we were on video, you 11· · couldn't do that. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· All right. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · This is not section 15 of the agreement; is 15· · that correct? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, vague and 17· · ambiguous. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't understand the 19· · question.· What is not section 15? 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · The top part that we're talking about, this 22· · is section 6, not section 15; is that correct? 23· · A.· · · That is correct. 24· · Q.· · · And we previously discussed that section 15 25· · will survive the expiration or termination of this ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · And when do those obligations end? ·3· · A.· · · I do not -·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, the ·5· · same objection. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · You don't know but the answer is yes? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· The same objection. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Correct. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Would you agree that there is no section of 13· · this agreement that provides that section 6 will 14· · survive expiration or termination of this agreement? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 16· · legal conclusion. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Would you agree that no provision of this 20· · agreement provides that section 4 will survive any 21· · such expiration or termination of this agreement? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 23· · legal conclusion. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 62 Page 64 ·1· · agreement, do you remember that? ·2· · A.· · · Yes. ·3· · Q.· · · When does this provision -- when do the -·4· · withdrawn.· When does an ELP agent's obligations ·5· · under this section conclude? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a ·7· · legal conclusion. ·8· · · · · · · · You can answer it if you understand. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Do you take the position that ELP agents have 12· · an obligation under this provision after the 13· · agreement terminates? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Again, objection, calls for 15· · a legal conclusion and this witness is not being put 16· · forth as a corporate representative on these issues 17· · but you can answer. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Will you re-ask the 19· · question? 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Sure.· Do you take any position as to whether 22· · an ELP agent has any obligations under this provision 23· · after the agreement is terminated? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·1· · Q.· · · Would you agree that this agreement does ·2· · provide that section 15 survives expiration or ·3· · termination of this agreement? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · So section 15 does survive and section 4 and ·8· · 6 do not; is that correct? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, legal 10· · conclusion; also unduly repetitious and has been 11· · asked and answered. 12· · · · · · · · You can answer. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agreed earlier that I did 14· · not see that they -- that it was stated here that 15· · they did survive. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Do you still agree with that? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, same 19· · objection. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please turn to page 1 of the 23· · agreement? 24· · A.· · · (Complies.) 25· · Q.· · · Who is the managing broker listed on page 1 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 1193 www.EliteReportingServices.com 61..64 YVer1f Page 65 Page 67 ·1· · of this agreement? ·2· · A.· · · Kevin Paffrath. ·3· · Q.· · · I'm sorry, I'm talking about the managing ·4· · broker. ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · asked and answered. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It says -- I see ELP, Kevin ·8· · Paffrath; firm name, Meet Kevin; managing broker, ·9· · Kevin Paffrath. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · I apologize.· You're right.· I was unclear. 12· · Do you see the section that says referring broker 13· · information? 14· · A.· · · Yes. 15· · Q.· · · What is the firm listed there? 16· · A.· · · The Lampo Group, Inc., d/b/a, Ramsey 17· · Solutions. 18· · Q.· · · And who is the managing broker listed in that 19· · section? 20· · A.· · · David L. Ramsey. 21· · Q.· · · That's David L. Ramsey the human being; is 22· · that correct? 23· · A.· · · That is correct. 24· · Q.· · · Tell me why David L. Ramsey the human being 25· · is on this contract. ·1· · this agreement? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·3· · vague, and ambiguous, speculation, lack of ·4· · foundation. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind to re-ask that ·6· · question? ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Does David L. Ramsey the human being know ·9· · anything about how he receives compensation arising 10· · from sales made pursuant to this agreement? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Would you agree that how Dave Ramsey the 15· · human being receives referral fees is at issue in 16· · this litigation? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, lack of 19· · foundation. 20· · · · · · · · You can answer. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Re-ask the question. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · Would you agree that how Dave -- David L. 24· · Ramsey the human being receives referral fees is at 25· · issue in this litigation? Page 66 Page 68 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · speculation, lack of foundation. ·3· · · · · · · · You can answer it if you understand. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He is the managing broker. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Does he receive referral fees? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, lack ·8· · of foundation. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Or compensation of any kind when ELP agents 11· · make sales pursuant to this agreement? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Not directly.· Referral 14· · fees are received by the company. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · But he profits from them; is that correct? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · asked and answered. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Is it fair to say that you might know 22· · something about how he is compensated -23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · -- with respect to sales made pursuant to ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · You would not agree with that? ·5· · A.· · · No. ·6· · Q.· · · Sir, do you recall highlighting a statement ·7· · in the transcript earlier related to loophole laws? ·8· · A.· · · Yes. ·9· · Q.· · · To the best of your recollection, what was 10· · that statement about? 11· · A.· · · That Dave Ramsey uses a loophole in the law 12· · to receive compensation without disclosure. 13· · Q.· · · And you highlighted that statement as one 14· · that you contend was false and damaging; is that 15· · correct? 16· · A.· · · That is correct. 17· · Q.· · · Is that allegation at issue in this 18· · litigation? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 20· · calls for a legal conclusion. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't understand what you 22· · mean by at issue. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Do the parties dispute anything related to 25· · that statement? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 1194 www.EliteReportingServices.com 65..68 YVer1f Page 69 Page 71 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls ·2· · for a legal conclusion. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Does Dave Ramsey know anything about the ·6· · referral fee arrangement that is reflected in this ·7· · agreement? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·9· · speculation, lack of foundation. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Please turn to section 3 of the agreement. 13· · Sorry, page 3 of the agreement, section 1, please. 14· · Will you read that first sentence to me? 15· · A.· · · Section 1, referral agreement:· Ramsey agrees 16· · to provide ELP, through its broker, with referral 17· · services within ELP's assigned territory as defined 18· · and determined exclusively by Ramsey. 19· · Q.· · · Would you agree that that is Ramsey's 20· · obligation under this agreement? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls 22· · for a legal conclusion. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Sir, to your knowledge, did Ramsey provide ·1· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·2· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · If I asserted that Lampo was not damaged by ·6· · the disclosure of that information, would you have ·7· · reason to disagree with me? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·9· · That's argumentative.· And I wasn't aware that you 10· · were gonna testify in this case.· And speculation as 11· · to what you're thinking and calls for a legal 12· · conclusion, but you can answer. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Your question was would I 14· · disagree that we were harmed? 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Do you have -- let me withdraw the question. 17· · Do you have any personal knowledge that Lampo was 18· · harmed by the disclosure of that information? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 20· · calls for a legal conclusion. 21· · · · · · · · You can answer. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Sir, I'd like to direct your attention back 25· · to Interrogatory Number 1.· Sir, would you agree with Page 70 Page 72 ·1· · ELP through its broker with referral services within ·2· · ELP's assigned territory as defined and determined ·3· · exclusively by Ramsey? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·5· · vague and ambiguous. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Sir, you've alleged that Mr. Paffrath ·9· · disclosed trade secrets; is that correct? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· Mr. 11· · Galloway did not allege anything.· The complaint is 12· · filed on behalf of the plaintiff in this matter and 13· · Mr. Galloway is not the corporate representative. 14· · · · · · · · To the extent you can answer, go ahead. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Trade secrets and 16· · proprietary, confidential information. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · And what was that information? 19· · A.· · · He showed on video our ELP hub where various 20· · information about other in- -- other agents, their 21· · success, lead data.· Those types of things are 22· · displayed. 23· · Q.· · · Was Lampo damaged by the disclosure of that 24· · information? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·1· · me that Lampo does not assert in its answer to ·2· · Interrogatory 1 that it was damaged by the disclosure ·3· · of the confidential information and trade secrets ·4· · that we were just discussing? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.) I ·8· · would agree. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Sir, would you agree that in Lampo's response 11· · to Interrogatory 2 Lampo has not indicated that it 12· · lost any business as a consequence of the disclosure 13· · of the confidential information and trade secrets 14· · that Lampo claims were disclosed by Kevin Paffrath? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 16· · calls for a legal conclusion. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I see that it lists the 18· · $350 monthly administrative fee for a total of 19· · $4,200. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · My question was whether or not Lampo has in 22· · its response to Interrogatory Number 2 indicated that 23· · it lost business as a result of the disclosure of 24· · confidential information or trade secrets by Kevin 25· · Paffrath? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 1195 www.EliteReportingServices.com 69..72 YVer1f Page 73 Page 75 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · calls for a legal conclusion, also asked and ·3· · answered. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not disagree. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Can you just read the answer to Interrogatory ·7· · Number 2 again? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, been ·9· · asked and answered.· The witness has already read it. 10· · · · · · · · But, okay, you can do it again. 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· So Interrogatory 2. 12· · Answer:· As a result of the defendant's breach of the 13· · ELP agreement, plaintiff would have received the $350 14· · monthly administrative fee for the term of the ELP 15· · from the defendant had defendant not breached the ELP 16· · agreement.· Accordingly, plaintiff seeks as damages 17· · the $350 monthly administrative fee for the term of 18· · the agreement. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that Lampo has not 21· · asserted that it lost any business as a result of the 22· · disclosure of a trade secret? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 24· · legal conclusion and it's argumentative. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree that it's not in ·1· · have occurred from that or will. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Sir, you verified the responses to the ·4· · interrogatories; is that correct? ·5· · A.· · · That's right. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· He ·7· · verified some of the answers. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Did you provide complete responses? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 11· · Again, he verified some of the answers which we've 12· · articulated in the verification. 13· · · · · · · · You can answer. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I did -- I verified 15· · answers. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Did you provide complete responses? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, same 19· · objection. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· By complete responses, do 21· · you mean did I write the answers? 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · I'm asking if you withheld any information 24· · that was responsive to the interrogatories? 25· · A.· · · No. Page 74 ·1· · that answer. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that the answer also ·4· · does not assert that Lampo lost any business as a ·5· · result of the disclosure of confidential information? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Sir, in the verified complaint that you 10· · verified, you indicated that trade secrets and 11· · confidential information were disclosed to more than 12· · a hundred thousand people; is that correct? 13· · A.· · · That is correct. 14· · Q.· · · Would you agree that -- withdrawn.· Despite 15· · more than a hundred thousand people having been given 16· · access to the information that you claim was 17· · confidential or a trade secret, would you agree that 18· · Lampo has not asserted that it lost any business? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 20· · calls for a legal conclusion and vague. 21· · · · · · · · You can answer. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I would agree that it's not 23· · asserted.· I do not say that it's untrue, it's an 24· · untrue statement.· 100,000 people saw our proprietary 25· · software and we don't know what damage may or may not ·1· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Do y'all want to take a ·2· · break for lunch?· Now is an okay time to do it. ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Sure.· How long do you want ·4· · to take? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· However long. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· 20 minutes, 30 minutes? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· 30 minutes, how about that? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Sure. ·9· · · · · · · · (Lunch break.) 10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let's go back on the 11· · record. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Sir, do you still have the ELP agreement in 14· · front of you? 15· · A.· · · I do. 16· · Q.· · · If we can go back to page 5, section 10, 17· · please.· This provision says either party may 18· · terminate this agreement without cause at any time, 19· · does it not? 20· · A.· · · It does. 21· · Q.· · · And you agree that Lampo was the party that 22· · terminated this agreement; is that correct? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and 24· · answered. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is correct. Page 76 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 1196 www.EliteReportingServices.com 73..76 YVer1f Page 77 Page 79 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Would you agree that this contract could have ·3· · been terminated at any moment including the first day ·4· · that it was executed? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · speculation, calls for a legal conclusion. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Would you agree that Lampo does not have any 10· · right to $4200 under this agreement? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 12· · calls for a legal conclusion. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Please re-ask the question. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Sure.· This contract provides for Mr. 16· · Paffrath to pay Lampo $350 a month, correct? 17· · A.· · · That's correct. 18· · Q.· · · And it provides that either party can 19· · terminate this agreement at any moment; is that 20· · correct? 21· · A.· · · That's correct. 22· · Q.· · · So there's no right to have 12 months of 23· · payments made under this agreement; is that right? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 25· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·1· · Q.· · · Isn't that what happened here? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·3· · vague, and ambiguous, no foundation. ·4· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He was terminated from the ·6· · program.· I don't -- I don't know how to answer your ·7· · question.· I'm not sure. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · I'd like to move to the topic of 10· · misrepresentations that Lampo is alleging that Mr. 11· · Paffrath made before this agreement was executed. 12· · First, do you claim that Mr. Paffrath deliberately 13· · made false statements? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the predicate 15· · statement before the question, and also object to 16· · lack of foundation at this point, and that this 17· · witness is not a 309b)(6) witness. 18· · · · · · · · You can answer. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · So it's not that he accidentally made false 22· · statements; it's that he deliberately made false 23· · statements; is that correct? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. Page 78 Page 80 ·1· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · If Mr. Paffrath had terminated this agreement ·5· · the day that it was signed, how much would he owe ·6· · Lampo? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·8· · calls for a legal conclusion, speculation. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No further payments. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · None at all? 12· · A.· · · Huh-uh. 13· · Q.· · · If Lampo terminated this agreement within a 14· · month of it being signed, how much would Mr. Paffrath 15· · owe Lampo? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Nothing other than 18· · referrals that were sent in the future -- that were 19· · sent that closed in the future. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · And if no referrals were sent, then how much 22· · would Mr. Paffrath owe Lampo? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Zero. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · I'm going to hand you the verified complaint ·3· · that you verified.· Will you please read paragraph ·4· · 55? ·5· · A.· · · Unbeknownst to Ramsey when it entered the ·6· · agreement, Paffrath never intended to comply with his ·7· · obligations in the agreement. ·8· · Q.· · · That's the gist of this claim, is it not, ·9· · that Paffrath never intended to comply when he said 10· · he would; is that right? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 12· · vague, and ambiguous, argumentative, and calls for a 13· · legal conclusion. 14· · · · · · · · You can answer. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't want to speak to 16· · the gist of the claim. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · That's fair.· Are you asserting that Paffrath 19· · never intended to comply with his obligations in the 20· · agreement? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 22· · Again, this is a -- not a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 23· · · · · · · · You can answer. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 21 of 47 PageID #: 1197 www.EliteReportingServices.com 77..80 YVer1f Page 81 Page 83 ·1· · Q.· · · So in the future -- all right.· Withdrawn. ·2· · Mr. Paffrath made assertions to Lampo that he would ·3· · perform some future performance but he was lying ·4· · about those; that's the gist of the claim, right? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection about lack ·6· · of foundation, calls for a legal conclusion, vague, ·7· · and ambiguous but you can answer. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Lampo is claiming that Mr. Paffrath 11· · misrepresented his future intentions; is that 12· · correct? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 14· · calls for a legal conclusion.· He's not a 30(b)(6) 15· · representative. 16· · · · · · · · You can answer. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Other than statements about Mr. Paffrath's 20· · future intentions, what do you assert that Mr. 21· · Paffrath lied about prior to the execution of this 22· · agreement? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 24· · calls for a legal conclusion, and also this witness 25· · is not a 30(b)(6) witness that's been designated by ·1· · Q.· · · Is it your position that you never would have ·2· · entered into an ELP agreement with Kevin Paffrath if ·3· · he had hadn't given what you're referring to as false ·4· · ZIP codes? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, form, calls for ·6· · a question of a 30(b)(6) witness and this witness has ·7· · not been designated as such. ·8· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer the ·9· · question. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind to re-ask the 11· · question? 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Sure.· Is it your position that if Mr. 14· · Paffrath had never provided what you referred to as 15· · false ZIP codes that you would have never entered 16· · into an ELP agreement with Kevin Paffrath? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 18· · It's not what the complaint says.· And that also asks 19· · for an answer from a Rule 30(b)(6) representative 20· · based on your question and this witness hasn't been 21· · designated as such. 22· · · · · · · · You can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· If we had known he was 24· · giving false ZIP codes, it is correct that we would 25· · not have accepted him as an ELP.· But what the Page 82 Page 84 ·1· · the company. ·2· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He lied in his intention in ·4· · entering the program.· He represented that he wanted ·5· · to become and -- and operate as an ELP when on video ·6· · he had mentioned and later confirmed that he ·7· · infiltrated the ELP program and gave false ZIP codes. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · And which ZIP codes do you claim are false? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 11· · This isn't a memory test. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have that 13· · information in front of me. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Do you have personal knowledge that any of 16· · the ZIP codes he gave were false? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· His statements in the video 19· · were that he gave false ZIP codes. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Is that a direct quote from the video? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· The 23· · witness has already answered this question. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · complaint states is that if we had known that he was ·2· · entering the program under false pretenses to expose ·3· · us, we would not have accepted him as an ELP. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · And if you hadn't entered into an ELP ·6· · agreement with Kevin Paffrath, how much would Kevin ·7· · Paffrath have owed you -·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · -- in dollars? