FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :03 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2017 ATTACHMENT 3

Transcription

1 ATTACHMENT 3

2 Joshua G. Hamilton Direct Dial: LATHAM&WATKI N SLLP BY Carmel, Milazzo & DiChiara, LLP 261 Madison A venue, 9th Floor New York, NY (646) cmilazzo@cmdllp.com 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California Tel: Fax: FIRM/ AFFILIATE OFFICES Barcelona Moscow Beijing Munich Boston New York Brussels Orange County Cantu ry City Paris Chicago Riyadh Dubai Rome Dusseldorf San Diego Frankfurt San Francisco Hamburg Seoul Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley London Singapore Los Angeles Tokyo Madrid Washington, D.C. Milan Re: DB Dava LLC's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents Provision Interactive Technologies, Inc. v. DB Dava LLC et al. (Index No /2016) Dear Mr. Milazzo: We write pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and Commercial Division Rule 14 in a good faith effort to resolve certain discovery issues in the above-captioned matter. As you know, Defendant and Counterclaimant DB Dava LLC ("DB Dava") served its first set of Requests for Production ("RFPs") on Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Provision Interactive Technologies, Inc. ("Provision") on June 29, DB Dava granted an extension to Provision's deadline to respond, and on August 9, 2017, Provision served its Responses and Objections to the RFPs ("Responses and Objections"). In its Responses and Objections, Provision refused (in whole or in part) to produce documents in response to 12 of the 32 RFPs that DB Dava served. Specifically, Provision refused to produce any documents in response to RFP Nos. 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 30-32, and Provision refused to produce all but a limited subset of the documents requested by RFP Nos. 4 and 8. 1 For the reasons set forth in Section I below, Provision's objections are not well taken and do not provide a justification for Provision's failure to comply with the RFPs. In addition, as explained in Section II, Provision has failed to provide complete responses to RFP Nos. 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-19, 21-25, 29, as well as Nos We respectfully request that Provision reconsider its position and rectify these issues so that the parties may reach a resolution without the intervention of the Court. DB Dava acknowledges that the press release referenced in RFP No. 5 was dated November 1, 2016 rather than September 1, 2016 (as phrased in the RFP), and intends to serve a revised, substantively identical request that corrects that typographical error.

3 Page2 LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP I. NONE OF PROVISION'S OBJECTIONS HAS MERIT Provision bases its refusal to comply with the RFPs on assertions that certain requests are "vague and ambiguous" (all disputed RFPs), not "material and necessary" (RFP Nos. 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, and 32), "overbroad" (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 30-32), "unduly burdensome" (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 20), and that certain requests seek confidential or proprietary information (all disputed RFPs with the exception of RFP No. 30), or privileged information (all disputed RFPs with the exception of RFP No. 4). Provision bears "[t]he burden of showing that the disclosure sought is improper" and that each of its objections is justified. Roman Catholic Church of the Good Shepherd v. Tempco Sys., 202 A.D.2d 257, 258, 608 N.Y.S.2d 647, 648 (1st Dep't 1994); New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 160 A.D.2d 261, 262, 553 N.Y.S.2d 369, 370 (1st Dep't 1990) ("the burden of proving that an- item should not be produced during discovery is placed upon the party seeking to avoid such discovery."). Provision cannot meet that burden. A. Provision's Objections Are Procedurally Inadequate and Unpreserved CPLR Section 3122(a)(l) requires Provision to "state with reasonable particularity the reasons for each objection." Moreover, "[i]f objection is made to part or an item or category, the part shall be specified." Id. These two requirements - particularity and specificity - ensure that generic, boilerplate objections cannot defeat the "open and far-reaching pretrial discovery" that "New York has long favored." Anonymous v. High School for Env'tl Studies, 32 A.D.3d 353, 358,820 N.Y.S.2d 573,578 (1st Dep't 2006); CPLR 3101(a) ("There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action[.]"). Provision's Responses and Objections ignore these requirements, and make no attempt to comply with Commercial Division Rule 11-e. Pursuant to that Rule, Provision was required to [S]et forth specifically: (i) whether the objection(s) interposed pertains to all or part of the request being challenged; (ii) whether any documents or categories of documents are being withheld, and if so, which of the stated objections forms the basis for [Provision]'s decision to withhold otherwise responsive documents or categories of documents; and (iii) the manner in which [Provision] intends to limit the scope of its production. 22 NYCRR , Rule 11-e(b). Provision's failure to make its objections properly, in accordance with the CPLR and the Commercial Division's Rules, renders Provision's objections incompetent and unpreserved (with the exception of Provision's unproven privilege claims). See, e.g., Anonymous, 32 A.D.3d at ("[W]e note that defendants failed to object to the... document demand within the 20 days set forth in CPLR 3122(a). Such failure to object to the demand generally limits our review to the question of privilege under CPLR 3 lol(b)."). In any event, even if Provision had preserved its objections, they would fail on the merits, as detailed below. 2