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· The witness is not a 12· · 30(b)(6) representative. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· If we had not entered into 14· · a contractual agreement, he would not owe us money. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Did you ever give -- did -- I apologize. 17· · Withdraw that.· Did Lampo ever give Paffrath the 18· · opportunity to withdraw ZIP codes that he had 19· · provided? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, lack 21· · of foundation. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know the answer to 23· · that question. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · If I represented to you that Lampo did give Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 22 of 47 PageID #: 1198 www.EliteReportingServices.com 81..84 YVer1f Page 85 Page 87 ·1· · Mr. Paffrath the opportunity to withdraw ZIP codes ·2· · that he had submitted, would you have personal ·3· · knowledge -·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· The ·5· · witness couldn't have personal -·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · -- that -·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- knowledge if he -·9· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let me finish my questions. 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I think you did but go 11· · ahead. 12· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I didn't.· Stop 13· · interrupting me. 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I -- it appeared to be the 15· · end of your question.· If I interrupted you, I'm 16· · sorry. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Do you have personal knowledge to dispute the 19· · claim that Lampo gave Mr. Paffrath the opportunity to 20· · remove ZIP codes that he provided? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, lack 22· · of foundation. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have personal 24· · knowledge. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Was Lampo injured based on the ZIP codes that ·3· · Kevin Paffrath submitted to it? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·5· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have personal ·7· · knowledge that Lampo was injured. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Was Lampo injured by what you have referred 10· · to as -- I'm characterizing here, so please correct 11· · me if I'm mischaracterizing you -- false statements 12· · about his intentions? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 14· · calls for a legal conclusion, also asks a question on 15· · a -- that's more appropriate for a Rule 30(b)(6) 16· · deposition and not of this witness. 17· · · · · · · · You can answer. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, I believe so. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · And what were those injuries? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Our brand is a brand of 23· · integrity and trust and we're in the business of 24· · helping people.· And -25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 86 Page 88 ·1· · Q.· · · Does Lampo guarantee that an ELP agent will ·2· · receive every ZIP code that the ELP would like to ·3· · service? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·5· · This witness is not a 30(b)(6) representative who's ·6· · been designated on any topic. ·7· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Do you have any personal knowledge that would 11· · allow you to dispute the claim that Eleny Burton sent 12· · an e-mail to Kevin Paffrath saying if there are any 13· · ZIP codes that you would like to add or remove, 14· · please specify and send them in the following format 15· · and then listing ZIP codes? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 17· · calls for a legal conclusion, no foundation. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have personal 19· · knowledge of that e-mail. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Has Lampo ever cancelled an ELP agreement 22· · based on ZIP codes? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 24· · This witness is not a 30(b)(6) representative. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·1· · Q.· · · Sir -- (indicating.) ·2· · A.· · · -- when Mr. Paffrath went online to say that ·3· · we're liars and cheaters, it damages that brand, it ·4· · keeps people who we wanted to help from having full ·5· · trust in us, and it tarnishes a brand that we've ·6· · worked hard to build. ·7· · Q.· · · Sir, will you please go back to your answers ·8· · to Interrogatory 1?· Can you tell me if there's any ·9· · provision in there that references damage to Lampo's 10· · brand? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 12· · legal conclusion. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, there is not. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Sir, in your answer to Interrogatory 2, is 16· · there any indication that Lampo lost business because 17· · of damage to its brand? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.)· No. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Sir, you mentioned that you have never 22· · personally spoken to Kevin Paffrath; is that correct? 23· · A.· · · That is correct. 24· · Q.· · · Is it also fair to characterize your prior 25· · testimony as a claim that Kevin Paffrath lied Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 23 of 47 PageID #: 1199 www.EliteReportingServices.com 85..88 YVer1f Page 89 Page 91 ·1· · deliberately -·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · -- to Lampo? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · argumentative. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Could you re-ask the ·8· · question? ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Did you previously testify that Mr. Paffrath 11· · deliberately lied to Lampo? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 13· · asked and answered. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I previously testified that 15· · he misrepresented his intentions. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Deliberately; is that correct? 18· · A.· · · Deliberately. 19· · Q.· · · And how do you know that? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 21· · This witness is not a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. 22· · · · · · · · You can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He suggested it, that he 24· · should do it in one video, and he confirmed that he 25· · did it in a second video. ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, same ·2· · objection, and argumentative. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Some of the statements that ·4· · he claims to be true that I know are not true because ·5· · I know he makes a claim about something we do or do ·6· · not do that I happen to know make that statement ·7· · false.· When he makes his statement of what -- that ·8· · he intentionally infiltrated our ELP program to ·9· · expose it, I'm taking him -- it's -- I don't -- I 10· · don't have personal knowledge that that is an untrue 11· · statement the way that I do the other statements I 12· · said were false. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Do you know which ZIP codes Kevin Paffrath 15· · has done business in? 16· · A.· · · No, I do not. 17· · Q.· · · But you accused him of deliberately 18· · misrepresenting which ZIP codes he has done business 19· · in; is that correct? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · Based on statements in the videos -24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 90 Page 92 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Is it your testimony that the statements that ·3· · he made in the videos were true? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·5· · This witness is not a Rule 30(b)(6) representative. ·6· · And this witness has already testified about the ·7· · false matters that were referenced in the videos so ·8· · it's been asked and answered. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· To my knowledge, his 10· · statements were true.· He made them.· I don't... 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Are all of the statements in the video true? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 14· · asked and answered. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · How are you determining which statements in 18· · the videos are true and which ones are deliberate 19· · lies? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 21· · This witness is not a 30(b)(6) representative. 22· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Are you just guessing? ·1· · Q.· · · -- is that correct? ·2· · A.· · · That's correct. ·3· · Q.· · · But you have no personal knowledge to dispute ·4· · the accuracy of the ZIP codes that he submitted; is ·5· · that correct? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·7· · and answered, argumentative. ·8· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · So walk me through it one more time.· How do 11· · you know which statements in the videos are true and 12· · which ones are deliberate lies? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 14· · This has been asked multiple times now.· It's been 15· · asked and answered multiple times.· It's unduly 16· · repetitious and it's borderline harassing. 17· · · · · · · · You can answer. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Some of the statements that 19· · I claimed were false were -- I claimed them as false 20· · because I know he would make claims about us that I 21· · know to be untrue because I know what we do.· When he 22· · claims that he intentionally infiltrated our program 23· · to expose it and gave false ZIP codes, I do not have 24· · evidence that that's a false statement. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 24 of 47 PageID #: 1200 www.EliteReportingServices.com 89..92 YVer1f Page 93 Page 95 ·1· · Q.· · · Do you have any evidence that the ZIP codes ·2· · that he provided to Lampo were false? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·4· · This witness is not a 30(b)(6) representative. ·5· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Just his statements that ·7· · they were false. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Other than the ZIP codes and the claims about 10· · his future intentions, do you claim that Mr. Paffrath 11· · made any other false statements to Lampo prior to the 12· · execution of the ELP agreement? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· This is 14· · not a 30(b)(6) deposition. 15· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Not that I remember.· If I 17· · do, it's in the complaint, but not to my memory. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Did you claim to have personal knowledge of 20· · anything that you alleged in your complaint that you 21· · did not, in fact, have personal knowledge about? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 23· · argumentative, vague, and ambiguous. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind to re-ask the 25· · question? ·1· · paragraph that says at this time, a limited digital ·2· · marketing license?· It's in the middle of the page. ·3· · A.· · · Yes. ·4· · Q.· · · Will you read that section to me, please? ·5· · A.· · · At this time, a limited digital marketing ·6· · license is also included but will be restricted to ·7· · only the following:· E-mail signatures, organic ·8· · social post, no paid or boosted promotions, applies ·9· · to any and all social media platforms including but 10· · not limited to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, 11· · Snapchat. 12· · Q.· · · YouTube is listed as one of the social media 13· · platforms, is it not? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 15· · asked and answered. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Was Mr. Paffrath given this limited digital 19· · marketing license as part of his ELP agreement? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 21· · foundation. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Are all ELPs given this limited digital 25· · marketing license -- Page 94 Page 96 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Sure.· Did you claim to have personal ·3· · knowledge in the -- of the allegations in Lampo's ·4· · verified complaint when you did not, in fact, have ·5· · personal knowledge of them? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, not using our ·8· · definition of personal knowledge in the beginning. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · And what was that definition again? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and 12· · answered. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Firsthand or secondhand 14· · knowledge. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Sir, I've just handed you a document entitled 17· · real estate promotional suite.· Do you recognize this 18· · document? 19· · A.· · · Vaguely. 20· · Q.· · · Tell me roughly what we're looking at here. 21· · A.· · · This is a package to let ELPs with permission 22· · to use Dave's likeness, ELP logo in their advertising 23· · and signage, et cetera. 24· · Q.· · · Will you turn to page 2 of this agreement -25· · or this promotional suite, please?· Do you see the ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · foundation. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · -- after executing an ELP agreement? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I am not sure. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · If I represented to you that Mr. Paffrath was ·9· · provided this limited digital marketing license as 10· · part of his ELP agreement, would you have any reason 11· · to disagree with me? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, lacks a 13· · foundation.· The witness already said he didn't know. 14· · · · · · · · You can answer. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I would not have a reason 16· · to disagree with you assuming you were telling me the 17· · truth. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Would you agree that videos posted on YouTube 20· · are at issue in this action? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that this digital 23· · marketing license allows ELPs to make organic social 24· · posts not including paid or boosted promotions on any 25· · and all social media platforms including but not Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 25 of 47 PageID #: 1201 www.EliteReportingServices.com 93..96 YVer1f Page 97 Page 99 ·1· · limited to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, and ·2· · Snapchat? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·4· · calls for a legal conclusion and the interpretation ·5· · of a document.· Subject to that, he can answer. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· With permission, yes. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · With permission, was that your answer? ·9· · A.· · · Yes. 10· · Q.· · · Where does it say that? 11· · A.· · · In the ELP agreement. 12· · Q.· · · Tell me what you're referring to. 13· · A.· · · (Reviews document.)· Other -- page 4, no 14· · publicity or license other than as expressly provided 15· · herein.· Neither party shall make any public 16· · statement, press release, or marketing material that 17· · uses the other's name, likeness, brand, or any 18· · associated marks without the expressed written 19· · permission of the other. 20· · Q.· · · Sir, is this digital marketing license 21· · expressed written permission conferred by Lampo? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls 23· · for an answer from a 30(b)(6) witness, which this 24· · witness hasn't been designated as such. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know if this ·1· · not a 30(b)(6) representative. ·2· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, that is my ·4· · understanding. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · When does the license conferred by this ·7· · document expire? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·9· · calls for a legal conclusion. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Does it afford ELP agents an opportunity to 13· · use Lampo's -- withdrawn.· Let me restate that 14· · question.· After the ELP agreement is terminated by 15· · either party, do ELP agents still have a digital 16· · marketing license for Lampo? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, lack of 18· · foundation. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is my understanding that 20· · they do not. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Is that because section 4 of the ELP 23· · agreement expires upon termination? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls 25· · for a legal conclusion. Page 98 Page 100 ·1· · document grants that permission or if this document ·2· · outlines how to use the permission given in some ·3· · other way. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Well, let's read the section that says what ·6· · not to do.· Will you please read the first two ·7· · sentences of that section, please? ·8· · A.· · · At this time, marketing parameters will be ·9· · restricted to the list above.· Please do not use the 10· · ELP or Ramsey brands in any form of website or 11· · digital presence without the expressed written 12· · permission from the VP of real estate.· At this time, 13· · restricted forms of marketing and marketing using the 14· · ELP and Ramsey brands will include any form of paid 15· · media, both digital and out of home, including but 16· · not limited to paid or boosted social, paid search, 17· · television, radio, and digital audio, cinema, gas 18· · station networks, local paid and earned media, out of 19· · home digital screens, and billboards. 20· · Q.· · · Sir, is it your position that ELP agents are 21· · not permitted to reference their connection to Lampo 22· · in their e-mail signatures or in organic social posts 23· · without first securing permission outside of this 24· · document? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· This witness is ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know if there's ·2· · another document that gives this permission ·3· · (indicating).· If there is, that document should ·4· · clarify when it's given and when it's revoked but I ·5· · don't have knowledge of that. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · But you would agree that after an ELP ·8· · agreement is terminated ELP agents no longer have ·9· · this digital marketing license, correct? 10· · A.· · · That is my understanding. 11· · Q.· · · Sir, are you aware of anytime after October 12· · 8th, 2018, when Mr. Paffrath -- sorry, let me 13· · withdraw that question.· Are you aware of anytime 14· · prior to October 8th, 2018, where Mr. Paffrath shared 15· · information that Lampo asserts is confidential? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 17· · calls for an answer to be given by a Rule 30(b)(6) 18· · representative and not this witness here. 19· · · · · · · · Subject to that, you can answer. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · In fact, just a few days ago, you swore under 23· · oath that plaintiff is unaware of an instance where 24· · defendants shared plaintiff's confidential 25· · information with a third party prior to October 8th, Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 26 of 47 PageID #: 1202 www.EliteReportingServices.com 97..100 YVer1f Page 101 Page 103 ·1· · 2018, did you not? ·2· · A.· · · That's correct. ·3· · Q.· · · Are you familiar with Lampo's process for ·4· · generating leads and referring them to ELP agents? ·5· · A.· · · Yes. ·6· · Q.· · · Can you describe that process to me, please. ·7· · A.· · · An individual comes to the Dave Ramsey ·8· · website and clicks on ELP, fills out a form that is ·9· · sent to the ELP to contact the individual and they 10· · are connected and do business. 11· · Q.· · · Does anyone from -- does any employee of 12· · Lampo speak to a lead before referring it to an ELP 13· · agent? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, lack of 15· · foundation. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sometimes. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · What percentage of the time? 19· · A.· · · Very small, less than 5. 20· · Q.· · · Is it true that over 95 percent of the time 21· · no employee of Lampo speaks to a prospective lead 22· · before referring that lead to an ELP agent? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 24· · asked and answered. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not disagree. ·1· · Q.· · · Approximately how many conversations does an ·2· · employee of Lampo have with a prospective ELP agent ·3· · before that agent is hired? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, lack of ·5· · foundation, speculation. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Approximately how long does an employee of ·9· · Lampo spend speaking with a prospective ELP agent 10· · before the ELP agent is hired? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, lack of 12· · foundation, speculation. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Approximately how many employees of Lampo 16· · speak to prospective ELP agents before ELP agents are 17· · hired? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, lack 19· · of foundation, speculation. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not know the exact 21· · number. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · Sir, have you previously described the 24· · vetting process that Lampo conducts when evaluating 25· · prospective ELP agents as thorough? Page 102 Page 104 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · That's correct, is it not? ·3· · A.· · · I don't have -- that's a good estimate. I ·4· · don't have the exact number but I don't disagree with ·5· · that estimate. ·6· · Q.· · · Is it fair to say that approximately 95 ·7· · percent of the time no employee of Lampo speaks to a ·8· · prospective lead before referring that lead to an ELP ·9· · agent? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 11· · asked and answered. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Are you familiar with Lampo's process for 15· · vetting and hiring prospective ELP agents? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · Will you describe that process to me, please? 18· · A.· · · A real estate agent applies to become an ELP, 19· · is then contacted and interviewed by an employee of 20· · Lampo and they review a list of qualifications.· And 21· · if that is acceptable, the person is accepted and 22· · approved to -- they become an ELP.· They are sent 23· · some materials including the log-in for the ELP hub 24· · and they are connected with their coach and then 25· · they, after that, begin receiving referrals. ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that you do not know ·3· · how many times an employee of Lampo speaks with a ·4· · prospective ELP agent before hiring that person? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·6· · and answered. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree I do not know the ·8· · exact number. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that you do not know 11· · how long an employee of Lampo speaks with the 12· · prospective ELP agent before the ELP agent is hired? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection, asked and 14· · answered. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree I do not know the 16· · exact amount of time. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that you do not know 19· · how many employees of Lampo speak with a prospective 20· · ELP agent before the ELP agent is hired? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and 22· · answered. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I agree I do not know the 24· · exact number of employees. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 27 of 47 PageID #: 1203 101..104 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 105 Page 107 ·1· · Q.· · · You've just qualified those answers by saying ·2· · the exact.· Do you have an approximation of the ·3· · number of conversations an employee employed by Lampo ·4· · has with a prospective ELP agent before the ELP agent ·5· · is hired? ·6· · A.· · · I'd rather not guess. ·7· · Q.· · · You really have no idea, do you? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, ·9· · argumentative. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know the exact 11· · number and I'd rather not guess. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Do you know an approximate number? 14· · A.· · · I'd rather not guess. 15· · Q.· · · Based on what facts do you contend that 16· · Lampo's vetting of ELP -- of prospective ELP agents 17· · is thorough? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 19· · and answered.· This is also a Rule 30(b)(6) -- more 20· · appropriate topic for that kind of witness and it has 21· · not been noticed here. 22· · · · · · · · You can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The application process has 24· · a lot of information about how long the person has 25· · been in the business, what sort of team they have to ·1· · I'm not sure. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Are all ELP agents successful in your ·4· · estimation? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, ·6· · foundation and argumentative. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · What do you consider successful? 10· · A.· · · That they make all efforts to serve all of 11· · the referrals that are interested in buying or 12· · selling a home and help the ones that are -- have 13· · intention of buying or selling a home, help them get 14· · through that process successfully. 15· · Q.· · · Does the rate of successful sales factor into 16· · your assessment of the success? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, it does factor in. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · And what do you consider a high rate of 21· · successful sales? 22· · A.· · · My estimate is 15 percent. 23· · Q.· · · Would be high? 24· · A.· · · Not the highest but above average. 25· · Q.· · · Would you consider a 15 percent successful Page 106 Page 108 ·1· · support a large number of referrals, how many ·2· · transactions they close annually in the areas -- the ·3· · total and in the areas that they work, their ·4· · familiarity with Dave Ramsey and what to expect from ·5· · Dave Ramsey fans.· Then there is an interview process ·6· · to talk through each one of those things and also to ·7· · discuss some uniquenesses of a Dave Ramsey referral ·8· · versus a non Dave Ramsey referral discussing some ·9· · best practices.· And then we -- at that point, if all 10· · is acceptable and they agree to the coaching 11· · relationship we discussed earlier, then they would 12· · begin by receiving their first referrals and review 13· · would be done as they're receiving their first 14· · referrals to discuss how that's going. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · Do you independently verify the information 17· · that prospective ELP agents submit through your 18· · online form? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, lack of 20· · foundation, and this witness is not a 30(b)(6), not a 21· · corporate representative. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not have personal 23· · knowledge that we independently verify that 24· · information.· Some of it -- licensure, some of those 25· · things but maybe not everything in the application. ·1· · closing rate good? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·3· · and answered. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is better than almost ·5· · all companies that are in this business. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · And what business specifically is that? ·8· · A.· · · In -- that deal with ELP referrals. ·9· · Q.· · · The referral service business; is that 10· · correct? 11· · A.· · · Real estate referral, yes. 12· · Q.· · · And you mentioned that approximately 95 13· · percent of prospective leads do not have a 14· · conversation with an employee at Lampo; is that 15· · correct? 16· · A.· · · That's correct. 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 18· · and answered. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Would it be fair to characterize Lampo as a 22· · hand-off service between prospective leads and ELP 23· · agents? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, lack of 25· · foundation, argumentative. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 28 of 47 PageID #: 1204 105..108 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 109 Page 111 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you mind to define ·2· · hand-off service? ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · Whatever it means to you. ·5· · A.· · · No. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I would not characterize ·8· · it. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Why not? 11· · A.· · · To me, hand-off implies that there is not a 12· · lot of effort made to send quality referrals to 13· · quality agents and we put a great deal of effort into 14· · both of those. 15· · Q.· · · Would other people be entitled to have a 16· · different opinion of the meaning of hand-off service? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, vague, and 18· · ambiguous, speculation, and argumentative. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· They would be entitled. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · You sued Mr. Paffrath for calling Lampo a 22· · hand-off service? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· Mr. 24· · Galloway hasn't sued anybody. 25· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Can you please stop making ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Lampo's suing Mr. Paffrath ·2· · for everything that is in the complaint, not ·3· · specifically for calling us a hand-off service. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · And you verified this complaint, did you not? ·6· · A.· · · I did. ·7· · Q.· · · The allegations in it, you verified them? ·8· · A.· · · Yes. ·9· · Q.· · · So when your attorney claims, you know, 10· · perhaps you don't have any information about this, no 11· · foundation for asking these questions about 12· · allegations in your complaint, are we to assume that 13· · you verified allegations that you don't know to be 14· · true? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 16· · argumentative. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · You do know stuff about this complaint, do 20· · you not? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · When I asked you questions about allegations 23· · in this complaint, you -- there is a foundation for 24· · me asking those because you verified them; is that 25· · correct? Page 110 Page 112 ·1· · speaking objections? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I -- it's not -·3· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· You can -·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- a speaking objection. ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· You can -·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I'll tell you what the rule ·7· · states if you want to read it. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· You can object to the form ·9· · but you've got to stop answering questions for your 10· · witness. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· That's not true.· Let me 12· · tell you what the law states.· To the extent that 13· · counsel makes a generic objection to form but failed 14· · to specify the basis for that objection, the Court 15· · considers those objections to be waived.· So I will 16· · continue to state the basis for the objection because 17· · if I don't, you'll take the position that they've 18· · been waived. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · Has Lampo sued Kevin Paffrath for describing 21· · Lampo as a hand-off service? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· That's 23· · a Rule 30(b)(6) topic and more appropriate for a Rule 24· · 30(b)(6) witness, which Mr. Galloway has not been 25· · designated as such. ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· He's ·2· · not a lawyer. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I did verify the ·4· · allegations. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Is there any provision of the ELP agreement ·7· · that you believe entitles Lampo to secure the return ·8· · of information that Lampo claims is confidential? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, calls for a 10· · legal conclusion. 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· (Reviews document.)· I do 12· · not see in the agreement where it discusses the 13· · return of confidential information. 14· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Is it possible that such a provision doesn't 16· · exist? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · calls for a legal conclusion and argumentative. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Have you exchanged any e-mails with other 22· · members of The Lampo Group regarding the facts of 23· · this litigation? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, vague 25· · and ambiguous. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 29 of 47 PageID #: 1205 109..112 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 113 Page 115 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Who are those individuals? ·4· · A.· · · They were all including my general counsel, ·5· · Matt Blackburn.· And I do not know exactly who else ·6· · was on that chain a year ago.· I have given those to ·7· · my legal counsel. ·8· · Q.· · · Have you ever had conversations with anyone ·9· · other than Matt Blackburn about this litigation? 10· · A.· · · Yes. 11· · Q.· · · Who are those individuals? 12· · A.· · · Other members of my leadership team. 13· · Q.· · · Can you give me the names? 14· · A.· · · Mark Floyd.· I do not recall who all the 15· · other folks were.· I have given those e-mails to my 16· · attorneys. 17· · Q.· · · I'm not looking for e-mails here.· I'm 18· · looking for conversations. 19· · A.· · · Conversations.· Dave Ramsey, Mark Floyd.· Any 20· · conversation? 21· · Q.· · · About this litigation, yes. 22· · A.· · · Suzanne Sims.· That's all that I'm positive 23· · of. 24· · Q.· · · Were these one-to-one conversations? 25· · A.· · · They were -- some of them were one to one. ·1· · him a brief update regarding this litigation; is that ·2· · correct? ·3· · A.· · · That's correct. ·4· · Q.· · · Was it just the two of you? ·5· · A.· · · No. ·6· · Q.· · · Who else was there? ·7· · A.· · · Mark Floyd.· One meeting was with Mark Floyd, ·8· · Dave, and I. ·9· · Q.· · · That was last week? 10· · A.· · · Yes. 11· · Q.· · · Was your legal counsel there? 12· · A.· · · Our legal counsel is no longer employed by 13· · us.· No. 14· · Q.· · · Was there any attorney representing you 15· · present? 16· · A.· · · No. 17· · Q.· · · What did you discuss during that meeting? 18· · A.· · · It was -- I had discussed -- I gave him an 19· · update on I had spent some time with these guys 20· · preparing for today and I gave him an update on that. 21· · I wasn't sure he even knew the depositions were this 22· · week and so I wanted him to know. 23· · Q.· · · Do you recall specifically what you told him? 24· · A.· · · I just discussed with him my preparation time 25· · and discussions with my attorneys. Page 114 Page 116 ·1· · Q.· · · What were the approximate dates of your ·2· · one-to-one conversations with Mark Floyd? ·3· · A.· · · I do not recall all the dates of any ·4· · conversation with Mark Floyd. ·5· · Q.· · · Approximately how many conversations do you ·6· · think you may have had with Mark Floyd? ·7· · A.· · · Five or less. ·8· · Q.· · · Do you recall the dates of any one-to-one ·9· · conversations with Dave Ramsey about this litigation? 10· · A.· · · I gave him very brief updates as recently as 11· · last week. 12· · Q.· · · What about before that? 13· · A.· · · He would have been included in some of the 14· · e-mail conversation with counsel but those were not 15· · one-to-one conversations. 16· · Q.· · · Did you have any other one-to-one 17· · conversations with Dave Ramsey about this litigation? 18· · A.· · · No.· I've had no one-to-one conversations 19· · with Dave Ramsey about this. 20· · Q.· · · What about Suzanne Sims? 21· · A.· · · No.· These are people that -- these other 22· · people are people who may have been copied on an 23· · e-mail or in a meeting where a conversation took 24· · place. 25· · Q.· · · You said as recently as last week you gave ·1· · Q.· · · Approximately how long did this conversation ·2· · last? ·3· · A.· · · Ten minutes. ·4· · Q.· · · Do you recall the details of any questions ·5· · that he asked you? ·6· · A.· · · No, he did not ask questions.· I -- he did ·7· · not ask questions. ·8· · Q.· · · And you said Mark Floyd was there for that ·9· · conversation; is that correct? 10· · A.· · · That's -11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · And you said you talked about your 15· · preparation for this deposition.· What did you talk 16· · about? 17· · A.· · · I told him that I had met with Brandon and 18· · Todd in my office to prepare for deposition, and that 19· · it was on Tuesday, and that I would be out all day 20· · Tuesday, and Mitch Riddle would be out all day 21· · Wednesday. 22· · Q.· · · Did you talk about the details of any things 23· · that you expected to be deposed about? 24· · A.· · · No. 25· · Q.· · · What was the date of this conversation? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 30 of 47 PageID #: 1206 113..116 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 117 Page 119 ·1· · A.· · · I do not recall the exact date. ·2· · Q.· · · You said it was last week, though? ·3· · A.· · · Yes. ·4· · Q.· · · To your knowledge, has anyone else at Lampo ·5· · had one-to-one conversations with Dave Ramsey -·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, speculation. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · -- regarding this litigation? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, speculation, no 10· · foundation. 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Sir, do you contend that Lampo's tax returns 14· · would demonstrate harm arising from the publication 15· · of the YouTube videos at issue in this action? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 17· · That is a topic for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as 18· · phrased and Mr. Galloway's not been designated as 19· · such. 20· · · · · · · · To the extent you're aware, you can 21· · answer. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · What about revenue statements? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · This agreement provides that section 15, ·4· · indemnification and payment obligations of this ·5· · agreement will survive any such expiration or ·6· · termination of this agreement, does it not? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· That's ·8· · been asked and answered multiple times. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It does. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Confidential information is discussed at 12· · section 6 and not at section 15; is that correct? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· It's 14· · been asked and answered multiple times; also calls 15· · for a legal conclusion. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Are all ELP agents afforded access to the 19· · same confidential information that you contend was 20· · published in this matter? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · After an ELP agreement is terminated, does 23· · Lampo ask ELP agents to return confidential 24· · information? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· It's Page 118 Page 120 ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·2· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Those are my questions. ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Mr. Horwitz, I think I've ·4· · had an opportunity to consider your request about the ·5· · ELP questions that you posed earlier that we ·6· · instructed the witness not to answer.· If you would ·7· · like to re-ask those questions, I would like to give ·8· · you the opportunity to do so so that we don't have to ·9· · burden the Court with an issue.· I want to make sure, 10· · though, that you have the opportunity to do that.· If 11· · you come close to a line which I consider to be an 12· · issue, I'll let you know but I want to give you that 13· · opportunity. 14· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· This is about the numbers? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Correct.· Yes. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Sir, is it possible that thousands of ELPs 18· · have signed an agreement just like this one? 19· · A.· · · Yes. 20· · Q.· · · And that agreement does not provide for the 21· · return of confidential information following 22· · termination of the agreement, does it? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Object to form, calls for a 24· · legal conclusion. 25· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·1· · been asked and answered and it's more appropriate for ·2· · a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as asked. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Not to my knowledge. ·4· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Let's take five minutes if ·5· · that's okay. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Sure. ·7· · · · · · · · (Short break.) ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Back on the record.· Just a ·9· · couple of housekeeping matters.· I'm gonna make 10· · interrogatories and requests for production and 11· · responses the next exhibit. 12· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 13· · was marked as Exhibit Number 9.) 14· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I want to make the ELP 15· · agreement between Kevin Paffrath and The Lampo Group 16· · the exhibit after that. 17· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 18· · was marked as Exhibit Number 10.) 19· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'm going to make Lampo's 20· · verified complaint the exhibit after that. 21· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 22· · was marked as Exhibit Number 11.) 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· And I'm going to make the 24· · promotional suite that we were discussing the exhibit 25· · after that. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 31 of 47 PageID #: 1207 117..120 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 121 Page 123 ·1· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document ·2· · was marked as Exhibit Number 12.) ·3· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· And without going into the ·4· · details of it -- I know we decided we weren't going ·5· · to do that but we talked about it earlier.· I'm going ·6· · to make the article that we talked about at the ·7· · beginning of this matter the exhibit after that. ·8· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document ·9· · was marked as Exhibit Number 13.) 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · I only have two more very short areas of 12· · inquiry. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I'm sorry, can I -- which 14· · exhibit does that start with? 15· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· It starts with Number 9. 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Number 9.· Okay. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · How do prospective clients or referrals 19· · generated through the ELP program know the fees that 20· · Lampo generates from a successful sale? 21· · A.· · · We have a disclosure on our website. 22· · Q.· · · And what does that disclosure say? 23· · A.· · · I don't remember exactly. 24· · Q.· · · Does it specify a dollar figure? 25· · A.· · · I don't recall what -- exactly what it says. ·1· · customers would know that answer; is that correct? ·2· · A.· · · I -·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form.· That's ·4· · not what he said. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I know that it's disclosed ·6· · on the website.· I don't know what the language is. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Or the specific amount that's disclosed? ·9· · A.· · · That's correct, I don't know what is dis- -10· · I don't -- I don't recall what the disclosure says. 11· · Q.· · · Do you recall where specifically on the 12· · website one would go to find that information? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 14· · and answered. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · If I were to try to find out that information 18· · by visiting your website, do you know what I would 19· · click to find that information? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 21· · speculation, asked and answered. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know exactly where 23· · it's located on our website. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · One of the allegations in this complaint Page 122 Page 124 ·1· · I know that it's there and that we follow real estate ·2· · audit rules and guidelines. ·3· · Q.· · · I'm not saying you've done anything wrong. ·4· · I'm just trying to figure out if I am a customer who ·5· · signs up through your website and my information gets ·6· · referred to an ELP agent -·7· · A.· · · Uh-huh. ·8· · Q.· · · -- how I would know how much Lampo is making ·9· · from that sale. 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form. 11· · · · · · · · You can answer. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · If you don't know, is it fair that Kevin 15· · Paffrath also might not know? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 17· · speculation. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm a little confused by 19· · your question because Kevin was told what the fees 20· · were as a potential ELP. 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · I'm talking about how customers would know 23· · the answer. 24· · A.· · · Okay. 25· · Q.· · · And you told me that you don't know how ·1· · involves Mr. Paffrath saying that Lampo doesn't ·2· · disclose, or something of that nature, the fees -·3· · I'm not trying to quote anything here -- the fees ·4· · that it receives to customers.· And we had previously ·5· · discussed that there were statements in some of the ·6· · videos that you thought Mr. Paffrath was lying about. ·7· · I say this only to preface my next question, which is ·8· · how -- do you have any personal knowledge that would ·9· · help you identify when Mr. Paffrath is lying about 10· · something versus when he is just wrong about 11· · something? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the 13· · predicatory statement. 14· · · · · · · · You can answer. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't have personal 16· · knowledge to distinguish between him being incorrect 17· · or intentionally lying. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Do you know anyone else at Lampo who might 20· · have that information? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, speculation. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Those are my questions. 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· We will pass the witness. 25· · We'll reserve -- reserve our questions 'til the time Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 32 of 47 PageID #: 1208 121..124 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 125 ·1· · of trial.· The witness will read and sign. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Are you wanting to order ·4· · this at this point? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Yes. ·6· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· And what about you; ·7· · obviously, a copy? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Do you have the E-tran? ·9· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Uh-huh. 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· What's your -- what's your 11· · format?· Usually PTX is -12· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· It is PTX. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Do you have that? 14· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Uh-huh. 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Do you link the 16· · exhibits? 17· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· We do. 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Let's do that. 19· · · · · · · · · ·FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 127 ·1· ·2 ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· · · 16· · · 17· · · 18· · · 19 20 21· · · 22· · · 23· 24· · · 25 · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · STATE OF TENNESSEE COUNTY OF DAVIDSON · · · · I, SARAH N. LINDER, Licensed Court Reporter, with offices in Nashville, Tennessee, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing deposition of JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR., by machine shorthand to the best of my skills and abilities, and thereafter the same was reduced to typewritten form by me. · · · · I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties named herein, nor their counsel, and have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the proceedings. · · · I further certify that in order for this document to be considered a true and correct copy, it must bear my original signature and that any unauthorized reproduction in whole or in part and/or transfer of this document is not authorized, will not be considered authentic, and will be in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 39-14-104, Theft of Services. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · _ SARAH N. LINDER, LCR Elite Reporting Services Licensed Court Reporter (TN) Notary Public State of Tennessee My Notary Commission Expires:· 3/3/2020 LCR #153 - Expires:· 6/30/2020 Page 126 ·1· ·2· · · ·3· · · ·4 ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18 19 20· · · 21 22· · · 23 · · 24 · · 25 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·E R R A T A· P A G E · · · I, JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR., having read the foregoing deposition, Pages 1 through 125, do hereby certify said testimony is a true and accurate transcript, with the following changes (if any): · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE· _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ·LINE· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· · · · · · · · · · · · · · SHOULD HAVE BEEN ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · ________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · JACK BOONE GALLOWAY, JR. · _________________________________ · Notary Public · My Commission Expires: ___________ · Reported by:· Sarah N. Linder, LCR Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 33 of 47 PageID #: 1209 125..127 www.EliteReportingServices.com Exhibits Ex 01 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:8 12:24 13:1 Ex 02 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:10 13:16,18 12 30:12 77:22 121:2 55 80:4 add 86:13 13 121:9 566 40:17 Additionally 6:24 16:22 15 55:11 56:18,22 57:2 567 40:16 address 12:9 24:23 61:14,19,22,24 64:2,7 107:22,25 119:3,12 19 8:14,15 6 41:15 49:12 57:14 60:4, Ex 04 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:15 32:18 Ex 05 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:17 33:20 Ex 06 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:20 41:15 Ex 07 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:22 41:20 Ex 08 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 3:24 42:2 Ex 09 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 4:2 120:13 Ex 10 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 4:5 120:18 Ex 11 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 4:7 120:22 Ex 12 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 4:8 121:2 Ex 13 - Jack Galloway, Jr. 4:10 121:9 $ $350 25:8,11 30:3 72:18 73:13,17 77:16 $4,200 30:7 72:19 $4200 77:10 2 29:3 42:5 64:22,25 69:13,15 71:25 72:2 88:8 10 55:2 56:24 76:16 120:18 100,000 74:24 administrative 25:8,12 30:3 72:18 73:14,17 advertising 94:22 advocate 39:20 affiliate 9:8 7 41:20,21 2.3 40:18 48:1 advisor 39:16 7 24:19 42:21 72:11,22 73:7,11 88:15 94:24 affirmatively 57:12 20 76:6 8 2010 9:6 2018 44:19 55:21 100:12, 14 101:1 afford 99:12 afforded 119:18 8 42:2 8th 55:23 100:12,14,25 afield 18:25 47:16 afterward 55:3 21 41:6 9 26 11:12 13:21 26(a)(1) 11:14 13:8 28:4 29:14 9 120:13 121:15,16 95 101:20 102:6 108:12 3 A 3 14:15 15:8,18 32:13 69:12,13 ability 14:24 30 76:6,7 above-mentioned 30(b)(6) 43:12 80:22 81:14,25 83:6,19 84:12 86:5,24 87:15 89:21 90:5,21 93:4,14 97:23 99:1 100:17 105:19 106:20 110:23,24 117:17 120:2 12:25 13:17 15:16 32:17 33:19 41:14,19 42:1 120:12,17,21 121:1,8 absolutely 21:2 acceptable 102:21 106:10 accepted 83:25 84:3 3rd 44:19 102:21 4 access 74:16 119:18 accessing 29:22 4 8:14,15 32:14,15,18 57:5,18,19,21,23 59:7 63:20 64:7 97:13 99:22 49 53:13 5 5 33:20 54:22 56:23 76:16 101:19 agent 24:25 26:1,11 27:6,13 45:10 62:22 86:1 101:13,22 102:9,18 103:2,3,9,10 104:4,12,20 105:4 122:6 agent's 62:4 agents 40:16,18 45:22 46:3 47:4 49:3 60:21 61:5 62:11 66:10 70:20 98:20 99:12,15 100:8 101:4 102:15 103:16,25 105:16 106:17 107:3 108:23 109:13 119:18,23 agree 12:15,17 25:14,20 26:1,9 42:13 47:4 54:16, 20 63:12,17,19,24 64:1, 5,17 67:14,23 68:4 69:19 71:25 72:8,10 73:20,25 74:3,7,14,17,22 76:21 77:2,9 96:19,22 100:7 104:2,7,10,15,18,23 106:10 accidentally 79:21 agreeable 50:23 51:11 accuracy 92:4 agreed 53:19 64:13 accused 91:17 agreement 25:7,9,10,13 acquired 30:17 31:5,9 11 120:22 11(g) 49:15 54:7 5 61:22 63:13 64:8 119:12 2 12:19,21 13:16,18 1 1 12:19,21,24 13:1 27:23 adjourn 20:6 46:16,19 6 action 30:12 53:4 96:20 117:15 actions 25:2 30:4,7,13 45:4,7,9 46:23 47:5 49:4,13,23 51:4 53:18 54:4 55:4,5,8,10, 12,13,15,19 56:1,9,19,21 57:19 58:14,23 60:8,22 61:3,14 62:1,13,23 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 $350..agreementi1 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 34 ofIndex: 47 PageID #: 1210 www.EliteReportingServices.com 63:13,14,20,21 64:1,3,23 65:1 66:11 67:1,10 69:7, 12,13,15,20 73:13,16,18 76:13,18,22 77:10,19,23 78:4,13 79:11 80:6,7,20 81:22 83:2,16 84:6,14 86:21 93:12 94:24 95:19 96:4,10 97:11 99:14,23 100:8 112:6,12 118:18, 20,22 119:3,5,6,22 120:15 agrees 60:8 69:15 ahead 8:25 12:3,4 13:6 15:11,13 23:24 35:3 50:18 70:14 85:11 allegation 68:17 allegations 19:13 22:23 26:22 27:3,6,14 53:6 94:3 111:7,12,13,22 112:4 123:25 allege 70:11 alleged 25:2 35:19 52:8 application 105:23 106:25 attorneys 16:11 113:16 115:25 98:16 applies 95:8 102:18 attorneys' 30:11 borderline 92:16 approval 39:15 audible 6:21 bother 61:7 approved 102:22 audio 98:17 boundaries 45:13 approximate 105:13 audit 122:2 bounty 20:2 authorized 24:11 brand 27:8 58:2 87:22 114:1 approximately 9:5 22:9 46:3 102:6 103:1,8,15 108:12 114:5 116:1 approximation 105:2 areas 106:2,3 121:11 argumentative 19:9 23:15 25:16,22 26:17 28:17,22 42:9,17,24 43:6 54:13,19 71:9 73:24 80:12 89:6 91:2 92:7 93:23 105:9 107:6 108:25 109:18 111:16 112:18 automatically 55:6 average 107:24 aware 9:10 10:21 11:4 17:17 21:8,23 30:20 31:15 71:9 100:11,13 117:20 back 11:6 27:17 38:13,20 42:4 71:24 76:10,16 88:7 120:8 arising 67:9 117:14 alleging 79:10 arrangement 69:6 based 24:12 27:12 35:1 allowed 30:9 article 17:25 18:1,4,7,10, ambiguous 16:18 17:22 28:17 45:17,19 46:25 47:7 61:17 67:3 70:5 79:3 80:12 81:7 93:23 109:18 112:25 15 19:14,19,25 21:1 121:6 articulated 75:12 asks 56:4 60:24 83:18 87:14 America 39:19 assert 72:1 74:4 81:20 amount 27:20 28:1,5 asserted 37:25 71:5 104:16 123:8 73:21 74:18,23 36:3 37:15 42:14 59:15 83:20 86:22 87:2 91:23 105:15 110:14,16 Beast 18:8 begin 7:7 102:25 106:12 beginning 11:8 94:8 121:7 annually 106:2 asserts 100:15 belief 24:14 answering 110:9 assessment 107:16 benefit 60:9 answers 24:2,12 75:7, assigned 69:17 70:2 big 39:18 40:15 assume 7:3 111:12 billboards 98:19 assuming 96:16 bit 32:1 attacks 27:10 Blackburn 10:8 113:5,9 appeared 85:14 attempted 39:1 board 21:22 appearing 36:2 attention 24:18 42:4 bolded 11:15 12:8 applicable 39:1 71:24 attorney 36:23 111:9 115:14 breach 25:6 59:4 73:12 breached 25:10 30:6 breaching 48:9 break 38:10,12 76:2,9 120:7 bring 32:21 broker 64:25 65:4,8,12, 18 66:4 69:16 70:1 brought 33:3 build 88:6 BUNDREN 8:18,22,25 assertions 81:2 84:16 brands 98:10,14 basis 46:11 59:21 and/or 30:9 apologize 41:3 65:11 37:6 116:17 built 27:9 asserting 44:3 80:18 anytime 55:10 100:11,13 Brandon 14:18 32:2 basically 39:18 40:15 amounts 30:7 11,15,21 88:7 105:1 88:3,5,10,17 97:17 54:18 58:23 73:15 B bag 18:23 54:17 70:8 93:20 boosted 95:8 96:24 behalf 24:2,12 48:10 70:12 Boone 6:2 7:12 9:15,21,25 10:5,7,14,25 11:18,21,24 12:6 13:6,23 14:5,16,20 15:10,13,22 16:2,17 17:4,13,21 18:11,17,24 19:8,15 20:4,12,19,24 21:14 22:3,24 23:15,20 24:5 25:16,22 26:16 27:21,24 28:16,22,24 29:6 30:19 31:22 32:4,8,23 33:5,11, 14 34:5,11,24 35:21 36:1,15,21 37:11 38:2,4, 9,24 39:9 40:6,25 41:21 42:9,16,24 43:6,11,19,25 44:6,13,23 45:16,19,24 46:5,24 47:6,10,15,20 48:7,15,19,23 49:1,5,24 50:4,12 51:5,18 52:3,11 53:21 54:13,19 56:4,12 57:6,8,15 58:9,17,25 59:8,20 60:1,24 61:10,16 62:6,14,24 63:4,9,15,22 64:4,9,18 65:5 66:1,7,12, 17,23 67:2,11,17 68:1,19 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 agrees..BUNDRENi2 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 35 ofIndex: 47 PageID #: 1211 www.EliteReportingServices.com 69:1,8,21 70:4,10,25 71:8,19 72:5,15 73:1,8, 23 74:6,19 75:6,10,18 76:3,7,23 77:5,11,24 78:7,16,23 79:2,14,24 80:11,21 81:5,13,23 82:10,17,22 83:5,17 84:8,11,20 85:4,8,10,14, 21 86:4,16,23 87:4,13,21 88:11,18 89:2,5,12,20 90:4,13,20 91:1,20,24 92:6,13 93:3,13,22 94:6, 11 95:14,20 96:1,5,12 97:3,22 98:25 99:8,17,24 100:16 101:14,23 102:10 103:4,11,18 104:5,13,21 105:8,18 106:19 107:5, 17 108:2,17,24 109:6,17, 23 110:2,4,6,11,22 111:15 112:1,9,17,24 116:11 117:6,9,16,25 118:3,15,23 119:7,13,25 120:6 121:13,16 122:10, 16 123:3,13,20 124:12, 21,24 125:8,10,13,15,18 burden 118:9 Burton 86:11 business 24:23 26:13 42:22 43:4,9,16 44:4,20 45:14 60:14 72:12,23 73:21 74:4,18 87:23 88:16 91:15,18 101:10 105:25 108:5,7,9 87:5,14 88:11 97:4,22 99:9,24 100:17 112:9,18 118:23 119:14 cancelled 86:21 case 19:1 20:13 21:2,5 36:4 46:11 71:10 cash 18:2 20:2 category 28:3,7 cease 9:12 10:17 39:17 CEO 21:17 cetera 94:23 chain 113:6 change 8:20 characterization 28:11 33:25 characterize 88:24 108:21 109:7 characterizing 87:10 cheaters 88:3 Christian 18:2 cinema 98:17 claim 24:25 27:20 28:2, 6,14 37:10 42:6,22 74:16 79:12 80:8,16 81:4 82:9 85:19 86:11 88:25 91:5 93:10,19 94:2 claimed 42:14 92:19 buy 45:11 buying 107:11,13 claiming 81:10 claims 12:13 19:1 26:14 C 72:14 91:4 92:20,22 93:9 111:9 112:8 coach 52:10 53:17,20 54:2,12,18 102:24 coaching 51:11 106:10 code 86:2 codes 82:7,9,16,19 83:4, 15,24 84:18 85:1,20 86:13,15,22 87:2 91:14, 18 92:4,23 93:1,9 coffee 38:7 cold 40:16,19 concludes 60:23 conclusion 17:5 28:25 36:22 44:7,24 53:22 56:5,13 57:9 58:10,18 59:10 60:25 62:7,15 63:16,23 64:10 67:18 68:20 69:2,22 71:1,12,20 72:6,16 73:2,24 74:20 77:6,12,25 78:8 80:13 81:6,14,24 86:17 87:5,14 88:12 97:4 99:9,25 112:10,18 118:24 119:15 collects 39:12 conclusions 36:16 commitment 50:23 conduct 29:5,16 45:14 communicated 60:18 conducts 103:24 communication 22:6, conferred 97:21 99:6 20 49:17 54:8 communications 22:4 companies 108:5 company 10:10 24:12 34:18,23 35:9 39:14,18 45:10,11 66:14 82:1 company's 24:13 28:10, 14 confidential 47:23 60:5, 6,11,12,22 70:16 72:3, 13,24 74:5,11,17 100:15, 24 112:8,13 118:21 119:11,19,23 confidentiality 48:9 confirmed 82:6 89:24 confuse 24:9 51:14 compelled 40:13 confused 122:18 compensated 66:22 confusing 30:23 compensation 66:10 connected 101:10 67:9 68:12 complaint 13:14 22:14, 18,23 23:4 37:25 43:22 44:9 50:20 52:8,12,19, 20,23 53:5,14 70:11 74:9 80:2 83:18 84:1 93:17,20 94:4 111:2,5,12,19,23 120:20 123:25 102:24 connection 24:25 30:11 98:21 consequence 72:12 considers 47:23 110:15 consumer 39:20 60:13 calculated 28:5 clarify 7:5 31:19 100:4 call 19:1 20:7,14,20,22 clear 36:1 called 6:3 click 123:19 completely 29:24 contained 36:4 44:21 calling 109:21 111:3 clicks 101:8 compliant 35:13 contend 68:14 105:15 calls 17:4 28:24 41:6 client 24:24 25:21 27:2 Complies 38:3 49:14 44:6,23 46:8 49:18,21 50:21 51:11 52:1,9 53:16,19,21 54:8 56:13 57:8 58:10,18 59:9 60:24 62:6,14 63:15,22 67:18 68:20 69:1,21 71:1,11,20 72:6,16 73:2,23 74:20 77:6,12,25 78:8 80:12 81:6,14,24 83:5 86:17 53:17,20 60:12 clients 33:24 34:2 121:18 close 106:2 118:11 complete 7:3 33:13 75:9,17,20 52:24 64:24 comply 80:6,9,19 compound 16:17 24:6 29:21 30:1,24 59:9 closed 78:19 computer 60:14 closing 108:1 conclude 62:5 contact 101:9 contacted 102:19 117:13 119:19 continue 15:24 16:8 46:13 48:2 110:16 continues 55:3 contract 11:3 45:15,23 46:4 50:21,22 54:3,17,23 55:15 56:15 59:5,15 65:25 77:2,15 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 burden..contracti3 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 36 Index: of 47 PageID #: 1212 www.EliteReportingServices.com contracted 35:8 curious 48:4 decision 21:16,19,24 direction 21:13 contracting 34:22 current 55:9 decisions 27:12 directly 51:9 66:13 contracts 9:8 customer 24:24 25:15 defendant 25:9,10 26:6, dis- 123:9 contractual 34:18 84:14 conversation 22:1 108:14 113:20 114:4,14, 23 116:1,9,25 26:15 60:13 122:4 customers 26:19,21 30:17 31:5,9 122:22 123:1 124:4 conversations 103:1 105:3 113:8,18,19,24 114:2,5,9,15,17,18 117:5 copied 114:22 copy 33:7 60:10 125:7 corporate 36:4 37:16 39:1,18 59:10,12 62:16 70:13 106:21 correct 8:22 17:17 22:15,16 23:11,12,14,16, 18,25 24:4,13,15 26:11, 12 34:9,19,20 35:13,14, 18,20,22 38:18,19 41:22 43:23,24 52:10,14 53:8 56:3,7,11,22 57:3,4 58:5 61:5,6,15,22,23 63:10 64:8 65:22,23 66:16 68:15,16 70:9 74:12,13 75:4 76:22,25 77:16,17, 20,21 79:23,25 81:12 83:24 87:10 88:22,23 89:17 91:19,21 92:1,2,5, 8 100:9 101:2 102:2 108:10,15,16,19 111:25 115:2,3 116:9,12 118:15 119:12,16 123:1,9 correctly 25:2 28:7 costs 30:11,14 counsel 10:9 13:4 21:22, 25 22:5,7,19,21 32:25 110:13 113:4,7 114:14 115:11,12 couple 6:11 23:7 120:9 D d/b/a 7:16 53:3 65:16 Daily 18:8 damage 28:14 74:25 88:9,17 damaged 42:8 44:4 70:23 71:5 72:2 damages 25:11 27:20 28:1,3,5 30:3,9,11 42:14 43:13 44:4 73:16 88:3 damaging 38:1,18 68:14 Daniel 6:10 data 60:16 70:21 date 14:13 15:6 21:11 22:12 55:5,22 116:25 117:1 dates 114:1,3,8 Dave 10:16,19,21 17:16, 19 18:3,15,19,22 19:6 20:2 21:8,12,17,21,24 22:21,22 35:15,16 36:8 38:21 39:7,10 40:10,17, 19,20 41:4,5,7,9,12,16, 23 59:18 67:14,23 68:11 69:5 101:7 106:4,5,7,8 113:19 114:9,17,19 115:8 117:5 Dave's 94:22 David 65:20,21,24 67:8, 10 30:5 73:15 defendant's 25:1,6 29:5,16 73:12 defendants 6:11 29:4, 15,18,21,23 30:17 31:5, 9,13 50:15 100:24 defenses 12:13 disagree 14:3,9 16:2 26:7,8 55:23,25 71:7,14 73:4 96:11,16 101:25 102:4 disclose 39:11 124:2 disclosed 22:5 70:9 72:14 74:11 123:5,8 define 109:1 disclosing 12:12 defined 69:17 70:2 disclosure 68:12 70:23 definition 94:8,10 deliberate 90:18 92:12 deliberately 79:12,22 89:1,11,17,18 91:17 71:6,18 72:2,12,23 73:22 74:5 121:21,22 123:10 disclosures 11:14 12:1 13:8,12,21 14:12 15:5 28:4 29:14 demonstrate 117:14 discoverable 12:11 DEPONENT 125:19 discovered 40:12 deposed 6:13 116:23 discovery 29:17,24 46:6 deposition 8:3 13:9,22 discuss 18:15 106:7,14 14:21,23,24 15:21 16:6, 12 20:6,25 32:6,21 33:7 39:2 46:17,19 48:2,22 49:8 80:22 87:16 93:14 116:15,18 117:17 120:2 depositions 115:21 describe 28:4 51:23 101:6 102:17 describing 36:9 110:20 designated 15:17 81:25 83:7,21 86:6 97:24 110:25 117:18 desist 9:12 10:17 39:17 detail 28:5 details 116:4,22 121:4 115:17 discussed 18:19 61:24 106:11 115:18,24 119:11 124:5 discusses 112:12 discussing 72:4 106:8 120:24 discussion 18:9 discussions 115:25 dislike 19:10 Dismal 41:10 displayed 70:22 dispute 46:22 47:1 68:24 85:18 86:11 92:3 determined 69:18 70:2 distinguish 124:16 day 77:3 78:5 116:19,20 determining 90:17 document 11:8,9 12:2, days 23:7 100:22 developing 60:14 criticism 20:3 deal 108:8 109:13 digital 95:1,5,18,24 96:9, criticized 17:20 19:7 deceit 40:13 cup 38:6 December 44:19 cures 35:2 decided 121:4 court 6:18 14:14 15:7 16:5 20:7,8,14,20,23 30:14 110:14 118:9 23 22 97:20 98:11,15,17,19 99:15 100:9 direct 24:18 37:2,3 42:4 71:24 82:21 18,25 13:3,17 14:13 15:16 18:5 19:24 24:20 27:18 28:18 32:17 33:14, 19 39:4 41:14,19 42:1, 10,25 44:14,17 45:3,4 52:16,17 54:6 72:7 88:19 94:16,18 97:5,13 98:1,24 99:7 100:2,3 112:11 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: contracted..documenti4 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 37 of 47 PageID #: 1213 www.EliteReportingServices.com 120:12,17,21 121:1,8 documents 23:3,6 29:22 32:10,20 33:2,10 37:19 dollar 121:24 dollars 40:18 84:10 drafting 11:25 duly 6:3 53:1 ELP's 69:17 70:2 Excuse 40:24 ELPS 49:3 94:21 95:24 executed 77:4 79:11 factual 53:6 executing 49:22 96:4 failed 110:13 execution 81:21 93:12 failure 13:10 executive 21:17 53:2 fair 7:2 12:1 19:6 22:22 96:23 118:17 employed 7:13 8:12 9:10 10:9 105:3 115:12 employee 101:11,21 102:7,19 103:2,8 104:3, 11 105:3 108:14 employees 19:14 103:15 104:19,24 E e-mail 13:4,5 22:20 86:12,19 95:7 98:22 114:14,23 employment 9:13 end 49:7 55:8 58:8 59:7, 25 63:2 85:15 ends 59:15 e-mailed 33:6 engineer 60:10 e-mails 112:21 113:15, entered 46:10 80:5 83:2, 17 15 84:5,13 E-TRAN 125:8 entering 82:4 84:2 earlier 51:21 64:13 68:7 entire 21:22 24:3 29:12 106:11 118:5 121:5 earned 98:18 easier 6:19 entitled 16:3 30:5 38:21 39:7 45:3 94:16 109:15, 19 effect 14:14 entitles 112:7 effort 109:12,13 entity 7:23 efforts 107:10 essentially 39:11 electronically 60:18 estate 45:7,9 94:17 Eleny 86:11 elicit 48:16 ELP 11:3 25:1,7,9,10,12 27:5 30:4,6,12 35:6 36:9 45:4,7,22 46:3 47:4,22 49:13,23 51:4 53:18 60:7,8,13 61:3,4 62:4,11, 22 65:7 66:10 69:16 70:1,19 73:13,14,15 76:13 82:5,7 83:2,16,25 84:3,5 86:1,2,21 91:8 93:12 94:22 95:19 96:4, 10 97:11 98:10,14,20 99:12,14,15,22 100:7,8 101:4,8,9,12,22 102:8, 15,18,22,23 103:2,9,10, 16,25 104:4,12,20 105:4, 16 106:17 107:3 108:8, 22 112:6 118:5 119:18, 22,23 120:14 121:19 122:6,20 98:12 102:18 108:11 122:1 estimate 55:20 102:3,5 107:22 estimation 107:4 eternity 59:19 evaluating 103:24 event 49:19 54:9 60:6 evidence 92:24 93:1 exemplary 30:9 exercise 37:15 38:25 exhibit 11:19 12:24 13:1, 16,18 14:15 15:8,17 32:6,18 33:10,13,18,20 40:23 41:13,15,18,20,25 42:2 120:11,13,16,18,20, 22,24 121:2,7,9,14 false 23:14 35:19,25 36:13,20 37:10,23,25 38:17 68:14 79:13,21,22 82:7,9,16,19 83:3,15,24 84:2 87:11 90:7 91:7,12 92:19,23,24 93:2,7,11 falsified 36:10 exist 112:16 familiar 10:17 19:13 expect 106:4 expectations 45:14 expected 116:23 expiration 55:13 56:20 61:25 63:14,21 64:2 119:5 expire 99:7 expires 99:23 explain 20:10 expose 40:11,14 84:2 91:9 92:23 Exposed 35:15 40:10 41:24 expressed 58:3 97:18, 21 98:11 expressly 57:24 97:14 extent 15:1 38:25 50:17 59:13 70:14 110:12 117:20 22:23 101:3 102:14 familiarity 106:4 familiarize 19:21 fans 45:10 106:5 Fear 18:2 fee 25:8,12 30:3 39:12,14 40:15 45:12 69:6 72:18 73:14,17 feel 37:22 fees 30:11 31:15 66:6,14 67:15,24 121:19 122:19 124:2,3 felt 40:13 figure 51:15 59:6 121:24 122:4 file 14:16 filed 13:14 15:8 21:11,12 22:11,14 37:7 43:23 70:12 filing 35:13 37:13 extra 33:7 filings 37:13 F 104:8,16,24 105:2,10 117:1 exaggerated 36:9 Facebook 95:10 97:1 EXAMINATION 6:6 fact 36:3,20 93:21 94:4 exclusively 69:18 70:3 28:10,21 33:25 43:3 53:10 66:21 80:18 88:24 102:6 108:21 122:14 exhibits 14:17,20 125:16 exact 102:4 103:20 exchanged 112:21 105:15 112:22 100:22 fills 41:5 101:8 final 52:22 finally 41:23 find 15:5 123:12,17,19 factor 107:15,18 fine 30:21 facts 27:15 36:4,14 finish 6:16 85:9 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: documents..finishi5 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 38 of 47 PageID #: 1214 www.EliteReportingServices.com firm 65:8,15 firsthand 17:8 51:25 94:13 flip 25:4 Floyd 113:14,19 114:2,4, 6 115:7 116:8 folks 113:15 follow 122:1 111:11,23 117:10 guarantee 86:1 highlights 38:25 39:3 frequent 49:19 54:10 guess 21:10 105:6,11,14 hired 103:3,10,17 front 76:14 82:13 guessing 90:25 full 7:10 30:6 88:4 guidelines 122:2 fully 29:24 gun 18:22 future 78:18,19 81:1,3, Guru 18:3 11,20 93:10 G form 17:13,21 21:14 formal 45:15 format 86:14 125:11 forming 34:17 forms 98:13 foundation 8:18 9:15 10:15,25 13:23 14:5 19:8,16 21:15 22:25 23:21 34:25 36:16 45:25 66:2,8 67:4,19 69:9 79:3, 16 81:6 84:21 85:22 86:17 95:21 96:2,13 99:18 101:15 103:5,12, 19 106:20 107:6 108:25 highlighting 68:6 free 20:7 foregoing 53:5 22:24 24:5 26:16 28:16 29:6 32:23 34:24 35:21 36:15,21 41:5 42:16 45:16,24 46:5,24 47:6,10 49:24 50:4,12 52:11 56:4,12 57:8 58:9,17,25 59:8 63:4 64:18 65:5 66:1,7,17,23 67:2,17 68:19 69:1,8,21 70:4,10, 25 71:8,19 72:5,15 73:1, 8 74:19 75:6,10,18 77:5, 11,24 78:7 79:2 80:11,21 81:13,23 82:10,17,22 83:5,17 84:8,20 85:4,21 86:4,16,23 87:4,13 89:2, 5,12,20 90:4,13,20 91:1, 20,24 92:6,13 93:3,13,22 95:14,20 96:1,12 97:3,22 98:10,14 99:8,17,24 100:16 101:8,23 102:10 103:18 104:5 105:8,18 106:18,19 107:5,17 108:2,17,24 109:23 110:8,13,22 111:15 112:1,17,24 116:11 117:16 118:23 119:7,13, 25 122:10,16 123:3,13, 20 112:22 120:15 Galloway 6:2,8 7:12 13:8,10,12,20 52:16 53:1 70:11,13 109:24 110:24 Galloway's 33:15 52:12 117:18 game 12:1 gas 98:17 gave 8:21 37:1 40:1 82:7, 16,19 85:19 92:23 114:10,25 115:18,20 general 10:9 21:21,25 22:4,7,19,20 60:17 113:4 generated 37:4 121:19 generates 121:20 generating 101:4 generic 110:13 gist 80:8,16 81:4 give 6:16,21 84:16,17,25 113:13 118:7,12 giving 26:22 27:3,7,14 47:3 83:24 home 45:12 98:15,19 107:12,13 Horwitz 6:7,10 7:7,9 9:4, guys 115:19 H hand 37:4 80:2 hand-off 41:10 108:22 109:2,11,16,22 110:21 111:3 handed 11:8 13:3 17:25 24:20 27:18 33:6 45:3 94:16 handing 38:20 52:16 happen 91:6 happened 79:1 happy 20:21 harassing 13:24 14:6 18:12,24 19:9 20:12 51:20 52:4 92:16 hard 88:6 harm 28:9,14 117:14 harmed 71:14,18 head 6:22 57:12 61:8 helping 87:24 hereof 55:5 goal 39:19,21 Hey 20:24 good 6:8,9 102:3 108:1 hides 39:10 gossip 18:23 high 31:16 107:20,23 grants 98:1 highest 107:24 great 109:13 highlight 37:9,22,24 ground 6:11 group 7:15,16,21 8:9,13, 16 21:16,22 24:3 44:20 47:23 48:10 52:18 53:3 55:18 56:2,11 65:16 hiring 102:15 104:4 Holy 41:4 guy 39:19 gained 29:4,15 104:12,20 105:5 38:16 41:13,17,25 highlighted 13:5 38:21, 23 39:8 42:7,23 43:5,10 68:13 16,22 10:1,11,18 11:5, 20,22 12:5,7,23 13:2,15, 19 14:2,10,18 15:4,19,23 16:9,21 17:10,15,24 18:14,21 19:5,12,20 20:10,18,22 21:7,18 22:8 23:2,17 24:1,8 25:19,25 26:20 27:23,25 28:20 29:1,10 31:3 32:1,5,9,15, 19,24 33:3,9,12,17,21 34:7,14 35:7,23 36:12, 18,25 37:6,8,20 38:8,11, 13,15 39:5,23 40:7,22 41:1,11,16,23 42:3,12,19 43:2,8,17,21 44:2,11,18 45:2,20 46:2,21 47:2,8, 13,18 48:4,11,17,21,24 49:2,10,11 50:2,6,25 51:13,24 52:7,15 54:1, 15,21 56:8,16 57:10,13, 17 58:13,21 59:2,16,24 60:3 61:2,13,20 62:10,20 63:1,7,11,18,25 64:6,16, 21 65:10 66:5,9,15,20,24 67:7,13,22 68:3,23 69:4, 11,24 70:7,17 71:4,15,23 72:9,20 73:5,19 74:2,8 75:2,8,16,22 76:1,5,8,10, 12 77:1,8,14 78:3,10,20, 25 79:8,20 80:1,17,25 81:9,18 82:8,14,20,25 83:12 84:4,9,15,24 85:6, 9,12,17,25 86:9,20 87:1, 8,19,25 88:14,20 89:3,9, 16 90:1,11,16,24 91:13, 22,25 92:9,25 93:8,18 94:1,9,15 95:17,23 96:3, 7,18 97:7 98:4 99:5,11, 21 100:6,21 101:17 102:1,13 103:7,14,22 104:9,17,25 105:12 106:15 107:2,8,19 108:6, 20 109:3,9,20,25 110:3, 5,8,19 111:4,18 112:5, 14,20 113:2 116:13 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 39 of 47 PageIDfirm..Horwitzi6 #: 1215 www.EliteReportingServices.com 117:7,12,23 118:2,3,14, 16 119:2,10,17 120:4,8, 14,19,23 121:3,10,17 122:13,21 123:7,16,24 124:18,23 125:5 hours 12:3 housekeeping 32:2 120:9 hub 70:19 102:23 Huh-uh 78:12 human 65:21,24 67:8,15, 23 indicating 11:11 39:25 50:7 57:1 61:7 88:1 100:3 indication 88:16 individual 12:10 26:18 43:12 101:7,9 Individually 40:25 individuals 113:3,11 infiltrate 35:6 infiltrated 40:10 82:7 24 hundred 74:12,15 hundreds 47:9 48:5 61:4 Hunt 18:3 I ice 40:16,19 idea 34:8 105:7 identify 24:22 27:19 28:1 53:18 124:9 idiot 39:16 impeachment 12:14 implies 47:21 109:11 improper 15:24 16:3 48:6 91:8 92:22 information 10:13 12:11,12 13:13 20:3 24:14 29:17,19,23,25 41:7 46:6,7,8 47:24 60:5, 7,11,12,17,22 65:13 70:16,18,20,24 71:6,18 72:3,13,24 74:5,11,16 75:23 82:13 100:15,25 105:24 106:16,24 111:10 112:8,13 118:21 119:11, 19,24 122:5 123:12,17, 19 124:20 81:11,20 87:12 89:15 93:10 interest 30:13 interested 17:19 30:15 107:11 internal 18:9 60:15 interpretation 97:4 interrogatories 23:18, 22 75:4,24 120:10 interrogatory 23:8 24:19,22 27:23 29:3,12, 21 30:1 42:5,6,20 71:25 72:2,11,22 73:6,11 88:8, 15 interrupt 6:17,18 interrupting 85:13 interview 106:5 interviewed 102:19 involved 7:25 8:16 17:8 involves 124:1 initial 11:14 14:12 15:5 injured 87:2,7,9 irrelevant 30:24 46:15 injuries 87:20 issue 48:20 49:9 59:11 inside 18:2 40:12 67:15,25 68:17,22 96:20 117:15 118:9,12 issues 46:18 62:16 in- 70:20 insisting 47:25 inadvertent 13:11 instance 100:23 include 13:10,12 26:15 instruct 48:12,18 49:6 Jack 6:2 7:12 53:1 instructed 118:6 jacket 38:4 instructing 20:19 47:18, Jr 6:2 7:12 34:17 35:5 54:11 60:12 98:14 included 22:7 95:6 114:13 including 77:3 95:9 96:24,25 98:15 102:23 113:4 income 40:17 incomplete 37:13 incorrect 124:16 indemnification 55:11 56:18 119:4 independently 106:16, 20 integrity 27:9,10 87:23 intended 80:6,9,19 J Judge 19:2 20:14 K intending 48:16 intent 40:11 intention 55:7 82:3 107:13 intentionally 91:8 92:22 124:17 intentions 34:22 35:10 knowledge 7:18 8:9 10:24 13:20,25 14:6,8,11 16:23 17:2,7,9,11 21:9 22:19 23:5,19 24:4,13,14 27:5 30:16 31:4,8,12,17, 20 33:23 34:21 35:1,4,9 36:3 37:16 43:16,18 44:20 49:21 50:9 51:2,8, 16,22,23,25 53:6,9 55:14 69:25 71:17 82:15 85:3, 8,18,24 86:10,19 87:7 90:9 91:10 92:3 93:19,21 94:3,5,8,14 100:5 106:23 117:4 119:1 120:3 124:8, 16 L interrupted 85:15 involving 22:4 inquiry 121:12 knew 115:21 Kevin 26:2,3,6 34:15 46:23 59:17 65:2,7,8,9 72:14,24 83:2,16 84:6 86:12 87:3 88:22,25 91:14 110:20 120:15 122:14,19 kind 41:8 66:10 105:20 lack 19:15 23:20 66:2,7 67:3,18 69:9 79:16 81:5 84:20 85:21 99:17 101:14 103:4,11,18 106:19 108:24 lacks 96:12 Lamper 7:16 Lampo 7:15,16,21 8:9, 12,16 13:7,11 22:17 24:3,23 26:13 42:22 43:4,9 44:3,20 47:23 48:10 49:22 52:18 53:3 55:18 56:2,10 65:16 70:23 71:5,17 72:1,11, 14,21 73:20 74:4,18 76:21 77:9,16 78:6,13, 15,22 79:10 81:2,10 84:17,25 85:19 86:1,21 87:2,7,9 88:16 89:4,11 93:2,11 97:21 98:21 99:16 100:15 101:12,21 102:7,20 103:2,9,15,24 104:3,11,19 105:3 108:14,21 109:21 110:20,21 112:7,8,22 117:4 119:23 120:15 121:20 122:8 124:1,19 Lampo's 25:1 72:10 88:9 94:3 99:13 101:3 102:14 105:16 111:1 117:13 120:19 language 123:6 large 106:1 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 hours..largei7 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 40 of 47Index: PageID #: 1216 www.EliteReportingServices.com late 55:20 Linkedin 95:10 97:1 late-filed 14:15,16 15:8, list 26:24 27:8,11 60:13 17 98:9 102:20 law 30:9 36:22 68:11 110:12 laws 68:7 lawyer 112:2 lead 41:4 70:21 101:12, 21,22 102:8 leadership 21:17 113:12 leads 40:16,19 101:4 108:13,22 listed 12:16 13:7 26:11 28:3,21 29:8 64:25 65:15,18 95:12 listing 86:15 lists 72:17 litigation 7:25 8:17 9:7,9 10:21,23 11:3 17:17,19 21:9,10,12 26:23 67:16, 25 68:18 112:23 113:9, 21 114:9,17 115:1 117:8 LLC 52:18 53:3 legal 17:5 28:24 44:7,24 local 98:18 lesson 18:23 letter 39:18 letters 9:12 liars 88:3 license 57:24 95:2,6,19, 25 96:9,23 97:14,20 99:6,16 100:9 makes 91:5,7 110:13 making 32:13 109:25 122:8 managing 64:25 65:3,8, leave 14:23 53:22 56:5,13 57:9 58:10,18 59:9 60:25 62:7,15 63:16,23 64:9 67:18 68:20 69:2,22 71:1,11,20 72:6,16 73:2, 24 74:20 77:6,12,25 78:8 80:13 81:6,14,24 86:17 87:5,14 88:12 97:4 99:9, 25 112:10,18 113:7 115:11,12 118:24 119:15 33:9,12,17 39:1 40:22 41:11 53:1 57:25 66:11 91:6 92:20 96:23 97:15 107:10 118:9 120:9,14, 19,23 121:6 located 123:23 log-in 102:23 logo 94:22 long 8:12 19:25 76:3,5 103:8 104:11 105:24 116:1 longer 10:9 56:2,10 100:8 115:12 