4 Psge3 LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP B. Provision Failed to Specify Any "Vague & Ambiguous" Language (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 30-32) For each of the disputed RFPs (and virtually all of the total RFPs that DB Dava served), 2 Provision makes a boilerplate objection that the request is "vague and ambiguous." Despite asserting this objection on 29 occasions, Provision never identified any particular term, phrase, or other language that Provision contends is unclear or insufficiently specific. 3 Provision thus failed to state the reasons for its objection with any particularity - much less the "reasonable particularity" required by law. CPLR 3122(a)(l); 22 NYCRR , Rule 11-e(b). Objections such as these are completely inappropriate where all they do is recite virtually the same verbiage to each document request with no specificity. Provision's failure to identify any specific language in support of its "vague and ambiguous" objection is proof that the objection has no merit and provides no basis for withholding responsive documents. C. The RFPs Meet the Liberal Standard for Material and Necessary Discovery (RFP Nos. 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, and 32) Provision asserts that RFP Nos. 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, and 32 are "not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action." 4 As the First Department has explained, "[t]he words 'material and necessary' as used in [CPLR 310l(a)] are to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist in the preparation for trial." Anonymous, 32 A.D.3d at 358. DB Dava's RFPs easily clear this liberal discovery standard, and Provision has not attempted to articulate any specific challenge to the relevance of any of the RFPs. RFP No. 4 seeks documents relating to Provision's maintenance of or technical support for the 3D kiosks. This request goes directly to Provision's claim to have "fully performed its obligations under the ProDava LLC Agreement, the PSA, and the Location Agreement" and other key issues in the case. See Complaint <JI 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims 'li<ji 8, 10, 25-26, The only Requests for which Provision did not make a "vague and ambiguous" objection are RFP Nos. 7, 25, and Provision also asserts that RFP Nos. 30 and 31 "fail[] to identify the documents sought with the requisite specificity" - a variation on Provision's "vague and ambiguous" objection that is, in all events, untrue. RFP No. 30 seeks documents relating to or reflecting communications on a specific subject matter (a business venture with Provision, such as the ProDava LLC that the parties later formed) involving specific parties that are linked to DB Dava (Sean Davatgar and Dava Fusion, LLC). RFP No. 31 seeks documents relating to or reflecting communications with list of specifically enumerated potential advertising partners. 4 Provision also asserts that RFP Nos. 14 and 15 are "not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," which appears to state substantially the same objection as Provision's "not material and necessary" assertion. 3

5 Page4 LATHAM&WATKI NS tlp In its Objections and Responses, Provision purports to limit its production to "documents relating to expenses incurred" in connection with maintenance and technical support. There is no basis for this limitation; in fact, under the PSA, Provision is contractually obligated to "maintain a complete and accurate set of all files, books, and records of all business activities and operations, pertaining to ProDava's 3D Systems, conducted by Provision and received from any of Provision's Representatives in connection with Provision's performance under [the Professional Services Agreement]," which must be provided to ProDava upon request. See PSA <JI 7. Accordingly, RFP No. 4 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial," and DB Dava is entitled to a complete production of responsive documents - not merely the limited subset of documents to which Provision has agreed. RFP No. 8 seeks documents relating to presentations or promotion material presented by Provision to any third party regarding a business relationship for the placement of 3D kiosks in Rite Aid stores. This request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, its compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions of the ProDava LLC Agreement, and DB Dava's counterclaims for fraud. See Complaint <JI 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims '][<JI 15-20; 40-51; In its Objections and Responses, Provision purports to limit its production to documents "presented by Provision to Rite Aid from March 24, 2014 to the present." There is no basis for these limitations. Documents presented to third parties other than Rite Aid are necessary discovery into Provision's compliance with its obligations under the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions. In addition, presentations made before the March 24, 2014 formation of ProDava may demonstrate differences between information that was provided to DB Dava and information that was provided to other potential business partners - which would be highly probative of DB Dava's fraud claims. Accordingly, RFP No. 8 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial," and DB Dava is entitled to a complete production of responsive documents - not merely the limited subset of documents to which Provision has agreed. RFP No. 9 seeks documents relating to presentations or promotion material presented by Provision to any third party regarding a business relationship for the placement of 3D kiosks in stores or locations other than Rite Aid. As with RFP No. 8, this request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, its compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions of the ProDava LLC Agreement, and DB Dava's counterclaims for fraud. See Complaint <J[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims <J[<J[ 15-20; 40-51; Accordingly, RFP No. 9 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." RFP No. 12 seeks documents relating to Provision's calculation of revenues from sources other than ProDava (as reported in the Form 10-Q of Provision's parent 4