loophole 68:7,11 loopholes 39:10 lose 43:9 lost 24:23,25 26:14,21 27:2,6,13 42:22 43:4,16 44:3,4,20 72:12,23 73:21 74:4,18 88:16 18 66:4 mark 14:21 113:14,19 114:2,4,6 115:7 116:8 marked 13:1,18 14:22 15:17 32:18 33:20 41:15, 20 42:2 120:13,18,22 121:2,9 marketing 58:1 60:15,16 95:2,5,19,25 96:9,23 97:16,20 98:8,13 99:16 100:9 marks 58:3 97:18 material 58:1 97:16 materials 102:23 Matt 10:8 113:5,9 matter 6:11 7:19 8:17 13:14 22:14 23:8 26:14 27:3,7,15 43:23 70:12 119:20 121:7 matters 90:7 120:9 meaning 109:16 meaningful 53:15 mentioned 17:16 33:22 35:12 54:2 57:2,5,14 82:6 88:21 108:12 mentioning 59:18 Message 35:16 39:7 41:16 met 116:17 metrics 60:16 mid 55:20 middle 95:2 million 40:18 mind 31:1 38:6 67:5 83:10 93:24 109:1 minutes 53:25 76:6,7 116:3 120:4 mischaracterizing 87:11 misleading 37:13 misrepresentations 79:10 misrepresented 81:11 89:15 misrepresenting 91:18 mistake 13:11 Mitch 51:10 116:20 moment 17:16 19:21 28:9 33:22 77:3,19 money 18:2 31:18,20 39:12,15 84:14 licensure 106:24 lot 6:19 105:24 109:12 meaningfully 53:16 Montana 9:3 lied 81:21 82:3 88:25 loud 24:11 means 17:7 109:4 month 77:16 78:14 lunch 76:2,9 media 18:3 95:9,12 monthly 25:8,12 30:3 89:11 lies 36:8 40:13 90:19 92:12 life 6:19 lying 81:3 124:6,9,17 M likeness 58:2 94:22 97:17 limit 15:20 limited 95:1,5,10,18,24 96:9 97:1 98:16 lines 49:17 54:7 link 125:15 96:25 98:15,18 Meet 65:8 months 8:14,15 77:22 meeting 21:19,22 22:9 morning 6:8,9 114:23 115:7,17 made 18:8 19:1,13 21:19,23 27:11 35:20 36:7 44:5 66:25 67:10 77:23 79:11,13,21,22 81:2 90:3,10 93:11 109:12 Maintain 49:17 54:7 make 6:18 16:7 24:11 72:18 73:14,17 meetings 18:18,20 members 112:22 113:12 memory 22:1 82:11 move 21:4 46:17,18 48:13,20 49:8,10 79:9 multiple 92:14,15 119:8, 14 93:17 mention 16:10 54:6,12, N 18 named 25:15,21 26:2,10, Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index:#: late..namedi8 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 41 of 47 PageID 1217 www.EliteReportingServices.com 19 names 26:24 27:8,11 39:21 113:13 nature 9:7 20:10 124:2 needed 29:23 negatively 61:8 network 40:11 networks 98:18 nods 57:12 note 13:9 notice 32:5,11 55:7 59:12 noticed 105:21 November 55:20 number 12:10 13:1,18 15:18 24:19,24 32:18 33:20 41:15,20 42:2,5 47:3 71:25 72:22 73:7 102:4 103:21 104:8,24 105:3,11,13 106:1 120:13,18,22 121:2,9,15, 16 numbers 36:8 118:14 O 25 59:8,20 60:1,24 61:16 62:6,14,24 63:4,5,9,15, 22 64:4,9,18,19 65:5 66:1,7,12,17,23 67:2,11, 17 68:1,19 69:1,8,21 70:4,10,25 71:8,19 72:5, 15 73:1,8,23 74:6,19 75:6,10,18,19 76:23 77:5,11,24 78:7,16,23 79:2,14,24 80:11,21 81:5,13,23 82:10,17,22 83:5,17 84:8,20 85:4,21 86:4,16,23 87:4,13,21 88:11,18 89:2,5,12,20 90:4,13,20 91:1,2,20,24 92:6,13 93:3,13,22 94:6, 11 95:14,20 96:1,5,12 97:3,22 98:25 99:8,17,24 100:16 101:14,23 102:10 103:4,11,18 104:5,13,21 105:8,18 106:19 107:5, 17 108:2,17,24 109:6,17, 23 110:4,13,14,16,22 111:15 112:1,9,17,24 116:11 117:6,9,16,25 119:7,13,25 122:10,16 123:3,13,20 124:12,21 objections 11:6 15:24 16:3,4,7 29:9 35:2 110:1, 15 objectively 36:13,20 objects 29:20 oath 23:10,14 53:1 100:23 object 10:4 14:17,18,25 15:11 37:12 38:24 79:15 110:8 118:23 objected 29:18 46:6,7 objection 8:18 9:15,21, 25 10:14,25 11:18 13:23 14:5 15:10 16:17 17:4, 13,21 18:11,17,24 19:8, 15 20:4,11,18,23 21:14 22:24 23:15,20 24:5 25:16,22 26:16 28:16,22 29:6,8,9,13 30:2,19 31:22 32:13,23 34:5,11, 24 35:21 36:15,21 38:2 39:9 40:6 42:9,16,24 43:6,11,19,25 44:6,13,23 45:16,24 46:5,24 47:6,10 49:24 50:4,12 51:5,18 52:3,11 53:21 54:13,19 56:4,12 57:6,15 58:9,17, obligation 59:15,25 62:12 69:20 obligations 55:12 56:2, 10,19 58:7,15 59:7 62:4, 22 63:2 80:7,19 119:4 occurred 9:5 75:1 October 55:23 100:11, 14,25 operating 17:1 parties 60:10 68:24 opinion 109:16 parties' 58:7 opportunity 84:18 85:1, parts 56:14,17 19 99:12 118:4,8,10,13 orally 60:19 order 46:10,16,17 48:20 49:8 125:3 organic 95:7 96:23 past 8:15 outlined 45:12 pay 39:14 77:16 outlines 98:2 payment 55:11 56:19 outset 43:23 owe 78:5,15,22 84:14 owed 28:2,6 84:7 119:4 payments 77:23 78:9 pays 31:15 people 22:1 39:17 47:22 P 74:12,15,24 87:24 88:4 109:15 114:21,22 package 94:21 people's 39:20 Paffrath 11:3 26:2,7 percent 101:20 102:7 31:17,20 33:23 34:15 44:22 46:23 49:22 50:10, 15 51:2,9,16 52:1,9 53:15,19 54:17 56:3,10 58:22 59:17 65:2,8,9 70:8 72:14,25 77:16 78:4,14,22 79:11,12 80:6,9,18 81:2,10,21 83:2,14,16 84:6,7,17 85:1,19 86:12 87:3 88:2, 22,25 89:10 91:14 93:10 95:18 96:8 100:12,14 109:21 110:20 111:1 120:15 122:15 124:1,6,9 Paffrath's 26:3 27:9 44:5 81:19 office 116:18 paid 95:8 96:24 98:14, 16,18 paragraph 30:15 53:13 80:3 95:1 one-year 55:6 parameters 98:8 online 19:7 20:3 88:2 part 11:11,12 16:12 106:18 pass 124:24 other's 58:2 97:17 offered 20:2 113:24 114:2,8,15,16,18 117:5 57:25 58:5,15 76:17,21 77:18 97:15 99:15 100:25 passive 40:17 98:22 pages 31:16 one-to-one 18:20 party 12:12 55:7,9,14 52:19 61:21 95:19 96:10 open 49:17 54:7 participate 53:16,19 operate 82:5 participated 11:25 107:22,25 108:13 percentage 101:18 perfectly 30:21 perform 81:3 performance 81:3 permission 58:3 94:21 97:6,8,19,21 98:1,2,12, 23 100:2 permitted 98:21 person 19:11 102:21 104:4 105:24 personal 14:6 16:23 17:2,7 24:4 30:16 31:4,8, 12,17,19 33:23 34:21 35:1,4,9 36:3 37:16 43:15 50:9 51:2,8,16,22 53:5 71:17 82:15 85:2,5, 18,23 86:10,18 87:6 91:10 92:3 93:19,21 94:2,5,8 106:22 124:8,15 personally 17:8 51:15 88:22 persons 46:22 perspective 39:22 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 names..perspectivei9 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page Index: 42 of 47 PageID #: 1218 www.EliteReportingServices.com phone 41:6 49:21 52:1 preparing 115:20 phrased 117:18 presence 98:11 piece 9:9 19:25 present 115:15 pitch 40:15 presented 23:21 place 13:22 15:20 22:10 president 53:2 114:24 plaintiff 7:18,22 13:21 25:7,11 29:3,14,16,20, 22,25 30:2,4 42:14 46:9 47:23 50:16 53:4 70:12 73:13,16 100:23 plaintiff's 11:12,13 14:12 28:4 29:13,24 31:5 100:24 plans 60:14 platforms 95:9,13 96:25 point 20:7 79:16 106:9 125:4 pointed 37:12 poor 21:20 41:5 portion 13:5 23:23 30:22 60:20 portions 38:16,22 39:8 posed 118:5 position 30:1 58:22 59:17 62:11,21 83:1,13 98:20 110:17 positive 113:22 post 95:8 post-judgment 30:13 posted 96:19 posts 96:24 98:22 potential 122:20 practices 106:9 pre-judgment 30:13 precise 47:3 predicate 79:14 predicatory 124:13 preface 30:19 124:7 preparation 115:24 116:15 prepare 116:18 press 58:1 97:16 pretenses 84:2 pretty 18:25 prevented 29:22 previous 59:21 previously 8:21 37:7 61:4,24 89:10,14 103:23 124:4 prior 13:21 14:13 15:6 34:17 81:21 88:24 93:11 100:14,25 104:4,12,19 105:4,16 106:17 108:13,22 121:18 protect 16:7 protective 46:10,15,17 48:20 49:8 provide 60:21 64:2 69:16,25 75:9,17 118:20 provided 15:18 44:14 46:10 57:24 83:14 84:19 85:20 93:2 96:9 97:14 provision 54:11,16 58:8, 16,23 60:20 62:3,12,22 63:19 76:17 88:9 112:6, 15 public 18:8 57:25 60:17 R 97:15 process 39:13 40:14 publish 33:24 published 30:18 31:6, 10,14,21 44:22 119:20 produce 13:9 pulled 18:22 producing 29:18 33:15 punitive 30:8 production 120:10 pure 34:10 products 60:15 pursuant 30:12 66:11,25 11,19 47:22 79:6 82:4,7 84:2 91:8 92:22 121:19 67:10 put 62:15 109:13 puts 40:17 putting 41:7 promotional 94:17,25 120:24 Q qualification 41:8 qualifications 102:20 promotions 95:8 96:24 qualified 105:1 promptly 49:9 quality 36:10,19 109:12, proper 48:5 proprietary 46:8 47:24 60:6,11 70:16 74:24 prospective 101:21 102:8,15 103:2,9,16,25 radio 9:3,8 98:17 Ramsey 7:14,16,22 10:19,21 17:17,19 18:16, 22 19:6 20:2 21:8 22:21, 22 30:8,10 35:15,16,17 36:8 38:21 39:7 40:10,11 41:4,5,12,17,24 53:3 60:6,11,15 65:16,20,21, 24 67:8,14,24 68:11 69:5,15,18,25 70:3 80:5 98:10,14 101:7 106:4,5, 7,8 113:19 114:9,17,19 117:5 Ramsey's 18:3 21:12 40:17,19,20 41:7,9 49:18 54:9 59:18 69:19 rate 107:15,20 108:1 programs 60:14 prohibited 59:18 quickly 16:6 quotes 37:2,3 publicity 57:24 97:14 program 25:1 35:6 36:9, 16:13 20:16 21:1,4 85:9 110:9 111:11,22 116:4,6, 7 118:2,5,7 124:23,25 PTX 125:11,12 publication 34:3 117:14 profits 29:4,15 66:16 questions 6:7 10:2 quote 82:21 124:3 proceed 20:16,25 21:6 profited 31:13 questioning 46:14,18 provisions 55:10 56:18 privileged 22:5 101:3,6 102:14,17 103:24 105:23 106:5 107:14 22 31:2 32:12 46:12 47:17,19 48:1,5,6,12,16 50:14,18 51:1 59:4,9,21 61:19 62:19 67:6,21 71:13,16 72:21 77:13 79:7,15 82:23 83:6,9,11, 20 84:23 85:15 87:14 89:8 93:25 99:14 100:13 122:19 124:7 13 quarter 49:20 50:11 51:3,17 52:2 54:10 question 6:15,16,17,20, 24 7:4 15:2,3,14 16:14, 22 20:5,9 24:7,21 27:19, re-ask 24:7 62:18 67:5, 21 77:13 83:10 89:7 93:24 118:7 read 11:9,15,22 12:2,8 13:5 18:1 20:1 24:21 25:2,4 27:19,22 28:7 29:11 38:22 39:8 42:8 49:15 52:17,25 53:4,13 54:4,11 55:2 57:19 60:4, 21 69:14 73:6,9 80:3 95:4 98:5,6 110:7 125:1 reading 7:2 19:19 24:10 27:22 56:23 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 phone..readingi10 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 43 ofIndex: 47 PageID #: 1219 www.EliteReportingServices.com ready 7:7 reflect 43:3 request 118:4 real 45:7,9 94:17 98:12 reflected 69:6 requests 29:25 120:10 refused 53:15 required 50:21 51:12 102:18 108:11 122:1 realize 41:2 reason 14:3 23:13 55:23, 25 71:7 96:10,15 reasons 49:5 recall 44:3,12,16 68:6 113:14 114:3,8 115:23 116:4 117:1 121:25 123:10,11 receive 30:5 66:6 68:12 86:2 received 25:8 31:20 66:14 73:13 receives 67:9,15,24 124:4 receiving 31:17 50:22 102:25 106:12,13 recently 114:10,25 recognize 45:4 94:17 recollection 21:20,21 35:25 68:9 record 7:11 8:25 11:23 15:20 16:4,7 20:7 27:19, 22 36:2 37:7 38:9,14,23 39:8 42:8 49:6,16 76:11 120:8 recover 30:8,10 refer 7:21 reference 98:21 referenced 26:6 28:9 90:7 references 88:9 referral 45:12 66:6,13 67:15,24 69:6,15,16 70:1 106:7,8 108:9,11 referrals 50:22 78:18,21 102:25 106:1,12,14 107:11 108:8 109:12 121:18 referred 83:14 87:9 122:6 referring 65:12 83:3 97:12 101:4,12,22 102:8 regard 31:13 regular 49:18 54:8 related 20:3 68:7,24 relationship 34:18 52:10 53:17,20 54:2,12, 18 106:11 release 58:1 97:16 relevance 13:24 14:7 18:11,25 20:12 46:7 relevant 13:12,13 20:15 21:5 remember 40:1 62:1 93:16 121:23 remind 22:3 remove 85:20 86:13 renew 55:5 60:8 reserve 124:25 respect 28:6 34:22 42:20 46:14 66:25 respond 29:24 response 6:21 7:8 29:2 33:15 72:10,22 responses 23:8 37:1 75:3,9,17,20 120:11 responsive 75:24 restate 99:13 reporter 14:14 15:7 32:12,16 41:22 45:18 57:12 121:15 125:3,6,9, 12,14,17 reporter's 6:19 reports 60:15 represent 6:10 representative 36:5 37:17 51:10 59:11,12 62:16 70:13 81:15 83:19 84:12 86:5,24 90:5,21 93:4 99:1 100:18 106:21 representatives 50:24 represented 14:4 26:5 55:22 82:4 84:25 96:8 representing 115:14 reputation 28:10,15 67:10 107:15,21 sap 41:5 scam 36:10 screens 98:19 seal 37:7 search 98:16 secondhand 17:9,11 43:18 51:22,23 94:13 secrets 70:9,15 72:3,13, 6,14 29:4,15 30:18 31:6, 9,13,21 33:24 34:3 42:22 43:4,9 44:21 72:23 73:12,21 74:5 section 11:15,19 12:8,16 return 60:21 112:7,13 64:10 92:16 sales 40:15 66:11,25 result 25:1,6 26:22 27:3, renewed 55:8 repetitious 51:19 52:4 sale 121:20 122:9 secret 73:22 74:17 resulting 28:14 repeat 15:3 31:1 SAITH 125:19 restricted 95:6 98:9,13 renewal 56:24,25 rep 39:1 S 118:21 119:23 returns 117:13 revenue 117:24 reverse 60:10 review 23:3 102:20 106:12 reviews 18:5 19:24 28:18 33:14 42:10,25 54:6 72:7 88:19 97:13 112:11 revoked 100:4 Riddle 51:10 116:20 rise 26:22 27:3,7,14 24 74:10 28:3 29:13 30:12 55:2,11 56:18,22,24 57:2,5,14, 19,20,21,23 59:7 60:4,5 61:14,19,22,24 62:5 63:12,13,20 64:2,7 65:12,19 69:12,13,15 76:16 95:4 98:5,7 99:22 119:3,12 secure 112:7 securing 98:23 seek 14:23 seeking 29:25 seeks 25:11 29:3,14 30:3,8,10 73:16 sell 45:11 selling 107:12,13 send 14:13 15:7 39:17 45:10 86:14 109:12 roughly 94:20 sensitive 46:9 60:7 rule 11:12,13 13:8,21 sentence 56:25 69:14 29:14 43:12 80:22 83:19 87:15 89:21 90:5 100:17 105:19 110:6,23 117:17 120:2 rules 6:12 11:13 16:4 122:2 sentences 98:7 separate 28:2 serve 107:10 served 59:12 service 41:10 86:3 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 ready..servicei11 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 44 ofIndex: 47 PageID #: 1220 www.EliteReportingServices.com 108:9,22 109:2,16,22 110:21 111:3 services 69:17 70:1 set 53:6 shakes 61:8 shaking 6:22 small 101:19 state 7:10 16:4 110:16 Smartvestors 39:14 stated 49:6 59:21 64:14 smokes 41:4 statement 37:10 58:1 Snapchat 95:11 97:2 social 18:3 95:8,9,12 96:23,25 98:16,22 share 39:22 software 74:25 shared 100:14,24 solely 12:14 shares 60:6 Solutions 7:14,17,22 sharing 45:12 60:8 short 38:12 120:7 121:11 Shortly 22:11 show 32:2 showed 70:19 sign 45:22 125:1 signage 94:23 signatures 95:7 98:22 signed 24:10 46:3,23 47:4 49:4 53:10 61:5 78:5,14 118:18 signing 50:21 signs 122:5 simply 39:14 41:9 Sims 113:22 114:20 sincere 39:21 singing 51:4 single 26:15,25 sir 7:13 11:8 12:15 13:3 17:16 18:4 23:3,7 25:2 26:5 27:17 29:2 30:16 32:10 33:22 34:15 35:24 38:16 42:4 43:22 45:3 46:22 49:12,21 50:9 51:1,14 52:8 53:13 54:3, 12,22 55:14 56:17 60:4, 20 64:22 68:6 69:25 70:8 71:24,25 72:10 74:9 75:3 76:13 88:1,7,15,21 94:16 97:20 98:20 100:11 103:23 117:13 118:17 sit 12:1 18:20 sitting 19:18 53:3 65:17 sort 105:25 sought 29:17 68:6,10,13,25 74:24 79:15 91:6,7,11 92:24 97:16 124:13 statements 35:20,24 36:7 37:22,24 42:7,15,23 43:5,10 44:5,21 79:13, 22,23 81:19 82:18 87:11 90:2,10,12,17 91:3,11,23 92:11,18 93:6,11 117:24 124:5 states 24:22 29:3,14 30:23 84:1 110:7,12 sound 24:16 station 9:3 98:18 spaghetti 40:20 stepping 39:19 speak 80:15 101:12 stick 40:21 103:16 104:19 speaking 51:9 103:9 110:1,4 speaks 101:21 102:7 104:3,11 specific 27:20 28:1 37:9 123:8 specifically 108:7 111:3 115:23 123:11 speculation 9:21 10:14 11:1 17:22 21:15 22:25 34:10,12,25 66:2 67:3,18 69:9 71:10 77:6 78:8 103:5,12,19 109:18 117:6,9 122:17 123:21 124:21 spend 19:2 53:24 103:9 spent 50:23 115:19 Spies 18:2 spoken 15:23 34:15 88:22 staff 41:9 stamp 39:15 standard 45:15 start 21:4 121:14 started 6:12 starts 121:15 suing 35:17 38:22 41:12 111:1 suite 94:17,25 120:24 supplement 13:11 support 12:13 106:1 survive 55:12 56:15,20 61:25 63:14,20 64:7,15 119:5 survives 64:2 sustain 20:23 sustained 28:2,6 Suzanne 113:22 114:20 swore 100:22 sworn 6:4 53:1 T stipulate 11:19 stop 21:3 85:12 109:25 110:9 strategies 60:16 structure 40:15 stuff 21:4 111:19 subject 29:8 30:2 82:2 83:8 86:7 90:22 93:15 97:5 100:19 taking 13:22 91:9 talk 20:8 22:17 106:6 116:15,22 talked 116:14 121:5,6 talking 7:22 12:17,19 61:21 65:3 122:22 tarnishes 88:5 tax 117:13 subjects 12:11 46:14 teach 18:23 submit 106:17 team 49:18 54:9 105:25 submitted 85:2 87:3 92:4 113:12 telephone 12:10 24:24 subpoena 32:3 33:16 television 98:17 subsection 12:20 telling 96:16 success 41:10 70:21 Ten 116:3 107:16 successful 107:3,9,15, 21,25 121:20 successfully 107:14 successive 55:6 suck 40:18,19 sued 8:7,10 9:2 109:21, 24 110:20 suggested 89:23 tender 12:23 13:15 14:14 32:6 33:13 term 25:9,12 30:4,6 55:4, 9 56:24,25 73:14,17 terminate 55:9,15,19 76:18 77:19 terminated 56:1 58:14, 24 62:23 76:22 77:3 78:4,13 79:5 99:14 100:8 119:22 slap 39:20 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 45 of services..terminatedi12 47 PageID #: 1221 www.EliteReportingServices.com terminates 62:13 termination 55:13 56:9, 15,20,24,25 61:25 63:14, 21 64:3 99:23 118:22 119:6 terms 26:13 55:6 terrible 36:11,19 territory 69:17 70:2 test 82:11 testified 6:4 8:3,5 89:14 90:6 testify 71:10 89:10 testifying 43:12 testimony 88:25 90:2 text 37:5 thing 39:6 40:5 things 70:21 106:6,25 116:22 thinking 71:11 thinks 20:15 thought 124:6 thousand 74:12,15 110:23 117:17 total 72:18 106:3 trade 70:9,15 72:3,13,24 73:22 74:10,17 traffic 31:16 transactions 106:2 38:20 39:6 41:12,17,24 68:7 transcripts 37:5 38:17 trial 8:5 125:1 true 23:18 24:13 53:8 90:3,10,12,18 91:4 92:11 101:20 110:11 111:14 times 16:13 92:14,15 104:3 119:8,14 title 11:9 18:1 52:17 titles 39:21 today 11:4 14:21 19:18 32:22 33:1,2 115:20 today's 14:13 15:6 V vague 16:17 17:22 28:17 30:23 45:16,19 46:25 47:7 61:16 67:3 70:5 74:20 79:3 80:12 81:6 93:23 109:17 112:24 vaguely 19:17 94:19 verbally 35:5 turn 27:17 49:12 52:22 verification 24:10,11 type 20:8 types 70:21 30:23 75:12 verified 13:14 22:13 23:10,22 24:2 29:2 43:22 52:19,20 53:5,14 74:9,10 75:3,7,11,14 80:2,3 94:4 111:5,7,13,24 120:20 verify 23:7 30:22 53:2 U 106:16,23 112:3 verifying 22:17 23:4 Uh-huh 15:22 122:7 125:9,14 unavailable 50:20 unaware 100:23 Unbeknownst 80:5 version 46:4 versus 106:8 124:10 vet 39:13 vetting 39:13 40:14 102:15 103:24 105:16 unclear 65:11 vice 53:2 understand 6:25 48:24 video 35:5,15,16,17 49:1 61:18 62:8 66:3 68:21 understanding 17:2 50:19 51:21 99:4,19 100:10 Todd 116:18 told 16:12 115:23 116:17 unduly 51:19 52:4 64:10 92:15 top 56:23 61:21 uniquenesses 106:7 topic 79:9 86:6 105:20 unreasonable 48:8 wait 40:17 waived 110:15,18 walk 92:10 Tuesday 116:19,20 understood 7:3 122:19,25 updates 114:10 truth 96:17 throwing 40:20 76:2,18 92:10 95:1,5 98:8,12 101:18,20 102:7 104:16 115:19,24 124:25 15:6 vendor 60:13 49:3 118:17 time 15:20 19:2 50:20,23 updated 13:21 14:12 variation 50:13 Twitter 95:10 97:1 W update 115:1,19,20 trust 27:9,11 87:23 88:5 54:22 57:18 64:22 69:12 94:24 VP 98:12 92:21 transcript 6:23 7:2 thousands 47:14 48:6 til 124:25 untrue 74:23,24 91:10 38:17,21 39:7 40:8 61:10 70:19 82:5,18,21 89:24, 25 90:12 videos 23:5 30:18 31:6, 10,14,21 33:24 34:3 35:12,20,25 37:2 44:5,22 90:3,7,18 91:23 92:11 96:19 117:15 124:6 views 39:21 wall 40:21 wanted 82:4 88:4 115:22 wanting 125:3 watched 35:12 website 41:7 98:10 101:8 121:21 122:5 123:6,12,18,23 Wednesday 116:21 week 41:6 114:11,25 115:9,22 117:2 what'll 40:21 Witch 18:3 withdraw 45:21 71:16 84:17,18 85:1 100:13 withdrawn 62:4 74:14 81:1 99:13 withheld 75:23 work 106:3 worked 88:6 write 75:21 writing 60:18 written 58:3 97:18,21 98:11 wrong 122:3 124:10 wrongful 29:5,16 Y y'all 7:7 33:3 76:1 year 40:18 55:4 113:6 years 8:14,15 Youtube 23:5 27:10 31:15 37:4 95:10,12 96:19 97:1 117:15 visiting 123:18 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: terminates..Youtubei13 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 46 of 47 PageID #: 1222 www.EliteReportingServices.com Z ZIP 82:7,9,16,19 83:4,15, 24 84:18 85:1,20 86:2, 13,15,22 87:2 91:14,18 92:4,23 93:1,9 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: ZIP..ZIPi14 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-4 Filed 11/05/19 Page 47 of 47 PageID #: 1223 www.EliteReportingServices.com THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, et al. vs. PAFFRATH, et al. STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE October 30, 2019 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1224 Page 3 ·1· · · ·2· ·3· · · ·4 · · ·5 · · ·6 · · ·7· · · ·8 · · ·9· 10 11 12 13 14· 15· 16· · · 17 18 19 20 21 · · 22 · · 23· · · 24· · · 25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · · · · ·FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT NASHVILLE ·________________________________________________________________ ·THE LAMPO GROUP, LLC, D/B/A ·RAMSEY SOLUTIONS, · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Case No. 3:18-CV-01402 · ·KEVIN HELMUT PAFFRATH, THE · ·PAFFRATH ORGANIZATION, and · ·MEETNDONE CORPORATION, · · · · · · · ·Defendants. · ·________________________________________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Deposition of: ·STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE ·Taken on behalf of the Defendants ·October 30, 2019 · ·________________________________________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Elite Reporting Services www.elitereportingservices.com · · Sarah N. Linder, LCR · · ·Post Office Box 292382 · Nashville, Tennessee 37229 · · · · (615)595-0073 ·1 ·2· ·3· · · ·4· ·5· · · ·6 · · ·7· ·8 ·9 10 · · 11 · · 12 · · 13· · · 14 · · 15· · · 16· · · 17 · · 18· · · 19 · · 20· · · 21 · · 22· · · 23 · · 24· · · 25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Examination By Mr. Horwitz· Examination By Mr. Bundren· · ·I· N· D· E X · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·54 · Examination · By Mr. Horwitz· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·55 · · · · · · · · · E· X· H· I· B· I· T S · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page · Exhibit No. 1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8 · · · · · Subpoena and Notice of Deposition · · · · · to Stephen Mitch Riddle · · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · No. 2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·8 Letter from Brandon Bundren to Daniel Horwitz in Response to Production of Documents to be Produced by Stephen Mitch Riddle · Exhibit No. 3· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·9 · · · · · Documents Produced by · · · · · Stephen Mitch Riddle · Exhibit No. 4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11 · · · · · Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1) · · · · · Initial Disclosures · Exhibit No. 5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 17 · · · · · E-mails Between Stephen Mitch Riddle · · · · · and Kevin Paffrath, Re:· Draft Mistake · · · · Exhibit · · · · · · · · · · · · No. 6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 31 Transcript of the Telephone Call Between Kevin Paffrath and Stephen Mitch Riddle dated 9/6/2018 Page 2 ·1 ·2· ·3 ·4 · · ·5 · · ·6· · · ·7· · · ·8· · · ·9· · · 10 11 · · 12 · · 13· · · 14· · · 15· · · 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Page · · · · · · ·A· P· P· E· A· R· A· N· C· E S ·2 · · · Exhibit No. 7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 40 · ·For the Plaintiff: ·3· · · · · · ELP Agreement Between Kevin Paffrath · · · · · · · and The Lampo Group · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · MR. BRANDON BUNDREN MR. THOR Y. URNESS Attorneys at Law Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings, LLP 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN· 37203 (615)252-2352 Bbundren@bradley.com Turness@bradley.com ·4 · · · Exhibit No. 8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 48 ·5· · · · · · Transcript of the Telephone Call · · · · · · · Between Kevin Paffrath and ·6· · · · · · Stephen Mitch Riddle dated 10/8/2018 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 · ·For the Defendants: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · MR. DANIEL A. HORWITZ Attorney at Law Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz 1803 Broadway, Suite 531 Nashville, TN· 37203 (615)739-2888 Daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1225 www.EliteReportingServices.com YVer1f Page 5 ·1· · · · · · · S· T· I· P· U· L· A· T· I· O· N S ·2 ·3 ·4· · · · · · The deposition of STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE was ·5· · taken by counsel for the Defendants, at Bradley Arant ·6· · Boult & Cummings, LLP, 1600 Division Street, Suite ·7· · 700, Nashville, Tennessee, on October 30, 2019, for ·8· · all purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil ·9· · Procedure. 10· · · · · · All formalities as to caption, notice, 11· · statement of appearance, et cetera, are waived.· All 12· · objections, except as to the form of the questions, 13· · are reserved to the hearing, and that said deposition 14· · may be read and used in evidence in said cause of 15· · action in any trial thereon or any proceeding herein. 16· · · · · · It is agreed that SARAH N. LINDER, LCR, 17· · Notary Public and Court Reporter for the State of 18· · Tennessee, may swear the witness, and that the 19· · reading and signing of the completed deposition by 20· · the witness are not waived. 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 ·1· · doesn't have to take down cross talk.· If you'll let ·2· · me finish, I will let you finish. ·3· · · · · · If there is a question that you want to ·4· · answer yes or no to, I would ask that you please give ·5· · an audible answer, say yes or no rather than shaking ·6· · your head so that the court reporter can document it ·7· · for the record.· I'm also gonna ask if there's a ·8· · question that I ask you that you do not understand, ·9· · will you tell me? 10· · A.· · · Yes. 11· · Q.· · · If later someone reading this transcript is 12· · reading an answer that you've given to a question 13· · where you didn't ask me to clarify or didn't say that 14· · you understand, is it fair to that reader to assume 15· · that you did understand the question? 16· · A.· · · Can you say that again, please? 17· · Q.· · · Sure.· Of course.· If I ask you a question 18· · and you answer it without saying you didn't 19· · understand it, is it fair to assume that you did 20· · understand the question? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · Just a couple of housekeeping matters. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· (Indicating.) 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· (Nods head affirmatively.) 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 6 Page 8 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·*· ·*· ·* ·2· · · · · · · · · ·STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE, ·3· · was called as a witness, and having first been duly ·4· · sworn, testified as follows: ·5 ·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION ·7· · QUESTIONS BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Good morning.· My name is Daniel Horwitz. I ·9· · represent the defendants in this matter.· Can we 10· · begin by having you please state your name for the 11· · record? 12· · A.· · · Stephen Mitchell Riddle. 13· · Q.· · · And where are you employed, sir? 14· · A.· · · Ramsey Solutions. 15· · Q.· · · How long have you been employed there? 16· · A.· · · Two and a half years. 17· · Q.· · · Have you ever given a deposition before? 18· · A.· · · No. 19· · Q.· · · Have you ever testified in a legal proceeding 20· · before? 21· · A.· · · No. 22· · Q.· · · I'm gonna go over just a couple of ground 23· · rules.· I'm going to ask my questions.· If you would, 24· · please let me finish my answer (sic) so that your 25· · attorney can object and so that the court reporter ·1· · Q.· · · Is this the subpoena and notice of deposition ·2· · that was served on you through counsel? ·3· · A.· · · Yes. ·4· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Can we make that Exhibit 1, ·5· · please? ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Where is that at? ·7· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· I need to stamp it. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· When he gives you ·9· · documents, she needs to stamp it. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What's that? 11· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Just hand her the -12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Oh, gotcha. 13· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 14· · was marked as Exhibit Number 1.) 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · And there were some document requests as part 17· · of that notice; is that correct, sir? 18· · A.· · · Yes. 19· · Q.· · · Is this the response that was given to those 20· · document requests? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Make that Exhibit 2, 23· · please. 24· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 25· · was marked as Exhibit Number 2.) Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1226 www.EliteReportingServices.com 5..8 YVer1f Page 9 Page 11 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · And these are some additional documents that ·3· · were handed me -- handed to me by your counsel a few ·4· · minutes ago. ·5· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Brandon, if you don't ·6· · object -·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· No, not at all. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· -- we'll enter these as ·9· · Exhibit 3. 10· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 11· · was marked as Exhibit Number 3.) 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · Let me see that. 14· · A.· · · (Passes document.) 15· · Q.· · · Sir, I'm reading from Exhibit 2.· Would you 16· · agree with me that it says with respect to Request 17· · for Production Number 1, Mr. Riddle objects to this 18· · request because the amount of compensation paid to 19· · him by the plaintiff is not relevant and that that 20· · objection has been signed by your counsel? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · Mr. Riddle, I'm handing you a document.· This 23· · document entitled Plaintiff's 26(a) Initial 24· · Disclosures -- pardon me.· Is it entitled Plaintiff's 25· · Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures? ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · That's fair.· I'm just going to state for the ·6· · record I'm not going to be asking you about your ·7· · compensation based on those objections which your ·8· · attorney has signed so we're just gonna move on to ·9· · other matters, but I'd like to make the initial 10· · disclosures the next exhibit. 11· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Okay. 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· And I just want to be clear 13· · that we don't object to any questions about how he's 14· · compensated.· It's just the specific amount of what 15· · he is compensated, that -- that was our objection. 16· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 17· · was marked as Exhibit Number 4.) 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Did you mark the 19· · disclosure? 20· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Uh-huh. 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· So that's 4? 22· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Correct. 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Thank you. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Sir, do you know who Kevin Paffrath is? Page 10 Page 12 ·1· · A.· · · I don't -·2· · Q.· · · I'm not -·3· · A.· · · -- know. ·4· · Q.· · · -- trying to confuse you.· The -·5· · A.· · · I don't understand what you're asking. ·6· · Q.· · · The first page, what's the title of the ·7· · document? ·8· · A.· · · In the United States District Court Middle ·9· · Tenn- -- Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville 10· · Division; Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(1) Initial 11· · Disclosures.· Is that what you're referring to? 12· · Q.· · · Yes, sir. 13· · A.· · · Okay. 14· · Q.· · · Can you please turn to page 3 of that 15· · document? 16· · A.· · · (Complies.) 17· · Q.· · · Can you please read the highlighted portion 18· · of the document that you have? 19· · A.· · · Lampo seeks to recover as damages the value 20· · of the effort Lampo expended in connection with 21· · defendant's admission into the ELP program and the 22· · resulting termination. 23· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that Exhibit 2 24· · reflects that your compensation is no longer relevant 25· · to this matter? ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · And who is Kevin Paffrath? ·3· · A.· · · He's a real estate agent. ·4· · Q.· · · Have you ever spoken with Mr. Paffrath? ·5· · A.· · · I have. ·6· · Q.· · · And what was the occasion that resulted in ·7· · you speaking with Mr. Paffrath? ·8· · A.· · · We had a phone call. ·9· · Q.· · · Just one phone call? 10· · A.· · · Two phone calls. 11· · Q.· · · Only two total phone calls ever? 12· · A.· · · Yes. 13· · Q.· · · And approximately when did these phone calls 14· · take place? 15· · A.· · · I'm not sure.· It was a long time ago. 16· · Q.· · · Can you -17· · A.· · · I don't know. 18· · Q.· · · -- can you ballpark it for me? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 20· · and answered. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Last September. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · Okay.· And what did you talk about? 24· · A.· · · We talked about him coming into the ELP 25· · program. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1227 www.EliteReportingServices.com 9..12 YVer1f Page 13 Page 15 ·1· · Q.· · · How long approximately did you talk to him ·2· · about coming into the ELP program? ·3· · A.· · · I don't -- I don't know. ·4· · Q.· · · Can you estimate it? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·6· · and answered. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· 30 minutes. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · And did Mr. Paffrath, in fact, come into the 10· · ELP program? 11· · A.· · · That's correct. 12· · Q.· · · Did you ever talk to him over the phone after 13· · he joined the ELP program? 14· · A.· · · After he joined the ELP program? 15· · Q.· · · Yes, sir. 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · How many times did you talk to him over the 18· · phone after he joined the ELP program? 19· · A.· · · Oh, it was one time. 20· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it was two times? 21· · A.· · · It was one time. 22· · Q.· · · You mentioned that you thought you might have 23· · spoken to him for 30 minutes before he joined the ELP 24· · program.· Is that customary when you're speaking to 25· · prospective ELP agents? ·1· · claim? ·2· · A.· · · No. ·3· · Q.· · · What else do you talk about other than the ·4· · sales that they've made? ·5· · A.· · · Just ask them questions about their business; ·6· · verify verbally that they have closed the sides (sic) ·7· · that -- the transactions that they've had; and then ·8· · tell them about the program; and then from there, we ·9· · move forward. 10· · Q.· · · When prospective ELP agents talk about their 11· · business, do you take any steps to verify that what 12· · they're telling you is true? 13· · A.· · · What do you mean by that? 14· · Q.· · · I mean when somebody tells you what their 15· · business is or how long they've been in business, do 16· · you take any steps to confirm the accuracy of what 17· · they're telling you? 18· · A.· · · Take a look at their website.· But aside from 19· · that, the information that people tell me over the 20· · phone is generally accurate for the most part. 21· · Q.· · · And how do you make that determination? 22· · A.· · · I generally just ask them questions and make 23· · sure that they at least sound like they know what 24· · they're talking about. 25· · Q.· · · I'm not trying to confuse you.· I'm just Page 14 Page 16 ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · And what is your job at Lampo?· We probably ·3· · should have established that. ·4· · A.· · · So my job is account executive.· I'm ·5· · responsible for onboarding now ELPs into our program. ·6· · Q.· · · Tell me what onboarding means. ·7· · A.· · · Just bringing them on to work with our fans ·8· · so we have a conversation with them and then we bring ·9· · them on to the program. 10· · Q.· · · Are you the one who vets the ELP agents? 11· · A.· · · Yes. 12· · Q.· · · And you speak with them for about 30 minutes 13· · before you onboard them; is that correct? 14· · A.· · · Yes. 15· · Q.· · · What do you talk about during the 16· · approximately 30 minutes that you spend with ELP 17· · agents before they join the program? 18· · A.· · · So about their business, how they're 19· · structured, how many transactions that they've closed 20· · and then just tell them about the program. 21· · Q.· · · Do you independently verify that information 22· · before onboarding them into the ELP program? 23· · A.· · · What do you mean independently verify? 24· · Q.· · · Do you take some action to confirm whether or 25· · not they have, in fact, made the sales that they ·1· · trying to -- you rely on what they tell you to be ·2· · true; is that correct? ·3· · A.· · · Exactly. ·4· · Q.· · · Did you ever exchange any e-mails with Mr. ·5· · Paffrath? ·6· · A.· · · Yes. ·7· · Q.· · · I've just handed you a document that's ·8· · previously been filed in this case as document number ·9· · 27-1.· Does this look like a set of e-mail 10· · correspondences between you and Kevin Paffrath? 11· · A.· · · Yes. 12· · Q.· · · Please turn to page 2 of the document that 13· · I've just handed you.· Is there a sentence in this 14· · e-mail that says I meant to let my admin know that 15· · you're going to be starting on 9/28? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · Did you send this e-mail? 18· · A.· · · I did. 19· · Q.· · · Does this look like an authenticate copy of 20· · the e-mail that you sent? 21· · A.· · · What do you mean by authenticate? 22· · Q.· · · This hasn't been faked, right?· This is an 23· · accurate correspondence? 24· · A.· · · Oh, yeah. 25· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to mark this as Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1228 www.EliteReportingServices.com 13..16 YVer1f Page 17 Page 19 ·1· · the next exhibit, please. ·2· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document ·3· · was marked as Exhibit Number 5.) ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Do you ever work with prospective customers ·6· · in your role as an employee of The Lampo Group? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, vague ·8· · and ambiguous. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What do you mean by 10· · prospective customers? 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · I mean referrals who are trying to buy or 13· · sell homes through the ELP program. 14· · A.· · · Personally, I do not. 15· · Q.· · · Do you know anything about the way that 16· · process works? 17· · A.· · · Yeah.· So we have a customer advocate team 18· · that calls every single referral that fills out their 19· · information on the website just to make sure they're 20· · being served well by our agents.· That generally 21· · happens two days after a customer fills out their 22· · information on the website. 23· · Q.· · · You mentioned they call every single 24· · referral? 25· · A.· · · Yes. ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · argumentative. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Is it fair to say that Mr. Galloway knows ·6· · more about this topic than you do? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, ·8· · argumentative. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Do you have personal knowledge as to how many 12· · customers are spoken to before being referred out to 13· · an ELP agent? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 15· · and answered. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · You don't know if you have personal 19· · knowledge? 20· · A.· · · Or, no, I do not have personal knowledge. 21· · Let me clarify, I do not. 22· · Q.· · · Sir, do you have the authority to cancel or 23· · terminate ELP contracts in your position at The Lampo 24· · Group? 25· · A.· · · I do. Page 18 Page 20 ·1· · Q.· · · Is it possible that they don't call every ·2· · single referral? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·4· · asked and answered. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · Is it possible that 95 percent of referrals ·8· · are not spoken to by any employee of The Lampo Group? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 10· · and answered. 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · If you don't know the answer to those 14· · questions, then how do you know that they call every 15· · single referral? 16· · A.· · · Just because, I mean, I've had communication 17· · with that team.· I mean, I've been working there for 18· · two and a half years and so I know a lot of those 19· · team members that are on the customer advocate team. 20· · But specifically what they do in their day to day, 21· · I'm not down in the weeds with that team. 22· · Q.· · · If Jack Galloway testified that 95 percent of 23· · referrals do not receive a phone call from an 24· · employee to The Lampo -- an employee of The Lampo 25· · Group, would he have been wrong? ·1· · Q.· · · Have you ever terminated an ELP contract? ·2· · A.· · · Yes. ·3· · Q.· · · Did you terminate Kevin Paffrath's ELP ·4· · contract? ·5· · A.· · · Yes. ·6· · Q.· · · Do you remember the date that you terminated ·7· · Mr. Paffrath's ELP contract? ·8· · A.· · · I don't remember the exact date.· It was a ·9· · long time ago. 10· · Q.· · · If I represented to you that that date was 11· · October 8th, would you have any reason to disagree 12· · with me? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 14· · argumentative. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I wouldn't have any reason. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · After you terminated Mr. Paffrath's ELP 18· · contract, did you refund him any money? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form.· Mr. 20· · Riddle didn't refund anybody.· The plaintiff may have 21· · but not Mr. Riddle. 22· · · · · · · · You can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The company did. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · How much money did the company refund to Mr. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1229 www.EliteReportingServices.com 17..20 YVer1f Page 21 Page 23 ·1· · Paffrath? ·2· · A.· · · $700. ·3· · Q.· · · How much money had Mr. Paffrath paid the ·4· · company prior to him being refunded $700? ·5· · A.· · · $700. ·6· · Q.· · · So Mr. Paffrath was refunded all of his ·7· · money; is that correct? ·8· · A.· · · That is correct. ·9· · Q.· · · And why did you refund -- did -- I apologize. 10· · Let me withdraw that question.· Why did the company 11· · refund Mr. Paffrath $700? 12· · A.· · · I'm not sure.· It was a long time ago. 13· · Q.· · · Do you remember anything about it? 14· · A.· · · No. 15· · Q.· · · I'm gonna play some audio recordings.· Let me 16· · give you a transcript to follow along. 17· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Let me get this booted up 18· · real quick. 19· · · · · · · · (Off-the-record discussion.) 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · So before we start, in front of you, I've 22· · given you a transcript? 23· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Go ahead. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · I'm gonna ask you to follow along and tell me ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Do you understand now? I ·2· · think I do. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think so. ·4· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Okay. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · So I would start on the first page because ·7· · it's going to play. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· So she's gonna play it and ·9· · we're just gonna sit here -10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Uh-huh. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- and we'll follow along. 12· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Yeah. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Cool. 14· · · · · · · · (Audio played.) 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Stop that. 16· · · · · · · · (Audio stopped.) 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't -- I don't -18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Will you just highlight -20· · A.· · · -- know what that said. 21· · Q.· · · -- as you find things? 22· · A.· · · Okay. 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I think if he needs to stop 24· · it, though, while he highlights.· He wants to be able 25· · to listen to the rest of it. Page 22 Page 24 ·1· · if there's any portion of that transcript that you ·2· · think is inaccurate by highlighting it for me. ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. I ·4· · just want to clarify, inaccurate as in inaccurately ·5· · transcribed? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Correct. ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Do you understand ·8· · what he's asking you to do? ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think so.· Are you 10· · referring to, you know, any information that's 11· · presented in front of me if I think it's 12· · inaccurate -13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · That's correct. 15· · A.· · · -- as far as what we transcribed? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay.· Now I'm confused. 17· · Is it that the -18· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Oh, sorry.· I understand 19· · the -- I just want to make sure that the transcript 20· · is correct; that it is accurately transcribing this 21· · conversation. 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Okay. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · If there is something that you think is 25· · something wrong, will you please let me know? ·1· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Exactly.· All right.· Cool. ·2· · We're good. ·3· · · · · · · · (Audio played.) ·4· · · · · · · · (Audio stopped.) ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Can you read to the court reporter whatever ·7· · you highlighted, please? ·8· · A.· · · Yeah, one second.· Page 3, line 14:· Uh-huh, ·9· · that's probably true.· I didn't hear that in the 10· · recording. 11· · Q.· · · Okay.· Anything else? 12· · A.· · · That's it. 13· · Q.· · · Everything else stand accurate? 14· · A.· · · Yep. 15· · Q.· · · Was that you on the phone call? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · Is that a typical phone call discussing the 18· · sort of things that you would discuss with 19· · prospective ELP agents? 20· · A.· · · Yes. 21· · Q.· · · Had you required Mr. Paffrath to sign a 22· · confidentiality agreement before having that phone 23· · call? 24· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1230 www.EliteReportingServices.com 21..24 YVer1f Page 25 Page 27 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Did Mr. Paffrath sign any confidentiality ·3· · agreement with Lampo prior to that phone call? ·4· · A.· · · I believe that there's an item in the ·5· · contract that he signed. ·6· · Q.· · · And when did he sign that contract, before or ·7· · after the phone call? ·8· · A.· · · After. ·9· · Q.· · · So by the time -- during the phone call, had 10· · Mr. Paffrath signed any confidentiality agreement 11· · with Lampo to your knowledge? 12· · A.· · · No. 13· · Q.· · · Do you ever make prospective ELP agents sign 14· · confidentiality agreements before having phone calls 15· · like that one? 16· · A.· · · No. 17· · Q.· · · Did you disclose any confidential information 18· · during that phone call? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 20· · calls for a legal conclusion but you can answer. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Can you clarify what you 22· · mean by confidential? 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Sure.· You disclosed that 2500 agents are a 25· · part of this program; is that correct? ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · asked and answered for the third time, I think. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it's more than a ·6· · thousand? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·8· · asked and answered.· This is the fourth time this ·9· · witness has said I don't know. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · You indicated that there is a 30 percent 13· · referral fee at close and $350 per month payment to 14· · Lampo required as a condition of being part of this 15· · program during the call; is that correct? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · Have you ever told other prospective ELP 18· · agents that there's a 30 percent referral fee at 19· · close and a $350 per month fee owed to Lampo as part 20· · of being an ELP agent? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · Approximately how many times have you 23· · disclosed that information to other prospective ELP 24· · agents? 25· · A.· · · I don't know. Page 26 Page 28 ·1· · A.· · · Yes. ·2· · Q.· · · Was that confidential? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·4· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·5· · · · · · · · You can answer. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Have you ever told other prospective ELP ·9· · agents that 2500 agents are a part of the program? 10· · A.· · · Yes. 11· · Q.· · · Approximately how many times would you 12· · estimate that you have told other prospective ELP 13· · agents that 2500 agents are a part of the program? 14· · A.· · · I have no clue. 15· · Q.· · · More than ten? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 17· · and answered. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · More than a hundred? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 22· · and answered. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it's more than a hundred? ·1· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it's more than ten? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·3· · and answered. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It's probably more than ·5· · ten. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it's more than a hundred? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·9· · and answered. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · Is it possible that it's more than a 13· · thousand? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 15· · and answered for the third time. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 17· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 18· · Q.· · · Are the fees associated with the program 19· · confidential? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 21· · calls for a legal conclusion. 22· · · · · · · · You can answer. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I mean, I -- we don't go 24· · out into the marketplace and advertise to agents 25· · that, hey, this is what the program costs. Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1231 www.EliteReportingServices.com 25..28 YVer1f Page 29 Page 31 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · Would you consider that information to be ·3· · sensitive? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·5· · calls for a legal conclusion. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Has Lampo ever instructed you not to share ·9· · that information? 10· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 11· · vague and ambiguous.· What information? 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · You understood my question, right? 15· · A.· · · I think so. 16· · Q.· · · Has Lampo ever instructed you not to disclose 17· · the fact that there is a 30 percent referral fee at 18· · close and a $350 per month fee owed to Lampo as being 19· · part of -20· · A.· · · Oh, no. 21· · Q.· · · Never told you not to say that? 22· · A.· · · That is correct. 23· · Q.· · · Are the fees associated with the program 24· · proprietary? 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls ·1· · A.· · · I don't know if the Mastermind is ·2· · specifically mentioned in that. ·3· · Q.· · · I'll let you take a look at it.· I'm handing ·4· · you a document that's previously been filed in this ·5· · matter.· It's document number 25-1.· If you'd take a ·6· · moment to look through the document and let me know ·7· · if you see Mastermind mentioned anywhere. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· While he's looking, let me ·9· · do that.