6 - Pages LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016). This request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, its compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions of the ProDava LLC Agreement, and DB Dava' s counterclaims for fraud. See Complaint 'J[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims 1'115-20; 40-51; Notably, Provision failed to object on relevance grounds to a similar RFP (No. 11, which seeks documents relating to Provision's revenue calculations as reflected in its parent company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016). Accordingly, RFP No. 12 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." RFP No. 14 seeks documents relating to "RELATED PARTY REVENUE," which (as made clear in Provision's parent's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission) is revenue Provision received from ProDava in connection with the sale and service of hardware and software from 3D kiosks. This request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, its compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions of the ProDava LLC Agreement, and DB Dava' s counterclaims for fraud. See Complaint 'J[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims fl 15-20; 40-51; This request is also relevant to DB Dava' s damages, as the Professional Services Agreement and ProDava LLC Agreement entitle DB Dava to its portion of all advertising revenue generated from the 3D Kiosks. See, e.g., PSA 6.b; ProDava LLC Agreement, Exh. A. Notably, Provision agreed to produce documents in response to a similar RFP (No. 13, seeking documents relating to "UNEARNED REVENUE"), and failed to object on relevance grounds to another, similar RFP (No. 11, which seeks documents relating to Provision's revenue calculations as reflected in its parent company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016). In addition, under the PSA, Provision is contractually obligated to maintain these documents and to provide them upon request. See PSA 'I 7. Accordingly, RFP No. 14 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." 5 RFP No. 15 seeks documents relating to communications regarding 3D kiosks with Lifestyle Ventures, LLC (an entity referenced on the Form 10-Q of Provision's parent company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017). This request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, and compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions. See Complaint 'J[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims fl Accordingly, RFP No. 15 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." 5 Provision also objects that RFP Nos. 11, 12, and 14 "seek[] documents in the possession of a third-party." This objection has no merit; regardless of whether an unspecified third party possesses a document, Provision is required to produce all documents within its possession, custody, or control. E.g., Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 21 N.Y.3d 55, (2013) (parties must produce documents where they have "practical ability to request from, or influence, another party" to produce them). 5

7 Page 6 LATHAM & w AT KI N s LLP RFP No. 20 seeks "COUPON REPORTS," which relate to the coupons and other documents dispensed from the 30 kiosks. This request goes directly to Provision's claim to have "fully performed its obligations under the ProDava LLC Agreement, the PSA, and the Location Agreement" and other key issues in the case. See Complaint 'l[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims 'l['l[ 8, 10, 25-27, In addition, under the PSA, Provision is contractually obligated to maintain these documents and to provide them upon request. See PSA 'l[ 7. Accordingly, RFP No. 20 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." RFP No. 31 seeks documents relating to communications with a list of specifically enumerated advertising partners. Before the execution of the ProDava LLC Agreement, Provision represented to DB Dava that it had engaged with these advertising partners regarding the 30 kiosks; thus, this request goes directly to Provision's counterclaims for fraud. See DB Dava's Counterclaims fl 15-20; 40-51; Accordingly, RFP No. 31 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." RFP No. 32 seeks documents relating to communications with Discount Drug Mart, Inc. regarding the placement of 30 kiosks in its stores. This request goes directly to Provision's performance under the relevant agreements, and compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions. See Complaint 'l[ 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims 'l['l[ 15-20; Accordingly, RFP No. 32 seeks documents that plainly "will assist in the preparation for trial." In sum, each of the RFPs is "material and necessary" to discovery in this case, and Provision's generic objections to the contrary are meritless. D. The Burden and Overbreadth Objections Are "Meaningless Boilerplate" An objection "stating that the requests are 'overly broad and unduly burdensome' is meaningless boilerplate. Why is it burdensome? How is it overly broad? This language tells the Court nothing." Fischer v. Forrest, No. 14 Civ. 1304, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28102, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017); see also Leibovitz v. City of New York, No. 15 Civ. 546, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15662, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2017) (collecting cases). Although these cases arise under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (which, in its 2015 amendments, imposes obligations of specificity similar to Rule 11-e of the Commercial Division), the Fischer court's language aptly describes the flaws in Provision's conclusory, generic objections. Although Provision has not attempted to articulate any specific overbreadth or undue burden objection, it is clear that DB Dava' s RFPs do not even approximate the facts of the cases in which discovery was disallowed on those grounds. See, e.g., Pucik v. Cornell Univ., 4 A.D.3d 686, 687, 771 N.Y.S.2d 921, 921 (3d Dep't 2004) ("plaintiff's patently excessive, overbroad, and burdensome demands... include[ d] a tortuous 200-page demand to produce and disclose, as well as notices to depose 44 persons."); Brandes v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 1 A.D.3d 550, 551, 767 N.Y.S.2d 666, 667 (2d Dep't 2003) ("plaintiff's vast categorical demands for the bylaws of the hospital and its medical staff, as well as the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for nine 6