· Let me mark the highlighted transcript as 10· · the next exhibit, please. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· 6? 12· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· (Nods head affirmatively.) 13· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 14· · was marked as Exhibit Number 6.) 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't see anything about 16· · the Masterminds.· But item 11.G, open, says maintain 17· · open lines of communication and be available for 18· · regular calls with Ramsey's team which in no event 19· · shall be less frequent than once per quarter. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · Just to clarify, did you see anything about 22· · Masterminds? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 24· · and answered. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I do not see anything about Page 30 Page 32 ·1· · for a legal conclusion. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What does that mean? ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · Does The Lampo Group consider the fees ·5· · associated with the program to be confidential or ·6· · proprietary in any way to your knowledge? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·8· · and answered, and it calls for a legal conclusion. ·9· · · · · · · · You can answer. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · The Mastermind that you mentioned during the 13· · call, it sounded like a benefit; is that right? 14· · A.· · · Yeah. 15· · Q.· · · Something that comes with the program? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · To benefit ELP agents? 18· · A.· · · Yes. 19· · Q.· · · Are you familiar with the ELP agreement that 20· · ELP agents are required to sign? 21· · A.· · · Overall, but speaking in legal terms -22· · Q.· · · Have you seen it before? 23· · A.· · · Yeah, I've seen it. 24· · Q.· · · Do you know if the Mastermind is mentioned in 25· · it? ·1· · Masterminds. ·2· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·3· · Q.· · · Did you see anything about a relationship ·4· · coach? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·6· · asked and answered. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Or foundation.· I'm sorry. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · That was no? 11· · A.· · · No. 12· · Q.· · · Regarding the ZIP codes that y'all discussed, 13· · you sent him those ZIP codes; is that right? 14· · A.· · · That is correct. 15· · Q.· · · Tell me about the social media marketing 16· · guide or the suite -- promotional suite maybe.· How 17· · does that work? 18· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 19· · compound, vague. 20· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Can you provide me with the 21· · marketing suite? 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · I think it might be this.· Is this what you 24· · were talking about? 25· · A.· · · Yeah.· So it has everything clearly spelled Elite Reporting * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Services Filed 11/05/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1232 www.EliteReportingServices.com 29..32 YVer1f Page 33 Page 35 ·1· · out in here as far as things that you can do to ·2· · market the brand. ·3· · Q.· · · Tell me -- tell me what the benefit is to ·4· · ELPs.· Tell me how it works. ·5· · A.· · · I mean, the benefit is is, you know, the Dave ·6· · Ramsey show just being as large as it is, like being ·7· · partnered with a big brand is beneficial. ·8· · Q.· · · Okay.· So I'd become an ELP agent.· I sign ·9· · the contract and then what?· How do I get to use this 10· · marketing suite? 11· · A.· · · I mean, you have logos that you can use, 12· · different things that you can use on -- on like 13· · business cards, listing presentations, social media, 14· · e-mail signatures, different things that you can use. 15· · Q.· · · What can you use on social media? 16· · A.· · · Like the branding logos. 17· · Q.· · · Okay.· And that comes with the ELP program? 18· · A.· · · Yes. 19· · Q.· · · As soon as I sign an ELP program agreement, I 20· · get to do all that stuff? 21· · A.· · · Yes. 22· · Q.· · · Social media include YouTube? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · A.· · · I do not remember. ·2· · Q.· · · Do you know if somebody sent an e-mail to you ·3· · about them? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think -- I think somebody ·6· · told me about them but then, again, I'm not really ·7· · sure. ·8· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·9· · Q.· · · Did you discuss them with anybody? 10· · A.· · · My direct leader. 11· · Q.· · · Who's that? 12· · A.· · · At the time, it was Karlee Hildebrand. 13· · Q.· · · Did you discuss it with anybody else? 14· · A.· · · No. 15· · Q.· · · Have you since then discussed the videos with 16· · anyone else? 17· · A.· · · My direct leader, Karlee.· I think that's 18· · about it. 19· · Q.· · · You think or you know? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form -21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think. 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· -- asked and answered. 23· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I think. 24· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 25· · Q.· · · Did you ever discuss the videos with Jack Page 34 Page 36 ·1· · Q.· · · Does it say that on there? ·2· · A.· · · No. ·3· · Q.· · · Will you hand that back to me, please? ·4· · A.· · · (Complies.) ·5· · Q.· · · Will you read that section, please? ·6· · A.· · · Organic social posts applies to any and all ·7· · social media platforms including but not limited to ·8· · Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Snapchat. ·9· · Q.· · · Do you want to change your answer to the 10· · question before this? 11· · A.· · · Yes. 12· · Q.· · · Social media includes YouTube, doesn't it? 13· · A.· · · Yes. 14· · Q.· · · And this is a benefit that comes with the 15· · program as a result of signing an ELP agreement? 16· · A.· · · Yes. 17· · Q.· · · Are you familiar with any videos that were 18· · published by Kevin Paffrath after you terminated his 19· · ELP agreement? 20· · A.· · · Yes. 21· · Q.· · · When did you come to be familiar with those 22· · videos? 23· · A.· · · I don't know.· I don't remember. 24· · Q.· · · Do you remember how you came to be familiar 25· · with them? ·1· · Galloway? ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, vague. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The only time I've ·4· · discussed these videos with Jack Galloway was in a ·5· · meeting that I had with our attorneys; that's the ·6· · only time that we've discussed the videos. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · So just to clarify your answer before, it was ·9· · not only on a single occasion that you discussed 10· · these videos with Karlee Hildebrand; is that correct? 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 12· · asked and answered. 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Can you ask that question 14· · again, please? 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · You told me you had only discussed the videos 17· · one time with Karlee Hildebrand or something to that 18· · effect; is that right? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 20· · and answered, argumentative. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Correct. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · And you told me you have discussed these 24· · videos with Jack Galloway during a separate meeting; 25· · was that correct? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1233 www.EliteReportingServices.com 33..36 YVer1f Page 37 Page 39 ·1· · A.· · · With the lawyers (indicating). ·2· · Q.· · · Okay.· So the first answer was not complete, ·3· · was it? ·4· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·5· · argumentative and borderline harassing. ·6· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·7· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·8· · Q.· · · Are there any other occasions that you ·9· · discussed these videos with anyone at The Lampo 10· · Group? 11· · A.· · · I don't know. 12· · Q.· · · Have you ever discussed these videos with 13· · Dave Ramsey? 14· · A.· · · No. 15· · Q.· · · Does The Lampo Group have a policy of not 16· · referring prospective customers to ELP agents until 17· · they've demonstrated they are committed to the 18· · program and to providing excellent client service? 19· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 20· · · · · · · · You can answer. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't understand your 22· · question. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Does The Lampo Group have a policy of not 25· · referring prospective customers to ELP agents until ·1· · A.· · · Yeah. ·2· · Q.· · · Do you see any policy that indicates that ·3· · Lampo will not refer prospective customers to ELP ·4· · agents until they have demonstrated that they are ·5· · committed to the program and to providing excellent ·6· · client service? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·8· · calls for a legal conclusion.· It's also ·9· · argumentative and it calls for -- Mr. Riddle is not 10· · here to testify as a corporate representative.· To 11· · the extent he can answer the question, please do so. 12· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm not sure. 13· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 14· · Q.· · · Do you see such a policy? 15· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 16· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't.· But then, again, 17· · I can't really speak into like any legal writing 18· · that's on this page or on these pages. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · I'm just asking if you see any section of the 21· · agreement where that policy appears. 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection as before. 23· · · · · · · · You can answer. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: Page 38 Page 40 ·1· · they've demonstrated that they are committed to the ·2· · program and to providing excellent client service? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, vague, ·4· · ambiguous. ·5· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. ·6· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·7· · Q.· · · Does not have such a policy? ·8· · A.· · · No.· And I don't know how they would ·9· · implement such a policy until they're actually in the 10· · program. 11· · Q.· · · After someone becomes an ELP agent and has 12· · joined the program, are you aware of any policy of 13· · not referring prospective customers to ELP agents 14· · until they've demonstrated that they are committed to 15· · the program and to providing excellent client 16· · service? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · asked and answered.· Also, as a -- this witness is 19· · not a 30(b)(6) corporate representative on these -20· · any of these issues.· He's a fact witness. 21· · · · · · · · To the extent you know, you can answer. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I'm not sure. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Do you still have the ELP agreement in front 25· · of you? ·1· · Q.· · · Would you please turn to page 3 of the ELP ·2· · agreement?· Will you please read the first sentence ·3· · of section 1 entitled referral arrangement. ·4· · A.· · · Ramsey agrees to provide ELP through its ·5· · broker with referral services within ELP's assigned ·6· · territories defined and determined exclusively by ·7· · Ramsey.· Such services include -·8· · Q.· · · I just needed the first sentence. ·9· · A.· · · Okay.· Cool. 10· · Q.· · · Did Ramsey to your knowledge provide Kevin 11· · Paffrath through its broker with referral services 12· · within Mr. Paffrath's assigned territory as defined 13· · and determined exclusively by Ramsey? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls 15· · for a legal conclusion.· To the extent that the 16· · witness can answer, he can. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know what you mean 18· · by referral services. 19· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 20· · Q.· · · Did they refer him a single client? 21· · A.· · · No. 22· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Can we mark the ELP 23· · agreement as the next exhibit, please? 24· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 25· · was marked as Exhibit Number 7.) Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1234 www.EliteReportingServices.com 37..40 YVer1f Page 41 Page 43 ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · I'm going to hand you a transcript and play ·3· · file number 2.· Before we do that, I'd like you to ·4· · highlight anything that you think is transcribed ·5· · incorrectly, please. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Can we get copies for this? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Yeah. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· All right.· Do you intend ·9· · to mark it as an exhibit? 10· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Yes. 11· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Then I think let's go off 12· · the record and then we'll get some copies of this. 13· · · · · · · · (Lunch break.) 14· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Are we back on the record? 15· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes, sir. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Just a couple of questions I forgot to ask 18· · earlier.· Roughly how many prospective ELP agents 19· · would you estimate you've spoken to during your time 20· · at Lampo? 21· · A.· · · I'm not sure.· I don't know.· I don't keep -22· · Q.· · · I meant -23· · A.· · · -- I don't keep track of that. 24· · Q.· · · I'm asking you to estimate it, sir. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·1· · asked and answered, misstates the witness' testimony. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I still don't understand ·3· · what you're asking. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · Can you rule out that you told each ELP agent ·6· · you have vetted during your time at Lampo that there ·7· · were 2500 agents in the program? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked ·9· · and answered, misstates the witness' testimony, and 10· · argumentative. 11· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · You don't know if you can rule it out? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 15· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Brandon, he hasn't answered 16· · the question. 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yes, he has.· He said I 18· · don't know.· And you've asked him four times now.· If 19· · you want to keep on doing that, I'm gonna object. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · You don't know whether you can rule it out? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· Same objection. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Is that the answer -25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Fifth time. Page 42 Page 44 ·1· · and answered. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Over a hundred. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · And you mentioned that is a typical phone ·5· · call to that -- ELP agents for the program; is that ·6· · right? ·7· · A.· · · Yeah. ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Is that yes? 11· · A.· · · Yes. 12· · Q.· · · Can you rule out the possibility that you 13· · disclosed the number of agents in the program to each 14· · person that you've spoken to when vetting a 15· · prospective ELP agent? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 17· · argumentative. 18· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't understand what 19· · you're asking. 20· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 21· · Q.· · · You said you didn't know earlier whether you 22· · had disclosed that information to, you know, more 23· · than ten or more than a hundred people.· I'm asking 24· · if you can rule out the possibility. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · -- to the question? ·3· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, sixth time. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Would you agree that it's possible if you ·7· · can't rule out the possibility? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· Same objection. ·9· · Same objection for the seventh time. 10· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I still don't understand 11· · what you're asking. 12· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 13· · Q.· · · You've told me that you can't rule out the 14· · possibility that you disclosed the fact that 2500 ELP 15· · agents are in Lampo's program; is that correct? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, misstates the 17· · witness' testimony, asked and answered, and now it is 18· · harassing. 19· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Respectfully, Brandon, it's 20· · evasive.· It's not that he's answered the question. 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· He has answered the 22· · question, Daniel.· You just don't like the answer. 23· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'm trying to figure out 24· · what the answer is. 25· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· He's told you I don't know. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1235 www.EliteReportingServices.com 41..44 YVer1f Page 45 Page 47 ·1· · He's told you that at least seven times. ·2· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I don't know. ·3· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·4· · Q.· · · You can't rule it out and you don't -- and ·5· · it's possible and -- but you don't know that it's ·6· · possible? ·7· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection.· Now that's ·8· · speculation, asked and answered, and misstates the ·9· · witness' testimony, and argumentative. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · I'm just trying to make this as clear as 12· · possible for the record.· I'm not trying to trip you 13· · up.· You have told me that you don't know whether 14· · it's possible that you discussed this with each 15· · prospective ELP agent; is that correct? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Again, same objection. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · You've also told me that you don't know 20· · whether you can rule it out; is that correct? 21· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 22· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's correct. 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Do you dispute that you have discussed the 25· · number of ELP agents in Lampo's ELP program which ·1· · Q.· · · Do you dispute whether you have disclosed -·2· · let me restate that.· Do you dispute whether that... ·3· · Do you dispute the contention that you have disclosed ·4· · the fees associated with Lampo's ELP program to each ·5· · prospective ELP agent that you have vetted? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and ·7· · answered, argumentative. ·8· · · · · · · · Go ahead. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Thank you. 12· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Can we play -- well, just 13· · to -- what happened to his transcript? 14· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· I just gave it to you. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · We're gonna do the same thing we did with 17· · that first file.· She's gonna play an audio 18· · recording.· I'm gonna ask you to highlight it if 19· · there's anything that you think has been transcribed 20· · incorrectly. 21· · · · · · · · (Audio played.) 22· · · · · · · · (Audio stopped.) 23· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 24· · Q.· · · Did you recognize those calls? 25· · A.· · · Yes. Page 46 Page 48 ·1· · every -- which you have discussed with prospective -·2· · no, let me withdraw that.· Do you dispute that you ·3· · have disclosed that there are 2500 agents in the ·4· · Lampo's ELP program with each ELP agent that you have ·5· · vetted during your time at Lampo? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and ·7· · answered, harassing. ·8· · · · · · · · Go ahead. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I still don't know what 10· · you're asking. 11· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 12· · Q.· · · I'm asking if you dispute the fact that you 13· · have -- I'm asking whether you dispute that you have 14· · disclosed the number of agents in Lampo's ELP program 15· · with each agent that you have vetted? 16· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Same objection. 17· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No, I don't dispute that. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · Do you dispute that you have disclosed the 20· · fees associated with the program with each ELP agent 21· · that you have vetted? 22· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. 23· · Same objection. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Ask that again, please. 25· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·1· · Q.· · · Was that your voice on those calls? ·2· · A.· · · Yes. ·3· · Q.· · · Can you read for the court reporter anything ·4· · that you highlighted in that transcript? ·5· · A.· · · Page 4, line item 11, it says practice.· It ·6· · was program. ·7· · Q.· · · Anything else? ·8· · A.· · · That's it. ·9· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· I'd like to mark that as 10· · the next exhibit, please. 11· · · · · · · · (WHEREUPON, the above-mentioned document 12· · was marked as Exhibit Number 8.) 13· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Is that yours? 14· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Yes, it is. 15· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 16· · Q.· · · To your recollection, were those calls on the 17· · final day of Mr. Paffrath's participation in the ELP 18· · program? 19· · A.· · · I think so. 20· · Q.· · · You terminated his involvement in the program 21· · in that second call; is that correct? 22· · A.· · · Yeah. 23· · Q.· · · And how many total calls did you have that 24· · day with Mr. Paffrath? 25· · A.· · · It was two. Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1236 www.EliteReportingServices.com 45..48 YVer1f Page 49 Page 51 ·1· · Q.· · · And those calls came after Mr. Paffrath ·2· · joined the ELP program; is that correct? ·3· · A.· · · Yes. ·4· · Q.· · · And you mentioned communication with Brandon ·5· · so far? ·6· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Off the record.· Sorry. ·7· · · · · · · · (Off-the-record discussion.) ·8· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Back on the record? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yeah. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · You mentioned communication with Brandon so 12· · far at some point during that call; is that correct? 13· · A.· · · Yes. 14· · Q.· · · Who is Brandon? 15· · A.· · · Brandon's an ELP coach. 16· · Q.· · · What's Brandon's full name? 17· · A.· · · Brandon Maginnis (sp). 18· · Q.· · · And what was the nature of Mr. Paffrath's 19· · communication with Brandon Maginnis? 20· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to foundation. 21· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· He had a phone call. 22· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 23· · Q.· · · Just one phone call? 24· · A.· · · I think it was one phone call.· I'm not sure. 25· · Q.· · · Could it have been more than one phone call? ·1· · Q.· · · Was Mr. Paffrath available for phone calls ·2· · with Ramsey's team more than once per quarter during ·3· · his time as part of the ELP program? ·4· · A.· · · Yes. ·5· · Q.· · · You mentioned during the call that it is an ·6· · expectation of ELP agents to participate in a ·7· · one-hour phone call every single month; is that ·8· · correct? ·9· · A.· · · Yes. 10· · Q.· · · Can you tell me where in this ELP agreement 11· · that is specified? 12· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls 13· · for a legal conclusion. 14· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is not specified in the 15· · agreement. 16· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 17· · Q.· · · Did you inform Mr. Paffrath of that 18· · expectation after this agreement was executed? 19· · A.· · · Can you say that again? 20· · Q.· · · Did you inform Mr. Paffrath that he was 21· · expected to be part of a one-hour phone call every 22· · single month after this agreement was executed? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form. 24· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· We actually talked about it 25· · in the original phone call. Page 50 Page 52 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, ·2· · asked and answered. ·3· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know. ·4· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·5· · Q.· · · We're up to two phone calls with you and one ·6· · phone call with Mr. Maginnis after Mr. Paffrath ·7· · joined the ELP program; is that correct? ·8· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form. ·9· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yeah.· Yes. 10· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 11· · Q.