8 Page7 LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP separate departments... were overly broad and unduly burdensome."); Barnes v. Barnes, 96 A.D.2d 894, 895, 466 N.Y.S.2d 61, 62 (2d Dep't 1983) (rejecting "request for production of financial documents spanning 19 years"). Indeed, as detailed below, each of the RFPs is narrowly crafted and appropriately tailored to the issues and size of the case. 1. The RFPs Are Not Overbroad (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 30-32) Provision asserts that RFP Nos. 4 and 5 are "overly broad as to scope," and that Nos. 8, 9, and are "overly broad as to scope and time[.]" But these "conclusory allegations of overbreadth [do] not satisfy [Provision's] burden of showing... the requested disclosure would be improper." Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose L.L.P., 251 A.D.2d 35, 40, 675 N.Y.S.2d 14, 18 (1st Dep't 1998); see also CPLR 3122(a)(l); 22 NYCRR , Rule 11-e(b). Provision's overbreadth objection is facially inapplicable to each RFP. As detailed in Section LC. above, RFP Nos. 4, 8, 9, 31, and 32 are material and necessary - indeed, highly probative - of DB Dava's counterclaims for fraud and of Provision's claim to have fully performed its obligations (including its compliance with the right-of-first-refusal and exclusivity provisions of the ProDava LLC Agreement). See Complaint <JI 20; see DB Dava's Counterclaims fl 15-20; 40-51; RFP Nos. 5 and 30 (to which Provision did not make any relevance objection) also seek material and necessary documents in an appropriate, focused manner. RFP No. 5 seeks documents relating to a specific shipment of 3D kiosks that was referenced in a press release issued by Provision. Those documents directly relate to Provision's performance under the various agreements (and to DB Dava's damages), and Provision is required to maintain and produce them. See PSA 'J[ 7. RFP No. 30 seeks documents relating to communications with Sean Oavatgar or Dava Fusion, LLC - i.e., the parties that later were part of DB Dava - regarding the business venture that ultimately took effect through the execution of the ProDava LLC Agreement. This request directly relates to DB Dava's counterclaims for fraud and has core relevance to this case. Each of these RFPs is relevant, material, and necessary to the disputed issues in this case, and Provision is thus obligated to produce all documents responsive to the request. See Engel v. Hagedorn, 170 A.D.2d 301, 301, 566 N.Y.S.2d 25, 26 (1st Dep't 1991) ("While some of the discovery seeks 'all documents', these requests are limited to specific subjects and are thus not overly broad."). 2. The RFPs Pose No Undue Burden (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 20) Provision asserts that RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 20 are "unduly burdensome." Provision's conclusory allegation is insufficient. See, e.g., CPLR 3122(a)(l); 22 NYCRR , Rule 11-e(b). In addition, RFP Nos. 4, 5, and 20 seek documents that Provision is required to maintain and produce upon request pursuant to the PSA. See PSA <JI 7. There is no undue burden in asking Provision to fulfill its contractual obligations under the PSA. Nor do RFP Nos. 8 or 9 7

9 August 31, 2017 PageB LATHAM&WATKI NSlLP pose any undue burden; to challenge these RFPs as burdensome, Provision would need (at a minimum) to state the quantity and identity of third parties to whom Provision provided presentations or promotion material. Accordingly, Provision's "undue burden" objection has no merit and provides no basis for withholding responsive documents. E. The Proprietary and Confidential Information Objection Is Now Moot (RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, and 32) Provision asserts that RFP Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 31, and 32 "seek[] proprietary and/or confidential information." However, the parties have exchanged a stipulated Confidentiality Order to be filed with the Court, which should be finalized shortly. Provision's objection is therefore moot; but even if it were not, Provision has not met its burden of establishing the existence of any protected proprietary or confidential information. See, e.g., Goodwin v Cirque du Soleil, Inc., No /09, 2012 NY Slip Op 31308(U), at *4-5 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 17, 2012). Accordingly, Provision's "proprietary and/or confidential information" objection has no merit and provides no basis for withholding responsive documents. F. Provision Failed to Support its Privilege/ Work Product Objection (RFP Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 30-32) Provision asserts that RFP Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and "seek[] information that may be protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or work product doctrines." But "[t)he burden of establishing that the documents sought are covered by a certain privilege rests on the party asserting the privilege," and Provision's "boilerplate claims of privilege... are insufficient as a matter of law." Anonymous, 32 A.D.3d at 359. Provision's privilege and work product objections are entirely noncompliant with the privilege log requirements of CPLR 3122(b), which impose an obligation to identify (1) the legal ground for withholding any document; (2) the type of document; (3) the general subject matter of the document; (4) the date of the document; and (5) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document. See Anonymous, 32 A.D.3d at 359. Accordingly, Provision must produce a compliant privilege log immediately, or confirm that no documents are currently being withheld on the basis of privilege or work product. For purposes of clarification, DB Dava does not expect that either Provision or DB Dava will be required to include on the privilege log any communications between the parties and their respective counsel in this case dating on or after November 11, 2016 (the filing date of Provision's Complaint). II. PROVISION'S INCOMPLETE RESPONSES For each of RFP Nos. 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16-19, and 21-29, Provision has agreed to "produce documents" responsive to the request. These responses do not make clear whether Provision will produce all responsive documents, or merely some subset of responsive 8

10 Page9 LATHAM&WATKI NSLLP documents based on unstated and unilateral criteria. As a result, Provision's responses to these RFPs are incomplete under the mandates of the Commercial Division Rules and the CPLR, and we ask that you confirm in writing that Provision will produce all responsive documents - as required by law. See, e.g., 22 NYCRR , Rule 11-e(b); CPLR 310l(a) and (h). In addition, for each of RFP Nos , Provision agreed (subject to objections) to "produce documents responsive to this Request, if any." As a result, it is unclear whether any responsive documents actually exist, and whether Provision has any such documents in its possession, custody, or control. "If the documents cannot be located, the party who has been called upon to produce them should provide a sworn statement, made by someone with personal knowledge, detailing the search that has been made, which is sufficient to support a conclusion that a good faith effort was made to supply the requested records." Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP v. e-smart Tech., Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 30751(U), at *9 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 27, 2012); Jackson v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 768,768,568 N.Y.S.2d 952,953 (1st Dep't 1992). In addition, CPLR Section 3101(h) imposes on Provision an obligation to "amend or supplement a response" that is not complete (such as Provision's responses to RFP Nos ). Accordingly, we ask Provision to supplement or amend its responses to RFP Nos to clarify whether Provision has made a good faith effort to supply the requested documents, and if so, whether responsive documents exist and will be produced. * * * We also note that pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Provision must complete its document production no later than September 15, As I noted in my of August 23, 2017, we have not received any documents other than the initial set of 140 pages provided on August 10, 2017, which were largely comprised of documents already provided in this litigation. To avoid further delays in the document production, please be advised that if we do not hear from you by this Friday, September 1, 2017 (either to approve the Confidentiality Order in the form we provided or to set up a call for next week to resolve any outstanding issues), we will submit the draft Confidentiality Order to the Court next week, in accordance with Justice Bransten's rules. We ask that Provision meet and confer promptly on the foregoing issues in an effort to reach resolution without the involvement of the Court. I am available for a discussion by phone tomorrow or any day next week from 11:30 to 2:30 Eastern. Please let me know if any of these times work, or otherwise advise as to your availability. I look forward to speaking with you - and hopefully, to resolving these issues - soon. Respec~. cc: James E. Brandt (by ) a G. Hamilton of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 9., c+,.. '

11