· · · Do you still have the ELP program agreement 12· · in front of you? 13· · A.· · · Yep. 14· · Q.· · · Will you please turn to page 6 of that 15· · agreement, please? 16· · A.· · · (Complies.) 17· · Q.· · · Will you please read 11(g)? 18· · A.· · · Maintain open lines of communication and be 19· · available for regular calls with Ramsey's team which 20· · in no event shall be less frequent than once per 21· · quarter. 22· · Q.· · · Did Mr. Paffrath have more than one phone 23· · call during the quarter that he was part of the ELP 24· · program? 25· · A.· · · Yes. ·1· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·2· · Q.· · · In the original phone call you told him he ·3· · has to be available for a one-hour phone call every ·4· · single month as part of the program? ·5· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection, asked and ·6· · answered. ·7· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I told him about the ·8· · Masterminds. ·9· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 10· · Q.· · · Do you recall telling Mr. Paffrath that he 11· · had to be part of a one-hour phone call every single 12· · month in order to be part of the ELP program? 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, asked 14· · and answered. 15· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The only thing I remember 16· · is in the original call that we had that we listened 17· · to earlier of telling him about the Masterminds. 18· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 19· · Q.· · · You previously indicated to me that this 20· · expectation that ELP agents participate in a one-hour 21· · phone call every single month is not in this ELP 22· · agreement; is that correct? 23· · A.· · · I didn't see it anywhere in the agreement. 24· · Q.· · · Would you agree with me that it's not in the 25· · agreement? Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 1237 www.EliteReportingServices.com 49..52 YVer1f Page 53 Page 55 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, calls ·2· · for a legal conclusion and it's been asked and ·3· · answered. ·4· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes. ·5· · BY MR. HORWITZ: ·6· · Q.· · · Will you please turn to page 7 of this ·7· · agreement? ·8· · A.· · · (Complies.) ·9· · Q.· · · Will you please read section 21? 10· · A.· · · This agreement, including any exhibits, 11· · contains the entire agreement between the parties 12· · hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and 13· · supersedes and cancels any prior agreement or 14· · understandings, whether oral or written, between the 15· · parties hereto with respect hereof.· No addendum, 16· · supplement, modification, or amendment of this 17· · agreement shall be binding unless set forth in 18· · writing and signed by both of the parties hereto. 19· · Q.· · · One last question:· At the bottom of this 20· · agreement, it says ELP real estate version July 2018; 21· · is that correct? 22· · A.· · · Yes. 23· · Q.· · · Is there a subsequent version of this 24· · contract? 25· · A.· · · I don't know. ·1· · e-mails, were you typing on your computer during that ·2· · call? ·3· · A.· · · I was not typing anything on my computer ·4· · during that call.· Usually, I walk around our space, ·5· · so I was not typing anything. ·6· · Q.· · · Did you know those calls were being recorded ·7· · with Mr. Paffrath? ·8· · A.· · · I had no clue.· He never told me. ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· That's all the questions we 10· · have.· We'll reserve until the time of trial. 11· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Just one question. 12 13· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION 14· · QUESTIONS BY MR. HORWITZ: 15· · Q.· · · Did you make any false representations to Mr. 16· · Paffrath during any of those calls? 17· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to the form, 18· · argumentative, calls for a legal conclusion as well. 19· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· What do you mean by false 20· · misrepresentations? 21· · BY MR. HORWITZ: 22· · Q.· · · Did you ever lie to him? 23· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Objection to form, 24· · argumentative. 25· · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· No. Page 54 Page 56 ·1· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Those are my questions. ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION ·4· · QUESTIONS BY MR. BUNDREN: ·5· · Q.· · · Mr. Riddle, before the lunch break, we went ·6· · over a conversation between yourself and Mr. ·7· · Paffrath.· I think it's Exhibit 6.· Do you have that ·8· · in front of you? ·9· · A.· · · Yes. 10· · Q.· · · During the audio portion recording of that 11· · call, was there anything that stood out to you about 12· · the audio recording? 13· · A.· · · No. 14· · Q.· · · Did you hear anything in the background of 15· · the audio recording? 16· · A.· · · I did not hear anything in the background. 17· · Q.· · · The first -- but listening to the audio 18· · recording today, did you hear anything in the 19· · background of the audio recording of the conversation 20· · on September 6th of 2018? 21· · A.· · · I did hear some typing in the background 22· · after listening to it. 23· · Q.· · · Were you -- were you engaging in any kind 24· · of -- I know you sent, I think, two e-mails to Mr. 25· · Paffrath during that call.· But other than those two ·1· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· Those are my questions. ·2· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· We'll reserve.· The witness ·3· · will read and sign. ·4· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· All right.· Mr. Horwitz, ·5· · are you wanting to order this transcript. ·6· · · · · · · · MR. HORWITZ:· (Shook head negatively.) ·7· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Are you all wanting to ·8· · order it? ·9· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yes, PTX, same format as 10· · the first -- the one yesterday. 11· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Okay.· So you'll be 12· · getting the original then. 13· · · · · · · · MR. BUNDREN:· Yes. 14· · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Got it. 15· · · · · · · · · ·FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 1238 www.EliteReportingServices.com 53..56 Page 57 ·1· ·2· · · ·3· · · ·4 ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· 16· 17· 18 19 20· · · 21 22· · · 23 · · 24 · · 25 · · · · · · · · · · · · ·E R R A T A· P A G E · · · I, STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE, having read the foregoing deposition, Pages 1 through 56, do hereby certify said testimony is a true and accurate transcript, with the following changes (if any): · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE· _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ·1· ·2 ·3· ·4· ·5· ·6· ·7· ·8· ·9· 10· 11· 12· 13· 14· 15· · · 16· · · 17· · · 18· · · 19 20 21· · · 22· · · 23· 24· · · 25 · · · · · · · · · REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE ·LINE· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· _____· · · · · · · · · · · · · · SHOULD HAVE BEEN ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · ________________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE · _________________________________ · Notary Public · My Commission Expires: ___________ · Reported by:· Sarah N. Linder, LCR Page 58 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · STATE OF TENNESSEE COUNTY OF DAVIDSON · · · · I, SARAH N. LINDER, Licensed Court Reporter, with offices in Nashville, Tennessee, hereby certify that I reported the foregoing deposition of STEPHEN MITCH RIDDLE by machine shorthand to the best of my skills and abilities, and thereafter the same was reduced to typewritten form by me. · · · · I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties named herein, nor their counsel, and have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the proceedings. · · · I further certify that in order for this document to be considered a true and correct copy, it must bear my original signature and that any unauthorized reproduction in whole or in part and/or transfer of this document is not authorized, will not be considered authentic, and will be in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 39-14-104, Theft of Services. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · _ SARAH N. LINDER, LCR Elite Reporting Services Licensed Court Reporter (TN) Notary Public State of Tennessee My Notary Commission Expires:· 3/3/2020 LCR #153 - Expires:· 6/30/2020 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 1239 www.EliteReportingServices.com 57..58 21 53:9 Exhibits Ex 01 Stephen Mitch Riddle 3:12 8:4,14 Ex 02 Stephen Mitch Riddle 3:14 8:22,25 9:15 10:23 40:24 48:11 25-1 31:5 account 14:4 2500 25:24 26:9,13 43:7 accuracy 15:16 44:14 46:3 accurate 15:20 16:23 26(a) 9:23 24:13 26(a)(1) 9:25 10:10 accurately 22:20 27-1 16:9 action 14:24 addendum 53:15 Ex 03 Stephen Mitch Riddle 3 3:17 9:9,11 Ex 04 Stephen Mitch Riddle 3:19 11:17 Ex 05 Stephen Mitch Riddle 3 9:9,11 10:14 24:8 40:1 admin 16:14 30 13:7,23 14:12,16 admission 10:21 27:12,18 29:17 30(b)(6) 38:19 3:21 17:3 4 Ex 06 Stephen Mitch Riddle 4 11:17,21 48:5 5 Ex 07 Stephen Mitch Riddle 5 17:3 Ex 08 Stephen Mitch Riddle 6 4:4 48:12 6 31:11,14 50:14 54:7 $ advertise 28:24 advocate 17:17 18:19 affirmatively 7:24 31:12 agent 12:3 19:13 27:20 3:23 31:14 54:7 4:2 40:25 additional 9:2 agents 13:25 14:10,17 15:10 17:20 24:19 25:13, 24 26:9,13 27:18,24 28:24 30:17,20 37:16,25 38:13 39:4 41:18 42:5,13 43:7 44:15 45:25 46:3,14 51:6 52:20 agree 9:16 10:23 44:6 agreement 24:22 25:3, $350 27:13,19 29:18 7 $700 21:2,4,5,11 7 40:25 53:6 1 8 11(g) 50:17 10 30:19 33:19 34:15,19 38:24 39:21 40:2,23 50:11,15 51:10,15,18,22 52:22,23,25 53:7,10,11, 13,17,20 attorneys 36:5 audible 7:5 audio 21:15 23:14,16 24:3,4 47:17,21,22 54:10,12,15,17,19 authenticate 16:19,21 authority 19:22 aware 38:12 B back 34:3 41:14 49:8 background 54:14,16, 19,21 ballpark 12:18 based 11:7 begin 6:10 beneficial 33:7 benefit 30:13,17 33:3,5 34:14 big 33:7 binding 53:17 borderline 37:5 8th 20:11 ahead 21:23 46:8 47:8 bottom 53:19 ambiguous 17:8 29:11 brand 33:2,7 9 38:4 amendment 53:16 2018 53:20 54:20 attorney 6:25 11:8 agrees 40:4 9/28 16:15 16:12 41:3 assume 7:14,19 8 48:12 14 24:8 2 8:22,25 9:15 10:23 assigned 40:5,12 booted 21:17 11.G 31:16 2 arrangement 40:3 agreements 25:14 1 8:4,14 9:17 40:3 11 48:5 20:14 36:20 37:5 39:9 42:17 43:10 45:9 47:7 55:18,24 33:8 38:11 42:15 43:5 45:15 46:4,15,20 47:5 52:24 6th 54:20 argumentative 19:2,8 amount 9:18 11:14 95 18:7,22 A above-mentioned 8:13, 24 9:10 11:16 17:2 31:13 branding 33:16 Brandon 9:5 43:15 44:19 49:4,11,14,17,19 apologize 21:9 Brandon's 49:15,16 appears 39:21 break 41:13 54:5 applies 34:6 bring 14:8 approximately 12:13 bringing 14:7 13:1 14:16 26:11 27:22 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 $350..bringingi1 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 17 of Index: 22 PageID #: 1240 www.EliteReportingServices.com broker 40:5,11 BUNDREN 7:24 8:8 9:7 11:1,12,18,21,23 12:19 13:5 17:7 18:3,9 19:1,7, 14 20:13,19 22:3,7,16,22 23:1,8,11,13,23 24:24 25:19 26:3,16,21 27:1,7 28:2,8,14,20 29:4,10,25 30:7 31:11,23 32:5,8,18 33:23 35:4,20,22 36:2, 11,19 37:4,19 38:3,17 39:7,15,22 40:14 41:6,8, 11,25 42:8,16,25 43:8, 14,17,22,25 44:3,8,16, 21,25 45:7,16,21 46:6, 16,22 47:6,14 49:6,9,20 50:1,8 51:12,23 52:5,13 53:1 54:4 55:9,17,23 56:2,9,13 business 14:18 15:5,11, 15 33:13 40:20 close 27:13,19 29:18 closed 14:19 15:6 clue 26:14 55:8 coach 32:4 49:15 codes 32:12,13 committed 37:17 38:1, 14 39:5 communication 18:16 31:17 49:4,11,19 50:18 company 20:23,25 21:4, 10 compensated 11:14,15 compensation 9:18 10:24 11:7 complete 37:2 Complies 10:16 34:4 buy 17:12 50:16 53:8 C compound 32:19 computer 55:1,3 call 12:8,9 17:23 18:1,14, 23 24:15,17,23 25:3,7,9, 18 27:15 30:13 42:5 48:21 49:12,21,23,24,25 50:6,23 51:5,7,21,25 52:2,3,11,16,21 54:11,25 55:2,4 called 6:3 calls 11:2 12:10,11,13 17:18 25:14,20 26:4 28:21 29:5,25 30:8 31:18 39:8,9 40:14 47:24 48:1, 16,23 49:1 50:5,19 51:1, 12 53:1 55:6,16,18 cancel 19:22 cancels 53:13 cards 33:13 case 16:8 conclusion 11:2 25:20 26:4 28:21 29:5 30:1,8 39:8 40:15 51:13 53:2 55:18 corporate 38:19 39:10 disagree 20:11 correct 8:17 11:22 13:11 disclose 25:17 29:16 14:13 16:2 21:7,8 22:6, 14,20 25:25 27:15 29:22 32:14 36:10,21,25 44:4, 15 45:15,17,20,22 48:21 49:2,12 50:7 51:8 52:22 53:21 correspondence 16:23 correspondences 16:10 costs 28:25 counsel 8:2 9:3,20 couple 6:22 7:22 41:17 court 6:25 7:6 10:8 24:6 48:3 customer 17:17,21 18:19 customers 17:5,10 19:12 37:16,25 38:13 39:3 D Daniel 6:8 44:22 Dave 33:5 37:13 day 18:20 48:17,24 confuse 10:4 15:25 days 17:21 confused 22:16 defendant's 10:21 connection 10:20 defendants 6:9 contention 47:3 defined 40:6,12 contract 20:1,4,7,18 demonstrated 37:17 38:1,14 39:4 change 34:9 contracts 19:23 DEPONENT 56:15 claim 15:1 conversation 14:8 deposition 6:17 8:1 clarify 7:13 19:21 22:4 25:21 31:21 36:8 22:21 54:6,19 10:11 11:10 discuss 24:18 35:9,13, discussed 32:12 35:15 36:4,6,9,16,23 37:9,12 45:14,24 46:1 discussing 24:17 discussion 21:19 49:7 District 10:8,9 Division 10:10 document 7:6 8:13,16, 20,24 9:10,14,22,23 10:7,15,18 11:16 16:7,8, 12 17:2 31:4,5,6,13 40:24 48:11 documents 8:9 9:2 duly 6:3 E date 20:6,8,10 confirm 14:24 15:16 25:5,6 33:9 53:24 disclosures 9:24,25 13,17,19 47:1,2,3 customary 13:24 confidential 25:17,22 25:2,10,14 disclosure 11:19 dispute 45:24 46:2,12, cross 7:1 damages 10:19 confidentiality 24:22 42:13,22 44:14 46:3,14, 19 47:1,3 25 condition 27:14 26:2 28:19 30:5 disclosed 25:24 27:23 determination 15:21 Cool 23:13 24:1 40:9 determined 40:6,13 clear 11:12 45:11 copies 41:6,12 direct 35:10,17 client 37:18 38:2,15 39:6 copy 16:19 e-mail 16:9,14,17,20 33:14 35:2 e-mails 16:4 54:24 55:1 earlier 41:18 42:21 52:17 effect 36:18 effort 10:20 ELP 10:21 12:24 13:2,10, 13,14,18,23,25 14:10,16, 22 15:10 17:13 19:13,23 20:1,3,7,17 24:19 25:13 26:8,12 27:17,20,23 30:17,19,20 33:8,17,19 34:15,19 37:16,25 38:11, 13,24 39:3 40:1,4,22 41:18 42:5,15 43:5 44:14 45:15,25 46:4,14,20 47:4,5 48:17 49:2,15 50:7,11,23 51:3,6,10 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index:#: broker..ELPi2 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID 1241 www.EliteReportingServices.com faked 16:22 give 7:4 21:16 ELP's 40:5 false 55:15,19 good 6:8 24:2 ELPS 14:5 33:4 familiar 30:19 34:17,21, gotcha 8:12 52:12,20,21 53:20 employed 6:13,15 employee 17:6 18:8,24 engaging 54:23 24 ground 6:22 fans 14:7 Group 17:6 18:8,25 fee 27:13,18,19 29:17,18 fees 28:18 29:23 30:4 enter 9:8 19:24 30:4 37:10,15,24 guide 32:16 46:20 47:4 entire 53:11 entitled 9:23,24 40:3 established 14:3 estate 12:3 53:20 estimate 13:4 26:12 41:19,24 evasive 44:20 event 31:18 50:20 filed 16:8 31:4 fills 17:18,21 final 48:17 find 23:21 finish 6:24 7:2 follow 21:16,25 23:11 exact 20:8 EXAMINATION 6:6 54:3 55:13 excellent 37:18 38:2,15 39:5 exchange 16:4 exclusively 40:6,13 executed 51:18,22 executive 14:4 exhibit 8:4,14,22,25 9:9, 11,15 10:23 11:10,17 17:1,3 31:10,14 40:23,25 41:9 48:10,12 54:7 inaccurate 22:2,4,12 handed 9:3 16:7,13 inaccurately 22:4 handing 9:22 31:3 include 33:22 40:7 happened 47:13 includes 34:12 harassing 37:5 44:18 including 34:7 53:10 46:7 form 11:1 12:19 13:5 hear 24:9 54:14,16,18,21 hereof 53:12,15 hereto 53:12,15,18 hey 28:25 highlight 23:19 41:4 47:18 highlighted 10:17 24:7 31:9 48:4 highlighting 22:2 forward 15:9 highlights 23:24 exhibits 53:10 foundation 32:8 49:20 Hildebrand 35:12 36:10, expectation 51:6,18 fourth 27:8 expected 51:21 expended 10:20 extent 38:21 39:11 40:15 front 21:21 22:11 38:24 50:12 54:8 full 49:16 G F Facebook 34:8 fact 13:9 14:25 29:17 38:20 44:14 46:12 fair 7:14,19 11:5 19:5 Galloway 18:22 19:5 36:1,4,24 gave 47:14 generally 15:20,22 17:20 I implement 38:9 head 7:6,24 31:12 56:6 frequent 31:19 50:20 42:2,23 hand 8:11 34:3 41:2 format 56:9 52:20 hundred 26:20,25 28:7 half 6:16 18:18 forgot 41:17 17:7 18:3,9 19:1,7,14 20:13,19 22:3 24:24 25:19 26:3,16,21 27:1,7 28:2,8,14,20 29:4,10,25 30:7 31:23 32:5,18 33:23 35:4,20 36:2,11,19 37:4, 19 38:3,17 39:7 40:14 41:25 42:8,16,25 43:8 46:22 50:1,8 51:12,23 52:13 53:1 55:17,23 housekeeping 7:22 H figure 44:23 file 41:3 47:17 23 44:1,5,12,19,23 45:3, 10,18,23 46:11,18,25 47:10,12,15,23 48:9,15 49:8,10,22 50:4,10 51:16 52:1,9,18 53:5 54:1 55:11,14,21 56:1,4,6 17 incorrectly 41:5 47:20 independently 14:21,23 indicating 7:23 37:1 inform 51:17,20 information 14:21 15:19 17:19,22 22:10 25:17 27:23 29:2,9,11 42:22 initial 9:23,25 10:10 11:9 instructed 29:8,16 intend 41:8 involvement 48:20 issues 38:20 item 25:4 31:16 48:5 homes 17:13 J Horwitz 6:7,8 7:23,25 8:4,11,15,22 9:1,5,8,12 11:4,24 12:22 13:8 16:25 17:4,11 18:6,12 19:4,10, 17 20:16,24 21:20,24 22:6,13,18,23 23:4,5,10, 12,18 24:5 25:1,23 26:7, 19,24 27:4,11 28:6,11,17 29:1,7,13 30:3,11 31:8, 20 32:2,9,22 33:25 35:8, 24 36:7,15,22 37:7,23 38:6,23 39:13,19,25 40:19,22 41:1,7,10,14,16 42:3,9,20 43:4,12,15,20, Jack 18:22 35:25 36:4,24 job 14:2,4 join 14:17 joined 13:13,14,18,23 38:12 49:2 50:7 July 53:20 K Karlee 35:12,17 36:10, Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 19 of 22 PageIDElp's..Karleei3 #: 1242 www.EliteReportingServices.com make 8:4,22 11:9 15:21, 17 Kevin 11:25 12:2 16:10 20:3 34:18 40:10 move 11:8 15:9 22 17:19 22:19 25:13 45:11 55:15 Organic 34:6 N mark 11:18 16:25 31:9 kind 54:23 40:22 41:9 48:9 knowledge 19:11,19,20 25:11 30:6 40:10 L Lampo 10:19,20 14:2 17:6 18:8,24 19:23 25:3, 11 27:14,19 29:8,16,18 30:4 37:9,15,24 39:3 41:20 43:6 46:5 Lampo's 44:15 45:25 46:4,14 47:4 marked 8:14,25 9:11 11:17 17:3 31:14 40:25 48:12 Nashville 10:9 nature 49:18 negatively 56:6 marketing 32:15,21 nods 7:24 31:12 marketplace 28:24 Mastermind 30:12,24 31:1,7 Masterminds 31:16,22 notice 8:1,17 number 8:14,25 9:11,17 11:17 16:8 17:3 31:5,14 40:25 41:3 42:13 45:25 46:14 48:12 lawyers 37:1 leader 35:10,17 matters 7:22 11:9 legal 6:19 11:2 25:20 means 14:6 26:4 28:21 29:5 30:1,8, 21 39:8,17 40:15 51:13 53:2 55:18 meant 16:14 41:22 media 32:15 33:13,15,22 34:7,12 lie 55:22 limited 34:7 meeting 36:5,24 lines 31:17 50:18 members 18:19 Linkedin 34:8 mentioned 13:22 17:23 listen 23:25 30:12,24 31:2,7 42:4 49:4,11 51:5 listened 52:16 Middle 10:8,9 listening 54:17,22 minutes 9:4 13:7,23 listing 33:13 logos 33:11,16 long 6:15 12:15 13:1 15:15 20:9 21:12 longer 10:24 lot 18:18 lunch 41:13 54:5 M made 14:25 15:4 Maginnis 49:17,19 50:6 maintain 31:16 50:18 O matter 6:9 10:25 31:5 53:12 14:12,16 misrepresentations 55:20 misstates 43:1,9 44:16 45:8 MITCH 6:2 Mitchell 6:12 object 6:25 9:6 11:13 43:19 objection 9:20 11:1,15 12:19 13:5 17:7 18:3,9 19:1,7,14 20:13,19 22:3 24:24 25:19 26:3,16,21 27:1,7 28:2,8,14,20 29:4, 10,25 30:7 31:23 32:5,18 33:23 35:4,20 36:2,11,19 37:4,19 38:3,17 39:7,15, 22 40:14 41:25 42:8,16, 25 43:8,14,22 44:3,8,9, 16 45:7,16,21 46:6,16, 22,23 47:6 49:20 50:1,8 51:12,23 52:5,13 53:1 55:17,23 objections 11:7 Paffrath 11:25 12:2,4,7 13:9 16:5,10 21:1,3,6,11 24:21 25:2,10 34:18 40:11 48:24 49:1 50:6,22 51:1,17,20 52:10 54:7,25 55:7,16 Paffrath's 20:3,7,17 pages 39:18 paid 9:18 21:3 pardon 9:24 part 8:16 15:20 25:25 26:9,13 27:14,19 29:19 50:23 51:3,21 52:4,11,12 participate 51:6 52:20 participation 48:17 parties 53:11,15,18 partnered 33:7 passes 9:14 payment 27:13 people 15:19 42:23 percent 18:7,22 27:12, 18 29:17 person 42:14 personal 19:11,18,20 occasions 37:8 Personally 17:14 October 20:11 phone 12:8,9,10,11,13 off-the-record 21:19 49:7 onboard 14:13 onboarding 14:5,6,22 money 20:18,25 21:3,7 one-hour 51:7,21 52:3, morning 6:8 P occasion 12:6 36:9 moment 31:6 51:7,22 52:4,12,21 owed 27:19 29:18 objects 9:17 modification 53:16 month 27:13,19 29:18 56:12 40:12 48:17 49:18 32:1 52:8,17 large 33:6 original 51:25 52:2,16 needed 40:8 market 33:2 33:10 order 52:12 56:5,8 11,20 13:12,18 15:20 18:23 24:15,17,22 25:3,7,9,14, 18 42:4 49:21,23,24,25 50:5,6,22 51:1,7,21,25 52:2,3,11,21 place 12:14 plaintiff 9:19 20:20 open 31:16,17 50:18 Plaintiff's 9:23,24 10:10 oral 53:14 platforms 34:7 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Kevin..platformsi4 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 20 Index: of 22 PageID #: 1243 www.EliteReportingServices.com play 21:15 23:7,8 41:2 referring 10:11 22:10 Q 47:12,17 played 23:14 24:3 47:21 point 49:12 policy 37:15,24 38:7,9, 12 39:2,14,21 portion 10:17 22:1 54:10 position 19:23 possibility 42:12,24 44:7,14 posts 34:6 quarter 31:19 50:21,23 51:2 question 7:3,8,12,15,17, 20 21:10 29:14 34:10 36:13 37:22 39:11 43:16 44:2,20,22 53:19 55:11 questions 6:7,23 11:13 15:5,22 18:14 41:17 54:1,4 55:9,14 56:1 quick 21:18 practice 48:5 R presented 22:11 previously 16:8 31:4 52:19 prior 21:4 25:3 53:13 proceeding 6:19 process 17:16 Ramsey 6:14 33:6 37:13 40:4,7,10,13 Ramsey's 31:18 50:19 51:2 read 10:17 24:6 34:5 40:2 48:3 50:17 53:9 56:3 S reflects 10:24 refund 20:18,20,25 21:9, 11 SAITH 56:15 refunded 21:4,6 sales 14:25 15:4 regular 31:18 50:19 section 34:5 39:20 40:3 relationship 32:3 relevant 9:19 10:24 rely 16:1 remember 20:6,8 21:13 34:23,24 35:1 52:15 presentations 33:13 rules 6:23 37:16,25 38:13 reporter 6:25 7:6 8:7 11:11,20,22 21:17,23 24:6 31:12 41:15 48:3,14 56:4,7,11,14 53:9 seeks 10:19 sell 17:13 send 16:17 sensitive 29:3 sentence 16:13 40:2,8 separate 36:24 September 12:21 54:20 represent 6:9 served 8:2 17:20 representations 55:15 service 37:18 38:2,16 representative 38:19 39:10 39:6 services 40:5,7,11,18 Production 9:17 reader 7:14 represented 20:10 set 16:9 53:17 program 10:21 12:25 reading 7:11,12 9:15 request 9:16,18 seventh 44:9 real 12:3 21:18 53:20 requests 8:16,20 shaking 7:5 reason 20:11,15 required 24:21 27:14 share 29:8 13:2,10,13,14,18,24 14:5,9,17,20,22 15:8 17:13 25:25 26:9,13 27:15 28:18,25 29:23 30:5,15 33:17,19 34:15 37:18 38:2,10,12,15 39:5 42:5,13 43:7 44:15 45:25 46:4,14,20 47:4 48:6,18, 20 49:2 50:7,11,24 51:3 52:4,12 promotional 32:16 recall 52:10 receive 18:23 recognize 47:24 recollection 48:16 record 6:11 7:7 11:6 41:12,14 45:12 49:6,8 30:20 shook 56:6 reserve 55:10 56:2 show 33:6 respect 9:16 53:12,15 sic 6:24 15:6 Respectfully 44:19 sides 15:6 response 8:19 sign 24:21 25:2,6,13 responsible 14:5 30:20 33:8,19 56:3 proprietary 29:24 30:6 recorded 55:6 rest 23:25 signatures 33:14 prospective 13:25 recording 24:10 47:18 restate 47:2 signed 9:20 11:8 25:5,10 15:10 17:5,10 24:19 25:13 26:8,12 27:17,23 37:16,25 38:13 39:3 41:18 42:15 45:15 46:1 47:5 provide 32:20 40:4,10 providing 37:18 38:2,15 39:5 PTX 56:9 published 34:18 54:10,12,15,18,19 result 34:15 recordings 21:15 resulted 12:6 recover 10:19 resulting 10:22 refer 39:3 40:20 Riddle 6:2,12 9:17,22 referral 17:18,24 18:2,15 27:13,18 29:17 40:3,5, 11,18 referrals 17:12 18:7,23 referred 19:12 20:20,21 39:9 54:5 role 17:6 Roughly 41:18 rule 9:25 10:10 42:12,24 43:5,13,21 44:7,13 45:4, 20 53:18 signing 34:15 single 17:18,23 18:2,15 36:9 40:20 51:7,22 52:4, 11,21 sir 6:13 8:17 9:15 10:12 11:25 13:15 19:22 41:15, 24 sit 23:9 sixth 44:3 Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index:#: play..sixthi5 Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 21 of 22 PageID 1244 www.EliteReportingServices.com Snapchat 34:8 sworn 6:4 52:2,7 55:8 social 32:15 33:13,15,22 topic 19:6 T 34:6,7,12 Solutions 6:14 sort 24:18 talk 7:1 12:23 13:1,12,17 14:15 15:3,10 sound 15:23 talked 12:24 51:24 sounded 30:13 talking 15:24 32:24 sp 49:17 team 17:17 18:17,19,21 space 55:4 31:18 50:19 51:2 speak 14:12 39:17 telling 15:12,17 52:10,17 speaking 12:7 13:24 tells 15:14 30:21 ten 26:15 28:1,5 42:23 specific 11:14 Tenn- 10:9 specifically 18:20 31:2 Tennessee 10:9 speculation 45:8 terminate 19:23 20:3 spelled 32:25 terminated 20:1,6,17 spend 14:16 spoken 12:4 13:23 18:8 19:12 41:19 42:14 34:18 48:20 termination 10:22 terms 30:21 stamp 8:7,9 territories 40:6 stand 24:13 territory 40:12 start 21:21 23:6 testified 6:4,19 18:22 starting 16:15 testify 39:10 state 6:10 11:5 testimony 43:1,9 44:17 States 10:8 45:9 Stephen 6:2,12 thing 47:16 52:15 steps 15:11,16 things 23:21 24:18 33:1, stood 54:11 stop 23:15,23 stopped 23:16 24:4 47:22 structured 14:19 stuff 33:20 subject 53:12 subpoena 8:1 12,14 voice 48:1 total 12:11 48:23 W track 41:23 transactions 14:19 15:7 walk 55:4 transcribed 22:5,15 wanting 56:5,7 41:4 47:19 website 15:18 17:19,22 transcribing 22:20 transcript 7:11 21:16,22 22:1,19 31:9 41:2 47:13 48:4 56:5 weeds 18:21 withdraw 21:10 46:2 witness' 43:1,9 44:17 45:9 trial 55:10 trip 45:12 work 14:7 17:5 32:17 true 15:12 16:2 24:9 working 18:17 turn 10:14 16:12 40:1 works 17:16 33:4 50:14 53:6 writing 39:17 53:18 Twitter 34:8 written 53:14 typical 24:17 42:4 wrong 18:25 22:25 typing 54:21 55:1,3,5 Y U y'all 32:12 Uh-huh 11:20 23:10 24:8 years 6:16 18:18 understand 7:8,14,15, yesterday 56:10 19,20 10:5 22:7,18 23:1 37:21 42:18 43:2 44:10 understandings 53:14 understood 29:14 United 10:8 thought 13:22 Youtube 33:22 34:8,12 Z ZIP 32:12,13 V thousand 27:6 28:13 time 12:15 13:19,21 20:9 21:12 25:9 27:2,8 28:15 35:12 36:3,6,17 41:19 43:6,25 44:3,9 46:5 51:3 55:10 times 13:17,20 26:11 27:22 43:18 45:1 subsequent 53:23 title 10:6 suite 32:16,21 33:10 today 54:18 supersedes 53:13 told 26:8,12 27:17 29:21 supplement 53:16 12 35:6 36:16,23 43:5 44:13,25 45:1,13,19 vague 17:7 29:11 32:19 36:2 38:3 verbally 15:6 verify 14:21,23 15:6,11 version 53:20,23 vets 14:10 vetted 43:6 46:5,15,21 47:5 vetting 42:14 videos 34:17,22 35:15, 25 36:4,6,10,16,24 37:9, Elite Reporting Services * (615)595-0073 Index: Case 3:18-cv-01402 Document 94-5 Filed 11/05/19 Page 22 of 22 PageIDSnapchat..ZIPi6 #: 1245 www.EliteReportingServices.com